Why is it

[beararms1776]

that when it comes to defending rights to gun ownership that some liberal and conservative views don't co-exist. Seems like everyone would be on the same boat.

 

[rambone]

that when it comes to defending rights to gun ownership that some liberal and conservative views don't co-exist. Seems like everyone would be on the same boat.

Once you figure that out, you'll stop calling yourself liberal/conservative.

You're right. There absolutely should be common ground when people are referring to protecting our rights.

 

[machete]

that when it comes to defending rights to gun ownership that some liberal and conservative views don't co-exist. Seems like everyone would be on the same boat.

just got off the phone where i got your answers... you wont like it but at least youll know...

if gun owners voted democrat more,,,gun rights would do better in that party...

they dont see the need for guns

guns are violence and they dont like violence

dems like to help people,,,not hurt them...

no good comes out of guns

the people who have guns are the exact people who shouldnt---they say---if your driving around in a pickup with war and military stickers,,,confederate flag stickers,,,anti obama stickers,,,anti muslim stickers,,,your crazy or at least scary and you shouldnt have a gun

its a big cultural thing... a lot of democrats cant stand republicans and think they are dangerous people with bad tempers and ego issues... they dont think republicans are smart and they think republicans hate and want to hurt smart people... they think that getting rid of guns would make those people with the bad personality traits become more normal...

away

 

[printcraft]

......

dems like to control people,,,not help them...

............

FTFY

 

[beararms1776]

Originally Posted by machete
......

dems like to control people,,,not help them...

............

FTFY

Kinda like, don't ask for a hamburger your paying for to come without pickles.

 

[machete]

Kinda like, don't ask for a hamburger your paying for to come without pickles.

id sure like the country im paying for to come without victimless crime laws,,,but i dont see the republicans letting me have freedom...

 

[indykid]

Like was said, some people want full control over the population. Others believe that this country was founded on true freedom. You tell me who is pro-firearm and who is anti.

Never before in history has a country been built on the equality of the population, and not have a tsar, Pharaoh, king, or some other ruling monarchy. The president of this country was to preside over the federal government, not the people. We the people were in charge of what was presided over. Unfortunately as time has gone on, we have slipped away from our roots as independent people and closer to having a king.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Like was said, some people want full control over the population. Others believe that this country was founded on true freedom. You tell me who is pro-firearm and who is anti.

Never before in history has a country been built on the equality of the population, and not have a tsar, Pharaoh, king, or some other ruling monarchy. The president of this country was to preside over the federal government, not the people. We the people were in charge of what was presided over. Unfortunately as time has gone on, we have slipped away from our roots as independent people and closer to having a king.

If you want to see how a republic is really supposed to work research Switzerland.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

id sure like the country im paying for to come without victimless crime laws,,,but i dont see the republicans letting me have freedom...

Define "victimless" crime... I very well may agree with you - but that's a little too nebulous. Are we talking drugs here? or what?

 

[Compatriot G]

just got off the phone where i got your answers... you wont like it but at least youll know...

if gun owners voted democrat more,,,gun rights would do better in that party...

they dont see the need for guns

guns are violence and they dont like violence

dems like to help people,,,not hurt them...

no good comes out of guns

the people who have guns are the exact people who shouldnt---they say---if your driving around in a pickup with war and military stickers,,,confederate flag stickers,,,anti obama stickers,,,anti muslim stickers,,,your crazy or at least scary and you shouldnt have a gun

its a big cultural thing... a lot of democrats cant stand republicans and think they are dangerous people with bad tempers and ego issues... they dont think republicans are smart and they think republicans hate and want to hurt smart people... they think that getting rid of guns would make those people with the bad personality traits become more normal...

away

As a gun owner, why would I vote for a party and its candidates that have been anti-gun for several years? That makes no sense. Are you trying to suggest gun-owners need to vote democrat so the democrat party will be more pro-gun?

I guess I'm one of the crazy ones that shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm because I do have Confederate stickers on my SUV. The reason for this is because I am a Confederate reenactor and a life member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. I'm proud of my great-great-great grandfather and his defense of limited government and states' rights.

 

[JoshuaW]

Define "victimless" crime... I very well may agree with you - but that's a little too nebulous. Are we talking drugs here? or what?

Drugs, most infractions, and most weapon laws. Those were the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

I cant stand political parties. I make way to many compromises when voting. Both mainstream parties want to be involved in places they should not be. "Liberals" want to treat us like small children in order to "guarantee" our rights, and "Conservatives" want to impose their morals on everything, so much so that it makes me literally sick (and I mean that, I have nearly vomited). There is NO room for morals in politics.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I would agree that with most of these things, we are not well served by making them ILLEGAL. I would specifically add things like helmet laws,etc. (I realize that they don't have those in IN, but they ARE prevalent in much of the rest of the country.). Using that as an example, I would suggest that it's stupid to ride without the best protection available. That said, if you want to do it, knock yourself out (potentially of the gene pool!).

Along with that, though, one has to accept the RESPONSIBILITY if things go wrong... If one becomes addicted to crack, or runs their head into an oak tree because they were riding without a helmet, or whatever the issue - one cannot expect everyone else in society to pick up the tab for their reckless behavior, right?

As to your second point about morals. Let's clarify what you mean by morals. If you mean sexual behavior, proclivities, etc. I agree that they should not be legislated against. (No kids involved... the usual caveats). Whatever you want to do in that regard is STRICTLY up to you. Period. I'm allowed to think you're weird, you're allowed to think I'm weird, but nobody has the right to prohibit you from doing anything, or penalize you for doing so. Just like the motorcycle without a helmet - the wilder you choose to get - the more risks you are taking, and that is STRICTLY up to you. Harm anyone else against their will, knowledge, or consent - and of course I have a problem with it.... I suspect that we'd agree there...

On the other hand, if by "morals", you mean high standards of honesty, integrity, ethics, etc. - then I would say that there's PLENTY of room for them in politics, since I find most politicians sorely LACKING in that department right now! And for quite some time! Republicans and Democrats alike!

The challenging thing is this - Republicans are pretty good on the gun topic when it comes to liberty, but sometimes as you say - they get preachy on other issues. Democrats are cool if you want to do bizarre things with vegetables or smoke medicinals or something, but they want to take your financial and gun freedom! That leads to a pretty crappy choice!

Further - the way things are set up, they are biased in favor of a two party system. So until the libertarians can bust THAT door down - we're stuck with the ugly choice. I choose to keep my guns and money, and follow my own conscience with regards to religion, sex, etc. That may be overly pragmatic of me, but with guns and money, I figure that I'll still have choices down the road! Honestly what I'd LOVE to see is a bunch of liberty minded Republicans and blue dog Dems get elected, then tell BOTH of the party machines to go shove... That's the most likely possible way that a third party could break the two party lock.... not likely to happen, but it would be interesting.

 

[Fletch]

There is NO room for morals in politics.

I strongly disagree. Morals are absolutely essential in politics. The trick is having the right ones.

 

[ghostinthewood]

Define "victimless" crime... I very well may agree with you - but that's a little too nebulous. Are we talking drugs here? or what?

No because several Republican presidents and the like were a big part of that and we all know that ONLY liberals control people for silly reasons.

...****...Seems both parties are equally "evil." My mind exploded.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Ghost - I think we agree on this... it's a case of "pick your poison". If we had to have politicians or parties that agreed with us 100% of the time, we'd have a DEMOCRACY not a REPUBLIC. Inherently, our reps are ALWAYS not gonna choose EXACTLY what we want, since that's numerically impossible. Unfortunately I agree that there are major deficiencies BOTH ways. There always will be - it's part of LIFE...

Until there is a viable, winnable, third choice, I am forced to choose between two evils. Even then there will be something I disagree with, but it may be closer to the mark. And hey, wherever there is a viable winnable situation, I am ALL for it. I will, personally, choose the one that lets me keep my guns, and money, and arguably MORE freedom - since with that I have a hope of fighting for my other freedoms. And I personally will push my representatives to err on the side of not encroaching on liberty whenever it does not harm another. For the record, neither party has a GREAT record when it comes to respecting freedom of religion (or lack thereof). Just different points of view tend to errr.. congregate different ways. There are a zillion examples of all of this.

I don't think them equally "evil" chiefly because of WHICH rights they are infringing on. Also I would submit that it's gonna be a LOT easier to convince Republicans to say - legalize drugs than it is to get Democrats to say - leave my tax dollars alone...

I would argue that the debate is gradually changing from a more right vs left to statist vs libertarian sort of thing.

That's why I asked WHICH rights one was concerned with.

 

[ghostinthewood]

I disagree with who is easier to convince of what. Drugs go against small town values dontchaknow.

Bull-Moose party anyone? =]

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

In Daviess County, I'd agree with you, Ghost. Nationwide - very different issue, I believe. I'm hearing a LOT of Repubs start to echo that sentiment.

It's kind of like the fact that there are still "dry" counties around. They are just the last to acknowledge that the 21st Amendment happened. Some areas just change faster, some slower. (Sometimes a good thing, sometimes not - depends on ones point of view..)

All good, we can agree to disagree on that.

 

[ghostinthewood]

In Daviess County, I'd agree with you, Ghost. Nationwide - very different issue, I believe. I'm hearing a LOT of Repubs start to echo that sentiment.

It's kind of like the fact that there are still "dry" counties around. They are just the last to acknowledge that the 21st Amendment happened. Some areas just change faster, some slower. (Sometimes a good thing, sometimes not - depends on ones point of view..)

All good, we can agree to disagree on that.

Well when you call out Daviess County specifically (Pike would've been better) it makes your point more agreeable. However, there are still places "worse." So to be honest, it's hard for me to say with 100% confidence on how "liberal" some of the Rep's are on drugs nowadays. There was a thread not too long ago with some interesting quotes though...

I don't see a change in the stubbornness of gay marriage though. *shrug* I'm still convinced both are equally at fault, but I'm young and Bush's 1st term and the loyalty and the partisanship from the Republicans sticks out in my mind, so I'm trying to be fair. =p

I think with Pelosi losing influence, the stubborn Dem's will die off though. Mind you, the Dem's disagree with each other sometimes more than they disagree with the Rep's historically.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
Will Rogers

It applies in more ways than one. =p

 

[beararms1776]

When a person commits a crime with a hg, you have to wonder if the anti gunners feel any guilt or association with that crime because they were opposed to the victims right to have a hg for self defense. They should feel guilty unless some are without conscious.

 

[Bill of Rights]

When a person commits a crime with a hg, you have to wonder if the anti gunners feel any guilt or association with that crime because they were opposed to the victims right to have a hg for self defense. They should feel guilty unless some are without conscious.

None. They blame the gun for making the poor, disadvantaged person commit the crime. It's not a conscience issue for them because they don't recognize the reality of the individual's ability to defend him- or herself. They can't recognize that because it's not something they feel capable of doing themselves, therefore, no one else could either.

It's very sad, I think.

Blessings,
Bill