Newbies who question our gun rights dedication.

[CRSIII]

I keep hearing (not just in this thread) about the gov. "trusting us" to own firearms. Is it me, or does this concept seem f'ing ridiculous? I thought the people who wrote the bill of rights wanted us to be leery of gov? If this was the case, who cares if the gov. does'nt trust us? I'm under the impression we should not trust them implicitly.

 

[jdubois]

To attibute all 400,000 gun crimes commited each year to only legal gun owners would not be accurate. It is probably accurate to say that 90% of said 400,000 gun crimes are caused by illegal gun posessors.

Hmm, now that's an interesting point. I assumed the 70-80 million number from the NRA meant total legal and "illegal" gun owners. I wonder which it is they're estimating.

 

[GaryO]

I need to spend more time on the board and read all the posts. I missed the newbies post

 

[Scrivener]

That put the image in my head of Baldrick from "Blackadder" creating the Constitution. "I have a cunning plan..."

Precisely.

Don't forget the turnip.........

 

[Scrivener]

i here by pass the "worse english grammar poster ever @ NES" title to the new champion, bvet4dog.

congrats!

And a hard-fought victory it was!

I think it was the added element of cretinism that made the "vet" the top dog.

 

[arlow]

Hmm, now that's an interesting point. I assumed the 70-80 million number from the NRA meant total legal and "illegal" gun owners. I wonder which it is they're estimating.

I am fairly certain that 80,000,000 figure is only taking into account legal gun owners. But then it is only an estimate extrapolated from numerous polls that indicate that close to 50 percent of the homes in America are gun owning homes. (illegal gun owners would not typically acknowledge they have guns)

 

[Dench]

I think it was the added element of cretinism that made the "vet" the top dog.

<-- over the former champs' head.

 

[Mikey]

I keep hearing (not just in this thread) about the gov. "trusting us" to own firearms. Is it me, or does this concept seem f'ing ridiculous? I thought the people who wrote the bill of rights wanted us to be leery of gov? If this was the case, who cares if the gov. does'nt trust us? I'm under the impression we should not trust them implicitly.

I hear what you are saying but that is not what I was talking about.

I am talking about politicians themselves. Meaning if Obama or McCain or any other person running for office does not "trust" me with guns then they will not get my vote. I am talking about the election and being a "one issue" voter. The first thing I look at is how this individual person feels about my guns, does he trust me with them or not? If not he will not get my vote b/c IMO it is a sign of what he thinks about me and my ability to control my life and a sign of how he will govern .

 

[CRSIII]

I am a human being, I dont want to be governed! I'll govern my damn self, and if I step out of line, my neighbors will surley deal with me. I want our elected leaders to do our bidding, pave the roads, put out fires, and keep the sneaking thieves out of my country. They can stay the F out of my bussiness and let us produce the best product the world has to buy, what ever it is.
Maybe we can even put a little something aside for those who were dealt a shitty hand!

Mikey, nothing personal here, I just think kneeling prostrate, and hoping for the best got us where we are now.

A little here, a little there, next thing you know, the water is boiling and the frog is cooked.

If I'm off my nut here, let me know. It won't change my perspective, but at least I'll have some.

 

[Jedhed]

I hear what you are saying but that is not what I was talking about.

I am talking about politicians themselves. Meaning if Obama or McCain or any other person running for office does not "trust" me with guns then they will not get my vote. I am talking about the election and being a "one issue" voter. The first thing I look at is how this individual person feels about my guns, does he trust me with them or not? If not he will not get my vote b/c IMO it is a sign of what he thinks about me and my ability to control my life and a sign of how he will govern .

So, are you not voting this November? Obviously, McCain is the better choice, but...

 

[Scrivener]

Oh wow, they have books on the Constitution and BoR? My friends have been telling me I must watch the musical 1776 to learn about them.

The depths of your ignorance may never be plumbed.

Those of us who, unlike you, actually have some grasp of the subject are aware that 1776 has nothing to do with either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Go back to your GameBoy; the adults are talking.

 

[Mikey]

Mikey, nothing personal here, I just think kneeling prostrate, and hoping for the best got us where we are now.

A little here, a little there, next thing you know, the water is boiling and the frog is cooked.

If I'm off my nut here, let me know. It won't change my perspective, but at least I'll have some.

I am not disagreeing with you but I am also not really sure you are following what I am saying or maybe I am not following you...

So, are you not voting this November? Obviously, McCain is the better choice, but...

In a perfect world I would vote libertarian but this election I will vote "damage control". IMO McCain will not hurt gun rights if he is elected and if he does then he will most definitely be a one term president. I think he knows that. Plus we have to think about the Supreme Court.

Look at McCain's record. Not perfect but pretty damn good.

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/john_mccain_gun_control.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm#Gun_Control

 

[MassMark]

Mikey - excellent posts. +1

Bvet - are you serious or just pushing buttons?

 

[Arioch]

As a point of clarification, the Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the constitution. As amendments, I believe that they then become a full and functional part of the document. Just as all later amendments did.

 

[dwarven1]

And a hard-fought victory it was!

I think it was the added element of cretinism that made the "vet" the top dog.

Perhaps it's time to send that dog to the vet?

I keep hearing (not just in this thread) about the gov. "trusting us" to own firearms. Is it me, or does this concept seem f'ing ridiculous? I thought the people who wrote the bill of rights wanted us to be leery of gov? If this was the case, who cares if the gov. does'nt trust us? I'm under the impression we should not trust them implicitly.

Exactly what I was trying point out earlier.

Look at McCain's record. Not perfect but pretty damn good.

Really? Here's my rebuttal: McCain-Feingold. The man pissed all over the First Amendment with that one. I'll still hold my nose and vote for him - he's better than Mr Hopey-changey - but McCain, if there's ANY justice, should be being haunted by the shades of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin for that abomination.

 

[jhblaze1]

Perhaps it's time to send that dog to the vet?


Exactly what I was trying point out earlier.


Really? Here's my rebuttal: McCain-Feingold. The man pissed all over the First Amendment with that one. I'll still hold my nose and vote for him - he's better than Mr Hopey-changey - but McCain, if there's ANY justice, should be being haunted by the shades of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin for that abomination.

I'll take McCain-Feingold over Adams' Sedition Act any day. The latter was a much worse abomination of the 1st ammendment.

 

[pdm]

Really? Here's my rebuttal: McCain-Feingold. The man pissed all over the First Amendment with that one. I'll still hold my nose and vote for him - he's better than Mr Hopey-changey - but McCain, if there's ANY justice, should be being haunted by the shades of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin for that abomination.

Amen.

 

[Scrivener]

I'll take McCain-Feingold over Adams' Sedition Act any day. The latter was a much worse abomination of the 1st ammendment [sic].

Worse than McCain's disgusting alliance with Feingold was the Supreme Court's disgraceful disregard of the First Amendment by upholding the McCain-Feingold abomination. Just as it whored out the Fourth Amendment in the Kelo decision.

 

[Mikey]

Really? Here's my rebuttal: McCain-Feingold. The man pissed all over the First Amendment with that one. I'll still hold my nose and vote for him - he's better than Mr Hopey-changey - but McCain, if there's ANY justice, should be being haunted by the shades of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin for that abomination.

I was solely referring to his gun record hence the title of the thread and the link to http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/john_mccain_gun_control.htm

 

[dwarven1]

If he's willing to restrict the First Amendment, what ELSE will he restrict?

 

[Negotiator]

I was solely referring to his gun record hence the title of the thread and the link to http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/john_mccain_gun_control.htm

"I know how to use guns; but I don't own one
Q: Tell us about your gun collection, roughly how many you own, what your favorite make, model and caliber is, if any of them require a tax stamp?
A: For a long time I used a lot of guns, including carrying a .45 as a pilot flying in combat over Vietnam. I know how to use guns. I don't own one now."

Good thing really. If he lost count of the homes he owns, no telling what would happen to any guns he had

 

[Mikey]

If he's willing to restrict the First Amendment, what ELSE will he restrict?

Well no matter what I say your going to bring up something showing how much he sucks but guess what, WE HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE! So lets do what we have to and keep Obama out of the White House. I think we can agree on that.

Good thing really. If he lost count of the homes he owns, no telling what would happen to any guns he had

Even though I think every American should practice their Second Amendment rights just b/c you don't doesn't mean you can't support those who do.

 

[Scrivener]

Well no matter what I say your going to bring up something showing how much he sucks but guess what, WE HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE! So lets do what we have to and keep Obama out of the White House. I think we can agree on that.

Agreed.

McCain sucks like a shop vac with a new filter, but the alternative is even worse.

 

[M1911]

Well no matter what I say your going to bring up something showing how much he sucks but guess what, WE HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE! So lets do what we have to and keep Obama out of the White House. I think we can agree on that.

Indeed. McCain may give us heartburn, but Obama scares the poop out of me.

 

[arlow]

Indeed. McCain may give us heartburn, but Obama scares the poop out of me.

Me too.

However I will say this. It will be interesting to see what someone willing to work with both sides might be able to accomplish in this day and age of partisanship. We are way too polarized today and spend too much time fighting right against left than we do solving problems.

 

[BOBKATT]

However I will say this. It will be interesting to see what someone willing to work with both sides might be able to accomplish in this day and age of partisanship. We are way too polarized today and spend too much time fighting right against left than we do solving problems.

Who are you suggesting? And why do you feel that they will do this?

 

[dwarven1]

Well no matter what I say your going to bring up something showing how much he sucks but guess what, WE HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE! So lets do what we have to and keep Obama out of the White House. I think we can agree on that.

Unfortunately, yes. As I've said before, I will hold my nose and put a line next to McCain's name. I love America more than I hate McCain.

However I will say this. It will be interesting to see what someone willing to work with both sides might be able to accomplish in this day and age of partisanship.

You mean, say, like the NRA working with Brady to come up with a "compromise"?

Sorry, no. I've done enough compromising. It just means I get screwed a little at a time.

 

[Mikey]

arlow, I think you are missing the premise of this thread.

 

[theGringo]

Sorry, no. I've done enough compromising. It just means I get screwed a little at a time.

From Ayn Rand:

"The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles."

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."

 

[Nickle]

I believe they chose to put them in a separate document so they didn't get lost in the noise and explicitly spell out the rights of the people.

Nope.

Done afterwards, as certain states would NOT ratify the Constitution without the Rights spelled out.

So, they made the Bill of Rights, the first 10 ammendments to the Constitution.