Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on July 27, 2006, 11:04:29 AM
-
I got to know... why do they do it? I have been told that blaming guns for all the socialist welfare programs of the liberal democrats is the reason... that the underclass becomeing more violent and the failure of welfare are too heavy to admit to failure on without a scapegoat so... guns are blamed..
guns causing the failure of all the liberals socialist welfare programs seems too pat to me...
It seems that most democrats in power have a genuine hate for the individual right to be armed. an emotional thing that trancends political excuse making.
I just never understood it. I have talked to rank and file democrats that were "men" who feared and hated guns but most either like em or have no real opinion other than we should be allowed to own and carry em... most say they would buy one and hide it if they were banned... weird.
Why do the democrats in power allways gloat and plead and make such fools of themselves over the second? Why is it so important that they will shoot themselves in the foot (so to speak) over the issue time after time?
It is an issue that marginalizes their party to tens of millions. If they came out with a more second amendment friendly policy and voting record... they could pick up tens of millions of votes.
It would seem to me that the democrats would lose very few votes by embracing the second and voting in congress accordingly and... gain a bunch
It seems everytime a democrat.. especially one running for national office... is asked about gun control he pretends to be for strong gun rights and then votes for strong anti second amendment bills.... if it were just pandering and he had no agenda... why not just vote for strong second rights like he claimed he was for?
I am serious.. why do they fall on their sword so happily on this issue?
lazs
-
it's a phobia, the fear of weapons, i can't remember the Latin word for it.
-
They want guns out of our hands so when they turn this country into a full fledge socialist/communist society, we can't revolt.
:D
(obviously not a serious answer)
-
Yawn...
The gun debate has been dead for years. The NRA won, and the Democrats realize it.
The gun debaters here, fresh off of reading some new outrage that the NRA supplies them remind me of those Japanese stuck on some island who don't realize the war is over.
-
its simply part of the overall plan.....
The left-right paradigm is completely false, and they want you to belive it so you think it's democrats that are out to get you.
The truth is, both parties are controlled and this is only one piece that they've gotten the democrats to play. Conservatives would imediatly alienate their electoral base if they tried this, but they can convince the democratic party to push this legislation through.
Many in the democratic party are too stupid to realize that disaming the American people is one of the most dangerous things that we can do. They are only worried about their own 'security' and cowardly give up their responsibilites as citizens in the name of safety.
Gun control is part of the plan. If they take our guns, they take our freedom to rebel against a government that has sold us out. (Remember the founding fathers admonished us that it is the right of every citizen, to rebel against a govenrment that does not represent or protect you)
Don't be fooled, there are many on the right who are participating in this same overall plan to control your minds. They just work on other aspects of it.
The sooner we all forget about this fake left-right nonsense, the sooner we can all get these would be Stalins out of power.
-
In the Chicago area, most are unfamiliar with firearms, don't really care all that much about them either way and don't research the issue at all. If a political police chief and the Tribune says they are bad, then they are bad. FWIW it's not only the Democrats in the Chicago area but the suburban Republicans who are RINOs (Republican's in Name Only) and their Republican constituents who are soccer moms and corporate middle managers etc. who have no interest in the 2nd. Similarly, downstate Democrats are pro 2nd.
In the city... well, Daley really isn't a Democrat per say. He is a dictator (with the usual bureaucratic corruption) and the Democratic machine is a tool. I was in San Fran recently and had a discussion on Daley as a true liberal. No real comparison. Take the homeless -- in SF they seem to be accommodated. In Chicago they are kept out of sight and know to keep a low profile or those friendly boys in blue will take care of them. And, just look at how his father treated the hippies in 67, and how well behaved those modern G8 summit protesters were when in town compared to Seattle :) He was ready to bash heads at the drop of a hat. He also does little more than lip service to support the poor neighborhoods, etc. spending big resources in the downtown area and putting most of his police force in the upscale neighborhoods.
Still he is strongly anti 2nd. He likely has a personal opinion that "guns are bad," and as an absolute ruler his opinion becomes law. I also feel that he clearly knows there is little he can do to eliminate crime in the poor neighborhoods, could care less regardless, and gun restrictions make a good scapegoat to appear to be doing something. As noted, even the "conservative" Tribune parrots directly materials from the Brady Campaign in their editorials, and seldom features a pro 2nd opinion in actual news articles while citing any number of anti-2nd opinions, sometimes from groups you've never even heard of before. They have never done any detailed journalism on issues firearm issues using statisctics to confirm any statement made by Brady or any local politician.
It doesn't help here that the hunter and trap shooter crowd only care about their slice of the 2nd, and leave collectors and other shooters out in the cold when the quarterly magazine/assault weapon ban rolls around. The politicians use that "hunting/sporting" (not counting high power shooting as the sport it is) deal to make them feel safe that the bad du jour will keep THEIR guns safe.
Charon
-
The gun debaters here, fresh off of reading some new outrage that the NRA supplies them remind me of those Japanese stuck on some island who don't realize the war is over.
You couldn't be more clueless on this issue Nash. I have to fight serious regulation several times each year on this issue with calls and letters, etc. It is a continuous fight in the state of ILL. The threat for me is the loss of personal property to the tune of hundreds of dollars in addition to some clown in Chicago forcing his beliefs on my rights. Property that is legal in virtually every state in the country including California. It is a real threat, a few vote margin type of threat. The oppostion outright lies in many cases and the local media does not call these officials on any of these lies either through ignorance or sympathy.
By lying, I mean factual, balck and white misrepresentations of fact, not some gray area spin.
Charon
-
Nash ..you are truly a clueless Dolt when it comes to Firearms and laws in the USA
They are trying to make handguns have ..serial numbers microetched on firing pins to press on to the primer when fired...
They want you to register to buy ammo..
They want to limit the amount of realoading components you buy
They are trying to outlaw any semi-auto large caliber rifles ...
Its a constant battle....
Your alot better at asking questions...then answering them
-
well... nash is of course wrong but...
Nash... if you think you are right.. How do you explain what I have said about so many democrat leaders and politicians having such an anti gun stance? They know that it will hurt em in the polls and that milions and millions and millions of Americans feel strongly about gun rights while many millions more favor gun rights when pressed.
Why do they do it?
charon... I do see your point... A local government type who hates guns on a personal level and feels very secure otherwise in winning every election can be as dictatorial as he wishes... he can afford it. But... many democrats end up being in close races where their anti second amendment voting record comes back to bite em in the butt.
Why do they do it?
I was seriously hoping some American democrats could explain it to me.
lazs
-
Ok Lazs, now a serious question for you, since the republicans have had control of both congress and the white house, do you feel our right to bear arms(and other rights) have been weakened or strengthened?
-
Neither. I feel that if Demo's take over the presidency, they are going to go ape **** on guns.
And that's when the real revolut... err fun begins. :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well... nash is of course wrong but...
Nash... if you think you are right.. How do you explain what I have said about so many democrat leaders and politicians having such an anti gun stance?
Well, thars a pretty big election coming up in a few months. Which Democrats are running on an anti-gun platform? Which Democrats even mention it? Where is the debate?
You like to say that scientists dream up scary things like global warming in order to get continued government funding. Hows about the NRA? What would happen to them if the bogey man went away?
-
Well, thars a pretty big election coming up in a few months. Which Democrats are running on an anti-gun platform? Which Democrats even mention it? Where is the debate?
Well, the Democratic Gov. of the State of Ill has been running attack ads against his republican opponent for several month's now on gun issues. I think it was the first ad in the entire campaign (it's still to early for her to run ads, he has a lot of $$$ and launced a very early media campaign). And there is a piece of pending legislation that barely failed a year ago that has been resurrected but is currently on hold waiting for the outcome of the state elections.
Charon
-
Okay, there's one.... I guess.
And there was some legislation on something a year ago which failed and is now on hold?
What else are we lookin' at here?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Okay, there's one.... I guess.
And there was some legislation on something a year ago which failed and is now on hold?
What else are we lookin' at here?
The dems in San Francisco got guns banned there, but the courts shot it down. Do a search on this board for more details.
The NRA doesn't need to make up the threat Nash, just wait you we will be able to give you a ton of examples as soon as the campaigns get going.
Hell I hear anti gun radio adds all the time now, granted I don’t know who is paying for them, but I would put money on them being dems.
-
Priorities
Senator Feinstein’s crime & justice priorities include:
Restoring the Assault Weapons Ban
Cracking down on gang violence (PDF)
Tackling the methamphetamine epidemic
Preventing identity theft (PDF)
Stopping audio and video piracy
Protecting the rights of crime victims
-
Originally posted by Charon
Well, the Democratic Gov. of the State of Ill has been running attack ads against his republican opponent for several month's now on gun issues. I think it was the first ad in the entire campaign (it's still to early for her to run ads, he has a lot of $$$ and launced a very early media campaign). And there is a piece of pending legislation that barely failed a year ago that has been resurrected but is currently on hold waiting for the outcome of the state elections.
Charon
Us hillbillies dow in southern Il havent heard anything yet. Whats he saying?
-
Senator Boxer was an avid supporter of the Brady Law, which requires a criminal background check before the sale of a gun. She also strongly supported the assault weapons ban that was signed into law as part of the 1994 crime bill and supports reauthorization of this law which is scheduled to expire in 2004.
Senator Boxer strongly supports a ban on armor-piercing "cop killer" bullets.(myth)((well in handguns anyway))
Senator Boxer introduced legislation to protect the rights of cities and other entities to sue gun manufacturers, dealers, and importers for the cost of gun violence. (cant ban guns lets close down the makers)
For years, Senator Boxer has worked for legislation to require all handguns sold in the U.S. to be equipped with child safety devices. The Senate recently passed the Boxer amendment to do just that.
Senator Boxer helped lead the effort to add sensible gun laws to the 1999 Juvenile Justice bill. Her amendment directing the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Attorney General to study manufacturers' efforts to market guns to children was the first successful gun-related amendment to the bill
The Senate's leader in the fight to ban "junk guns," also known as Saturday Night Specials, Senator Boxer introduced legislation which would effectively take junk guns off our streets by requiring American-made handguns to meet the same quality and safety standards as imported guns. These junk guns are inexpensive, easily concealable, and are the preferred weapons of juvenile criminals.
-
Senator Boxer talks like Bob Dole
-
Teddy K
H.R. 5441 (amdt. 4615) To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law.
He voted no, but it passed.
Not much on his site on his stance on guns though.
-
Originally posted by john9001
it's a phobia, the fear of weapons, i can't remember the Latin word for it.
Hoplophobia, (pronounced HOP-li-fobia), from the Greek hoplo, or weapon, is a phobia identified by firearms instructor Colonel Jeff Cooper in 1962. His intent was to satirically use a clinical term to bring public recognition of the irrational fear of firearms and other forms of weaponry such as knives or explosives. He stated that "the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user". Hoplophobia is deemed to be a cultural side effect of those who engage in the primordial human belief systems that anthropologists refer to as "animism", or the belief that inanimate objects can hold spirits that can effect human actions.
The word Hoplophobia does not appear in the Oxford English, Websters or American Hertitage dictionaries.
Sigmund Freud, the father of modern psychoanalysis, stated the following: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."[1]
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia)
-
Only thing I could find on Hillarys site.
I also strongly support the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban and have called upon the Bush Administration to take additional steps to keep guns out the hands of criminals and possible terrorists.
Her site isn't very informitive though.
-
Want me to keep looking Nash or is that enough for you?
You are right in that it seems some of them are either pulling away from it or hiding what they believe on it.
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
Senator Boxer talks like Bob Dole
She says stuff like, "Barbra Boxer thinks you should re-elect Barbra Boxer"???
-
nash... I think you missunderstood... I think that most democrat politicos try to avoid the subject of gun control (most of the men anyway)... they do so because they don't want their anti gun voting record out in the open.
If they go to such great lengths to avoid even being called on it.... why do they have such a stance? They vote like a teddy or a boxer but they don't want it to be part of the campaign... they don't want the issue brought up.
sixpence.... Yes, I feel we are infinitely better off because Bush won so far as second amendment rights are concerned..... He has come close to meeting my expectations.
first... allowed the magazine and assault weapons ban to expire.
signed legeslation that would protect lawful gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits and thereby insured that the left couldn't sue em out of existence.
Appointed TWO new supreme court justices who are constituionalists and do not see the second as a whim plus.. numerous other judges... this is probly the biggest contribution and difference between him and a kerrie say.
Told the UN to pound sand on their global gun ban idea and appointed Bolton to the UN.
Lastly... and perhaps as important... he gutted the efforts of the anti gun crowd... they have all but given up till they can get some democrats in power.... nothing like the constant barrage of anti gun legeslation that went before congress when klinton was in power.
lazs
-
Us hillbillies dow in southern Il havent heard anything yet. Whats he saying?
Well Topinka made a statement implying that the assault weapons ban is so broad that it could restrict a rolling pin, we have enough gun laws alread, don't need any more, etc..."
The "rolling pin" comment is being used out of context, ie... "She thinks an assault rifle is a rolling pin, WHAT IS SHE THINKING!" The "WHAT IS SHE THINKING!" thing appears to be the tag line in his first wave of ads.
The reality is that the regulation was so broad that you could ban any number of things once it became law. Ironically, the actual criminal use of so called "assault weapons" (semi automatic rifles) is so rare that you have as much or greater a chance of being killed by a baseball bat in Chicago as you do by the "...weapon of choice among gangbangers!"
It's interesting but not surprising that the ads are only running in the Chicago market so far. Gov. Howdy Doody lost about 30 percent of the vote in the Democratic Primary (not a good sign for the hand-picked Democratic incumbent to lose that many votes in Illinois), is facing some potential patronage hiring investigations and has to win back his base before he tries to convert anyone downstate.
For the Republicans, Topinka doesn't set my heart on fire. I think she would be lukewarm on the Second if it were't for the downstaters. She also comes across as the mean, chain smoking cafeteria lady, to Blago's doofus Howdy Doody. Both are connected to corruption, making it a particularly poor slate of candidates. Still, no choice. With a Democrat in Chicago controlling Cook County/Chicago and a Democratic Gov. things have been pretty rough the past few years.
Charon
-
Now you see why I left Illinois?
Charon, keep fighting. :)
I'm a registered Democrat. Have been since I was old enough to vote. My grandfather was very active in politics until he died, and I was raised amid "discussions" of politics and current events. We always believed in the 2nd amendment, believed our welfare system was bloated and mismanaged, our public schools were gutted and patched together with bubble gum and shoestrings, and that while almost everyone we knew was a Democrat you'd never see one as Governor, and Chicago Democrats were nothing like those of us in the southern part of the state.
Well they got the Gov's office. Chicago Democrats. Royal prettythang kissers from the court of King Daly. I dont think anything else changed.
-
I believe Charon has the issue pretty well nailed.
If I'm reading his posts correctly, the voters in Illinois are divided on the gun issue not so much along political lines as they are along urban and rural lines.
Tellingly, this coincides almost perfectly with the urban vs. rural split on conservative vs. liberal politics.
If you think about it, those are not contradictory statements. There are plenty of Democrats who vote conservatively on some issues because of their rural backgrounds. How else can one explain state voters who normally vote Democratic on many domestic policy issues rotating 180 degrees to vote Republican on issues such as abortion and gun control.
Conversely, some urban Republican voters will vote almost in lock-step with their Democratic "opponents" on certain issues while Republicans in rural areas will adopt opposing stances on those same issues.
Thus, gun control is a hot topic in most large cities and urban states. Yet, the same issue can gain almost no traction in those states that have large rural populations.
Why is this? The issue has very little to do with one group being more intelligent or enlightened than the other. Rather, in my opion, the issue is largely cultural. Southern and western cultures have always had firearms available for sporting, recreational, and defense uses. They are seen as an extension of a fiercely independent citizenry that loves and supports their country but doesn't completely trust it's government to respect its constitutional rights.
Many people in the urban population have, on the other hand, little actual connection to, or understanding of, rural culture and its traditional attitudes about gun ownership for recreation and defense. The fierce independence of rural citizens is, in the case of urbanites, often funnelled into other areas and interests. Long separation from farming and other traditional lifestyles has given rise to an urban mindset that can no longer identify with rural culture or its mores.
In return, rural regions find the fast pace and more liberal mores of urban culture to be repugnant.
The sad thing about this urban and rural split is that neither side makes any real attempt to understand the other. Meaningful debate and attempts at reconciliation become, instead, rancorous and bitter arguments that add nothing meaningful to the national dialogue on the issue.
The debate over gun control is just one symptom of a split that threatens to permanently produce two Americas diametrically opposed to each other along political and cultural lines.
-
Yep Shuckins, that's how it works here. A good sentiment as well.
As I noted though, even the "conservative" press around here prints verbatim the materials from Brady in their editorials. In one editorial they actually said, "while we can't verify that the lifting of the ban has caused an increase in crime, we believe banning these weapons at the sate level is a good idea..." While we can't verify... WTF type of journalism is that? I can (and did) verify that Assault Weapons pose less of a risk to Chicagoans than baseball bats by looking at the homicide reports at the CPD Web site. But then, I consider myself to actually be a real journalist (in the trade press) that actually tries to verify factuality and report the truth in the material I creat. I've sent numerous letters to the editor pointing out factual errors (not spin, but factual errors) and one letter to the publisher. All I asked for was fairness and that they consider my points and fairly evaluate them with neutral sources against the claims of the Brady group.
The "public editor" did step down recently, and the pages have been quite and some attempt was actually made in a recent news article not to hype the type of weapon, so maybe somebody listened behind the scenes somewhere.
Charon
-
Sorry, I'm just not getting any sense of some big struggle over the mighty 2nd here.
I'll just reiterate, straight up, that I don't have any issue with guns whatsoever. They don't disturb my sleep, so what do I care?
That being said, I'm not one of these people that thinks guns are like some kind of sacred object. Hell.... Water, food, children's toys, tires and gawdamned house paint are regulated.
While the government needs serious watching to correct for any over-reaching, I don't think that guns exist in some kind of free-for-all-anything-goes vacuum. They do wind up killing people sometimes... Just like bad water, bad food, broken toys, faulty tires and lead paint.
Honestly, there really hasn't been anything posted here that's very shocking as far as I can see beyond the lack of specifics and a failure to tie gun control to Democrats in any serious way. Certainly nothing matching the rigid vigilance that winds its way through the BBS every couple of days.
I'm just not feelin' it. Go figure...
I mean, you started out by asking why Democrats are all about gun control, and now you're wondering why "most democrat politicos try to avoid the subject of gun control."
So.... Which is it?
Whatever it is.... it's not that big of a deal, frankly.
But it's your hill. Enjoy the view.
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
Nash ..you are truly a clueless Dolt when it comes to Firearms and laws in the USA
Boy, we could make a long list with a lot of And..And...And... :cool:
-
Go for it LePaul. Do it.
I dare you.
-
shuckins and charon... I understand all you are saying and realize how blue and red areas work so far as liberal socialism and conservatism but...
That still doesn't explain what I am asking... Nash actually has it in a backwards way... even tho he can't vote here and even tho he is clueless about guns and the democrats voting record on emm..
He makes the point that he really doesn't care about guns. He proves my original statement that a lot of even the most socialistic democrats either like guns or simply don't care... it is a very small minority that are anti gun nuts.
Sooo... nash... not caring and all.... say you could vote (LOL) and a real dreamy socialist democrat candidate was up for pres.... He had a kennedy haircut and allmost cried over everyones pain and promised socialized medicine and a much larger welfare state....
Now say his opponent was ultra right wing so that their views offset each other to the point that it was a 50/50 race...
now... your tedkennedy diannefinestein hillary clone.... he/she is asked about gun control.... he/she takes the brady bunch viewpoint and... in a fit of stupidity... actually admits it. The other guy says no more gun control and that's a promise.
Your dreamboat loses by a few million second amendment rights guys spurred on by the NRA and other gun rights organizations... most even democrats..
So why did he do it? Wouldn't you be mad? All he had to do was say that he would not work toward any new gun legeslation and that he felt that the current laws were fair and more than adequate. But nooooo... They allways seem to not be able to hold their tongue..
It is one of the few things that they are uncomfortable lieing about it seems..
Just seems weird to me.
lazs
-
Guns are an easy scapegoat for social problems that require too much change and too much short term pain to really address.
1. The war on drugs is currently a closed topic. Some support the war on drugs some don't, but ther is no real discussion on "should this be the solution?" because there is a huge prison, law enforcemnt multi-billion industrial complex that makes it taboo to even discuss. So, the whole gangland thing isn't going to go away.
2. There are self sustaining segregated poverty pits that are not going away -- NIMBY and the fact that useless inner city "community leaders" will lose their power base prevent anything approaching a decentralization of the problem.
3. It's not popular to hold people responsible for their actions, by and large, among the special political interests and voting blocks in the high crime areas.
So, there's no really immediate solution to the root causes of crime. The way things have shaked out, urban politicians declare a "war on guns" to look like they are doing something. It's common for these politicians to be Democrats, but Bloomberg and Giuliani are both ardent anti gunners and Republican mayors. In rural areas, it's common for Democrats to support the 2nd. Bush currently "supports" the second but he is not active about it outside of letting things lapse and has stated he would sign an Assault Weapons ban if one were brought to his desk. IMO, I see his support more along the lines of "hunting sports" if push came to shove. Semi automatic "assault rifles" are a common issue, because:
1. Only a small percentage op people -- a niche among gun owners -- have these weapons. The media in urban areas is only familiar with firearms from TV, as is most of the voting population regardless of their political background. They either don't care, or have some negative connotation with firearms in general in many cases.
"Assault Weapons" are easy to vilify whether they live up to that rep or not. It's usual to lump in .50 rifles and high capacity magazines in the same package. It's also easy for the country club trap shooter crowd and the "...shot my deer, time to put the Remchester away until next year" crowd to not show their fellow gun owners any real support (... "they will never take my guns-- just give them what they want now and maybe they will go away).
2. It's not uncommon to have these semi automatic rifles weapons presented as machine guns as Chicago's "Top Political Hack Cop" stated in the local media: "You can empty the magazine in one or two pulls of the trigger...." Nobody covering the story knew enough to call him on this, or just didn't care." So, people think they are banning machine guns.
3. There have been rare, highly media covered events involving these weapons. They generally play a minute role in crime, and even when they are involved it's not uncommon for the media to ignore the 12 gauge shotgun that created most of the fatalities and concentrate on the "evil black rifle."
While currently a full ban on shotguns, bolt action rifles and many pistols is unlikely, there is a constant effort in these areas to go after the easy meat and incrementally tighten the screws. The same can be said nationally if it is useful, as it was for the Clinton Administration in the mid 1990s.
In general, there are only a few very activist anti- 2nd Amendment states and 2nd Amendment federal politicians. But, there are plenty that will cast a vote when the time comes for various "sensible gun laws" (drafted by the reasonable folks over at the Brady Campaign) including assault weapon bans and various purchase/gunshow/registration initiatives. And, in some states it is a very aggressive assault. IL, Calif., NJ, NY, Mass. (ironically the home of the "Minutemen") are the prime examples.
Daley, for example, with his "tobacco"style suit against gun manufacturers was essentially trying to financially ban firearms in the US. He works much harder at his State/county/City efforts where my rights could be radically different from my fellow Americans living 40 miles away. The more recent IL proposals (that one piece of "stalled regulation" you downplayed Nash) is only the most recent of what is a yearly legislative event at either the county or state level. The more recent efforts generally do not include grandfather clauses, so it's very much a 4th Amendment issue for me as well as a 2nd Amendment issue. Move out of state or deactivate/destroy in 30 or 60 days or whatever. So yeah, its a big real issue for me.
Charon
-
Lazs - I can only guess that there's a real question somewhere in your post, but I've read the entire thing a few times now and it's still not makin' a lick of sense to me. You're gonna need to reword it if you want my thoughts on it. Sorry.
I still can't figure out if you're more concerned about some perceived Democratic anti-gun activism, or the lack of it. You claim they're doing both, which is of course impossible.
Sorta like... on the one hand you want a bogey man to battle with, and on the other are sitting there bewildered that he ain't showing up to your fight.
Just strikes me that way I guess. Anyways, have another go at your post and I'll try hard to figure it out.
-
The easy way to find out would be to tally the votes on gun control. Which party voted which way. If Democrats vote consistently for gun control over a period of time, then there's the answer.
Les
-
What's stopping you?
-
I thought you were going for the argument Democrats (collectively) vote just as in favor of the 2nd Amendment as Republicans. Is this correct?
Les
-
Uhm... back up.
It's the gun guys who are freakin' out.
I'm not "going for the argument Democrats vote" anything.
You are.
If there's such a great threat, then bring it. Show me.
I think it's much ado.
Boys and their toys. I listen to guys go right into the science of their freshly bought large screen plasma teevees. "Oh man - it's like so real that it makes you nauseous!" And right away they buy the TIVO and the Lazy Boy and they automatically know everything there is to know about the industry.
Whole entire basements get re-jigged around it.
Their DVD collection balloons, they start subscribing to magazines, and they know more about the future of teevee than an ordinary person would ever admit to.
Ya whatever.... boring.
-
I've watched congress on tv voting on the different gun amendments. I read the articles published in the NRA magazine. Democrats don't have a good voting record concerning the 2nd.
I just don't think presenting a graph or statistics would be adequate to prove my statements or to convince anyone. I was only wondering about the misconceptions or misinformation you may have been exposed to...to state that the firearm issue is a non issue. That's all.
Now I'm getting out of here before Lazs gets back.:)
Les
-
Ahhh...
So you watched it on the teevee.
Amidst all the hoopla about guns that the folks on this BBS are dreaming up, did you also happen to notice that the Constitution of the United States of America is getting torn to shreds?
Did you happen to hear about the bloodshed in the middle east?
Are you aware of any plan to either win the war in Iraq or call it quits? Was there ever a plan?
What's with all the lies that brought the country to this?
What's FEMA looking like now as compared to last year? Any improvement? Do you even know? Hows about the levies?
Any thoughts on global warming? Or would you rather not think about that?
Oh - and if you're like everyone else, you bought yer last gun on yer grand kid's dime. Are you planning on paying him back?
How?
Where do you stand on torture? You down with that?
Can people really live on five bucks an hour? Why no increase in twenty years? Ain't that kinda.... harsh?
3 bucks a gallon for gas... How much did the government just give away to the oil companies for no reason whatsoever? How can you square that with Exxon posting a 9 billion dollar profit in a single quarter?
Where is the guy responsible for 9/11 anyways?
Shouldn't warrantless wiretapping be illegal? In a normal world?
Isn't outting a CIA operative during war a bad thing?
................ seriously. It goes on and on and on.
And you sit here and think that there's some kind of crisis over guns?
Really?
Snap out of it.
Christ.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Snap out of it.
Christ.
And have you EVER seen a concensus agreement to any issue on this board?
You should heed your own advice and get some sleep once in a while.
-
It is a crisis Nash, most likely exacerbated by all the stuff you mentioned. I'm glad the NRA is on the job, because I truly think they are the only organization protecting our freedom. I have posted about the McCain-Lautenberg bill concerning campaign reform. What most people didn't realize is that preventing an organization from endorsing political candidates (the soft money issue) 3 months before an election amounts to violation of the 1st amendment. The NRA fought this measure but I'm not sure the outcome...I searched for it at the time but think this outrage was passed, and not much ado about that. Has to do with 527 organizations, or something like that.
Sometimes Nash, and I know I'm wrong, but I get the impression your posts are devised by some Republican mastermind to get people to voting conservative.
Les:D
-
Unwarrented govt access to our privacy is, among other things, gun control.
-
nash.. every year the NRA does not only a poll for all national political candidates for office on how they feel about firearms rights but... they publish the voting records on gun control issues.
It seems that about 95% of the democrats get grades of D or F on the A-F grade system and... the voting records of the democrats show an allmost lockstep anti gun vote. You can go to the NRA site and see this most likely.. so far as I know.. their information on voting records has never been disputed by the politicians who did the voting.
If you look at any vote on firearms at the federal level you will see that it is split right along party lines.
As for all your other issues... take the minimum wage... That is not party line... democrats and republicans out in the public are split on the issue... Americans (unlike you) don't believe that the minimum wage was meant to live on... it was meant for high school kids to earn some money on in low skilled sevice jobs. Saying you are for or against raising the minimum wage has very little consequence either way. Very few care except highschool students and canadians and they don't even know the debate is going on.
fema... proving the point that giving money to the salvation army does more good than setting up any government charity.
I can take each issue you brought up one at a time if you like.
Sooo... would you be angry if the anti war socialist kennedy type you loved lost the election by millions of votes because of a "non issue" like gun control?
If I were a democrat and believed in their goal... I would either kill myself or... write my representitive and tell her to quit worrying about guns.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I got to know... why do they do it? I have been told that blaming guns for all the socialist welfare programs of the liberal democrats is the reason... that the underclass becomeing more violent and the failure of welfare are too heavy to admit to failure on without a scapegoat so... guns are blamed..
guns causing the failure of all the liberals socialist welfare programs seems too pat to me...
It seems that most democrats in power have a genuine hate for the individual right to be armed. an emotional thing that trancends political excuse making.
I just never understood it. I have talked to rank and file democrats that were "men" who feared and hated guns but most either like em or have no real opinion other than we should be allowed to own and carry em... most say they would buy one and hide it if they were banned... weird.
Why do the democrats in power allways gloat and plead and make such fools of themselves over the second? Why is it so important that they will shoot themselves in the foot (so to speak) over the issue time after time?
It is an issue that marginalizes their party to tens of millions. If they came out with a more second amendment friendly policy and voting record... they could pick up tens of millions of votes.
It would seem to me that the democrats would lose very few votes by embracing the second and voting in congress accordingly and... gain a bunch
It seems everytime a democrat.. especially one running for national office... is asked about gun control he pretends to be for strong gun rights and then votes for strong anti second amendment bills.... if it were just pandering and he had no agenda... why not just vote for strong second rights like he claimed he was for?
I am serious.. why do they fall on their sword so happily on this issue?
lazs
I agree Lazs, these stupid democrates don't understand we need these guns to take the rights back that were taken from the republicans.
-
parker... you have actually hit on it. Most people no matter what side of the spectrum distrust government and politicians and.... their ability to protect us from criminals and tyranny that they want to keep their independence (even declared it once) and right to keep and bear arms.
I believe that the democrat politicians are not in touch with their voters on this issue and that they know it.... still... they persist. They may be in tune with some big city canadian or high density crime ridden U.S. city metrosexuals but... for the most part... their core voters think they are wrong.
So.. why do they do it?
Is the money from the anti gun groups like foreign born anti firearms rights billionare sorros the reason? I know the republicans are happy to take the NRA's money but at least the stance is popular.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
parker... you have actually hit on it. Most people no matter what side of the spectrum distrust government and politicians and.... their ability to protect us from criminals and tyranny that they want to keep their independence (even declared it once) and right to keep and bear arms.
I believe that the democrat politicians are not in touch with their voters on this issue and that they know it.... still... they persist. They may be in tune with some big city canadian or high density crime ridden U.S. city metrosexuals but... for the most part... their core voters think they are wrong.
So.. why do they do it?
Is the money from the anti gun groups like foreign born anti firearms rights billionare sorros the reason? I know the republicans are happy to take the NRA's money but at least the stance is popular.
lazs
Look both sides talk about issues that are not on the voters mind. I mean with all the crap going on in this country and world, the congress takes the time to vote on banning flag burning. I know it's a disgrace and I would never do it but don't you think we have more pressing issues right now? Even gay marriage, our soldiers are dieing in other counries right now and they are worried about the evil gays. How about a true investigation of what happened on 9/11, how about real investigations into the oil companies, how about talking about skyrocketing crime rates, unemployment and outragous government spending? From reactions I see from many people it will be a cold day in hell before they allow thier guns to be taken but most of them don't see problems with the wire taps, sneek and peek warrents, etc. They will have all of our other freedoms before they take that one so maybe we should try to stop them before they get to the firearms.
-
parker... not following you.. the firearms rights thing is huge and it has been going on for many decades.... since the first gun bans in the 30's.
It is not something that most people don't care about... it is something that more than half feel strongly about so far as having their rights and that a small percentage are stridently anti gun rights and that the rest either don't care of don't care all that much..
in any case.. a politician taking a strong anti gun stance is going against the wishes of the people in his party... He may get the money from the special interest group backing him but he is taking a big chance that someone will expose him and he will lose votes big time.
The voting records of democrats are open to look at on the firearms issues.... Americans may not be all that aware of politics but.... with such a long history of anti gun voting.... I can't think of an American who doesn't know that the democrats are the anti gun rights party.
So why do they do it? It can't be that much money from sorros and co...
Sure... a lot of democrat politicians are women.. and socialists but... really.... Why vote against gun rights?
lazs