They Finally touched on it (Guns)


PDA






Tharg
October 13, 2004, 11:17 PM
Well - they both finally hit it.

I need to rewind tivo to replay it to type it word for word. Will do when i get a chance (unless someone beats me to it)

Needless to say - we know the gist... =)

J/Tharg!

If you enjoyed reading about "They Finally touched on it (Guns)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
PMDW
October 13, 2004, 11:23 PM
Same old lines.

Kerry is a hunter... Loves 2nd amendment... Would never infringe on 2A... Assault weapons are a danger to society.


Usual Kerry crap.

Nightfall
October 13, 2004, 11:43 PM
And Bush reaffirmed his support for the ban.

ponyexpress
October 13, 2004, 11:49 PM
Unfortunately for the uninformed voter they believe Kerry. What made me about toss my cookies was when Kerry claimed he was a gun owner. How can someone who has voted for 59 gun control bills claim to be a gun owner!!?

I know politicians don't have to make sense they just have to tell people what they want to hear. It just makes my head hurt some days...

Harry Tuttle
October 13, 2004, 11:53 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=1292814

Dan Morris
October 13, 2004, 11:58 PM
You check Kerry's voting record n you will see a VERY forked toung individual!This guy has NEVER done anything but back yhe antis. Leopards
don't swap spots!
Dan

HABU
October 14, 2004, 12:00 AM
Try as I might, I couldnt refrain from yelling at my radio. :o

Marshall
October 14, 2004, 12:01 AM
Yea, Kerry looks like such a big time hunter. :rolleyes:

He's such a south end of north bound mule, and that's being generous!

Larry Ashcraft
October 14, 2004, 12:08 AM
Bush basically said that the ban extension was going nowhere.

Kerry said that the ban needs to be extended (in other words, "we need to force this ban down Americans' throats").

"There was a drug dealer in that house who owned an AK47" (gasp)

If we would just ban those weapons, the drug dealers would have to resort to single shot .22s, otherwise they might break the law.

BHPshooter
October 14, 2004, 12:18 AM
Yes, the both touched on it... while Bush isn't what I'd call incredibly pro-2A, at least you know that he's telling you what he really thinks.

And Kerry (dumb@#$) goes off on AK-47s, and how cops have to trip over them every step they take... You know, they're lining the streets and they're the weapon of choice for criminals every where, blah blah blah.

*sigh* Is there any hope for the Second Amendment?

Wes

45Cal
October 14, 2004, 12:24 AM
Quote,
*sigh* Is there any hope for the Second Amendment?

There is if all the lazy gun owners who now count on the few to fight for their rights make an effort get to off their butts and vote in this election.

45CAL NRA Life member

13A
October 14, 2004, 12:43 AM
Harry,

That is the funniest thing I've seen all week.

Thanks!

Standing Wolf
October 14, 2004, 12:53 AM
He's such a south end of north bound mule, and that's being generous!

I see no reason to insult mules by comparing them to that Kerry creature.

JohnKSa
October 14, 2004, 01:08 AM
I don't know EXACTLY pro 2-A Bush is, but I do know that I can legally carry a handgun because he signed the CHL bill into law when he was Gov of TX.

nico
October 14, 2004, 01:12 AM
Can someone tell me just what a "poodle shooter" is?
iirc, it's something that shoots 22lr

Thumper
October 14, 2004, 01:27 AM
Or .22 caliber...the M-16 is considered to be Cooper's prototypical poodle shooter.

Roon
October 14, 2004, 01:52 AM
Doncha just love the way Kerry says he's a shooter, and supports the Second, and then adds, "BUT..."

I tell ya, this is not a race to sit out. If we don't all get off our butts, we better start placing orders with Bushy and RRA, etc., etc., cause they're gonna be busy! :uhoh:

Ok, enough preaching.

myrockfight
October 14, 2004, 02:28 AM
You should of heard me hollering at the t.v. - lie, lie, lie!

Who the hell would follow someone who says he goes, "out with my trusty 12-guage double-barrl, crawl around on my stomach. I track and move and decoy and play games and try to outsmart them. You know, kind of play the wind. That's hunting." (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 4, 2004)

So John. How many deer have you taken using those techniques?

If you are going to flat out lie about something, know what you are lying about. Moron.


I am sure you guys have seen the above in most gun magazines. John Kerry is a moron and a jerk. I'd love to tell him personally, face-to-face someday.

campbellcj
October 14, 2004, 02:57 AM
I would just LOVE to hear how many crimes were committed in the US with legally-purchased AK-47's in the last ten years :rolleyes:

Isn't it funny how the more "liberal" a politician is, the more they seem to want to regulate/federalize/ban everything?

Bubbles
October 14, 2004, 08:36 AM
Mr. Schieffer: Mr. President, new question, two minutes. You said that if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons that you'd sign the legislation. But you did nothing to encourage the Congress to extend it. Why not?

Mr. Bush: Actually, I made my intentions, my views clear. I did think we ought to extend the assault-weapons ban and was told the fact that the bill wasn't ever going to move. Because the Republicans and Democrats were against the assault-weapon ban, people of both parties. I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don't get in the hands of people that shouldn't have them.

But the best way to protect our citizens from guns is to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns. And that's why early in my administration I called the attorney general and the U.S. attorneys and said put together task force all around the country to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns. And the prosecutions are up by about 68 percent I believe is the number. Neighborhoods are safer when we crack down on people who commit crimes with guns. To me that's the best way to secure America.

Mr. Schieffer: Senator.

Mr. Kerry: I believe it was a failure of presidential leadership not to reauthorize the assault-weapons ban. I am a hunter. I'm a gun owner. I've been a hunter since I was a kid - 12, 13 years old. And I respect the Second Amendment, and I will not tamper with the Second Amendment. But I'll tell you this: I'm also a former law enforcement officer. I ran one of the largest district attorney offices in America, one of the 10 largest. I've put people behind bars for the rest of their life. I've broken up organized crime. I know something about prosecuting. And most of the law enforcement agencies in America wanted that assault weapons ban. They don't want to go into a drug bust and be facing an AK-47. I was hunting in Iowa last year with the sheriff of one of the counties there, and he pointed to a house in back of us and said, "See that house over there? We just did a drug bust a week earlier and the guy we arrested had an AK-47 lying on the bed right beside him." Because of the president's decision, today law enforcement officers will walk into a place that'll be more dangerous. Terrorists can now come into America and go to a gun show and without even a background check buy an assault weapon today. And that's what Osama bin Laden's handbook said, because we captured it in Afghanistan and it encouraged them to do it. So I believe America's less safe. If Tom DeLay or someone in the House said to me, Sorry, we don't have the votes, I'd have said, Then we're going to have a fight. And I'd have taken it out to the country and I'd have had every law enforcement officer in the country visit those congressmen. We'd have won what Bill Clinton won.

Kharn
October 14, 2004, 09:26 AM
Well if the crooks in Kerry's drug house had an AK last year, they were most likely in violation of the AWB. So what did the AWB do to help cops?

Kharn

Langenator
October 14, 2004, 09:27 AM
If they have an actual AK-47, and it's not registered, they're in violation of the NFA as well.

And they're probably convicted felons (at least some of them) so there's another law they're breaking.

Criminals don't obey the law. That's why they're criminals.

rick_reno
October 14, 2004, 09:55 AM
I found the Bush position on background checks enlightening "I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don't get in the hands of people that shouldn't have them. "

Neighbors sellling guns to neighbors will require a background check. This doesn't sound good.

Jmurman
October 14, 2004, 10:00 AM
I dont believe Kerry at all. He'll say anything to get the "power"

Dollar Bill
October 14, 2004, 10:20 AM
It is the same thing the Dems. have been doing for years. On the gun issue the theme is to divide and conquer with all the talk about evil "assault rifles". Even some members of my gun club are convinced and say you don't need a semi-auto rifle to hunt with. The second amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting rights, folks.

If Kerry gets elected he will try to ban what they are calling "assault rifles" When there is no impact on crime they will cry to ban "sniper rifles", or pump shotguns..etc. It is a slippery slope to a disarmed public as in the UK or in Australia.

Get out and vote, write your representatives, get involved.

Henry Bowman
October 14, 2004, 10:31 AM
Unfortunately, Bush couldn't take the moral high ground on this question and say that the ban was unconstitutional or that it did no good since he was on record supporting it. He wouldn't stand up and say, "I was wrong to have supported it. It turns out it did no good," because he can't risk losing a single "security mom" vote.

I have been a big Bush supporter, especially on foreign policy. In these debates, he gave me nothing to cling to. At least Kerry gave me a lot to dislike about him. I hope that Bush's relentless pandering to the left is successful for him, because the alternative is much worse.

The AWB is the left's "partial birth abortion" issue. That is, they characterize it as (an the media assists them), "if you won't support this reasonable resritiction, then you want no limitations at all (i.e., nukes in your neighbor's garage)." If Amendment 2(b) read: "... and a woman's right to privacy being necessary to a free state, the right to an abortion on demand shall not be infringed," how would that be interpreted? Would goverment approval and background checks be an infringement? What about parental notification for minors? How about the government paying for it? Would it apply to the states?

Standing Wolf, do you still think that America is not stupid enough to elect Kerry?

halvey
October 14, 2004, 10:34 AM
Did anyone notice how adament Kerry was when he said this? He was 100% committed and passionate about getting the AWB again. Bush just said what he had to say to get the issue to go away. Bush seems he really doesn't care either way.

Kerry's a 'gun guy' yet is 100% committed to banning semi auto shotguns and hunting rifles. He noted law enforcement was for the AWB. LEO's are for anything so they can be more lazy. I know cops who say they should be able to pull you over and search your car for any reason. You are on public property (road) is their argument

Anyway, it made it more apparent the bubba duck hunters need to vote their sport for once.

Mr. Kerry: I believe it was a failure of presidential leadership not to reauthorize the assault-weapons ban. I am a hunter. I'm a gun owner. I've been a hunter since I was a kid - 12, 13 years old. And I respect the Second Amendment, and I will not tamper with the Second Amendment. But I'll tell you this: I'm also a former law enforcement officer. I ran one of the largest district attorney offices in America, one of the 10 largest. I've put people behind bars for the rest of their life. I've broken up organized crime. I know something about prosecuting. And most of the law enforcement agencies in America wanted that assault weapons ban. They don't want to go into a drug bust and be facing an AK-47. I was hunting in Iowa last year with the sheriff of one of the counties there, and he pointed to a house in back of us and said, "See that house over there? We just did a drug bust a week earlier and the guy we arrested had an AK-47 lying on the bed right beside him." Because of the president's decision, today law enforcement officers will walk into a place that'll be more dangerous. Terrorists can now come into America and go to a gun show and without even a background check buy an assault weapon today. And that's what Osama bin Laden's handbook said, because we captured it in Afghanistan and it encouraged them to do it. So I believe America's less safe. If Tom DeLay or someone in the House said to me, Sorry, we don't have the votes, I'd have said, Then we're going to have a fight. And I'd have taken it out to the country and I'd have had every law enforcement officer in the country visit those congressmen. We'd have won what Bill Clinton won.

Hamster
October 14, 2004, 11:31 AM
Hi Everyone, new member here...

Just wanted to include the fact that the AK-47 laying on the bed next to the drug dealer was already banned under the AWB under the time frame that he was talking about and Kerry forgot to mention this. How did the guy get the gun then?

This is just proof that new laws don't work and we just need more and stricter enforcement of the current laws!

Just had to put in my 2 cents...

Don

ralphie98
October 14, 2004, 11:34 AM
He says he won't tamper with the 2nd amendment, but you gotta consider what his interpretation of the 2nd amendment is, and that's what the real issue is with him. He doesn't quite understand or even care about the "shall not be infringed" part, he just figures that as long as we're able to own a gun, he's not violating the 2nd. Even if gun ownership gets restricted to pellet guns and muskets, we're still able to own "guns" so he'll think we're within our 2nd amendment rights.

In all honesty, I don't think they're too worried about it, because it's a waste of their time to talk about gun control. The only people that care about gun control issues (MMM group and NRA people) have already made their decision and won't be swayed one way or another. I don't expect to hear much more about gun control the rest of the campaign.

Dave R
October 14, 2004, 11:43 AM
The big difference is, Bush was honest about his stance. Kerry was LYING about his stance. Kerry has NEVER missed an opportunty to vote WITH the ANTIs. He's got an A rating fom Handgun Control, and an F rating from the NRA.

And let's remember three significant victories happened under Bush's administration:

1) Early in his presidency, the UN had its Council on Small Arms. They wanted to pass a resolution favoring registration or banning. The (new) US rep. utterly refused, and the final resolution basically just deplored gun violence. Had the original resolutions passed, it would;ve given the antis and Liberals a great tool.

2) Ashcroft went on record that the 2A is an individual right.

3) The AWB expired.

Personally, I think NONE of those would've happened under a Gore Presidency. And I think none would happen under a Kerry Presidency.

Bush signed CCW in Texas. What has Kerry EVER done for gun owners?

Personally, I think the only reason Bush took the position he did on AWB is because he knew he would never have to sign it. It was a misguided attempt to reach undecideds.

Look at the record. Look what each has done. I can't imagine a knowledgeable gun owner voting for Kerry.

THIS YEAR Senator Kerry voted for a bill that would've banned .30-30 ammo. What would he do if he were President?

Monkeyleg
October 14, 2004, 07:39 PM
As already noted, the AWB ban faded away under Bush, something I suspected would happen back in 2004, no matter what GW said on the stump.

And I'll bet anyone here that, if elected, Kerry will actively push for Feinstein's "new and improved" semiauto ban.

Bill Clinton pushed for the AWB ban at a time when the public had been whipped into a lather over the issue (gee, thanks, Josh Sugarman and Sarah Brady). Today I don't think the ban is in the top 50 of issues the public is concerned about. Yet Kerry persists. What does that tell you?

SteelyDan
October 15, 2004, 12:55 AM
"I will not tamper with the Second Amendment." Well, shucks, John, that's right neighborly of you, considering the fact that a president doesn't have the power to tamper with the Constitution in the first place. What a president DOES have the power to do, however, subject to Senate approval, is to appoint Supreme Court justices who will decide what the Second Amendment means, which is simply not clear today. And based on your record, John, I have no doubt that you will try to ensure that your appointees will be consistent with your own record on this issue.

The other thing that bugs me about this is that the AWB was probably 90% symbolic and 10% practical. I mean, reference the drug dealer with the AK-47. Under the AWB, the drug dealer could still easily buy what is commonly referred to as an AK-47, meaning a high-cap clone. And high-cap mags cost about $10. Without the AWB, the same drug dealer can now buy exactly the same gun with a collapsible stock or flash suppressor. Wow, I can see why the cops would sleep better, because they were so much safer before. Oh yeah, and Mr. Dealer could have legally had it all, even with the ban, by spending a few more dollars and getting a pre-ban. My point is that Kerry's implied claim that Bush made us all less safe by allowing the AWB to lapse is laughable and ignorant on several levels. Bush may or may not be equally ignorant on the issue, but at least he wasn't pushing it, as Kerry undoubtedly would. And finally, if Kerry does get elected and he pushes for a new AWB, let's just fight it like crazy and it will be our little secret that it really doesn't make that much difference in the first place. The real worry is that he would push for some truly meaningful legislation.

Roon
October 15, 2004, 01:02 AM
Very well put, Dan!

Brian Dale
October 15, 2004, 11:37 PM
-wasn't here yesterday, so I'm late to the discussion...

Welcome to The High Road, Hamster!

Grey54956
October 16, 2004, 12:22 AM
I keep reading the 2nd Amendment, but no matter how many time I go over it, I can't find a darn thing about hunting, hunters, or sportsmen. I do see something about the "security of a free state", a little bit about the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" and some tag line about something that "shall not be infringed." However, I cannot find any reference to hunting. Why do you suppose that is? :scrutiny:

campbellcj
October 16, 2004, 12:22 AM
I think I'm gonna go pick up an 11-87P tomorrow, just in case. :uhoh:

seeker_two
October 16, 2004, 12:39 AM
Neither candidate's stance on the Second Amenment have endeared themselves to me...

Kerry has a spotless record of voting for every gun control measure that has come to the floor in his career....

Bush supported the AWB & has a history of signing bills into law that even he will admit to being unconstitutional (remember Campaign Finance Reform?)...

For a better alternative, see my sig...

gryphon
October 16, 2004, 09:28 AM
I've said it once, I'l say it again, and I'll probably believe it until the day I die:

WE WERE NEVER MEANT TO HAVE CAREER POLITICIANS!!

That is what is killing this country more than anything, regardless of what side you are on. You have people on both sides who will do or say anything to KEEP THEIR JOB. They should be doing or saying anything to PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!

I say that all political offices should have term limits, period.

carp killer
October 16, 2004, 12:52 PM
We can cry in our beer here all we want about John Kerry. The fact of the matter is that "Elmer Fudd" believes that Kerry is pro Second Amendment. Kerry and his ilk keep on getting elected. Didn't someone say that if you speak a big lie long enough, the weak minded will begin to belive it.....

Dr.Rob
October 16, 2004, 07:59 PM
I'm NOT a one-issue voter, but if we get Kerry, we get the ban back, in worse form. Count on it.

Tharg
October 17, 2004, 01:58 AM
<~~~~ not a one issue voter either -

but that man scares me! (Kerry) We all expect Poli's to lie - its thier job... but he can't even decide on a lie... No matter what the subject.

rofl

I guess that his anti-gun stance has been pretty dependable... but then again - he's a hunter who owns guns ya know.... (sigh)

I love his healthcare plan - from what i've heard/read - it will effect maybe ... 3% of the population. And it SURE AS HECK ain't gonna be a boon for poor people. At least if you consider the 7 thousand dollar a year check you'd have to write for that coverage.

I don't know that i'd want a national healthcare plan. Lived in the UK for 2 years and didn't much care for thier system.

They say the costs of Bush's push to cap liability won't work - but i have to wonder - how its 1% of total medical spending if there are doctors LEAVING poorer area's because they are affraid that the poorer people will see quick dollar signs and sue at a drop of a hat?!?! (forget - newsweek, time, us news - one of those papers/mags) Or docs that charge a lot to pay for the "what if X% sue me - the insurance company will charge me <blank>" Or the hospitals... since maybe the doc ain't got the army of one insurance coverage... they get sued. (ever wonder why a SINGLE que tip costs so much? I guarantee you that one can buy anything they "use" on ya for much less than they charge. well anything not specialized)

I'll give that the cost of research costs a lot - but it boils down to what happens if i get sued in this litigous (sp?) society? Not just once - but by many people. I look at Viox and wonder how any company stays in business... after however much in research, in getting the drug to pass all the FDA's tests etc.... to find out later that it might be a lil more dangerous than it seemed to be... and BLAM - advertisments for lawyers (multiples) asking "have you taken viox? Heck one of em even went as far to proclaim "you are our first priority" (Nothing lights a lawyers eyes like "class action")

So - be interesting what the "cost of health care" is after you figure in...
1. I hope nothing happens
2. Oh crud something happened
3. Dang - how many are suing?
4. They are suing the hospital too?!??!
5. AND the drug company?
6. AND the doc?
7. AND the company that made the quetip that was used?!?!? (hehehe it seems this rediculous yes)
8. WOW those lawyers are gonna cost a lot.
9. Well i could either spend X amount of money defending myself - or y(less) amount of money by settling.
10. Lawyers swim around a bit longer waiting for #2 again.

OH and don't forget number 11.....

11. People who know that suing someone for something "works" and is good for a paycheck they wouldn't have had otherwise.

Add it all together its a vicious cycle that drives costs sky hi- Once they know company A will settle for X - then MAYBE comany B will settle for Y (higher) now insurance company A doesn't like having to pay that much and they don't want to go out of business (business: making money is NO. 1) They charge more and attempt to minimize risk/maximise profits.

But hey - instead of trying to stop greedy lawyers from getting money from greedy insurance companies - who in turn charge fee's to ANYONE to "cover them - but we sure hope you don't need the coverage... really" who then are SOME people who say - "hey, maybe i can get 500 thousand bucks - thats more than i've made in the last 20 years of hard work"

heh evil cycle i tell ya.

J/Tharg! (sorry i prattled on so long... rofl... once i start going... rofl)

Waitone
October 17, 2004, 10:18 PM
Snakes wiggle,

Dogs bark.

Cats hork up hariballs.

Kerry lies. What is so hard to understand?

Bush's response may have been politically correct, but it sucked from the standpoint of leadership. What the hell is wrong with a "leader" saying about the AWB, "It was bad law made under bad assumptions. It is ineffectual, cosmetic, and technically incorrect. It should have never been enacted and I'll not compound the original mistake by advocating is renewal."

Explain how any one politican can be driven by principal on foreign policy but have no evidence of any principal on domestic policy. Bush is his own contradiction.

Tharg
October 18, 2004, 04:22 PM
Wait -

I ask you.

How many anti's have you posed that same line to?

How many of em either looked at you stupidly, or worse, argued with you? Usually w/ the same argument - we got those guns off the streets and we are safer!!! Now imagine you only have time to tell them that line - and don't get an opportunity to actually argue/debate with them.

Now assume you are running for president and ANY one liner WILL be used against you many many times. (ask either candidate...)

Do you try to strike the middle, or do you stick to yer guns (so to say) and render yourself obsolete and lose.

Some people DO vote that way - "he said X - no way i'm voting for him" Most (i hope) of us try to read past the delecate wording, the intricate policy, and vote for the person we most believe to be right for the country.

J/Tharg!

voilsb
October 18, 2004, 04:28 PM
Hey seeker_two, I modified your sigline to make it reflect reality: "Vote for those who represent your beliefs & convictions during the primaries. For the General Election, vote for the electable candidate who best represents them."

Roon
October 18, 2004, 05:07 PM
"Vote for those who represent your beliefs & convictions during the primaries. For the General Election, vote for the electable candidate who best represents them."

Works for me.

GEM
October 18, 2004, 05:14 PM
There is no redeeming value for Kerry on 2nd Amend. issues. He will pretend to be a 'sportsman' and allow the rich to shoot skeet. Everything else goes. If you vote for Kerry, it is because Bush is not a good president except for his tepid record on the RKBA.

Bush really isn't committed to the RKBA. I doubt he understands the need for the RKBA as a protection against tyranny and for self-defense. His position will be that of political expediency as explained to him by his advisors. Such advisors don't care either about the issue - it is all about the election.

We are lucky that it was seen that it was to his benefit to say he would sign the ban but then do nothing about it. Pure politics without a strong moral stance.

Roon
October 18, 2004, 05:26 PM
His position will be that of political expediency as explained to him by his advisors. Such advisors don't care either about the issue - it is all about the election.

I have worked in the bowels of politics for some time, and I can tell you this is true. It is all about winning, it has nothing to do with ideology. The presidency is the most powerful position in the world. It is about power, not position.

It has never been any differently in history, and it will never be any differently in the future. People who seek power seek power.

That's why you have to hold their feet to the fire... countervailing power works, and every politician needs it.

Dirty Bob
October 18, 2004, 06:42 PM
...just like Feinstein's a gun owner. They want to take away your guns, not give up their own! They have bodyguards and armored limos, and no matter what legislation they pass, they'll be able to own guns, as will those protecting them. It's the height of hyprocrisy, and just what I'd expect from John "F" Kerry.

Dirty Bob

If you enjoyed reading about "They Finally touched on it (Guns)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!