doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Two Different Worlds

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.



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

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

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

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