PolMach Forums
| I will rule the world, and you will have no defense except for pointy sticks!!! |
| Reply #1 By: Texas Wahine - 11/13/2004 9:58:56 PM gun control does not = guns banned |
| do you see how they dodge the questions and want say we want no gun control at all. We want to punish those who commit crimes with guns. because to say guns kill people is the same as saying that it's a pencils fault if a student fails a test. |
| they want world peace with no killing |
the exact wording in the constitution provides specifically: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 'weapons' is commonly and incorrectly construed to mean 'guns'.
anyone who wants to take my m-79 grenade launcher away from me is going to have to pry it outta my cold, dead hands.
| It sure would've have helped if Iraq had gun control |
havent we made those poor people suffer enough already? as it is, the new iraqi constitution limits each family (no matter how large it may be) to one measly assault weapon. that kinda unreasonable restriction takes all the fun outa weddings, funerals and other social events (no same-sex marriages there, either) cuz everyone has to stand around waiting for a turns to scream yi-yi-yi-yi-yi while emptying a full clip into the air. on top of which you cant be too prepared to defend your hovel against invading occupiers intent on forcing you to spend your hard-earned dinars on exorbitantly-priced mccamel nuggets. not to mention the outrages being perpetrated on the fallouja chapter of the NRA.
| Its this kind of vitriol that caused the liberals to LOSE the last election...their constant denigration of any who opposed them, calling Conservatives rednecks, jesus-freaks, morons, racists, facists, homophobes, etc etc |
yeah. well all that in combination with the brilliant (honestly brilliant) strategy of putting 'marriage' initiatives on 11 state ballots following the bush administrations interference with vital national security issues by promoting a constitutional same-sex marriage amendment that was guaranteed not to pass while making lots of headlines in the process, falwell/lahaye/dobson/robertson's ability to obtain church membership rolls by the 1000s in order to distribute millions of 'voter guidance' pamphlets, innappropriate candidate advocacy by catholic bishops and archbishops in their official 'non-partisan' capacity in the pulpit and, last but not least, flooding targeted areas with advertising like this:
| gun control does not = guns banned |
| I support liscencing, registration, background checks, and preventing people with criminal records from purchasing guns. Basically, I would take guns away from criminals, and allow hunters and collectors to keep their guns. So I guess this makes me a wacko anti-gun liberal who will take away all your guns given half the chance. |
| do you see how they dodge the questions and want say we want no gun control at all. We want to punish those who commit crimes with guns. because to say guns kill people is the same as saying that it's a pencils fault if a student fails a test. |
| Its this kind of vitriol that caused the liberals to LOSE the last election...their constant denigration of any who opposed them, calling Conservatives rednecks, jesus-freaks, morons, racists, facists, homophobes, etc etc. While i dont agree with gun control, i dont think that those who do are automatically 'idiots.' They are just people with different opinions. |
| What i did say is that it was far more common coming from the left, and is one of the reasons why Bush won. |
| I'm not buying it. The democrats were criticized before their convention and warned not to run a negative convention and republican went negative throughout theirs. The right put out false pamphlets under the name of the democratic party while Karl Rove pulled out every dirty trick in the book. |
Reply #12 By: XX - 11/14/2004 3:01:47 AM I don't support total weapons ban, but I certainly support gun control and ban on useless weapons. Them ducks is so dangerous I need assault guns to kill all of them. |
| Evans article title aligns him squarely with those who behave this way, and its why more rational Conservatives would do well to distance themselves from this sort of vitriol |
his title is inflammatory; overall, you offered him some good, practical advice. i generally agree with all but the second graph of your comment.
| Its this kind of vitriol that caused the liberals to LOSE the last election |
i've read draginol's arguments supporting this conclusion, dozens of other variations on the theme and possibly 100 or more comments along the same line. i think its a convenient but superficial observation. whatever resentment was rooted in bashing on either side is hardly a factor compared to maybe a dozen powerful undercurrents of resentment that have been flowing just beneath the surface for decades and which, in turn, spawned the bashing rather than the other way around. much more importantly, all that ongoing resentment produced a political climate in which anything is okay as long as it delivers votes.
| But by far, this type of inflammatory hysterics was practiced FAR more by the left than the right in this last election |
if that makes you feel better, amen. ive seen no objective study to prove either side has a monopoly on civility and i doubt one will show up anytime soon. attempts to indict one side or the other inevitably wind up convicting the self-appointed prosecutor; the most reasonable argument invariably devolves into a harangue. not for nothing do we have two distinctly different terms for 'right' and 'self-righteous'. 
Reply #21 By: dabe - 11/14/2004 12:10:41 PM Yup, I agree, Whoman. The republican vitriol this past election was the most hideous, dispicable, hateful diatribes that have ever come out of a political convention, not to mention during the entire campaign. To accuse democrats for merely defending their base, and themselves, as hateful attacks is such a low blow, and so, so typically republican garbage, which was totally supported by the repub leadership, via that hateful and lying-like-a-rug convention they held. Made me wanna puke. As a continuation of this lousy, lying crap that comes out of republicans is the contention that liberals want to ban guns. It's a complete lie, and is used merely as scare tactics by maligning the left, and getting repubs ti support them. It's all part of their typical nasty, lying, scare tactics. I, for one, do not want to ban guns. People should be allowed to own them, but only if closely and carefully controlled. As comparison, just because the government controls automobile licenses and registrations, does not mean that they want to ban autos. Same for guns. No one wants to ban guns. That' so, so false. Having said that, some types of guns should be banned. Why should assault-type guns be allowed in the general public? Their only purpose and design is to kill people. Killing people should only be allowed, ie regulated, in war. As much as I hate war, and I would love to see a world free of it, I don't think soldiers can go to war without assault rifles, and other such weapons. They sure don't belong in the streets of New York, Chicago, etc. And, I venture to guess that they do not belong in the hunting gear for deer, moose or the like. |
Guns have to be regulated. Not banned. |
| Reply #18 By: whoman69 - 11/14/2004 11:01:29 AM gun control does not = guns banned I support liscencing, registration, background checks, and preventing people with criminal records from purchasing guns. Basically, I would take guns away from criminals, and allow hunters and collectors to keep their guns. So I guess this makes me a wacko anti-gun liberal who will take away all your guns given half the chance. good points and another thing the NRA cannot agree with is that they oppose any form of gun legislation. do you see how they dodge the questions and want say we want no gun control at all. We want to punish those who commit crimes with guns. because to say guns kill people is the same as saying that it's a pencils fault if a student fails a test. Is it dodging the question to point out that the NRA has an official policy of opposing any form of gun control legislation. It is deflection to say that guns don't kill people |
Reply #13 By: kingbee - 11/14/2004 3:48:09 AM anyone who wants to take my m-79 grenade launcher away from me is going to have to pry it outta my cold, dead hands. |
| Reply #6 By: Texas Wahine - 11/14/2004 12:03:52 AM drmiler: You support absolutely no gun control whatsoever? No checks, no registration, no stipulations or bans on weapons with no practical use? |
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
JoeUser Forums