Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nash on August 20, 2005, 08:26:24 PM
-
I wanna know what you think about it.
This is a troll, I guess. But I'm interested.
Is it still the same party that your dad voted for? Or does that even matter?
Do you like the state it's in? Do you like what it professes? Do you like what it actually does? Do you like where it's going?
I'll say straight out that I cannot comprehend the phenomenon. Shocking! :) And I won't change my mind based on what you say - so forget about that.
But I'd like to hear your best defense of it, because I find it so utterly beneath contempt, and lacking of any redeeming value whatsoever, that I strain at the notion that good men can knowingly leash themselves to the mast of a ship gone so astray.
To the one-liners, I simply say: "Hah hah."
To the rest of you, I value your insight.
Because I don't get it.
(and folks - lets be civil here, okay?)
-
:lol
-
Here's a one liner...
Both major parties are not the parties our grandfathers voted for.
-
Holden - you are a riddle to me.
Don't stop, because I treasure you for it.
-
Erhm, while we're here...
Care to take a stance on the Republican party... without using relativism.... just your take on them?
-
A foreigners view:
The democrats have all the best lines; but seldom deliver; and often out right lie.
The Republicans policy is often repugnant; but at least they're "straight"; in as much as you know what you're voting for; they do thier best to deliver and their agenda is rarely as hidden as the Democrats.
If you think; then you vote democrat. If you think deeply; then you vote Republican; on the basis that they'll screw you more; but cheat you less.
-
That's what I'm looking for. Thanks Seeker.
-
I think the republican party has turned into a bunch of self-righteous @#&holes who blame liberals and clinton for all the problems of the world and meanwhile they just ignore the fact that they are in charge right now.
-
I agree with seeker right now.
Currently...and I do stress that....the Republican party lines up with most of my ideals in their agenda. I don't agree with them on everything.
Liberals/dems- I cannot bring myself to associate with the party that spat on war vets returning from veitnam. I just can't do it. I know I know not all feel this way but the hippies of the 60's are now the liberals of today. The anti-establishment anti-corporate nanny law making party of the left lines up with almost none of my IDEALs.
I vote right because I don't like the left. It's pretty sad...I agree.
I think the democratic party of the US is more in a shambles then the republicans.....they can't even agree on WHAT there message is let alone produce one.
I know this thread is about the right and not the left so I dont want to wander and start a hijack of Nash's troll but I think what I like most about the republican party is the basis of its agenda.
The laws they try to pass are mostly based on personal responsibility. Something I think is sorely lacking in today's America.
-
By and large, the ideals in the party are closer to mine than the dems, but not spot on by any means. It's just choosing the lesser of 2 evils.
Realistically, the two-party system has been broken for a long time because of attitudes like this:
Originally posted by Nash
I won't change my mind based on what you say - so forget about that.
It's gone beyond ideals and simply become a contest of wills.
A happy medium can't be found until people stop acting like such...people.
-
The DNC is a pile of **** and the GOP is a pile of **** with chocolate sprinkles.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I think the republican party has turned into a bunch of self-righteous @#&holes who blame liberals and clinton for all the problems of the world and meanwhile they just ignore the fact that they are in charge right now.
It'll take 20 years to clean up after that 8 year Clinton clusterfudge.
Besides, the Democrats have become the party of crybabies who no longer have the guts to say what they really want to do. Their primary objective is to attempt to create scandals in hope of bringing down the Republicans rather than actually doing something worth while to get anyone to vote for them. Not to mention they are so gutless and cowardly they have to hire a woman to hide behind and get her to scream four letter words about Bush.
I'm not all that enthused about the Republicans or Bush, but the alternative, AKA the Democrats, with Kerry, Dean, Gore, Clinton, Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, and Feinstien rank as about the sorriest bunch of do nothing gutless whining limpwrists I've ever seen. The best the Democrats have to offer could never run for President because the radical far left wing goobers in control of the party pick idiots like Dean. Lieberman is the best they've got and he hasn't got a prayer. He can't get out of the primaries.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
It'll take 20 years to clean up after that 8 year Clinton clusterfudge.
And there you have it.
Another righty blaming the dems for it all.
-
Originally posted by Silat
And there you have it.
Another righty blaming the dems for it all.
Hey, he said it, I just acknowledged the fact that Clinton screwed the pooch. And Gore held it for him. Or maybe Hilary held it, and Gore lead the cheers from the Democratic peanut gallery.
Oh well, the truth hurts. Live with it. Get some real candidates besides the losers you guys run, and offer a decent alternative. Of course, I guess Kerry is what you would call a decent alternative to ............................. ............................. ............................. .
Dean:rolleyes:
-
Silat... This aint about Dems. At least not here, and I don't care to hear about comparisons. Just the words regarding Republicans.
-
Originally posted by Silat
And there you have it.
Another righty blaming the dems for it all.
SNIFF SNIFF
woa way to stinky!
NASH,
to be honest I can't remember the last republican that I saw speak that politically motivated me.
I can remember the last democrat. Barack Obama DNC convention.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
The DNC is a pile of **** and the GOP is a pile of **** with chocolate sprinkles.
Sig mat.
-
my cats bellybutton smells like republicrats.
-
<
Oh well, the truth hurts. Live with it. Get some real candidates besides the losers you guys run, and offer a decent alternative. Of course, I guess Kerry is what you would call a decent alternative to ............................. ............................. ............................>>
I got the Clinton comment from your post. If you didnt say it then Im sorry.
What does Clinton have to do with the Republican party?
Loser candidates? The dems sure dont have the market on that .
It is telling how the Clintons , Gore or Kerry come up whenever the question is about Republicans. I guess Bush was right when he said he couldnt remember ever making a mistake. LOL
And I didnt run anyone. You have no idea what my party affiliation is. If you guess dem then you are wrong.:)
-
Interesting topic, Nash.
I was involved in the GOP in my youth.
Back then ( mid 70s ) we stood for smaller government and balanced budget.
We fought the invasion of Pat Robertson movement and the religious whackos back in '88.
Left my precinct soon afterward.
Not sure what changed or when.
It certainly isn't the same party I admired and respected as a child.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I agree with seeker right now.
Currently...and I do stress that....the Republican party lines up with most of my ideals in their agenda. I don't agree with them on everything.
Liberals/dems- I cannot bring myself to associate with the party that spat on war vets returning from veitnam. I just can't do it. I know I know not all feel this way but the hippies of the 60's are now the liberals of today. The anti-establishment anti-corporate nanny law making party of the left lines up with almost none of my IDEALs.
I vote right because I don't like the left. It's pretty sad...I agree.
I think the democratic party of the US is more in a shambles then the republicans.....they can't even agree on WHAT there message is let alone produce one.
I know this thread is about the right and not the left so I dont want to wander and start a hijack of Nash's troll but I think what I like most about the republican party is the basis of its agenda.
The laws they try to pass are mostly based on personal responsibility. Something I think is sorely lacking in today's America.
Excelent post Gunslinger.
I couldn't say it any better than that.
-
No way in hell I'd vote for the Commie Democrates and the Republican Party seems to be drifting too far to the right.
-
I dont like them.
They are too far to the right and seem to be extremly religiously oriented. I dont share their "moral values"
-
Hmmm.....
Both sides have pro's and con's and there is this joke some may know a varient of but the gist is there:
A Republican and Democrat are walking together down a sidewalk in DC one day after lunch they happen upon a homeless guy asking for handouts.
The Republican responds first and he gives the guy $50. He then tells him that around the corner there is a Good-Will store and that he needed to stop in and get him some good clean clothes. Then he said a few doors down from there is a YMCA. Check in, get cleaned-up, get a bite to eat, and a goodnights rest. Then tomorrow a block down from the YMCA is an employment office. Go in there and start applying for jobs,to get a job, and to start making you some money to get up outta the gutter and be a productive member of society.
The homeless man says thank you, gets up, and ends up doing what was suggested.
A few blocks away the Republican and Democrat happen upon another homeless man asking for money. The Democrat didnt want to be out done gave the homeless man a $100 and told him to go to the hotel accross the way, get a room for the night, and tomorrow hail a cab to take him to the welfare office to apply for welfare until he feels he is on his feet again.
The homeless man says thank you, gets up, walks around the corner, sits down, and proceeds to ask for money again, but with a bigger smile.
Alot of things will work out in the wash. Changes in economy are never instantanious. I worry about my right to defend family, property, and myself. I believe that is what the second ammendment is all about. Democrats want to wait the 2:30- 3:00 minutes it takes for the law enforcement to reach me when it only takes :30 seconds for me to be stabbed/ shot to death and loved one killed, beaten, or raped.
Republicans:
Get off your butts and work
Take control of yourselves and be responsible or pay the cost.
Be strong to family values,
Democrats:
Let us be apart of everything you do and we will tell you how to do everything.
We will protect you from all evil.
We will all hide in the corner when the boogymen arrive and let them do as they will with us.
I feel that both sides will have issues I wont agree with but the Republicans are more down to earth to me than the Democrats.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Is it still the same party that your dad voted for?
Not if your dad is old enough to vote before Reagan. What Reagan was able to do was to attract two somewhat conflicted groups:
1. Libertarian voters: mostly from western states, they favor less government regulation, lower taxes, etc.
2. Christian fundamentalists: mostly from southern states, they favor more government restriction on certain social matters, such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. Many of these voters previously leaned Democrat and you can argue whether they moved toward Reagan or away from the Democrats.
Reagan himself leaned libertarian, throwing just enough bones to the Christians to keep them on board. Dubya is the opposite – basically a Christian fundamentalist who is having some difficulty appeasing the “less government” faction of his party.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I wanna know what you think about it.
Is it still the same party that your dad voted for? Or does that even matter?
Dad didn't vote the Republican party. He used to vote democrat. In his words.. "I didn't leave the Democratic party, IT leave ME!"
Now, why do you suppose he said that, Nash?
Do you like the state it's in? Do you like what it professes? Do you like what it actually does? Do you like where it's going?
I vote issues, not straight party lines. Considering most of my votes went to the republican side of the isle (although I did vote for at least one state democrat) in the last election, I would say that yes, I like what it professes, and where its going.The Republican Party more closely represents my personal convictions and the Democratic Party moves farther and farther to the left. Do I agree with everything the Republican party does and offers? No. I just happen to find more issues that I agree with on the right side of the line, than the left.
But I'd like to hear your best defense of it, because I find it so utterly beneath contempt, and lacking of any redeeming value whatsoever, that I strain at the notion that good men can knowingly leash themselves to the mast of a ship gone so astray.
Starting in the late 50s the democrat party became more and more liberal. I don't mind the liberal agenda provided they support it with their own money. Both parties buy votes with liberal policies but the Democrats have perfected the practice. But to abandon America, I cannot tolerate that. I'll use Jim McDermmot for a typical example of the senators from the liberal agenda. Jim McDermott is a unique product of liberal Seattle, but the truth is McDermott hates America, he despises our heritage.
Upon his return from Baghdad, (where he had accepted a check from the Baath Party for $5,000,apparetly for legal reserves from Shakir al-Khafaji, an Iraqi businessman with close ties to Saddam Hussein, and retured the money after he was exposed)McDermott addressed an anti-American rally at downtown Seattle's Denny Park, continuing his rants against Bush and justice. The truth is McDermott hates America. Congressman Jim McDermott who disgracefully aligned himself with Saddam Hussein and against the US in the run-up to the Iraq War, and was actually given a public official of the year award by radical Islamic front group CAIR, now has his own Daily Kos diary.
Daily Kos, for those of you who don't know is a far-far-left group blog, infamous for the kind sentiments of its leader (all anti-American sentiments) towards Americans murdered and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.
McDermott is just one of the rants I have about many just like him on the left side of the isle. I could go on and on, talking about Kennedy, Senator Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Patty "Osama provided daycare in Afghanistan" Murray... but I do not have the time to explain someone who doesn't live in this country what I feel.
But what I will say to shorten the length of this post is this:
The Lefts goals have changed from extending the boundaries of what was considered "right" to having no boundaries at all. Moral relativism has become status quo.
-
Originally posted by Silat
<
Oh well, the truth hurts. Live with it. Get some real candidates besides the losers you guys run, and offer a decent alternative. Of course, I guess Kerry is what you would call a decent alternative to ............................. ............................. ............................>>
I got the Clinton comment from your post. If you didnt say it then Im sorry.
What does Clinton have to do with the Republican party?
Loser candidates? The dems sure dont have the market on that .
It is telling how the Clintons , Gore or Kerry come up whenever the question is about Republicans. I guess Bush was right when he said he couldnt remember ever making a mistake. LOL
And I didnt run anyone. You have no idea what my party affiliation is. If you guess dem then you are wrong.:)
It was Raider who brought up Clinton, and opened the door for all of that. All I did was comment on his post. Too damned bad it doesn't suit you.
-
It's pretty simple really.. they are power hungry and self rightious... course... they are less so than the democrats... the real deal is...
Both Republicans and democrats want bigger government to control our lives more... the dems are just in a much bigger hurry.
There is no real alternative.. No man would vote for a democrat socialist..
What I do is.. If it is a close race... I work like hell to get the Republican in... If it is a landslide looking race in favor of the republican.... I vote for the libertarian..
Never vote for the democrat... no matter what he or she says.... when they get on the hill..... they will owe people... and the people they owe... have a socialist agenda... they will throw out anything they told ya and vote with the other socialist democrats..
I do kinda wonder why a canadian is so interested tho.... sorta like soros I guess... feel powerless and left out so want to have some effect on the most powerful country in the world... sorta.... pressing the old nose against the glass kinda thing...
When all is said and done tho...I am glad that you don't have a vote here nash...
Oh... and we all used to vote democrat... all the anti civil rights guys in the south did too... the democrats fought civil rights.... the Republicans have stayed the course.
lazs
-
(http://www.geocities.com/lip_gloss_gals/troll13.gif)
Please Don't Feed the Nash!!!!
-
Originally posted by Silat
And there you have it.
Another righty blaming the dems for it all.
I know, that is exactly the attitude I am talking about.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
It'll take 20 years to clean up after that 8 year Clinton clusterfudge.
Besides, the Democrats have become the party of crybabies who no longer have the guts to say what they really want to do. Their primary objective is to attempt to create scandals in hope of bringing down the Republicans rather than actually doing something worth while to get anyone to vote for them.
Perhaps you would be willing to expand on the clusterfudge in another thread??? I would like to know what you think he did that was so wrong, but dont want to hijack.
As for the second paragraph, you could throw republicans into that statement and get the exact same truth. Both parties suck.
McCain/Liberman would be hard to beat on a ticket. All i Know is whatever ticket hillary is on, I am going the other way.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Hey, he said it, I just acknowledged the fact that Clinton screwed the pooch. And Gore held it for him. Or maybe Hilary held it, and Gore lead the cheers from the Democratic peanut gallery.
Oh well, the truth hurts. Live with it. Get some real candidates besides the losers you guys run, and offer a decent alternative. Of course, I guess Kerry is what you would call a decent alternative to ............................. ............................. ............................. .
Dean:rolleyes:
Yeah I said it, and you gave a perfect example of what I was talking about. Blame everyone but your precious republicans. Who was it that said he would be a "uniter NOT a Divider?" oh yeah that's right, A republican president. Oh well, we are more divided now than we have ever been. Republican leadership lies right in the face of their Base and they ignore it. Charming how that works.
I do however agree Dems candidates seem to not have spines.
The republican party is about power and being in charge and they seem to have forgotten they used to be for responsible spending, smaller federal government, and a larger military.
Our leadership on both sides of the aisle has become polluted and we as the citizens encourage it by putting them back in office anyway. :lol :lol
-
The Republicans are the people who live most everywhere between New York and Los Angeles
-
I would probably vote straight Republican if it was the same party as the past. It's not. I now vote for whichever party stands to best balance the excesses of the other. In Illinois that tends to be Republican, since Daley wields power far beyond the city and I live too close to his zone of control.
Nationally, anybody but the current crop of neocon Republican posers. A moderate Republican, or moderate democrat with a solid libertarian base would be a god send.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Raider179
... Oh well, we are more divided now than we have ever been. ...
I heard about something that happened in the 1860's... some sort of angry feelings...
Gotta be careful about making statements like yours.
-
as of late you don't hear anything positive out of the democrats. All you hear is their hate speech.
-
Originally posted by Silat
And there you have it.
Another righty blaming the dems for it all.
Don't blame him... he's just bitter. If Clinton were allowed to run again, there's not a chance that Dubya could have beat him.
-
Thanks folks. I was reading something just previous to this post, and I wanted to take the temperature here. Your comments are much appreciated.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I heard about something that happened in the 1860's... some sort of angry feelings...
Gotta be careful about making statements like yours.
I know holden but I would like to have thought we as a people would have progressed to the point that a civil war would be unnecassary.
-
Its no longer about who is better, its about who is worse. And instead of touting their stengths they focus on the other parties "weaknesses". Instead of what "we" do, its become what "they" do. Sad when the only way you look good is by comparing yourself to another group that is just as bad. And that is how I feel every time Republicans justify their actions by throwing clintons name in.
-
charon.. not gonna happen the libertarian base thing... the powers that be have just gotten too big and their agenda of control over us is written in stone...
No way out for the republican or democrat hacks... You won;t get more libertarian leaning ones.. all you get is shades of each other.... repulicans that may be more socialist than other repulicans and democrats that may be more right wing than their fellows..
The only thing I notice is that the democrats are putting socialism on the express track... they are not "balance" they are simply a hive of worker bees all working toward total socialism and control..
Solution? a plague or bomb or catastrophe that kills about 10% or more of the population.... in the mean time? vote republican and slow the slide... move to an area of less population and hope the feds don't have time to bother with you.
lazs
-
IN!
Karaya
-
I can't say that I'm a Republican but I can damn sure say I'm not a Democrat.
I voted Democrat in my youth but as I got older I found the party to be out of touch with reality. They seem to be trying to live in a fantasy world that cannot possibly exist.
The Republicans seem to have their heads in the sand. They don't like change and they refuse to waver. The line in the sand is made and only God change move it.
I always try to vote for who I see is the best person. Not who is from what party.
Now it seems I have no choice but to vote Republican.
Hell I would even vote for Billary if I thought she would actually do the things she promises.
-
There's a really good book that describes the phenominon that Mighty1 is referring to. It's call "South Park Conservatives : The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias "
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260190/qid=1124726429/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-2938095-8590250?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
it's supposed to be an easy read and very "entertaining"
It's a basic premis that alot of people think: "I hate conservatives, but I REALLY fluff'n hate liberals"
It goes along with the chocolate sprinkles comment made earlier.
-
Book suggestion:
The Death of Right and Wrong. I found myself shaking my head in agreement to every chapter. This will explain to Nash and other liberals why we dislike the left moreso than the right. Written by a lefty lesbian liberal (Former NOW chapter president) that finally saw the light....
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Don't blame him... he's just bitter. If Clinton were allowed to run again, there's not a chance that Dubya could have beat him.
Thats true.
Hell its not so much Bush one, as the dems lost it.
Kerry was not a viable candidate.
-
move to an area of less population and hope the feds don't have time to bother with you.
That's on the horizon Lazs. My wife wants a bigger house, I want a bigger yard (you cant find those close to the city for under $500,000) and I want like hell to get out of Cook County. Within the year, perhaps. A bigger pain in the bellybutton where commuting is concerned, but so be it. Better human values and less materialism further from the North Shore, though the schools aren’t as good.
Daley, having failed to push though an "assault weapons ban" (if you are willing to look at true statistics you see what a non issue this class of weapon is) at the state level is now pushing one through for Cook County. Because of the way Cook County is structured 2/3 of the Cook County commissioners are Chicago Democrats, who are no more independent than any Chicago alderman. I live in one of the few Republican districts, but they have no power and typically just go along with d'mayor anyway. In essence, Daley has direct control of my life and I have no voting power in return where this unofficial "executive branch" is concerned.
Of course, now my $700 collector M1 Carbine will be considered an "assault weapon" because some bureaucrat arbitrarily added it to a list. We all know most criminals are looking to spend $700 to $1000 on poorly cancelable crime weapons that get ditched after use. The same with the Taurus pistol I have owned for over 10 years that now holds 2 mour rounds in the magazine than it should. There is no grandfather provision (sell, demil, or destroy within 90 days). Fortunately, I may be covered since my village already has less intrusive firearm ordinances that should preempt the county ban (but those living in uncorporated areas will be screwed). Still, I have already contacted several key commissioners to show my displeasure and I plan on making an outreach to the Chicago Tribune to try and present a mainstream gun owner perspective.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I agree with seeker right now.
Currently...and I do stress that....the Republican party lines up with most of my ideals in their agenda. I don't agree with them on everything.
Liberals/dems- I cannot bring myself to associate with the party that spat on war vets returning from veitnam. I just can't do it. I know I know not all feel this way but the hippies of the 60's are now the liberals of today. The anti-establishment anti-corporate nanny law making party of the left lines up with almost none of my IDEALs.
I vote right because I don't like the left. It's pretty sad...I agree.
I think the democratic party of the US is more in a shambles then the republicans.....they can't even agree on WHAT there message is let alone produce one.
I know this thread is about the right and not the left so I dont want to wander and start a hijack of Nash's troll but I think what I like most about the republican party is the basis of its agenda.
The laws they try to pass are mostly based on personal responsibility. Something I think is sorely lacking in today's America.
Gotta agree with this.I only liked the REpublicans because the Democrats couldnt put anyone up that didnt make Bush look like a genius.
-
Well now, didn't this degenerate rather quickly.
(like you weren't expecting that, Nash?)
Here's the deal people, and I'll do this wothout talking about the Lefticrats.
The Republican party is a group that somehow lost it's identity over the years. Prior to the Great Depression they were quit strong and held up the concept of this country being a Representative Republic, They were the Party of Lincoln, a party that supported freedom for all Americans.
After the GD, they were pretty much out of power and rightly so for their inaction in dealing with the coming economic crisis. FDR pretty much sowed up power for the Democrat Party in the 40's and except for the presidency the Reps never were able to gain ground in the Congress.
Then Nixon, who single handedly killed the party.
Then Reagon, who brought it somewhat back to life.
Then GHW Bush, who abandoned the Reagan philosophy and paid for it. (I really do not like this man, no, I dispize that man)
Then Clinton, who unwhittingly gave the party a much needed transfusion.
Then GW, The jury is still out on him.
OK, enough of the history lesson, the Rep. party has some issues. Yes they stand for a free market economy, lower taxation, personal responsibility, Family values and all that. BUT, the problem I have with them, and I'm a Republican so I can say this, is that we have a lot of ONE ISSUE members in this party that will not look at the BIG PICTURE. They harp on their one favorite issue and lose site of the other things that need to be accomplished. These folks are most prevelent in places like CA where they get trounced in the Legislative elections, sure we can win the Gov race but lose the legilature where the real power is.
Another problem I have is we nominate some really bad candidates.
Since Reagan we nominated:
GHW: sure he was VP but he was a traitor to the cause. He never really believed in the Reagan way and showed it. He deserved to get beat by Clinton
Bob Dole: If ever there was a political sacrafical lamb if was him. It would have been better to concede the election and save us all the money.
GW: Ok, so he won and got re-elected. But come on, your telling me there isn't anyone better that GW? This guy might be a good manager and all but as a orator and a motivator, well, he just SUCKS! 9/11 handed this guy the country on a silver platter, he should have been able to rally the whole country to his side and keep it there, yet we see it deviding.
The Republican party is not perfect. We have problems. We have some members with tunnel vision, some leader who are incompetant, and some that are damn good. The alternative in this day and age though, IMO, is unthinkable.
What we need is another Ronald Reagan, someone who can stand in front of the people and rally them to the cause. Defeat the retoric of the other side with skill and flair. Soneone who can play the part of President the way it is supposed to be.
That's why I say:
Fred Thompson for President!
-
Republicans will tell you its going to rain.Democrats will give you a 2 dollar Umbrella.Greenpeace will file suit for blocking the sun from the grass and the ACLU will defend them.
-
Originally posted by DrDea
Republicans will tell you its going to rain.Democrats will give you a 2 dollar Umbrella.Greenpeace will file suit for blocking the sun from the grass and the ACLU will defend them.
No they will give the umbrella to the homeless man after they take it away from you because they say you can afford to buy another one. You heartless winner in lifes lottery!
-
Originally posted by Nash
I wanna know what you think about it.
This is a troll, I guess. But I'm interested.
Is it still the same party that your dad voted for? Or does that even matter?
Do you like the state it's in? Do you like what it professes? Do you like what it actually does? Do you like where it's going?
I'll say straight out that I cannot comprehend the phenomenon. Shocking! :) And I won't change my mind based on what you say - so forget about that.
But I'd like to hear your best defense of it, because I find it so utterly beneath contempt, and lacking of any redeeming value whatsoever, that I strain at the notion that good men can knowingly leash themselves to the mast of a ship gone so astray.
To the one-liners, I simply say: "Hah hah."
To the rest of you, I value your insight.
Because I don't get it.
(and folks - lets be civil here, okay?)
I just wonder why folks here seem to think that you are
chained to a political philosophy simply because you support
one party over another.
Today it seems that being a moderate makes you either
Adolf or Ghandi to the party "leadership". I agree with some
of the Republican stances and disagree with a few others.
I do think it makes alot more sense to vote issues rather
than ideologies. Nash, you might want to examine the party
more closely than turn up your nose at a distance. Also realise
that US political parties are NOT designed for foreign opinions.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Nash, you might want to examine the party
more closely than turn up your nose at a distance.
You've got me confused with someone else.
-
Everyone Nash and Raider know voted for Kerry, HOOOWWWW could Bush have won?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Hey, he said it, I just acknowledged the fact that Clinton screwed the pooch. .
Just out of curiosity...what is it exactly that Clinton did?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I can remember the last democrat. Barack Obama DNC convention.
Obama is pretty amazing. I listen intently when he speaks. He actually says something.
-
charon... I think you are feeling the liberal pinch... I think a lot of people are... It doesn't matter if they are witty and have jon stewart... they are arrogant and intrusive a holes. They are like *****y gay men and women who judge you by your choice in shoes and how hip a cause is.
The liberals don't believe in personal responisbility and so they demonize and poke fun at anyone who does.
I think that the more control the liberals have over all thinks media and art... the more we know and hate them.
That and the whole "you can't have a gun and by the way... buckle up and wear your life jacket when you swim".... that whole thing is what makes a republican voter... not a republican... a republican voter... the fear that a liberal will have control over your life makes you vote republican..
nash and raider don't get this... they lash out at the republican voters as if they were republicans. Most of us are libertarians or anarchists like me...
nash and raider... we are republican voters because of you. We have no choice.. We don't want you or your ilk having any say in our lives.
lazs
-
The Republican Party
I wanna know what you think about it.
This is a troll, I guess. But I'm interested.
Is it still the same party that your dad voted for? Or does that even matter?
Do you like the state it's in? Do you like what it professes? Do you like what it actually does? Do you like where it's going?
I'll say straight out that I cannot comprehend the phenomenon. Shocking! And I won't change my mind based on what you say - so forget about that.
But I'd like to hear your best defense of it, because I find it so utterly beneath contempt, and lacking of any redeeming value whatsoever, that I strain at the notion that good men can knowingly leash themselves to the mast of a ship gone so astray.
To the one-liners, I simply say: "Hah hah."
To the rest of you, I value your insight.
Because I don't get it.
(and folks - lets be civil here, okay?)
__________________
nash
Nash, I agree your post is a troll, and the questions you ask are obviously posed from the perspective of one who believes he possesses the one and only truth.
Consider the following: Political parties are inevitable. They are here to stay. Political parties represent formalized groups who have organized for the purpose of taking the reigns of power in America by peaceful means, ie, without the use of violence.
Both the Democrat and Republican parties purport to have pretty much the same general goals for America (I use the word "purport, because the foremost goal of both Democrat and Republican party's leadership is actually to gain power). Where they differ is in the methods each party employs to reach those purported goals.
The reason that the two parties use different methods to reach the same general goals is because they have to pay off the voters who put them in power by furthering their voter's philosophies.
I have a glaring disagreement with you when you imply that we needn't ask these questions of the Democratic Party, only the Republican Party, as if the Democratic Party is not every bit as specious, amoral, and un-altruistic as the other political party. It is.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Everyone Nash and Raider know voted for Kerry, HOOOWWWW could Bush have won?
In case you didnt notice I live in GA. Hardly anyone I know voted for kerry. Bush won because fools like you listen to what he says instead of what his actions are.
-
Originally posted by SkyWolf
Just out of curiosity...what is it exactly that Clinton did?
More than Bush did, that's why it's everyone's fault but Bush's.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by lazs2
That and the whole "you can't have a gun and by the way... buckle up and wear your life jacket when you swim".... that whole thing is what makes a republican voter... not a republican... a republican voter... the fear that a liberal will have control over your life makes you vote republican..
nash and raider don't get this... they lash out at the republican voters as if they were republicans. Most of us are libertarians or anarchists like me...
nash and raider... we are republican voters because of you. We have no choice.. We don't want you or your ilk having any say in our lives.
lazs
Lazs you are the most close minded person I have ever "talked" to. I have never said you cant have a gun. That is just what you want to label me because it makes you feel your right. Have a gun, have 20 I don't care.
Your an anarchist? Christ, lazs you can not be serious...Now I do have insight into why your views are so extreme though. Do you really know what that means or are you just using the label to define yourself as anti-government to us? Also if your an anarchist, WTF are you doing voting? Anarchy does not believe in any government, Republican or Democrat so either your joking or you have no idea what anarchy is.
I voted for Kerry because of Iraq. You voted for bush because of me and Nash? :lol :lol :lol
Why does every issue come down to guns with you?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
In case you didnt notice I live in GA. Hardly anyone I know voted for kerry. Bush won because fools like you listen to what he says instead of what his actions are.
I think you have that backwards. He won because of his actions and Kerry lost because no one believed his BS.
As far as being a fool....well that may be true but I would rather be a fool and vote for Bush hoping he would actually pull off what he started than be an idiot and go with Kerry who had no plan other than being president.
-
Originally posted by Sakai
More than Bush did, that's why it's everyone's fault but Bush's.
Sakai
Wrong.
Bush's accomplishments:
http://www.calpoly.edu/~doleary/bushaccomplishments.htm
Now compare that first 4 years with Clinton's 8 years. Then tell your college professor who's brainwashing you to bug off.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
I think you have that backwards. He won because of his actions and Kerry lost because no one believed his BS.
As far as being a fool....well that may be true but I would rather be a fool and vote for Bush hoping he would actually pull off what he started than be an idiot and go with Kerry who had no plan other than being president.
No I dont have it backwards. Dems might have beat themselves by not offering a viable candidate. Bush is not pulling off 1 thing in Iraq, except getting Saddam. Everything else has gone to #%). Terrorists/Insurgent attacks in Iraq have only gone up since the elections, Gas is higher than any other time except the embargo, Iraq will not be a democracy, it will be a theocracy, They are not getting freedom. The fact that we haven't won Iraq decisively will hurt us a lot more than leaving Saddam in power would have. (speculation)
I still don't see how Kerry withdrawing all the troops would have been any different than Bush doing it in Iraq next year. Iraq will be a Civil War either way so why waste more american lives??? We should have got saddam, left, let them fight it out, and then went in and told the new "leadership" how it was gonna be or we would put them in a cell next to Saddam.
-
Both parties suck and anyone who doesnt realise that has serious comprehention skills.Bush just looked better because this time around,and last,the Democratic party couldnt put anyone up that didnt make him look like a genius.:eek:
-
Actually, figguring in inflation Oil will have to hit 90$ a barrel to match the last time it went sky high.Hmmmm......who was the president then again?
-
Both parties suck and anyone who doesnt realise that has serious comprehention skills.Bush just looked better because this time around,and last,the Democratic party couldnt put anyone up that didnt make him look like a genius.
Which was a pretty extraordinary failure for the Democrats.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Wrong.
Bush's accomplishments:
http://www.calpoly.edu/~doleary/bushaccomplishments.htm
Now compare that first 4 years with Clinton's 8 years. Then tell your college professor who's brainwashing you to bug off.
Hmmmm . . .
I see, so partisan hack agendas equate to actual accomplishments that benefit the nation? Oh my, if only we'd all received our talking points and little flags to wave!
Three years of economic failures equate to the greatest economic expansion in our history? Uhhhmmm . . . yeah.
Might also check what the topic was, Bin Laden:
Bush ignored Bin Laden when he came into office, period. Clinton was very high on Bin Laden as a problem. There is no explanation for Bush's failure to respond to the PDB except one:
arrogant incompetence.
No excuse for the outing of Valerie Plame except one:
Treason. For the sake of making yourself look good rather than be accountable. How proud we all should be. Wave your little flag.
He's the worst president the nation has ever had, that would be ever, and after his comment that ID should be taught on equal footing with biology, clearly the stupidest presdent we've ever had. Period. If you'd ever seen him dodge a question in public you'd know: he's an incompetenmt bumbler being led by the nose by his sycophantic cronies in the admin.
Your talking points and ability to google notwithstanding, you might address the actual issues the nation faces, not the RNC press releases.
Oh hey, and Tom Delay isn't a crook! Just like Nixon wasn't.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Charon
Which was a pretty extraordinary failure for the Democrats.
Charon
Agreed.
-
Originally posted by Sakai
If you'd ever seen him dodge a question in public you'd know: he's an incompetenmt bumbler being led by the nose by his sycophantic cronies in the admin.
Sakai
Hehe, I take it you are referring to his answer about "soveriegn nations" lol Pretty remarkable we elect a president who doesnt know what Soveriegn means.
-
Clinton was so concerned with Bin Laden that when he was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter, he declined. I know of at least one incident where covert ops forces could have taken out Bin Laden but Clinton declined. Bin Laden should have been dead before Bush ran for President, nevermind was elected.
Valerie Plame was outed during the Clinton administration by a spy, and was returned to the States for her own safety. At the time she was mentioned in the press, she drove to the CIA HQ every day in a Jag convertible (that's some deep cover for a CIA covert operative). The KGB knew who Plame was and what she did, as did most of the rest of the intelligence community, as far back as 1995. Plame was outed before Bush ran for President. I don't remember the name of the spy, but he's doing multiple life sentences, and Plame was on his list BY NAME as an active operative he outed to the Russians.
edit: I've read that both Ames and Hanssen outed Plame, it took a few minutes for me to remember.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Clinton was so concerned with Bin Laden that when he was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter, he declined.
edit: I've read that both Ames and Hanssen outed Plame, it took a few minutes for me to remember.
That's a convenient argument form today's perspective, but wholly unrealistic. At that time no one in intelligence perceived Bin Laden as the threat he is today, yet while Bin Laden was not perceived of as great a threat then as he is now, Clinton paid more attention to him than Bush did (well then Bush does since he refuses to discuss Bin Laden, you know we let Bin Laden escape in Tora Bora so where's your indignation there bubba?); Bush even ignoring arrogantly briefings on the subject.
I know it's a nice doidge ot say "it's all Clinton's fault" but tis argument leaves out too many fact about the why and where and when.
With Bush, he was given a briefing plainloy stating what they believed and he shelved it.
Clinton gave the go ahead to end Bin Laden and the admin and intelligence agencies bobbled the ball. But Clinton was trying when Bush was arrogantly ignoring, those are two vastly different takes on the same issue.
Bush is still ignoring Bin Laden, and still whistling past the graveyard. Oh, I forgot: Bin Laden is Iraq, right? Right!
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Clinton was so concerned with Bin Laden that when he was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter, he declined. I know of at least one incident where covert ops forces could have taken out Bin Laden but Clinton declined. Bin Laden should have been dead before Bush ran for President, nevermind was elected.
Valerie Plame was outed during the Clinton administration by a spy, and was returned to the States for her own safety. At the time she was mentioned in the press, she drove to the CIA HQ every day in a Jag convertible (that's some deep cover for a CIA covert operative). The KGB knew who Plame was and what she did, as did most of the rest of the intelligence community, as far back as 1995. Plame was outed before Bush ran for President. I don't remember the name of the spy, but he's doing multiple life sentences, and Plame was on his list BY NAME as an active operative he outed to the Russians.
edit: I've read that both Ames and Hanssen outed Plame, it took a few minutes for me to remember.
Obviously we should have killed OBL.
http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorintelligence/threatsand.html
Here is a link on everything Clinton/Bush did to try to get him. It paints neither in a good light. But Clinton tried everything from Kidnapping OBL,Saudi secretly getting Taliban to boot him out, Talking to Pakistan to get the Taliban to get him, Shooting cruise missiles at his camps, Using Predator drones to find OBL are just some of them.
"Although the Bush team took office only three months after the terrorist attack on the Cole, Mr. Bush's aides showed no more interest than their predecessors in the Clinton administration in launching a reprisal strike against Al Qaeda. Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, said that by the time the Bush administration was in place, the Cole attack had grown "stale," according to the commission."
lol So you have seen this "list of outed spies"? :lol :lol :lol
Link it please....
-
Originally posted by Sakai
Clinton was very high on Bin Laden as a problem.
Sakai
Don't let the facts get in your way (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/international/asia/17osama.html?ei=5065&en=8abb945bc6bab23d&ex=1124942400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)BTW...When do you graduate?
-
raider... how do you figure that an anarchist wouldn't vote? I would rather there was nothing to vote for but I live in a world of reality... I vote to stem the tide of big government socialism..Why is everything so black and white and one sided with you (to use your phrases) You seem to feel that if you are an anarchist that you have to be a total anarchist... if you vote republican then you have to be a republican but....
If you vote for tha loser, gun controling anti voucher womanly socialist big government psuedo science environmentalist tree hugger kerrie.... You are doing it because of the war in Iraq?
why can't we say that if you vote democrat that you believe in socialist government and are for massive gun control and bans?
No person in their right mind agrees with everything any political party bespouses but.... there are absolutely no ideals of the democratic party worth all the socialist control they dish out.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Raider179
No I dont have it backwards. Dems might have beat themselves by not offering a viable candidate. Bush is not pulling off 1 thing in Iraq, except getting Saddam. Everything else has gone to #%). Terrorists/Insurgent attacks in Iraq have only gone up since the elections, Gas is higher than any other time except the embargo, Iraq will not be a democracy, it will be a theocracy, They are not getting freedom. The fact that we haven't won Iraq decisively will hurt us a lot more than leaving Saddam in power would have. (speculation)
I still don't see how Kerry withdrawing all the troops would have been any different than Bush doing it in Iraq next year. Iraq will be a Civil War either way so why waste more american lives??? We should have got saddam, left, let them fight it out, and then went in and told the new "leadership" how it was gonna be or we would put them in a cell next to Saddam.
Not accompished anything in Iraq?
So the elections don't count? The people of Iraq deciding what kind of country they will have doesn't count?
Also what does the price of oil have to do with Iraq? I don't remember anyone from the Whitehouse saying we were going to Iraq to lower gas prices.
I'm not even going to get into the rest of your rant because quite honestly I don't think even God using the worlds largest chalk board to draw you pictures could make you understand.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
I'm not even going to get into the rest of your rant because quite honestly I don't think even God using the worlds largest chalk board to draw you pictures could make you understand.
ROFL!
true dat.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Valerie Plame was outed during the Clinton administration by a spy, and was returned to the States for her own safety. At the time she was mentioned in the press, she drove to the CIA HQ every day in a Jag convertible (that's some deep cover for a CIA covert operative). The KGB knew who Plame was and what she did, as did most of the rest of the intelligence community, as far back as 1995. Plame was outed before Bush ran for President. I don't remember the name of the spy, but he's doing multiple life sentences, and Plame was on his list BY NAME as an active operative he outed to the Russians.
edit: I've read that both Ames and Hanssen outed Plame, it took a few minutes for me to remember.
For someone covertly rideing a desk job for the 4 or 5 years prior to the Story getting national publicity,Id say it was a fortuitous time to bring a non issue up and play it to the choir.:lol
-
In my opinion the Republicans are the party of the rich. That is a good party to be, since even though most Americans aren't rich, ALL Americans want to be rich. So Republicans are popular for that simple reason.
Besides, it is much easier to rail about the evils of "welfare" than it is to explain the various kinds of "corporate welfare" that absolutely dwarf the amount of money "given" to poor people.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
raider... how do you figure that an anarchist wouldn't vote? I would rather there was nothing to vote for but I live in a world of reality... I vote to stem the tide of big government socialism..Why is everything so black and white and one sided with you (to use your phrases) You seem to feel that if you are an anarchist that you have to be a total anarchist... if you vote republican then you have to be a republican but....
If you vote for tha loser, gun controling anti voucher womanly socialist big government psuedo science environmentalist tree hugger kerrie.... You are doing it because of the war in Iraq?
why can't we say that if you vote democrat that you believe in socialist government and are for massive gun control and bans?
No person in their right mind agrees with everything any political party bespouses but.... there are absolutely no ideals of the democratic party worth all the socialist control they dish out.
lazs
There is no black and white with Anarchy. You can't "kind of" be for no government. You either don't want government or you do. By voting you show me that you do want some form of government. Therefore you are not an anarchist.
anarchy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. anarchies
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
Glad to know what you stand for now. You stand for nothing.
LMAO Lazs, the voting Anarchist. That is an oxy-moron. I thought I had seen it all. Anarchists are not a political party Lazs, they are the lack there-of. Therefore THEY DONT VOTE!
Yep didnt vote so much for Kerry as I voted against Bush for the mess in Iraq and the lies about WMD.
You are no anarchist and the fact that you think you are is laughable.
Anarchists also do not have political views, which you have some very strong ones and they don't all involve destruction of the government. For example, when did anarchists get concerned with vouchers?
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Not accompished anything in Iraq?
So the elections don't count? The people of Iraq deciding what kind of country they will have doesn't count?
Also what does the price of oil have to do with Iraq? I don't remember anyone from the Whitehouse saying we were going to Iraq to lower gas prices.
I'm not even going to get into the rest of your rant because quite honestly I don't think even God using the worlds largest chalk board to draw you pictures could make you understand.
Elections won't mean a damn thing when a civil war breaks out. Iraq deciding they want a theocracy, is not what we were told or what is still being spoon fed to us. THey are going to be Fundamentalist Islamics or they are going to have a civil war, either way I see it as a failure on our part and theirs.
You think oil had nothing to do with Iraq? Yeah God needs a chalkboard alright. but for you.
You wont go into the rest of my rant because you cant.
By all means have at it. But I see for you its easier to say someone is wrong and walk away than to explain how they are wrong. Ohhh you showed me. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
There's a really good book that describes the phenominon that Mighty1 is referring to. It's call "South Park Conservatives : The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias "
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260190/qid=1124726429/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-2938095-8590250?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
it's supposed to be an easy read and very "entertaining"
It's a basic premis that alot of people think: "I hate conservatives, but I REALLY fluff'n hate liberals"
It goes along with the chocolate sprinkles comment made earlier.
Try : "What's the matter with Kansas? How the conservatives won the heart of American"
by Thomas Frank
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805073396/102-4738328-5282551?v=glance
Tells the otherside of the coin. Tells why the conservatives are not after our best interests and have the mainstream republican hoodwinked.
"Drunk on tax cuts, favors for corporations and above all else, their undying lust for the culture wars most of us lost interest in years ago, conservatives have driven Middle America into a ditch."
-
Raider...actually, he's right but for the wrong reasons.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Clinton was so concerned with Bin Laden that when he was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter, he declined. I know of at least one incident where covert ops forces could have taken out Bin Laden but Clinton declined. Bin Laden should have been dead before Bush ran for President, nevermind was elected.
You need to remember that before 9/11 it was unthinkable, to BOTH parties, to go around asassinating people or attacking other countries.
Different time... different mindset. Comparisons are not apples to apples.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Not accompished anything in Iraq?
So the elections don't count? The people of Iraq deciding what kind of country they will have doesn't count?
No.. it doesn't. I hasn't accomplished, nor will it accomplish, a thing. The Middle East is, for the most part, an extremist poop hole and they will continue to do what they have done for years.
Also what does the price of oil have to do with Iraq? I don't remember anyone from the Whitehouse saying we were going to Iraq to lower gas prices.
No... going to war for oil doesn't mean you get lower gas prices. No one gives a poop about you. It means companies with "connections" get contracts to "help" with the removal of oil from the ground. These companies make lots of money. You don't.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
LMAO Lazs, the voting Anarchist. That is an oxy-moron. I thought I had seen it all.
Actually, it's Lazs the Voting Anarachist Whose Paychecks are Signed by the Government.
A small clarification, but an amusing one nonetheless.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Actually, it's Lazs the Voting Anarachist Whose Paychecks are Signed by the Government.
A small clarification, but an amusing one nonetheless.
LMAO your kidding me.... He is employed by the feds? Lazs you are one mystery after another. lo Thats sig material if I have ever seen it lol
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Why does every issue come down to guns with you?
Not to answer for Laz but that is really one of those questions that if it has to be explained alot of folks wont understand.
For me its a privelage and a way of life. Some people just dont get that its that way for alot of people. The Liberals are wanting to take that away every waking moment of their life.
-
Originally posted by Wolf14
Not to answer for Laz but that is really one of those questions that if it has to be explained alot of folks wont understand.
For me its a privelage and a way of life. Some people just dont get that its that way for alot of people. The Liberals are wanting to take that away every waking moment of their life.
yeah but any thread usually comes down to it with him. Vouchers, liberals, republicans, Iraq, whatever.
It doesn't have to be explained, its plainly clear he is paranoid beyond belief. Guns are not leaving this country, There are WAY WAY too many of them. Relax and take a deep breath and worry about bigger issues.
-
Give them an inch and they will take a mile. Give them nothing and we will lose nothing.
I dont think Laz is paranoid at all. The big issues are little issues that will work out in the wash. Guns are a big issues and one that is under constant preasure to be taken out of the hands of the law-abiding folks of this nation.
-
Originally posted by Wolf14
Give them an inch and they will take a mile. Give them nothing and we will lose nothing.
I dont think Laz is paranoid at all. The big issues are little issues that will work out in the wash. Guns are a big issues and one that is under constant preasure to be taken out of the hands of the law-abiding folks of this nation.
Ok simple rundown then
To get rid of guns you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.
That involves doing the following...
2/3 of each of two houses of Congress have to submit the proposed change in the 2nd amendment to the states.
3/4 of states would then need to ratify the proposal.
I don't see that happening anytime soon and if it does it will require BOTH parties to do so. Like I said Relax it aint happening.
-
Lazs is employed by a local government, not the feds. And he doesn't have much choice of employers, as his industry was taken over by government monopolies long ago.
-
Thanks for reminding everyone that Lazs is a Voting Anarchist Whose Paychecks are Signed by the Government.
-
Raider, the scenario you're describing would probably be impossible, true. It would be much too bold and wouldn't make it very far.
On the other hand, if by legislating a little at a time you were to slowly make the process of purchase, ownership and "consumption" impractical due to cost, red tape, or availability...it's a good as done.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Raider, the scenario you're describing would probably be impossible, true. It would be much too bold and wouldn't make it very far.
On the other hand, if by legislating a little at a time you were to slowly make the process of purchase, ownership and "consumption" impractical due to cost, red tape, or availability...it's a good as done.
yup don't forget making gun manufacturers liable for their missuse. The lefts lawyer machine can sue them out of existance.
You don't have to repeal the second amendment just chip away at it little by little. Other rights are eroded all the time.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Raider, the scenario you're describing would probably be impossible, true. It would be much too bold and wouldn't make it very far.
On the other hand, if by legislating a little at a time you were to slowly make the process of purchase, ownership and "consumption" impractical due to cost, red tape, or availability...it's a good as done.
There is no legislating a little at a time. Laws are not gonna get much stricter than they are now. Eventually the supreme court would step in and say woah, this is unconstitutional. Its all about checks and balances. And like I said its not gonna happen so wasting so much energy and time defending it or making it the point in every topic is ridiculous and uninformed.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yup don't forget making gun manufacturers liable for their missuse. The lefts lawyer machine can sue them out of existance.
You don't have to repeal the second amendment just chip away at it little by little. Other rights are eroded all the time.
I'm sorry, maybe I missed something. But the Law that got passed was to SHIELD GUN MANUFACTURERS from lawsuits not make them liable. Not to mention the non renewal on assault weapons. Seems like gun laws are going the other way not being chipped at.
Like I said its paranoia.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
There is no legislating a little at a time. Laws are not gonna get much stricter than they are now. Eventually the supreme court would step in and say woah, this is unconstitutional. Its all about checks and balances. And like I said its not gonna happen so wasting so much energy and time defending it or making it the point in every topic is ridiculous and uninformed.
Where did you get your crystal ball at? I'd like to get one.
-
Making it the topic in every issue is silly. Denying the possibility of it happening bit by bit is also silly. It's been happening for years.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Where did you get your crystal ball at? I'd like to get one.
Hehe no crystal ball here. A fifth of Jack and the truth is clear. lol :)
-
Originally posted by VOR
Making it the topic in every issue is silly. Denying the possibility of it happening bit by bit is also silly. It's been happening for years.
Not positive but I believe the last legislation that got passed that took away from gun ownership was the Brady Bill. And that was what a 5 day waiting period on handguns and a background check? Hardly unreasonable. Not too mention 11 years ago. Since then Assault weapons ban has been non-renewed and Gun manufactures have gotten legislative protection against law suits. Seems like gun owners are winning that fight not losing it.
-
Agreed, they're winning for now.
-
Yes for now.......
Its the later I'm worried about.
-
Hmm.. interesting... I suppose I should have said that i have anarcist/libertarian/republican leanings with allmost no democrat or peace and freedom leanings.
none of us are true to the parties we support.. that is as it should be. an anarchist or libertarian would have no problem being paid by locals for doing local work. In my job I compete for a contract like everyone else... anyone who gets the contract would be paid by the city.
gun rights can be effectively nullified without ever touching the second... or.... more accurately ... without any clarification from the supreme court... it started with the effective removal of machine guns, silencers and short shottguns by the tgovernment by a huge financial and paperwork burden on them... this was an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.. in the miller case (sawed off shotgun) in the 30's... the supreme court judged that the government had no right to infringe at all... the feds appealed and miller (a dirt poor moonshiner 1000 miles away) and his lawyer (a pro bonno guy with financial problems) did not even bother to show... this set the precedent that any and all restrictions were not "infringing" on your right to own weapons...
it is only getting worse and the democrats are on a fast track. Why are guns that are effective for a militia banned? why are the soldiers that used them in a standing army banned from owning them as a part of the militia? Is this not against the 2nd?
raider... are yu saying that you see no anti gun rights agenda in the democratic party?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Hmm.. interesting... I suppose I should have said that i have anarcist/libertarian/republican leanings with allmost no democrat or peace and freedom leanings.
none of us are true to the parties we support.. that is as it should be. an anarchist or libertarian would have no problem being paid by locals for doing local work. In my job I compete for a contract like everyone else... anyone who gets the contract would be paid by the city.
gun rights can be effectively nullified without ever touching the second... or.... more accurately ... without any clarification from the supreme court... it started with the effective removal of machine guns, silencers and short shottguns by the tgovernment by a huge financial and paperwork burden on them... this was an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.. in the miller case (sawed off shotgun) in the 30's... the supreme court judged that the government had no right to infringe at all... the feds appealed and miller (a dirt poor moonshiner 1000 miles away) and his lawyer (a pro bonno guy with financial problems) did not even bother to show... this set the precedent that any and all restrictions were not "infringing" on your right to own weapons...
it is only getting worse and the democrats are on a fast track. Why are guns that are effective for a militia banned? why are the soldiers that used them in a standing army banned from owning them as a part of the militia? Is this not against the 2nd?
raider... are yu saying that you see no anti gun rights agenda in the democratic party?
lazs
Yeah, you kinda did just say "an anarchist like me". that doesnt leave a whole lot of room to manuever. The fact that you receive a paycheck from a government, any government disavows you from anarchy. You can say your one, but your gonna get laughed at everytime, especially when they find out you vote. lol
Anarchism is not a party. It is the lack there of. It's not comparible to Repubs,Dems,Libs because it is the opposite of all of them.
Like I pointed out antigun legislation hasnt had anything since Brady Bill and that was 11 years ago. Since then Assault weapons ban and protection for manufacturers has passed. Seems like guns are winning so relax.
As for bringing the constitution into it, you do know that in 1770's they didnt have "short-barreled shotguns, machine guns and silencers" So to say that those rights are protected is a little bit of a stretch. For all we know the founders figured fire-arms wouldnt get much more powerful than they were. I seriously doubt our founding fathers want us walking around with Grenade launchers and rpgs and machine guns. That kinda sounds like Iraq/Afghanistan not America.
Some parts of the Constitution are outdated, including the need for a militia. The national guard fills that role effectively.
No, I will admit some of the Dems do seem to be anti-gun , but I have yet to see 1 amendment that got serious consideration for outright Banning them.
Do you believe that there should be absolutely "no restrictions" on the purchase of fire-arms of any type? Should a 12 year old be able to go buy a MG if he wants? After all 2nd amendment doesnt say Adults....
well maybe if that shotgun owner had been more responsible in the 30's and shown up in court, you would be able to own them, but I doubt it.
Also, cant you own any fire-arm you want as long as you get a "collectors" license? That hardly seems unreasonable if you want to own some heavy firepower.
-
As for bringing the constitution into it, you do know that in 1770's they didnt have "short-barreled shotguns, machine guns and silencers" So to say that those rights are protected is a little bit of a stretch. For all we know the founders figured fire-arms wouldnt get much more powerful than they were. I seriously doubt our founding fathers want us walking around with Grenade launchers and rpgs and machine guns. That kinda sounds like Iraq/Afghanistan not America.
From a letter to the editor I am sending out today regarding more AWB attempts in Illinois. I may post it in a new thread to avoid a hijack and get some feedback. Probably just get another same old same old though :)
A fundamental misconception being used to confuse the general public about assault rifles and split the shooting community, is the implication that a weapon’s usefulness for hunting or sporting is somehow relevant to the 2nd Amendment. Individual firearm ownership revolves around the basic premise that the average person may be required to stand up to a tyrannical government, just like our founding fathers did against British rule. In the age of tanks and air strikes it may be more symbolic than practical today (though maybe not, given the trouble caused by the insurgents in Iraq), but it is important symbolism none the less. The 2nd Amendment also provides for our individual ability to protect ourselves from immediate, violent crime. A call to 911 is, of course, the best policy, but it helps to be alive when the police finally arrive. Ironically, you will find that many strong political opponents of the 2nd Amendment ensure they have the protection of firearms, either through special exemptions or armed security that their constituents are denied.
By the way, anyone who strongly believes that a “well regulated militia” is an organization like the National Guard is out of touch with a recent 103-page report by the Department of Justice. By looking at how the term militia was commonly used during our founding, it became clear that all individual white males (by extension, that now includes all races and genders) were encouraged to own and be at least somewhat proficient with a firearm. And assault weapons, frankly, are the modern extension of the type of weapon the founding fathers had in mind.
-
The problem Raider, is that there is no middle ground. If my rights were broadly and clearly assured to be comparable to, say, to those in Arizona today, I could support general regulation that would require some degree of training to get a personal license to own firearms. Even some additonal training to allow for Class III weapons while making the tax cheaper and opening up impostrs and new sales. Nothing that would register specific guns though, since that is the first tool used in confiscation.
However, the anti 2nd Amendment people are not moderate. They are pushing for as close to a total ban as possible, and any moderate concessions are just the foundation for more restrictions. Assault rifles made up less than 1 percent of homicides before the 1994 ban, so why demonize them? Simple, they are low hanging fruit. Most gun owners don't own them, so they can divide the shooting community by promising not to touch those semi automatic hunting rifles and automatic and pump 12-gauge shotguns (at least not today....) and it's easy to scare the public. Once assault weapons are out of the way it's on to the next until your choices are Airsoft bb guns, black powder muzzleloaders or hunting bows, and 20-gauge double barreled shotguns with only bird shot for ammo. I don't think I'm really being paranoid here where Feinstein, Daley and Sarah Brady are concerned.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
From a letter to the editor I am sending out today regarding more AWB attempts in Illinois. I may post it in a new thread to avoid a hijack and get some feedback. Probably just get another same old same old though :)
"And assault weapons, frankly, are the modern extension of the type of weapon the founding fathers had in mind."
Pure speculation on your part.
I can't even fathom a militia getting together and attacking the hypothetical "tyrannical" government, much less having a chance of victory. Lets face it, you can have all the MGs, Shotguns, and sniper rifles you want, but you are not gonna win in a struggle vs. the US Government.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Key word being "regulated".
-
Originally posted by Charon
The problem Raider, is that there is no middle ground. If my rights were broadly and clearly assured to be comparable to, say, to those in Arizona today, I could support general regulation that would require some degree of training to get a personal license to own firearms. Even some additonal training to allow for Class III weapons while making the tax cheaper and opening up impostrs and new sales. Nothing that would register specific guns though, since that is the first tool used in confiscation.
However, the anti 2nd Amendment people are not moderate. They are pushing for as close to a total ban as possible, and any moderate concessions are just the foundation for more restrictions. Assault rifles made up less than 1 percent of homicides before the 1994 ban, so why demonize them? Simple, they are low hanging fruit. Most gun owners don't own them, so they can divide the shooting community by promising not to touch those semi automatic hunting rifles and automatic and pump 12-gauge shotguns (at least not today....) and it's easy to scare the public. Once assault weapons are out of the way it's on to the next until your choices are Airsoft bb guns, black powder muzzleloaders or hunting bows, and 20-gauge double barreled shotguns with only bird shot for ammo. I don't think I'm really being paranoid here where Feinstein, Daley and Sarah Brady are concerned.
Charon
The Ban didnt get renewed. Another victory for guns. I am sorry I don't see the threat to fire-arms.
So you believe in Regulating/licensing guns but not registrtation? What about background checks? What about the people on terrorist watch lists? Would that be part of the licensing process?
Yeah the anti-2nd are some extremists but luckily they are few in number and they can't pass bills/laws without help from more "moderate" senators/representatives. Like I said to repeal the 2nd would be next to impossible.
Assault weapons were "already out of the way" and nothing of the sort you mention occured.
As for why they are/were banned, you have to draw the line somewhere.
Do you think an individual should be able to own Gatling Guns?
It is paranoia. The NRA has enough members and lobbyist to keep you guys in guns for a long time. So relax, they aren't going anywhere.
-
Yeah, you kinda did just say "an anarchist like me". that doesnt leave a whole lot of room to manuever. The fact that you receive a paycheck from a government, any government disavows you from anarchy. You can say your one, but your gonna get laughed at everytime, especially when they find out you vote. lol
I dont see where drawing a paycheck negates anyones personal beliefs.The only option to that is just senceless.Give up a paycheck just to prove a point?Sure Im going to let my family starve and live under a bridge just so I dont have to take well earned $ from "The Man" Thats just idiotic.One can have beliefs and still work with those that they oppose.
-
Originally posted by DrDea
I dont see where drawing a paycheck negates anyones personal beliefs.The only option to that is just senceless.Give up a paycheck just to prove a point?Sure Im going to let my family starve and live under a bridge just so I dont have to take well earned $ from "The Man" Thats just idiotic.One can have beliefs and still work with those that they oppose.
It's like a black guy working for the KKK. Or a Jew who is a Nazi. It's too extremely opposite viewpoints. But he clarified what he said, so let it drop. I also disagree that Lasz only has 1 skill and this is his "only option".
So your saying Lasz is willing to take money to go against what he believes in? I highly doubt that.
-
So your saying Lasz is willing to take money to go against what he believes in? I highly doubt that.
Nope.Im saying that being more of a Liberterian,if the only job in town was to answer phones at the GOP convention ticket office Id do it.Doesnt mean I support em,just that staying alive is much more important than being a knothead.
-
Originally posted by DrDea
Nope.Im saying that being more of a Liberterian,if the only job in town was to answer phones at the GOP convention ticket office Id do it.Doesnt mean I support em,just that staying alive is much more important than being a knothead.
Look, being a libertarian and answering GOP phones is not the same as being an anarchist and employed by the Government. THEY ARE COMPLETE OPPOSITES. One is a government employee and the other would like to destroy the government, not help it grow. You guys keep comparing things that have nothing to do with the situation. Lasz is not really getting involved in this conversation though so I don't see the point in continuing it. He said he may have mispoke so lets just leave it be.
-
The Ban didnt get renewed. Another victory for guns. I am sorry I don't see the threat to fire-arms.
An AWB just narrowly missed passing this year in Illinois. It will be brought up next year. There will be an expansion of the Cook County ban in a month (unincorporated areas). In some states it is a continual process. I live in one of those states. If I lived 20 miles north I would have dramatically different individual rights as an American.
So you believe in Regulating/licensing guns but not registrtation? What about background checks? What about the people on terrorist watch lists? Would that be part of the licensing process?
I don’t have a problem with regulating and licensing gun owners. Some people shouldn't own guns -- felons, mentally infirm, under age -- and I would personally expand it (if all else were protected) to required gun education for those who do not grow up around fireams and who have not been in the military. You could test out if you already owned guns. There are certainly those who would disagree, but I have no problem with that.
The issue with registering the firearms themselves, is that if the government does come for them they know exactly what to look for and what to take. (like they have done in NY and NJ I believe after requiring registration for legal types of firearms then making them illegal)
Yeah the anti-2nd are some extremists but luckily they are few in number and they can't pass bills/laws without help from more "moderate" senators/representatives. Like I said to repeal the 2nd would be next to impossible.
Just like it's impossible to imagine the massive support of the people and legislators for a war that could be anything but proper? As many people support a ban on assault weapons (percentage wise) as believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. The process that got those opinion to that point are based on much the same type of media campaign and selective use of information for people who, in many cases, don't care about firearms in general and don’t care all that much to dig for details. Around here, a state rep just circulated a petition claiming that a .50 caliber Barrett rifle was a .50 caliber machine gun, and that an "assault rifle" was a m240 machine gun (text and pictures). The Chicago police commissioner recently stated that assault weapons can "empty a 30 round magazine with a couple of pulls on the trigger...” There are NUMEROUS similar statements, hype, hyperbola etc. that are not grounded in fact but that are pumped out and eaten up like gospel. Assault weapons were called "the weapon of choice" among criminals before the 94 ban when in fact they were used in gun crime at about 3 percent and in homicides at a rate less than 1 percent.
As for why they are/were banned, you have to draw the line somewhere.
How about drawing that line at reality? It would make more sense to ban hunting rifles. In 1993 in Chicago you were 67 times more likely to be beaten or stabbed to death than killed with an assault rifle.
Pure speculation on your part.
I can't even fathom a militia getting together and attacking the hypothetical "tyrannical" government, much less having a chance of victory. Lets face it, you can have all the MGs, Shotguns, and sniper rifles you want, but you are not gonna win in a struggle vs. the US Government.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Key word being "regulated."
The weapons our founding fathers used to fight the British were the equal or superior to their Brown Bess military issue muskets. Why would they put in a right for this purpose and not expect us to be armed with appropriate rifles as technology marched on? Also, the Iraqi insurgents seem to be doing pretty well on the cheap. Regardless, it is also a symbolic right at least suggesting that we are free to achieve our individual destiny in the face of tyranny. Here's what the DOJ has to say about militias:
The Militia Clauses therefore suggest that the Second Amendment, to the extent that it furthers the States' authority to maintain organized militias, does so indirectly, as we discussed in the previous subpart (II.C.2&3), by ensuring the minimum of a "well regulated Militia" - that the States' people, the pool for the citizen militia, would continue to be able to keep and to bear their private arms, having them ready and being familiar with them. Thus the Militia Clauses, along with the structure of the Bill of Rights and the preface of the Second Amendment, all support the personal, individual right to keep and bear arms that the Amendment's operative text sets out.
Charon
-
raider... you are making too much of it... I am simply more of an anarchist or libertarian than anything else... I want no government but will work toward getting less and less of it. If that means I have to vote to get less government then so be it...
As for the second... you seriously do not understand it.. a militia is needed to defend the country from tyranny from within and without... not having modern weapons (being well regulated) would make it useless well regulated meant being well equipped when the amendment was written. It was expected that the militia man would have modern weapons in good repair.
My (and most everyone elses) voting for republicans has indeed turned back the tide of the democrat party gun grabbing/banning agenda... and agenda shared by 90% or better of the democrat representitives that vote as evidenced by the protection of gun manufacturers bill just passed and the allowing of the assault and magazine ban to lapse.... if we had elected kerrie..... we would not have had these things happen.... we would have had even more restrictions instead.
The only restrictions I would put on guns would be sanity and maturity. I have no problem with a machine gun in every closet... we would not be the first country to do so.. My right to bear arms is constantly under attack by democrats.... in Kalifornia I am restricted in how I bear them all the time... some cities seek to ban them altogether.... these are not republicans seeking these restrictions or bans.
Try driving across country with a loaded pistol and AK47 on the seat or in the rifle rack if you think that the democrats aren't really hurting our right to keep and bear arms.
lazs
-
This is turning into a 2nd amendment hijack and I'm certainly participating, but one final point. Raider, this is some of the stuff legal gun owners have to put up with in some states where guns are a political issue. It is not at all that uncommon. CNS News isn't my first choice as a source, but this is just a telling of a factual incident, not editorial.
ATF, Virginia Police Accused of 'Persecuting' Gun Shows
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 23, 2005
(CNSNews.com) - The federal agency that regulates U.S. gun dealers stands accused, along with at least three Virginia law enforcement agencies, of trying to shut down legal gun shows through alleged intimidation of gun buyers and sellers. The law enforcement organizations also allegedly broke the law by sharing gun buyers' information with members of the public.
Annette Gelles, owner of gun show sponsor Showmasters.us, told Cybercast News Service that at least 30 agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) along with nearly 500 Virginia State Police, Henrico County Police and Richmond City Police officers were assigned to the ATF operation targeting her gun show on Aug. 13 and 14 at the Richmond International Raceway and Fairground Complex, outside Richmond, Va.
Gelles said four marked police cars were stationed at the main entrance to the raceway parking lot and more than 50 marked and unlabeled but obvious law enforcement vehicles were positioned just outside the public entrance to the building. The officers' presence, Gelles said, was intended to intimidate her customers.
"It's just a persecution thing. It's not really an attempt to solve crimes or stop them," Gelles said. "It's their way of trying to get rid of gun shows. That's the only way you can explain that large a police presence at the gun shows."
Gelles said ATF Resident Agent in Charge Brian Swann told her that the officers were part of a "Virginia State Police, ATF task force" and represented the "same amount of force that we've used in all the shows." The only difference in Gelles' case, Swann told her, was that the command post was established at the site of her gun show.
Virginia State Police (VSP) spokeswoman Corinne Geller told Cybercast News Service that her agency does participate in a task force with ATF and other Virginia law enforcement agencies. As part of the agreement that created the task force, Geller said, VSP agreed to refer questions regarding its operations to ATF.
Richmond Police spokeswoman Kirsten Nelson e-mailed her response to questions about the apparent sting operation.
"I have done some checking and as I said on the phone, the gun show was not in our jurisdiction," Nelson wrote, "so I have no record of our officers' participation."
Gelles said the participation of Richmond Police officers in the
operation has already been documented, by Richmond Police officers.
"My own Richmond City Police officers that are there, that I hire for my security purposes, told me that they saw 14 (Richmond City Police officers) on Saturday in plain clothes," Gelles said.
Lt. Doug Perry with Henrico County Police acknowledged that his department's officers took part in the operation, but he would not say how many participated.
"We wouldn't normally release that anyway. That's part of our operational plan, the number of officers involved," Perry said. "We're not on overtime when we're doing that so it wouldn't be public information."
One gun show exhibitor said he counted 72 uniformed and plainclothes officers and agents in and around the vehicles near the entrance to the building. Gelles claimed that an unidentified officer tried to stop the exhibitor from counting the number of law enforcement personnel present, but walked away when the exhibitor refused.
While normal attendance at her two-day show is nearly 4,000, Gelles said she attracted approximately 2,300 the weekend of Aug. 13 and 14, costing Showmasters.us more than $7,000.
'There's no way that's legal'
"They did something else, which is highly illegal," Gelles charged. "They did something called a residency check."
Gelles explained that, when gun dealers took the paperwork to the Virginia State Police on-site office to complete the background checks on prospective buyers, ATF agents copied the names, home addresses and telephone numbers of the applicants.
Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, told Cybercast News Service that he has received numerous complaints alleging that as handgun buyers were waiting for their National Instant Check System (NICS) background investigations to be completed, ATF was secretly conducting the so-called "residency checks."
According to the complaints he received, Van Cleave said officers were dispatched to the homes of the prospective gun buyers to speak with family members, asking for example: "Gee, did you know your husband was going to a gun show today? Do you have his cell phone number? Did you know he was buying a gun?
"If people weren't home they, in some cases, went to neighbors" to ask the same questions, Van Cleave said.
"I'm not an attorney but, I'll tell you what, in my opinion that would be a violation of federal law," Van Cleave said. "To go off on a fishing trip with that information, much less sharing information like that with neighbors, there's no way that's legal."
Title 18 Section 923 of the U.S. Code concerns the licensing of gun dealers and appears to support Van Cleave's position. It contains the following restrictions on the information collected during the process of a gun purchase:
"(g)(3)(B) Except in the case of forms and contents thereof regarding a purchaser who is prohibited by [federal law] from receipt of a firearm, the department of State police or State law enforcement agency or local law enforcement agency of the local jurisdiction shall not disclose any such form or the contents thereof to any person or entity, and shall destroy each such form and any record of the contents thereof no more than 20 days from the date such form is received."
VSP's Geller could not comment on the "residency checks," but said the ATF did not get gun buyers' addresses from her agency. "I can assure you, they weren't getting it from our records," Geller said, "because we don't take addresses."
In fact, the "Department of State Police - Virginia Firearms
Transaction Record" form asks for the purchaser's name, date of birth, Social Security or driver's license number and citizenship status. No other identifying information, such as addresses or telephone numbers is requested.
But ATF Form 4473, the "Firearms Transaction Record Part I -
Over-The-Counter," does request the purchaser's address. Those forms are kept together as part of a "buyer's packet" when the VSP form is submitted for the NICS check.
Erich Pratt, communications director for Gun Owners of America (GOA), told Cybercast News Service that these types of allegations against ATF are exactly why GOA members opposed the NICS background check when it was initially proposed.
"Whenever you force good people to jump through hoops before they exercise their rights, you give rogue bureaucrats a chance to harass decent citizens," Pratt said.
"We have a Bill of Rights because government does not always act in our best interest," he continued. "Rather than being spied upon, the American people should be the ones questioning family members and neighbors - not of gun owners - but of these rogue bureaucrats."
ATF agent allegedly 'got quite rude' with gun show customer
James Lalime, who works part time for a gun dealer, was attending the Richmond show on his own. He had brought two firearms and part of a third from his personal collection to offer for sale at the show, which is legal and does not require a federal firearms license (FFL) or local business license.
Lalime claims a man approached him and verbally identified himself as an ATF agent but did not show his credentials or badge.
"He was accusing me of running a business and telling me that I needed to get a business license if I was going to sell firearms," Lalime charged.
The agent allegedly had state police check Lalime's driver's license and learned that it was suspended. He said he was placed in the back of a police car and questioned by the agent while the suspension was investigated.
"He kept asking me all kinds of questions: 'How often do you buy guns? When do you buy guns? When was the last time you bought a gun? How many guns did you buy the last time you bought guns?'" Lalime continued. "All that is irrelevant and I told him that. I said, 'That's my personal business.'"
Lalime was released when it was learned that his license was valid and the alleged suspension was caused by a computer error. He went back into the gun show and told Gelles about the encounter and she suggested that Lalime get the agent's name.
When he found the agent, who identified himself as Special Agent Brian McComas, Lalime claims McComas tried to intimidate him.
Cont.
-
"He said, 'You know you're making a big deal about nothing,' and I said, 'No sir, I am not,'" Lalime explained. "Then he got right in my face, almost touching his chest to mine, in real threatening posture, and said, 'You're making a real big mistake.'"
Lalime claims Swann interrupted the confrontation and the two federal officers walked away. "Once I got over the initial shock, it really made me angry," Lalime said.
ATF is 'out of the residency check business'
Gelles and her attorneys were in Washington, D.C., Aug. 15 to meet with ATF officials and seek an explanation for what happened over the weekend. After talking with several people in the ATF headquarters, Gelles said she finally spoke with a supervisor, whom she would not identify, who assured her that ATF "is out of the residency check business, effective immediately."
She was hesitant to give further details about the meeting in the event that a lawsuit is filed over the agency's actions.
In addition to the $7,000 she said she lost from reduced attendance at the show, Gelles added that she has already spent more than $12,000 in legal fees trying to prevent a repeat of the ATF operation of Aug. 13 and 14 and other previous incidents of what she considers improper agency behavior.
Van Cleave said his groups will be "watching in Virginia with a microscope to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again.
"If they do it again, we'll get active in contacting the ATF, the police and the media," Van Cleave warned. "If they break their word on this and start this crap again, then we will be in touch with the media."
After more than a half-dozen calls by Cybercast News Service seeking comment for this article, an ATF spokesman said the agency was "still gathering information" about the events of Aug. 13 and 14 and would not be able to comment until sometime on Tuesday.
-
Originally posted by Charon
An AWB just narrowly missed passing this year in Illinois. It will be brought up next year. There will be an expansion of the Cook County ban in a month (unincorporated areas). In some states it is a continual process. I live in one of those states. If I lived 20 miles north I would have dramatically different individual rights as an American.
I don’t have a problem with regulating and licensing gun owners. Some people shouldn't own guns -- felons, mentally infirm, under age -- and I would personally expand it (if all else were protected) to required gun education for those who do not grow up around fireams and who have not been in the military. You could test out if you already owned guns. There are certainly those who would disagree, but I have no problem with that.
The issue with registering the firearms themselves, is that if the government does come for them they know exactly what to look for and what to take. (like they have done in NY and NJ I believe after requiring registration for legal types of firearms then making them illegal)
Just like it's impossible to imagine the massive support of the people and legislators for a war that could be anything but proper? As many people support a ban on assault weapons (percentage wise) as believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. The process that got those opinion to that point are based on much the same type of media campaign and selective use of information for people who, in many cases, don't care about firearms in general and don’t care all that much to dig for details. Around here, a state rep just circulated a petition claiming that a .50 caliber Barrett rifle was a .50 caliber machine gun, and that an "assault rifle" was a m240 machine gun (text and pictures). The Chicago police commissioner recently stated that assault weapons can "empty a 30 round magazine with a couple of pulls on the trigger...” There are NUMEROUS similar statements, hype, hyperbola etc. that are not grounded in fact but that are pumped out and eaten up like gospel. Assault weapons were called "the weapon of choice" among criminals before the 94 ban when in fact they were used in gun crime at about 3 percent and in homicides at a rate less than 1 percent.
How about drawing that line at reality? It would make more sense to ban hunting rifles. In 1993 in Chicago you were 67 times more likely to be beaten or stabbed to death than killed with an assault rifle.
The weapons our founding fathers used to fight the British were the equal or superior to their Brown Bess military issue muskets. Why would they put in a right for this purpose and not expect us to be armed with appropriate rifles as technology marched on? Also, the Iraqi insurgents seem to be doing pretty well on the cheap. Regardless, it is also a symbolic right at least suggesting that we are free to achieve our individual destiny in the face of tyranny. Here's what the DOJ has to say about militias:
Charon
1)Sounds like you need to write your congressmen on the AWB.
2)I agree with your plan for fire-arms. Sounds good and fair.
3)Well see that's the thing about the Constitution, if the people want it changed then it will get changed. That is how America is. If majority of Americans want guns banned (which I doubt) then they will go through and get rid of the 2nd amendment. And there would still be an argument even though it was done within the confines of how the Constitution sets out. I am under the understanding that any Amendment to the constitution can be repealled. We might not like it, but we don't have to live here.
4)Again the NRA has enough Money and Lobbying power to stem off such attacks.
5)Where is the answer to my question on Gatling Guns? Do you think ALL Guns should be legal? Yes or No please.
6)I think and this is just my opinion that AWB was put in place to stop 1 Criminal from killing lots of people. Not to stop lots of criminals from killing lots of individuals. 1 bad guy with AW is a helluva lot more dangerous than 10 with pistols. IMO
7)Best defense I have heard yet for letting Automatic Weapons be legal. I also agree the 2nd has become more symbolism than meant for actual modern use to protect us from tyrrany.
8)The militia, that is exactly what I am talking about. A state militia, not some group of guys who get together in the woods and drink beer and practice being GI Joe. That is what I mean by well-regulated. I see what it says about individuals and guns but I don't know, seems like it could be interpreted in a number of ways. 2nd amendment that is not the DOJ report
-
Originally posted by lazs2
raider... you are making too much of it... I am simply more of an anarchist or libertarian than anything else... I want no government but will work toward getting less and less of it. If that means I have to vote to get less government then so be it...
As for the second... you seriously do not understand it.. a militia is needed to defend the country from tyranny from within and without... not having modern weapons (being well regulated) would make it useless well regulated meant being well equipped when the amendment was written. It was expected that the militia man would have modern weapons in good repair.
My (and most everyone elses) voting for republicans has indeed turned back the tide of the democrat party gun grabbing/banning agenda... and agenda shared by 90% or better of the democrat representitives that vote as evidenced by the protection of gun manufacturers bill just passed and the allowing of the assault and magazine ban to lapse.... if we had elected kerrie..... we would not have had these things happen.... we would have had even more restrictions instead.
The only restrictions I would put on guns would be sanity and maturity. I have no problem with a machine gun in every closet... we would not be the first country to do so.. My right to bear arms is constantly under attack by democrats.... in Kalifornia I am restricted in how I bear them all the time... some cities seek to ban them altogether.... these are not republicans seeking these restrictions or bans.
Try driving across country with a loaded pistol and AK47 on the seat or in the rifle rack if you think that the democrats aren't really hurting our right to keep and bear arms.
lazs
Sorry but your either an Anarchist or your not. There are no "voting" anarchists. Anarchist vote by burning things down, blowing things up, and causing general chaos. You can feel free to label yourself one, but that doesnt make you one.
I understand the 2nd just fine. I know all about "defending us from tyranny far and near". I just don't think it applies any longer. Haven't we gotten civilized enough to where we aren't stockpiling weapons and the like just in case "the government gets a little uppity"?
Well-regulated as I interpret it means, the men are well trained and are not a bunch of loners, but part of an organized "state" militia.
So any sane, mature person could own machine guns and walk down the street with them? LMAO try getting the police to sign on with that. Have you ever seen a gang in Dixon? You think things are bad now, give them free and open access to Huge Firepower and its gonna be a bloodbath with lots of innocents getting hurt, But I guess that is the anarchist agenda speaking up.
:)
-
Originally posted by Charon
This is turning into a 2nd amendment hijack and I'm certainly participating, but one final point. Raider, this is some of the stuff legal gun owners have to put up with in some states where guns are a political issue. It is not at all that uncommon. CNS News isn't my first choice as a source, but this is just a telling of a factual incident, not editorial.
I am not even gonna read all that because I have been to gun shows and if you have too then you know that all types of "illegal activity" occurs there.
You know what your best defense is when the Government steps out of line? Its not a gun, its a lawyer.
-
Ive grown up around guns.That being said I see no logical reason for anyone to need a silencer or a sawed off shotgun.Neither has a hunting use.Fully auto weapons should be banned except for those that classify as collectors.Again,what possable reason could joe schmo have for wanting to take out an AR15 on full rock and roll hunting?Whos going to control that weapon under those circumstances?I understand the give em an inch and they take a mile philosophy here but there are some things that I feel personaly dont need all that much thought.the above items IMHO serve no usefull purpos in a hunting enviornment.
-
Originally posted by DrDea
Ive grown up around guns.That being said I see no logical reason for anyone to need a silencer or a sawed off shotgun.Neither has a hunting use.Fully auto weapons should be banned except for those that classify as collectors.Again,what possable reason could joe schmo have for wanting to take out an AR15 on full rock and roll hunting?Whos going to control that weapon under those circumstances?I understand the give em an inch and they take a mile philosophy here but there are some things that I feel personaly dont need all that much thought.the above items IMHO serve no usefull purpos in a hunting enviornment.
If I loved Full-auto guns that much I would probably join the military, work in law enforcement, or get a collectors permit so I could own them. But that is just me...
-
Where is the answer to my question on Gatling Guns? Do you think ALL Guns should be legal? Yes or No please.
I can't imagine anything less practical from a criminal or public mayhem standpoint than a gattling gun. It's almost amusing thinking about how you would actually use in a crime. I vote legal.
Just about all guns are legal with the right license in most states (not mine). I think the price is too high because of import restrictions, especially for the advanced background checks etc. But, I do think there are some practical issues without licensing. The move to automatic does advance the ability to lay down suppressive fire as the LA bank robbery shootout shows. The experience in the 1930s supports this as well. If they were cheap enough to be “disposable,” and easily obtainable without a license then I would say reasonable safety issues exist. However, assault rifles were, once, reasonably cheap and widely available and because they lacked automatic fire, their relatively higher cost and lack of concealability didn’t make them particularly attractive to criminals IMO (backed up by the low usage statistics). They were banned, because people who don’t like any gun knew that they could sell the false fear.
The militia, that is exactly what I am talking about. A state militia, not some group of guys who get together in the woods and drink beer and practice being GI Joe. That is what I mean by well-regulated. I see what it says about individuals and guns but I don't know, seems like it could be interpreted in a number of ways. 2nd amendment that is not the DOJ report…
Well-regulated as I interpret it means, the men are well trained and are not a bunch of loners, but part of an organized "state" militia.
What are you basing this on? Please read the 103 page DOJ report covering OUR INDIVIDUAL OR COLLECTIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE 2nd AMENDMENT, and 2 or 3 others like it. You can find arguments that take the collective approach, and I’ve gone though them. The ACLU takes this approach (unfortunately), but they don’t really go into detail as to why. However, with the DOJ and several other sources you can find how people of the day used the terms militia, regulated, etc. in private letters, debates, editorials and other public statements. They support that ownership is an individual right, IMO, because they dealt with and addressed some of the collective issues (and shortcomings) with “organized” militias as part of the discussion. Basically, have a gun, some training and be ready was about all they could expect from the people.
I just don't think it applies any longer.
Time to amend the constitution then.
I think and this is just my opinion that AWB was put in place to stop 1 Criminal from killing lots of people. Not to stop lots of criminals from killing lots of individuals. 1 bad guy with AW is a helluva lot more dangerous than 10 with pistols. IMO
As a society we allow behaviors that are dangerous to the individual and society. Drinking, tobacco, unsafe types of vehicles, unsafe sports, unsafe social behaviors, private aviation, a range of products that are not safe 100 percent safe, firearm ownership, boat ownership, etc. You can even look at dangerous speech that is protected under the 1st Amendment. The whole human species could be wiped out tomorrow by a meteor in something that might have been preventable with some effort, but nobody cares to address that fundamental risk with any money. There are psychos in the world and occasionally one flips and does something bad. Fact of life. Sarah Brady lists 6 events between 1984 and 1993 that cost a total of 47 lives. Tragic for sure. John Wayne Gacy killed 33 with his bare hands. Timothy McVie 168 with diesel and fertilizer. Arson is responsible for more mass deaths than anything else.
Most of the Weapons used by the Columbine killers were not classed as assault rifles, and the two modified hunting shotguns were far deadlier than the 9mms they had. And if the cops had actually acted instead of hanging out outside, the death toll would likely have been half or less. And for perspective, as I pointed out once before, a Columbine death toll happens every day, 365, from under-age alcohol consumption. Why is it we punish irresponsible and criminal alcohol offenders (every bit as deadly as firearms to society) but want to ban guns? Hypocrisy.
The hard data doesn't support an AWB. Period. Without the emotion, or is religion a better term, you can't logically tell me why an assault weapon is more dangerous to society in a "secular" manner than the average hunting rifle. You are willing to ban this class of weapon, modify one of my Constitutional rights, because you personally don't like it. I haven’t seen anything more substantial to support your opinion.
I am not even gonna read all that because I have been to gun shows and if you have too then you know that all types of "illegal activity" occurs there.
If you refuse to put the effort into this discussion that I do then it's not worth my time to continue it. The above unread material was an example of how anti gun forces can act on the edge or outside the law to harass gun owners.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
I can't imagine anything less practical from a criminal or public mayhem standpoint than a gattling gun. It's almost amusing thinking about how you would actually use in a crime. I vote legal.
Just about all guns are legal with the right license in most states (not mine). I think the price is too high because of import restrictions, especially for the advanced background checks etc. But, I do think there are some practical issues without licensing. The move to automatic does advance the ability to lay down suppressive fire as the LA bank robbery shootout shows. The experience in the 1930s supports this as well. If they were cheap enough to be “disposable,” and easily obtainable without a license then I would say reasonable safety issues exist. However, assault rifles were, once, reasonably cheap and widely available and because they lacked automatic fire, their relatively higher cost and lack of concealability didn’t make them particularly attractive to criminals IMO (backed up by the low usage statistics). They were banned, because people who don’t like any gun knew that they could sell the false fear.
What are you basing this on? Please read the 103 page DOJ report covering OUR INDIVIDUAL OR COLLECTIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE 2nd AMENDMENT, and 2 or 3 others like it. You can find arguments that take the collective approach, and I’ve gone though them. The ACLU takes this approach (unfortunately), but they don’t really go into detail as to why. However, with the DOJ and several other sources you can find how people of the day used the terms militia, regulated, etc. in private letters, debates, editorials and other public statements. They support that ownership is an individual right, IMO, because they dealt with and addressed some of the collective issues (and shortcomings) with “organized” militias as part of the discussion. Basically, have a gun, some training and be ready was about all they could expect from the people.
Time to amend the constitution then.
As a society we allow behaviors that are dangerous to the individual and society. Drinking, tobacco, unsafe types of vehicles, unsafe sports, unsafe social behaviors, private aviation, a range of products that are not safe 100 percent safe, firearm ownership, boat ownership, etc. You can even look at dangerous speech that is protected under the 1st Amendment. The whole human species could be wiped out tomorrow by a meteor in something that might have been preventable with some effort, but nobody cares to address that fundamental risk with any money. There are psychos in the world and occasionally one flips and does something bad. Fact of life. Sarah Brady lists 6 events between 1984 and 1993 that cost a total of 47 lives. Tragic for sure. John Wayne Gacy killed 33 with his bare hands. Timothy McVie 168 with diesel and fertilizer. Arson is responsible for more mass deaths than anything else.
Most of the Weapons used by the Columbine killers were not classed as assault rifles, and the two modified hunting shotguns were far deadlier than the 9mms they had. And if the cops had actually acted instead of hanging out outside, the death toll would likely have been half or less. And for perspective, as I pointed out once before, a Columbine death toll happens every day, 365, from under-age alcohol consumption. Why is it we punish irresponsible and criminal alcohol offenders (every bit as deadly as firearms to society) but want to ban guns? Hypocrisy.
The hard data doesn't support an AWB. Period. Without the emotion, or is religion a better term, you can't logically tell me why an assault weapon is more dangerous to society in a "secular" manner than the average hunting rifle. You are willing to ban this class of weapon, modify one of my Constitutional rights, because you personally don't like it. I haven’t seen anything more substantial to support your opinion.
If you refuse to put the effort into this discussion that I do then it's not worth my time to continue it. The above unread material was an example of how anti gun forces can act on the edge or outside the law to harass gun owners.
Charon
Terrorism?
Crazy people who are just out to kill others?
No telling how it might be used. The two bank robbers in LA are a good object lesson in why Firepower available to the average citizen should be limited.
There is a saying for all those kinds of things. A few bad apples spoiled fire-arms for the rest by using them in such manners.
Since you brought up mcviegh, They did tighten regulations and rules regarding the purchase of Amonium Fertilizers after his attack.
I dont personally think Assault weapons should be banned. Full auto's though are a different story.
I stand by my militia opinion unless you show me something from the constitutionists that show they meant what you say. A DOJ interpretation means squat.
Dangerous speech is not protected. You can not shout "fire" in a crowded place for example.
Perhaps you care to point me to where I said "I support the Ban on ASW?" Because I never said it. I won't argue a point I did not make.
As for your "article" cough cough that is one highly questionable "fact" I have LexisNexis and Proquest available and I found absolutely nothing besides her application for the gun show. So please don't tell me that I don't put effort in when you use "fake" articles from unreliable sources.
The above unread material is how pro-no-gun-laws people make up lies about the federal government to fuel your paranoia. But if you can find a trustwrothy source, I will be happy to read it.
-
Originally posted by DrDea
Ive grown up around guns.That being said I see no logical reason for anyone to need a silencer or a sawed off shotgun.Neither has a hunting use.Fully auto weapons should be banned except for those that classify as collectors.Again,what possable reason could joe schmo have for wanting to take out an AR15 on full rock and roll hunting?Whos going to control that weapon under those circumstances?I understand the give em an inch and they take a mile philosophy here but there are some things that I feel personaly dont need all that much thought.the above items IMHO serve no usefull purpos in a hunting enviornment.
You see no reason for sawed off shot guns or silencers or other plethera of guns that arent exactly perfect for hunting with?
I'm a Joe Schmoe who takes an AR-15 out hunting. Its not on "full rock and roll" because the AR-15 is a semi- automatic unless its been converted and most have not been. Now the reason I have an AR-15 first and foremost is for recreational shooting. I dont hunt much and have not a need for a traditional hunting gun. The .223 round is good for small game like hogs and hogs are common to my area, especialy near the creek me and my bud shoot near.
That .223 round that comes outta the AR-15's barrel is gonna be the same round that comes out of the .223 bolt action at the local pawn shop. The both are fired by a firing pin hitting a centerfire primer. I trigger pull equals one shot.
.223 is alot cheaper round than the .30-.30 or .30-.06 and its alot more pleasent to shoot. For recreation shooting I like to have fun and I can have fun with an AR-15 that I cant have fun with a bolt action. Its a choice I made based on the type of shooting I do. I'm not going to go out and buy two types of guns to keep on hand and when I come accross a hog, I'm not gonna tell him to hold on right there cause I gotta go grab my hunting gun outta the truck cause this here AR-15 isnt a hunting rifle. I'm gonna shoot him with the AR-15. Oh wait I'm a Joe Schmoe out hunting with an AR-15 that serves no useful pupose in a hunting environment. Who woulda thunk it. Better run folks I'm a crazy hog killer with a semi-auto rifle.
To say you see no reason for having something....fine, its your opinion, but dont use that statement as a blanket statement to apply to everybody and thats the way things should be for everybody cause thats what works for you.
Its all about choices. We have a right and privelage to own what we own for what reasons we own it. The ones who get out of hand with things are dealt with by the law.
There are people getting mugged because of the shoes they wear. If you have shoes that cost $50- $100 get rid of them. I see no reason why these shoes should be allowed to be worn outside a gym/ sportscenter environment.
Given enough time the Dems will be tellin you what shoe to buy because they know whats best for you.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
... I have LexisNexis and Proquest available and...
How much are you paying for LexisNexis? I've tried to get their subscription info but you have to call them to get that.
-
Originally posted by Nash
How much are you paying for LexisNexis? I've tried to get their subscription info but you have to call them to get that.
Free through School :) Even have off-campus access to it.
-
You go to school?
With those.... those... those ... university professors and everything?
I bet you have restless sleeping patterns on top of it!
Well that explains everything.
-
Yeah been going off and on for 8 years. Sleep pretty good though lol Booze helps!
-
You can have an AR 15.I like em personaly.just see no reason for them to be full auto.
-
Terrorism?
Crazy people who are just out to kill others?
No telling how it might be used. The two bank robbers in LA are a good object lesson in why Firepower available to the average citizen should be limited.
Are you serious? A 600 lb horse drawn carriage weapon popular in the Spanish American War with a low rate of fire, no concealability or mobility? A terrorist would be better off punching the gas and heading up a crowded sidewalk in a Buick.
Perhaps you care to point me to where I said "I support the Ban on ASW?" Because I never said it. I won't argue a point I did not make.
That sounds just like Bush with: “I never said Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11." Technically true.
I think and this is just my opinion that AWB was put in place to stop 1 Criminal from killing lots of people. Not to stop lots of criminals from killing lots of individuals. 1 bad guy with AW is a helluva lot more dangerous than 10 with pistols. IMO
* Assault weapons were "already out of the way" and nothing of the sort you mention occured. As for why they are/were banned, you have to draw the line somewhere.
I don't know how I could have gotten so confused, I apologize.
I stand by my militia opinion unless you show me something from the constitutionists that show they meant what you say. A DOJ interpretation means squat.
Why must I do all the work? That opinion thing is a real time saver. This one is the most direct to my statement: In The Federalist No. 29, first published in the New York Independent Journal on January 9, 1788:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped [edit: note the lack of: trained, drilled, organized, practiced, etc.]; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
[edit: We’ve obviously neglected this responsibility :)]
It is interesting. There was a significant debate during the drafting of the Constitution on defense and militias (general vs. select [a NG structure] vs. standing army). Here is this general (of the people) militia argument:
[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Standing army won out, and from what I can tell a general militia. In the war of 1812 militias were formed under appointed commanders, and performed well on defense (New Orleans) and poorly on offense (Canada. Didn’t much care to travel too far from homes).
One constant, outside of defense and protection, is a general referencing of firearms in society as natural part of life. Here is one of many examples that can be found:
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
Maybe they didn’t feel the need to be more specific about individual rights at the time. Too bad.
As for your "article" cough cough that is one highly questionable "fact" I have LexisNexis and Proquest available and I found absolutely nothing besides her application for the gun show. So please don't tell me that I don't put effort in when you use "fake" articles from unreliable sources.
The above unread material is how pro-no-gun-laws people make up lies about the federal government to fuel your paranoia. But if you can find a trustwrothy source, I will be happy to read it.
I am not surprised it didn’t make it into more mainstream press, since most editors would not find it all that newsworthy. Maybe the local weekly. I don’t much like the source and usually find myself arguing against it. But even though they can editorialize on some tangents, I’ve never seen them outright fabricate anything. And man, that was spoke just like a Bushie when presented with an anti-Iraq article in the NewYorker. Again, I’ve wasted enough time on this and it isn’t the first time. Out.
Charon
-
I will have to read up on the federalist papers before I can get into this debate. From what you have quoted I would agree with you on the militia part...See ya next time :)
-
I see... now raider agrees that the constitution guarentees the right of anyone of militia age (16) to own any firearm and not be restricted as to his right to keep and bear it? but that the concept of bad governments from within or without or even a criminal attacking us is so far out of the realm of reality that it is..... outdated? is not free speech outdated too? some speech causes harm or makes fun of or hurts our benevolent and altruistic government... pehaps we should look at free speech too?
dr dea... I don't hunt... the constitution said nothing about hunting unless you mean hunting tyrants and criminals... in that case a sawed off shotgun or silencer would be useful both were used in wars.
As for gangs running around with machine guns... LOL... the doom prediction is laughable... sorta like all the raider like wussies all claimed that concealled carry would result in gunfights at every fender bender.... Iam sure that in israel there are no gangs machinegunning people.... In the army we have thousands and thousands of hotheaded teens and older in iraq carrying machine guns and they don't seem to be murdering each other... how do you explain that exactly?
How do you explain that those who carry guns are the most law abiding and least violent sector and that those places that allow concealled carry have a drop ijn crime?
If you are defending democrats based on "sensible" gun laws and reviling republicans based on defending the second amendment.....
Then you have made my case for me kid. I am just trying to keep you out of my life.
oh... and I don't care what you think "well regulated" means... at the time the document was written well regulated meant well equipped.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I see... now raider agrees that the constitution guarentees the right of anyone of militia age (16) to own any firearm and not be restricted as to his right to keep and bear it? but that the concept of bad governments from within or without or even a criminal attacking us is so far out of the realm of reality that it is..... outdated? is not free speech outdated too? some speech causes harm or makes fun of or hurts our benevolent and altruistic government... pehaps we should look at free speech too?
As for gangs running around with machine guns... LOL... the doom prediction is laughable... sorta like all the raider like wussies all claimed that concealled carry would result in gunfights at every fender bender.... Iam sure that in israel there are no gangs machinegunning people.... In the army we have thousands and thousands of hotheaded teens and older in iraq carrying machine guns and they don't seem to be murdering each other... how do you explain that exactly?
How do you explain that those who carry guns are the most law abiding and least violent sector and that those places that allow concealled carry have a drop ijn crime?
If you are defending democrats based on "sensible" gun laws and reviling republicans based on defending the second amendment.....
Then you have made my case for me kid. I am just trying to keep you out of my life.
oh... and I don't care what you think "well regulated" means... at the time the document was written well regulated meant well equipped.
lazs
Woah woah woah slow down boss. lol
I didnt say without restrtictions. I said i agreed with his take on the Militia not having to be a state militia.
I also said the concept of the government getting all uppity is outdated. Nor do I think we will ever be attacked by anyone during which we will need all you gun guys to form your "militia's" to protect us. I further feel that if some bad stuff did go down most of you who claim to hold the 2nd in such high esteem, would probably turn and take off for the mountains, forgetting all about the Militia.
Whats funny is you calling me a wussy when I walk this planet with no fire-arm. I bet you have two or three on you right now. I don't need a gun for protection and I am not scared without one. You on the other hand are scared of all kinds of things and that is why you carry guns.
Lasz I know you did not just compare our Troops in Iraq with Gang members. Tell me you did not do that...
People commit crimes with guns everyday. To say they are the most law-abiding is retarded. Oh you mean the ones who carry guns who don't use them for crimes are the most law abiding. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Whatever pops.
-
raider... First of all... you started out giving a defenition of the second amendment that was wrong... we here corrected you but then you would pick another part of it to prove your point and be wrong about that too... now you appear to have recanted all your previous defenitions but have changed your tactic to... "well... the constitution is outdated" line of reasoning. I do not believe that it is "outdated" and do not belive that governments or people in general have changed much.
Otherwise... why have any amendments? why the need to guarentee free speech for innstance?
You then claim that those who are armed are the frieghtened ones and those making bans of firearms are the brave civic minded ones. this puzzles me. I know that you are probly a big bad bellybutton guy but... if there is a violent person commiting a crime... Iwant one of the citizens there to be armed ... I don't hold out much faith that you will be any use to the rest of us in your unarmed state. To me... it is the armed person who is the civic minded one... we are armed because you are not skilled or smart or brave enough to be.
as for gangs....If you are so frieghtened of gangs (like you are of your neighbors
and them being armed)... bad news... they allready are and.. they are breaking laws to do it... disarming your neighbors isn't gonna help you in the least....
if you are so scared of gangs then the real solution would be to allow any citizen to be armed....just like the constitution demands... and then any non citizen or criminal that is in possesion of a gun... the law could read... "any armed person not a citizen of the country would face an automatic death penalty or life in prison"...
If gangs are such a big problem then lets deal with it instead of using em as a boogey man to restrict citizens rights..
My reference to the military was that they are ordinary citizens drawn from the population and carrying full auto weapons of the latest design and under their sole control... it appears that they are not butchering each other over the arguements and such that crop up... it does not appear that allowing them all to carry firearms in an allmost urestericted manner is causeing them to turn into a pack of bloodthirsty maniacs.
perhaps you feel that gang members are not really humans tho?
to recap.. you have changed your mind at least twice as to what the 2nd says.. now you seem to think that the second condones restrictions other than being old enough to be in a militia... Where does the second condone restrictions? We are not talking about what you would like or accept here... we are talking about what the document says.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
raider... First of all... you started out giving a defenition of the second amendment that was wrong... we here corrected you but then you would pick another part of it to prove your point and be wrong about that too... now you appear to have recanted all your previous defenitions but have changed your tactic to... "well... the constitution is outdated" line of reasoning. I do not believe that it is "outdated" and do not belive that governments or people in general have changed much.
Otherwise... why have any amendments? why the need to guarentee free speech for innstance?
You then claim that those who are armed are the frieghtened ones and those making bans of firearms are the brave civic minded ones. this puzzles me. I know that you are probly a big bad bellybutton guy but... if there is a violent person commiting a crime... Iwant one of the citizens there to be armed ... I don't hold out much faith that you will be any use to the rest of us in your unarmed state. To me... it is the armed person who is the civic minded one... we are armed because you are not skilled or smart or brave enough to be.
as for gangs....If you are so frieghtened of gangs (like you are of your neighbors
and them being armed)... bad news... they allready are and.. they are breaking laws to do it... disarming your neighbors isn't gonna help you in the least....
if you are so scared of gangs then the real solution would be to allow any citizen to be armed....just like the constitution demands... and then any non citizen or criminal that is in possesion of a gun... the law could read... "any armed person not a citizen of the country would face an automatic death penalty or life in prison"...
If gangs are such a big problem then lets deal with it instead of using em as a boogey man to restrict citizens rights..
My reference to the military was that they are ordinary citizens drawn from the population and carrying full auto weapons of the latest design and under their sole control... it appears that they are not butchering each other over the arguements and such that crop up... it does not appear that allowing them all to carry firearms in an allmost urestericted manner is causeing them to turn into a pack of bloodthirsty maniacs.
perhaps you feel that gang members are not really humans tho?
to recap.. you have changed your mind at least twice as to what the 2nd says.. now you seem to think that the second condones restrictions other than being old enough to be in a militia... Where does the second condone restrictions? We are not talking about what you would like or accept here... we are talking about what the document says.
lazs
I'm sorry but I don't tend to read anything an Anarchist says about the government/constitution/amendments/history with anything other than humor. To hear you complain about "Your Rights" out of one side of your mouth, and then espouse "I am an anarchist" out of the other lends No credibility to your view or point.
Since when did anarchists use the Constitution as a shield?
Let me recap for you... I am against citizens owning Fully automatic weapons. With proper licensing and testing maybe but not joe average going into wal-mart.
Let me ask you a question, If and its a huge if, The constitution was legally changed, through Repeal, and the 2nd was gone, would you still carry or would you turn in your guns?
Save your rhetoric. I intervened in a kidnapping without being armed. I have stopped a woman getting beaten and stopped a man from being stabbed to death just by going toward the two guys who were stabbing him. I have also stopped a burglar in my house cold in his tracks and made him wait on the floor to the cops came. All without the benefit of a fire-arm. Not that it matters to you but I am well instructed in firearms. Former Rifle Team member here, so give it a rest. Maybe I will get in over my head one day but if that happens there is no saying a gun wouldnt have got me killed instead of preventing a death.
Again I ask you point out where I say ban guns. I do not. I think there is a line and I draw it at Automatic Weapons. I said I could see why they drew the line at Assault weapons, not that I agreed with it.
I do however agree with your "life in prison/death penalty" law. Just don't think we could build enough jails so we would have to be using the hell out of that death penalty.
Gangmembers' mentality and the mentality of the troops in Iraq was what you compared and you should know better.
Gangmember humanity is not at question. They have already proven they don't care about stray bullets, drive bys, and the like. That means innocent people getting caught in the line of fire and the faster that rate of fire the more bullets flying around. Its pretty simple IMO.
See Lasz, rational people, when confronted with evidence that shows their argument to be invalid, "CHANGE THEIR MIND". It's called realizing you were wrong. Sorry I didnt stick to an invalid argument but I am smart enough to know when I am not right. If you took half as much energy as you waste downing everyone who disagrees with you and actually showed some evidence (links, documents, etc) why you are correct, you might change someone's opinion. But as it is, they way you go about your argument, will just make someone stick to their guns longer. Pun intended. lol
As for restrictions on the 2nd... surely you are aware that every "Amendment" contains restrictions.
Freedom of speech - no vulgarity in public places, or fire in a crowded place.
Freedom of Religion - cant sacrifice animals if you want
Voting-- Cant vote if your a felon
Guns--- Cant own a fire-arm if your a felon, Cant take one on into a school
So as you can see there is plenty of precedence for restriction on our amendments.
-
raider... I am saying that it doesn't matter if you think the second is in need of restrictions or not... I am saying the the second does not put any restrictions on firearms. It no where says that felons can't have guns.
I am against laws that do not allow people who have served their time to then have a firearm.... if you don't trust em to have a firearm then why did you let em out in the first place? when the guy gets out he ought to get his gun back and his right to vote and.... well.... golly gee.... how bout just making him a citizen again until he does something wrong.
assault weapons not your cup of tea? too bad... don't buy one. Machine guns scare you? too bad. help get stronger sentancing laws for those who abuse their right to own one.
not enough prisons or places of executions? nope... again... you make assumptions based on myth... it is proven that stronger penalties modify criminal behavior.
gang members are only bold because they feel that they will pretty much get away with it. they are no different than you or I so far as humanity goes. They can be frieghtened.
I am glad that you are so civic minded that you would take on armed rapists and thugs (they did have a firearm right?) Did you just charge right in and take the gun away or did you just ignore the bullets striking your body? I mean.... I consider myself in pretty good shape but them bullet really hurt... been shot once and seen more than a few... those guys and me just don't have the toughness of you I guess.... even so.... I am not counting on someone like yourself with superhuman strength... If you don't mind tho... I would still rather someone in the crowd be a responsible gun owner.
as for... if the second were repealed would I still have guns or turn em in?... very weird question... I would do everything that I could to convince the feds that I did not have a gun... that is the best answer I can give..
As to the whole anarchist thing.. Ok... you got me I misspoke or was unclear or was just flat out wrong... take your pick... see... I can admit I am wrong to...
I have anarchist leanings... I want as little government as I can get... I believe the constitution was a document made to limit the powers of government... people like yourself have been trying ever since tho to get around it and give government more and more power. I want less government... I have libertarian and republican leanings..... I have no democrat leanings I am aware
of.
as for you banning guns... you claim felons can't have em... you feel it is ok for poor people to not own firearms.... you support laws that ban specific weapons you arbitrarily choose and seem to know nothing about (rifle team or not)... you favor restrictions that effectively ban guns for segments of the population and my guess is that you would support even more if they were mentioned... magazine ban? semi auto pistol ban? .50 caliber ban? wher would you draw the line?
Yeah.... I would say you are a gun banner.... you just don't have the guts to admit it.
-
and... if you want me to point you in the right direction (pun intended)... then read the clinton ordered DOJ report on the second for a modern interpretation.... Read the federalist papers for what the founders thought and why.... read the individual states suggestions for the second while the constitution was being drafted. You are the school boy.... get your nose out of that professors pony tail and do some research on your own....
or.... just regurgitate what a couple of professors spoon feed ya
as for restrictions on the other amendments... I believe most are wrong... if you yell fire and no one is hurt there should be no crime except intent to commit injury... the word is not a crime.
the amendments only say what the government can't do... they do nothing about local and state ordinances. You can indeed sacrafice a goat if you want.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
as for... if the second were repealed would I still have guns or turn em in?... very weird question... I would do everything that I could to convince the feds that I did not have a gun... that is the best answer I can give..
As to the whole anarchist thing.. Ok... you got me I misspoke or was unclear or was just flat out wrong... take your pick... see... I can admit I am wrong to...
as for you banning guns... you claim felons can't have em... you feel it is ok for poor people to not own firearms.... you support laws that ban specific weapons you arbitrarily choose and seem to know nothing about (rifle team or not)... you favor restrictions that effectively ban guns for segments of the population and my guess is that you would support even more if they were mentioned... magazine ban? semi auto pistol ban? .50 caliber ban? wher would you draw the line?
Yeah.... I would say you are a gun banner.... you just don't have the guts to admit it.
1)It has to do with civic responsibility. You like to use the Constitution as your backing for why you have such broad rights regarding fire-arms. I was wondering if the Constitution were changed, whether you would still abide by the Constitution. Obviously not.
2)Takes big men like us to admit we are wrong lol
3)I dont "claim" anything. Felons may not posess fire-arms. They still can/will but its is illegal.
4)Its not arbitrary. It goes up the ladder of firepower. Pistol, Shotty/Rifle, Assault Rifle, Full-Autos. That is how I see guns. I only see Full-auto's as being illegal.
5)LoL see whatever you want to see. I can tell you do that instead of reading what is written most of the time anyway. I have no problem with your guns, Full-autos though go get your license from the ATF. Simple, not that complicated, but if you want to call me a gun banner for not wanting people to have easy access to fully automatic weapons, then go ahead.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and... if you want me to point you in the right direction (pun intended)... then read the clinton ordered DOJ report on the second for a modern interpretation.... Read the federalist papers for what the founders thought and why.... read the individual states suggestions for the second while the constitution was being drafted. You are the school boy.... get your nose out of that professors pony tail and do some research on your own....
or.... just regurgitate what a couple of professors spoon feed ya
as for restrictions on the other amendments... I believe most are wrong... if you yell fire and no one is hurt there should be no crime except intent to commit injury... the word is not a crime.
the amendments only say what the government can't do... they do nothing about local and state ordinances. You can indeed sacrafice a goat if you want.
lazs
1)I will, I just don't have time right now. School just started back and I am in the process of moving.
2)Couple of Professors spoon fed me the Declaration of Independence, does that mean they are wrong? pfft
3)In case you havent noticed, I always link to the material I dig up. If I quote it or use it as evidence, I link to it. I live in Georgia, maybe in Cali they have hippies for teachers but we dont here.
4)As for the amendments, What you believe doesnt matter. Does that sound familiar? There are restrictions on the amendments and you know it.
5)Ok you can sacrifice a goat in some places and you cant in other places. Kinda like being able to carry a gun in certain places and not in others lol I know that was a stretch and I am not being serious. Just wanted to end on a good note.
-
I just love these republicans. "religious faith needs to have a greater presence in public policy decisions."
As long as its my faith then that is ok with me. LOL
Congressman likens divorce, gay nuptials
Associated Press
EVANSVILLE U.S. Rep. John Hostettler told a gathering of clergy that divorce is as dangerous to society as gay marriage and that churches are essential to strengthening families.
The picture of marriage is the picture of Christian salvation, Hostettler, R-Ind., said Tuesday. Any diminishing of that notion whether homosexual marriage or any other degradation of marriage is something we must fight in public policy.
Hostettler, who spoke to an Indiana Family Institute program at Crossroads Christian Church in Evansville, also said religious faith needs to have a greater presence in public policy decisions.
Hostettler, who is from Wadesville, has won a string of generally close elections in southwestern Indianas Eighth District since he first won his seat in 1994 with strong support from religious conservatives.
-
raider... you still aren't making any sense... if your professors didn't tell you what the fedralist papers were and pretty much what the DOJ says about the 2nd then you were cheated in that class...
It is you who are not obeying the constitution... the constitutiion is a document limiting government powers. You are trying to turn it into a document that limits the peoples powers. You are the one reading restrictions into it for the people that do not exist.
The heart of the constitution is to limit federal power. If it were changed fundamentaly to give the governmment power to ban the right to own firearms then it would not longer be a document of freedom but of government repression... We would be like england with only the privliges that a government allowed us.
Why shoul a felon not have a gun? What is the purpose of jail if not to keep him out of society until he has been deemed to have paid for his crime? How is making him a second class citizen the rest of his life fair?
Machine guns and concealled carry....no federal laws against them but... they are not cheap or easy to get in most cases.... machine guns are denied many people for arbitrary reasons or because they can afford or... can be given the gun but they can't afford the prohibitive restrictions and cost of "licencing" this is a de facto ban... It is the same as only allowing those who can afford a 300 dollar a year tax and a training class to be able to speak or write freely... after all... speech can cause injury and death as in your example of yelling fire or bomb or snake or whatever in a crowd...
The democrats seek more and more firearms restrictions at both the state and federal and... the local level unconstitutional restrictions... they are defacto bans... even you would admit that if you are honest about it.... that is in fact, their sole purpose since no gun law restricting use has ever been proven to prevent crime or accident or death.... none... name one. the fact is that they really are a cowardly incremental form of a ban... each new restriction affects the right of a portion of the citizens to own and bear arms...
In every case a law made to restrict firearms has had no effect or has increased crime. Those places with more relaxed or no restrictions have allways had crime go down. even if this were not true... the second would still say what it says and it says that the federal government has no right to stop "the people" from keeping and bearing arms.
lazs
-
and... since you are a rifle team, bullet charging and soaking up hero type guy in the prime of life with an understanding of the constitution that only our unbiased school system and it's world wise professors can give a man...
I ask for clarification on what such a modern man... one who knows better than the founders... what would you allow me to have fireams wise?
You say no machine guns unless they give me a permit and I can afford to pay the taxes... Lets say I can't... you then think I should not have one?
how bout .50 caliber bolt action rifles? How bout 90 round drum mags? silencers? so called "assault weapons" (how did you feel about em pre/during/post ban?) Is the value and the right to won a weapon predicated on the whim of the government? is firearms rights something that should go back and forth as different political parties take power?
how bout short shotguns? 17.999 inch barrel? should you be free to own an 18" barrel and be thrown in prison for 5 years for a 17.9999 inch one?
If you have weapons that you think should be banned then can you give me your reasons... I will accept that you "feel" that they are bad but still think you are a buffoon..
And... so far as winning you or anyone else over with the way I argue.... who cares? I don't... do as you please. If you are won over by someone who kisses your butt and seduces you into beliveing what is not logical or real.... don't read what I write... stay in school and lsten to those world wise scholars and independent thinkers.
lazs
-
It is interesting. There was a significant debate during the drafting of the Constitution on defense and militias (general vs. select [a NG structure] vs. standing army). Here is this general (of the people) militia argument:
Here's how I've heard the 2nd ammendment argued, and I agree very much with this interpretation... because it makes alot of sense.
"A well regulated militia, being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
A well regulated militia, being neccessary to the security of a free state,'
okay, it's understandable a state needs a standing force to hold off aggression.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
There's a signifigant difference here between The Militia and The People. Why? Because when this was written, they had just fought a war for several years against a tyrannical state militia. A militia who's course of action was to march in and disarm the populace to lower the chances of conflict and armed rebellion. Note it does NOT say the right of the militia, it clearly says the right of the people. Knowing that the people may once again have to fight off a tyranical government, the people must be armed to defend their rights.
Seems pretty simple to me.
As for what basically amounts to technology restrictions... if somebody could march into my home with an M16A2 and tell me I no longer have the freedom of speech, I want, and would hope my neighbors also have, Steyr AUGs within easy reach so that person can not take my rights away with more firepower. Yes, I think people should even be able to own tanks if they can afford it.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
raider... you still aren't making any sense... if your professors didn't tell you what the fedralist papers were and pretty much what the DOJ says about the 2nd then you were cheated in that class...
It is you who are not obeying the constitution... the constitutiion is a document limiting government powers. You are trying to turn it into a document that limits the peoples powers. You are the one reading restrictions into it for the people that do not exist.
The heart of the constitution is to limit federal power. If it were changed fundamentaly to give the governmment power to ban the right to own firearms then it would not longer be a document of freedom but of government repression... We would be like england with only the privliges that a government allowed us.
Why shoul a felon not have a gun? What is the purpose of jail if not to keep him out of society until he has been deemed to have paid for his crime? How is making him a second class citizen the rest of his life fair?
Machine guns and concealled carry....no federal laws against them but... they are not cheap or easy to get in most cases.... machine guns are denied many people for arbitrary reasons or because they can afford or... can be given the gun but they can't afford the prohibitive restrictions and cost of "licencing" this is a de facto ban... It is the same as only allowing those who can afford a 300 dollar a year tax and a training class to be able to speak or write freely... after all... speech can cause injury and death as in your example of yelling fire or bomb or snake or whatever in a crowd...
The democrats seek more and more firearms restrictions at both the state and federal and... the local level unconstitutional restrictions... they are defacto bans... even you would admit that if you are honest about it.... that is in fact, their sole purpose since no gun law restricting use has ever been proven to prevent crime or accident or death.... none... name one. the fact is that they really are a cowardly incremental form of a ban... each new restriction affects the right of a portion of the citizens to own and bear arms...
In every case a law made to restrict firearms has had no effect or has increased crime. Those places with more relaxed or no restrictions have allways had crime go down. even if this were not true... the second would still say what it says and it says that the federal government has no right to stop "the people" from keeping and bearing arms.
lazs
Lazs I didnt say I didnt know what they were, I said I havent read them.
I am not reading restrictions into it, those restrictions were put into place by OUR LAWS.
I know about the constitution so slow down, jeez. Quit trying to make arguments that I am not making. That is getting old very fast. You did it in the sniper thread and you are doing it again now.
A felon has already shown they have NO Respect and no will to follow our laws. There-fore they forfeit their rights to fire-arms and voting. Read Socrates/Aristotle on being a Citizen. He made himself a second class citizen by committing A FELONY. its not a misdemeanor.
As for cost being prohibitive, you could say the same about private pilot's license's. Get a new job if you can't afford a machine gun and take care of your family. Oh the poor people cant afford machine guns wahh the humanity. :lol
Sigh right back to dems. It's always a circle with you. I do not deny what you say about them. I just don't think its a big deal. Oh cant carry pistols in San Fran, well get started trying to help people overturn the laws you don't agree with, or move. Sounds like you live in the wrong state if YOUR duly ELECTED officials are making laws you don't agree with. I sincerely doubt though you have done anything to try to get those "laws" overturned. Venting on this BBS does nothing for your problem.
I said it before and I will say it again, Your best defense against infringement of your rights or an Uppity government is a lawyer, not a gun.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and... since you are a rifle team, bullet charging and soaking up hero type guy in the prime of life with an understanding of the constitution that only our unbiased school system and it's world wise professors can give a man...
I ask for clarification on what such a modern man... one who knows better than the founders... what would you allow me to have fireams wise?
You say no machine guns unless they give me a permit and I can afford to pay the taxes... Lets say I can't... you then think I should not have one?
how bout .50 caliber bolt action rifles? How bout 90 round drum mags? silencers? so called "assault weapons" (how did you feel about em pre/during/post ban?) Is the value and the right to won a weapon predicated on the whim of the government? is firearms rights something that should go back and forth as different political parties take power?
how bout short shotguns? 17.999 inch barrel? should you be free to own an 18" barrel and be thrown in prison for 5 years for a 17.9999 inch one?
If you have weapons that you think should be banned then can you give me your reasons... I will accept that you "feel" that they are bad but still think you are a buffoon..
And... so far as winning you or anyone else over with the way I argue.... who cares? I don't... do as you please. If you are won over by someone who kisses your butt and seduces you into beliveing what is not logical or real.... don't read what I write... stay in school and lsten to those world wise scholars and independent thinkers.
lazs
Lazs you are one of those people that feel education is evil, aren't you? :lol :lol :lol
Just told you some background on myself, you make your own decision. I will say those were some of the prouder moments of my life.
I have already said the only thing I would ban are MG's. As far as guns.
If you can't afford to pay taxes then how can you afford a MG? Yes though, if you cant afford the taxes/licensing then you should not be able to buy it. It's a simple concept.
I could care less about sawed off shotty's.
I have already told you why MG's should be banned. Man you are slow. Maybe some education would be helpful.
Here I will summarize it for you.
Its because that way 1 or 2 people cant cause tremendous loss of life. Its because MG's bullets tend to travel farther, faster and more powerfully thus they penetrate houses, cars, etc farther and easier, killing innocent people. It's because I don't want terrorists to come here and go get MG's from our stores and use them against us. At least make it more difficult for them to be armed with huge firepower.
Considering how you feel about your "rights" being legislated away, I would think you would try to convince everyone of how unjust that "cause" is. People that say I dont care and then go on a tyraid only show how much they truly do care. Or am I just a vent for your hate towards people who dont think everyone should be armed to the teeth?
Again I see school is evil to you. That is something that only you know what I am not even gonna go there. Have a good day lasz and try to lighten up. Not being able to get MG's from wally world at 3 am doesnt mean its the end of the world, nor does it mean I want to ban all guns. Try to remember that next time we discuss guns.
-
LOL... you admit that you haven't read the federalist papers or the DOJ report...
Machine guns? until 1968 you could own a solothurn or a lahti... it was a 20MM semi auto cannon and could be bought for $100-200 dollars the ammo could be bought and shipped for $500 a thousand rounds... HE and armor piercing..... I shot several of em.. These things could take out an armored car or semi truck or...
I need an education? One person could cause a lot of damage? how much damage could one of those babies cause? No... how much did they cause? You are the bright boy... thousands of such cannon were sold here... can you give me the numbers on the slaughter?
Machine guns....1934... anyone could own em. a few gangs of destitute bank robbers and rum runners used em for crime... in truth... they killed very few people... a handful compared to handguns and rifles and shotguns.. the killing stopped allmost the second that another ban was lifted... the ban on booze was repealed (another bad law). lots of machine guns are out there... tell me about the slaughter..
How it worked was... A bunch of feds had no job when prohibition was repealed... they needed a new boogey man... there were 2-6 MILLION machine guns in the country and everyone knew that no one would pay 2-20 times the price of the gun for the privlige of having the governments blessing.... several million criminals were CREATED out of thin air with a stroke of the pen as only about 1% of the people who owned em trusted the feds enough or had the money to regester for the tax.
I don't care if you like the way I put it or not... Look it up.
As for what I do? I belong to several organizations that I support with money like the NRA and I vote for pro second amendment candidates... I call and write my representitives because.... The NRA alerts me to new gun laws being contemplated... ones you probly don't even know are happening..
for instance.. a few weeks ago I called my representitive to tell her to vote no on AB357
and.... like it or not... you are wrong on charging in on criminals in the act of violence... the stats say so... it is 11% chance of getting harmed if you resist with a firearm... the chance is over 50% if you resist criminals with your bare hands. You are playing the odds in a very foolish way. But you are big and strong and young you say??? screw all the weak and old and women huh? is that how you feel about it?
It's a good life if you don't weaken eh?
As for your airplane example... that is laughable... the price of an airplane is several thousand times the price of the licence. The tax on machine guns is/was 1 to 20 times more than the product was worth.
If you are so set on wanting to believe what you have been taught then I would say that it would be best that you not do any research and that you dismiss any arguement as being uneducated and abrassive.
lazs
-
and... yes... I believe that one sided ecucation by wrote with no personal involvement in research is evil. I believe that is very close to simple propoganda.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Free through School :) Even have off-campus access to it.
Now THAT explains EVERYTHING!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
-
Originally posted by lazs2
LOL... you admit that you haven't read the federalist papers or the DOJ report...
Machine guns? until 1968 you could own a solothurn or a lahti... it was a 20MM semi auto cannon and could be bought for $100-200 dollars the ammo could be bought and shipped for $500 a thousand rounds... HE and armor piercing..... I shot several of em.. These things could take out an armored car or semi truck or...
I need an education? One person could cause a lot of damage? how much damage could one of those babies cause? No... how much did they cause? You are the bright boy... thousands of such cannon were sold here... can you give me the numbers on the slaughter?
Machine guns....1934... anyone could own em. a few gangs of destitute bank robbers and rum runners used em for crime... in truth... they killed very few people... a handful compared to handguns and rifles and shotguns.. the killing stopped allmost the second that another ban was lifted... the ban on booze was repealed (another bad law). lots of machine guns are out there... tell me about the slaughter..
How it worked was... A bunch of feds had no job when prohibition was repealed... they needed a new boogey man... there were 2-6 MILLION machine guns in the country and everyone knew that no one would pay 2-20 times the price of the gun for the privlige of having the governments blessing.... several million criminals were CREATED out of thin air with a stroke of the pen as only about 1% of the people who owned em trusted the feds enough or had the money to regester for the tax.
I don't care if you like the way I put it or not... Look it up.
As for what I do? I belong to several organizations that I support with money like the NRA and I vote for pro second amendment candidates... I call and write my representitives because.... The NRA alerts me to new gun laws being contemplated... ones you probly don't even know are happening..
for instance.. a few weeks ago I called my representitive to tell her to vote no on AB357
and.... like it or not... you are wrong on charging in on criminals in the act of violence... the stats say so... it is 11% chance of getting harmed if you resist with a firearm... the chance is over 50% if you resist criminals with your bare hands. You are playing the odds in a very foolish way. But you are big and strong and young you say??? screw all the weak and old and women huh? is that how you feel about it?
It's a good life if you don't weaken eh?
As for your airplane example... that is laughable... the price of an airplane is several thousand times the price of the licence. The tax on machine guns is/was 1 to 20 times more than the product was worth.
If you are so set on wanting to believe what you have been taught then I would say that it would be best that you not do any research and that you dismiss any arguement as being uneducated and abrassive.
lazs
Comparing our culture now in the US in 2005 with 1930's or 1968 even is laughable. Different worlds, different attitudes. Even though didn't gangsters give law enforcement a big problem back in the 30's because of their "tommy-Guns"?
Private Pilot's license's last time I checked were around 5k. You can buy a plane for only 10x that amount. 50k. That is not several thousand times the price of the license.
As for the slaughter I know it happens. Someone just shot up 6 people here in atlanta with an AK in a park last week. Here is another one though that is a prime example.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/15/1050172599480.html
Gunmen armed with an AK-47 assault rifle and a semi-automatic pistol killed one student and injured three others in a New Orleans high school gymnasium on Monday.
According to New Orleans police officials, about 200 students were in the gym when four youths, two of them armed, entered the building.
Their apparent target, Jonathan Williams, was sitting on the sidelines when the gunmen confronted him. They shot repeatedly, hitting him in the head and body.
Three girls also were hit by stray bullets, police said.
Williams died at the scene. The most seriously injured student, a 15-year-old girl, underwent surgery for bullet wounds to both legs. The other two injured girls, both 16, were treated for minor gunshot wounds and released. A fourth student was injured during the rush to escape.
There are plenty more cases like that. The AK-47 seems to be particular favorite of gangs.
Do you ever use a link lasz or do you just pull stuff right off the NRA website. I am not going for any of your stats regarding my risks intervening in a crime. Especially when you are scared to post the source. Why is it that questionable? :lol :lol
Lasz just because I havent read the federalist papers or a DOJ report doesnt mean squat. I already said I plan to so I can be more informed but that I am too busy right now, but you just skip over that.
I am in school to learn, that seems to be a hard concept for you to grasp. I don't take what's spoon fed me, I have been taught to think for myself.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and... yes... I believe that one sided ecucation by wrote with no personal involvement in research is evil. I believe that is very close to simple propoganda.
lazs
That is one broad statement that in no way reflects my academic experience. But I am sure the NRA website tells ya that education is bad. :rofl
-
Laz seems to me a true Jeffersonian democrat.
Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. --- Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." ---Thomas Jefferson
-
yep... I suppose that I am more of a Jeffersonian democrat than anything. I didn't really leave the democratic party... they left me.
raider... talk about putting words in peoples mouth... you are the champ... you are telling me what I think about education... over and over.
where is your example of a rash of machine gun killings? You realize that there are still huindreds of thousands of em out there... where are the killings... you point to one killing in a country of 300 million done with a semi automatic carbine and a semi auto pistol? do you want to ban all semi autos?
where do you draw the line?
A pilots licence does not cost 5 thousand dollars. but... let us continue with the private plane analodgy... you seem to be implying that the gun licence and the plane one are the same...
certainly there is great potential for harm in either... My understanding tho is that the plane licencing is for skill only... not intent... there is nothing in the process that would prevent any private pilot from using his plane as a far more deadly weapon than any "machine gun" And... who really needs a private plane? they are just toys for those not using them in business..
If we ban things simply on the basis of potential for harm... private planes would seem a logical choice.
I believe that I am doing something about gun laws using this BB... I don't care if I convince you.... I believe that others on this board read the debate and form an opinion... I believe that not having you be convinced is minor and that you are doing a great job of making my point for me.
I thank you for that.
And... have you ever visited the NRA website? Is there something evil or untrue there that I should be aware of or.... are you just regurgitating something that one of your professors told you again?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
raider... talk about putting words in peoples mouth... you are the champ... you are telling me what I think about education... over and over.
or.... are you just regurgitating something that one of your professors told you again?
lazs
And you make my point. Your attitude toward college is evident. by lines like these.
You can get a PPL for around 5k. sorry but that is true.
You say semi-auto carbine, but I didnt read that anywhere. It said AK-47. Not semi-auto ak47...
Jeez do I even have to bring up the two bank robbers in LA? They held off law enforcement for damn an hour and how many people were shot again? 12 cops and 8 civilians. I think that demostrates exactly why full autos should not be legal.
yeah just ignores stuff like that or call them isolated incidents. Maybe the reason they ARE isolated incidents are that Full-auto's are illegal.
-
Jeez do I even have to bring up the two bank robbers in LA? They held off law enforcement for damn an hour and how many people were shot again? 12 cops and 8 civilians. I think that demostrates exactly why full autos should not be legal.
Hate to interrupt your convo Raider, but I have to stop you here.
This does not demonstrate why full autos should be illegal. It demonstrates why full autos should be completely legal.
How long would this robbery have taken place if Bobby, June, Susie, and Billy from up the street all came out sportin' m60's?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Jeez do I even have to bring up the two bank robbers in LA?
Please do.
On February 28, 1997, Matasareanu and Phillips tried to rob a Bank of America branch office in North Hollywood, California. While trying to escape, the two men engaged in a shootout with police. Though vastly outnumbered, the two menarmed with automatic weapons and wearing body armorsuccessfully held off law enforcement personnel for hours before being shot and killed by police.
Both were caught 3 months previous with a car full of Weapons and Robbery related goods.(October 23,1993). Held on various charges and eventually serving 99 Days(Phillips) and 71 Days (Matasareanu). Firearms charges plea bargained away and Judge ordered most firearms returned.
The weapons used in North Hollywood were originally bought at a gun show and then illegally resold to Matasareanu and Phillips.
These weapons were:
Chinese Type84S, illegally converted full auto, folding stock;Triple
Mags,Taped;
Rumanian Kalashnakov, illegally converted auto, folding stock,with 90rd Drum Mag;
Heckler & Koch HK91A3, illegally converted auto, collapsable stock;
Berretta Model 92, 9MM Para
The owner of the gun store that "loaned" the police some heavier weaponry did not insist on the manditory 15 day waiting period.
How many laws were broken in this incident?
-
Originally posted by Toad
How many laws were broken in this incident?
One
Most law enforcement personel are usualy exempt from waiting periods.
Being some of these guys were in uniform with others, they probably just had to show their badge/ identification providing it wasnt already in plain sight.
-
Wrong answer.
-
I'm sorry actualy three. I would say four, but I would asume the judge has a good grapse on the law and at the time had a reason for giving them back. Theres not enough information I can find that says what the judges reasonings were as to why he felt it was ok to give them back.
1. The weapons were illeagaly converted
2. They weapons were illeagaly sold
3. Depending on what they charged for would depend on if they got the weapons back or not.
-
nope raider... wrong on everything again... I never implied anything about ecucation except that yours seems to be very limited and propogandized... I have 60 or 70 (forget how many) units over the years myself that I paid for myself and took at night while working a normal job. I did very well in all those classes.
The actul licence to fly a plane is very inexpensive... perhaps you are talking about flight school?
Now.. the evil machine guns.... those used in the LA robbery... we should be glad that the robbers made such a poor choice and that everyone involved was such poor shots. any standard hunting rifle in the hands of the crooks would have done many times more damage than the piddly lillte AK's spraying and praying.. Hunting arms are many times more powerful and could have penetrated body armor and vehicles and a trained and skilled marksman would have killed.... estimate? 30 cops that day.... even a lever action hunting rifle would have been worse for the cops. It wasn't the full auto AK's that were causing the cops problems it was the body armor the bad guys wore and the lack od a decent weapon to penetrate said armor... you will note that cops now have full auto "assault weapons" in most vehicles (at least in Kalifornia) here.
the point is... someone will allways abuse their freedom... you do not use that to take away the law abidings rights... not in a free country.. as an example... say that an insane person used a private plane to crash into a school yard with a full tank or loaded with a fertilizer bomb.... would you ban private planes for all? what if two a year did it? three? The potential for great harm is there.... what about swimming? people drown.... people drown trying to save em. not just a few.... thousands a year. No one NEEDS to swim.
What do you do besides attend classes and attack bad guys with your bare hands? I bet I could make a case for banning it.
so excuse me if I don't want to be left to your tender mercies and bizzare uneducated logic as to what types of weapons you would allow me to have... you seem much to "progressive" and fickle and trendy to have such power over the rest of us. You don't know anything about guns and you don't even know what you want in any case.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nope raider... wrong on everything again... I never implied anything about ecucation except that yours seems to be very limited and propogandized... I have 60 or 70 (forget how many) units over the years myself that I paid for myself and took at night while working a normal job. I did very well in all those classes.
The actul licence to fly a plane is very inexpensive... perhaps you are talking about flight school?
Now.. the evil machine guns.... those used in the LA robbery... we should be glad that the robbers made such a poor choice and that everyone involved was such poor shots. any standard hunting rifle in the hands of the crooks would have done many times more damage than the piddly lillte AK's spraying and praying.. Hunting arms are many times more powerful and could have penetrated body armor and vehicles and a trained and skilled marksman would have killed.... estimate? 30 cops that day.... even a lever action hunting rifle would have been worse for the cops. It wasn't the full auto AK's that were causing the cops problems it was the body armor the bad guys wore and the lack od a decent weapon to penetrate said armor... you will note that cops now have full auto "assault weapons" in most vehicles (at least in Kalifornia) here.
the point is... someone will allways abuse their freedom... you do not use that to take away the law abidings rights... not in a free country.. as an example... say that an insane person used a private plane to crash into a school yard with a full tank or loaded with a fertilizer bomb.... would you ban private planes for all? what if two a year did it? three? The potential for great harm is there.... what about swimming? people drown.... people drown trying to save em. not just a few.... thousands a year. No one NEEDS to swim.
What do you do besides attend classes and attack bad guys with your bare hands? I bet I could make a case for banning it.
so excuse me if I don't want to be left to your tender mercies and bizzare uneducated logic as to what types of weapons you would allow me to have... you seem much to "progressive" and fickle and trendy to have such power over the rest of us. You don't know anything about guns and you don't even know what you want in any case.
lazs
1) I have been saying PPL 5k from the beginning of that whole line of thought.
2)I do the same. I work and go to school. And have been doing that for the last 8 years. I will get done eventually, but I won't quit until I graduate.
3) It's hilarious that you can claim my education is "limited and propaghandized" by me not agreeing with you on guns. That shows Your limited mentality and how everything comes down to guns with you.
4)Yeah right, Rifles wouldn't have stood up for 2 minutes against the entire LAPD. THe only reason that went on so long is the combination of body armor and that they were Full Auto's with huge drums of ammo.
5)Maybe with extensive background checks and licensing I would have no problem with Full auto's being legal. Oh wait, it already is like that. Get your paperwork in order and you can own them. Can't afford it? Tough.
6) Already pointed out to you that laws were tightened around Ammonium nitrate after mcviegh did OK City. So your example works against you. Yes, I would expect laws to be stricter after such an occurence in order to prevent repeats/copycats.
7)LMAO you are comparing swimming to fire-arms? WoW :lol :lol
8)Already told you no full auto's is what I agree with. I have stated it several times. It's 1 sentence. Sorry if its so hard for you to grasp.
9)Lasz simple question, Can you or Can you not purchase a fully automatic weapon if you get the proper licenseing and register it?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Hate to interrupt your convo Raider, but I have to stop you here.
This does not demonstrate why full autos should be illegal. It demonstrates why full autos should be completely legal.
How long would this robbery have taken place if Bobby, June, Susie, and Billy from up the street all came out sportin' m60's?
Totally disagree.
I wonder how many people would have got killed in the crossfire being that Bobby, June, Susie, and Billy probably don't have any real training and would just open up, shooting and hitting anyone in the way.
Not too mention being as they are dressed as civilians and not cops, they might have gotten themselves mistaken for the robbers.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Please do.
On February 28, 1997, Matasareanu and Phillips tried to rob a Bank of America branch office in North Hollywood, California. While trying to escape, the two men engaged in a shootout with police. Though vastly outnumbered, the two menarmed with automatic weapons and wearing body armorsuccessfully held off law enforcement personnel for hours before being shot and killed by police.
Both were caught 3 months previous with a car full of Weapons and Robbery related goods.(October 23,1993). Held on various charges and eventually serving 99 Days(Phillips) and 71 Days (Matasareanu). Firearms charges plea bargained away and Judge ordered most firearms returned.
The weapons used in North Hollywood were originally bought at a gun show and then illegally resold to Matasareanu and Phillips.
These weapons were:
Chinese Type84S, illegally converted full auto, folding stock;Triple
Mags,Taped;
Rumanian Kalashnakov, illegally converted auto, folding stock,with 90rd Drum Mag;
Heckler & Koch HK91A3, illegally converted auto, collapsable stock;
Berretta Model 92, 9MM Para
The owner of the gun store that "loaned" the police some heavier weaponry did not insist on the manditory 15 day waiting period.
How many laws were broken in this incident?
What does this have to do with the danger of Full-automatic weapons being legalized. I used the LA robbery to show what that kind of fire-power is capable of.
I am sorry I didn't realize you couldn't "loan" a gun. I only thought the waiting period was for purchases :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Raider179
What does this have to do with the danger of Full-automatic weapons being legalized.
It highlights the reality that "legal" or "illegal" really doesn't make a difference.
All the guns used in the LA robbery were "illegal".
-
Originally posted by Toad
It highlights the reality that "legal" or "illegal" really doesn't make a difference.
All the guns used in the LA robbery were "illegal".
They were full auto's. The legality of them has no bearing on the point I was making about the amount of fire-power they can throw up. What was it 1,100 rounds they fired?
If as legal as rifles and pistols, I think you would see an increase in these types of situations.
-
So you think making all mg's illegal would have prevented the North Hollywood situation?
-
Originally posted by Wolf14
I'm sorry actualy three. I would say four, but I would asume the judge has a good grapse on the law and at the time had a reason for giving them back. Theres not enough information I can find that says what the judges reasonings were as to why he felt it was ok to give them back.
1. The weapons were illeagaly converted
2. They weapons were illeagaly sold
3. Depending on what they charged for would depend on if they got the weapons back or not.
I would think bank robbery and shootin' at cops would be against the law, but I am unfamiliar with California legal code.
-
Not too mention being as they are dressed as civilians and not cops, they might have gotten themselves mistaken for the robbers
Yes, T-Shirts, skirts and jeans would have gotten mistaken for Ski Masks, Body armor and camo.
I move for a cranial rectum reversion on Raider's part. Any seconds?
-
seconded.
Vote to the floor. All those in favor of immediate Cranial Rectum Reversion for Raider, signify by 'aye'...
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yes, T-Shirts, skirts and jeans would have gotten mistaken for Ski Masks, Body armor and camo.
I move for a cranial rectum reversion on Raider's part. Any seconds?
Sorry but you have no idea how a situation like that would play out anymore than me.
Yeah your right, what we need are a few more trigger happy people running around but instead of pistols we should arm them with fully automatic weapons. Yeah that will solve everything :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Toad
So you think making all mg's illegal would have prevented the North Hollywood situation?
I think that since they are illegal it prevents/deters/makes more difficult, additional North Hollywood type situations.
-
Wow I think MG's should be illegal. Yeah, I am really nuts for thinking that. Thats so crazy an idea. The US is gonna just self-destruct and disappear because I think MG's should be illegal/strictly regulated, oh wait nevermind they already are and have been since the 30's and we are all still here.
Just face it, you want MG's to be legal so you can have fun shooting them. And you don't care if it costs other people's lives, just as long as you get to have some fun.
-
Raider, let me make this a little bit clearer for you.
These guys took Semi Auto Guns and modified them heavily to make them auto.
They did not steal them from someone. They did not purchase them from someone. They did not make a wish on a birthday cake.
It has been a long time since an originally fully auto gun has been used in a crime.
-
aye... but before I go... raider... you are saying now that body armor played a big part and not just machine guns...
how refreshing... and revisionist... of you. The body armor was entirely the point... those guys were hit numerous times.. Can you imagine shooting at anyone armed with any kind of firearm... who would not go down when you hit him with your own firearms bullets? that is why the cops were unable to get out from behind cover...
Those cops were fired at by hundreds of rounds that were fortunately, relatively low powered carbine rounds fired full auto with little or no accuracy.. Than god they weren't well aimed fire from high powered rifles such as you would deem ok for them to own.
And... to answer your question... I would not be able to buy a newly manufactured machine gun in this country no matter how much money I had or how many hoops I jumped through... I could only buy from someone who got theirs in before the ban and was willing to transfer it to me. That is BTW an estimate of 190,000 legal, regestered fully automatic weapons in this country
If you see nothing wrong with regestering something and then banning it and then confiscating it then.... really... there is no point in talking to you. You do not understand the concept of freedom.
but... thanks again for helping me to show how democrats with their incramentalism gun banning policies are to be avoided and despised.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It has been a long time since an originally fully auto gun has been used in a crime.
Aye, and ... IN!
Actual video capture still from closed circuit TV footage of the last fully auto crime...
(http://www.addictrecords.com/images/clfst005.jpg)
-
Exactly.
Raider wants MG's to be "illegal" because it "prevents/deters/makes more difficult, additional North Hollywood type situations".
OK, Raider: All "civilian" MG's have to be registered and a special "Class 3" license has to be applied for and received in order for a "civilian" to own one.
There are many thousands of "civilians" in the US that have Class 3 MG's. Perhaps even tens of thousands of "civilians" with fully auto weapons.
So, as lasersailor pointed out, how many of these fully auto weapons that are LEGALLY held have been used in crimes like North Hollywood?
OTOH, how many ILLEGAL weapons are used in crimes? ALL the weapons used at North Hollywood were illegally owned AND most were illegally modified to full auto capability.
The obvious point is that "legal" MG's are not a problem in the US. They are registered and licensed and are rarely, if ever, used in crimes like North Hollywood.
So your "make MG's illegal" idea is more "feel good fluff" without meaning.
The legally held MG's in the US can be shown to be no factor in our crime stats.
It's ILLEGALLY held/modified weapons that are a problem and, by definition, they are ALREADY ILLEGAL so some useless new law would be highly unlikely to change the situation.
Your solution merely denies the rights of law-abiding gun owners while doing NOTHING to prevent "North Hollywood" type crimes.
How typical of the "feel good" brigade.
-
Toad.. it's useless to use reason in some circumstances, and in particular with the personality you are attempting to get a point across to now.
OTOH, WC Fields got it right 75 years ago. "Never met a child yet that didn't understand a slap in the face or a slug from a .45"
-
Originally posted by Nash
I wanna know what you think about it.
This is a troll, I guess. But I'm interested.
Is it still the same party that your dad voted for? Or does that even matter?
Do you like the state it's in? Do you like what it professes? Do you like what it actually does? Do you like where it's going?
I'll say straight out that I cannot comprehend the phenomenon. Shocking! :) And I won't change my mind based on what you say - so forget about that.
But I'd like to hear your best defense of it, because I find it so utterly beneath contempt, and lacking of any redeeming value whatsoever, that I strain at the notion that good men can knowingly leash themselves to the mast of a ship gone so astray.
To the one-liners, I simply say: "Hah hah."
To the rest of you, I value your insight.
Because I don't get it.
(and folks - lets be civil here, okay?)
Philosophical question :
If you bait a hook for a troll, and you catch a fish that runs in a different direction, is it still a hijack?
-
well... I am not for regestration because in the past it has ALLWAYS been the first step in confiscation.
every single gun confiscation started with regestration...Unregestered machine guns in the hands of citizens does not bother me one bit. they have never been a real problem.
As for the Republican party and guns... they historicaly are the more constitutional but... Bush senior sold us out big time.. It is probly the reason he lost re election... he lost millions of votes by gun owners who felt betrayed.
Both parties want more power... at some point they will do the logical step in all power grabs and confiscate the means of the people to oppose them.
For now... the republicans are the only choice... I really see no alternative.
I do find it disturbing that raider claims that people in 1968 are entirely different than people now and that a constitution was ok in 68 but outdated now... what genetic event happened that no one told me about?
oh... and another thing that allways bothered me.... the catchphrase of the regurgitators is allways "well, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre" to prove that the constitution is not any kind of limit on government powers....
You can yell fire in a crowded theatre... if there is a fire.. and... the word fire is not illegal in any circumstance.
lazs
-
Bush senior sold us out big time.. It is probly the reason he lost re election... he lost millions of votes by gun owners who felt betrayed.
Seeing as how I'm not that old, mind explaining?
Btw Atlanta, I'm a college student too. Doesn't mean anything.
-
well... it was 1989... doesn't seem that long ago to me but...
Bush senior banned imported surplus fireams that were semi autos. A huge step backwards for gun owners.
lazs
-
'Course, to hear the winner of that election say it,
"IT (was) THE ECONOMY, STUPID!!"
That's what the apparently anti-gun democrats thought, so I'd have a ahrd time buying that Bush lost due to the gun issue.
-
It might not seem that long ago to you, but I was only 4.
-
simaril.... It may well have had something to do with the economy but... Presidents get re elected in a bad economy..
think of this... Bush senior lost anywhere from 2, to howevermany (as many as 10 million)million votes due to his gaff/power grab on guns...
Now, let's say that he would have just admitted that it was a mistake and that he was wrong and that he had felt that taking away our rights was the best way to curb crime and that now he relaized that none of that was true and that he would work to restore our rights...
he would have picked up millions of votes that he lost. He would not have affected those who were going to vote for him anyway and.... he certainly would not have lost any votes from the gun confiscator crowd he would never vote for him under any circustances.
both parties fear an armed citizenry... It is just that the republicans aren't racing toward confiscation as rapidly as the democrats.
lazs