I Still Have My Guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
Justin said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
:)
 
Justin said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Boogyman said:
Justin said:
advocate forcible redistribution of unearned wealth at gunpoint.
Click to expand...
I don't advocate that at all, and it is ridiculous to even suggest it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
In our present form, the balance is too far to the right, with the Republicans controlling all three factors.
Click to expand...

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!
 
azredhawk44 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
Boogyman said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
+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.
 
engineer151515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Justin said:
Boogyman, if you're going to call me a racist, at least have the guts to come right out and say it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rockstar said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
pisztoly said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Boogyman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
UK Gov. Site lists Al Qaeda attacks since 1993
Replies
0
Views
347
hillbilly
H
J
  • Locked
Big names on gun control
Replies
6
Views
822
Thumper
Thumper
D
  • Locked
2007 Minnesota Gun Shows
Replies
5
Views
2K
P0832177
P
W.E.G.
  • Locked
Highpower Rifle Match – November 19 – Fairfax R&GC (Virginia)
Replies
9
Views
696
BullfrogKen
B
D
  • Locked
Reed Exhibitions has 32 events in US, Including Shot Show
Replies
0
Views
304
Dean Weingarten
D
Back
Top