Obama's 'Elitism' Issue

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by troy2000

I'm certainly willing to stop talking to you for a while, Larry. And I will. I'm tired of running in circles trying to straighten you out as you repeatedly put your own little twist on everything I say.

I'm not putting you on 'ignore,' but I'm not responding to you any more. Knock yourself out, deciding how you're going to best use that to take another cheap shot at me...

Are you trying to say that it's a good idea for us all to vote in Dems who are openly hostile to gun ownership?

Troy, like most Liberals, you make no logical sense.

Have you not noticed that there has been no anti gun legislation since 2000?

Take a couple of days off and think about that one.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by mitch_mckee

So, are you saying that voting for Democrats who are openly anti-gun is a good thing?

If you keep electing them, they will get to the 2/3 mark at some point.

No Mitch, I am more concerned with the War, the economy and poverty and my other rights as well, not just the 2nd. I won't vote for someone that will screw this country over 1 amendment, since all of our rights are important.

Given that the right wing and NRA has been fear mongering gun owners for years about how the left will take them away for good, and I don't fully buy into it.

Now, what I do agree with is perhaps the Democrats will restrict guns, but ban them is kind of outlandish. Plus like I said, it would take the military to collect them from all of us.

Is the 2nd amendment so important to you that you are willing to sacrifice everything else?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

Respond if you will... or not. I stand by what I said. Politico is non partisan.
Because it is contrary to your belief, you fire shots at me challenging my personal desire to uphold the Constitution of the United States as well as the Amendments. I will accept that blame any day. We can only change the future, not the past.

I took a cheap shot at you? Please, do tell... ?

In summation, I will not give up my guns... period. If you feel it will help, give up your own.

That was your best parting shot? I'm disappointed in you, Larry...see you after the elections.

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

No Mitch, I am more concerned with the War, the economy and poverty and my other rights as well, not just the 2nd. I won't vote for someone that will screw this country over 1 amendment, since all of our rights are important.

Given that the right wing and NRA has been fear mongering gun owners for years about how the left will take them away for good, and I don't fully buy into it.

Now, what I do agree with is perhaps the Democrats will restrict guns, but ban them is kind of outlandish. Plus like I said, it would take the military to collect them from all of us.

Is the 2nd amendment so important to you that you are willing to sacrifice everything else?

Wow ... you and Troy2000 are so willing to give up your 2nd Amendment. We will have no recourse to fight back. Restriction comes before the outright banning of guns. Get to know your history on this...

... and as I said, the military will not follow that order.

Originally Posted by troy2000

That was your best parting shot? I'm disappointed in you, Larry...see you after the elections.

I hope not.

Apparently, you cannot admit you were wrong and that your party is disingenuous.

Give up your guns if you will... you seem to want to give away some rights to keep others. Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

[TXplt]

The 2A for me is a dealbreaker (at least if I run across a candidate who is definitely anti-gun like o or h -- "registration" or "gun-ban" or "handgun ban" or "guns off the streets" or "reasonable restriction" types). Wishy-Washy (i.e. the Bushes--not stellar 2A support, but not rabidly and actively anti-gun--potentially McCain falls into this category) I can kinda look at the bigger perspective, but would PREFER a different candidate.

This issue is telling in 2 ways:

1. Someone willing to infringe on the RKBA doesn't take their oath of office very seriously. They swore to "protect and defend the Constitution" -- now they are willing to prostitute their oath of office away for $ or an agenda ? You swore to uphold the constitution--if you don't like it, amend it but you can't violate it on a whim. This, simply, means you word means nothing if you don't uphold our Constitution.

2. Gun control has been a miserable failure, and has exacerbated crime. If a candidate is in favor of it, it shows me he/she really doesn't want to solve problems--just give us "feel good look good" drivel which is actually counterproductive and hurts us as a nation. Someone like this doesn't belong in any position of responsibilty whatsoever. If someone advocates "solutions" that don't work, what other areas are they going to try to screw up with their ineptitude ?

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

Wow ... you and Troy2000 are so willing to give up your 2nd Amendment. We will have no recourse to fight back. Restriction comes before the outright banning of guns. Get to know your history on this...

... and as I said, the military will not follow that order.



I hope not.

Apparently, you cannot admit you were wrong and that your party is disingenuous.

Give up your guns if you will... you seem to want to give away some rights to keep others. Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

No Larry, I know they can not take our guns away and I will not be fear mongered into believing they can and will. At worst, it will be more regulation. I also know that it will take the military to enforce, which also won't happen any time soon because of the war in the middle east going on.


What I do know is that the Republicans for the last two terms of the Bush administration have pecked away at our rights and slowly and systematically tried to limit or take them away. There are much bigger issues in our country than gun control, and those are most important to me as of right now. I want my new job and pay raise to mean what it should, instead of our economy going to crap like it is. I want our nation to change for the better, and I want to get the hell out of the middle east. The war is costing us too much.

I know they can't come for our guns and when the Supreme court settles on the DC gun ban, we will see the true outcome, and I am pretty darn sure it won't be banning our guns.

I am more concerned about privacy rights, or lack there of, as of right now than anything else as well.

[LarryO1970]

Obviously, we will (hopefully) have a say in the election. Energy independence is a huge thing... that alone will create jobs and help the economy. We do need to move on from Iraq... but remain in Afghanistan.

I am concerned that all Constitutional and Amendment Rights are maintained... not give away some to keep others.

The people need to take back Washington, period.

[tlarkin]

If privacy rights are not established guns will not protect you when they come for you. You will always be out gunned by the military and LEO, since they can have full autos, explosives, oh yeah, and tanks.

Our constitution is out dated and needs to be revamped for our current times. Our founding fathers had no idea of what information would become in this world, nor could they even fathom something like the internet.

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

If privacy rights are not established guns will not protect you when they come for you. You will always be out gunned by the military and LEO, since they can have full autos, explosives, oh yeah, and tanks.

Our constitution is out dated and needs to be revamped for our current times. Our founding fathers had no idea of what information would become in this world, nor could they even fathom something like the internet.

Our Constitutional Rights... all of them, need to be upheld, period. IF they are enforced, we will not need to worry about a gun grab or privacy.

I'd love to know how willing terrorists would want to be if they knew beyond the shadow of doubt that they'd run into armed citizens who would fight back? Unarmed citizens are easy prey... think about it...

Last I checked, no LEO has tanks.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

Our Constitutional Rights... all of them, need to be upheld, period. IF they are enforced, we will not need to worry about a gun grab or privacy.

I'd love to know how willing terrorists would want to be if they knew beyond the shadow of doubt that they'd run into armed citizens who would fight back? Unarmed citizens are easy prey... think about it...

Last I checked, no LEO has tanks.

So, then you haven't seen the military grade APC that a kansas local swat team has. I have seen it, it is huge and thick and no civilian has a chance of taking that thing out. They also have flash bangs, smoke, tear gas, frags, fully auto weapons, and other armored vehicles. I have seen the swat team of my city take out a guy who went crazy in his home and started shooting stuff with his guns. he lived like 5 houses down from me. The SWAT took him out pretty easily and I think there was even exchange of fire between them.

I don't think that will deter terrorists either way. Israel is far from a peaceful nation and they know they have guns, and everyone has them, yet they still attack. Guns really have no play in it, because if it really struck fear in them they wouldn't be attacking Israel at all.

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

So, then you haven't seen the military grade APC that a kansas local swat team has. I have seen it, it is huge and thick and no civilian has a chance of taking that thing out. They also have flash bangs, smoke, tear gas, frags, fully auto weapons, and other armored vehicles. I have seen the swat team of my city take out a guy who went crazy in his home and started shooting stuff with his guns. he lived like 5 houses down from me. The SWAT took him out pretty easily and I think there was even exchange of fire between them.

I don't think that will deter terrorists either way. Israel is far from a peaceful nation and they know they have guns, and everyone has them, yet they still attack. Guns really have no play in it, because if it really struck fear in them they wouldn't be attacking Israel at all.

A "military grade" APC (Armored Personnel Carrier) is not a tank... not even close.

So, who are you more fearful from, the police or the military?

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

A "military grade" APC (Armored Personnel Carrier) is not a tank... not even close.

So, who are you more fearful from, the police or the military?

Oh OK, so it doesn't have a 120mm cannon on it that fires depleted uranium rounds, but it is armor none the less, and I believe the FBI and ATF have tanks. I recall one being used in Waco by the ATF.

I am just saying that arming your citizens is kind of moot, because we are so out gunned by the LEOs and Military to begin with. Plus it will not stop terrorist attacks. Everyone in Israel packs something, and a lot of times they do cap a terrorist before they do too much damage, however that never stops them from attacking. It just makes them improvise and be even more sneaky about it.

You can't stop terrorism by force, there is just too many of them, and once you wipe them all out there are others to replace them.

Really in all honesty if the 2nd was all about defending yourself against the military wouldn't the citizens be allowed access to everything the military were for their protection? We all know that technology really wins wars over a lot of other factors. At one time the long bow won wars because you could pull of your enemies range and barrage them with arrows and thin their numbers from over double the distance of the normal bow. As of right now you really don't have equal protection from any government agency at all. Not only are you out gunned but you are out trained as well.

[LEE3370]

"Really in all honesty if the 2nd was all about defending yourself against the military wouldn't the citizens be allowed access to everything the military were for their protection?"
That was one of the "restrictions" that was passed a couple of generations ago. It is accepted by this generation as being a good restriction. And so will the regulations come and be accepted.

[TXplt]

At the risk of beating my head against a wall, armed populations worldwide have been able to successfully defend themselves and reek havoc on their would be captors. Conversely, unarmed populations have often been the victims of atrocities and genocide. Look at how difficult it's been for us (with the finest equipment and best trained military) to fight insurgencies across the world -- even with the tacit support of most of the people of the countries and the existing government's endorsement. Armed populations are quite simply the only way to prevent totalitarian states and genocide, and preserve liberty. This is where the "rubber meets the road." Even Mao acknologed this. And it doesn't take tanks and airplanes. Wars are won and lost by the actions of men. The "toys" can help success along, but by no means guarantee this.

[Deersniper]

Where is Gene McCarthy when you need him? We need to weed them out. Again.

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

Oh OK, so it doesn't have a 120mm cannon on it that fires depleted uranium rounds, but it is armor none the less, and I believe the FBI and ATF have tanks. I recall one being used in Waco by the ATF.

I am just saying that arming your citizens is kind of moot, because we are so out gunned by the LEOs and Military to begin with. Plus it will not stop terrorist attacks. Everyone in Israel packs something, and a lot of times they do cap a terrorist before they do too much damage, however that never stops them from attacking. It just makes them improvise and be even more sneaky about it.

You can't stop terrorism by force, there is just too many of them, and once you wipe them all out there are others to replace them.

Really in all honesty if the 2nd was all about defending yourself against the military wouldn't the citizens be allowed access to everything the military were for their protection? We all know that technology really wins wars over a lot of other factors. At one time the long bow won wars because you could pull of your enemies range and barrage them with arrows and thin their numbers from over double the distance of the normal bow. As of right now you really don't have equal protection from any government agency at all. Not only are you out gunned but you are out trained as well.

A civil engineering "tank" was used at WACO to punch holes in the compound, not fire at it. Secondly, it you are referring to it being armored... it has no more armor than an armored car (for money transfers) or a common CAT.


I would disagree about being less armed than the police or even the military. Consider that at least 25% of the population has at least one firearm in the house. In 2007, the population was 301,621,157... which translates to 111,617,402 housing units. So, theoretically, 27,904,350 guns are in public hands... given that there is only 1 per 4 households. I have no less than 12 in my own household. Do the math ... the military does not have that same amount.

Q. Really in all honesty if the 2nd was all about defending yourself against the military wouldn't the citizens be allowed access to everything the military were for their protection?

A. Because the Govt. if of the people, for the people and by the people, something that has been forgotten all too frequently by our current political leaders. The 2nd Amendment is for protection against everyone and everything, from common criminals to foreign invaders to politicians and including our own Govt. Even George Washington said that.

Q. As of right now you really don't have equal protection from any government agency at all. Not only are you out gunned but you are out trained as well.

A. Outgunned, no... refer to opening statements. Out trained, no. Consider the sheer amount of Veterans who have served and are currently serving our nation. They were trained, as was I. The only people who "might" be out trained are the civilians who never carried a gun to serve this nation or in an official capacity like a police officer.

Terrorists know and respect one thing... force, period. Dialogue (I.E. former President Carter) does nothing but currently appease the terrorists who will undoubtedly, keep attacking to gain more and more until there is no more to gain. Once they attain their goal, they will spread out to take even more. Tell me any terrorist group who wants a fair fight? Ask the Japanese why they never invaded America.

So, what would you do to appease terrorists who want you dead because you are not a follower of their principles and beliefs?

[Rambo]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

Not only are you out gunned but you are out trained as well.

I, for one, have never stopped training and will be outgunned only by artillery. Oh, and aerial bombardment, cruise missles, and thermonuclear device. And as long as Bush can't pronounce "Nuclear" I may have a chance.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by Rambo

I, for one, have never stopped training and will be outgunned only by artillery. Oh, and aerial bombardment, cruise missles, and thermonuclear device. And as long as Bush can't pronounce "Nuclear" I may have a chance.

Don't forget grenades and other explosives, access to armored vehicles, fully auto weapons, etc.

When I say out gunned I mean their fire power is way bigger and badder than ours, I am not talking about sheer quantity. How many of those guns are operable, usable, and effective. I would toss out most antiques and black powder guns almost immediately. Also, a gun is useless with out ammo, so take that into consideration. Plenty of gun owners don't keep that much ammo on them. Others will hold thousands of rounds on them. Then you have tons of guns with hard to find ammo, and those are going to be pretty much useless as well if it came down to it. Why do you think I own 5.56 and 9mm because you can find those rounds just about every where.

Take into fact you will have to watch your back from other citizens as well as the government.

As for out trained, I can only assume that the military is constantly improving their training methods and technology makes it easier. They are constantly improving. So, a veteran 20 years ago may not amount to the same amount of training a current recon marine may have, or it could be completely different. I guess it depends on the individual as well, and if they have kept up or just retired.

Like I said earlier it would only take for them to cut our power.

[LarryO1970]

Veterans, Retired, Active Duty and National Guard will fight for the Constitution, regardless of the age of their training or firearms. Where it matters, a musket will kill as effectively as an M4. Refer to entry #108.

I'll say it again ... for the last time. The military is not coming to take your guns away. Too many would not follow the illegal order. I'm not saying this again...

Try posing that question to Veterans ONLY and see what kinds of replies you get.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

Veterans, Retired, Active Duty and National Guard will fight for the Constitution, regardless of the age of their training or firearms. Where it matters, a musket will kill as effectively as an M4. Refer to entry #108.

I'll say it again ... for the last time. The military is not coming to take your guns away. Too many would not follow the illegal order. I'm not saying this again...

Try posing that question to Veterans ONLY and see what kinds of replies you get.

I am not arguing if they would or not Larry. I am saying the government would NEED them to take them away. The only way a gun ban would ever work is if they got the Military and the LEOs to go door to door and collect. All countries that ban guns use their military to collect them, and they military stock piles them.

If you think that is impossible then can't you deduct that a gun ban would never ever happen in our nation?