Democrats and guns

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by TXplt

Love to read your posts, Troy but ya gotta admit that for the wacky gun control the stuff almost always is started by the democrats. I really wish that wasn't so. I label myself as neither a lib nor con; but==when it comes down to brass tax, unfortunately, those leaning right try to grab our guns less than those leaning left.

None of us will give up our guns
It's not right
we all know this

I totally agree, TXplt. And the solution I've always advocated seems to becoming into sight: we need moderates and conservatives back into the party, so the leaders can't just pander to the extremists. A broader-based membership means they need to appeal to the mainstream instead, and the mainstream isn't frothing at the mouth to ban guns.

[Windwalker]

There is no better Country than the United States of America and I will not abandon her even though the Government seems to be abandoning "We the people." I took an oath to defend our Constitution and this I will do.

[patrick70]

Originally Posted by Windwalker

There is no better Country than the United States of America and I will not abandon her even though the Government seems to be abandoning "We the people." I took an oath to defend our Constitution and this I will do.

^^^^+1

[Rave]

Remember,we the people elected them.

[SKS NOOB]

Originally Posted by Rave

Remember,we the people elected them.

That's because "WE" don't want the job and let "THEM" have it bcause of that. And then we complain over who "WE" have?

[soonerborn]

Originally Posted by troy2000

What exactly what is "liberal" about my stance? And exactly how would pretending I don't own any guns help me keep them legally?

Not sure what you are asking in the first question since almost every stance I have seen you take on this forum has been liberal. Which leads me to believe that you vote for liberal politicians, which have the absolute worst record when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

I didnt say that pretending not to have guns would help you keep them legally, so I am not real sure where you are coming from in your second question. Perhaps you mistook my meaning? What I was alluding to was changing your stance on liberal views and voting.

[publius]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tlarkin

"Where did you get all these ideas from? Illegals can't vote either, so I am not sure your point there.
You really think they will ban guns in America? Honestly?"


Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel

"Altho I dont listen to news and politics like I used to,I would have to be blind and deaf to miss all of it.Or possibly in another orbit as you seem to be if you actually think illegals cant vote.If they cant vote why are all of the politicians pushing for their vote.You should have stated they rarely vote over twice.As to banning guns in America,how old are you?Were you around in the 90,s?Have you heard of Washington D.C. and the handgun ban?Have you heard of Chicago,Ill.and the firearms ban?Have you heard that felons do not have to register firearms because it would be self incriminating but all non,felons must register and pass a background check for any purchase from a licensed dealer?Do you really believe they destroy those records? sam."


This is all true Sam. Illegals have been voting in our elections for a long time. As well as felons. In the 2000 election, it's estimated that in some places in Border states and Florida that as much as 20% of the vote consisted of illegals and felons. It's why the dems thought they were going to win Florida in that election. They hadn't counted on the fact that most of these people (many they had rounded up)(sometimes busing them to more than one voting place) had never seen a ballot in their lives and many of them could not read or speak english, thus all the hanging chads and marked-up chads. These voters were enticed by certain gratuities such as cigarettes, crack cocaine, etc. This is why the dem's orginally pushed for the 'motor-voter' law, which said that anyone with a driver's license could vote. Then later pushed for illegals to be able to get driver's licenses. It's why they pushed for the 'provisional ballot' which opens up the voting process to fraud, such as multiple voting, etc. It's why they fought 'voter ID' so hard, even though their remonstrances against it (which were disingenuous), when reconciled, was still not enough to satisfy them. I think Hillary Klinton has just recently pushed again for felons to be able to vote.

Of course, as many here know, the gun fight goes back further than the 90's. It all started with the Gun Control Act of 1968, on the heels of the Robert Kennedy and Martin L. King assassinations. When Reagan became President, he rolled back a few things in the '68 Act. One I remember off hand was where it affected the purchase of .22 rimfire ammo. After the '68 Act you had to fill out a federal form everytime you wanted to buy ammunition that could be used in a handgun. Of course other battles took place in the 80's. Sam alluded to the Morton Grove, Ill gun ban. Then there was the co-sponsored McClure/Volkmer 'Firearmes Owners Protection Act'. The democ-rats fought that tooth and nail. Now understand that the dems weren't quite as far to the left as they are today, but nevertheless, they were able to tie this bill up, since they controlled the House and except for two years the Senate. It had actually passed one house (I forget which now) and had the votes to pass in the other house, but the dem leadership kept it locked up in committee, until the session ended and the bill died. This scenario went on for about 5 years and finally the republican leadership put out a call for signatures, something I participated in, and enough signatures were gathered to successfully execute a 'Discharge Petition', forcing the bill to a floor vote, which was then passed, was signed by Reagan and finally became law.

Also in the decade of the 80's was the battle over the so-called "cop-killer-bullets", actually KTW, teflon coated bullets. The left and their allies in the media dubbed these bullets as "cop-killer bullets", even though they had not been identified in a single cop killing to that point. The bullets were actually invented by a county coroner and a couple of deputies for the express purpose of LEO work (the initials of their last names gave the bullets the KTW designation). They were very expensive, known about only in LEO circles and ammunition with these bullets couldn't be found on the shelves of most gunshops. The left works with euphemisms alot. Such as "Star Wars" for SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative), "Trickle-down" for Supply Side economics, etc. Names made up in an attempt to discredit or disguise. Much the same as the commies: The People's Republic of China, or The Democratic Republic of North Korea, etc. Or the names of the thousand or so communist front groups operating in the U.S. during the 30's, 40's and 50's. Or today with such organizations as: Move-on. Org, People for the American Way, Media Matters, People for the Separation of Church and State, etc. But I digress. Where was I? OK, some democ-rat, I forget now who, introduced this bill to ban these nasty "cop-killer-bullets", and it was taken up and championed by Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH). The dems weren't having much luck banning guns, since Reagan was President, and so they hit on the idea of banning the ammo. The criteria they (disingenuously) used was: the penetration of so many layers of Kevlar (that material used in bullet-proof vests), I think it was something like 16 layers. Of course this would have banned a whole lot of non-KTW sporting ammunition used in hunting rifles that would easily penetrate this. The NRA recognized this bill for what it really was and fought for and won compromise legislation that used bullet hardness as the standard rather than penetration. And so it goes.

Oops, forgot to mention: yes the Supreme Court has already held that a felon doesn't have to register his/her firearm because it's a violation of their 5th amendment rights.

[tlarkin]

This is all true Sam. Illegals have been voting in our elections for a long time. As well as felons. In the 2000 election, it's estimated that in some places in Border states and Florida that as much as 20% of the vote consisted of illegals and felons. It's why the dems thought they were going to win Florida in that election. They hadn't counted on the fact that most of these people (many they had rounded up)(sometimes busing them to more than one voting place) had never seen a ballot in their lives and many of them could not read or speak english, thus all the hanging chads and marked-up chads. These voters were enticed by certain gratuities such as cigarettes, crack cocaine, etc. This is why the dem's orginally pushed for the 'motor-voter' law, which said that anyone with a driver's license could vote. Then later pushed for illegals to be able to get driver's licenses. It's why they pushed for the 'provisional ballot' which opens up the voting process to fraud, such as multiple voting, etc. It's why they fought 'voter ID' so hard, even though their remonstrances against it (which were disingenuous), when reconciled, was still not enough to satisfy them. I think Hillary Klinton has just recently pushed again for felons to be able to vote.

Again, where do you get this information from? Also, in some states, it is completely legal for a felon to vote, as long as they have done their time and have their rights reinstated. One state that does not allow this is Florida, and they always seem to have voting issues every election. There have been lots of issues of honest people losing their vote because their name or social security number were similar to that of a convicted felon in Florida. Also, in my honest opinion, if someone does go to jail and serves their time, when they get out they should get their right to vote back. That is what going to jail and doing your time is all about right, rehabilitation, and reinstatement of your rights?

As for illegals voting, please cite some sources. Let us not forget some of the real issues with voting machines and how they can't be "humanly checked" for accuracy, and the fact that they run the most compromised operating system in existence.

[CrazyIvan]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

Again, where do you get this information from?

As for illegals voting, please cite some sources. Let us not forget some of the real issues with voting machines and how they can't be "humanly checked" for accuracy, and the fact that they run the most compromised operating system in existence.

In Florida, election observers say a “sizable number” of Florida votes in the 2000 election may have been cast by ineligible felons, illegal immigrants, and non-citizens.

In California, former Republican Rep. Robert K. Dornan was defeated by Democrat Loretta Sanchez by 984 votes in the 1996 election. State officials found that at least 300 votes were cast illegally by non-citizens.

I won't hand-feed sources to you. It is happening. In the past, people here have provided proof to you, without acknowledgement.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by soonerborn

Not sure what you are asking in the first question since almost every stance I have seen you take on this forum has been liberal. Which leads me to believe that you vote for liberal politicians, which have the absolute worst record when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

I didnt say that pretending not to have guns would help you keep them legally, so I am not real sure where you are coming from in your second question. Perhaps you mistook my meaning? What I was alluding to was changing your stance on liberal views and voting.

Since you quoted my post, I assumed your statement was a response to what you were quoting. If not, what we have here is a failure to communicate...

I don't place all "liberal" beliefs in one stack, all "conservative" beliefs in another, and tell people they must choose and take one entire stack, and only what's in that stack. I think they can shuffle them any way they want, and so can I. There's nothing about my gun ownership that contradicts or interferes with anything else I do, say or believe.

[turner]

Originally Posted by samuel

The democrats already think they have won veto proof congress and the presidential election and it looks like they have. I am hearing more about bringing back the assault weapons ban,handgun ban,idenity ammo,and more.It looks like they will win a veto proof congress and besides I believe the weak kneed republicans would vote with the gun grabbers anyway.It is my opinion that the supreme court will hand the DC decision back to the lower courts instead of making a ruling on second amendment rights.This would guarantee anti gun laws popping up all over.(not that they wont anyway)I predict a gungrab like England had within 1to2yrs.With 90mil.gun owners this sounds impossible but with the anti,s ability to sneak their bills in on some giveaway deal that sounds good to people with their hands out,which makes up more than half the population(including illegals)and a veto proof congress,a democrat president,or both,I dont believe the anti,s can fail.I believe gun ownership in the U.S. is almost over.When the guns go,our freedom goes too.I am very depressed. sam.

I spent my first career working for this country and hoping things would stay as our originators had intended. I worked for several commanders and chief and respected all for the office/rank they held, but some MUCH more than others as their ideals were closest to what I feel the Bill of Rights gives us. That being said, I feel many people in this GREAT country have voiced opinions about wanting a "change". I feel in my mind that many will spout this B.S. right up til they close that curtain, BUT when they are faced with the idea of a leader who promises to end the "War on Terror" and stop the spending that action causes us... KNOWING in their hearts that this is national "suicide" that they will slowly pull.... the proper lever knowing this is the safest way to continue our country's proper values and rights and it's wonderful and peaceful way of life.

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by turner

I spent my first career working for this country and hoping things would stay as our originators had intended. I worked for several commanders and chief and respected all for the office/rank they held, but some MUCH more than others as their ideals were closest to what I feel the Bill of Rights gives us. That being said, I feel many people in this GREAT country have voiced opinions about wanting a "change". I feel in my mind that many will spout this B.S. right up til they close that curtain, BUT when they are faced with the idea of a leader who promises to end the "War on Terror" and stop the spending that action causes us... KNOWING in their hearts that this is national "suicide" that they will slowly pull.... the proper lever knowing this is the safest way to continue our country's proper values and rights and it's wonderful and peaceful way of life.

I hear ya, brother and I've got your 6!

[Seabeescotty]

Guess I'll have to set some boobie-traps, and try to get my stuff back from those crazy armadillas. Wouldn't want to get in trouble over armed armadillas, now, would I? Any ideas how to catch an armed armadilla?

[mosineer]

Originally Posted by Seabeescotty

Guess I'll have to set some boobie-traps, and try to get my stuff back from those crazy armadillas. Wouldn't want to get in trouble over armed armadillas, now, would I? Any ideas how to catch an armed armadilla?

Of course...some unique upon on and ask to see it's bound book. They are poor record keepers, therefore you can confiscate your guns. The rest.... you pick up your firearms after they throw themselves in front of the wheeled assault vehicles when they find out you are going to check their books.....

*****************************************************
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

[Seabeescotty]

Thanks Mosineer, I'll try that! I'll have a tracked vehicle up here, in about a week, and that might work even better!

[soonerborn]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Since you quoted my post, I assumed your statement was a response to what you were quoting. If not, what we have here is a failure to communicate...

I don't place all "liberal" beliefs in one stack, all "conservative" beliefs in another, and tell people they must choose and take one entire stack, and only what's in that stack. I think they can shuffle them any way they want, and so can I. There's nothing about my gun ownership that contradicts or interferes with anything else I do, say or believe.

I believe you Troy, and I agree that people do not have to choose all of one or the other, in fact there arent many politicians who vote entirely with the party line.

With that said, you surely have to admit that the majority of democrat politicians today will support any bill that restricts our right to bear arms. So while it certainly isnt true all the time, that if you vote for a democrat you are voting against the 2nd amendment, it is true most of the time. So if you do vote for democrats mostly, you are mostly not helping gun owners keep their guns. This would appear, to me at least, to be a conflict with your original statement of "My guns are in my safes where they belong, and I'm working to make sure they legally stay there".

I do find this ironic though, since everything about liberalism is one big mess of ideas that conflict with the results of those ideas in action.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by soonerborn

I believe you Troy, and I agree that people do not have to choose all of one or the other, in fact there arent many politicians who vote entirely with the party line.

With that said, you surely have to admit that the majority of democrat politicians today will support any bill that restricts our right to bear arms. So while it certainly isnt true all the time, that if you vote for a democrat you are voting against the 2nd amendment, it is true most of the time. So if you do vote for democrats mostly, you are mostly not helping gun owners keep their guns. This would appear, to me at least, to be a conflict with your original statement of "My guns are in my safes where they belong, and I'm working to make sure they legally stay there".

I do find this ironic though, since everything about liberalism is one big mess of ideas that conflict with the results of those ideas in action.

I'd say that liberalism is a fuzzy term to begin with. People like Rush Limbaugh have turned it into a curse word and a sneer. They've spent years labeling absolutely everything and everyone they don't like as liberal, then trying to smear anyone who believes any one thing as being guilty of the entire list.

I'd say the word has been so overused and overextended that it's become almost useless for anything but baiting people.

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by CrazyIvan

In Florida, election observers say a “sizable number” of Florida votes in the 2000 election may have been cast by ineligible felons, illegal immigrants, and non-citizens.

In California, former Republican Rep. Robert K. Dornan was defeated by Democrat Loretta Sanchez by 984 votes in the 1996 election. State officials found that at least 300 votes were cast illegally by non-citizens.

I won't hand-feed sources to you. It is happening. In the past, people here have provided proof to you, without acknowledgement.

Larkin wants cites?

Why, when he nefver provides any when his wackyness is challenged?

Originally Posted by troy2000

I'd say that liberalism is a fuzzy term to begin with. People like Rush Limbaugh have turned it into a curse word and a sneer. They've spent years labeling absolutely everything and everyone they don't like as liberal, then trying to smear anyone who believes any one thing as being guilty of the entire list.

I'd say the word has been so overused and overextended that it's become almost useless for anything but baiting people.

Almost. The word is not useless but Liberals are useless, except for a bit of humor now and then.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by CrazyIvan

In Florida, election observers say a “sizable number” of Florida votes in the 2000 election may have been cast by ineligible felons, illegal immigrants, and non-citizens.

In California, former Republican Rep. Robert K. Dornan was defeated by Democrat Loretta Sanchez by 984 votes in the 1996 election. State officials found that at least 300 votes were cast illegally by non-citizens.

I won't hand-feed sources to you. It is happening. In the past, people here have provided proof to you, without acknowledgement.

You mean like how you made up that there were 12 million illegals in LA?

[samuel]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

You mean like how you made up that there were 12 million illegals in LA?

Are you trying to tell us there aren't?That is the count I got and I used both my fingers and toes. sam.