Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Led by the Dixiecrats, right?
"Where Democrats proudly own guns"
- Thread starter K-Romulus
- Start date
- Status
These numbers about gun ownership are truly suspect. When I get out of the city, there simply are no homes without guns. none. I have worked all over the nation, working in fancy places and dumps, once you get out of the city, EVERY house has a gun, at least a .22 for killing skunks and raccoons.
For five years i misspent my time working for a national homebuilder as a service foreman. I was in between 400 and a thousand homes a year. This is in the metro area, I would say in at least half of them their were indications that guns were present. Maybe it was a bag of decoys in the basement, or a deer head in the den, or a gun case in the garage but I would say 50 % of the urban houses had guns. Working out in the rural areas, every house has a gun. period.
For five years i misspent my time working for a national homebuilder as a service foreman. I was in between 400 and a thousand homes a year. This is in the metro area, I would say in at least half of them their were indications that guns were present. Maybe it was a bag of decoys in the basement, or a deer head in the den, or a gun case in the garage but I would say 50 % of the urban houses had guns. Working out in the rural areas, every house has a gun. period.
.
Hmmmm history reminds us the leader of the fillibuster on the Civil Rights Act was that great paragon of Democratic values Robert "Sheets" Byrd. As long as the longest serving senator still walks those halls with a D behind his name I would not banty about the civil rights issue. In fact the dirty little secret is that more Republicans by percentages voted for it than did Dems. Al Gore even lied about his daddy....the Senator from Tennessee voted no on the Civil Rights Act.....so tread lightly here......
http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVDavisGore599.html
Rudy is the darling of the RINO Rockefeller wing of the GOP, not the base. He would not win a national primary. Nor would John McCain.
Personally I would like to see Condi Rice run. She is brilliant, articulate and pro gun.
Manedwolf
member
Except for that whole "buying $1000 shoes and going to a play while NO drowned" issue.
Or "We never could have anticipated 9/11"...Sorry, Condi. That was YOUR JOB. Nope, I'd rather have someone who didn't fail upwards.
Democrats, like the Communists they are, don't have anything at all against guns. This has been evidenced time and time again by liberal Democrats who carry for their own protection, have armed bodyguards, etc.
They just don't want YOU to have any guns.
Prove it. We just had this discussion somewhere. Find me a quote where she specifically says that she supports the right
of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms. Not the drivel about how she thinks the 2nd Amendment is as important as the rest, or whatever she said. John Kerry supports the 2nd Amendment. Hillary Clinton supports the 2nd Amendment. Etc., etc.
They just don't want YOU to have any guns.
Prove it. We just had this discussion somewhere. Find me a quote where she specifically says that she supports the right
of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms. Not the drivel about how she thinks the 2nd Amendment is as important as the rest, or whatever she said. John Kerry supports the 2nd Amendment. Hillary Clinton supports the 2nd Amendment. Etc., etc.
Good God, what petty leftist marxist class envy. I don't know if she bought the shoes or not but so what? It's her money she can spend it on what ever she wants and going to a play.....so what? New Orleans drowned because Mayor Nagin and Gov Blanco are a pair of Democrat political hacks and idiots. They could not mobilize an escape from a cardboard box. It was their job to get the morons who stayed out of the city. An evacuation could have been done with those school buses that we saw with water up to the roof line... you know you folks are really something else .....geeze
Thank you for confirming what most of us think of you leftists.... While Bill Clinton refused the many offers from Sudan and Qatar to hand Bin Laden over to us...I seem to recall it was Mr. Clinton who did nothing following the First World Trade Center attack, the Khobar Towers, the attack on the USS Cole, the embassy in Kenya.....turned tail and ran in Somalia.. It was also Mr Clinton's FBI that ignored all the information given about arabs getting flight lessons and only wanting to know how to fly not land or take off........Don't even dare to try to talk about this issue without expecting to get smacked down with any argument you may offer.
Condi pro gun
Easy enough.
http://junkyardblog.net/archives/week_2004_11_14.html
You will find more here....
http://www.aubreyturner.org/index.php?/orglog/the_rice_update/
I know of what I speak.
I repeat, find me something where she defends the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. Not one of your quotes does that. Anyone can say that they support the 2nd Amendment if not held to defining what they think that means. Most liberals say that they support the 2nd Amendment, but what they mean is that they support the right of the militia or National Guard to keep and bear arms. Rice's above quote supports that definition, NOT the right of individuals.
And what exactly does "2nd Amendment absolutist" mean? The militia?
cuchulainn
Member
There are hundreds of reasons to vote against Democrats. Gun control is but one. If the D is pro-gun, then it's a lock that the R is too, meaning I still vote R. Anti-gun Republican vs Pro-gun Democrat simply doesn't happen.
I defy anyone to name 5 contests in the history of American politics, from dog catcher to POTUS, where the D had a better gun record than the R.
I defy anyone to name 5 contests in the history of American politics, from dog catcher to POTUS, where the D had a better gun record than the R.
Hey I gave you what I found on the net to back it up. It suffices for me. Besides only liberals use that only to form a militia argument in defining their view of the second amendment, and then they will say that is what the National Guard is.......conservatives know it is a individual right. Conservatives know the first 10 amendments are individual rights. As Secretary of State she deals with foreign policy issues. She is rarely asked about domestic policy so you won't find a whole lot. If you really want to find a quote and want your specific answer, then you find it. You do the search engine on Yahoo, MSN or Google...I won't spoon feed you like a child.
Actually, conservatives know that the first 10 amendments aren't individual rights, but rather a list of restrictions placed on the actions of the federal government. If the government grants rights, then the government can take them away.
Exactly why Rice used the word "militia" in her 2nd Amendment statement rather than "individual." Rice is not a conservative. She made an ambiguous statement about the 2nd Amendment that, just like her liberal brethren, can later be interpreted by her to have meant anything other that an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
It doesn't exist. I know that it doesn't exist. Your responses only affirmed what I said. She talked about the militia and not about individuals.
I am not saying the government grants rights, I know better.....I am saying the Government recognized those first 10 amendments to be rights. As rights are only given by God, or if you are a agnostic, by nature, then we agree Government only can recognize or trample on rights.......Lord knows she is quite good at trampling on them...
LOL I think some of the libs that were posting on here earlier would take umbrage with anyone calling Condi a liberal...
I don't know if it does or not. I got something like 10 pages on MSN and since I live in the sticks of Ohio, don't want to fork up big bucks for Hughes net high speed internet and am still "dial up man" I did not want to spend the entire day looking to answer your question....
If you really want the answer, seek and ye shall find......
I find the spectacle of Republican True Believers saying their Party stands for rights and liberties to be one of the most pathetic spectacles of the new millenium. Warrantless searches? Detention on Presidential whim without trial? Total surveillance of all communications and social networks? The abrogation of article 6 of the Constitution? Seriously discussing whether the President can order killings on US soil without charge or trial? the end of habeas corpus? Persecution of reporters who write unfavorable stories (pretty mild ones at that)? The ownership of the voting machines by Party activists?
Not only didn't they rise up with their rifles against this, their elected representatives said "It's all fine with us. We don't even want the power to investigate it."
The Democratic Party leadership is spineless, consultant-driven and complicit by its silence. I'd give up on them in a minute if there were an real alternative.
Not only didn't they rise up with their rifles against this, their elected representatives said "It's all fine with us. We don't even want the power to investigate it."
The Democratic Party leadership is spineless, consultant-driven and complicit by its silence. I'd give up on them in a minute if there were an real alternative.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Condi Rice is Secretary of State.
That means, she is in charge of the Department of State, an executive department descended from the Department of Foriegn Affairs, and whose function is primarily Foriegn Affairs.
Domestic functions are limited, and mostly ceremonial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_State
The implied charge of dereliction of duty is therefore invalid.
[moderatorMode]
Keep the thread civil, germane, and on track, folks.
[/moderatorMode]
Manedwolf
member
(Extremely non-highroad reply to idiotic dittohead rhetoric withheld)
Because you'd think the Secretary of State would at least make an appearance at the office, and G.W. could do something more than taking another vacation day while a major US city was being destroyed, no matter whose fault it was?
Yeah, that's really expecting too much.
Wow, what good little SERFS some of us have become. And yeah, call me leftist or a marxist for suggesting a showing-up at the office might have been called for, and I'll call you a serf-mentality tool who will be an apologist for ANY transgression as long as there's a shining, glorious, holy (R) after their name.
And yeah, I think I'm about done with this forum in general. Can only take so many of this sort of noisemaker ripping on anyone who isn't a Holy True Republican Believer regardless of their stance on 2A before it becomes tiresome.
Keep it up. Keep alienating possible allies, and see how far this all gets.
Some of us are just people who believe in 2A and vote on each issue individually, not by party, and don't swear loyalty and our firstborn and every damned braincell in our head to one side or the other like blind, bleating sheep following wherever the herd goes.
And the sooner some people figure that out, instead of calling all Democrats and independents 'leftists' and 'marxists' and 'liberals' and all sorts of other nonsense...well, the fight might get somewhere.
Till then...I guess all that's wanted here is an echo chamber a la Free Republic.
A shame.
scromp
Member
I am disappointed in The .. Road.
I am a Democrat, and I will put my second amendment convictions up against any of yours. I have plenty of guns, and I think everyone else should too. I don't hunt. I don't compete, but I practice. I keep my weapons for self defense and as a safeguard against tyranny. I carry every day. I am a patriot and a proud citizen of this country and I named my first child after Benjamin Franklin. My allegiance is to the Constitution and the memory of the Founding Fathers.
While I would rather just not vote than cast a vote for a corrupt, lying, crooked Republican, I will also not vote for anti-gun Democrats, or those that I find to be dishonest. I will vote for a Libertarian if they're not completely crazy, and let's face it, there's little risk of them getting elected.
I don't think anyone here who really puts the second amendment first will be upset to hear this. As a Democrat, when I am mixing guns and politics, I am not preaching to the choir. I am fighting for the second amendment in a sometimes hostile environment, and often making our case to people who do not already agree with me. And in the long run, I convert more than I don't.
You should all be grateful for people like me. Unless you're really just partisan Republicans who happen to kinda like guns.
I am a Democrat, and I will put my second amendment convictions up against any of yours. I have plenty of guns, and I think everyone else should too. I don't hunt. I don't compete, but I practice. I keep my weapons for self defense and as a safeguard against tyranny. I carry every day. I am a patriot and a proud citizen of this country and I named my first child after Benjamin Franklin. My allegiance is to the Constitution and the memory of the Founding Fathers.
While I would rather just not vote than cast a vote for a corrupt, lying, crooked Republican, I will also not vote for anti-gun Democrats, or those that I find to be dishonest. I will vote for a Libertarian if they're not completely crazy, and let's face it, there's little risk of them getting elected.
I don't think anyone here who really puts the second amendment first will be upset to hear this. As a Democrat, when I am mixing guns and politics, I am not preaching to the choir. I am fighting for the second amendment in a sometimes hostile environment, and often making our case to people who do not already agree with me. And in the long run, I convert more than I don't.
You should all be grateful for people like me. Unless you're really just partisan Republicans who happen to kinda like guns.
the pistolero
Member
I'm not so sure about that. Anyone remember this quote from John Chafee, the (late) Republican senator from Rhode Island?
"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs).... It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"
He died in office, and if I remember right, he kept his GOP affiliation right up until his death, when something like that should have caused the GOP, if it was as pro-gun as we all wished it were, to disown him. Or did they? I honestly do not know. Anyone with a better memory wish to enlighten us?
Well, this semi-partisan Republican who really likes guns is grateful for you and those like you. I just wish there were more like you, or, better yet, that the RKBA was a non-partisan issue.
edited for clarity
Last edited:
scromp
Member
Well I can get behind that. Thanks. And to be fair, living where I live, I rarely have the chance to vote for either anti-gun Democrats or honest republicans, so it is usually a pretty easy choice for me.
( deleted rambling )
Last edited:
Mannedwolf said
You need to rethink this. Your dedication to defending the RKBA should have nothing to do with your views on anything else or mine.
Your attack on Condi Rice for buying expensive shoes, assuming she did buy them, was a marxist class envy sort of response. It is none of your beeswax what she does with her money. That is what I was refering too and I stand by it.....That was not refering to your comment she should have made an appearance. Think about it.
As far as her going down there. Why? The President was criticized by the press and the left every time he went down for being in the way and slowing progress. I could just hear the wailing and nashing of teeth about the cost of her flying down in a government plane to look at the damage.....especially since State has no jurisdiction there. For your info she did make comments from State on the issue of Katrina when foreign aid was offered. Which was proper. Pay more attention and you would know that.
You made the noise ripping by making a unwarranted attack on Condi Rice and the President, and got a response, now that you have been challenged you run away....very immature. Stay and debate if you have the courage of your convictions. Just use facts and back up what you say rather than make a hit and run comment and then expect to get away with it......
You need to rethink this. Your dedication to defending the RKBA should have nothing to do with your views on anything else or mine.
Your attack on Condi Rice for buying expensive shoes, assuming she did buy them, was a marxist class envy sort of response. It is none of your beeswax what she does with her money. That is what I was refering too and I stand by it.....That was not refering to your comment she should have made an appearance. Think about it.
As far as her going down there. Why? The President was criticized by the press and the left every time he went down for being in the way and slowing progress. I could just hear the wailing and nashing of teeth about the cost of her flying down in a government plane to look at the damage.....especially since State has no jurisdiction there. For your info she did make comments from State on the issue of Katrina when foreign aid was offered. Which was proper. Pay more attention and you would know that.
You made the noise ripping by making a unwarranted attack on Condi Rice and the President, and got a response, now that you have been challenged you run away....very immature. Stay and debate if you have the courage of your convictions. Just use facts and back up what you say rather than make a hit and run comment and then expect to get away with it......
Scomp said
You should not be. This is the section where we talk politics. There are bound to be disagreements and you should expect to see it here. One must have fortitude to read what you may disagree with, and you have the freedom to respond to it.
The High Road is indeed the The High Road. They let us discuss and debate. If we took this to Daily Kos or Democratic Underground I would be banned in a New York minute from posting there and my posts removed.....censorship pure and simple. And Political Correctness at its essence....one of many reasons I despise it. They only want to hear the leftist point of view over there. That is not the High Road this is. We can debate here. If you say something someone disagrees with you must expect they will respond...and depending on how vile a comment someone makes they should not be surprised when they get slapped down pretty hard for it. You just need a thick skin here sometimes. However those disagreements should have nothing to do with your commitment to the Second Amendment or gun ownership.
If you can't handle talking politics or don't like having your views or comments challenged you need to just stick to the other pages.
You should not be. This is the section where we talk politics. There are bound to be disagreements and you should expect to see it here. One must have fortitude to read what you may disagree with, and you have the freedom to respond to it.
The High Road is indeed the The High Road. They let us discuss and debate. If we took this to Daily Kos or Democratic Underground I would be banned in a New York minute from posting there and my posts removed.....censorship pure and simple. And Political Correctness at its essence....one of many reasons I despise it. They only want to hear the leftist point of view over there. That is not the High Road this is. We can debate here. If you say something someone disagrees with you must expect they will respond...and depending on how vile a comment someone makes they should not be surprised when they get slapped down pretty hard for it. You just need a thick skin here sometimes.
However those disagreements should have nothing to do with your commitment to the Second Amendment or gun ownership.If you can't handle talking politics or don't like having your views or comments challenged you need to just stick to the other pages.
I'm suprised to discover that there are only "Rightists" and "Leftists" posting here, what's a moderate indy to do?
Isn't there a logical fallacy concerning limiting choices to only two? I think it is called a False Dichotomy. I'm also suprised to discover that Democrats are considered to be "Leftists" on this site, when they strike me as being Republican Lite.
I suppose since the Republican party has been hi-jacked by Trots and the Democrats play dress up I should just shut up and enjoy the spectacle.
Isn't there a logical fallacy concerning limiting choices to only two? I think it is called a False Dichotomy. I'm also suprised to discover that Democrats are considered to be "Leftists" on this site, when they strike me as being Republican Lite.
I suppose since the Republican party has been hi-jacked by Trots and the Democrats play dress up I should just shut up and enjoy the spectacle.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
There's still a good many 'yellow dog' Democrats here in the South. As in,"I'd vote for a yeller dawg if'ern it were a Democrat." The South voting Republican is a fairly new phenomenon and the South would not be voting Republican if it were not for northern Republicans who have moved to the South.
The Republican Party is still paying a price for what it did in the South during Reconstruction.
I've a first cousin who hunts, shoots, and owns multiple guns. And votes Democrat whether the candidate is anti-gun and anti-hunting. Union man from a union family.
I have difficulty seeing a difference between the Republican conservatives and the Democratic liberals. The big contentious debates in Congress boil down to what areas of my life the government controls and by how much. Say what?
I'm neither rightist, leftist, or moderate. Rational anarchist. A rational anarchist is a person who does not need to be governed to respect others' rights but realizes that there are many pathological individuals who do need to be told what to do. Therefore, the rational anarchist is willing to exist under a government which is necessary for the welfare of those poor, sick people. Trying to live perfectly in an imperfect world.
Personally, I think the Democrats and Republicans should merge to form the Tyrannical Party. Let's have openness in politics!
So, is this the best we can hope for? Renewed assault on gun rights when the Democrats return to power or neglect and being taken for granted if the Republicans retain power?
The only reason the Republican Party can claim allegiance from gun owners is,"Hey, we haven't kicked you lately!" The party can certainly point to no positive achievements on a federal level. Even the sunset of the AWB saw nothing but Republican waffling on the matter..."I'll sign it if it is sent to me." Now, granted, this was a political maneuver by Bush. It took any heat off and he certainly didn't pressure any Republicans to vote for the measure. But it shows a certain lack of conviction in pro-RKBA, don't you think? And that's typical of the Republican Party on a national level. Republicans are happy with Democrats supporting gun control and losing elections. But when they look at the polls, they get scared of the issue. Little spine in the party.
As far as Republicans being pro-RKBA, to judge from results I'd say the best that could be said of the Republican Party is that it is neutral. How many federal gun control laws have been repealed with a Republican President, and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress? None? Hmmmm.
The Republican Party is still paying a price for what it did in the South during Reconstruction.
I've a first cousin who hunts, shoots, and owns multiple guns. And votes Democrat whether the candidate is anti-gun and anti-hunting. Union man from a union family.
I have difficulty seeing a difference between the Republican conservatives and the Democratic liberals. The big contentious debates in Congress boil down to what areas of my life the government controls and by how much. Say what?
I'm neither rightist, leftist, or moderate. Rational anarchist. A rational anarchist is a person who does not need to be governed to respect others' rights but realizes that there are many pathological individuals who do need to be told what to do. Therefore, the rational anarchist is willing to exist under a government which is necessary for the welfare of those poor, sick people. Trying to live perfectly in an imperfect world.
Personally, I think the Democrats and Republicans should merge to form the Tyrannical Party. Let's have openness in politics!
So, is this the best we can hope for? Renewed assault on gun rights when the Democrats return to power or neglect and being taken for granted if the Republicans retain power?
The only reason the Republican Party can claim allegiance from gun owners is,"Hey, we haven't kicked you lately!" The party can certainly point to no positive achievements on a federal level. Even the sunset of the AWB saw nothing but Republican waffling on the matter..."I'll sign it if it is sent to me." Now, granted, this was a political maneuver by Bush. It took any heat off and he certainly didn't pressure any Republicans to vote for the measure. But it shows a certain lack of conviction in pro-RKBA, don't you think? And that's typical of the Republican Party on a national level. Republicans are happy with Democrats supporting gun control and losing elections. But when they look at the polls, they get scared of the issue. Little spine in the party.
As far as Republicans being pro-RKBA, to judge from results I'd say the best that could be said of the Republican Party is that it is neutral. How many federal gun control laws have been repealed with a Republican President, and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress? None? Hmmmm.
^When I was old enough to vote, my Dad told me that the only good government is a paralyzed government. He used to vote "opposites." i.e. If we had a Democrat as CIC or a Dem Senate Majority, he'd locally vote Rebublican. And if we had a Republican CIC or Repub Senate Majority, he'd locally vote Democrat.
Unfortunately since modern Repubs and Dems are so similar, I can't employ his tactic anymore. Janus and Epimethus may exchange orbit but they both still circle Saturn. Republicans and Democrats may exchange positions but they still circle the dollar.
Unfortunately since modern Repubs and Dems are so similar, I can't employ his tactic anymore. Janus and Epimethus may exchange orbit but they both still circle Saturn. Republicans and Democrats may exchange positions but they still circle the dollar.
carebear
Member
Phetro said:
Here's how some folks explain it. Notice neatly avoiding the trap of dealing with "cultural" issues.
from article said:
"Cute" answer: Potential targets are further away.
Serious answer: See, it's all about population density, those evil guns would be causing folks in rural states to kill each other at the same rate if they (the folks) were in closer proximity, as city dwellers are.
As a conservative Republican I can tell you it is easy to see the difference. I think you are confusing us with liberal Republicans that those on my side of things refer to as RINOs. John McCain, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chaffee, Mike DeWine, George Voinovich, Olympia Dukakis, the President's father. etc...are examples of the breed.
Watch out.......standing in the middle of the road will get you run over.....
That is easy to shoot down. Had that been the case the Clinton 1994 gun ban and the hated 10 round magazine limit would still be in place. The Republicans lean pro gun....however are too timid at the moment to go after and repeal some of the antigun laws passed since 1934....I am all for sending more firebrands to Washington DC to repeal this unconstitutional rubbish.
- Status