Guns and debate

[Boats]

Bush Sr did the assault weapons ban

The AWB was passed during Clinton's first term.

 

[mudnducs]

This entire thread is proof as to why that rule is there

Really?

...and you think simply not talking about other Constitutional issues
....you think putting on the blinders and focusing on a single issue
...you think ignoring the willingness, no eagerness to trample your rights elsewhere, will stop at the RKBA?
....that it will hold a progreeeesive from coming for your RKBA when it suits him or that he will stand and face the other looters when he is on the spot?

Do you actually believe that?

 

[Gunner3456]

Really?

...and you think simply not talking about other Constitutional issues
....you think putting on the blinders and focusing on a single issue
...you think ignoring the willingness, no eagerness to trample your rights elsewhere, will stop at the RKBA?
....that it will hold a progreeeesive from coming for your RKBA when it suits him or that he will stand and face the other looters when he is on the spot?

Do you actually believe that?

I do. I'll accept anyone as a partner in a battle for gun rights. I won't lose him as a partner because I feel like debating other issues on which we disagree.

Besides, like I said, I hate everyone anyway.

 

[matt_w]

This thread needs a funny picture. Although maybe this one should go in the militia thread...

 

[goneshooting]

The problem is not ever one thinks the same

here on the board we have a common ground its Gun ownership and right to own and protect our second amendment

Here we find common ground with others who may not share ones views views on religion , politics , ford or chevy ect ect but we all enjoy sport shooting collecting hunting and shooting and i don't care what your personal beliefs are if your standing for gun rights i'll stand beside you but may stand against you in other arenas

Here we stand together people who otherwise would not stand together for the sake of protecting our right to defend all other rights

People who stir the pot do so to start fights and to separate us if we are divided we shall fall. and thats a fact .

Who cares if people fight over politics in some motorcycle forum thats fine but here we need to keep our focus on one issue our right to bear arms . Read the title of this board its not northwestpolitical its northwestfirearms it is a firearm forum .

Let keep it that way if you want to discuss something else start your own board and stop trying to divide us.

there have been many times i have wanted to speak my mind but did not as i knew it was against the rules and it may start a fight

this is just not the place to do that

 

[goneshooting]

This thread needs a funny picture. Although maybe this one should go in the militia thread...

yep what this tread needs is more funny

 

[PhysicsGuy]

Really?

...and you think simply not talking about other Constitutional issues
....you think putting on the blinders and focusing on a single issue
...you think ignoring the willingness, no eagerness to trample your rights elsewhere, will stop at the RKBA?
....that it will hold a progreeeesive from coming for your RKBA when it suits him or that he will stand and face the other looters when he is on the spot?

Do you actually believe that?

Do you really think that the founding fathers didn't have vast differences between them when writing the constitution?

They put their differences aside in order to pursue a goal, and I would expect the same amount of maturity and level-headiness here, but I guess that expectation has been let down here on many occasions.

 

[ZachS]

I don't want to detract from this excellent post in any way, but....

Who cares if people fight over politics in some motorcycle forum thats fine but here we need to keep our focus on one issue our right to bare arms . Read the title of this board its not northwestpolitical its northwestfirearms it is a firearm forum .

Well, maybe I want to detract from it a little.

 

[Boats]

The Founders all had "skin in the game." Nowadays a certain faction is all for guns until their anti-gun leadership says "Boo!" and then "other issues" become paramount.

Patton once said he'd rather have a German division in front of him than a French division behind him. Liberal gun owners give off that same untrustworthy vibe.

 

[PhysicsGuy]

The Founders all had "skin in the game." Nowadays a certain faction is all for guns until their anti-gun leadership says "Boo!" and then "other issues" become paramount.

Patton once said he'd rather have a German division in front of him than a French division behind him. Liberal gun owners give off that same untrustworthy vibe.

Reminds me of a quote;

“Prejudices are what fools use for reason.”

 

[Boats]

Quit sloganeering and tell me why I am wrong.

 

[goneshooting]

The Founders all had "skin in the game." Nowadays a certain faction is all for guns until their anti-gun leadership says "Boo!" and then "other issues" become paramount.

Patton once said he'd rather have a German division in front of him than a French division behind him. Liberal gun owners give off that same untrustworthy vibe.

you do bring up a good point and there are certain members or former members that were here just to stir things up and try to discredit members who were concerned about certain 2nd amendment issues .

 

[PhysicsGuy]

Quit sloganeering and tell me why I am wrong.

Because you have a distrust in anyone who is a liberal, this is a form of prejudice. I don't mean to attack you or anything, just that it usually doesn't help the situation to group everyone together, although we are all entitled to our opinions.

But in order for us to actually stand for our gun rights, we're going to have to put aside the differences, and realize that not everyone fits into their stereotype, or else we will remain a divided group, who squabbles with each other every time an unrelated issue comes up.

 

[Gunner3456]

Quit sloganeering and tell me why I am wrong.

Old sayings get to be old sayings only if they have truth in them.

 

[Boats]

Old sayings get to be old sayings only if they have truth in them.

Lots of old sayings are perpetuated by people who couldn't think their way out of a cul-de-sac.

 

[Gunner3456]

I don't want to detract from this excellent post in any way, but....






Well, maybe I want to detract from it a little.

No, it's the "right to bear arms."

 

[Gunner3456]

...people who couldn't think their way out of a cul-de-sac.

Yeah, I run into people like that here and there.

 

[matt_w]

or

depending on your interpretation of the constitution.

 

[bugeye]

Why would I join sell-outs, because you found it so easy?

The party you support is such a bunch of sell outs you can buy them with a single check, While it takes as many as ten checks to buy the dems. Point here is, there isn't all that much difference between our two corporate parties. I can vote for a republican or an independent and I have done so. As far as judging politicans by who lies the most, I can't count fast enough to tell who is ahead.

On the amendments, 4, 9&10, and 14 are issues, 14 the most important because it is the inroad for most illegals in this country to gain citizenship by being parents of citizens.

As to the other 100 issues they are trivial matters to you, things like wars, employment, ability to manipulate the political system with money, health care, regulation, financial markets, environment, taxes, distribution of funds to states, budgets, emergency services, appointees to key posts in the government, pecking order of the sacred cows, and what kind of people get made judges.

On that last point, 5 republican nominees to the supreme court just gave corporations the right to spend without limits on elections, the single worst legal decision I can imagine for the future of America. I've read the statements and find no constitutional basis for this insane act of judicial activism. I guess thees justices felt that the corporations lacked sufficient channels for influencing politics, and that the constitution granted corporations the power of super individuals despite them failing a basic test by not being alive.

 

[mudnducs]

Do you really think that the founding fathers didn't have vast differences between them when writing the constitution?

They put their differences aside in order to pursue a goal, and I would expect the same amount of maturity and level-headiness here, but I guess that expectation has been let down here on many occasions.

No.

I think the Founding Fathers differences were in detail comparred to the differences we are seeing today.

Among others; there were differences in the (already well known at that time) battle over the institution of slavery.
There were differences over what the role of the Fed should be and what authority it was/should take over American life....but nothing like we see today.

Americans were in support of an RKBA
Americans were in support of small/weak centralized authority (having just come out of a fierce battle with a strong one).
Americans were in suport of states rights over a Federal government....that's why we have a Bill of Rights. We did not trust a strong central authority.
Americans were in support of a capitalistic system where every man was free to follow his own path.


We see the exact opposite of that today....you see Americans clamoring for a strong central authority.
You see Americans extremely ignorant of capitalism; down on the very capitalistic system which built America into the lone powerhouse on the planet today.
Incredibly, you see it here and you see these views defended...typically with some lame argument that yesterdays Constitution has no relevance today...yet somehow a 152 year old Communist Manifesto is entirely relevant.

B O L O G N A