Dan from MI
Member
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Hillary loses....in the PRIMARY most likely to Mark Warner.
Here is Hillary already campaigning for Prez in 2008
- Thread starter Sawdust
- Start date
- Status
No, you don't need a .50. It isn't very practical. But you do not understand the strategy. The goal of some is to chip away at gun rights. Once the .50 is an "evil terrorist super-sniper rifle of death," smaller calibers can be targets for legislation.
Second, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to ban .50 caliber weapons. Doing so is allowing pointless, baseless government restriction of your second amendment rights.
Second, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to ban .50 caliber weapons. Doing so is allowing pointless, baseless government restriction of your second amendment rights.
only1asterisk
member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,412
Vang is right.
There are lots of people working very hard to disarm us. The squeeze us like a constrictor. Ever bit of ground we give, their coils get tighter.
Banning the 50 BMG is just an incremental step. It concerns very few shooters directly, but the precedent impacts all of us. They aren't going to stop or go away if we give in on this. They'll just demand something else.
There can be no compromise and only 1 outcome.
David
There are lots of people working very hard to disarm us. The squeeze us like a constrictor. Ever bit of ground we give, their coils get tighter.
Banning the 50 BMG is just an incremental step. It concerns very few shooters directly, but the precedent impacts all of us. They aren't going to stop or go away if we give in on this. They'll just demand something else.
There can be no compromise and only 1 outcome.
David
CAnnoneer
Member
Vang,
You may very well be right.
But, I do believe that reasonable compromise is possible. If I sit down on the table of negotiation with anti organizations and especially the dem leadership and I forge a compromise and have them agree to it on record, all sides win. I get what I really want and they can get back to their libs with bragging rights about stopping the evil 0.50. Later, if they break that agreement, they lose all credibility and commit political sepuku. What killed Hitler was not Poland 1939 but Munich 1938. After he broke his word, he lost all credibility and thus all chances of political resolution; then, it became only a matter of time...
Producing more polarization, less dialog, and more hatred only empowers the ultras on both sides. Then we all lose. Reference - the movie "Hell in the Pacific." The all-or-nothing attitude on both sides only means that as the pendulum of power swings, each side terribly suffers periodically.
You may very well be right.
But, I do believe that reasonable compromise is possible. If I sit down on the table of negotiation with anti organizations and especially the dem leadership and I forge a compromise and have them agree to it on record, all sides win. I get what I really want and they can get back to their libs with bragging rights about stopping the evil 0.50. Later, if they break that agreement, they lose all credibility and commit political sepuku. What killed Hitler was not Poland 1939 but Munich 1938. After he broke his word, he lost all credibility and thus all chances of political resolution; then, it became only a matter of time...
Producing more polarization, less dialog, and more hatred only empowers the ultras on both sides. Then we all lose. Reference - the movie "Hell in the Pacific." The all-or-nothing attitude on both sides only means that as the pendulum of power swings, each side terribly suffers periodically.
only1asterisk
member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,412
There can be no compromise and only 1 outcome.
David
David
CAnnoneer
Member
By that logic, in a few years we CAnians will be disarmed completely. Libs are far more numerous here, so polarization and dig-your-heels attitude only favors the Weinstein cuckoos because it proves their portrayal of gun owners as crazy survivalist anti-fed militiamen that sleep with their rifles and chew tobacco.
The only way to fight for gun rights in CA is to show to the moderates that the pro-gun are reasonable, responsible people that do not support mantric statements or irrational stances. Then we make the antis look like PMSing college kids from PR of Berkeley and everyone laughs and loses interest.
The stance about the 2nd amendment is solid, but the problem is they can, are, and will circumvent it. All they need is a few more gimmicks like the serialization and we are toast! Most are simply not rich enough to do much shooting at 100 dollars a box.
Finally, 2nd amendment can easily be turned against us. All they need is a few lawyers arguing about what the founding fathers meant by "right to bear arms." What if they say the fathers meant "flintlocks and cutlasses" as per their times? The fathers certainly could not have predicted or imagined the future development of arms, and thus could not have reasonably be expected to mean all such future developments. Etc., etc.
I like flintlocks but having my rights reduced to them while the perps pack modern firearms will be, well, bad...
The only way to fight for gun rights in CA is to show to the moderates that the pro-gun are reasonable, responsible people that do not support mantric statements or irrational stances. Then we make the antis look like PMSing college kids from PR of Berkeley and everyone laughs and loses interest.
The stance about the 2nd amendment is solid, but the problem is they can, are, and will circumvent it. All they need is a few more gimmicks like the serialization and we are toast! Most are simply not rich enough to do much shooting at 100 dollars a box.
Finally, 2nd amendment can easily be turned against us. All they need is a few lawyers arguing about what the founding fathers meant by "right to bear arms." What if they say the fathers meant "flintlocks and cutlasses" as per their times? The fathers certainly could not have predicted or imagined the future development of arms, and thus could not have reasonably be expected to mean all such future developments. Etc., etc.
I like flintlocks but having my rights reduced to them while the perps pack modern firearms will be, well, bad...
only1asterisk
member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,412
CAnnoneer,
Your line of reasoning created the mess we are in. You are deep in the hole and should stop digging.
David
Your line of reasoning created the mess we are in. You are deep in the hole and should stop digging.
David
JPM70535
Member
The whole problem with compromise on RKBA with the Antis is that they can not be trusted, period. Their agenda has been clearly stated time and time again, and that is that only the Police need guns, and that Joe Citizen can not be trusted to use them responsibly. Today your 50 cal, tomorrow your 22.
As for AAnold, by his own admission he is a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal, enough said!
JPM
As for AAnold, by his own admission he is a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal, enough said!
JPM
CAnnoneer
Member
So what do you suggest I do in CA?
No_Brakes23
Member
Ahnold signed the .50 cal ban, that's whats wrong with him.
What's that? you don't "need" a .50cal? Guess what, neither do I. But that isn't the point. You yourself said he doesn't cave in on the issues, but here is one right here. He could have killed this ban, but he laid down.
Another thing you can do is stop buying into the lies that are built up around Ahnold. He has created an image of change, but has done very little towards actually changing. Yes he is better than Gray Davis, but that isn't too hard. Gary Coleman, Angeline, Larry Flint or any of the other oddballs that ran could have done a better job.
Now if Ahnold runs against Lockyer, I am voting for Ahnold, because Lockyer is scum of the lowest kind.
What's that? you don't "need" a .50cal? Guess what, neither do I. But that isn't the point. You yourself said he doesn't cave in on the issues, but here is one right here. He could have killed this ban, but he laid down.
Yes, that is what Feinstein and Lockyer are trying to do. What do you think the ammo ban will do? No non-serialized ammo, even in your possession. They are trying to make shooting the pass-time of the rich. Wouldn't want those disgruntled poor having weapons.
Join CRPA, pay attention to what is going on. Write letters, etc. And figure out where you are going to live if they ever effect a more widespread ban.
Another thing you can do is stop buying into the lies that are built up around Ahnold. He has created an image of change, but has done very little towards actually changing. Yes he is better than Gray Davis, but that isn't too hard. Gary Coleman, Angeline, Larry Flint or any of the other oddballs that ran could have done a better job.
Now if Ahnold runs against Lockyer, I am voting for Ahnold, because Lockyer is scum of the lowest kind.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
CAnnoneer, the anti-gun folks borrowed a page from the USSR in "compromise" and "negotiations": "What's mine is mine; what's yours is negotiable."
They might yield some point NOW, but they will come back later with that and other demands. "An honest politician is one who stays bought." Anti-gunners never stay bought.
Since the GCA of 1968, pro-gun folks have tried to be reasonable. We've darned near "reasonabled" ourselves into impotence at the national level and in some states, until very recent years. Even now, some areas are lost causes--California seemingly one of them.
Art
They might yield some point NOW, but they will come back later with that and other demands. "An honest politician is one who stays bought." Anti-gunners never stay bought.
Since the GCA of 1968, pro-gun folks have tried to be reasonable. We've darned near "reasonabled" ourselves into impotence at the national level and in some states, until very recent years. Even now, some areas are lost causes--California seemingly one of them.
Art
CAnnoneer
Member
Seems like we are way past Munich 1938... Good to know 
I have lived in a gunless country and can tell you that is nothing I would wish on my worst enemy. Disarmed means you are sheep for slaughter for gangs and scumbags, and no, no martial arts are gonna help you against five hooligans with knives and chains.
What antis do not understand is that the police is overstretched and a punisher, not a preventer. If I am dead or crippled, it makes little difference to me if the perps get caught later or not.
Here is a wild idea - demand that Feinstein and co relinquish their security details and take a strall through some choicy neighborhoods in their thousand-dollar suits
I have lived in a gunless country and can tell you that is nothing I would wish on my worst enemy. Disarmed means you are sheep for slaughter for gangs and scumbags, and no, no martial arts are gonna help you against five hooligans with knives and chains.
What antis do not understand is that the police is overstretched and a punisher, not a preventer. If I am dead or crippled, it makes little difference to me if the perps get caught later or not.
Here is a wild idea - demand that Feinstein and co relinquish their security details and take a strall through some choicy neighborhoods in their thousand-dollar suits
Monkeyleg
Member.
CAnnoneer, as Art and others have pointed out, we've been "negotiating" with the anti's for years.
We started with everything in our pockets, thanks to the 2nd Amendment, and they started with nothing.
In 1968 the NRA was politically naive. The organization actually helped write the first sweeping assault on the 2nd Amendment ever.
Once gun owners realized what had happened, the Neal Knox bunch took over the NRA.
From then on, gun-grabbers have had to go after us one piece at a time. You know, "sensible" gun measures.
Believe me, we've lost plenty. I don't know your age, but I remember when there were no restrictions on gun purchases, except for full-auto's. And even the people who didn't own those legally didn't worry too much. It just wasn't a big deal.
There can't be any negotiating anymore. Look at what was offered today in the Senate by Kennedy as a bargaining chip in the lawsuit pre-emption bill: a ban on hollow-point ammo.
We started with everything in our pockets, thanks to the 2nd Amendment, and they started with nothing.
In 1968 the NRA was politically naive. The organization actually helped write the first sweeping assault on the 2nd Amendment ever.
Once gun owners realized what had happened, the Neal Knox bunch took over the NRA.
From then on, gun-grabbers have had to go after us one piece at a time. You know, "sensible" gun measures.
Believe me, we've lost plenty. I don't know your age, but I remember when there were no restrictions on gun purchases, except for full-auto's. And even the people who didn't own those legally didn't worry too much. It just wasn't a big deal.
There can't be any negotiating anymore. Look at what was offered today in the Senate by Kennedy as a bargaining chip in the lawsuit pre-emption bill: a ban on hollow-point ammo.
CAnnoneer
Member
Thanks, guys. All of this has been a real eye-opener. I am barely 30, and too young to the real firearms world, to have known these things.
The little weasels...
But, how come the gun industry does not spend some money on TV ads, etc., every time a leftifascist has a brain f*rt?
It seems somebody like Heston talking about the 2nd amendment liberties would turn a few people over. I can't see how productive it is for him to go to NRA meetings - it is like preaching to the choir. It seems to me most of the public is badly misinformed about most gun issues. I sure know many people here in CA, and the only ones with even marginal knowledge are all implants from the midwest. The rest know NOTHING about any of this.
Another idea is to sue Hollywood for misportraying gun owners and guns in general. There certainly is both personal and economic damage involved.
The little weasels...
But, how come the gun industry does not spend some money on TV ads, etc., every time a leftifascist has a brain f*rt?
It seems somebody like Heston talking about the 2nd amendment liberties would turn a few people over. I can't see how productive it is for him to go to NRA meetings - it is like preaching to the choir. It seems to me most of the public is badly misinformed about most gun issues. I sure know many people here in CA, and the only ones with even marginal knowledge are all implants from the midwest. The rest know NOTHING about any of this.
Another idea is to sue Hollywood for misportraying gun owners and guns in general. There certainly is both personal and economic damage involved.
Marshall
Member
Maybe that was Glen Campbell the Texas Ranger, saying that to John Wayne, "Rooster Cogburn", in True Grit, right about the snake pit scene towards the end?
- Status
