Gun nuts' have no real excuse(gun grabbing weenie barf alert 4 bags minimum)

dailycampus.com ^ | 2 1 05 | Robert Schiering

[freepatriot32]

Everyone who responded to it was opposed to it and did so for the same reason: a fear of confiscation at some future time. This is the main reason given to that question and I would like to ask a follow-up question to it, if I may. Why do you all believe that this is a possible scenario in our country?

Connecticut's new gun confiscation law

Chicago Compiles Registry of U.S. Gun Owners (my title)

1994 Chicago 'Warrantless Weapon Sweeps'

Confiscation Alert

Breaking:IRS Gun Registation..then...ATF GUN CONFISCATION!....stepByStep

Chicago Cops Could be Subject to Gun Sweeps, Group Says

Gun Registration: It's simply the first step toward Gun Confiscation.

Maryland Gun-Control Plan Compared to Licensing Drivers (Register,License, are for Gun Confiscation)

NRA approved gun confiscation

Chicago Police Officers Warned About Possible Gun Sweeps

there are dozens of more storys including one where a war veteran in chicago had his gun taken aftera swat team surrounded his house because his lisence to own the gun expired the day before that i cant find doing a search here on free republic.If you google gun confiscation you ll see lots more storys about gun confiscation inside the borders of the usa its been going on since the 80 s

[freepatriot32]

i found two more storys

Interpretation of Law Allows [Gun]Confiscation ("Misdemeanor.. At Anytime Allows Gun Confiscation")

More gun confiscation in California, State may take some gun without compensation a>

[PaRebel]

See the JPFO documentary INNOCENTS BETRAYED. No more need be said. As to the high rate of violent crime in this country compared to others, look to demographics for the clear answer.

[LibTeeth]

And in the realm of the tin-foil hat this would appear to be something that bureaucrats and high level functionaries have committed themselves to doing for decades as part of the transformation of national sovereignty into a global governance model (see http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html). The main weapon in doing this isn't yet in the area of direct legislation as much as it is in the public schools. In a generation or two, our republic will be functioning more as a socialist democracy, and the people will demand that only the police and the military be armed.

In short, it isn't just a possible scenario, it is the current scenario, occurring at a slow frog-boiling rate. The current apparent reversal towards permits for right to carry just turns a right into a privilege, and conveniently registers gun owners with the state.

Finally, the military doctrine under MOUT is little more than war on drugs SWAT tactics applied on a large scale by military forces against a mixed civilian/hostiles terrain where everyone is presumed a hostile, where house to house searches are a primary feature, along with a general suspension of any presumption of due process. Our military has never been in a better position to "go domestic". Our military is being immured to the idea of being applied against civilian populations that are not a threat to the country in that they have no ordnance manufacturing and sustainment capability, no capability to project power such as carriers and bomber fleets (other than highjacked commercial vehicles), and much of the youth that are filling the ranks were raised on statist TV drivel glamorizing a uniform with a gun and demonizing privately held arms. Most recent military campaigns have been excellant training ops for enforcing civilian disarmament. Loyalty to officers rather than the Constitution has been a fear since the founding. Paranoia never goes out of style.

[coloradan]

Confiscations have already happened in this country. This isn't something we should be worrying might happen, it's something that has already happened, and repeatedly so: NYC and CA are prime examples at a large scale that come to mind. Yet, strangely, there are still some who claim the concern is invalid, as it "could never happen here."

A better mystery for you to try to understand is why such a belief can continue to exist in light of the facts, rather than why some people fear that confiscations could possibly follow after registration.

[retarmy]

Actually, the mystery that I try to understand is why we elect office holders who vote against the will of the people. During the 12 years I spent in elective office, I often voted the opposite of how I personally felt because I believed it was my responsibility to vote the way the people who elected me felt. But that is just my personal moral code.

I do not disagree with any of you that registration is a way to find out who has guns and confiscate them, but my greater concern is that all of us who own weapons are being depicted as unstable because a few of us have set bad examples. Personally, I do not see the need to own an AK47 with a 40 round clip. If you can’t bring a deer or a hog down with one or two shots, you shouldn’t own the weapon in the first place. I’m a southern farm boy and that is how I was brought up.

Folks, we are not in the majority in this country and if our fellow Americans get scared enough about gun ownership, they will vote to restrict it. Not every conservative Republican is a gun owner and not every gun owner is a Republican, conservative or otherwise. The most conservative Republican congressman knows that he or she needs the support of their electorate to get re-elected and if a majority of their electorate is for some type of gun control, only a fool would vote against it, but that fool will only do it once because in less than two years, the people will have elected a candidate who promised to vote for it.

There must be some middle ground, some compromises that we achieve. For example, I am totally in favor of background checks and waiting periods for purchasing weapons. Remember, every right we have has a matching responsibility with it. Your thoughts. . .

[coloradan]

Actually, the mystery that I try to understand is why we elect office holders who vote against the will of the people. During the 12 years I spent in elective office, I often voted the opposite of how I personally felt because I believed it was my responsibility to vote the way the people who elected me felt. But that is just my personal moral code.

Did you ever vote in such a way as to uphold the Constitution that you had sworn to uphold, the will of the people be damned? If not, you should reconsider your personal moral code. There is a right to keep and bear arms, and unless you amend the Constitution to remove that right, it is your duty to protect that right, irrespective of the will of the people.

I do not disagree with any of you that registration is a way to find out who has guns and confiscate them, but my greater concern is that all of us who own weapons are being depicted as unstable because a few of us have set bad examples.

But, that attitude amounts to simple bigotry, the same way that white supremists paint all black people as rapists and murderers, because of the actions of a few of them. Neither attitude deserves any place at the table of public policy formation. Unfortunately, only one of these attitudes gets the scorn they both deserve - the other seems to have found a cozy home in the legislatures of many of the states, and in the federal government.

Personally, I do not see the need to own an AK47 with a 40 round clip.

Personally, I don't care what you think I need. It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. Nobody needs a sports car, indoor plumbing, spices, or a home more than 900 square feet, either. That doesn't mean the government should have the power to prohibit these unnecessary items. In a free country, if someone wants something and works to obtain enough money to buy it, that alone should be enough right there. End of discussion.

If you can’t bring a deer or a hog down with one or two shots, you shouldn’t own the weapon in the first place. I’m a southern farm boy and that is how I was brought up.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Gun ownership isn't about hunting only. Self defense against criminals and tyrants is a lot more important than some recreational or sporting use. Hunting has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, except that it's good practice.

Folks, we are not in the majority in this country and if our fellow Americans get scared enough about gun ownership, they will vote to restrict it.

Only because spineless lesgislators like yourself violate your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, which clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Not every conservative Republican is a gun owner and not every gun owner is a Republican, conservative or otherwise. The most conservative Republican congressman knows that he or she needs the support of their electorate to get re-elected and if a majority of their electorate is for some type of gun control, only a fool would vote against it, but that fool will only do it once because in less than two years, the people will have elected a candidate who promised to vote for it.

You clearly have the 'rat talking points memo. Gun rights have scored major victories in several of the last elections. The Republican Revolution in '94 was because of the AWB, Gore lost the presidency because of the NRA, and so did Kerry. They even admit it.

There must be some middle ground, some compromises that we achieve. For example, I am totally in favor of background checks and waiting periods for purchasing weapons. Remember, every right we have has a matching responsibility with it. Your thoughts. . .

Compromise means getting something by giving something else up. You propose giving up firearms transactional privacy and immediacy, by mandating all such transactions are reported to the government, and by forcing a delay. But what do you propose to get in exchange? Nothing. You use the word compromise in the same disingenuous way as do the gun grabbers - you mean "gradual surrender," you don't mean compromise at all. I really resent the way gun grabbers redefine words to suit their ends.

Furthermore, neither such proposal has been shown to have any beneficial effect whatsoever, and both have led to harms. Background checks means officers are checking up on legitimate gun buyers, which means they aren't on the streets catching criminals. It also means they might be stopping a legitimate transaction, because the intended buyer has the same name as a criminal. (Which means, his right is violated because of a paperwork error.) Waiting periods serve no function to people who already own guns (if I wanted to suddenly blow someone away, I could do it with a gun I already own, so delaying a new transaction for 2 weeks accomplishes nothing in the way of safety). Furthermore, there have been several cases of people, primarily women, who suddenly found a need to become armed, such as because an estranged ex-husband has announced his intention to come kill her, and she was denied an immediate purchase thanks to the waiting period, and then she was killed. Her blood, and I say again there have been several such cases, is on your hands.

In some ways, I think you might be worse than Sarah Brady. She is known, identified enemy of civil rights. But you represent yourself as a "conservative Republican" and nevertheless support her AWB, her magazine capacity limits, her intention to register all guns and all transactions, and to impose arbitrary delays on purchases. You are a Fabian wolf in "Republican" clothing.

[kevao]

Gun nuts have no real excuse

I don't need an excuse; I have the Second Amendment.

[T Wayne]

The 39000 firearms related death included 22000 (from memory) suicides, 14000 criminal on criminal shootings leaving something like 2200 domestic violence incidents and fewer than 300 accidents.

These ROUGH figures are quoted from memory from some discussions that took place a couple years ago so please don't scream if they are not accurate to the digit. The overall idea is accurate.

[freepatriot32]

are you just being contrarian to get a reaction out of people or do you actually believe the things you are saying?

[retarmy]

Is it really easier to attack someone, denigrate their character, and call them names than to attempt to understand what they have to say, why they are saying it and then respond with civility? Perhaps you have never heard the wonderful Southern expression, “It is easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar.” There is another wonderful saying you may not have heard. ”So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

You wrote, “Did you ever vote in such a way as to uphold the Constitution that you had sworn to uphold, the will of the people be damned?? Have you forgotten that the Constitution begins with the words, ”We the People” which sums up our form of government. Regardless whether you consider the United States a republic or a democracy, the end result is the same. Here are three definitions of our American form of government and the sources for them:

Democracy: A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them [ www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn ]

A state or nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives elected, directly or indirectly, by them and responsible to them. [ www.lksd.org/kongiganak/kongiganak/ContinuousEdCarnagie/Carnagie/Government/GovtGlossary.htm ]

Republic: Historically, the form of government in which representative officials met to decide on policy issues. These representatives were expected to serve the public interest but were not subject to the people's immediate control. Today, the term republic is used interchangeably with democracy. [ highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072481218/student_view0/chapter2/glossary.html ]

With this in mind, isn’t serving the will of the people the same as serving the Constitution, since it is the will of the people that maintain the Constitution? Isn’t it the will of the people that sets Democracy apart from dictatorships, or would you rather we had the same type of “democracy” that the Russians are experiencing? That you totally reject the will of the people sounds leftist, perhaps even communistic.

You accused me of a bigoted attitude, but I was simply reiterating the basis of the article that began this debate - didn’t you read it?

You spoke about the Bill of Rights by writing, “In a free country, if someone wants something and works to obtain enough money to buy it, that alone should be enough right there. End of discussion. Sorry, not the end of my discussion. Our rights and our freedoms do have limitations and those limitations are that your exercise of your rights should not infringe on my rights. Billy Graham in a great speech said, ”Freedom includes a positive acceptance of some sort of restraint and limitation. You're free to swing your fists, but you lose your freedom at the point of my nose.” [ http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/20thcentury/72-09graham-speech.html ] Reverend Graham understands the meaning of freedom and rights and the attendant responsibilities they carry, but you don’t.

The one thing you said that I agree with was, ”Compromise means getting something by giving something else up.” What I have tried to say, and that you have totally missed, is that our right to bear arms is under attack and it is attitudes like yours, which are totally unwilling to seek compromise that do more damage to our cause than anything else. A palm bends in a hurricane, but an oak cracks and falls.

[coloradan]

Is it really easier to attack someone, denigrate their character, and call them names than to attempt to understand what they have to say, why they are saying it and then respond with civility?

It is a tactic of liberals to take offense, even at imagined insults, than to address the specific arguments of the opposition. For your information, I understand that you seek to enact firearms registration, universal background checks, waiting periods, and a total ban on civilian possession of firearms such as AK-47s with, as you call them, 40-round "clips." (They're "magazines.") That's basically all I need to know.

You wrote, “Did you ever vote in such a way as to uphold the Constitution that you had sworn to uphold, the will of the people be damned??"

Yes, I did. And you have ducked the question. The Bill of Rights state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If 51% of the people decide they want to ban guns, one's job as a legislature isn't to hop to it and enact such a ban, but to tell the people:

First, as your elected representative, I cannot do that as the right to keep and bear arms is a protected Constitutional right, and I have a sworn duty to uphold these rights, even if you don't want that particular one right now. Second, I believe you are simply mistaken in your desires; there are important reasons why that right was placed in the Bill of Rights, and these reasons are not any less true today. Third, the imagined benefits you seek, namely, a reduction in crime or the threat of terrorism, will not be forthcoming from such a change, as has been amply shown both within this country in other jurisdictions, and outside of it. Fourth, if notwithstanding these arguments, you still really, really feel it necessary to revoke that right, there is a mechanism to do it, namely, the Amendment of the Constitution to excise that right from the it. It is not my position to enact local laws abrogating this right; we should do it correctly, or not at all.

But, this evidently isn't what you have done. (Which is specifically why I called you "spineless" in my previous post, as announcing a press conference and stating the above paragraph before the TV cameras would, sadly, take a spine.)

Have you forgotten that the Constitution begins with the words, ”We the People” which sums up our form of government.

If you really believed that, you would understand that if "we the people" are the government, that it is ridiculous on its face to allow the governing class one set of rights to arms, and the rest of the people a different, much smaller set of rights to arms. Yet, oddly, you do support this, because you haven't made the case that government agents and military soldiers should be banned from having access to firearms like the AK-47, and 40-round magazines.

Regardless whether you consider the United States a republic or a democracy, the end result is the same.

Not at all. It's much harder to change the rules of the game in a Constitutional Republic than it is in a democracy, because of the large supermajorities necessary to amend the Constitution.

Republic: Historically, the form of government in which representative officials met to decide on policy issues. These representatives were expected to serve the public interest but were not subject to the people's immediate control. Today, the term republic is used interchangeably with democracy.

Interestingly, your quote both points out the correct distinction of a Republic, and then immediately seeks to minimize this difference with a bit of leftist propaganda, "they're really basically the same anyway." They are not.

With this in mind, isn’t serving the will of the people the same as serving the Constitution, since it is the will of the people that maintain the Constitution?

No. The bigots and cowards who enacted the law requiring that blacks go to the back of the bus were not serving the Constitution at all. Even though it was the will of the people.

Isn’t it the will of the people that sets Democracy apart from dictatorships, or would you rather we had the same type of “democracy” that the Russians are experiencing?

No again, because mobocracy is far different from a Constitutional Republic, unless the overwhelming majority of people seek mobocracy, and the elected representatives are unable or unwilling to point out how unwise this is.

That you totally reject the will of the people sounds leftist, perhaps even communistic.

Clever slam there. That you totally violate your oath to the very same Constitution you swore to uphold sounds leftist, perhaps even communistic.

You accused me of a bigoted attitude, but I was simply reiterating the basis of the article that began this debate - didn’t you read it?

I did read it, and I disagree with the author at least as much as with you. At least he's openly an enemy of gun rights, though.

The attitude, by the way, is bigoted, but instead of arguing why it isn't bigoted, or why the attitude is valid, isn't what you did - instead, you took the opportunity to take offense, and have otherwise left the argument. So, I will present it again: How it is intrinsically different and morally justifiable, to constrain all gun owners because of the action of a few gun-owning criminals, when it isn't morally justifiable to constrain all black people, because of the actions of a few black criminals? There, I didn't even use the word "bigoted" so you'll have to answer the question on its own merit.

You spoke about the Bill of Rights by writing, “In a free country, if someone wants something and works to obtain enough money to buy it, that alone should be enough right there. End of discussion." Sorry, not the end of my discussion. Our rights and our freedoms do have limitations and those limitations are that your exercise of your rights should not infringe on my rights.

Please explain how buying property infringes on your rights. (I didn't say that if someone wants to go around shooting people, or assaulting them, or stealing their stuff, that should be enough right there, so don't go there in your response.)

Billy Graham in a great speech said, ”Freedom includes a positive acceptance of some sort of restraint and limitation. You're free to swing your fists, but you lose your freedom at the point of my nose.”

Once again, I didn't say that one should be free to punch others in the nose, but rather that one should be able to buy property that one desires. Please try again.

Reverend Graham understands the meaning of freedom and rights and the attendant responsibilities they carry, but you don’t.

On the contrary, you have merely presented a straw man argument and knocked it down, which says nothing whatever about my positions or my understanding.

The one thing you said that I agree with was, ”Compromise means getting something by giving something else up.”

You say you agree, but then you completely ignore the point. You have still to suggest any firearms rights abrogation that will be rolled back, in exchange for the ones you seek to expand. You want an example of compromise? 50 state Vermont carry everywhere except in prisons and courtrooms - in exchange for universal background checks. That's a compromise. Supporting half of what the gun grabbers want instead of all of it is not compromise, it's partial surrender. I do not support surrender in whole or in part, and yes it gets me angry when others do - whether they say they are enemy, like Sarah Brady, or when they say they are friends, like you do.

What I have tried to say, and that you have totally missed, is that our right to bear arms is under attack and it is attitudes like yours, which are totally unwilling to seek compromise that do more damage to our cause than anything else.

And what you seek is not compromise. Since you like quoting the on-line dictionaries for my benefit, here's one for you:

Compromise: A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=compromise

You haven't proposed any concession that the gun-grabbers should make, in exchange for the ones you seek me to make.

As for your comment "our right to bear arms is under attack and it is attitudes like yours ... " You've got it exactly backwards: Our gun rights are under attack by people like you who claim to support gun rights as they simultaneously propose taking them away piecewise.

Here's a newsflash for you: Gun rights are not under attack right now. We have quite recently scored major pro-gun victories in the house and the senate. This isn't the time to advance the anti-gun agenda at all. It's the time to pass a gun industry immunity bill, without anti-gun riders. It's time for federal shall-issue pre-emption. (That is, no state can deny shall-issue carry permits.) It's time to pass the Right To Self Defense act, already introduced in the house. It's time to roll back Brady and/or GCA 1968, or even just get rid of the Lautenburg Amendment. Wyoming is already considering Vermont carry, and would be the third state to enact it if it does. It's time for Montana, Idaho and New Hampshire to consider the same. Daschle lost, so did Kerry, in case you haven't been paying attention. This isn't the time to advance or even tacitly support wish-list items advocated by the Brady Campaign to Disarm America.

A palm bends in a hurricane, but an oak cracks and falls.

Only a diseased, dying or dead tree bends when the wind isn't blowing.

[Yknot]

My you are an angry, frustrated individual who either knows retarmy personally, or is making a lot up. Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't read anywhere where he said that he took offense, did you? He didn't even make a statement, but rather asked a question, a question that you did not answer.

You wrote, "I understand that you seek to enact firearms registration, universal background checks, waiting periods, and a total ban on civilian possession of firearms such as AK-47s with, as you call them, 40-round "clips. . ." Could you tell me please how you "understand" that or did you pull that out of your crystal ball as well? (That was a question, not a statement. I wanted to be sure you understand the difference.)

After reading that last sentence, I would be willing to bet that you have never served your country in combat and that you probably have never even been in the military. Am I wrong about that? (That was another question.) The reason I ask that question is because in all my 20+ years in the Army, everyone I served with called a magazine a clip. It goes back to the eight-round "clips" of .30 caliber ammo that the M-1 used. Or maybe it is a generation gap, who knows. . . more importantly who cares. (That was a statement, not a question. Please feel free to get mad at me for that.)

What I thought was laughable in your reply to the point of being ludicrous was this quote when you imagined that he didn't defend or support the Constitution, "But, this evidently isn't what you have done." Tell me something, do you know this is a fact or is this just another guess on your part? (Another question)

RETARMY, if you read this, and I'm sure you will, would you answer a question for me? Are you a legislator in here in Florida? If so, is any of the garbage that this clown is spouting about you true? You can mail me personally if you don't want everybody to know.

So tell me Mr. coloradan, what makes you think that you're the only one who has the right answers? Is the Second Amendment the only one you care about, or have you been able to read any of the other ones? Oh, one last question –that will make three- you don't get out much do you? Feel free to flame me, make up stuff about me, or visit your crystal ball. Just please don't do any serious research on any of the things you constantly hark about. . . reality and the facts might confuse you too much.

[coloradan]

My you are an angry, frustrated individual who either knows retarmy personally, or is making a lot up.

It is frustrating to see the erosion of the Bill of Rights. More so with the assistance of a Freeper.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't read anywhere where he said that he took offense, did you? He didn't even make a statement, but rather asked a question, a question that you did not answer.

He didn't say he took offense, he appeared to take it, however. He wrote: "Is it really easier to attack someone, denigrate their character, and call them names than to attempt to understand what they have to say, why they are saying it and then respond with civility?" This is the way that people who have taken offense often respond.

You wrote, "I understand that you seek to enact firearms registration, universal background checks, waiting periods, and a total ban on civilian possession of firearms such as AK-47s with, as you call them, 40-round "clips. . ." Could you tell me please how you "understand" that or did you pull that out of your crystal ball as well?

Registration: He supports background checks, which amount to backdoor registration because the present form 4473 includes make, model, and serial number of all guns transferred, in addition to the identity and home address of the buyer. When all transactions must occur on 4473s, there will be complete de facto registration, so that when all present gun owners die of old age and their inventories are transferred to their kids, complete registration will then be present. and they are backdoor registration. He also shows a potentially telling ignorance of confiscation in this country: "Why do you all believe that [confiscation] a possible scenario in our country? Please understand that I am not saying you are wrong to feel that way, I am just trying to understand why you feel that this could happen. Perhaps you see something that I do not in the state of our nation and I hope you would share that with me." (Post 107.) Now, the fact that NYC and CA have already used registration for the purpose of confiscation is well-known to people interested and informed on the aspect of firearms rights. I admit he could be simply unaware of these facts and asking innocently, but I have seen more than one troll feign ignorance about firearms rights issues solely to plant Brady campaign talking points. ("We license cars, why not guns? Who could be against that?") If I am mistaken, I apologize.

As for background checks and waiting periods, I'll just quote him verbatim: "For example, I am totally in favor of background checks and waiting periods for purchasing weapons." (Post 125.)

As for AK-47s, he wrote: "Personally, I do not see the need to own an AK47 with a 40 round clip. If you can’t bring a deer or a hog down with one or two shots, you shouldn’t own the weapon in the first place." Here, I am admittedly interpreting "should" to include "under force of law," but then again, he doesn't cite self-defense as a reason for gun ownership, only hunting, in this context. Sorry, but I don't go for the "sporting purpose" test for gun ownership, and I am suspicious of anyone who neglects it at the same time he claims that firearms rights are vitally important to him.

Finally, all of his posts are presented with an urgency to "compromise" with the gun grabbers - and this after massive pro-gun victories across the country. You have read my take on his use of the word "compromise" - perhaps you can find a right he seeks to restore, along with the ones he seeks to revoke. I didn't.

After reading that last sentence, I would be willing to bet that you have never served your country in combat and that you probably have never even been in the military. Am I wrong about that?

You are correct, for whatever it's worth.

The reason I ask that question is because in all my 20+ years in the Army, everyone I served with called a magazine a clip. It goes back to the eight-round "clips" of .30 caliber ammo that the M-1 used. Or maybe it is a generation gap, who knows. . . more importantly who cares.

The reason I care is because the gun grabbers also refer to "magazines" as "clips." You have a point, though, it might just be a generation gap.

Please feel free to get mad at me for that.

Condescension isn't necessary. Thanks, though.

What I thought was laughable in your reply to the point of being ludicrous was this quote when you imagined that he didn't defend or support the Constitution, "But, this evidently isn't what you have done." Tell me something, do you know this is a fact or is this just another guess on your part?

It's a guess. I supposed that if the issue of AWs, registration, waiting periods or background checks ever came up, he is likely to have supported it, or actually voted for it. Furthermore, he has called a pro-gun person who votes against gun control in gun-grabbing districts a "fool ... because in less than two years, the people will have elected a candidate who promised to vote for it." That gives an idea of how he thinks people in his own position should vote. My counterexample is those who vote to send black people to the back of the bus. He hasn't responded to that, and neither have you.

If so, is any of the garbage that this clown is spouting about you true?

He has stated he supports background checks (and therefore de facto registration, which they are) and also waiting periods. His words. He has also stated that "we need to compromise" with the gun grabbers, implying we should give away some of our rights now, to keep the rest later.

So tell me Mr. coloradan, what makes you think that you're the only one who has the right answers?

I have done a lot of research on the gun issue, including reading the founding fathers on the subject. I have also dissected the gun grabbers, and I'd be happy to show you how central deceit and disingenuity is to their position.

Is the Second Amendment the only one you care about, or have you been able to read any of the other ones?

All of them. The Drug War, notably, has eroded at least some part of every item in the Bill of Rights. From censorship of "drug making technology" to excessive fines, violation of unreasonable search and seizure, taking of property, the right to face one's accuser, states rights, enumerated powers, RKBA - just about everything.

Oh, one last question –that will make three- you don't get out much do you?

Makes 4, actually.

Feel free to flame me, make up stuff about me, or visit your crystal ball. Just please don't do any serious research on any of the things you constantly hark about. . . reality and the facts might confuse you too much.

Care to engage in debate about firearms rights, or the gun grabbing agenda, with me, or are you finished with your flame?

[retarmy]

See what happens when you go away for a weekend. . .

First, let me address “yknot’s” question about my public service. No, I have never served in the Florida State Legislature, there is way too much politics involved there. All of my elective offices have been municipal and all of my appointed offices have been both municipal and county. I am a fervent believer in Tip O’Niel’s old saying that ”All politics is local.” I did not like the way my municipal officers were spending my tax money and I especially did not like the way they overlooked some residents’ code violations while they cited other residents, so I ran (as an independent) and got 89 percent of the vote. I ran again a second time and got reelected by a similar margin and at the end of my second term was able to get other, younger, residents involved enough to run, so I did not. I only run for local office if I don’t like what is going on or if I think I can do a better job for my fellow residents. Because I passionately believe in the power of the vote, I campaign on my beliefs and on what I want to do. I feel that if the voters like my perspective, I’ll win, if not, I’ll loose. I have run for local office six times and have won four. I hope that answers your question. Oh, by the way, thanks for your explanation of the “clip.” When I read “coloraden’s” response I came to the same conclusion as you, he’s never served his country in uniform. I spent 26 years in the Army with two combat tours and six overseas tours and the jargon that soldiers use just does not wear off, sorry. And finally, no, I have never voted on a gun issue because it has never come up, however as the Public Safety commissioner, I did a great deal of research into the mitigation and investigation aspects of gun-based crime. Remember, all crime is not committed by criminals and an accidental shooting of one child by another is still investigated.

Freepatriot, regarding your question, a bit of both.

Because we are a democracy, I do believe that the will of the people is paramount and that if I am elected (regardless of party affiliation), I must vote the will of the people. However, I also believe that if the will of the people goes directly against my moral, religious, or patriotic code, I have a responsibility to resign. However, I do not feel that I have the right to vote however I feel and the electorate be damned.

Do I really care if you buy an AK-47 with a 40 round clip? No, as long as you don’t point it at me. Do I believe that a shooter should be able to bring down a deer, a hog, or a human with one or two rounds? Yes, but remember, I was a farm boy and am Army trained (expert with both pistol and rifle, sharpshooter with a “blooper.”) and battle tested. I just wanted to see what the reactions would be :^))

Do I believe that we stand a chance of liberal politicians getting legislation passed to restrict weapon ownership? Yes, because the perception of the “regular” public (those that do not own weapons, but are not real liberals) of those of us who do own weapons is no longer neutral. I believe that “coloraden’s” NRA scripted responses only serve to both alienate those who have not taken sides yet and to harden those who have moved from conservatively liberal views on weapon ownership to really anti-gun views. Maybe that is my perception only, but it is also shared by my neighbors, most of whom are conservative Republicans.

Finally, to “coloraden,” I am not a liberal, although I do have a social consciousness, my religion requires that. It is sad that yours does not, or that you do not follow the precepts of your religion, if you have one. How you understand that I “seek to enact firearms registration, universal background checks, waiting periods, and a total ban on civilian possession of firearms such as AK-47s with, as you call them, 40-round "clips." is totally beyond me. Perphaps “yknot” is right, you are finding this information in a crystal ball. If you had the ability to read and understand, I am asking questions, not making statements. Just because you cannot or wish not to answer these questions does not mean that I would or could do what you have irrationally suggested. Then you go into a long discourse about what you feel a legislator should or should not tell his/her constituency and follow it up by stating (not hinting or suggesting) ”But, this evidently isn't what you have done. (Which is specifically why I called you "spineless" in my previous post, as announcing a press conference and stating the above paragraph before the TV cameras would, sadly, take a spine.) “

In conclusion, so this does not drag on for others who wish to post to this topic, I want to state this specifically and unequivocally so that you understand how I feel. Unless and until you have put on the uniform of this country’s military or of the public safety services of your state, county, or municipality and have placed your life on the line to protect our Constitution and all of our freedoms, not just the Second Amendment, don’t you ever think that you know me, know what I have been through or what I have done for my country. Don’t you even dare to speculate about what I think because, as far as I’m concerned, you have no standing. Just remember, it was I, my father and uncles, and my immigrant grandfathers who fought and died to protect your right to call me names, disparage my character, and make up lies and innuendo about me in a public forum.

[Yknot]

Well said, RETARMY. There are two poems I would like to quote here, based on your final comments:

It is the soldier, not the reporter,
Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet,
Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the organizer,
Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protestor to burn the flag.
- Father Dennis Edward O'Brian, USMC

Here is the other:

”In times of war, and not before,
God and the soldier men adore;
When the war is o'er and all things righted,
The Lord's forgot and the soldier slighted.
--Anonymous Revolutionary War soldier

Every right has its responsibility, to either defend that right, or to defend those who exercise that right. I believe that you and I have done that. Enough said on that topic, let’s move along.

[coloradan]

How you understand that I “seek to enact firearms registration, universal background checks, waiting periods, and a total ban on civilian possession of firearms such as AK-47s with, as you call them, 40-round "clips." is totally beyond me.

You stated your support for background checks and waiting periods in a previous post. "For example, I am totally in favor of background checks and waiting periods for purchasing weapons." (Post 125.) As they are presently done, background checks are registration, so if you support one, you support the other. (There are ways to check backgrounds without registering guns, BIDS is one such, but it hasn't received support.) Finally, as for your comment about AK-47s, I'm glad I misunderstood your position, but you'll have to forgive me for jumping to conclusions, when on the subject you (1) talked about not seeing any "need" for such firearms, (2) mentioned hunting, which isn't what those firearms were designed for, and (3) failed to mention self-defense. These are things that gun grabbers do when talking about these firearms, and they do do this in the context of seeking a total prohibition on them. You might think you are simply asking questions, but if you do so using the language and rhetoric of the opposition, it isn't unreasonable to surmise that you actually are opposition.

If you had the ability to read and understand, I am asking questions, not making statements.

I beg your pardon, "For example, I am totally in favor of background checks and waiting periods for purchasing weapons" is a direct statement from you, and contains a major part of my dispute with you.

Just because you cannot or wish not to answer these questions does not mean that I would or could do what you have irrationally suggested.

If you "are totally in favor of" certain policies, I don't think it's irrational to suggest you have supported them, or lent your face or name to that cause, or voted for people specifically because they hold those positions.

If I am wrong, I apologize.

As for your service and that of your family members, I sincerely thank you.

[snowsislander]

Here's a newsflash for you: Gun rights are not under attack right now. We have quite recently scored major pro-gun victories in the house and the senate. This isn't the time to advance the anti-gun agenda at all. It's the time to pass a gun industry immunity bill, without anti-gun riders. It's time for federal shall-issue pre-emption. (That is, no state can deny shall-issue carry permits.) It's time to pass the Right To Self Defense act, already introduced in the house. It's time to roll back Brady and/or GCA 1968, or even just get rid of the Lautenburg Amendment. Wyoming is already considering Vermont carry, and would be the third state to enact it if it does. It's time for Montana, Idaho and New Hampshire to consider the same. Daschle lost, so did Kerry, in case you haven't been paying attention. This isn't the time to advance or even tacitly support wish-list items advocated by the Brady Campaign to Disarm America.

We are winning this debate, and you are exactly right: we need to get more pots boiling. It makes no sense to give even an inch to the gungrabbers.

At the state level, now is the time to work on Vermont/Alaska carry in more states, and nothing pleases me more to hear that another state, Wyoming, is doing that.

At the federal level, rolling back gun control laws like the 1968 GCA, the 1938 FFA, and the 1934 NFA are where we should be starting debates, not on compromises.

[coloradan]

Incidentally, with respect to what role, if any, the Constitution should hold in restraining politicians from doing "the will of the people," consider judicial activism. Do you think judicial activism is wrong? After all, the judges are just doing the will of the people, by making decisions the legislature is unwilling to make. Much of Massachussetts applauded when its Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriages - there's you're will of the people. I might be wrong to think that judicial activism is wrong, but I have lots of company on this website.

[retarmy]

This should actually be a separate topic for discussion, but I’ll answer it here. I think that judicial activism is as bad as partisan politics -regardless whether the party is Republican or Democrat. Judges should neither support the will of the people or the will of the governor or president; they should support the Constitution and the laws of the nation and of the state.

I believe that their function in our government is simply to interpret the law and the intent of those who wrote it as it applies to the cases that come before them, nothing more. They are not there to make policy, nor are they there to make ”decisions the legislature is unwilling to make.”

I believe in the concept of a supreme court in which an odd number of judges decides if the decisions of other judges or of legislatures are in line with the letter and the spirit (intent) of the Constitution or similar state documents. I also believe that these supreme courts must contain members who are free of political connection and should represent the best legal minds, regardless of political affiliation. Most of all, I believe in a judiciary that treats everyone and every case equally, with no religious, gender, political, or cultural bias or preference.

I hope that I’ve answered your question.