In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Will I Be Welcomed Here?
Just want to ask before I do much posting here. I have been a member of GunBroker for many years and I have bought several rifles and shotguns from this site. However, I doubt if even 1% of the people on this forum will agree with me on politics. I am a liberal and vote for Democrats, am a union member and I have never seen a problem concerning my political beliefs and my gun owning and shooting hobby. I am a former gold medalist in the 55 and over age group Florida State Games skeet shooting division and I currently shoot center fire rifles every Friday morning at the local range. I have a couple of liberal friends at the range also and I get along fine with the conservatives there. So, can I take part in political discussions here and offer my liberal slant on things, or will I be crucified?
xvigauge
xvigauge
Comments
Personally, I think the politics forum died when it lost the contrarian voices of a few long time posters.
If you have something to say, do so.....but this place can get hot in a hurry. [:)]
With that said facts and figures don't lie so please be aware that you will be challenged on your political slant; we all may learn from each other.
I will do my best to make sure you are treated in a civil manner. I will warn you that having thick skin and a willingness to openly discuss issues from your point of view will get you lots of brownie points...
We don't have very many of either, so if you fall into category No. 1, you will be most welcome.
Brad Steele
Please understand that as far as I'm concerned you have every right to your opinions no matter how wrong they might be.[;)]
Have no fear, we'll be happy to educate and lead you to enlightenment.[:D]
Having read the favorable responses, I guess I'll have to start posting too. Can't have too many liberals.
It is a treatable condition, however.
IMO, the idea that one can truthfully claim to be a firearms enthusiast and supporter of the Second Amendment while being comfortable with supporting those who openly call for civilian disarmament reinforces the theory that liberalism is a mental disorder.
It is a treatable condition, however.
[:D]
xvigauge,
Having read the favorable responses, I guess I'll have to start posting too. Can't have too many liberals.
Looks like we're up to our quota of two. That'll give us some fresh meat to chew on for a while![:D]
Welcome to the forums!
IMO, the idea that one can truthfully claim to be a firearms enthusiast and supporter of the Second Amendment while being comfortable with supporting those who openly call for civilian disarmament reinforces the theory that liberalism is a mental disorder.
It is a treatable condition, however.
I may have a mental disorder, but liberalism is not it. I believe that those in power do NOT call for "openly civilian disarmament." They may want to invoke certain gun laws that may make it safer for all Americans and I see nothing wrong with that. I have been following the gun law evolution since I was 12 years old. I even wrote a research paper on it when I was in the 7th grade. I am now 64 and have a Master's Degree in English, and I have still been able to buy, sell, own , shoot, and reload with no problems. But, there are other issues and being a gun owner and shooter does not mean that I have to automatically take a conservative stance on those issues and support a party that constantly works against the American working man.
xvigauge
While you may not feel the impact of restrictive laws placed upon the general population, yours is the observation of but one man who obviously believes in big government. You site safety as a good reason for more restrictive and all-encompassing firearms laws. If this world was perfect I might see your logic, but it's not!
Restrictive firearms laws only have an effect on those who follow the law. I'll cite Chicago as just one example. Cook County has among the most restrictive firearm laws in the United States. It also has one of the highest incidences of firearm crime in the country. Increasing the scope of laws designed to control firearms only restricts your rights and mine, not the gang bangers or other criminals.
We here in NY are faced with a governor and government that passes restrictive laws in the middle of the night. Government operating in such a manner is vile by any measure. And does anyone suppose that the SAFE Act has had the least effect upon the criminal element?
Case in point... I live in a semi-rural area in Chemung County, NY. Based on personal observation I'd say the instance of gun ownership is rather high amongst my neighbors. And among our rural population I can't remember one instance of a firearms related issue where one of our law abiding citizens went on a rampage. This either before or after the SAFE Act. Criminals, on the other hand, have been unaffected.
Having shared the above, look at the Elmira, NY news of late. Shooting after shooting! So somehow you and I are safer by restricting our right to own and bear a firearm as we see fit while ignoring the real problem? I think not!
With all due respect I must tell you that only a liberal mindset could look at these same facts as do I and conclude that the solution is to increase regulations on law abiding citizens. Only a liberal could look at a firearm and see it as evil while remaining blind to the real evil.
Sadly, the real evil walks on two legs and shares the genetic makeup of all humans. The difference being that this evil is not human in the sense of being civilized.
So have at it with a rebuttal. Please feel free to purchase a home in the small city of Elmira. Tell me you'll feel safe because of increased restrictions on gun ownership. Tell me that when some partially human animal starts to pop off rounds in front of your house in the middle of the night, or day for that matter.
And then the morons in Albany wonder why we in rural NY have collectively ignored their wonderful new laws? Please tell me that you're smart enough to understand and that being liberal or conservative is not the issue. The issue is a government overstepping its authority to the detriment of every law abiding citizen irrespective of just firearms while ignoring the real problems we face as citizens.
Addendum:
I applaud your educational status and I'm happy to hear that at a young age you wrote a paper on the subject of firearms control. Personally I'd opine that combined with your degree and your stance on government regulation you should feel very safe after you move to our fair city. Or... Maybe not so much!
Please consider that just maybe your mention of an educational degree and related may not exactly be to your benefit when dealing with my unwashed fellows. We tend to be mostly unimpressed with credentials printed on parchment. We're more about credentials based on past behavior and personal integrity.
Bring it on! We're waiting.
But, there are other issues and being a gun owner and shooter does not mean that I have to automatically take a conservative stance on those issues and support a party that constantly works against the American working man.
xvigauge
You just described the (D) party, well done Sir!
quote:Originally posted by xvigauge
But, there are other issues and being a gun owner and shooter does not mean that I have to automatically take a conservative stance on those issues and support a party that constantly works against the American working man.
xvigauge
You just described the (D) party, well done Sir!
Are you saying that the republican party supports the working man? I don't think so.
xvigauge
Here's the problem...
While you may not feel the impact of restrictive laws placed upon the general population, yours is the observation of but one man who obviously believes in big government. You site safety as a good reason for more restrictive and all-encompassing firearms laws. If this world was perfect I might see your logic, but it's not!
Restrictive firearms laws only have an effect on those who follow the law. I'll cite Chicago as just one example. Cook County has among the most restrictive firearm laws in the United States. It also has one of the highest incidences of firearm crime in the country. Increasing the scope of laws designed to control firearms only restricts your rights and mine, not the gang bangers or other criminals.
We here in NY are faced with a governor and government that passes restrictive laws in the middle of the night. Government operating in such a manner is vile by any measure. And does anyone suppose that the SAFE Act has had the least effect upon the criminal element?
Case in point... I live in a semi-rural area in Chemung County, NY. Based on personal observation I'd say the instance of gun ownership is rather high amongst my neighbors. And among our rural population I can't remember one instance of a firearms related issue where one of our law abiding citizens went on a rampage. This either before or after the SAFE Act. Criminals, on the other hand, have been unaffected.
Having shared the above, look at the Elmira, NY news of late. Shooting after shooting! So somehow you and I are safer by restricting our right to own and bear a firearm as we see fit while ignoring the real problem? I think not!
With all due respect I must tell you that only a liberal mindset could look at these same facts and conclude that the solution is to increase regulations on law abiding citizens. Only a liberal could look at a firearm and see it as evil.
Sadly, the real evil walks on two legs and shares the genetic makeup of all humans. The difference being that this evil is not human in the sense of being civilized.
So have at it with a rebuttal. Please feel free to purchase a home in the small city of Elmira. Tell me you'll feel safe because of increased restrictions on gun ownership. Tell me that when some partially human animal starts to pop off rounds in front of your house in the middle of the night, or day for that matter.
And then the morons in Albany wonder why we in rural NY have collectively ignored their wonderful new laws? Please tell me that you're smart enough to understand and that being liberal or conservative is not the issue. The issue is a government overstepping its authority to the detriment of every law abiding citizen irrespective of just firearms.
Well said , Nord. I don't agree with it, but well said.
xvigauge
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
--U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein Associated Press 11/18/93
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."
--Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) CBS 60 Minutes, Feb. 5, 1995.
"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!"
--U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 12/8/93
Barack Obama, in a 1996 interview with "Independent Voters of Illinois":
Q: Do you support state legislation to:
1. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?
A: Yes
2. ban assault weapons?
A: Yes
3. require mandatory waiting periods and background checks?
A: Yes
"I don't believe people should be allowed to own guns."
--Barack Obama, 1990 interview with John Lott
Then we have Obama appointee BATFE director B. Todd Jones, an unelected bureaucrat who works to reclassify common rifle ammunition as "armor piercing" in order to ban its use, establishing "backdoor" gun control, in the name of "police protection." A deceitful effort to use one ammo ban to sneak by the American people a comprehensive ammunition ban, which would have rendered numerous commonly-owned rifles entirely useless.
A couple of remarks from a champion of the fight for the American working man:
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans . . . ."
--William J. Clinton, USA Today, p. 2A, Mar. 11, 1993.
"The Constitution is a radical document... it is the job of the government to rein in people's rights."
--William J Clinton on MTV - 1992
A few of Hillary Clinton's ideas about guns in the US:
"Rein in idea that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime." (May 2014)
"Get assault weapons & guns off the streets." (Jul 2007)
"License and register all handgun sales." (Jun 2000)
"Tough gun control keeps guns out of wrong hands." (Jul 1999)
"Gun control protects our children." (Jul 1999)
"Don't water down sensible gun control legislation." (Jul 1999)
"Lock up guns; store ammo separately." (Jun 1999)
"Get weapons off the streets; zero tolerance for weapons." (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
"Prevent unauthorized firearm use with 'smart gun' technology." (Aug 2000)
A few thoughts from those in power who are "not for civilian disarmament":
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
--U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein Associated Press 11/18/93
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."
--Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) CBS 60 Minutes, Feb. 5, 1995.
"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!"
--U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 12/8/93
Barack Obama, in a 1996 interview with "Independent Voters of Illinois":
Q: Do you support state legislation to:
1. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?
A: Yes
2. ban assault weapons?
A: Yes
3. require mandatory waiting periods and background checks?
A: Yes
"I don't believe people should be allowed to own guns."
--Barack Obama, 1990 interview with John Lott
Then we have Obama appointee BATFE director B. Todd Jones, an unelected bureaucrat who works to reclassify common rifle ammunition as "armor piercing" in order to ban its use, establishing "backdoor" gun control, in the name of "police protection." A deceitful effort to use one ammo ban to sneak by the American people a comprehensive ammunition ban, which would have rendered numerous commonly-owned rifles entirely useless.
A couple of remarks from a champion of the fight for the American working man:
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans . . . ."
--William J. Clinton, USA Today, p. 2A, Mar. 11, 1993.
"The Constitution is a radical document... it is the job of the government to rein in people's rights."
--William J Clinton on MTV - 1992
A few of Hillary Clinton's ideas about guns in the US:
"Rein in idea that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime." (May 2014)
"Get assault weapons & guns off the streets." (Jul 2007)
"License and register all handgun sales." (Jun 2000)
"Tough gun control keeps guns out of wrong hands." (Jul 1999)
"Gun control protects our children." (Jul 1999)
"Don't water down sensible gun control legislation." (Jul 1999)
"Lock up guns; store ammo separately." (Jun 1999)
"Get weapons off the streets; zero tolerance for weapons." (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
"Prevent unauthorized firearm use with 'smart gun' technology." (Aug 2000)
Good job, Phil. But a few quotes taken out of context is not convincing. And, has anything actually been done to take our gun ownership away? I still have all of mine.
xvigauge
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by xvigauge
But, there are other issues and being a gun owner and shooter does not mean that I have to automatically take a conservative stance on those issues and support a party that constantly works against the American working man.
xvigauge
You just described the (D) party, well done Sir!
Are you saying that the republican party supports the working man? I don't think so.
xvigauge
I think both parties screw "We The People" by playing party politics dividing our nation, lying, cheating, stealing and serving themselves at the expense of our nations future. Individual national politicians are by and large corrupt and deeply dishonest to the core. I especially despise and find reprehensible Reid, Boxer, Schumer, Dodd, Feinstien, Pelosi and Durbin.
I am a "working man" and find the platform of the (R) party to be less intrusive, by design, in my life than the (D)party party is. I do not support Socialism or the Marxist Muslim now acting as POTUS. With that said I have not voted (R) for POTUS in the past three cycles going more Libertarian than (R) or (D).
"Assault Rifles" and, to a lesser extent, Semi-automatic handguns are probably the two lighting rods in the debate right now....with significant (maybe even majority for assault rifles) percentages of gun owners seeking outright bans or heavy restrictions on ownership.
The hunter or skeet/trap shooter who doesn't carry a gun for defense and can't see the "legitimate, sporting" purposes of something like an AR or AK can't understand why anyone would want one....hence it's something they believe is something that can be compromised in order to ensure that their preferred manner of shooting is preserved.
That is the trap they fall into....thinking that compromise ends the debate. It doesn't. For the hard-core gun ban lobby, and it is a loud, tireless minority, nothing short of turning them all in will satisfy them....and so this debate will rage on as long as guns are available to the population.
For those, like myself, whose preferred guns are on the chopping block...banning them won't make me take up skeet shooting or bench rest shooting as an alternative. I'll be out of the firearms hobby entirely.....and I'm going to be pissed that I was stabbed in the back by other gun owners.
If there comes a day when Joe Fudd decides his right to keep his Browning Superposed is more important than my right to keep my scary-looking AR-15, I'll work tirelessly to make sure his gets taken too.
For those who say these things can't happen...they already are. New York and California are two prime examples.
Thank you for the compliment.
Unfortunately the compliment, then your statement of disagreement, doesn't constitute a rebuttal. A rebuttal would constitute bringing facts to the table that might dispute mine. That's how we have an intelligent discussion.
Please feel free to do so... Nobody here bites. At least nobody I'm aware of. I'm open to conversion. All anyone has to do is point out and prove the fallacy of my conservative and rather libertarian positions.
I'll share in advance that others have tried to do so without the desired results. I, however, will enjoy your best efforts and will look forward to crossing swords.
My Best,
xvigauge
Thank you for the compliment.
Unfortunately the compliment, then your statement of disagreement, doesn't constitute a rebuttal. A rebuttal would constitute bringing facts to the table that might dispute mine. That's how we have an intelligent discussion.
Please feel free to do so... Nobody here bites. At least nobody I'm aware of. I'm open to conversion. All anyone has to do is point out and prove the fallacy of my conservative and rather libertarian positions.
I'll share in advance that others have tried to do so without the desired results. I, however, will enjoy your best efforts and will look forward to crossing swords.
My Best,
Well then, you need to post some facts. What you have posted is meaningless to me.
xvigauge
Well then, you need to post some facts. What you have posted is meaningless to me.
xvigauge
How is what he said "meaningless to you"?
That type smarmy response, seen here for decades, is EXACTLY why Progressives do not last long around here.[xx(][:(]
It is not being banned that makes them leave it is the inability to calmly and concisely express WHY they hold the views they do.
I have a very negative view of the attempt as well as success.
Attemped ban of certain types of ammunition.
The blocking of reimportation of M1's.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),
was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
McDonald v. City of Chicago
The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010. On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.
What exactly does "Shall not be infringed" mean?
xvigauge
Thank you for the compliment.
Unfortunately the compliment, then your statement of disagreement, doesn't constitute a rebuttal. A rebuttal would constitute bringing facts to the table that might dispute mine. That's how we have an intelligent discussion.
Please feel free to do so... Nobody here bites. At least nobody I'm aware of. I'm open to conversion. All anyone has to do is point out and prove the fallacy of my conservative and rather libertarian positions.
I'll share in advance that others have tried to do so without the desired results. I, however, will enjoy your best efforts and will look forward to crossing swords.
My Best,
"We're a nation that believes in the 2nd Amendment and I believe in the 2nd Amendment." President Obama, Nov. 2, 2014
"If you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don't think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen." Bernie Sanders, 2016 Democratic Presidential Candidate.
"This is an important issue, and she believes that we cannot let partisan gridlock prevent us from continuing to seek common sense safety measures." Brian Fallon, Hillary Clinton Campaign Spokesperson.
"The facts: Despite polling results and statistics that prove the NRA wrong on basically every one of their talking points, they continue to mesmerize people into a fear based state, having them believe that the more guns they have, the safer they will be." The Reverb Press, July 2015
"There are 65 pro gun Democrats. When you add up all the pro-gun Republicans and the pro-gun Democrats that or any other anti-gun legislation is DOA." Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark.
xvigauge
quote:Originally posted by nord
xvigauge
Thank you for the compliment.
Unfortunately the compliment, then your statement of disagreement, doesn't constitute a rebuttal. A rebuttal would constitute bringing facts to the table that might dispute mine. That's how we have an intelligent discussion.
Please feel free to do so... Nobody here bites. At least nobody I'm aware of. I'm open to conversion. All anyone has to do is point out and prove the fallacy of my conservative and rather libertarian positions.
I'll share in advance that others have tried to do so without the desired results. I, however, will enjoy your best efforts and will look forward to crossing swords.
My Best,
"We're a nation that believes in the 2nd Amendment and I believe in the 2nd Amendment." President Obama, Nov. 2, 2014
"If you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don't think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen." Bernie Sanders, 2016 Democratic Presidential Candidate.
"This is an important issue, and she believes that we cannot let partisan gridlock prevent us from continuing to seek common sense safety measures." Brian Fallon, Hillary Clinton Campaign Spokesperson.
"The facts: Despite polling results and statistics that prove the NRA wrong on basically every one of their talking points, they continue to mesmerize people into a fear based state, having them believe that the more guns they have, the safer they will be." The Reverb Press, July 2015
"There are 65 pro gun Democrats. When you add up all the pro-gun Republicans and the pro-gun Democrats that or any other anti-gun legislation is DOA." Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark.
xvigauge
Good job, Phil xvigauge. But a few quotes taken out of context is not convincing.
So far I see little debating ability, and a Masters in English means you punctuate well, and know when to use whom or who.
In short, a liberal with far more feelings than thoughts. Keep trying.
"We're a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment."
Wonderful statement from a junior senator with his eye on the presidency. Why not include the rest of that paragraph:
"We've got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves. My belief is that we have to enforce the laws we've already got, make sure that we're keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill."
Great! Sounds very charming, very convincing, quite reasonable. But then he follows up with:
"We've done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we've got more to do when it comes to enforcement. But weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns."
Good old leftist "common-sense-laws-to-keep-guns-out-of-the-hands-of-criminals."
"If you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don't think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen." Bernie Sanders, 2016 Democratic Presidential Candidate.
Any reason why we shouldn't see some more from that article?
"But Sanders has supported some gun control while in Congress. He voted for a federal assault weapons ban himself in 1994, coming within 3.3 points of losing his House seat that November. He voted for the high-capacity magazine ban. Sanders currently has an F rating from the NRA."
"This is an important issue, and she believes that we cannot let partisan gridlock prevent us from continuing to seek common sense safety measures." Brian Fallon, Hillary Clinton Campaign Spokesperson.
Again, let's examine a bit more from that same article, shall we?
"But in a sign that the political environment on guns has shifted in the wake of recent mass shootings - and of Clinton's determination to stake out liberal ground in her primary race against insurgent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) - Clinton is not only initiating a debate about gun control but also vowing to fight the National Rifle Association.
'I'm going to speak out against the uncontrollable use of guns in our country because I believe we can do better,' Clinton said Tuesday in Iowa City."
Sorry, no sale.
As to my post supposedly without facts? I purposely invited everyone to have a look at Cook County in particular and also the nearest city to me, Elmira, NY. The facts present themselves. Whether one agrees or disagrees is totally beside the point.
I'm beginning to think that liberalism really is a disease. Be damned with the facts (or mines as the case may be). Full speed ahead!
Obama is going to take your guns. Well, it's 2015 and I still have mine and unless you're a bad guy, which you all say that you're not, then you all have yours. Why is it that every time we have a mass shooting , the gun lobby goes on the defensive and says that
The incident is another opportunity for gun rights people to take guns away? History tells us that after decades of gun violence that it's never happened. In fact, in a number of states, gun rights, relative to carry have been enhanced.
Come on people, let's get past all the rhetoric and get down to reality. Since 2008 the gun lobby has preached the gospel that
Obama is going to take your guns. Well, it's 2015 and I still have mine and unless you're a bad guy, which you all say that you're not, then you all have yours. Why is it that every time we have a mass shooting , the gun lobby goes on the defensive and says that
The incident is another opportunity for gun rights people to take guns away? History tells us that after decades of gun violence that it's never happened. In fact, in a number of states, gun rights, relative to carry have been enhanced.
So you see some of the NY State and California laws imposed as not losing rights.
Here is a quote from the Marxist POTUS made very recently.
Barack Obama is "distressed" he has been unable to strengthen gun-safety laws in America, acknowledging it will be the unfinished business of his presidency.
Obama's comment went to air on the BBC a few hours before the latest shooting in America which left three people dead, including the gunman, at the Grand Theater in Lafayette, Louisiana.
"The issue of guns, that is an area where if you ask me where has been the one area where I feel that I've been most frustrated and most stymied it is the fact that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on Earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense, gun-safety laws," he told the BBC.
"Even in the face of repeated mass killings."
Obama said the number of Americans killed since 9/11 by terrorism was less than 100 while tens of thousands had been killed by gun violence.
"For us not to be able to resolve that issue has been something that is distressing. But it is not something that I intend to stop working on in the remaining 18 months," he said.
I also remember the words of Rahm Emanuel a close friend of our POTUS; NEVER LET A GOOD CRISIS GO TO WASTE. Progressive, Socialists and Marxists, (the Obama Administration) Valerie Jarrett claiming the LITTLE RED BOOK was her favorite, Van Jones, an avowed Communist all are experts at using knee jerk reactions to incrementally strip second amendment rights away.
Very simply my right to bear arms was acknowledged by the founders of this nation. While I'm not a fan of the AK or handguns in general, those that own such have every right to do so. Bear in mind that this right has nothing to do with hunting because hunting was the order of the day well into the late 1800's if not even later than that. The founders would never have thought twice about something so natural to them. They would, however, have considered the value of firearms against a tyrant, foreign or domestic.
Be the remarks and posts as they may, my point is that the passing of even well intended restrictions on firearms is actually counterproductive. Such laws tend to make law abiding citizens criminals by virtue of draconian regulations and have virtually no effect on actual miscreants.
Look at the "Gun Free" signs that surround us. We here (liberal and conservative) tend to obey. But do any of us actually believe that someone with criminal intent would do the same? I think not.
So Mr. Sixteen Gauge I once again invite you to look at the facts. Look at Cook County. Look up the Elmira, NY news. Understand that our very own Star-Gazette is about as liberal as it gets, yet they still report seven recent incidents in the city.
One thing I'd be willing to bet is that not one of these incidents was perpetrated by a legal gun owner. Somehow we need to understand this... We meaning all of us. Instead of pointing at each other with blame, perhaps we might be better served if we came to agree on a real solution and more laws are not the answer.
Fortunately there are a large majority of the 535 clowns in the Capitol Building zoo that want to be re-elected, and who know that more emotional knee-jerk reactions to a tragedy are not the way to make that happen.
Come on people, let's get past all the rhetoric and get down to reality. Since 2008 the gun lobby has preached the gospel that
Obama is going to take your guns. Well, it's 2015 and I still have mine and unless you're a bad guy, which you all say that you're not, then you all have yours. Why is it that every time we have a mass shooting , the gun lobby goes on the defensive and says that
The incident is another opportunity for gun rights people to take guns away? History tells us that after decades of gun violence that it's never happened. In fact, in a number of states, gun rights, relative to carry have been enhanced.
So far, I haven't seen a fact, argument, or even the hint of a rational thought from either you, Oh Two Post Wonder, or the other new arrival.
What you have done is summarily dismiss the comments and discussion points made by others, and both have posted a circumstance, i.e. we still have our guns, as some sort of existential proof that no effort has been, or is being, made to change that circumstance. That a circumstance exists, in no way in and if itself, proves that no one is trying to change it. Which means that you are no better at debate that the 16 Shades of English visitor.
Frankly, what I see so far is a better than even chance that the 'two' of you are in fact one unit, and even better odds that 'both' of you are nothing more than the latest version of the leftist trolls who play hit & run on websites all over the InterWeb.
" Can't have too many liberals."
we have to many in politics
When will we finally come together and agree that the hardware of violence is not the cause? A kitchen drawer full of knives is about as deadly an arsenal as a cabinet full of guns. And it's unlocked and pretty much available to any hand that reaches in. Failing the kitchen knife there's always a hammer or screwdriver.
Only when we as a civilized nation begin to understand that criminals commit crimes and must be dealt with irregardless of race or religion will we have any chance of getting back on track. Only when our educational system begins to educate and demand accountability from students can we reasonably hope for a change.
Then parenting. Before either of the above have any chance we need to begin to teach and demand good parenting from our population. This may even include the word "God" which I know is abhorrent to many of our liberal friends. After all, invoking His word and teaching His laws runs counter to the freedoms guaranteed to us by our Constitution at least in their minds. Heaven forbid we enforce His laws.
Which, if true, raises another issue. If our Constitution guarantees a right to live any way one pleases with no consequences (It doesn't), then why would a liberal possibly care if we on the other side armed up with machine guns?
Or is it that there isn't room for two sides in the liberal mindset? I find this very strange considering the definition of "liberal" seems to be quite different from the reality. But what do I know? I'm just a simple country boy with little education. How could I possibly hold even a semi intelligent conversation with an educated liberal? How could my values be worth consideration?
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
IMO, the idea that one can truthfully claim to be a firearms enthusiast and supporter of the Second Amendment while being comfortable with supporting those who openly call for civilian disarmament reinforces the theory that liberalism is a mental disorder.
It is a treatable condition, however.
I may have a mental disorder, but liberalism is not it. I believe that those in power do NOT call for "openly civilian disarmament." They may want to invoke certain gun laws that may make it safer for all Americans and I see nothing wrong with that. I have been following the gun law evolution since I was 12 years old. I even wrote a research paper on it when I was in the 7th grade. I am now 64 and have a Master's Degree in English, and I have still been able to buy, sell, own , shoot, and reload with no problems. But, there are other issues and being a gun owner and shooter does not mean that I have to automatically take a conservative stance on those issues and support a party that constantly works against the American working man.
xvigauge
I am curious as to which gun laws that 'make it safer for all Americans' you support.
Also, the statement that you can buy sell, etc. with no problem is fairly meaningless.
Does being forced to petition government for permission to purchase a firearm comport with a Constitutional right to own and carry firearms?
Does a governmental assumption of the power to select which people can own and carry firearms comport with that Constitutional right?
Does a governmental assumption of the power to select which types of weapons its citizens can own and carry comport with that right?
Does a governmental assumption of the power to license people and register weapons comport with that right?
While it may be true that government is operating with the agreement of a majority of the citizens in the above power grabs, can we allow that government these powers absent a proper change to the 2nd Amendment?
In my opinion, this is the dividing line between the two major philosophies of government we face. One philosophy will seek to promote their ideas of how to protect the majority from the minority, regardless of whether or not it is Constitutionally supported. The other will seek to protect the rights of a minority from the mob mentality that is the democratically based actions of that majority.
In short, we do not need a Constitution to protect the majority. We need it today more than ever to protect us from that majority.
Brad Steele
Just want to ask before I do much posting here. I have been a member of GunBroker for many years and I have bought several rifles and shotguns from this site. However, I doubt if even 1% of the people on this forum will agree with me on politics. I am a liberal and vote for Democrats, am a union member and I have never seen a problem concerning my political beliefs and my gun owning and shooting hobby. I am a former gold medalist in the 55 and over age group Florida State Games skeet shooting division and I currently shoot center fire rifles every Friday morning at the local range. I have a couple of liberal friends at the range also and I get along fine with the conservatives there. So, can I take part in political discussions here and offer my liberal slant on things, or will I be crucified?
xvigauge
Well the short answer is NO.
But you brought up guns and liberalism on GunBroker.com/forums.
But if we just stick to politics and leave the gun rights issue for another forum:
"I am a liberal and vote for Democrats"
Why?
What would your positions on these issues be?
Pro choice?
favor public funding of abortions?
For or against voter ID?
Is the National Debt equal to GDP a problem?
Is declining/stagnate GDP a problem?
Open borders?
I am just interested in perspective.
I consider myself an originalist.
I noted that 16 Gauge was welcomed and never condemned by an obviously conservative majority here. Not one of us was impolite. The fact is that we as a group seemed to wish to learn. Sadly, we got feelings rather than solid facts to back his position.
Is it reasonable to wonder if the gap between liberal and conservative is now so great that it cannot be bridged? What is so obvious to us seems incomprehensible to the liberal camp and the same in reverse for them.
The fact that we can't bring our differences to each other and reach common ground is worrisome. Wars have started for less cause and it's not a portent of good things to come if we can't talk to each other.
Only almost unlimited individual freedoms, coupled with individual responsibility to society assures humans avoid bondage. By giving government more power it creates a monster. Strangely, we see that now right before our very eyes, almost unlimited power, zero accountability and ever growing rules and regulations to control it all.
Progressives can not argue points, they lose every time because they FEEL rather than think logically. Couple that with expecting governments to actually do something good except feed its own power and you have what you see here posted by avowed liberals; smarmy comments lacking any substance and void of facts.