The DB is just one reasonable inch - technologically reasonably as well as rational. The question is, what is the next reasonable resonable inch? Expanding the medical conditions that "qualify" for inclusion on the exclusion list? Regulating firearm parts like barrels like they did with "hi-cap" mags during the ban? This IMO is just a piece of a larger agenda.
A Gun -control exchange from Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate:
- Thread starter chieftain
- Start date
- Status
Wombat
Member
Her comments include a surprisingly clear statement of what Hilary would do if it were not for those "very powerful political winds":
In other words she realizes that passing laws and making guns illegal has not solved the problem. So what is her solution?
She realizes that more laws to make guns double extra-special illegal will not be "enough", so her answer is to "get guns off the street" with no distinction between legal and illegal - make them all disappear. But because of those bad winds that stop her from doing what she knows will solve the problem she will have to settle for enforcing the laws already on the books.
Scary.
We had best keep those winds a-blowin'.
PHP:
illegal guns are the cause of so much death and injury in our countryIn other words she realizes that passing laws and making guns illegal has not solved the problem. So what is her solution?
PHP:
doing enough to try to get guns off the streetShe realizes that more laws to make guns double extra-special illegal will not be "enough", so her answer is to "get guns off the street" with no distinction between legal and illegal - make them all disappear. But because of those bad winds that stop her from doing what she knows will solve the problem she will have to settle for enforcing the laws already on the books.
Scary.
We had best keep those winds a-blowin'.
BobbyQuickdraw
Member
Must. Resist. Urge. To become. Embroiled. In. Political. Argument.
While guns are important, I'm not a 1 issue voter, though if I was, I'd probably choose guns. After all, an armed populace is one that isn't dominated or controlled, but one that exists in freedom.
I dont want people voting Democrat just so theres not a republican in office. Vote for who is best and in line with your beliefs. And as unpopular as it is, I still support George Bush, and if people read facts, and not media bias, they might too.
Bush Economic Growth Rate: 3.5%
Clinton Economic Growth Rate: 3.3%
Federal Revenue Increase over Average: .2%
Bush Deficit as Percentage of GDP: 1.9% (2006 number)
Clinton Deficit as Percentage of GDP: 2.2%
Current Unemployment Rate 4.6% lower now than under Clinton.
But I find myself being drawn into what would surely become an argument.
But I think we can all agree that Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are horrible choices BASED SOLELY on their position on guns. If you like them for other reasons, ok.
Guiliani and Romney are also both pretty poor choices BASED SOLELY on their position on guns.
As my Signature attests, I'm biased towards Huckabee, but he is perfect BASED SOLELY on his record on guns. Thompson is good, Paul is good, and McCain is moderate - he's had the wool pulled over his eyes before.
While guns are important, I'm not a 1 issue voter, though if I was, I'd probably choose guns. After all, an armed populace is one that isn't dominated or controlled, but one that exists in freedom.
I dont want people voting Democrat just so theres not a republican in office. Vote for who is best and in line with your beliefs. And as unpopular as it is, I still support George Bush, and if people read facts, and not media bias, they might too.
Bush Economic Growth Rate: 3.5%
Clinton Economic Growth Rate: 3.3%
Federal Revenue Increase over Average: .2%
Bush Deficit as Percentage of GDP: 1.9% (2006 number)
Clinton Deficit as Percentage of GDP: 2.2%
Current Unemployment Rate 4.6% lower now than under Clinton.
But I find myself being drawn into what would surely become an argument.
But I think we can all agree that Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are horrible choices BASED SOLELY on their position on guns. If you like them for other reasons, ok.
Guiliani and Romney are also both pretty poor choices BASED SOLELY on their position on guns.
As my Signature attests, I'm biased towards Huckabee, but he is perfect BASED SOLELY on his record on guns. Thompson is good, Paul is good, and McCain is moderate - he's had the wool pulled over his eyes before.
Gingerbreadman
Member
I am against illegal guns too. If we made all guns legal, than there would be no more illegal guns. Now that the illegal gun problem is solved, lets move on to the real issues.
Hmmm, I think I'll be getting that normal capacity deer huntin' rifle(Yugo AK) I've been looking at a little sooner than I was planning...
Obama, quite frankly, scares me to death. Hillary is a politician, she won't let her "beliefs" get in the way of that. I don't like Huckabee, but with a Democrat controlled congress he's harmless. McCain, Guiliani, and Romney could be better, but I think they'll tow the line well enough. Well, McCain probably will, the other two may try to score brownie points by crossing party lines. Fred or Paul would be ideal, but I'm not sure if either is a viable candidate.
Obama, quite frankly, scares me to death. Hillary is a politician, she won't let her "beliefs" get in the way of that. I don't like Huckabee, but with a Democrat controlled congress he's harmless. McCain, Guiliani, and Romney could be better, but I think they'll tow the line well enough. Well, McCain probably will, the other two may try to score brownie points by crossing party lines. Fred or Paul would be ideal, but I'm not sure if either is a viable candidate.
Hokkmike
Member
Bad...but much better than Obama's position of wanting a national law prohibiting CCW. Of course, neither will get my vote.
Poper
Member
[She obviously has no idea of what the actual AWB did, she has no idea of what kinds of crime we and our brethren in the law enforcement community face, and she has no idea of how to fight that crime.]Don't kid yourself! Hillary knows EXACTLY what the AWB did/didn't and she know EXACTLY what kinds of crime we and LEO's face and probably knows what is necessary to fight it. But that is NOT the purpose of disarming the People or removing their right to arm themselves with EBR's.
Remember! Hillary is NOT stupid. She is just a plain eqotistical, power hungry, narcissistic Liberal. Give her half an opportunity and she will be the Sadam Hussein of the west. I.E. Of no strong religious conviction and a will to be a ruthless, selfish dictator. Nothing would suit her tastes better! She knows exactly what she said and exactly what she wants.
We sell her short at our own risk!
Fortunately, I for one, do not believe she is electable; her "dislikes" are way too high. If she make VP....
Look out President Obama!
Just my two cents...
Poper
chieftain
Member
Interesting. Which Dimocrat do you think will do that? I do know some Republicans that might. That ain't much difference but it is a difference.
They already did. It was the 94 AWB that oppressed us for 10 years, until the Republican controlled Congress and White house did not push to renew it. Some Dimocrats in the congress did. 'W' did say he would sign it if it came to his desk, but did nothing to help it, and most of us 'knew' the republican's in Congress would not pass it. They didn't , he didn't.
So thinking that the Dimocrats will do it again is not much of a stretch. In fact only a kool aide drinker would expect otherwise. All we could hope for, that other issues tied them up long enough that we 'might' nail them and get them out of office before they succeed.
And that's a fact jack.
Do you know or have seen a rational candidate that does that? And please don't put on your tin foil hat, crank up your conspiracy machine, and expound a zero foreign policy credo. It will not work. Kooks don't get a second look. I do like Paul on the constitution, but the rest of his agenda is as if he fell off the edge of the world.
Go figure.
Fred
BobbyQuickdraw
Member
Considering a lot of scholars view most Federal taxes as illegal under the Constitution, you'll never find a Democrat that fully believes in it, as every single one of them in the running this year wants to hike taxes. Though some (Obama, at least) wants to cut taxes for the middle class. But pay for health care and all this other stuff.
News Flash: You can't CUT taxes and PAY for more stuff. You can't reduce revenue and increase expenditure without creating deficit. But its a nice way to get votes from the middle by telling them you'll cut their taxes.
Also FREE Health Care doesn't exist for anyone who makes money over the poverty line. In fact, your health care costs are going up. Because you're now paying, through new taxes, to send other people to the hospital. Money has to come from somewhere - your paycheck.
The bunch that seems to be really backing her majesty is the over the hill feminists. It doesn't make sense that they would though, because she got where she is by hanging on to and putting up with her hubbie's shenanagins long enough for her to get where he is and then try and take over. There relationship is a pact with the devil. I wonder just how much she REALLY has on him to keep him in her corner. We"ll probably never know but we can be sure that they and all the other Democrats will indeed try to disarm us if they get to the white house. They don't understand us because we like our guns and we don't understand them because they hate them. Far too many gun owners have a live and let live attitude and don't seem to realize that these people are real and won't give up.
siglite
Member
Bush recently proved that republican's don't want you armed either.
So... I'll keep this short.
See signature.
So... I'll keep this short.
See signature.
Where have you anti Democrat fanatics been the last 8 years???? The last 8 years of republican control almost completely destroyed the constitution and the rights if the individual, yet the decades of GOP progaganda ie talk radio and cable TV has left you unable to see the walls caving in around you. Wake up and smell the facisim...
22-rimfire
Member
Cornman, I have no idea what you are referring to with regard to Republicans and the last 8 years; more like 7?
-terry
Member
Cornman,
+1
Some of these guys just don't get it.:banghead:
+1
Some of these guys just don't get it.:banghead:
chieftain
Member
I have been voting Republican. Please be explicit as to where the Constitution and the rights of the individual were destroyed by The GOP. Make sure it is not just follow up of the damage done by the Dimocrats.
Ah, the elitist, “you cannot see what I see“. Following the kool aide script. Oh, yea, one problem many of the Communist/Dimocrat/Socialist/Liberal/Progressive’s have with us is that we are Pro American. Seems to me that bothers a lot of Liberals that we do not blame America first.
As to Fascism, impossible. We are not socialist’s, the first requirement to be a fascist. Yea, hate to tell you that the NAZI’s were National SOCIALISTS. Much closer to Dimocrat Dogma than any thing the Republicans expound.
Now unlike the Dimocrats, the Republicans ain’t perfect. As of late they are acting more and more like Dimocrats, that IS the problem.
What I recommend every Dimocrat to do. Use your policies, without my money. And if the Dimocrats don't take my guns, I don't think the Republicans will.
Go figure.
Fred
The complete video is here: http://www.nrapvf.org/
The Wall Street Journal quoted Hillary, but did not mention the rest. Judge for yourself!
The Wall Street Journal quoted Hillary, but did not mention the rest. Judge for yourself!
precisionshootist
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 186
Clinton Economic Growth Rate: (As a result of Clinton Fiscal policy): 0.0%
There fixed it!!
mgregg85
Member
All the dem candidates are pretty bad when it comes to gun rights.
Hillary wants NYC style gun control for the nation and the AWB back.
Obama wants a national ban on CCW and a ban on all semiautomatic weapons.
Edwards wants the AWB and thinks the 2A protects hunting rights.
RINO Giuliani wants more gun control but lies about it.
RINO Romney wants an AWB and is clueless about guns and 2A rights.
Now I know the last two aren't with the democratic party but they really might as well be.
Hillary wants NYC style gun control for the nation and the AWB back.
Obama wants a national ban on CCW and a ban on all semiautomatic weapons.
Edwards wants the AWB and thinks the 2A protects hunting rights.
RINO Giuliani wants more gun control but lies about it.
RINO Romney wants an AWB and is clueless about guns and 2A rights.
Now I know the last two aren't with the democratic party but they really might as well be.
And a pig, wearing a blanket, is still not a pig-in-a-blanket.
One of the most terrifying aspects of fascism is the fact that the government attampts absolute control over the populace, through the use of private corporations - at the same time as those corporations gain total control over the government. Why do you think our government needs to have privately-owned armies, police forces, correctional institutions, schools...
chieftain
Member
Well let me offer the key.
Fascism is terrifying. that is why we must do everything we can to prevent the Socialist Dimocrats from gaining office. Cannot have fascism without socialism.
There is no privately owned armies in America. Myth
Government does not control the country via companies. Myth. The source of this type of thinking is from basic Communist/Democrat/Socialist/Liberal/Progressive, class warfare thinking.
The reason we do have, private police forces working for governments, and correctional institutes and schools, is because the government that the socialists want to increase and run even more of our institutions are and is incompetent.
My complaint is the Socialist's need to control my life, at the same time they admit they can't do or run the institutions they are SUPPOSED TO RUN.
Only a socialist thinks that big corporations run this country. It may seem that way to many folks. But look at what is happening right now.
A bunch of the biggest banks in the country are folding, and being bought up. If they were running things, how could that happen? (waiting rationalizations)
Enron, WorldComm, all went tits up, not because they controlled anything, but because when it was discovered they were crooks, the Republican administration went after them for what they were allowed to do during the Dimocrat administration. yea.
The present problem is that the banks were making bad loans. Let them go. They have destroyed themselves. Will many little guys get hurt. Yup. If you got a sub prime loan you may be in trouble. Mainly because you were not qualified for a 'normal' loan. Vilifying the lender for making the loan is interesting. One could get seriously angry at them for risking their corporation, but not usually a concern of socialists.
I believe many of those sub prime loans will be good, by many will not be. It is called easy credit with all the good and bad that go with it. The companies that did it deserve to go down, those that maintained decent lending standards deserve to thrive.
We can blame all the 'BIG' company's we want, but it is us the little guys who borrowed the money and moved into houses we could not really afford.
My complaint is that minority shareholders of these companies cannot sue the officers and board of the company. By the way it was the Dimocrats that passed the laws that allowed the officers and boards to be protected. Since that time CEO/officer income has soared. But it is private money. Just allow a small shareholder to sue, for valid reasons. (the reason the laws came into effect. For instance. A ecology nut would buy one share than sue the company for it's treatment of the environment. It was bogging all companies into nothingness.)
Anyway, the basic precept of Fascism is socialism. We conservatives are anything but socialists. We want less government, but we do want government doing what it is charged with doing.
No company will keep me from owning or in most cases using a gun, a Dimocrat would.
No Company would increase my taxes, a Dimocrat would.
No Company would tell me what type of vehicle to drive, a Dimocrat would.
No Company would take my right to use my own property as I would, a Dimocrat would.
ETC.......
Pig in a blanket is a pig in a blanket. No pig in any blanket here, except in some peoples desperate need to invent one.
Go figure.
Fred
Fascism is terrifying. that is why we must do everything we can to prevent the Socialist Dimocrats from gaining office. Cannot have fascism without socialism.
There is no privately owned armies in America. Myth
Government does not control the country via companies. Myth. The source of this type of thinking is from basic Communist/Democrat/Socialist/Liberal/Progressive, class warfare thinking.
The reason we do have, private police forces working for governments, and correctional institutes and schools, is because the government that the socialists want to increase and run even more of our institutions are and is incompetent.
My complaint is the Socialist's need to control my life, at the same time they admit they can't do or run the institutions they are SUPPOSED TO RUN.
Only a socialist thinks that big corporations run this country. It may seem that way to many folks. But look at what is happening right now.
A bunch of the biggest banks in the country are folding, and being bought up. If they were running things, how could that happen? (waiting rationalizations)
Enron, WorldComm, all went tits up, not because they controlled anything, but because when it was discovered they were crooks, the Republican administration went after them for what they were allowed to do during the Dimocrat administration. yea.
The present problem is that the banks were making bad loans. Let them go. They have destroyed themselves. Will many little guys get hurt. Yup. If you got a sub prime loan you may be in trouble. Mainly because you were not qualified for a 'normal' loan. Vilifying the lender for making the loan is interesting. One could get seriously angry at them for risking their corporation, but not usually a concern of socialists.
I believe many of those sub prime loans will be good, by many will not be. It is called easy credit with all the good and bad that go with it. The companies that did it deserve to go down, those that maintained decent lending standards deserve to thrive.
We can blame all the 'BIG' company's we want, but it is us the little guys who borrowed the money and moved into houses we could not really afford.
My complaint is that minority shareholders of these companies cannot sue the officers and board of the company. By the way it was the Dimocrats that passed the laws that allowed the officers and boards to be protected. Since that time CEO/officer income has soared. But it is private money. Just allow a small shareholder to sue, for valid reasons. (the reason the laws came into effect. For instance. A ecology nut would buy one share than sue the company for it's treatment of the environment. It was bogging all companies into nothingness.)
Anyway, the basic precept of Fascism is socialism. We conservatives are anything but socialists. We want less government, but we do want government doing what it is charged with doing.
No company will keep me from owning or in most cases using a gun, a Dimocrat would.
No Company would increase my taxes, a Dimocrat would.
No Company would tell me what type of vehicle to drive, a Dimocrat would.
No Company would take my right to use my own property as I would, a Dimocrat would.
ETC.......
Pig in a blanket is a pig in a blanket. No pig in any blanket here, except in some peoples desperate need to invent one.
Go figure.
Fred
Yea. the fascists sure did believe in Capitalism. Not. They wanted to destroy it. I guess if you got your education from liberal [professors you might think the Corporation worked for the fascists. Well you might too if they would just take your company and nationalize it if you did not. Like holding a gun to your head. The Fascists controlled the Corporations and forced them by threat to march to the government plan. Kinda like severe regulation of the Socialist sort. Kinda like you know which party in the USA. Everything for the COMMON GOOD and the STATE. Russia was International socialism. Fascism was Nationalist Socialism. They two hated each other cause they both wanted POWER. Think of them as two fighting Mafia families sired by the same father with different mothers.
EOTechRulesAll
member
Anybody who thinks Mike Huckabee is a real conservative, needs to watch this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GpjVMEld0g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GpjVMEld0g
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
-terry:
Terry, I keep telling these guys that this isn't a gun forum and that they need to wait for you to tell them what's important but they don't listen to me. They seem to believe that the primary focus of this forum is firearms and they keep trying to think for themselves. Straighten them out.
Who is "Bushy"? Is that what sophisticated people call the President of the United States of America? If so what are the sophisticates' names for other aspects of this country that the unsophisticated amongst us actually respect and which many of us actually served?
I can see why someone like Hillary Clinton might appeal to you. (Or do you call her something like "Pillary Clington" or another sophisticated name?) She was born in 1947 and found her own voice in 2008. That poor woman was speaking in someone else's voice for 60 years. It must be hard to live so long and talk in someone else's voice for all that time. I wonder how she can recognize herself when she speaks.
At any rate you seem to "get it" and the rest of us don't. Enlighten us. Tell us what's important to us, please? It's time we had such a knowledgable person in control of everyone.
Terry, I keep telling these guys that this isn't a gun forum and that they need to wait for you to tell them what's important but they don't listen to me. They seem to believe that the primary focus of this forum is firearms and they keep trying to think for themselves. Straighten them out.
Who is "Bushy"? Is that what sophisticated people call the President of the United States of America? If so what are the sophisticates' names for other aspects of this country that the unsophisticated amongst us actually respect and which many of us actually served?
I can see why someone like Hillary Clinton might appeal to you. (Or do you call her something like "Pillary Clington" or another sophisticated name?) She was born in 1947 and found her own voice in 2008. That poor woman was speaking in someone else's voice for 60 years. It must be hard to live so long and talk in someone else's voice for all that time. I wonder how she can recognize herself when she speaks.
At any rate you seem to "get it" and the rest of us don't. Enlighten us. Tell us what's important to us, please? It's time we had such a knowledgable person in control of everyone.
- Status
