Great blog post "Dear Gun Control Dems" written by a D [Archive] - Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums

Bailey Guns

05-03-2013, 07:11

Damnit, that man just made sense out of all of this nonsense. Why cant anybody else?

He said the same things those on the right have been saying since this debate began. As a matter of fact, he used a lot of talking points and facts brought out by the right and the NRA. It made sense to me a long time ago, long before a democrat said it. While it was a good read, there's nothing new in it other than it's coming from a self-described leftist.

In other words, it's coming from someone who's part of the problem, not part of the solution. The writer posts wonderful points about why gun control is a loser with the American people. He points out how Obama, Holder, Feinstein, Degette, et al, are lying to the American people on guns. He points out that the NRA isn't the boogeyman those same people on the left make it out to be.

Yet he continues to support democrats at the ballot box. Democrats who, by and large, will support party over personal ideology when push comes to shove on the gun debate. He supports a party that has made gun control, an "assault weapons" ban, universal background checks and other 2A infringements a cornerstone of their national party's beliefs and goals.

I will concede there are democrats and liberals that like guns. But there is no such thing as a "pro-gun" democrat.

nynco

05-03-2013, 09:11

Ronin13

05-03-2013, 09:43

He said the same things those on the right have been saying since this debate began. As a matter of fact, he used a lot of talking points and facts brought out by the right and the NRA. It made sense to me a long time ago, long before a democrat said it. While it was a good read, there's nothing new in it other than it's coming from a self-described leftist.

In other words, it's coming from someone who's part of the problem, not part of the solution. The writer posts wonderful points about why gun control is a loser with the American people. He points out how Obama, Holder, Feinstein, Degette, et al, are lying to the American people on guns. He points out that the NRA isn't the boogeyman those same people on the left make it out to be.

Yet he continues to support democrats at the ballot box. Democrats who, by and large, will support party over personal ideology when push comes to shove on the gun debate. He supports a party that has made gun control, an "assault weapons" ban, universal background checks and other 2A infringements a cornerstone of their national party's beliefs and goals.

I will concede there are democrats and liberals that like guns. But there is no such thing as a "pro-gun" democrat.
Pardon my French, but A FUCKING MEN! I couldn't get that little thought out of my head while reading that: "This is a democrat, okay, so he likes guns, but he still votes for the party that wants to be rid of the 2nd Amendment."

Bailey, I am not going to disagree with you about these things being restated. Facts are restated all the time. I think what is important here is the delivery of the message. If people don't find a way to deliver the message in a way that gets to the person you want to talk to, then...well whats the point? There are pro-gun Dems, and we need to help them change the party so regardless of which side wins, guns are safe.

This same guy has another great blog about the stupidity of the AWB. http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/
Hate to break it to you, but I'm going to put this as bluntly as possible... Here's a simple analogy- a big part of football is rushing, we can all agree on that... football is not football without a running game somewhere in the mix, so even if you don't like it, you still have to respect the fact that it exists, it's legal, and it's part of the game. Same thing with the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It's not going anywhere, it's a vital part to the Constitution, and you can't have the US Constitution without it. Don't like it? GTFO. And what is America without the Constitution (to include the BOR)? It isn't. So using that logic, I surmise that the Democratic party is against one of the most vital aspects of the Constitution, and therefor are technically against the Constitution in it's original and current form, thus I can therefore determine that if you boil it down to just the bones of the subject- here comes the kicker- the Democratic party is, for lack of a better word: UNAMERICAN. There, I said it. Don't like it? Well tough, ya know, 1st Amendment and all that. You either respect all of the rights enumerated in the Constitution or none of them, there is no half assing.

cstone

05-03-2013, 10:28

It was a well written article. The article made no new points except that it was written by someone from the left. The other issue the author expressed support for was the right to have an abortion. If I were inclined to comment on that blog, I would ask the author this question:

Two candidates are running for public office. One candidate supports abortion clinics and assault weapon bans. The other candidate would like to severely restrict abortion clinics and does not support any new gun laws. Which candidate do you vote for?

There are very few "one issue" candidates on tickets. As voters, we prioritize the issues and make compromises on issues based on those priorities. When looked at from a larger perspective, the simplest thing to do in many elections is to look a the overall platform of the party supporting the candidates and choose the party which better reflects your priorities.

Until we have direct government, we are forced to make this compromise every time we vote.

Be safe.

Bailey Guns

05-03-2013, 11:20

Bailey, I am not going to disagree with you about these things being restated. Facts are restated all the time. I think what is important here is the delivery of the message. If people don't find a way to deliver the message in a way that gets to the person you want to talk to, then...well whats the point? There are pro-gun Dems, and we need to help them change the party so regardless of which side wins, guns are safe.

This same guy has another great blog about the stupidity of the AWB. http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

Well, that's all fine and dandy. What evidence do we have that the message is being received by those on the left who CONTINUE to support a party that states in their party platform they are for various types of gun control? I'll tell you...NONE. We still have the current crop of rabidly anti-gun democrats in Colorado and national office and the anti-gun onslaught by those people continues, as do their made-up numbers and statistics.

There is no such thing as a pro-gun democrat. There just isn't and I've already articulated why that's true. Not you nor anyone else has been able to articulate why it isn't true except to say that, "I like guns" or "I own guns" or "Sen So-n-So voted against that gun bill".

Until the democrat party platform changes and until democrats help to vote people like Feinstein, McCarthy, Morse, Hudak and others out of office it will be true.

nynco

05-03-2013, 11:21

Ronin correct me if I am wrong (which I know you would in a heartbeat)... but didn't you say you wanted to be a cop someday? How are you going to be a cop and carry out your duty if you consider 50% of America to be traitors? The world is not black and white.

Cstone... I think one of problems you are alluding to can be summed up with this statement... "we don't live in a free country, we live in a two party dictatorship that hides under the illusion of freedom". These two parties have abused the constitution for far too long. I think if any of us really care about protecting it, then we need to find a way to reform our elections so that we are not a two party system. One solution I see for that is Instant Run Off voting. We can not do that at the presidential level but we can for all other elections. We have been divided and conquered by politicians that are just plain evil.

Bailey Guns

05-03-2013, 11:21

Two candidates are running for public office. One candidate supports abortion clinics and assault weapon bans. The other candidate would like to severely restrict abortion clinics and does not support any new gun laws. Which candidate do you vote for?

A pro-gun person wouldn't even have to think in order to answer that question.

nynco

05-03-2013, 11:23

Well, that's all fine and dandy. What evidence do we have that the message is being received by those on the left who CONTINUE to support a party that states in their party platform they are for various types of gun control? I'll tell you...NONE. We still have the current crop of rabidly anti-gun democrats in Colorado and national office and the anti-gun onslaught by those people continues, as do their made-up numbers and statistics.

There is no such thing as a pro-gun democrat. There just isn't and I've already articulated why that's true. Not you nor anyone else has been able to articulate why it isn't true except to say that, "I like guns" or "I own guns" or "Sen So-n-So voted against that gun bill".

Until the democrat party platform changes and until democrats help to vote people like Feinstein, McCarthy, Morse, Hudak and others out of office it will be true.

I am currently using that page as a means of talking to the other side. I get shit from the right here and get pilled on by the left in other places. I am doing my best to bring what I perceive as the truth to the other side. Sometimes the only way to do that is to have a message tailored for the other side. Some have described it as "dog whistle" talk.

Yes there are pro gun democrats and we need to help them rather than make it worse.

Bailey Guns

05-03-2013, 11:24

Cstone... I think one of problems you are alluding to can be summed up with this statement... "we don't live in a free country, we live in a two party dictatorship that hides under the illusion of freedom". These two parties have abused the constitution for far too long. I think if any of us really care about protect it, then we need to find a way to reform our elections so that we are not a two party system. One solution I see for that is Instant Run Off voting. We can not do that at the presidential level but we can for all other elections. We have been divided and conquered by politicians that just plain evil.

That is simply a transparent attempt to deflect from the issue of gun control. It has nothing to do with an imagined "two party dictatorship". It has everything to do with one party being historically vehemently anti-gun and one party historically against further gun control.

It has nothing to do with our electoral system that works just fine. It has everything to do with ideology.

Bailey Guns

05-03-2013, 11:25

I am currently using that page as a means of talking to the other side. I get shit from the right here and get pilled on by the left in other places. I am doing my best to bring what I perceive as the truth to the other side. Sometimes the only way to do that is to have a message tailored for the other side. Some have described it as "dog whistle" talk.

Yes there are pro gun democrats and we need to help them rather than make it worse.

If you truly are, I commend you in those efforts and wish you good luck. If you continue to vote for democrats you're simply pissin' into the wind.

nynco

05-03-2013, 11:28

That is simply a transparent attempt to deflect from the issue of gun control. It has nothing to do with an imagined "two party dictatorship". It has everything to do with one party being historically vehemently anti-gun and one party historically against further gun control.

It has nothing to do with our electoral system that works just fine. It has everything to do with ideology.

Bailey the world is not black and white and the current system makes it so I vote for people who support the statement that "corporations are people" and guns are good.... vs another side that says that corporations are not people but are instead artificial gov created figments of law and guns are bad. Both issues are of huge importance to me. These two parties are almost colluding to keep us divided.

nynco

05-03-2013, 11:32

If you truly are, I commend you in those efforts and wish you good luck. If you continue to vote for democrats you're simply pissin' into the wind.

Bailey for the next election, I am voting straight GOP for all state races either that or for a D who was against the gun control measures (we have to find a way to reward them too). After the laws are overturned, I am going to vote 3rd party, because I can not lie to myself that I have to vote for Demopublicans as the only choice. I can not support a system created by these two parties that is this broken anymore.

Bailey Guns

05-03-2013, 11:43

I vote republican for very simple reasons. The republican party and candidates generally most closely represent my personal values. It's never a perfect match and many republicans do things that piss me off. But the general republican party platform most closely matches my beliefs and republicans and democrats are realistically the only two parties that are going to be elected.

Their stance on 2A freedoms are the main issue I look for in a candidate. Even if a republican isn't a hard-core pro-2A person they will almost never sponsor anti-gun legislation and when push comes to shove they will usually vote with the party against 2A infringements. Obviously, Sen Toomey is a glaring issue of why I said "almost never".

That's also why I would vote for a lukewarm pro-2A republican rather than a democrat with a more solid 2A voting record. It comes down to party. More often than not a politician will vote with his party when pressured by the party leadership. Party trumps person...I'm a firm believer in Rosen's theory.

Rabid

05-03-2013, 11:44

I am glad someone is spreading education to the libs.

Ronin13

05-03-2013, 11:44

Ronin correct me if I am wrong (which I know you would in a heartbeat)... but didn't you say you wanted to be a cop someday? How are you going to be a cop and carry out your duty if you consider 50% of America to be traitors? The world is not black and white.
You're wrong... I never used the word "Traitor"- now if you want to put words in my mouth- then please at least allow me to point out that by doing so you are putting your foot into your own mouth. You must be a wonderful student of the libtard socialist douchebag academy where you discredit those you argue against by quoting them as saying something they never did. Please, cease now, you only look like a tool. I simply implied that by going against the Constitution is unamerican, not traitorous, not treasonous, but contrary to what we as Americans do. It's not like a silly law that a bunch of pole smoking liberal fuckwads passed that allows Adam and Steve to have a civil union, this is the end all, be all, LAW OF THE LAND Constitution, ya know, the thing that takes a moving of heaven and earth to change.

And what Bailey said, the party itself has already stated that they're anti-gun, THE PARTY, hence making a "pro gun democrat" akin to a "hypocrite" or "walking contradiction."

Bailey Guns

05-03-2013, 11:49

I am glad someone is spreading education to the libs.

This has never been the problem and by saying so we're redirecting from where the focus should be. Liberals have been "educated", and continue to be "educated", on the fallacy that is gun control. It's not lack of education or information. It's what they choose to do with that information and it's a war of ideology and emotion.

It would be helpful if we didn't say things like this because it implies it's just a lack of information. It isn't.

nynco

05-03-2013, 11:51

Ronin, I misspoke and said traitor when you said the world "UNAMERICAN". To me the two terms are interchangeable or close. That still does not change my point that you would have a hard time being a cop if you looked at half the population in that light.

Bailey... I think the solution is to weaken the power of the parties and instead make the system more dependent on the actual person you vote for. Or find some other way to make it more than just 2 parties that always control everything.

Aloha_Shooter

05-03-2013, 11:52

Ronin correct me if I am wrong (which I know you would in a heartbeat)... but didn't you say you wanted to be a cop someday? How are you going to be a cop and carry out your duty if you consider 50% of America to be traitors? The world is not black and white.

Committed Democrats are about 30-35% of the population, not 50%. Some things ARE black and white no matter how much Obama and his ilk try to make them out to be gray.

I'm glad a few Democrats can see that the gun control arguments offered are so much pap but pardon me for only offering a soft golf clap for them realizing this when they still support so many illogical, unconstitutional and flat-out unAmerican measures. I used to be much more ambivalent about both parties but 2010s Democrats are not the same as 1970s Democrats and the 2010 version are (for the most part) domestic enemies of the Constitution, American heritage and common sense. Period.

nynco

05-03-2013, 11:53

This has never been the problem and by saying so we're redirecting from where the focus should be. Liberals have been "educated", and continue to be "educated", on the fallacy that is gun control. It's not lack of education or information. It's what they choose to do with that information and it's a war of ideology and emotion.

It would be helpful if we didn't say things like this because it implies it's just a lack of information. It isn't.

Bailey, I know you don't like me or just tolerate me sometimes. You are getting better and I commend you for that. But sometimes the way you deliver the message could turn off the target audience to any truth that you might be trying to tell them. I am guilty of that too and so are most people to some degree. Sometimes how the message is presented any by whom matters just as much as the truth of the message.

nynco

05-03-2013, 11:55

Committed Democrats are about 30-35% of the population, not 50%. Some things ARE black and white no matter how much Obama and his ilk try to make them out to be gray.

I'm glad a few Democrats can see that the gun control arguments offered are so much pap but pardon me for only offering a soft golf clap for them realizing this when they still support so many illogical, unconstitutional and flat-out unAmerican measures. I used to be much more ambivalent about both parties but 2010s Democrats are not the same as 1970s Democrats and the 2010 version are (for the most part) domestic enemies of the Constitution, American heritage and common sense. Period.

I agree and think that BOTH parties are part of the problem. Its not just one side. I would gladly vote for Eisenhower conservatives over most of the current D-holes.

mtnhack

05-03-2013, 11:56

There is no such thing as a pro-gun democrat. There just isn't and I've already articulated why that's true. Not you nor anyone else has been able to articulate why it isn't true except to say that, "I like guns" or "I own guns" or "Sen So-n-So voted against that gun bill".I believe this to be non-sensical. So there are no pro-choice republicans? There are no pro-GunControl Republicans? How about pro-gay republicans?
Just because it is in the party platform doesn't mean these people won't vote their constituents' wishes (more and more unlikely), what is perceived publicly popular at the time, their personal ethics, their religious beliefs, or what their lobby interests tell them to vote for on condition of later payment.
Just as you point out that there is almost never a pro-gun control republican, you must also allow that there are the occasional pro-gun democrats.

Bailey Guns

05-03-2013, 11:56

Bailey... I think the solution is to weaken the power of the parties and instead make the system more dependent on the actual person you vote for. Or find some other way to make it more than just 2 parties that always control everything.

I don't think there's a problem with our electoral system. I think the problem lies with an oppressive federal government that far exceeds it's Constitutional powers. I'll also concede that problem has been caused by both parties. I will, however, state that in general the republican party is far more in favor or downsizing the federal government than the democrat party is. Just another in a long list of reasons not to vote for democrats.

nynco

05-03-2013, 11:58

I don't think there's a problem with our electoral system. I think the problem lies with an oppressive federal government that far exceeds it's Constitutional powers. I'll also concede that problem has been caused by both parties. I will, however, state that in general the republican party is far more in favor or downsizing the federal government than the democrat party is. Just another in a long list of reasons not to vote for democrats.

Bailey do you honestly feel free when we only have two choices...and those two parties rig the rules to keep out all other candidates? Is that good for out nation? What did the founding fathers say about parties?

Bailey Guns

05-03-2013, 12:02

I believe this to be non-sensical. So there are no pro-choice republicans? There are no pro-GunControl Republicans? How about pro-gay republicans?
Just because it is in the party platform doesn't mean these people won't vote their constituents' wishes (more and more unlikely), what is perceived publicly popular at the time, their personal ethics, their religious beliefs, or what their lobby interests tell them to vote for on condition of later payment.
Just as you point out that there is almost never a pro-gun control republican, you must also allow that there are the occasional pro-gun democrats.

I don't have to allow any such thing. There may be a republican who believes in "choice". But if he/she supports the party then he/she isn't truly "pro-choice" any more than a democrat who likes guns is "pro-gun". I think you helped prove my point rather than disprove it.

And if you think that party leadership (of both parties) doesn't use every means within their power to influence votes on important issues by party members who tend to "stray" from the party line then you really don't know how Washington works. Members are sometimes allowed to buck the party line, especially when the vote isn't going to be close anyway. I will also concede that sometimes a party member will vote against the party anyway, despite the pressure from leadership...but it's not a common thing and they will eventually pay for their transgression. One way or another.

Bailey Guns

05-03-2013, 12:04

Bailey do you honestly feel free when we only have two choices...and those two parties rig the rules to keep out all other candidates? Is that good for out nation? What did the founding fathers say about parties?

You have far more than two choices. You may have only two realistic choices in terms of a candidate you like being elected. But that's not the fault of the system or either of the parties.

And potential candidates don't get into this game blindly. They know what they're doing when they choose to run. It's a personal choice.

Ridge

05-03-2013, 12:05

A pro-gun person wouldn't even have to think in order to answer that question.

What about a pro individual rights person?

How can people on here say that they are for individual rights, and then say that the government should be able to tell someone what they can do with their body, or in their bedroom?

Bailey Guns

05-03-2013, 12:10

While I may or may not agree with things like you mention, Ridge, it's not the important issue to me that the 2A is. Therefore, issues like gay marriage and what not take a back seat to others because they aren't as high on my priority list.

How can a person who argues vehemently for "gay rights" or "individual rights" argue against Second Amendment rights? Works both ways. And since I'd wager that most gays are democrats...

ChunkyMonkey

05-03-2013, 12:14

^ The argument on pro life is simple... everyone has right including a baby. You are correct on the bedroom part - non of anyone else business beside the couple/partners. That should also applies on religion rights. The big gov needs to stay out of religious organization on how it conducts itself.

Between the two parties, democrat is the one for more regulations and intrusion into personal freedom whether it's taxation, registration, regulation on personal property, belief, and way of life. I may or may not vote for gop'ers... but I will never vote for DEMs.

Ridge

05-03-2013, 12:29

^ The argument on pro life is simple...

Is it?

everyone has right including a baby.

In scientific terms, a fetus is a parasite. It consumes nutrition from the host animal while providing nothing. Unless you count slower response time and inconsistencies in brain activity as a benefit.

Rucker61

05-03-2013, 12:35

Is it?

In scientific terms, a fetus is a parasite. It consumes nutrition from the host animal while providing nothing. Unless you count slower response time and inconsistencies in brain activity as a benefit.

Breasts get bigger and hair looks fantastic.

Bailey Guns

05-03-2013, 12:35

Bailey, I know you don't like me or just tolerate me sometimes. You are getting better and I commend you for that. But sometimes the way you deliver the message could turn off the target audience to any truth that you might be trying to tell them. I am guilty of that too and so are most people to some degree. Sometimes how the message is presented any by whom matters just as much as the truth of the message.

It's not a personal thing against you, really...it's your politics (or perhaps past politics). And I'll be the first to admit I'm pretty much a no BS type of person. I don't try to make anyone feel good while explaining why my beliefs are important to me. If I come across as abrasive or stubborn...well, maybe I'm just abrasive or stubborn.

I'll also admit I'm rabidly opposed to most liberal ideology. Foaming at the mouth rabidly opposed.

nynco

05-03-2013, 12:40

Breasts get bigger and hair looks fantastic.

Horaaahhhh for BOOBIES

Ridge

05-03-2013, 12:41

Breasts get bigger and hair looks fantastic.

Touche

jhood001

05-03-2013, 12:49

How can a person who argues vehemently for "gay rights" or "individual rights" argue against Second Amendment rights? Works both ways. And since I'd wager that most gays are democrats...

This is what I've been preaching lately to my left leaning anti-2A friends. They counter with the argument that gay rights don't kill people. I counter with the fact that my firearms don't kill people either. Then we stop talking about it.

ChunkyMonkey

05-03-2013, 12:51

Aloha_Shooter

05-03-2013, 12:56

What about a pro individual rights person?

How can people on here say that they are for individual rights, and then say that the government should be able to tell someone what they can do with their body, or in their bedroom?

Nice way to mischaracterize the arguments. If you believe -- as many do -- that life begins before the second trimester dictated by Roe v. Wade then it's not a question of what the woman is doing to her body so much as what she or the doctor is doing to the infant's body. You can argue that it's not an infant (yet) and that's a very reasonable argument to have -- but it's not an argument about what someone can do with her body no matter what NARAL or NOW try to say. Of course there are the fanatics on either side but very very few of the pro-lifers or pro-traditional marriage folks I've seen are Westboro Baptists (in fact, I've never met any of the Westboro Baptists and hope never to do so).

As far as homosexual marriage goes, there's a very real difference between being against redefining marriage and outlawing homosexuality. Being against a redefinition of what constitutes "marriage" is not telling someone what they can or can't do in the bedroom (the UCMJ provisions against sodomy on the other hand do say there are things you can't do in the bedroom but don't require a gender distinction). You conveniently forget or are ignorant of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution (aka the Full Faith and Credit Clause) requiring states to recognize "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." One of the past strategies of the homosexual activist movement was to get homosexual marriage rammed down the throat of every state in the union by getting it passed in a single state and then relying on Article IV, Section 1.

I couldn't give a rat's patootie what you want to do in the bedroom but if you're going to try to redefine marriage, start by recognizing marriages that have been recognized by worldwide cultures over millenia (i.e., polygamous and incestuous marriages) rather than a form that has been nearly universally rejected for millenia. The only State purposes for recognizing marriages anyway is to solidify rights of inheritance and those can be addressed today with properly written wills, trusts, and powers of attorney. As far as abortion goes, I'm only against using it as the "prophylactic" of last resort because it really isn't prophylactic -- there are some very good reasons to perform an abortion in some cases and there's a very special place in hell for the likes of Kermit Gosnell. In between, there are a lot of people making up for their own irresponsibility by getting rid of some biological cells that may or may not gestate into an individual sentient lifeform (or may already be a lifeform).

Bailey Guns

05-03-2013, 13:04

^^ Yeah. What he said.

Chad4000

05-03-2013, 13:31

lol this thread...

great article...

Ronin13

05-03-2013, 13:58

Ronin, I misspoke and said traitor when you said the world "UNAMERICAN". To me the two terms are interchangeable or close. That still does not change my point that you would have a hard time being a cop if you looked at half the population in that light.
You continually misconstrue my statements... I don't "look" at "half" of the population "in that light." You are an awfully presumptuous person, and frankly it's getting a tad annoying. To you they may be interchangeable, but most of the time (granted not all, something I'm working on) I mean what I say and would prefer if people take what I say and not what they believe I'm saying, but in reality I do not consider being unamerican to be traitorous or anything but unamerican. I consider OWS, anti-capitalist, anti-gun, and socialists to be unamerican, because these are ideals that run perpendicular to what it means to be American. The two guys that tried to light the US flag on fire in the Rick Monday incident, they are unamerican, but I wouldn't prejudge them as traitors to our nation, just assholes who don't act like they want to be here. Look, if you don't like the way things are run here, you have two options, move or try to change it. The left tried, and failed, to change it recently, and yet they continue to try. It's not so much that they are trying to do it "the right way" (I believe they're doing it the legal way, if what they were doing wasn't inherently wrong), but the fact that it's wildly unpopular, illogical, and most importantly, unconstitutional is what I take issue with the party, supporters, and anyone in general who believes 'the 2nd has got to go.' Now if 2/3 of the states were to decide that we should repeal the 2nd Amendment, that would be another story.

I can respect a difference in opinion, and my views on people's lack of support for our founding documents would in no way, shape, or form limit or change my abilities to enforce the law and protect my community objectively... if I ever were to be employed as a LEO.

I agree and think that BOTH parties are part of the problem. Its not just one side. I would gladly vote for Eisenhower conservatives over most of the current D-holes.
Here we go again... sure both parties have their faults, and both parties contribute to the problem, but ONE party is going against the very ideals that helped to form and mold and shape our nation. Guess which party that is? I'll give you a hint, it's not the one that has received overwhelming support from the NRA.

Hound

05-03-2013, 16:38

This goes along with what I have been saying on this forum. Bring more people in and don't push people away because they don't agree with everything you do. The "Libtard" comments do nothing but make it harder to get the votes we need to kick this current bunch of idiots out and send a message of our own.

centrarchidae

05-03-2013, 20:02

Yes there are pro gun democrats and we need to help them rather than make it worse.

Where were they, this past March?

Sharpienads

05-03-2013, 20:14

cstone

05-03-2013, 20:36

In scientific terms, a fetus is a parasite. It consumes nutrition from the host animal while providing nothing. Unless you count slower response time and inconsistencies in brain activity as a benefit.

Put down the Daily Kos and look at the definition for the word parasite:

par·a·site [par-uh-sahyt]
noun
1.an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2.a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
3.(in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.

Were you a different species than your mother?
Do children provide no useful or proper return to their parents?
You may have me on #3, as my children have often been amusing, or provided impudent conversation, or flattering remarks.

I used abortion because the author in the blog piece mentioned that he is an adamant supporter of abortion rights. I think the author points out that no one agrees with 100% of the platform of any national party. Given the rules of both state and federal legislatures, having a majority of the party that aligns closest with your personal priorities will provide the best results possible, given the nature of our representative government.

I am looking forward to a day when we can move past representative government and institute a more direct form of government. When anyone can propose legislation, block legislation, and vote directly on legislation. We aren't there, but I believe that day will come.

Be safe.

Hound

05-03-2013, 21:04

Where were they, this past March?

First in line to speak against those bills at the senate hearings. First to tell them how disgusting it was they refused to listen to us in those hearings! Going to Townhall meetings. Signing petitions. Writing not only state but federal politicians trying to talk some sense into them. Telling those that thought they had our vote they would lose it if they voted for those bills. They already knew they were not going to get your vote, so you did not matter to them (which is a big part of the problem). BTW: this did work, remember 2 bills did get squashed because a Democrat listened to us talk, not yell at her. Many Democrats were talking to both sides trying to get some understanding that if we did not try to talk we would end up with what we got. The Right does not have a monopoly on gun ownership as this article shows. There are many (on both sides) who think what Bush did during his years is just as bad as what Obama seems to be doing now as far as trampling the Constitution. Both sides of the political spectrum have stopped listening to the people and instead seem only listen in their soundboard rooms to the echo of their own voice or that of a lobbyist. We need to stop thinking 'our side' is right and start working together to override those soundboard rooms with our own voices. That or kick'em out regardless of what side they are on!

Bailey Guns

05-04-2013, 00:54

^^ Great. This is what a "pro-gun" democrat accomplishes. He helps to elect the Hickenloopers, Hudaks, Morses and Fields...the types of people that craft this anti-gun legislation we're now having to deal with. But we're supposed to believe he's some kind of hero because a few democrat politicians voted against the bills because of what he and others like him had to say.

Please forgive me if I don't stand up and cheer for "all" you've done for us. I don't recall having to endure any anti-gun legislation under the Bush administration. And I think it's bullshit when you say "Both sides of the political spectrum have stopped listening to the people..." when discussing the recent hearings at the state capital. I heard republican after republican stand firmly, vocally and robustly against this nonsense and speak out against it on the floor. There were but a few democrats doing that. Nope...the party of Obamacare stands squarely to blame for this whether you want to admit it or not.

The republican house is the only reason we don't have the same thing and worse at the national level.

centrarchidae

05-04-2013, 02:00

Dang it, Bailey Guns stole my thunder.

Short version is, when you vote for a politician, you vote for his party's leadership's agenda. Maybe governors have a little independence, but legislators select speakers of houses and presidents of senates.

Democrats will usually bring this crap to the floor. Republicans usually won't.

I don't know a simpler way to say it.

And remind me: which two bills failed? I know of two that were pulled by their own sponsors, after said sponsors were humiliated by stupid things said on camera by their supporters. Were John Morse and Rollie Heath coming around to the side of the angels when they killed their own bills?

mtnhack

05-04-2013, 03:28

The republican house is the only reason we don't have the same thing and worse at the national level.Actually, the background checks bill was killed by the democrat led senate before it ever got to the house. But it isn't over yet. Fucking obama was spewing bs and lies in Mexico just yesterday.

Aloha_Shooter

05-04-2013, 07:35

The only reason the Democrats killed the background check bill in the Senate was that it was going to die in chamber -- by killing it before introduction, they bought time to coerce the 2A-friendly Dems who were going to cross over on the vote.

Bailey has it right. By voting for Dems, "they" voted for the whole extremist unAmerican agenda -- whoever "they" is. And no, I don't care if they get their panties twisted in a wad because I'm calling them out for voting Democrat.

Hound

05-04-2013, 09:14

You guys are right. The Gun owning Dems should keep voting for their party and Repubtards should stay on their side. They can then cry when Fienstien knocks on the door demanding their guns. Sure they will scream "We will fight!" and "from my cold dead hands!" but the reality is they will lose in the end. Not because it was a no-win situation but because pride was to much to swallow. You are right. Joining together is no replacement for pointing fingers. Bush would have let you keep your guns while trashing the rest of the Constitution but hey there is only one important Amendment to you. You guys got it all figured out. Ironic that the statement "A house divided cannot stand" is from the founder of the party that seeks to divide the most. But hey, keep pushing those votes away, so you can say you were right while you lose the fight and your guns.

nynco

05-04-2013, 09:20

Hound gets it. Neither party is protecting the constitution. The only thing the GOP is good for is the 2nd. They trashed every other one with things like the patriot act.

Tor Larson

05-04-2013, 13:18

Hound gets it. Neither party is protecting the constitution. The only thing the GOP is good for is the 2nd. They trashed every other one with things like the patriot act.

Oh and your messiah Obama/Demorats are doing such a bang up job protecting our BOR and reversing the damage fucktard Bush did? They are just making it worse.

Answer truthfully now Hound and Nyco- in 2016 when Klinton runs for CIC will you vote for her- knowing her track record with the 2nd? I'd bet my left nut you will.

nynco

05-04-2013, 13:37

Did I say I was happy with Obama? Most people I know now think I am a die hard right winger with the way I support the 2nd Amendment and rail against Obama. Why? Because I see Obama doing the same garbage Bush was doing. So please spare me the messiah stuff. As for 2016, I have no clue. I do know I hate the Clintons for NAFTA and Telcom 96 etc. I pray that Bernie Sanders runs for president. He would clean house and win. Either that or someone like Ron Paul.

Irving

05-04-2013, 13:50

Hmmm, perfect timing that I just received this email the other day. Looks like I've got a place to post this blog up. Probably one of those things where I was just banned for x amount of years, but I was still extremely surprised to receive the email.

Hello, Irving:
This is to inform you that the administrators at Runner's World Community (http://community.runnersworld.com/) just restored your membership rights on their community.
MEMBERSHIP UN-BANNED
Your account at RunnersWorld.com is now active.

Kevin Knabe
RunnersWorld.com

Sincerely,
Runner's World Community
http://community.runnersworld.com (http://community.runnersworld.com/)

Bailey Guns

05-04-2013, 15:09

Hound gets it. Neither party is protecting the constitution. The only thing the GOP is good for is the 2nd. They trashed every other one with things like the patriot act.

No, he doesn't. And neither do you. Apparently your memory re: the Patriot Act is short. What president signed it last? That would be Obama. How many senate democrats supported/did not support the Patriot Act under Obama? That would be 31/18. So spare me your bullshit. 67 democrats in the house voted for it.

Give me one single example (besides the Patriot Act) where Bush "trashed" the Constitution but Obama/democrats "fixed" it?

Bailey Guns

05-04-2013, 15:12

I pray that Bernie Sanders runs for president.

What? Obama not socialist enough for you. Just what we need. An anti-war socialist who isn't afraid to tell everyone he's a socialist. And you have the nerve to bitch about Bush "trashing" the Constitution.

Kraven251

05-04-2013, 17:39

was a good read, he didn't use small enough words for his target audience though, pretty confident this would confuse DeGette and her ilk.

nynco

05-04-2013, 18:53

What? Obama not socialist enough for you. Just what we need. An anti-war socialist who isn't afraid to tell everyone he's a socialist. And you have the nerve to bitch about Bush "trashing" the Constitution.

So what, where does he come from? VERMONT one of the most free states in the nation when in comes to guns. Bernie would do something that NEEDS to be done... jail all the bastards who crashed the economy.

centrarchidae

05-04-2013, 19:12

You guys are right. The Gun owning Dems should keep voting for their party followed by a bunch of other crap

What gun-owning Dems? Where were they in March, 2013?

Your party, as a party, is anti-gun. If you can change it from the inside, why haven't you? If you can't change it from the inside, then why are you pissing on my leg and telling me that the drought is over?

jerrymrc

05-04-2013, 19:21

Circling the bowl.......

sabot_round

05-04-2013, 19:32

IBTL!! As it has been stated before, there is no such thing as a PRO-2 Amendment democrat if they still vote democrat. It's like installing a screen door on a submarine...it just doesn't make sense!!!

Hound

05-04-2013, 20:42

I already know where you stand on this but Gitmo...Really, they suspended all your rights and can hold you forever without a trial by labeling you a 'Terrorist'. That is in the ORIGINAL Constitution, not an Amendment! Drones, yep Obama has keep them going but Bush started this BS of death from above. Now new and improved for killing Americans in America! (Ya, they pulled back on this but lost any credibility). No trial there either!

Freedom of speech, you remember the one above the 2nd? They created 'Free Speech Zones' so it was illegal to speak out anywhere somebody could hear you when the President came to town.

Bailey do you not remember Katrina where they did come for the guns? They went door to door in a Republican state taking guns from American citizens. There went your 2nd Amendment and a Democrat was no where near that cluster!!

Ya know that pesky 4th one, they gutted the FISA court so we are now used to damn near anybody in Government being able to put GPS trackers on cars, get any record from any company, and have dragnets on cell towers as well as rooms in telcos that provide taps on all Americans phones. Do you guys not remember that Bush created the Patriot act. Obama should have killed it but don't act like he started it.

How bout the 5th, you know against self incrimination. They thought they could force you to give up the passwords to encrypted files and laptops. Hey, all in the name of security, you know like they keep saying about why we don't need to own our guns!!

We can keep going but this is what I could come up with in a few short seconds. It kills Baileys point! I am sure a witty repore is forth coming!

Do you guys even read what we are saying or do you just start throwing those rocks? We are trying to say lets work together to save the second and all you can do is act Holy'er than Thou to an out reached hand! Your side screwed this up EVERY BIT as bad as what the current idiots are going for but all you can see is "The Right is right!!!" Quit fighting, pointing fingers and generally dividing yourself from people who are agreeing with you. Ya want to know what is UNAMERICAN.....Putting party politics before the Constitution, good of the country and the people! That goes for either side!