Monday, December 15, 2008

We're not after your guns. Trust Us.

So says Laura Eshelman of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence Ownership.

Yet the NCGV supports, endorses, and is directly associated with groups who openly support gun bans and endless restrictions.

Sorry Laura, but when you use quotes from organizations whose admitted goals are to highly restrict and/or eliminate private firearm ownership in the US as well as using long discredited Kellerman statistics, I'm going to have a hard time taking you at your word.

12 comments:

Dock said...

They're located in Durham, home of Reverend Melvin Whitley - of "stop the bullet" fame. He's trying to drum up support for ammo permitting at the Durham City Council level.

Durham is already a crap place to live because of crime, so now they want to make it worse by punishing law abiding gun owners. I also noticed that NCGV's statistics are old... like 1999 and 2000 old.

I left NC for TX a good while ago and I can't say I regret it.

kaveman said...

From the article:

"...a lot of Americans have their air rifles cocked and loaded just in case the Canadians get any ideas."

So no worries here, she's just talking 30,000 annual "gun deaths" from toy guns.

Anonymous said...

Oh, give it a rest. You guys are always so darn uptight and angry- perhaps while you're ranting and raving about liberty restrictions, you should consider lobbying for marijuana legalization. It's been proven to be effective in many cases for stress reduction; I'm sure it would make even the most virulent of you gun nuts a little bit nicer (and less likely to get pissed off and shoot innocent people).
-Laura Eshelman

Thirdpower said...

So Ms. Eshelman, did you Google your name and this came up? It's been 7 months since I posted it.

Funny that instead of replying to the cited and sourced criticisms, you resort to stereotyping and insults.

No surprise really. It's all you have.

Anonymous said...

Excuse me- would it matter if I had replied to your "cited and sourced critisms"? I didn't see a single source for your information.
And yes, I did google my name for fun. Your point being...?

Anonymous said...

And as a side note, that's not "all I have", but presenting further information is really just pointless as hardcore gun lobbyists seem to have cotton permanently stuffed in their ears anyway. I often wonder whether it would be a little different if every "responsible gun owner" with that mentality had a child commit suicide with a gun someday- sadly, if you did bother to research the consistent statistics about how frequently that happens, you probably wouldn't care.
I should thank you for reminding me why I refuse to hang out with conservatives.

Thirdpower said...

So after another 4 months you reply with evidence you don't understand the concept of hyperlinks.

Numerous of those organizations supported the DC handgun BAN. None of them have ever opposed ANY restriction on firearms.

I eagerly await your reply sometime in Spring 2010.

Anonymous said...

Don't bother. I tend to be proactive in my line of work, and thus have better things to do than sit around my computer waiting for people to argue with and stroking my rifle (especially since I don't have anything to compensate for...)

Yep, I realize that was a petty insult, but that was less to do with my political opinion than for the hell of it.

Thirdpower said...

Thank you Ms. Eshelman. You made my point for me quite succinctly.

I appreciate all your assistance.

Thirdpower said...

Really I do.

Anonymous said...

***I should thank you for reminding me why I refuse to hang out with conservatives.***

Too Funny.

Guess, she never heard of Pro Gun Dem's, or Pro Gun Progressives.

45superman said...

Says Ms. Eshelman:

. . . (especially since I don't have anything to compensate for...)

Yep, I realize that was a petty insult . . .


Calling it a "petty insult" is one way to describe it, but a better, more accurately descriptive way would be to describe it as "a desperate attempt to salvage a modicum of satisfaction with puerile nonsense, when facts and logic are clearly not on Ms. Eshelman's side." That's a situation, I suspect, that you're quite accustomed to--pity you've not yet found a more effective way of dealing with it.

Great luck with that!