I Still Have My Guns


PDA






Boogyman
January 16, 2006, 11:02 AM
US Presidents List

No. President's Name Life Span Place of Birth Presidency Political Party
DoB DoD Date from to Date
1 George Washington 22 Feb 1732 14 Dec 1799 Westmoreland County, Virginia 30 Apr 1789 04 Mar1797 no party
2 John Adams 30 Oct 1735 04 Jul 1826 Braintree, Norfolk, Massachusetts 04 Mar 1797 04 Mar 801 Federalist
3 Thomas Jefferson 13 Apr 1743 04 Jul 1826 Albermarle County, Virginia 04 Mar 1801 04 Mar 1809 Democratic - Republican
4 James Madison 16 Mar 1751 28 Jun 1836 Port Conway, Virginia 04 Mar 1809 04 Mar 1817 Democratic - Republican
5 James Monroe 28 Apr 1758 04 Jul 1831 Westmoreland County, Virginia 04 Mar 1817 04 Mar 1825 Democratic - Republican
6 John Quincy Adams 11 Jul 1767 23 Feb 1848 Braintree, Norfolk, Massachusetts 04 Mar 1825 04 Mar 1829 Democratic - Republican
7 Andrew Jackson 15 Mar 1767 08 Jun 1845 Waxhaw, South Carolina 04 Mar 1829 04 Mar 1837 Democratic
8 Martin Van Buren 05 Dec 1782 24 Jul 1862 Kinderhook, New York 04 Mar 1837 04 Mar 1841 Democratic
9 William Henry Harrison 09 Feb 1773 04 Apr 1841 Berkeley, Virginia 04 Mar 1841 04 Apr 1841 Whig
10 John Tyler 29 Mar 1790 18 Jan 1862 Charles City County, Virginia 04 Apr 1841 04 Mar 1845 Whig
11 James Knox Polk 02 Nov 1795 15 Jun 1849 Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 04 Mar 1845 03 Mar 1849 Democratic
12 Zachary Taylor 24 Nov 1784 09 Jul 1850 Orange County, Virginia 05 Mar 1849 09 Jul 1850 Whig
13 Millard Fillmore 07 Jan 1800 08 Mar 1874 Cayuga County, New York 09 Jul 1850 04 Mar 1853 Whig
14 Franklin Pierce 23 Nov 1804 08 Oct 1869 Hillsboro, New Hampshire 04 Mar 1853 04 Mar 1857 Democratic
15 James Buchanan 23 Apr 1791 01 Jun 1868 Cove Gap, Pennsylvania 04 Mar 1857 04 Mar 1861 Democratic
16 Abraham Lincoln 12 Feb 1809 15 Apr 1865 Hodgenville, Hardin County, Kentucky 04 Mar 1861 15 Apr 1865 Republican
17 Andrew Johnson 29 Dec 1808 31 Jul 1875 Raleigh, North Carolina 15 Apr 1865 04 Mar 1869 Republican
18 Ulysses Simpson Grant 27 Apr 1822 23 Jul 1885 Point Pleasant, Ohio 04 Mar 1869 04 Mar 1877 Republican
19 Rutherford Birchard Hayes 04 Oct 1822 17 Jan 1893 Delaware, Ohio 04 Mar 1877 04 Mar 1881 Republican
20 James Abram Garfield 19 Nov 1831 19 Sep 1881 Orange, Cuyahoga County, Ohio 04 Mar 1881 19 Sep 1881 Republican
21 Chester Alan Arthur 05 Oct 1829 18 Nov 1886 Fairfield, Vermont 20 Sep 1881 04 Mar 1885 Republican
22 Grover Cleveland 18 Mar 1837 24 Jun 1908 Caldwell, New Jersey 04 Mar 1885 04 Mar 1889 Democratic
23 Benjamin Harrison 20 Aug 1833 13 Mar 1901 North Bend, Ohio 04 Mar 1889 04 Mar 1893 Republican
24 Grover Cleveland 18 Mar 1837 24 Jun 1908 Caldwell, New Jersey 04 Mar 1893 04 Mar 1897 Democratic
25 William McKinley 29 Jan 1843 14 Sep 1901 Niles, Ohio 04 Mar 1897 14 Sep 1901 Republican
26 Theodore Roosevelt 27 Oct 1858 06 Jan 1919 New York City 14 Sep 1901 04 Mar 1909 Republican
27 William Howard Taft 15 Sep 1857 08 Mar 1930 Cincinnati, Ohio 04 Mar 1909 04 Mar 1913 Republican
28 Woodrow Wilson 28 Dec 1856 03 Feb 1924 Staunton, Virginia 04 Mar 1913 04 Mar 1921 Democratic
29 Warren Gamaliel Harding 02 Nov 1865 02 Aug 1923 Blooming Grove, Ohio 04 Mar 1921 02 Aug 1923 Republican
30 Calvin Coolidge 04 Jul 1872 05 Jan 1933 Plymouth, Vermont 03 Aug 1923 04 Mar 1929 Republican
31 Herbert Clark Hoover 10 Aug 1874 20 Oct 1964 West Branch, Iowa 04 Mar 1929 04 Mar 1933 Republican
32 Franklin Delano Roosevelt 30 Jan 1882 12 Apr 1945 Hyde Park, New York 04 Mar 1933 12 Apr 1945 Democratic
33 Harry S. Truman 08 May 1884 26 Dec 1972 Lamar, Missouri 12 Apr 1945 20 Jan 1953 Democratic
34 Dwight David Eisenhower 14 Oct 1890 28 Mar 1969 Denison, Texas 20 Jan 1953 20 Jan 1961 Republican
35 John Fitzgerald Kennedy 29 May 1917 22 Nov 1963 Brookline, Massachusetts 20 Jan 1961 22 Nov 1963 Democratic
36 Lyndon Baines Johnson 27 Aug 1908 22 Jan 1973 near Stonewall, Texas 22 Nov 1963 20 Jan 1969 Democratic
37 Richard Milhous Nixon 09 Jan 1913 22 Apr 1994 Yorba Linda, California 20 Jan 1969 09 Aug 1974 Republican
38 Gerald Rudolph Ford 14 Jul 1913 Omaha, Nebraska 09 Aug 1974 20 Jan 1977 Republican
39 James Earl 'Jimmy' Carter 01 Oct 1924 Plains, Georgia 20 Jan 1977 20 Jan 1981 Democratic
40 Ronald Wilson Reagan 06 Feb 1911 05 Jun 2004 Tampico, Illinois 20 Jan 1981 20 Jan 1989 Republican
41 George Herbert Walker Bush 12 Jun 1924 Milton, Massachusetts 20 Jan 1989 20 Jan 1993 Republican
42 William Jefferson 'Bill' Clinton 19 Aug 1946 Hope, Arkansas 20 Jan 1993 20 Jan 2001 Democratic
43 George Walker Bush 06 Jul 1946 New Haven, Connecticut 20 Jan 2001 Republican

Pertaining to our lifetimes, (I'm 54) if you look back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, we have had an equal number of Democratic Presidents (6) and Republican Presidents (6).

I still have my guns.

I am bringing into question the generally held belief that you must support Republican presidential candidates if you want to protect our RTKBA rights.
I'm hoping this can be discussed in a civil manner without name-calling, flaming, and any other hostility.
I've started this thread with a list of presidents for reference.
My belief is that the balance of the Congress & Senate, combined with the powers of the President, is the main determining factor when it comes to our Constitution and our Civil Rights. In our present form, the balance is too far to the right, with the Republicans controlling all three factors. I believe it is time for a change, and my hope is the Democrats will win back the Congress and/or Senate, and this will be a big step in fixing the many problems our country faces in these complicated times.

And I believe this will not be a threat to our RTKBA.

I'll still have my guns.

If you enjoyed reading about "I Still Have My Guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Molon Labe
January 16, 2006, 11:14 AM
I'll still have my guns.Perhaps. But will you still have your dignity?

You cannot profess to love liberty, while at the same time hope socialists will gain more power.

swampsniper
January 16, 2006, 11:24 AM
Socialism and liberty cannot coexist.

Boogyman
January 16, 2006, 11:26 AM
Perhaps. But will you still have your dignity?

You cannot profess to love liberty, while at the same time wish for socialists to regain power.

I can't? Why not?

I'm not worried about losing my dignity. I fought for my country. I was wounded in Vietnam, Quang Tin Province, 1972 while serving with the 196th Light Infantry Brigade. I'm a 50% disabled Veteran.
And I'm a Democrat. A liberal Democrat.
I love my country. I believe in the constitution. I own over 60 guns, and have no intention of giving them up.
And I'm voting Democrat in the November mid-terms.

boofus
January 16, 2006, 11:27 AM
Mr and Mrs America turn them all in. Or else our sturmtruppen will surround your dwelling, ram it with a tank, set it on fire and shoot all you gun owning m0f0s that try to escape.

Oh yes, we need another democrat in office. /sarcasm

Give me Atilla the Hun any day. At least it is legal to shoot the barbaric horde when they invade.

Biker
January 16, 2006, 11:31 AM
Mr and Mrs America turn them all in. Or else our sturmtruppen will surround your dwelling, ram it with a tank, set it on fire and shoot all you gun owning m0f0s that try to escape.

Oh yes, we need another democrat in office. /sarcasm

Give me Atilla the Hun any day. At least it is legal to shoot the barbaric horde when they invade.
Well, just to be fair, Bush 41 presided over Ruby Ridge.
Biker

Boogyman
January 16, 2006, 11:31 AM
Socialism and liberty cannot coexist.

Democracy and liberty can.

Our founding fathers were mostly liberals, including Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin, Madison and Monroe. Are they "socialists" too?

Justin
January 16, 2006, 11:39 AM
Pertaining to our lifetimes, (I'm 54) if you look back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, we have had an equal number of Democratic Presidents (6) and Republican Presidents (6).

I still have my guns.

What a delightful non-sequitar you've discovered!

Of course I still have all of my guns, but, hm, let's see...

Can I own a suppressor?

How about a buzzgun?

Or a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches?

Or a newly manufactured pistol capable of accepting a rifle stock?

Oh, that's right, I can't own any of those because of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Which was passed by FDR...

who was...(dramatic pause) A DEMOCRAT

Let's see, the rifle I most recently purchased, a Rock River AR15 carbine with a flash hider and bayonet lug, I couldn't have purchased that rifle before September of 2004 because of the ban authored by Dianne Feinstein...A DEMOCRAT, and passed by a predominantly Democrat-controlled Congress.

Oh, and should I even bring up the fact that the cost of 20 and 30 round magazines was dramatically hyperinflated by that same law passed by, oh, wait, who? Republicans?
Libertarians?

NOPE!

:) DEMOCRATS! :)

Boogyman, I'd like to introduce you to my friend, Total Pwnage.

Justin
January 16, 2006, 11:42 AM
Our founding fathers were mostly liberals, including Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin, Madison and Monroe. Are they "socialists" too?

They were classical liberals, and have nothing in common with people who self-apply that term today.

Anyone who's read any of the Founders' writings would know that their philosophy is far more in line with modern libertarianism than the sort of people who advocate forcible redistribution of unearned wealth at gunpoint.

TexasRifleman
January 16, 2006, 11:47 AM
And in Texas we fought for years for a concealed carry law that was consistently vetoed by our DEMOCRAT governor Ann Richards.

When GW Bush was elected gov one of the first things he did was sign the concealed carry law.

Oh, and who was it signed the "assualt weapons" ban?

Who let it die a quiet death?

You cannot name me one Democrat in the White House that has done anything pro firearm in our lifetime.

Your posts are getting stale Boogyman.

Trip20
January 16, 2006, 11:51 AM
Boogyman,

If your only concern is the big picture, then you’re correct.

You'll still have your guns.

Of course, your guns will be devoid of high capacity mags, semi-automatic rifles, muzzle breaks, flash hiders, silencers or suppressors, pistol grips, folding stocks, hollow-point ammunition, "armor piercing" ammunition, more than one gun purchase a month,...et cetera.

What good is a Right when it's controlled to the point of contravention? :confused:

They count on this phenomenon for your vote – that is, when people feel good about having something, when in reality they have nothing. Apparently, this strategy works. :banghead:

I'm not happy with certain Republican developments in the past couple years... However, with regards to the 2nd Amendment, and with all due respect - wise up.

I still have my evil, black, high capacity, pistol gripped, folding stocked, flash suppressed rifle... for now.

Boogyman
January 16, 2006, 11:53 AM
What a delightful non-sequitar you've discovered!

Of course I still have all of my guns, but, hm, let's see...

Can I own a suppressor?

How about a buzzgun?

Or a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches?

Or a newly manufactured pistol capable of accepting a rifle stock?

Oh, that's right, I can't own any of those because of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Which was passed by FDR...

who was...(dramatic pause) A DEMOCRAT

Let's see, the rifle I most recently purchased, a Rock River AR15 carbine with a flash hider and bayonet lug, I couldn't have purchased that rifle before September of 2004 because of the ban authored by Dianne Feinstein...A DEMOCRAT, and passed by a predominantly Democrat-controlled Congress.

Oh, and should I even bring up the fact that the cost of 20 and 30 round magazines was dramatically hyperinflated by that same law passed by, oh, wait, who? Republicans?
Libertarians?

NOPE!

:) DEMOCRATS! :)

Boogyman, I'd like to introduce you to my friend, Total Pwnage.

You can own any of the guns you just mentioned if you follow NFA rules.

If you want a tank or a rocket launcher to go with them, join the military.

Flash-hiders and bayonet lugs have always been regularly available aftermarket.

I suppose you think anybody should be able to walk into a supermarket and buy hand grenades and machine guns too? Is what you are suggesting is that there be NO laws or restrictions on anything?

Trip20
January 16, 2006, 11:57 AM
Boogyman, I'd like to introduce you to my friend, Total Pwnage.

I don't know why that is so damn funny.

Justin
January 16, 2006, 12:05 PM
You can own any of the guns you just mentioned if you follow NFA rules.

Yeah, but I can't afford the nearly $20,000 for a Thompson submachinegun, a firearm that, in any market that wasn't horribly distorted by laws that amount to a de facto ban would retail for maybe $2000.

If you want a tank or a rocket launcher to go with them, join the military.

Gen. Wesley Clark says: "I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have them. Sen. John Kerry offered, I never contemplated hunting deer or anything else with an AK-47."

Not surprisingly, the Nazi Party hewed to a similar line of thinking prior to World War Two.
(In this case, there is a legitimate exemption from Godwinning out, to anyone who might be thinking about jumping on that particular meme.)

Flash-hiders and bayonet lugs have always been regularly available aftermarket.

At a price that was greatly distorted, and hence inflated, beyond what the market would have charged for them by idiotic legislation drafted and passed primarily by the Democrats. For a leftist who is obviously all into economic equality and whatnot, I find your support for grossly inflating the prices of firearms out of the reach of the poor to be truly disturbing.

I suppose you think anybody should be able to walk into a supermarket and buy hand grenades and machine guns too? Is what you are suggesting is that there be NO laws or restrictions on anything?

Now you're attempting to confuse the issue by bringing up yet more asinine non-sequitars. All I was doing is pointing out that the Democrats are primarily responsible for the vast majority of the most offensive and idiotic gun control measures.

That you actually have to resort to a fallacious attempt at reductio ad absurdum simply goes to show that you haven't got a leg to stand on.

engineer151515
January 16, 2006, 12:12 PM
I'll give Boogyman some credit on the debate.


New Orleans confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens, although enacted by a Democratic Party state government and enforced by police squads from Democratic Party (California) blue state, was not STOPPED in its tracks, nor INTERRUPTED by the current Republican White House / Congress.

The Republicans did NOTHING to cease and desist that unconstitutional action.


Therefore, although I will probably never vote for a Democrat, I give the Republicans little to no credit for protection of our right to bear arms.

Hobie
January 16, 2006, 12:13 PM
A democrat 54 years ago isn't a democrat today. A democrat today is a socialist/just-this-side-of-communist. BIG change. A republican today is a just-this-side-of-socialist and some are.

Don't lie to me. Some of the best liars in the world have tried and failed.

Biker
January 16, 2006, 12:17 PM
Don't lie to me. Some of the best liars in the world have tried and failed.
Ah! You must have known my second wife!
:evil:
Biker

Bartholomew Roberts
January 16, 2006, 12:20 PM
If you still have all of your guns, it is certainly not because of Democrats.

Let's take a look at federal gun control legislation, shall we?

1934 National Firearms Act - proposed by Democrat, signed by Democratic President.

1968 Gun Control Act - proposed by Democrat, signed by Democratic President

1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act - proposed by Republican, the one gun control provision added (closing the NFA registry to civilians) is added by a Democrat controlled House

1994 Brady Law - proposed by Democrat, signed by a Democratic President

1994 Assault Weapons Ban - proposed by a Democrat, signed by a Democratic President

Let's look at some of the past bills supported by recent Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry:

Kerry co-sponsored S.1431 - the bill expanding the ban on semi-auto weapons to include guns such as the Remington 1187 he was photographed with on the campaign trail.

Kerry voted twice to kill the CMP. If he doesn't trust you with 1903 bolt-actions and Garands, what does he trust you with?

Kerry voted in March 2004 to extend the existing semi-auto ban.

When Kerry mentor and top Democrat Ted Kennedy stood up in february 2004 to introduce his bill saying:

"Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America." (Page S1634 of the Congressional Record, February 26, 2004)

John Kerry voted YES to ban .30-30 and other centerfire rifle ammo as armor-piercing.

Of course, all of that is from 2004 - shall we look at current gun control legislation sponsored by Democrats in Congress to see what they have planned for us in the future? Shall we look to Democrat controlled New Orleans in the wake of Katrina for an answer? Should we look to the new wave of weapons banned in California every year?

Better yet, in the interests of brevity, why don't you just list for us all the pro-gun legislation introduced by Democrats this year?

We have all read the same Dem strategy paper advanced by Americans For Gun Safety that basically tries to repackage the old Democratic gun control agenda as a "gun safety issue" while at the same time being less openly hostile to gun owners (I.e. "I support the Second Amendment; but you should still be registered, licensed and tracked like sex offenders when you are allowed to own guns at all"). The Dems need a REAL pro-gun strategy if they want pro-gun votes.

EddieCoyle
January 16, 2006, 12:23 PM
You can own any of the guns you just mentioned if you follow NFA rules.

If you want a tank or a rocket launcher to go with them, join the military.

Flash-hiders and bayonet lugs have always been regularly available aftermarket.

I suppose you think anybody should be able to walk into a supermarket and buy hand grenades and machine guns too? Is what you are suggesting is that there be NO laws or restrictions on anything?

No. We need MORE laws. You know, for the children. [/sarcasm]

The Democrats have some interesting proposals for new laws.

For example, here's quote from Democrat Ted Kennedy:
Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America.

That's from the Congressional record (here's the link) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r108:1:./temp/~r108PcGx1Q:e207032:)

The quote above is from Kennedy's speech proposing an amendment to the PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT that would ban "cop killer" bullets that were capable of penetrating "body armor that the Attorney General determines meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers" (in other words soft body armor).

That fat idiot is on record describing the .30-30 as if it were some newly minted uber-cartidge designed soley for penetrating cops' body armor! Either he's amazingly ignorant, or he's purposely trying to over-scare people to the point of being dishonest. This amendment would've banned virtually EVERY RIFLE CARTRIDGE! You sure you want to be on the same side as this guy?

Yeah Boogyman, you still have your guns but if the Democrats get their way, you won't have anything to shoot out of them.

Lone_Gunman
January 16, 2006, 12:24 PM
I agree with the troll that the Republican party has too much power right now. The Republican Party has lost its traditional ideals of limited government and fiscal conservatism, and certainly is heading us along an almost identical path the Democrats would have taken us.

I support voting Democrat, too, in the next midterm elections, but not because I support the Democrats. I would love to see the Dems take one house of Congress though, simply to gridlock the political system, and stop the Neo-Conservative agenda.

Our rights suffer under Republicans and Democrats. Political stalemate is the only true friend of liberty.

If you think the Republican or Democrat parties care about the 2nd Amendment, you are living in a dreamworld. All they really care about is power. Bush I and Reagan banned about as many guns as Clinton did.

I will vote Democrat in 2006, but it certainly isnt because I support them.

Justin
January 16, 2006, 12:24 PM
Engineer-

Don't misread my criticism of the Democrats as support for the Republicans.

The central conceit of Boogyman's thesis is that since he still owns guns, and we've had democrats in power, that therefore the democrats aren't the party of gun control.

This is, of course, willfully ignorant of the facts.

El Tejon
January 16, 2006, 12:26 PM
Federal gun control has been pushed by Democrats. But what about the cities? Washington D.C.? New York City? Chicago? Cleveland? Run by Republicans?:scrutiny:

MarshallDodge
January 16, 2006, 12:27 PM
There have been gun control laws signed by Republicans and Democrats. One of the reasons I voted for George W Bush was because I felt he was pro-gun and I think I made the right choice. The Assault Weapons Ban, that was signed by Bill Clinton-Democrat, was allowed to sunset under GW's watch.

I have not always voted Republican. When I lived in Illinois I voted for a Democrat governor because I did not like the Republican choice. The Republican won and was indicted after he left office. A Democrat is now in charge and is working with Mayor Daley for more gun control laws. In Chicago they don't "still have all their guns". You cannot own an "assault weapon" or handgun in a DEMOCRAT held city.

If you are accusing this administration of being corrupt or having too much power I think you need to explain why.

We all have to make choices based on our beliefs. I believe in freedom from government intervention in my life. Most of the Democrats that I have had the opportunity to vote for feel that government should have an input in my life....social security, taxes, schools, guns, and police so I voted against them.

In the next election I will be voting and I will vote for who I feel is right whether it be Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian.

That being said, I am very careful who I vote for because of who they hang around with. Here is a photograph of four Democrat senators who had just voted against a pro-gun bill:
http://home.comcast.net/~fun2shoot/4senators.jpg

Enough said.

Richardson
January 16, 2006, 12:28 PM
Pertaining to our lifetimes, (I'm 54) if you look back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, we have had an equal number of Democratic Presidents (6) and Republican Presidents (6).

I still have my guns.

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans should be closesly associated to those who held those titles in the past. They have both let their platforms become market driven and given up on past principles. They both pose threats to our freedoms, including RKBA. The Democrats are more vocally against RKBA, but the Republicans are at best fair weather friends on the issue.

While the Democrats push for European style Socialism, the Republicans enact "Law & Order" legislation which expands the police power by criminalizing expanding types of behavior. Without the Republican boosting of the police powers, the Democratic gun control would have no teeth.

Richardson

Lone_Gunman
January 16, 2006, 12:31 PM
The Assault Weapons Ban, that was signed by Bill Clinton-Democrat, was allowed to sunset under GW's watch.

That would have happened even if Kerry had won. The house and senate were still under republican control, and would still have not let renewal come up.

Rockstar
January 16, 2006, 12:32 PM
The first post in this thread is diagnostic and demonstrative of why Democrats shouldn't be in office...inability to compose cogent thoughts and assimilate and process information.

None of the information regarding the party affiliations of the distant or immediate past are relevant to a discussion of current gun-grabbing tactics. The current wave of gun control idiocy began a relatively short time ago, and almost all of the idiocy is spearheaded by urban, liberal Democrats. It's no more complicated than that.

Yeah, you still have your guns; no thanks to Feinstein, Schumer, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

El Tejon
January 16, 2006, 12:33 PM
BTW, I still have my guns too. However, having been a resident of D.C. and Chicago, many of my fellow residents did not have any guns and were left defenseless against armed thugs, both in and out of uniform.

Justin
January 16, 2006, 12:34 PM
In essence, modern liberals are to classical liberals as GWAR is to Steppenwolf.

DunedinDragon
January 16, 2006, 12:35 PM
Although gun control is an important issue to me, it is not the ONLY issue to me.

I will vote for the candidate whose philosophical viewpoint is closest to mine. That would entail:

Smaller government.
Supporting people that take care of themselves, not people with their hands out.
A free market, not a manipulated one.
Reward and support personal initiative.
Protection of my personal rights over the protection of minority interests.
Respect for each individual to make their own choices and have to live with the consequences of those choices.
Allow me to decide individually what efforts deserve my assistance and charity.
Recognizing that business is NOT the enemy, they are the core reason we are the nation we are.

AND MY NUMBER ONE DECIDING ISSUE:
Line Item Veto......

You find me a Democrat that supports those fundamental ideas consistently and I'll vote for them.

El Tejon
January 16, 2006, 12:36 PM
Boo, why lambast the gun owners? Do you think they will willingly give up their rights to elect Democrats?

Why not lobby the bigwigs in the Democratic Party to change their party's platform on the RKBA?:confused:

engineer151515
January 16, 2006, 12:41 PM
Engineer-

Don't misread my criticism of the Democrats as support for the Republicans.

The central conceit of Boogyman's thesis is that since he still owns guns, and we've had democrats in power, that therefore the democrats aren't the party of gun control.

This is, of course, willfully ignorant of the facts.


Understood / agreed.

And I would ask the same. After Bill Clinton and the Democrats who supported purgery under oath from the highest office, I will not support the Democratic Party.

IMO - the perfect opportunity for the Republicans to make a 2nd Amendment statement occurred in New Orleans - unlawful confiscation of firearms leaving civilians defenseless from bans of looters - and the President/Congress stood in absolute silence. That silence amounted to complacency. IMO - both the President and Congress should have been outraged! I started a thread on THR asking if any New Orleans citizen with a confiscated weapon had retreived their firearm. Responses = 0.

Therefore - when the collection crew comes for your guns, don't expect your Republican representatives to make a fuss. It happened once.

And - have I said thank you lately for having a great forum to discuss these issues?


Many thanks.
:)

Boogyman
January 16, 2006, 12:45 PM
They were classical liberals, and have nothing in common with people who self-apply that term today.

Self-apply? Although I do consider myself a classical liberal, I've been called liberal as if it is a dirty word by conservatives by simply disagreeing with them.

Anyone who's read any of the Founders' writings would know that their philosophy is far more in line with modern libertarianism than the sort of people "sort of people? Like the kind you don't want in your neighborhood?who advocate forcible redistribution of unearned wealth at gunpoint. I don't advocate that at all, and it is ridiculous to even suggest it.

Justin
January 16, 2006, 12:46 PM
DunedinDragon-

The cool thing about gun control is that it's one of those issues that tells you a lot about a given candidate. Someone who supports gun control legislation is unlikely to be the sort to really believe in smaller government or lower taxes.

In essence, it's really somewhat impossible for someone to support confiscatory tax rates, yet still be liberal with regard to gun ownership.

El Neil Smith may be somewhat crazy, but I think he's spot on with his assertion that gun control is like a political Vulcan Mind Meld.

Justin
January 16, 2006, 12:48 PM
Boogyman, if you're going to call me a racist, at least have the guts to come right out and say it.

mjolnir
January 16, 2006, 12:49 PM
My belief is that the balance of the Congress & Senate, combined with the powers of the President, is the main determining factor when it comes to our Constitution and our Civil Rights.

Absolutely not...our rights are inviolate and unalienable...they don't depend on who's in office or on a bench. Those folks are our SERVANTS, being paid to take care of our house while we're off earning our daily bread.

In our present form, the balance is too far to the right, with the Republicans controlling all three factors. I believe it is time for a change, and my hope is the Democrats will win back the Congress and/or Senate, and this will be a big step in fixing the many problems our country faces in these complicated times.

Have you been paying attention?

-
1862+: (D) Jim Crow laws throughout the South
1934 NFA: (D) Pres. Roosevelt
1968 Gun Control Act: (D) Pres. Johnson
1981 Morton Grove, IL gun ban: (D) city council
1994 Brady Bill: (D) Pres. Clinton
2005 S.F. ban: (D) city council & mayor

+
1982 Kennesaw, GA must-own-gun: (R) city council
1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act: (R) Pres. Reagan
2004 Sunset of Brady Bill: (R) Pres. Bush
20 year spread of must-issue CCW: mostly Republican houses and governors.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 16, 2006, 12:50 PM
advocate forcible redistribution of unearned wealth at gunpoint. I don't advocate that at all, and it is ridiculous to even suggest it.

If you support the Democratic party (or the Republican party these days), you most certainly do support forcible redistribution of wealth at gunpoint.

How do you think they secure the money for Medicare, welfare, HUD, and a host of other programs? They do it by spending tax money. How do they get that tax money? They tax the wealthy at a higher rate than the poor. What happens if you decline to provide them with that tax money? They take the money at gunpoint and imprison you.

22-rimfire
January 16, 2006, 01:01 PM
One needs to look at the power structure of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Right now, the power structure in the Democratic party leans toward what is current defined as "left or liberal". The Republican party leans toward the "right or conservative". The left favors increased gun control consistantly. They would like to call it crime control, but it is really control of the armed citizentry. I have some problem with the "right's" views on government as well, but in general I believe in the more conservative bias to law making.

"No guns = No crime" Simple, right. Hitler had that idea. But his idea was really not about crime control, was it? The Brits and the Aussies were both sold the same thing on crime control. Liberals want to understand why a sex offender commits his crimes rather than punishing the criminal. (Must be a bad childhood. ie society is at fault.) They want to know why minorities are involved in proportionally more crime and occupy a higher percentage of the prison population.... (must be lack of education, opportunity, and jobs, or they can't afford the best attorney). It boils down to crime is not the fault of the criminal (personal responsibility); it is the fault of society. In their world, if society has guns then there will be crime. They don't believe that there are bad people only voters.

It boils down to Democrats currently have a fundamental tilt toward liberalism, big government, and increased gun control and the Republicans have a conservative, less government, and decreased gun control leaning. This will likely change with the ebb and flow of political power as new people are brought into the mix and the voter is influenced by US and world events.

azredhawk44
January 16, 2006, 01:05 PM
In our present form, the balance is too far to the right, with the Republicans controlling all three factors.

The thread initiator is right on this point:

Our government is most efficient and most effective when NEITHER party has sufficient momentum or control to accomplish ANYTHING.

I like the supreme court being 5-4 balanced. I like the president to be one party and the 51-49 split in the senate to be dominated by the other party. I like the house to be split 51-49 also.

Even better would be if the runner-up for the presidential election became the VP. This would effectively block ANY legislation or major pet projects from EVER being enacted.

This means no tax raises, no new welfare programs, no new HUD/Education programs...The government spends no more money than absolutely necessary in case of war or disaster.

Even better would be a constituational ammendment dictating that every piece of US federal code sunsets 10 years after its enactment, unless congress re-authorizes it by full debate.

Think of all the senseless laws that would disappear!

Bartholomew Roberts
January 16, 2006, 01:12 PM
The thread initiator is right on this point:

Our government is most efficient and most effective when NEITHER party has sufficient momentum or control to accomplish ANYTHING.

Well, it is a good strategy if you like the status quo. If you aren't a big fan of current laws, then it doesn't help you much.

Rem700SD
January 16, 2006, 01:12 PM
I'll make you a deal bogeyman, you get Zel Miller the democratic nomination for president in 2008 and he'll get my vote!(I believe he was governer of georgia when they got shall issue ccw, correct me if I'm mistaken.)
Any other democrat is extremely suspect...:scrutiny:

22-rimfire
January 16, 2006, 01:18 PM
Azredhawk44: "I like the supreme court being 5-4 balanced. I like the president to be one party and the 51-49 split in the senate to be dominated by the other party. I like the house to be split 51-49 also."

This way nothing gets done. I like a Supreme Court that interprets the LAW and has no political leaning one way or the other. Forget balance.

Sometimes it is necessary for things to get done and not have the on-going party battles. Hence, this is the reason each party struggles for a majority and I prefer the more conservative approach to law.

gc70
January 16, 2006, 01:32 PM
The political parties in the US are becoming more like the dominant parties in Europe - generally left-leaning and/or statist. The Democrats openly favor big government, blatant social engineering, and massive wealth redistribution. Republican rhetoric says otherwise, but their actions favor big government, limited social engineering, and substantial wealth redistribution.

The major political parties largely differ only in degree. They are differentiated by relatively minor but highly visible "lightning-rod" issues that distract voters from their lack of major differences on fundamental issues. So everyone's attention and energy is devoted to RKBA (a loser for the left), gay marriage (another loser for the left), or abortion (a big long-term winner for both parties), while our bloated and avaricious government continues to grow and smother more of our basic rights.

I am generally disgusted with both parties. At the national level, I will not vote for Democrats because they function in lockstep with the party line. I have to hold my nose to vote for Republicans because they usually also function in lockstep, with exceptions usually being when they support the Democrats.

With all of the voter dissatisfaction that I hear, I can only wonder what it will take to create a viable thrid party.

pisztoly
January 16, 2006, 01:39 PM
You can own any of the guns you just mentioned if you follow NFA rules.

If you want a tank or a rocket launcher to go with them, join the military.

Flash-hiders and bayonet lugs have always been regularly available aftermarket.

I suppose you think anybody should be able to walk into a supermarket and buy hand grenades and machine guns too? Is what you are suggesting is that there be NO laws or restrictions on anything?


Time was when you could go down to the corner store and buy a machine gun. As I recall from history class the availability of fully automatic weapons did not become a problem 'till prohibition. Even then it was a VASTLY over stated one. Short barrelled weapons a problem? Not that I can seem to recall. They became a problem when the "revenuers" needed something to do after the repeal of prohibition.

You should read "Unintended Consequences" Boogeyman. Great book and it certainly sums up how I, and probably most of the people here, feel.

gc70
January 16, 2006, 01:39 PM
Even better would be a constituational ammendment dictating that every piece of US federal code sunsets 10 years after its enactment, unless congress re-authorizes it by full debate.+1

The intrusive weight of the federal government stems from the fact that the acts of the legislature and courts are cumulative. We have over 200 years of "baggage" that needs to be cleaned out.

TexasRifleman
January 16, 2006, 01:46 PM
I'll give Boogyman some credit on the debate.


New Orleans confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens, although enacted by a Democratic Party state government and enforced by police squads from Democratic Party (California) blue state, was not STOPPED in its tracks, nor INTERRUPTED by the current Republican White House / Congress.

The Republicans did NOTHING to cease and desist that unconstitutional action.


Therefore, although I will probably never vote for a Democrat, I give the Republicans little to no credit for protection of our right to bear arms.

What exactly did you want to happen, the US to declare war on Louisiana?

States have the right to govern themselves, that mess in N.O. was hardly a Federal problem.

The situation righted itself very quickly in my opinion and blame is 100% on the local officlals. Officials who by the way continue to resign over the whole mess.

Boogyman
January 16, 2006, 01:48 PM
Boogyman, if you're going to call me a racist, at least have the guts to come right out and say it.

Im not calling you a racist. You referred to liberal Democrats as "those kind of people".
I will say you are generalising with a strong bias.

I expect to be outnumbered as a Democrat posting on this board, and I am, about 20 to 1, maybe more. I can't keep up with all the snide comments and thinly-veiled insults directed at me, so I'm not even going to try. That kind of ignorance doesn't deserve comment anyway.
However, my opinion is just as important as anyone else's.
There's been a lot of good points posted here, pro and con, and I appreciate the input. I'm still voting Democrat in the November mid-terms, because I believe in balance in the government. When it comes to juggling RTKBA with other rights and civil liberties, it's the big picture that needs attention, and the country is headed in the wrong direction. 67% (debatable) of Americans feel the same.

Winzeler
January 16, 2006, 01:49 PM
The first post in this thread is diagnostic and demonstrative of why Democrats shouldn't be in office...inability to compose cogent thoughts and assimilate and process information.
Every time I jump out of a plane with a parachute on I survive. Therefore, it must be safe to jump out of a plane. Wrong!!!! The only thing that makes jumping out of a plane safe is the parachute.

News flash: the only thing the keeps the Dems from taking total control of our firearms (equivalent to hitting the ground at several hundred miles per hour) is the GOP (equivalent to the parachute).

Nevertheless, WE ARE STILL FALLING. I support neither party. In fact, I hate political parties in general. This country needs to get back to being a republic with CLASSICAL liberal values. Neither party can come close to claiming that.

Boogyman
January 16, 2006, 01:58 PM
Time was when you could go down to the corner store and buy a machine gun. As I recall from history class the availability of fully automatic weapons did not become a problem 'till prohibition. Even then it was a VASTLY over stated one. Short barrelled weapons a problem? Not that I can seem to recall. They became a problem when the "revenuers" needed something to do after the repeal of prohibition.

You should read "Unintended Consequences" Boogeyman. Great book and it certainly sums up how I, and probably most of the people here, feel.

Sure. You could mail-order Thompson's back then. Do you think it should be that way now?
With all the fear of terrorism running rampant I'm not sure that would be such a good thing.
Another factor to consider would be the HUGE population explosion since then. Cities are packed to the point of boiling over. Law-abiding citizens need guns to defend themselves from criminals. Some regulation is needed to distinquish between the two. Sure, criminals can still get guns illegally, but what if they could walk into an Ace Hardware and buy a new Ma Duece with their crack money without even showing I.D?

Creeping Incrementalism
January 16, 2006, 02:07 PM
I believe it is time for a change, and my hope is the Democrats will win back the Congress and/or Senate, and this will be a big step in fixing the many problems our country faces in these complicated times.

And I believe this will not be a threat to our RTKBA.

I'll still have my guns.

Boogeyman, I know you are talking on a Federal level but considering I live in California...

Your guns haven't been taken from you? That hasn't happened to me either, BECAUSE I WASN'T ALLOWED TO BUY THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

This is how creeping incrementalism works. Old farts bought the guns back in the day when it was legal. Assault weapon law gets passed. Old farts don't mind--they get to keep their guns. Those of use who were legally too young or too young to have enough money to buy them yet don't mind as much because we haven't yet tasted the liberty. It's insidious. If guns ever get banned in America, that's how it will happen--small incremental steps that sneak up on you to make it less painful. They won't go grabbing, because the gun owners would fight back to make it too much of a mess to be worth trying.

In California, during the last three years where I have been paying a lot of attention to the gun bills floating around in the legislature, every single anti-gun/hunting bill has been proposed by a Democrat. Every single pro-gun/hunting bill has been proposed by a Republican. No exceptions.

In California you can find some Republicans who have hurt the cause, like Arnold and Lungren--but it was always because they were pushed by powerful Democrat forces. So there are always exceptions to the rule. But your idea that we could get Democrats running the Presidency and both houses of Congress and not have it be anti-gun is completely ludicrous (not that I like Democrats' other ideas either). The proof is what happened last time.

geekWithA.45
January 16, 2006, 02:09 PM
Another Dem contribution to institutionalized gun bigotry:

NYC's 1911 Sullivan Act.

This came out of corrupt Tammany Hall politics, and was the first time the modern magnitude of gun control was applied to all citizens. (see: racist roots of gun control, for more on that topic.)

"Police Discretion" as to who may be lawfully armed remains one of the major goals of the Bradyites.

It was used to discriminate against immigrants (mainly Italians), and Republicans (one of Sullivan's political opponents sewed his pockets shut after his 3rd frameup arrest for carrying w/out a permit)

Permits were easily available to folks in good standing on the say so of their local Democratic club boss.

-----------------------

Democrats have an awful, sustained track record with respect to RKBA. Recent attempts to distance themselves from this track record are to be encouraged, but they have a long way to go before we're willing to trust them on that.

Here's a series of posts that analyses the two party's platforms on RKBA for the previous 2 election cycles:

DNC 2004:
http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2004_08_29_geekwitha45_archive.html#109392451704658177

DNC 2000:

http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2003_08_24_geekwitha45_archive.html#106193426029007358

GOP 2000:
http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2004_02_08_geekwitha45_archive.html#107642633762918107

GOP 2004:
http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2004_08_29_geekwitha45_archive.html#109413711671053262

gc70
January 16, 2006, 02:16 PM
It's simple - if you are a gun owner and a Democrat, other issues clearly mean more to you than your guns.

dmallind
January 16, 2006, 02:18 PM
Sorry boogyman i tried the same thing - it's impossible to debate with the visceral and irrational hatred of anyone who is not far-right on these boards, despite numerous hopeful attempts by more moderate gun owners such as you and I.

The very first time the "socialist" vitriol comes out you know they're not listening. Nobody intelligent enough to operate a computer sufficiently well as to be able to register and post on internet fora is REALLY ignorant of what socialism means. The fact that they all know socialism is state ownership or the means of production does not in any way stop them from levelling the term at anything from subsidized health care to progressive tax rates.

They have succeeded in making "socialist" a withering insult and offense to the general population. I sure as hell don't agree with socialism - I'm firmly behind private ownership and the profit motive, but now they are trying, with impressive uniformity and considerable success, to make "liberal" equally abhorrent to the general population.

Contrary to the statements on this thread both parties are charging rightward at a decent clip in recent decades. Consider the policies of Nixon. Personal paranoia and ethical failings aside, Nixon's policies and positions are, taken on the whole, among the closest fits to my own amongst recent Presidents. Would he be able to win the Republican nomination today? No - he was far too liberal. Would Clinton have gotten the Democratic nomination in the 70s? Not a chance, with his support for free trade, welfare reform, the death penalty and son (all of which incidentally I also support). he was, and remains for the equivalent hardcore true believers on the left, far too right wing.

I am a blue dog Democrat who demographically and socioeconomically should be a Republican. I would be too, if Republicans were as they were 30 years ago and not dominated by social reactionaries more interested in my bedroom and medicine closet than the economy and freedom of the nation.

You have my support and my best wishes in your attempt to get rational discussion on politics. You do not have my expectations for any success - the groupthink is too strong and too hard-right. When people call Bush and his cabal near socialists whatever can they think of earlier and more moderate Republicans such as Nixon,and which absent the Falwell-PNAC-Santorum trifecta, I would be?

Rockstar
January 16, 2006, 02:25 PM
dmallind: Pretty hard for those of us who aren't far right, but are gun advocates to enter into a rational discussion with a guy who starts a thread based on a simpleminded, fallacious premise.

Boogyman
January 16, 2006, 02:31 PM
If you still have all of your guns, it is certainly not because of Democrats.

Let's take a look at federal gun control legislation, shall we?

1934 National Firearms Act - proposed by Democrat, signed by Democratic President.

1968 Gun Control Act - proposed by Democrat, signed by Democratic President

1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act - proposed by Republican, the one gun control provision added (closing the NFA registry to civilians) is added by a Democrat controlled House

1994 Brady Law - proposed by Democrat, signed by a Democratic President

1994 Assault Weapons Ban - proposed by a Democrat, signed by a Democratic President

Let's look at some of the past bills supported by recent Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry:

Kerry co-sponsored S.1431 - the bill expanding the ban on semi-auto weapons to include guns such as the Remington 1187 he was photographed with on the campaign trail.

Kerry voted twice to kill the CMP. If he doesn't trust you with 1903 bolt-actions and Garands, what does he trust you with?

Kerry voted in March 2004 to extend the existing semi-auto ban.

When Kerry mentor and top Democrat Ted Kennedy stood up in february 2004 to introduce his bill saying:

"Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America." (Page S1634 of the Congressional Record, February 26, 2004)

John Kerry voted YES to ban .30-30 and other centerfire rifle ammo as armor-piercing.

Of course, all of that is from 2004 - shall we look at current gun control legislation sponsored by Democrats in Congress to see what they have planned for us in the future? Shall we look to Democrat controlled New Orleans in the wake of Katrina for an answer? Should we look to the new wave of weapons banned in California every year?

Better yet, in the interests of brevity, why don't you just list for us all the pro-gun legislation introduced by Democrats this year?

We have all read the same Dem strategy paper advanced by Americans For Gun Safety that basically tries to repackage the old Democratic gun control agenda as a "gun safety issue" while at the same time being less openly hostile to gun owners (I.e. "I support the Second Amendment; but you should still be registered, licensed and tracked like sex offenders when you are allowed to own guns at all"). The Dems need a REAL pro-gun strategy if they want pro-gun votes.

Bartholomew, I'm not arguing the fact that Democrats are responsible for most of the gun regulation laws. I don't agree with a lot of them. But some I do.
Such as the NFA rules. Do you think anyone should be able to buy an M-60 from Walmart without I.D?
And if you can afford the ammo your going to burn, you can afford the price of a machine gun.
Even most Republicans agree that there has to be SOME regulation on firearms. You need a driver's license to operate a vehicle, you need a hunter's safety course to get a hunting license, you need to take a NRA practical pistol class to get a CCW (at least in Missouri) and so on. I agree with these laws. This is not "chipping away" at our RTKBA.
If being Republican means lifting ALL regulations on firearms then no thanks.
But if it takes two parties at odds to each other to create a balanced system, I'm all for it.
If a lot of people had their way, they would do away with the Democratic party all together, along with independents, greeners, libertarians, etc. leaving only the Republican Dictatorship of the Police States.
Whether you like Democrats or not, at least one other major party is needed to oppose the Republican party. This is what the founding fathers had in mind to keep Absolute Power from Corrupting Absolutely.

boofus
January 16, 2006, 02:34 PM
Whether you like Democrats or not, at least one other major party is needed to oppose the Republican party. This is what the founding fathers had in mind to keep Absolute Power from Corrupting Absolutely.



Wrong, I don't know what revisionist democrat approved history book you read that in, but political parties were not even in the picture during the constitutional convention and it was better that way. When people ran as individuals rather than with some shadowy committee dictating their platform.

There were small groups of people like Federalists and Anti-feds but they were nothing like the 2 party system we've degenerated into now.

James T Thomas
January 16, 2006, 02:35 PM
Your are dangerously mistaken sir!

Read the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and Bill of Rights!

God has given to all men certain inalienable rights, and the govenment we have is there to secure those rights. And we have the right, should they fail to do so to remove them from office.

Our Constitution is the highest law in the land. It supercedes our courts, and is not a "living, breathing, nor evolving" document, less it be tampered with.
It's statements are succinct and clear.

May God bless America.

Boogyman
January 16, 2006, 02:40 PM
dmallind: Pretty hard for those of us who aren't far right, but are gun advocates to enter into a rational discussion with a guy who starts a thread based on a simpleminded, fallacious premise.

You just proved DMALLIND right.

Besides that, this country was founded on the principles of a multiple-party system with checks and balances designed to preserve the constitutional rights of all citizens, or as you put it, "a simple-minded, fallacious premise".

Justin
January 16, 2006, 02:40 PM
Im not calling you a racist. You referred to liberal Democrats as "those kind of people".
I will say you are generalising with a strong bias.

Oh?

"sort of people? Like the kind you don't want in your neighborhood?

Perhaps you'd like to explain what you mean when you start making offhand comments about what neighborhoods people choose to live in.

That kind of ignorance doesn't deserve comment anyway.

And where did you actually post a rational rebuttal to what has been posted by Bartholomew Roberts, me, and others who've pointed out the inherently obvious flaws to your thesis?

Sure. You could mail-order Thompson's back then. Do you think it should be that way now?

Oh no, not Thompsons! To my way of thinking, if someone can pass a background check for a concealed carry permit, and can legally own handguns, rifles, and shotguns, then they're just as capable of owning something that's FA. Or perhaps you'd like to state a rational reason why they shouldn't.

Would love to hear your reasoning for why sound suppressors are so rightly heavily regulated...

Of course, none of your obfuscation about machineguns, SBR's, or suppressors changes the indisputable fact that those gun control laws were passed by Democrats.

By sowing fear about NFA items, you're making a deliberate attempt to seperate gun owners into categories that will fight amongst themselves.

Another factor to consider would be the HUGE population explosion since then.

Translation: Most people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves, so the state (as long as they're on your side) should make those decisions for them.

Am I wrong?

Boogyman
January 16, 2006, 02:49 PM
Wrong, I don't know what revisionist democrat approved history book you read that in, but political parties were not even in the picture during the constitutional convention and it was better that way. When people ran as individuals rather than with some shadowy committee dictating their platform.

There were small groups of people like Federalists and Anti-feds but they were nothing like the 2 party system we've degenerated into now.

If you refer to the list in post #1, you see that Washington was the only "no-party" president, the next six (all signers of the constitution) were either federalist or democrat-republican.

I agree we've "degenerated" into a two-party system, I think we need more independents, libertarians, greeners, even buchananites and perotites. :D

Justin
January 16, 2006, 02:50 PM
Bartholomew, I'm not arguing the fact that Democrats are responsible for most of the gun regulation laws. I don't agree with a lot of them. But some I do.

Translation: "I've got mine, and don't give a tinker's damn if they regulate yours."

gc70
January 16, 2006, 02:50 PM
by dmallind
The fact that they all know socialism is state ownership or the means of productiondmallind provides an accurate definition of theoretical socialism as described by Marx. However, theories of socialism have evolded since Marx. Rather than Marx's theoretical socialism, the dominant form of socialism in the world today is state socialism.

State Socialism - The belief that all members of society should receive a portion of what a country produces, with the distribution of wealth under the direct control of the state.The current, operative approach to socialism dispenses with actual state ownership of the means of production and uses government to achieve the redistribution of wealth from the nominal owners of the means of production.

dmallind, excuse those of us who use the simpler term "socialism" to describe state socialism. It isn't that we are trying to confuse anyone (or that we are incapable of understanding the difference between theoretical socialism and state socialism), it's just more convenient to use the simpler term.

Ermac
January 16, 2006, 02:52 PM
Oh?



Perhaps you'd like to explain what you mean when you start making offhand comments about what neighborhoods people choose to live in.



And where did you actually post a rational rebuttal to what has been posted by Bartholomew Roberts, me, and others who've pointed out the inherently obvious flaws to your thesis?



Oh no, not Thompsons! To my way of thinking, if someone can pass a background check for a concealed carry permit, and can legally own handguns, rifles, and shotguns, then they're just as capable of owning something that's FA. Or perhaps you'd like to state a rational reason why they shouldn't.

Would love to hear your reasoning for why sound suppressors are so rightly heavily regulated...

Of course, none of your obfuscation about machineguns, SBR's, or suppressors changes the indisputable fact that those gun control laws were passed by Democrats.

By sowing fear about NFA items, you're making a deliberate attempt to seperate gun owners into categories that will fight amongst themselves.



Translation: Most people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves, so the state (as long as they're on your side) should make those decisions for them.

Am I wrong?


+1

I wonder what people will think if and when Hillary gets into office when we have NO gun rights by her slowing going to start by small bans on weapons such as:

1) re-institute the AWB from Brady in the 90's
2) outlaw any semi-auto matic weapon
3) outlaw weapons with magazine capability
4) outlaw the "high powered" hunting rifles
5) outlaw rimfire and blackpowder
6) etc...

I see Dems slowly outlawing guns through small bans and going forward. Look at Californina...I bet if a liberal Dem is in office, most of the US will be like Kalifornistan. Most Dems will look to be pro-Gun to get into office (look at John Kerry's Hunting-thing Campaign). Hillary is going to do the same...appear to be pro gun until she's in office and BLAMMO....here comes the bans. Just my opinion

Boogyman
January 16, 2006, 03:04 PM
Sorry boogyman i tried the same thing - it's impossible to debate with the visceral and irrational hatred of anyone who is not far-right on these boards, despite numerous hopeful attempts by more moderate gun owners such as you and I.

The very first time the "socialist" vitriol comes out you know they're not listening. Nobody intelligent enough to operate a computer sufficiently well as to be able to register and post on internet fora is REALLY ignorant of what socialism means. The fact that they all know socialism is state ownership or the means of production does not in any way stop them from levelling the term at anything from subsidized health care to progressive tax rates.

They have succeeded in making "socialist" a withering insult and offense to the general population. I sure as hell don't agree with socialism - I'm firmly behind private ownership and the profit motive, but now they are trying, with impressive uniformity and considerable success, to make "liberal" equally abhorrent to the general population.

Contrary to the statements on this thread both parties are charging rightward at a decent clip in recent decades. Consider the policies of Nixon. Personal paranoia and ethical failings aside, Nixon's policies and positions are, taken on the whole, among the closest fits to my own amongst recent Presidents. Would he be able to win the Republican nomination today? No - he was far too liberal. Would Clinton have gotten the Democratic nomination in the 70s? Not a chance, with his support for free trade, welfare reform, the death penalty and son (all of which incidentally I also support). he was, and remains for the equivalent hardcore true believers on the left, far too right wing.

I am a blue dog Democrat who demographically and socioeconomically should be a Republican. I would be too, if Republicans were as they were 30 years ago and not dominated by social reactionaries more interested in my bedroom and medicine closet than the economy and freedom of the nation.

You have my support and my best wishes in your attempt to get rational discussion on politics. You do not have my expectations for any success - the groupthink is too strong and too hard-right. When people call Bush and his cabal near socialists whatever can they think of earlier and more moderate Republicans such as Nixon,and which absent the Falwell-PNAC-Santorum trifecta, I would be?

Thanks for the support. Don't worry, it won't break my heart if I can't get through to the "group mind". But it's good to know I'm not alone.
So what's that make it, 50 to 2 now? :D :D

dmallind
January 16, 2006, 03:04 PM
But by your definition of state socialism only the most pure of libertarian idealists are NOT socialists. Brownback is a socialist; DeLay is a socialist; Cheney is a socialist if you use that terminology. It is so broad as to be meainingless in a discussion of contemporary politics because everyone with even a smidgen's chance of becoming a political force on a state or national scale is then a socialist and it stops being a discriminating factor at all.

If you use it in that context with that meaning then I guess you are technically correct but a bit redundant and not all that relevant to the differenecs between Republicans and Democrats.

Having said that I'm aot a huge fan of the original premise except as a broad brush statement. I don't disagree with it of course I just don't think it means a whole lot. Few gun owners I think rationally and realistically fear outright banning or confiscation under a Dem regime, and it is unquestionable that Democrats support MORE (relatively speaking and taken as a whole) controls on firearms ownership than Republicans.

The question everybody who is not a died in the wool Republican needs to answer for themselves is whether the practical firearms restrictions Democrats would and could (an important consideration, natch) enact are so onerous as to outweigh all other considerations. Again anyone even vaguely politically aware realizes banning is not on the cards.

engineer151515
January 16, 2006, 03:05 PM
What exactly did you want to happen, the US to declare war on Louisiana?


I wanted your Federal elected representatives to speak up against this illegal action.



States have the right to govern themselves, that mess in N.O. was hardly a Federal problem.


The State cannot deny you your 2nd Amendment Rights.
When anyone tries - the Feds should speak up. Afterall, wasn't that decided with the US Civil War?



The situation righted itself very quickly in my opinion and blame is 100% on the local officlals. Officials who by the way continue to resign over the whole mess.

The gun grabbing stopped. The Police Chief resigned. The Mayor / Governor can't seem to figure out who gave the order (though neither one intervened during the crisis). One lawsuit (that I'm aware of) has just started. I have yet to hear of one returned firearm.

Again - my point was the I don't see either party running to aid when the real violations started. Don't expect them to come running when San Diego SWAT comes knocking at your door after your regional(Goodness Forbid) large scale natural or man-made disaster.

CAnnoneer
January 16, 2006, 03:08 PM
This entire thread is about the advantages of voting for Kang vs Kodos, or the other way around. Let's face it, both parties have become twisted package deals based on fear and corruption, and thus deserve no support.

The dems have a far stronger anti-gun lobby, while the reps do nothing because they know they have the gunowners' votes for fear of the dems. So, whenever the dems get in power, they do as much damage as possible, while the reps just hold off or do nothing when their turn comes. The net result is a ratchet effect of a constrictor with the inevitable result of britainization of America.

So long as people vote for K&K, the vicious circle will never be broken. That is why I will vote third party.

deanf
January 16, 2006, 03:13 PM
I suppose you think anybody should be able to walk into a supermarket and buy hand grenades and machine guns too?

We have delegated to the military, via the Constitution, our authority to possess and use weapons of war.

We (the people) still retain that authority. It was ours to begin with. We never gave it up.

boofus
January 16, 2006, 03:14 PM
Again anyone even vaguely politically aware realizes banning is not on the cards.


They won't come out and say we are going to ban all guns. That would get them thrown out of power so fast by the elmer fudd hunters in their own party.

They try to ban ammo. Or they go and require registration on firearms. Then they ban registration. Just like the 1986 MG ban and the handgun ban in DC. "See we didn't ban guns! We just banned registration."

As for NFA ownership. I can bet good money that any one of you NFA-haters break more laws in 1 hour of traffic in your automobile than my full-auto FNC has in 20 years of sitting in safes.

Boogyman
January 16, 2006, 03:17 PM
Oh?



Perhaps you'd like to explain what you mean when you start making offhand comments about what neighborhoods people choose to live in.

Touchy, touchy. If it's only an offhand comment, why get your panties in a bunch?

And where did you actually post a rational rebuttal to what has been posted by Bartholomew Roberts, me, and others who've pointed out the inherently obvious flaws to your thesis?

Post #54.

Oh no, not Thompsons! To my way of thinking, if someone can pass a background check for a concealed carry permit, and can legally own handguns, rifles, and shotguns, then they're just as capable of owning something that's FA. Or perhaps you'd like to state a rational reason why they shouldn't.

The check and permit you just mentioned... regulations you apparently agree with?

Would love to hear your reasoning for why sound suppressors are so rightly heavily regulated...

You can have one, just follow the NFA rules.

Of course, none of your obfuscation about machineguns, SBR's, or suppressors changes the indisputable fact that those gun control laws were passed by Democrats.

Not refuting that. Democrats are probably responsible for the backround check and permit you just mentioned, also.

By sowing fear about NFA items, you're making a deliberate attempt to seperate gun owners into categories that will fight amongst themselves.

I'm a gun owner. Sowing fear? This statement is too ridiculous to bother with.

Translation: Most people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves, so the state (as long as they're on your side) should make those decisions for them.

Your "translation. not my words. Sounds like something Cheney would say.

Am I wrong?

Yup. :neener:

Kim
January 16, 2006, 03:24 PM
Sorry I just can never vote Democrat. I have back in my ignorant days. I once voted at age 18 simply because the guy was from the South and I like peanuts. Scary thought. If at age 54 you are a Democrat you will probably stay one. Fine. I at my older age will stay Repub. I can not think of ONE thing I agree with the Democrats on. NOTHING. All I have to do whenever a glitch hits my brain saying maybe this Democrat is O:K is read any of the internet forums of the Democrat supporters. I then run back to safety as quick as I can. I was at first shocked when reading DU, Daily KOS,Democrat.com etc. now I am just disgusted. I see how at a young age if I was feed the crap I see I might be outside going naked,defecating in the street and throwing rocks through windows and speaking with such hate and Chanting CHE< CHE my hero, But I can not support the loonies and the Democratic party base is full of them.

Boogyman
January 16, 2006, 03:31 PM
It's simple - if you are a gun owner and a Democrat, other issues clearly mean more to you than your guns.

Not "more", but all issues should be weighed and considered, don't you think?

22-rimfire
January 16, 2006, 03:33 PM
dmallind said: "Few gun owners I think rationally and realistically fear outright banning or confiscation under a Dem regime, and it is unquestionable that Democrats support MORE (relatively speaking and taken as a whole) controls on firearms ownership than Republicans."

dmallind also said "The question everybody who is not a died in the wool Republican needs to answer for themselves is whether the practical firearms restrictions Democrats would and could (an important consideration, natch) enact are so onerous as to outweigh all other considerations. Again anyone even vaguely politically aware realizes banning is not on the cards."

Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing. Hillary Clinton is such a wolf.

These statements are absolute BS. The statements go to the heart of the issue of the Democratic party leaning toward gun control and the Republican leaning away from it. History has demonstrated that Democrats favor stricter gun control over the citizentry. That is a fact! Look at the current crop of vocal Democrats with regard to Supreme court nominations. They include Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer who are all extremely pro-gun control and any opportunity to increase gun controls will be seized by these people. To say that the Democratic leadership does not favor very strict gun control and ultimately banning outright ownership is a joke. They do! Believe it. Not in the cards now... why? Because of the efforts of the NRA and private citizens. You have to be ready to stand firm on certain issues and guns are one such issue.

We have plenty of "practical firearm restrictions" on the books now. We don't need any more practical ones. All of these practical restrictions just make it harder for me to own and purchase firearms conveniently. It's for the children, I know. Save one life and it's worth it.... what about abortion and saving lives, or highway deaths..... Man! Get your head out of the sand and open your eyes!

This discussion should not be about Democrats or Republicans. It should be about our rights. One very important right is our right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is the only single issue that will change my vote from one candidate to another. There are other important issues as well, but the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our constitutional rights and as such results in affecting my vote one way or the other if it comes down to it.

The gun control advocates are using the approach of "death by a thousand cuts". One day you will wake up and find out that you aren't allowed to own any firearms because some of the thousand cuts weren't enforced....

cuchulainn
January 16, 2006, 03:43 PM
Boogyman: Not "more", but all issues should be weighed and considered, don't you think?Indeed.

Gun control is only a tiny part of why I don't vote for Democrats.

cbsbyte
January 16, 2006, 03:45 PM
Well, saying all Democrats are anti-gun or at least active trying to undermind the 2nd Ad is a complete mistatement. Across the country there are millions of pro-gun, 2nd Ad Democrats who are trying to change the party's stance on gun control. I even bet most Democrats congressman are pro gun. The reason why so many people seem to believe the whole democratic party is anti, is because of a vocal and powerful minority in the party.
I live in Mass which in a whole is an anti-gun state, with many politicans being either anti or at least indifferent to gun owners. But there is a growing group within the state Democratic party that is becoming aware of the issue and trying to activley change the stance of the party. By not supporting the pro-gun candiates in this state, even if they are democrats is a loss for gun owners.

Justin
January 16, 2006, 03:46 PM
Thanks for the support. Don't worry, it won't break my heart if I can't get through to the "group mind". But it's good to know I'm not alone.
So what's that make it, 50 to 2 now?

No, wrong. It has everything to do with the incorrect nature of your thesis:

I am bringing into question the generally held belief that you must support Republican presidential candidates if you want to protect our RTKBA rights.

When it was completely and utterly pointed out to you that more Democrat presidents have supported gun control than Republican ones, your first move was to voice your support for such laws, thereby contradicting your initial statement, obliterating your very own argument.

I strongly suggest that you either learn how to debate and construct a rational argument that proves your initial thesis, change your thesis, or admit defeat.

Because at this point, you're just making yourself look silly.

carlrodd
January 16, 2006, 03:50 PM
They won't come out and say we are going to ban all guns. That would get them thrown out of power so fast by the elmer fudd hunters in their own party.

They try to ban ammo. Or they go and require registration on firearms. Then they ban registration. Just like the 1986 MG ban and the handgun ban in DC. "See we didn't ban guns! We just banned registration."



EXACTLY! and kudos to whoever mentioned a ratchet effect. the absence of outright bans on all firearms is not for lack of wanting among many, especially democrats. it's foolish to not try to dig into the psyche of the people running our country...to identify their long term goals. anti-gun nuts are just that...they are only for "sensible" gun laws so far as those laws lead us one step further toward their long term goal of doing away with gun ownership altogether.

hillary clinton thinks it takes a village to raise a child. to me this means that she doesn't think two parents know best, which also means she doesn't think the individual knows best. now that is "group think" if i have ever seen it, and tell me that this insanity isn't a prevelant mindset in in our culture today. seems to me that the majority of people on THIS community are simply reacting to that. they want to be able to make their own decisions, and that is something they simply all agree upon.

seems to me that boogyman and friend should run for office......your attempts to vilify and demonize people of like-mind coming together and strengthening one another's convictions is right in line with the conduct of most politicians these days. perhaps we should enact legislation that forbids communication between any more than two people in an effort to limit the dangers posed by people sharing common ground.

Mad Chemist
January 16, 2006, 03:55 PM
For local and state-level races I vote Libertarian IF the candidate has even the slimmest chance of victory. For federal offices I vote for gridlock. Since the Rs control the three elected branches of govt. currently, I will vote for pro-gun and pro-civil liberties Ds in the next batch of congressional elections (yes a slim minority of Ds do fit this description). If party control were reversed, then I would vote for pro-rights Rs instead.

I strongly believe that when we keep govt. fighting amongst itself it becomes much more difficult for them to screw the rest of us.

I believe that blind party loyalty shows a lack of critical thinking.
My loyalty is to the United States of America and the Constitution that preserves our liberty.

JH

Justin
January 16, 2006, 04:07 PM
Oh, and boogyman, if you're going to attempt to Fisk someone else's post, at least have the common decency to properly format it through use of the QUOTE tags.

dmallind
January 16, 2006, 04:08 PM
Gosh you're right carlrodd - look back at this thread and you'll see all the vilification is coming from boogyman and I! How could I have been so nasty to all the calm and helpful and collegial posts coming from the majority here?

As a matter of fact I DO dislike political echo chambers - and I apply this to all political proclivities. Free Republic, DU, THR and Bartcop are all cut from the same cloth as far as political discussion goes (luckily there's plenty of healthy give and take on guns themselves here), and all are equally harmful in the exact context you describe. If all people hear is lockstep opinion then not only do they never have to consider opposing viewpoints but they constantly marginalize and dehumanize those who hold them.

To spare offense look at DU and I am sure you will agree. Most Democrats I know - and doubtless most you know too if you talked to them openly and reasonably - are not so viciously antagonistic to anyone who is not a hardcore left-winger, but the groupthink of DU includes and welcomes only those who are. Thus is built up the illusion that all reasonnable people really think as they do - because that's all they hear echoed back to themselves, and so the "mainstream" moves ever and ever leftward on DU and Bartcop, and ever and ever rightward on FR and THR, where "both sides of the political debate" often refers to ardent libertarians vs. social connservatives. It is this kind of reflect and reinforce that causes partisan extremism and, in worst-case scenarios, allows people of one political stripe to absolve themselves of all consideration for those not of it, even to their physical safety and freedom ("Take out Coit tower if you want to", "one well placed nuke in Foggy Bottom" "Liberals should be imprisoned for treason" etc).

Anyone who makes these comments, about liberals OR about neocons, is doing so you can guarantee because they have heard the same crap echoed back to them in groupthink environments so often that they think it's a mainstream and reasonable opinion to have. Plenty of unreasonable opinions and generalized vilification have been stated on this thread, but the vast majority follow the groupthink the site has developed, every single bit as harmfully as DU's groupthink that is so often, and so appropriately, scorned at THR.

Kim
January 16, 2006, 04:09 PM
If the Dems take over the House guess who will be the chairman of the Judiciary Committe in the house. John Conyers. He is no blue dog moderate. He is a raving leftist. He is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of the mainstream. I watched him give 100.00 to Loui Farikhan(sp) and the goons of International ANSWER ( a flamming pro-stalinist pro-NK group which has lead all the anit-war protests) Sorry I Do Not want anyone with such connection watching out for my rights or this country. As a Blue Dog you need to work to weed out these sort of people. The problem is your party is made up of a majority of such people with these beliefs. Some just hide it better than others. Your party will throw them the bone of more gun control to keep them at bay and their vote.

boofus
January 16, 2006, 04:17 PM
democrats as a rule can go take a long walk off a short pier into pirahna infested waters. The D leadership is for disarmament of law-abiding citizens, plain and simple. Any one that refuses to see that is either blinder than Ray Charles, or dumber than the left portrays GWBush.

For me it is a simple matter of trust. If you don't trust me, as a taxpaying citizen in good legal standing, to own a rifle or handgun and use it responsibly, why in the hell should I trust you with the power of taxation, declaration of war, signing treaties, and the nuclear button?

:cuss:

Some RINOs are just as bad (like bloomberg) but the pro-gun Republicans far outnumber RINOS and pro-gun democrats. Don't even get me started on the other idiotic policies of the democrats besides gun grabbing. Affirmative action, slavery reparations, using foreign law as a basis for judicial decision, taxpayer funded abortion on demand, enviro-terrorism, treason, cowardice, and criminal worship are all good enough reasons for me to hate the jackass party without gun control.

Justin
January 16, 2006, 04:22 PM
dmallind, I will, once again state the following: If boogyman's central thesis is true, then you are free to disprove all of the refutations of it.

He asserted that the RKBA was just as safe under a Democrat president as a Republican one.

However, the legislative record would seem to contradict that thesis just a smidge*.

If these refutations can be defeated through sound debate and presentation of rational arguments, you are free to do so. Until then, a lot of bloviating about echo chambers and whatnot isn't getting us anywhere.





*By smidge, of course, I mean a whole lot.

dmallind
January 16, 2006, 04:24 PM
Which is great boofus but why be so surprised if I apply that to trusting people with their medical decisions, sexual orientation, reproductive rights, religious opinions or lack thereof, entertainment choices, and so on?

carlrodd
January 16, 2006, 04:30 PM
Gosh you're right carlrodd - look back at this thread and you'll see all the vilification is coming from boogyman and I! How could I have been so nasty to all the calm and helpful and collegial posts coming from the majority here?

As a matter of fact I DO dislike political echo chambers - and I apply this to all political proclivities. Free Republic, DU, THR and Bartcop are all cut from the same cloth as far as political discussion goes (luckily there's plenty of healthy give and take on guns themselves here), and all are equally harmful in the exact context you describe. If all people hear is lockstep opinion then not only do they never have to consider opposing viewpoints but they constantly marginalize and dehumanize those who hold them.

To spare offense look at DU and I am sure you will agree. Most Democrats I know - and doubtless most you know too if you talked to them openly and reasonably - are not so viciously antagonistic to anyone who is not a hardcore left-winger, but the groupthink of DU includes and welcomes only those who are. Thus is built up the illusion that all reasonnable people really think as they do - because that's all they hear echoed back to themselves, and so the "mainstream" moves ever and ever leftward on DU and Bartcop, and ever and ever rightward on FR and THR, where "both sides of the political debate" often refers to ardent libertarians vs. social connservatives. It is this kind of reflect and reinforce that causes partisan extremism and, in worst-case scenarios, allows people of one political stripe to absolve themselves of all consideration for those not of it, even to their physical safety and freedom ("Take out Coit tower if you want to", "one well placed nuke in Foggy Bottom" "Liberals should be imprisoned for treason" etc).

Anyone who makes these comments, about liberals OR about neocons, is doing so you can guarantee because they have heard the same crap echoed back to them in groupthink environments so often that they think it's a mainstream and reasonable opinion to have. Plenty of unreasonable opinions and generalized vilification have been stated on this thread, but the vast majority follow the groupthink the site has developed, every single bit as harmfully as DU's groupthink that is so often, and so appropriately, scorned at THR.

sheesh, all i said was boogyman and "friend".......somebody's WELL on the defensive. if you dislike the atmosphere on this site so much, why do you visit it? so i should go and spend more time talking with joe democrat(or republican for that matter), simply for the sake of hearing their point of view? i can gather enough from reading news publications, editorials, message boards, lsitening to news broadcasts, working in the public school system etc., to know that i do not subscribe to the dangerous trend in this country to be so inclusive of everyone's ideas and opinions that i come to not really hold any all........."groupthink".

did it ever occur to you(which i mentioned already) that people might just be drawn to a site like this because they already hold many of the opinions held by others on the site? or that i might think i am reasonably well-informed about certain issues and RIGHT in my thinking? when it comes to certain issues that i have examined thoroughly and formed a stance on, differing opinions tend to become mere chatter. and you my friend do the same, so please do not try to paint yourself as a person that sincerely weighs all opinions that differ from your own. what's the point in believing this or that to be concretely good/bad, true/false if you are "open" to everything.

are you a registered "democrat" or "republican"?......yes? then dispense with the "groupthink" talk. take the first step in freeing your mind and register INDEPENDENT.

boofus
January 16, 2006, 04:31 PM
Which is great boofus but why be so surprised if I apply that to trusting people with their medical decisions, sexual orientation, reproductive rights, religious opinions or lack thereof, entertainment choices, and so on?

Republicans are closer to the libertarian ideal than the 'progressive' communists that make up the left. If neither choice is exactly what you want, then you look for similarities in what choices are available.

If you want a Lexus but all they got is Mercedes and Yugo, guess which most people would take?

dmallind
January 16, 2006, 04:31 PM
So Justin do you feel people who share your opinions are indulging in "sound debate" or "bloviating" when they make sweepoing and inaccurate statemenst about "socialists" . Why I wonder lecture me and boogyman only on debate etiquette and effectiveness? (not that I really wonder...)

I agree with the original thesis (as I had in fact already said) only insofar as it's a broad statement that civilian ownership of guns has not been taken away by politicians of either party. Look again and you'll see I clearly made the point that Dems, on the whole are MORE likely to exercise gun controls regulations than Reps, and that you should weigh this along with all other political considerations.

Carrodd then assumed I was attacking people who agree with the majority opinion, which brought up the unrelated issue of echo chambers.

As a moderator shouldn't you apply your opprobrium and corrections at least a bit more impartially. Neither boogyman nor I slung around labels like "fascist" or opined that all Republicans should take the long walk. Do you believe that this treatment of gun-owning Democrats is more or less appropriate to substantive debate and "the high road" than my far less hateful and kneejerk postings?

If you think it is more valuable then I think the groupthink echo chamber is pretty well proven. If you think it's less valuable or appropriate then why do I not see similar chidings about debate style handed out more impartially?

EDIT - thanks to carlrodd for the doubtless unintended compliment (and who else did you mean by "friend" I wonder....) . I am indeed a registered independent who has voted for Republicans and Independence Party (MN) candidates. My political opinions are closest to Blue Dog Democrats so I identify with them more frequently, but I have several times decided that the Dem is further away from my opinions than an alternative and have voted accordingly. If the Reps ran Hagel for example for President I may consider it. Frist and the other theocracy engineers? Not a chance.

Mad Chemist
January 16, 2006, 04:45 PM
But by your definition of state socialism only the most pure of libertarian idealists are NOT socialists. Brownback is a socialist; DeLay is a socialist; Cheney is a socialist if you use that terminology.
Sorry I couldn't help myself.:D http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=34061&stc=1&d=1137447732
chen_lg2.gif

Byron Quick
January 16, 2006, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by BoogymanHowever, my opinion is just as important as anyone else's.

*sigh* no, in fact, it is not. Take neurosurgery, for just one example, I have the right to an opinion on it but my opinion is absolutely worthless for I have no education, no training, and no experience with neurosurgery. On the other hand, my opinion on emergency nursing has value for I have education, training, and eleven years of experience in that field. In other words, if you have no education, training, or experience about a certain subject then your opinion is just as important as anyone else's who has no education, training, or experience about a subject. It is absolutely worthless.

Originally posted by BoogymanAnd if you can afford the ammo your going to burn, you can afford the price of a machine gun.


So, it's ok with you if the poor are artificially cut off from their right to keep and bear arms? Fine Democrat you are. Give you a hint on just how artificial the market is: A BAR will cost anywhere from 17K to 20K depending on model and condition. A BAR parts kit will cost about $700. Take a look at that latter price. Included in that is the cost of the weapon, paying to have the receiver torch cut in three places according to F Troop regulations, packaging, and trans-atlantic transport. It would be even cheaper than $700 if the receiver cutting costs were subtracted. Oh, yes, the price of ammunition. Restrictions on the import of surplus ammunition keeps the price artificially high. Guess where those restrictions came from.

originally posted by dmallindAgain anyone even vaguely politically aware realizes banning is not on the cards.

So, the people of Chicago, California, and Washington D.C. are not even vaguely politically aware? On the contrary, we are politically aware. We've been aware for quite some time. The NFA that Boogyman is in such awe of, put a $200 tax on machineguns, SBR's, SBS's, suppressors, etc. This was a backdoor attempt at banning at the time. A suppressor cost $5, friend. A Thompson cost $129.95 in the Sears&Roebuck catalog. In 1934, many people, who had a job, were working for less than a dollar a day. The Democrats of the time said,"That damned old Bill of Rights won't let us ban the guns but we can tax them to the point that no one can afford them." Nice people that you hold up as icons worthy of admiration and emulation.

Originally posted by BoogymanYou can have one, just follow the NFA rules.

I have. However, the fact remains that the NFA disqualifies millions of Americans from owning these weapons from the standpoint of their personal incomes. I thought that Democrats were the supporters of the downtrodden-not their oppressors.

Now, before you guys start in on your Republican and conservative hollering-I'm not either one. I believe the Republican Party's policies will lead to catastrophe for this nation. As will the Democratic Party's policies. The difference is that I believe that the catastrophe will occur several decades later with the Republican Party. So, I often vote Republican, in the hope that something fundamental will change in those few decades.

The Republican Party makes me nauseous. The Democratic Party induces active vomiting.

I think that both parties have their collective heads shoved where the sun doesn't shine. The difference is that the Republicans still, at times, remember that things were once different. The Democrats think they see a shining view of the future.

Oh, by the way, isn't the Democratic Party the people who are concerned about the health and welfare of all Americans?Then why isn't the Democratic Party supporting the required use of suppressors at all ranges for noise abatement? You know to protect the health and welfare of the people? As many European nations require their use. With no special licenses or taxes? I'll tell you why: Control of the population is more important to them than the health and welfare of the people. The big controversies in Congress between conservatives and liberals boil down to which areas of our lives are going to be controlled by the government and by how much. The conservatives and liberals are in complete agreement that the government will control. They just fuss about where and how much. That's a real significant choice there, friends.


Originally Posted by dmallind
But by your definition of state socialism only the most pure of libertarian idealists are NOT socialists. Brownback is a socialist; DeLay is a socialist; Cheney is a socialist if you use that terminology.

Exactly. And now that you've realized that the Republicans and Democrats only differ in degree in their support of state socialism, you plan to do what? Keep voting for the party who supports it more than the other? No matter how you cut it, Republicans or Democrats, the lesser of two evils is still an evil. Perhaps you feel, as many do, that 'winning' is more important than your personal principles. I have never voted for a Republican. I have voted against Democrats. Unfortunately, 'none of the above' is not listed as a choice or I would have voted thus in 95% of the elections of the past 33 years.

Mad Chemist
January 16, 2006, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Boogyman
Quote:
However, my opinion is just as important as anyone else's.

*sigh* no, in fact, it is not. Take neurosurgery, for just one example, I have the right to an opinion on it but my opinion is absolutely worthless for I have no education, no training, and no experience with neurosurgery. On the other hand, my opinion on emergency nursing has value for I have education, training, and eleven years of experience in that field. In other words, if you have no education, training, or experience about a certain subject then your opinion is just as important as anyone else's who has no education, training, or experience about a subject. It is absolutely worthless.

Byron, you really should sticky this. As I've noticed you've been forced to repost it a few times.
Sorry kids, your opinions may not be just as important as another's. You opinion must be weighed alongside your experience and technical expertise.
"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake". Tyler

JH

Spot77
January 16, 2006, 05:28 PM
Why is everybody wasting their time trying to teach a pig to sing? :scrutiny:

Old Dog
January 16, 2006, 05:30 PM
I've heretofore stayed away from this ultimately pointless and most divisive thread, yet find I cannot let this statement:
Quote:
However, my opinion is just as important as anyone else's.

*sigh* no, in fact, it is not. Take neurosurgery, for just one example, I have the right to an opinion on it but my opinion is absolutely worthless for I have no education, no training, and no experience with neurosurgery. On the other hand, my opinion on emergency nursing has value for I have education, training, and eleven years of experience in that field. In other words, if you have no education, training, or experience about a certain subject then your opinion is just as important as anyone else's who has no education, training, or experience about a subject. It is absolutely worthless.
go unchallenged.

By this logic, you've just invalidated your own opinions in all your posts on every single theoretical aspect of any matter in any debate concerning subjects in which you've no experience, training or education ...

I am not a neurosurgeon (although I have met one), nor do I have any education, training or experience in this field. Yet, I may still hold a valuable opinion on this subject; for example, there may be ethical or philosophical aspects of neurosurgery upon which I am otherwise qualified to opine ... especially due to my status as a fellow member of the human race or a potential subject of this type of surgery ...

Ironic that so many here repeatedly remonstrate others that even though they've never been to Iraq, they are still qualified to comment on the situation over there ... Or even though they've never been a prison guard, MP, POW or victim of torture, they are qualified to offer strong opinions on Abu Ghraib ... Or having never graduated law school, served as a law enforcement officer, been a victim of violent crime, committed a murder or been sentenced to death, they remain qualified to comment on Tookie Williams' execution ...

It seems the unspoken sentiment ... what you're really saying ... is, "Your opinion is only important to me if you agree with me."

glockamolee
January 16, 2006, 05:46 PM
Boogyman stated: "In our present form, the balance is too far to the right."

Actually, it ISN'T, and here is why:

Imagine a straight running river many years ago. This river went straight through and with our Constitution as originally written. The people on the right side of the river could be looked upon "as the right," those in the middle as "the moderates," and those on the left as, of course "the left."

All of this works as long as the river (which represents popular culture and constitutional law) continues its straight flow through the heart of a Constitutional Republic.

That "river," the WHOLE RIVER, has VEERED sharply to the left. So... the candidate "on the right side of "the river" is still on the left; at least as compared to a few generations ago.

Byron Quick
January 16, 2006, 05:47 PM
"Your opinion is only important to me if you agree with me."


Not at all. And perhaps I should not have said that such an opinion was 'worthless.' However, the opinion of a neurosurgeon on any aspect of neurosurgery is much more valuable than mine. Not to say I don't have opinions on neurosurgery but my opinions are more from the viewpoint of a neurosurgery patient. There are gradations of value. And, yes, in my opinion:D, education, training, and experience in a particular area makes a particular person's opinion either more valuable or less valuable.

Take my fellow moderator in the Hunting Forum, Art Eatman. I will freely admit that his opinion is more valuable than mine. He has more experience and more varied experience as a hunter than I do. Therefore, his opinion is more valuable. Whether he agrees with me or not is a null factor. In light of his experience, if he disagreed with me, it would simply mean that I need to reconsider my less valuable hunting opinion.

There are many people in that forum whose opinion is more valuable than mine for the same reasons I stated earlier: more education, more training, and more experience. All their disagreement with me will do is to make me re-examine my position.

In fact, an opposing opinion which is from a valuable source, is more important than an opinion from a person who has no better education, training, or experience than I do, who happens to agree with me. But, for me to state that my opinion is as good as anyones on any subject is simply contrary to reality. In some areas my opinion will be as good, in some areas worse, in some areas better, and in some areas my opinion will be absolutely worthless. This doesn't prevent me from expressing worthless opinions. It simply keeps me from claiming that my opinion is a good as anyone's opinion. It's not, in many areas.

By this logic, you've just invalidated your own opinions in all your posts on every single theoretical aspect of any matter in any debate concerning subjects in which you've no experience, training or education ...



Exactly! However, I've never jumped up and claimed that my opinion was just as good as anyone's opinion, either. I realized-and accepted-long ago, that it was not.

(Old Dog and others who might want to explore this subject further, let's take it to PM so as to not hijack the thread further, OK?)

Old Dog
January 16, 2006, 05:54 PM
I do understand what you are saying, Byron. Now, I am of the opinion that opinions contrary to one's own are often a good thing -- even when it becomes clear that the person offering such opinion may not have the knowledge or experience to support his/her opinion -- or even if the person's line of thinking is simply woefully bogus. As you say, an opposing opinion causes one to examine one's own position. But the greatest value is that without opposition, meaningful debate will never be stirred up, nor will the onlookers ever get the chance to become educated on the subject -- whatever medium is being used becomes, as previously noted, simply an "echo chamber." Boogyman's original post (even though I believe the foundation of his premise to be flawed) spurred valuable debate and brought facts to light.

carebear
January 16, 2006, 06:20 PM
I would add in Byron's defense, my support of the "chatter" comment.

I often hear the same, moldy, discarded as invalid by thinkers on both sides of an issue long ago, arguments when discussing things I actually have direct knowledge of or experience and research in. I tend now to be fairly curtly dismissive, often interrupting to complete their (often improperly regurgitated) "argument" for them so we can move forward.

That doesn't do much to reflect well on my oft-stated respect for logic and proper debate but it gets so very tiresome to hear the same clap-trap over and over again.

I try to respect the self-determined or at least completely analyzed opinion of others, even when palpably wrong, yet hearing morons repeat the same old nonsense over and over gets old. Particularly when they get self-righteous about it and then refuse to acknowledge the logical inconsistencies or flat-out lack of real evidence to support thair particular position.

It is, in fact, just "chatter" at that point.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 16, 2006, 06:26 PM
Bartholomew, I'm not arguing the fact that Democrats are responsible for most of the gun regulation laws. I don't agree with a lot of them. But some I do.

Such as the NFA rules. Do you think anyone should be able to buy an M-60 from Walmart without I.D?

I'm more concerned with the Democrats who think I shouldn't be able to buy any kind of centerfire rifle ammo or a 1903 Springfield through CMP. You see I don't have to reach back 71 years to create a strawman argument, I can simply cite the statements the Democrats are making about guns RIGHT NOW.

You keep trying to paint this as a debate about removing controls without acknowledging all the additional controls Democrats want to impose on guns. Democrats ban guns every YEAR in states where they have power. Even in states where they don't (like Texas), they try. Yet you are disingenuously characterizing the debate as one between no control at all and status quo.

The platform of the Democratic Party on gun control is definitely not status quo. They have a whole host of gun regulations over and above the current ones that they want to add. Heck, they are still mad that Bush allowed the inane 1994 semi-auto ban to sunset.

Whether you like Democrats or not, at least one other major party is needed to oppose the Republican party. This is what the founding fathers had in mind to keep Absolute Power from Corrupting Absolutely.

Whatever threat Republicans represent to our country, the Democrats represent a worse threat by far, especially on the issue of gun rights. I would be happy to see that change; but I haven't seen anything change on the national level beyond adding some additional weasel-wording to the party platform.

azredhawk44
January 16, 2006, 06:41 PM
For local and state-level races I vote Libertarian IF the candidate has even the slimmest chance of victory. For federal offices I vote for gridlock. Since the Rs control the three elected branches of govt. currently, I will vote for pro-gun and pro-civil liberties Ds in the next batch of congressional elections (yes a slim minority of Ds do fit this description). If party control were reversed, then I would vote for pro-rights Rs instead.

I strongly believe that when we keep govt. fighting amongst itself it becomes much more difficult for them to screw the rest of us.

I believe that blind party loyalty shows a lack of critical thinking.
My loyalty is to the United States of America and the Constitution that preserves our liberty.



+10 to Mad Chemist!!!!

Guys, gridlock is the only thing that protects american liberty.

Cosmoline
January 16, 2006, 06:45 PM
FIrst of all, gun control wasn't even a federal issue until the New Deal. Secondly, the D vs. R distinctions were completely different in the 19th century. The Republicans were led by New England liberals and had little resemblance to today's party.

If you look at the Presidents since gun control became a federal issue, the pattern is clear. FDR introduced gun control on the federal level, and his people wanted to include handguns in the NFA bans. FDR remained a big fan of gun control as part of his socialist agenda and also pushed for the Federal Firearms Act. The next President to push for widespread gun control was LBJ, again a hardcore big government Democrat. From his administration we got the GCA of 1968. Nixon, who was barely a conservative by modern standards, created the BATF. The Reagan administration saw a mixed bag, with both the cop killer bullets act and the Firearms Owners' Protection Act, along with the ban on machine gun importation. The Bush adminstration wasn't great, but pales in comparison with the Clinton Era Assault Weapons Ban the Brady Bill and Clinton's efforts to do a whole lot more than that.

I don't really like GW's administration, but there's no denying the fact that no new gun control has come down from DC since he took over and the AWB was allowed to sunset.

carebear
January 16, 2006, 06:46 PM
If we can get a Court that actually is more originalist than "conservative" we may have a better choice than "gridlock". Some "reverse Ginsbergs". :evil:

We might have a chance to roll back bad law and get the time needed to get decent candidates of any party affiliation into power.

Get back to the Republic we need for real freedom.

On the shooting range AND in the bedroom. ;)

BigFatKen
January 16, 2006, 09:41 PM
Only the POTUS can nominate a member of the Supreme Court. If Kerry had won, we would have a Chuck Schumer and Hillary in the courts now.

carebear
January 16, 2006, 10:23 PM
Oh, I agree. The only chance of getting originalists of any stripe was from a Republican Pres.

I just hope their apparent political leanings are outweighed by their legal convictions.

I want laws overturned, court cases decided to maximize individual liberty and to reempower the people to make political decisions at the lowest level, not Federalize everything.

jdkelly
January 16, 2006, 10:49 PM
Pertaining to our lifetimes, (I'm 54) if you look back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, we have had an equal number of Democratic Presidents (6) and Republican Presidents (6).

I still have my guns.

I am bringing into question the generally held belief that you must support Republican presidential candidates if you want to protect our RTKBA rights.


Since Jan of 1951 the year you were born there have been 5 Democrats and 6Republician Presidents. The Democrats were in office for 22 years and the Republicans for 32. So your original premises that was some equiality to the time spent under both parties is incorrect.

Further more, most of the gun grabbing (Johnson 1968 and Clinton 1994) has been done during the shorter span (perhaps 41%) of the Democrats time in office.

So based on the data you provided, IF YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR GUNS electing Democrats is NOT the way to do it.

But I think you knew that when you first posted!


jdkelly

Wllm. Legrand
January 16, 2006, 10:53 PM
Oh, I agree. The only chance of getting originalists of any stripe was from a Republican Pres.

I just hope their apparent political leanings are outweighed by their legal convictions.

I want laws overturned, court cases decided to maximize individual liberty and to reempower the people to make political decisions at the lowest level, not Federalize everything.

Geez, what are you smoking?

With all respect, HOW IN THE #&!! do you expect the FedGOD to relinquish its power? That scenario is simply not in the playbook in 21st century Amerikan politics. The goal of each wing of the One Great Party is to garner some of the power of the other Wing Of The Party through popular elections (see: Democracy, the God that Failed) by painting the Other Wing Of The Party as the thief of the Big Bounty of The State. Relinquishing power, for its own sake, is akin to madness in their world view.

I thought everyone knew that, but if everyone did we wouldn't have these silly discussions of Republican vs. Democrat. As if it really makes a difference.

I am sure you do not want to hear my suggestions...:cool:

carebear
January 16, 2006, 11:29 PM
Wllm,

I'm fully aware of today's realpolitick. Expecting statists in power to voluntarily relinquish acquired powers is foolish. Having their attempts to acquire more shot down as unConstitutional by originalist judges is about the only non-violent way I see to buy time until the electorate can be awoken.

Boogyman
January 17, 2006, 03:07 PM
When it was completely and utterly pointed out to you that more Democrat presidents have supported gun control than Republican ones, your first move was to voice your support for such laws, thereby contradicting your initial statement, obliterating your very own argument.

By saying "such" laws, you are insinuating that I agree with ALL gun control laws. This is untrue and you know it.

I strongly suggest that you either learn how to debate and construct a rational argument that proves your initial thesis, change your thesis, or admit defeat.

Because you disagree with me? With all the name-calling and ignorant insults that have been hurled at me (troll, pig, fascist, communist, etc.) and accusations (villifying, demonizing, spreading fear, etc.) not ONCE have you admonished anyone else or told them to "learn how to debate".

Because at this point, you're just making yourself look silly.

Now you have joined in the mud-slinging.
You can call me "silly" if you want, but at least I have been courteous, respectful and polite throughout this debate, which is more than I can say for most.



When even the moderators are throwing rocks, you know your in hostile territory.
I would have expected more from the "High Road".

carlrodd
January 17, 2006, 03:19 PM
When even the moderators are throwing rocks, you know your in hostile territory.
I would have expected more from the "High Road".

sniffle, sniffle:(

Justin
January 17, 2006, 03:20 PM
Boogyman, I'll note that you still haven't addressed my point, and have simply elected to continue splitting semantic hairs, which only speaks to the inherent weakness of your central argument.

And honestly, I feel no real initiative to lift a finger to help you out due to your insinuation that I'm a racist.

What goes around comes around.

Boogyman
January 17, 2006, 03:33 PM
Boogyman, I'll note that you still haven't addressed my point, and have simply elected to continue splitting semantic hairs, which only speaks to the inherent weakness of your central argument.

I'm splitting semantic hairs and you are not, aye?

And honestly, I see no real reason to lift a finger to help you out due to your insinuation that I'm a racist.

I already said I wasn't calling you a racist. I was pointing out your attempt to lump all Democrats into a group called "those kind of people".

What goes around comes around.

It's now obvious that I cannot expect any fairness from you. Anything further would be pointless, now that you have admitted your hostility.
Enjoy your mutual admiration club.



ALL HAIL KING JUSTIN!

Justin
January 17, 2006, 03:40 PM
I'm splitting semantic hairs and you are not, aye?

Pointing out the fatal flaws in your argument, you know, the ones where it's shown that far more Democrat presidents have supported and passed gun control legislation than Republicans is hardly splitting semantic hairs.

I already said I wasn't calling you a racist. I was pointing out your attempt to lump all Democrats into a group called "those kind of people".

That's bull, and you know it.

It's now obvious that I cannot expect any fairness from you. Anything further would be pointless, now that you have admitted your hostility.


I think I've been more than fair in putting up with you in this debate. Heck, I practically wrote up a "how to debate properly" essay to go along with it.

Enjoy your mutual admiration club.

If this place were half the mutual admiration club you claim it is, it would probably not have nearly the number of people volunteering their time as moderators. But if that's how you feel about it, I'll simply point out that there are literally hundreds of thousands of other forums out there. So since THR is not to your liking, feel free to go frequent one of those.

*waves*

Justin
January 17, 2006, 03:46 PM
ALL HAIL KING JUSTIN!

Oops. Missed this bit the first time around.

Just so everyone's clear, I'll be accepting offeratory gifts as a sign of my royalty. Would prefer custom 1911 pistols smithed to cycle bullseye wadcutter loads, Ultradot red dot scopes, a Morini CM 22M, ACOG TA011 scopes, JP Rifle-made AR 15 uppers, or a Dillon 550B reloading press with dies for .45 ACP, .223, and 9mm, as well as a Ruger 10/22 that's been tricked out for shooting Sportsman's Team Challenge events.

Oh, and anyone who fails to swear fealty to me on or before 2:30pm, January 21st will have their posting priveleges revoked.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=29698&stc=1

Also, Boogyman, I don't think that your original "ALL HAIL KING JUSTIN!" shows up well enough. If you could, put it in a larger size, a different font*, and a more eye-catching color, it would go a long way towards earning you some grovel points.

*No Comic Sans, it offends the royal eye.

GhostRider66
January 17, 2006, 03:50 PM
Phew! Now that that's pretty much over with, can we take up the issue of the Communist Party constantly being falsely portrayed as anti-free market? I'm getting pretty sick of hearing that. :D

Justin
January 17, 2006, 03:52 PM
GhostRider, I didn't see a "Your majesty" anywhere in your post...

swampsniper
January 17, 2006, 03:56 PM
When even the moderators are throwing rocks, you know your in hostile territory.
I would have expected more from the "High Road".

You are getting a lot more slack than anyone gets on democrat underground.:cuss:

taliv
January 17, 2006, 04:03 PM
hey now, king or no, dont' start hacking on comic sans...

progunner1957
January 17, 2006, 04:07 PM
Pertaining to our lifetimes, (I'm 54) if you look back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, we have had an equal number of Democratic Presidents (6) and Republican Presidents (6).

I still have my guns.
The past does not equal the future. It never has. It never will.
Socialism and liberty cannot coexist.
Exactly right, Swampsniper.

Boogyman, name me five national politicians (Governor, Senator or House member) who wear the tag of "Democrat" who are not dyed- in-the-wool socialists.

You can't do it.

In order to get to the national level, politicians in the Democrat party blindly adhere to the tenets of socialism - including citizen disarmament - or else they are cast aside, plain and simple.

I'm 48 and as Zell Miller (A Democrat) once said, "I remember back when Democrats were actually patriotic and defednded America." Not so with today's Democrats. Socialism is their holy grail. Loyalty to the Constitution is a career breaker in the Democratic party.

Zell Miller has become the most hated despised of Democrats among those Democrats at the national level - simply because he dared to "call a spade a spade."

Vote for whoever you want to - but don't expect Democrats to protect your gun rights. As someone once said, "The definition of insanity is is doing the same thing over and over and over again while expecting a different result."

The current crop of Democrats - more accurately referred to as Demosocialists - will shake your hand, smile to your face and stab you in the back when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Not that the Republican party is the paragon of defending the Bill of Rights these days -but the Republican party is not pathologically obsessed with citizen disarmament, as are Demosocialist politicians.

Therefore, the Republicans get my vote.

Zundfolge
January 17, 2006, 04:55 PM
When even the moderators are throwing rocks, you know your in hostile territory.
I would have expected more from the "High Road".


Translation: Anyone who disagrees with me is doing so just because they are big old meanie doodyheads ... not because they have an honestly different viewpoint than mine.


This notion of "high road" only seems to apply to conservatives/libertarians/Republicans and NEVER to liberals/progressives/Democrats :rolleyes:

Justin
January 17, 2006, 04:57 PM
Hey, that's King big old meanie doodyhead to you, buster.

Now kiss my heavily-ringed hand.

gulogulo1970
January 17, 2006, 05:10 PM
"It's now obvious that I cannot expect any fairness from you. Anything further would be pointless, now that you have admitted your hostility.
Enjoy your mutual admiration club."

Translation: I have lost the argument and need any excuse to run for cover.

Trip20
January 17, 2006, 05:21 PM
:neener:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=15326&d=1127938182

TechBrute
January 17, 2006, 05:31 PM
Pertaining to our lifetimes, (I'm 54) if you look back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, we have had an equal number of Democratic Presidents (6) and Republican Presidents (6).

I still have my guns.
You still have your guns, you just have an exponentially higher number of laws to worry about regarding them. '86 ban? '89 ban? '94 ban? Ok, so that last one barely sunset, but the '86 and '89 bans are still in place, and they were in MY lifetime, and I'm in my early 30's.


"No guns = No crime" Simple, right. Hitler had that idea.
This idea, often seen on t-shirts, is false. Hitler did not implement any gun control.

boofus
January 17, 2006, 05:36 PM
The Weimar government implemented gun control before Hitler became chancellor because the nazis, commies, criminal gangs and other groups were shooting it out with each other. The German politicians at the time were deathly afraid of communists, even Hitler distrusted and feared communists.

Which brings us to the 1968 GCA which is modeled on Weimar/Nazi era language. Which I do believe was passed and signed by Democrats. But nah, they really don't want to ban your guns... it's those evil republicans that want to empty out our gun safes! /sarcasm

Don Gwinn
January 17, 2006, 05:51 PM
Boogyman, you were called a pig, a fascist, and a communist? You're right, that demands a response. Please PM me. I'm on my way out the door right now, but I'll check in and read the thread through tonight.

Being called a troll is, I'm afraid, par for the course when you start a thread with a beginning like this one had. It would be more common to see that from a troll than from anyone else.

If this thread isn't generating more light and less heat (and by "heat" I mean insults and graphic depictions of cartoon urination) by the time I return, it's going bye-bye.)

Herself
January 17, 2006, 06:18 PM
Translation: Anyone who disagrees with me is doing so just because they are big old meanie doodyheads ... not because they have an honestly different viewpoint than mine.
It is very difficult for humans to seperate "disagreement" from "disagreeableness." However, adding more of the latter never reduces the former.

We very naturally assume anyone who disagrees with ourself must not have all the facts or must be delberately wicked.

Of course, this is not so. Starting from the same (and always incomplete -- if any of us knew everything, he would be rather more than human) information, people often reach dramatically different conclusions. Very often, it doesn't matter, as long as we are willing to leave one another alone.

It is when we're not willing to let the other folks go be complete and utter idiots that difficulties arise -- like the Inquisition, or any of the World Wars. This is often awkward, and gets in the way of the usual sorts of work and commerce.

This notion of "high road" only seems to apply to conservatives/libertarians/Republicans and NEVER to liberals/progressives/Democrats :rolleyes:
Hey, now, what's this sandwiching libertarians between conservatives and Republicans?

First off, libertarians come in for plenty of licks from the Right, who suspect (correctly) we are Not Their Sort. Libertarians are not at all interested in compelling Moral Goodness in others, as long as those others mind their own business. This makes them different to much of the Right and the Left.

Second of all, you'll make the conservatives and Republicans very uncomfortable by associating them with libertarians. That's hardly respectful of the feelings of others, now is it?

Third, the traditional American Left gets a hostile reception from many gun-owners because its adherents have so often been outspoken opponents to gun ownership and critical -- often unfairly critical* -- of gun owners. I know Hubert Humpphrey said the right stuff about gun rights, and probably would have walked the walk, too; but the Democrats haven't produced very many Hubert Humphreys in recent years.

It is a very rough sorting that puts all the American Right on the side of gun-owners and all the Left in the opposition; but it is more accurate than otherwise, most of the time, and that cannot be wished away.

--Herself
________________________
* For instance, in "Bowling for Colombine," Micheal Moore is at some pains to associate the NRA with the KKK, despite the two groups having been founded by officers from opposing sides during the Late Unpleasentness and despite the NRA's long-standing policies of nondiscrimination.

Zundfolge
January 17, 2006, 06:37 PM
Hey, now, what's this sandwiching libertarians between conservatives and Republicans?

Because those three groups are all in the same boat in regard to the standard of following the high road is only applied to them, not the other groups listed.

You make the mistake of reading hidden meaning into what I posted.

That said, if I might paraphrase Milton Friedman; I consider myself a Republican with a large "R" and a libertarian with a small "l".

We very naturally assume anyone who disagrees with ourself must not have all the facts or must be delberately wicked.
More often than not, when one is a liberal, progressive and/or Democrat they are likely to honestly believe that the only reason you would support a conservative, libertarian and/or Republican position is because you're mean.

I suggest reading Thomas Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046508995X/104-2097397-7738322?v=glance&n=283155)for a much better explanation of my point.

Zundfolge
January 17, 2006, 07:30 PM
hmm... searched for the words "pig", "communist" and "fascist" and don't find any instance where Mr. Boogyman was called any of them :scrutiny:

I'm sure such "attacks" where edited out by the vast right wing conspiracy.

Norm357
January 17, 2006, 09:26 PM
Democracy and liberty can.

Our founding fathers were mostly liberals, including Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin, Madison and Monroe. Are they "socialists" too?

America is not, and never was intended to be a Democaracy. We are a Republic. Liberals always forget this.

Herself
January 17, 2006, 09:29 PM
Zundfolge, consider it raillery.

Norm357, the meaning of "liberal" has changed quite a bit since the 18th Century. The founders were ultra-liberal in their day, as they favored minimal intrusion by govenment in the conduct of business and in the lives of citizens. "Conservatives" of the day favored tight control of business by the Crown and subjugation of subjects to the power of the Crown. (Socialism wasn't even in the running at the time).

Doesn't mean that these days.

Ideas count more than the labels we stick on them.

--Herself

progunner1957
January 17, 2006, 09:43 PM
Hey, that's King big old meanie doodyhead to you, buster.

Now kiss my heavily-ringed hand.
Ya gotta love a dictator with a sense of humor!!:D

Geno
January 17, 2006, 09:44 PM
Relevant to what? Simple--relevant to what rifles you want to buy. O'kay. Say today, I choose to purchase a Tommy Gun in .45 ACP, full auto through the Sears and Roebuck catalog. I look in the catalog, and uh, they're gone!? For fact, I actually prefer bolt action rifles, but I recall other fool-hearted politics of "assault" rifles. Odd--my rifles have never "assaulted" anyone. And how about your high cap. magazines? How many of those have you purchased in the past about the past decade?

So, you're wrong. You have the rifles that they allow you to buy, but that as far as it goes, my friend. You are right that we need change--change is GOOD! The Democrats and Republicans have held the office for far too long. At this point, I cast my vote to the independents. And let's not even start to discuss the NSA!

Voting Independent and proud of it!

Doc2005

progunner1957
January 17, 2006, 09:46 PM
So based on the data you provided, IF YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR GUNS electing Democrats is NOT the way to do it.

EXACTLY.

Some people are Democrats first, though. Gun rights are an expendable commodity that they are more than willing to throw under the bus to see the realization of a socialist "utopia" here in America.:barf:

It appears that Boogyman stands under that umbrella...

progunner1957
January 17, 2006, 10:06 PM
Well, just to be fair, Bush 41 presided over Ruby Ridge.
Biker

And just to be fair, Clinton presided over the Waco attack, where "The Government" trampled every Constitutional and human right in exsistance, and burned the evidence - American citizens.

Biker
January 17, 2006, 10:25 PM
And just to be fair, Clinton presided over the Waco attack, where "The Government" trampled every Constitutional and human right in exsistance, and burned the evidence - American citizens.
We're on the same page, man. So, when do we chuck the pots and kettles out the damn window and start cooking with 'Revere Ware'?

Biker;)

Kim
January 17, 2006, 11:05 PM
A Request of King Justin if it pleases him-----that the picture of the pissing contest have a figure that is squatting so all people are equally represented in the debate.:D

Silver Bullet
January 18, 2006, 12:39 AM
This is the best thread so far this year. Mr. Roberts' post (#18) is a crusher, absolutely blew the original post (#1) out of the water.

Zundfolge
January 18, 2006, 12:56 AM
Zundfolge, consider it raillery.
Ah ... well okay then :neener:

cracked butt
January 18, 2006, 12:58 AM
I believe it is time for a change, and my hope is the Democrats will win back the Congress and/or Senate, and this will be a big step in fixing the many problems our country faces in these complicated times.


This is the only line I can agree with in the original post. If the Senate and House are controlled by two different parties, there is hope that Congress will get less done. The less work our Federal Government gets done, the better it is for the rest of us.

Silver Bullet
January 18, 2006, 01:06 AM
If the Senate and House are controlled by two different parties, there is hope that Congress will get less done. The less work our Federal Government gets done, the better it is for the rest of us.
Negatory.

#1, If you vote in a Democrat president, there's no guarantee that the Dems won't take the Senate/House on the same election.

#2, I don't want gridlock. I want a government that starts to roll back these ridiculous gun laws. In my opinion that is most likely to occur with Republicans.

cracked butt
January 18, 2006, 01:30 AM
#2, I don't want gridlock. I want a government that starts to roll back these ridiculous gun laws. In my opinion that is most likely to occur with Republicans

OK. Th Republicans have done a few good things in concern to gun rights in the last 5 years, but they need to really grow a spine and do more.

1, If you vote in a Democrat president, there's no guarantee that the Dems won't take the Senate/House on the same election.


A democrat couldn't even buy a vote for me if they tried.

swampsniper
January 18, 2006, 01:54 AM
What worries me is all the talk about running Guliani. I don't think I could bring myself to vote for anyone who can win a NYC election

Silver Bullet
January 18, 2006, 02:35 AM
OK. Th Republicans have done a few good things in concern to gun rights in the last 5 years, but they need to really grow a spine and do more.
Very true. :(

What are they waiting for ? :confused:

swampsniper
January 18, 2006, 02:50 AM
Very true. :(

What are they waiting for ? :confused:

Trying to be all things to all people! We keep looking for a stand on principles, they just look at the next election.

Silver Bullet
January 19, 2006, 10:27 PM
We keep looking for a stand on principles, they just look at the next election.
That could be an argument for term limits.

bogie
January 19, 2006, 10:32 PM
This thread is nothing but yet another installment in "if we can just persuade a 2nd amendment voter to either not vote, or vote democratic, we're gaining ground."

Tell y'all what. If you don't want 'em, just mail 'em to me. I'll pay the postage and the FFL fees.

progunner1957
January 19, 2006, 10:43 PM
Mr. Roberts' post (#18) is a crusher, absolutely blew the original post (#1) out of the water.

I was going to say that Boogyman had been beating a dead horse since post #18, but the horse was DOA with post #1.

Sorry if I offend anyone, but IMHO anyone who owns guns and votes for Democrats - the prime movers in the effort to confiscate them - is a fool, plain and simple.

The Poohbahs in the Democrat party have themselves said that gun confiscation is their ultimate goal. If you own guns, why in the hell would you vote for them??

Come to think of it, I'm not sorry after all.:D

Silver Bullet
January 19, 2006, 11:58 PM
This thread is nothing but yet another installment in "if we can just persuade a 2nd amendment voter to either not vote, or vote democratic, we're gaining ground."
Yup. We've had a boatload of these, too. This one was particularly transparent. What's worse, I'm guessing we're going to see a lot more around election time. Too many to get involved with all of them, I think I'll wait until nearer the elections. Just take on one now and then to keep from getting rusty. :p

thorn726
January 20, 2006, 01:10 PM
if a bunch of hyper conservatives hadnt made Alcohol illegal we wouldnt have needed to put all those agents to work on something else when prohibition was repealed.

FURTHER- if we didnt have ultra conservative drug laws exponentially increasing the value of illegal drug trade, we wouldnt have massively violent gangs machine gunning each other, the fuel of the anti gun movement in the US.

make drugs legal, make guns legal, and take responsibilty for educating your children on both and we have hope for a decent society.

otherwise, the republicans may not be taking away the guns, but they are the ones causing the problems that lead to gun regs

progunner1957
January 20, 2006, 02:22 PM
if we didnt have ultra conservative drug laws exponentially increasing the value of illegal drug trade, we wouldnt have massively violent gangs machine gunning each other, the fuel of the anti gun movement in the US.

You are completely missing the point. This throws more fuel on the "The Government needs more power over the people" fire being fanned by socialists in our culture and "our" (ha, ha) government.

Owen
January 20, 2006, 02:23 PM
Progunner,

I haven't seen many Dems advocating rolling back the war on drugs.

Silver Bullet
January 21, 2006, 01:29 AM
otherwise, the republicans may not be taking away the guns, but they are the ones causing the problems that lead to gun regs
I doubt crime has much to do with gun regs. It's statists wanting to get control. Crime is just the excuse.

beerslurpy
January 21, 2006, 04:59 AM
Just lock this retarded thread and ignore boogyman in the future. He is an ignorant political hack that for some reason is trying to boost for the democrats on gun boards, in an era where the democrats are still the party everyone associates with gun control.

Lets examine all the things we love and hate about gun control and statism and then review who gave it to us:
-14th amendment- abolitionist republicans
-18th amendment- anti-saloon lobby
-NFA- probably a combination of revenuer lobbying and a general desire to disarm the public on the part of FDR and friends
-68 GCA- democrats, in the wake of the realization that black people had acquired guns. Created the FFL system and the 4473/bound book system. Also created the importation and sporting purposes BS.
-86 FOPA- republicans/reagan had mostly taken over government and began responding to widespread annoyance at the ATF actions undertaken under the authority of the 68 GCA. A NJ democrat slipped in the MG ban.

The general theme is one of a particular group seizing the wheel and driving liberty into the nearest ditch. At this point, I consider it all to be water under the bridge. Many of the people that got the preceeding laws passed are no longer in power or even alive. The following is why gun owners still hate the Democrats.

Around the early 90s, the current/previous generation of Democrats realized that they could appear tough on crime by passing gun control. This would let them steal the anti-crime toughness issue from reagan and the republicans. The Roberti-Roos trial balloon succeeded, so they began a national level push along similar lines. This was a Democrat/left strategy that culminated in:
-93 brady bill
-94 awb
-unintended political consequences

After 94, gun owners mobilized and began voting. This was practically unheard of before 94. The people who voted for the AWB got mostly kicked out of office and we have since gotten mostly republicans to replace them. Here is why the republicans are seen as being generally pro gun:
-at the state level, we have CCW in nearly 40 states
-the AWB is gone
-we have the gun manufacturer immunity bill
-probably nationwide CCW reciprocity in the works

The 2nd amendment caucus in the house is ALL republicans. The ones who beat the gun control drum the loudest are all democrats. Conservative western and southern democrats cringe whenever ted kennedy opens his mouth because he is putting their political carreers in jeopardy.

If you enjoyed reading about "I Still Have My Guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!