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

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

LOL....Agreed!! (If you cant stop a house invader with the normal 7-12 rounds that most automatics hold, than maybe you just need one round......To shoot yourself in the head with at the first sound of a break-in!! (alright.....Maybe 2 rounds since you would probably miss your head with the first round anyway!)


Editorial Comment: (couldn't resist!)
And of course we all know what would happen if there was ever a 3:00am breakin at the home of Dick Cheney!!
He would shoot his entire family (& 3 servants) without once hitting the home invader!
(fill in your own joke)

Devil5052 wrote: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.

You aren't the one lobbying congress though. You missed this sentence:

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.

Those on either side of the battle are in most cases going to be extreme one way or the other. The ones in the middle who would be for "resoanble" gun control aren't the ones fighting the battle, most probably see that the gun laws as they are now are good enough anyway.

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.

And what is that supposed to do anyway? A k-47 with 20 round clip is just as dangerous as one with 30 round clip.

Keep your WMD all I need is good water pressure from my well and a box of balloons. What the heck...for more fun I might purchase a couple chickens and a rooster for an endless supply of eggs!!! ($20 from Northern Tools...I asked if the girls come with the launcher...they said "NO!!".....darn!)

OH YEAH.....STILL A REDNECK!!!!

BugsyR wrote:OH YEAH.....STILL A REDNECK!!!!

And damn proud of it!!!

Devil5052 wrote:

BugsyR wrote:OH YEAH.....STILL A REDNECK!!!!

And damn proud of it!!!

yeah...Guilty...

The peoples republic of maryland already has that law...only it's a 10 round capacity clip limit.

coalkirk wrote:The peoples republic of maryland already has that law...only it's a 10 round capacity clip limit.

Sounds like a good law to me, but I would probably have raised that to 14. I could live with 10 though.

Devil5052 wrote:

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!

I'm glad you recognize your error. I have no anger toward you. You can't help it. It takes a big man to do that. I'm also glad you acknowledge your paranoia. You should see someone about that. Shouting "GROW UP!" is hardly the way to carry on here.

On parting, one of the signers of the US Constitution, you likely have heard of him, said this about what would become the second amendment to the Constitution:

"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." — Samuel Adams

mikeandgerry got some time to think about the rules, anyone else?

This forum is for civilized discussion if you can't keep it civilized simply don't use it.

Devil5052, You've been around guns and this subject longer than I have, so maybe you know more about the NRA's history and/or stance on what should be allowed. You've suggested or claimed (pick the correct word) that the NRA's view is essentially "the sky's the limit". Not your words I know but thats basically what I'm getting out of your posts. My question is, do you have any specific examples of what the NRA's view is on high end weapons? Something other than stories by a media that tends to be slanted against the NRA in general? I ask this because since I've been part of the NRA, I can't recall reading anying in their magazine about being in favor of citizens possessing the way out there type of weapons that you've mentioned. But other than flame throwers and nukes, I can't say I know what weapons you're really concerned with.

I know they take a very rigid stance on things but, as has been stated before, thats because of the very clear goal of some in the government to take everything away. There have been statements made by anti-gun politicians that if they could take everyone's gun away tomorrow, they would. When you have maga-rich anti-gun people like Bloomberg, that threat becomes something to be taken seriously. The word "reasonable" gets used a lot but there is a very ligitimate reason to believe that they won't stop at reasonable and continue on until we are, for all intents and purposes, disarmed. The short version is we don't trust them so we fight.

John

69Drag wrote:Devil5052, You've been around guns and this subject longer than I have, so maybe you know more about the NRA's history and/or stance on what should be allowed. You've suggested or claimed (pick the correct word) that the NRA's view is essentially "the sky's the limit". Not your words I know but thats basically what I'm getting out of your posts. My question is, do you have any specific examples of what the NRA's view is on high end weapons? Something other than stories by a media that tends to be slanted against the NRA in general? I ask this because since I've been part of the NRA, I can't recall reading anying in their magazine about being in favor of citizens possessing the way out there type of weapons that you've mentioned. But other than flame throwers and nukes, I can't say I know what weapons you're really concerned with.

I know they take a very rigid stance on things but, as has been stated before, thats because of the very clear goal of some in the government to take everything away. There have been statements made by anti-gun politicians that if they could take everyone's gun away tomorrow, they would. When you have maga-rich anti-gun people like Bloomberg, that threat becomes something to be taken seriously. The word "reasonable" gets used a lot but there is a very ligitimate reason to believe that they won't stop at reasonable and continue on until we are, for all intents and purposes, disarmed. The short version is we don't trust them so we fight.

John

Morning John. Some very legitimate questions & I will try to research the NRA website to find answers for you.
I agree that we should all have a very healthy mistrust of the government, especialy this one! I don't know what the NRA's view is on high capacity magazines, but I would guess that they are against restrictions. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
Your comments about the "media" bring up a common view here that believes the media is liberal biased. My opinion is that this was true back in the 1950's-1970's but is no longer the case. The liberal editors & network heads have mostly been replaced with accountants who are only interested in profit. I think alot of the news divisions, like CBS news , which used to be somewhat autonamous & not expected to turn a profit, was years ago placed under the "Entertainment" division of CBS, & graded on profitablity. Add to that the virtual plethora of 24 hour news organizations (CNN, FOX, etc) all with different oners & agendas & you get a pretty good mix of views. Bottom line is they are all only interested in keeping wealthy corporate sponsors happy (by not getting tough on them) *& keeping their viewers tuned to the next commercial.

Devil5052 wrote: Bottom line is they are all only interested in keeping wealthy corporate sponsors happy (by not getting tough on them) *& keeping their viewers tuned to the next commercial.

That I can agree with, only thing they are interested in is making money. If it sells they'll print, broadcast or do what ever else they can to make money off it. You only have to look at the fluff on the network channels to see it. Do I really care that Michael Jackson is 3 months behind on his mortgage and why the hell do I need to know this? Sad part is I do know it......

69Drag wrote:Devil5052, You've been around guns and this subject longer than I have, so maybe you know more about the NRA's history and/or stance on what should be allowed. You've suggested or claimed (pick the correct word) that the NRA's view is essentially "the sky's the limit". Not your words I know but thats basically what I'm getting out of your posts. My question is, do you have any specific examples of what the NRA's view is on high end weapons? Something other than stories by a media that tends to be slanted against the NRA in general? I ask this because since I've been part of the NRA, I can't recall reading anying in their magazine about being in favor of citizens possessing the way out there type of weapons that you've mentioned. But other than flame throwers and nukes, I can't say I know what weapons you're really concerned with.

I know they take a very rigid stance on things but, as has been stated before, thats because of the very clear goal of some in the government to take everything away. There have been statements made by anti-gun politicians that if they could take everyone's gun away tomorrow, they would. When you have maga-rich anti-gun people like Bloomberg, that threat becomes something to be taken seriously. The word "reasonable" gets used a lot but there is a very ligitimate reason to believe that they won't stop at reasonable and continue on until we are, for all intents and purposes, disarmed. The short version is we don't trust them so we fight.

John

Quick response:
A quick check of the NRA's website Fact Sheet page http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheet ... spx?ID=158

contains this statement, relating to the federal "assault weapon"2 (AW) and "large"3 ammunition magazine ban, and signed it into law on Sept. 13, 1994, which I simply dont agree with:

"The ban`s 10-round magazine limit limits your ability to defend yourself. Police officers and military personnel use standard magazines42 for good reason--their protection. Private citizens should have the same ability to defend themselves. The study for Congress and a follow-up study (see p. 1) found no justification for a limit on the number of rounds in new magazines, let alone the arbitrary number "10."

My argument is that the average citizen rarely fiinds himself in a situation where he/she is being attacked by hordes of drugged up Chinese/Japanese/Whatever soldiers or "Human Wave" assaults by groups of criminals. The threats faced by the military & police are totaly different than what you & I can reasonably expect to face. This is what I mean....In my opinion the NRA position is just ludicrous.

Richard S. wrote:

Devil5052 wrote: Bottom line is they are all only interested in keeping wealthy corporate sponsors happy (by not getting tough on them) *& keeping their viewers tuned to the next commercial.

That I can agree with, only thing they are interested in is making money. If it sells they'll print, broadcast or do what ever else they can to make money off it. You only have to look at the fluff on the network channels to see it. Do I really care that Michael Jackson is 3 months behind on his mortgage and why the hell do I need to know this? Sad part is I do know it......

You're kidding!!.....Michael Jackson is 3 months behind on his mortgage ???!?!!

(getting out my checkbook right now to help him)