I Still Have My Guns

[gc70]

It's simple - if you are a gun owner and a Democrat, other issues clearly mean more to you than your guns.

 

[dmallind]

Sorry boogyman i tried the same thing - it's impossible to debate with the visceral and irrational hatred of anyone who is not far-right on these boards, despite numerous hopeful attempts by more moderate gun owners such as you and I.

The very first time the "socialist" vitriol comes out you know they're not listening. Nobody intelligent enough to operate a computer sufficiently well as to be able to register and post on internet fora is REALLY ignorant of what socialism means. The fact that they all know socialism is state ownership or the means of production does not in any way stop them from levelling the term at anything from subsidized health care to progressive tax rates.

They have succeeded in making "socialist" a withering insult and offense to the general population. I sure as hell don't agree with socialism - I'm firmly behind private ownership and the profit motive, but now they are trying, with impressive uniformity and considerable success, to make "liberal" equally abhorrent to the general population.

Contrary to the statements on this thread both parties are charging rightward at a decent clip in recent decades. Consider the policies of Nixon. Personal paranoia and ethical failings aside, Nixon's policies and positions are, taken on the whole, among the closest fits to my own amongst recent Presidents. Would he be able to win the Republican nomination today? No - he was far too liberal. Would Clinton have gotten the Democratic nomination in the 70s? Not a chance, with his support for free trade, welfare reform, the death penalty and son (all of which incidentally I also support). he was, and remains for the equivalent hardcore true believers on the left, far too right wing.

I am a blue dog Democrat who demographically and socioeconomically should be a Republican. I would be too, if Republicans were as they were 30 years ago and not dominated by social reactionaries more interested in my bedroom and medicine closet than the economy and freedom of the nation.

You have my support and my best wishes in your attempt to get rational discussion on politics. You do not have my expectations for any success - the groupthink is too strong and too hard-right. When people call Bush and his cabal near socialists whatever can they think of earlier and more moderate Republicans such as Nixon,and which absent the Falwell-PNAC-Santorum trifecta, I would be?

 

[Rockstar]

dmallind: Pretty hard for those of us who aren't far right, but are gun advocates to enter into a rational discussion with a guy who starts a thread based on a simpleminded, fallacious premise.

 

[Boogyman]

If you still have all of your guns, it is certainly not because of Democrats.

Let's take a look at federal gun control legislation, shall we?

1934 National Firearms Act - proposed by Democrat, signed by Democratic President.

1968 Gun Control Act - proposed by Democrat, signed by Democratic President

1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act - proposed by Republican, the one gun control provision added (closing the NFA registry to civilians) is added by a Democrat controlled House

1994 Brady Law - proposed by Democrat, signed by a Democratic President

1994 Assault Weapons Ban - proposed by a Democrat, signed by a Democratic President

Let's look at some of the past bills supported by recent Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry:

Kerry co-sponsored S.1431 - the bill expanding the ban on semi-auto weapons to include guns such as the Remington 1187 he was photographed with on the campaign trail.

Kerry voted twice to kill the CMP. If he doesn't trust you with 1903 bolt-actions and Garands, what does he trust you with?

Kerry voted in March 2004 to extend the existing semi-auto ban.

When Kerry mentor and top Democrat Ted Kennedy stood up in february 2004 to introduce his bill saying:

"Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America." (Page S1634 of the Congressional Record, February 26, 2004)

John Kerry voted YES to ban .30-30 and other centerfire rifle ammo as armor-piercing.

Of course, all of that is from 2004 - shall we look at current gun control legislation sponsored by Democrats in Congress to see what they have planned for us in the future? Shall we look to Democrat controlled New Orleans in the wake of Katrina for an answer? Should we look to the new wave of weapons banned in California every year?

Better yet, in the interests of brevity, why don't you just list for us all the pro-gun legislation introduced by Democrats this year?

We have all read the same Dem strategy paper advanced by Americans For Gun Safety that basically tries to repackage the old Democratic gun control agenda as a "gun safety issue" while at the same time being less openly hostile to gun owners (I.e. "I support the Second Amendment; but you should still be registered, licensed and tracked like sex offenders when you are allowed to own guns at all"). The Dems need a REAL pro-gun strategy if they want pro-gun votes.

Bartholomew, I'm not arguing the fact that Democrats are responsible for most of the gun regulation laws. I don't agree with a lot of them. But some I do.
Such as the NFA rules. Do you think anyone should be able to buy an M-60 from Walmart without I.D?
And if you can afford the ammo your going to burn, you can afford the price of a machine gun.
Even most Republicans agree that there has to be SOME regulation on firearms. You need a driver's license to operate a vehicle, you need a hunter's safety course to get a hunting license, you need to take a NRA practical pistol class to get a CCW (at least in Missouri) and so on. I agree with these laws. This is not "chipping away" at our RTKBA.
If being Republican means lifting ALL regulations on firearms then no thanks.
But if it takes two parties at odds to each other to create a balanced system, I'm all for it.
If a lot of people had their way, they would do away with the Democratic party all together, along with independents, greeners, libertarians, etc. leaving only the Republican Dictatorship of the Police States.
Whether you like Democrats or not, at least one other major party is needed to oppose the Republican party. This is what the founding fathers had in mind to keep Absolute Power from Corrupting Absolutely.

 

[boofus]

Whether you like Democrats or not, at least one other major party is needed to oppose the Republican party. This is what the founding fathers had in mind to keep Absolute Power from Corrupting Absolutely.

Wrong, I don't know what revisionist Democrat approved history book you read that in, but political parties were not even in the picture during the constitutional convention and it was better that way. When people ran as individuals rather than with some shadowy committee dictating their platform.

There were small groups of people like Federalists and Anti-feds but they were nothing like the 2 party system we've degenerated into now.

 

[James T Thomas]

Balance of Congress, Senate and Presidential powers

Your are dangerously mistaken sir!

Read the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and Bill of Rights!

God has given to all men certain inalienable rights, and the govenment we have is there to secure those rights. And we have the right, should they fail to do so to remove them from office.

Our Constitution is the highest law in the land. It supercedes our courts, and is not a "living, breathing, nor evolving" document, less it be tampered with.
It's statements are succinct and clear.

May God bless America.

 

[Boogyman]

dmallind: Pretty hard for those of us who aren't far right, but are gun advocates to enter into a rational discussion with a guy who starts a thread based on a simpleminded, fallacious premise.

You just proved DMALLIND right.

Besides that, this country was founded on the principles of a multiple-party system with checks and balances designed to preserve the constitutional rights of all citizens, or as you put it, "a simple-minded, fallacious premise".

 

[Justin]

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.

Oh?

"sort of people? Like the kind you don't want in your neighborhood?

Perhaps you'd like to explain what you mean when you start making offhand comments about what neighborhoods people choose to live in.

That kind of ignorance doesn't deserve comment anyway.

And where did you actually post a rational rebuttal to what has been posted by Bartholomew Roberts, me, and others who've pointed out the inherently obvious flaws to your thesis?

Sure. You could mail-order Thompson's back then. Do you think it should be that way now?

Oh no, not Thompsons! To my way of thinking, if someone can pass a background check for a concealed carry permit, and can legally own handguns, rifles, and shotguns, then they're just as capable of owning something that's FA. Or perhaps you'd like to state a rational reason why they shouldn't.

Would love to hear your reasoning for why sound suppressors are so rightly heavily regulated...

Of course, none of your obfuscation about machineguns, SBR's, or suppressors changes the indisputable fact that those gun control laws were passed by Democrats.

By sowing fear about NFA items, you're making a deliberate attempt to seperate gun owners into categories that will fight amongst themselves.

Another factor to consider would be the HUGE population explosion since then.

Translation: Most people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves, so the state (as long as they're on your side) should make those decisions for them.

Am I wrong?

 

[Boogyman]

Wrong, I don't know what revisionist Democrat approved history book you read that in, but political parties were not even in the picture during the constitutional convention and it was better that way. When people ran as individuals rather than with some shadowy committee dictating their platform.

There were small groups of people like Federalists and Anti-feds but they were nothing like the 2 party system we've degenerated into now.

If you refer to the list in post #1, you see that Washington was the only "no-party" president, the next six (all signers of the constitution) were either federalist or Democrat-republican.

I agree we've "degenerated" into a two-party system, I think we need more independents, libertarians, greeners, even buchananites and perotites.

 

[Justin]

Bartholomew, I'm not arguing the fact that Democrats are responsible for most of the gun regulation laws. I don't agree with a lot of them. But some I do.

Translation: "I've got mine, and don't give a tinker's damn if they regulate yours."

 

[gc70]

by dmallind
The fact that they all know socialism is state ownership or the means of production

dmallind provides an accurate definition of theoretical socialism as described by Marx. However, theories of socialism have evolded since Marx. Rather than Marx's theoretical socialism, the dominant form of socialism in the world today is state socialism.

State Socialism - The belief that all members of society should receive a portion of what a country produces, with the distribution of wealth under the direct control of the state.

The current, operative approach to socialism dispenses with actual state ownership of the means of production and uses government to achieve the redistribution of wealth from the nominal owners of the means of production.

dmallind, excuse those of us who use the simpler term "socialism" to describe state socialism. It isn't that we are trying to confuse anyone (or that we are incapable of understanding the difference between theoretical socialism and state socialism), it's just more convenient to use the simpler term.

 

[Ermac]

Oh?



Perhaps you'd like to explain what you mean when you start making offhand comments about what neighborhoods people choose to live in.



And where did you actually post a rational rebuttal to what has been posted by Bartholomew Roberts, me, and others who've pointed out the inherently obvious flaws to your thesis?



Oh no, not Thompsons! To my way of thinking, if someone can pass a background check for a concealed carry permit, and can legally own handguns, rifles, and shotguns, then they're just as capable of owning something that's FA. Or perhaps you'd like to state a rational reason why they shouldn't.

Would love to hear your reasoning for why sound suppressors are so rightly heavily regulated...

Of course, none of your obfuscation about machineguns, SBR's, or suppressors changes the indisputable fact that those gun control laws were passed by Democrats.

By sowing fear about NFA items, you're making a deliberate attempt to seperate gun owners into categories that will fight amongst themselves.



Translation: Most people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves, so the state (as long as they're on your side) should make those decisions for them.

Am I wrong?

+1

I wonder what people will think if and when Hillary gets into office when we have NO gun rights by her slowing going to start by small bans on weapons such as:

1) re-institute the AWB from Brady in the 90's
2) outlaw any semi-auto matic weapon
3) outlaw weapons with magazine capability
4) outlaw the "high powered" hunting rifles
5) outlaw rimfire and blackpowder
6) etc...

I see Dems slowly outlawing guns through small bans and going forward. Look at Californina...I bet if a liberal Dem is in office, most of the US will be like Kalifornistan. Most Dems will look to be pro-Gun to get into office (look at John Kerry's Hunting-thing Campaign). Hillary is going to do the same...appear to be pro gun until she's in office and BLAMMO....here comes the bans. Just my opinion

 

[Boogyman]

Sorry boogyman i tried the same thing - it's impossible to debate with the visceral and irrational hatred of anyone who is not far-right on these boards, despite numerous hopeful attempts by more moderate gun owners such as you and I.

The very first time the "socialist" vitriol comes out you know they're not listening. Nobody intelligent enough to operate a computer sufficiently well as to be able to register and post on internet fora is REALLY ignorant of what socialism means. The fact that they all know socialism is state ownership or the means of production does not in any way stop them from levelling the term at anything from subsidized health care to progressive tax rates.

They have succeeded in making "socialist" a withering insult and offense to the general population. I sure as hell don't agree with socialism - I'm firmly behind private ownership and the profit motive, but now they are trying, with impressive uniformity and considerable success, to make "liberal" equally abhorrent to the general population.

Contrary to the statements on this thread both parties are charging rightward at a decent clip in recent decades. Consider the policies of Nixon. Personal paranoia and ethical failings aside, Nixon's policies and positions are, taken on the whole, among the closest fits to my own amongst recent Presidents. Would he be able to win the Republican nomination today? No - he was far too liberal. Would Clinton have gotten the Democratic nomination in the 70s? Not a chance, with his support for free trade, welfare reform, the death penalty and son (all of which incidentally I also support). he was, and remains for the equivalent hardcore true believers on the left, far too right wing.

I am a blue dog Democrat who demographically and socioeconomically should be a Republican. I would be too, if Republicans were as they were 30 years ago and not dominated by social reactionaries more interested in my bedroom and medicine closet than the economy and freedom of the nation.

You have my support and my best wishes in your attempt to get rational discussion on politics. You do not have my expectations for any success - the groupthink is too strong and too hard-right. When people call Bush and his cabal near socialists whatever can they think of earlier and more moderate Republicans such as Nixon,and which absent the Falwell-PNAC-Santorum trifecta, I would be?

Thanks for the support. Don't worry, it won't break my heart if I can't get through to the "group mind". But it's good to know I'm not alone.
So what's that make it, 50 to 2 now?

 

[dmallind]

But by your definition of state socialism only the most pure of libertarian idealists are NOT socialists. Brownback is a socialist; DeLay is a socialist; Cheney is a socialist if you use that terminology. It is so broad as to be meainingless in a discussion of contemporary politics because everyone with even a smidgen's chance of becoming a political force on a state or national scale is then a socialist and it stops being a discriminating factor at all.

If you use it in that context with that meaning then I guess you are technically correct but a bit redundant and not all that relevant to the differenecs between Republicans and Democrats.

Having said that I'm aot a huge fan of the original premise except as a broad brush statement. I don't disagree with it of course I just don't think it means a whole lot. Few gun owners I think rationally and realistically fear outright banning or confiscation under a Dem regime, and it is unquestionable that Democrats support MORE (relatively speaking and taken as a whole) controls on firearms ownership than Republicans.

The question everybody who is not a died in the wool Republican needs to answer for themselves is whether the practical firearms restrictions Democrats would and could (an important consideration, natch) enact are so onerous as to outweigh all other considerations. Again anyone even vaguely politically aware realizes banning is not on the cards.

 

[engineer151515]

What exactly did you want to happen, the US to declare war on Louisiana?

I wanted your Federal elected representatives to speak up against this illegal action.

States have the right to govern themselves, that mess in N.O. was hardly a Federal problem.

The State cannot deny you your 2nd Amendment Rights.
When anyone tries - the Feds should speak up. Afterall, wasn't that decided with the US Civil War?

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.

The gun grabbing stopped. The Police Chief resigned. The Mayor / Governor can't seem to figure out who gave the order (though neither one intervened during the crisis). One lawsuit (that I'm aware of) has just started. I have yet to hear of one returned firearm.

Again - my point was the I don't see either party running to aid when the real violations started. Don't expect them to come running when San Diego SWAT comes knocking at your door after your regional(Goodness Forbid) large scale natural or man-made disaster.

 

[CAnnoneer]

This entire thread is about the advantages of voting for Kang vs Kodos, or the other way around. Let's face it, both parties have become twisted package deals based on fear and corruption, and thus deserve no support.

The dems have a far stronger anti-gun lobby, while the reps do nothing because they know they have the gunowners' votes for fear of the dems. So, whenever the dems get in power, they do as much damage as possible, while the reps just hold off or do nothing when their turn comes. The net result is a ratchet effect of a constrictor with the inevitable result of britainization of America.

So long as people vote for K&K, the vicious circle will never be broken. That is why I will vote third party.

 

[deanf]

I suppose you think anybody should be able to walk into a supermarket and buy hand grenades and machine guns too?

We have delegated to the military, via the Constitution, our authority to possess and use weapons of war.

We (the people) still retain that authority. It was ours to begin with. We never gave it up.

 

[boofus]

Again anyone even vaguely politically aware realizes banning is not on the cards.

They won't come out and say we are going to ban all guns. That would get them thrown out of power so fast by the elmer fudd hunters in their own party.

They try to ban ammo. Or they go and require registration on firearms. Then they ban registration. Just like the 1986 MG ban and the handgun ban in DC. "See we didn't ban guns! We just banned registration."

As for NFA ownership. I can bet good money that any one of you NFA-haters break more laws in 1 hour of traffic in your automobile than my full-auto FNC has in 20 years of sitting in safes.

 

[Boogyman]

Oh?



Perhaps you'd like to explain what you mean when you start making offhand comments about what neighborhoods people choose to live in.

Touchy, touchy. If it's only an offhand comment, why get your panties in a bunch?

And where did you actually post a rational rebuttal to what has been posted by Bartholomew Roberts, me, and others who've pointed out the inherently obvious flaws to your thesis?

Post #54.

Oh no, not Thompsons! To my way of thinking, if someone can pass a background check for a concealed carry permit, and can legally own handguns, rifles, and shotguns, then they're just as capable of owning something that's FA. Or perhaps you'd like to state a rational reason why they shouldn't.

The check and permit you just mentioned... regulations you apparently agree with?

Would love to hear your reasoning for why sound suppressors are so rightly heavily regulated...

You can have one, just follow the NFA rules.

Of course, none of your obfuscation about machineguns, SBR's, or suppressors changes the indisputable fact that those gun control laws were passed by Democrats.

Not refuting that. Democrats are probably responsible for the backround check and permit you just mentioned, also.

By sowing fear about NFA items, you're making a deliberate attempt to seperate gun owners into categories that will fight amongst themselves.

I'm a gun owner. Sowing fear? This statement is too ridiculous to bother with.

Translation: Most people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves, so the state (as long as they're on your side) should make those decisions for them.

Your "translation. not my words. Sounds like something Cheney would say.

Am I wrong?

Yup.

 

[Kim]

Sorry I just can never vote Democrat. I have back in my ignorant days. I once voted at age 18 simply because the guy was from the South and I like peanuts. Scary thought. If at age 54 you are a Democrat you will probably stay one. Fine. I at my older age will stay Repub. I can not think of ONE thing I agree with the Democrats on. NOTHING. All I have to do whenever a glitch hits my brain saying maybe this Democrat is O:K is read any of the internet forums of the Democrat supporters. I then run back to safety as quick as I can. I was at first shocked when reading DU, Daily KOS,Democrat.com etc. now I am just disgusted. I see how at a young age if I was feed the crap I see I might be outside going naked,defecating in the street and throwing rocks through windows and speaking with such hate and Chanting CHE< CHE my hero, But I can not support the loonies and the Democratic party base is full of them.

 

[Boogyman]

It's simple - if you are a gun owner and a Democrat, other issues clearly mean more to you than your guns.

Not "more", but all issues should be weighed and considered, don't you think?

 

[22-rimfire]

dmallind said: "Few gun owners I think rationally and realistically fear outright banning or confiscation under a Dem regime, and it is unquestionable that Democrats support MORE (relatively speaking and taken as a whole) controls on firearms ownership than Republicans."

dmallind also said "The question everybody who is not a died in the wool Republican needs to answer for themselves is whether the practical firearms restrictions Democrats would and could (an important consideration, natch) enact are so onerous as to outweigh all other considerations. Again anyone even vaguely politically aware realizes banning is not on the cards."

Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing. Hillary Clinton is such a wolf.

These statements are absolute BS. The statements go to the heart of the issue of the Democratic party leaning toward gun control and the Republican leaning away from it. History has demonstrated that Democrats favor stricter gun control over the citizentry. That is a fact! Look at the current crop of vocal Democrats with regard to Supreme court nominations. They include Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer who are all extremely pro-gun control and any opportunity to increase gun controls will be seized by these people. To say that the Democratic leadership does not favor very strict gun control and ultimately banning outright ownership is a joke. They do! Believe it. Not in the cards now... why? Because of the efforts of the NRA and private citizens. You have to be ready to stand firm on certain issues and guns are one such issue.

We have plenty of "practical firearm restrictions" on the books now. We don't need any more practical ones. All of these practical restrictions just make it harder for me to own and purchase firearms conveniently. It's for the children, I know. Save one life and it's worth it.... what about abortion and saving lives, or highway deaths..... Man! Get your head out of the sand and open your eyes!

This discussion should not be about Democrats or Republicans. It should be about our rights. One very important right is our right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is the only single issue that will change my vote from one candidate to another. There are other important issues as well, but the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our constitutional rights and as such results in affecting my vote one way or the other if it comes down to it.

The gun control advocates are using the approach of "death by a thousand cuts". One day you will wake up and find out that you aren't allowed to own any firearms because some of the thousand cuts weren't enforced....

 

[cuchulainn]

Boogyman: Not "more", but all issues should be weighed and considered, don't you think?

Indeed.

Gun control is only a tiny part of why I don't vote for Democrats.

 

[cbsbyte]

Well, saying all Democrats are anti-gun or at least active trying to undermind the 2nd Ad is a complete mistatement. Across the country there are millions of pro-gun, 2nd Ad Democrats who are trying to change the party's stance on gun control. I even bet most Democrats congressman are pro gun. The reason why so many people seem to believe the whole democratic party is anti, is because of a vocal and powerful minority in the party.
I live in Mass which in a whole is an anti-gun state, with many politicans being either anti or at least indifferent to gun owners. But there is a growing group within the state Democratic party that is becoming aware of the issue and trying to activley change the stance of the party. By not supporting the pro-gun candiates in this state, even if they are Democrats is a loss for gun owners.

 

[Justin]

Thanks for the support. Don't worry, it won't break my heart if I can't get through to the "group mind". But it's good to know I'm not alone.
So what's that make it, 50 to 2 now?

No, wrong. It has everything to do with the incorrect nature of your thesis:

I am bringing into question the generally held belief that you must support Republican presidential candidates if you want to protect our RTKBA rights.

When it was completely and utterly pointed out to you that more Democrat presidents have supported gun control than Republican ones, your first move was to voice your support for such laws, thereby contradicting your initial statement, obliterating your very own argument.

I strongly suggest that you either learn how to debate and construct a rational argument that proves your initial thesis, change your thesis, or admit defeat.

Because at this point, you're just making yourself look silly.