Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 7/9/2001 7:46:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/9/2001 8:09:22 PM EDT by Sweep]
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 7:51:17 PM EDT
Ooops! Hey, even Klinton and Algore believe in people owning hunting and sporting guns!
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 8:00:41 PM EDT
In Klitonese, a sporting and hunting guns is a pea shooter. Anything bigger than a pea has to be fingerprinted, photograph, wait more than one month, and must be green.
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 8:11:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 8:27:15 PM EDT
Oops, did we manage to find the dark cloud in that silver lining? I believe the offending language must be:
"Like many countries, the United States has a cultural tradition of hunting and sport shooting.
View Quote
What's the problem with that? Do you disagree that the US has a long tradition of hunting and sports shooting? That's all he said. Should he have said 'Since the United States has had a long history of murders, rapes, and thefts, our population has determined that it must own and possess weapons for its safety.' Or maybe 'Since the United States was created by civilians attacking our former government's troops and military installations, our population has determined that it must own and possess weapons for its safety.' Sound better? Or how about "Since the United States has been subject to a bloody civil war between its constituent states, our population has determined that it must own and possess weapons for its safety.' Sound even better? Why ignore the rest of his statement -
"The United States believes that the responsible use of firearms is a legitimate aspect of national life..."
View Quote
Is there anything wrong with that statement? What did the Libertarian Party's representative say to the assembled masses? Oops, we'll never know, will we? Eric The(libertarianRepublican)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 8:43:04 PM EDT
Bastards. I knew they were going to screw us over. The NRA won't do crap either. Everyone is too scared to challenge the Brady Bill, the 1989 importation ban and the 1986 machine gun ban. themao [chainsawkill]
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 8:52:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 8:55:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/9/2001 8:59:26 PM EDT by Matt_S]
Just another opinion. This article is from Reuters and is linked off of the NRAILA website. www.nraila.com http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml;jsessionid=2DWC1H2BEY2G4CRBAEZSFFAKEEATIIWD?type=topnews&StoryID=109543 [b]"[/b]U.S. WARY OF WEAPONS BANS As one of the world's largest suppliers of arms, the United States backs all sort of legal trade and Bolton fiercely guarded the rights of citizens to own guns. "Small arms and light weapons, in our understanding are strictly military arms -- automatic rifles, machine guns, shoulder-fired missiles and rocket systems, light mortars -- that are contributing to continued violence and suffering in regions of conflict around the world," Bolton said. "We separate these military arms from firearms such as hunting rifles and pistols," he said. "It is the illicit trade in military small arms and light weapons that we are gathered here to address and that should properly concern us." [b]But he added that Washington also opposed a suggestion in the draft document that national governments "seriously consider" banning unrestricted sales and ownership of small arms "specifically designed for military purposes." [/b] [b]..."[/b] Let's give our guys a chance to be heard before we nail them to the outhouse door. This article said they were going to OPPOSE the banning of military style weapons as was Russia and China! Without the big three, the UN really ain't worth much! Some help with making these link active would be much appreciated!
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 8:58:52 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/9/2001 9:42:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/9/2001 9:44:47 PM EDT by EricTheHun]
But, Sweep, he didn't say it was 'only about hunting and sporting' now, did he? And I visit the libertarian website often, I was just being facetious when I asked about what did their rep say at the conference. We all know that only govt. reps were attending, but, then again, that's my point. You have to be at the table to play. If Buchanan had taken just a few more votes from Bush in key states, or if Nader had withdrawn from the contest, we would be looking at eight more years of a downhill slide that, in my humble opinion, would have been the end of our PEACEFUL Republic. I don't see how anyone overlooks this fact! Voting for the Libertarian, Consitutional, Taxpayer, Reform, whatever, Parties, must surely be like pissing in your pants while wearing a dark blue suit - It may give you a warm feeling all over, but nobody's gonna notice - not now, not when the history of the 2000 race is written, and not when the epitaph is written over our collective graves.
Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity. Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties.
View Quote
Absolutely correct, Sweep, but I don't want to just keep preaching to the f***ing choir, I want to make certain that we win, 'cause losing sucks worse than anything else imaginable. In addition to my day job, I'm a gun dealer with a reasonably large amount of stock, with plenty of high-cap mags, etc. My partner and I were talking about the 2000 Election and how that if Gore won, the value of our inventory would just about double. Both he and I, however, and my acquaintances at CDNN (talk about a large stock of stuff there), and just about every dealer I know, voted for Bush, gave money to Bush, supported Bush, and (when the election was finally over) gave a big cheer for Bush's victory. Were we idiots? Didn't we know that a Gore Win would line our pockets and fill our coffers? We did the right thing, thank God in Heaven! I remember being at the gun shows during those dark days in November and December last year, and all the dealers had their radios on, trying to find out the latest Florida Supreme Court decision, the latest US Supreme Court decision, the Katherine Harris' decision. When any good news came out, it was reported over the PA systems, to the cheering and applause of we simple gun folks walking the aisles, and manning the tables? With our wives and kids. Rejoicing at the Bush victory. I'm sorry you weren't able to join with us in our jubilation. As an AR-15 owner, surely you are aware that the value of your weaponry would have soared in the wake of a Gore win? So what did you do? Eric The(libertarianRepublican)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 3:32:32 AM EDT
Any who want to disarm American citizens of their personel defense weapons, is the enemy within that our founding fathers warned of so-long-ago! Until they are dealt with in no uncertain terms, as the enemy, we loose more and more of our rights each and everyday! TYRANNOCTUNUS
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 4:55:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 5:00:48 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 5:14:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sweep:
Originally Posted By Matt S: [b]But he added that Washington also opposed a suggestion in the draft document that national governments "seriously consider" banning unrestricted sales and [red]ownership[/red] of small arms [red]"specifically designed for military purposes."[/red] [/b]
View Quote
And that doesn't bother you? Have you already come to the conclusion that you shouldn't be allowed to own a M16? ]
View Quote
Sweep - RE_READ the quote above. Bolton is saying washington is AGAINST the language in the draft document banning unrestricted sales of military style weapons. Stated another way, he is FOR sales of weapons of military useage. I will, however, agree that he's doing alot of flip flopping. Its the politicians way of never getting nailed down anywhere. I don't like that either. However, by being intentionally obscure, South Carolina just passed a HUGELY pro-gun piece of legislation (which I can't fully disclose becasue the gov hasn't signed it yet. He is EXPECTED to. More on that later)
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 5:20:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sweep:
Originally Posted By Matt S: [b]But he added that Washington also opposed a suggestion in the draft document that national governments "seriously consider" banning unrestricted sales and [red]ownership[/red] of small arms [red]"specifically designed for military purposes."[/red] [/b]
View Quote
And that doesn't bother you? Have you already come to the conclusion that you shouldn't be allowed to own a M16? [img]http://www.ncsg.org/topohat-small.jpg[/img] ...[>:/]
View Quote
That would just lead [blue]ME[/blue] into trouble, going bankrupt due to the cost of ammo....[;)] sorry I just had to.
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 5:26:42 AM EDT
Sweep, I get as pissed as you do. As I've said, this whole subject of gun rights is a religious matter for me. I am a 'fire and brimstone' type when it comes to the Second Amendment, and there WILL be a day when the RINOs in our party will be reckoned with, but NOW is not the time. Just look at the fiasco the Jeffords defection caused in the Senate! These Republicans in Name Only will soon fade from memory, but only if we get some folks with backbone into the Party. I wish we could count on Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Reformers, etc., to help us 'cleanse the Temple.' But I fear not. Just look at the Blacks in our Country. Despite the overtures made by Bush in 2000, Gore received almost 90% of the Black vote. George Bush, Sr., got more Black votes than his son, and he really was a 'country club' Republican. Why? Because the Blacks are smart enough to know that as far as political parties are concerned, the Democrats are the only game in town for them. There is no Jesse Jackson Party, no pan-African Party, nothing of the sort. They determined long ago to remain in the DemocRat Party, and they were there when quite a few Demos were just a few years removed from the Klan. Talk about strange bedfellows! Democrats have only a few core constituencies left, the minorities, the feminazis, some federal-state-local employees, the gays, the environmental wackos, who have I left out? Yet they win because they play this political game a hell of a lot better than we do. There is nothing personal in any of my posts, because the issues we discuss transcend the personal, the petty 'gotcha' mentality. Like it or not, this is our Secular Religion, and I just hope we're all singing out of the same hymnal. Eric The(LoadingMyMags,AwaitingHisReturn)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 6:51:39 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 6:55:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 7:01:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sweep: Still don't like this whole scenerio though.
View Quote
I too wish we could get SOMEONE up there (in addition to Ron Paul) to ADMIT that teh ENTIRE intent of the Second Amendment is to GUARANTEE to the citizenry unrestricted access to weapons of present day military useage. The Second Amendment is about repelling a repressive federal gov't. The Armed Forces are under the control of the Federal gov't. The Nat'l Guard is under the control of the Federal gov't. They WILL have access to full auto weapons. Therefore, teh citizens MUST have access to full auto weapons to be able to compete with any repressive Federal gov't. WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT FOR THESE WASHINGTON IDIOTS THAT THEY CAN NEITHER UNDERSTAND NOR PUBLICLY STATE THIS????
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 7:14:33 AM EDT
Post from garandman -
Therefore, the citizens MUST have access to full auto weapons to be able to compete with any repressive Federal gov't.
View Quote
Not to worry, my fellow citizens, for I believe there will be more than enough, and to spare, on the SECOND day of the fight. Hehehe. See you in the fields, or in Glory, makes no nevermind to me! Eric The(IToldYouIt'sAReligiousThing)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 7:19:25 AM EDT
Some of you guys need to quit whining and get real. What do you think the position of the GORE administration would have been? How about Clinton? Oh, so it wasn't worded EXACTLY the way you wanted...tough shit! It's more than we have a right to expect from any modern politician and it's more than we got from the FIRST Bush administration, so stop bitching like a little whiney kid and go write a letter to the Bush administration THANKING them and telling them you support their position and encourage them to go even further. Jesus, do you want egg in your beer or what?
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 7:25:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: Some of you guys need to quit whining and get real. What do you think the position of the GORE administration would have been? How about Clinton? Oh, so it wasn't worded EXACTLY the way you wanted...tough shit! It's more than we have a right to expect from any modern politician and it's more than we got from the FIRST Bush administration,
View Quote
Well said, Rik. Well, except for the part about the excrement [:D] Further , ALL the recent acknowledgements of gun rights, and ALL the recent legislative guarantees that have been passed have been accomplished by REPUBLICANS. I understand where these Libertarians are coming from, but they seem so dead set on getting public recognition of their fledgling movement, that they are willing to sacrifice and criticize pro-gun Republicans JUST to make a name for themselves.
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 9:38:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 11:23:45 AM EDT
CHRIST PEOPLE!!! we have been bitching about this damn UN thing for the last few weeks, and now that the Bush Administration has said that they strongly oppose it, we are bitching about the people that defended our rights!!!! READ THE DAMN ARTICLE!! THE UN LOST THIS ROUND AND WE WON!!! THATS A GOOD THING!!!
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 12:18:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 12:20:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Garand Shooter: If Bush is so pro-gun, where are the laws being repealed and freedoms restored. His Dad did the import ban by executive order, he could undo it just the same.
View Quote
Wrong on both counts. First, a President can't repeal a law, and with the Senate split the way it is, there is no way any law is going to be repealed. Second, the import ban was passed into law by congress following the executive order, IIRC, and would require Congress to repeal it.
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 12:22:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Garand Shooter: However, untill I see laws repealed, I am not going to be happy. Just talking tough and doing nothing will get us nowhere, as sooner or later Democrats will be back in power and pass more laws. Then we will get Republicans in power and no new laws. Then Democrats and more new laws. If Bush is so pro-gun, where are the laws being repealed and freedoms restored. His Dad did the import ban by executive order, he could undo it just the same. He could order the ATF to lift the ban on the import of AK and Garand barrels the same way. And yes, I have articulated my position on this to him in letters.
View Quote
I think you overlook the fact that there's a lot of stuff that the Bush Administration have to set straight after the Clintons took off. There are bigger fish to fry regarding US sovereignity (like pulling US troops out of former Yugoslavia, stuff like that) than reinstating our old rights of gunownership. Especially since he's only been in office for less than a year. Although this is an issue that is VERY close to our hearts we must understand that there are more important things to be dealt with in the grand scheme of things. Therefore it might take a while before you see the kind of action you're looking for. Also, as much as you might want to see them (Bolton etc) put their foot down more forcefully, you must have some tact and finesse in international dealings like this. This is the beginning. Think of it as a supertanker. If you reverse your engines it'll still take you about an hour to come to a complete stop and then actually reversing.
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 12:22:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Sweep: Just a note here. This has nothing to do with me being a Libertarian. It has everything to do with my unalienable Right to keep and bear arms.
View Quote
It SHOULD have something to do with all of us being REALISTIC. This is not the 1980s, the majority of voters are not behind us anymore---they've bought the media line about guns. We are very lucky to get this much and getting pissed that it isn't more won't accomplish anything.
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 12:27:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Garand Shooter: If Bush is so pro-gun, where are the laws being repealed and freedoms restored. His Dad did the import ban by executive order, he could undo it just the same. Tough talk may be enough to get support from some voters, but not me, untill I see action and results I will keep voting the same way. .
View Quote
Bush got concealed carry into Texas. Or have we ALREADY forgetten that??? There is NOTHING to indicate he has changed his views. Show a little patience. The smart warrior knows better than to play all his cards at once. If Bush went and repealed all federal gun laws, he'd be roasted in the press. While we may not like it, he's got to play along with the Leftists and the Marxist media. its "the game," and just 'cuz we don't like it doesn't mean its not a reality of politics today. It just sounds like Bush is your enemy. Frankly, he's one of the FEW political friends we got. Let's USE him till something better comes along.
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 7:50:19 PM EDT
The congress doesnt have to repeal them, the import ban that was originaly a executive order is pare of the 94' Crime Bill, which expires in 04. All Congress has to do is not act. And there are not enough votes, between the GOP and the Blue Dog's in the House to get it through the House. It might be used as a wedge issue in the presidential elections that year, but considering how the Dems got their noses bloodied on gun control last year, they wont exactly be beating down the doors to follow suit. And what about the off year elections you ask? The Dems will loose seats in the House. Most states in the rust belt lost seats, the sunbelt gained seats, California gained only one seat. And with the exception of New Mexico Bush carried the whole sunbelt last year. There is no sign of that weakening any time soon.
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 8:12:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 8:35:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 8:39:25 PM EDT
Small arms and light weapons, in our understanding are strictly military arms -- automatic rifles, machine guns, shoulder-fired missiles and rocket systems, light mortars -- that are contributing to continued violence and suffering in regions of conflict around the world," Bolton said. so what? pick a fight, its still your fight not mine. i don't give damn who kills who in some other country or what weapons they do the killing with. none of that has squat to do with America or me....or my firearms..or my freedom. sooo sick and tired of hearing how many other places have so many people killed each day in some war with some weapon and just because of this it should be outlawed here. what nonsense totally irrelevant
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 8:43:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 8:56:09 PM EDT
Frankly guys/gals, this is still better than I would have expected. The govt. actually said basically to the U.N. "whoa there, now just a dang minute". Sure, I like to hear them tell the U.N. to mind thier own friggin business and owning a firearm is a guaranteed right in the USA, but that's not realistic for politicions. I expected our people to cave in to U.N. policy unquestionally, instead they actually disagreed with the U.N.'s position. Wow, I can't believe it. No reason to be overly optimistic here, but I take it as good news, these days I'll take what I can get.
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 8:57:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/10/2001 9:06:10 PM EDT by Garand_Shooter]
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 9:05:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/10/2001 9:04:07 PM EDT by Garand_Shooter]
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 9:30:32 PM EDT
GS, the fact is, even if every single pro-RKBA person voted for a Libertarian presidential candidate, he would still lose badly. There just aren't enough gun-owners who really care about the RKBA.
Link Posted: 7/10/2001 11:41:53 PM EDT
what i really wish is that people would wake up and stop going the lesser of 2 evils route read bushes policy he wants to band the importation f more high cap mags he wants to raise the age to posses a so called AW to 21. will he allow the crime bil lto sunbset i doubt it.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 3:48:52 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 4:16:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Garand Shooter: BUT- If the Republican canidates started losing votes to Libertarian canidates on this issue, you can bet ....
View Quote
YOU CAN BET we will have a COMPLETELY Democratically Controlled House, Senate and WHite HOuse. GOOD PLAN, TIM. And IF that happens, there won't BE a country left to defend by the time the Libertarians are a national political presence. Basically, your plan creates a vacuum that WILL be filled by DEMOCRATS. No offense, but I hope you never become a military strategist [}:D] I agree with your goal - I disagree with your methodology. Back to Bush - No you don't live in Texas. But when he was Gov of Texas, look what he did. Every indication is he'll do the same as Pres. let me give you an example of teh RIDICULOUS standard you are holding Bush to. He's been in office 180 days. You are a business owner - let's see you DOUBLE your sales in 180 days. CAN'T BE DONE. Why??? Cuz there's people out there who WILL NOT play along. The friggin' War for Independence took a couple years. And you expect Bush to accomplish our total freedom in 180 days??? Come on, Tim. Come on.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 4:47:04 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 4:26:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Garand Shooter:
Originally Posted By skullworks: I think you overlook the fact that there's a lot of stuff that the Bush Administration have to set straight after the Clintons took off. There are bigger fish to fry regarding US sovereignity (like pulling US troops out of former Yugoslavia, stuff like that)
View Quote
Don't get me started on that unfullfilled as of yet promise. I just got an E-mail last week asking me to volunteer for 179 days in Bosnia and stating that if not enough volunteered they were gonna just select from the list that was asked to and send us anyway
View Quote
Like I said - it takes time. And I've received a number of request to go to Bosnia and Kosovo myself. I have better stuff to do with myself.
than reinstating our old rights of gunownership. Especially since he's only been in office for less than a year.
View Quote
But what do we have to show for that year, not just in firearms rights but in all freedom related issues?
View Quote
In my humble opinion I think the very fact that his not flirting around with foreign opponents. There was a great article in the July issue of Rolling Stone Magazine, called "Winning at Foreign Policy." How the US interacts with international issues has great ramifications on what happens to our domestic climate. Anyway in the article they write: "The tone of America's discourse to the world has altered. The squeaking and stammering are gone; our voice has changed. I listened to what you said last March when you faced your first major foreign-policy crisis: "I was presented with the facts. I made the decision. It was the right thing to do." Those are three sentences that Bill Clinton has never spoken in his life. And you were talking about Russian espionage, not land scams, campaign-contribution finagles or plump, flaky interns." It is by far one of my favorite articles I have ever read from any news publication.
Although this is an issue that is VERY close to our hearts we must understand that there are more important things to be dealt with in the grand scheme of things. Therefore it might take a while before you see the kind of action you're looking for.
View Quote
I am looking for ANY KIND of action other than talk. I have always been told that Republicans are the friends of gun owners, but thinking back 10 or more years, what have they done? What freedoms have they restored? What laws ahve they overturned?
View Quote
Did you see the Reuter's newsbrief someone posted earlier today? I think it shows a definate change.
Also, as much as you might want to see them (Bolton etc) put their foot down more forcefully, you must have some tact and finesse in international dealings like this. This is the beginning. Think of it as a supertanker. If you reverse your engines it'll still take you about an hour to come to a complete stop and then actually reversing.
View Quote
The problem is that most Republicans seem to reverse thier engines so slowly that they don't reach the point of any action untill they are already out of office
View Quote
I do agree. But I think we're seeing a definate improvement now. Like I said, give it some time.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 4:39:50 PM EDT
Not to spoil the party but more gun control happens under Republican presidents than democrat presidents. Nixon invented the ATF, Regan had the 86 machine gun ban, Bush Sr. the 89 importation ban, now Bush Jr. wants to enforce all those gun laws and supports mandatory trigger locks to be sold on all new guns and... How much gun (people) control do you think we'll see in this administration? I wonder if Bush will give in on some reasonable, common sense gun control to be bipartisan and make everybody happy. He's a politician plain and simple. Before everybody flames me for this, I did vote for Bush because a president Gore would be more than I could handle.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 5:13:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Oops, did we manage to find the dark cloud in that silver lining? I believe the offending language must be:
"Like many countries, the United States has a cultural tradition of hunting and sport shooting.
View Quote
What's the problem with that? Do you disagree that the US has a long tradition of hunting and sports shooting? That's all he said. Should he have said 'Since the United States has had a long history of murders, rapes, and thefts, our population has determined that it must own and possess weapons for its safety.' Or maybe 'Since the United States was created by civilians attacking our former government's troops and military installations, our population has determined that it must own and possess weapons for its safety.' Sound better? Or how about "Since the United States has been subject to a bloody civil war between its constituent states, our population has determined that it must own and possess weapons for its safety.' Sound even better? Why ignore the rest of his statement -
"The United States believes that the responsible use of firearms is a legitimate aspect of national life..."
View Quote
Is there anything wrong with that statement? What did the Libertarian Party's representative say to the assembled masses? Oops, we'll never know, will we? Eric The(libertarianRepublican)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
I used to like you... [:)] Maybe he should have said "Our Constitution protects a right to keep and bear arms in defence of the state, and therefore small arms in the hands of American citizens is a protected right, and it cannot be infringed. Sorry guys, go home."
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 5:42:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Slave 1: Not to spoil the party but more gun control happens under Republican presidents than democrat presidents. Nixon invented the ATF, Regan had the 86 machine gun ban
View Quote
Not to interrupt your rant, but Reagan also got us the McClure-Volker Act of 86, which rolled back gun control. And you've left out the 64 and 68 GCAs, two of the BIGGEST pieces of gun control in US history, which were under Democrats, as was the 94 AWB.
Link Posted: 7/11/2001 8:32:40 PM EDT
Top Top