How did you vote?

codenamepaul

codenamepaul

Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
1,444
Likes
101
Location
Warren, MA
Feedback: 2 / 1 / 0
Alot of talk about who won, and where we're moving to because of it. Why did you vote the way you did?

I am very right wing conservative.... on my most liberal days. I believe that I have the right to own any firearm I wish. ANY FIREARM I WISH. And have no issue fighting those who disagree. I believe it is the responsibility of citizens to do what is needed to maintain control of the government that is supposed to serve them.

The issue is this. We know the inevitable is inevitable (no need to further the discourse on this subject) and we know how it's going to come about. Why is it you vote to slow or delay the inevitable? Is it so your children, who may not have the same feelings as you, have to deal with the crap you left them? Is it because you believe that you are helping by slowing it?

I voted for Coakley and Patrick-without reservation. I believe that any vote in delaying the inevitable is a step in the wrong direction. Allow those who want to go all the way with this to have their head. Let them get up the guts to what they will (and what we think they will) And then, let them reap the whirlwind of what they created. Grease that slippery slope some and get this crap overwith. Then we'll see who is and who isn't full of shit.
 
Not trolling-stirring maybe-but not trolling.

And Cledus-you're pretty close.

Derek-keep thinking.

My point is made in the post. Why bother slowing the inevitable? If its gonna happen (and you know what I mean) then let it happen on my watch. Not on the watch of our children-90% of whom will walk into the meatgrinder when told to do so like obedient little sheeple. I teach my children with a keen eye toward the future, but I cannot guatrantee that they will feel the same in 15-20 years. Can you? So why leave them a mess, like the one we were left by our predecessors?
 
codenamepaul said:
Not trolling-stirring maybe-but not trolling.

And Cledus-you're pretty close.

Derek-keep thinking.

My point is made in the post. Why bother slowing the inevitable? If its gonna happen (and you know what I mean) then let it happen on my watch. Not on the watch of our children-90% of whom will walk into the meatgrinder when told to do so like obedient little sheeple. I teach my children with a keen eye toward the future, but I cannot guatrantee that they will feel the same in 15-20 years. Can you? So why leave them a mess, like the one we were left by our predecessors?
Click to expand...

So rather than voting to stave off the mess, you bring the mess now? Statistically, they will have a car accident someday. Maybe you should wreck now while it's on your watch? Maybe give up your guns now since it's inevitable?
 
codenamepaul said:
I voted for Coakley and Patrick-without reservation. I believe that any vote in delaying the inevitable is a step in the wrong direction. Allow those who want to go all the way with this to have their head. Let them get up the guts to what they will (and what we think they will) And then, let them reap the whirlwind of what they created. Grease that slippery slope some and get this crap overwith. Then we'll see who is and who isn't full of shit.
Click to expand...


The problem is this strategy will fail misreably, because although the
liberal antis are lunkheaded, their strategies, and the people that Brady et al
employ, are actually pretty smart. Trying to goad them into banning
everything at once will result in failure. They -want- to use
incrementalism.... because they know that long term, it will be more
effective.

Now in MA, yeah, they might go for the jugular, but what exactly
is going to happen? We don't exactly have a groundswell of support
to tap into in this state. So chances are, they could get away
with a ban scot free. All you're doing in this case, by helping the
antis, is reducing the size of the escape window for those of us trying
to leave the slowly leaking ship. That's a better analogy to describe MA...
this ship is sinking, so you think its better to just blow a hole in the bottom
of it to sink it faster? That makes a lot of sense. [rolleyes]

Maybe on a national level I could agree with you- but certainly not on an
MA centric basis. Goading people like Barrios, Patrick, and Coakley
doesn't really accomplish anything productive. They can -get away- with
banning stuff and laugh at anyone who opposes them, as the opposition
is minimal. Goading congress over the incorportion of the 2nd
amendment (or not) on the other hand, could achieve some real-world
gains.


-Mike
 
codenamepaul said:
The issue is this. We know the inevitable is inevitable (no need to further the discourse on this subject) and we know how it's going to come about. Why is it you vote to slow or delay the inevitable? Is it so your children, who may not have the same feelings as you, have to deal with the crap you left them? Is it because you believe that you are helping by slowing it?
Click to expand...


No Paul, it's not a matter of slowing it. It's letting those who would make our lives miserable know that not EVERYONE is for them. It's letting them know that there are a number of us who DO NOT agree with them, and in some cases, a lot of us who will continue to fight to keep them from having eveything their way. That's why I voted the way I did.
 
If I could guarantee that they would never have another wreck( another statistical probability) then I'd give them the keys now (at 11 and 14) and get it out of the way.

As far as giving up my guns? No problem... but it will be on my terms.
 
Dr. Grant

I believe you are not looking at the picture in a bigger light. As go the coasts-so goes the rest. Several attempts at outright bans have been attempted in CA. They have passed,yet failed muster with the state constitution. The anti's have had their way and we've seen it. MA compliant and CA compliant guns? I own neither, but the term is not unfamiliar to any of us.

Now-with that in mind, and our new Democrat controlled government, what time is riper for an attempt than now? I say let them go for broke and see what the country really thinks. If it flies, there will be a showdown. The scale is a different matter. Win or lose is no longer a relevent point. Those that care enough may not see the outcome.
 
So if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night you just stand and watch as your wife is accosted (I'm being polite there) and your kids are beaten and tell the CRIMINAL that you would shoot him and defend your family, but it is inevitable that your guns will be taken by the government, so you shouldn't really possess them anyways, so go to it????

Vote for the candidates who uphold the Bill of Rights, and ALL if it. Don't give an inch. Even if you give a little, say another AWB, then only the elite will possess firearms so they can go sporting clays shooting off their yachts and have their body gaurds armed against the CRIMINALS who STILL have guns!!! Only the law abiding citizens will lose their guns.
 
Lynne said:
No Paul, it's not a matter of slowing it. It's letting those who would make our lives miserable know that not EVERYONE is for them. It's letting them know that there are a number of us who DO NOT agree with them, and in some cases, a lot of us who will continue to fight to keep them from having eveything their way. That's why I voted the way I did.
Click to expand...

They know not everyone agrees. They could care less. They don't get, however, that we do not live in a democracy where the rules are subject to the whim of the majority. We live in a constitutional republic, where the rules are dictated by a document wherein the rules are memorialized. They believe that it is a living document to be changed as desired. They feel that -given enough time-they will get their way. I say give them their way and let them see how bad it gets, both from an oppositional point of view and (if successful) a criminal point of view. I will have my guns-as will my children- regardless of the law. Whether I get to enjoy them regularly is a different tale altogether.
 
codenamepaul said:
They know not everyone agrees. They could care less. They don't get, however, that we do not live in a democracy where the rules are subject to the whim of the majority. We live in a constitutional republic, where the rules are dictated by a document wherein the rules are memorialized. They believe that it is a living document to be changed as desired. They feel that -given enough time-they will get their way. I say give them their way and let them see how bad it gets, both from an oppositional point of view and (if successful) a criminal point of view. I will have my guns-as will my children- regardless of the law. Whether I get to enjoy them regularly is a different tale altogether.
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from Paul, but I'll still vote against them. Enough people have given them their mandate. I just can't be one of them without getting violently ill.
 
codenamepaul said:
Dr. Grant

I believe you are not looking at the picture in a bigger light. As go the coasts-so goes the rest.
Click to expand...
Not really- if anything in the past 10-20 years, gun owners
and the NRA have made progress in states which were
lukewarm or indifferent have made considerable advances in improving
their laws. Shall-Issue CCW movement is a perfect example of
this. Most of the states are not nearly as corrupt as a gerrymandered
commie community like CA, or a socialist hack-village like MA is.

Further, MA, CA, NY, NJ, and most of the other commie states are
not the bellweather or national metric of politics in this country. If that
were the case, Kerry would be president right now. Hell, Dennis
Kucinich probably would be, if those states were the determining factor.

Please, show me proof of the "ooze" of gun control beyond
states which didn't already have a huge socialism/hack problems
to begin with. Gun control isnt some sort of virus, it's an end
product/ of socialist/communist policy.


Several attempts at outright bans have been attempted in CA. They have passed,yet failed muster with the state constitution. The anti's have had their way and we've seen it. MA compliant and CA compliant guns? I own neither, but the term is not unfamiliar to any of us.
Click to expand...

You still havent explained how goading the antis in either of these "owned
by anti" states, would accomplish anything. About the only plus
sign for blowing up a state faster is it gets pro gun voters to flee
that state and perhaps populate another one and improve the
voter base in other pro-gun states, but not everyone can
afford to do that, and some can't leave for practical reasons.

Now-with that in mind, and our new Democrat controlled government, what time is riper for an attempt than now? I say let them go for broke and see what the country really thinks. If it flies, there will be a showdown. The scale is a different matter. Win or lose is no longer a relevent point. Those that care enough may not see the outcome.
Click to expand...

My point was is that there will be no "showdown" over what happens in
MA, so tossing ourselves overboard to the sharks before the ship sinks
really doesn't accomplish much. Seriously, what are we going to
do? Is the NRA going to go up to Teddy K and John "Liveshot" kerry and
say "Hey a**h***s, pay attention, we'll campaign against you" and
those hacks will just laugh at them. The cards are stacked against
us in MA. The rest of the country doesn't care, either. This state
is already the laughing stock of the nation; so why would they care if guns
got banned here? It would just be another amusing anecdote for
people to come up with when talking about massachusetts.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Grant-
You forget that an assault weapons ban-modeled in CA-made it to the Feds. That gave the idea to more states than not to get their own AWB's in place.
 
codenamepaul said:
Grant-
You forget that an assault weapons ban-modeled in CA-made it to the Feds. That gave the idea to more states than not to get their own AWB's in place.
Click to expand...

Those states would have done so with or without CA
doing it. Even if CA did it, and it had failed there, someone else
would have tried to do it, guaranteed. The bottom line is gun control
is either on someones agenda or it isnt. If it's on the plate, the powers
that be will figure out something dumb to attempt to pass.

Case in point- MD came out with Ballistic Fingerprinting program, the MPD
colonel or whoever recently went on TV and said the whole thing was a
tremendous failure and solved virtually no crimes, yet now there are
still people talking about doing ballistic fingerprinting in other states.
Why? Because some hack at Brady told them it would be a good idea.

These ideas all come out of a hack-farm sponsored by the VPC, HCI, and
Brady, and possibly AGS. These anti gun orgs lobby state and
federal legislators to see if they can get a sympathetic ear, and then when
they find someone who will listen, they give them a "talking
point" dumping and a manual of attack. They probably even send out
lawyers to help them write anti-gun legislation.

Another case in point- when the renewal issue came up, most of the
house and the senate members were pretty quiet about it... aside from
moonbats from CA, MA, and a couple of other states. The whining died off
after about week. Then they became suspiciously silent when there was not
some huge explosion of blood in the street when the AWB expired. I'm sure
many in attendance were muttering under their breath "Oh no, not this shit
again." The attempt at AWB renewal was like a half assed attempt
at tacking it onto the end of S397, and thats about all they could muster,
despite the large amount of seniority between all the antis involved.
It's going to take a long time before the memories of the post 94 massacre
go away. I'm not saying the feds wont try anything else, but an AWB
won't be viable unless they replace a majority of the seats with
pure moonbats.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Why do we need to give them the opportunity to see how gun control or an all out gun ban will fail since they could look to other countries who have done it and failed? Obviously they are ignoring this information and data, but it IS there for them to see. Maybe they think this is America and it will be different here? I don't think I need to rewrite all the different times gun bans have failed, as we have gotten 5000 emails and quotes about Hitler and Aussies and Brits, etc etc. The evidence is there, why do they not see it???
 
drgrant said:
...their strategies, and the people that Brady et al
employ, are actually pretty smart. Trying to goad them into banning
everything at once will result in failure. They -want- to use
incrementalism.... because they know that long term, it will be more
effective. ...
Click to expand...

So, what is the problem here? Why isn't the opposing side using incrementalism right back if it is so effective? It seems more like no steps forward, two steps back.
 
Coyote33 said:
So, what is the problem here? Why isn't the opposing side using incrementalism right back if it is so effective? It seems more like no steps forward, two steps back.
Click to expand...

Well, we are, as a whole, maybe not so in MA... The problem is you -still-
need legislative assistance and VOTES to make even baby steps.
That's why you don't see this happening much in MA. We don't have
much of either of those here.... in other states they get traction because
they have more members, and they can get a hold of legislators that aren't
completely corrupt and have power to introduce bills that won't die on
the vine. That makes a big difference. (Whereas in MA, the legislators
routinely shit on the voters.... did you hear about the CONCON vote today,
where they tanked the 179,000 signature referendum bid to make gay
marriage a ballot question? ) Typical.


-Mike
 
Hmmm what is your real name Paul,all this "codename" BS makes me paranoid. :)

Seriously though,using your logic you should just throw yourself into the path of a 53 ft semi and kill yourself.

You're going to die eventually right ?Why not go out on your own terms ?
 
11333388496758yhva3.gif
 
Greg,my real name is Paul-thus the irony of the screen name

Curly maple-you are using well thought out and reasoned logic. Anti-gunners run on strict emotion-not the facts.

Greg and BPM- this is not about throwing myself to the sharks. This is about chumming for them. The question that begs an answer then is whether or not your boat is big enough to haul his ass in! (smell what I'm steppin' in here?)

Dr. Grant
I admire your optimistic outlook, yet I pity your lack of observation. I agree the "pro-gun groups" are trying. They continue to have my moral and even financial support. But-What are they trying to do? At best they (also) slow the progress. Any steps-those you view as progress-are merely a slowdown or a momentary stop. To suggest that any national pro gun group is moving the ball FORWARD is not seeing the facts for what they are. Name an instance where this occurred. I also suggest that ANY support for ANY type of control-and that is ANY- is an assault on the 2A. There is no provision for anything regarding any gun control whatso ever that is supported by it. Yes, this means excluded classes of people (another unconstitutional ideology) or the background checks that discover them. There are no provisions for "sporting purposes" or imported parts. There are no provisions for magazine capacity or rate of fire, or barrel length, or silencers. The 2A adresses none of this. It says simply "..the right...shall not be infringed." It doesn't say 'except' or have any other provision for anything else.

As far as those states that would have an AWB anyway-CA gave them the courage to go forward. Illinois is a prime example of this. Make a thorough study of the timeline between CA, IL, and MA/Northeast. You will see (I did) that it is a wave across the country. Look at those states that shouldn't have an AWB but do. I think you'd be surprised.

The end game is inevitable. Gun control is just a small part of the game. Think of it as Mediterranean Ave in Monopoly. Or Boardwalk-your valuation may vary. Bottom line is the guy with the most property wins, not the most valuable. So gun control is a small part, but (I think) the catalytic one.
 
codenamepaul said:
Dr. Grant
I admire your optimistic outlook, yet I pity your lack of observation. I agree the "pro-gun groups" are trying. They continue to have my moral and even financial support. But-What are they trying to do? At best they (also) slow the progress. Any steps-those you view as progress-are merely a slowdown or a momentary stop. To suggest that any national pro gun group is moving the ball FORWARD is not seeing the facts for what they are. Name an instance where this occurred.
Click to expand...

So, adding shall-issue CCW and the castle clause, as well as stand your
ground to several states over the past decade or so isn't progress?
Increased reciprocity isn't progress? Adding S397 isn't progress? (albeit
small) Of course, you probably view permitting as a step backwards, but
I consider any "increase" in rights to be progress, frankly. We'll just have
to agree to disagree on that, I guess.

-Mike
 
Back
Top Bottom