The Second Amendment

Everything that doesn't fit anywhere else!

Postby Marinekayak » November 10th, 2008, 9:54 am

a few things

cross eye dominance dont know who is more men or women its easy to shoot a hand gun if you are cross eye dominant you shoot right handed and use your left eye. Rifle you have to switch and learn to shoot on the dominant eye side i.e. your right handed but left eye dominant you must shoot a long gun with the left eye.

take this test make a triangle with both hands held in front of you pick a spot in the distance and with both eyes open look through the hole at the spot. Close one eye then the other to look through the hole , you will be able to tell which eye you are using to look through the hole ,thats your dominant eye.

As far as training new shooters is concerned I find women and girls listen better. Men and boys of past generations who grew up on John Wayne movies thought they had some genetic gift that let them shoot and were always a pain in the ass to teach. This new younger sensitive generation of pussified men out there that have never played with toy guns the jury is still out on them .....
"Out of every 100 men, ten shouldn't even be there, Eighty are just targets, Nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back." - Hericletus, circa 500 BC
User avatar
Marinekayak
Steely-Eyed Killer I Is
 
Posts: 96

Postby hugapitbull » November 10th, 2008, 11:01 am

Very interesting conversation about the cross-eye dominance. I never knew it existed. Thanks Demo & Marinekayak.
Shanna & Spirit Trouble
We beat osteosarcoma - 27 months 20 days cancer free
'Spirit' Trouble departed for the Bridge 3/16/2011 a victim of aging
Visit - http://k9cancer.org

Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain--and most fools do. ~Dale Carnegie
User avatar
hugapitbull
The Better Half
 
Posts: 1570
Location: My heart lives at Rainbow Bridge

Postby mnp13 » November 10th, 2008, 11:01 am

I just did the triangle test, and I'm right eye dominant so I'm not cross eyed. :neener:
Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.
User avatar
mnp13
Evil Overlord
 
Posts: 17234
Location: Rochester, NY

Postby LMM » November 10th, 2008, 11:15 am

I just did it as well and am right eye dominant. I'm curious what would happen if you were cross eyed dominant though??
User avatar
LMM
I'll Kick Your Ass
 
Posts: 1834
Location: Bitch please....

Postby Marinekayak » November 10th, 2008, 1:22 pm

Cross eye dominance imho doesnt mean all that much in the long run.
Ill explain as if you are right handed so if left just switch at the end.

Hangun: with a normal right handed grip you just use your left eye. Most dont even realize they are doing it.

rifle: this is where the problem can be. if your take a right handed hold; left hand on forearm of rifle right hand on grip and right cheek on stock you can't get your left eye behind the sights and your brain NEEDs to use that left eye so its very hard to shoot right handed and left eye dominant with a rifle. Its much easier to train yourself to use a left handed hold on the rifle; right hand on forend left hand on grip and LEFT cheeck on cheek piece. Now you can get your left eye behind the sight.

Someone had posted about shotgun shooting before . I shoot trap about twice a year and just mananged to shoot my best round ever. a 19 out of 25. Dont ask me how I did it I am a rifle shooter by preference and a pistol shooter by default ;shotgun to me is a bunch of bad habits...... You look at the clay instead of the sights you slap the trigger instead of squeeze move the shotgun instead of holding still Im always amazed when I hit anything with a shotgun.
"Out of every 100 men, ten shouldn't even be there, Eighty are just targets, Nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back." - Hericletus, circa 500 BC
User avatar
Marinekayak
Steely-Eyed Killer I Is
 
Posts: 96

Postby SvcDogSawyer » November 10th, 2008, 3:49 pm

I do agree with you for the most part, just wanted to know what others thought.

DemoDick wrote:I paid for it, it's mine.


Is this just a guy thing or do some women feel the same way? I know I feel that way about everything I buy. I will order stuff online, but I hate the waiting.
John & Sawyer

"Damn Walkies"
User avatar
SvcDogSawyer
Not Patrick's Nipple
 
Posts: 166
Location: Sykesville, MD

Postby pitbullmamaliz » November 10th, 2008, 3:52 pm

Nope, I totally need that instant gratification. lol
"Remember - every time your dog gets somewhere on a tight leash *a fairy dies and it's all your fault.* Think of the fairies." http://www.positivepetzine.com"

http://www.pitbullzen.com
http://inaradog.wordpress.com
User avatar
pitbullmamaliz
Working out in the buff causes chafing
 
Posts: 15437
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby SvcDogSawyer » November 10th, 2008, 4:14 pm

Very nice explaination there Marinekayak. I never really thought about it, but when I was able to hold a rifle and shoot I could hit a dime from about 25 yards with a 22 rifle. Now I can't even see a dime that far away. I was good with a revolver(never could pull back the slide of a semi-auto), not great, but good groupings in the black part of the target.

Why are we such buttheads to teach? I've taught my ex-wife how to shoot and she was good with the pistol, but sucked with the rifle. Her problem was she was Left handed, right eye dominate. She was easy to teach, I taught a friend and he was a pain in the ass to teach. My dad was a firearms instructor for the DC police dept back in the late 60's early 70's and he would tell me stories of how most of the men that came through training were just uttheads and the few women that came through training were much eaiser to train.
John & Sawyer

"Damn Walkies"
User avatar
SvcDogSawyer
Not Patrick's Nipple
 
Posts: 166
Location: Sykesville, MD

Postby airwalk » November 10th, 2008, 7:18 pm

I'm right eye dominant and far better with a rifle than a hand gun. In a pinch I can hit what I aim at with a hand gun (or at least used to haven't been to a range in a long time), but my accuracy is much better with a long gun.
User avatar
airwalk
I live here
 
Posts: 3791
Location: Oregon

Postby cheekymunkee » November 10th, 2008, 9:15 pm

mnp13 wrote:I just did the triangle test, and I'm right eye dominant so I'm not cross eyed. :neener:



I thought you were wall-eyed.
There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.

Debby
User avatar
cheekymunkee
I Have Your Grass
 
Posts: 28540
Location: Dallas

Postby airwalk » November 10th, 2008, 10:04 pm

cheekymunkee wrote:
mnp13 wrote:I just did the triangle test, and I'm right eye dominant so I'm not cross eyed. :neener:



I thought you were wall-eyed.


Oh you're in trouble now!!!
User avatar
airwalk
I live here
 
Posts: 3791
Location: Oregon

Postby Marinepits » November 12th, 2008, 10:29 pm

Excerpt from http://mausersandmuffins.blogspot.com/ November 12, 2008.

.....I know a number of women who own a weapon for self defense and all shoot for sport as well. There is a decided benefit to weapon ownership. And it's a benefit to others, who may not be armed themselves. For you see, those that want to harm you for wanton gratification, rage against life or your gender, or for profit, do not know who carries and who does not. Over time, they have the decided chance of accidentally attacking an armed person, male OR female. Even if you don't carry to resist evil, you still have some protection by protective mimicry, as in nature, when harmless animals resemble a more formidable foe, giving pause to even the most determined of predators. I think that predators that pick their victims based on their expected lack of resistance, size or ability to fight back will think twice if they believe their small target is carrying a gun. Especially one that has the ability to put a sizable hole in them.

But in order to carry with confidence, you need to not only have a weapon you are comfortable with, but you need to practice with it. Sitting in the drawer after a friend or loved one instructed you in it's use, with dim light in your room, your Adrenalin running, is not the time to be fumbling with your gun. The rapist/home instruder is not going to wait. Participating in some of the activities at the local range is one way to dust off your skills and have some fun and fellowship with fellow shooters. For concealed, obviously I prefer something a bit smaller in size, but good caliber, but my home pistol, and what I fired at the match with, is a .45 caliber.

Many people say that a .22 caliber handgun is as strong as a woman can manage, and some men will actively discourage a woman from purchasing anything stronger. Unless you are weak from illness or have a motor or neurological problem that prevents you from holding onto something firmly, this is frankly not true. Women come in all sizes, but it's a rare woman who is so weak that she could not fire a .45 with proper training and the right shooting stance.

But if someone tries to foist off a small caliber handgun on you, with "That's too big a gun for a girl," you need to talk with one some of the female shooters in the blog world, women who can tell you that a larger handgun is no problem. In sport shooting certainly it only ensures a bigger smile on the face, be it it a Ruger .357 M or a S & W 686.357M in your hand.

It's confidence and stance, not brawn.

The stance I believe I use is known as the modified Weaver (or Chapman stance) and might be a good alternative for most female shooters with a higher caliber weapon. In this stance the body is held similarly to the Weaver (at a 45 degree angle to your target with your dominant hand and foot back) but the gun hand is locked out straight (like a rifle stock), with the other arm slightly bent. The advantage with this, it reduces trembling in someone with reduced upper body strength and allows one to shoot even .357 rounds with few problems. The key is to maintain the "push-pull" nature of the grip. You'll still get good recoil, but not to where it upsets your next shot. If you are cross eye dominant, as I am, it's even better as it allows you to line up one eye with the opposite hand.
Never make someone a priority in your life when that someone treats you like an option.
User avatar
Marinepits
Proud Infidel
 
Posts: 15621
Location: New England

Postby Marinepits » November 14th, 2008, 10:41 pm

More on cross-eye dominance, per http://mausersandmuffins.blogspot.com/ 11/13/08 post

"Eye Dominance" is not the eye that's the "strongest" or has the best vision but refers to the eye that the brain "prefers" or the one that has stronger "processing" in the brain. People usually have one eye that likes to "take over" when binocular vision is impaired, or one eye that is more sensitive to visual discrimination. My eyes are green, and sensitive to the light, but it still seems that even with sunglasses on, if I'm going to get "poked in the eye", it will be my dominant one.

For hunters and sharpshooters, it's recommended that one uses the dominant eye to line up the sights for that reason, because visual acuity, or discrimination is better, resulting in better accuracy. In shooting, in which fine monocular coordination and vision is required, the dominant eye certainly has an advantage. During suppression, when the brain "chooses" to process only one eye, the other eye is in essence "shut down". The brain is a very complex yet simple organ, in which a vast amount of visual information can be processed simultaneously or can completely disregard information from the one eye.

Image

As you can see, if you look closely, as I fire I have my right eye closed. And I am right handed. Which means I am LEFT eye dominant. Or Cross dominant. Most right-handed people are right-eye dominant and most left-handed people are left-eye dominant. But this certainly isn't true for everyone. For some people, hand and eye dominance are opposite, about 15% of the total population, a good percentage of which are women. Cross dominant eye is more common in female shooters and adolescent males, so ladies, do not believe those who tell you simplistically that everyone should shoot with two eyes open. For adult men, the majority who are not cross dominant it is a skill that can be learned fairly easily, but if you are cross dominant, it's much harder. About 70% of men are same-side dominant and they can be well advised to shoot with both eyes wide open. Also, with women, as with younger boys, absolute eye dominance in either eye is not the norm. And unlike the boys, they do not generally grow out of it.

Cross domination does create some differences in participating in the shooting sports, and as it can be subject to some changes due to sex, age and stress, it's good to periodically check which is your dominant eye, it might well result in an improvement in your shooting.If you're new to shooting or want to confirm which eye is dominant, it's easy. There's more than one way to do it. (1) If you hold your hand out at arm's length and make a circle, then view an object across the room by looking through that circle, your brain must choose which eye will actually focus on the object. Since your eyes are about 3" apart, both eyes cannot maintain the direct line-of-sight to the object. So one eye must take command, and you will, without thinking about it, position your hand more to the right if you're right-eye dominant, or slightly to the left if you're left-eye-dominant. In either case, the eye that takes over and maintains the sight-line is the dominant eye. (2) Easier yet - make a small hole in the center of your hands, bring it up to the object you are looking at . . .mmmmm. . . .HP sauce. . . . and with both eyes open, look at the object and bring your hands to your face. The eye you come closest to as it draws near is normally your master.

One other way - (3) hold a CD at arms length. If you're a right-shouldered shooter, hold the CD in your right hand. Left-shouldered shooters hold the CD in your left hand. (Ignore the hand I have selected in the photo, that was simply so I could hold the camera in my right hand). Now look through the hole and focus on a stationary object. If you are a right-shouldered shooter, close your left eye. If you are left-shouldered, close your right eye. Now does the object you're looking at through the hold in the CD vanish from view or move it's position slightly across the hole? Or does it stay in one place? If the object remains stationary, you have the correct eye dominance. If it vanishes, you have a cross "master eye" dominance. Obviously there's subtle variances and some folks have shallow or "middle" vision.

I'm cross eye dominant, not a problem with handguns, unless they are really short barrelled (a low stock may cause a shift of eye dominance on all or, more commonly, some targets -those which cause one to press their head down into the stock). With most handguns, I simply turn my head slightly prior to the draw to line up my master eye down range and thus gain just a little speed on the first shot.

In my opinion , it's a bit more of a problem with shotguns. With a rifle, accuracy depends on a rock-steady hold, as the eye slights the front and rear sights to a stationary target. Shotguns though are dynamic, they're weapons of movement, My shotgun doesn't have a rear sight and to use it, my dominant eye thus becomes the rear sight. Where my problem lies with a shotgun is that I'm a right-shouldered shooter with a dominant left eye instead of a right one. So my left eye is controlling where my gun points and I will shoot behind a left-to-right crossing shot and in front of a right-to left.

If you have cross dominance and you discover it while new to the sport you can likely learn to shoot from the same shoulder as the master eye. For a new, young shooter, this is as easy as learning any new motor skill. But for those of us who have been shooting off and on for years, it's almost impossible to change the master eye, and changing to the opposite shoulder will just feel strange as you've already got some "muscle memory". Some instructors (and I am NOT an instructor - these are just my experiences) state a solution would be to block the cross-dominating eye with an eye patch or tape on the lens of the shooting glasses, to force you to use the non-dominant eye until it becomes more comfortable. However, this will give a partial loss of binocular and peripheral vision, but some readers have recommended it.

What works for me is to close the cross-dominant eye before the shot is taken. By doing this, I've retained peripheral and stereoscopic vision by keeping both my eyes open as I evaluate the shot, until the last split-second. Now I've got a clear picture of my target/barrel relationship with no chance of cross-dominance kicking in.

Of course the shotgun, with its wide pattern, is a forgiving weapon and despite dominance, you will do well some of the time. However, it never hurts to make sure that the eye that is above the rib is the one that you rely on to give the brain the correct ocular information.

Long guns, and long guns/long range are another issue. Whether you are shooting at 100 yards, or 1000, it's a consideration.

If you are shooting a rifle right-handed, it is almost impossible to lay your head far enough over on the rifle stock to be able to sight with your left eye. Here, all you can do is force the mind to utilize the non -dominant eye (with a patch or tape on the glasses). I like the opaque tape idea, better than the patch, as this forces the non-dominant eye to take over and aim without totally blocking vision in the dominant eye. There are also sighting devices for sale but I would hesitate to recommend any one of them as I've not tried one. Talk to other shooters, more are cross- dominant than you think. Find out what works for them. Have fun experimenting, but this is a complex subject and professional guidance (and that is NOT me) can be a real help.
Never make someone a priority in your life when that someone treats you like an option.
User avatar
Marinepits
Proud Infidel
 
Posts: 15621
Location: New England

Postby Marinepits » July 22nd, 2009, 2:47 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07 ... s-measure/

Senate Rejects Controversial Concealed Weapons Measure

Senators voted for the measure, 58-39, but it fell short of the required 60 votes for passage in an unusual setback for the gun rights side, which has been able to muster majorities of Republicans and pro-gun Democrats to move its agenda through both the Bush and Obama administrations.


WASHINGTON -- The Senate sided with gun control advocates Wednesday by rejecting a measure that would have allowed people with concealed weapons permits to carry those hidden weapons across state borders.

Senators voted for the measure, 58-39, but it fell short of the required 60 votes for approval.

It is an unusual setback for the gun rights side, which has been able to muster majorities of Republicans and pro-gun Democrats to move its agenda through both the Bush and Obama administrations.

Opponents say the concealed weapon proposal would force states with tough gun laws to accept gun-carrying visitors from states with weaker laws. The sponsor of the bill, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said that was not true and that gun-toters would have to follow the laws of the state they entered.

The gun proposal did not establish national standards for concealed weapons permits and would not have allowed those with permits to carry weapons into Wisconsin and Illinois, the two states that do not have concealed weapons laws.

Gun control groups were strongly in opposition.

Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens during a two-year period ending in April, according to a study by the Violence Policy Center.

"It is beyond irrational for Congress to vote to expand the reach of these deadly laws," said the center's legislative director, Kristen Rand.

So far this year gun rights advocates have had some successes in Congress. They attached a provision to a credit card bill signed into law that restores the right to carry loaded firearms in national parks, and coupled a Senate vote giving the District of Columbia a vote in the House with a provision effectively ending the district's tough gun control laws.

House Democratic leaders, unable to detach the two issues without losing the support of pro-gun Democrats, abandoned attempts to pass the D.C. vote bill.

The vote comes a day after the Senate completed what is probably the most controversial issue connected to the defense bill, voting 58-40 to eliminate $1.75 billion in the $680 billion bill that had been set aside for building more F-22 fighters. President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates campaigned hard for removing the money, saying the Pentagon had enough F-22s and the money could be spent on more pressing defense needs.
Never make someone a priority in your life when that someone treats you like an option.
User avatar
Marinepits
Proud Infidel
 
Posts: 15621
Location: New England

Postby DemoDick » July 22nd, 2009, 2:55 pm

Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens during a two-year period ending in April, according to a study by the Violence Policy Center


Considering that the VPC has absolutely no problem outright LYING about this stuff, I'd love to hear more.

How many of those 44 "private citizens" that were killed by licensed CCW holders were criminals in the process of home invasions, robberies, assaults, etc? How many of the seven police officers killed were accidental shootings by other cops (who are by definition CCW holders)? Hell, if a cop accidentally (or intentionally) shoots and kills HIMSELF these liars will claim one more for "their side" because once you control for such variables, the shocking statistics go away and they have nothing.

Demo Dick
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama
"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge
User avatar
DemoDick
They Like to Fondle My Gun
 
Posts: 1910
Location: New York

Postby DemoDick » August 11th, 2009, 12:43 am

No, he's not going to "come take your guns away." It's easier to legislate your rights away piecemeal while you're not looking.

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos. ... 673&page=1

Gun violence in Mexico is NOT the fault of law abiding gun owners in the U.S. For that matter, neither is gun violence in this country.

Demo Dick
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama
"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge
User avatar
DemoDick
They Like to Fondle My Gun
 
Posts: 1910
Location: New York

Postby DemoDick » April 16th, 2010, 1:12 am

It's a good time for American gun owners. We have basically beaten the antis back for the better part of 25 years and installed right-to-carry, shall-issue, and Castle Doctrine laws in most states. Overall, the average American is much more protective of Second Amendment rights and aware of the issues than at any point I can remember in my life. Sadly, the average American is still not aware enough for me.

The sun is shining, but we should not rest on our laurels and become complacent. As evidence, here's a cheerful update on the international gun-control scene from the NRA. Get ready to be pissed off if you have any concern about where this country is headed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU

The U.N. is not the arbiter of small arms policy in the United States. For that matter, the U.N. does not have the right to sculpt, shape, back-room deal or otherwise change the laws of the United States in any way, shape or form, FOR ANY REASON. That authority is firmly rooted in the collective body of American citizens, secured by the U.S. Constitution, temporarily exercised by elected officials, and above all dedicated to the principle that preserving the rights of the individual is and should be the central function of our government, and for that matter ANY government that wishes to operate ethically. This idea is the POLAR OPPOSITE of what the U.N. currently stands for, which is blatant statism with almost no regard for the rights of the individual.

These are non-elected bureaucrats who don't really like the U.S., what with our hamburgers and our gas guzzling cars and our guns and antipathy towards people not like us. So these non-elected...let me repeat that...these NON-ELECTED U.N. Bureaucrats and American elitist intellectuals like billionaire George Soros have decided that we are a backwards nation. They have decided that they are going to bring us into the 21st Century-at least, their version of the 21st Century-where civilians have to make a case to their government as to why they should be able to exercise basic rights before being granted PERMISSION to do so. This is a positively Orwellian idea and it turns my stomach.

I wish we could change our motto to "The United States of America-We Don't Give a crap How YOU Do It."

Demo Dick
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama
"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge
User avatar
DemoDick
They Like to Fondle My Gun
 
Posts: 1910
Location: New York

Postby HappyChick » April 16th, 2010, 3:36 pm

Wow! That video is incredible. Thinking they can take our guns is like BSL, it really only punishes law-abiding citizens who are responsible gun (or dog) owners. If this Small Arms crap comes to fruition, they are going to play Hell getting our guns and ammo, and that of most of the gun owners who I personally know.

Demo you are so right...those U.N. bureaucrats need to stay out of our business!
Angie & crew

http://www.epitome-dog-rescue.org

My beloved Vincenzo 07/22/05 - 11/16/09 forever in my heart. Cancer sucks.
HappyChick
Loyally Bully
 
Posts: 701

Postby DemoDick » April 16th, 2010, 11:38 pm

HappyChick wrote:Wow! That video is incredible. Thinking they can take our guns is like BSL, it really only punishes law-abiding citizens who are responsible gun (or dog) owners. If this Small Arms crap comes to fruition, they are going to play Hell getting our guns and ammo, and that of most of the gun owners who I personally know.

Demo you are so right...those U.N. bureaucrats need to stay out of our business!


There is no way that confiscation can happen on a national scale in the United States without some massive cultural changes. We are simply armed to the teeth and there are too many of us who cultivate a healthy suspicion of government to let that happen. What is much more dangerous to the cause of individual gun rights is incrementalism; that is, legislation that progressively makes it more difficult for individuals to buy, possess and use firearms. This starts with bullshit like micro-stamping and registration and leads to a situation where people are legally allowed to own and carry firearms but practically prohibited from doing so. This is how it happened in Canada, Australia, and a good portion of the EU, and it's started here with the CA micro-stamping bill and assault weapons ban. Anti-gunners know that this is a proven strategy, once they convince enough people that gun control is about "public safety".

A common tactic that ant-gun politicians use is to say something along the lines of "Don't worry, I'm not going to come to your house and take away your guns." BHO said something almost exactly like this during the campaign. Frankly, I find this insulting. First of all, it casts anyone who raises the issue as an ant-government paranoid nut job, instead of someone with a valid concern. And guess what? Large-scale confiscation DID just happen here in the wake of hurricane Katrina. The New Orleans PD and Mayor got spanked in court for their actions, but the fact that it even had to go that far was disgusting.
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama
"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge
User avatar
DemoDick
They Like to Fondle My Gun
 
Posts: 1910
Location: New York

Postby HappyChick » April 17th, 2010, 10:46 am

DemoDick wrote:There is no way that confiscation can happen on a national scale in the United States without some massive cultural changes. We are simply armed to the teeth and there are too many of us who cultivate a healthy suspicion of government to let that happen. What is much more dangerous to the cause of individual gun rights is incrementalism; that is, legislation that progressively makes it more difficult for individuals to buy, possess and use firearms. This starts with bullshit like micro-stamping and registration and leads to a situation where people are legally allowed to own and carry firearms but practically prohibited from doing so. This is how it happened in Canada, Australia, and a good portion of the EU, and it's started here with the CA micro-stamping bill and assault weapons ban. Anti-gunners know that this is a proven strategy, once they convince enough people that gun control is about "public safety".


I see. In that case, what can we really do about incremental gun laws? I mean we can keep on the look out for potential laws being passed, but won't politicians just get sneakier and bury the laws inside of other legislation? Is the NRA powerful and watchful enough to help us prevent these incremental changes? I know in your other post you said this is a good time for American gun owners, but is it really if the U.N. people are working to take away our guns?
Angie & crew

http://www.epitome-dog-rescue.org

My beloved Vincenzo 07/22/05 - 11/16/09 forever in my heart. Cancer sucks.
HappyChick
Loyally Bully
 
Posts: 701

PreviousNext

Return to Off-Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron