Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 68Hawk on June 05, 2007, 06:51:57 PM
-
I don't know if this has been posted before, but if it has I'm not apologizing. Watch it again.
Why Do They Want Our Guns? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j73SsNFgBO4&mode=related&search=)
Absolutely amazing. There's no possible way I could put it better.
-
Oh come on, it's not the anti gun peoples fault that deep down in a dark place they are keeping a secret locked away in a special little closet. The stress of that dark secret, surely as good old Sigmund said left them barely mature enough to deal with life.
You can't blame them for fearing those evil guns.
-
everyone should watch that vid...
The democrats of today are the womanly nannies who want to control us.. they are not the men of the past who felt it was a right of every citizen to be armed... that guns were every bit as important as private property ownership and free speech and the right to a fair trial by your peers...
Come to think of it.. the current democrats hate all of those things... not just guns.
lazs
-
I tried but Im not a speed reader. There is alot to take in there and it was edited too fast for me to read.
-
Just hate the idea of anyone toting a loaded gun, including idiots, criminals, and infants.
Still looking forward to shooting one of my friend's 7mm sniper rifle (Lager can at 500 yds, easy-go)
Wouldn't want my 3 year old or his 10 year old pinging me with it, but thanks god, he has it properly locked up.
-
Yeah filth, I had to do a lot of pausing. Would have been nice if they'd cut it a little slower.
Angus, keeping a weapon properly secured is only one facet of responsible gun ownership. I should hope children are both well educated and appropriately insulated from parents fire arms.
-
angus... why should you be trusted with a high powered "sniper" rifle and not your fellow citizens?
It would seem that you could be described as a radical extremist environmentalist and also as indivdualist who lives on a rural compound and avoids society. A "survivalist" who believes in being self sufficient... a very dangerous man, probly not quite right in the head.
lazs
-
Yep......the world needs to keep a close eye on folks like Angus and his "type".
A sniper rifle?????? Geez......everyone knows those things only have one use, that being to kill. Who could actualy believe that someone would derive pleasure from punching holes in paper, cans, etc? It`s all a big cover up I tell ya.
When they start taking the things that you like........it might just be too late.
-
I think it went over his head... most people who live in socialist countries are so indoctrinated to think that their fellow man is incompetent and a danger to them and that they have the right to regulate and control him that there is absolutely no point in explaining freedom to them.
lazs
-
Little by little our rights get shaved away. If the enemy tried to take our rights away any faster, the chances for a popular revolt would increase. As it is, the TV, work, work, and life in general keeps most people too busy to even notice that some new little infringement of their rights is happening and by the time they find out that some new law or rule has been passed or adopted, it is too late to really resist. Neither political party is to be trusted, obviously the Democrats have aligned themselves with gun control but many Republicans have helped them by voting for or not opposing loudly enough these infringements. Im not sure exact quote or who said it but it goes along these lines: An unarmed people is but a step away from slavery. Keep ye powder dry and aim true.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
angus... why should you be trusted with a high powered "sniper" rifle and not your fellow citizens?
It would seem that you could be described as a radical extremist environmentalist and also as indivdualist who lives on a rural compound and avoids society. A "survivalist" who believes in being self sufficient... a very dangerous man, probly not quite right in the head.
lazs
Because I passed the tests. Because I could supply clean guarantors. Because I have a clean criminal record. And because I went flawlessly through an interview with the chief of the local Police. And because I have logical use for my "high power" .22 magnum, and single 12gauge Shotgun for keeping seagulls (salmonella source etc) at bay.
Still am not able to buy a handgun. Got no use for it anyway :D
-
like I told ya... he don't get it... never will.
lazs
-
That video was a horrid mess. Poorly written and presented and totally ignores the issues of short attention spans by not keeping it interesting or funny. If you’re fighting gun control you should rather be spreading these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWeTEXSV7ts (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po8ywLD3f-k (Part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psEjU550xmw (Part 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn9cX5BaqYc
-
It would be really nice if all we had around here to keep at bay was gulls. All you really need for that is 12ga alkaselzter tablets.
The problems around here shoot back.
-
On a related note (when we are talking about gun control in relation to fighting tyrrany) this video is also a "must see":
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2867952079949962377
-
To me, the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is directly related to another right we all have, the "Right to Self Defense". So related, IMHO, that Constitutionally speaking it's practically redundant. Unfortunately politicians and judges historically have had a distorted view of the Constitution and the Rights it guarantees, so we've had a steady degradation of our Rights over the years.
Any rational Patriot knows that "having" an unalienable right, such as life or liberty or property, implies that one can defend/protect that right. I only wish that the Founding Fathers had been more explicit, thereby removing "interpretation" from the equation.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
I only wish that the Founding Fathers had been more explicit, thereby removing "interpretation" from the equation.
I guess actually sitting down and reading The Federalists Papers is a bit much to expect out of most people dealing with Constitutional issues.... like Congress, lawyers, and judges.... or the media covering those issues.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Still am not able to buy a handgun. Got no use for it anyway :D
translation.. the govt told me i have no use for a handgun.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
I guess actually sitting down and reading The Federalists Papers is a bit much to expect out of most people dealing with Constitutional issues.... like Congress, lawyers, and judges.... or the media covering those issues.
unfortunately, our history is proving you correct. :(
I do know, however, that Ron Paul has read them and has a clear understanding of what "unalienable rights" mean AND what the proper role of Gov't in regards to protecting those rights. :D
-
Originally posted by Viking
On a related note (when we are talking about gun control in relation to fighting tyrrany) this video is also a "must see":
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2867952079949962377
I made it to "endless war of global empire". Got anything else?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
like I told ya... he don't get it... never will.
lazs
:aok
because I went flawlessly through an interview with the chief of the local Police.
-
Interesting Statistics
FACTS TO PONDER:
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.
Now think about this:
Guns:
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million).
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.
Statistics courtesy of FBI
So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!
Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause
people to panic and seek medical attention
-
Viking,
The first set you posted are good links. I've seen them already. Penn and Teller are always fun to watch.
On the other hand, Alex Jones is a sensationalist at best and a hack on the order of Victor Thorn on the more likely side of things. His research is shoddy. I have never been able to discover a proper list of his actual credentials, or anything of his past before he started in 'jounalism'. I do agree with him on some minor points in a few things of his wider work, but that doesn't mean he's a credible source.
Please don't listen to Alex Jones too hard. He's not helping anything really. His shoddyness only casts doubt on the things he's right about. Some of his on the spot footage has some redeeming value, but his presentation or analysis of it often approaches a Michael Mooreish level of questionablilty.
blkmgc- awesome!
-
Originally posted by Angus
Still am not able to buy a handgun. Got no use for it anyway :D
Very few have a "use" (translated need) for a handgun until (even in the wild and wooley US of A) that very rare occasion wherein one's life might depend on having one. Though it may be a tired cliche it is nonetheless true "better to have and not need than to need and not have".
-
Whats worse is we dont have guns to defend ourselfs.
Land, personal safety have always been on top of the list to being "free"
Now the united states government can take your land, if they want to build a diffrent road next to it.
if they want your land for "30-100 years later to build something there" they can do it.
and without guns you cant even shoot anyone trying to jack your land anymore. "get off MY land, kABLAM!"
I didnt think it was truth till my room mate lost his house he just bought because they wanted to make the road wider.
Not only do they *** you on your land, but also the price its worth,and the price you paid for it.
They gave him only 65 thousand for his house and land.
he could ither say no, and loose everything.
or at least walk away with some $.
125% nazi communism bull****.
To hell with this country.
Cant wait to send a .308 thru some fat cats wig.
Keep em crossed, the time is comin'.
-
people don't often interview well.. local police officials have been known to have "odd" ideas and to harbor grudges and even... take bribes and do other dishonest things...
Now I can't think of anyone short of some devout socialist who would be happy to trust his life and property and those of his fellows to the whim of some buerocrat police official and on their own ability to do well in an interview.
I don't trust my government.. I think that in light of it's past and current moral and constitutional transgressions.. that, I have a healthy attitude.
I trust my government more than any of yours tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
It would be really nice if all we had around here to keep at bay was gulls. All you really need for that is 12ga alkaselzter tablets.
The problems around here shoot back.
That's because you're all overarmed, and we're not. Any idiot can be ecpected to tote a gun, while here it's really rare. And that's why you guys shoot each other on a whoopingly high basis, - highest in the western world?
-
Angus, why don't you mention the obvious thing - that guns are 'gone bad' in the US for the same reason many other good ideas in the US such as education, TV, leisure, freedom of speech (etc) have gone bad?
Something being abused does not prove it's a bad idea.
-
Originally posted by Angus
That's because you're all overarmed,
:lol
-
Originally posted by Angus
And that's why you guys shoot each other on a whoopingly high basis
My counts are way down for this year. Other than the occasional stray zombie I haven`t had much action.
Got to get those stats up. :aok
-
Get the gun crazy swiss to help you out :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
everyone should watch that vid...
The democrats of today are the womanly nannies who want to control us.. they are not the men of the past who felt it was a right of every citizen to be armed... that guns were every bit as important as private property ownership and free speech and the right to a fair trial by your peers...
Come to think of it.. the current democrats hate all of those things... not just guns.
lazs
I love how it's always Democrats or Liberals fault this or that happens.. Funny thing under Bush whom is a "REPUBLICAN" we have lost more rights than I care to think about.
Also funny that so many of the FCC complaints came from Conservatives right wing groups whom claim to want to protect our children while trampling on free speech.
But yea it's all the liberals fault those damn sissy's and they support terrorist lets hang them high..
-
Crockett is correct in that neither liberals nor conservatives support or base their decisions upon the Constitution. There is plenty of finger pointing from one side to the other, but not alot of honesty.
-
vor.. that may be true to a certain amount but the womanly socialist democrats are far more dangerous when it comes to justice and free speech and the right to bear arms.
all gun control comes from the womanly democrats.. the "fairness doctrine" where we are not allowed to listen to talk radio unless we hear their side too but we are still forced to hear their side in every other media (including schools) with no balance.. "hate crimes" and "affirmative action" all play nice womenly crap designed to treat everyone differently and promote class warfare.
They may let you smoke pot tho..
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
vor.. that may be true to a certain amount but the womanly socialist democrats are far more dangerous when it comes to justice and free speech and the right to bear arms.
all gun control comes from the womanly democrats.. the "fairness doctrine" where we are not allowed to listen to talk radio unless we hear their side too but we are still forced to hear their side in every other media (including schools) with no balance.. "hate crimes" and "affirmative action" all play nice womenly crap designed to treat everyone differently and promote class warfare.
They may let you smoke pot tho..
lazs
Guess you missed the whole Brady bill huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Bill
The Womanly Democrat as you call them.. happened to be Sarah Brady the wife of Jame Brady.
Just in case you don't know, James Brady was shot and almost killed during an assassination attempt on Reagan Regan..
Also, just so you know Ronald Regan was a REPUBLICAN as that fact may have eluded you and Jame Brady just happened to be Regan's press sectary.
But of course I guess it was all the Democrats fault because Bill Clinton signed the bill into law, as he happened to be the guy in charge at the time the law was finally passed.
-
Originally posted by Angus
That's because you're all overarmed, and we're not. Any idiot can be ecpected to tote a gun, while here it's really rare. And that's why you guys shoot each other on a whoopingly high basis, - highest in the western world?
No, the high levels of gun violence in this country are because of Crack and methamphetamine, not because of the predominance of firearms. I do not fear legal and responsible gun owners. The more often I see someone with a .45 on their hip I feel better, because I know a drugged up wacko who might actually shoot me isn't going to carry an illegal firearm in view. Just because criminals are good at smuggling weapons and selling them out of trunks doesn't mean that we we should take legal firearms away from those who would be the trunk merchant's customer's victims.
I truly respect that Iceland and other places in the world seem to be more domestically pacific, and as such their residents own self defense is not such an urgent problem. I'd really love to visit some time. Still, if things are peachy there, don't allow yourself to misunderstand conditions here. We also have lots of open territory that is still inhabited by creatures who can eat us, like bears. 30 min north of me in Boulder its not uncommon for bears to wander into backyards looking for scraps. I ask you what's more reliable when you're children's play yard is under threat, animal control on the phone or a 12ga in your hand?
I'm sorry, but your argument only makes the case for responsible gun ownership stronger. There are lots of wackos here that tote guns that shouldn't. They don't usually respond well to asking nicely.
-
Oh yeah, crockett and VOR,
You guys are very right that both parties are playing their own role in taking our freedoms. On protects some, the other protects others, but they're both disregarding the constitution whenever it suits them.
Can we please get away from these awful parties and just be Americans again?
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
Oh yeah, crockett and VOR,
You guys are very right that both parties are playing their own role in taking our freedoms. On protects some, the other protects others, but they're both disregarding the constitution whenever it suits them.
Can we please get away from these awful parties and just be Americans again?
That's what I'm for.. I don't call myself a Democrat or a Republican. I think both parties have sold out our country long ago. I just get sick of hearing right wingers blaming liberals for everything under the sun.
I tend to side more on the liberal side however I agree with the old school Republican ideas of less govt. Too bad that's long gone from the Republican party.
Neither party stands for what they claim to stand for, it's nothing more than a show for the sheep. The only thing either party stands for is how they can best get re-elected. Our govt was sold out a long time ago by cerar politicians.
-
LOL.... the brady bill? have you ever seen the politicians that support the brady bunch? every frigging one of em is a democrat.
every gun bill is brought up by democrats... poor old brady was used shabbily by his flipped out wife.. she rolled his wheelchair around and he died drooling.. never even knowing what she was doing with his brain dead body.
crokett... I believe that you are simply a liberal like I am a conservative. Those terms don't fit us like a glove and neither do republican or democrat.
but... I support republicans to keep democrats out... you support democrats to keep republicans out. You are most likely a liberal socialist. I am an individualist.
lazs
-
You will believe anything wont yea as long as it sound good and supports your theory..
James Brady is far from brain dead nor is he dead. In fact this is an interview he gave CBS news about a year ago.. Seems like he's really brain dead..
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/21/eveningnews/main1227348.shtml
-
There you go again with the liberal socialist conflation laz. Again here you're mincing a term, and you're essentially just saying anything left of you. If you want a general term, Leftist works. Just don't forget that Liberalism is the CENTER, not the Left, and that's why the Democratic party tends to be a lame duck.
I want to also remind you that Leftism is not necessarily devoid of individualism. A lot of Leftist ideology is, but not all of it. You talk about gloves not fitting either of you perfectly, then you try to squeeze you both into a pair (right and left :)).
Anyone who supports one party to keep the other out is as much of a fool as the party they fight.
How many democrats support gun rights but end up voting for politicians just to keep the greedy republicans out? How many republicans support honest science and a woman's choice, but end up voting for politicians just to keep some of the stupid ways the democratic party operates out? Technically the principles of individualism should lead us to vote for people based on their beliefs and personal performance, not which group they associate with.
I am prepared to vote for either a republican or a democrat, depending on which candidate is truly better, but I really wish I could be voting for independents.
-
liberals are center? that is news to me.
I got to admit that I did think that brady was dead... I seriously think he is not a republican tho at this point.. Last I seen him he could barely drool on his own.. he always had a group of womanly democrats behind his chair and his pos wife did all the talking.
There are far too many socialist views that the democrats have for me to vote for em and..... I am ashamed to say that I don't really care about abortion... I realize that it is probly murder but it is a small murder.. I don't care if you do it or not.. just don't call it " a womans right to choose" that is really abhorent to me. Kill all of em you want.
Gun control and removal of second amendment rights is almost exclusively the pervue of the womanly democrat lefties.. modern liberals are all for gun control and socialism.. modern liberals are all socialists. Their idea of "individual rights" is pretty much restricted to killing the unborn and allowing people to smoke pot. I won't trust my liberty with democrats...
All politicians vote right down party lines... they get to take turns pretending not too when it doesn't matter tho.
It is rare indeed that I see anything that democrats support that I support.
It is far less rare when republicans come up with something.,
lazs
-
No, Liberalism is the center of the classical political spectrum. It is true that there is no real viable Left in this country, as the center masquerades and to some extent confuses itself with the Left. Socialism (broadly) is actually the left. Please don't take that as an endorsement of either general philosophy. Also remember that there are many flavors of each, and generalizing that all Liberals are socialists really misses the point. You are right that many in the democratic party, and many 'on the left' lack a concrete set of philosophies that puts them easily into either camp, but that does not mean all Democrats or Liberals are socialists. That is just as valid as calling all Conservatives Liberals because some are moderates and vote across party lines.
"I don't care if you do it or not.. just don't call it " a womans right to choose" that is really abhorent to me. Kill all of em you want."
Doesn't the word "want" here imply a choice? If you're OK with them making that choice then how are you disagreeing with 'a woman's right to choose'?
-
"a womans right to choose" is a cowardly cutting off of a complete sentance. typical liberal socialist newspeak.. obviously a woman... or anyone has a right to choose many things.
It should be a complete sentance.. it should read.. " a womans right to choose to kill her unborn" Not her right to choose a plaid over a stripe print or a right to choose the drapes.
I am pragmatic. The literal defenitions of political parties are fine but the reality of politics is a moving target. I think that you can see that most socialists consider themselves liberals and... almost all liberals embrace socialist ideals today... in that respect.. generalizing works fine.
The democratic party is the party of socialism and liberalism with a socialist bent. I think democrats are using the book 1984 as their playbook.
lazs
-
So they truncate the sentence? Ok, "A woman's right to choose to have an abortion or not".
"I think that you can see that most socialists consider themselves liberals and... almost all liberals embrace socialist ideals today... in that respect.. generalizing works fine."
No, I don't see any genuine socialists today calling themselves liberals. Some liberals do embrace elements of socialist ideology, but so too do many 'conservatives' right now. Much of the Bush agenda has nothing to do with conservatism or realism. Idealism, and a particularly foolish strain of it, best describes much of the Bush ventures. The admin's trend towards big government and overarching bureaucratic structures is past liberalism, its socialism. Things that are traditionally championed by conservatives, the Drug War coming predominantly to mind, are more socialist style social engineering than anything else.
Then we get to the other confusions, such as the fact that citizen gun ownership is a Liberal value and not a conservative one. This is only if one looks back to the roots of conservatism and liberalism. People today have been easily misled into thinking that draconian gun control is a liberal value. It's actually only benefiting conservative status quos. That one issue is actually more of a political football than anything else, with democrats playing only their own specific role in taking power from the people. The more people forget the roots of their ideologies, the more they confuse one with the other, the more policy is just made up for arbitrary reasons.
Your generalizing only smears everything into a messy blur.
-
68.. call it what you will.. give the absolute defenitions... the truth is that the people who call themselves liberals and the ones who call themselves socialists all believe in gun control.. that may not have been true 200 years ago but that is how the terms have developed.
Look at the sites that silat links for instance... very far left. very "liberal"... very much into socialism (big government and restrictions) and of course... gun control.
Perhaps the term "progressive" is more palatable and has less historical baggage but a "progressive" is todays liberal.
liberal today does not mean what it started out to mean... that is too bad but it is a fact.. it really doesn't even matter that much since almost everyone associates the new "liberal" with "progressive" and socialist today anyway.
It may not be the historical correct way to put it but it is a very understandable one.. one that gets the point across and that everyone is on the same page with (in the US at least).
I see no problem with using it.
The proof is that the right people get offended when I say womanly liberal socialists.. the lefties all get offended.. right wingers or individualists do not.
The terms have simply changed in America... I didn't do it.. it wasn't my fault.. I am just being pragmatic about the whole thing.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
liberal today does not mean what it started out to mean... that is too bad but it is a fact.. it really doesn't even matter that much since almost everyone associates the new "liberal" with "progressive" and socialist today anyway.
It may not be the historical correct way to put it but it is a very understandable one.. one that gets the point across and that everyone is on the same page with (in the US at least).
Not every liberal believes in Gun control, and conservatives can also be progressive in their own way.
Does everyone in California believe in gun control? You live there so you must right?
You're feeding the misconceptions. Application of the terms has changed in America, and I'm saying that's a bad thing. Not like ideas haven't changed since the French revolution, but now right takes things from left, left takes things from right and the center doesn't even know where it is anymore.
New term: conservo-socialist. Oh wait they've already got one for that: Neo-conservative!
-
If anyone's seen Aaron Russo's America: Freedom to Fascism (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=america+freedom+to+fascism&hl=en) you might remember towards the end we're admonished to:
Stop being Good Democrats...
Stop being Good Republicans...
Start being Good Americans.
I wish more people would be able to see past the party politics, but alas, most of the sheeple are too conditioned to do so...
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
If anyone's seen Aaron Russo's America: Freedom to Fascism (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=america+freedom+to+fascism&hl=en) you might remember towards the end we're admonished to:
Stop being Good Democrats...
Stop being Good Republicans...
Start being Good Americans.
I wish more people would be able to see past the party politics, but alas, most of the sheeple are too conditioned to do so...
Many think that most of those who don't agree with them politically are sheep. Thinking it doesn't make it so or you any less of one. There's often a good reason why a lot of people agree on something and it usually isn't a sheep mentality.
BTW, sheep don't carry guns, they rely on someone else to defend them.
-
That's almost contradicting yourself Iron.
You're right that its thrown around, but designed structure has more to do with group dynamics than most people think.
I'll refer you to this book from the '20s:
Bernays, Edward. Propaganda. (Ig Publishing: Brooklyn, NY), 1928.
He's a cheerleader, but he demonstrates the value and subtlety of propaganda, even in the commercial and media world of 80 years ago.
-
68.. now you are just being dishonest... you know as well as I do that liberals/progressives/socialists are very much for gun control... with maybe only a tiny fraction that might not want total gun control.
And that is the problem.. the liberals are ashamed of themselves.. they get all defensive and evasive.. why do you do that? Why pretend?
Neo con? who cares.. the term does not offend me in the least even tho it does not describe me.
Bottom line... I would 100 times rather take my chances with my freedom by voting for republicans than for democrats who foster all the liberal socialist ideas today and ....99.9999% of the gun control.
BSD.... Tell you what... get the a huge percent of the blacks and gays and lawyers and teachers and unions to "vote their conscience" first and then I will talk to you.
Turn democrats into libertarians and we have won the battle... get republicans to vote libertarian and the womanly liberal socialist democrats have won.
lazs
-
Would it not better server you to encourage those on the left that do not espouse gun control and some of the wild ideas that you hate? There's more than you think. Not saying vote for the left, but you don't have to chock them all up in the same group.
And I'm not calling you a neo-con, just saying there are conflagrations on both sides and just calling a neo-con a conservative is missing a lot.
-
I hold no hope for telling the left anything... I do know that when I take them out shooting or when they simply grow up a lot of the mush that was crammed into their heads goes bye bye.
I enjoy debate tho obviously and... I like to get those on the left so mad that they quit pretending and say what they do believe in. sometimes they have to change handles 3 or 4 times before they do but..
I also have no problem with generalizations... They work. If you say "those on the left favor big government and gun control" you will be right 95+% of the time... good enough to live by.
If you say "every single person on the left believes in gun control" that is a different thing.
How it shakes out for me is... if a person is a lefty and says he does not favor gun control... I pretty much ignore him anyway since he will be voting for the people who are for gun control.. his lip service to freedom is worthless to me.
lazs
-
See, isn't taking them out shooting engaging in a dialog? Let the gun speak! You can tell them things in more ways than one. They might not always vote left, especially with your encouragement.
I try to vote by policies and not affiliation, and as such I have voted for democrats recently. I'll tell you this, I won't vote Hillary. I don't know who I'm going to vote for yet because the candidates aren't decided. There ARE candidates in the democratic party who believe gun control is bad for our country. It might behoove you to encourage them, even if you never want to see them in office.
See when you say "favor" you're generalizing in a good way. When you say all democrats are liberal/socialists it muddles everything.
-
Laz,
I have borrowed this but it gets to the origion of Democratic Gun Control as a party platform line.
Until Lyndon Johnson came to the White House in 1963 following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, gun control was simply not a national issue. There were no significant federal gun control laws on the books, and the NRA was a shooter's organization that intentionally shied away from any political involvement.
All of that changed with the 1968 assassinations of Sen. Robert Kennedy and civil rights leader Martin Luther King. In the civil unrest that followed, the media found a new whipping boy – America's gun owners. The media blitz against gun rights was unprecedented and became the driving force behind Democrat leaders proposing national gun control.
Although JFK and his brother, Sen. Robert Kennedy, had been NRA Life Members, America's new president, Lyndon Johnson, was a committed gun control advocate. No president ever matched his power and his will when it came to controlling the legislative process. His attorney general and much of his senior staff searched for new ways to restrict gun ownership among the American people. This was part of Johnson's Great Society vision of an all-powerful federal government controlling the lives of ordinary Americans.
-
Thank you but... I lived in that era. I brought my rifle to school and the NRA taught us gun safety in class and we had a school shooting team and got marksmanship merit badges and such.
No one shot anyone in school. the democrats were a different party. sure.. they supported the corrupt unions and they raised taxes but not that bad.. you could vote your concience.
LBJ got in and the world got turned on its side for democrats... the party became the nanny party.. the party of guilt and socialism and class warfare.. they were reaching.. they wanted to get rid of the stigma of years of fighting republican led civil rights...
They wanted the womans vote. they courted it and they helped the worst of the women in the US get power... women like finestein and boxer and some of the colored ones.
They latched on to guns as something to call their own.. some evil to fight that was not a republican idea.
They let the women lead the parade... women are socialists. they fit right into the democratic party leadership.
It is run by women and womenly ideas. in effect.. the entire government (when controlled by democrats) is worried about us running with scissors.....
couple that with the normal democrat penchant for class warfare and the karl marx playbook that they use and their idea that we can tax our way into equality and/or prosperity... and...
you have a match made in hell. In a nutshell...a party of socialists and nannies.
libertarians and individualists are endangered by democrats far more than by republicans... libertarians should be courting the democratic vote and fighting democrat leaders.
LBJ, FDR and lincoln were all the worst presidents free men have ever had to bear. the enemies of freedom.
If you vote for democrats.. no matter what their personal thoughts or claims... you are voting for gun control.
I write em... I give money to the NRA and other groups.. I write here... I do not do nothing. Probly close to 100 people who had never shot a gun (let alone a handgun) have shot them now because I took em out and let em shoot mine.
Even gun owners are not always the friends they could be... some of them have odd ideas about semi autos or handguns.. I have changed a few of their minds too.. shown them how fun and uselful handguns really are.
The one common thing is... those who oppose gun ownership... never know a thing about guns. at best.. they may have shot a few in the service.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The one common thing is... those who oppose gun ownership... never know a thing about guns.
i remember finestein trying to stick the magazine into the "assault rifle" backwards at a press conference. And then she said "with this gun you don't have to aim, you just spray and shoot".
:lol
-
finestein is protected by government guns that are with her every moment.
She is saying... "I know my laws will ruin your hobbies and make you easy prey for any tyranny that comes down the pike... make you unable to defend against it but..... that is a chance I am willing to take."
lazs
-
Feinstien became an amature totalitarian because of her personal experiances in the San Francisco City government. During her time in SF she had a bomb left on her front porch and she was in her office a door down the hall during the twinky killing. After that she got a CCW and began her career of separating the unwashed masses from the 2nd amendmant. When SF had a gun turn in drive she was seen turning in an old unfireable .38 that she had picked up for the event. A reporter who had researched her CCW info confronted her on the issue because her CCW showed a nickle plated .38 Police Special as her registerd side arm. Her response was a "%uck 0ff" to the reporter.
I have noticed in California Dem politicians work overtime to disarm the populance and have CCW registrations at the same time.
-
like I said in the other thread, show me a determined criminal who has been successfully thwarted from arming himself with a firearm and I'll show you a constitutional federal gun law. (yes, background checks and waiting periods included, they all need to go...)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Thank you but... I lived in that era. I brought my rifle to school and the NRA taught us gun safety in class and we had a school shooting team and got marksmanship merit badges and such.
No one shot anyone in school. the democrats were a different party. sure.. they supported the corrupt unions and they raised taxes but not that bad.. you could vote your concience.
LBJ got in and the world got turned on its side for democrats... the party became the nanny party.. the party of guilt and socialism and class warfare.. they were reaching.. they wanted to get rid of the stigma of years of fighting republican led civil rights...
They wanted the womans vote. they courted it and they helped the worst of the women in the US get power... women like finestein and boxer and some of the colored ones.
They latched on to guns as something to call their own.. some evil to fight that was not a republican idea.
They let the women lead the parade... women are socialists. they fit right into the democratic party leadership.
It is run by women and womenly ideas. in effect.. the entire government (when controlled by democrats) is worried about us running with scissors.....
couple that with the normal democrat penchant for class warfare and the karl marx playbook that they use and their idea that we can tax our way into equality and/or prosperity... and...
you have a match made in hell. In a nutshell...a party of socialists and nannies.
libertarians and individualists are endangered by democrats far more than by republicans... libertarians should be courting the democratic vote and fighting democrat leaders.
LBJ, FDR and lincoln were all the worst presidents free men have ever had to bear. the enemies of freedom.
If you vote for democrats.. no matter what their personal thoughts or claims... you are voting for gun control.
I write em... I give money to the NRA and other groups.. I write here... I do not do nothing. Probly close to 100 people who had never shot a gun (let alone a handgun) have shot them now because I took em out and let em shoot mine.
Even gun owners are not always the friends they could be... some of them have odd ideas about semi autos or handguns.. I have changed a few of their minds too.. shown them how fun and uselful handguns really are.
The one common thing is... those who oppose gun ownership... never know a thing about guns. at best.. they may have shot a few in the service.
lazs
By Gawd Margaret......we have us a new candidate. :aok
You should be running.
-
jackal... not only would my ideas have as much chance of attracting voters as those of the impotent libertarian party (I would sound good on the internet) but...
The press would slaughter me. everything I have ever done in the past would be paraded out and I would never be able to get a word in about anything important..
Plus.. I would not lie or cover up my past and I would state my views plainly without sugar coating them.. I might even say "I don't know" a few times... all of those things would keep me out of any elected office.
Most of the things I want tho... I would have to say... "this is what I think should happen but it is not my call"
lazs
-
Nailing Giuliani and co.'s BS on live TV would be worth it.