Visitors Comments
Topic: Animals
I agree. I certainly can't speak for all dogs (obviously), but it just seems to me that caging an animal all day is cruel. It's just common sense. It's my opinion that it is the ultimate in selfishness to expect to have a dog that you just take out of a cage for half the day for YOU as a pet owner to enjoy. What kind of a *human* ethic is that? I think those people who believe that the animals are actually *content* to be there all day are fooling themselves. Oh yeah, I'm sure that they would rather be caged than say, running around the back yard, basking in the shade/or sun; digging holes in a big sandpit. Quality of life is important for dogs too. They are living thinking beings.
I'm certainly not advocating letting a dog wander around in a house where it can endanger itself if it is prone to that. I'm advocating NOT GETTING AN ANIMAL if you're not able to provide it with a suitable environment.
A dog is not a human, but that shouldn't mean we treat them in an inhumane way; and long term "crating" in my opinion, is inhumane.
Ruth *****
You folks are really strange. PETA, Sea Terrorist and the NRA on the same page. Maybe you are confused? The NRA is a grouped linked to a valid cause (amendment), while the others are simply terroristic groups. You journalistic want to be scum should remove your web page from the net! Find a hobby that requires less IQ! You are not even smart enough to try to alter public opinion as Journalist attempt. PS: I hope somebody uses a stinger missile to put an end to that FAT ASS terrorist who pilots that floating piece of shit! What the hell is next, links to Satan and God - DUMBSHITS!
Dave ****** 
Topic: Firearms
I just want to say: Great Site!
Jim
This has to be one of the greatest page on anti-gun control and pro right to bear arms. Just wanted to let you know that you are doing a great job and it is people like you that allow us to keep any type of weapon at our homes at all
BrotherKel
You've a fine web site there. A fine site with lots of useful info.

Thanks
Alex ***

Just a quick note to tell you I got a kick out of your "guns" page. Good work.

 Harv *****

Hey- this is a real great site- the only problem is you consistently call our fine nation a "democracy". Look it up. In a democracy, the MAJORITY rules. If 51% of the people want to take away the gun rights of the other 49% (or kill and eat them, for that matter) they can, because in a democracy the majority rules- to put it another way,even if 99% of the population think 7+7=56, it isn't. Our country is really a Democratic Republic, wherein the people elect their representatives, but do not vote directly on constitutional ammendments. Our founding fathers gave us this form of government because they percievd true democracy as a tyrannical form of mob rule.

Great site anyway!
-Vince ***** 

G'day from Western Australia. Great site!

I can only urge you to keep up the fight. It's too late for us here in Australia -- the new Federal gun legislation was drafted, tabled and agreed to by all State Police ministers within just *four days* -- protests were too late by then, it was all over.

ALL semi-auto rifles (.22 and centrefire) and shotguns (including pump action) are now *banned totally* throughout Australia and must be given up for destruction (NOT allowed to be sold overseas). Penalty for non-compliance? $20 000 fine and two years in gaol.

Collectors guns made after 1945 MUST be welded (great for their value)

Applicants must convince the police they have a *need* for a firearm (in Australia, self-defence is NOT allowable as a need) before a licence will be issued.

Personal, "approved" firearms must be kept in a police-approved safe, dismantled, with bolt and ammo locked in a separate steel box.

Police will be given the authority to enter our homes -- without the need for a warrant -- to "spot check" for compliance, or on the grounds of "suspicion" that you may have an illegal firearm.

Police ministers can change the types of firearms they ban simply by regulation -- legislation will no longer be required. Effectively, they can regulate to ban *all* private firearms ownership, which is what those opposed to ownership are lobbying for.

Can't happen in the USA? Yes, it can. Six months ago I would have said it couldn't happen in Australia.
Regards Bruce ******

You emailed me to take a look, knowing my sentiments about the 2nd amendment, and then when I take a look, you insult my intelligence. You obviously have not set this thing up to facilitate a dialog. More like a diatribe. I shall not return.
Robert L. ***
While I agree in principle and in detail with your web pages, I really MUST point out one glaring problem. The United States of America (as per the Constitution) is most definately NOT a democracy and I would REALLY appreciate it if you would modify this to reflect a more ACCURATE statement.

In a Democracy, the Majority rules, the founding fathers knew this and took specific steps to ensure we did NOT have a democracy but a Republic. To be more specific, a Democratic Republic of Sovereign Citizens with an EXPRESSLY limited Federal Government that could ONLY do what is specifically stated in the Constitution, nothing more.

When you tell people, (ESPECIALLY PEOPLE YOU ARE TRYING TO EDUCATE) that this is a Democracy, you are telling them Majority Rules.

Please be more careful with this, as this is PRECISELY what entirely TOO many of our legislators actually think and it is REALLY messing up our country!
Don ********

Thank you for writing again. I guess that does clarify your position, but my question was about the use of the word democracy in this context. Your definition has the phrase "....government in which the supreme power is retained by the people...." and so I feel unenlightened. I still don't fully comprehend the use of the word in this context. However I do appreciate your writing again. Thanks very much.
LR. 
Topic: Taggants
As I read your slanted statistics and outright lies I wonder what benefits you gain from maintaining the status quo. The reason I visited your site was to get some information on taggants. My local paper this morning described a 10 year old girl having suffered from a bomb exploding in her face. You and your ilk are preventing the capture of the bomber. To say that use of taggants is a threat to gun owners is a blatant lie perpetrated by explosives manufacturers who want to avoid lawsuits. As you sit there grinding out your propaganda think of that little girl. Your opposition to this safety device makes you partially responsible if her attacker remains at large.
Jim Austin 

(I RESPONDED TO THIS INDIVIDUAL THAT THE BOMBER WOULD BE CAUGHT, AND WITH NO HELP FROM TAGGANTS. WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF THE BOMBING THE BOMBER WAS FOUND OUT. I AM STILL AWAITING AN APOLOGY. Karl Zandt)

I don't know if you're interested but there are ways in which the taggants can be implemented with a defferent code for every case of ammunition. The mistaken identity issue and the trouble with having thousands of suspects goes away in this case.
I must agree cost is an open issue, no-one knows what the cost effect would be. However as a pro-gun, pro-taggant engineer once the challenge of different codes is solved I see few problems with taggants.
You may be interested in the document at http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1980/8017.html which is a government OTA report on taggant use. There were two main drawbacks. The first, and the one most people worry about, was safety. But this report notes that tests to date have been done with absurd ratios like 50/50 powder/taggant as opposed to the part per million concentrations actual application of taggants implies. The report found no demonstratable link between low concentrations of taggants and powder stability.

The other concern was with taggant functionality. In the field it was simply too hard to find the taggants left after a car bomb (they blew up cars testing this). I have to say that it sounds from the report like if anyone can solve this and make taggants that work, they will be implemented unless better arguments against them surface.

Have you heard any other negative reasons? I am curious because it seems that the primary concerns you raise are not going to be enough reason in the immediate future.
-Zeke 

The argument against taggants legislation that you make is a debating team argument--they are ineffective, will raise prices, etc. I believe that the NRA's real belief about taggants could be stated as follows:

"The Second Amendment protects a right of revolution. It is convenient and effective for revolutionaries to strike anonymously and untraceably. Taggants make them more likely to be traced in their actions. Therefore, the NRA must oppose taggants." If I am right about this, everything else is just excuses. I have come to believe that every NRA argument traces back to the perceived right of revolution--as you admit in the other piece you mailed me, where you call for citizens to be armed with really powerful semiautomatic weapons. If you'll admit this motive where guns are concerned, why not admit it for taggants as well?

To me, the bottom line is that the NRA is an organization which favors violent revolution and opposes anything which might make a violent revolution fail.
Johnathon B.******* 

Return To Home Page