Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

mikeandgerry · By: **mikeandgerry** On: Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:33 am

After reading a bit of the DOJ document that John was kind enough to reference, I discovered in the first few pages this passage:

"Recent interpretations of the Second Amendment have been characterized by disagreement and uncertainty. The Supreme Court has not decided the question that we address here, and at least three views prevail in the federal courts of appeals. The Executive Branch has taken varying positions, and the Amendment has been the subject of extensive academic debate for the past two decades."

This would certainly support Devil's assertion that the debate is open. But, then again it begs the question: why in the last two decades has it become a center of debate when it wasn't for so many years? The only answer is social decay.

Research shows that the whole modern gun debate started during the Great Depression under the presidency of FDR. The firearms act then was designed to use the "common sense" that Devil (if that's not a childish handle, I don't know what is....and you tell me to grow up...oh brother!) has promoted to ban machine guns and other "heinous" weaponry and accessories. The act violated the essence of the Second Amendment for the sake of some large scale gangs who didn't give up their weapons in the long run. They continued their spree of killing and bank robbing until the G-men got their act together and hunted them down with the help of good citizens. Yes, you cannot get a machine gun now but crime is worse than ever.

Funny that at that time another thing FDR did was to unhinge the dollar from the gold standard and not only did he confiscate certain guns, he confiscated certain gold holdings of the general public. Well, this too was for the "good of the people". What was needed was economic stimulus and the government couldn't print money if it was tied proportionately to the amount of the gold held at Fort Knox. So FDR, in true Democrat fashion (not to be confused with democratic fashion) violated the constitution twice in one year for the good of the nation. Isn't it wonderful that he was elected for FOUR terms? Talk about hookwinking the public! Since then, all the social programs like Social Security (FDR again), the unregulated dollar, and the gun control laws have done nothing but bankrupt the US financially, spiritually and constitutionally giving rise to the false notion that everything is debatable, changeable, and fixable if we just click our heels together three times while saying "There's no place like home, There's no place like home".

If you find GWB and his taxation, medicare prescription plans and war in Iraq disturbing, think of FDR and the crap that man gave rise to in the modern era of the US. Americans were asleep at the wheel in that era and politicians from both parties have exploited it adroitly with the help of uneducated and apathetic citizens with good hearts and intentions. "Common" sense will destroy us.

69Drag · By: **69Drag** On: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:42 am

mikeandgerry, You're welcome. Please keep reading because it covers many of the same interpretation questions that have been raised here. Some of it can make your head spin though, whew!

John

Devil505 · By: **Devil505** On: Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:56 am

mikeandgerry wrote:
Devil5052 wrote: After re-reading your uneccesarily insulting rant here I will put you in the same category as some others who can't control their childish temper & have an adult debate without resorting to name calling. I guess some people just want to fight, no matter what is said to them. An adult is capable of making his/her point without resorting to "schoolyard" insults. I suggest you GROW UP!!

My comments were made in earnest. Any schoolyard insults are your own paranoid interpretation. There is no issue regarding the second amendment to debate. The debatable issues are social issues. The society of 1787 was far superior to the society of 2008. Ask yourself....Who has been in control of social change for the last 100 years or more? Certainly not the Republicans! What was that placard on the podium in front of Obama recently? oh yeah.............CHANGE!

What needs repair is the tattered fabric of society. Please.........no more change......please!

From just two of your posts on just this thread:

"Your ignorance is apalling. You need to read the Constitution with annotations."
"Your arguments are not even well thought out."
"I only get angry at capricious arguments foisted upon the People "

I guess you are right. I can't for the life of me figure out what I was thinking when pointing out your unecessary & insulting language......I must just be paranoid as you say!

Devil505 · By: **Devil505** On: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:16 am

pvolcko wrote:
Devil5052 wrote:Not to say that alot of them will be switching to support the Democratic ticket next November, but you never know!

This is what I don't get about you specifically and gun friendly dems in general. Their candidates and party acolytes often will pay lipservice to the 2nd amendment. "I support the fine American tradition of hunting." Rarely will they acknowledge self defense or home defense as protected, ...........Your characterization of the Democratic party is overbroad & no more valid than me asserting that all Republicans are gay because your Sen. larry Craig is. Many Democrats believe in self-defense & own firearms mainly for that purpose, just as there are many Republicans who have never handled a gun. My argument is with the NRA type thinking that asserts that we want to take away all guns & that any law restricting them (guns) is simply a foot in the door to accomplish their first fear. Only an idiot would argue that firearms are not potentialy dangerous to society & thus require some reasonable controls. (You need a license to drive a car too) Again, I'll fall back on my A-bomb argument......Shouldn't a law abiding citizen be able to own one?

With the exception of some local government dems and a very few national government "blue dog" dems, there is a clear, concerted effort to disarm the law abiding people of the country on the part of the mainstream democrat party[color=#0040FF[b]].....I disagree[/b][/color]

You may agree with some of their gun related proposals, but it seems clear from this discussion you don't agree with a large part of the agenda (assuming you agree with my characterization of the agenda and how widespread it is in the party)....I don't. Hillary and Obama both would qualify as candidates that pay lip service to the 2nd amendment but have demonstrable far-left, anti-gun agendas. How can you support them? ......I started out supporting Joe Biden but now support Obama as the only candidate that can bring this country together again. I never liked Hillary as she is simply a political "Gold Digger" in my view.
As far as gun friendliness/knowledge vs Party afiliation, I would remind you that it was Dick "7 Deferments" Cheney who almost blew his friends head off with a shotgun at close range! Absoulutely inexscusable no matter how you spin it! (No Democratic VP has ever shot anylone i n the face with a shotgun)

Richard S. · By: **Richard S.** On: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:42 am

Devil5052 wrote: My argument is with the NRA type thinking that asserts that we want to take away all guns & that any law restricting them (guns) is simply a foot in the door to accomplish their first fear.

The trouble with your argument is that is usually the case, these things have tendency to creep into our society. 30 years ago if you went to get a job and they told you you had to piss in the cup before they give you the job there would have been tremendous uproar from all sides, now its common and people accept it as a fact of life... I can provide other examples if you want, lets take smoking bans for example. I can agree with many of the places that its banned but now they banning it it any place the public may congregate such as bars. That should be the choice of the proprietor... If you're non-smoker you can simply not go there. You want more?... How about the banning of trans fatty acids for use in food... just a foot in the door now but your red steak is next.

coalkirk · By: **coalkirk** On: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:45 am

stockingfull wrote:
Ed.A wrote:
stockingfull wrote:OK, I'll bite; then just how, if the 2nd Amendment grants the unfettered right to keep handguns, do you propose to take their guns away? By putting them in prison after they kill my wife or kid walking in front of their house?

Actually, if you were a real man you'd protect your family, it's your duty, but if your not there then you should have already taught your wife and kids how to handle and operate their own firearms so they'd not have to worry about scumbag criminals harming them. Sheesh, you can lead a horse to water.......

Listen, douchebag, I've never made this personal but you idiot cavemen are p!s$ing me off now. I've got a semi-auto .22 and a 20 ga. DB. That's all I need to handle you and/or the donkey you might ride in on.

But, you know what? I don't think any of the big-talking he-men here have ever discharged any of their weapons at another human (except in the military); if there are, I'd like to hear your story. If not, save your bluster for somebody who cares.

Some might consider that a threat. I'd be carefull with your tirades.

coalkirk · By: **coalkirk** On: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:52 am

Richard S. wrote:
Devil5052 wrote: My argument is with the NRA type thinking that asserts that we want to take away all guns & that any law restricting them (guns) is simply a foot in the door to accomplish their first fear.

The trouble with your argument is that is usually the case, these things have tendency to creep into our society. 30 years ago if you went to get a job and they told you you had to piss in the cup before they give you the job there would have been tremendous uproar from all sides, now its common and people accept it as a fact of life... I can provide other examples if you want, lets take smoking bans for example. I can agree with many of the places that its banned but now they banning it it any place the public may congregate such as bars. That should be the choice of the proprietor... If you're non-smoker you can simply not go there. You want more?... How about the banning of trans fatty acids for use in food... just a foot in the door now but your red steak is next.

Another good example here is the seat belt law. When that was passed they promised it would not be a primary offense. In other words, they couldn't and wouldn't pull you over just because you didn't have a seat belt on. Now they use it as an excuse to pull you over, whether or not you have it on and claim they "couldn't see it." All these infringements are creeping alittle at a time. The libs who worship Europe would like nothing better than to confiscate all guns and leave us defenceless like the British.

Richard S. · By: **Richard S.** On: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:54 am

I'm going to say this one last time, no personal comments. I do not understand why you guys can't keep the personal comments to yourself.... You want to go sling mud at each other or start "no holds barred" topics go use the flame suit forum for that. Any further personal attacks in this forum and I start handing out suspensions.

Devil505 · By: **Devil505** On: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:57 am

Richard S. wrote:
Devil5052 wrote: My argument is with the NRA type thinking that asserts that we want to take away all guns & that any law restricting them (guns) is simply a foot in the door to accomplish their first fear.

The trouble with your argument is that is usually the case, these things have tendency to creep into our society. 30 years ago if you went to get a job and they told you you had to piss in the cup before they give you the job there would have been tremendous uproar from all sides, now its common and people accept it as a fact of life... I can provide other examples if you want, lets take smoking bans for example. I can agree with many of the places that its banned but now they banning it it any place the public may congregate such as bars. That should be the choice of the proprietor... If you're non-smoker you can simply not go there. You want more?... How about the banning of trans fatty acids for use in food... just a foot in the door now but your red steak is next.

Morning Richard. I think there really is more agreement here than disagreement. I can't believe that anyone here is really arguing that firearms do not present some danger tlo society in general, & thus require reasonable controls.
The debate/problem is which restrictions are reasonable? (if anyone here really feels there should be no restrictions on the ownership of any type of weapon, I'd love to hear your argument)

coalkirk · By: **coalkirk** On: Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:28 am

Devil5052 wrote: As far as gun friendliness/knowledge vs Party afiliation, I would remind you that it was Dick "7 Deferments" Cheney who almost blew his friends head off with a shotgun at close range! Absoulutely inexscusable no matter how you spin it! (No Democratic VP has ever shot anylone i n the face with a shotgun)[/color][/b]

Don't forget about the president who actually did shoot someone in the face. :lol:

spc · By: **spc** On: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:23 am

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence... From the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable... The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place of honor with all that's good... A free people ought to be armed."

- George Washington

Richard S. · By: **Richard S.** On: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:32 pm

Devil5052 wrote: I can't believe that anyone here is really arguing that firearms do not present some danger tlo society in general, & thus require reasonable controls.

But the trouble is that those that want to impose "reasonable" controls aren't reasonable themselves, lets face it, the people pushing gun control will only be happy if they were completely banned. On the other side you have the gun lobby that doesn't want to move an inch because of that. If you get rid of the idiots on both sides and had some people with some common sense to sit down you could come to "reasonable" conclusions. Persoanlly I think the fireamrs laws and regulations we have now are fine, they only need to be enforced.

There was gun control advocate from N.J. on one the News Stations that has a call-in talk format the other night advocating that Pennsylvania should tighten its gun control laws because 20% of the gun Crimes committed in N.J. were with guns purchased in PA yet only 1% of gun crimes in PA were committed with guns purchased in N.J..... Sounds great on the surface but lest examine it... Lets assume no other states contribute to this.

First of all that means that 80% of the gun crimes committed in N.J. were done with guns purchased in N.J. The gun laws this advocate wants PA to mirror are not effective so whats the point?

Second, if you're travelling from PA border you can get to just about anywhere in Jersey in about 2 hours . Guns from Jersey coming into PA would have to travel about 8 hours to get to Pitt. or even 10 hours to get to Erie so they simply aren't going to be distributed as much.

Lastly PA has a much larger population which is going to deflate that % because guns from N.J. simply aren't going to reach much of the population.

The point is this advocate should be aware of these things yet is still condemning PA for its gun laws and the last two things I just pointed out are obviously going to have an effect on the numbers... you won't hear that from the advocate though because he won't be happy until all guns are banned... tried getting phone call in but missed my chance, I would have loved to ask him those three things.

Devil505 · By: **Devil505** On: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:54 pm

Richard S. wrote:
Devil5052 wrote: I can't believe that anyone here is really arguing that firearms do not present some danger tlo society in general, & thus require reasonable controls.

But the trouble is that those that want to impose "reasonable" controls aren't reasonable themselves, lets face it, the people pushing gun control will only be happy if they were completely banned.

I disagree in that I am in favor of "reasonable" gun control & do not wish to have my guns taken away any more than you do.
Why don't we try to get a consensus right here, for what I think would be one reasonable gun control restriction: (I'm not even sure if this isn't already the law but , if not, I think it should be)

My proposed legislation: Large Magazine Restriction ACF 104.5 (Anthracite Coal Forum 104.5)
Proposed: There being no legitimate or sporting need for any firearm to have a magazine capable of holding more than 20 rounds, proposed that "large Capacity" magazines (over 20 round capacity) be hereby band for private ownership without special license.

My Argument:
I see no sporting or self defense use for such large capacity magazines & fear that such magazines could be devestating if they find their way to the hands of a deranged madman, such as we have seen recently & tragicaly in our colleges & shopping malls. I'll grant you that terrible carnage has taken place with just the use of normal firearms & magazines....But just imagine how much worse these attacks would have been if large capacity magazines were involved.

I honestly feel that my bill is both reasonable & needed. I am a gun owner & reasonable advocate of owning a gun for self-protection use. Really interested other views.

Dallas · By: **Dallas** On: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:07 pm

Hell, if you are any good at all, one shot should be plenty. Unless, of course, your after the whole heard or flock! :lol:

69Drag · By: **69Drag** On: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:15 pm

Devel5052, as far as an immediate need for high cap rifle mags.....well, I guess I don't. But when the revolution comes man..... :lol:

This topic is just wearing me down and I needed to laugh at something.

John

Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

Re: Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

Re: Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

Re: Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

Re: Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

Re: Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

Re: Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

Re: Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

Re: Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

Re: Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

Re: Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

Re: Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

Re: Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

Re: Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

Re: Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

Re: Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?