Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/15/2004 5:04:34 AM EST
I am a gun owner, target shooter, I carry a gun and am generally in the “middle” on everything. Reading your home page AWB comments, I’m struck by two things that come to mind when I hear arguments for and against it.

--First: Either side can’t have it both ways. You contend the law was a useless piece of legislation ( I tend to agree) because it really wasn’t an assault weapons ban, BUT, if it was useless then it should have little effect on anything a shooter wants or does. Not one person I knew ever said to me, “Man I really NEED a bayonet lug,” or “Man I’m gonna die ‘cos I can’t get a collapsible stock.”
Either it was a serious breach of individual rights or it was a political compromised law, which had little effect. I think we can agree it was the latter. People who on one hand rant and rave about “My 2nd Amend. Rights,” and on the other hand say it “meant nothing”, clearly want to use the issue for political reasons and thus totally lose credibility. The same can be said for the other side of course.
I know it’s a matter of principle to many, but if that is the case, then illegal machine guns should be too and the same people would be lobbying to legalize them, but they’re not.

--Second: To imply that by electing someone other than George Bush will somehow lead to a loss of gun owning rights, is just plain wrong. When the paranoia shows it’s ugly head and comments like this come out, it makes the non-gun-owning citizens afraid of the people with the guns and that hurts all of us. Apart from being a ridiculous statement, it enhances the stereotype of the crazy gun nut sitting in his bunker repeating in his sleep, “They won’t take my guns from me!”
It’s a totally false assumption that Democrats will repeal the 2nd Amendment (Proof:1994-All Democratic government and even with that, the AWB is all that happened). It will never happen! So relax. But what may happen now is that because the AWB has lapsed, new harsher versions will be adopted in many states. It would have been wiser in the long run to have kept the toothless AWB “as is” rather than go back to square one. You know that the next time some wacko wipes out a dozen people with an AK, it’ll all come back again. And when a terrorist uses one, all hell will break loose. So we may long for the good old days when the AWB was here.
As for Bush on Iraq. One could easily make the case that the war is pointless. We are stuck in a no win situation where we can’t leave and when we do, there will be a civil war. We are wasting enough money in Iraq to give every state, 25 million dollars EVERY week. And for what? To rebuild a country that will be re-destroyed when we leave. Fantasizing about democracy in Iraq is not good leadership or efficient use of finances or the conservative approach at all.
But I don’t see what that has to do about AR-15’s. Bush said he would sign a new AWB. Was he lying? If he would have signed it would the NRA abandon him? I would rather have a President who told us what he really thought, rather than play games, saying one thing with a wink of the eye and meaning something else. That’s just pathetic. I think I’ll vote Whig this year.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 5:08:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 5:10:00 AM EST by LadyLiberty]

It would have been wiser easier in the long run to have kept the toothless AWB “as is” rather than go back to square one.


"Square one," of course, meaning "freedom."

Yes, maintaining freedom requires vigilance. It's a lot harder than incrementally appeasing those who hate freedom by giving up a few of our rights in order to keep most of them. But I say the extra effort is worth it. Sorry you don't feel the same way.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 5:12:58 AM EST
It's a big deal because the Sheeple really thought the AWB was just that. An ASSUALT WEAPONS BAN. They really believed that for 10 years, you couldn't get these rifles. Until the masses are educated on the isssues, any new law is a threat.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 5:20:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 5:48:42 AM EST by Dolomite]

--Second: To imply that by electing someone other than George Bush will somehow lead to a loss of gun owning rights, is just plain wrong.


Is that what it says on the home page? I haven't read it for years.

Anyway, for me, I look back in awe and wonder at all the great things federal gun control laws have done to reduce crime in this country (which is absolutely nothing, as in fucking ZERO), and then I think about how many more useless gun control laws will be ponied up by the guy third from the left (who only came off the campaign trail to try and extend the AWB):

And I find no ill feelings inside whatsoever NOT voting for him.

And it's not that I couldn't have a bayonet lug or a collapsible stock or a 17 rounder for my Glock - it's just that I was being forced to pay 4X the price for the damn things - again, for no other good fucking reason other than it made DiFi, Chuckie, Kerry, and the Bridge Diver from Massachusetts "feel" better.

It was a stupid fucking bill, chock full of loopholes, (and FORTUNATELY a sunset clause) that cost the Democrats control of the houses (Bill Clinton's words, not mine).

Do we as gun owners really need more of this madness?


I know it’s a matter of principle to many, but if that is the case, then illegal machine guns should be too and the same people would be lobbying to legalize them, but they’re not.


Illegal machine guns are just that - illegal. And they should stay that way - however, if someone has the desire and the money to go through with it - why shouldn't they be allowed to own a class 3 weapon? It has never been completely "illegal" to own a registered machine gun in this country - you are aware of that aren't you?


One could easily make the case that the war is pointless.

Saddam was a genocidal dictator and a State sponsor of international terrorism - True or False?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.


I could go on - but this war is far from pointless...

Also - welcome to ARFCOMM!
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 5:26:54 AM EST
PLAESE!


No NEW MEMBERS TILL THE ELECTION ARE OVER!


THESE PEOPLE ARE JUST TROLLS!


Sgatr15
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 5:29:14 AM EST
Yeah - let's "Tombstone" him quick!
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 5:29:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 5:35:14 AM EST by SHIVAN]
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 5:35:01 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 5:39:17 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 5:42:36 AM EST by Prefect]
Originally Posted By wart78m:

First: Either side can’t have it both ways. You contend the law was a useless piece of legislation ( I tend to agree) because it really wasn’t an assault weapons ban, BUT, if it was useless then it should have little effect on anything a shooter wants or does. Not one person I knew ever said to me, “Man I really NEED a bayonet lug,” or “Man I’m gonna die ‘cos I can’t get a collapsible stock.”


No, it was a useless piece of legislation because it failed to actually achieve anything, not because it did or didn't have any effect on what a shooter wants or does. What does it really matter to the populace whether a shooter wants a collapsible stock or a bayonet lug? We don't live in a society where everybody has to justify their wants. The legislation was supposedly aimed at reducing crime, and failed in that regard - ergo, a useless piece of legislation.


Either it was a serious breach of individual rights or it was a political compromised law, which had little effect. I think we can agree it was the latter. People who on one hand rant and rave about “My 2nd Amend. Rights,” and on the other hand say it “meant nothing”, clearly want to use the issue for political reasons and thus totally lose credibility. The same can be said for the other side of course.

Um, I believe it *was* a serious breach of individual rights *and* a political compromised law. Just because it's law doesn't mean that rights weren't taken.

I know it’s a matter of principle to many, but if that is the case, then illegal machine guns should be too and the same people would be lobbying to legalize them, but they’re not.

I'm all for repealing the 1986 law that prohibited new manufacture of machine guns, and I'm sure you'd find many others on this board who feel the same.

Second: To imply that by electing someone other than George Bush will somehow lead to a loss of gun owning rights, is just plain wrong.

But to show a proven track record of the opponent's voting record on the issues is also somehow suspect?

When the paranoia shows it’s ugly head and comments like this come out, it makes the non-gun-owning citizens afraid of the people with the guns and that hurts all of us. Apart from being a ridiculous statement, it enhances the stereotype of the crazy gun nut sitting in his bunker repeating in his sleep, “They won’t take my guns from me!”

Sorry, but I have no responsibility to pacify people who disagree with me based on their own fear and illogic.

It’s a totally false assumption that Democrats will repeal the 2nd Amendment (Proof:1994-Al Democratic government and even with that, the AWB is all that happened). It will never happen! So relax.

But they will try to neuter the 2nd Amendment until it's meaningless. It's happened every time the democrats are in power.

But what may happen now is that because the AWB has lapsed, new harsher versions will be adopted in many states.

Unfortunately true. However, I'd rather have it tried state-by-state than as a federal law.

It would have been wiser in the long run to have kept the toothless AWB “as is” rather than go back to square one. You know that the next time some wacko wipes out a dozen people with an AK, it’ll all come back again. And when a terrorist uses one, all hell will break loose. So we may long for the good old days when the AWB was here.

I disagree - I'd rather have the banners at "square one" and make them fight to get another ban in each of the 50 states than leave one comprehensive ban in place.

As for Bush on Iraq. One could easily make the case that the war is pointless. We are stuck in a no win situation where we can’t leave and when we do, there will be a civil war. We are wasting enough money in Iraq to give every state, 25 million dollars EVERY week. And for what? To rebuild a country that will be re-destroyed when we leave. Fantasizing about democracy in Iraq is not good leadership or efficient use of finances or the conservative approach at all.

The same was said about Europe in 1945 after we won - these things aren't cleared up in a few weeks, eh.

But I don’t see what that has to do about AR-15’s. Bush said he would sign a new AWB. Was he lying? If he would have signed it would the NRA abandon him? I would rather have a President who told us what he really thought, rather than play games, saying one thing with a wink of the eye and meaning something else.

Actually, he said he would sign a new AWB if it came to his desk. Guess what? It never made it. I don't remember Bush saying he *wanted* it to pass.

That’s just pathetic. I think I’ll vote Whig this year.

Better than voting for Kerry. Now, back to DU with you!




(Edited to fix HTML)
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 5:40:23 AM EST
DU
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:00:27 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 6:02:47 AM EST by the]

Originally Posted By wart78m:
[...]
That’s just pathetic. I think I’ll vote Whig this year.



More likely you'll vote Democrat.

Welcome to ARFCOM. You'll find we tolerate polite dissent - unlike other sites, but prepare to be challenged.

The AWB, in a practical sense, was mostly about being able to buy newly manufactured standard capacity magazines. This is notably absent from your list of practical effects of the AWB. Yes, that makes a difference.

As for a breach of individual rights, ALL are serious. We are keenly aware of Fabian Socialism (incrementalism) and as such, oppose it wherever we see it. The Second Amendment, above all others, has been a victim of this for decades, the latest national example being the AWB. To oppose the AWB on those grounds is the furthest thing from damaging to one's credibility - it proves that one PAYS ATTENTION, and actually understands the methods by which our opponents have succeeded in the past. You would ignore this out of some dubious obligation to 'consistency' - as such, most here would see you as part of the problem.

And you'll find that most here do, in, fact oppose the laws that make fully automatic weapons prohibitively difficult to own. I do. But as for making them "legal" again, most here also know that the same incrementalism that took away our Second Amendment rights is probably the best method by which to regain them.

Support on this site for Bush repesents a choice among options that actually exist. It is interesting to see how you misframed the choice, implying that we believe that only GWB can protect our gun rights. Nonsense. The choices are Bush and Kerry. Bush is a far stronger supporter of the individual right to keep and bear arms. No one but the most irretrievably ignorant could possibly think the contrary.

Bush said he would sign a new AWB if it reached his desk, knowing that it wouldn't. Would most have preferred he said he wouldn't sign it? Probably.

But that's politics, pathetic by its nature.

It's even worse when you're losing, isn't it?
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:06:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
PLAESE!


No NEW MEMBERS TILL THE ELECTION ARE OVER!


THESE PEOPLE ARE JUST TROLLS!


Sgatr15



+1
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:07:50 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 6:08:41 AM EST by cyanide]
--Second: To imply that by electing someone other than George Bush will somehow lead to a loss of gun owning rights, is just plain wrong

You think so ?



WRONG
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:08:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
PLAESE!

No NEW MEMBERS TILL THE ELECTION ARE OVER!

THESE PEOPLE ARE JUST TROLLS!

Sgatr15



+1



Seriously - that's a DU tactic - we're better than they are.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:33:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 6:36:24 AM EST by LWilde]

Originally Posted By wart78m:
I am a gun owner, target shooter, I carry a gun and am generally in the “middle” on everything. Reading your home page AWB comments, I’m struck by two things that come to mind when I hear arguments for and against it.



Welcome Troll! Very well thought out and carefully crafted sneak attack.

Why don't we address each of your specious arguments, one at a time...what say you, Mr. Number 1 Post?



--First: Either side can’t have it both ways. You contend the law was a useless piece of legislation ( I tend to agree) because it really wasn’t an assault weapons ban, BUT, if it was useless then it should have little effect on anything a shooter wants or does.



You have just exposed yourself as an anti-gun troll with your statement about it being a useless piece of legislation because it failed to ban assault weapons! In fact, it was a useless piece of legislation because the ignorant anti-gun people who wrote it up did so because of several reasons: (1) They feared the nasty looking military look of the typical Evil Black Rifle so prominently displayed by the news media whenever some fool uses an illegal one in the commission of a crime. (2) The antis were afraid of not garnering enough votes to pass, if they included ALL guns...which is REALLY what they (And I suspect YOU as well!) in their bill, so they excluded non-EBRs that fired exactly the same round as the EBRs. I guess appearance is everything to an anti? (3) While in truth, it had overall little effect on our shooting fun, it did restrict certain features and magazine capacities that we hobbiests wanted AND was nothing more than cosmetic crap anyway! WHY choose a ten round max magazine capacity? Why permit LEOs and military to use larger capacity mags, yet not permit me and other absolutely law abiding good citizens from doing the same? Why restrict bayonet lugs? That is just DUMB...and a slap in our faces. It is an issue of rights and our hobby. Now YOU, et al might not have the same bliss...but if we happen to want it and we do it peacefully and non violently...why not? Why could I not have a collapseable stock? That is just ridiculous. None of the above did anything to make America safer.


Either it was a serious breach of individual rights or it was a political compromised law, which had little effect. I think we can agree it was the latter.


No...it was BOTH.


People who on one hand rant and rave about “My 2nd Amend. Rights,” and on the other hand say it “meant nothing”, clearly want to use the issue for political reasons and thus totally lose credibility. The same can be said for the other side of course.


Well spun...and HERE is where you gave yourself away again, at least to my jaded eye. It most certainly is our Second Amendment rights as you so craftily put it. You and I both know that your side is doing everything in their power to disarm the American electorate...for a lot of reasons, ranging from that some folks just don't like guns, to the potential threat posed by an armed American citizenry aka the "militia", against any attempt at a takeover by any form of dictatorial government, whether individual or oligarchy. Remember, until the United States came into being WITH it's Second Amendment protection for it's citizens, no state of any sort permitted its citizens to own personal arms, EXCEPT for the "defense" of that state or the cheesy potentate or oligarch then in power.

Additionally, only a true anti would take the position that in defending our RKBA, even by rant, marginalizes us and reduces our credibility.


I know it’s a matter of principle to many, but if that is the case, then illegal machine guns should be too and the same people would be lobbying to legalize them, but they’re not.


Here too, you give yourself away with your ignorance of the law pertaining to machine guns, Mr. Troll . Fully automatic machine guns are in fact absolutely LEGAL. Ownership requires a "Class III" firearms license, for which you will pay $200 IIRC and for which you will endure a very detailed rectal exam by the BATF before issuance of said license. PLUS any full auto weapon worth its salt is going to set you back somewhere over $10,000. Some are much higher.


--Second: To imply that by electing someone other than George Bush will somehow lead to a loss of gun owning rights, is just plain wrong.


Again...you have just classified yourself beyond a reasonable doubt. Any thoughtful person and gun owner KNOWS which party supports our RKBA...and it most certainly is NOT the Democratic Party. I DEFY you to name me ONE ANTI-FIREARMS BILL THAT HAS BECOME LAW SINCE 1994 AFTER THE REPUBLICANS TOOK CONTROL OF THE HOUSE...JUST ONE...NAME IT...NOW!!!

Kerry is ON RECORD stating that he would restrict certain firearms. How do you justify your above statements?

What happened just BEFORE the election...hmmm?


When the paranoia shows it’s ugly head and comments like this come out, it makes the non-gun-owning citizens afraid of the people with the guns and that hurts all of us. Apart from being a ridiculous statement, it enhances the stereotype of the crazy gun nut sitting in his bunker repeating in his sleep, “They won’t take my guns from me!”


Caught again! Sorry...you can't hide any longer. We are most certainly NOT a bunch of paranoid gun nuts.


It’s a totally false assumption that Democrats will repeal the 2nd Amendment


No...they can't thank God. It takes a Constitutional process well beyond the means of you gun-haters to accomplish that, and as long as the Republican adults are in the majority, we are safe from such foolishness!
(Proof:1994-All Democratic government and even with that, the AWB is all that happened). It will never happen! So relax. But what may happen now is that because the AWB has lapsed, new harsher versions will be adopted in many states. It would have been wiser in the long run to have kept the toothless AWB “as is” rather than go back to square one. You know that the next time some wacko wipes out a dozen people with an AK, it’ll all come back again. And when a terrorist uses one, all hell will break loose. So we may long for the good old days when the AWB was here.


As for Bush on Iraq. One could easily make the case that the war is pointless. We are stuck in a no win situation where we can’t leave and when we do, there will be a civil war. We are wasting enough money in Iraq to give every state, 25 million dollars EVERY week. And for what? To rebuild a country that will be re-destroyed when we leave. Fantasizing about democracy in Iraq is not good leadership or efficient use of finances or the conservative approach at all.


More BS Democratic Party talking points! That is so much Democratic Party, Kerry campaign drivel and would take me all day to refute with perfectly crafte pedantic logic. You close your DU trolling well...but you give yourself away totally with this paragraph.

<<snip>>
The rest is all BS smoke at a poor attempt to close out your thesis and not worth the effort to rebut.

Stick around! You are certainly entertaining! That said, I think you will get many more fans over at the DU.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:38:01 AM EST
Is there a "wart78m" in the house?
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:48:39 AM EST
You need to add a poll and see how many votes you got for Kerry.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:52:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 7:21:02 AM EST by iNuhBaDNayburhood]
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:53:43 AM EST
It is possible for legislation to be useless and invasive at the same time. The assault weapons ban falls into this category.

Prohibitions on free speech, such as "free speech zones", both infringe on fundamental rights and do nothing to promote public safety. The opposite in fact because they push the targets of these laws into the arms of extremists. Obscenity laws prohibiting pornography and the like do nothing to protect the public, yet manage to harass people.

Such laws breed disrespect for government and contempt for the rule of law in general.

Furthermore as a matter of principle the government has no business telling law abiding citizens that they can't own guns.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:55:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By Steve_T_M:
It is possible for legislation to be useless and invasive at the same time. The assault weapons ban falls into this category.

Prohibitions on free speech, such as "free speech zones", both infringe on fundamental rights and do nothing to promote public safety. The opposite in fact because they push the targets of these laws into the arms of extremists. Obscenity laws prohibiting pornography and the like do nothing to protect the public, yet manage to harass people.

Such laws breed disrespect for government and contempt for the rule of law in general.

Furthermore as a matter of principle the government has no business telling law abiding citizens that they can't own guns.



+ motherfucking 1
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 7:01:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By iNuhBaDNayburhood:
MY COMMENTS IN RED.



Ow, my eyes.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 7:10:06 AM EST
It’s a totally false assumption that Democrats will repeal the 2nd Amendment (Proof:1994-All Democratic government and even with that, the AWB is all that happened). It will never happen! So relax.

Dear Sir, The Dems only had control of Congress and the White house for less then a year and looked what happened. Think what would happen if they had control of the Congress and the White House for 8 years. We would have very little guns right left or we would be in civil war in some areas of the Country if things got to bad.

The Dem's of today are not the so called Good Ol Boy Southern Dems of our Parents Generation. Those days are gone. 95% of Dems are nothing more then Socialists. Most Republicans are not much better but that's all we have to work with right now. They don't have to repeal the 2nd Amendment because they don't pay attention to that or most of the rest of the bill of rights.

Talk to the poor folks for England or Aust. and ask them about politicans and guns. Most of them thought just like you do and today they have almost nothing and there Countries are starting to turn into Socialist Police States. Hell, they even banned swords and knives. Today England is voting to outlaw Fox Hunts and many other types of Hunting as we speak and it looks like the hunters will loose the batle from what I heard on the news today.

I do agree with you about Iraq, but that is about it. Take care and God Bless
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 7:18:40 AM EST

It’s a totally false assumption that Democrats will repeal the 2nd Amendment (Proof:1994-Al Democratic government and even with that, the AWB is all that happened). It will never happen! So relax.



Link Posted: 9/15/2004 7:21:36 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 7:25:48 AM EST
Even after the assault weapons ban they were calling for stricter legislation to outlaw "post ban" guns including the M1 carbine and Garand. They will never stop until our guns are gone. Never. We've been losing since 1934. This week was a rare victory.



And just so you know, I'm a democrat.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 7:27:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By wart78m:
--Second: To imply that by electing someone other than George Bush will somehow lead to a loss of gun owning rights, is just plain wrong.



BULLSHIT

Look up John F'n Kerry's senate voting record. He wanted to ban .30-30s, fer crying out loud.

Take your DNC talking points, fold them until they are all sharp corners, and SHOVE THEM. Troll.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 7:31:33 AM EST
Wow! Look kids!
A real Live TROLL!
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 7:39:41 AM EST
Piece of advice to all trolls, try and learn something about firearms and make your first few posts legitimate posts in the firearms section. Some standards are:

What is the difference between 5.56NATO/.223Rem?
What is the difference between 7.62NATO/.308Win?
How many US parts do I need to add to get rid of the thumbhole stock on my AK?
What was the gun Al Pacino used in heat?
Can I fire lead bullets in a Glock?
What is better, EO Tech or Aimpoint M2?
What is the better, 1/9 or 1/7 barrel twist?
Can I leave a magazine (or "clip" to you) loaded?

First posts which attempt to defend the position of the Democrat party relating to guns are never well received.

Thanks!
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 7:57:49 AM EST
Hey...where did our troll go?

Link Posted: 9/15/2004 8:01:14 AM EST
Look, a real live troll to shred!


Originally Posted By wart78m:
I know it’s a matter of principle to many, but if that is the case, then illegal machine guns should be too and the same people would be lobbying to legalize them, but they’re not.



What the hell are you trying to say? This statement doesn't make sense. Why don't you tell us exactly what the legal status of machine guns are, and what you think it should be? Or do you have no idea?



When the paranoia shows it’s ugly head and comments like this come out, it makes the non-gun-owning citizens afraid of the people with the guns and that hurts all of us. Apart from being a ridiculous statement, it enhances the stereotype of the crazy gun nut sitting in his bunker repeating in his sleep, “They won’t take my guns from me!”



Sounds to me like the only shaky political advice around here is in your post. Here's a little political advice for you. The people who think that are the enemy. They hate guns, have hated guns all their lives, and will hate guns until the day that they die. They will always feel that all gun owners are paranoid lunatics. Nothing that you or I or anyone says or does will change that. If you base your actions on trying to change what these people feel, then you will fail doubly. You will fail to change them, because that's impossible, and your cause will fail because you spent all your efforts trying to appease the enemy instead of fighting for your rights.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 8:04:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Hey...where did our troll go?




Back to DU.
Once his "cover" was blown, there's not much point in sticking around.
Kind of hard to argue with truth and logic. Must have given him such a frightful headache.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 8:11:32 AM EST
It was a gun-grabbing peice of legislation. No question about that. Do you think that criminals care about collapsable stocks, flash suppressores. I don't think so. This was just the first step to begin the disarmament. Everyone knows that when you want to ban something, you don't just do it outright, it's a slow process and take away small things at a time till you aquire your goal. John Kerry is going to crawl back to the U.N. Guess what, the U.N. wants to ban ALL civilian guns in every country. No Guns except military and police. If you don't understand this, then you're out of the loop.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 8:21:54 AM EST
John Kerry said just this week..................

"I can and will fight terrorist with Gun control"

Important not to take that out of context here....He wasn't saying gun control was how he would fight terrorists or terrorism, but that he could have both- a fight and gun control.

Now that is not the same position W is on the subject and trumps your part 2.

If that isnt enough, consider that he has been on both sides of every issue, so who knows where he would stand on this when /if he were the man.

I an not taking that chance- on guns or anything else
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:13:58 PM EST
A good mix of responses (more than i thought I'd see). Some actual intelligent replies, with a healthy dose of stubborness, paranoia and obnoxiousness in some others. Amusing. Not too much politeness, a lot of hostility and tense teeth grinding. Yea, about what i expected. Too much to reply to. I actually agree with a lot of 'em.

To someone like me who is in the middle, some of you sound just as ridiculous as your counterparts on the left. I suppose you can't see it 'cos your so entrenched. I expect that from both sides. We in the middle find the extremists on both sides very amusing and very necessary. You both fight like hell, scratch each others eyes out and get all stressed out, while we relax and wait for the compromise.
Thanks for your efforts Liberals and Right wingers. Without all your fighting, people like me would have a much worse lifestyle.

I really just wanted some info on parts for a building project, but some of you people have some intense hostility issues to deal with. good luck.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 7:08:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 7:10:21 PM EST by madmedic]

Originally Posted By wart78m:
A good mix of responses (more than i thought I'd see). Some actual intelligent replies, with a healthy dose of stubborness, paranoia and obnoxiousness in some others. Amusing. Not too much politeness, a lot of hostility and tense teeth grinding. Yea, about what i expected. Too much to reply to. I actually agree with a lot of 'em.

To someone like me who is in the middle, some of you sound just as ridiculous as your counterparts on the left. I suppose you can't see it 'cos your so entrenched. I expect that from both sides. We in the middle find the extremists on both sides very amusing and very necessary. You both fight like hell, scratch each others eyes out and get all stressed out, while we relax and wait for the COMPROMISE.

Well...TALLY HO, you go-getter..."wait for the compromise", now THERE is a bit of political enlightenment.

Thanks for your efforts Liberals and Right wingers. Without all your fighting, people like me would have a much worse lifestyle.

I really just wanted some info on parts for a building project, but some of you people have some intense hostility issues to deal with. good luck.



[Curly Bill] "Well...Bye" [/Curly Bill]
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 7:09:28 PM EST
Oh, you came back.

Yawn.

Link Posted: 9/15/2004 7:12:58 PM EST
To start off, I would like to point out that I dissagree with nearly all of your points, but would like to try and reason with you in a non-hostile manner. If any part of my post is viewed by you as hostile, please let me know and I will see if I can reword it. From this point on, everything I say will be typed in BLUE, and the parts in quotes will be taken directly from your posts.


I am a gun owner, target shooter

We have at least one thing in common!

--First: Either side can’t have it both ways. You contend the law was a useless piece of legislation ( I tend to agree) because it really wasn’t an assault weapons ban, BUT, if it was useless then it should have little effect on anything a shooter wants or does. Not one person I knew ever said to me, “Man I really NEED a bayonet lug,” or “Man I’m gonna die ‘cos I can’t get a collapsible stock.”
Either it was a serious breach of individual rights or it was a political compromised law, which had little effect. I think we can agree it was the latter. People who on one hand rant and rave about “My 2nd Amend. Rights,” and on the other hand say it “meant nothing”, clearly want to use the issue for political reasons and thus totally lose credibility. The same can be said for the other side of course.


I dissagree, a law that is useless can also have a great impact on freedom, for it is the spirit and principle of the law that determines it's impact on individual rights, but the effectiveness that determines it's usefullness. This law was a perfect example.

I know it’s a matter of principle to many, but if that is the case, then illegal machine guns should be too and the same people would be lobbying to legalize them, but they’re not.


This year will be my first opportunity to vote, and I have already told everyone whom I have had a discussion regarding gun rights with that I do believe that not only should we repeal the ban on newly manufactured machine guns, but that we should also get rid of the registration requirements. I will end it here so that I do not get too far off topic.

--Second: To imply that by electing someone other than George Bush will somehow lead to a loss of gun owning rights, is just plain wrong.

As has already been pointed out, Bush is not the only person who will not try to destroy gun rights, but he is the only one who has a shot at office that will not try to destroy gun rights.

As for Bush on Iraq. One could easily make the case that the war is pointless. We are stuck in a no win situation where we can’t leave and when we do, there will be a civil war. We are wasting enough money in Iraq to give every state, 25 million dollars EVERY week. And for what? To rebuild a country that will be re-destroyed when we leave. Fantasizing about democracy in Iraq is not good leadership or efficient use of finances or the conservative approach at all.

While I am sure there may be a way to spend money that will better directly help us here at home, I do think that it is our duty to ourselves, and (as the most powerful nation in the world) our duty to the rest of the world to do our best to ensure that tyrannical leaders are removed from power.


If you dissagree with anything I have said, please post in this thread with your arguements and I promise to be non-aggressive in my responses.

Top Top