Antis in GA

Discussion in 'GA Laws and Politics' started by mzmtg, Feb 13, 2007.

  1. mzmtg

    mzmtg Active Member

    3,119
    0
    36
  2. mzmtg

    mzmtg Active Member

    3,119
    0
    36
    They already wrote back...

    ...not interested.
     

  3. slabertooch

    slabertooch New Member

    4,322
    0
    0
    Did you inform them that we have them listed as a link? :mrgreen:
     
  4. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,395
    395
    83
    That is worth a reply email!

    And who is "them?" I think it is just that lady . . . I also think they are the local Sarah Brady affiliate.

    What they are for:
    "The safe and legitimate use of firearms for sport and hunting purposes."

    No self defense?

    No keeping a body of armed citizens ready for draw as a militia, trained to arms and showing up when called with their private arms of the type in common use at the time?

    Odd.

    I guess seizing weapons during times of declared emergency and jailing people who put their gun in the "wrong place" in the car do not interfere at all with "sport and hunting purposes."
    :roll:

    Mzmtg, please send her a reply email telling her that this site has a link to her site and asking if, in light of this new information, she will reconsider. :D

    This can be fun.
     
  5. mzmtg

    mzmtg Active Member

    3,119
    0
    36
    My first Email:
    Her reply:
    My reply (PUN ALERT!):
    I'll come up with something else to send her.
     
  6. slabertooch

    slabertooch New Member

    4,322
    0
    0
    [puntag] tongue in cheek [/puntag]

    Well It was worth a shot, not that I would want to trigger a battle over something as explosive as gun rights. I wouldn't be to quick to bolt from the fact that we supported HB 89, as we both seen to have some common targets in our sights. Perhaps we should both holster our disagreements...

    anyone else?
     
  7. mzmtg

    mzmtg Active Member

    3,119
    0
    36
    this is the best I could come up with, for now:
     
  8. Tinkerhell

    Tinkerhell Active Member

    2,420
    2
    38
    :rotfl:

    I wonder if she will just ignore your message or if she might even look at the address & notice the "links_antigun" part.

    TOO DAMN FUNNY!
     
  9. mzmtg

    mzmtg Active Member

    3,119
    0
    36
    I really want her to tell me that more exposure for all viewpoints is a BAD thing.
     
  10. geaux_tigers

    geaux_tigers Member

    994
    0
    16
    From the page of links on their site:

    If this statement is accurate I would think GPO would be a great addition to their site.
     
  11. geaux_tigers

    geaux_tigers Member

    994
    0
    16
  12. geaux_tigers

    geaux_tigers Member

    994
    0
    16
    I think this recommendation from Georgians for Gun Safety may border on irresponsible. I can't say that I have ever heard any instructor or self defense expert make this suggestion before. Given the 21 foot rule I do not think loading your weapon just-in-time is a prudent course of action. :wink:
     
  13. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,395
    395
    83
    Well, Georgians for Gun Safety does not believe in firearms for self-defense, but only for sport and hunting (and I am not sure how strongly she, oh, I mean they, of course, :wink: believe in even that). Accordingly, waiting to load it until you are ready to shoot seems perfectly reasonable when one assumes that shooting somebody with a knife inside 21 feet and about to stab you is an act that is malum in se.

    See? :D
     
  14. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    When you live in a dream world, anything is possible.
     
  15. geaux_tigers

    geaux_tigers Member

    994
    0
    16
    Their "safe gun ownership" page states:
    People own guns for several reasons-for hunting, for target practice or other shooting sports, and/or for self defense.

    Since self-defense is not one of the points they enumerate as being "against", I assumed they acknowledged self-defense as a valid use of a firearm, though it is not something they promote.

    I hope my assumption was not unfounded. If it was, wouldn't that mean they are not being open about what their true agenda is? I would hate to think they are not being intellectually honest seeing how "obfuscation of the issues" seems to be a serious concern of theirs. I think hiding the fact that they are opposed to a person's right to defend himself or his family to appear more reasonable to the citizens of this state would qualify. :wink:
     
  16. geaux_tigers

    geaux_tigers Member

    994
    0
    16
    Good point. That's why I only summer there. :D