gc70
Member
It's simple - if you are a gun owner and a Democrat, other issues clearly mean more to you than your guns.
Bartholomew Roberts said: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.
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.
Rockstar said: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.
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.
"sort of people? Like the kind you don't want in your neighborhood?
That kind of ignorance doesn't deserve comment anyway.
Sure. You could mail-order Thompson's back then. Do you think it should be that way now?
Another factor to consider would be the HUGE population explosion since then.
boofus said: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.
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.
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.by dmallind
The fact that they all know socialism is state ownership or the means of production
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.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.
Justin said: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?
dmallind said: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?
TexasSIGman said:What exactly did you want to happen, the US to declare war on Louisiana?
TexasSIGman said:States have the right to govern themselves, that mess in N.O. was hardly a Federal problem.
TexasSIGman said: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.
I suppose you think anybody should be able to walk into a supermarket and buy hand grenades and machine guns too?
Again anyone even vaguely politically aware realizes banning is not on the cards.
Justin said: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.
gc70 said:It's simple - if you are a gun owner and a Democrat, other issues clearly mean more to you than your guns.
Indeed.Boogyman: Not "more", but all issues should be weighed and considered, don't you think?
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?
I am bringing into question the generally held belief that you must support Republican presidential candidates if you want to protect our RTKBA rights.