PDA

View Full Version : gangbangers!


trigger happy
05-08-2005, 7:17 PM
how many would agree that the sweeping gun reform laws that have evolved over the years have stemmed from gang related shootings and their choice of the so called AW?

trigger happy
05-08-2005, 7:17 PM
how many would agree that the sweeping gun reform laws that have evolved over the years have stemmed from gang related shootings and their choice of the so called AW?

Librarian
05-08-2005, 7:29 PM
I believe very few would agree.

The 'so called assault weapons' are in fact NOT any group of criminal actors' 'weapon of choice'; firearms recovered and associated with use in crimes show all versions of 'assault weapons' at 2%-4% of the total.

Whenever a grabber wants to demonize another weapon or class of weapons - 'Saturday night specials', 'pocket rockets', 'concealed pistols', 'sniper rifles', '.50 caliber weapons', the grabber claims it is someone's 'weapon of choice' for some criminal activity.

Rascal
05-08-2005, 8:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Librarian:
I believe very few would agree.

The 'so called assault weapons' are in fact NOT any group of criminal actors' 'weapon of choice'; firearms recovered and associated with use in crimes show all versions of 'assault weapons' at 2%-4% of the total.

Whenever a grabber wants to demonize another weapon or class of weapons - 'Saturday night specials', 'pocket rockets', 'concealed pistols', 'sniper rifles', '.50 caliber weapons', the grabber claims it is someone's 'weapon of choice' for some criminal activity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
+1

LongBch_SigP226
05-08-2005, 8:34 PM
Nah, its more related to decline of quality of people that own guns. Go to any shooting range and you see what I mean. They are ruining it for rest of us.

Ducati748r
05-08-2005, 8:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DingChavez:
Nah, its more related to decline of quality of people that own guns. Go to any shooting range and you see what I mean. They are ruining it for rest of us. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I second that.

Ford8N
05-08-2005, 9:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nah, its more related to decline of quality of people that own guns. Go to any shooting range and you see what I mean. They are ruining it for rest of us.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please explain? http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

CowtownBallin
05-08-2005, 10:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ford 8N:

Please explain? http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the point Ding Chavez is getting at is that guns aren't just for rich white men anymore, but you have more and more minorities participating in gun ownership, and that makes him mad. Because we all know only white people know anything about guns and gun safety http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

(joking)

maxicon
05-08-2005, 11:09 PM
I believe it's due to perceptions of the politicians and the people who believe what the newspapers tell them that criminals are using these guns and other weapons. These perceptions come from Hollywood and media, and they have no idea how far off base they are.

A good example in the CA dangerous weapons laws is presence of martial arts weapons - nunchuks, ballistic knives, shuriken, and the "shobi-zue". A lot of those came from fears of Chinese gangs, obviously written in by someone who's seen too many kung-fu films.

Shuriken and ballistic knives are not particularly dangerous as real weapons. The shobi-zue was in the law for years before they even defined what it was, and a google search would only come up with references to California law. Nobody knew what they were even talking about.

It's like they had Hunter Thompson brief them on what needed to be outlawed to get the Tongs under control.

Lipstick knives, air gauge knives, writing pen knives, all the same thing. What a bunch of nuts, and they're writing the laws!

Likewise, they see these black guns and Mac 10s in movies, and the streets are full of chaos from those gosh-darned things! Why, Uzis spew hundreds of rounds all up and down the streets - nobody could have a legit use for one!

I have no doubt this is the root of the problem, along with the fact that more and more people have never handled a gun or don't know anyone with a gun (that they're aware of), so they're unaware they're being BS'd.

As for the yahoo gun owners, they've always been with us. I think they have more effect within the gun community, and people outside the community are unaware of them.

LongBch_SigP226
05-09-2005, 12:00 AM
I think its a conspiracy with super elite powers of Hollywood are bribing politicans into banning Nunchuks, Shuriken, Katana, AK47s, AR15s, etc so that we all go to the movies and buy soda and popcorns.

ivanimal
05-09-2005, 12:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">how many would agree that the sweeping gun reform laws that have evolved over the years have stemmed from gang related shootings and their choice of the so called AW? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saying that would be too general. Like saying the goons we sometimes see at ranges represent gun owners. I have personally hunted with white-collar professionals, which I will never set a foot afield with ever again. They scare me more than range ninjas. It is never comfortable hunting with a person that wants to learn from mistakes.
Being ignorant to what we are all about is the worst reformist of all. A person who learns on the fly and makes decisions based on misinformation seems to be the biggest problem. If I was to be so general I would say that paranoia set forth by the media, from gun attacks of schools did more harm than anything.

Technical Ted
05-09-2005, 12:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ford 8N:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nah, its more related to decline of quality of people that own guns. Go to any shooting range and you see what I mean. They are ruining it for rest of us.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please explain? http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Probably means the typical two or three guys at every supervised range who are all new or infrequent shooters and don't have the common sense to bring an experienced shooter or read the rules before approaching the line. The two guys who walk past the row of men and boys standing behind the firing line to set their firearms on the a bench during the cease fire. The two guys who fail to hear the instructions to not stop at the benches after they've come back from the target line to post or check their targets.

You know, the two guys in every size, shape, color and age at every range who apparently can't hear, read, speak or understand English until the RSO yells at them two or three times over the PA.

PKAY
05-09-2005, 10:16 AM
It has been my observation that the media and the entertainment industry (and they overlap considerably) portray firearms in the hands of only two groups, cops and bad guys. I have never seen any portrayal other than that. You rarely if ever will see a firearm in the possession of, much less being used by, a simple, law-abiding civilian in a lawful manner or in self defense.

Shooting programming on The Outdoor Channel or The History Channel is it, period. And most city dwelling, movie going, TV watching, non firearm familiar dweebs never tune that in. These are the folks who make up the metropolitan masses and vote Blue in CA, San Francisco and environs, Los Angeles and environs, and San Diego and environs.

05-09-2005, 12:43 PM
I think it has a lot to do with how guns and shooters are portrayed in the news and entertainment media. Not that there is much of a difference between the two these days. Hollywood puts out TV shows and movies in which guns and shooting are portrayed only as being a part of crime. When was the last time you saw a TV show or movie in which a hunter was portrayed as a responsible gun owner? My answer is I have never seen that. Then you have the leftist media who know nothing about guns and easily fall for the hard core anti's propaganda. Case in point, the case two weeks ago about a boy in Richmond, CA busted with an AK. The story on KRON channel 7 news reported the gun was an SKS. When I emailed the producer about the mistake I got a snotty email reply saying I didn't know what I was talking about because the Richmond PD and ATF told him it was an SKS, which he claimed is banned in CA. Ignorance and stupidity, but that's what passes for journalism these days.

endings1@aol.com
05-09-2005, 2:15 PM
The reason CA and any state is anti-gun is because the pro-gunners(anyone that has a interest in anything gun related) do not vote, or do not care about the gun issue enough to elect a gun friendly canidate for office. We made our bed and now we are sleeping in it.

I am the reason, 52 freedom hating members of congress lost their seats after passing the first Federal "Assualt" Weapons BAN, yes...there will be others, freedom has a shelf life if you don't cherish it enough to vote for it! I'm the reason Grey Davis got the boot after returning the socialists political favors by signing off on more gun control(SB-23 - NO MILITARY STYLE WEAPONS AND OVER 10 ROUND MAGAZINES FOR CALIFORNIA)...and I'm the reason that gun grabbing Governator will get ZERO support from me ever! For banning the .50 BMG in California, not ONE stinking crime in CA commited with a .50 BMG. And, lastly I'm the reason BUSH is the stinking president, cos' he's pro gun, he let the AWB DIE and I will forever be grateful...like a liberated Iraqi, even tho my commie state of CA still won't give me my effing freedom. At least there's hope of re-locating to free America. Hate Bush? great! Point the finger at Feinstein, Shcumer, Kennedy, Clinton, CA, Kerry, Washington D.C., Hitler, U.S.S.R., China, Cuba, Iraq for putting him there! Bush represents the right to arm yourself with whatever you want! Viva Bush! Down to all Tyranny!!!!!

No offense, but I've been fighting the good fight for gun owners since I was old enough to vote, I'm 33 now. It's not a republican/democrat thing....any party will make my *****list when they ban guns. Without the right to bear arms, there's no freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, no right to not incriminate yourself.....everyone in America would be living in a Police State, not just California!

Only voting and violence fuels revolutions, which choice are you going to make? I prefer peace, through superiour voting numbers.

If you don't vote, ya can't *****! http://www.calguns.net/banghead.gif

Vote to hire! If you vote to fire, it's already too late...

Sincerely,

Your friendly neighorhood one issue voter.

-Stanze

P.S. I shot my SKS last weekend, although it was fun...it was heartbreaking, gone are the days of shooting 30 rounds and up through AR-15s, AKs thanks to the Nazis who run this POS state. The Del Mar gun show was a freaking joke w/ just 1 building half filled with gun related dealers, it used to be 3 buildings people!!!!!

P.P.S. let me also say...and I fear nothing from saying this, "If you don't vote, you're part of the problem".

RobsterCraw
05-09-2005, 7:58 PM
I just wish that we could own AR15s and such. I wouldn't even mind having to keep it at my local range in the custody of the range operators. I'm new to cali, I didn't know about that whole no pistol grip thing. Seems kinda silly.

Its not hard to get all kinds of guns and these are the guns that the criminals use (whatever they can get) the thing is they are more expensive than most desperate muggers can afford so they steal them from us, the legal owners. Perhaps with a little extra lock up, stolen legally owned guns won't be a big problem. Then anyone can justify allowing purchase of just about any gun even if it means having heavy regulation (i.e. restrict the user, not the weapon).

I don't like having to give up my rights to guns but I'm willing to compromise a little. I can pass any screening process they can come up with for gun ownership, and I bet most of ud responsible folks would too. I don't think stringent licensing is so bad compared to outright banning access to certain guns.

While you should never step back from your principles, we have to face the reality that if we want to make any progress towards 2nd amendment rights we need to compromise for the time being. If we can get our way a little bit and a few years from now the statistics back up our psoition we can get a little more, and a little more.

05-09-2005, 9:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stanze:
The reason CA and any state is anti-gun is because the pro-gunners(anyone that has a interest in anything gun related) do not vote, or do not care about the gun issue enough to elect a gun friendly canidate for office. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...or are willing to settle on less-than-adequate quality (in regards to the 2A) candidates strictly on the notion of silly party lines. It happens aaaaallll the time and I can point out a hundred examples.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am the reason, 52 freedom hating members of congress lost their seats after passing the first Federal "Assualt" Weapons BAN, yes...there will be others, freedom has a shelf life if you don't cherish it enough to vote for it! I'm the reason Grey Davis got the boot after returning the socialists political favors by signing off on more gun control(SB-23 - NO MILITARY STYLE WEAPONS AND OVER 10 ROUND MAGAZINES FOR CALIFORNIA)...and I'm the reason that gun grabbing Governator will get ZERO support from me ever! For banning the .50 BMG in California, not ONE stinking crime in CA commited with a .50 BMG. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All well and good (although I don't see the accuracy in the "socialist" hyperbole the same way) but never-the-less, it's noble to be involved and up to speed on the issues.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And, lastly I'm the reason BUSH is the stinking president, cos' he's pro gun, he let the AWB DIE and I will forever be grateful... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's put the brakes on this for a second now.

At the risk of being unpopular here (LOL, that's funny...)-

This is of course dated material, as Bush Jr. never had to come face to face with the proposal and dodged a major political bullet (among others) once again. I for one, however, will not forget his transgressions waged against gun owners. The NRA may (and they did and have), other fellow gun-nuts might (and they did and have as witnessed here and elsewhere on the net) but I will not. Ever. Period.

Even our enemies picked up on this quite well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even President Bush says he supports the assault weapons ban.* No word on whether the NRA will rename its website www.BushGunBan.org, (http://www.BushGunBan.org,) should the President decide to keep his word on the ban. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source. (http://www.csgv.org/issues/elections/ontarget/issue9.cfm)

In the above, they make a good point too.

More from the same:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society," Bush said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read it again.
This is our "pro-gun" president. It may be hard to suck it up and admit it, but these aren't the types of "pro-gunners" we can afford to elect to high office.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">like a liberated Iraqi, even tho my commie state of CA still won't give me my effing freedom. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not up to the state to give you your freedom. It's yours to take and no one, especially the government, has an honest, legal ability to steal powers not delegated to them. Period.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At least there's hope of re-locating to free America. Hate Bush? great! Point the finger at Feinstein, Shcumer, Kennedy, Clinton, CA, Kerry, Washington D.C., Hitler, U.S.S.R., China, Cuba, Iraq for putting him there! Bush represents the right to arm yourself with whatever you want! Viva Bush! Down to all Tyranny!!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you're joking. Really.
As for "free America", those who are content to live with any of the existing, unconstitutional restrictions on arms are not to be lauded, IMO.
How many groups in other "free states" are working dilligently to uproot other, long-standing gun control measures other than the few various concealed weapons wins here and there?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No offense, but I've been fighting the good fight for gun owners since I was old enough to vote, I'm 33 now. It's not a republican/democrat thing....any party will make my *****list when they ban guns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No offense either, but then why such strong support for Bush Jr.???

Let me refresh your memory:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society," Bush said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Without the right to bear arms, there's no freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, no right to not incriminate yourself.....everyone in America would be living in a Police State, not just California! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's called a slippery slope. Here's a good reference page. (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Only voting and violence fuels revolutions, which choice are you going to make? I prefer peace, through superiour voting numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. Who doesn't? I agree.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you don't vote, ya can't *****! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. The right to b*tch is firmly protected and guaranteed to the non-voting class too, but such b*tching will be less effective from those of that ilk.

endings1@aol.com
05-10-2005, 1:07 AM
I'm aware Bush said all that, and your facts are accurate...but, actions speak louder than words. And, after Sept 13, 2004 I heard the sound of folding stocks, flash hiders, fix bayonets, slapping 30 round magazines, installing pistol grips all over free America!

It truly was a miracle IMHO.

Seriously, the posts around here are starting to make me think some of you like getting your gun rights raped. Not me. (Not accusing anyone of)Dismiss me, nitpick, take my posts however you want. Not a flame whatsoever, but I don't need anyone's validation to defend the 2nd.

Take care,
Stanze

endings1@aol.com
05-10-2005, 1:51 AM
I'm aware Bush said all that, actions speak louder than words. Has Bush signed away any of our gun rights? I'd like to see just one piece of legislation that Bush has signed into law that violated our 2nd amendment rights. Please, point one out, cos' I haven't heard of one.

The expiration of the AWB is a miracle IMO.

I'm getting the feeling that some of this board are assimilating to the anti-gun/comprimise atmosphere of CA. I hope I'm wrong.

With all due respect, I don't need anyone's validation to defend the 2nd. And, I seriously don't give a two *****s that people may have a problem with me voting Bush in twice!http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I had to endure 8 years of Clinton! Enjoy!http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The day you buy that brand new non-politically butchered AR or AK on free soil is all I wanted.

Take care,
Stanze

endings1@aol.com
05-10-2005, 2:38 AM
The board was malfunctioning, I had thought I had lost my post, so I made another one, this time less "harsh"...lo and behold, they both show up. They are both good, I held back some, I only go hostile in debates with my friends...I don't get that vibe here. So, I'll keep my mouth shut more or less.http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

the 2nd, along with our other amendments and bill of rights are unrevokable rights fought and died for! They should never be used as bargaining chips on the political table. Freedom and democracy is a double edged sword, we have the freedom to remove our freedom as well as exercise it. It's up to the people to know want they want and stand up for it!

The people/corporations/special interest groups that rape and pillage our freedom and way of life are hoping that you don't give a *****, enough to show up on election day.

Why am I so passionate about freedom?

Here's the opposite of freedom: http://www.therealcuba.com

History has shown that gun control is alway's the first step towards tryanny.

ivanimal
05-10-2005, 12:58 PM
Stanze relax you are among friends! It has been an uphill fight and one we cannot lose. Many of us have voted for or stood by the lesser of two evils for 2nd Amendment sake. I have for 27 years now. I have heard so many non-shooters say, "What do you need one of those for?" too many times! We have to educate them. I do my part whenever I can take a person out to the range show them a good. safe time with firearms and plant the gun ownership seed. They eventually want an AR or something semi auto. It is just how it works. Hands up the people on this board who have been in my garage reloading, gunsmithing, shooting the bull or at the range with me free to shoot whatever you want of mine, safely. That is our greatest tool against the drones that read only the news and believe it. Now lets go shootin!

05-10-2005, 1:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stanze:
I'm aware Bush said all that, actions speak louder than words. Has Bush signed away any of our gun rights? I'd like to see just one piece of legislation that Bush has signed into law that violated our 2nd amendment rights. Please, point one out, cos' I haven't heard of one.

The expiration of the AWB is a miracle IMO.

I'm getting the feeling that some of this board are assimilating to the anti-gun/comprimise atmosphere of CA. I hope I'm wrong.

With all due respect, I don't need anyone's validation to defend the 2nd. And, I seriously don't give a two *****s that people may have a problem with me voting Bush in twice!http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I had to endure 8 years of Clinton! Enjoy!http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The day you buy that brand new non-politically butchered AR or AK on free soil is all I wanted.

Take care,
Stanze </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stanze, indeed you are among friends here. I'm pretty much a single issue voter myself. Problem with Cali is for statewide office we rarely have a candidate in the general election from ANY party that is strong on the 2nd Amendment. If you ever had the idea that Arnold was pro-gun you got some bad information. So, given that, gun rights are usually off the table, I still choose to vote.

On another subject, I agree it was good that President Bush did not push Congress to reauthorize the federal AWB, however he said again and again that he would sign it if they did. You can claim he was just being politic as he knew the current Congress would never pass the reauthorization and thus avoided negative PR from the gun grabbers. However, it hardly demonstrated his bona fides as a friend of gun rights. It will be interesting to see if he signs HR 1703 the Second Amendment Protection Act of 2005, should it pass Congress. I think that will give us a much better idea of Bush's position on the 2nd Amendment.

05-10-2005, 10:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stanze:
the 2nd, along with our other amendments and bill of rights are unrevokable rights fought and died for! <span class="ev_code_red">They should never be used as bargaining chips on the political table.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet, that's exactly what Bush Jr. did while he toyed with the AWB, garnering the soccer mom vote and appeasing those (including the NRA) who could not bring themselves to the reality that he was acting on interests other than those of the gun-owning voter.

Try to see the bigger picture:
{BB's std. disclaimer: this is not a flame...}

You've established that you are a one-issue voter (presumably 2A). You voted for Bush once, and then again in spite of your knowledge that he supported one of the most sweeping national gun bans in history -likely the biggest issue for gun owners ever... or so far, at least.
Now, Bush sits in office as a lame duck on his final term. At this point, the sky's the limit on what he could be persuaded to do if Congress got cracking and pushed for an expanded AWB. Those that have marginalized his statements, like the NRA, often cite the perceived "safety net" of having both branches of Congress stuffed with members with an {R} appended to their name as being the best prevention for this issue's recurrence. But is it?

Re: the passage of the 1994 AWB -
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The legislation was supported by 177 Democrats, <span class="ev_code_red">38 Republicans</span> and Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., and opposed by 137 Republicans and 77 Democrats. One unexpected supporter was retiring Minority Leader Robert H. Michel, R-Ill., a World War II infantryman who previously voted against another proposed ban on some assault weapons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

216-214...
Those 38 guys who must've be pro-gunners (see that {R} by their name) sure could've done us a favor back then.

source (http://www-tech.mit.edu/V114/N26/ban.26w.html )

Admittedly, my hypothetical above is fairly speculative and I'll even go so far as to invalidate the whole "theory" myself based on it's general unlikelihood, but only because the media buzz at the moment is not about guns like it was 10, 15, 20 years ago.
However, the real issue is not the micro -like a new and improved AWB- but rather, it's the macro.

See Stanze, you are an enabler (again, no flame intended).
Voting from a single-issue, pro-gun platform for a decidedly not-so-pro-gun President -or any candidate for that matter- enables the next luke-warm (2A) Presidential candidate to discount the likelihood of your "pro-gun" vote not going to him even if he does the same or worse than Bush did (or the next guy and so on...).
You are essentially "devaluing" your own vote and making it even easier for the Republicans (mostly) to back-burner the issue of the 2nd amendment and when necessary, even pander to the parties that oppose the RKBA and to do so with complete impunity.
This is why we are constantly stuck in the mire every election, choosing sh*tty candidates who can and will, and do, write-off the entire "hardline" gun lobby, gun owner vote. They do it, because we suck at being "hardline", and we reinforce that idea every election cycle when we follow the pattern. Period.
Our credibility is as sh*tty as out choices for "viable" candidates because the one-issue voters aren't voting their one-issue at all!!!

You'll disagree, but at least don't forget the actions of our so-called, "friends", lest they go down in history as great protectors of our freedoms.
They aren't.

...and I won't begrudge anyone for voting simple partisan politics either, like those who still think that our best choices for gun issues are the {R} guys, but the cost is often our freedoms and I've got more than just the 38 examples above to prove it.
JMO.

05-10-2005, 11:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stanze:
Here's the opposite of freedom: http://www.therealcuba.com
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The changing banner on the site sounds like a Bush Jr. call to arms to "liberate" Cuba as part of the GWOT. Could it be the next "tour" stop???
LOL.

How about instead of "46 years without human rights", it could say, "Lusted after by the USA for over a century and counting".

Search, Cuba here (http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm).

On a serious note:
My sister-in-law visited Cuba back in the early 90s and one morning her host family had left her a hard-boiled egg for a breakfast treat before they'd left for the day. In her haste to get going, she passed on their offering, as she was not hungry.

When she later returned and spoke with her hosts, they kindly explained that such a "treat" was indeed a rare one, and that although they knew it was mostly "cultural" for Americans to be very wasteful, they were none-the-less offended.

An egg... a freakin' egg.

Spotted Owl
05-11-2005, 8:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lipstick knives, air gauge knives, writing pen knives, all the same thing. What a bunch of nuts, and they're writing the laws! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sometimes I think our state legistators have the same mentality a high school term paper writer has: the need to pad and fill even though it adds nothing to the result.

Perhaps the legistators don't feel they're doing a good job if they don't pass another upteen thousand new laws and regulations every year. Like we didn't have enough already!

This attitude reminds me of something Chuckie Schumer said when he got elected to the Senate: "I have a passion to legislate". In my opinion, a "passion to legislate" should be a federal crime.