Quoted: [Grandfathering only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today.

Nice tag line there.

When I get into office, I will actively push to protect all current and future gun owners and push for the repeal of the 1986 manufacturing ban on full-auto weapons.  I'm on the fence about home manufacturing.  

No grandfather clauses will be necessary as I will not be swayed by, "Well, what exactly do your kids NEED an underfolding, bayonet mounted, flash suppressed, hi-cap drum magazined, pistol gripped .50bmg for?"  For shooting, stupid!

In the meantime, just pester the hell out of your congressmen/women.

~SO

Quoted: I'm saying we CANNOT reject new legislation becasue it doesn't go far enuf in restoring our freedoms.

This thread isn't discussing legislation that is in our favor or that restores freedoms, even just a little. It's about new legislation that seeks to infringe on our freedom but includes a grandfathering clause to make it palatable with enough gunowners so they will accept the new ban because their guns are safe from it.

For instance - If we have a bill that restores one freedom, but doesn't reverse a grandfather provision, we should support that bill, restore the one freedom and then worry about the grandfather clause later.

Bro, this makes zero sense. You on meds or something?

Quoted: Quoted: [Grandfathering only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today. Nice tag line there.

Use it. It'll help pass the word.

The more people that understand this, the better.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: [Grandfathering only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today. Nice tag line there. Use it. It'll help pass the word. The more people that understand this, the better.

I agree with your sentiment. Thanks.

Quoted: Quoted: . It's all or nothing time. We should NEVER accept MORE gun restrictions. But we better understand the reality we'll ONLY win back our freedom piecemeal.

... Right... But if there was another AWB proposal I'd rather it be an all-or-nothing affair. I don't want people to think "at least I'll get to keep these..." at the expense of their children and grandchildren's ability to own the same gun.

No more gray area. I think that if it were a "hard-ban" it would be harder for the anti's to gather support.

I agree that we shouldn't accept more restrictions.

Oppose

Very interesting, I hadn't thought of it before.  If the Grandfathering clause stays in, it forces confiscation.  Confiscation is unpalateable to nearly everyone.  Those who know it's wrong and those who would be afraid of cops getting into battles trying to confiscate weapons.  

Removing the police exemption is even better.  

Quoted: Very interesting, I hadn't thought of it before.  If the Grandfathering clause stays in, it forces confiscation.  Confiscation is unpalateable to nearly everyone.  Those who know it's wrong and those who would be afraid of cops getting into battles trying to confiscate weapons.   Removing the police exemption is even better.

This man clearly understands the situation.

+1.

Quoted: Oppose

You do realize that you want to mortgage every future American's right to keep and bear arms just so you can keep yours?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: . It's all or nothing time. We should NEVER accept MORE gun restrictions. But we better understand the reality we'll ONLY win back our freedom piecemeal. ... Right... But if there was another AWB proposal I'd rather it be an all-or-nothing affair. I don't want people to think "at least I'll get to keep these..." at the expense of their children and grandchildren's ability to own the same gun. No more gray area. I think that if it were a "hard-ban" it would be harder for the anti's to gather support. I agree that we shouldn't accept more restrictions.

The question posed by this thread is the most "Duh" question I've seen in a while. (no offense WG)

Of course we oppose all NEW gun restrictions IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

I'm talking about taking the fight to the enemy, understanding we're not gonna win it all in a single piece of legislation.

Which seems obvious too - EXCEPT I see people all the time opposing legislation cuz  it "doesn't go far enuf."

Quoted: The question posed by this thread is the most "Duh" question I've seen in a while. (no offense WG) Of course we oppose all NEW gun restrictions IN THEIR ENTIRETY. I'm talking about taking the fight to the enemy, understanding we're not gonna win it all in a single piece of legislation. Which seems obvious too - EXCEPT I see people all the time opposing legislation cuz  it "doesn't go far enuf."

Bro, you still aren't getting it.

Quoted: Bro, you still aren't getting it.

It sounds like youa re asking "If new anti gun legislation comes along, should we feel better about it if they grandfather out currently owned firearms (ala pre-94 AWB style) ?"

TO which I say "Duh" OF COURSE NOT.

Hey Wobbles -

Get any snow lately?

Its gonna be sunny and 60 today here.

Quoted: It sounds like youa re asking "If new anti gun legislation comes along, should we feel better about it if they grandfather out currently owned firearms (ala pre-94 AWB style) ?" TO which I say "Duh" OF COURSE NOT.

If the antis want another ban, I say we ought to force them to really ban whatever it is they are going after, no grandfathering in existing weapons.

Let's cut right to the chase.

See sigline for clarification, if necessary.

BTW, we got about 14" of white stuff.

Quoted: If the antis want another ban, I say we ought to force them to really ban whatever it is they are going after, no grandfathering in existing weapons. Let's cut right to the chase. See sigline for clarification, if necessary. .

Again, no offense, but that's a "Duh" position.

Perhaps that's the difference between me in SC and y'all in CT.

Down here, we're on the offensive, rolling back prohibitions and opening up new freedoms. Ya'all are on the defensive. And I agree - in your situation, force them to REALLY comeout and say what they mean.

Personally, I'd NEVER accept grandfathering. Similarly, I don't buy the '86 MG ban to keep other semi auto firearms. Constitutional freedoms are NOT a menu to pick and choose from. Molon Labe - come and take them.


If I recall correctly, YOU DID support the 86 MG ban per another thread.

Have you changed your mind?

Quoted: Again, no offense, but that's a "Duh" position. Personally, I'd NEVER accept grandfathering. Similarly, I don't buy the '86 MG ban to keep other semi auto firearms. If I recall correctly, YOU DID. Have you changed your mind?

What the heck are you talking about?

Quoted: Quoted: Again, no offense, but that's a "Duh" position. Personally, I'd NEVER accept grandfathering. Similarly, I don't buy the '86 MG ban to keep other semi auto firearms. If I recall correctly, YOU DID. Have you changed your mind? What the heck are you talking about?

IIRC SteyrAug started a thread a while ago about how the 86 MG ban was a necessary evil to protect forms of ammunition, and imports of certain firearms. Obviously, we gave away MG's to get that. It was a "this for that" trade, giving away the PRECISE firearms the Second Amendment intended.

Very similar to what you are now against - grandfathering in certain firearms while giving away other freedoms.

IIRC you agreed the 86 MG ban WAS a necessary  thing.

So, again, I  ask - Have you changed your mind?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: . It's all or nothing time. We should NEVER accept MORE gun restrictions. But we better understand the reality we'll ONLY win back our freedom piecemeal. ... Right... But if there was another AWB proposal I'd rather it be an all-or-nothing affair. I don't want people to think "at least I'll get to keep these..." at the expense of their children and grandchildren's ability to own the same gun. No more gray area. I think that if it were a "hard-ban" it would be harder for the anti's to gather support. I agree that we shouldn't accept more restrictions. The question posed by this thread is the most "Duh" question I've seen in a while. (no offense WG) Of course we oppose all NEW gun restrictions IN THEIR ENTIRETY. I'm talking about taking the fight to the enemy, understanding we're not gonna win it all in a single piece of legislation. Which seems obvious too - EXCEPT I see people all the time opposing legislation cuz  it "doesn't go far enuf."

With all due respect I don't think you understand the concept Wobblin Goblin is putting forth here... Just from reading this and your replies to him.

Quoted: With all due respect I don't think you understand the concept Wobblin Goblin is putting forth here... Just from reading this and your replies to him.

I think I've got it pretty well...in light of what he and I discussed personally when he was over my house.

With all due respect...

Quoted: Quoted: With all due respect I don't think you understand the concept Wobblin Goblin is putting forth here... Just from reading this and your replies to him. I think I've got it pretty well...in light of what he and I discussed personally when he was over my house. With all due respect...

Then why do your posts read like you aren't following what he's writing...?

I simply see what he's saying thusly: If we make it an all-or-nothing issue, the concept of an outright ban on firearms is more likely to go away since Joe Hunter and John Skeetshooter aren't going to want to see their investments go away and their liberties curtailed (like they don't mind seeing imposed on us)...

Correct if I'm wrong.

Quoted: Tell you what I'm going to do from this point on: Actively lobby for NO grandfather clauses in any pending/future gun legislation. That ought to ruffle a few feathers on our side. Screw it. If the other side is so convinced my gun is so harmful to public safety, why let me keep it?

So, are you going to lobby to remove the grandfather clause  (Sec. 53-202m) from the current state ban too?  Start there and maybe you can pick it apart piece-by piece.

Quoted: Then why do your posts read like you aren't following what he's writing...? I simply see what he's saying thusly: If we make it an all-or-nothing issue, the concept of an outright ban on firearms is more likely to go away since Joe Hunter and John Skeetshooter aren't going to want to see their investments go away and their liberties curtailed (like they don't mind seeing imposed on us)... Correct if I'm wrong.

I understand his question.

The correct answer is "Duh....NO." Grandfathering? NEVER EVER, so long as I draw breath.

The question answers itself. No grandfathering ever - not by politicians, and not by the duck hunters who want to protect their Perratis.

If the duck hunters are against my sport utilility rifles, theya re the enemy of my Constitution.

Doubly so for politicians.

That being answered, I had in fact moved on to another (what I beleived to be ) related issue.

Perhaps I shouldn't have done that, but it seemed relevant to me, and more where I beleive the problem lies in the gun rights community.

Quoted: Quoted: Then why do your posts read like you aren't following what he's writing...? I simply see what he's saying thusly: If we make it an all-or-nothing issue, the concept of an outright ban on firearms is more likely to go away since Joe Hunter and John Skeetshooter aren't going to want to see their investments go away and their liberties curtailed (like they don't mind seeing imposed on us)... Correct if I'm wrong. I understand his question. The correct answer is "Duh....NO." Grandfathering? NEVER EVER, so long as I draw breath. The question answers itself. No grandfathering ever - not by politicians, and not by the duck hunters who want to protect their Perratis. If the duck hunters are against my sport utilility rifles, theya re the enemy of my Constitution. Doubly so for politicians. That being answered, I had in fact moved on to another (what I beleived to be ) related issue. Perhaps I shouldn't have done that, but it seemed relevant to me, and more where I beleive the problem lies in the gun rights community.

Gotcha. I missed where you switched to the related issue.

Quoted: Gotcha. I missed where you switched to the related issue.

Prolly my fault for doing it.

Quoted: That being answered, I had in fact moved on to another (what I beleived to be ) related issue. Perhaps I shouldn't have done that, but it seemed relevant to me, and more where I beleive the problem lies in the gun rights community.

Thanks for telling us.

Quoted: Then why do your posts read like you aren't following what he's writing...?

He wasn't.

I simply see what he's saying thusly: If we make it an all-or-nothing issue, the concept of an outright ban on firearms is more likely to go away since Joe Hunter and John Skeetshooter aren't going to want to see their investments go away and their liberties curtailed (like they don't mind seeing imposed on us)... Correct if I'm wrong.

Taking that even further, when another ban comes down the pike, it'll be a fairly safe bet it'll be targeting semi-auto "assault weapons" again. The politicians' tact is to grandfather in all existing "assault weapons" while banning the sale/purchase of any new ones. The *specific* question I'm asking here is "should we oppose the inclusion of a grandfathering clause    for all existing weapons" that will surely be included in the bill?

Again, for the slow, force the government right to the endgame, to ban the possession of existing firearms and force a showdown.

That is my question, for the millionth time.

This is not about '34, '68, '86, or '94. This is about the next ban that comes down the pike.

Quoted: Again, for the slow, force the government right to the endgame, to ban the possession of existing firearms and force a showdown. That is my question, for the millionth time. .

OBVIOUSLY we don't accept any NEW bans / grandfathering / prohibitions / restrictions / etc.

Did we really need a thread to discuss that?  Is there  someone who needed that point clarified?

And again, you are on the defense, and I'm not. I'm talking about pushing FORWARD and EXPANDING rights.

Quoted: Quoted: Again, for the slow, force the government right to the endgame, to ban the possession of existing firearms and force a showdown. That is my question, for the millionth time. And again, you are on the defense, and I'm not. OBVIOUSLY we don't accept any NEW bans / grandfathering / prohibitions / restrictions / etc. Did we really need a thread to discuss that?

Maybe we should start another abortion thread instead? Or how about Israel? Or Creationism? Or Bluetooth cellphones?

Why bother discuss anything?

BTW, you still aren't getting it.

Quoted: BTW, you still aren't getting it.

I get it.

You are saying if they try a grandfather clause (whether the politicians OR the duck hunters ) we FORCE the issue and make them try an all encompassing ban.

How you are gonna force the Dems to try to ban ALL guns is problematic as even they know its political suicide.

I get what you are trying to say.

I'm saying "Duh."  NO NEW RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER. PERIOD. GF clauses, whatever. No new restrictions.

How you are gonna force a Democrat to re-write their legislation to ban ALL weapons....well that does remain a  bit of a mystery to me.

....Oh, and I'm still waiting to hear if this is a NEW position from what I seem to recall you saying before....namely, as I recall it, your position that  the 86 MG ban WAS a necessary concession to the antis, protecting semi autos and ammo at the expense of MG's.......

Quoted: I get what you are trying to say. How you are gonna force a Democrat to re-write their legislation to ban ALL weapons....well that does remain a  bit of a mystery to me.

#1 It's what they really want anyway.

#2 You have an annoying habit of complicating even the simplest of concepts, bud.

Quoted: ....Oh, and I'm still waiting to hear if this is a NEW position from what I seem to recall you saying before....namely, as I recall it, your position that  the 86 MG ban WAS a necessary concession to the antis, protecting semi autos and ammo at the expense of MG's.......

Dude, I was a junior in high school at the time. What's your point?

Quoted: Quoted: I get what you are trying to say. How you are gonna force a Democrat to re-write their legislation to ban ALL weapons....well that does remain a  bit of a mystery to me. #1 It's what they really want anyway. #2 You have an annoying habit of complicating even the simplest of concepts, bud.

How am I complicating anything? I'm agreeing with your intent as OBVIOUSLY correct. No new restrictions. NONE. The REAL quesion is how do you implement your plan.

I'm  asking the IMMEDIATELY next question  - "How are you planning to FORCE the Dems to write a piece of legislation they KNOW would be political suicide? "

Sure they want to ban all guns. NO WAY they write that  piece of legislation.

Quoted: Quoted: ....Oh, and I'm still waiting to hear if this is a NEW position from what I seem to recall you saying before....namely, as I recall it, your position that  the 86 MG ban WAS a necessary concession to the antis, protecting semi autos and ammo at the expense of MG's....... Dude, I was a junior in high school at the time. What's your point?

The point is "Have you come to a new understanding re: how we deal with the demonization of certain classes of weapons?"

I caught ALOT of crap in that thread for saying Reagan et all SHOULD have pushed the envelope and NOT accepted piecemeal crapping on the Constitution.

I'm asking "Do we agree NO MORE surrendering ANY gun rights - even MG's?"

Quoted: I caught ALOT of crap in that thread for saying Reagan et all SHOULD have pushed the envelope and NOT accepted piecemeal crapping on the Constitution. I'm asking "Do we agree NO MORE surrendering ANY gun rights - even MG's?"

You caught alot of crap because you failed to understand that the net result of FOPA was an improvement. We gained more than we lost.

Two steps forward and one back is still one step forward from the previous spot. You kept arguing from the premise that we lost more rights than we gained as a result of FOPA, which is untrue.

If you still believe that, you are still wrong.

Quoted: Quoted: I caught ALOT of crap in that thread for saying Reagan et all SHOULD have pushed the envelope and NOT accepted piecemeal crapping on the Constitution. I'm asking "Do we agree NO MORE surrendering ANY gun rights - even MG's?" You caught alot of crap because you failed to understand that the net result of FOPA was an improvement. We gained more than we lost. Two steps forward and one back is still one step forward from the previous spot. You kept arguing from the premise that we lost more rights than we gained as a result of FOPA, which is untrue. If you still believe that, you are still wrong.

So net gains with FOPA are good, but net gains with grandfathering are bad?

Quoted: Quoted: #2 You have an annoying habit of complicating even the simplest of concepts, bud. How am I complicating anything? I'm agreeing with your intent as OBVIOUSLY correct. No new restrictions. NONE.

Heheheh. Did you fall down and hit your head on a hard object recently?

I'm  asking the IMMEDIATELY next question  - "How are you planning to FORCE the Dems to write a piece of legislation they KNOW would be political suicide? " Sure they want to ban all guns. NO WAY they write that  piece of legislation.

Well, since it looks like I'd one of the few people pushing this concept, I'd try to convince fellow gun owners to pressure the Coalition of CT Sportsmen and the NRA to refrain from asking for a grandfathering clause when lobbying against a new AWB. Next, we try to convince pro-RKBA legislators to keep a grandfathering clause out of the pending legislation.

It might work if enough people decided to make the proper amount of noise. Noise that couldn't stop a new AWB from being passed here in CT (or any other blue state), but might be enough to keep a GF clause from being added.

Then we get right to the endgame.

Quoted: So net gains with FOPA are good, but net gains with grandfathering are bad?

Go lay down. Now. You obviously are disconnected from reality.

You have no understanding of what a grandfathering clause is. A grandfathering clause is anything but a net gain.

Quoted: You kept arguing from the premise that we lost more rights than we gained as a result of FOPA, which is untrue. If you still believe that, you are still wrong.

We DID lose rights to the MOST important Second Amendment firearms - arms of standard military useage, select fire MG's.

All to gain importation of 50 year old surplus rifles and what essentially are sporting firearms - OUR version of what the duck hunters are trying to protect in trading away OUR right to semi auto guns. DUck hunters today are giving away semi autos to protect their Perattis. FOPA traded away MG's to protect sporting rifles.

What you don't seem to understand is FOPA is EXACTLY what you are arguing against here.

Quoted: You have no understanding of what a grandfathering clause is. A grandfathering clause is anything but a net gain.

Grandfathering CAN BE and IS a net gain.

For instance, Grandfather in semi auto AR's IF we trade away 50 BMG Barrett rifles. LOTS more AR's than 50 BMG's. Net gain.

I'm saying NO new restrictions at all.

And FOPA was a net gain - trade away MG's for semi autos. More semi autos than MG's.

FOPA is EXACTLY what youare  arguing against here.

Quoted: Go lay down. Now. You obviously are disconnected from reality. .

Discuss.

Don't be condescending.

W_G... this thread has caused a thought to dislodge itself from the chasm of my brain (yeah, it happens once in a while)...

What if we/the NRA/someone actually starts legislation -- or more accurately, debate about legislation stating that if firearms are safe enough for us to have owned in the past, and are safe enough for us to own now... That they should always be safe enough in the future...?

I hope I'm telegraphing this concept right. It would wind up being a safeguard but could be posited in a neutral way... With the final answer being that if we could be trusted with guns in the past and presently, we will and should always be trusted with them into the future, no restrictions or stupid cosmetic bans. They didn't work beyond inconveniencing people and we can pretty much prove that.

I know, you all will say that that's what the Second Amendment is for. And I agree, wholeheartedly... But with our current crop of legislators believing that the Constitution is a "living document", that cannot be taken for granted.

just a thought, YMMV, OMGBBQ, MARPAT, Lootie, etc.

Quoted: Well, since it looks like I'd one of the few people pushing this concept, I'd try to convince fellow gun owners to pressure the Coalition of CT Sportsmen and the NRA to refrain from asking for a grandfathering clause when lobbying against a new AWB. Next, we try to convince pro-RKBA legislators to keep a grandfathering clause out of the pending legislation. It might work if enough people decided to make the proper amount of noise. Noise that couldn't stop a new AWB from being passed here in CT (or any other blue state), but might be enough to keep a GF clause from being added. Then we get right to the endgame.

Well, as I've said, I am against ANY AND ALL new restrictions on ANY firearms freedoms. I am against trading away ANY gun rights for any reasons. I'm against trading away some rights for other rights.

Which is why I am against ALL FOPA type legislation. (FOPA grandfathered in semi autos, giving away the VERy firearms MOST protected by 2A)

And apparently so are you against FOPA if you believe what you typed in red above

Quoted: Quoted: You have no understanding of what a grandfathering clause is. A grandfathering clause is anything but a net gain. Grandfathering CAN BE and IS a net gain.

Grandfathering is nothing of the sort. All a grandfathering clause is this: We are passing a new law against semi-autos. You can keep what you own, but can't buy new ones. If that is what you call a net gain over the status quo, you need help.

For instance, Grandfather in semi auto AR's IF we trade away 50 BMG Barrett rifles. LOTS more AR's than 50 BMG's. Net gain.

That's called a trade, it has nothing to do with grandfathering. Who keeps feeding you this pablum, bud?

And FOPA was a net gain - trade away MG's for semi autos. More semi autos than MG's.

Where the %*$# are you pulling "semi-autos" out of FOPA? FOPA did not pitch semi-autos vs. autos and you know it. How about we start arguing about the benefits of peanut butter in a protein-rich diet now, too?

FOPA is EXACTLY what youare  arguing against here.

You wouldn't know what I'm arguing for or against if I hit you square in the eyes with it.

Sheesh.

Quoted: You wouldn't know what I'm arguing for or against if I hit you square in the eyes with it. Sheesh.

And you apparently can't have this discussion without insulting me and being condescending.

So I'll leave you alone with your thread.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: #2 You have an annoying habit of complicating even the simplest of concepts, bud. How am I complicating anything? I'm agreeing with your intent as OBVIOUSLY correct. No new restrictions. NONE. Heheheh. Did you fall down and hit your head on a hard object recently? I'm  asking the IMMEDIATELY next question  - "How are you planning to FORCE the Dems to write a piece of legislation they KNOW would be political suicide? " Sure they want to ban all guns. NO WAY they write that  piece of legislation. Well, since it looks like I'd one of the few people pushing this concept, I'd try to convince fellow gun owners to pressure the Coalition of CT Sportsmen and the NRA to refrain from asking for a grandfathering clause when lobbying against a new AWB. Next, we try to convince pro-RKBA legislators to keep a grandfathering clause out of the pending legislation. It might work if enough people decided to make the proper amount of noise. Noise that couldn't stop a new AWB from being passed here in CT (or any other blue state), but might be enough to keep a GF clause from being added. Then we get right to the endgame.

Exactly the way to go, in my view.  I doubt we'd need to FORCE the Dems/Libs to write such all-encompassing legislation - it's what they want anyway.  The real issue is negotiations: all too often, the gun advocacy is "reasonable" and compromises things away with grandfathering cl;auses.  The Dems/Libs see it as a way to gather together the votes for whatever nonsense they want, which might not pass - the main point of this thread.  However, as a practical matter I don't see how we stop some advocacy group from fighting for grandfathering, unless somehow everyone else just stands back and lets them twist.

I do feel however, that this business of exceptions, whether by grandfathering or outright exemption has to stop.  As many have said, it is just a tool for fragmentation.  What bothers me the most is - and, this specifically refers to grandfathering clauses - is that "fellow" firearms owners are willing to accept or support legislation and law, even though it screws over others.  On this board, I have seen examples (I'll avoid specific details so as to protect the guilty and to not  get an overall flame war started) in which someone showed a picture of a bunch of AR's showing how he could have them, and that it was no problem, just that no new ones could be bought.  The smugness just poured off the screen.  Other threads relating to carry permits have had similar posts -  "Well, I can have CCW (in one of the "discretionary" states).  These people don't seem to realize their privileges - and, under a "grandfather" system it truly is reduced to a privilege - can go away with the next administration.

So, I agree that there should not be grandfathering, nor should there be "exceptions" as in the discretionary carry permit laws as in NY or California (probably others, but those are the only two with which I have any familiarity).  We all know that such "discretion", which sounds good on paper as with so many liberal issues, leads only to corruption and stupidity.  Why should only the politically conneccted or the Robert Blakes of the world carry?  They are more of a danger.  And, someone who is smug about his county being "almost shall - issue" should not take comfort, but realize the next sheriff can refuse to renew.  This situation only exists because it is allowed.  The next time a carry law comes up, make it up or down, no exceptions.  Same with anything else.  Otherwise someone will always try to get his/her/its own benefit, and the hell with others.  I would have thought anyone past the 4th grade would have seen enough examples of it.

Quoted: What if we/the NRA/someone actually starts legislation -- or more accurately, debate about legislation stating that if firearms are safe enough for us to have owned in the past, and are safe enough for us to own now... That they should always be safe enough in the future...? I hope I'm telegraphing this concept right. It would wind up being a safeguard but could be posited in a neutral way... With the final answer being that if we could be trusted with guns in the past and presently, we will and should always be trusted with them into the future, no restrictions or stupid cosmetic bans. They didn't work beyond inconveniencing people and we can pretty much prove that. I know, you all will say that that's what the Second Amendment is for. And I agree, wholeheartedly... But with our current crop of legislators believing that the Constitution is a "living document", that cannot be taken for granted.

That's a good point. It seems as though many lawmakers are willing to twist the Constitution to fit whatever their cause is...but they act like a simple law written by today's idiots is direct from God himself.

Quoted: I've never seen LOTR, so blow me.

So then quit copying Oreily, the guy is a fucking tard.

I despise that saying.

Quoted: Quoted: You wouldn't know what I'm arguing for or against if I hit you square in the eyes with it. Sheesh. And you apparently can't have this discussion without insulting me and being condescending.

You are the one who is being condescending. You have this warped idea that if it didn't originate in your head first (or you don't agree with it), you immediately strive to disprove or mangle the concept to the point where nobody else can understand it either.

I'd laugh but I'm too annoyed right now.