User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 6:52:44 AM EDT
[#1]
I agree, after 8 years of hell, it's going to take years to clean up this [puke] Klinton left us. Now, how to fix Kalifornication...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 7:08:59 AM EDT
[#2]
Wow Garandman, that's the most spirited/heated/heartfelt thread I think I've ever seen you post. Very good points made. I still feel that Bush is the lesser of two evils, but more and more he's becoming the MUCH lesser of the two. Bravo to you for bringing up these often overlooked points.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 7:09:07 AM EDT
[#3]
Originally, gun control groups pushed for an outright ban on handguns. They were unpopular and lost.
Somewhere along the line, they changed their tactics. They moved in small steps. First, restrictions on foreign guns. Then, they hit machineguns. Then, "assault" weapons and "high capacity" magazines. If Gore would have won, my next guess would be .50 caliber rifles. Antigunners realized that they needed to move slowly to accomplish their agenda. We need to do the same. Remember the story of the frog in the water. Turn the heat up quickly and it'll jump. Turn it up slowly and it'll bake to death. The anti's have learned how to use the stove. The frog (the public) is comfortable. If we turn down the heat too quickly, it'll get cold and jump. We need to turn the heat down gently, just like the antigunners did. We need to learn how to use that stove. Bush and Cheney have got it; the question is-- do [b]WE[/b]? Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 7:20:37 AM EDT
[#4]
And while we're on the subject, why didn't Klinton disarm the Secret Service if guns are so evil? After all, only murderers need guns-and instances where people might need guns "only for self defense" just don't happen. Sorry, not well written or thought out. Just needed to rant a little myself.[:)]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 7:22:06 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: I wanna hear all you that keep crapping on Dubya "'cuz he's not doing enuf" give him a little grattitude for this one - namely stopping these stupid gun buybacks. He's getting the job done - little by little. or are you just too PIGHEADED to give credit when due????? In eight months, we;ve gotten - 1. Defunding of the stupid gun buybacks. 2. A CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL statement that the 2nd protects INDIVIDUAL rights. 3. Rollback of the Inst-Check ILLEGAL retention of gun purchase records. In ANY realistic assesment of the eight months of the Bush presidency thus far, you would HAVE to say that restoring gun freedoms have been the NUMBER ONE priority. Actually, I think pushing a farce of a tax cut through was the highest priority. As far as restoring freedoms... what freedoms have they restored if it is priority one? The ONLY reason I can see for criticising Bush now is that you want political power to come to YOUR party (without naming SPECIFIC party names) Which means you are putting your OWN political power AHEAD OF your country, its citizens and their Constitutionally guaranteed gun freedoms. Its time to get on board people, and put your political aspirations SECOND to freedom. My only aspiration is for freedom. I have no desire for power. It amazes me how easy gun owners are pacified by measures that accomplish nothing toward restoring freedoms. For all you claim he has done, I can't do anything today that I couldn't do when Cliton left office. I refuse to be impressed by symbolic actions such as defunding of gun by backs, "position statements", etc. I will be impressed when any of my freedoms are restored. But untill that day comes I will continue to feel the way I do. I wish the anti's were satisfied with the same lack of action that gun owners are.... if they were we would have had just tough talk about an AW ban, but nothing new. If Democrats were as inefficient at taking away our freedoms as Republicans are at restoring them we would still have cheap C3 weapons. My position is clear... slow me tangible results restoring a freedom and you will get my support.. but untill them I will figure you as the same as the predecessors from your party. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 7:35:39 AM EDT
[#6]
Give Dubya some credit, he`s sticking it to the antis using their tactics. Using small steps, he`s rolling back some of the stupid things Clinton did.
By stopping buy backs he`s being fiscally prudent. By pushing for the destruction of unnecessary govt records, he`s protecting the privacy of law abiding people. This is the way it`ll look to most people, and they start saying we really didn`t need this crap anyway. Dubya is going to appear completely reasonable with a common sense approach.The antis will appear to be the extremists they really are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 7:37:05 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: My only aspiration is for freedom. I have no desire for power. It amazes me how easy gun owners are pacified by measures that accomplish nothing toward restoring freedoms. For all you claim he has done, I can't do anything today that I couldn't do when Cliton left office. I refuse to be impressed by symbolic actions such as defunding of gun by backs, "position statements", etc. I will be impressed when any of my freedoms are restored. But untill that day comes I will continue to feel the way I do. . . My position is clear... slow me tangible results restoring a freedom and you will get my support.. but untill them I will figure you as the same as the predecessors from your party. You have to be patient. If your remember, it took about 10 years to bring down the mininum barrel length from 20" to 16". Geo. Bush Jr. has been in office only 6 months. I would like to add that Geo. Jr, also got us out of the United Nations control for small arms. The anti's back door approach to U.S. gun ban. It could be worse, we could have been dealing with a Bill Clinton clone aka Al Gore. Remember, we gunners barely dodged this bullet, only a few thousand out of millions of votes in florida that supplied us our win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 7:37:10 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: It amazes me how easy gun owners are pacified by measures that accomplish nothing toward restoring freedoms. For all you claim he has done, I can't do anything today that I couldn't do when Cliton left office. I refuse to be impressed by symbolic actions such as defunding of gun by backs, "position statements", etc. I will be impressed when any of my freedoms are restored. But untill that day comes I will continue to feel the way I do. My position is clear... slow me tangible results restoring a freedom and you will get my support.. but untill them I will figure you as the same as the predecessors from your party. !. I'm NOT a Republican. I have NO party affiliation. All political parties are EQUALLY culpable for the morass in Washington, becasue they will do ANYTHING to grab power. 2. How's this for tangible?? Next gun you buy, your name will NOT be illegally retained by the gov't as a gun owner. that's called teh freedom of anonymity. How's this for tangible?? You now are forcibly required to pay for ONE LESS anti-gun program than when Clinton was in office. That's called the freedom of financial choice. 3. The simple reality is that Bush is accomplishing tearing down things like the gun buyback FASTER than Clinton got the initial legislation enacted. But its not fast enuf for you?? Come on - be reasonable. Rome was NOT built in a day. Three significant pieces of gun policy in about eight months?? WAY faster then der Sclickmeister was enacting the legislation. 4. You want to see Bush give you more freedom. In reality, you are holding him to a tougher standard than the one by which you criticised Clinton. The gun buybacks, the illegal retention of insta-check records, the Clinton statement of the position DID NOT cost you any tangible freedoms. And you still criticised Clinton. Bush REVERSES those things, and you REFUSE to give him credit. Its a doule standard you hold. Which leads me to ONLY one conclusion - political power for the XYZ party MUST be the goal. The XYZ party AIN'T the answer, Tim. We both know that, and you have admitted it, if memory serves. We've got Bush now, and we can use him to further freedom. [b]But how long should he be reqired to get bashed by the Leftists AND by you before he decides IT JUST AIN'T WORTH IT???? NO MAN should be held to so unreasonable a standard.We ALL have our breaking point. IMO, this type of criticism of Bush will lead him to his. He's a human being for crying out loud. [/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 7:56:13 AM EDT
[#9]
I just don't get it.
You ranted and raved, screamed and wailed when the gun buyback program was enacted, when it was revealed that the gov't was keeping names illegally from insta-check, when the Reno DOJ refused to acknowledge the individual nature of our Second Amendment rights. Now that Bush has REVERSED the gun buyback program, STOPPED the illegal record keeping, and made a CLEAR statement of how his DOJ will treat Second Amendment cases (remember: Emerson is still hanging out there) THAT"S DOESN'T MERIT PRAISE FOR BUSH. So, Clintons actions were treasonous, but Bush's actions are symbolic????? THAT, by any definition, is a double standard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 8:01:02 AM EDT
[#10]
Granted, he's much better than Clinton. But taking four steps back and three steps forward with every successive pair of administrations will still lead to the same end result.
At the recent global gun control conference, the US agreed to another such conference in 2006. If all parties then present agree, there will be a global pact worse than the one that just missed us. At that point, if I recal my US gov't structure correctly, the Senate can then ratify that treaty by a (majority?) vote and for all practical intents and purposes, the 2nd will be greatly weakened. Also, the state dept still maintains the clinton-era export certificate requirements for firearms etc destined to Canada. What is up with that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 8:09:28 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: !. I'm NOT a Republican. I have NO party affiliation. All political parties are EQUALLY culpable for the morass in Washington, becasue they will do ANYTHING to grab power. I know, but you sure sound like one sometimes 2. How's this for tangible?? Next gun you buy, your name will NOT be illegally retained by the gov't as a gun owner. that's called teh freedom of anonymity. One day as opposed to 60... big deal. Do you really think that matters? If you actually think that either you or I are not on any type of list out there it is laughable. I know I am given what I do for a living. How's this for tangible?? You now are forcibly required to pay for ONE LESS anti-gun program than when Clinton was in office. That's called the freedom of financial choice. Yes, but I am now forced to pay for stupid old folks medicine... its not choice, just redirecting of funds to an program I despise just as much. It's not freedom of finacial choice, they still are taking my money at the point of a gun...WTF kinda freedom of choice is that? 3. The simple reality is that Bush is accomplishing tearing down things like the gun buyback FASTER than Clinton got the initial legislation enacted. But its not fast enuf for you?? Come on - be reasonable. Rome was NOT built in a day. Three significant pieces of gun policy in about eight months?? WAY faster then der Sclickmeister was enacting the legislation. And he did get the AW ban through in just 2 years. 4. You want to see Bush give you more freedom. In reality, you are holding him to a tougher standard than the one by which you criticised Clinton. The gun buybacks, the illegal retention of insta-check records, the Clinton statement of the position DID NOT cost you any tangible freedoms. And you still criticised Clinton. Bush REVERSES those things, and you REFUSE to give him credit. Its a doule standard you hold. Which leads me to ONLY one conclusion - political power for the XYZ party MUST be the goal. No... [b]FREEDOM[/b] is the goal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 8:10:21 AM EDT
[#12]
stupid limit
The XYZ party AIN'T the answer, Tim. We both know that, and you have admitted it, if memory serves. I think what I admitted was that I doubt they will ever get into power, but I still hold them out as our best shot, even be it a long shot. We've got Bush now, and we can use him to further freedom. [b]But how long should he be reqired to get bashed by the Leftists AND by you before he decides IT JUST AIN'T WORTH IT???? Well, he is gonna get bashed by the leftists no matter what, but he can do something about my bashing. NO MAN should be held to so unreasonable a standard.We ALL have our breaking point. IMO, this type of criticism of Bush will lead him to his. He's a human being for crying out loud. [/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 9:02:17 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Yes, but I am now forced to pay for stupid old folks medicine... its not choice, just redirecting of funds to an program I despise just as much. It's not freedom of finacial choice, they still are taking my money at the point of a gun...WTF kinda freedom of choice is that See?? This is what I mean by "unreasonable." NOT ONLY is Bush supposed to have overturned the AW ban in SIX months, NOW you ALSO want him to already have fixed the socialist redistribution of wealth in this country?? In SIX months??? I guess if your army unit had been given the D-Day assignment, you would ahve secured the Omaha beachhead in about 17 seconds. With no casualties. [;)] Quoted: I think what I admitted was that I doubt they will ever get into power, but I still hold them out as our best shot, even be it a long shot. Here's ANOTHER contradiction, IMO. You ADMIT the Libertarians are NEVER gonna be a player, yet you still back them because of all they are gonna accomplish?? If tehy don't accomplish anything, all their rhetoric is MORE disgusting than the little Bush might be allowed to accomplish. I'm not talking about supporting the Republican party. Largely, they disgust me. I'm talking about backing Bush, the individual. You say you refuse to support Bush, because the Libertarians are the "best shot." By your logic above, you should refuse to buy an AR15, becasue the M16 is your "best shot." Its called "Take what you can get today." To use an analogy, you are refusing to take a ham sandwich today, and possibly starve to death, because you might possibly (its a long shot) get a four course meal ten years from now (when you ADMIT Libertarians being able to make a difference is likely to never happen) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 9:16:05 AM EDT
[#14]
While my principles are libertarian, I voted for Bush as the lesser of two evils. So far, he's been much better than I expected. If he keeps this up, I'll vote for him again.
Sure, a Libertarian president would be better. What are the chances we will have one of those? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 9:31:55 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: All right - I wanna hear all you that keep crapping on Dubya "'cuz he's not doing enuf" give him a little grattitude for this one - namely stopping these stupid gun buybacks. He's getting the job done - little by little. or are you just too PIGHEADED to give credit when due????? In eight months, we;ve gotten - 1. Defunding of the stupid gun buybacks. 2. A CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL statement that the 2nd protects INDIVIDUAL rights. 3. Rollback of the Inst-Check ILLEGAL retention of gun purchase records. In ANY realistic assesment of the eight months of the Bush presidency thus far, you would HAVE to say that restoring gun freedoms have been the NUMBER ONE priority. The ONLY reason I can see for criticising Bush now is that you want political power to come to YOUR party (without naming SPECIFIC party names) Which means you are putting your OWN political power AHEAD OF your country, its citizens and their Constitutionally guaranteed gun freedoms. Its time to get on board people, and put your political aspirations SECOND to freedom. I'm on board with Garand. All you pissy whiners out there just ask yourself where you'd be if Gore was stinkin' up the White House. Pussies.[-!-] The Shooter [sniper] |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 9:57:09 AM EDT
[#16]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Will you support its reauthorization when it's sunsets in 2004? JOHN ASHCROFT: It is my understanding that the President-elect of the United States has indicated his clear support for extending the assault weapon ban, and I would be pleased to move forward with that position, and to support that as a policy of this President, and as a policy of the Justice Department. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:04:05 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: See?? This is what I mean by "unreasonable." NOT ONLY is Bush supposed to have overturned the AW ban in SIX months, NOW you ALSO want him to already have fixed the socialist redistribution of wealth in this country?? In SIX months??? I guess if your army unit had been given the D-Day assignment, you would ahve secured the Omaha beachhead in about 17 seconds. With no casualties. [;)] Quoted: I think what I admitted was that I doubt they will ever get into power, but I still hold them out as our best shot, even be it a long shot. Here's ANOTHER contradiction, IMO. You ADMIT the Libertarians are NEVER gonna be a player, yet you still back them because of all they are gonna accomplish?? If tehy don't accomplish anything, all their rhetoric is MORE disgusting than the little Bush might be allowed to accomplish. I'm not talking about supporting the Republican party. Largely, they disgust me. I'm talking about backing Bush, the individual. You say you refuse to support Bush, because the Libertarians are the "best shot." By your logic above, you should refuse to buy an AR15, becasue the M16 is your "best shot." Its called "Take what you can get today." To use an analogy, you are refusing to take a ham sandwich today, and possibly starve to death, because you might possibly (its a long shot) get a four course meal ten years from now (when you ADMIT Libertarians being able to make a difference is likely to never happen) Its simple, I don't settle for anything when freedom is at stake. Those who compromise with a lion do so in hopes the lion will eat them last. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:04:28 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Originally, gun control groups pushed for an outright ban on handguns. They were unpopular and lost. Somewhere along the line, they changed their tactics. They moved in small steps. First, restrictions on foreign guns. Then, they hit machineguns. Then, "assault" weapons and "high capacity" magazines. If Gore would have won, my next guess would be .50 caliber rifles. Antigunners realized that they needed to move slowly to accomplish their agenda. We need to do the same. Remember the story of the frog in the water. Turn the heat up quickly and it'll jump. Turn it up slowly and it'll bake to death. The anti's have learned how to use the stove. The frog (the public) is comfortable. If we turn down the heat too quickly, it'll get cold and jump. We need to turn the heat down gently, just like the antigunners did. We need to learn how to use that stove. Bush and Cheney have got it; the question is-- do [b]WE[/b]? Mike Prebans is right. A friend of mine found something on the net on how the anti/demo/so on, were planning how to rid the US of the 'gun problem'. It was pages and pages of policies that they wanted to pass in the next 20 years. Ranging from minimum populations to have a range in an area, a maxium amount of loaded ammo or componets on hand. I think he told me they wanted 1000 to be a limit. If you reload 10 different calibers, you can't have more then 1000 parts, even if they're to different calibers. They wanted to pass a yearly tax on firarms.... if ya won't give them up, 'We'll tax ya till you give it up' is their idea. Even the idea of a tax of $1 per round (that includes 22LR). So, there goes your bulk 500 pack of 22LR. Box costs $8-10 bucks, but the tax is $500 or $550. . There were tons of things. Funny thing is, when you search for the web page, it's not there anymore........ hummmm. Pro gun people and supporters have to watch what's in the works. For you out there who don't reload, but shoot, if ya heard that there was a max limit on reloading stuff, you might think "it doesn't affect me". Remember, anything gun related WILL affect you!!!! Now, this may sound ........crazy. But I think there will be another "tea party". If not a tea party, some kind of 'altercation'. The good old US of A isn't on the "worlds" nice list (ya know, we just said no to the UN's gun thing). There will be another "altercation". And I'm afraid it's gonna be in my lifetime....the later part of my life that is. I'm young enough that I might see it....... barring any health problems or accidents that take me out. Call me crazy. My late father.... who had children late...... said there will be one again. He lived through WWII, saw the mentality then and the mentality now (up to his death a few years ago). He said it'll happen........ and I'm afraid he's right. "Rant mode off".......... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:06:11 AM EDT
[#19]
Well looks like I'll have to repeat myslef here too.
He is obviously lying to Fineswine. His and GW's actions since then have completely gone against that statement. Just saying that the Second Amendment protects a individual right makes what he said there a lie. I have seen all the anti-gun statements the Libertarians have put up that are supposedly attributed to Bush and Ashcroft. But their actions since taking office are completely opposite to those statements. The situation has changed, they are in office now and they realise that gun owners were the margin of victory in this narrow election. So such temporising is a thing of the past. Sorry Libertarians, your gonna have to come up with a better way to discredit Bush. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:08:59 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Well looks like I'll have to repeat myslef here too. He is obviously lying to Fineswine. His and GW's actions since then have completely gone against that statement. Just saying that the Second Amendment protects a individual right makes what he said there a lie. I have seen all the anti-gun statements the Libertarians have put up that are supposedly attributed to Bush and Ashcroft. But their actions since taking office are completely opposite to those statements. The situation has changed, they are in office now and they realise that gun owners were the margin of victory in this narrow election. So such temporising is a thing of the past. Sorry Libertarians, your gonna have to come up with a better way to discredit Bush. So I come up with a satement made bby the attorney general, [b]UNDER OATH[/b] and it doesn't support your point of view so of course he must be telling lies... yeah, thats it. I can't even believe that response. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:09:28 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Will you support its reauthorization when it's sunsets in 2004? JOHN ASHCROFT: It is my understanding that the President-elect of the United States has indicated his clear support for extending the assault weapon ban, and I would be pleased to move forward with that position, and to support that as a policy of this President, and as a policy of the Justice Department. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Allow me to translate - Sen. SwineStein: Mr. Ashcroft, do you know how you can cost Pres-elect Bush the election, and COMPLETELY destroy ANY chance of any pro-rights President of EVER being elected?? Mr. Ashcroft: Yes, Senator. that would be by answering this baited question the way you anti-Consituttionalists want me to. Ain't gonna happen you little pig. _____________ I'll GLADLY trade Ashcroft's carefully crafted answer for the substantive statements he has already made. You are positioning yourself as COMPLETELY naieve of the political reality. What you are asking Bush / Ashcroft to do is to commit political suicide. Actually, let me re-phrase that. It would be Conservative suicide. You are asking them to give the anti the brush with which the antis could paint Bush / Ashcroft as radical, insane extremeists. Only a FOOL would take the approach you are asking of Bush / Ashcroft. Bush currently holds a VERY tenuous position of advantage in Washington. When this is the case, you build momentum SLOWLY - not like a bull in a china shop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:14:14 AM EDT
[#22]
I love it... I come up with a statement under oath by Ashcroft, and everyone says he must be lieing.
Ok, if you think its ok for Ashcroft to tell these lies, but it wasn't ok for Clinton to lie about sex... who has the double standard here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:17:11 AM EDT
[#23]
Hey Garand Shooter, I take it that you are not an opptimist (sp).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:19:44 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Its simple, I don't settle for anything when freedom is at stake. By that standard, the U.S. should have done NOTHING in WWII unless they could have guaranteed a decisive victory over Germany in a SINGLE engagement. Quoted: Those who compromise with a lion do so in hopes the lion will eat them last. So then the virtuous position is to stand still and let the lion eat you when you don't have a bazooka, but you DO have at least a 2x4 to beat the lion off with?? Honestly man - what you are saying is that unless the political situation is EXACTLY the way I want it, I REFUSE to take advantage of ANY opportunity. Your politics must be COMPLETELY different from your military training. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:21:57 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: I love it... I come up with a statement under oath by Ashcroft, and everyone says he must be lieing. ? A cautiously crafted answer IS NOT a lie. Jesus OFTEN carefully crafted His answers. And I haven't YET seen a good explanation as to why Clintons original legislation was treasonous, but Bush REVERSING that exact legislation is only "symbolic." |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:23:49 AM EDT
[#26]
Hey, I cant help it if he was under oath and chose to purger himself.
But I can see what ACTIONS this man and his boss have taken since coming into office, and they are against the spirit of that statement, if not yet the letter. Besides, GW is his boss. He has to do what GW tells him, regardless of what he said HE would do if it was soley his decision, at the conformation hearing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:30:15 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: A cautiously crafted answer IS NOT a lie. Jesus OFTEN carefully crafted His answers. So I guess under that standard Clinton should have never been impeached? And I haven't YET seen a good explanation as to why Clintons original legislation was treasonous, but Bush REVERSING that exact legislation is only "symbolic." I never called his legislation treasonous... I felt that the majority of the things that Bush has reversed were symbolic on Clintons part as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:34:10 AM EDT
[#28]
I agree with Garandman. Dubya and Ashcroft are kicking ass! Doing much more at this point would be political suicide. They have to take a play from the anti's playbook and chip bit by bit at what Klinton has done. If they come right out and say we should get rid of all gun laws, Al Gore or some other gun-grabbing socialist whould be a shoe-in in the next election.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:34:23 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Bill Clinton would be proud of that answer. So I guess under that standard Clinton should have never been impeached? . "I did not have sex with that woman" and "That depends on the meaning of is" are not even in the same universe as Ashcrofts answer. The fact that you can lump Bush / Ashcroft in the same pile of horse dung as Bill Clinton baffles me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:37:17 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: I felt that the majority of the things that Bush has reversed were symbolic on Clintons part as well. then I guess Bill Clinton wasn't such a bad guy. I mean if he was only anti-gun in a symbolic manner, what's the problem??? He didn't pass any anti-gun legislation of any real import (by your standard) Heck, he even said he liked duck hunting. Let's go for a third term!!!!!!! garand Shooter will be his press secretary!!!!!!!!!! [rolleyes] |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:39:38 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Will you support its reauthorization when it's sunsets in 2004? JOHN ASHCROFT: It is my understanding that the President-elect of the United States has indicated his clear support for extending the assault weapon ban, and I would be pleased to move forward with that position, and to support that as a policy of this President, and as a policy of the Justice Department. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We all hear what we will with that statement. There is the possibility, no matter how much we don't want it to be true, that this man of character actually meant what he said. Bush and Ashcroft have done more to help pro-gunners then I thought they would already. If I could get past the Secret Service, I'd like to shake both their hands. At the time it was said though, it was general policy to accept the 2nd amendment as a "collective" right. Now it's legally considered an "individual" right. That changes things. How much it changes things as far as the ban is concerned, I can only guess. But without "compelling state interest", his hands are effectively tied and should not support the bans reinstatement. Write some E-mail. Be heard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:40:45 AM EDT
[#32]
Maybe we the citizens need to do more as well. I will admit I don't have the balls to get caught by the ATF in an effort to challenge some present regulation foolishness but someone should. We may have the opportunity soon to set presedent on some of the latest gun laws. Ashcroft may be in a great position to tweak the application of these as yet untested laws. And don't we have a few SCOTUS judges up for retirement in the comming years? If he gets re-elected these eight years may be decisive IF one of us has the balls to jump in the ring. (no jab at anyone as I don't) Planerench out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:41:23 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: then I guess Bill Clinton wasn't such a bad guy. I mean if he was only anti-gun in a symbolic manner, what's the problem??? He didn't pass any anti-gun legislation of any real import (by your standard) Heck, he even said he liked duck hunting. Let's go for a third term!!!!!!! garand Shooter will be his press secretary!!!!!!!!!! [rolleyes] what I said, since you didn't comprehend the first time, was that the actions of Clinton [b]THAT BUSH HAS REVERSED[/b] were symbolic when they were passed. Gun buy backs and such are just that symbolic, as they have no effect on real crime. Clinton did much that was not symbolic... but so far Bush has not takled those issues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:45:34 AM EDT
[#34]
First off Garand Shooter, you are making a fallicy by comparing Ashcroft to Clinton. Ashcroft was appointed, Clinton was elected.
Ashcroft serves at the pleasure of the President, regardless of what he personally thinks he has to do what the President wants. That gives him a lot of wiggle room. Even if he DOES purjure himself, if it furthers the Presidents agenda, he still has served his purpose. He IS NOT BEHOLDING TO US, but to the President. If you dont like it that he comitted purjury, you have to pressure Mr. Bush that a liar is unfit to be Attorney General and get him to fire Ashcroft. Since Mr. Bush IS beholding to us as a elected official. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:47:42 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: what I said, since you didn't comprehend the first time, was that the actions of Clinton [b]THAT BUSH HAS REVERSED[/b] were symbolic when they were passed. . No, I got it the first time. So, you are saying that using tax dollars to perpetrate a fraudulent form of "crime fighting" (the way Clinton did)is ONLY symbolic?? You are saying that STOPPING a violation of the law (in this case, the record keeping of the Insta-Check) is ONLY symbolic?? To me, any time someone STOPS someone else from breaking the law, or from perpetrating a fraud, that's VERY SIGNIFICANT. Apparently, its ONLY symbolic to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:51:09 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: To me, any time someone STOPS someone else from breaking the law, or from perpetrating a fraud, that's VERY SIGNIFICANT. Apparently, its ONLY symbolic to you. Yep, thats where we differ. Signifigant to me means anything that restores a lost freedom.... anything alse is symbolic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:58:31 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Yep, thats where we differ. Signifigant to me means anything that restores a lost freedom.... anything alse is symbolic. In that case, send me your "symbolic" tax refund, and I'll go do something "significant" with it. [;)] Oh, and for clarities sake, name me ANYTHING that you would deem "significant" that ANY politician of ANY nation has accomplished in the last 50 years. politicians ONLY TAKE freedom away. PEOPLE restore freedom. EVEN IF Bush is only maintaining the status quo re: freedom (IMO he's doing LOTS better than that), that makes him on the same side as me, and NOT deserving of me BASHING him. The flag is ONLY symbolic. The Pledge of Allegiance is only symbolic. The Vietnam memorial is only symbolic. But you can bet they are %$@# significant to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 10:58:41 AM EDT
[#38]
So, you want to restore 50years of erosion overnght. And further you blame that this is not happening on one man who has no power to enact laws by himself.
Okayyyy... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 11:03:59 AM EDT
[#39]
Oh, and one more thing G_S -
Tell us what other anti-gun legislation Clinton wanted to pass that was only "symbolic" to you. [:D] To me, ALL anti-gun legislation is significant. Not to you??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 11:19:05 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Quoted: Yep, thats where we differ. Signifigant to me means anything that restores a lost freedom.... anything alse is symbolic. In that case, send me your "symbolic" tax refund, and I'll go do something "significant" with it. [;)] Already pledged it to a libertarian canidate for county commisioner... he ran a shoestring campaign last year and came close.. we are getting highly organised this year and have an extremly good shot at getting him in. Oh, and for clarities sake, name me ANYTHING that you would deem "significant" that ANY politician of ANY nation has accomplished in the last 50 years. Signifigant works both ways... many signifigant assualts on our rights have succeded. politicians ONLY TAKE freedom away. PEOPLE restore freedom. EVEN IF Bush is only maintaining the status quo re: freedom (IMO he's doing LOTS better than that), that makes him on the same side as me, and NOT deserving of me BASHING him. To me maintaining the status quo makes him niether a friend nor an enemy... but many here seem to think that just that is a great success. Of course, the dems don't think so.. thats why we are where we are at today.... they accomplish things. The flag is ONLY symbolic. The Pledge of Allegiance is only symbolic. The Vietnam memorial is only symbolic. But you can bet they are %$@# significant to me. Tell me this, if the Vietnam memorial went away today, and your right to own AR-15's went away... what would be signifigant? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 11:29:22 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: Tell me this, if the Vietnam memorial went away today, and your right to own AR-15's went away... what would be signifigant? they are the same thing - BOTH are significant. One is about the first Amendment. The other is about the Second Amendment. Back to my question - Give me a SPECIFIC accomplishment of ANY politician that has restored freedom in the last 50 years. I want to understand what you mean by "significant." |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 11:29:46 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Oh, and one more thing G_S - Tell us what other anti-gun legislation Clinton wanted to pass that was only "symbolic" to you. [:D] To me, ALL anti-gun legislation is significant. Not to you??? Nope, I already explained the difference between symbolic and signifigant |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 11:51:18 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Quoted: Oh, and one more thing G_S - Tell us what other anti-gun legislation Clinton wanted to pass that was only "symbolic" to you. Say, mandating trigger locks be sold with guns (not talking about mandate use, just selling them with guns). Purely symbolic. OK, let's explore that one. You defined as "significant" legislation that restores freedoms. By logical implication, legislation that removes freedoms would ALSO be "significant" in your eyes. NOW you say mandatory trigger locks legislation is SYMBOLIC, and NOT significant. But wouldn't retailers loss of freedom to determine WHAT they sell, and losing the freedom to sell a gun UNLESS it had a trigger lock be, by your defintion, "significant" and not 'symbolic?" But here you say it is "symbolic." Surely, you don't mean only the loss of YOUR fredoms is "significant?" Wouldn't a retailers loss of freedoms be "significant" as well??? Methinks you need to rethinks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 11:52:22 AM EDT
[#44]
My concern is not so much for apparent gun policy, it is the approach being taken with this Mexican amnesty nonsense. I can’t see how any progress in the 2nd amendment arena hold any concrete value, if we turn around and give amnesty to people who have knowingly broken the law, and that statistically end up voting for liberal candidates, and policies. Whatever advances we make today are of little consequence, if four or eight years from now, the people voted in are motivated to turn it around again.
That being said, I will reserve my judgments until this plays out a bit more. At this point, none of us can say exactly where this is going. As far as the Libertarian point of view is concerned. You guys say one thing and then do another when elected too. All the saber rattling that you do is for your own benefit. And this thorn in the side theory is ludicrous. 1) your thorn is no bigger than any other group who wants to keep a politician off there laurels. 2) Usually sooner and not later, everyone will do something to cause you to use your thorns, even if its to wear the wrong color of underwear. As a result you are taken no more seriously then any other group of malcontents. I’m not saying the ideals that you say you support are wrong. But as long as you choose to find fault with everything that doesn’t strictly conform to your ideas, you will only be the noisy crowd outside. You would have this administration to make a suicide run against 50% of the voting public. Its no wonder you can’t get support for your 7-10%. I for one would not want someone of that mentality in the highest office, or any office for that matter. No matter what their beliefs were. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 12:10:33 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Back to my question - Give me a SPECIFIC accomplishment of ANY politician that has restored freedom in the last 50 years. I want to understand what you mean by "significant." There have not been any signifigant accomplishments on the side of freedom in teh last 50 years. The GOPA of 86 came close, but did more damage than good IMHO. Thus to the whole reason I vote libertarian. You may say I am throwing my vote away, but is voting for the same crowd that has not done anything but slowly enslave you for the last 50 years not throwing your votte away as well? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 12:13:37 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: As far as the Libertarian point of view is concerned. You would have this administration to make a suicide run against 50% of the voting public. . Not so much for people HERE, perhaps.... But for the national Libertarian party, I think that's EXACTLY it. Have the Republicans commit political hari-kari, which creates a political vacuum, which the Libertarians can fill in a few short years. Its just ANOTHER massive power grab. Without ANY concern for ALL the damage that the Dems would accomplish during the time the Repubs are slitting their own throats, until the Libertarians can realistically compete with the Dems. And whose to say the political novices constituting the Libertarian party would EVER compete with the Dems?? they can't currently even garner 10% national support. Frankly, the devil I know is FAR better than the devil I don't know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 12:18:07 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: OK, let's explore that one. You defined as "significant" legislation that restores freedoms. By logical implication, legislation that removes freedoms would ALSO be "significant" in your eyes. NOW you say mandatory trigger locks legislation is SYMBOLIC, and NOT significant. But wouldn't retailers loss of freedom to determine WHAT they sell, and losing the freedom to sell a gun UNLESS it had a trigger lock be, by your defintion, "significant" and not 'symbolic?" Yep. If you want to sell guns, toss in $1.50 trigger lock... not a huge deal. Do I like it, no, but it would not prevent anyone from selling or buying guns. Would be be a tiny bit restrictive, sure. But is still comes under the haeding of Symbolic to me. But being denied the ability to sell guns would be signifigant. But here you say it is "symbolic." Surely, you don't mean only the loss of YOUR fredoms is "significant?" Wouldn't a retailers loss of freedoms be "significant" as well??? Methinks you need to rethinks. Is that the best arguement you have got? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 12:23:03 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Frankly, the devil I know is FAR better than the devil I don't know. The attitude that got us where we are today.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 12:28:52 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Yep. If you want to sell guns, toss in $1.50 trigger lock... not a huge deal. Do I like it, no, but it would not prevent anyone from selling or buying guns. Yes it would. Mandatory trigger locks means the retailer DOESN'T sell the gun without a trigger lock. Bottom line - no trigger locks in his shop, he may as well close his doors for a few days. Maybe I was wrong. Other peoples freedoms don't seem so important to you. That's odd, as you are a retailer yourself. Kinda belies the whole "libertarian" label. Bush hasn't restored YOUR freedoms, so you are pissed. But you piss away a gun dealers freedoms saying it OK for the gov't to RESTRICT how HE sells a gun. WOW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2001 12:32:31 PM EDT
[#50]
Look folks, this how it'd be;
-First off... being "republican" and being "conservative" are two different things. Being "conservative" means you have: a. good value system b. favor how the gov't worked back when c. take responsiblities for your own actions d. all that good stuff, etc, etc.... Being "Republican" means: a. Supporting [b]all[/b] GOP candidates b. Supporting [b]all[/b] facets of the GOP & platform c. Spouting GOP propaganda all the time, i.e., no independent mind. Thought I'd get that out of the way after reading this: Quoted: !. I'm NOT a Republican. I have NO party affiliation. All political parties are EQUALLY culpable for the morass in Washington, becasue they will do ANYTHING to grab power. I know, but you sure sound like one sometimes |
|
|
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.
