History Lesson

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 2, 2004 | 01:56 PM
  #16  
ldivinag's Avatar
03.23.67 - 06.14.13
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 8,495
From: N37 39* W122 3*
Re: History Lesson

Originally posted by robb


If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.
unfortunately, there are few and wide gun grabbers that can be turned...

even my sister, who lived all her life at home (til she went to college) with our father who is a lifer with the NRA.

her husband (who is even MORE left wing) was pissed that when another relative stayed with them and found out he brought a gun with him... even though that person is a cop.
Old Apr 2, 2004 | 01:57 PM
  #17  
Salty's Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally posted by BAN SUVS
The problem is not the things that politicians on either side care about- it's the fact that they don't care about anything other than being politicians and getting (re)elected. They just pick and choose the side they think will get them there.
Bingo.

I'm going to add on a little if you don't mind Kevin... i'm sure you'll agree

Not only are their choices determined by re-election but also what's in their best interest, and how much they've been offered under the table. Duh, right?

But for the MOST part i feel politican's choices are made in direct reflection with their upbringing and pasts. Do you think a politican is going to be 'pro-gun' if his 8yr old son killed himself because of his/her neglect?! Nope. Do you think they'll be 'pro-gun' because daddy killed bambi and thumper which scared their minds? Of course not!

Yet they continue to hold our hands?! How does that work?
Old Apr 2, 2004 | 01:58 PM
  #18  
Salty's Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally posted by sighborg
You guys are morons.

Banning guns totally works. If you ban guns nobody has them, and then no one can get shot! Its that simple!

Remember when they banned alchohol? That totally worked! NOBODY had it, and there was no black market for it either!
And think about weed, its illegal, and because of that NO ONE smokes it, and NO ONE knows where to find it. And becuase its banned, there also is no black market, and nobody has to go through shady people to get it. Thanks to banning NOBODY gets killed over disputes when dealing with it. Thankfully, There is also no quality control - so if you are one of the "renegades" who does it (which there are none of, because its BANNED), you never know what you are getting.

IM ALL FOR BANNING! IT REALLY WORKS!


LOL that first sentence had me sooo pissed off i couldn't see straight.:banana:
Old Apr 2, 2004 | 02:01 PM
  #20  
dub2w's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,256
From: Blue-faced in a red state
Car Info: 04 Silver WRX Wagon
I dont know though... I agree with the fallacy in banning certain things and thinking that it will disappear, but what about hardcore assault weapons. should those be legal? sure, they look cool and are probably fun to shoot, but I support limited sales of those sorts of weapons.

we should take all of the armageddon happy folk and ship em out to leper island. but for those who are into guns as sport and hobby i think thats all good.

Howard Dean was one of those rare Dems that (in the beginning) stood up for what he felt was right, and didnt feel apologetic for being pro-gun. Now, we are stuck with dumba$$ Kerry
Old Apr 2, 2004 | 02:04 PM
  #21  
Kevin M's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 18,369
From: Reno, NV
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
Originally posted by Sisqocqk
Bingo.

I'm going to add on a little if you don't mind Kevin... i'm sure you'll agree

Not only are their choices determined by re-election but also what's in their best interest, and how much they've been offered under the table. Duh, right?

But for the MOST part i feel politican's choices are made in direct reflection with their upbringing and pasts. Do you think a politican is going to be 'pro-gun' if his 8yr old son killed himself because of his/her neglect?! Nope. Do you think they'll be 'pro-gun' because daddy killed bambi and thumper which scared their minds? Of course not!

Yet they continue to hold our hands?! How does that work?
That was about as cynical as I get. I'm a very idealistic person and it really colors my view of the world at large. Basically, I think most politicians start out honest and dedicated, but the system pretty much forces them to spend too much time and effort (and integrity) on getting and keeping hte position to enable them to do the good work they meant to do, up to the point that it gets totally lost in the effort to be in office. Maybe longer terms would help take care of that...
Old Apr 2, 2004 | 02:07 PM
  #22  
IS2Scooby's Avatar
Pr0n King
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 26,618
From: The Land of Rocks
Car Info: Turncoat Turbo
Does anybody think partisan politics is still a viable system? I surely don't.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
Old Apr 2, 2004 | 02:08 PM
  #23  
OneManArmy's Avatar
General Pimpin'
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 23,019
From: Knee deep in beer. subabrew crew, ca.
Car Info: MY04 aspen wrx wagon.
Originally posted by Endless01
Actually i'm sure he's not working for any salary at all.
true that. I just looked it up. It was part of his budget cuts. He cut his $175k salary to zero.

Weird how the gov makes that much when SF has a city official that makes $185. He's just an advisor.... He was just in the news because he demanded a "company" car. Then proceeded to have his top of the line brand new explorer painted black because he didn't like white and had some other work done to it to meet his expectations....Cost the city of $6k.

He had to pay it back of course...but damn.....

Newsom was only making $168k...and he cut 15% off of that.

Why the hell was some city guy making more than the mayor? No wonder all these counties are in financial chaos. People making way too much money.
Old Apr 2, 2004 | 02:09 PM
  #24  
Salty's Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally posted by dub2w
I dont know though... I agree with the fallacy in banning certain things and thinking that it will disappear, but what about hardcore assault weapons. should those be legal? sure, they look cool and are probably fun to shoot, but I support limited sales of those sorts of weapons.

we should take all of the armageddon happy folk and ship em out to leper island. but for those who are into guns as sport and hobby i think thats all good.

Howard Dean was one of those rare Dems that (in the beginning) stood up for what he felt was right, and didnt feel apologetic for being pro-gun. Now, we are stuck with dumba$$ Kerry
I actually like certain laws too. I don't want a bunch of good ole boys shooting shotguns from the cab of their pickem'up truck.
I'm for the waiting period and background checks but that's about it.

Of course we're going to be reasonable with what we can have. I'm not saying CA needs to sell MK-19's an such. But yes, assault weapons shouldn't be illegal. Why? because i can still "assist you from a distance" with me good old m24. You're still a dead man, right?

You're not gonna be 'more dead' if i shoot you with the AK than the 38 snubnose. period. It all depends on WHO is pulling the trigger. I guarantee those in posession of assault rifles are to be feared (unless they're preban and/or registered) for obvious reasons.
Old Apr 2, 2004 | 02:10 PM
  #25  
Kevin M's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 18,369
From: Reno, NV
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
Originally posted by OneManArmy
true that. I just looked it up. It was part of his budget cuts. He cut his $175k salary to zero.

Weird how the gov makes that much when SF has a city official that makes $185. He's just an advisor.... He was just in the news because he demanded a "company" car. Then proceeded to have his top of the line brand new explorer painted black because he didn't like white and had some other work done to it to meet his expectations....Cost the city of $6k.

He had to pay it back of course...but damn.....

Newsom was only making $168k...and he cut 15% off of that.

Why the hell was some city guy making more than the mayor? No wonder all these counties are in financial chaos. People making way too much money.
If city and county officials weren't highly paid, then the people best qualified to do that work simply wouldn't do it, they'd stay in the private sector. Which means that all of the people running local government would be lower-tier talent. I say, pay them what they are worth. If you want good employees high up, pay them what they are worth.

Last edited by Kevin M; Apr 2, 2004 at 02:14 PM.
Old Apr 2, 2004 | 02:13 PM
  #26  
Kevin M's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 18,369
From: Reno, NV
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
Originally posted by Sisqocqk
I actually like certain laws too. I don't want a bunch of good ole boys shooting shotguns from the cab of their pickem'up truck.
I'm for the waiting period and background checks but that's about it.

Of course we're going to be reasonable with what we can have. I'm not saying CA needs to sell MK-19's an such. But yes, assault weapons shouldn't be illegal. Why? because i can still "assist you from a distance" with me good old m24. You're still a dead man, right?

You're not gonna be 'more dead' if i shoot you with the AK than the 38 snubnose. period. It all depends on WHO is pulling the trigger. I guarantee those in posession of assault rifles are to be feared (unless they're preban and/or registered) for obvious reasons.
I'm pretty much pro-gun, but I have a difficult time with assault weapons. When a weapon is clearly intended for killing people and no other purpose, I don't see where anybody not a member of a military or police force needs to possess one. Like Samueal L. "Bad Mother****er" Jackson said, "When you absolutely positively have to kill every last mother****er in the room... accept no substitutes." Nobody is providing for their families with an AK-47... in this country anyway.
Old Apr 2, 2004 | 02:22 PM
  #27  
Salty's Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally posted by BAN SUVS
I'm pretty much pro-gun, but I have a difficult time with assault weapons. When a weapon is clearly intended for killing people and no other purpose, I don't see where anybody not a member of a military or police force needs to possess one. Like Samueal L. "Bad Mother****er" Jackson said, "When you absolutely positively have to kill every last mother****er in the room... accept no substitutes." Nobody is providing for their families with an AK-47... in this country anyway.
Right but you're forgetting the fact that a criminal can still get his/her hands on an assault rifle without govt restrictions.

The rights were taken away from law biding citizens on the brady bill in 1994 on the posession of assault rifles. i can still run your *** over with a car though and bash your face in with a bat, right?

Why not make those illegal too? I'll tell you why! It's because politicans drive to work everyday and play softball on the weekends! It's in THEIR best interest not to ban those.

The bottom line is anyone can kill anyone with anything! why not ban glass bottles too?
Old Apr 2, 2004 | 02:26 PM
  #28  
Kevin M's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 18,369
From: Reno, NV
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
When it comes to those kinds of weapons, I just don't see the justification. They exist SOLELY for the purpose of mass murder. At least a car or a softball bat or a ballpoint pen has other uses, know what I mean?

On the other hand, one could say the same thing about handguns... but I'm not in favor of bans or serious controls on those. Registration and waiting periods are sufficient in my mind. Why? Because I believe that "personal protection" is a valid reason for owning and carrying one in many cases. I know it's quite close to a double standard, but to me it makes sense. I am just trying to be pragmatic about this issue.
Old Apr 2, 2004 | 02:38 PM
  #29  
robb's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 492
From: Rockville, MD
Car Info: 2003 Silver WRX Sedan, 1982 Corvette Collectors Ed.
Originally posted by BAN SUVS
I'm pretty much pro-gun, but I have a difficult time with assault weapons. When a weapon is clearly intended for killing people and no other purpose, I don't see where anybody not a member of a military or police force needs to possess one. Like Samueal L. "Bad Mother****er" Jackson said, "When you absolutely positively have to kill every last mother****er in the room... accept no substitutes." Nobody is providing for their families with an AK-47... in this country anyway.
The military and police were established to protect and serve the people. But this should not be interpreted to mean that they should also be more powerful than the people.

I absolutely do not like the idea of a military or police with greater firepower than the people.

I know this sounds funny, and I am not implying I want to have a tank im my driveway, but if the cops can have AR-15's in their cars, I want one in my closet.

I despise the fact that the populous had personified our government. The day we lost touch with the fact that we are our government and began calling it "The Government" we began a losing battle. Too many people are too lazy, and as was mentioned before want life handed to them and taken care of by others.

Remember everyone - you are the governement and YES you still can make a difference. We need to do this soon though, because sooner than later I'm afraid the personification of our government is going to back-fire on us - and we better hope we can fire back!
Old Apr 2, 2004 | 02:45 PM
  #30  
Salty's Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally posted by BAN SUVS
When it comes to those kinds of weapons, I just don't see the justification. They exist SOLELY for the purpose of mass murder. At least a car or a softball bat or a ballpoint pen has other uses, know what I mean?
Tell that to dem country folk dat like to shoot dem 2leter coke bottles fer fun. Tell that to the ligitimate collectors of firearms. Tell that to the people that use the buttstocks of dem assault rifles to putt golf ***** in der office

You can say that about anything really...

the same people that brought you mandatory helmets for children, waterless soap and the orgainic food section of the grocery store brought these laws.

It's the pussification of America

Originally posted by BAN SUVS
On the other hand, one could say the same thing about handguns... but I'm not in favor of bans or serious controls on those. Registration and waiting periods are sufficient in my mind. Why? Because I believe that "personal protection" is a valid reason for owning and carrying one in many cases. I know it's quite close to a double standard, but to me it makes sense. I am just trying to be pragmatic about this issue.
I agree



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:19 AM.