Author Topic: A Short History of Gun Control (Read 1429 times)

Angus · « **Reply #30 on:** June 11, 2007, 10:35:21 AM »

Get the gun crazy swiss to help you out

crockett · « **Reply #31 on:** June 11, 2007, 12:51:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
everyone should watch that vid...

The democrats of today are the womanly nannies who want to control us.. they are not the men of the past who felt it was a right of every citizen to be armed... that guns were every bit as important as private property ownership and free speech and the right to a fair trial by your peers...

Come to think of it.. the current democrats hate all of those things... not just guns.

lazs

I love how it's always Democrats or Liberals fault this or that happens.. Funny thing under Bush whom is a "REPUBLICAN" we have lost more rights than I care to think about.

Also funny that so many of the FCC complaints came from Conservatives right wing groups whom claim to want to protect our children while trampling on free speech.

But yea it's all the liberals fault those damn sissy's and they support terrorist lets hang them high..

VOR · « **Reply #32 on:** June 11, 2007, 06:22:21 PM »

Crockett is correct in that neither liberals nor conservatives support or base their decisions upon the Constitution. There is plenty of finger pointing from one side to the other, but not alot of honesty.

lazs2 · « **Reply #33 on:** June 12, 2007, 08:17:20 AM »

vor.. that may be true to a certain amount but the womanly socialist democrats are far more dangerous when it comes to justice and free speech and the right to bear arms.

all gun control comes from the womanly democrats.. the "fairness doctrine" where we are not allowed to listen to talk radio unless we hear their side too but we are still forced to hear their side in every other media (including schools) with no balance.. "hate crimes" and "affirmative action" all play nice womenly crap designed to treat everyone differently and promote class warfare.

They may let you smoke pot tho..

lazs

crockett · « **Reply #34 on:** June 12, 2007, 11:23:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
vor.. that may be true to a certain amount but the womanly socialist democrats are far more dangerous when it comes to justice and free speech and the right to bear arms.

all gun control comes from the womanly democrats.. the "fairness doctrine" where we are not allowed to listen to talk radio unless we hear their side too but we are still forced to hear their side in every other media (including schools) with no balance.. "hate crimes" and "affirmative action" all play nice womenly crap designed to treat everyone differently and promote class warfare.

They may let you smoke pot tho..

lazs

Guess you missed the whole Brady bill huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Bill

The Womanly Democrat as you call them.. happened to be Sarah Brady the wife of Jame Brady.

Just in case you don't know, James Brady was shot and almost killed during an assassination attempt on Reagan Regan..

Also, just so you know Ronald Regan was a REPUBLICAN as that fact may have eluded you and Jame Brady just happened to be Regan's press sectary.

But of course I guess it was all the Democrats fault because Bill Clinton signed the bill into law, as he happened to be the guy in charge at the time the law was finally passed.

68Hawk · « **Reply #35 on:** June 12, 2007, 02:35:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
That's because you're all overarmed, and we're not. Any idiot can be ecpected to tote a gun, while here it's really rare. And that's why you guys shoot each other on a whoopingly high basis, - highest in the western world?

No, the high levels of gun violence in this country are because of Crack and methamphetamine, not because of the predominance of firearms. I do not fear legal and responsible gun owners. The more often I see someone with a .45 on their hip I feel better, because I know a drugged up wacko who might actually shoot me isn't going to carry an illegal firearm in view. Just because criminals are good at smuggling weapons and selling them out of trunks doesn't mean that we we should take legal firearms away from those who would be the trunk merchant's customer's victims.

I truly respect that Iceland and other places in the world seem to be more domestically pacific, and as such their residents own self defense is not such an urgent problem. I'd really love to visit some time. Still, if things are peachy there, don't allow yourself to misunderstand conditions here. We also have lots of open territory that is still inhabited by creatures who can eat us, like bears. 30 min north of me in Boulder its not uncommon for bears to wander into backyards looking for scraps. I ask you what's more reliable when you're children's play yard is under threat, animal control on the phone or a 12ga in your hand?

I'm sorry, but your argument only makes the case for responsible gun ownership stronger. There are lots of wackos here that tote guns that shouldn't. They don't usually respond well to asking nicely.

68Hawk · « **Reply #36 on:** June 12, 2007, 02:37:11 PM »

Oh yeah, crockett and VOR,

You guys are very right that both parties are playing their own role in taking our freedoms. On protects some, the other protects others, but they're both disregarding the constitution whenever it suits them.

Can we please get away from these awful parties and just be Americans again?

crockett · « **Reply #37 on:** June 12, 2007, 02:50:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 68Hawk
Oh yeah, crockett and VOR,

You guys are very right that both parties are playing their own role in taking our freedoms. On protects some, the other protects others, but they're both disregarding the constitution whenever it suits them.

Can we please get away from these awful parties and just be Americans again?

That's what I'm for.. I don't call myself a Democrat or a Republican. I think both parties have sold out our country long ago. I just get sick of hearing right wingers blaming liberals for everything under the sun.

I tend to side more on the liberal side however I agree with the old school Republican ideas of less govt. Too bad that's long gone from the Republican party.

Neither party stands for what they claim to stand for, it's nothing more than a show for the sheep. The only thing either party stands for is how they can best get re-elected. Our govt was sold out a long time ago by cerar politicians.

lazs2 · « **Reply #38 on:** June 13, 2007, 08:46:50 AM »

LOL.... the brady bill? have you ever seen the politicians that support the brady bunch? every frigging one of em is a democrat.

every gun bill is brought up by democrats... poor old brady was used shabbily by his flipped out wife.. she rolled his wheelchair around and he died drooling.. never even knowing what she was doing with his brain dead body.

crokett... I believe that you are simply a liberal like I am a conservative. Those terms don't fit us like a glove and neither do republican or democrat.

but... I support republicans to keep democrats out... you support democrats to keep republicans out. You are most likely a liberal socialist. I am an individualist.

lazs

crockett · « **Reply #39 on:** June 13, 2007, 12:49:39 PM »

You will believe anything wont yea as long as it sound good and supports your theory..

James Brady is far from brain dead nor is he dead. In fact this is an interview he gave CBS news about a year ago.. Seems like he's really brain dead..

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/21/eveningnews/main1227348.shtml

68Hawk · « **Reply #40 on:** June 13, 2007, 01:14:35 PM »

There you go again with the liberal socialist conflation laz. Again here you're mincing a term, and you're essentially just saying anything left of you. If you want a general term, Leftist works. Just don't forget that Liberalism is the CENTER, not the Left, and that's why the Democratic party tends to be a lame duck.

I want to also remind you that Leftism is not necessarily devoid of individualism. A lot of Leftist ideology is, but not all of it. You talk about gloves not fitting either of you perfectly, then you try to squeeze you both into a pair (right and left

).

Anyone who supports one party to keep the other out is as much of a fool as the party they fight.

How many democrats support gun rights but end up voting for politicians just to keep the greedy republicans out? How many republicans support honest science and a woman's choice, but end up voting for politicians just to keep some of the stupid ways the democratic party operates out? Technically the principles of individualism should lead us to vote for people based on their beliefs and personal performance, not which group they associate with.

I am prepared to vote for either a republican or a democrat, depending on which candidate is truly better, but I really wish I could be voting for independents.

lazs2 · « **Reply #41 on:** June 13, 2007, 02:26:41 PM »

liberals are center? that is news to me.

I got to admit that I did think that brady was dead... I seriously think he is not a republican tho at this point.. Last I seen him he could barely drool on his own.. he always had a group of womanly democrats behind his chair and his pos wife did all the talking.

There are far too many socialist views that the democrats have for me to vote for em and..... I am ashamed to say that I don't really care about abortion... I realize that it is probly murder but it is a small murder.. I don't care if you do it or not.. just don't call it " a womans right to choose" that is really abhorent to me. Kill all of em you want.

Gun control and removal of second amendment rights is almost exclusively the pervue of the womanly democrat lefties.. modern liberals are all for gun control and socialism.. modern liberals are all socialists. Their idea of "individual rights" is pretty much restricted to killing the unborn and allowing people to smoke pot. I won't trust my liberty with democrats...

All politicians vote right down party lines... they get to take turns pretending not too when it doesn't matter tho.

It is rare indeed that I see anything that democrats support that I support.

It is far less rare when republicans come up with something.,

lazs

68Hawk · « **Reply #42 on:** June 13, 2007, 02:46:03 PM »

No, Liberalism is the center of the classical political spectrum. It is true that there is no real viable Left in this country, as the center masquerades and to some extent confuses itself with the Left. Socialism (broadly) is actually the left. Please don't take that as an endorsement of either general philosophy. Also remember that there are many flavors of each, and generalizing that all Liberals are socialists really misses the point. You are right that many in the democratic party, and many 'on the left' lack a concrete set of philosophies that puts them easily into either camp, but that does not mean all Democrats or Liberals are socialists. That is just as valid as calling all Conservatives Liberals because some are moderates and vote across party lines.

"I don't care if you do it or not.. just don't call it " a womans right to choose" that is really abhorent to me. Kill all of em you want."

Doesn't the word "want" here imply a choice? If you're OK with them making that choice then how are you disagreeing with 'a woman's right to choose'?

lazs2 · « **Reply #43 on:** June 13, 2007, 02:55:59 PM »

"a womans right to choose" is a cowardly cutting off of a complete sentance. typical liberal socialist newspeak.. obviously a woman... or anyone has a right to choose many things.

It should be a complete sentance.. it should read.. " a womans right to choose to kill her unborn" Not her right to choose a plaid over a stripe print or a right to choose the drapes.

I am pragmatic. The literal defenitions of political parties are fine but the reality of politics is a moving target. I think that you can see that most socialists consider themselves liberals and... almost all liberals embrace socialist ideals today... in that respect.. generalizing works fine.

The democratic party is the party of socialism and liberalism with a socialist bent. I think democrats are using the book 1984 as their playbook.

lazs

68Hawk · « **Reply #44 on:** June 13, 2007, 03:31:13 PM »

So they truncate the sentence? Ok, "A woman's right to choose to have an abortion or not".

"I think that you can see that most socialists consider themselves liberals and... almost all liberals embrace socialist ideals today... in that respect.. generalizing works fine."

No, I don't see any genuine socialists today calling themselves liberals. Some liberals do embrace elements of socialist ideology, but so too do many 'conservatives' right now. Much of the Bush agenda has nothing to do with conservatism or realism. Idealism, and a particularly foolish strain of it, best describes much of the Bush ventures. The admin's trend towards big government and overarching bureaucratic structures is past liberalism, its socialism. Things that are traditionally championed by conservatives, the Drug War coming predominantly to mind, are more socialist style social engineering than anything else.

Then we get to the other confusions, such as the fact that citizen gun ownership is a Liberal value and not a conservative one. This is only if one looks back to the roots of conservatism and liberalism. People today have been easily misled into thinking that draconian gun control is a liberal value. It's actually only benefiting conservative status quos. That one issue is actually more of a political football than anything else, with democrats playing only their own specific role in taking power from the people. The more people forget the roots of their ideologies, the more they confuse one with the other, the more policy is just made up for arbitrary reasons.

Your generalizing only smears everything into a messy blur.