User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 9:12:10 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: Can anyone site an example of a Republican introducing new gun control legislation? Do you honestly believe that his going along with the AWB and your voting for him is going to open the flood gates for the Republicans to start with their own gun control legislation? You are painfully ignorant as to what the GOP not only allows, but endorses in their office holding republicans in kalifornia and new york. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 9:15:13 AM EDT
[#2]
[red]I take my Constitution a little more seriously than that. You're saying vote republican, they'll trash the constitution a little less than the other guy[red]........Nice move. You know what's real funny? The fact that when your children's children come to be they won't have constitution left to fight for cause there fathers and mothers were morons like you that kept on saying every election; "Well, because the Republican's [b][u]TRASH[/u][/b] the constitution a little less then the other guy......" it's all fine and good until one day you wake up and realize...Holy shit! We dont have a costitution left. I've got to agree with Liberty86 on the "let's just get this over with" thing. If your just going to keep accepting the trashing of the constitution, albeit little by little, why [b]NOT[/b] just give up now to the inevitable? Oh, yeah that's right! How stupid of me, the reason for the few [red][b]COWARDS[/b][/red] to continue to support those that deliver you a slow death for your right's and not a quick blow is this: [b]Your selfish, it's all about you and now, not your children and their future. So you continue to suppor even the (slow to trash the constitution, but they inevitably will) republicans just so long as it's not the (quick to kill the constitution) democRATS right?[/b] Instead of doing the intelligent thing (researching an of the other republican's that will run) you'll just blindly vote for the one currently in power. [s]When[/s] If he gets a second term and start's to sign other anti-gun legislation your word's will still be: "Well, atleast he's a republican...." [b]WTF KIND OF LOGIC IS THAT!?!?!!?[/b] Tell you what Zaphoid, and all the rest of you. If/When you have children and you tell them about how great you were with a rifle, how you used to get .5 moa with your REM 700 before [b]THEY[/b] (republican's included) took them away ect. and your children ask: "Why did they take them away daddy?" tell them how [u]YOU[/b] settled for the slow [b][red]TRASHING[/red][/b] of the costitution, while your at it tell them all your hypocritical ideals of how you should fight to keep tyrany from taking what few (if any) rights they have left away. Then tell them that "If because of their narrow minded thinking (much like your is now) you only see 2 options (when there are more), go for the slow death instead of the quick death! That way my son/daughter, atleast you will get to have some freedom's." Then when your child look's at you and ask's: "Will my children have these same freedom's?" You can easily respond with : "Well, honney, that's not your concern or mine, your children have to deal with whatever they have left at that point and time." However you won't say that will you? No, you'll BS and tell them how you tried to save their freedom's but there wern't enuff people like you to who really cared........ |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 9:21:39 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Are single-issue voters [i]single-minded[/i], or just [i]simple-minded[/i]? Is a staff member who engages in personal attacks [i]hypocritical[/i] or just [i]taking advantage of having a privileged position[/i]? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 9:22:39 AM EDT
[#4]
Sniper, a little less, no, make that a [b]lot[/b] less of the "cowards" business, please.
You know not of whom you speak. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 9:23:49 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: I have a better idea. Do a search of topic authors for Sniper_408 for the last 30 days. Then read the results from your search. Then ignore the [:K] Abortion, who shot Kennedy, gays, NRA screw's one of it's own, GWB and the AWB........oh yeah all the classic pot stirring topics. You decide. lol Jet, the topics were not ment to stir the pot so much as they were to make you think. So because I wish to see what other peoples opinions are on certain subject's I am a [:K] for that and for stringing them together? Hey tell ya what champ, I'll spread them out next time as not to fry your brain due to the [u]thinking[/u] involved in my topics.[;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 9:24:45 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: Quoted: Are single-issue voters [i]single-minded[/i], or just [i]simple-minded[/i]? Is a staff member who engages in personal attacks [i]hypocritical[/i] or just [i]taking advantage of having a privileged position[/i]? What attack? He posed a [i]simple[/i] question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 9:25:11 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Quoted: Are single-issue voters [i]single-minded[/i], or just [i]simple-minded[/i]? Is a staff member who engages in personal attacks [i]hypocritical[/i] or just [i]taking advantage of having a privileged position[/i]? If you will describe the nature of the "personal" insult, and who, personally, was insulted, I'll be glad to respond. I am unaware that whatever status I might or not might not have prevented me from asking a question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 9:29:00 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Quoted: I have a better idea. Do a search of topic authors for Sniper_408 for the last 30 days. Then read the results from your search. Then ignore the [:K] Abortion, who shot Kennedy, gays, NRA screw's one of it's own, GWB and the AWB........oh yeah all the classic pot stirring topics. You decide. lol Jet, the topics were not ment to stir the pot so much as they were to make you think. Make us think, huh? Thank you so much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 9:29:36 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: What attack? He posed a [i]simple[/i] question. Oh, you're right. Words don't mean anything. The last "just a question" I took offense at here was something like, "Did the USMC help to disarm the Australians, or was that just BS?" But that was just a simple question, so I probably just took his intent wrong. After all, a question is just a request for information, right? Not a backhanded way of getting a point across. I withdraw my comments, then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 9:31:07 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Are single-issue voters [i]single-minded[/i], or just [i]simple-minded[/i]? Does it matter? Their only thing that matters to those people are that a "republican" is in office, even to the point that if feinstein or schumer changed party affilitiation and ran for president, the neo-cons would vote for them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 9:36:57 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Quoted: What attack? He posed a [i]simple[/i] question. Oh, you're right. Words don't mean anything. The last "just a question" I took offense at here was something like, "Did the USMC help to disarm the Australians, or was that just BS?" But that was just a simple question, so I probably just took his intent wrong. After all, a question is just a request for information, right? Not a backhanded way of getting a point across. I withdraw my comments, then. I was kidding, lighten up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 9:38:15 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Instead of doing the intelligent thing (researching an of the other republican's that will run) you'll just blindly vote for the one currently in power. You seem to have missed my statement saying that if the a Republican in power screws you over, you should vote against him in the next primary. [s]When[/s] If he gets a second term and start's to sign other anti-gun legislation your word's will still be: "Well, atleast he's a republican...." [b]WTF KIND OF LOGIC IS THAT!?!?!!?[/b] When you sit on your hands and allow a Democrat to win the Presidency, and allow HIM the opportunity to sign other anti-gun legislation your word's will still be: "Well, I at least voted for the OTHER guy!" [b]WTF KIND OF LOGIC IS THAT!?!?!!?[/b] Tell you what Zaphoid, and all the rest of you. If/When you have children and you tell them about how great you were with a rifle, how you used to get .5 moa with your REM 700 before [b]THEY[/b] (republican's included) took them away ect. and your children ask: "Why did they take them away daddy?" tell them how [u]YOU[/b] settled for the slow [b][red]TRASHING[/red][/b] of the costitution, while your at it tell them all your hypocritical ideals of how you should fight to keep tyrany from taking what few (if any) rights they have left away. Then tell them that "If because of their narrow minded thinking (much like your is now) you only see 2 options (when there are more), go for the slow death instead of the quick death! That way my son/daughter, atleast you will get to have some freedom's." Then when your child look's at you and ask's: "Will my children have these same freedom's?" You can easily respond with : "Well, honney, that's not your concern or mine, your children have to deal with whatever they have left at that point and time." Oh, that's just wonderful! In your case, you'll tell them how YOU voted for a guy who you KNEW was a LOSER, and as such allowed a guy into office who worked fast and took ALL their rights away! BRILLIANT! However you won't say that will you? No, you'll BS and tell them how you tried to save their freedom's but there wern't enuff people like you to who really cared........ Ditto. Either way, according to you guys, we're fucked. Yippee. I look forward to seeing you and Liberty assaulting the White House with your AR's in a last-ditch defense of life and freedom. You know, I'll agree with you that voting for Republicans who allow a slow slide is distasteful, but I find enabling victory for our TRUE AND COMMON ENEMY (i.e. - The Democrats) to be completely disgraceful. AT LEAST MY WAY DOESN'T HELP MY ENEMIES. When you have a spat with a wife, do you throw her out and bring in a man, or DO YOU WORK TO BRING HER FRIEND OVER TO YOUR SIDE? I'm tired of this. I'm sick of being considered a non-patriot because I prefer to vote for someone who agrees with me 90% of the time rather than voting for someone who agrees with me 99% of the time yet has ZERO chance of winning, and thus will allow a person who agrees with me 1% of the time into power. Looks like some people here won't be happy until America looks like a recreation of The Road Warrior.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 9:40:02 AM EDT
[#13]
I am on my county's GOP executive committee.
I am also a two issue voter, gun rights and baby murder. If he rolls on on us and signs the extension to the AWB I will not support his run in any way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 9:43:38 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: Are single-issue voters [i]single-minded[/i], or just [i]simple-minded[/i]? Does it matter? Their only thing that matters to those people are that a "republican" is in office, even to the point that if feinstein or schumer changed party affilitiation and ran for president, the neo-cons would vote for them. Wrong, Imbroglio. Wrong. If Schumer suddenly decided to become a Republican, yet held on to his anti-gun views, I'd vote against him in the primary. If he was up in the General Election as a Republican Liberal, and a Conservative Democrat like Zel Miller was on the other side, I'd vote for the Democrat. That's a no-brainer and you know it. Edited to add: You ain't kiddin' about NY and Kali. Sad, really, especially since those two cesspools account for the majority of the U.S. population. Which brings a new thought: If we put as much effort into changing the opinions of the masses as we do about changing two or three individuals, then perhaps we'd be more successful turning the individuals our way... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 9:45:14 AM EDT
[#15]
Don't fall for the masquerade.
These are also the guys that were bummed out when they woke up on Jan 1st, 2000, and found out that the S had not HTF. They were disappointed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 9:52:14 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: If Bush agrees to renew the AWB then I WILL NOT vote to reelect him in 2004. Period. I will make my vote for either a liberterian or some other 3rd party/independent candidate. As far as congress is concerned, I will see who votes for what and I will see what all of the congressmen and senators actually did with their recorded votes. If any congressmen from my district or if any senator from my state votes to renew the AWB then that congressman or senator WILL NOT get my vote either. Period. The GOP is playin' with fire here. If they turn their backs on the gunowners then thier miscalculations and betrayal could lead to an ending of the GOP as we know it. A betrayal of the gunowners by the GOP could be THE CATALYST which finally spurs the formation of a MAJOR third political party. Up to this point, most third/independent parties have been a nuisance for the GOP and the Dems but this one issue could change all of that. If the GOP loses its conservative base then it will die. And the GOP didn't do itself any favors either by helping pass the campaign finance reform and the Patriot Act laws. A Patriot II or a renewal of the AWB could very well be the final nails in the GOP coffin. One good thing about having the renewal come up for an official, recorded vote is that it will help us all see, once and for all, who is really on our side and who is just trying to play us like a fiddle. GOP, be very careful on the land upon which you are trying to tread right now. Welcome to the board eleven0!! I agree with your sentiments entirely!! There ARE some good candidates running for office out there! For a political party that says it espouses Christian roots and principals, they DO tend to forget. [url]http://www.constitutionpartyoregon.org/2002site/platform/platform.htm[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 9:54:25 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Don't fall for the masquerade. These are also the guys that were bummed out when they woke up on Jan 1st, 2000, and found out that the S had not HTF. They were disappointed. I fear you're right. You know, for a Jarhead you're pretty eloquent! [;)] It's a shame, really, that a group of guys who so uniformly believe in the RKBA can be so polarized over how best to defend it. One camp favors scrapping it all and fighting it out. The other favors holding the ground we have as long as we can while still fighting to gain some of the ground we've already lost. Oh, well. That's America for you.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 10:10:58 AM EDT
[#18]
... hehehe, those numbers surely aren't enough to get him re-elected. Too bad Dennis Hastert can't see stuff like this, knowing it would be on his head if it made it to the POTUS desk.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 10:14:47 AM EDT
[#19]
Will YOU vote for him again if he signs it?
Regrettably, no. That is one of a very few lines I have drawn in the sand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 10:22:30 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: No, YOU advocate electing the oppressor. You advocate actions that would put a Democrat in office. You don't see the difference between Republicans and Democrats, fine. But many of us actually do see the difference. You are so myopic in you single issue view, that you'd throw it all away. Who said anything about a "single issue view"?? I thought we were talking about the 2nd Amendment?? Ya wanna expand the discussion to the 1st?? The 10th?? [:D] I don't suppose it's crossed your mind, but isn't it quite possible that rather than revolution, such events may yet awaken the people to their plight?? Especially if such as us were educating them to their DUTIES under our Constitution. You're kidding? You want our rights to be taken away, to show the people that having our rights taken away is bad? Then you think we'll just get them back? Once they're gone, they're gone. Don't pretend now that it isn't revolt that you truly hunger for. You're too transparent. You have no idea what my "hunger" is! My "hunger" is for a RETURN to the Constitutional govt. en-visioned by the men who wrote the Documents! You have the NERVE to insult me with your moronic innuendos and socialistic attempts at demonizing my position, rather than respond to my statements of principal. Your arguements are based on NO moral foundation, or example from history, as regards a sucessful strategy for regaining lost "rights". |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 10:32:06 AM EDT
[#21]
Why are some of you so freaking intent on winning the battle (or throwing a fit because you may not win it) that you're actions will LOSE THE ENTIRE WAR.
But what the hell. Go ahead and vote for NOBODY or vote for some underdog that will never win. But don't fool yourself. In a two-party system, a non-vote or a vote for "non of the above" is a vote for the other guy. Or likely, a vote for Hillary. But go on and feel good that you punished George Bush for his wrong stance on the one issue. Enjoy socialized healthcare, Whitehouse scandal, state-funded abortion for every girl/woman, pandering to minorities, disdain for military, and continued downslope towards totally decadent society. Enjoy it all, because if Bush runs against Hillary or Kerry, then that is what he is running against. And for those who relish their chance to shoot it out in a SHTF scenario or rebellion against the government -- think again. When/if those things happen, you are shortly going to be wishing to return to the luxurious privledged lifestyle you once led. I will NOT BE HAPPY if Bush renews the ban. But I will NEVER vote for the real enemy here -- socialist liberals. A "none of the above" vote is as good as a vote for them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 10:34:09 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Will YOU vote for him again if he signs it? Regrettably, no. That is one of a very few lines I have drawn in the sand. If you do that you will be labeled "simple minded". It is better that bush signs it into law because then he will insist that it be taken to the supreme court and found unconstitutional like what happened with the 1994 ban. Taking the initiative on gun control away from the democrats is a brilliant campaign strategy. You people need to quit being so selfish and realize that owning guns isn't the most important thing in the world. This isn't 200 years ago and we no longer need radicals running around with an outdated document in one hand and guns in the other. We now have brave armed professionals in law enforcement, protectors of our GREAT DEMOCRACY, who stand between our freedom to be safe and collapse of society. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 10:34:27 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: I am on my county's GOP executive committee. I am also a two issue voter, gun rights and baby murder. If he rolls on on us and signs the extension to the AWB I will not support his run in any way. Good man! But don't forget the 10th Amendement too!! [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 10:40:05 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: [You people need to quit being so selfish and realize that owning guns isn't the most important thing in the world. This isn't 200 years ago and we no longer need radicals running around with an outdated document in one hand and guns in the other. We now have brave armed professionals in law enforcement, protectors of our GREAT DEMOCRACY, who stand between our freedom to be safe and collapse of society. Is there some point to this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 10:41:36 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Quoted: [You people need to quit being so selfish and realize that owning guns isn't the most important thing in the world. This isn't 200 years ago and we no longer need radicals running around with an outdated document in one hand and guns in the other. We now have brave armed professionals in law enforcement, protectors of our GREAT DEMOCRACY, who stand between our freedom to be safe and collapse of society. Is there some point to this tripe? Of course not. If you try to find sense in there you'll just get lost forever... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 10:41:44 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Why are some of you so freaking intent on winning the battle (or throwing a fit because you may not win it) that you're actions will LOSE THE ENTIRE WAR. But what the hell. Go ahead and vote for NOBODY or vote for some underdog that will never win. But don't fool yourself. In a two-party system, a non-vote or a vote for "non of the above" is a vote for the other guy. Or likely, a vote for Hillary. But go on and feel good that you punished George Bush for his wrong stance on the one issue. Enjoy socialized healthcare, Whitehouse scandal, state-funded abortion for every girl/woman, pandering to minorities, disdain for military, and continued downslope towards totally decadent society. Enjoy it all, because if Bush runs against Hillary or Kerry, then that is what he is running against. And for those who relish their chance to shoot it out in a SHTF scenario or rebellion against the government -- think again. When/if those things happen, you are shortly going to be wishing to return to the luxurious privledged lifestyle you once led. I will NOT BE HAPPY if Bush renews the ban. But I will NEVER vote for the real enemy here -- socialist liberals. A "none of the above" vote is as good as a vote for them. Spoken like a battered wife rationalizing why she keeps going back to her husband. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 10:45:24 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Quoted: Why are some of you so freaking intent on winning the battle (or throwing a fit because you may not win it) that you're actions will LOSE THE ENTIRE WAR. But what the hell. Go ahead and vote for NOBODY or vote for some underdog that will never win. But don't fool yourself. In a two-party system, a non-vote or a vote for "non of the above" is a vote for the other guy. Or likely, a vote for Hillary. But go on and feel good that you punished George Bush for his wrong stance on the one issue. Enjoy socialized healthcare, Whitehouse scandal, state-funded abortion for every girl/woman, pandering to minorities, disdain for military, and continued downslope towards totally decadent society. Enjoy it all, because if Bush runs against Hillary or Kerry, then that is what he is running against. And for those who relish their chance to shoot it out in a SHTF scenario or rebellion against the government -- think again. When/if those things happen, you are shortly going to be wishing to return to the luxurious privledged lifestyle you once led. I will NOT BE HAPPY if Bush renews the ban. But I will NEVER vote for the real enemy here -- socialist liberals. A "none of the above" vote is as good as a vote for them. Spoken like a battered wife rationalizing why she keeps going back to her husband. As opposed to consorting with a man who has promised to kill her at the first opportunity? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 10:55:07 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: Don't fall for the masquerade. These are also the guys that were bummed out when they woke up on Jan 1st, 2000, and found out that the S had not HTF. They were disappointed. I fear you're right. You know, for a Jarhead you're pretty eloquent! [;)] It's a shame, really, that a group of guys who so uniformly believe in the RKBA can be so polarized over how best to defend it. One camp favors scrapping it all and fighting it out. The other favors holding the ground we have as long as we can [red]while still fighting to gain some of the ground we've already lost.[/red] Oh, well. That's America for you.... We have been "compromising", and allowing our God-given Liberties to be taken a little at a time in ALL different areas for over the last 50-75 years! "We", have been fighting the fight for many years, electing repubs locally, and nationally. We got 'em elected in '94. They were gonna [b]abolish[/b] the Department of Education. Bush recently signed repub legislation to expand the funding, and [b]Power[/b] of the dept. Do you think guys like me just got on the bus?? Single Issue?? I don't think so.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 11:03:00 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: BTW, one thing everybody needs to remember is that we don't need control of the white house to slow this train down. We just need to maintain control of the House of Representatives and build upon what we already have in the U.S. Senate. There are so many geniune pro gunners in the House of Representatives right now that all of this renewal talk may all be moot anyway because an AWB renewal may not make it out the House of Representatives at all right now. The only reason we even have an AWB in the first place is because our side didn't control congress back when this thing came up for a vote the first time around.If we maintain our control of the HoR and try to gain more control of the US Senate then much of this legislation can be halted in its tracks. Think positively about this folks. We ain't lost yet and the momentum is still on OUR side. A renewal still has to make it out of BOTH SIDES of Congress and a renewal has to be passed by (both sides of) the whole Congress not just by a few in some select subcommitee. The chances of THAT happening right now is very slim. Not impossible but slim, nonetheless. Keep your chins up guys. OUR SIDE is still winning. Make your opinions known but don't lose hope because we haven't lost yet. The Republicans could change all this if they wanted to. In the Senate, all it takes to change Senate rules is a simple majority vote. All the repubs hafta do is change the cloture rule to end a filibuster from the current 60 vote majority, to 50 votes, a simple majority. They then will control all legislation in both the House, and Senate. It's legal to do it.Bush would get his judges confirmed, and repubs would control the agenda. Of course, if they were to do this, and "Our" agenda started going through, that may have a downward effect on their donation revenue...[:D] I wonder if it'll happen??[;D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 11:04:05 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: We have been "compromising", and allowing our God-given Liberties to be taken a little at a time in ALL different areas for over the last 50-75 years! "We", have been fighting the fight for many years, electing repubs locally, and nationally. We got 'em elected in '94. They were gonna [b]abolish[/b] the Department of Education. Bush recently signed repub legislation to expand the funding, and [b]Power[/b] of the dept. Do you think guys like me just got on the bus?? Single Issue?? I don't think so.... Well, SHIT! Then I guess it's time we all give up, agreed that our COnstitutional system of government has failed, and that it's time to tear it all assunder, pick up our arms, and viscously slaughter everyone who doesn't agree with us 100%. Lead on Herr Liberty! We'll trust YOU to reinstitute the TRUE Constitution just as soon as your revolution has succeeded! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 11:05:51 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: We have been "compromising", and allowing our God-given Liberties to be taken a little at a time in ALL different areas for over the last 50-75 years! "We", have been fighting the fight for many years, electing repubs locally, and nationally. We got 'em elected in '94. They were gonna [b]abolish[/b] the Department of Education. Bush recently signed repub legislation to expand the funding, and [b]Power[/b] of the dept. Do you think guys like me just got on the bus?? Single Issue?? I don't think so.... Like I said before the 2000 election: When a democrat gets rights infringing laws passed it is unconstitutional and tryannical, but when a republican does the exact same legislation, it is common-sense and reasonable. Neo-cons, socialists, what the hell is the difference? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 11:12:14 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Spoken like a battered wife rationalizing why she keeps going back to her husband. Yup... you got it Imb. You nailed me. Total battered wife here. Now I can see why you're back. Just too many good points like the above not to be. Anyways... I will go ahead and put you on the list of people who I will watching-out for bitching when Frau Klinton wins election and REALLY starts taking our rights away. Evidently she is preferrable to Bush in your mind. That's the part I don't get. This really IS about the lesser of two evils. Bush's "confusion" on the AWB issue does NOT negate the fact that he is A THOUSAND TIMES BETTER THAN ANY OF THE DEMOCRAPS as far as a choice for president goes. I'll bet the DU types just LOVE threads like this. Evidently they have us divided and conquered already... BTW... who do YOU have in mind WHO CAN WIN against the democrats in the next election? That's what I thought. I'll make my vote actually COUNT thank you... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 11:12:55 AM EDT
[#33]
After the revolution it will be fun to watch Imbroglio and Liberty fight it out for the title of "Supreme Constitutional Protector and Guardian of the Faith".
Either way, I guess the rest of us wife-beater will be relegated to chanting "ZIG-HEIL" to whoever wins. After all, we're just sheep, right? We're not valiant Warriors of the True Way like they are... No wonder so many people who are otherwise indifferent on the gun issue think we're full of nuts... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 11:20:05 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Quoted: We have been "compromising", and allowing our God-given Liberties to be taken a little at a time in ALL different areas for over the last 50-75 years! "We", have been fighting the fight for many years, electing repubs locally, and nationally. We got 'em elected in '94. They were gonna [b]abolish[/b] the Department of Education. Bush recently signed repub legislation to expand the funding, and [b]Power[/b] of the dept. Do you think guys like me just got on the bus?? Single Issue?? I don't think so.... Well, SHIT! Then I guess it's time we all give up, agreed that our COnstitutional system of government has failed, and that it's time to tear it all assunder, pick up our arms, and viscously slaughter everyone who doesn't agree with us 100%. Lead on Herr Liberty! We'll trust YOU to reinstitute the TRUE Constitution just as soon as your revolution has succeeded! Let's see here; I say [b]vote for[/b] people who will uphold [b]ALL[/b] of the Constitution. You say, I am advocating the violent overthrow of the govt. [b]THEN[/b] you have the fucking nerve to call me [b]Herr Liberty![/b] I took an oath in 1965, to "uphold and defend" the Constitution from "all enemies both foreign and domestic". If I vote for people who do not agree with the oath, or the Constitution, then I violate [b]MY[/b] oath.... I will never do that, sorry. [:D] And I've got a news flash for you. The [b]TRUE[/b] Constitution includes EVERY WORD, as written in plain english..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 11:24:59 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: You say, I am advocating the violent overthrow of the govt. [b]THEN[/b] you have the fucking nerve to call me [b]Herr Liberty![/b] Exactly. What part of that don't you comprehend? I took an oath in 1965, to "uphold and defend" the Constitution from "all enemies both foreign and domestic". I took it in 1986, 1987, 1991, 1993, and 1995. So I'm as familiar with it as you are. If I vote for people who do not agree with the oath, or the Constitution, then I violate [b]MY[/b] oath.... Name me a politician that you think upholds every word of the Constitution, and I'll show you at least 50 people who will agree in spirit, but disagree in method. I guess, therefore, that you don't vote much. And I've got a news flash for you. The [b]TRUE[/b] Constitution includes EVERY WORD, as written in plain english..... Finally. Something we agree on, not that I needed the news flash, BTW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 11:31:26 AM EDT
[#36]
Noone answered my question as to the constitutionality of the AWB? I fail to see how Geowrge Bush's signing the bill, after it has made it through a Republican controlled House and Senate, would equate to him not upholding the Constitution
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 11:47:47 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: After the revolution it will be fun to watch Imbroglio and Liberty fight it out for the title of "Supreme Constitutional Protector and Guardian of the Faith". Imbro can do it, I'm retired [:D] Either way, I guess the rest of us wife-beater will be relegated to [red]chanting "ZIG-HEIL"[/red] to whoever wins. After all, we're just sheep, right? We're not valiant Warriors of the True Way like they are... There you go again.... Using the same tactics to "demonize", that those who are really only a LITTLE to the left of you use. The bottom line is, you continue to vote for those who sieze our freedom. Those who advocate voting for people who will uphold Constitutional govt. are "nazis". Thanks for the "enlightenment". No wonder so many people who are otherwise indifferent on the gun issue think we're full of nuts... Yes, no wonder.......... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 12:13:58 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Quoted: You say, I am advocating the violent overthrow of the govt. [b]THEN[/b] you have the fucking nerve to call me [b]Herr Liberty![/b] Exactly. What part of that don't you comprehend? Zaphod, I ask that you retract the above statement, or show where, in my own words, I have EVER advocated the violent overthrow of the govt... With the "[b]Herr Liberty![/b]" comment, you are, in effect, calling me a nazi, then you acknowledge it when I bring it up. Prove your allegations, or acknowledge the untruth of them.......... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 12:27:38 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Zaphod, I ask that you retract the above statement, or show where, in my own words, I have EVER advocated the violent overthrow of the govt... With the "[b]Herr Liberty![/b]" comment, you are, in effect, calling me a nazi, then you acknowledge it when I bring it up. Prove your allegations, or acknowledge the untruth of them.......... A favorite tactic of the neo-cons is to resort to accusations of anti-semitism when they are on the losing side of an argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 1:13:51 PM EDT
[#40]
After being royally FxCKED for years, compromises where we always lose (they say, well, we could have taken away MORE)... we are now forced into a no compromise, take no prisoners, no quarter, position.
The line is drawn. If he does not retract his support of the AWB, I will not vote for him again. I have written the Republican party, after they had asked for donations recently, and told them if President Bush FxCKS us on this, I will never vote again. We put him in office, we can make sure he does not another chance at screwing the people who put him in office. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 2:36:38 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: ...In the long run, I think it is better to risk four years of any Democratic president than send the message to Republicans that we will vote for them even after they abandon us on key issues... If only it were that simple... It continues to amaze me that people who care about their rights (especially their 2nd Amendment rights) will post here strongly advocating voting for a Democrat or against/not for a Republican. All other issues and beliefs aside (we could argue those forever and get nowhere), LOOK AT THE RESPECTIVE PLATFORMS!!! For God-in-heaven’s sake, one party (Democrat) has “gun control” as an integral part of its permanent, national platform AND THE OTHER PARTY (Republican) DOES NOT! It’s not like this is difficult to understand. (No, the two parties are NOT the same, no matter how many times some of you assert that. And for all you “3rd Party” folks out there just waiting to chime in, I’m only dealing here with the real world – you know, the one in which we have to live and work and play and where two major parties run things and you guys rarely if ever win major elections even at the local level, let alone nationally...) Don’t like GWB? Fine - more power to you. Want him to lose re-election next year? Then either you don’t really want to keep your guns or you don’t understand the first thing about how our Government works. Let me offer two quick lessons from a political junkie/veteran, then you can all go back to bashing “W”: [b]LESSON ONE: The “Big Two” Parties don’t let their candidates stray far from the platform.[/b] I don’t care how pro-gun your Democrat is or how anti-gun your Republican is, the “powers that be” within the party (i.e., the people who control the money) crack the whip when elected officials “stray.” This is true for all issues (think abortion, taxes, etc.), not just gun rights. A real “rebel” might get to oppose the party vocally on one major issue or a couple of minor ones, but look at the voting record of ANY long-time politician and compare it to his/her party’s platform. It can be a real eye-opener. [b]LESSON TWO: Presidents don’t come to Washington alone![/b] The President appoints many top government officials. John Ashcroft has been outspoken and proactive regarding gun owners’ rights – anybody remember Janet Reno? Now that we’ve got an “Office of Homeland Security,” do you want an anti-gun liberal Democrat administration having its appointee bring the “Patriot Act” to bear on law-abiding gun owners? (Please don’t be naïve enough to think it couldn’t happen…) Anybody else remember the wonderful track records of the FBI and BATF under the last administration? Who should gun owners want nominating judges to the federal bench – a Bush or a Clinton? Do you think the U.S. Constitution says you have a right to own your guns? WRONG! The U.S. Constitution, for all practical, real-world purposes, on any given day says just exactly what nine PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEES in Washington, D.C. say it says. Disagree? Then you don’t understand Constitutional Law. Do you really want a Democrat nominating/appointing these people? Don’t forget that, barring impeachment or resignation, federal judges and USSC Justices serve FOR LIFE. Want to make a point about the AWB? Me, too. I hate it as much as anyone here. I will feel betrayed if Congress reauthorizes it and Bush signs it. But I don’t think pissing away the entire government is a good way to get the point across. I’ve said it here before time and again – vote, write, call, e-mail, and (most importantly, IMO) get involved in politics at the grassroots level. Let your local and national representatives know where you stand on ALL issues. Get involved with your state’s Republican Party. Change them from WITHIN and make them aware that they can’t take gun owners for granted any more. I consider this my personal mission – this is what I try to do here. If you are not going to vote for GWB (or any other Republican), please have more reasons than this AWB issue. “Voting Democrat to protect your gun rights” doesn’t make any kind of sense. I hate the “lesser of two evils” mindset as well, but sometimes the real world forces you to make just such a choice. I think those of you advocating NOT voting for Bush are misguided and that you don’t want to see the big picture. (The phrase “cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face” comes to mind.) [b]I beg you to read this and reconsider.[/b] (If there are any yellow-dog Democrats reading this, I don’t beg anything of you – you’re already beyond help…) edited to add: I'm heading out the door now and won't be back until tomorrow morning, so I expect to be good and bloodied here by the time I return... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 2:41:17 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: After being royally FxCKED for years, compromises where we always lose (they say, well, we could have taken away MORE)... we are now forced into a no compromise, take no prisoners, no quarter, position. The line is drawn. If he does not retract his support of the AWB, I will not vote for him again. I have written the Republican party, after they had asked for donations recently, and told them if President Bush FxCKS us on this, I will never vote again. We put him in office, we can make sure he does not another chance at screwing the people who put him in office. EXACTLY how I feel! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 3:55:03 PM EDT
[#43]
I fail to see what more we will be compromising if GWB signs the bill. This compromise was already made in 1994. You will be losiong nothing more than you already have.
Also, vetoes are not taken lightly. The president better be damn sure when he goes against the will of the legislative bodies elected by the people that sent the bill to him in the first place. A vast majority of you will glady send a Democrat back in the oval office because of this one issue and like it or not, it is not a Constitutional issue. Forget the economy, military, education, abortion, domestic policy, etc. The list goes on. What do you think is going to happen after you put a Democrat in office and Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy, etc. introduce a bill that is even stronger? What do you think your Democratic president will do? BIG PICTURE, PEOPLE |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 4:35:39 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: I fail to see what more we will be compromising if GWB signs the bill. This compromise was already made in 1994. You will be losiong nothing more than you already have. Also, vetoes are not taken lightly. The president better be damn sure when he goes against the will of the legislative bodies elected by the people that sent the bill to him in the first place. A vast majority of you will glady send a Democrat back in the oval office because of this one issue and like it or not, it is not a Constitutional issue. Forget the economy, military, education, abortion, domestic policy, etc. The list goes on. What do you think is going to happen after you put a Democrat in office and Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy, etc. introduce a bill that is even stronger? What do you think your Democratic president will do? BIG PICTURE, PEOPLE agree totally. like i mentioned on another thread, folks, we need to think logically and not let your emotion make the decisions for you. i can not even entertain the thought of having a DemocRat as this country's leader. you think the gun laws are absurd now? what the fuck do you all think its going to be when the other side takes over? most everyone is condemning the Prez already like he JUST renewed the ban! seems to me that people are throwing that towel in the ring way before that first punch has even landed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 4:48:07 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: That's EXACTLY what I suspected. I believe that many of those who feel this way, really just want to be able to live out their SHTF, Rambo-revolution fantasies. Those who feel this way are probably not married, and probably not very happy with their lives. Or maybe....... Freedom's just another word for Nothin left to Lose........ |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 4:51:48 PM EDT
[#46]
I have always voted republican, and never make
my mind up over one single issue. But this time out of principle, I will not vote for him. Now if it fails to make it through the house and he doesn't get a chance to do anything, then I will still vote for him. He's still the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 4:55:01 PM EDT
[#47]
I beg you to read this and reconsider. Well good news/bad news... the good news is I don't think it will ever be an issue. The bad news is I am not going to reconsider. If Bush wants my vote that ban has to die. Rather than beg me to reconsider, write your reps and let them know that the ban should never make it to the President's desk; it will be a more effective use of time by a longshot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 5:02:17 PM EDT
[#48]
I'm not going to answer the poll because the answer that fits me isn't in it.
Bush IS trying to keep a promise...one we may not like, but you have to admire his commitment to actually keeping a campaign promise. This is so rare as to be a novelty worth noting. Point for integrity. Bush also knows that the ban has little chance of being renewed. A bill for renewal won't make it through both sides of Congress and indeed, may not make it through EITHER side. So what he has done is appease the paranoid soccer moms by sticking to a promise, and gambling (a good gamble) that he won't have to deal with this monster crossing his desk. If it should slime its way to his desk, he has to decide WHO to piss off by signing it...or vetoing it. He's in a bad spot one way or the other if he has to deal with such a bill, which I state again, is unlikely. I'm not the sort to cut off my nose to spite my face. If a renewal bill never gets to his desk, OF COURSE I'LL VOTE FOR HIM. If it DOES get to his desk, and he signs it, I'll be very pissed off and I'll fire off a red hot letter with delivery confirmation, signature required, express, signature of recipient only, etc. straight to GWB himself. Maybe even hand deliver it. But whether I vote for him or not in that case STILL depends on who he's running against and what his stance is on such issues. And since his opponent is SURE to be a damned Democrat, that question is already answered. I'll choose the lesser evil and vote for him again because, all in all, he's still the best horse in the race. You'd have to be a fool to believe otherwise. Of course, this is all contingent upon his winning the Republican nomination. He will, I'm fairly sure. But we have to watch out for spoilers getting thrown in, like Ross Perot back in '92. That was a Democratic strategy and it worked for Clinton. Perot would have sucked, or so we would have discovered. He actually said that he wanted to put together teams to go house to house and confiscate all the guns, the shitbag. The little genital. And yet once, he seemed like a good choice. [b][red][size=6]A BUSH THAT'S FOR RENEWAL OF THE BAN IS STILL THE BEST CHOICE WE'RE GOING TO GET. GET YOUR HEADS OUT AND YOU'LL SEE THAT. LOOK AT THE MOST LIKELY DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES. THEY'RE ALL TOO SCARY FOR WORDS, ESPECIALLY ON THE GUN ISSUE.[/size=6][/red][/b] CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 5:18:40 PM EDT
[#49]
As big and bright as your text is, you are right on.
IT baffles the mind that most people here, in the name of Personal Freedom and Liberty will all but ensure that the party that values those principles the least will get in power once again. Talk about cutting off your nose... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2003 5:26:40 PM EDT
[#50]
Yes, I mean who else are you going to vote for, a Democrate.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
