DEMS now oppose renewed AWB???

[AAjax]

They are not against it, this is the ole' "test the waters" approach. Have one of your subordinates float an idea. If it sinks walk away till you can try to float it again.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bob4432
The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
Thomas Jefferson

A pro-gun site exposes your Jefferson quote as false here. Question is, will you remove it?

interesting, i will have to look into it. i had looked in a few books and online and found it to be correct....thanks for the heads up

My pleasure, thanks for the concern in its accuracy.

lots of contradicting info on that quote. until i can confirm either way 100%, i will change it as to not promote incorrect info.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: ayabe
Yeah don't believe them....pffttt. What is it you hacks want? You cry foul whether or not what you think they're going to do has any basis in reality.

So when's the next crises of the 2nd amendment? It seems we're always on the precipice of outlawing guns completely, so be followed by teh gays coming down from the hills and raping Jesus.

Trolling for fun again?

One day you all will realize that you're being played for fools by interest groups who really don't give two shits about you. Gee, wonder how much NRA contributions spiked in the last couple of days?

Im aware of the paradigm. But I dont get my kicks rattling other peoples chains.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: AAjax
They are not against it, this is the ole' "test the waters" approach. Have one of your subordinates float an idea. If it sinks walk away till you can try to float it again.

i thought of this too as he didn't look too comfortable when he was saying it, but his past tells a completely different story as does obama's. the only one who really claims to want it and be honest is biden. i don't biden but at least he is honest about this aspect, and not like i agree w/ his stance on it.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe
Yeah don't believe them....pffttt. What is it you hacks want? You cry foul whether or not what you think they're going to do has any basis in reality.

So when's the next crises of the 2nd amendment? It seems we're always on the precipice of outlawing guns completely, so be followed by teh gays coming down from the hills and raping Jesus.

Cry a little more your wishes to take something away from somebody else will have to wait for another day.

I'm not the one crying like a bitch everytime someone mentions the name Pelosi, or fighting battles against imaginary legislation.

You got what you wanted, so stop crying. Besides in one month from now I hear Obama might ban RPG's, better start getting your hackles up.

It's too bad the 10,000 people dead from guns in the last year don't have a well funded and vocal interest group looking out for them.

You need more tissues after that post. I am sure your heroes will find something else to work on that will oppress your fellow citizen and turn that frown of yours upside down.

Zing!

Amazingly, I don't support a ban on assault weapons, never said I did.

But I also don't support the logical bear traps that gun nuts use to support their opposition to any kind of gun control whatsoever. Like using the myth of the home invader wearing body armor or that having a gun protects you from government tyranny or that assault weapons are a logical choice for self defense.

All of that is pure bunk.

 

[Genx87]

Sadly, my same argument was one that affected things like Democrats' aggressiveness on civil rights in the past; it was a balancing act with the courage to proceed, and they did.

Lets see one was bringing rights to people, the other is taking rights away from people. Makes sense you are trying to equate them.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: PingSpike
This always seemed like a pretty big loser issue for the dems.

This, and capital punishment, among others. It's tough being morally ahead of public opinion with a foe who will shamelessly exploit the advantage for political gain.

What??

LOL, that's rich. Just the other day the gun grabbers were all over this forum telling everyone this is what the country wanted.

I think you're confusing having moral superiority with having a superiority complex. As evidence I present the fact that you're the only one I know who quotes himself in his own sig.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe
Yeah don't believe them....pffttt. What is it you hacks want? You cry foul whether or not what you think they're going to do has any basis in reality.

So when's the next crises of the 2nd amendment? It seems we're always on the precipice of outlawing guns completely, so be followed by teh gays coming down from the hills and raping Jesus.

Cry a little more your wishes to take something away from somebody else will have to wait for another day.

I'm not the one crying like a bitch everytime someone mentions the name Pelosi, or fighting battles against imaginary legislation.

You got what you wanted, so stop crying. Besides in one month from now I hear Obama might ban RPG's, better start getting your hackles up.

It's too bad the 10,000 people dead from guns in the last year don't have a well funded and vocal interest group looking out for them.

You need more tissues after that post. I am sure your heroes will find something else to work on that will oppress your fellow citizen and turn that frown of yours upside down.

Zing!

Amazingly, I don't support a ban on assault weapons, never said I did.

So what is the problem? Why the tears and feet stomping over an issue you dont support?

But I also don't support the logical bear traps that gun nuts use to support their opposition to any kind of gun control whatsoever. Like using the myth of the home invader wearing body armor or that having a gun protects you from government tyranny or that assault weapons are a logical choice for self defense.

All of that is pure bunk.

What do you care if you dont support banning assault weapons?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe
Yeah don't believe them....pffttt. What is it you hacks want? You cry foul whether or not what you think they're going to do has any basis in reality.

So when's the next crises of the 2nd amendment? It seems we're always on the precipice of outlawing guns completely, so be followed by teh gays coming down from the hills and raping Jesus.

Cry a little more your wishes to take something away from somebody else will have to wait for another day.

I'm not the one crying like a bitch everytime someone mentions the name Pelosi, or fighting battles against imaginary legislation.

You got what you wanted, so stop crying. Besides in one month from now I hear Obama might ban RPG's, better start getting your hackles up.

It's too bad the 10,000 people dead from guns in the last year don't have a well funded and vocal interest group looking out for them.

You need more tissues after that post. I am sure your heroes will find something else to work on that will oppress your fellow citizen and turn that frown of yours upside down.

Zing!

Amazingly, I don't support a ban on assault weapons, never said I did.

So what is the problem? Why the tears and feet stomping over an issue you dont support?

But I also don't support the logical bear traps that gun nuts use to support their opposition to any kind of gun control whatsoever. Like using the myth of the home invader wearing body armor or that having a gun protects you from government tyranny or that assault weapons are a logical choice for self defense.

All of that is pure bunk.

What do you care if you dont support banning assault weapons?

Well for starters I object to the irrational hatred of Nancy Pelosi, can't you just give her a +1 for taking this off the table? I mean that's what you all wanted and you still cry foul. That's what my post was about. Irrational, seething hatred. I hated Bush but I was willing to give him credit when it was warranted.

I care because those are dishonest arguments and there are ways to keep guns away from criminals without outright bans AND not every attempt at regulation is a slippery slope towards a 2nd amendment repeal.

We can't talk about anything involving guns without this emotional, reflexive BS coming out. That's what I object to.

Like gun registration - that's not banning anything and isn't violating anyone's rights, but the mere mention of something like that causes violent mouth frothing followed by the straw man parade.

Pelosi says we have adequate laws and we just need better enforcement - ok I'm all about giving that the chance, without banning anything. But it the end result needs to be less gun violence, otherwise we need to look at alternatives.

 

[retrospooty]

I dont really care about this issue much personally, but I have to wonder why republicans are so desperately in need of assault weapons...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Well for starters I object to the irrational hatred of Nancy Pelosi, can't you just give her a +1 for taking this off the table? I mean that's what you all wanted and you still cry foul. That's what my post was about. Irrational, seething hatred. I hated Bush but I was willing to give him credit when it was warranted.

I care because those are dishonest arguments and there are ways to keep guns away from criminals without outright bans AND not every attempt at regulation is a slippery slope towards a 2nd amendment repeal.

We can't talk about anything involving guns without this emotional, reflexive BS coming out. That's what I object to.

Like gun registration - that's not banning anything and isn't violating anyone's rights, but the mere mention of something like that causes violent mouth frothing followed by the straw man parade.

Pelosi says we have adequate laws and we just need better enforcement - ok I'm all about giving that the chance, without banning anything. But it the end result needs to be less gun violence, otherwise we need to look at alternatives.

Dont let your lust for Nancy cloud your vision. This is the second reply in this thread made by me.

Originally posted by: Genx87
I will applaud this change if it holds true. I'd guess NRA members flooded these two with calls.

Most of the emotion I see is from people who want to ban guns. Ask what their rationale is for banning a weapon that represents such a miniscule % of crimes and they always appeal to emotion by bringing up a school shooting incident. Ask them for facts that justify banning a weapon and you hear crickets. I suggest sitting back and actually reading most replies. You will find us gun nutz are basing our decisions on known facts and reality while the anti-gun folks based it on emotion and hypotheticals.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Originally posted by: ayabe
It's too bad the 10,000 people dead from guns in the last year don't have a well funded and vocal interest group looking out for them.

You mean a group like this:

http://www.bradycenter.org/

 

[ScottyB]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe

Well for starters I object to the irrational hatred of Nancy Pelosi, can't you just give her a +1 for taking this off the table? I mean that's what you all wanted and you still cry foul. That's what my post was about. Irrational, seething hatred. I hated Bush but I was willing to give him credit when it was warranted.

I care because those are dishonest arguments and there are ways to keep guns away from criminals without outright bans AND not every attempt at regulation is a slippery slope towards a 2nd amendment repeal.

We can't talk about anything involving guns without this emotional, reflexive BS coming out. That's what I object to.

Like gun registration - that's not banning anything and isn't violating anyone's rights, but the mere mention of something like that causes violent mouth frothing followed by the straw man parade.

Pelosi says we have adequate laws and we just need better enforcement - ok I'm all about giving that the chance, without banning anything. But it the end result needs to be less gun violence, otherwise we need to look at alternatives.

Dont let your lust for Nancy cloud your vision. This is the second reply in this thread made by me.

Originally posted by: Genx87
I will applaud this change if it holds true. I'd guess NRA members flooded these two with calls.

Most of the emotion I see is from people who want to ban guns. Ask what their rationale is for banning a weapon that represents such a miniscule % of crimes and they always appeal to emotion by bringing up a school shooting incident. Ask them for facts that justify banning a weapon and you hear crickets. I suggest sitting back and actually reading most replies. You will find us gun nutz are basing our decisions on known facts and reality while the anti-gun folks based it on emotion and hypotheticals.

How many of out crimes are committed using nuclear weapons? 0? So, why are they banned?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar

Originally posted by: ayabe
It's too bad the 10,000 people dead from guns in the last year don't have a well funded and vocal interest group looking out for them.

You mean a group like this:

http://www.bradycenter.org/

You'd be hard pressed to compare that to the wide ranging influence and extremely well funded NRA.

 

[DealMonkey]

If only the NRA believed in upholding the other 26 amendments!!

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I will applaud this change if it holds true. I'd guess NRA members flooded these two with calls.

What change?
Didn't you read the article that said Harry Reid voted against it BOTH times?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe

Well for starters I object to the irrational hatred of Nancy Pelosi, can't you just give her a +1 for taking this off the table? I mean that's what you all wanted and you still cry foul. That's what my post was about. Irrational, seething hatred. I hated Bush but I was willing to give him credit when it was warranted.

I care because those are dishonest arguments and there are ways to keep guns away from criminals without outright bans AND not every attempt at regulation is a slippery slope towards a 2nd amendment repeal.

We can't talk about anything involving guns without this emotional, reflexive BS coming out. That's what I object to.

Like gun registration - that's not banning anything and isn't violating anyone's rights, but the mere mention of something like that causes violent mouth frothing followed by the straw man parade.

Pelosi says we have adequate laws and we just need better enforcement - ok I'm all about giving that the chance, without banning anything. But it the end result needs to be less gun violence, otherwise we need to look at alternatives.

Dont let your lust for Nancy cloud your vision. This is the second reply in this thread made by me.

Originally posted by: Genx87
I will applaud this change if it holds true. I'd guess NRA members flooded these two with calls.

Most of the emotion I see is from people who want to ban guns. Ask what their rationale is for banning a weapon that represents such a miniscule % of crimes and they always appeal to emotion by bringing up a school shooting incident. Ask them for facts that justify banning a weapon and you hear crickets. I suggest sitting back and actually reading most replies. You will find us gun nutz are basing our decisions on known facts and reality while the anti-gun folks based it on emotion and hypotheticals.

I didn't mean you specifically, I should have said 'you all', I was generalizing and shouldn't have. My apologies.

I don't love Pelosi, I'm just puzzled at the hate for her. She's a female from San Francisco, I know that's more than enough for some people:laugh:, she's not great at her job - but she's not the anti-christ either, the mere mention of her name causes gnashing of the teeth followed by hissing.

Bush conservatives should love her, she wouldn't allow impeachment to proceed for Bush and had he been impeached, the R's would have been doomed for a decade. I'm not going to argue that there aren't emotional and wholly irrational voices on both sides. But I'd think you'd be hard pressed to compare the the two in terms of scale and scope.

Guns are part of our culture, always have and always will be. Certain people need to realize that and that we'll never approach the low firearm murder rate that say Britain has.

But we could crack down on the black market and there needs to be open discussion about how to do that. We could cut Mexican drug violence by I dunno ~30% if we legalized pot in this country.

 

[Rustler]

Everytime they talk gun ban I buy 2 more........................................I don't trust what they say.

Maybe we should annex Mexico their government is so corrupt, plus we would have a better chance at border control.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: retrospooty
I dont really care about this issue much personally, but I have to wonder why republicans are so desperately in need of assault weapons...

We are not in need of "assault weapons," we are scared of "assault weapon" bans. The reason for this is that there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" it is a fictional term that they use because you mistakenly give it a definition it does not actually have.

I am going to quote myself just because I think I need to break this out every time someone asks why we need something dangerous like "assault weapons"

Take a minute and ask if this makes any sense. I want to ban zoozoo weapons, I know they do not work any differently from normal rifles that I don't want to ban, I know they are used in less than 1% of crimes in the united states, I know they are actually less dangerous than high powered hunting rifles. However, despite all of that, those weapons look scary, and they look like the guns bad guys use in movies, and I don't want my neighbor owning a zoozoo gun.

"Assault weapon" is meaningless, it has no actual definition, and politicians just choose guns that look scary and call them assault weapons. I think this needs to be repeated again, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ASSAULT WEAPON.

I can take a normal hunting rifle, change some cosmetic parts, and all of the sudden it becomes an assault weapon, even though nothing changed but its appearance.

 

[Atheus]

You know what the problem is? You make so much effort getting powerful weapons into to the hands of good citizens without making much effort to take them away from violent criminals. That situation just leads to everyone getting shot.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Well for starters I object to the irrational hatred of Nancy Pelosi, can't you just give her a +1 for taking this off the table? I mean that's what you all wanted and you still cry foul. That's what my post was about. Irrational, seething hatred. I hated Bush but I was willing to give him credit when it was warranted.

I care because those are dishonest arguments and there are ways to keep guns away from criminals without outright bans AND not every attempt at regulation is a slippery slope towards a 2nd amendment repeal.

We can't talk about anything involving guns without this emotional, reflexive BS coming out. That's what I object to.

Like gun registration - that's not banning anything and isn't violating anyone's rights, but the mere mention of something like that causes violent mouth frothing followed by the straw man parade.

Pelosi says we have adequate laws and we just need better enforcement - ok I'm all about giving that the chance, without banning anything. But it the end result needs to be less gun violence, otherwise we need to look at alternatives.

First of all, I am very happy with the democrats about this.

Second, gun registration, I know of 3 gun registries, the chicago handgun registry, the washington D.C. gun registry, and the national automatic weapon registry. Every one of those gun registries has been closed to new entries (except the D.C. which required the SC to reopen) effectively creating a ban on the weapon. When politicians stop using gun registries to ban weapons, we will stop treating gun registries like gun bans. However, please do not be offended when you have done it 3 times in the past and we just somehow assume you will do the same thing again, something about learning our lesson.

Finally, the emotional part, when we talk about gun bans, gun registries, and ammo serialization, people on both sides use emotional arguments. However, people who want gun bans refuse to listen to our factual arguments, such as, despite the increased gun restrictions in England and Australia, their violent crime rates have risen drasticaly. And almost every study on concealed carry shows that it has a beneficial effect on violent crime. Or, there is no link of any decrease in crime during the first AWB, nor did crime increase after it expired.

We talk to you about studies, and research, but when it comes to gun control its like a lot of people have suddenly taken the mindset of an Intelligent Design believer. You believe in gun control no matter what, and no amount of evidence will change your mind. Eventually we just stop trying because its pointless.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: ayabe
As everyone likes to point out most guns used in crimes were either stolen or purchased through the black market somehow.

Most recent data I can find estimates that 30% or so of gun purchases are through the black market, or unlicensed dealers.

This is the real problem.

What is the solution oh wise ones? Is there no sensible alternative to outright bans, which hurt legitimate, law-abiding owners?

Should we just continue to do nothing? Can we not agree that far too many people in this country are killed by firearms?

can you post your most recent data links?

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Atheus
You know what the problem is? You make so much effort getting powerful weapons into to the hands of good citizens without making much effort to take them away from violent criminals. That situation just leads to everyone getting shot.

so ban everybody because the violent criminal is already breaking the law again by possessing the firearm (if in fact he is)? it is not like a "violent criminal" w/ felonies went into a gun shop and bought the gun legally. this is where your logic doesn't work.

you make bans and the only people who get hurt are the ones that follow the law - not the violent criminal who doesn't give 2 shits about the law.

how can you not see this? please explain that to me? is it personal? was somebody you know killed?

the effort is not to arm everybody, that is their choice and right, the effort is to not shit on the constitution so that law abiding citizens have that right.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: Atheus
You know what the problem is? You make so much effort getting powerful weapons into to the hands of good citizens without making much effort to take them away from violent criminals. That situation just leads to everyone getting shot.

so ban everybody because the violent criminal is already breaking the law again by possessing the firearm (if in fact he is)? it is not like a "violent criminal" w/ felonies went into a gun shop and bought the gun legally. this is where your logic doesn't work.

you make bans and the only people who get hurt are the ones that follow the law - not the violent criminal who doesn't give 2 shits about the law.

how can you not see this? please explain that to me? is it personal? was somebody you know killed?

the effort is not to arm everybody, that is their choice and right, the effort is to not shit on the constitution so that law abiding citizens have that right.

The other problem, of course, is that obsessed people have little capacity to listen to what others say, and it is therefore impossible to engage them in an intelligent arguement. See the above poster for reference - nothing he is arguing about appears anywhere in my post.

 

[ajf3]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Should we just continue to do nothing? Can we not agree that far too many people in this country are killed by firearms?

Simple solution - usage of a gun in a crime = mandatory death penalty. Throw in the decriminalization of drugs and gun murders will be on par with death by lightening.