Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: What the gun industry and the NRA don't want you to know

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Greendale, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    Interesting article. Rather than posting the whole article, here isa link to it.

    http://www.npaper-wehaa.com/shepherdexpress#c-122800


    Member of:

    Wisconsin Carry, Inc
    National Rifle Association
    Gun Owners of America
    Knife Rights
    United States Conceal Carry Association

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    RTM Rockford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    316

    Post imported post

    I don't find the article particularly interesting. It highlights the same underhanded tactics that pro-socialist groups like the Violence Policy Center have used for decades.

    The group's talking head, Tom Diaz, doesn't convince me that he was ever in favor of second amendment rights. His ready willingness in the past to jump into the federal level of the anti-gun debate colors him as just another mercenary lawyer following the opportunities and riches he found in DC.

    This man assumes we all buy into the anti-gun divide-and-conquer tactic of separating hunters and sporting shooters from defensive shooters. He just wants his lobby to have access to anti-gun data which is irrelevant to 2A rights.

    There is nothing new in this article. Looking beyond the article's page, its source publication is questionable as well - certainly not a balanced media source.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Greendale, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    What gets me is that Tom Diaz states they are making handguns more lethal and smaller to cater to children. That is bogus. I am a small man, standing at 5', 4" and my hands are not big at all.

    Handling a Colt .45 is something of a task and not comfortable. I had to qualify with this weapon when I was with the Coast Guard. Manufacturers are making samller handguns not just for conceal carry, but for those who needs to have a comfortable and control grip on their handgun.

    Indeed, the article is something of old news but I still find it interesting that the media and gun control advocates manage to write and talk about gun violence. When it comes to guns used for protection, they are surpressed.
    Member of:

    Wisconsin Carry, Inc
    National Rifle Association
    Gun Owners of America
    Knife Rights
    United States Conceal Carry Association

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    RTM Rockford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    316

    Post imported post

    Well, I guess nonsense like this can serve the purpose of preparing us when we encounter it in person.

    I just read a thread this morning written by a fellow with small hands who had a custom .45 built to accommodate him. My wife has particularly small hands with a fairly weak grip strength. The elderly and the infirm sometimes requiresmaller caliber gund or smaller grips to accommodate their abilities. At what point do we infringe the rights of these citizens to defend themselves? I already know where Tom Diaz would stand on this question.

    In regard to inexpensive weapons, since when does the urban dweller or rural subsistence homesteader lose their right to self defense? I'm sure Tom Diaz has an answer for that, too. I'm also sure his answer would not satisfy me at any level.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , , Australia
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Tony Diaz: Firearms are very durable products. They are not going to wear out if you take care of them. So how do I, as a gun manufacturer, get you to buy more guns?

    Jeff Cooper commented on this very thing (obviously from a different perspective) so it can hardly be said to be information the NRA is hiding.

    Tony Diaz: But we could control the types of firearms that are most lethal, like the military-style automatic weapons.

    Mr Diaz would obviously be aware of the regulations on automatic weapons, I can only conclude that he is being deliberately deceptive here.

    Tony Diaz: His [President Bush] father’s policy was that only firearms for sporting purposes could be imported into the country.

    This should properly be considered grounds for impeachment or charges of treason. Disarming the militia is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

    Tony Diaz: The 1994 [Assault Weapons] law was a joke.

    Would it be too sarcastic to suggest we agree on something?


  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    Firearms sold to the public should have to meet one condition: suitability for Second Amendment purposes. If it can be used to overthrow a tyranny in control of our own government ... it's o.k.



  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705

    Post imported post

    dmworken wrote:
    What gets me is that Tom Diaz states they are making handguns more lethal and smaller to cater to children. That is bogus. I am a small man, standing at 5', 4" and my hands are not big at all.

    Handling a Colt .45 is something of a task and not comfortable. I had to qualify with this weapon when I was with the Coast Guard. Manufacturers are making samller handguns not just for conceal carry, but for those who needs to have a comfortable and control grip on their handgun.

    Indeed, the article is something of old news but I still find it interesting that the media and gun control advocates manage to write and talk about gun violence. When it comes to guns used for protection, they are surpressed.
    Indeed, I've picked up a couple small guns, and the DAO triggers were way to stiff for a child to be able to pull them with one finger.

    There's never anything new from the moonbat crowd, just more "progressive" nonsense.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    Mr. Diaz,

    How do you define "more lethal"? Isn't something labeled lethal if it is deadly? Dead is dead, how can something be more dead? All you seem to describe is product improvements. I'm sure you have said it yourself, a firearm's main purpose is to kill. So, if the manufacturers are producing "better killing machines" as you claim, then how is that different from Ford producing better vehicles over the years, ones that drive smoother on less gas, etc?

    Product safety information on firearms? If I were to look that concept up in the dictionary, I bet I would find something along the lines of "information concerning the safety of a product to it's user when used as intended". I don't see how that information is being withheld. I can easily find information concerning how 40 caliber Glocks can injure the user if a round is chambered multiple times. What you seem to be looking for is data to support your "save the children" motives. Data that is kept by the FBI and other national agencies. But going along this line of "making the world a better place" seems flawed. "Accidental" shootings of children occurs what, 2000 times a year in this nation? More chidren are hurt by motor vehicles in a month.

    What is a military-style automatic firearm? I'm willing to bet a railgun wouldn't meet whatever questionable definition you have, and yet I would bet a large sum of money that if I produced and sold handheld railguns to the public, you would condem me, as you currentally condem the NRA and "gun lobby". This, of course, would be a plausable scenario in which you would be going against your word in what you want. That is why no one is really intrested in a compromise with you because as soon as you get a semblance of what you publically state you desire, you will change your mind and demand more.

    You act as if you are reasonable, but it is only an act for the press and a thinly deguised one at that. You use terms and definitions that are silly and incorrect all to appear like all you want is this reasonable ammount of change, but once nailed down, that change is neither reasonable nor a clear as you try to make it. You, sir, are a young toddler who wants a sheiny new toy, but when asked for clarification or a well thought out reason why the chest of old toys at home won't do, throws an incoherant fit.

    I think one of your last statements sums up the situation nicely. You state that Obama could stop the importation of a certain class or type of good through an executive decision. This statement shows how little you know of the US Constitution, and the Law it lays down. While this seems to have little bearing on the debate at first glance, it really shows that you do not, nor want to, understand the issue you are debating, which is a section of the US Constitution. How, sir, can you claim to debate this issue, in an informed and educated manner, when all you show to the nation is nonsense and ignorant gobblygook?



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    Brigdh wrote:
    "Accidental" shootings of children occurs what, 2000 times a year in this nation? More chidren are hurt by motor vehicles in a month.
    Although no accurate records are available to show how many injuries occur each year due to negligent discharges, stats show that deaths continue to drop, even though firearm ownership is at an all time high.

    U.S. STATISTICS SOURCE LAST YEAR* TREND
    --------------- -------------------- --------------- -----------------
    Firearm & U.S. Dept. of the Up 2.6% to Up 27.7%
    Ammunition Treasury $2.1 billion since 1998
    Sales
    --------------- -------------------- --------------- -----------------
    Accidental National Safety Tied previous Down 19.2%
    Firearm Council year's all-time since 1998
    Fatalities low of 700
    --------------- -------------------- --------------- -----------------
    Accidental
    Firearm National Safety Down to Down 50.4%
    Fatalities, Council all-time low of since 1998
    Age 14 & Under 60
    --------------- -------------------- --------------- -----------------

    * Most recent year for which statistics have been compiled; may be
    2005, 2004 or earlier. Fully formatted, color, hyperlinked version of
    this chart available at www.nssf.org.

    More kids die of drowning, when are they going to call for the banning of standing water more than 1" deep?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •