A Gun -control exchange from Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate:
- Thread starter chieftain
- Start date
- Status
chieftain
Member
Not one pro Gun Democrat Supreme Court Justice. Not all the Republican Justices are pro gun either. All the Pro gun Justices are Republican. Do the math. Not only the President but the CongressCritters need to be Republican too.
No guarantee with a Republican either. But there is no hope with a Democrat.
Even your CongressCritters, even though there is a small number of pro gun Democrats, or some that say they are pro gun, to get elected. When they vote for conformation of a pro gun Supreme Courts justice, they will vote against him/her for other reasons, mainly because they are a Republican. For the handful of Democrats that may in fact be an exception, and I do mean 1 or 2.
So there it is folks, we are stuck with the Republicans. There are many other issues, and each American must decide for themselves.
ME?
I vote pro gun. That is why I am registered Republican and vote in the Republican Primaries. Because that is where the only hope of keeping my guns resides.
I am a civil rights activist, and I am Pro Gun. I am the NRA too. They ain't perfect either. But they have been doing more for my right ot keep my guns than any other organization. Training, Safety, Competition, and Legal rights. If you are pro gun and not a member of the NRA, you are blowing smoke. It doesn't mean don't belong and support other groups. It means belong to the NRA. It is the 400 lbs Gorilla that even the anti gun/civil rights folks listen to. That's all.
Go figure.
Fred
-terry
Member
Boy, you one-issue voters are really something. Have you guys forgotten already the mess Bushy has put us in? Another Republican? Sheesh.
General Geoff
Member
Gun rights are often considered the most important, for without them, all else is lost to attrition.
fletcher
Member
Now if only she would apply that reasoning to all of her other policies.
chieftain
Member
Illegal aliens? How would the Dimocrats be an improvement?
Excessive spending? How would the Dimocrats be an improvement?
The global War on Terrorism? Besides surrendering, How would the Dimocrats be an improvement?
Just what do you REALLY BELIEVE the Dimocrats do better. Beside surrender, raise taxes, and give away more of my money? Just what does any Dimocrat offer?
Go figure.
Fred
GTSteve03
Member
All of you "as long as I have my guns" types are really 
-ing off the rest of us that would like to see our freedom of speech and protection from illegal search/seizures come back.
Hell, I'd figure most of you "from my cold dead hands" types would want a Democrat to actually try and get a gun ban passed, that way you could fulfill your fantasies of holding off a bunch of JBTs single-handedly.
Some of us would rather work towards getting a President that respects the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION, rather than one that just has an R next to his name. :banghead:
-ing off the rest of us that would like to see our freedom of speech and protection from illegal search/seizures come back.Hell, I'd figure most of you "from my cold dead hands" types would want a Democrat to actually try and get a gun ban passed, that way you could fulfill your fantasies of holding off a bunch of JBTs single-handedly.
Some of us would rather work towards getting a President that respects the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION, rather than one that just has an R next to his name. :banghead:
Deer Hunter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,097
Every feel-good legislation brought to light for the cameras becomes horribly skwewed and woefully inclusive to a point where the legislation becomes corrupted and misused. Think about the ADA. In this legislation, if I have trouble operating a phone, I can be labeled as a disabled person and park in all the good places.
I think part of the answer to that is there is a huge number of the voting eligible public that are clueless on a particular issue. 2A seems to fit that bill. For example, I had my 82 year old mother-in-law and my 45 year brother-in-law complete the survey on electoralcompass.com. They both answered the question of "Should semi-automatic weapons be banned?" They both answered with a resounding "Completely Agree". I asked them both, do you understand what a semi-automatic is? They said of course, it goes rata-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat. I said no that's a fully automatic weapon AKA a machine gun. And that semi-automatic would include things like pistols, rifles and shotguns. Their response was, it doesn't matter we don't like guns anyway.
What that tells me is that if someone is generally resistant to an issue a politician providing dubious facts only reinforces the person's belief, lie or not. In other words, tell me what I want to hear. The truth sometimes seems to be an inconvenient nusance.
Dravur
Member
and that is definitely one of the dem candidates.
<sarcasm off>
SWMAN
Member
Clinton doesn't have a clue. Her gun control ideas are about as intelligent as her proposal to freeze home mortgage interest rates.
BobbyQuickdraw
Member
I can't find it now, but I had read about the technical limitations of the database, in regards to the microstamping. Though I found an article similar to it that was dated 2002, so my info was probably a good bit out of date. The tech is probably there to handle some aspects of it, but that doesn't change this fact about the CA database:
A California Department of Justice survey, using 742 guns used by the California Highway Patrol as a test bed, showed very poor results; even with such a limited database, less than 70% of cases of the same make as the "fingerprint" case yielded the correct gun in the top 15 matches; when a different make of ammunition was used, the success rate dropped to less than 40%. California has passed a bill AB 1471 which requires all new models of handguns to be equipped with microstamping technology by 2010.
A California Department of Justice survey, using 742 guns used by the California Highway Patrol as a test bed, showed very poor results; even with such a limited database, less than 70% of cases of the same make as the "fingerprint" case yielded the correct gun in the top 15 matches; when a different make of ammunition was used, the success rate dropped to less than 40%. California has passed a bill AB 1471 which requires all new models of handguns to be equipped with microstamping technology by 2010.
yeah, thats the statement I got stuck on, too. I've seen the stats, and this is a boldfaced lie. Two things happen, though: 1) the media will NOT call her out on this statement and 2) a statement that goes unchallenged (by the media) essentially becomes "truth" to those who don't bother to actually check these things out. The mainstream media is complicit in the lie.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
Sadly, I think many of the public will believe Hilary's CRAP, that she doesn't want to ban all guns, only "illegal guns".
Everyone else knows that all Hilary wants to do is BAN ALL GUNS.
punchdrunk
Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2007
- Messages
- 87
Too bad no one knowledgeable enough could call
Rodham on her nonsense about the semi auto rifle ban.
You hear about Hilary "rodham" clinton. Lotta people talk about George "w"
Bush. William "jefferson" clinton. But you never hear anyone talk about Barack "Hussien" Obama. Its almost like this anti-gun loony is ashamed of his own middle name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Rodham on her nonsense about the semi auto rifle ban.
You hear about Hilary "rodham" clinton. Lotta people talk about George "w"
Bush. William "jefferson" clinton. But you never hear anyone talk about Barack "Hussien" Obama. Its almost like this anti-gun loony is ashamed of his own middle name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
TwitchALot
Member
USMarine said:
Even I believe her when she says that. The difference is that I think she's going to try to make all guns illegal, and then of course, go after those "illegal guns." You have to watch for these political loopholes, marine.
22-rimfire
Member
(Underlined items added for emphasis.)
As I recall, it was Bill Clinton that started forcing more restrictions on FFL holders through the ATFE. Prior to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton (remember, this is where she got all her "experience".) normal folks could qualify for a FFL and could essentially buy and sell at gun shows exclusively or simply order guns for friends through their license. As I understand it, that all stopped with Bill & Hillary Clinton... all of a sudden you needed a store, hours posted etc.
Hillary infers that "we" stopped assault weapons from getting into the hands of criminals and now police deaths have increased during the Bush administration. Bunch of BS and political double talk.
So, now she doesn't want national registration and licensing of handguns?? She might not lead the charge due to politics at the moment, but she would certainly support it as a "reasonable" approach to keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. More BS. She has not changed, period. She never will. She is a socialist.
dmftoy1
Member
Yup, one of those kitchen table FFL's here that fled during the Clinton years . . . .basically what the Clinton's did that I had never seen in any prior administration is that they used every "executive order" loophole they could to further their agenda, whether it was to shut down the gun industry or to close off BLM lands to four wheel drive access. If you want to find another group who felt persecuted by the Clinton's talk to the members of UFWDA.
One they ran out of "executive orders" then they decided to use the justice department . . .they sued the heck out of big tobacco and were poised to do the same to the gun industry and ran out of time.
Just my .02
Regards,
Dave
One they ran out of "executive orders" then they decided to use the justice department . . .they sued the heck out of big tobacco and were poised to do the same to the gun industry and ran out of time.
Just my .02
Regards,
Dave
K3
Member
Assuming there was a viable candidate that fit this criteria....
I like Ron Paul, but mainstream party types marginalized the guy early on, and it's awfully hard to come back from that. Especially when he has brain pharts and starts sounding like a kook when he opens his mouth. Regardless of whether or not his views have substance behind them, and regardless of whther or not a conspiracy is real, if you go talking about conspiracies, the sheep will not follow you. Especially when the media is one of the shepherds.
It seems the choices are 'dumb' and 'dumber' as far as a candidate's knowledge and respect for the USC and the fouonders' vision and intentions for this nation are concerned.
It won't be long until we're no different than the socialist nanny states in Yurope. We're well on our way already.
SamTuckerMTNMAN
Member
not alert enough
Not a prob. DOn't forget the NSA can siphon off every single phone and email communication in the US and much of the world and filter it almost instantly, record it, locate the speaker sender, and log all activities for a period of time. Britain keeps such records for a year. Keeping a registry of weapons, while expensive, is not too difficult because of computing power.
Basically it all boils down to this.
Psychopathic power mongers are going to continue to try to disarm free Americans continuously for all time as a necessary step before violent implementation of political control tactics. The more you resist and alert other free men and women and stay involved the more the fighting war is postponed.
I say fighting war not because people will fight to save guns necessarily, but because the final, end result, will be worth fighting for - only then, we won't be armed if they have their way.
ST
Not a prob. DOn't forget the NSA can siphon off every single phone and email communication in the US and much of the world and filter it almost instantly, record it, locate the speaker sender, and log all activities for a period of time. Britain keeps such records for a year. Keeping a registry of weapons, while expensive, is not too difficult because of computing power.
Basically it all boils down to this.
Psychopathic power mongers are going to continue to try to disarm free Americans continuously for all time as a necessary step before violent implementation of political control tactics. The more you resist and alert other free men and women and stay involved the more the fighting war is postponed.
I say fighting war not because people will fight to save guns necessarily, but because the final, end result, will be worth fighting for - only then, we won't be armed if they have their way.
ST
22-rimfire
Member
IF there was a registry, you'd have local newspapers developing lists of gun owners or grouping them by numbers... as a pubic service under the freedom of information act just like they did with concealed carry licenses here in TN. Next, law enforcement would come around if you had kids to verify that they were locked up (if there was such a law) or if you lived near a school etc. Don't you guys know, it's for the children.
mike101
Member
"We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again. We stopped it for awhile. Now they're back on the streets."
Sounds like Brady BS to me.
Sounds like Brady BS to me.
fireflyfather
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2006
- Messages
- 807
The registry part is easy, even child's play. Keeping it updated/accurate/out of the wrong hands, now that's a different story. Also, a ballistic fingerprint on half a billion-ish weapons? That's a whole nother order of magnitude in terms of data storage. Technically feasible? Probably. Ask the tech/forensics experts. Cost-effective? Not very likely. How much image data is necesary for a good ballistics fingerprint? And then.............What happens when I change ammo, change barrels, use the barrel for a long time, or when the test target is a different medium than the actual target/backstop? Oh, you mean you want to store ballistics data from several test rounds for each weapon to match cool & hot barrels? Please. Pure fantasy.
KBintheSLC
Member
You are right. You should see the amount of data that goes through the NYSE through electronic transactions EVERY DAY. There are literally billions of shares traded on any given day, and it runs quite well.
The real issue here is that the federal government needs to keep their nose out of our lives. Extreme dems like Clinton love massive gov control.
- Status
