Conservatives keep making this baseless claim with no merits whatsoever. There is no proof that Obama is going to restrict gun rights at all, in fact he has increased gun rights in national parks, not diminished them. But the right needs something to be scared about, that is all they have fearmongering.

both have increased dramatically since Obama took office.
Posted by Mike_M
2009-11-18 13:03:45

We are neither in more danger nor do we face more pain since Obama took office.

How sad to be so full of fear.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-18 12:55:45

This coming from an idiot that thinks that the world is gonna end because man produces CO2!!!!!

the world is gonna end because man produces CO2!!!!!
Posted by bthewolf
2009-11-18 13:20:17

End earlier than necessary.

Liberals in particular fear guns. . .
Posted by TheBaud
2009-11-18 13:31:01

Not a true statement.

End earlier than necessary.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-18 13:37:53

Still fear-mongering based on NO solid scientific evidence, never-show. Like the dooms of Avian Flu, Swine Flu, Mad Cow, DDT, and conseravitive policies, it’s all fear mongering by those on the left who always side on the govt having more control of a person’s life.

Owning a gun does nothing to stop terrorism.
Posted by Realpolitik 2009-11-18 13:55:58

This is my nomination for “The Stupidest Thing Said By A Liberal” for the month of November.

However, you don’t dispute the fact.
Posted by Realpolitik 2009-11-18 14:01:11

OK, for those with single-digit IQ’s, such as Realpolitik, you statement is stupid and completely wrong.

Enlighten us. How does your ownership of a gun stop terrorism?
Posted by Realpolitik 2009-11-18 14:06:36

Say I was a passenger on a plane being hijacked and had a gun.

Say I had a gun when the terrorist started shooting up Ft. Hood.

Posted by TheBaud
2009-11-18 14:10:07
Let’s say that you are dressed as a monkey on the end of a chain and you are shilling for coin on the streets of Laredo and a dwarf dressed as John Wayne walks by and he looks like he’s a muslim and you reach into your pocket and . . .

How about for the decade?
Posted by gfchicago
2009-11-18 14:13:52

However, you don’t dispute the fact.

Let’s say that you are dressed as a monkey on the end of a chain and you are shilling for coin on the streets of Laredo and a dwarf dressed as John Wayne walks by and he looks like he’s a muslim and you reach into your pocket and . . .
Posted by Realpolitik 2009-11-18 14:18:06

This is the best you have? I can stop a terrorist attack with my weapon. And you plan on using what, your sarcasm?

I can stop a terrorist attack with my weapon. And you plan on using what, your sarcasm?
Posted by TheBaud
2009-11-18 14:22:31

You are never going to be in a position where you will have the ability to stop a terrorist attack, armed or not. The sarcasm is directed at your inane examples.

You are never going to be in a position where you will have the ability to stop a terrorist attack, armed or not. The sarcasm is directed at your inane examples.
Posted by Realpolitik 2009-11-18 14:25:50

And since you do not know that, your idiocy is dismissed.

Then you would either be a) committing a crime, or b) the gun would be stowed away in your checked luggage.

You do know that soldiers do have guns on military bases, right?
Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-18 14:26:05

Because Liberals like you put laws in place to stop people from carrying guns in certain locations. If law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry weapons on board airplanes, do you thing the Muslim savages could have perpetrated 9/11 WITH BOXCUTTERS?

Oh, and the soldiers gunned down at Fort Hood were unarmed because they were not allowed to carry their weapons on base. That rule really did a lot to stop the attack, didn’t it.

There is the very real possibility that Obama and his minions will get around to guns, once they are through decimating healthcare. It is prudent to stock up.

There are very real possibilities of a lot of things, including Global Warming.

But irrational, kneejerk reactions are just that.

The only reason why ammo and guns are booming right now is because of an irrational fear of non-existent gun control policies. Even if Obama proposed the same gun control policies that Clinton did, it would be only an iota of total guns & ammo available and wouldn’t curtail your right to bear arms one single bit. And he’s not even proposing that.

It’s fear. Even the notion of “I need a gun to prevent terrorism” is so friggin hilarious. “I’m afraid of terror.”

You can’t even make this shit up.

It’s fear. Even the notion of “I need a gun to prevent terrorism” is so friggin hilarious. “I’m afraid of terror.”

Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-18 14:33:45

I’m glad you think keeping your family safe is funny, D-Vega. I’m sure you’ll think it is equally as funny if you are in a mall and a terrorist rushs in and starts gunning down people. That sign on the door saying that guns are prohibited will not stop a terrorist from shooting the place up, but it keep a law-abiding person like me from bringing a weapon in and stopping the attack.

And this may be a kneejerk reaction, but it is one based upon facts and history. And the history of Liberals and their propensity to subvert the Constitution by banning guns is on the side of the gun-owners. Like I said, stocking up is not fear, it is prudent!

You are never going to be in a position where you will have the ability to stop a terrorist attack, armed or not. The sarcasm is directed at your inane examples.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-18 14:25:50

Never? So those passengers on board that flight(forgot the number) in PA DIDN’T STOP a terrorist attack? So the shoe-bomber WASN’T stopped from commiting an act of terror? Were you born last week?

No one would have ever expected that you would need self-defense of that kind on a military base. Are you really going to use FT Hood at every opportunity? Like you guys sucked the political juices out of 9/11?
Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-18 14:37:03

Fort Hood just happened, and was highly preventable. Not only that, it showed what happens when Liberal PC policies are put into place. It is little wonder that you want us to stop talking about it, as it speaks to what abject idiots you are. The blood of those soldiers are on you and those like you D-Vega.

And that terrorist attack could have been stopped earlier if guns had been around. I see you’ve backed off of your lie there.

Oh, and the 9/11 hijackers may have used guns instead of boxcutters, but they would have been met with guns. And the fact that they might have met some resistance just pisses you off.

you don’t dispute the fact.
Posted by TheBaud
2009-11-18 14:43:57

It is not based on facts and history – and I don’t make that up.

It is not based on facts and history…
Posted by Realpolitik 2009-11-18 14:46:52

FACT – Liberals want to ban guns.
FACT – Gun control is a Liberal ideal.
FACT – Liberals are at the forefront to enact legislation that subverst the Constitutional protections under the 2nd Amendment
FACT – Realpolitik is too stupid to know when he has lost an argument.

Posted by TheBaud
2009-11-18 14:49:17

Facts which have nothing to do with the effectiveness of gun-ownership having any control over terrorism, but facts which prove you must deflect because your argument is lost.

Idiot response threshold is now at DefCon 3. Readying insult rebuts in 5… 4….
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-18 14:51:23

Please address where you were factually wrong in making the statement that soldiers have guns on military bases. Your understanding of issue and facts is severly lacking. Also your statement that all current gun sales is from fear and fear alone is also inaccurate.

I can end this debate in one word:

MUMBAI

Facts which have nothing to do with the effectiveness of gun-ownership having any control over terrorism, but facts which prove you must deflect because your argument is lost.
Posted by Realpolitik 2009-11-18 14:52:15

And since you have provided not facts, only your inane opinion, renders you moot.

When you take guns away from law-abiding citizens, crime and terrorism increase. That is a fact. I myself have prevented two crimes by simply being in possession of a firearm. And should I encounter a terrorist attack, I will do whatever I can to stop it. Even it that means that an America-hating moroan like you might survive.

Are you saying soldiers don’t have guns on military bases, Living?

Just answer the question yes or no.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-18 14:56:03

Stop being a prick, D-Vega. You know good and well that the soldiers at Fort Hood were not allowed to carry their weapons on based. Your question is both stupid and a pathetic attempt to divert attention away from your previous lie.

Just answer the question yes or no.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-18 14:56:03

NO they don’t the only soldiers allowed to carry on base are MPs, period. Thank you Bill Clintoon.

A military base has nothing to do with gun control. Stop dishonoring the lives of those soldiers by exploiting their murders for your own right-wing claptrap.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-18 14:55:01

Your position is moronic. Had even half of those soldiers been armed, your hero would not have killed nearly as many people. Denying this is an exercise in absurdity. D-Vega, I have yet to see you or your leftist compatriots present a real counterargument to this.

What is with the idiot left? They firmly believe that only law enforcement officers can stop crazed gunmen and terrorists! It’s either that, or they believe that crazed gunmen and terrorists are unstoppable, and just a fact of life that should be lived with, and largely ignored.

And on a personal level, D-Vega, fuck you straight to hell. You can’t present a coherent counter-argument, so you accuse us of doing what you leftist cocksuckers do non-stop… exploit victims to get your own political way. Even if you have to make up victims to exploit.

They firmly believe that only law enforcement officers can stop crazed gunmen and terrorists!
Posted by sabiticus 2009-11-18 15:02:24

“Remember, when seconds count… the police are only MINUTES away!”

The small arms are kept in the armory.
Posted by sabiticus 2009-11-18 15:03:52

From your posts, I would guess you are either current or former military, sabiticus. Is that correct?

It must really bother Dumbass-Vega that an Obama supporter murderded 13 soldiers in an act of terrorism.

USMC and then Army.
Posted by sabiticus 2009-11-18 15:08:40

Well, then thank you for your service to this nation. And you as well, Living_Right_in_CA.

And thank you both for bringing some truth and validity to this debate. D-Vega is severly lacking in both of those things.

How sad to be so full of fear.

Yes, how sad for the left to be so full of fear. Why else would you be complaining so much about people buying up lots of guns?

Why else would you be complaining so much about people buying up lots of guns?
Posted by mightysamurai 2009-11-18 15:12:16

Because it is…
People helping the economy instead of destroying it.
People exercising their Constitutional Rights.
People taking responsibility for their safety and the safety of their family and neighbors instead of handing it over to the government.

mightysamurai, it is obvious why they are afraid of this.

Posted by sabiticus
2009-11-18 15:18:41

Appreciate the great answer as I was genuinely curious! Are you still in? I was in USMC 86-90…

There is no proof that Obama is going to restrict gun rights at all,
Posted by whats_up
2009-11-18 12:59:17

So your telling me that we shouldnt take obama at his word or at his past actions? Great, got it.

I thought you said you live in New York City? If you are not afraid of terrorism, especially with Obama putting a hugh bulls-eye right back on your city, then you are a bigger fucking idiot that I even imagined.

You just don’t understand why someone wouldn’t want to be afraid of something whose main purpose is to instill irrational in you? You don’t understand that? Too bad.

You just don’t understand why someone wouldn’t want to be afraid of something whose main purpose is to instill irrational in you? You don’t understand that? Too bad.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-18 16:05:29

I understand that terrorism happens, that it can hit close to home, and that it can affect me personally. I also understand that you can have a healthy and necessary fear of some things. A fear of heights or a fear of snakes can be a good thing.

We need to be afraid of terrorism. To say you are not is either a lie or ignorance. Of course, you probably still think that Obama cowering in the face of our enemies will make the attacks stop and make them love us.

There is no other reason other than fear.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-18 16:07:32

What about people wanted to be armed in order to defend their families? Is that not a reason, D-Vega?

The right, and some of the left, use 9/11 as a bludgeoning tool when all else fails. Now the same will be done with Ft Hood and its despicable.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-18 16:10:45

Abu Ghraib? Columbine? Every other School Shooting?

You can shove your self-righteous attitude up your ass, D-Vega. The Left in this country pioneered using tragedy for political gain. Now that your tactic is being used against you, all you can do is bitch.

Why should we? You guys were perfectly happy to exploit the murders of 32 young men and women at VA Tech for your own left-wing claptrap. Take your hypocritical bullcrap somewhere else, D-Vega.

And what’s it called when you do it, sam? Being a patriot?

If you remember correctly, I was opposed to any gun control points being made after VAT. For this very reason. You don’t put your soapbox on someone’s grave.

If you are simply going to name-call, then you can go fuck yourself.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-18 16:10:45

Ohh waah.

“On the contrary, that assessment is spot-on. There is no other reason other than fear. ”

Prove it… I already gave you another reason, supply and demand. As demand was (imo) initially driven by fear of a democrat controlled WH and Congress then it turned and still is a supply and demand issue. It was with me, I started buying ammo early this year to avoid the inevitable price increase. I also bought another gun, because I like to shoot them. Zero to do with fear. I know about 20-30 other people exactly like me. I am pretty sure its not a local phenomenon.

So all this poves is your understanding of military rules and the forces behind the people that are buying guns equates to ZERO.

So you certainly have earned your name as Dumbass as you spew off BS on things you know nothing about nor do you have any direct experience with the topics at hand.

You don’t have to f off either, you may have a nice day ;-)

Glad to see you admit to it.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-18 16:26:23

Sorry, I didn’t admit anything Dipshit-Vega. You and those like you exploit anything you can to gain political points. Your ‘soapbox’ has been on dead soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan, victims from Katrina and Columbine, and military personnel from Abu Ghraib. Now you are accusing the Right of doing what you so gleefully do on a regular basis.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds!

…you don’t have the right to own any firearm…

Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-18 16:26:23

So the clear words of the Constitution mean nothing to you? I guess the Founding Father’s really meant “…shall not be infringed” UNLESS D-VEGA SAYS SO!

…you don’t have the right to own any firearm…

Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-18 16:26:23

We must got him spun-up enough to speak what he truly believes !!!

So the clear words of the Constitution mean nothing to you? I guess the Founding Father’s really meant “…shall not be infringed” UNLESS D-VEGA SAYS SO!

Your 2nd amendment right to bear arms is no more infringed by banning certain arms than your 1st amendment right is infringed by not being able to speak freely at your workplace or in a courtroom.

Your 2nd amendment right to bear arms is no more infringed by banning certain arms than your 1st amendment right is infringed by not being able to speak freely at your workplace or in a courtroom.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-18 16:39:51

So we can ban a few religions and our Freedsom of Religion survives just fine? Good. Let’s get those Lutherans out of here.

You really don’t think these things through, do you D-Vega?

What do you have against Lutherans, by the way?

Very good, CT.

Your 2nd amendment right to bear arms is no more infringed by banning certain arms than your 1st amendment right is infringed by not being able to speak freely at your workplace or in a courtroom.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-18 16:39:51

There is no Constitutional right to say whatever you want at your work, in a restaraunt, heck even at home without consequence. The right to free speech means that you can say what you want about the government or any other entity and the GOVERNMENT cannot take action against you. It does not mean I can walk up to my boss and call him a a f’in jackass and expect to keep my job because of the 1st Amendmnet to the Consitution. You really are a Dumbass.

And yes, that is terrorism. Not the same as 9/11, but related.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-18 16:52:39

No, exactly like 911. Another brutal act of war.

There is no Constitutional right to say whatever you want at your work, in a restaraunt, heck even at home without consequence.

I know. That’s what I said. Are you paying attention?

The right to free speech means that you can say what you want about the government or any other entity and the GOVERNMENT cannot take action against you.

Yeah, so?

It does not mean I can walk up to my boss and call him a a f’in jackass and expect to keep my job because of the 1st Amendmnet to the Consitution. You really are a Dumbass.

You need to buy “Vega’s Notes ©” and brush up on the material before you say things that exactly the same things I am saying.

The same thing you have just said as it applies to free speech, applies to arms. That means no matter what law Virginia could pass, each school would still have the right to a gun-free campus.

Am I getting through? Bueller?

Not the same as 9/11, but related.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-18 16:52:39

Yes, it is the same as 9/11. It differs only to scale.

And Stop this bullshit of pretend you speak for the entire Left. It is annoying. You talk about the Right as if anything said or done by anyone applies to everyone. Yet, when we say antything about the Left in this country, you start with the pathetic “I am not saying…” or “I was opposed to any gun control points being made after VAT…”. Convenient and unprovable. Also totally ignorant of the bulk of those on the Left that did take that exact position.

And the ‘tactic’ i was discussing was the inane Leftist tactic of accusing the Right of the exact actions you are taking. YOU and the entire Left are the one’s using the Ft. Hood tragedy for political gain.

That means you cannot keep and bear a minigun without careful licensing and background checks. It does not mean that you can have your right to self defense in having a handgun taken away. There have to be limits but the limits have to be very limited themselves.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2009-11-18 16:46:04

Sorry CT, gotta disagree with you here. The 2nd Amendment was written with the express idea of allowing the people to overthrow their government if it became oppressive and you’re not going to do that with handguns and semi-auto rifles.

The idea was that the militia (and no, it’s not the national guard, that’s a whole different group) were to be armed with military grade weapons. There’s plenty of quotes from our founders to support this, so don’t sell them short by taking the easy way out on this one.

And Living_Right_in_CA, my suggestion of you to go fuck yourself still stands. Try to keep it civil.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-18 16:59:53

So says the child that is dropping the F bomb everytime someone calls him dumb. If I call you an asshole are you going to threaten my life or something?

Yes, I would have to agree that some elements of fundmental Islam have no place in American society. Or any other free society for that matter.

However, there are millions of muslims who fit very well into our society, but do not suscibe to the anti-freedom orthodoxy.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-18 16:58:15

So what’s wrong with saying “You can live here if you want, but Islam isn’t welcome here”? If they aren’t truly Muslim (and sorry, you’re either Muslim or you’re not just like you’re either Christian or Jewish or your not. Those who aren’t willing to live out their religion’s fundamentals don’t get to claim to keep it’s commands), then giving up their hate won’t bother them, but if they are why would we allow them the liberty of living here with us?

So, I have a 2nd Amendment right to own and carry arms, I do NOT have the right to shoot them wherever I please. Thats the correct comparison.

No, you are mistaken. But nice try.

You have the right to carry a firearm, but not everywhere you please, and not any arm you please.

So says the child that is dropping the F bomb everytime someone calls him dumb. If I call you an asshole are you going to threaten my life or something?

Why would I threaten anyone? You get back what you put out. I don’t call anyone names unless they start it. Don’t like it? Grow up, make your points and move on without resorting to baiting.

And how does it feel to engage in namecalling with this “child”, oh mighty adult veteran?

…and not any arm you please.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-18 17:06:56

And that restriction is in the Constitution WHERE???

No, you are mistaken. But nice try.

You have the right to carry a firearm, but not everywhere you please, and not any arm you please.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-18 17:06:56

So says Dumbass, so it is written.. LMAO…Keep = own Bear = Carry. Shall not be infringed means to not impede. Just because it IS happening does not mean it SHOULD be happening. And no I dont think that is going to change anytime soon and I am not actively pursuing such a change.

No one is expecting or wanting to carry around a Ma Deuce as it would not be practical.

They were both terrorist attacks and in both cases Americans died.

I didn’t say anything to the contrary, Baud.

I didn’t say anything to the contrary, Baud.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-18 17:14:07

Another in the long line of D-Vega lies!
Uh, that means its not the same.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-18 17:04:32

Please provide proof of this distinction D_V using the founders own words.

CT said it best, but I would submit that regulating certain arms, like explosives, does’nt infringe on your 2nd rights, because you can still bear arms. Just not those arms.

Would you submit that I should be able to keep a nuclear warhead on my estate if I could prove that I could keep it secure?

Would you submit that I should be able to keep a nuclear warhead on my estate if I could prove that I could keep it secure?
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-18 17:21:35

You cannot “bear” a nuclear weapon. Bear at the time meant something a single individual could carry and wield on their person.

Look I didn’t call you dumb even though you gave another absurd example! Happy?

CT said it best, but I would submit that regulating certain arms, like explosives, does’nt infringe on your 2nd rights, because you can still bear arms. Just not those arms.

Would you submit that I should be able to keep a nuclear warhead on my estate if I could prove that I could keep it secure?
Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-18 17:21:35

And the only person here that agreed with “CT”s assertion WAS YOU! Hardly a ringing endorsement, and no Constitutional basis at all.

And no one here would want you to have a nuclear bomb, as you have proven to be far too immoral and unstable to use it properly. That being said, the 2nd Amendment said “Arms” with no further definition. So we would have no Constitutional reason to deny you that nuclear bomb.

Luckily, if you did possess a nuclear bomb, there is a better than average chance it would go off right after you said “I wonder what THIS button does.”

Funny as much as it is reading you getting smacked down here everyday. Then you waiting until the thread is “vacated” and you come back with your last word posts.

Awww… I must’ve hit a nerve. I guarantee you I am slapping myself on the wrist right now.

And I have been here all day, but then I leave for home. I know you all have this pathetic excuse that I leave and then come back when no one is here but that is absurd and exposes the weaknesses in your position.

I am here right now. And I’ve posted more than anyone else. Stop making pathetic excuses and be a man.

Thanks for proving my child commant as you did with my dumbass comment. So you go around life and everytime someone calls you dumb you tell them to fuck-off, you should see a Dr. about that.

I wouldn’t know. I am rarely called names. But yes, you call me a name, you can go fuck yourself.

Don’t get upset about it. You’re a veteran, remember.

Gotta go home. I’ll be sure to make some extensive use of “Vega’s Notes” tonight when wiping my ….

Don’t get upset about it. You’re a veteran, remember.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-18 17:28:52

Dumass-Vega do not flatter yourself there is no way you can get me upset. I laugh at everyone one of your illogical posts. I share it with co-workers and we qall laugh at your projection and how “serious” you get. You truly are a Dumbass !!!! ROFLMMFAO….

You cannot “bear” a nuclear weapon.

No? Who says?

Bear at the time meant something a single individual could carry and wield on their person.

Where in the Constitution does it say that? Do you have any examples of the Founding Fathers commenting? Certainly arms meant weapons like cannons, right?

In fact, why can’t children bear arms as well when they go to school? Doesn’t matter if they are 5 or 6, as long as they can “bear” it, then should be able to carry, right?

Nukes would be included, as well as any other explosive. All of which are heavily regulated. Hell, even fertilizer is regulated as a potential weapon.

Look I didn’t call you dumb even though you gave another absurd example! Happy?

Living, your limp-wristed argument is falling apart.

Like I have told you numerous times, Baud, stop sweating my posting habits.

It goes like this, as long as this thread is open for comments, I will check back during business hours. I don’t care how old the post is. That’s the way its been for a couple of years now. Prior to that I would be on at various times throughout the day and night. Samurai and CT would know about that. The threads all used to stay on the home page but now they get pushed out.

But that’s the way it is. I don’t really care when anyone else posts or doesn’t. I post when its convenient to me.

And now I guess you know that you have lost your argument because whenever the discussion turns to my posting habits its all a distraction from your pathetic points. Thanks.

Dumass-Vega do not flatter yourself there is no way you can get me upset. I laugh at everyone one of your illogical posts. I share it with co-workers and we qall laugh at your projection and how “serious” you get. You truly are a Dumbass !!!! ROFLMMFAO….

Sure, we can all see you are certainly not upset (haw!).

Thanks, CT. And I think the specific point of why there is a gun boom is obvious – fear over gun control that hasn’t even been proposed.

But I have to go now. I will be back tomorrow so feel free to comment. Have a good night.

My guess is that people trust the Democrats in congress to not attempt gun control as much as they trust them not to raise taxes. Which is not at all, for damn good reason.

One last post for the night.

a) there is no such thing as a vacated thread. That is made up. There are posts with open and closed comments.

b) I don’t care about having the last word. I care about having the best word. You can comment on this thread all night if you want.

c) I guarantee you I will back here tomorrow morning just like I said. If there is anything interesting said I will comment. But I will check.

d) You can go fuck yourself, Baud. Nighty-night.

Actually Baud if you’ll look you will see that in practice, when the founding fathers were in government, they restricted use of some weapons by law even as they wrote the 2nd amendment. What they did legislatively and as president expressed what they meant in the constitution: you had to get special permission to have cannons on your ship for example.

The same thing carries over today. There is no 100% unrestricted right, not even self defense.

I’ve been reading this site for some time, but this topic and thread of discussion has prompted me to register and add my opinion.

The left wing fools who claim that personal firearm ownership cannot help protect you from terrorist attack are just that, fools. I seriously doubt that any of them have actually had any first hand experience with terrorism or had it effect their lives in a real way. I have. And it gives me a perspective that these fools lack.

You see, I grew up during the 1970s in a country that had a serious terrorism problem. It’s not a subject that most schools here in the States teach much about, so some might wwant to go goodle “Rhodesia” and see what I’m on about. Anyway, we lived on a moderate sized farm near the border with Mozambique. All during the decade, the terrorists who were attacking our country would occasionally target farmers, their owners, and the people they employed. But by the last two years of the war, these attacks became more and more common and more brazen and brutal. I venture to say that very people who lived out on the border as we did did not know of someone murdered or wounded by terrorists.

Well, in September of 1979 both my father and I were away on call ups, he with the police reserve and I on my national service with the Security Forces. This left my mother alone to tend the farm. All of our farm workers had long since left our employ by this point. About one in the morning she was rung up by a neighbor who informed her that some of our cattle were out of the fence, so she got into the family range rover to go try to bring the beasts back home.

Well, not two weeks before a farm just a short distance away had been attacked by terrorists and two people murdered. My family knew the victims and regarded them as friends. So like so many others in those dark days she never left the house unless she was armed after that. That evening she had an Uzi submachinegun on the seat next to her.

She had not driven more than two miles from the house when she rounded a corner and saw a log in the middle of the road by her headlights. She skidded to a stop and, suspecting trouble, tried to put the vehicle into reverse to get away. Before she could do so, she spotted a group of four or five Blacks come out of the bush and rushing the rover. She grabbed the Uzi and burned off an entire magazine at the men, who quickly took to their heels and disapeared back into the dark.

She drove at a high rate of speed back home and called the police. As was typical in remote rural areas it was several hours before a police unit was able to come investigate. By then the sun was coming up. The police found one dead terrorist at the scene and suspect she had hit at least one more due to the blood and drag marks at the scene. The identity of her assailants as terrorists was made certain by the fact that the dead man was wearing part of an East German Camouflage uniform and that a rusty SKS rifle was found close at hand. Chillingly, they also found that our fence had been cut on purpose. Presumably the terrorists thought to entice someone into just the kind of ambush that they attempted. They also strongly suspected that the terrorists had kidnapping in mind rather than just simply murder as they aproached the vehicle rather than just simply shooting her.

Upon hearing of my mother’s close call, my father was granted leave from his reserve call up and he was able to go home to her.

I thank the good lord that sensible gun laws permitted my mother to be armed that night. My mother died peacefully about a decade ago, but she might have come to a very bad end that night in 1979 had she not had an Uzi lying on the seat next to her. This is but one of many experiences from those dark days in my old country that has left me with a burning hatred of Communists, terrorists of all sort, and the Left Wing idiots in the West who make excuses for murderers.

Rhodesian, I agree: armed people can defend themselves; the soldiers at Fort Hood would have been able to defend themselves if they’d been armed (and they absolutely would have).

What they did legislatively and as president expressed what they meant in the constitution: you had to get special permission to have cannons on your ship for example.

First of all, cannons aren’t arms. They are ordnance. THAT is the reason the Founding Fathers allowed them to be restricted.

Second, your argument does not contain any concrete standard for what types of guns are or are not permissible. You offered “major military weapons” and “squad and heavy weapons” as examples of things civilians shouldn’t be allowed to own. What exactly does this mean? What are “major military weapons”? What are “heavy weapons” and “squad weapons”? Is any automatic weapon a “major military weapon”? Is any weapon above X caliber a “heavy weapon”, and if so why X caliber and not X+1?

Earlier you used a minigun as another example of something that private individuals shouldn’t be allowed to own. Why? Has there been a rash of drive-by minigun killings that I’m not aware of?

You say that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. Fine. I’ll agree with you in principle. But your argument for which arms are permissible and which ones aren’t is nebulous and vague.

OMG DumbAss-Vega (DV) has the mental capacity of an idiot under eltro-shock therapy.

Please don’t insult idiots under electro-shock. Incoherent mutterings of pain show more critical thinking than anything that ever crossed Vega’s shallow stream of ear-to-ear sawdust.

And, I notice, he ran away. Again. Bah, this is why I mostly stopped coming to this site. The only sign of life here are 150+ post threads where Vega says something mind-boggingly idiotic, can’t defend it, acts as if he’s right anyway then runs (before returning a day or so later).

“First of all, cannons aren’t arms. They are ordnance. THAT is the reason the Founding Fathers allowed them to be restricted.”

So, if our fledgling republic decided to go autocratic the people would be mowed down by cannons because they were ordnance and therefore restricted from the very people that are suppose to have the right to defend themselves in case of such an event?

How convenient since cannons were probably the most powerful weapon of that time.

I thought the second Amendment’s chief purpose was to ensure the citizenry of having those necessary arms to make sure the government does its bidding instead of the other way around?

You’re not going to stop a cannon with a musket and you aren’t going to stop a tank with a semi automatic.

Ordnance btw can be weapons; it doesn’t specify what type of weapons.

I actually want to agree more with CT but in reality I believe you are more correct in so far as interpreting the 2nd Amendment.
Why should there be regulation by the very government that might work against you one day whether it is federal, state or local it shouldn’t matter?

I gave examples of what I meant

Examples are not the same as a standard. We’d be here all night if I asked you to list every example of a weapon that should be banned. I want to know what categories of weapons you consider it Constitutional to ban and why.

So, if our fledgling republic decided to go autocratic the people would be mowed down by cannons because they were ordnance and therefore restricted from the very people that are suppose to have the right to defend themselves in case of such an event?

Amazing Beliefs:

That small arms can’t win wars, as all the Viet Cong bombing, air superiority, and naval missions prove.

Oh bullcrap. The archives contain countless examples of you sneaking back into old threads when everyone else has moved on so you can have the last word and pretend you won the argument. Denial only makes you look more pathetic.

You should know better than anyone my posting habits continue as long as its a thread I was commenting on, and when new interesting posts are added. The pathetic example Baud used was a response to Rose.

And you and I have been on threads for as many as 5 days when the posts would last longer on the homepage.

I don’t give a crap about everyone else’s habits. I don’t care about having the last word. It’s lame that you would even attempt this.

I win arguments on the very first post.

I have to say that this is indeed a industry boon of fear and consistent fear-mongering. The gun companies and stores are laughing at the hysteria while they stroll to the bank.

Done. Every else is gravy.

I win arguments on the very first post.

Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-19 10:13:12

OK.
/facepalm

Still “not upset” huh, Living?
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-19 10:14:43

Not in the slightest…Why would I get mad at a clown (thats you) clowns are suposed to make you laugh and you do a fantastic job. Is “Barnum” printed on your paychecks?

You didn’t win you lost on creating a STRAWMAN out of opinion, that’s not only bad debate is just plain STUPID.
Posted by bthewolf 2009-11-19 11:21:09

It is actually a very simple formula, bthewolf:
1) D-Vega lies or says something abjectly stupid.
2) Numberous posters counter his argument or call him on his lies and idiocy.
3) One of D-Vega’s minions (whats_up, huron_serenity, etc) jumps in and tells him he is right and a genius.
4) The voices in D-Vega’s head tell him that none of the posts negating his position are of any value.
5) D-Vega declares victory.

Not even close, you didn’t PROVE that a majority of those sales were based on fear.

My assertion is not the majority of those sales were based on fear. That is moving the goalposts. My assertion is that the boon is attributed to fear. And that is true. Is there any other explanation?

You can use quotes how ever many times you like. I didn’t say “most” or “some”. I said the “boon”. That is, the increase in sales.

Why are prices rising, Living? Why has the demand been soaring for the past year? What has happened in the last year to cause something like? Huge increases in crime & terrorism?

So you agreed that making the points on gun control right after the VAT shooting was valid?

*sigh* You really should try reading before running your mouth.

I said it’s okay to make valid political points in the wake of a tragedy. I didn’t say that all political points made in the wake of a tragedy are automatically valid. Do try and pay attention.

I don’t like it either way.

Yeah, right. But you never seem to express that “disapproval” when the left does it. Strange, that.

No actually there was a particular thread where we dicussed it and my position was the same.

Yeah, I’ll just bet.

That’s why we have laws, samurai.

So you’re contending that anything the law says is right and good?

You don’t have the right to sell it to a felon, do you? or a 5 year old? or someone mentally ill? Or in a playground, or in prison, or someone from out-of-state. Or someone with no identification.

You realize this is a total non-sequitur, right? It bears no relevance to what I said, it’s just your earlier point repeated again, parrot-fashion.

Besides, that isn’t what you said. You said, and I quote, “you don’t have a right to own any firearm or do with them what you wish (like sell them).” If you didn’t mean it, you shouldn’t have said it.

Its the same principle in that the Bill of Rights is not absolute.

The principle is irrelevant. The fact is your argument makes no sense. Banning certain types of firearms is not the same as restricting which places you can express your freedom of speech. You do understand the difference between “types” and “places” don’t you? One refers to classification, the other refers to location. I know you have trouble with simple English words, but even you should be able to get this one.

Blah, a hardline right-wing dude telling me I don’t know the meaning when he’s on one end of the spectrum.

Thank you for this meaningless non-argument. The fact that you would resort to such a thing really helps illustrate how weak your position is.

First of all, now you say certain practices are legally regulated when it comes to to religion, but with guns there’s no Constitutional validity to regulating certain arms.

See, there you go again confusing simple English words. Regulating actions is not the same as regulating items or beliefs.

The Supreme Court held this to be true in Reynolds v. United States: “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices.”

In other words, there are no banned religious beliefs. There are only practices that are banned or regulated.

You really need to learn the difference between actions and beliefs. The right to religious belief is absolute. I can believe in whatever I want with no restrictions. It is my expression of those beliefs that is sometimes limited.

The Constitution is actually clearer when it comes to religion when it says “the free exercise thereof”.

The Constitution also says “no person…shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. The phrase “free exercise” has always been understood to mean peaceable free exercise.

I say our rights end at the point where they conflict with someone else’s rights. My right to free exercise of religion extends until my free exercise conflicts with someone else’s life, liberty, or property. I can’t practice human sacrifice, slavery, or theft even if my religion permits it because those things conflict with the Constitutional rights of others.

The same thing is true for the Second Amendment. If any limit to the Second Amendment exists, it is where my rights interfere with someone else’s rights. I can’t own high explosives (i.e. a type ordnance) because high explosives are inherently dangerous and therefore conflict with the rights of my neighbors. They can be set off by accident or even go off without warning if not properly stored and cared for, possibly injuring or killing an innocent bystander. Many types of explosives are also highly toxic, posing a further danger to nearby innocents. The same can’t be said for guns. A firearm that isn’t properly stored or cared for won’t start randomly popping off rounds and the gun powder won’t leak out and contaminate the groundwater. All that will happen is the gun will rust up and jam, making it less dangerous, not more.

See, that’s the difference between you and me. I have actual standards for how far our Constitutional rights extend. You don’t have any concrete standards. You only have vague platitudes and seemingly random examples of instances where our rights are limited. Therefore your argument can be used to justify almost any conceivable restriction of individual rights. If I can ban “certain types” of firearms I can ban any type of firearm.

Second of all, there are practices banned, the biggest of which is polygamy. Marijuana, mushrooms, animal sacrifice (depending on circumstances), underage marraige, etc.

Polygamy is not banned. There is nothing stopping you from getting married to as many women as you want in the eyes of your god. But the government will only legally recognize one of those marriages. The same is true for underage marriage. If you can find a church willing to perform the ceremony, you are more than welcome to marry a person of any age. But again, the government will not recognize the marriage and you can’t consummate the marriage by having sex. This is the exact same fallacy that leads liberals to claim that gays aren’t allowed to get married. Being “married” is not the same as having the government recognize your marriage. They’re two completely different things.

The use of drugs for religious reasons is also not banned. Under the right circumstances they are permitted for religious use. Peyote, for example, is specifically permitted for “bonafide religious ceremonies” under federal and many state laws but generally prohibited for any other use. Marijuana is banned but other forms of cannabis are not (and even then, the fact that the government has banned something hardly proves that it has the Constitutional power to do so).

As for animal sacrifice, your caveat (“depending on circumstances”) is a tacit admission of defeat. Animal sacrifice is strictly regulated, but it is NOT banned.

For goodness sake, Living, what is the title of this entry?
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-19 13:02:21

Its not fear its logic. Dems in charge mean restrictions on guns. Always has always will. People weren’t necessarily afraid (some certainly were but after 3 months no sales were from fear) they were/are trying to get the best deal on what is available now before rules chnage. Its not fear!! So the continuation of the “Obama Gun Sales Boon” today has zero to do with fear. How many gun purchasers do you know? Stop making statements on topics that you clearly do not understand. Fear? lol

This is a big one. Like old times.

*sigh* You really should try reading before running your mouth. I said it’s okay to make valid political points in the wake of a tragedy. I didn’t say that all political points made in the wake of a tragedy are automatically valid. Do try and pay attention.

Ah, I see. So when its a conservative point, it must be valid. Whereas liberal points are not appropriate because they are invalid. Gotcha.

Yeah, right. But you never seem to express that “disapproval” when the left does it. Strange, that.

Sure, I do.

Yeah, I’ll just bet.

Yup. It’s a sure bet.

So you’re contending that anything the law says is right and good?

I didn’t say that. I said our public develops laws so we can address specifics like the types of guns, etc. You don’t like the law? Then put different people in office to write the laws. The law unConstitutional? That’s why we have a judiciary.

You realize this is a total non-sequitur, right? It bears no relevance to what I said, it’s just your earlier point repeated again, parrot-fashion.

The point is totally relevant, because you do indeed have restrictions on whether you can sell a gun or not. And I didn’t mean you couldn’t ever sell the gun anywhere at anytime to anyone. But there are restrictions in terms of selling arms that are Constitutional.

Besides, that isn’t what you said. You said, and I quote, “you don’t have a right to own any firearm or do with them what you wish (like sell them).” If you didn’t mean it, you shouldn’t have said it.

I know what I said. And it is correct. You can’t do whatever you wish with a gun. And that is Constitutional.

The principle is irrelevant. The fact is your argument makes no sense. Banning certain types of firearms is not the same as restricting which places you can express your freedom of speech. You do understand the difference between “types” and “places” don’t you? One refers to classification, the other refers to location. I know you have trouble with simple English words, but even you should be able to get this one.

Your point is irrelevant. There are restrictions to both place and types when it comes to speech and arms.

Thank you for this meaningless non-argument. The fact that you would resort to such a thing really helps illustrate how weak your position is.

That was a response to your meaningless non-argument about whether I know what the 1st & 2nd mean.

See, there you go again confusing simple English words. Regulating actions is not the same as regulating items or beliefs.

It is if said practice is a part of your beliefs.

In other words, there are no banned religious beliefs. There are only practices that are banned or regulated.

Your point? The Constitution says the free excercise of. That would include practices, if you are taking the literal interpretation.

You really need to learn the difference between actions and beliefs. The right to religious belief is absolute. I can believe in whatever I want with no restrictions. It is my expression of those beliefs that is sometimes limited.

Again, you have no point here. Whether an expression or not. We have the rights to free expression as well as the right of free excercise of religion.

The Constitution also says “no person…shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. The phrase “free exercise” has always been understood to mean peaceable free exercise.

Again, no point. Free Exercise would include practice, peaceful yes.

I say our rights end at the point where they conflict with someone else’s rights. My right to free exercise of religion extends until my free exercise conflicts with someone else’s life, liberty, or property. I can’t practice human sacrifice, slavery, or theft even if my religion permits it because those things conflict with the Constitutional rights of others.

That’s what you say. That’s not what the Constitution says as part of the 1st.

The same thing is true for the Second Amendment. If any limit to the Second Amendment exists, it is where my rights interfere with someone else’s rights. I can’t own high explosives (i.e. a type ordnance) because high explosives are inherently dangerous and therefore conflict with the rights of my neighbors.

Explosives are no more inherently dangerous than a firearm.

They can be set off by accident or even go off without warning if not properly stored and cared for, possibly injuring or killing an innocent bystander.

Not all explosives are that unstable. I could have a ton of high-grade fertilizer that is perfectly safe. Gasoline is widely bought and stored safely. But gasoline mixed with fert? Very dangerous.

Many types of explosives are also highly toxic, posing a further danger to nearby innocents. The same can’t be said for guns. A firearm that isn’t properly stored or cared for won’t start randomly popping off rounds and the gun powder won’t leak out and contaminate the groundwater. All that will happen is the gun will rust up and jam, making it less dangerous, not more.

Gunpowder could accidently go off just like some explosives can. Fail.

See, that’s the difference between you and me. I have actual standards for how far our Constitutional rights extend. You don’t have any concrete standards. You only have vague platitudes and seemingly random examples of instances where our rights are limited. Therefore your argument can be used to justify almost any conceivable restriction of individual rights. If I can ban “certain types” of firearms I can ban any type of firearm.

No, because certain types of speech are banned, and certain religious practices are banned and don’t interfere with anyone’s right to free religion. Even if one type or 50 types of guns were banned, it would not intervere with your right to bear arms.

Polygamy is not banned. There is nothing stopping you from getting married to as many women as you want in the eyes of your god. But the government will only legally recognize one of those marriages.

Fair enough.

The same is true for underage marriage. If you can find a church willing to perform the ceremony, you are more than welcome to marry a person of any age. But again, the government will not recognize the marriage and you can’t consummate the marriage by having sex. This is the exact same fallacy that leads liberals to claim that gays aren’t allowed to get married. Being “married” is not the same as having the government recognize your marriage. They’re two completely different things.

If you cannot consumate a marraige, it isn’t a marraige first of all, even in the eyes of the churches. Secondly, there are churches that perform these types of marraiges. Thirdly, there are people who have gone to jail while claiming it is part of their religious beliefs.

The use of drugs for religious reasons is also not banned. Under the right circumstances they are permitted for religious use. Peyote, for example, is specifically permitted for “bonafide religious ceremonies” under federal and many state laws but generally prohibited for any other use. Marijuana is banned but other forms of cannabis are not (and even then, the fact that the government has banned something hardly proves that it has the Constitutional power to do so).

I would submit that the Peyote is only within the confines of sovereign Native American lands. I also would submit that “under the right circumstances” means restricting the free excercise of.

As for animal sacrifice, your caveat (“depending on circumstances”) is a tacit admission of defeat. Animal sacrifice is strictly regulated, but it is NOT banned.

Strictly regulated is not the free excercise of.

Its not fear its logic. Dems in charge mean restrictions on guns. Always has always will. People weren’t necessarily afraid (some certainly were but after 3 months no sales were from fear) they were/are trying to get the best deal on what is available now before rules chnage. Its not fear!! So the continuation of the “Obama Gun Sales Boon” today has zero to do with fear.

Best deal before the rules change? When are the rules changing and what will those rules be?

no that’s happened within the past 20 years…we’re just accelerating under the current administration.

Is there any other explanation?

Yes D-Vega, several.

A. Simple fact: The Obama administration has specifically stated its intention to tighten gun control. The administration’s website, Obama’s AG Eric Holder, and Obama himself all stated quite clearly that the Obama administration intends to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban. Of course Obama later stated that he doesn’t intend to push for the reinstatement of the AWB, but considering his record on keeping promises this is not exactly reassuring. Which leads me to my next point…

B. Distrust: I don’t trust the Democratic Congress not to push for more gun control and I especially don’t trust Barack Obama not to push for more gun control. Obama may have said “I’m not going to take away your guns” during the campaign, but he also said that Obamacare wouldn’t cover illegal aliens, that Gitmo would be closed within a year, that he would end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, that his administration would make transparency their top priority, that the Spendulus bill had no pork in it, and that no poor or middle class Americans would experience any tax increases of any kind, among various and sundry other promises that were promptly forgotten once Obama actually arrived in office. I don’t see why I should trust him now when he’s shown himself to be untrustworthy so many times already. Trust also factors into my next point, which is…

C. Obama’s record: As a state legislator and a US Senator, Obama’s record on gun rights is absolutely abysmal. From 1994 to 2002 Obama was a board member of the Joyce Foundation, which provides funds to various gun control organizations in the United States. In 1996 Obama openly endorsed Illinois state legislation to ban not only assault weapons, but also “the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns”. In 1999 he urged the prohibition of gun stores within five miles of a school or park, which if written into law would have outlawed gun stores for most of the inhabited portion of the United States. In 2000, also as a state legislator, he voted against a bill that would have allowed self-defense as an affirmative defense for law-abiding Illinois residents who used guns to defend their own lives. He also voted against allowing persons with domestic violence protective orders to carry handguns for their own protection. In an interview he stated “I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.” In fact to my knowledge the only time Obama ever did anything in favor of gun rights during his term in the Illinois Senate was when he voted to allow concealed carry for retired police officers (but ONLY retired police officers) and that was only so he could secure the support of the Fraternal Order of Police. His record as a US Senator is no better. He supported restricting the purchase of firearms at gun shows and (as stated previously) supported the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban. He voted against legislation to protect manufacturers from liability suits if a criminal misuses one of their products. He said the DC gun ban was Constitutional, then flip-flopped and said the opposite when the SCOTUS disagreed in the Heller decision (he also blatantly lied when he said “I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to bear arms…The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view.”). Are we supposed to ignore all this, D-Vega? Do we pretend Obama’s virulently anti-gun record doesn’t exist just because he once made an offhand remark about not taking away people’s guns?

Point proven, I think. You asked for “any other explanation” and I gave you three.

Furthermore D-Vega, you seem strangely eager to label things you disagree with as “based on fear”. It’s a rather cowardly argument, truth be told. Implying that people who disagree with you are simply “afraid” of something is an attempt to minimize their arguments and undermine their credibility. Because, after all, that’s a whole lot easier than actually debating, isn’t it D-Vega? Admitting your opponents might have even halfway decent points to make only validates their arguments. And we can’t have people thinking it’s okay to disagree with the left, can we D-Vega?

Yes D-Vega, several.

All of those examples leads to one conclusion – people are afraid that Obama & the Dems will want to enact gun control at some point.

There’s nothing proposed. But that fear remains. And that is what’s causing the increased demand and increase in prices. There is no more restrictions on arms today then there was 1 yr or two years ago. In fact, gun control has LOOSENED in the past few years, not TIGHTENED.

Furthermore D-Vega, you seem strangely eager to label things you disagree with as “based on fear”.

Not all things, just what applies. It’s not my fault the majority of the arguments from the right are based on instilling fear in the populace that we are on the verge of destruction.

Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-19 16:06:10

How many gun purchasers do you know?

Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2009-11-19 16:10:16

Because DV makes statements that he cannot backup with evidence or facts. Namely, The current “Obama gun boon” is due to fear. He has been presented with many counter arguements and ignores, changes and twists what he said previously. He is a clown and I laugh at his twisted and confused nature. He asks many questions and answers very few, even simple ones.

Man, when you have CT taking the moderate position, you know these guys have jumped the shark.

All of those examples leads to one conclusion – people are afraid that Obama & the Dems will want to enact gun control at some point.

In spite of your contending for the past two days that all the gun-buying is down to fear of coming legislation, I’ve yet to see any concrete evidence of that presented, so I’ll continue to reject that idea until I see some.

Personally, I don’t think that all the uptick in gun is due to fear of coming legislation. I will readily agree that some of the buying is based on fears about access to guns being take away. But I don’t think it’s all of the buying that’s being reported by any stretch of the imagination, and I don’t think that we can really have an honest discussion about “people’s” motives for buying guns now without acknowledging that fact. I think it’s more honest and accurate to acknowledge that people have a variety of motives which vary from individual to individual and circumstance to circumstance.

It’s easy to stereotype people and lump everyone’s motives under the broad category of “fear of coming legislation”, but I don’t think that really tells the whole story. Plus, relying on the ‘boogie-man’ of fear is very dismissive of all those people who have reached the conclusion to buy a weapon for logical reasons other than this alleged ‘fear of gun-grabbers’. This is one of those instances where a broad brush misses too many important details.

I know a woman in the San Diego area who works as a drug rep and her territory takes her into some dicey areas with a stash of drug samples in her briefcase and her car. She bought a handgun, her first weapon, and even though it was SoCal, she fought hard to get a CWP. Why did she buy when she did? Because she had just gotten assigned to that territory by her company. I seriously doubt whether she would have made that purchase had she not have a change in her work. But now that she has a gun, she’s learned how much she enjoys shooting. Go figure.

I know several other people around the country who have purchased weapons in the past year who could care less about the Second Amendment, the Democrats, and politics in general. Their primary motive for buying a gun at the time was their perception that the tensions in our society have been rising rapidly and they’d like to be prepared for any eventuality. For them, it wasn’t the election of Mr. Obama; it wasn’t in response to rumours of a particular piece of legislation banning guns; it wasn’t a reaction to one particular thing or event. For them, it was a matter that they felt at the time that the social, economic and legal orders were changing rapidly and they didn’t trust that all the changes were going to be positive. I would characterise them as being anxious about the future of our society rather than being fearful of gun-grabbing legislation.

Overarching point?

Well, I think that by stereotyping people’s motives so broadly, you’ve essentially engendered a discussion which can only be strident and partisan, as Mr. Taylor points out. And yes, I’m laying that at your feet Vega, because you’re the author of the idea that the current spike in gun sales is all down to fear of coming legislation.

But I know how it is in these threads – a name gets called, a reputation is besmirched, an ego gets bruised and then it’s off to the races.

And yes, I’m laying that at your feet Vega, because you’re the author of the idea that the current spike in gun sales is all down to fear of coming legislation.

Yes, I am. And I understand your point and I agree to a point. There are many, many reasons why people pruchase guns. Some people buy guns monthly anyways.

What I am referring to is the HUGE spike in gun & ammo sales within the past year. When an industry spikes, there has to be a cause to it.

Why are Tamiflu supplies running low in this country? What did Cipro stock soar after the anthrax attacks? There is a root cause when something happens that is out of the norm.

Millions of guns are sold each year for millions of reasons. But when gun & ammo sales spike right as we approach and are within a liberal President’s admin, and said President has no plan to enact additional gun control laws, but the opposition is stoking fears about “Obama Grabbin Guns” then you could reasonably, accurately, honestly come to the conclusion that said spike is due to fear over coming gun control. I can’t put it more succinctly than that.

Blah, blah, Living. You have provide SQUAT to support your contention whereas I have provided the following:

- The spike began when Obama seemed to be the presumed winner
- The spike continues to this day
- The right has been harping about Obama grabbing guns throughout that time.
- Obama has no plan to introduce any new gun laws
- The Dems have controlled Congress since 2006 and yet the spike began last year
- Guns laws have actually weakened under Obama

What do you as your proof? Your opinion. Thank for playing.

…and said President has no plan to enact additional gun control laws…
Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-19 17:03:23

D-Vega, re-read this post above.
Posted by mightysamurai 2009-11-19 14:37:42

mightysamurai showed that not only did Obama comment on Gun Control during the campaign, it is also a known fact that gun control is NEVER off the table with Liberals. And with a Democrat-Controlled Congress, it is only a matter of time before it floats back to the top of his agenda. I would venture to say that if Healthcare destruction… er… REFORM had passed as easily as Obama thought it would, we would be discussion actual gun control legislation right now.

I’ll add your statement above to my D-Vega Lies File.

The bait is set.. login=logic above…

All of those examples leads to one conclusion

That you’re a dishonest idiot who doesn’t know how to do anything but launch ad hominem attacks?

Not all things

Right. Not all things, just the things you can’t form a coherent argument against and have no options but to launch personal attacks.

You have provide SQUAT to support your contention

As opposed to what? The total lack of evidence presented by you?

You’ve been given numerous alternate explanations for the “Obama gun boom”. I myself gave you three separate reasons, none of which were based on “fear” (despite your laughable assertion to the contrary).

So where is your EVIDENCE that this spike in gun sales is due to “fear”? You do know that fear is not the only motivational force that exists, don’t you?

- Obama has no plan to introduce any new gun laws

Yeah, right. Just like he had no plan to raise taxes on the poor and middle class. Apparently you haven’t been paying attention to Obama’s “plans”.

atomic weapons should be restricted.

By the way, this is a red herring. No American citizen has access to or enough money to afford even a single nuclear weapon. Bill Gates doesn’t even have that much money or clout. Hell, Bill Gates and Donald Trump combined probably couldn’t do it. So using nuclear weapons to justify gun control is disingenuous because such an instance would never occur in the real world. You might as well call for regulations against private ownership of giant moon-lasers, for all the good it’ll do.

Posted by mightysamurai
2009-11-19 20:07:50

Wish I could join you in that belief, mighty, but that flies in the face of (i) fairly widely reported “losses” of smaller and tactical nukes in the former USSR, (ii) the fact that the information on the engineering and “technology” of nukes is fairly readily available (and can be recreated by any moderatlely competent college nuclear physics student) – the “issue” being a sufficient supply of weapons grade fissionable material. Given their deep and abiding love for the United States, and their ever-increasing centrifuge and enhancement activity, how much you wanna bet that Ahmedinijad wouldn’t be HAPPY to sell some nutjob like Nidal a weapon quantity of fissionable??? Cheap?

I tend to be a Constitutional absolutist (As Mr. Justice Hugo L. Black famously said, re: the First Amendment, “‘No law’ means NO law!”), but there ARE no absolute rights in the Constitution – there are SCOTUS precedents permitting limitations on our speech, and while there are relatively few outright restrictions on free exercise, SCOTUS has permitted the “establishment” clause to be so bent out of shape that it, in effect, DOES restrict the free exercise. Kelo, anyone? Hell, the MOST absolute “Constitutional right” we have is the invented Constitutional right to an abortion – the court consistently prevents limitations on THAT right, while allowing fairly deep incursions into the ones that are actually IN the document. Curious, that.