Democrats and guns

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by TXplt

AND FL has decent CCW shall-issue laws as well. You also can carry in a vehicle without a permit (so long as the firearm is concealed, and in a holster, or console, case, or box of some sort. Loaded's fine as well). Other than open carry, FL is a great state for firearms.

I meant more of what does it stand for culturally and politically since CA was being attacked on both fronts.

You can also now take your gun to work in FL.

[TXplt]

Yep--and that's great.

Unfortunately, kalifornia has very wacky gun laws. both in firearms themselves, the types of guns (my Judges wouldn't be allowed there), and that silly ammo ban (which is kalifornia backdoor gun control). They also let microstamping/ballistic fingerprinting go forward despite total lack of evidence this would reduce crime (indeed, it may just increase the ability to "frame" someone and confuse and exacerbate the issue. Oh yeah, this also costs money). Going forward with wacky counterproductive laws unfortunately is a bit telling also about the character of at least some of the people in the state (my very sincere apologies to those who are not and are trying to fix things there). Don't forget, ms. pelosi and ms. feinstein also hail from there as well (although, in fairness, so did Mr. Nixon and Mr. Reagan) Again, my sincere apologies for those of you who live there and aren't wacky. Maybe you could try harder at reining in those who are.

When I go to LAX, I'm greeted by those "may cause cancer" placards everywhere. Hasn't someone figured that if you post those signs everywhere, they lose all meaning as well as cost $ (and provide things for out of staters like me to scoff at ?).

[tlarkin]

Yeah but in CA pot is legal, and it can be used for medicinal reasons. They are ahead of the nation in some areas and backwards in others. It is also one of the most expensive places to live in the USA. They are also more culturely diverse than a lot of other states which gives them more experience in some areas.

CA, is not a place filled with wackos because I can find wack jobs in every state. I just kind of resent the elitist opinion some people have solely based on gun laws. To me gun laws are not an end all be all thing. I think there definitely needs to be gun laws in place, and I also think that all law abiding citizens shouldn't be bothered about their guns since they are legally buying them and keeping them. I mean some of the things the government has tried to do in my state is just straight up fascist and very "bible driven" yet our gun laws are pretty relaxed. I love that about our gun laws but that doesn't mean my state government is free from "nut jobs" like Graves and Ashcroft.

[George Bruce]

Originally Posted by troy2000

I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you over who thinks voters are stupid,....

Well, then, why did you bring it up? You like one of those men who throw the first punch in a brawl and run away before they get hit.

Although you may not believe it (and I don't like it), banning "assault weapons" is generally considered a moderate position,....

In Berkeley and Boston perhaps. Bill Clinton blamed the assault weapon ban on the Democrat's defeats in '94. I guess the rest of America disagrees with you.

Remember: the membership of each house elects it's own leaders. It's not the other way around.

I never forgot it. You remember that a majority if each party elects its own leaders. "Conservative" or "moderate" Democrats, if there really are such critters, are a minority within their own party. That means that the leftists control committee appointments, chairmanships, etc. Moderates or conservatives who contemplate bucking the leftwing leadership need to have a chat with Joe Lieberman.

There are no studies showing any systemic, worrisome problem with illegals voting, period--government funded or otherwise.

That's a real shocker. With leftists firmly in control of the universities and government agencies, I am hardly surprised that they don't want to study questions like that. I doubt there are any studies in Zimbabwe about the effect of the government's economic policies, either.

I think in the long run, requiring voter ID's is not only a good idea, but inevitable. But there's no doubt the Republicans are pushing them right now because in the short run it'll knock out more Democratic votes than Republican ones; the demographics favor them. Poor people who don't drive, elderly rural people who have trouble coming up with birth certificates and the like tend to vote Democratic.

Now, don't be dishonest. No one asked for birth certificates. Only a photo ID. Even then, if the voter didn't have a photo ID on them, they were allowed to vote provisionally and were given an opportunity to show up with a photo ID later. Old folks have to prove who they are to sign up for SS. Poor people have to have a photo ID to cash checks or apply for jobs. There are no studies that show that poor and old folks don't have access to photo IDs.

I doubt you have any concern about the ability of poor and old folks to buy firearms. They have to have a photo ID and a lot more to exercise that Constitutional right.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by George Bruce

Well, then, why did you bring it up? You like one of those men who throw the first punch in a brawl and run away before they get hit.

In Berkeley and Boston perhaps. Bill Clinton blamed the assault weapon ban on the Democrat's defeats in '94. I guess the rest of America disagrees with you.

I never forgot it. You remember that a majority if each party elects its own leaders. "Conservative" or "moderate" Democrats, if there really are such critters, are a minority within their own party. That means that the leftists control committee appointments, chairmanships, etc. Moderates or conservatives who contemplate bucking the leftwing leadership need to have a chat with Joe Lieberman.

That's a real shocker. With leftists firmly in control of the universities and government agencies, I am hardly surprised that they don't want to study questions like that. I doubt there are any studies in Zimbabwe about the effect of the government's economic policies, either.

Now, don't be dishonest. No one asked for birth certificates. Only a photo ID. Even then, if the voter didn't have a photo ID on them, they were allowed to vote provisionally and were given an opportunity to show up with a photo ID later. Old folks have to prove who they are to sign up for SS. Poor people have to have a photo ID to cash checks or apply for jobs. There are no studies that show that poor and old folks don't have access to photo IDs.

I doubt you have any concern about the ability of poor and old folks to buy firearms. They have to have a photo ID and a lot more to exercise that Constitutional right.

What's your problem, George? I wasn't badmouthing anyone and I wasn't being rude in the post you originally responded to, but you jumped in my face like I had called your mother names. Why are you deliberately trying to provoke me on what's supposed to be the friendliest gun forum on the internet?

What did I say that indicated I think voters are stupid? Nothing. That's why I didn't see any point in doing more than just mentioning it. But if you want to turn it into a knockdown, drag-out brawl, be my guest: search four years of my posts on here, and find something that shows I think voters are stupid.

I didn't say I consider banning "assault" weapons a moderate idea. As a matter of fact, I said I didn't like it that the politicians thought it was. But that gun ban didn't pass in Boston and Berkeley; it passed in Washington DC. It was voted for by moderate politicians who thought it was a moderate idea, and you'd be a fool to forget it. That's why it can happen again if we don't educate them.

You cannot flip an entire party in one election. So stop sneering at the fact that a few conservatives have been elected as Democrats; that used to be impossible, and it shows progress. It's a step along the way back to having a party with a full spectrum of views in it. The same thing needs to happen to the Republican party also; they need some opposing voices in the same room to give them a balanced viewpoint.

Don't accuse me of "being dishonest;" that's a mealymouthed term used by mealymouthed people, and it means "liar." Read your newspaper instead: the next wave of laws are being written to show "proof of citizenship." That's a stricter standard than just coming up with a photo ID.

My father has no birth certificate, because a court house burned down in Oklahoma. He had to put together his school records, his service records, notarized copies of the original records of his marriage, his children's birth certificates with his name on them as father, etc. It took him over a year. And if he has to go through the same crap all over again to vote, you don't think that'll make it hard for him to vote? I do...because they sure aren't going to write the laws to say that receiving Social Security is proof enough of citizenship.

I'm not sure why you're carrying on about the photo ID laws; I said they're inevitable and probably a good idea in the long run. But I repeat: in the short run, those laws are going to hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans. That's why the Republicans are pushing them; they need every advantage they can get for the next few years.

You need to stop settling every problem by badmouthing liberals and leftists. The Republican Party doesn't need academia or the government to look into whether illegals are voting; if there was a problem to be found, they'd have found it themselves.

"I doubt you have any concern about the ability of poor and old folks to buy firearms." Excuse me? Who the hell are you, to sit there on your duff telling me who and what I have concerns about? I seriously doubt you'd talk to me like that in person; I guess the internet sets some people free to be brave...and rude.

[stalebiscuit]

Originally Posted by TXplt

Yep--and that's great.

Unfortunately, kalifornia has very wacky gun laws. both in firearms themselves, the types of guns (my Judges wouldn't be allowed there), and that silly ammo ban (which is kalifornia backdoor gun control). They also let microstamping/ballistic fingerprinting go forward despite total lack of evidence this would reduce crime (indeed, it may just increase the ability to "frame" someone and confuse and exacerbate the issue. Oh yeah, this also costs money). Going forward with wacky counterproductive laws unfortunately is a bit telling also about the character of at least some of the people in the state (my very sincere apologies to those who are not and are trying to fix things there). Don't forget, ms. pelosi and ms. feinstein also hail from there as well (although, in fairness, so did Mr. Nixon and Mr. Reagan) Again, my sincere apologies for those of you who live there and aren't wacky. Maybe you could try harder at reining in those who are.

When I go to LAX, I'm greeted by those "may cause cancer" placards everywhere. Hasn't someone figured that if you post those signs everywhere, they lose all meaning as well as cost $ (and provide things for out of staters like me to scoff at ?).

wacky isnt the word i would use

[patrick70]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

Then what is Florida an example of?

Florida is good to law abiding gunowners,and they don't have a" revolving door"judicial system.

I knew a couple from San Francisco who moved to Florida.They said California has gotten way out of control.They told me the cost of living has shot thru the roof,the streets aren't safe anymore,and that alot of it is starting to resemble a 2nd world nation.Also the local politicians aren't doing anything to curb the current trends.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by patrick70

Florida is good to law abiding gunowners,and they don't have a" revolving door"judicial system.

I knew a couple from San Francisco who moved to Florida.They said California has gotten way out of control.They told me the cost of living has shot thru the roof,the streets aren't safe anymore,and that alot of it is starting to resemble a 2nd world nation.Also the local politicians aren't doing anything to curb the current trends.

Patrick, California is bigger than most countries in the world. It stretches from the mountains to the ocean, from the deserts to the redwood forests, from densely populated cities to rural farming areas, to sparsely populated counties where a sheriff's deputy might put two or three hundred miles on his car during one shift.

Any generalization you make about that many people and that many square miles is just that: a generalization. For example, my mortgage on an acre and a half with two residences costs me less than people forty or fifty miles away are paying for a rented room. Which one is the "real" California? Both, and neither.

I can walk up into the hills behind my house and go shooting, and do so regularly. I myself, my relatives, my friends and my neighbors probably own enough weapons between us to arm a banana republic, and we use them for strictly lawful purposes. But I'm within easy reach of neighborhoods where the average gun owner is a Cholo gang banger who barely knows which end of his gun the bullet leaves from, but thinks waving it around increases the length of his manhood. And there are housing tracts down the road where I'd be surprised to find a gun for every ten houses. Again, which is the real California?

In 2004, John Kerry received 5,427,055 votes for president in California. Yep; that was a clear majority. On the other hand, 4,403,495 Californians voted for Bush, and 114,075 voted for third-party candidates. But if you listen to some of the people on this forum, they'll tell you that all 10 million voted for a Democrat, and were waving Communist flags on their way to the polls.

I understand you were simply passing on what some ex-residents said about the state, and I'm sure they were telling the truth as they experienced it. But their little piece of California life might not have been as typical and representative as some people think...

[patrick70]

I'm not gonna argue with that,I know there's good people in California too,but what always gets my attention is people like Pelosi,Feinstein,Newsome,etc and the type of laws they push

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by patrick70

I'm not gonna argue with that,I know there's good people in California too,but what always gets my attention is people like Pelosi,Feinstein,Newsome,etc and the type of laws they push

OK, but the problem children are like Troy and there are lots of them.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by mitch_mckee

OK, but the problem children are like Troy and there are lots of them.

How can you even deduct that? It is not like Troy is anti-gun, he just has different values and opinions than you. Then twist that into he is the enemy?

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

How can you even deduct that? It is not like Troy is anti-gun, he just has different values and opinions than you. Then twist that into he is the enemy?

I said "problem children" not "enemy". Those reasons are obvious except for goose stepping liberals.

I see that reading is also a challenge for you.

Do you really own any guns, or have the least interest in them? All I see from your are long winded, rambling political posts that are meaningless in content. Posts you make about guns makes you look as useless as teats on a boar hog. I don't think you belong here.

Are you here as a friend or foe of the gun community?

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by mitch_mckee

I said "problem children" not "enemy". Those reasons are obvious except for goose stepping liberals.

I see that reading is also a challenge for you.

Do you really own any guns, or have the least interest in them? All I see from your are long winded, rambling political posts that are meaningless in content. Posts you make about guns makes you look as useless as teats on a boar hog. I don't think you belong here.

Are you here as a friend or foe of the gun community?

I am just done with you, not going to even try to argue, but welcome to my ignore list.

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

I am just done with you, not going to even try to argue, but welcome to my ignore list.

Oh, gosh, you are just breaking my heart.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

I am just done with you, not going to even try to argue, but welcome to my ignore list.

Welcome to the club, tlarkin. I've posted pictures now and then of me and my family and friends out shooting for at least the last three years, plus posts concerning guns I've bought, complete with pictures. And from what I've been told, this particular...gentleman?...has also been questioning whether I even own any guns.

[George Bruce]

Originally Posted by troy2000

What's your problem, George?

I have a problem with folks who start off heavyhanded with insults, insinuations and provocation.......and then complain about insults, insinuations and provocations when they are the ones throwing them around to begin with.

I wasn't badmouthing anyone and I wasn't being rude........

Oh, for heaven's sake.

What did I say that indicated I think voters are stupid?

Well, you are trying to talk us into voting for "moderate" or "conservative" Democrats. You must think we are very stupid.

So stop sneering ...........

OK, there you go again. You are saying that I am "sneering." Don't you think that is a little insulting and provocative? By your next post you will have convinced yourself that I said that first.

.... a few conservatives have been elected as Democrats; that used to be impossible, and it shows progress. It's a step along the way back to having a party with a full spectrum of views in it. The same thing needs to happen to the Republican party also; they need some opposing voices in the same room to give them a balanced viewpoint.

I don't concede that a few conservatives have been elected as Democrats. Conservatives have absolutely no voice in the Democratic Party. They used to, but not for many years. Any "conservative" who is sent to Washington as a Democrat is either not a conservative at all, or will vote with the Republicans enough to get kicked out of the Party like Joe Lieberman (who has endorsed McCain, btw.), or will soon sell out his or her conservative principles in response to irresistable political pressure. Now you want convince us to let the same leftists run the Republican Party. You really do think we're stupid.

Don't accuse me of "being dishonest........

Then don't be dishonest. The Indiana law that was recently upheld by the SC had nothing in it about birth certificates, only photo IDs. Are trying to say otherwise?

that's a mealymouthed term used by mealymouthed people

So now you are calling me mealymouthed. No, you never insult anyone.

..... and it means "liar."

You said that. I didn't. I will let other people decide whether it fits.

I'm not sure why you're carrying on about the photo ID laws

Once again, in was in response to something YOU said. Like many leftists, you just don't think anyone should be allowed to disagree with you.

You need to stop settling every problem by badmouthing liberals and leftists.

I'd like to. Maybe they will quit trying to confiscate everyone's guns, income and property, and will give up the idea of running every detail of the economy, interfering in everyone's life, marriage, childrearing, and taking over schools, etc, etc. Maybe they will even give up the idea of killing millions of people who don't obey their commands, like they did during the 20th century. (over 100 million murdered, by some estimates) Yeah, if they give up those things, I will stop criticizing them. Of course, if they gave up those things, they wouldn't be leftists, now would they?

Excuse me? Who the hell are you, to sit there on your duff telling me who and what I have concerns about?

That's not very friendly.

I seriously doubt you'd talk to me like that in person; I guess the internet sets some people free to be brave...and rude.

I am happy to have a civilized discussion with you or anyone in person at any time. I have never been unwilling to express my views. I am not sure exactly what point you are trying to make here. One might think that you are implying that I am a coward. But I know that can't be the case since you never insult people. Others might think that there is some kind of implied threat in you post. Is there?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by George Bruce

I have a problem with folks who start off heavyhanded with insults, insinuations and provocation.......and then complain about insults, insinuations and provocations when they are the ones throwing them around to begin with.

Oh, for heaven's sake.

Well, you are trying to talk us into voting for "moderate" or "conservative" Democrats. You must think we are very stupid.

OK, there you go again. You are saying that I am "sneering." Don't you think that is a little insulting and provocative? By your next post you will have convinced yourself that I said that first.

I don't concede that a few conservatives have been elected as Democrats. Conservatives have absolutely no voice in the Democratic Party. They used to, but not for many years. Any "conservative" who is sent to Washington as a Democrat is either not a conservative at all, or will vote with the Republicans enough to get kicked out of the Party like Joe Lieberman (who has endorsed McCain, btw.), or will soon sell out his or her conservative principles in response to irresistable political pressure. Now you want convince us to let the same leftists run the Republican Party. You really do think we're stupid.

Then don't be dishonest. The Indiana law that was recently upheld by the SC had nothing in it about birth certificates, only photo IDs. Are trying to say otherwise?

So now you are calling me mealymouthed. No, you never insult anyone.

You said that. I didn't. I will let other people decide whether it fits.

Once again, in was in response to something YOU said. Like many leftists, you just don't think anyone should be allowed to disagree with you.

I'd like to. Maybe they will quit trying to confiscate everyone's guns, income and property, and will give up the idea of running every detail of the economy, interfering in everyone's life, marriage, childrearing, and taking over schools, etc, etc. Maybe they will even give up the idea of killing millions of people who don't obey their commands, like they did during the 20th century. (over 100 million murdered, by some estimates) Yeah, if they give up those things, I will stop criticizing them. Of course, if they gave up those things, they wouldn't be leftists, now would they?

That's not very friendly.

I am happy to have a civilized discussion with you or anyone in person at any time. I have never been unwilling to express my views. I am not sure exactly what point you are trying to make here. One might think that you are implying that I am a coward. But I know that can't be the case since you never insult people. Others might think that there is some kind of implied threat in you post. Is there?

WTF? You don't want a discussion, boy; you're looking for an argument.

A careful reading of my post, instead of a quick skim to catch a word here and there to hang your next little bit of insolence on, would eliminate damn near everything you just said or asked. For example, I said, "the next wave of ID laws that are being written" will require proof of citizenship; I never claimed the Indiana law required it.

No, I'm not implying any threat; I'm flat saying you're damn brave behind a keyboard. And I doubt you talk to strangers like that in person, or you'd get your butt kicked on a regular basis. I also notice that like most trolls, you have no personal information whatsoever in your personal profile. You're downright macho as long as you're hiding behind that wall of anonymity, aren't you?

I didn't say I never insult people. And even if that were true I'd make an exception for you; you're an extraordinarily obnoxious person. Nor would you be "happy to have a civilized discussion" with me; you didn't even try.

You're welcome to take your best shot at me; I'm not your wife and I'm not insisting on the last word. But when you're done, why don't you get back to the subject at hand, instead of veering off and lumping the American academic community, American government researchers and the American Democratic Party in with Communist mass murderers? That kind of hyperbole is even more ridiculous than some tired old hippie retread in Santa Rosa calling Bush "Hitler," and Lord knows that's pathetic enough...you aren't in good company, son.

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Welcome to the club, tlarkin. I've posted pictures now and then of me and my family and friends out shooting for at least the last three years, plus posts concerning guns I've bought, complete with pictures. And from what I've been told, this particular...gentleman?...has also been questioning whether I even own any guns.

I think you both are plants from the Brady Bunch.

[troy2000]

mitch_mckee
This message is hidden because mitch_mckee is on your ignore list.

[samuel]

Only in America!For awhile,until the leftist,progressive,marksist,comunists take complete control next election and do away with the constitution,or just rewrite it. Til then you still have a right to post your opinion either way and call each other names.There are a lot more things to lose than gunrites,such as the first amendment which the left radicals have already been working on.The reason it is first is it is most important.The reason for the second amendment is to guard against loss of the first amendment.Keep arguing,I love it as long as you have a constitution giving you that right. sam.