AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO IS DISGUSTED? By these moronic TV gun shows? Not at all hard to believe the general public veiws gun people as skull and crossbone red necks. All I see is these fools blowing up things. I personally have no use for "black" guns, poly stocks, "platforms". I am pretty old now and I guess my kind of forged milled steel and walnut are over. I'd rather fondle my 85 year old Nitro Special 20 ga than have any of the new crap. Just my vintage opinion. Chops
Take it easy C'lumps. Same world, just different strokes for different folks. You're telling me you wouldn't have a grin from ear to ear putting a full drum on a Tommy gun and letting it rip? C'mon man, that could put a smile on anyones face. Lighten up. Ya, the shows are uber cheezy and I dont watch them....if they put some hotter tail on the shows maybe I'd watch, Lord know's I've watched more idiotic shows than these just for the sole purpose of seeing the hot chicks. :-)
Dustin
Chops:
I have to agree with the above. While I enjoy my classic doubles I also like shooting subguns and the Thompson is one of my favorite. Keep in mind that the original 1921 model is now 90 years old!
Also please understand it's a full-auto "shotgun" of sorts and special shot loads were available that required a unique 18 round mag.
Anyway my rambling for the day!
I guess if it "goes bang" I like it.
Jim
I'm 64 and yes, I prefer guns made with blued steel barrels, walnut stocks, etc... but I have to admit, from a utility standpoint stainless steel barrels and poly stocks make a lot of sense. Just like I love the beauty of a vintage Shelby Cobra, but if I wanted one to actually drive and use, I'd buy a replica Cobra with all the beauty of the old Cobra combined with modern technology.
Steve
What shows do you specifically mean in your thread? I like "Top Shot" on History channel, and the "Host"- Aussie Colby ---- whatever his last name is, was one cool dude on the Survivor show (which I think is pure Horse&^%$!!I also love my old worn blued steel and walnut shotguns and rifles, and when I first saw the POS weapon- the Army's M16 in 'Nam I puked-- still do today. Give me a Garand any day, or a M-14 thank you!! As far as the great 1921 Thompson SMG- yessiree- I've done a few with 20 rd. stick mags, but never a 50 or 100 rd. drum mag-- I also appreciate the quality of the early in WW2 issue German weapons-our 'Nam era "Pig" the M-60 MG in 7.62x51 NATO was a copy of the German MG-42 in 7.9mm (aka- Hitler's Zipper or Hitler's Zip Gun) for his high cyclical rate of fire. If the Krauts had the Stellite barrel liners for their MG 42's- well anyway!! Before I die I want to fire a Schmeisser SMG 9mm Parabellum with 32 rd. magazine and a Dragunov and a Barrett sniper rifle- and maybe a C96 Mauser Schnellfeuer in 9mm!!
The M-60 has more in common with the FG-42 than the MG-42, two very different guns.
I will admit, I am a blued or browned steel guy and wood is important to me. The shows I am thinking of, is when they place some sort of a charge in the target and everything blows up when you hit it. How childish, at least to me.......
Not for nothing the Germans went right back to the MG42 though they rechambered it for the 7.62 NATO and called it the MG3 to spare a lot of sensibilities.
Setting that all aside, I can take or leave the shows. Ain't none of the chicks taking off their shirts, so watching the shows and waiting for that won't work. I've got better ways to waste time - like typing on the internet
I like most types of guns, but for hunting I prefer traditional guns.
I gotta admit, I wathch Top Gun more than I ever watched Shotgun Journal.
If I ever get TV again, (unlikely) I'll check out a couple of these shows...I kinda like blowing things up....
If I ever get TV again, (unlikely) I'll check out a couple of these shows...I kinda like blowing things up....
Me too- Maybe not the smell of fresh napalm in the AM (now that's a real 'dew cutter')but one reason I love the "Bridge On The River Kwai" is the ending scene, where Alex Guinness as "stiff upper lip, old chap, Col. Nickerson" falls on the plunger and we see the bridge turn into toothpicks!!
For those of you who want to read an interesting conversation, especially about gun shows on TV, go over to this thread
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/25/205812/674When you read this, please keep in mind that (A) TalkLeft is - and has been - one of the leading liberal blogs in the 10 years since it was founded, (B) the "Jeralyn" who put up the post is Jeralyn Meritt, one of the leading criminal defense lawyers in Denver for many years (last time I recall her mentioning it, she did not own any guns), and (C) you might learn something - like how concerned a lot of liberals are about the Constitution and the rights it protects, including the 2d amendment (i.e., very).
The commenters are, as one might expect, all over the place, but it's a worthwhile exercise.
“I do however AGREE WITH YOU that if you haven't taken a 3 day gun training course like the one that the Wyatts offer that I have actually taken with my wife then you SHOULD NOT be allowed to own a gun!”
Just think of the long-term possibilities the government has with this statement. Eventually a government sanctioned only safety course.
There we go with that term “safety’ again, you won’t be “safe’ if you don’t allow the government and a trained professional to teach you the proper way to handle a gun and if you don’t allow a government official to properly train you to handle a gun well then you’re not safe are you? Today its safety glasses and ear plugs, tomorrow it will be, "Where’s the government official standing there to supervise your back yard shoot. You guys aren’t “safe” and in violation of code section…."
More quotes from the Founding Fathers,
“Trade your liberty for safety then you deserve neither”
To be clear, this paragraph (which Treblig quotes):
“I do however AGREE WITH YOU that if you haven't taken a 3 day gun training course like the one that the Wyatts offer that I have actually taken with my wife then you SHOULD NOT be allowed to own a gun!”
http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2012/4/25/205812/674/2#2was not said by Jeralyn, but rather by Jesse the Snowboarder, who was featured in the episode.
OTOH, Jeralyn the criminal defense lawyer says (
http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2012/4/25/205812/674/7#7 )
"I don't think you should advise people what they should do in their own homes and for their own protection.
If you don't want to be armed, don't be. But at least recognize that others have the right to do so, and there are arguments to be made in support of it. No one should have to rely on a dog and some people don't have the time to spend with a dog or desire to own one. I think it's really sad for dogs who are left alone all day while their owners work.
The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. People lose that right when they have been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. They aren't allowed to have firearms when on bond, probation or parole.
For everyone else, it's a right, and if you don't approve, don't learn about them or arm yourself.
This post encourage those who do want to protect themselves and their family with a firearm, as is their right, to do so responsibly by learning how to use and care for them properly
and more along the same lines
http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2012/4/25/205812/674/24#24http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2012/4/25/205812/674/55#55I agree much more with Jeralyn the lawyer than with Jesse the Snowboarder.
Dave, I've looked, but who was Jesse agreeing with, Jeralyn?
People like different things. Fact is, if you look at sales the AR-15 is the most popular selling firearm right now. Most manufacturer introduce double guns and discontinue them in a few years. We have a very niche community.
No, I think Jesse (comment #2) was agreeing with the guy in comment #1, who had a lower feedback rating on his comment.
http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2012/4/25/205812/674/1#1The commenting/thead structure over there is a bit different - rating something a "5" will bump the comment up to the top of the list ahead of comments posted earlier (temporally) with a lower or no feedback rating. Then, replies to a comment will be nested off that comment. The only way of keeping track of who came first is through the commenting numbers at the very end of the string (or the time hack). In this instance, Jesse the Snowboarder did not reply directly to the comment #1 guy, so his comment #2 was not nested off comment #1.
But, to come back to why I brought this up in the first place, what you have going on over there is one of the pre-eminent blogs on the liberal side, and one that deals in crime, punishment and injustice issues every day, with the owner/lead author of it making very clear she (and by extension, the blog) supports the RKBA. That, I think, is something worth thinking about.
But, to come back to why I brought this up in the first place, what you have going on over there is one of the pre-eminent blogs on the liberal side, and one that deals in crime, punishment and injustice issues every day, with the owner/lead author of it making very clear she (and by extension, the blog) supports the RKBA. That, I think, is something worth thinking about.
It is worth thinking about, but you cannot escape the fact that no matter how much you say you support the right to keep and bear arms, if you cast a vote for Obama this November, you are helping to erode or eliminate that right. He has been, and remains 100% against an individual right to keep and bear arms. Operation Fast and Furious proves that he and his administration would commit felonies to undermine the Second Amendment. His Supreme Court nominees share his anti gun bias. There are a million reasons not to vote for Obama, but if you think the Second Amendment is important and worth keeping, Obama has to go. No debate. No compromise.
The legal erosion of the 2cd amendment happens at the hands of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's members are appointed by the President.
Thus it doesn't matter who else supports the 2cd amendment, leftist or tea party member, it's the President that counts, if he has appointments to the Supreme Court to make.
Obama is anti gun and his administration will happily break the law with lethal consequences (fast and furious) to further his anti gun stance.
As an outsider, the conclusion is obvious. As Keith says, a vote for Obama is a vote against guns and against the US Constitution.
Whatever a candidate's personal "beliefs" are, the political reality in this country is such that gun rights are not going away. I breathed a sigh of relief when Romney won the primary - he is sufficiently sane that most progressives can live with him.
Approximately a third of gun owners are Democrats. The right-wing does not have a monopoly on gun ownership. Most of the guys I shoot and hunt with are far to the left of me. The yahoos on some gun and hunting shows do far more harm than the anti-gun crowd (many of whom are political conservatives). Thank you to chopperlump for this thread!
There's a good article in last week's New Yorker magazine. The au was clearly anti-gun but she traced the NRA's involvement in the gun rights issue with some clarity that I had not seen before.
If confirmed by the Senate. That's why its important that if Obama wins don't give him a Democratic House or Senate, both would make Obama's Presidency a living Hell and either one can effectively checkmate him.
Gnomon, if one was to assume that Obama was able to appoint like minded judges to the SC, you would have to agree that the SC can and likely would interpret the 2cd in such a way as to likely curtail firearm ownership from how it exists today. Impossible to know how much but it would be different. It is within their rights as the SC to do so.
The point I was trying to make is that interpretation rests in the hands of a very small number of people, not the much larger group of gun owning Democrats.
And I agree that yahoos don't do anyone, even themselves, any favours.
I'll have to get that issue of the New Yorker. Always a good read.
The legal erosion of the 2cd amendment happens at the hands of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's members are appointed by the President.
Thus it doesn't matter who else supports the 2cd amendment, leftist or tea party member, it's the President that counts, if he has appointments to the Supreme Court to make.
Obama is anti gun and his administration will happily break the law with lethal consequences (fast and furious) to further his anti gun stance.
As an outsider, the conclusion is obvious. As Keith says, a vote for Obama is a vote against guns and against the US Constitution.
There are two primary dangers to our constitional rights should Obama get a second term:
1. As a lame duck facing no more elections he no longer will have to pursue the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment and the institution of severe firearms ownership restrictions "under the radar". A real concern should he regain control of the House.
2. He is ONE Supreme Court appointment away,should one of the conservative justices retire ,from reversing Heller vs. Washington and negating the decision that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
Another Ginsburg, Kagan,Sotomayor appointment etc. would set the tone of the Court for years and I suspect we would lose far more than our firearms rights.
He needs to go period. An if some of the liberals who supported him in 2008 agree all the better.
Jim
Gnomon, if one was to assume that Obama was able to appoint like minded judges to the SC, you would have to agree that the SC can and likely would interpret the 2cd in such a way as to likely curtail firearm ownership from how it exists today. Impossible to know how much but it would be different. It is within their rights as the SC to do so.
The point I was trying to make is that interpretation rests in the hands of a very small number of people, not the much larger group of gun owning Democrats.
And I agree that yahoos don't do anyone, even themselves, any favours.
I'll have to get that issue of the New Yorker. Always a good read.
Very true - but it's to some extent a myth that one can appoint "conservative" (whatever that is) or "liberal" (whatever that is) justices and expect them to vote in a predictable way. Especially on social issues - and gun rights is a social issue. Just look at the expectation regarding how the current Court might vote on the Arizona immigration laws. It really isn't an"us" vs "them" situation but is far more nuanced.
The New Yorker article has a good summary of gun laws in the US from the early 19th c on - it also clarifies (at least to me) how the NRA changed in the last half of the 20th c. The NRA of today isn't the NRA of 40 years ago.
I'm glad the NRA has changed to meet the times as the opposition has gone over the top in it's efforts to disarm America.The "sheeple" of America, probably 50% of the adult population,are easily led and we could lose it all as far as gun rights are concerned if it wasn't for a very vocal and powerful "gun lobby."
I would vastly prefer to see shows chronicalling the differnt manufactures and the historical significance of their guns, Colt, S&W, Ruger, Winhester, etc ect including the european makers. The current crap on TV is in response to "car chase Shootem up". I think it was Samuel Goldwny who said nobody ever went broke under estimating the taste of the American public. Chops
I would vastly prefer to see shows chronicalling the differnt manufactures and the historical significance of their guns, Colt, S&W, Ruger, Winhester, etc ect including the european makers. The current crap on TV is in response to "car chase Shootem up". I think it was Samuel Goldwny who said nobody ever went broke under estimating the taste of the American public. Chops
H.L. Mencken. But you're right, which I suppose is why "black guns" are so popular.
"Black guns" are also popular with the people who have survived an encounter with 2 legged predators intent on doing them harm.The finest double in the world, or even a matched pair with loaders, is not a match for most firefights with hostiles armed with rifles.
Very true - but it's to some extent a myth that one can appoint "conservative" (whatever that is) or "liberal" (whatever that is) justices and expect them to vote in a predictable way. Especially on social issues - and gun rights is a social issue. Just look at the expectation regarding how the current Court might vote on the Arizona immigration laws. It really isn't an"us" vs "them" situation but is far more nuanced.
I'm astounded that you would put up the words conservative and liberal and then add "(whatever that is)", as if there isn't a distinct and easily recognizable difference. It is common knowledge that four of the current SCOTUS justices are commonly referred to as the liberal wing. They are pretty easy to identify. They are the ones who voted in Heller that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. The other five justices are the ones who are commonly referred to as the conservative wing. All five of them agreed in Heller that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says... not some twisted perverted interpretation of the truth which is supported by the words and papers of the framers of the Constitution themselves.
The four liberals vainly tried to twist the truth. The five conservatives affirmed the truth. That is statistically significant.
It is not, as you say, very nuanced. Admittedly, there are no guarantees that any justice will vote in a totally predictable way. Justice Stevens is a perfect example of that. But the 5-4 decision in Heller came as a surprise to no-one. And when it comes to preserving the Second Amendment, we would be wise to stack the odds in our favor. Supporting Obama does exactly the opposite.
Fortunately, voting on the Supreme Court is watched more closely than voting in Vermont or Chicago, because almost certainly, a couple dead liberal justices would have voted to deny our individual right to keep and bear arms.
Both of Obama's first term Supreme Court nominees shared his vehemently anti-gun vision. Both of them lied about that during their confirmation hearings. All too often, that is a way to tell the liberal from the conservative. But you already know that. Please don't try again to convince anyone that Obama is not a threat to gun rights and gun ownership. It will only make you appear stupid. Again.
Keith, I have no doubt that the world appears black-and-white to a significant number of people, perhaps (I don't know) you are among them but it really isn't. I know many people who are fiscally conservative, socially conservative, want to balance the budget but not on the backs of the working poor and who are also pro-gun control. Many of them also want single-payer health care because that would make our economy a lot more competitive internationally. They also vote Republican whenever possible (read no santorum, no Gingrich). I know many (myself included) liberals who are very active hunters and shooters. Many of us don't understand why illegal immigration cannot be stopped and we don't like the colonization of our country. How would you classify the guy with whom I hunt the most - a former Marine, two Purple Hearts (Vietman), very Left socially and fiscally, an active Zionist who wants to bomb Iran, support Bloomberg's efforts to get guns out of NYC, wants to keep illegals out of the country?
Here's an interesting table (Table 2.8) that might challenge some of your assumptions (of course, I am assuming your assumptions!
:
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1729/H...GUN-OWNERS.htmlIf the entire table isn't simply a fabrication then it is reasonable to conclude there are strong social forces that support gun ownership.
And I don't need to call people with whom I disagree "stupid" - most people aren't.
The National Opinion Research Center(NORC) in Chicago is a credible organization and conducts valid research in many areas. I was one of the early users of their statistical program package(SPSS) way back in the 1970s when I worked in the Research Department of my University.
Having said that; I suspect their percentages of firearms ownership is being under reported. A respondent in Chicago,for example, would probably say NO even if they owned a handgun because even after the Supreme Court ruled McDonald vs. Chicago
that their handgun ban was unconstitutional the City has done everything possible to circumvent it.
The Police Department in Phoenix,AZ issued a report a couple of years ago stating the 60% of the cars there contained a firearm*.
They estimate that upwards of 70% of the homes** contain at least 1 firearm.
*This is probably the reason car jackings are rare here.
**Occupied home breakins are also rare here unless they are drug or gang related or both.
Jim
Gnomon, the world does not appear strictly black and white to me any more than it does to you. Since there are seldom any candidates for political office who are identical to ourselves in their thinking, we are almost always forced to compromise, unless of course, we run for office and vote for ourself. My whole beef with you is that you repeatedly attempt to portray Obama as a candidate who is not a threat to the Second Amendment. If that is not stupid, it would have to be conniving and dishonest. His record as an Illinois legislator and as a Senator is 100% anti-gun. His choices for Supreme Court nominees, Attorney General, and ATF Director are equally anti-gun. His justice departments' Amicus Curiae brief in Heller was anti-gun. His administration committed multiple felonies in Operation Fast and Furious in an attempt to paint the gun industry and gun culture in the U.S. as being responsible for gun violence in Mexico.
You apparently choose to overlook those sins when a candidate supports the failed liberal causes that you support. No matter how you slice it, the bloated budget will come at the expense of the working poor AND the working rich. The entitlement society that you liberals love has created a huge segment of folks feeding at the trough of government largess, and they do not pay their way. I have no problem with supporting the truly handicapped, but the majority of the people on the dole could and would find work if they were not addicted to free handouts. This, of course, includes poor General Electric which was a huge Obama supporter and paid no income taxes last year. Your pal Obama's disdain for anti-illegal immigrant laws such as Arizona passed does help supress wages and create competition for the unemployed who might actually wish to work. But all of this is a subject for debate in Misfires. We are talking about maintaining the right to gun ownership, a matter that affects our ability to purchase, own, and enjoy our Doublesguns as much as any other gun. So let's stay on topic...
When I go to vote, and make my inevitable compromises, I typically go with the candidate who supports and defends the Second Amendment over all else. I decided a long time ago that any candidate who is too stupid or too dishonest to understand that simple Constitutional Right is probably too stupid or dishonest to be trusted on any other position. I believe that one right is too precious to compromise, and offers us the greatest protection to maintain all of the other Constitutional rights. The simple fact that so many of us own guns (probably much higher than in the poll you provided) is a wonderful insurance policy and a great deterrant against any future tyrant or dictator's attempt to dismantle the Constitution. I'd bet that most of the citizenry in Russia, Germany, or China did not foresee that a handful of thugs could enslave and exterminate over 100 million people.
But you Gnomon, apparently don't see it that way. I'm not as smart as you profess to be, (smarter than any one of us, and probably smarter than all of us combined judging from your recent statement in another thread.)so I can't yet see how increased unemployment, 17 million more on food stamps, a doubling of gas prices, and a single payer health care system will make the U.S. more competitive. You feel those types of things are more important than gun rights. Fine. Thankfully you only have one vote, unless you are casting multiple votes under the guise of dead Democrats... another policy you surreptiously support.
But you repeatedly come here, on a Firearms Forum, and try to tell us that Obama is not a threat to our gun rights.
That is either stupid or dishonest. If you feel that telling the truth is name-calling, so be it. I'll find a way to cope.
Keith, you have a remarkable way of brewing a very rich thought stew. I can't begin to unravel and respond to so many juxtaposed arguable assumptions which you accept as true. My worldview is not a threat to you even though it is my opinion (and it's only an opinion, just as your dogmatic beliefs are really only opinions) that gun ownership in this country is alive and well, our constitution will survive the onslaught of the far-right and the sun will rise tomorrow. If Romney wins our constitution will still survive and the sun will also rise every morning; the same if Obama wins. And since we're staying on topic, my doubleguns will miss (or hit) about the same percentage of pheasants whoever wins.
And now, I'm casting votes for dead Democrats? How delightfully bizarre.
Quote:
"They also vote Republican whenever possible (read no santorum, no Gingrich)."
I have been ignoring Gnomon's posts for quite some time but decided to look at his last one. IMO: The two above along with Ron Paul were the truly mainstream Republican's in the presidental race.
I guess I could turn around and say I vote Democrat whenever possible (read no Obama, No Clinton etc.) However; I would expect to be jeered at if I was to make any such ridiculous statement.
Keith:
Has basically nailed it in his above post and anything further I was to add to it would just be repetitive. I'll just keep clinging to my guns like to rest of the dummies on this forum.
Jim
P.S: Apparently Gnomon was posting at the same time as I so I looked at that post as well. It Liberal typical in that he just belittles Keith rather than address his points. Of course he would have to come up with something factual in order to do so.
Facts:
The Kenyan has increased the National Debt by over $4 trillion dollars. The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services. Go ahead and stick these in with your "dogmatic beliefs".
I never said you are actually casting votes for dead Democrats. I said you surreptiously support that. Re: obama's DOJ Bars Texas Voter ID law, thread #270185, 3/12/12. Go back to that thread and re-read your posts. We know that it happens, and we know you are against any voter I.D. iniatives. Stop trying to twist my words. You never get away with it.
Interesting how MY beliefs are "dogmatic" and YOUR beliefs are a "worldview". Equally interesting how you still keep coming back here with the notion that Obama is not a threat to the Constitution (Second Amendment in particular) when there is so much evidence to the contrary. Stupid or dishonest?
But you Gnomon, apparently don't see it that way. I'm not as smart as you profess to be, (smarter than any one of us, and probably smarter than all of us combined judging from your recent statement in another thread.)so I can't yet see how increased unemployment, 17 million more on food stamps, a doubling of gas prices, and a single payer health care system will make the U.S. more competitive. You feel those types of things are more important than gun rights. Fine. Thankfully you only have one vote, unless you are casting multiple votes under the guise of dead Democrats... another policy you surreptiously support.
But you repeatedly come here, on a Firearms Forum, and try to tell us that Obama is not a threat to our gun rights.
That is either stupid or dishonest. If you feel that telling the truth is name-calling, so be it. I'll find a way to cope.
+ 2 Keith, well said.....
Gnomon, a typical liberal and a New York liberal to boot, will never acknowledge facts, no matter how many you subject him to. It is called selective reading and selective understanding, also known as the "Bambi-Syndrome", FACTS are never brought into the thought process.........he just likes to come on here and create conflict without any honest comprehension of the facts, just read his previous posts.....S.O.S.
Thanks guys. I know that most all of you know what Gnomoron is trying to pull. I only respond to him because I know this site is visited by many who visit but never post. Gnomon knows that as well. That's why I'm going to ask Jim and anyone else to remove Gnomoron from his Ignore list. As much as he nauseates me, we can't afford to let him convince even one impressionable visitor to support someone who is such a clear threat to gun rights. The margins of victory are often too close to take anything for granted anymore.
Gnomoron... Stupid, or dishonest?
I'd suspect there are lots of dead democrats smarter than Gonadmon
And when all else fails, name-call.
If, as both Keith and Italian indicate, the data in the table in the link I posted are correct (or at least a good approximation) then about 25% of all gun owners are "liberals" (whatever that means).
That's a far greater percentage than I thought.
Keith, does it bother you that a quarter of gun owners don't share your political ideology?
It's too bad that "gun ownership" wasn't broken down in greater detail. Wonder what the doublegun demographics are.
Quote:
"I never said you are actually casting votes for dead Democrats"
This sentance only has to be changed slightly to make it accurate. Dead Democrats cast votes all the time in the Kenyan's great Peoples Republik of Illinois. His Honor the original Mayor Richie Daley managed to swing the 1960 election and the presidency over to Kennedy by using this technique.
The primary voting rule in Chicago has always been to vote early and vote often.
There are States in deeper financial trouble than Illinois but I don't know of one that's more corrupt George Ryan ,a former Governor, is in jail and has been joined by the last Governor. I wouldn't be suprised to see the current Governor join them as well.
Keep in mind that these liberal scum have anything but our best interests at heart: Here's what the last now jailed Governor tried to do in Illinois:
Gun control
During his February 2006 "State of the State" address, Blagojevich said the state should ban semi-automatic firearms, prompting threats from several gunmakers in the state that they will take their business elsewhere. Among these were ArmaLite Inc., Rock River Arms, Les Baer Custom and the Springfield Armory.[108]
As a state legislator, Blagojevich tried to raise the price of an Illinois Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card from $5 to $500,[109] saying that such a large increase was necessary so people would think twice about wanting to own a gun. Blagojevich vetoed three gun bills in 2005, which would have:
1.Deleted records in gun database after 90 days—gun proponents argued that this was a privacy concern for law-abiding citizens[94]
2.Eliminated the waiting period for someone wanting to buy a rifle or shotgun, when trading in a previously owned weapon
3.Overridden local laws regulating transport of firearms.[110]
Blagojevich's position in regard to guns was criticized by the Illinois State Rifle Association: "Rod should spend more time catching criminals and less time controlling guns." His support for making gun laws of Illinois more restrictive earned him the ire of gun owners' groups
Jim
I never said liberals don't own guns, even though they represent a lower percentage of gun owners in general. And neither keith nor Italiansxs said the data in your link was accurate. Again, you are trying to twist our words. We both felt it under-reported gun ownership, probably considerably. Thus, I would not feel confident that the numbers of liberal gun owners vs. conservative gun owners was accurate or significant. I did say that Obama has been 100% anti-gun in the past, and continues to be anti-gun. You have had ample opportunity to refute or disprove any of Obama's anti-gun actions that I referenced. We're still waiting. As in the past, you never confront or disprove the facts that show Obama is not our friend. You simply dance around them and attempt to change the subject.
Stupid, or dishonest? Name calling is only bad when it's not true. I never claimed to be Mister Rogers.
The fact that Obama did not pursue even more anti-gun initiatives in his first term shows that he or some of his advisors are astute enough to realize what happened to Bill Clinton in the mid-term elections after his attack on gun ownership. A second term Obama would not be so constrained, and we can't afford to give him a chance. The fact that gun rights are still alive and well has absolutely nothing to do with Obama, and everything to do with pro-gun voters, the pro-gun lobby, five conservative Supreme Court justices, and the NRA.
You can now either refute or obfuscate. Having been down this road with you on several occasions, I have a pretty good idea what's coming.
Ok Gnomen:
Here's your big opportunity:
Start posting facts that demonstrate that Obama is NO threat to our 2nd Amendment rights. We've posted multiple reasons why we believe he is in fact a very dangerous threat so go ahead and refute what we're posted. Claiming to not understand what Keith and I and others have posted on this thread isn't an acceptable option. Post ONE pro gun piece of legislation he has supported. Post one verifiable statement he has made that supports our RIGHT to own firearms.
Go ahead we're all waiting. And NO you do not get to "operate under the radar" like the White House occupant currently does.
Jim
What's coming is an apology - you are right that neither you nor Italian said the data were accurate. Italian simply said that NORC is a "credible organization" and you concurred with him that the numbers were probably lower than they actually are. Neither of you said that the numbers were accurate.
"Thus, I would not feel confident that the numbers of liberal gun owners vs. conservative gun owners was accurate or significant." OK, so you aren't confident that the numbers of liberal gun owners vs conservative ones are significant. That's your opinion. You might be right. Personally I think there are a "significant" number of liberal gun owners and I don't see what the problem is.
Italian, you have indeed posted many reasons why you believe Obama is a threat to your ownership of guns. You have articulated them clearly and I understand what you (and millions of others) believe when it comes to guns. I hold a different view - my beliefs are different and I have articulated them also.
And I get to operate any way I wish - you do not determine that. Just as you can express beliefs I disagree with, I can do the same. And for the reasons I posted, I do not think Obama will interfere with our guns. He's too clever a politician to do that.
Both you and Keith think the reported gun owner numbers are too low - (I hope I'm not misquoting you again ;)) so that means that even more people are gun owners and that makes it even more difficult politically to interfere. It might even mean that more liberals than you imagine own guns!
Here you go Gnomon. Obama's public position on gun control. You might as well argue that the moon is made of blue cheese. You won't attempt to refute any of this because you can't refute it.
Barack Obama on Gun Control
Junior Senator (IL); President-Elect
Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions
Hale DeMar, a 52-year-old Wilmette resident, was arrested and charged with misdemeanor violations for shooting, in the shoulder and leg, a burglar who broke into his home not once, but twice. Cook County prosecutors dropped all charges against DeMar.
In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to DeMar's case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.
Governor Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill. On Nov. 9, 2004, the Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override Blagojevich's veto. Again, Obama acted against the bill.
On Nov. 17, the Illinois House voted overwhelmingly, 85-30, to override the governor's veto and Senate Bill 2165 became law.
Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.241-242 Aug 1, 2008
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws
Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?
A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don’t have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”
Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008
April 2008: "Bittergate" labeled Obama elitist
April 11th produced "Bittergate." The Huffington Post website posted an explanation Obama gave at a private fundraiser in San Francisco of the challenges he faced with working-class voters in Pennsylvania and Indiana. "It's not surprising they get bitter," he said, referring to decades of constrained economic opportunities. "They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Clinton said the remarks were "not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans." McCain said Obama showed "breathtaking" elitism. Obama challenged the accusations, and noted in response to the charge of elitism that he had been raised by a single mother who relied on food stamps, but conceded he could have been more diplomatic.
Source: Obama for Beginners, by Bob Neer, p. 61 Apr 1, 2008
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok
Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.
Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing
Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?
A: I don’t think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you’ve got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month
Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers
Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.
When I queried him about the vote, he said, “I didn’t find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms.“
It wasn’t until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.
Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 Aug 14, 2007
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities
Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?
A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we’ve had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We’ve got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We’ve got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren’t loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they’re not made in our communities. There aren’t any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who’ve been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That’s a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don’t have it right now.
Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum Jul 12, 2007
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality
I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer’s lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there’s a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban
KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that’s good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.
OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions
Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005
Click here for definitions & background information on Gun Control.
Click here for a profile of Barack Obama.
Click here for SenateMatch answers by Barack Obama.
Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Gun Control in The Forum.
Click here for a summary of Barack Obama's positions on all issues.
Click here for issue positions of other IL politicians.
Other candidates on Gun Control: Barack Obama on other issues:
IL Gubernatorial:
Pat Quinn
IL Senatorial:
Richard Durbin
Roland Burris
Newly elected in 2008 & seated in 2009:
AK:Begich (D)
CO:Udall (D)
ID:Risch (R)
MN:Franken (D)
NC:Hagan (D)
NE:Johanns (R)
NH:Shaheen (D)
NM:Udall (D)
OR:Merkley (D)
VA:Warner (D)
Newly appointed in 2009;
special election in 2010:
DE:Kaufman (D)
CO:Bennet (D)
IL:Burris (D)
NY:Gillibrand (D)
Announced retirement as of 2010:
DE:Kaufman (D)
FL:Martinez (R)
KS:Brownback (R)
MO:Bond (R)
OH:Voinovich (R)
Up for 6-year term in 2010:
(13 Democrats; 15 Republicans)
AK:Murkowski (R)
AL:Shelby (R)
AR:Lincoln (D)
AZ:McCain (R)
CA:Boxer (D)
CT:Dodd (D)
GA:Isakson (R)
HI:Inouye (D)
IA:Grassley (R)
ID:Crapo (R)
IN:Bayh (D)
KY:Bunning (R)
LA:Vitter (R)
MD:Mikulski (D)
NC:Burr (R)
ND:Dorgan (D)
NH:Gregg (R)
NV:Reid (D)
NY:Schumer (D)
OK:Coburn (R)
OR:Wyden (D)
PA:Specter (R)
SC:DeMint (R)
SD:Thune (R)
UT:Bennett (R)
VT:Leahy (D)
WA:Murray (D)
WI:Feingold (D) Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Here you go Gnomon. Obama's public position on gun control. You might as well argue that the moon is made of blue cheese. You won't attempt to refute any of this because you can't refute it.
Barack Obama on Gun Control
Junior Senator (IL); President-Elect
Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions
Hale DeMar, a 52-year-old Wilmette resident, was arrested and charged with misdemeanor violations for shooting, in the shoulder and leg, a burglar who broke into his home not once, but twice. Cook County prosecutors dropped all charges against DeMar.
In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to DeMar's case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.
Governor Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill. On Nov. 9, 2004, the Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override Blagojevich's veto. Again, Obama acted against the bill.
On Nov. 17, the Illinois House voted overwhelmingly, 85-30, to override the governor's veto and Senate Bill 2165 became law.
Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.241-242 Aug 1, 2008
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws
Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?
A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don’t have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”
Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008
April 2008: "Bittergate" labeled Obama elitist
April 11th produced "Bittergate." The Huffington Post website posted an explanation Obama gave at a private fundraiser in San Francisco of the challenges he faced with working-class voters in Pennsylvania and Indiana. "It's not surprising they get bitter," he said, referring to decades of constrained economic opportunities. "They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Clinton said the remarks were "not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans." McCain said Obama showed "breathtaking" elitism. Obama challenged the accusations, and noted in response to the charge of elitism that he had been raised by a single mother who relied on food stamps, but conceded he could have been more diplomatic.
Source: Obama for Beginners, by Bob Neer, p. 61 Apr 1, 2008
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok
Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.
Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing
Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?
A: I don’t think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you’ve got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month
Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers
Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.
When I queried him about the vote, he said, “I didn’t find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms.“
It wasn’t until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.
Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 Aug 14, 2007
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities
Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?
A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we’ve had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We’ve got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We’ve got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren’t loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they’re not made in our communities. There aren’t any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who’ve been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That’s a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don’t have it right now.
Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum Jul 12, 2007
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality
I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer’s lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there’s a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban
KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that’s good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.
OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions
Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005
Click here for definitions & background information on Gun Control.
Click here for a profile of Barack Obama.
Click here for SenateMatch answers by Barack Obama.
Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Gun Control in The Forum.
Click here for a summary of Barack Obama's positions on all issues.
Click here for issue positions of other IL politicians.
Other candidates on Gun Control: Barack Obama on other issues:
IL Gubernatorial:
Pat Quinn
IL Senatorial:
Richard Durbin
Roland Burris
Newly elected in 2008 & seated in 2009:
AK:Begich (D)
CO:Udall (D)
ID:Risch (R)
MN:Franken (D)
NC:Hagan (D)
NE:Johanns (R)
NH:Shaheen (D)
NM:Udall (D)
OR:Merkley (D)
VA:Warner (D)
Newly appointed in 2009;
special election in 2010:
DE:Kaufman (D)
CO:Bennet (D)
IL:Burris (D)
NY:Gillibrand (D)
Announced retirement as of 2010:
DE:Kaufman (D)
FL:Martinez (R)
KS:Brownback (R)
MO:Bond (R)
OH:Voinovich (R)
Up for 6-year term in 2010:
(13 Democrats; 15 Republicans)
AK:Murkowski (R)
AL:Shelby (R)
AR:Lincoln (D)
AZ:McCain (R)
CA:Boxer (D)
CT:Dodd (D)
GA:Isakson (R)
HI:Inouye (D)
IA:Grassley (R)
ID:Crapo (R)
IN:Bayh (D)
KY:Bunning (R)
LA:Vitter (R)
MD:Mikulski (D)
NC:Burr (R)
ND:Dorgan (D)
NH:Gregg (R)
NV:Reid (D)
NY:Schumer (D)
OK:Coburn (R)
OR:Wyden (D)
PA:Specter (R)
SC:DeMint (R)
SD:Thune (R)
UT:Bennett (R)
VT:Leahy (D)
WA:Murray (D)
WI:Feingold (D) Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
What's coming is an apology - you are right that neither you nor Italian said the data were accurate.
Italian, you have indeed posted many reasons why you believe Obama is a threat to your ownership of guns. You have articulated them clearly and I understand what you (and millions of others) believe when it comes to guns. I hold a different view - my beliefs are different and I have articulated them also.
And I get to operate any way I wish - you do not determine that. Just as you can express beliefs I disagree with, I can do the same. And for the reasons I posted, I do not think Obama will interfere with our guns. He's too clever a politician to do that.
I won't speak for Jim, but from me... apology not accepted. You've pulled this crap too many times to think it might be a mistake.
As for the requested refutations of Obama's anti-gun actions, iniatives, and record... Ta-Da... none have been provided. No surprises there. You didn't give us anything simply because you've got nothing. I was hoping you'd at least find some way to blame Bush and Cheney. Geez, throw us a bone!
By the way, Obama already has interfered with our gun rights, in all of the ways I've cited, and more. Aren't you one of the geniuses I've challenged here to go to Obama's adopted hometown of Chicago and buy a handgun, and then carry it concealed... legally? If not, consider the gauntlet thrown down. Let us know how that works out. Obama has merely been smart enough to not go overboard in his first term. Clever politician indeed.
You do indeed get to operate any way you wish. Just remember, I'll be there to expose you and your tactics. If I stop, maybe someone here can put my name in "Silent Doubles" because it probably means I'm dead.
Appology?? The same basic premise goes for me as well. You have nothing to refute the facts that we have posted so you're just dancing around. Keith and I have one goal here and that's to expose extreme liberals like Obama as exactly what they are Those who wish to eliminate our constitional rights. I truly fear for this Country should he manage to fool as many people the 2nd time and actually get re-elected.
I expect to see the most negative campaign from the Democrats ever. Obama can't run on his record as he hasn't accomplished one credible thing. A viscous attack on conservatives and Romney will probably be his approach.
Hopefully at least 51% of the voters are sensible enough to ensure his re-election doesn't happen.
Jim
Keith, whether or not you accept my apology is totally irrelevant.
Joe McCarthy was there to expose people as well. What's your point? That there are no liberal gun owners or that your opinion is the only valid one because you say so?
"I'll be there to expose you and your tactics."
Woo-woo, fnar! fnar!
Jim, I have no doubt that you fear for this country.
I do too.
Assuming the incumbent were successfully returned in twentytwelve and unrestrained by further political ambitions, how exactly would he enact his anti-gun program in the face of a republi-con majority in the house and a distinctly unfriendly court? C'mon, tell us, Jim.
jack
Joe McCarthy was there to expose people as well. What's your point? That there are no liberal gun owners or that your opinion is the only valid one because you say so?
For someone who professes to be so brilliant that it is a waste of time to debate with us mere mortals (ref. the Global Warming thread, post #272140), you sure are stupid. I distinctly acknowledged that there are liberal gun owners... just not as many as conservatives. Once again, you attempt to mischaracterize what I've said. Again I ask the jury; stupid, or dishonest?
I also never said my opinion is the only valid one. I provided facts to refute your opinion that Obama is not a threat to gun rights. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing to show that he is anything but a threat to the Second Amendment. This is what you always do. That is what I promised to continue to spotlight and expose. That is my point. Joe McCarthy was ultimately, mostly proven wrong. Soooo... prove me wrong. Put up or shut up.
...and the dance of the Gnomoron continues.
Assuming the incumbent were successfully returned in twentytwelve and unrestrained by further political ambitions, how exactly would he enact his anti-gun program in the face of a republi-con majority in the house and a distinctly unfriendly court? C'mon, tell us, Jim.
jack
Uh, jack, I know I'm not Jim but I've got to jump in on this. First, can you guarantee that we'll have a distinctly unfriendly "republi-con" majority in the House, or the Senate? Second, can you guarantee that Obama will not get the chance to appoint any more gun-unfriendly Supreme or Federal Court justices? Third, have you perhaps heard of the possible consequences to Second Amendment rights if Obama should ratify the U.N. Small Arms treaty?
Shall I go on? How about gun and hunting bans on federal lands via executive order, thus circumventing Congress? Perhaps more under the radar illegal ops like Fast and Furious? Or Justice department support for more frivilous lawsuits designed to injure or bankrupt the firearms industry? Or environmental regulations or consumer protections regulations designed to make shooting prohibitively expensive? Or using our hard earned tax dollars to fund more anti-gun studies via HHS and AMA?
All of that was just off the top of my head. I know there are many other possibilities. Sorry if I stole any of your thunder Jim.
Keith, try to read what people write without spinning it into what you think they really meant to say.
Keep up the good work!
I wouldn't be surprised if over 30% of doublegun owners are liberals.
Maybe we should ask people's opinions of this figure to determine what the percentage actually is.
Keith, try to read what people write without spinning it into what you think they really meant to say.
A) Please explain what you are trying to say in the quote above. I am neither a mind reader nor as brilliant as you. So far, it is you who has been mis-quoting and twisting what people say.
B) As per my previous reply directed at you... put up or shut up.
There is nothing that I write that should elicit your ad hominem comments and asides. The most charitable explanation is that you may be reading things into my statements.
It is simply my opinion (1) that a lot of liberals own guns and (2) that the Obama administration cannot change 2A. That is my opinion. You do not have to like it. I do not care if you do or if you don't.
By the way, do you think liberals owning DGs could be as high as 40%?
The reply above could prompt Dave Weber to institute random drug testing for DoubleGunshop contributors.
No guarantees, Keith, but be advised who gets your goat may not be who gets your guns. The Jim & Dave Show was around in 2008 making the same predictions should Obama be elected. They aren't worried in the least about the accuracy of their predictions. They just love screaming fire in an empty theatre and I think this one is just about to turn off the marquee and lock up. You guys almost can't find anyone to argue with you any more. What a joke.
jack
The current occupant of the White House has shown utter disdain for Congress and he'll use "Executive Order" to implement whatever he wants when he no longer has to face re-election.
The major point that restrained him in 2008 was the 60 + members of Congress who are Democrats wrote a letter stating they would NOT support any attempt to return to the "Assault weapons ban" of the Clinton era.
Oh and Rabbit. Go back and look at the 2008 Democrat platform where the institution of just such an assault ban is part of it. It's right there in black and white I've posted it before and I'm not going to the trouble of posting it again! His stated goal of instituting another ban along with other gun restrictive legislation was on the fool's web site for several days after the election until someone in his administration took it down.
Inaccuracy ?? B.S. you liberals are the spin guys here and everything you state is in this category. The reason we aren't arguing with anyone is everyone else except you liberals know what we're stating is factual.
On the other hand you have NO facts to refute what we've posted to back up your inane position.
Jim
jack, we did in fact get all of those anti-gun iniatives referenced in this thread. We did in fact get two very anti-gun Supreme Court justices whom we will have to deal with long after Obama leaves office. You call that screaming fire in an empty theatre? Really?
It appears that some of the predictions made about Obama in 2008 were quite accurate. Why don't you help Gnomoron a bit and tell us how having Obama for four more years will be good for gun rights.
Obama is just the latest and greatest in a long line of anti-gun politicians. The pendulum swings both ways as we lose ground and then regain it. Apparently, you would have us ignore the threat. Thanks for all your help.
As you say... what a joke.
Love your rainbow bumper sticker.
Very true - but it's to some extent a myth that one can appoint "conservative" (whatever that is) or "liberal" (whatever that is) justices and expect them to vote in a predictable way. Especially on social issues - and gun rights is a social issue. Just look at the expectation regarding how the current Court might vote on the Arizona immigration laws. It really isn't an"us" vs "them" situation but is far more nuanced.
... It is common knowledge that four of the current SCOTUS justices are commonly referred to as the liberal wing. They are pretty easy to identify. They are the ones who voted in Heller that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. The other five justices are the ones who are commonly referred to as the conservative wing. All five of them agreed in Heller that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says... not some twisted perverted interpretation of the truth which is supported by the words and papers of the framers of the Constitution themselves.
...
Both of Obama's first term Supreme Court nominees shared his vehemently anti-gun vision. Both of them lied about that during their confirmation hearings. All too often, that is a way to tell the liberal from the conservative. But you already know that. Please don't try again to convince anyone that Obama is not a threat to gun rights and gun ownership. It will only make you appear stupid. Again. In light of the following quote from Justice Kagan (one of Obama's first-term Supreme Court nominees) earlier this month (to an audience in Wisconsin), please explain how the last paragraph of your post (I've bolded it above, for your convenience) bears anything other than a passing resemblence to describing reality:
Though she's not running for anything, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan almost sounded as if she were trying to score points with Wisconsin outdoorsmen Tuesday during a conversation at Marquette University.
Kagan, a New York City native who had no experience with guns when she was named to the court in 2010, said she's now used them several times with colleague Antonin Scalia.
"He's made a huntress out of me," Kagan told Mike Gousha, host of "On the Issues" at Marquette's law school - and about 240 law students listening in on their talk. The justices have bagged pheasant and quail, and plan to go after bigger game out West this fall.
"He insists I'm going to shoot myself an antelope," Kagan said. That's fine with her, she said, because she's come to view hunting as "really good fun."
It's been known since shortly after she joined the Court that Kagan was invited to learn about shotgunning - skeet, in particular - by Scalia, she accepted his invitation, and came to like it. And she's been shooting skeet (and, more recently, pheasants) with Scalia since.
Frankly, gun owners, hunters and shooters would benefit far more from extending a friendly hand to non-owners, non-shooters and non-hunters to invite them to see what guns, shooting and maybe even hunting are all about. It works a hell of a lot better than engaging in fulminating arguments over whether this politician is more or less liberal or conservative or whatever.
Or, as my old man used to say, you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar. In this case, Scalia took Stevens' replacement and turned her into a pro-gun person.
Pols say and do whatever it takes to get elected. They'll come out for man-on-yak sex, if it means enough fanciers of man-on-yak sex to elect them, will show up to vote for them. It's a waste of time to argue about them. Spend your time on positively influencing otherwise-undecided people in favor of guns, shooting and hunting. It's far more productive.
Looks like Maine Dave has the solution. Just have Scalia take the bad appointees to the skeet field and convert em. Close reading there on Justice Kagan, Dave, and gosh gee, it does sort of back up what Gnomon said about lifetime appointees not always dancin with who brung em.
jack
I always try to keep an open mind but I expect the next thing Kagan will be doing is crawling on her belly with Kerry while deer hunting.
Most Republicans portrayed Kagan as a partisan who will use her post to push the Democratic agenda from the bench.
Kagan "is truly a person of the political left — now they call themselves progressives — one who has a history of working to advance the values of the left wing of the Democratic Party, and whose philosophy of judging allows a judge to utilize the power of their office to advance their vision for what America should be," said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee
From a time prior to her nomination:
Kagan, whom President Barack Obama nominated to the high court this week, made the comment to Justice Thurgood Marshall, urging him in a one-paragraph memo to vote against hearing the District of Columbia man’s appeal. The man’s “sole contention is that the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’” Kagan wrote. “I’m not sympathetic.”
Dave, you almost got me. But recalling the election year theatrics of Kerry, as Jim astutely did also, I decided to search for more evidence of Kagan's conversion. I spent the last half hour Googling things like "Kagan gun rights", "Kagan Second Amendment", Kagan antelope", Kagan shooting", etc. Alas, I only found several references to the same speech you quoted, and scores of results that cite Elena Kagan's long anti-gun fervor.
Like Jim, my knee jerk reaction is to think that this is probably an election year ruse. I will concede that there are cases of athiests finding God, and anti-gunners converting to NRA members. But most times, the leopard does not change his spots. I truly hope this is one of those miraculous conversions, but until I see Ms. Kagan rule in favor of gun owners in Second Amendment cases, I will remain skeptical. And, as the saying goes, the Second Amendment ain't about duck (or antelope) hunting.
It would be cool to see Elena Kagan as keynote speaker at an NRA Convention, clutching a rifle and a picture of Charleton Heston, screaming, "...from my cold dead hands." Then there would be a fly-over by an elite squadron of pigs with wings... Damn, there goes the alarm clock, must hit snooze button.
I still have the large Youngstown Vindicator front page color photo and article depicting John Kerry in camo, carrying two dead geese that he alledgedly shot from a Poland, Ohio farm. No reporters were allowed to accompany him on the "hunt". I still consider this to be a Democrat I.Q. Test. Most score pretty low.
And John Kerry continued to be a reliable anti-Second Amendment force. He says he won't seek re-election in 2014. But there will be another anti-gunner to take his place. I say we should be ready to oppose him. jack thinks I am yelling fire in an empty (or full?) theatre. You say we can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. I say don't pet a rattlesnake and act surprised when he bites you.
Nice try though. Good night.
I just wish our most ardent defenders against threats to our gun freedoms would give up the name calling. Calling others of our gun fraternity stupid or dishonest for merely voicing a different perspective is useless invective, just poisonous opinion that's not in the universe of what's true or false. And twisting another's name into something pejorative seems to me simply puerile. I don't think you guys are winning over any fence-sitters.
Just my opinion. Now, what can my name be twisted into as an expression of disdain? Have at it, righteous defenders of freedom.
Jay Gramith
Jay, since I am the guy who has called one supposedly in our gun fraternity "stupid or dishonest", I'll assume this was directed at me. Since it is little 'ol peurile me who has twisted another's name into a pejorative, I decided to respond. I thought I did an adequate job of explaining why I referred to Gnomon as stupid or dishonest. This is not the first time, and it never starts out that way. But after several rounds of him repeating the same tired mistruths, intentionally twisting my words, and dancing around or evading the issue at hand, I often resort to calling the spade a shovel.
I know you, and several others, would rather see me ignore his tactics or even say I respect his opinion just because he is, or claims to be, a gun owner. If I did that, I would have to be dishonest and insincere. You may recall that syndicated columnist Carl Rowan was also a gun owner. He used his typewriter for years as a weapon to weaken or destroy the Second Amendment. I have more disdain for Carl Rowan than for Gnomon because he concealed his gun ownership, but both are gun owners who use the written word to help slip the nose of gun control under the big tent. Apparently, you would have us welcome them and engage them and gently try to convert them. Good luck with that. You probably think that talking with Iran will dissuade them from pursuing nuclear weapons too.
But I couldn't help noticing that you are very selective when defending members of our "fraternity" when it comes to name calling or insults. I have been on the receiving end numerous times, but I'm OK with that and can defend myself just fine, thank you. I note that in threads of this ilk, Jim and DaveK are often targets of ridicule, insults, and name calling as well. Thankfully, they too are more than capable of self-defense, because Gunflint Charlie is never there coming to the rescue.
I probably shouldn't read too much into that. But this puerile, invective hurling, ardent and righteous defender of threats to our gun freedoms is ferverently hoping that the "fence sitters" are incapable of recognizing hypocrisy.
I was just going to let this go but I think I do have to say something:
I think the extent of my "name calling" in this thread has been referring to Obama as a "fool" for putting his 2nd Amendment derailment plan on his website right after the election. It was taken down in a matter of days.
Jay:
I wonder what became of your outrage when I and others were called every name in the book in past threads by some of these same people who I have had on my ignore list for quite some time?
Preservation of our 2nd Amendment rights should be an essential point for ALL members on this forum and IMO everybody should identify and plan on removing anyone who is a threat to these rights. Obama is a definite threat and no gun owner should support his re-election.
Jim
Chopper, I am with you--a significantly different world from our day---and two different boards as well!
When the late FDR was referring to the "Supremes" back around 1937-ish- he used the proper term-- "Nine Old Men"- this is the way our Founding Fathers (not Founding Mothers by the way) had it planned-not just the mathematical wisdom of a odd number, with nine the pick, it would take the "Best Five of Nine" to declare a winner, just as when Rothstein fixed the 1919 World Series, it was a Nine game event then also--
Now we have women on the Court- first Sandra Day O'Connor, and what did she cast a deciding vote for that favors the 2nd. Amendment and the NRA???--I guess some would say- better Scalia, who is a dedicated hunter and gun owner,to be the Supreme to take this "Never tried a case in Court" broad Kagan out to a skeet field-rather than having Cheney invite her to a Texas quail/lawyer shoot-maybe!!!-- But I trust women and gun ownership rights issues about as much as I trust the towel-headed terrorists--NADA== Kagan will turn against legit gun owners and the NRA in a heartbeat, no matter how many empty AA hulls and powdered clays litter the skeet fields of DisneyLand on the Potomac--
Holy Smokes! I had no intention of inciting a riot. Walt, thanks for the verification. Anyone with the slightest interest in Ithaca guns (I really dont think it is possible to have a slight interest) is well advised to order your books. I treasure mine, a gift from the now deceased JAZ of the #7 sbt. Chopper
Chopper, The 7E SBT rests easy among its kin.
Well Keith and Jim, I don't recall details of other threads and who called whom what. I don't think I'm selectively responding, and I couldn't care less about trying to "protect" anyone -- only reacted to what I read here. Wish I could recall who once said about name-calling something like "It's the last resort of those who are bankrupt of ideas." You guys aren't those guys, but you can sound like them when you stray from the values, facts and logic that support your views. The bitter emotional stuff gets in the way.
Jay
If she is now a huntress you can put the credit with Senator Orin Hatch for showing her the Pennsylvania long rifle built by the late great Cecil Brooks, a Lancaster County I believe. When she saw it hanging on the wall behind his desk she said she didn't realize how beautiful a firearm could be.
I for one certainly hope Kagan doesn't turn into the Hoplophobe that most expect her to do. I doen't think there's any question of where Ginsberg and Sotomayer are coming from as they are as far left as you can get. It will be poetic justice if Kagan spits in the eye of Obama as far as I'm concerned.
Jay:
I won't repeat some of the names I and others were called on past threads. They were in such poor taste that I asked Dave, the owner, to review the threads which is the ONLY time I have done so. I'm not even sure these threads still exist in their original form as the owner may have edited them out. As near as I can tell one of the worst offenders was either given a long vacation or permanently barred from this forum.
My interest here on a thread such as this one is simple and straight forward. To commend those that support us and condemn those who don't.
The bottom line is the preservation of our 2nd Amendment rights period.
Jim
I'm pretty naive so naturally I would be just the sort who would remember someone somewhere sometime saying that the keeping and bearing of arms gives us a shot at defending the other rights of a free people enumerated in the 1st, 4th, and 6th. We've got the guns (well mostly old doubleguns and the kiddies have their ARs, hahaha) but we don't seem particularly worred about the suspension of rights (vide Patriot Act and the "desire for domestic security") when it would demand that we shut our big mouths and put our collective foot down. Whyzat? More interested in the means than the putative end, I suspect. That's where I smell H Y P O C R I S Y. Stand by for imcoming factoid bombardment!!!!
jack
I'd like to oblige, but I have absolutely no idea what the hell you're trying to say.
The tent is already too small with both sides included in our ever shrinking world of outdoorsmen. We may not have the luxury of splintering the ranks, but it doesn't help for the left side to snipe like Winchester on MASH with unjustified condescension, while offended conservative side fires off salvos of righteous indignation. Takes a little diplomacy to get the best out of both and not the worst?...
The world has moved on, as Roland the Gunslinger said. The putative (accepted or supposed) end of a well-trained militia was, according the founding muthas, the necessary condition for a potentially successful resistance to tyranny (just no faith there in pitchforks and mauls against Brown Bess). What level of training with what "arms" would we need today to promise even the hope of parity with modern armies? Surface to air missles, tactical nukes maybe? So we all know the embattled farmers bit is getting a bit old on the shelf. There is of course the guerilla idea and we've fought enuf of them to know that there's a long term stinger in resistance with minimal armament which exhausts high-tech armies. But we don't want to live like rats so not even the best infantry squad weapon would count for much in the sort of freeze-dried, melodramatic resistance to tyranny which we glory in. Bunch of rhetoricians! I can't believe you're really only playing dumb, Keith.
jack
The tent is already too small with both sides included in our ever shrinking world of outdoorsmen. We may not have the luxury of splintering the ranks, but it doesn't help for the left side to snipe like Winchester on MASH with unjustified condescension, while offended conservative side fires off salvos of righteous indignation. Takes a little diplomacy to get the best out of both and not the worst?...
MASH-- Mobile Army Surgical Hospital-- How does Winchester sniper rifles play into this farce TV show? Were there sniper rifles used by the Army and Marine Corps in that "Police action?""You betcha-- mainly M-1D and some Springfield 1903-A3's that were scoped-- but darn few to be found in a MASH scenario- more likely stethescopes, bedpans and plasma!!
The world has moved on, as Roland the Gunslinger said. The putative (accepted or supposed) end of a well-trained militia was, according the founding muthas, the necessary condition for a potentially successful resistance to tyranny (just no faith there in pitchforks and mauls against Brown Bess). What level of training with what "arms" would we need today to promise even the hope of parity with modern armies? Surface to air missles, tactical nukes maybe? So we all know the embattled farmers bit is getting a bit old on the shelf. There is of course the guerilla idea and we've fought enuf of them to know that there's a long term stinger in resistance with minimal armament which exhausts high-tech armies. But we don't want to live like rats so not even the best infantry squad weapon would count for much in the sort of freeze-dried, melodramatic resistance to tyranny which we glory in. Bunch of rhetoricians! I can't believe you're really only playing dumb, Keith.
jack
Rabbit:
In all honesty I think you need to get your meds checked. I'm in the same boat as Keith in that I ve read your responses multiple times and I still have no idea what you are talking about.
Jim
Winchester, the character, sniped verbally and condescendingly in a most northeastern manner--irritating and insulting. That should be avoided if we are to unify around second amendment rights. I am trying to be a peacemaker if possible, tho I sometimes come off as an intolerant cro-magnon to my friends. It ain't easy bein me.
BTW, speaking of facts, who did McCarthy ever specifically falsely accuse?
Beggers belief that you're unable to parse the mumblings of an obvious madman, Jim, considering you're usually so good at squeezing meaning from the tiniest thing. I'd almost think you're willfully obtuse. But then you're all about rhetorical tactics so maybe you're falling back once more on ad hominem characterization. At which training fort did you study offensive debate.
jack
I got to tell you folks that I used to think there was a qualifying phrase ("A well-regulated militia, being necessary to . . .") followed by a clause thereby qualified ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.") I've been admonished that the right to keep and bear is absolute and not qualified by perceived necessity. It now occurs to me after our little conversation that in the view of some here there are no other amendments accompaning the 2nd possessing any importance whatsoever. Maybe there's no Constitution preceding the Bill of Rights either? Sorry damn situation imo and I'm out the door on this one. Enjoy yourselves as only you can, Jim, Dave, Keith, and whassisname.
jack
jack, after reading and re-reading your last several ramblings numerous times, I think I've finally deciphered what you were trying to say. I'm now at least 51% certain that you feel (or felt) that the Second Amendment applies only to bodies such as the National Guard (which hadn't been conceived when the Bill of Rights was written), or police, or the military (even though there was no formal standing army at the time). It seems as though the Heller decision must have been a huge disappointment to you. Sorry about that.(No, I'm really not... I'm just pretending to be nice to another Obama apologist)
It further appears that you also have some twisted opinion that Jim, Dave, whassisname, and myself have no interest or belief in any other Constitutional amendments save the Second, or the Constitution itself. And somehow, somewhere in this thread, we managed to convey that view to you?
Jim, Dave, whassisname... I demand that you guys stop sending those telepathic messages to jack. I intend to stop as well. That wasn't very nice of us.
If there are any more evil voices inside your head jack, you just let us know and we'll make them go away. I'm a Catholic and I know a priest who performs excorcisms. It's going to be OK.
And under Obamacare, you won't be denied coverage because of a pre-existing mental disorder! Hope and Change.
[img]http://www.google.com/imgres?q=tinfoil+helmet&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=822&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=Cbk9L7s-wa5PBM:&imgrefurl=http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/&docid=ib5jq1dyOnmGHM&imgurl=http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/ali2.jpg&w=410&h=307&ei=StyfT5aYIuiG0QHw_4y7Ag&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=376&vpy=151&dur=4508&hovh=194&hovw=260&tx=38&ty=212&sig=112747250087689827424&page=1&tbnh=141&tbnw=183&start=0&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:73[/img]
http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/
Text of Amendment:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Rabbit:
I'll make this as simple as possible for you"
The 1st part of the 2nd Amendment(up to the comma) is a dependent clause . If taken by itself it's meaningless because it can't stand alone. The 2nd part is the primary point.
In other words the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
Oh and BTW if you still disagree: Please tell us which other Amendments in the Bill of Rights aren't individual rights?
Jim
Actually, everything before the comma is a "phrase", Jim, and some sort of ablative expression from the Latin altho understood as a clause as in the paraphrase "It has come to our notice that a well-regulated militia is a good safeguard of our freedoms, and thus we find that the R to K&B shall not be infringed." After the comma comes a bunch of words that indeed is a clause as it has both subject and predicate and it is also the dependent or qualified clause. Whether or no the right to K&B is an individual right and unimpeachable in cases where its maintenance may not favor the state or the PTB is certainly up for grabs given that "a well-reguated militia is a collectivity. You'll wind up on the loosing end of this argument and I wouldn't be surprised if the occasion was another terrorist score and the presiding administration nominally "conservative" and possibly Republican. Who ya gonna call {names}, then, buddy?
jack
I wasn't familiar with the multiple comma version of the 2nd Amendment. Found this clarification on Wikipedia. (I liked and recommend reading Wikipedia's description of the amendment's historical context.)
"There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights. One version was passed by the Congress, while another is found in the copies distributed to the States and then ratified by them.
As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Punk,punk,punk,punkuation! Good thing they let TJ clear out those commas in the Congressional draft or we'd have some maroon arguing that a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. That maroon would be me as I'm in favor of everybody a boot as you know, Jay.
jack
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Anyone have a problem understanding this in stand alone mode?
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
Anyone care to explain what this means as a stand alone statement?
2nd Amendment re-written for clarity by yours truly:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed due to a well regulated militia* being necessary to the security of a free state.**
*The contemporary definitions of "militia" generally describe them as comprising all able bodied men
therefore by definition the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
**I re-wrote this changing the actual wording as little as possible to stay within what I believe was the original intent. Hopefully it's clearer now that I've taken the first part out of the subordinate clause category.
Here are Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on this subject:
Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
BTW Rabbit:
We're still waiting for you to explain which of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights aren't individual rights. Free Speech? Unreasonable Search and Seizure? Self Incrimination?
R U dense? As a "stand alone" statement the first phrase contains a form of the verb "to be" (I don't remember what part 'o speech it be; I'll let you Googlists lookitup) which for right-thinking men who were reasonably well-eddycated schoolboys stands in lieu of the sentence: "We gathered here accept the notion that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free people.": It is NOT a dependent clause; IT IS AN ELLIPTICAL CLAUSE and in addition NOT NO WAY NO HOW A DEPENDENT ONE!!!! BYE
I've stated here on a number of occasions that I believed there were some among us who harbored anti-gun rights, or anti-hunting rights motives. For that, I was sometimes excoriated and admonished for being too hard on the Snakes. At least jack is honorable enough to tell us, in his own cockney/aristocrat/nit-wit style, that he believes the Second Amendment provides only a collective, not individual, right to keep and bear arms. Thanks for being honest.
I suppose we could go on debating recently settled law, and endlessly arguing over the placement of commas, or what constitutes a meaningful clause or phrase... or we could do the intelligent thing and actually look at the intent of the framers of the Constitution. They extensively wrote and debated about the content before they put their pen to parchment. To ignore what they said and wrote is exhibiting moral bankruptcy. From Washington's letters to Jefferson's papers, to Mason's and Henry's speeches, to The Federalist, there is nothing to be found that would convey the idea that they intended the Second Amendment RKBA to be anything other than an individual right which made the militia possible, but which also went beyond the scope of a militia purpose, i.e., defense of self, and home, and property.
Read their words and weep jack, for if the boys who drafted the document had any other intentions, it is one of the best kept secrets of the late 1700's.
I was going to provide some quotes or links to their writings, speeches, and editorials, but that would be a silly waste of time, for your mind is clearly made up on the matter. This discourse should be instructive to those who still think we're just preaching to the choir and that we're all on the same page, or spooning together in some big happy tent. We needed a poster boy, and by golly, we've got one!
As for your assertion that we'll eventually lose RKBA to some "nominally" conservative, and possibly Republican occupant of the White House... I'd still rather take my chances with that than someone who thinks like you AND Obama.
I'd be a bit careful spooning with the boys in the Big Tent, Keith. Where's that :rolleyes: thing when you need it? Now that Charlaton [sic] has left the theatre, Ted Nugent might make a better poster boy for you scenery chewers. Happy to oblige as whipping boy du jour but tomorrow's another day, bud. Think on't.
jack
Keith :
I thought of responding to "Rabbits" last inane comments but decided to just stop there. I will discuss or debate with anyone who puts forth logical thought out arguments even though I may strongly disagree with their position. I don't know what meds this guy may be on or if he perhaps has a drug/alcohol problem but each post he makes is more bizarre than the last. I sincerely hope he gets some professional help.
I for one am done with this thread unless someone comes on here with some sensible position. I am only posting this so you will know the reason for my silence.
Jim
I'd be a bit careful spooning with the boys in the Big Tent, Keith. Where's that :rolleyes: thing when you need it? Now that Charlaton [sic] has left the theatre, Ted Nugent might make a better poster boy for you scenery chewers. Happy to oblige as whipping boy du jour but tomorrow's another day, bud. Think on't.
jack
Hey Rabbit, only one question for you. Do you own a gun?
By your own argument, you shouldn't. I'll await your answer to see where you stand on Mt. Hypocrisy.
Let's take this discussion in another direction. I think we can all learn something from Justice Scalia on this issue. Outreach and education. We need to be mindful that gun ownership is guaranteed in a document that can be changed by political process - the god-given right to drink was denied to Americans for a few years due to a consitutional amendment, after all.
As gun rights advocates, we should spend less time behaving like Charlton Heston and more time following Justice Scalia's lead. Most (roughly 65%) Americans don't own guns and many have never even handled one. If these non-owners have qualms about gun ownership, it is based on that lack of experience and the nonsense they see in Hollywood movies and video games. I would argue that popular entertainment today is the biggest threat to gun rights in the US - it is all black guns and dead bodies. (And if you want to talk about hypocrisy, how about those Hollywood producers making big money on Bruce Willis movies and publicly condemning gun violence and gun rights?) What was the last movie that you saw involving a Fox or Parker or Woodward taking upland game?
I understand that the NRA engages in various forms of public outreach and education, but I would suggest that we as individuals should do our own as well. The future of gun rights in the US will benefit more from getting non-shooting friends out to the skeet field than screaming about prying guns out of our cold dead fingers.
IMHO, at least.
Doverham:
I regularly practice what you're preaching above. My wife is an active shooter as well and I have no idea how many non-shooters we have taken to our club. No they all haven't become shooters but I think we've taken positive steps in removing the demonization placed on firearms by those who want them banned.
Keep in mind that the NRA has repeatedly offered to utilize it's "Eddie Eagle" gun saftey program in elementary schools and has been blocked each time by the Teachers Union which is one of the most left wing liberal controlled unions* in this Country. My point here is you're dealing with a mind set here that hates guns and the only truly effective way of dealing with these people is through elections and the courts.
Jim
* Just look at the financial damage they caused in the State of Wisconsin before the very courageous Governor had their lock on "Insurance" reversed. Their very cretin behavior after this shows the mob mentality of groups of this type.
....It is NOT a dependent clause; IT IS AN ELLIPTICAL CLAUSE...
I've been following along with great interest, but I must take exception to you geometrical characterization. Maybe, you were thinking of being in a box, or perhaps Santa Clause.
Jim - that is an example we should all follow.
the only truly effective way of dealing with these people is through elections and the courts.
If nearly 65% of the country does not own a gun, elections may not always turn out in our favor. And even if the courts rigorously enforce the 2nd Amendment, that provision can be revoked. As this country becomes increasingly urban, it is likely that gun ownership rates will drop. Advocates for gun control are not always viewed by the general public as wing-nuts (local police, for instance). We need to recognize that gun ownership is ultimately subject to the political will of this country's voters, of which we gun owners are a minority - so we need to be both advocates and ambassadors.
According to a Gallup poll from 2005, 41% of gun owners identified themselves as Republicans, 27% as independents and 23% as Democrats. A non-partisan approach to this issue makes for a bigger tent and more political leverage in the long run.
The good news is that we are at a relative high point in terms of the public's overall attitude towards gun control - most Americans are currently not in favor of stricter gun control laws.
Gallup Poll
For Craig:
The ellipse, a two-D shape defined by a radius about two centers, is a very similar word to ellipses, the ". . ." which indicates the omission of words in quotation, and also to the elliptical expression, a grammatical construction in which words are omitted but the expression understood (by some of us) to have a meaning precisely identical to that it would have were the missing words included. Glad to help you with your Geometry (no charge).
For Flintfan:
I do indeed. Safefulls including a famous American battle rifle in GI dress and another well-known battle rifle sporterized. In corners, Behind doors, Under beds. In cases. You?
jack
For Flintfan:
I do indeed. Safefulls including a famous American battle rifle in GI dress and another well-known battle rifle sporterized. In corners, Behind doors, Under beds. In cases. You?
jack
That's weird. I would have thought that someone who vehemently denies that the Constitution gives a citizen the right to own firearms, wouldn't actually own firearms. How do you justify owning guns when you clearly believe you have no right to do so? Are the rest of us suppose to do as you say, not as you do?
I don't have to justify ownership of guns; it's my right as an individual and American citizen. So you'll get where I'm coming from, I used to think it was kind of funny that the gumint actually had a use for all those old fuddy-duddies who nervously slapped their en blocs against the stocks of their M1s during The War. They were an untapped market for what we now call milsurp. The DCM sold those M1s cheap (along with the millions of clapped out '03s) and the vets got down in the prone and stopped their pulse and had heart attacks getting up again and worried about Camp Perry and talked about the Corps altho they never got beyond the glamor of cooking in the Army. Well now I'm an old fuddy-duddy with service in a war which we weren't winning when I went OR when I left and I sort of appreciate people who were forced to do something at least theoretically useful by their guvmint. And I appreciate the weapons as a beautiful and destructive mechansim.
I haven't "vehemently denied" that the 2nd gives citizens the "individual" right to keep and bear arms; I've given my opinion about what the text says "in the clear". Is that one of my rights? one that I have no matter who's offended or scairt or whatever? If the Heller decision is correct in view of the "contemporaneous record" of statements by Jefferson and others that an absolute right to keep and bear was the intention, fine. However, the loudmouths here are paranoid that there are a lot of folks nominally in their "own camp" who aren't gonna drink the Koolaid on this rights without responsibilities crap. They may be right.
I'm tired of lines drawn in the sand that I'm supposed to be a good feller and cross. I'd just as soon stand where the loudmouths put me and kick it in their faces.
jack
I don't have to justify ownership of guns; it's my right as an individual and American citizen. So you'll get where I'm coming from, I used to think it was kind of funny that the gumint actually had a use for all those old fuddy-duddies who nervously slapped their en blocs against the stocks of their M1s during The War. They were an untapped market for what we now call milsurp. The CMP sold those M1s cheap (along with the millions of clapped out '03s) and the vets got down in the prone and stopped their pulse and had heart attacks getting up again and worried about Camp Perry and talked about the Corps altho they never got beyond the glamor of cooking in the Army. Well now I'm an old fuddy-duddy with service in a war which we weren't winning when I went OR when I left and I sort of appreciate people who were forced to do something at least theoretically useful by their guvmint. And I appreciate the weapons as a beautiful and destructive mechansim.
I haven't "vehemently denied" that the 2nd gives citizens the "individual" right to keep and bear arms; I've given my opinion about what the text says "in the clear". Is that one of my rights? one that I have no matter who's offended or scairt or whatever? If the Heller decision is correct in view of the "contemporaneous record" of statements by Jefferson and others that an absolute right to keep and bear was the intention, fine. However, the loudmouths here are paranoid that there are a lot of folks nominally in their "own camp" who aren't gonna drink the Koolaid on this rights without responsibilities crap. They may be right.
I'm tired of lines drawn in the sand that I'm supposed to be a good feller and cross. I'd just as soon stand where the loudmouths put me and kick it in their faces.
jack
What?
Jack........ I quote: By the rude bridge that arched the flood; their flag to April's breeze unfurled; here once the embattled FARMERS stood, and fired the shot heard 'round the world..... That was "farmers" not militia......
You put in any commas you want.
We will speak how we want.
We will use our tools, (guns, hoes, axes, etc.) to guarantee that we WILL speak how we want........ Grant.
By the way, the pre-war Superposed Skeet is still grinding up clays; with Federal Papers.....
Flintfan, didn't you take in Jack's remark earlier, in favor of "EVERYBODY a boot"? (Emphasis mine.) I got away with a high lottery number, and was damn glad of it. So ... rights without responsibilities.
Jack, seems to me you and Woodrow Call think a little alike, as in: "I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it."
Jay
According to a Gallup poll from 2005, 41% of gun owners identified themselves as Republicans, 27% as independents and 23% as Democrats. A non-partisan approach to this issue makes for a bigger tent and more political leverage in the long run.
Doverham, I can appreciate what you, Gunflint Charlie, and others are trying to say, but have you read jack rabbit's posts? The ones that follow yours are especially revealing if you can understand them. I have been using my "Incoherent Rambling to English" translator.
It appears he's saying that the gun rights advocates here, and the NRA, have been advocating a gun "rights without responsibilities" position. Frankly, I haven't seen that. It isn't Jim, or DaveK, or myself who thinks gangbangers that spray the streets of the hood should be promptly provided kinder, gentler arrests, low bail, shorter sentences, and parole just so they can excercise thier RKBA as recidivists. Those remedies come from the whacked out left that has largely co-opted the Democrat Party as their home base. They would rather place blame on the inanimate object than the poor criminal who is likely a victim of some sort of discrimination.
It seems to me that Democrats who claim to support gun rights could be doing more to reclaim their own party from the extreme left. No one denies that there are many Democrat politicians that remain friendly to gun owners, and I, as an Independant have no problem voting for them. I do have a problem with Democrat gun owners who would have us believe that certain Democrat politicians with extreme anti-gun records are not a threat to RKBA. I have said that is either stupid or dishonest. I fail to see where it would be useful or productive to act or think otherwise.
Neither Wayne Lapierre, nor "Charlaton" Heston, nor Thomas Jefferson, et al are/were proponents of arming thugs and murderers. They obviously realize that more laws do not deter those bent on violent crime. There was murder and mayhem in 18th century America just as there is today, and that is why we see in the framers writings that their advocacy for arms posession was as much for personal protection as it was for militia purposes.
Speaking of the militia, no one here has been advocating armed overthrow of the government. Sane folks only see that as an extreme last resort. I pray our citizens never have to oppose tyranny with force here. But where it does happen, (Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iran, Mongolia, etc.)the citizenry with even limited access to arms tend to fare better than those denied arms. The major tack here has been to achieve our goals via a fair and honest election process, supporting those candidates that stand with us, and exposing and removing those who are against us.
So where is this "rights without responsibilities crap"? And where are the "paranoid loudmouths" who are serving up this Koolaid? jack is hallucinating about lines in the sand and calling us loudmouths and kicking the aforementioned sand in our faces, just because he can. I'll agree that we are best served by being unified, but I don't see where excluding a few pathetic nutbars will hurt us in the long run.
Keith, jack does make one work a little to take all his meaning. See the homeland security stuff. I think this has to do with ferociously defending the 2nd, but not standing against threats to other freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights.
Jay
Glad to hear that, Grant. Darn nice old river biscuit of a $&$ not withstanding that one of the POs ground up the choke in the top barrel.
jack
No need to defend me, or "praise with faint damn", Jay, altho I'll admit you're a more patient exegete than some. Never complain; never explain (except maybe to men of good will AND reason.) I got in my strafing runs after that business with the Gnomon and I'm happy I did but mostly I don't care to get stuck in this tarbaby. You really should share the Humpty Dumpty catechism with our friends, Jay. Said a good bit to me about the uses of language but maybe I only heard what I wanted to hear?
jack
I liked that bit about the "Incoherent rambling to English Translator," Keith. Incoherence is a tool like any other and you've a sharp eye to notice. I gotta sneak back into my room now; bout time for Nurse Ratched and my pills.
jack
Keith, jack does make one work a little to take all his meaning. See the homeland security stuff. I think this has to do with ferociously defending the 2nd, but not standing against threats to other freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights.
Jay
Jay, I did take the time to peel off the layers of incoherence that jack tells us he's used as a tool. And no, I didn't miss the Homeland Security stuff, or much else. But I completely disagree with his contention that it is just like any other tool. What utility is there in a tool which makes a job harder for some and impossible for many? Was the intended utility an attempt to make me disengage?
As for part two of your statement above, I think you ought to know that I've been straining to keep my conversation tied to only the Second Amendment and threats to gun rights. I thought I kind of said that in my post #276544 of 4/28/12 at 2:25 PM on pg. 4 of this thread. I began to stray into other areas of the political arena and supra-constitutional rights such as the "rights" of the self-disadvantaged poor or politically connected multi-national corporations which expect you and I and our kids to foot the bill for handouts to bail them out. I quickly realized I was straying too far off topic as this is a Firearms forum. You were part of the big brouhaha here a few months back when Jim started the Starbucks thread. I obviously still contend that suppression of RKBA will eventually affect Doubleguns and so is sufficiently on topic to be here. I've also noted the multitude of threads here since then that had less than nothing to do with doubleguns, yet flourished without protest. That is the only reason I didn't back up and delete much of that post. Still, I am trying to stay mostly within the lines in deference to those who disagree. So the fact that I may not debate eminent domain, or free speech, or quartering of troops here should not be construed to mean that I am not cognizant of other areas where the Bill of Rights is strained or turned on its' head.
Now, if the room that jack is sneaking back to in order for Nurse Ratched to give him his pills happens to be at a VA clinic, he is being smart to get them while he can. For it is only a matter of time before the Community Organizer in Chief diverts funding to some disadvantaged group more deserving than our Vets.
Keith:
What could I possibly add to your post above!!!!
Jim
Let's take this discussion in another direction. I think we can all learn something from Justice Scalia on this issue. Outreach and education. We need to be mindful that gun ownership is guaranteed in a document that can be changed by political process - the god-given right to drink was denied to Americans for a few years due to a consitutional amendment, after all.
As gun rights advocates, we should spend less time behaving like Charlton Heston and more time following Justice Scalia's lead. Most (roughly 65%) Americans don't own guns and many have never even handled one. If these non-owners have qualms about gun ownership, it is based on that lack of experience and the nonsense they see in Hollywood movies and video games. I would argue that popular entertainment today is the biggest threat to gun rights in the US - it is all black guns and dead bodies. (And if you want to talk about hypocrisy, how about those Hollywood producers making big money on Bruce Willis movies and publicly condemning gun violence and gun rights?) What was the last movie that you saw involving a Fox or Parker or Woodward taking upland game?
To answer your last question first, I had occasion to see a really sappy movie (IIRC, it was called "Morning Glory") within the last 6 months. This one was a typical chick flick with Harrison Ford as a cranky old TV newsman and Diane Keaton opposite him, with some young actress (playing a TV producer) trying to drag him back to work. She goes out and finds him walking up pheasants carrying a nice sidelock sxs, dressed appropriately (he'd fit in here), hunting over a Gordon in a realistic-looking cover (but for it being too warm and summery). And he actually does shoot safely on a flushed bird (that action takes place off-stage), and you get to see the dog work a bit, too. I think the stage decoration was meant to convey a lazy dilettante with too much money and time on his hands who needs to get back to work, yadda yadda.
I got lassoed into watching it b/c one of my Gordon Setter friends insisted I had to see the dog. Nice dog. After the dog was out of the picture, I dozed off.
But, as you make clear, that's the exception. The rule is black guns and carnage. That sells - no interpreters or subtitles needed.
As to being a Scalia rather than a Heston - that was my point earlier. You'll win more with honey than vinegar.
I agree, Dave. You can Scalia-nize young people by taking them hunting, to the skeet field, to dog trials, a firearms auction, a sporting clays shoot, a hunter safety course or NRA day at a range or shooting club. Firearms familiarization can also be had courtesy of our military services. Loss of the draft is not necessarily something to cheer about in the larger view of our society. Statement on TV yesterday evening that ". . . our arms forces are broken. Every 18 minutes, there is an attempted suicide in the ranks." Wonder why after nearly two decades of the "stop loss" policy? I was never a big fan of weekend warriors who, in the VietNam era, went home after basic while the draftees got a few more training cycles and a free trip abroad, but the Iraqi and Afghan altercations have demanded more of our reserve forces than any dustup since the Korea War. Time for more of our young people to serve with em rather than just thank em. I personally favor universal military conscription. By providing our young with a common experience, military service would "homogenize" them before they hardened in the mold of believing that the fighting should be done by one class, group, race, or economic ranking and the thinking by another. A common experience (Yes, I know a common experience doesn't lead everyone to the same views!) gives people a chance to understand other people and often the proximity and consequent inclination to be civil and sympathetic even if they don't.
jack
