Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First of all I am an economic liberal that strongly supports free market capitalism. I am also an NRA member that owns firearms and, like MAC_MUZ, has the skill to make my own if necessary. I do not believe guns should be registered by any government or any restrictions to purchasing or carrying are required. Yes, it will be possible for nut cakes like the latest shooter to get guns but it always has so what is the point of banning the things.
As far as the quote is concerned (as quoted to John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, while both were working at the University of Chicago Law School in 1996. From the book "Debacle", by Grover G. Norquist and John R Lott, Jr., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Publisher) I simply do not believe anything written by these men.
This administration does not in any way want to ban guns no matter what the NRA or anyone else has said. President Obama is way too politically savvy to suggest such a thing.
I do not want to have to be always armed but if I think I need to be no one, government or private, should be able to stop me from carrying a gun any place I can legally be unless they take specific responsibility (as in a courthouse) to protect me from assault.
Broad generalization looks like what it is. I am as liberal as they come, and I have been a gun owner, hunter, and shooter for over a half century, and know a LOT of liberals who own and use firearms.
The biggest problem that we have is that the NRA people are incapable of having a rational conversation. That intractibility is far worse for their cause than compromise. The only good it does is to get people to send more money to the NRA because of constant whiny shilling by people like Wayne LaPierre, who, BTW, is the reason I quit the NRA. It used to be a good outfit, but now I put them on par with unions, totally unnecessary in most cases.
It is easy to blame all liberals for encroaching on our right to bear arms, considering that every law enacted for this purpose has been sponsored and supported by liberals. However, it is also intellectually dishonest. I also have been a gun owner, hunter, and shooter for over half a century. I also know many liberals who are gun owners, hunters, shooters, and ardent supporters of the Second Amendment. As a staunch conservative I may not have many things in common with liberals, but on the topic of the Second Amendment I can agree with many liberals.
After California turned me into a criminal overnight in 1989, simply because of the firearms I owned, I had a choice - turn my firearms over to the police, or keep my "illegal" firearms and leave the State. I chose the latter and moved to Alaska in 1991. That same year I became an NRA Life Member and a member of the NRA Legislative Steering Committee for Alaska. Never will I say that "it cannot happen here." I, for one, am not willing to compromise on any of my inherent rights.
When Alaska amended its State Constitution in 1994 to acknowledge the individual right to bear arms it passed with a popular vote of 77%. That could not have happened without the support of liberals as well as conservatives. This is one topic where the normal liberal/conservative divisions do not apply.
First of all I am an economic liberal that strongly supports free market capitalism. I am also an NRA member that owns firearms and, like MAC_MUZ, has the skill to make my own if necessary. I do not believe guns should be registered by any government or any restrictions to purchasing or carrying are required. Yes, it will be possible for nut cakes like the latest shooter to get guns but it always has so what is the point of banning the things.
As far as the quote is concerned (as quoted to John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, while both were working at the University of Chicago Law School in 1996. From the book "Debacle", by Grover G. Norquist and John R Lott, Jr., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Publisher) I simply do not believe anything written by these men.
This administration does not in any way want to ban guns no matter what the NRA or anyone else has said. President Obama is way too politically savvy to suggest such a thing.
I do not want to have to be always armed but if I think I need to be now one, government or private, should be able to stop me from carrying a gun any place I can legally be unless they take specific responsibility (as in a courthouse) to protect me from assault.
Speaking of making your own firearms, in May, 2010, Alaska Governor Sean Parnell signed the Firearms Freedom Act (HB186) into law. It passed the House by a vote of 32-7 and the Senate by a vote of 18-1. Alaska joined with Montana, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, and Arizona as the eighth state to have passed the act into law.
The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate Interstate Commerce, and 18 USC 922 makes it unlawful for any person not licensed as a manufacturer or dealer in firearms to engage in the business of manufacturing or dealing in firearms. Collectively, the Commerce Clause and 18 USC 922 are used by the federal government as a means to regulate firearms.
The Alaska Firearms Freedom Act addresses this by exempting firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured and retained in the State from all federal firearm control laws, including registration, as firearms that meet these criteria cannot be regulated by the federal government because they have not traveled in interstate commerce.
As to what politicians, from any political party, may or may not have said I care not. Since nothing they say can be believed. My only concern is their record, their actions, or deeds. If they have a demonstrable track record of taking one particular side of an issue, then I have to believe that regardless of what they say, they will continue to follow the course they have already established.
As someone who has spent 20+ years hiking through the bush in Alaska, I found that it is always better to have a firearm and not need it, than to need a firearm and not have it.
With the wake of Aurora in our minds, why not just ban guns? Guns kill people, right? So lets just ban them, so no one else will die, by their hands.
Or is it that simple? What do we do with the MILLIONS of guns, already legally possessed by people? Kick in their doors and confiscate them? Send the police (brown shirts) into peoples homes and businesses, and forcibly take their firearms from them?
What about the MILLIONS, and I do mean MILLIONS of firearms, which aren't registered to anyone? What about the MILLIONS of firearms which WERE registered, which have been sold, transferred, etc to other persons and their is no record of this? What do we do now?
Background checks, waiting periods, etc I am all for. I have no problems with them. Of course, a waiting period and background check would not have stopped the moron in Aurora from getting his firearms. So, I am asking the liberal anti gun crowd:
What would you do? What is it you want?
The ONLY way to get firearms off the streets, is to institute some sort of "martial law." Then, send the police and military into people's homes, without warrants, search them, and recover ALL firearms. Doesn't matter if they were legally or illegally obtained. Without confiscating these firearms, "gun control" is a worthless idea; all meant to make some liberals "feel good."
My firearms will be in my locked safe. They will last longer then ANY of us on this board will be alive. HUNDREDS of years. So ban them. Ok. Mine and MILLIONS of others will be still be here. What are you going to do with the millions already in the United States? Say, well, "Ok. At least we are doing something?" Again, so you can "feel good?"
"Gun Control" is another liberal lie, for GUN BANNING. At least you liberals should be honest and tell the US and world the truth. You don't want "control." You want to ban the private ownership of firearms. THAT is your goal. Plain and simple.
No, guns will not be banned, relax.
No, Martial law will not be enacted, relax.
Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.
I am one of the most pro gun people on this board and the anti's often use lies but that quote has been proven to be fake or reworded and I don't appreciate my side distorting the facts either.
No. There are countless distractions people go through while driving, banning a single one of them won't matter.
I've seen women doing makeup while driving. People reading books or maps while driving.
We need to ban stupidity.
I somtimes drive a dump truck to pick up or deliver machines, and on I-95. I have been reduced to 35 MPH in the passing lane because a doofuss was on upto 3 or more electronic devices at the same time!
I find it most ammusing to get my grill up close and blast the horn..... They can slam on the brakes I guess, but it's not going to hurt me any...
What happens is gizzmos go flyin everywhere and the cage takes off......
Now you may say this is wrong and i should not do it, but I also ride a heavy cruiser bike and i have to suffer being small then..... Cagers care not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
