Democrats and gun control

[oldpink]

I believe in dealing with the world as it is, not as it was in an 18th century agrarian society with a population of 2.5 million.

Yeah, that whole pathetic "living document" claptrap.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't think forum rules allow me to say how I'd respond to something like that.

 

[OutdoorDad]

There are people right here on this foum that would give up their guns to elect a Democrat.

I think you're supposed to waive a sheet of paper in the air and say " I have here in my hand a list of 205 members of this forum that are known to the moderators as known Democrats and yet are working to shape opinions of others on firearms forums. "

 

[Cemetery-man]

Democrats would still vote for Hillary and take the risk of losing their guns. This was pretty much the common reply by democrats to a Facebook story I read asking if gun owning democrats would vote for an obvious anti-gun democrat that openly says they will go after guns if elected. The responders made it pretty clear that although they love their guns, they wouldn't abandon their party.

 

[oldpink]

I think you're supposed to waive a sheet of paper in the air and say " I have here in my hand a list of 205 members of this forum that are known to the moderators as known Democrats and yet are working to shape opinions of others on firearms forums. "

How do you propose dealing with someone who makes it clear that the Constitution is meaningless to him?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Vote your paycheck...the rallying cry of Unions, Socialists, and Communists. When what the leaders are saying is vote us your paycheck, while all of their obedient followers who are wearing their wallet like a set of blinders in the voting booth is just singing a chorus that they don't understand the meaning of.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't "vote your paycheck" mean, "Surrender your morals and values and precepts for these 30 pieces of silver"?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think you're supposed to waive a sheet of paper in the air and say " I have here in my hand a list of 205 members of this forum that are known to the moderators as known Democrats and yet are working to shape opinions of others on firearms forums. "

You do realize that later declassified documents demonstrate that McCarthy was absolutely correct about the fact that the executive branch knew of the communist agents he alleged and was incorrect only in underestimating the number, don't you?

How do you propose dealing with someone who makes it clear that the Constitution is meaningless to him?

You don't. It is like trying to discuss civilization with a barbarian.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't "vote your paycheck" mean, "Surrender your morals and values and precepts for these 30 pieces of silver"?

Absolutely correct and insightful as usual.

 

[Alpo]

Yeah, that whole pathetic "living document" claptrap.

A bit cliche', but SCOTUS is actively involved and has been, or don't you read history? Without SCOTUS, we wouldn't have Heller. So, you can bury your head in an 18th century field or you can influence the future by recognizing where we are an seek to guide it in a direction we both agree would be better for gun owners. Pounding your chest, ridiculing those of another political party and deflecting the debate to other issues serves their interests, as you appear to be the extremist.

You must remember that there are 40% of republicans that are not gun owners and they are the ones most likely to be swayed toward changing the laws. Dem gun owners still want to be gun owners in the long run. Read a little Sun Tzu, and get back to us.

 

[Alpo]

You do realize that later declassified documents demonstrate that McCarthy was absolutely correct about the fact that the executive branch knew of the communist agents he alleged and was incorrect only in underestimating the number, don't you?



You don't. It is like trying to discuss civilization with a barbarian.



Absolutely correct and insightful as usual.

A Joe McCarthy supporter. Go figure.

 

[oldpink]

A bit cliche', but SCOTUS is actively involved and has been, or don't you read history? Without SCOTUS, we wouldn't have Heller. So, you can bury your head in an 18th century field or you can influence the future by recognizing where we are an seek to guide it in a direction we both agree would be better for gun owners. Pounding your chest, ridiculing those of another political party and deflecting the debate to other issues serves their interests, as you appear to be the extremist.

You must remember that there are 40% of republicans that are not gun owners and they are the ones most likely to be swayed toward changing the laws. Dem gun owners still want to be gun owners in the long run. Read a little Sun Tzu, and get back to us.

I refuse to take seriously the words of someone who claims to be an avid pro-gunner, who then turns right around and proudly votes for those most likely to curtail gun rights.

 

[Alpo]

And I should worry about this because........? Perhaps you missed the comments earlier about St. Ronnie? Reagan gave up gun rights and would do so today if it was politically expedient.

And without Reagan, where are you?

 

[cobber]

A Joe McCarthy supporter. Go figure.

A Bernie Sanders supporter. Go figure.

Without SCOTUS, we wouldn't have Heller.

So we should thank the Lords in robes for allowing the serfs one little slice of their natural rights? I don't think any thanks are owed to anyone in the government. It's their oath and duty to uphold the Constitution. If they don't, they should resign from office or be removed. But excuse me for not being grateful to be allowed to breathe the air as a free man...

 

[silverspoon]

I knew Mitt was worthless before the Iowa caucus was held...but the press killed all the conservative candidates and chose him, just as they chose J Mc before him. Both prepped to lose...the worst candidates the R's could field.

That is exactly why Trump could end up as the nominee. What better theater could there be? Sad.

You do realize that the press didn't kill the conservative candidates but rather the conservative candidates killed themselves?? The conservative candidates in the upcoming election can barely muster 10% in the polls. I know it's hard to fathom but hard core conservatism is not a majority opinion of the Republican party. The only thing the ultra conservative Republicans have done is completely and effectively shut down the government. Heck, the Republican party can't even elect a Speaker of the House let alone a President. Unless some remove their collective heads from their asses we are going to have Hillary as our next President. The Republican party is in deep doo doo at the present moment. Most folks don't care about gay marriage. It's a legal contract. That's all. Nothing more. Stay out of people's personal lives. Stop this silly war on drugs. It's over and the government position is lost. People are tired of seeing other citizens get their doors kicked in and killed in their homes over marijuana. People are tired of the government illegally seizing cash and other property over a couple joints. People are tired of drugs dogs circling their cars. We as a society have lost more rights in the last 30 years over this silly war on drugs than we had over the previous 200 years collectively. Unfortunately, we will continue down this failed road and another socialist twit will be elected next year and we will spend the next 8 years barely hanging onto the our gun rights. Well, hopefully, when the dust settles 9 years from today we still have gun rights. To say the Second Amendment is more important than all the others is rather short sighted. The First, Fourth, Fifth and to some extent the Second Amendments have been gutted. The "Second Amendment" has done nothing to prevent this from happening.

 

[Bill of Rights]

And I should worry about this because........? Perhaps you missed the comments earlier about St. Ronnie? Reagan gave up gun rights and would do so today if it was politically expedient.

And without Reagan, where are you?

If you refer to the Hughes Amendment, it's not like the President has a line item veto available. He and others had fought hard for FOPA, which, compared to its absence, is a good law that has kept many gun owners from becoming felons solely for driving across an arbitrary line on a map. Should he have vetoed the whole thing, thrown the baby out with the bathwater, because a "poison pill" got shoved into it in an 11th hr. session by Charlie Rangel?

I'm a strong supporter of gun rights. That's actually an enormous understating of the fact. At one time, though, I supported waiting periods and background checks, mostly out of ignorance on my part. At that time, I didn't see that waiting periods only delay the good people who need one NOW to protect themselves from an imminent threat, and like background checks, do nothing to stop the guy that buys a gun out of someone's trunk in an alley.

Reagan was a staunch conservative, but he was also a politician. He remarked on this himself, when he said, "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." I do not, however, believe that he would support an AWB today, nor do I think he would support most of the idiocy that is foisted upon us by our government.

From your post, seemingly insulting him and by extension, conservatives in general, I can guess that your views are more liberal. That's your choice. I won't insult you for it, but I will remind you that your votes may well impact your own ability to own and/or carry the gun(s) that you want in the near future. In the presidential election of 2016, there are no pro-gun candidates on the Democratic side (with the possible exception of Webb.) More clearly, there are none that will win the nomination.

On the GOP side, there are da*n few that are pro-gun rights, and none that support them to the extent I do. Realistically, one of those candidates will win the nomination. Realistically, one of those two parties will win the office. I can cast my vote for a Libertarian (capitalization intentional) candidate and be more true to my beliefs, but doing so will not help to choose who will next sit at the Resolute desk. If I want to help shape that, I'll have to vote GOP in the primary. Right this moment, Trump sounds best on gun rights. I don't think he'll win the nomination, and further, I don't know if I believe his stated opinions today to be his actual opinions. As I illustrated above, a man's views can change. The question is the reason for the change: What does he have to gain from his views being different? In my case, I had only a different view to gain, and I did. I like this one better. He has an office with incredible amounts of power to gain and large sums of money to lose if he wins the office. Is he engaging in the oldest profession? I don't know.
I'm not saying anything anyone doesn't already know to say I think the race will come down to either Trump or Carson vs. either Hillary or Bernie. I like some of what I've heard from Carson, but the whole "oldest profession" thing is nagging at me. I am undecided. I would not, however, be surprised if the decision was already made and the next president's desk sign already printed and sitting in a box somewhere... regardless of the will of the People.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Alpo]

We both support strong gun rights. It isn't a democrat or republican issue per se. What I object to is the constant pejorative fever foisted on almost any democrat thread by "the usual suspects". There are what...30,000 members of this website, yet we get the same dozen or less members spouting their view of conservatism, wrapping themselves in the Constitution as if they are the progeny of the founders or scholars, which I highly doubt.

This thread began calling democrats "evil". Another poster characterised any democrat as a "traitor" and "unpatriotic". That is beyond the pale. As a disabled veteran who served in the 60's and 70's with an honorable discharge, I object to that characterization in the strongest of terms.

As to Reagan, he supported, along with Ford, the Assault Weapons Ban. That is in the record. Along with his strong support and signature on the Mulford Act. So your estimation of what Reagan would do today has no history to support it.

As to how I vote, we still have a secret ballot. But, I have been voting since 1972 and I can say that I have voted for a republican presidential candidate in 7 out of 10 elections.

 

[Birds Away]

This thread began calling democrats "evil". Another poster characterised any democrat as a "traitor" and "unpatriotic".

Funny, I would characterize that as spot on.

 

[Alpo]

QED. A usual suspect. The defense rests.

 

[spec4]

A waste of time to ruminate over Reagan. As has been often posted on this forum; unlikely any of us will ever see the perfect politician with whom we agree 100%. If anyone had a problem with Reagan they may want to consider who the alternative was.

In my experience the overwhelming percentage of politicians who want to disarm us are Dems. Anyone care to dispute that. The hot off the press recent example is Hillary wanting to take the Australian route.

 

[Birds Away]

QED. A usual suspect. The defense rests.

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck......

 

[Birds Away]

Benedict Arnold fought for our independence and was considered a patriot.....until he wasn't.