Here's our problem....
- Thread starter benewton
- Start date
- Status
CannibalCrowley
Member
Move along folks, nothing to see here. It's just people who agree with Kerry on more issues than Bush, hence they're voting for Kerry. Bush hasn't exactly been a champion for gun rights himself, and his administration has left a lot to be desired. Personally I'll be voting for Bush due to the lesser of two evils syndrome, but I can certainly see wherer these people are coming from.
Beren
Moderator Emeritus
I took the time to read over their FAQ and sent a polite e-mail:
Democrat With A Gun,
I glanced over your website this morning and read
through the FAQ. There are a couple very important
points I fear that you may be glossing over.
1. Kerry didn't simply vote for the AWB - one of the
few votes he attended in the current session was to
renew the AWB.
He was also present to vote for Kennedy's attempt to
outlaw all centerfire ammunition by giving the ATF the
authority to classify as "armor piercing" any
ammunition that can penetrate IIa body armor. You may
be interested to know that the "low powered"
ammunition your SKS uses is easily capable of such a
feat. Practically any centerfire rifle can do so.
2. Bush agreed to sign a renewal of the AWB if it
reached his desk. He has made no effort to push
Congress to place a renewal on his desk. Kerry would
push for it, if only to placate the extremist wing of
the Democratic party. While Governor of Texas, Bush
signed concealed carry legislation into law - so we
know he's willing to support the rights of gun owners.
What has Kerry ever done for the right to keep and
bear arms? Yes, I'll give you his four months of
combat duty in Vietnam. That's admirable, though the
Swiftboat veterns might feel otherwise about Kerry's
service.
But as a Senator, what has Kerry done to protect our
rights?
As President, Bush pushed for an end to frivilous
lawsuits against the firearms industry. Kerry voted
for amendments that forced the Senate to kill the
bill. Kerry has willingly - and recently - taken up
the flag of an anti-gun extremist.
There's much more, but that's enough for a Sunday
morning.
Sincerely,
Democrat With A Gun,
I glanced over your website this morning and read
through the FAQ. There are a couple very important
points I fear that you may be glossing over.
1. Kerry didn't simply vote for the AWB - one of the
few votes he attended in the current session was to
renew the AWB.
He was also present to vote for Kennedy's attempt to
outlaw all centerfire ammunition by giving the ATF the
authority to classify as "armor piercing" any
ammunition that can penetrate IIa body armor. You may
be interested to know that the "low powered"
ammunition your SKS uses is easily capable of such a
feat. Practically any centerfire rifle can do so.
2. Bush agreed to sign a renewal of the AWB if it
reached his desk. He has made no effort to push
Congress to place a renewal on his desk. Kerry would
push for it, if only to placate the extremist wing of
the Democratic party. While Governor of Texas, Bush
signed concealed carry legislation into law - so we
know he's willing to support the rights of gun owners.
What has Kerry ever done for the right to keep and
bear arms? Yes, I'll give you his four months of
combat duty in Vietnam. That's admirable, though the
Swiftboat veterns might feel otherwise about Kerry's
service.
But as a Senator, what has Kerry done to protect our
rights?
As President, Bush pushed for an end to frivilous
lawsuits against the firearms industry. Kerry voted
for amendments that forced the Senate to kill the
bill. Kerry has willingly - and recently - taken up
the flag of an anti-gun extremist.
There's much more, but that's enough for a Sunday
morning.
Sincerely,
Mulliga
Member
He's been voting against gun rights for years and years. And recently, he's been doing the "I'm a hunter" crap and shooting skeet with politically innocuous double-barrelled shotguns.
The last JFK in the White House was a proud honorary lifetime member of the NRA. My, how times change...
Did anyone else notice that he doesn't just settle for 'Menu' he actually uses the term 'Le Menu'?
I suspect that this may even be John Kerry's personal website of deceit due to the distinct French influence.
- rare use of smilie to indicate that I am being silly.
I suspect that this may even be John Kerry's personal website of deceit due to the distinct French influence.
- rare use of smilie to indicate that I am being silly.grislyatoms
Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2004
- Messages
- 404
Just another form of gun snobbery. "As long as I have what I want, I could care less about the principles involved" sort of thing.
The little adage about "Those who cannot learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them" seems appropriate here.
Foolish people.
The condescending tone in the "SKS rifles were not banned, so we're the good guys" blurb ticked me off.
The little adage about "Those who cannot learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them" seems appropriate here.
Foolish people.
The condescending tone in the "SKS rifles were not banned, so we're the good guys" blurb ticked me off.
Hawk
Member
It had its moments - the baby orang commenting on the resemblence between Kerry and their president was a keeper. I purloined the .jpg for use on the next "Ebay ugly gun spotting" thread.
I liked the way Churchill is invoked to explain the "love/hate" thing a gun-owning Moore watcher suffers through.
Oh well, to each their own.
I liked the way Churchill is invoked to explain the "love/hate" thing a gun-owning Moore watcher suffers through.
Oh well, to each their own.
tulsamal
Member
I wrote the guy and got an email back. His basic point seems to be that gun control is a losing issue for either party and therefore more gun control would be unlikely under a Kerry Administration.
That still doesn't answer the basic question though: if gun control is your "most important issue" in the campaign, why would you take "the opposite position" in picking your candidate?
For instance, would it make sense to put up a website and title it "Pro-Choice Democrats for Bush?" If being pro-choice is your primary issue, why would you vote for Bush? Even if you honestly believed he was unlikely to be successful in restricting abortion further. It's just counter-intuitive!
Gregg
That still doesn't answer the basic question though: if gun control is your "most important issue" in the campaign, why would you take "the opposite position" in picking your candidate?
For instance, would it make sense to put up a website and title it "Pro-Choice Democrats for Bush?" If being pro-choice is your primary issue, why would you vote for Bush? Even if you honestly believed he was unlikely to be successful in restricting abortion further. It's just counter-intuitive!
Gregg
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
I have yet to see a Geocities website run by a person with an IQ over 40.
Beren,
Actually, if you look at the text of the Kennedy amendment (available here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1086621/posts) you will see that it doesn't say what everyone says it says. The key sections are:
``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or
``(iv) a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''.
In other words, it would ban HANDGUN ammo that can penetrate a vest, or rifle ammo specifically marketed as armor piercing and which lives up to those claims.
Bad enough, granted, but not as bad as it's made out to be. I've seen that particular drum beaten enough (and I've done it myself, before I looked up the actual text) that I had to say something.
On other issues, it would seem to me that given the mid-term election shift in Congress (The party which doesn't hold the White House traditionally picks up a few seats in Congress in the mid-term elections.) a very devious 2nd Amendment advocate might want Kerry to get elected, recognizing that Congress is the critical battleground and that the Republicans would gain there.
But there do not seem to be that many Machiavellian 2nd Amendment advocates.
Actually, if you look at the text of the Kennedy amendment (available here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1086621/posts) you will see that it doesn't say what everyone says it says. The key sections are:
``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or
``(iv) a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''.
In other words, it would ban HANDGUN ammo that can penetrate a vest, or rifle ammo specifically marketed as armor piercing and which lives up to those claims.
Bad enough, granted, but not as bad as it's made out to be. I've seen that particular drum beaten enough (and I've done it myself, before I looked up the actual text) that I had to say something.
On other issues, it would seem to me that given the mid-term election shift in Congress (The party which doesn't hold the White House traditionally picks up a few seats in Congress in the mid-term elections.) a very devious 2nd Amendment advocate might want Kerry to get elected, recognizing that Congress is the critical battleground and that the Republicans would gain there.
But there do not seem to be that many Machiavellian 2nd Amendment advocates.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
TC Contender chambered in .30-30. Hence by the proposed law .30-30 is considered to be an armor-piercing handgun round. It may not be completely technically, letter-of-the-law accurate to say that the law would ban .30-30, or 7.62x39mm, but it's close enough to the political reality of the matter that to really sit and debate about it is splitting hairs.
BTW, I would also like to note that in his speech to the US Senate about this bill, Ted Kennedy specifically mentioned .30-30 as being one of the armor-piercing rounds that should be outlawed.
.30-30 =/= "all centerfire ammunition"
Even assuming there was any chance of the amendment going into effect. Which there never was, of course.
But the point is that countering hysteria and distortions of the facts with MORE hysteria and distortions of the facts just makes EVERYONE look bad.
Even assuming there was any chance of the amendment going into effect. Which there never was, of course.
But the point is that countering hysteria and distortions of the facts with MORE hysteria and distortions of the facts just makes EVERYONE look bad.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Pointing out that Kerry voted for an amendment that would have (as obviously illustrated earlier) allowed for the prohibition of the most ubiquitous deer hunting cartridge in the country is hardly hysteria and distortions.
Especially in light of the fact that Ted Kennedy publically said that he wanted to ban .30-30.
The fact that the amendment ultimately didn't pass really doesn't matter.
The whole incident should simply serve as one massive telegraph of just how far the likes of Kennedy and Kerry want to take their prohibitionist agenda.
Especially in light of the fact that Ted Kennedy publically said that he wanted to ban .30-30.
The fact that the amendment ultimately didn't pass really doesn't matter.
The whole incident should simply serve as one massive telegraph of just how far the likes of Kennedy and Kerry want to take their prohibitionist agenda.
fallingblock
Member
The intent of the Kennedy legislation is clear....
And it isn't to protect the rights of gun owners, Democrat or otherwise.
Any "gun-owning" Democrats who could vote for Kerry have misstated their own priorities.
And it isn't to protect the rights of gun owners, Democrat or otherwise.
Any "gun-owning" Democrats who could vote for Kerry have misstated their own priorities.
Shooter 2.5
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 476
Commies and their commie guns.
Last year when the first discussions started about a possible Civil War, I mentioned that if there was one, the left would start it. It won't happen until the left give up gun control and starts to stockpile. It looks like someone is starting to do just that.
And remember, when the left wants gun control, it's never about their guns. It's always about your's.
Last year when the first discussions started about a possible Civil War, I mentioned that if there was one, the left would start it. It won't happen until the left give up gun control and starts to stockpile. It looks like someone is starting to do just that.
And remember, when the left wants gun control, it's never about their guns. It's always about your's.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
Mr. Sanders has asked that I not post his response. As a matter of courtesy, I will comply with his wishes. Frankly, if I'd written something like that, I wouldn't want it to be public either. More importantly, I am assured by people I trust, like Art and Beren, that it's considered impolite to post email. Since they say so, I'll buy it.
> Don & Melissa Gwinn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It wouldn't bother me all that much to see you get what you want after this
> election, but I wish there was some way to do it without subjecting me to
> it, too. I read your page with a sort-of open mind, but I can't find much
> with which to agree. Maybe your comments on Rush Limbaugh and Michael
> Moore. And you're right, Neil Young does look a little like Kerry, though I
> didn't know he owned an SKS.
>
> I'll start by stating, for the record, that like you I don't own any weapons
> defined as "assault rifles" by the AWB. Dad's got an SKS, and it's a handy
> little thing, I'll grant you that. The whole idea that you own one and
> therefore become a spokesman for gun owners with the right to dismiss my
> right to own some other gun you don't necessarily like as much, however, is
> ridiculous.
>
> Your assertion that it's silly to "assume" that people who support John
> Kerry support gun control is dishonest. John Kerry is not only a supporter
> of gun control, he's quite insistent upon the point. To support him is to
> work to put the anti-gun movement's near-ideal candidate in office with the
> full knowledge that one of his greatest priorities as President will be gun
> control. You can tell me that you're willing to support gun control in this
> case and tell me the reasons why (though I've already heard "Bush is the
> devil") but you're insulting my intelligence when you ask me to believe that
> you're not supporting gun control by cheering on John Kerry as he goes out
> of his way to ban firearms. I'll grant that you may not be gleeful about
> it, but you are supporting gun control by any objective measure.
>
> John Kerry flew back to Washington on the day of several primaries in the
> midwest simply to cast his vote in favor of the amendment to the Lawful
> Commerce in Arms Act that would have extended the AWB. He hadn't shown up
> for hundreds of votes--had not, in fact, voted for months--but he made an
> exception that day of all days. To equate that with one Bush spokesman
> saying that he would sign the bill if it reached his desk, a statement that
> was never repeated and which everyone agrees was made only because the bill
> will NOT reach the President's desk, is dishonest as well.
>
> Your reasons for supporting Kerry were interesting. I especially like the
> part about the people who've "always been Democrats and see no reason to
> change." There's a great reason to vote for the guy who hates your guts.
> You lampoon Bush for not changing his mind (conveniently forgetting all the
> things he DID change his mind about, like nation-building) but your defense
> of your self-abuse is "we just don't feel like changing our minds."
>
> What really got me was the picture of John Kerry pretending that he's not a
> radical gun-banner by toting a fancy shotgun around in blue jeans. It's
> almost like you enjoy being insulted. He's treating you like idiots and,
> far from merely letting him get away with it, you're cheering him on. I
> can't imagine why.
>
> Don Gwinn
>
> Don & Melissa Gwinn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It wouldn't bother me all that much to see you get what you want after this
> election, but I wish there was some way to do it without subjecting me to
> it, too. I read your page with a sort-of open mind, but I can't find much
> with which to agree. Maybe your comments on Rush Limbaugh and Michael
> Moore. And you're right, Neil Young does look a little like Kerry, though I
> didn't know he owned an SKS.
>
> I'll start by stating, for the record, that like you I don't own any weapons
> defined as "assault rifles" by the AWB. Dad's got an SKS, and it's a handy
> little thing, I'll grant you that. The whole idea that you own one and
> therefore become a spokesman for gun owners with the right to dismiss my
> right to own some other gun you don't necessarily like as much, however, is
> ridiculous.
>
> Your assertion that it's silly to "assume" that people who support John
> Kerry support gun control is dishonest. John Kerry is not only a supporter
> of gun control, he's quite insistent upon the point. To support him is to
> work to put the anti-gun movement's near-ideal candidate in office with the
> full knowledge that one of his greatest priorities as President will be gun
> control. You can tell me that you're willing to support gun control in this
> case and tell me the reasons why (though I've already heard "Bush is the
> devil") but you're insulting my intelligence when you ask me to believe that
> you're not supporting gun control by cheering on John Kerry as he goes out
> of his way to ban firearms. I'll grant that you may not be gleeful about
> it, but you are supporting gun control by any objective measure.
>
> John Kerry flew back to Washington on the day of several primaries in the
> midwest simply to cast his vote in favor of the amendment to the Lawful
> Commerce in Arms Act that would have extended the AWB. He hadn't shown up
> for hundreds of votes--had not, in fact, voted for months--but he made an
> exception that day of all days. To equate that with one Bush spokesman
> saying that he would sign the bill if it reached his desk, a statement that
> was never repeated and which everyone agrees was made only because the bill
> will NOT reach the President's desk, is dishonest as well.
>
> Your reasons for supporting Kerry were interesting. I especially like the
> part about the people who've "always been Democrats and see no reason to
> change." There's a great reason to vote for the guy who hates your guts.
> You lampoon Bush for not changing his mind (conveniently forgetting all the
> things he DID change his mind about, like nation-building) but your defense
> of your self-abuse is "we just don't feel like changing our minds."
>
> What really got me was the picture of John Kerry pretending that he's not a
> radical gun-banner by toting a fancy shotgun around in blue jeans. It's
> almost like you enjoy being insulted. He's treating you like idiots and,
> far from merely letting him get away with it, you're cheering him on. I
> can't imagine why.
>
> Don Gwinn
>
Last edited:
Hawk
Member
I thought "the politics of gun control" was well done.
I followed the link to the author's home page and found this essay. Rather well put, I thought.
The point that republicans might just be taking the pro-gun vote for granted is hardly new to this forum.
If my anecdotal evidence is anything to go by, the population under the fat part of bell curve on gun issues is moving to our side in greater numbers than the reverse. Therefore, gun-owning Democrats are a good thing - they'll talk to other Democrats. Get enough democratic voters owning guns, or at least viewing it as a right, and the issue will drop even further off the DLC's radar.
Maybe.
With all due respect to the editorial in the Blue Press, here's an opposing view from JPFO
I was going to say something like "that which unites us is stronger than that which divides us" but decided not to - sounds too much like "kumbaya"
I followed the link to the author's home page and found this essay. Rather well put, I thought.
The point that republicans might just be taking the pro-gun vote for granted is hardly new to this forum.
If my anecdotal evidence is anything to go by, the population under the fat part of bell curve on gun issues is moving to our side in greater numbers than the reverse. Therefore, gun-owning Democrats are a good thing - they'll talk to other Democrats. Get enough democratic voters owning guns, or at least viewing it as a right, and the issue will drop even further off the DLC's radar.
Maybe.
With all due respect to the editorial in the Blue Press, here's an opposing view from JPFO
I was going to say something like "that which unites us is stronger than that which divides us" but decided not to - sounds too much like "kumbaya"
benewton
Member
All:
Sorry to post the thread then go silent, but I had to transition 500 miles to MD, unpack the mess, and get into the new consult here in MD. Worse, DSL at home is dialup on the road, and I deleted the AOL crap, wishfull thinking regarding employment possibilities, so I've just now gotten back.
Since I've caused the poor man "problems", I think I'll drop him a line to let him know where the problem originated. If interesting, I'll post the reply, but, given what I think of his original site, I doubt it'll be worth it...
But I do believe that this type of weapons owner, since, as all ex mil types know, a gun is a crew served weapon, and I'm not PC in any way, means, shape or form, is a major problem in this fight.
Sorry to post the thread then go silent, but I had to transition 500 miles to MD, unpack the mess, and get into the new consult here in MD. Worse, DSL at home is dialup on the road, and I deleted the AOL crap, wishfull thinking regarding employment possibilities, so I've just now gotten back.
Since I've caused the poor man "problems", I think I'll drop him a line to let him know where the problem originated. If interesting, I'll post the reply, but, given what I think of his original site, I doubt it'll be worth it...
But I do believe that this type of weapons owner, since, as all ex mil types know, a gun is a crew served weapon, and I'm not PC in any way, means, shape or form, is a major problem in this fight.
Beren
Moderator Emeritus
Orc4hire:
Who would decide what constitutes "standard" ammo?
Who would decide what constitutes "designed?"
Oh, and as some have noted, both .223 and .30-.30 can be used in handguns and would penetrate body armor at short range. By a strict interpretation of the amendment, such rounds would be outlawed.
Who would decide what constitutes "standard" ammo?
Who would decide what constitutes "designed?"
Oh, and as some have noted, both .223 and .30-.30 can be used in handguns and would penetrate body armor at short range. By a strict interpretation of the amendment, such rounds would be outlawed.
- Status
