I have no idea who to vote for anymore

Time to Take the Next Step

Some of ya'll had suggested it, start participating in the process. Get involved in the primaries instead of waiting for your choices in November whether your independent or not. I got involved with a canadate in the primary that went up against DeLay in the primary. It was a major up hill battle in District 22 but he still took 30% in the polls. Every person that helped got us to that 30% so imagine if we had more help to knock on doors, make that call, help at the office, you get the picture. Also, there are many political groups that are always in need of help.

So if you don't like the direction of government, besides voting, roll up the sleeves and start working with others to change it.

 

No, buddy, it just makes you confused. A federal ban on semi-automatic "assault rifles," if that is what you mean, is, and was, a direct violation of the Second Amendment, and so is a national CCW permit.

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I typed that from memory; how'd I do?

 

How on earth are you pro-assault weapons ban? Do you even realize what that ban accomplished? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

It was all cosmetic features:

Flash hiders: Prevent users from being blinded.
Bayonett lug: Look at all of the harm bayonetts have cause in our society.. none.
colapsable stocks: adjust stock for use with winter clothing, or different statures of the shooters. It doesn't make the gun more dangerous.
Pistol Grip: Whats wrong with pistol grips?
Magazine capacity over 10 rounds: Do you really like reloading your magazines that much? 30 rounds are fun, and my fingers don't hurt as bad after a range session.

The assault weapon ban is NOT about machine guns. Machine Guns, Suppressors, short barreled rifles/shotguns are all regulated under the Nation Firearms Act of 1934.

Please tell me how you are pro assault weapons ban?

Regards,

Cyanide

 

What do you plan to CCW that someone won't eventually label an "Assault Weapon"?

 

So basically, the Assault Weapons Ban was a piece of "feel good" legislation?
Man, I guess I'm more brainwashed by the media than I thought.
Must go detox some more.
Then again, didn't the ban affect the MAC-10's and TEC-9's?

 

See, right here we have a real problem. Number one on your list is God. I'm not sure exactly what god you believe in, but I'm pretty sure I believe that very same god is a childish superstition. I respect your right to believe what you want to believe, but in turn I expect you to keep what I believe to be your superstitions from intruding on me. If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I'd move to Iran or Afghanistan.

This is why so many of us can't walk in lock step with the Republican party.

Oh, and Jessejames, I double-dog dare you to come and try to take my AR away from me.

 

I've checked out the AWB and there are some provisions of it that are silly. I think AR's are fine to own as well as the FN/FAL's.
But there is the whole Uzi genre as the aforementioned MAC's and TEC's.
I think we'd be okay without them.
What do you think?

 

So what can you do with an Uzi that you can't do with a Marlin 1894C? And what does the AWB have to do with the importation of Uzis? You are a confused young man. You need to do some more research.

 

I think you're wrong of course. Show me crimes committed with scary looking weapons have risen. For that matter show me crimes commited with full auto weapons. You think it would be a good idea, but statistics do not show that to be true. Concealed carry sounds like it might be a dangerous idea, but the actual facts are that it isn't. I would encourage you to search for actual numbers to justify your position.

 

I think we probably could get by without them, but I think we're doing just fine with them.

However, once you justify the banning of one, you've set the precedent for banning another and the dominoes start falling. Soon nothing is left to ban and suddenly we're all criminals.

You see, it is a slippery slope.

No Compromise.

 

I believe the essence of the AWB was to keep weapons that do "maximum damage in minimum time" that are concealable out of the hands of criminals or deranged persons.
It's perfectly understandable.
Us pro-gunners, and I do consider myself a pro-gunner, take the stand that there are many other guns that are perfectly legal that can do more damage than the banned weapons. So the AWB does not make much sense to us.
We know guns. Obviously a lot of the guys on the boards have broader knowledge of guns than I do.
I am a casual shooter, so I guess I don't see all the hubbub.
I'll look more into it.

 

The real problem with the AWB is that it attempts to legislate something merely because it might be used in a crime. If we're going to use that tactic, we might as well lock up teenage males, especially minority teenage males, as they tend to commit a disproportionatly large number of crimes.

At least in that case we're looking at 'targets' who can actually be aggressive. Virtually any object, whether it's a gun, knife or just a stick, can be used aggressively, defensively or for a lot of other purposes that have nothing to do with crime. It makes no more sense to outlaw guns than it does to outlaw baseball bats or stones. And if they are outlawed, how would the laws be enforced? The police should be less concerned about innocent people carrying various objects and more concerned with actual, aggressive criminals.

 

Either y'all go back and read the first post and stay with that subject, or I'm gonna do some heavy-duty deleting.

, Art

 

I like the vote for nobody idea, and I second that. No matter who you elect, they're still going to be operating within the same system of coercion. Even if they promote different pet projects or values, the difference between one candidate and another is simply a matter of shades and esthetics.

 

Fat 46, I've been seriously considering Sue Jeffers from the Libertarian party here in MN. I've heard her speak on the radio and I liked what I heard, but I still need to do further research. Pawlenty has screwed the pooch a lot. Jesse tried for a bit but then rolled over. IIR, he had a CCW, carried, and even fought to be able to carry into the capitol. But, what did he really do for the "common folk" ??

On the National level, that's just a nightmare. We basically have TWO parties that have presented viable candidates. The others are just whispers and wannabes. I would like to see that change. But, big money flows to those two parties. Unless there is an off party candidate that can actually WIN, I guess we'll be relegated to voting for the lesser of two evils.

Here's Sue's take on gun control:

 

JesseJames,
The Uzi style guns that are currently banned by our state (CT), do no more damage than a hi-point, or athe Ruger PC-9. The 9mm ammo is the same, and what makes the difference is the operating system/ design by law. Still, the lethal capabilities of the bullet is not changed by that. The fact that the guns look scary is a matter of public perception, usually based off of some sort of movies or propoganda. In reality, we are better off banning the thugs who commit acts of gun violence from societey. it really makes me angry, that I can have a gun in one caliber, but not another or that I can have it as long as the name is not on the list, or as long as it does not appear a certain way.

 

Jesse James,

I'm sure there are a thousand threads, at least, on the subject of the assault weapons ban. Unless you want to sift through those, why not start a thread on the topic? If you don't want to get flamed, just ask honest questions and keep an open mind on the answers.

 

Sort of. It was also to get the public used to the idea of even more restrictions on personal arms availability. "Creeping incrimentalism" comes to mind. Think back to 1933. Imagine if over the course of one year if all modern firearms regulations had come into existence. What would have happened? A massive uprising or flat out revolution, that's what. (considering tensions at that time were high, and we were already bordering on a communist overthrow due to the great depression).

Yep. If you like a plot line to all of it, I suggest reading "Unintended Consequences". If you want "just the facts ma'am", look up the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, 1986 FOPA, (especially the Hughes amendment), and the 1994 Crime Bill). Also read the 1982 Congressional report on the Second amendment, and the 2005 report. Note the differences between the two reports. It gives quite an insite into the minds of the politicians.

Yes. The reason why these arms were affected is because they have a threaded muzzle capable of accepting a flash hider, and have a magazine that sticks out conspicuously under the pistol grip. It also banned magazine capacities of more then 10 rounds.

 

That would work great, if there wasn't a little thing called the "black market". When is the last time you saw a convicted violent felon, (or sexual preditor), go through legal channels to purchase thier weapons? Do gang-bangers now fill out a 4473 on thier purchases? The thing with passing more laws is, it only restricts the law-abiding citizen. Passage of a new law, will not make a rapist, (for whom it would be a felony to even posess a firearm), stop and say, "oh, I have to fill out a form 4 and get fingerprints and written permission from my CLEO before I go full auto" He's going to either biuld it himself, go to his street-hookup, or just flat out steal a gun. The thing with criminals is, they don't obey laws.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson

And with "maximum damage in minimum time", I could rig up something to blow that would be quite powerful, and the only difficult thing to come by would be the white phosperous. Is it illegal? highly. However, if I were intent on committing a terrorist act, (which I'm not BTW), one little law about the maximum amount of propellent that I can legally posess wouldn't stop me. There are far better ways to get "bang for the buck" then a firearm. Hell, if you want to create mass panic, even mere molotov cocktails dropped off a bridge at rush hour would do that far better, (and cause more death and inconvenience too).

I pose this question to you. Can you name one firearms law which has actually reduced the amount of violent crime? I can't. In fact, the crime rate has been falling for the last 10 years straight, despite the expiration of the Clinton era AWB.

And yes, I can pick up my 03/20/06 issue of Shotgun News, flip to page 113, and get a MAC-10 in .45 ACP for the price of $299.99. Add in $30 for FFL transfer fee, and $25 for shipping, and I have it for about $350 OTD.

 

Yeah -- Great plan.

"Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything" -- Alexander Hamilton

 

The idea that one has to vote in every election is utter bullcrap pushed by THE two political parties (i.e. criminal gangs) desperate to retain the aura of legitimacy even though more and more people cannot stand either of them.

Personally I'd recommend voting for a good third party candidate first (if you have that option), but unless you live in Ron Paul's district, you won't catch any crap from me if you just say "to hell with them both". I LOVE the idea of delegitimizing the process.

 

That's utterly preposterous. The principles I stand for are the very reason I dislike the idea of participating in the systematic robbery and oppression that is the government.

Why is voting so sacred that we should surrender our principles to do it?

 

I quote this passage only because it is so humorous.

 

I've been feeling more and more frustrated with the two big parties too. What to do? Easy answer for me, since Democrats usually win here, and my vote is virtually symbolic, I can vote however I feel.

In NYS, we have the Conservative Party. It was formed as a reaction to the left-moving NYS Republican party. I've been a member for 12 years, which generally means I vote Republican, but not always. I'm not changing the world, I know.

 

If you walked into a restaurant, and were handed a menu with exactly two choices, "dog crap" or "horse crap", would you order?

Let me make it real simple.

First, bag all the BS you learned in civics class (usually at a school run--ta dah!--by the government which, in turn, is run by "the two parties").

Second, there is, in essence, a "market" for votes--politicians want "to buy" them, and you want "to sell" them.

If you vote for "the lesser evil", YOU are the one devaluing your vote--you are giving it away for little or no value in return.

If enough people refrain from voting, eventually politicians hoping to be elected will say "Jesus, what can we do to get some of these people off the sidelines? We can take this race if we can motivate these dissatisfied former voters." Hence, you create demand for your vote, and get value for it.

Conversely, if you keep voting no matter, every election, regardless of the crap choices afforded you, then there is absolutely NO incentive for anyone to offer you anything. The dumbest citizen possible is the "party line" voter--he allows his vote to be taken utterly for granted. This is as equally true for the inner city black folks who just pull the "D" lever no matter what, as it is for the NRA robot who can see nothing but "R".