ShaiVong
Member
If Jiggelo John makes it into the oval office, I expect to be 'never taken alive' very soon.
But I expect to take some with me.
But I expect to take some with me.
What will four years under Kerry spell for gun owners?
- Thread starter Ryan1021
- Start date
- Status
a random jerk
Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 24
I doubt a Kerry presidency would be disastrous. Unless, of course, the Dems take back the congress. Should that happen, I'll weep for our nation.
Say hello to emasculated European-style socialism!
Say hello to emasculated European-style socialism!
Marshall
Member
At minmum, I see a federal tax on guns and ammo on the horizon. I don't even want to think about the most I can see happening if Kerry is elected.
This man Kerry, is a nightmare for our country. I can think of so many issues has that will ruin our country in many ways, I hate to even list them.
He must be defeated!
Do not give up on Bush yet, the man is great in the underdog roll. He has been underestimated his entire political career but yet, here he is president and he hasn't yet begun to fight.
Actually, I believe the tides are turning back toward Bush. The middle of this country are the people who elected him and they aren't going to change. I believe the far left are those we hear the most from because of the far left media. I think Bush stands an extremely good chance of getting the average center and right-center americans vote. You know he's going to be picking up a tremendous Mexican vote. Though, I don't support why he will.
The sad thing is, the more and more there are people born and raised in the large cities away from guns, the harder it is for our cause. And, the large cities population grows faster also.
This man Kerry, is a nightmare for our country. I can think of so many issues has that will ruin our country in many ways, I hate to even list them.
He must be defeated!
Do not give up on Bush yet, the man is great in the underdog roll. He has been underestimated his entire political career but yet, here he is president and he hasn't yet begun to fight.
Actually, I believe the tides are turning back toward Bush. The middle of this country are the people who elected him and they aren't going to change. I believe the far left are those we hear the most from because of the far left media. I think Bush stands an extremely good chance of getting the average center and right-center americans vote. You know he's going to be picking up a tremendous Mexican vote. Though, I don't support why he will.
The sad thing is, the more and more there are people born and raised in the large cities away from guns, the harder it is for our cause. And, the large cities population grows faster also.
carp killer
Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 340
The burning question I want to know is WHO in Massachussetts votes for Kerry for their Senator????? Welfare queens, lazy union members, sheep???
longeyes
member
Right. But it's in the cities that you NEED self-defense, not out in the boonies. People may figure that one out eventually.
RealGun
Member
Yeah, really. What is with Massachusetts? John Kerry and Ted Kennedy...jeez!
La Pistoletta
Member
"During that time the Democrats could gain strength, elect more Democrats to Congress in 2008, and then WATCH OUT!...ultra liberal all the way, the true John Kerry."
Hey. No offence, but I think it's really time for all Americans to reevaluate the meaning of 'liberal'.
An "ultra-liberal" as you said would not prohibit any kind of weapon, save for WMD and possibly anti-infantry mines. Liberal basically means "no prohibitions".
Just say it like it is instead, he's a Democrat. A collectivist, a prohibitionist. A liberalist would be a good thing, but there's no such person up for election.
Hey. No offence, but I think it's really time for all Americans to reevaluate the meaning of 'liberal'.
An "ultra-liberal" as you said would not prohibit any kind of weapon, save for WMD and possibly anti-infantry mines. Liberal basically means "no prohibitions".
Just say it like it is instead, he's a Democrat. A collectivist, a prohibitionist. A liberalist would be a good thing, but there's no such person up for election.
RealGun
Member
Your good manners are refreshing.
I think the political context of the use of "liberal" is liberal use of government as well as liberal and advantageous interpretation of the Constitution. "Licentious" might be a better term, although not likely one they would adopt for themselves.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: li·cen·tious
Pronunciation: lI-'sen(t)-sh&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin licentiosus, from licentia
1 : lacking legal or moral restraints; especially : disregarding sexual restraints
2 : marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness
- li·cen·tious·ly adverb
- li·cen·tious·ness noun
Airedale1
Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2003
- Messages
- 268
No need for speculation..........
...........and conjecture regarding this question. If you really want to know just go to http://www.packing.org/ and look up Massachusetts and you will see some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation.
Also, check out the very long list there of guns you are not allowed to own in that state. It is sad.
...........and conjecture regarding this question. If you really want to know just go to http://www.packing.org/ and look up Massachusetts and you will see some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation.
Also, check out the very long list there of guns you are not allowed to own in that state. It is sad.
La Pistoletta
Member
Hehe, yeah, RealGun, I agree. Maybe they just thought 'liberal' sounded nice.
In fact, we have some people that call themselves liberals here as well, and they're basically social Democrats with a little tilt to the right. Still collectivist. The difference is that while you have a more right-wing party (republicans) that competes with your Democrats, the "liberal" party here is the third most right-wing that is not nationalist and the most right-wing party (the moderates) is comparable to your Democrats. :/
In fact, we have some people that call themselves liberals here as well, and they're basically social Democrats with a little tilt to the right. Still collectivist. The difference is that while you have a more right-wing party (republicans) that competes with your Democrats, the "liberal" party here is the third most right-wing that is not nationalist and the most right-wing party (the moderates) is comparable to your Democrats. :/
Has anyone seen 'Distinguished Gentelmen'?
The seen with Eddie Murphy and Lane Smith duck hunting. The blind flies down and all the congressmen start shooting into the are with M16's. A duck actually drops. Eddie Murphy laughes and says,"Must of had a heart attack." Man that was great. clipse
B
BeLikeTrey
Guest
Tax Tax Tax
He has already said that he wants to bring some tax cuts to the chopping block and do away with some tax breaks. Why not be a "Hero" and start taxing firearms and ammo to keep some of Bush's tax cuts in? Then, having set the precedent for taxing firearms, he can (or his friends) can tax them into oblivion. Tax ammo enough, or ban it and the firearm is thus banned defacto. no ammo? no use for the gun. and it is incrementally implemented. Tax, tax, tax.... anyone wanna bet on this ?
He has already said that he wants to bring some tax cuts to the chopping block and do away with some tax breaks. Why not be a "Hero" and start taxing firearms and ammo to keep some of Bush's tax cuts in? Then, having set the precedent for taxing firearms, he can (or his friends) can tax them into oblivion. Tax ammo enough, or ban it and the firearm is thus banned defacto. no ammo? no use for the gun. and it is incrementally implemented. Tax, tax, tax.... anyone wanna bet on this ?
longeyes
member
He can try.
But Oblivion can be a troublesome place.
entropy
Member
Four years under Kerry?! Buy 'em cheap now, and bury 'em deep! The life you save may well be your own. 'Course how many had their BOB's in hand when Slick Willie won? (Twice!
)
FWIW, an M16A1 would make a fine quail gun, I used to bust coveys all the time at Ft. Ord. With a BFA, on though!
'Course how many had their BOB's in hand when Slick Willie won? (Twice! )FWIW, an M16A1 would make a fine quail gun, I used to bust coveys all the time at Ft. Ord.
With a BFA, on though!Splat Shot
Member
If Kerry gets elected I predict a run on 6-8" diameter PVC pipe and end caps at Home Depot & Lowes. Maybe the shovels too.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
As previous posters have mentioned, he doesn't NEED Congress to enact some extremely onerous policies. Under NFA '34, all shotguns above .50 caliber (which means all 20-gauge, 12-gauge, etc.) can be banned by executive fiat if the SecTreas (or whoever) designates them as "not suitable for sporting purposes." So if he wanted to, he could outlaw all defensive-style shotguns with the stroke of a pen.
Creative (and illegal) ex post facto twisting of 27 CFR 922(r) import regulations could conceivably outlaw a lot of foreign-made "black rifles" overnight, including those already lawfully possessed by American citizens.
Federal agents on public roads within 1000 feet of school property, looking for probable cause to search your car and bust you for a felony violation of the Gun-Free School Zones act.
Creative system-bungling with the NCIS system to turn the "instant check" into a waiting period.
Intimidation-style visits to FFL's to "discourage" the sale of politically incorrect firearms, or to hassle as many FFL's as possible out of business.
Weekly anti-gun press releases that make front-page news, everywhere.
Creative reinterpretation of the "Assault Weapons Ban" (if renewed) to mean that a Bushmaster XM-15 is a "copy" of an AR-15 under the law, and therefore illegal.
Federal prosecutors going after people who use guns in self-defense.
The appointment of Ninth-Circus-style judges to Federal court benches all over the country.
Signing of a UN Convention on Small Arms.
"Trade agreements" with other countries to prohibit gun imports.
The appointment of new Supreme Court justices . . .
The possibilities are endless--and chilling.
Creative (and illegal) ex post facto twisting of 27 CFR 922(r) import regulations could conceivably outlaw a lot of foreign-made "black rifles" overnight, including those already lawfully possessed by American citizens.
Federal agents on public roads within 1000 feet of school property, looking for probable cause to search your car and bust you for a felony violation of the Gun-Free School Zones act.
Creative system-bungling with the NCIS system to turn the "instant check" into a waiting period.
Intimidation-style visits to FFL's to "discourage" the sale of politically incorrect firearms, or to hassle as many FFL's as possible out of business.
Weekly anti-gun press releases that make front-page news, everywhere.
Creative reinterpretation of the "Assault Weapons Ban" (if renewed) to mean that a Bushmaster XM-15 is a "copy" of an AR-15 under the law, and therefore illegal.
Federal prosecutors going after people who use guns in self-defense.
The appointment of Ninth-Circus-style judges to Federal court benches all over the country.
Signing of a UN Convention on Small Arms.
"Trade agreements" with other countries to prohibit gun imports.
The appointment of new Supreme Court justices . . .
The possibilities are endless--and chilling.
^^ exactly ^^
Obviously Bush isn't the greatest president we could have, with respect to 2nd amendment freedoms, or in general, but with the current alternative, it really is a no brainer. Would I like to vote libertarian this November? Of course, but I can't sit by in good conscience and knowingly let the absolute worst possible candidate ever waltz in.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Obviously Bush isn't the greatest president we could have, with respect to 2nd amendment freedoms, or in general, but with the current alternative, it really is a no brainer. Would I like to vote libertarian this November? Of course, but I can't sit by in good conscience and knowingly let the absolute worst possible candidate ever waltz in.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Monkeyleg
Member.
Recent polls are showing Bush and Kerry either neck-and-neck, or with Kerry having a slight lead.
Lock and load, buy ammo when you can, and buy cases of Vaseline. We could be facing four or even eight years of rough road.
John Kerry.
Lock and load, buy ammo when you can, and buy cases of Vaseline. We could be facing four or even eight years of rough road.
John Kerry.
fjolnirsson
Member
Kerry as President?
Makes me want to scream and run in circles gnashing my teeth......
Makes me want to scream and run in circles gnashing my teeth......
RealGun
Member
I am not able to find anything to support that, but they are so close, essentially tied at 45%, that Kerry may indeed be ahead by a notch at the moment. One source, rasmussenreports.com, will update at 3 PM today.
It looks like the 2004 Presidential election will be a repeat of the Bush/Gore, down to a photo finish, outcome. That includes a repeat of a nationwide plurality for the Democrats, in spite of electoral vote counts. If there isn't one already, some poll should have sensitivity to electoral vote outcomes. I believe that would include polling on a state by state basis.
I read these polls as not justifying a change in administration. I am afraid that what respondents really mean is that if they do not currently have a warm feeling about George Bush, they guess Kerry should be selected as an alternative. I believe that totally overlooks what having Kerry as President would really mean and what the issues really are.
I am quite skeptical whether the average respondent understands what any political party stands for, except that Democrats are well aware of from where government handouts originate. Nevertheless, many polls are probably statistically valid in regard to how the election might turn out, if conducted at the time of the poll.
Waitone
Member
All valid conclusions, IF:
--the sample is statistically valid and does not have in built in biases (which they all do)
--if the question chain is designed to be neutral and not intended to box the respondent into a series conclusions
--if the method of polling does not have inherent biases.
--if the time of the poll is not unduly influenced by media hot buttons
--if the questions, the chain and the methods of polling do not change poll to poll
--if cross check questions do not change sample to sample
--if people analyzing the poll does not change poll to poll
My view on polling is really simpleminded. The media uses polls to do two things: first create news, and second monitor the effect the media has on the candidates. There is entirely too much variability in polling for the results to be swallowed whole.
Second principal, the really rigorous, honest, and unbiased polling never sees the light of media. Politicians are in the business of reality and they want to know what is real. There is a tremendous amount of polling does by parties and candidates which is never disclosed.
My advice is ignore polling this far out in the cycle. You are being manipulated by the media.
--the sample is statistically valid and does not have in built in biases (which they all do)
--if the question chain is designed to be neutral and not intended to box the respondent into a series conclusions
--if the method of polling does not have inherent biases.
--if the time of the poll is not unduly influenced by media hot buttons
--if the questions, the chain and the methods of polling do not change poll to poll
--if cross check questions do not change sample to sample
--if people analyzing the poll does not change poll to poll
My view on polling is really simpleminded. The media uses polls to do two things: first create news, and second monitor the effect the media has on the candidates. There is entirely too much variability in polling for the results to be swallowed whole.
Second principal, the really rigorous, honest, and unbiased polling never sees the light of media. Politicians are in the business of reality and they want to know what is real. There is a tremendous amount of polling does by parties and candidates which is never disclosed.
My advice is ignore polling this far out in the cycle. You are being manipulated by the media.
RealGun
Member
Yes, and polls create, downplay, or ignore issues by virtue of the questions asked. We might respond to a question about whether a candidate will be expected to rightly uphold and defend the Constitution, but we will never see that question.
B
boofus
Guest
The NRA just needs to get the word out as widely as possible that even though Kerry claimed to be a hunter, he schemed to ban all .30-30 and .30-06 and just about any other ammunition that can be used to hunt deer. That alone should be enough to sink his campaign for good. All the middle of the road gunowners that have guns mainly to hunt with wouldn't take too kindly to it.
ShaiVong
Member
Kerry is only neck in neck with GW? After nothing but months and months of anti bush and pro kerry media garbage?
Nothing but dem news through the primary, and nothing but bush bashing from the prison thing and negative coverage of the iraq war?
ONLY neck in neck? Kerry should be ahead 20 points, and bush hasnt even geared up the campaign yet.
Kerry is toast.
Nothing but dem news through the primary, and nothing but bush bashing from the prison thing and negative coverage of the iraq war?
ONLY neck in neck? Kerry should be ahead 20 points, and bush hasnt even geared up the campaign yet.
Kerry is toast.
- Status