|
|
Post by The New Guy on Oct 19, 2009 0:24:27 GMT -5
and therein lies the basis for all liberal thought. they just can't understand why everyone doesn't think the same way they do.  |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Oct 19, 2009 11:03:10 GMT -5
I, for one, am glad that you can't buy an assault weapon in our state. What would you need one for anyway? Of course you don't want people to own semi-sutomatic rifles. You are a pure statist, one who does not value the freedoms we have in this nation. And by caveot, you do not respect the freedoms of your fellow citizens, that is why you attack them. You are nothing less then a statist and you will never be anything else. Because you believe in nothing, except the state, that is where you put your misguided faith. Unfortunately, the State has let us all down, but you stand there in your blatant ignorance and cheer them on. |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Oct 19, 2009 11:07:33 GMT -5
and therein lies the basis for all liberal thought. they just can't understand why everyone doesn't think the same way they do. Or that we do see it, understand it, and reject it as simplist or useless or unconstitutional or just plain wrong. And then after Big Dog posts: " It's occurred to me more than once to invite the left leaning on the board out to Circle S for an afternoon of instruction and making a few holes in paper so that they could see that there is more to the legitimate ownership and use of firearms than the crap that passes in the average movie or TV show.
Then I wake up, pinch myself, and realize it was all probably just an idealistic dream on my part. All too often the gun prohibitionists out the world simply refuse to see or understand." Mink throws up her hands and leaves in a huff " Spoke too soon....oh well, I'm out of this thread. Have fun guys!!. So, we are supposed to "see the perspective of non gun enthusiasts or law makers in this case." But she and the rest of the hard left don't have to try to understand our point of view. |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Oct 19, 2009 11:08:17 GMT -5
Other than a "right", is it possible to see the other side of the coin here? There are bad people out there that will be deterred from getting their hands on guns. Is this incorrect to assume? I'm just trying to understand why gun folk see this as upsetting...just a quick question Well, proving your lack of comprehension is becoming a common event with you. This is about ammuntion, not weapons. So, oh lioness of the left (How's Bernie?), how will this law prevent bad people from getting their hands on guns? |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Oct 19, 2009 11:13:19 GMT -5
Mink, do you have to give a thumb print to buy paper for your printer or typewriter? How about ink? You have a "right" to freedom of the press - by that just applies to the press, doesn't it? It says nothing about paper or ink. Subdjoe, paper or typewriters don't kill people, nor do they poses a threat if stolen. As Big Dog pointed out, this is about ammunition, and guns and ammo work hand in hand, no? Wrong, the written word has killed more people then anything else. You have once again proved your ignorance. Why in the hell do you think the pen is mightier then the sword? Because the written word can create a movement of violent proportions and it has. One could easily say the Jews were victims of it in World War II and that the guns, camps and gas chambers were the result of the written word. |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Oct 19, 2009 11:14:11 GMT -5
Big Dog, thank you for the thorough explanation why you think this bill is wrong. At least I understand somewhat why this could be upsetting to gun owners. However, if the bill makes it harder to access ammunition for responsible enthusiasts, don't you think it also applies to the thugs? My, your level of ignorance is utterly astounding. |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Oct 19, 2009 11:17:19 GMT -5
Hey MINK! Read this and see if you can understand any of it, I know you can't be as stupid as you come off with your last two posts here. I think you give her far to much credit, to be very honest with everyone here. Mink has proven time and again her level of both incompetence and ignorance. |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Oct 19, 2009 11:20:12 GMT -5
I, for one, am glad that you can't buy an assault weapon in our state. What would you need one for anyway? aside from a thatch roofed shack, a small garden, a tin pot for cooking over an open fire, modest clothing, and a nanny state to make sure you have all that, what else would you really need? We don't need alot of things but we are willing to sacrifice our time and labor to earn money to buy the things we want and to provide a comfortable existence for ourselves and our families. i am not at all interested in living the peasant life. if that's what you want then carry your ass over to peasantville, china or vietnam, or cuba. do you, santurelle, have things taht you don't really need? You know saunterelle will avoid this question at all costs. His ideology is about statism, but he does not want to give up anything, even though he feels guilty about it. He worships the state because he has no other higher belief system, so he gives all power to the state because things you worship must be all powerful. It is a backwards way of thinking, but it is common among statists. Just look at Anita Dunn. |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Oct 19, 2009 11:23:28 GMT -5
Big Dog, thank you for the thorough explanation why you think this bill is wrong. At least I understand somewhat why this could be upsetting to gun owners. However, if the bill makes it harder to access ammunition for responsible enthusiasts, don't you think it also applies to the thugs? Mink, just to make it really simple to understand... THUGS don't obey the law now, do you really think more regulation will suddenly make them obey the law? The way criminals work is this: They buy prohibited items anyway. They steal things they can't have. They have others get things for them. Please just stop and think like a crook for one minute and ask yourself: "Will this law keep from from killing someone with a gun if that's what I want to do?" Mink thinks like the worst crook of all, the kind that steal freedoms and liberties under the guise of public safety. |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Oct 19, 2009 11:26:18 GMT -5
Mink, just to make it really simple to understand... THUGS don't obey the law now, do you really think more regulation will suddenly make them obey the law? The way criminals work is this: They buy prohibited items anyway. They steal things they can't have. They have others get things for them. Please just stop and think like a crook for one minute and ask yourself: "Will this law keep from from killing someone with a gun if that's what I want to do?" Crossride, since thugs aren't known for obeying the law or any authority, my point was that if ammo would be difficult to access for responsible gun enthusiasts, it therefore would be harder as well for thugs. Thank you for proving my point that you think like the worst type of crook on this planet. The kind that would steal our freedoms and liberties in the name of security. You are an enemy of freedom loving Americans everywhere and you should be dispised for the traitor you are. |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Oct 19, 2009 11:57:58 GMT -5
As I have said in another post, I am not on meds and am in pretty decent health. I may not be in 100% agreement or not on the same page as gun enthusiasts, doesn't mean I am on meds or had a stroke or speak a different language as crossride implied. I know cars are used in drive-bys, but they don't don't just drive by......they use guns. I can understand the governor's concern here and am trying to understand why most of you can't see the perspective of non gun enthusiasts or law makers in this case. Mind you, I know both dems and conservs. (gun owners), who take this in stride as a safety precaution. So far, Big Dog has provided the best answer amongst all of you. Oh, lets analyze this reply. As I have said in another post, I am not on meds and am in pretty decent health. Okay, we know that Mink is of sound mind and body, that means she has excellent thought capacity and the ability to reason using logic. I may not be in 100% agreement or not on the same page as gun enthusiasts, Well, see what we have here? First, we know her to be of sound mind and body, so how can we see from this sentence that her position is really about deception, rather then the Constitutional rule of law? Do you notice that she is not on the same page as gun enthusiasts? Nor is she in 100% agreement with them. The funny thing is, Mink knows as well as everyone else that this is not about Gun Enthusiasts. This is strictly about a Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, nothing else. She is fully cognizant of this fact, yet she avoids it like the plague and instead shifts the position from one of Constitutional Rights to Gun Enthusiasm. A nice little statist ploy from someone who finds the Constitution a barrier to her goal of public disarmament, yet cannot reveal her position out of fear of exposure of her true goal, Statism. doesn't mean I am on meds or had a stroke or speak a different language as crossride implied. Again, reassurance of her mental capacity to make sound and reasonable decisions and statements. I know cars are used in drive-bys, but they don't don't just drive by......they use guns. Yes, but no one has a Constitutional Right to drive, do they? They do have a Constitutional Right to purchase a car, but not to drive it. Of course, you can't do a drive by with just a gun, now can you? But, you can do a drive by without a gun, can't you? In fact, it happens often with car bombs in other countries, though they are often parked, but some are not. So, I have proven that a car can be used in a drive by without a gun. And dang, didn't a car cause that huge train wreck in Southern California that took more lives in a single incident then any drive by? And darn, there have been incidents in this very State where automobiles have been intentionally used to mow down crowds, so dang, it can be used as a weapon as well. Gee, your arguement has some holes in it now, guess it doesn't really hold water very well after all. Especially since I have just pointed out two incidents where cars were used as weapons without guns in them and have taken more lives in a single incident then perhaps three or four drive bys. I can understand the governor's concern here and am trying to understand why most of you can't see the perspective of non gun enthusiasts or law makers in this case. I can understand their concern, tax revenues are dwindling in this state and by cutting off outside sources of ammuntion suppliers they can institute a higher tax to a closed market, there by increasing revenue with captive consumers trapped by an intrusive, non-effective law designed to increase revenue and setup a backdoor weapons ban by limiting the supplies of ammuntion for certain firearms. As for the perspective of non gun enthusiasts, who cares? No one is encroaching on their rights in anyway by being a gun owner, that is the flaw in your position. Mind you, I know both dems and conservs. (gun owners), who take this in stride as a safety precaution. Thank you for trying to placate us, but I think you are stretching the truth there. Any conservative would see the dangers in limiting ammuntion supplies for what it is, a backdoor attempt to ban firearms. It has been tried throughout history, even as far back as King George, real conservatives know this and are cognizant of this falsehood uttered by Statists just like you. In other words, I am saying you are a liar. You do not know any Conservative Gun Owners that back this law, because conservatives are not that stupid. So far, Big Dog has provided the best answer amongst all of you. Yet, as an unqualified layman you ignore his professional status and pretend you have the real answers. You do this for one reason and one reason only, to appear to be thoughtful of how this law undermines the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, but Security should be foremost ahead of the Second Amendment. This, of course, is the most flawed thought process you have, because The Big Dog is far more knowledgable on the subject then you will ever be, yet you attempt to marginalize his expertise in preference to your highly flawed position. This, of course, reveals your true position for all to see, you are a statist who really does not care about the rights of others, so you lie and pretend that the specifics are not what they are. You are opposed to the Constitution itself. |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Oct 19, 2009 11:59:35 GMT -5
As I have said in another post, I am not on meds and am in pretty decent health. I may not be in 100% agreement or not on the same page as gun enthusiasts, doesn't mean I am on meds or had a stroke or speak a different language as crossride implied. I know cars are used in drive-bys, but they don't don't just drive by......they use guns. I can understand the governor's concern here and am trying to understand why most of you can't see the perspective of non gun enthusiasts or law makers in this case. Mind you, I know both dems and conservs. (gun owners), who take this in stride as a safety precaution. So far, Big Dog has provided the best answer amongst all of you. I'm guessing you actually read big dog's answer but you STILL question the opposition to the legislation? I just don't understand your frame of mind on this, that's all. I do, Mink is a Statist, plain and simple. She may deny it, but it is there, plain as day for all to see. Her position on this subject reveals it more then any other. |
|
