Gun Ban Crazies - VPC

Svashtar

Svashtar

Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
4,793
IBear's posts in the Gun ban thread caused me to dig through my posts to an RKBA organization from a couple of years ago. This actually happened to me. At the time I found it unbelievable behavior. From what I know about them now I'm not surprised at all. The bottom line is that these people care as much about free speech as they do about the RKBA. They will say or do anything, tell any lie, go to any length, to stifle dissent and impose their twisted world view on everyone else. This could happen to you, as they are still engaging in this behavior.

______________________________________

Hello to everyone at xxxx; I finally made it back online, after moving my work to home and getting setup. Related to that, I have to tell you something that just happened, which really amazes me, even after years of dealing with the anti-gun wackos:

I received a news mail from MSNBC or someone, with an article about how this moron Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center wants to now restrict .50
caliber target ("sniper") rifles from civilian ownership. The story gave a link to the VPC website. I went to their website, where after 20 minutes of reading, I encountered more lies, half-truths, distortions and half-baked bulls%^$ than I have seen in one place in quite a while.

There was a "contact us" email link at the bottom of the page, so I clicked on it and wrote the following email:

"Dear VPC, I find it telling that you need to resort to lying to further your goal of victim disarmament. But I suppose that the end justifies the means? How sad for you."

That was it. I sent it as one of the last mails from my work email account, nmorris@xxxxxxx.com. Guess what their response was? They waited a day and then notified the INFO and SALES organizations at xxxxxxx Corporate somehow, that they should be aware that one Norm Morris who was an employee of theirs, admitted to owning guns and had made THREATS against them (VPC) via email, and further was using Company email to do so! My HR department has contacted me and wants to know what the hell is going on, and rightfully so.

I swear to God, this happened. I got so steamed that I called VPC at 202-822-8200, option 4 for media, and talked to some super-defensive woman named Naomi Seligman about this. I explained what happened, and asked if this was their policy, and she just kept saying "yeah, so, uh huh, uh huh, yes, we do that, so what, uh huh" for 5 minutes, as I described every dirty trick they had pulled.

She then said in a strident and constantly rising voice that it is their "responsibility" to notify the employer when a "threatening" email is sent to them, and also to "help" the employer by noting that company email is being "misused". When I told her that there is no way that this email could be construed as "threatening" she then said my employer had a right to know I "kept guns" and was "misusing" the Company e-mail! She did not respond when I asked her if they would have informed my employer about "email misuse", if I had agreed with their lies and distortions.

When I said I was going to notify the local paper of this policy, she went into the screeching mantra of "I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore!; I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore!; I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore!; I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore!", on and on and on as fast as she could draw breath, not letting me speak. It's was like that woman on Mad TV who covers her ears and goes "LaLaLaLa" over and over again when someone says something she doesn't want to hear. I ended with a quick, "so, you _can't_ defend your policy, thank you, goodbye." and hung up on her, although she was talking right over me and I'm sure didn't hear anything.

What a bunch. I have always known that the unilateral victim disarmament crazies operated on total unreasoning panic, but have never seen it so beautifully illustrated as in this instance. Don't even _try_ to defend your position intellectually, because it can't be defended. Just attack and attempt to destroy those who would even _mildly_ criticize you.

I then contacted the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, who referred me to the Office of General Counsel, who I will be writing to next. Hopefully something can be done, perhaps on a defamation of character tack.

Can you imagine? Asking for public comment, and then trying to ruin those who politely disagree with you by contacting their employers. Unbelievable...! This just goes to show they care as much about the right of free speech and dissent as outlined in the First Amendment, as they do for the safeguards of the Second Amendment. What a bunch of a$$&^%$#!

A word to the wise.

Regards,

-Norm
 
Keep your weapons list to yourself. It's your private business. Don't shoot off your mouth. Loose lips sink ships. G-d helps those that help themselves ;)
 
and don't forget about the "Brady Campaign to Stop Violence" the leftist
group formerly known as "Handgun Control Inc." Or if one is really bored,
there is always the "NRA Blacklist" were the O'Donnels of the world cry
about the NRA not liking them.
 
Leftist...? Oh, Is it that RED state, BLUE state thing.... If you're not TRUE BLUE, You're a (better dead than...) RED? I don't think so. :rolleyes:
 
As a Canadian, I can tell you with absolute certainty that you do not want these anti-gun people getting their way.
 
Bri in Chi said:
Leftist...? Oh, Is it that RED state, BLUE state thing.... If you're not TRUE BLUE, You're a (better dead than...) RED? I don't think so. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What in the world are you talking about? The old HCI, is indeed a leftist org
that has ties to the Striesands of the world. Nothing whatever to do with
a "Red state Blue State" thing at all.

"If your not TRUE BLUE, You're a (better dead than...) RED?

I don't follow you here. :confused:
 
I think what Bri probably means is that though his politics are not as 'Red" State as many here, he still believes in individuals owning guns/weapons.

It is primarily the "Left" wanting to disarm us. That's true. The Dixiecrats are mostly gone, but there are still some pro gun Democrats and independents around.


munk
 
If the US is ever disarmed, I predict it will be by extremist, homeland-security fanatics who do it in order to protect us from "terrorist." There are loonies on both sides of the aisle, as I see it.
That's it for me.
 
I am retired from 30 years as a federal law enforcement officer. Not even my sons know what I have and where they are. Does this tell you something? A list will *magically* be delivered to the oldest in the event of my death, and there will be a quiet distribution to sons, sons-in-law and grandsons thereafter with *suggestions* I have no intention of being *expletive deleted* politically correct on this one. I do not consider myself a wild-eyed survivalist, but God helps those who help themselves. Previous Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.
 
"Dear VPC, I find it telling that you need to resort to lying to further your goal of victim disarmament. But I suppose that the end justifies the means? How sad for you."

That was it. I sent it as one of the last mails from my work email account, nmorris@xxxxxxx.com. Guess what their response was? They waited a day and then notified the INFO and SALES organizations at xxxxxxx Corporate somehow, that they should be aware that one Norm Morris who was an employee of theirs, admitted to owning guns and had made THREATS against them (VPC) via email, and further was using Company email to do so! My HR department has contacted me and wants to know what the hell is going on, and rightfully so. - Norm
*****************************************************
Over the years, Munk and myself have had some online dealings with these crazies! The greatest single problem with them is their absolute lack of logic! Additionally, it is very difficult to make any point with them, because they also lack any common sense.

It is as if all people that lack any logic.... ran to their gun control cause and signed up en'mass! With all due respect, (and that ain't much respect) they do not and will not exchange in any reasonable discussion, regardless of its validity.

Yes, I realize it is unfair to lump them all together, characterized by generalities. However, that said, "they all" tend to demonstrate a lack of logic and will stoop to unethical behavior and even lie and twist the truth, most of the time.... to make a point that has no merit. All this.... after arguing the validity of the merits of gun owner persecution..... then tell you, they are not against individual gun ownership.

WHAT LOGIC?

Unfortunately, we observed many of their arguments to be intentional fabrications of the imagination. It is true, that because they were so delusional and demonstrated a complete lack of common sense, Munk first quite posting to the gun control forum. Being slower on the uptake, a few months later I also realized I was absolutely wasting my time. Like Munk, now I post only here.

Yeah, I admit it, I followed his lead! But, thaaaat was, the logical thing to do!

iBear
 
Anybody, anwhere, that would disarm us or attempt to disarm us, is a looney and absolutely my enemy! The distinction of whence he came is irrelevant! - iBear
***************************************************
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." - Hubert H. Humphrey Democrat, former Vice President and Civil Rights Advocate
***************************************************
There is no reason for anyone in this country- anyone except a police officer or military person- to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. – President Bill Clinton
***************************************************
Differences of opinion exist among many people. Those that investigate the law and find out the truth, will usually arrive at a completely different opinion than those that run in fear, repeating the rote messages of their learned dogma. That is my opinion! - iBear
***************************************************
Lawrence Tribe, who’s the most distinguished constitutional legal scholar in this country and teaches at Harvard Law School, wrote his classic textbook, American Constitutional Law in 1978. He took 276 pages to talk about the First Amendment. I mean, really a book’s worth: 276 pages. The Second Amendment got a footnote, not even in the section on rights, but it was in a section on the relationship between the Federal Government and the states. And he had this to say.

He said the Congressional debates, in the footnote, indicates that the sole concern of the Second Amendment’s framers was to prevent such federal interferences with state militia as would permit the establishment of a standing national army and the consequent destruction of local autonomy, thus the inapplicability of the Second Amendment to purely private conduct.

Ten years later in 1988, the second edition came out. The footnote was a little bit longer; he added a little more—but basically had the same message. This is what the situation was up until the last few years. There’s been a shift, and I’ll give you some examples.

There is an emergence now of what is called the standard model interpretation based on quite a lot of the recent research that’s been done . The newest standard model, as it’s called, is the concept that there is an individual right. And actually it was the original model and is now the new standard model.

Nelson Lund, who coined the expression, said the serious literature on the subject is virtually unanimous in concluding that the constitution establishes an individual right. So it’s very hard to get any serious scholarship where people find anything different.
But it’s interesting because of course the American people have always believed that they had a constitutional right to be armed and all of these surveys have found that overwhelmingly they believe that. And yet the legal experts in the 20th century have found numerous ways to interpret and misinterpret and nullify that individual right.

September 21, 1999, Lawrence Tribe, in the latest edition (every ten years he comes out with a new one, and these texts of his are extremely influential, because this is the book that the law students across the country read and study in constitutional law) the Second Amendment has graduated from a footnote to ten pages.

Ten full pages, and it isn’t easy for someone, like Tribe, who has dismissed it for 20 years, to change his mind. He says of it, “The Second Amendment provides fertile ground in which to till the soil of federalism and to unearth its relationship with individual as well as collective notions of right. Few constitutional provisions offer a richer opportunity to sort out the strands of one’s approach to constitutional interpretation.”

Lawrence Tribe concludes that the Amendment recognizes a right, on the part of individuals, to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes, although he says this isn’t clear what the parameters are and that more study needs to be done. For this change, which is substantial, and was only last month in his new book, he has all ready gotten substantial hate mail from his former supporters.

Congratulations, for a job well done! He changed his mind!
Thanks,

iBear
 
Morgane said:
As a Canadian, I can tell you with absolute certainty that you do not want these anti-gun people getting their way.
Click to expand...
Speaking from vast experience... no doubt? Jeeeez, but I'm sorry for you.

That is sad!

iBear
 
Bri in Chi said:
If the US is ever disarmed, I predict it will be by extremist, homeland-security fanatics who do it in order to protect us from "terrorist." There are loonies on both sides of the aisle, as I see it.
That's it for me.
Click to expand...
Anybody, anwhere, that would disarm us or attempt to disarm us, is a looney and absolutely my enemy! The distinction of whence he came is irrelevant!

Differences of opinion exist among many people. Those that investigate the law and find out the truth, will usually arrive at a completely different opinion than those that run in fear, repeating the rote messages of their learned dogma.

That is my opinion!

iBear
 
Bri in Chi said:
Leftist...? Oh, Is it that RED state, BLUE state thing.... If you're not TRUE BLUE, You're a (better dead than...) RED? I don't think so. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Making sense again I see!

Most of us could care less where the persecution of gun owners originated.

The source just doesn't matter. More uncivilized name calling, won't reserect legal self defense or a lost Constitutional Right! Gun Control and gun owner persecution is all bad.... wherever it rears its ugly head!

Private ownership of guns is the law of our land.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." - Patrick Henry, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)

iBear
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top