PDA

View Full Version : He's a dead guy. A fucking Dead Guy. He's been dead for the better part of a decade.



SarasotaRepub
02-06-2011, 09:04 AM
Ahhh yes...the "tolerant" members of DU. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x358439) :rolleyes:




cherokeeprogressive (1000+ posts) Sun Feb-06-11 02:11 AM
Original message He's a dead guy. A fucking Dead Guy. He's been dead for the better part of a decade. Tomorrow is shaping up to be a bad day for lots of DU'ers. It won't be for me, and here's why: He's a dead guy.

When I have a job to do, a job that's been assigned to me by someone superior to me, I do the job. I don't bitch about it; I do the fucking job.

Our job, nay the job of our elected representatives, from Mayors to Governors to Congresscritters to the President is to clean up the mess that the Dead Guy left. Let's get on with the work and stop the bitching, the wailing, and the gnashing of teeth.

If tomorrow is going to be a bad day for you because of the way the M$M will be celebrating the life of a fucked up dead guy, I say turn off your TV. Go fishing. Go walking. Ride your bike or walk your dog. Walk your fucking cat if you want. Just turn it all off until Monday. Live in Seattle? Go for a ferry ride. I used to ride the Mulkiteo/Clinton ferry for hours on end when I lived on Whidbey Island. Live in Long Beach? Take the Water Taxi somewhere. Get away from it all is what I'm saying. Put it out of your mind, and avoid anything that takes you to where they're celebrating the dead guy's birthday.

What I can't say though, is if you're looking for a safe haven from the dead guy worship, come to DU. I can't say that because there will be a HUNDRED threads on DU tomorrow dedicated to the dead guy, in GD alone. A hundred or more in GDP. Probably more than a few in The Lounge as well. So if you're looking for refuge tomorrow from the flash flood of dead guy worship... DU won't be the place for you. DU'ers as a whole will be obsessed with the dead guy tomorrow and it will show by the number of threads deadicated to the dead guy, multiplied by the number of posts in those threads.

He's a dead guy. We can't reach into his grave, take him by his dead throat, and wring sense into him or change his outlook on life. What we CAN do though, is remember that he's a dead guy, and resign ourselves to the task of fixing the things he fucked up. That task could be comparable to cleaning a catbox with our teeth, but it is what it is. Fixing a dead guy's fuck ups is never an easy thing.

Stand tall tomorrow DU'ers. Stand tall, face the right direction, and move forward. We can do this in SPITE of the dead guy and those who want to celebrate his shitty life. It'll take some work, but I'm confident that DU'ers can do it.

I'll pledge right here and now that I won't click on ANY dead guy threads tomorrow, if I come here at all, no matter WHO starts them. Remember "let it sink"? Let dead guy threads sink tomorrow. Join me in boycotting the dead guy. You'll go to bed tomorrow night happier than you would be had you participated in hating a dead guy.

I love my DU friends. Take this rant for what it's worth... just another drunken ramble from some screwed up drunk person who cares not a whit about most dead people.

And have a Wonderful Day tomorrow. Make it so.



Their board is filling quickly with pure hate for President Reagan but I'd expect nothing less, after all, it's DU. The Hate Reagan threads might exceed the Egypt threads today!
:eek: :rolleyes:

FDK
02-06-2011, 09:44 AM
The P***n moratorium isn't working out too well either.

They even have a combo Palin-Reagan thread. Truly the best of times. :D

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x586736

hoplophobe
02-06-2011, 11:39 AM
I love my DU friends. Take this rant for what it's worth... just another drunken ramble from some screwed up drunk person who cares not a whit about most dead people.
Will Pitt?

obx
02-06-2011, 11:41 AM
Let's remind them Ted Kennedy has been sober for almost 2 years.

txradioguy
02-06-2011, 11:58 AM
I seem to recall the DUmmies cheering n some idiot that had taken pictures of himself simulating taking a piss on Reagan's grave.

They will never...EVER let aything having to do with Ronaldus Magnus "go".

If they truly intended to do that they wouldn't post these silly threads.

txradioguy
02-06-2011, 12:01 PM
Note to DUmmies Lenin and Marx are a couple of fucking dead guys too but you constantly worship at their altar and wish this country would be more like their vision of a Utopia

Lanie
02-06-2011, 01:05 PM
Note to DUmmies Lenin and Marx are a couple of fucking dead guys too but you constantly worship at their altar and wish this country would be more like their vision of a Utopia

I don't see articles and posts celebrating their birthday though. I haven't understood why Reagan supporters are doing this, but to each their own.

txradioguy
02-06-2011, 01:15 PM
I don't see articles and posts celebrating their birthday though. I haven't understood why Reagan supporters are doing this, but to each their own.

Your friends at DU celebrate them every day and wish we could be more like Russia.

The MSM promotes and supports policies and Politicians who want to push this country to be the next Soviet Union.

EVERY DAY is a celebration of Lenin and mark on the left.

We celebrate Reagan and his legacy because of what he did for this country and for the world. And for doing what 5 Presidents befoer him couldn't do. Defeat the Soviet Union without firing a shot and winning the cold war.

He pulled this country out of a financial and economic disaster we are now repeating under Obama.

And most of all he restored people's pride in this country after being told how awful we were for the last four years before he was elected.

I can only hope that as Democrat history is currently repeating itself...the aftermath of failed Liberal policies repeats itself as well.

SarasotaRepub
02-06-2011, 01:15 PM
Let's remind them Ted Kennedy has been sober for almost 2 years.


Classic!!!!:D:D

SaintLouieWoman
02-06-2011, 01:27 PM
I don't see articles and posts celebrating their birthday though. I haven't understood why Reagan supporters are doing this, but to each their own.

Lanie, not a cool thing to say on a conservative site on Reagan's 100th birthday.

That "to each his own" crack could have been omitted.

linda22003
02-06-2011, 01:56 PM
I don't see articles and posts celebrating their birthday though. I haven't understood why Reagan supporters are doing this, but to each their own.

Are you SERIOUS? I mean, he was born on SUPER BOWL SUNDAY! How cool is that???

Carol
02-06-2011, 01:58 PM
In one respect it's sad that they are so full of hatred that someone else commemorating someone they don't like can ruin their entire day.

On the other hand they are doing it to themselves. They have no one else to blame for their hatred, bad moods and violent and profanity laced rhetoric.

And to top it all off they have to see President Bush at the Super Bowl, at least those who have decided not to boycott watching it because of President Bush's presence.:D

SaintLouieWoman
02-06-2011, 02:16 PM
In one respect it's sad that they are so full of hatred that someone else commemorating someone they don't like can ruin their entire day.

On the other hand they are doing it to themselves. They have no one else to blame for their hatred, bad moods and violent and profanity laced rhetoric.

And to top it all off they have to see President Bush at the Super Bowl, at least those who have decided not to boycott watching it because of President Bush's presence.:D

Too bad we're not in Dallas. SR could wear his W hat that I gave him. :D

Lanie
02-06-2011, 02:21 PM
Your friends at DU celebrate them every day and wish we could be more like Russia.

The MSM promotes and supports policies and Politicians who want to push this country to be the next Soviet Union.

EVERY DAY is a celebration of Lenin and mark on the left.

We celebrate Reagan and his legacy because of what he did for this country and for the world. And for doing what 5 Presidents befoer him couldn't do. Defeat the Soviet Union without firing a shot and winning the cold war.

He pulled this country out of a financial and economic disaster we are now repeating under Obama.

And most of all he restored people's pride in this country after being told how awful we were for the last four years before he was elected.

I can only hope that as Democrat history is currently repeating itself...the aftermath of failed Liberal policies repeats itself as well.

Why do you keep saying my friends at DU? I'm not sure if I even have any friends at DU anymore.

Lanie
02-06-2011, 02:21 PM
Are you SERIOUS? I mean, he was born on SUPER BOWL SUNDAY! How cool is that???

Well then I guess his team will win then.

movie buff
02-07-2011, 09:11 AM
Note to DUmmies Lenin and Marx are a couple of fucking dead guys too but you constantly worship at their altar and wish this country would be more like their vision of a Utopia

Don't forget their ignorant adoration of Ernesto "Che" Guevara.
This DU thread actually gives me mixed feelings.
On the one hand, I am angered by the vile and hateful comments the poster made about one of the greatest presidents in American history, who was 20 times the president and 30 times the human being that our current Teleprompter in Chief is.
On the other hand, I'd very much agree with the core message of his/ her post: If the DUmmies don't want to be reminded of Reagan and whine about him, DON'T WATCH THE SHOWS ON THAT DAY! Do something else! Isn't that near enough to what the liberals say to us whenever we complain about obscene or offensive things they put out, especially in the media? "If you don't like it, don't watch it!"

txradioguy
02-07-2011, 09:25 AM
Don't forget their ignorant adoration of Ernesto "Che" Guevara.
This DU thread actually gives me mixed feelings.
On the one hand, I am angered by the vile and hateful comments the poster made about one of the greatest presidents in American history, who was 20 times the president and 30 times the human being that our current Teleprompter in Chief is.
On the other hand, I'd very much agree with the core message of his/ her post: If the DUmmies don't want to be reminded of Reagan and whine about him, DON'T WATCH THE SHOWS ON THAT DAY! Do something else! Isn't that near enough to what the liberals say to us whenever we complain about obscene or offensive things they put out, especially in the media? "If you don't like it, don't watch it!"

It's like Libtards that come on a Conservative forum and bitch and whine about the beliefs we espouse.

If you don't like them...don't come here and read them or comment on them.

But sadly...the DUmmies...who are perfectly content with being told what to think and when to think it...don't have the mental ability to think enough for themselves to change the channel. That would require a free will of thought that they don't either want to have or are incapable of having.

noonwitch
02-07-2011, 10:46 AM
For a bunch of people who allegedly believe in karma, they really should be careful what they say about the dead.

I'm not a Reagan fan, but jeez, he died from a terrible disease that I don't wish on anyone, let it go.

swirling_vortex
02-07-2011, 11:12 AM
I find that liberals tend to go on two sides of the fence about Reagan.

The first group is what we see here. We see never ending blogs and rants about how Reagan was an evil man who led this country on a road to disaster. They'll blame his economic policy, his foreign policy and the way he looked and talked on pretty much everything.

The other group is the revisionist group. These liberals are ones who don't necessarily have a burning hatred for him, but what they'll try to do is claim that Reagan was somebody else. For instance, I was flipping through the channels and happened to come across Morning Joe. All the talking heads were saying that Reagan was a moderate who negotiated with our enemies and was able to reach across the aisle in a bi-partisan fashion. They also claim that the current crop of conservatives are "extremists" who Reagan would never agree with. Kind of sickening, but I guess that's there justification for going along with the ride. After all, they already have the gall to say Obama is somehow like Reagan.

NJCardFan
02-07-2011, 11:15 AM
Don't forget their ignorant adoration of Ernesto "Che" Guevara.
This DU thread actually gives me mixed feelings.
On the one hand, I am angered by the vile and hateful comments the poster made about one of the greatest presidents in American history, who was 20 times the president and 30 times the human being that our current Teleprompter in Chief is.
On the other hand, I'd very much agree with the core message of his/ her post: If the DUmmies don't want to be reminded of Reagan and whine about him, DON'T WATCH THE SHOWS ON THAT DAY! Do something else! Isn't that near enough to what the liberals say to us whenever we complain about obscene or offensive things they put out, especially in the media? "If you don't like it, don't watch it!"

These are the same retards who try to paint Jimmy Carter as a good president when he is by far the worst this country ever saw. However, he's getting strong competition from the current occupier.

Odysseus
02-07-2011, 11:27 AM
Let's remind them Ted Kennedy has been sober for almost 2 years.
I don't know about that. His blood alcohol level will probably remain extremely high for a few years yet. However, if it is diminishing, then this is the most successful attempt at detox that he's tried. :D

I don't see articles and posts celebrating their birthday though. I haven't understood why Reagan supporters are doing this, but to each their own.
Because we respect and admire the man. The reason that you're not seeing many articles celebrating him is that the MSM loathed him, and would sooner celebrate Stalin's birthday.

I find that liberals tend to go on two sides of the fence about Reagan.

The first group is what we see here. We see never ending blogs and rants about how Reagan was an evil man who led this country on a road to disaster. They'll blame his economic policy, his foreign policy and the way he looked and talked on pretty much everything.

The other group is the revisionist group. These liberals are ones who don't necessarily have a burning hatred for him, but what they'll try to do is claim that Reagan was somebody else. For instance, I was flipping through the channels and happened to come across Morning Joe. All the talking heads were saying that Reagan was a moderate who negotiated with our enemies and was able to reach across the aisle in a bi-partisan fashion. They also claim that the current crop of conservatives are "extremists" who Reagan would never agree with. Kind of sickening, but I guess that's there justification for going along with the ride. After all, they already have the gall to say Obama is somehow like Reagan.
It's two sides of the same coin. The left loathed Reagan, and still does, but they also know that everyone who isn't a doctrinaire proglodyte admired Reagan, so they are attempting to co-opt him. It isn't that the revisionists lack hatred for Reagan, they are just trying to spin his success so that they can advance their agenda. Also, it's safe, because Reagan isn't in a position to refute them. It's just manipulation.


These are the same retards who try to paint Jimmy Carter as a good president when he is by far the worst this country ever saw. However, he's getting strong competition from the current occupier.
I think that Obama has managed to surpass Carter. The loss of Egypt threatens to plunge the Middle East into open warfare, while empowering our enemies throughout the Muslim world. Carter left office with a hostile Iran. Obama will leave office with an openly belligerent Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia and a nuclear-armed Iran.

txradioguy
02-07-2011, 12:23 PM
For a bunch of people who allegedly believe in karma, they really should be careful what they say about the dead.

I'm not a Reagan fan, but jeez, he died from a terrible disease that I don't wish on anyone, let it go.

The idiots at DU have been on record as saying he deserved to get Alzheimer's.

Odysseus
02-07-2011, 01:09 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CfxSWwq8cVo/TU7V8C7OHjI/AAAAAAAAClc/UAbbdAZvCyw/s640/There%2BYou%2BGo%2BAgain.jpg

Novaheart
02-07-2011, 05:50 PM
Don’t Blame Liberals for Gun Control

by Richard Poe


NEWSMAX.COM - Anti-gun crusaders seem worried about the advent of a Republican administration. Heaven knows why. Republicans, in recent years, have managed to do nearly as much damage to the Second Amendment as Democrats.

In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.

Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation’s strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.

Gun control crusaders argue that the Republicans are simply yielding to grassroots pressure, to gain political advantage. But polls show little evidence of such pressure.

A Gallup/CNN/USA Today survey taken in June 1999 – only two months after the Littleton massacre – showed that the number of Americans who favored stricter gun laws had declined by 20 percent since 1990.

Public support for gun control has dwindled even further since then. An Associated Press poll released on the one-year anniversary of the Littleton shootings shows that Americans favor strict enforcement of existing laws over new gun laws – the exact position of the National Rifle Association (NRA) – by 42 to 33 percent.

That same month, a survey by the Pew Research Center showed that only 6 percent of Americans believed that tougher gun laws would prevent future school shootings.

Meanwhile, a Tarrance Group poll has shown that only 5 percent of Americans want gunmakers and gun dealers held responsible for misuse of firearms.

Clearly, the pressure for gun control is not coming from the grassroots. It comes from those layers of society that the left calls the "ruling classes" – academics, Hollywood stars, Washington insiders and multibillion-dollar media conglomerates.

The latter are particularly influential in pushing anti-gun propaganda. A study by the Media Research Center released in January 2000 showed that television news stories calling for stricter gun laws outnumbered those opposing such laws by a ratio of 10 to 1.

The blame for this media bias is traditionally assigned to "liberal journalists." And, indeed, most journalists do hold left-of-center views. A 1996 survey of working journalists by the Roper Center and the Freedom Forum showed that 89 percent had voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only 4 percent identified themselves as Republicans and only 2 percent as conservatives.

Yet, their "liberal" views probably have less impact on the media’s anti-gun bias than most people assume. Rank-and-file reporters have little power to influence the political spin even of their own stories.

When I worked at the New York Post in the mid-1980s, I found the newsroom filled with liberals. They grumbled constantly about the paper’s conservative slant. But they went along with it, because it was company policy.

Liberal news organizations are no different. Political bias comes from the top. Rank-and-file reporters simply do what they are told.

Those of us who cherish our Second Amendment rights are keeping our fingers crossed about George W. Bush. But the monolithic commitment America’s "ruling classes" have shown toward gun control makes one wonder whether even a president is free to buck the current.

movie buff
02-07-2011, 07:14 PM
For a bunch of people who allegedly believe in karma, they really should be careful what they say about the dead.

I'm not a Reagan fan, but jeez, he died from a terrible disease that I don't wish on anyone, let it go.

This is the standard mode of operation for DUmmies.
If a prominent liberal gets sick or dies, the DUmmies weep and mourn for him.
If a prominent conservative gets sick or dies, the typical response from DUmmies is "Good! He got exactly what he deserved! I hope his death was slow and excrutiating and that he rots in Hell and the rest of his family all die, too!"
They are truly revolting human beings.

ABC in Georgia
02-07-2011, 09:45 PM
Carol ... back in msg. #12 yesterday:


In one respect it's sad that they are so full of hatred that someone else commemorating someone they don't like can ruin their entire day.

On the other hand they are doing it to themselves. They have no one else to blame for their hatred, bad moods and violent and profanity laced rhetoric.

And to top it all off they have to see President Bush at the Super Bowl, at least those who have decided not to boycott watching it because of President Bush's presence.:D

Hey, being a female that seldom ever watches foot ball games :o, and only ever enjoys the sight of the perfect shaped derrieres while in a huddle (more :o) lol. The only thing I enjoyed seeing amidst the confusion of attending a party last night was managing to see George and Laura in the crowd. Loved it!

That, and the fact that I WON the pool! :D Felt guilty, but took the money anyway.

~ ABC

AmPat
02-08-2011, 09:36 AM
Quote:
cherokeeprogressive (1000+ posts) Sun Feb-06-11 02:11 AM
Original message He's a dead guy. A fucking Dead Guy. He's been dead for the better part of a decade.
Kennedy has been dead longer. :rolleyes:

Odysseus
02-08-2011, 10:55 AM
Kennedy has been dead longer. :rolleyes:

And Francisco Franco is still dead. :D

Apache
02-08-2011, 11:41 AM
Don’t Blame Liberals for Gun Control

by Richard Poe


NEWSMAX.COM - Anti-gun crusaders seem worried about the advent of a Republican administration. Heaven knows why. Republicans, in recent years, have managed to do nearly as much damage to the Second Amendment as Democrats.

In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.

Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation’s strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.

Gun control crusaders argue that the Republicans are simply yielding to grassroots pressure, to gain political advantage. But polls show little evidence of such pressure.

A Gallup/CNN/USA Today survey taken in June 1999 – only two months after the Littleton massacre – showed that the number of Americans who favored stricter gun laws had declined by 20 percent since 1990.

Public support for gun control has dwindled even further since then. An Associated Press poll released on the one-year anniversary of the Littleton shootings shows that Americans favor strict enforcement of existing laws over new gun laws – the exact position of the National Rifle Association (NRA) – by 42 to 33 percent.

That same month, a survey by the Pew Research Center showed that only 6 percent of Americans believed that tougher gun laws would prevent future school shootings.

Meanwhile, a Tarrance Group poll has shown that only 5 percent of Americans want gunmakers and gun dealers held responsible for misuse of firearms.

Clearly, the pressure for gun control is not coming from the grassroots. It comes from those layers of society that the left calls the "ruling classes" – academics, Hollywood stars, Washington insiders and multibillion-dollar media conglomerates.

The latter are particularly influential in pushing anti-gun propaganda. A study by the Media Research Center released in January 2000 showed that television news stories calling for stricter gun laws outnumbered those opposing such laws by a ratio of 10 to 1.

The blame for this media bias is traditionally assigned to "liberal journalists." And, indeed, most journalists do hold left-of-center views. A 1996 survey of working journalists by the Roper Center and the Freedom Forum showed that 89 percent had voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only 4 percent identified themselves as Republicans and only 2 percent as conservatives.

Yet, their "liberal" views probably have less impact on the media’s anti-gun bias than most people assume. Rank-and-file reporters have little power to influence the political spin even of their own stories.

When I worked at the New York Post in the mid-1980s, I found the newsroom filled with liberals. They grumbled constantly about the paper’s conservative slant. But they went along with it, because it was company policy.

Liberal news organizations are no different. Political bias comes from the top. Rank-and-file reporters simply do what they are told.

Those of us who cherish our Second Amendment rights are keeping our fingers crossed about George W. Bush. But the monolithic commitment America’s "ruling classes" have shown toward gun control makes one wonder whether even a president is free to buck the current.

What the fuck does a 10 year old gun control article have to do with this?

Odysseus
02-08-2011, 12:11 PM
What the fuck does a 10 year old gun control article have to do with this?

Nothing. Nova is just being himself.

txradioguy
02-08-2011, 12:12 PM
What the fuck does a 10 year old gun control article have to do with this?

It's his rather flaccid attempt at "shattering" our image of Reagan as a Conservative.

Novaheart
02-08-2011, 12:16 PM
It's his rather flaccid attempt at "shattering" our image of Reagan as a Conservative.

Actually, it was disappointment. For years i have praised Reagan for his having said, "I never want the criminal to know that a law abiding citizen is unarmed." and generally supporting the second amendment. When I went to look to verify the quote, I found that article about Reagan's actual history with gun control.

Apache
02-08-2011, 12:27 PM
Actually, it was disappointment. For years i have praised Reagan for his having said, "I never want the criminal to know that a law abiding citizen is unarmed." and generally supporting the second amendment. When I went to look to verify the quote, I found that article about Reagan's actual history with gun control.

Firearms is where Magnus and I part ways. His actions against the Second Amendment were a real disappointment, but then no one is perfect.

Lanie
02-08-2011, 12:44 PM
Don’t Blame Liberals for Gun Control

by Richard Poe


NEWSMAX.COM - Anti-gun crusaders seem worried about the advent of a Republican administration. Heaven knows why. Republicans, in recent years, have managed to do nearly as much damage to the Second Amendment as Democrats.

In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.

Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation’s strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.

Gun control crusaders argue that the Republicans are simply yielding to grassroots pressure, to gain political advantage. But polls show little evidence of such pressure.

A Gallup/CNN/USA Today survey taken in June 1999 – only two months after the Littleton massacre – showed that the number of Americans who favored stricter gun laws had declined by 20 percent since 1990.

Public support for gun control has dwindled even further since then. An Associated Press poll released on the one-year anniversary of the Littleton shootings shows that Americans favor strict enforcement of existing laws over new gun laws – the exact position of the National Rifle Association (NRA) – by 42 to 33 percent.

That same month, a survey by the Pew Research Center showed that only 6 percent of Americans believed that tougher gun laws would prevent future school shootings.

Meanwhile, a Tarrance Group poll has shown that only 5 percent of Americans want gunmakers and gun dealers held responsible for misuse of firearms.

Clearly, the pressure for gun control is not coming from the grassroots. It comes from those layers of society that the left calls the "ruling classes" – academics, Hollywood stars, Washington insiders and multibillion-dollar media conglomerates.

The latter are particularly influential in pushing anti-gun propaganda. A study by the Media Research Center released in January 2000 showed that television news stories calling for stricter gun laws outnumbered those opposing such laws by a ratio of 10 to 1.

The blame for this media bias is traditionally assigned to "liberal journalists." And, indeed, most journalists do hold left-of-center views. A 1996 survey of working journalists by the Roper Center and the Freedom Forum showed that 89 percent had voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only 4 percent identified themselves as Republicans and only 2 percent as conservatives.

Yet, their "liberal" views probably have less impact on the media’s anti-gun bias than most people assume. Rank-and-file reporters have little power to influence the political spin even of their own stories.

When I worked at the New York Post in the mid-1980s, I found the newsroom filled with liberals. They grumbled constantly about the paper’s conservative slant. But they went along with it, because it was company policy.

Liberal news organizations are no different. Political bias comes from the top. Rank-and-file reporters simply do what they are told.

Those of us who cherish our Second Amendment rights are keeping our fingers crossed about George W. Bush. But the monolithic commitment America’s "ruling classes" have shown toward gun control makes one wonder whether even a president is free to buck the current.

I can believe it because he was the governor of CA. As for the Brady Bill, I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous to say that people shouldn't even have their background checked. I'm for gun ownership, but like other rights, there should be a limit. We have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us a right to yell "Fire!" in a theater. I don't see why the second amendment should be more special than the first.

Apache
02-08-2011, 01:01 PM
I can believe it because he was the governor of CA. As for the Brady Bill, I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous to say that people shouldn't even have their background checked. I'm for gun ownership, but like other rights, there should be a limit. We have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us a right to yell "Fire!" in a theater. I don't see why the second amendment should be more special than the first.

Because the Second protects the First...

Calypso Jones
02-08-2011, 02:01 PM
I went to DC as they prepped for his Lying in State. I'll never forget it.

Odysseus
02-08-2011, 02:29 PM
I can believe it because he was the governor of CA. As for the Brady Bill, I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous to say that people shouldn't even have their background checked. I'm for gun ownership, but like other rights, there should be a limit. We have freedom of speech, but that doesn't give us a right to yell "Fire!" in a theater. I don't see why the second amendment should be more special than the first.

You are allowed to yell "Fire!" in a theater if the theater is on fire. The Brady Bill had two major flaws, the first was that it imposed a waiting period of five days, but that went away when the computerized instant check system came online in 1998. The second was the Lautenberg Amerndment, which barred anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from having access to a weapon, regardless of the circumstances. This was applied to the US military, despite the fact that miltary arms are kept under close guard, and it is almost impossible to walk off with one in CONUS. This effectively forced the discharge of any service members who had been convicted of a domestic misdemeanor, often the result of a plea bargain made after a wild accusation arising from a divorce or custody case. The absence of a military exemption meant that we ended up losing a lot of good troops to minor charges that were adjudicated long before the law went into effect, creating an ex-post facto punishment and imposing felony consequences on misdemeanor convictions.

Meanwhile, Jared Loughner, who should have tripped every alarm in the system, as he was "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" and should have "been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution" due to his behavior (which the sheriff had prior knowledge of), was able to buy a gun.

Also, the numbers are telling in another way. From Wikipedia's article:

From 1994 through 2008, 1.8 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system. For checks done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2008, felons accounted for 56 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 13 percent of denials[18]. In April 2009, the FBI announced it had completed its 100 millionth NICS approval since its inception 10 years before.[19]

Prosecution and conviction of violators of the Brady Act, however, is extremely rare. During the first 17 months of the Act, only 7 individuals were convicted. In the first year of the Act, 250 cases were referred for prosecution and 217 of them were rejected
So, out of 1.8 million denials, 69% were the result of felons or fugitives from justice attempting to illegally purchase weapons, or 1.242 million, roughly 89,000 per year, and yet, in the first year of the act, there were 250 cases referred for prosecution, or 0.0028% of the felons and fugitives, of whom fewer than 7, or 0.0000784% of the total number denied, were convicted. Anyone else feel safer?

txradioguy
02-09-2011, 05:57 AM
Firearms is where Magnus and I part ways. His actions against the Second Amendment were a real disappointment, but then no one is perfect.

I think Reagan's views were clouded on the Brady Bill because of him having been shot and the fact bill was bearing the name of his friend and former press secretary.

Odysseus
02-09-2011, 01:33 PM
I think Reagan's views were clouded on the Brady Bill because of him having been shot and the fact bill was bearing the name of his friend and former press secretary.

Entirely possible. In fact, the biggest problem with the bill wasn't the specific provisions, but the imposition of federal power on the states. It was an absurd stretch of the Interstate Commerce Clause for the feds to regulate what could be sold to whom within the states. The only truly Constitutional aspect of the bill, the Lautenberg Amendment, had the worst impacts, in that it extended a ban on private ownership to a ban on membership in the armed forces.

Lanie
02-09-2011, 08:42 PM
Because the Second protects the First...

No, it doesn't.

Besides, there's nothing in the constitution that says that one should be considered more important than the other.

NJCardFan
02-10-2011, 12:30 AM
No, it doesn't.

Besides, there's nothing in the constitution that says that one should be considered more important than the other.
Um, perhaps you should pick up a history book. There is a reason why the freedom of speech, religion, the press, and the right to peaceably assemble is the 1st Amendment.

Rockntractor
02-10-2011, 12:45 AM
No, it doesn't.

Besides, there's nothing in the constitution that says that one should be considered more important than the other.

So the Thirteenth Amendment carries the exact level of importance as say the Seventeenth Amendment,
there is a moral equivalence between the two in your opinion?

Odysseus
02-10-2011, 10:30 AM
No, it doesn't.

Besides, there's nothing in the constitution that says that one should be considered more important than the other.

The Second Amendment is arguably the most critical part of the Bill of Rights. A disarmed and defenseless populace cannot resist a tyrannical government, and will soon lose the other rights that the Constitution guarantees. It was specifically written in order to address the Crown's attempts to disarm the colonists (the orders of the British forces at Lexington and Concord were to confiscate the militia's arms), and to restrict congress from any similar action. The concern was that congress, which has the power to regulate the militias, could use that power as a pretext to disarm the people. This is why the amendment states that a "well-regulated militia" is a necessity, but that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

Apache
02-10-2011, 12:50 PM
No, it doesn't.

Besides, there's nothing in the constitution that says that one should be considered more important than the other.

Yes, it does. Without a healthly "fear" of the governed, the government is free to do whatever it so desires. Do you ever ask yourself why America is the only nation that has free speech?

Lanie
02-12-2011, 11:20 AM
So the Thirteenth Amendment carries the exact level of importance as say the Seventeenth Amendment,
there is a moral equivalence between the two in your opinion?

13th Abolishing slavery

17th Popular vote.

Yes. We may not have official slave plantations anymore, but there's still a problem. Immigrants still come over here agreeing to be exploited slaves. Sex trafficking is a form of slavery. It's nice to at least have a law against this in place so when it's caught, we can do something about it.

Popular vote is still really important because I wouldn't want the inconsistent, uncaring about the population people picking my senator.

Lanie
02-12-2011, 11:23 AM
The Second Amendment is arguably the most critical part of the Bill of Rights. A disarmed and defenseless populace cannot resist a tyrannical government, and will soon lose the other rights that the Constitution guarantees. It was specifically written in order to address the Crown's attempts to disarm the colonists (the orders of the British forces at Lexington and Concord were to confiscate the militia's arms), and to restrict congress from any similar action. The concern was that congress, which has the power to regulate the militias, could use that power as a pretext to disarm the people. This is why the amendment states that a "well-regulated militia" is a necessity, but that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

I think we can have a country of armed law abiding citizens without selling guns to anybody and everybody.

Now, it says that the rights shall not be abridged. Okay, that's an argument showing that it's more important to protect those rights than others, but consider this. Children are not allowed to buy guns. People think it's unsafe to sell guns to somebody before they reach a certain level of competence. Okay, fine. So if this exception is going to be made with kids whether they did something wrong or not, then they shouldn't it be made with people who have already proven themselves to be a danger to society?

Lanie
02-12-2011, 11:24 AM
Y Do you ever ask yourself why America is the only nation that has free speech?

No, because we're not the only nation with free speech.

obx
02-12-2011, 11:38 AM
13th Abolishing slavery

17th Popular vote.

Immigrants still come over here agreeing to be exploited slaves.

No they don't. They come over to steal something from Americans. Jobs and freedom. It should be called what it is, an act of war, and it should be dealt with accordingly.

txradioguy
02-12-2011, 01:50 PM
No, because we're not the only nation with free speech.

What other country has it guaranteed in their Constitution?

Lanie
02-12-2011, 02:56 PM
What other country has it guaranteed in their Constitution?

I'm not really sure. What I do know is that Canada, the developed European countries, and Australia all allow their citizens to say what they think without threatening them with jail time.

Lanie
02-12-2011, 02:58 PM
No they don't. They come over to steal something from Americans. Jobs and freedom. It should be called what it is, an act of war, and it should be dealt with accordingly.

Your willingness to make this a black/white issue without looking at the side issues (such as trafficking, extreme exploitation in the work place to the point it being dangerous, and people turning immigrants into slaves to bring them over here, all of which can help your cause) just makes you look ignorant.

I'm not saying immigrant equals victim, but there's a lot more to this issue than just the American's point of view on this.

on edit: How are immigrants stealing freedom?

fettpett
02-12-2011, 03:12 PM
I'm not really sure. What I do know is that Canada, the developed European countries, and Australia all allow their citizens to say what they think without threatening them with jail time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

most don't, it's either a farce or put in place by the courts

Apache
02-12-2011, 03:29 PM
Your willingness to make this a black/white issue without looking at the side issues (such as trafficking, extreme exploitation in the work place to the point it being dangerous, and people turning immigrants into slaves to bring them over here, all of which can help your cause) just makes you look ignorant.

I'm not saying immigrant equals victim, but there's a lot more to this issue than just the American's point of view on this.

on edit: How are immigrants stealing freedom?

National ID for starters. Crime. Abuse of the system. Jobs. Shall I go on?

Yukon
02-12-2011, 03:34 PM
Reagan is dead. I don't like to speak ill of the dead so I will not comment on his Presidency.

AmPat
02-12-2011, 03:39 PM
Reagan is dead. I don't like to speak ill of the dead so I will not comment on his Presidency.

Why not? You are entitled to your opinion, just not you own "facts.":rolleyes:

Apache
02-12-2011, 03:44 PM
No, because we're not the only nation with free speech.

Hate to say this Lanie, but yes we are the only nation with free speech. No other nation has what we have, not Canada not any European nation, Australia or Israel...


This is the only nation on this planet where you cannot be hauled into court for "offending" some other group. There have been examples on this board of Canada and the Netherlands bringing citizens before the court for standing up to gays or muslims ( the UK too, but I'm not entirely sure)...

Apache
02-12-2011, 03:46 PM
Reagan is dead. I don't like to speak ill of the dead so I will not comment on his Presidency.

Because, like most things American, you don't have a clue...

Adam Wood
02-12-2011, 08:16 PM
I'm not really sure. What I do know is that Canada, the developed European countries, and Australia all allow their citizens to say what they think without threatening them with jail time.You apparently fail to realize that there are people in Europe right now who are imprisoned for failing to adhere to "speech codes." Go try to say something anti-Jewish or try to deny the Holocaust in Germany and see how quickly you land in jail. Prussian efficiency will make sure you're imprisoned within hours.

Lanie
02-12-2011, 11:17 PM
You apparently fail to realize that there are people in Europe right now who are imprisoned for failing to adhere to "speech codes." Go try to say something anti-Jewish or try to deny the Holocaust in Germany and see how quickly you land in jail. Prussian efficiency will make sure you're imprisoned within hours.

There's a reason they're like that. It's called six million Jews. One of the things that brought the holocaust about was centuries of anti-Jewish literature, libeling the entire group of people. The Jews are in a world conspiracy to take over the world. The Jews purposely caused the Germans to lose WWI. The Jews kill Christian children and put them into passover bread. In one of my History classes, they had us watch a Nazi propaganda film, which portrayed Jews as lazy, dirty, and cruel to animals.

And you do realize that holocaust denial is based on the same Protocols of the Elders of Zion stuff right? The Jews wanted a country of their own, so they faked a holocaust to draw out world sympathy.

I don't know if I agree with what Germany and others are doing, but I understand there's a valid reason behind this.

Lanie
02-12-2011, 11:20 PM
National ID for starters. Crime. Abuse of the system. Jobs. Shall I go on?

I think National ID is the only thing I can see that is a threat to our freedom. Crime is a threat to our safety. Our constitution doesn't give us a right to be safe, so no freedom lost there. The constitution doesn't guarantee us a right to a job, so no freedom lost there. Abuse of the system is bad, but doesn't really affect my freedom.

I know. I'm being nitpicky. I guess the National ID could hurt our freedom in regards to the right to privacy. The idea really doesn't bother me though. So I get my picture snapped and they have a file on me talking about how cool I am. Okay.

Rockntractor
02-12-2011, 11:32 PM
I think National ID is the only thing I can see that is a threat to our freedom. Crime is a threat to our safety. Our constitution doesn't give us a right to be safe, so no freedom lost there. The constitution doesn't guarantee us a right to a job, so no freedom lost there. Abuse of the system is bad, but doesn't really affect my freedom.

I know. I'm being nitpicky. I guess the National ID could hurt our freedom in regards to the right to privacy. The idea really doesn't bother me though. So I get my picture snapped and they have a file on me talking about how cool I am. Okay.

Don't you think a bar code tattoo on your hand would work better?

txradioguy
02-13-2011, 04:14 AM
You apparently fail to realize that there are people in Europe right now who are imprisoned for failing to adhere to "speech codes." Go try to say something anti-Jewish or try to deny the Holocaust in Germany and see how quickly you land in jail. Prussian efficiency will make sure you're imprisoned within hours.

Ask Mark Styen how well the "free speech" laws work in Canada.

txradioguy
02-13-2011, 04:19 AM
Originally Posted by Lanie
I think National ID is the only thing I can see that is a threat to our freedom.

Then tear up your Social Security card and remove your social security number from every piece of info about yourself you have.

Becuase that's what that card has become.

obx
02-13-2011, 08:28 AM
Lanie: Two people break into your house.They do your children's chores and take the money you left to pay your children for it. One of them has a baby and they demand you pay for it because it was born in your house. They plan on living there untill you start to get Social Security and then ask for part of that. Maybe this would be ok in your house, but not in mine. You must be ignorant and blind.

Adam Wood
02-13-2011, 12:17 PM
There's a reason they're like that. It's called six million Jews. One of the things that brought the holocaust about was centuries of anti-Jewish literature, libeling the entire group of people. The Jews are in a world conspiracy to take over the world. The Jews purposely caused the Germans to lose WWI. The Jews kill Christian children and put them into passover bread. In one of my History classes, they had us watch a Nazi propaganda film, which portrayed Jews as lazy, dirty, and cruel to animals.

And you do realize that holocaust denial is based on the same Protocols of the Elders of Zion stuff right? The Jews wanted a country of their own, so they faked a holocaust to draw out world sympathy.

I don't know if I agree with what Germany and others are doing, but I understand there's a valid reason behind this.I know all of the "reasons" for the German (and other European) "speech codes." That's not the point. You just said that Europeans can speak freely without fear of being put in jail, and I just pointed out to you that such a statement is demonstrably false.

Lanie
02-13-2011, 02:38 PM
Don't you think a bar code tattoo on your hand would work better?

Make it my upper butt and it's a deal.

Lanie
02-13-2011, 02:39 PM
Then tear up your Social Security card and remove your social security number from every piece of info about yourself you have.

Becuase that's what that card has become.

To be honest, it doesn't bother me. It doesn't bother me because I have nothing to hide. Now years ago when I worked in the parking deck at my school, all people who forgot their ticket had to give their student ID/Social Security number. I was uncomfortable with that. Fortunately, the social security number is no longer the student ID number there.

Lanie
02-13-2011, 02:48 PM
I know all of the "reasons" for the German (and other European) "speech codes." That's not the point. You just said that Europeans can speak freely without fear of being put in jail, and I just pointed out to you that such a statement is demonstrably false.

Okay, so there are limits on that one subject in parts of Europe. Your statement that they don't completely have freedom of speech is valid. Likewise, my comment that there's a good reason for that is also valid. Truth is we also have rules limiting our freedom of speech. I brought up earlier that one cannot yell out fire in a theater. I guess that's because it would cause panic. I'm not allowed to declare my freedom of speech by going topless into the Food Lion. It's considered indecent exposure. It's not dangerous like some forms of hate speech have proven to be. It's simply "indecent." It's against the law to make comments wishing death on the President despite our freedom of speech. Like I said earlier, all of our constitutional amendments seem to have a limit on them. Freedom of Speech is no exception.

To the others here: Neither is the right to bare arms. I notice that nobody in this thread answered my comments about how the right to bare arms is already limited by not allowing children to buy guns. If children (who haven't necessarily proven to be a danger to society) are not allowed to buy a gun, then why should criminals who just got out of prison be allowed? You can say you don't want to allow it all you want to, but it really makes no difference if you don't support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

I realize I'm going back to the other subject. I'm just pointing out that we sort of went around in a circle here.

Adam Wood
02-13-2011, 03:14 PM
Okay, so there are limits on that one subject in parts of Europe.It's not just "that one subject." There are all sorts of speech limits in Europe and beyond. Go try to criticize Islam in The Netherlands. Same thing. You can be put in jail for voicing your opinion in a whole lot of places in the world; in fact, the United States is pretty much the only place on the planet where you specifically cannot be jailed for having an unapproved opinion. THAT'S the whole point.

Your statement that they don't completely have freedom of speech is valid. Likewise, my comment that there's a good reason for that is also valid.
There's a reason for it. It's not a good reason. It's just a reason that some sensitive Leftists have decided to use to impose their will on the people.

Truth is we also have rules limiting our freedom of speech. I brought up earlier that one cannot yell out fire in a theater. I guess that's because it would cause panic.
Whether or not the theater in question is on fire is not an opinion that the government may not like.

I'm not allowed to declare my freedom of speech by going topless into the Food Lion. It's considered indecent exposure. It's not dangerous like some forms of hate speech have proven to be. It's simply "indecent."
Please name a single case in which "hate speech" has been proven to be dangerous.

It's against the law to make comments wishing death on the President despite our freedom of speech.
It's against the law to make death threats toward anyone. That's called assault under the law. You can wish that the President would die all day long and it's completely legal. Say that you're going to kill him and that's a different story.

Like I said earlier, all of our constitutional amendments seem to have a limit on them. Freedom of Speech is no exception.
I agree. There are limits on all Constitutional protections. That has nothing to do with the fact that no one else has the free speech protections that the United States does.



To the others here: Neither is the right to bare arms. I notice that nobody in this thread answered my comments about how the right to bare arms is already limited by not allowing children to buy guns. If children (who haven't necessarily proven to be a danger to society) are not allowed to buy a gun, then why should criminals who just got out of prison be allowed? You can say you don't want to allow it all you want to, but it really makes no difference if you don't support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Unemancipated minors have all sorts of legal limits and lack all sorts of Constitutional protections. An unemancipated minor my not buy a car or a house, either. Unemancipated minors do not have a legal right to petition their government for redress. If you want to get technical about it, unemancipated minors are not considered full citizens under the law.

They may, however, have bare arms all they want, so long as their parents say it's OK. A lot of protective fathers, though, don't want their daughters going around with bare arms, and particularly bare shoulders.

Lanie
02-13-2011, 08:28 PM
It's not just "that one subject." There are all sorts of speech limits in Europe and beyond. Go try to criticize Islam in The Netherlands. Same thing. You can be put in jail for voicing your opinion in a whole lot of places in the world; in fact, the United States is pretty much the only place on the planet where you specifically cannot be jailed for having an unapproved opinion. THAT'S the whole point.

Okay, I think the Netherlands issue is more about not wanting to offend potential terrorists than it is about wanting to please Muslims. I think they should say that we're going to allow the freedom of speech and kill anybody who tries to kill over it, but that's just me.



Whether or not the theater in question is on fire is not an opinion that the government may not like.

Neither is directions on how to make a bomb on the internet and yet it's allowed due to so called "freedom of speech." Surely you see the inconsistency.


Please name a single case in which "hate speech" has been proven to be dangerous.

Centuries of hate speech and libel against the Jews encouraging people to want to get Jews out of the way by any means necessary. Do you ever wonder why it's called the "final solution?" It's called the "final solution" because hate speech encouraged people to believe that the Jews were a great danger to society that had to be dealt with. Where did this mostly happen before the holocaust? Europe of course.


It's against the law to make death threats toward anyone. That's called assault under the law. You can wish that the President would die all day long and it's completely legal. Say that you're going to kill him and that's a different story.

Say it about me and then say it about Obama to see which one gets you thrown into jail faster. Around here, threats against an ordinary citizen mean nothing until they're back up. Seriously.



Unemancipated minors have all sorts of legal limits and lack all sorts of Constitutional protections. An unemancipated minor my not buy a car or a house, either. Unemancipated minors do not have a legal right to petition their government for redress. If you want to get technical about it, unemancipated minors are not considered full citizens under the law.

They may, however, have bare arms all they want, so long as their parents say it's OK. A lot of protective fathers, though, don't want their daughters going around with bare arms, and particularly bare shoulders.


It is not a constitutional right to buy a house or a car, Adam. If you look closely at all the supposed "anti-gun control" arguments, you'll find people pretty much saying that there should be absolutely no limit on accessing guns. None. Nada. Not squat. So using that logic, why should the line be drawn for minors? (Note: I'm not for minors being allowed to buy a gun. I'm simply saying that the second amendment has already been limited for the good of society). As for kids not being considered full citizens under the law, I agree. Did you know that a kid accused of a crime is deprived of their constitutional right to a jury unless they're tried as an adult? Kids won the right to wear an anti-war pin in the 1960s/1970s in school, but they can't have a jury if accused of a crime. It's total bullshit. I could rant for hours about kids not being given any real rights. However, they're supposed to be considered full citizens under the law. They're supposed to be American citizens entitled to the rights of the constitution. IN THEORY. I remember this commercial I used to watch saying that the constitution works for everyone, even kids. Uh, yeah. We'll go with that.

Madisonian
02-13-2011, 08:50 PM
If you look closely at all the supposed "anti-gun control" arguments, you'll find people pretty much saying that there should be absolutely no limit on accessing guns. None. Nada. Not squat.

Please provide a link to where "anti-gun control" people are saying this.
You won't find one from the NRA, Gun Owners of America, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, or any other group representing gun owners.

We'll wait.

Lanie
02-13-2011, 09:56 PM
Please provide a link to where "anti-gun control" people are saying this.
You won't find one from the NRA, Gun Owners of America, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, or any other group representing gun owners.

We'll wait.

Name a gun enforcement idea that people like the NRA actually do favor. From where I stand, it looks like they're against the Brady Bill (which required a week long background check), anything that requires registration so people know who is actually buying the gun. I could be wrong, but it seems like I read people arguing against even having background checks. I can't think of even one protective measure that the so called pro-second amendment advocates actually support (I say so called because I refuse to acknowledge only them as being for the second amendment. You can be for the second amendment without this crazy idea of never having any reasonable regulation).

Rockntractor
02-13-2011, 10:05 PM
Name a gun enforcement idea that people like the NRA actually do favor. From where I stand, it looks like they're against the Brady Bill (which required a week long background check), anything that requires registration so people know who is actually buying the gun. I could be wrong, but it seems like I read people arguing against even having background checks. I can't think of even one protective measure that the so called pro-second amendment advocates actually support (I say so called because I refuse to acknowledge only them as being for the second amendment. You can be for the second amendment without this crazy idea of never having any reasonable regulation).

When you launch an accusation the burden of proof generally lies with you.

Lanie
02-13-2011, 10:13 PM
When you launch an accusation the burden of proof generally lies with you.

Good idea. I think I'll start with this board.

Lanie
02-13-2011, 10:28 PM
When you launch an accusation the burden of proof generally lies with you.

Here's a start. (http://www.allbusiness.com/services/business-services/4516775-1.html)


Varner took the stance that the NRA is protecting "law-abiding citizens" in saying that they should not be burdened by background checks when purchasing guns privately including from people on the street or at thousands of gun shows annually. Currently 32 of the 50 states in the U.S. require no identification or background check when purchasing guns privately. Only licensed dealers are required to perform background checks and they only sell approximately 50% of guns each year in the U.S.


"The problem with having background checks for every single gun purchase is that not every person is in the business of selling firearms. So if I were to inherit a firearm from a family member who passed away, I should not have to go through the ATF procedure to get a license and then to conduct background checks simply because I don't need his rifle and I want to go to a gun show simply because I want to sell it to someone at the gun show person-to-person.

"When you go through background checks and have ATF licenses there are a lot of rules and regulations, as there should be, for people who are in the business of buying and selling firearms. But for individual persons who want to go to gun shows and perhaps sell a firearm that they don't need anymore that they don't want that they've inherited from someone, they should not have to become a federally licensed dealer to do so. That puts undo burdens on a law-abiding citizen who does not want the firearm but doesn't want to throw it away."

BTW, it's sort of annoying to be told I have to prove something when everytime I argue about gun control to people on the boards, every little protective idea is argued against.

Rockntractor
02-13-2011, 10:32 PM
Here's a start. (http://www.allbusiness.com/services/business-services/4516775-1.html)





BTW, it's sort of annoying to be told I have to prove something when everytime I argue about gun control to people on the boards, every little protective idea is argued against.

Don't take offence this is a good start.
Libertarians Generally but not always want no restrictions, Republicans and most conservatives believe in some restrictions such as felons not being allowed to purchase guns. There are probably as many variations as there are gun owners.

Rockntractor
02-13-2011, 10:36 PM
Think hard on this Lanie, do you think our gun control laws have ever kept a gun out of the hands of a determined criminal or have they more often made it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals.

Lanie
02-13-2011, 11:24 PM
Think hard on this Lanie, do you think our gun control laws have ever kept a gun out of the hands of a determined criminal or have they more often made it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals.

It looks like you're going to help me prove my accusation.

Rockntractor
02-13-2011, 11:30 PM
It looks like you're going to help me prove my accusation.

I'm not trying to insult you but your mind works in such a manner that I have no idea how to explain this to you.

txradioguy
02-14-2011, 12:14 AM
When you launch an accusation the burden of proof generally lies with you.

This is what Lanie does when she's let her Lib mouth write checks her ass can't cash. Been that way for over 5 years now.

Madisonian
02-14-2011, 08:11 AM
Name a gun enforcement idea that people like the NRA actually do favor. From where I stand, it looks like they're against the Brady Bill (which required a week long background check), anything that requires registration so people know who is actually buying the gun. I could be wrong, but it seems like I read people arguing against even having background checks. I can't think of even one protective measure that the so called pro-second amendment advocates actually support (I say so called because I refuse to acknowledge only them as being for the second amendment. You can be for the second amendment without this crazy idea of never having any reasonable regulation).
The NRA was against the original Brady Bill 5 day wait period but supported the NICS instant check system.
There are over 20,000 gun laws in this country, so there is more "reasonable legislation" than you can shake a stick at.
The NRA also supportred the National Firearms Act of 1934. In fact if you read this link, http://jpfo.org/articles-assd/nra-supported-nfa.htm you will find that the NRA has supported a plethora of reasonable firearms regulations.

And don't just blame the NRA, blame the government. When you attempt to buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer, they have to fill out a Form 4473. If you lie on the form, you are violating federal law.
This article (http://www.seattlepi.com/national/121992_guns15.html claims that only 2% of federal violations are prosecuted.

As to your wanting registration so that people know who is actually buying the gun, the how about we register everyone that has gone to a psychiatrist so that we can stop the "crazies" from buying them.
We can then start registering everyone for everything that we want to "protect' people from.

The NICS system is only available to FFL holders. As a non FFL, I cannot have a NICS check run before I sell a gun to someone.

Would you like to rephrase your allegation or just admit you do not have the vaguest idea of what you are talking about.

AmPat
02-14-2011, 09:23 AM
But, but, but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,guns are bad and mean and evil, and I'm a liberal who FEELS strongly against, brrrr-shake-shiver, GUNS!

Apache
02-14-2011, 11:26 AM
Ok, now I understand where the GD thread came from...