JohnRich 4 #1 September 20, 2004 In the news: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a law outlawing the sale of a high-powered rifle... The state weapons law, signed Monday, bans the sale of .50-caliber BMG rifles... Gun control advocates say the measure makes California a national leader in improving public safety. Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center in Washington said; "Today's action not only protects the police and public, but stops the sale of a confirmed tool of terrorists." Studies by the Violence Policy Center have shown that the rifles can pierce many types of protective armor and are accurate from more than a mile away. The weapon, which can weigh up to 28 pounds, fires a bullet about 6 inches long and is typically used by game hunters and target shooters. Source: Tri-Valley Herald Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #2 September 20, 2004 QuoteGov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a law outlawing the sale of a high-powered rifle... The state weapons law, signed Monday, bans the sale of .50-caliber BMG rifles... The response from the Fifty Caliber Institute, which fought to preserve ownership rights for these firearms: There were two interesting articles that ran in California newspapers on September 14th. The first, in the Monterey Herald, ran under the title Teachers Lose Tax Break for School Supplies. Crying the over-budget blues once again, California legislators had to cut a $1,500 tax break that helped under-paid teachers to defray out of pocket costs for classroom materials. Apparently the state is in such dire shape that they are down to slashing pencils and paper from little kids. Against this setting ran the second news item. While with one hand dumping the expense of education on the shoulders of the lowly teachers, Governor "Fiscal Reform" Schwarzenegger blithely signed AB-50 into law, banning target rifles that have never been used in a crime in the state of California and adding a brand new budget item which, based on 2003 budget comparisons, will cost Californians somewhere between four and nine million dollars as a start. The priorities in California seem pretty clear - we cannot afford education, but we can always throw millions at gun control, no matter how far-fetched. I hope that is some comfort to teachers who will be eating classroom costs, or the kids who come up short on basic materials. There is no nice way to put it: the decision to sign AB-50 is a reprehensible betrayal of the very precepts upon which a landmark recall campaign was waged. The state did not turn out for gun control, it cried for budget control. There was no legislative mandate either, AB-50 squeaked by on the narrowest margins only through bizarre tricks like "ghost voting" pulled out after losing under the rules. The Governor's 10-point recovery plan explicitly called for no new budget items, and in fact called for a special meeting of the General Assembly to cut existing items in the face of crisis. Yet here is the Governor's signature on a bill which is not supported by the Department of Homeland Security, nor the TSA, the FBI, or anybody else who lives in the real world of fighting terrorism. AB-50 contains a porkbarrel media campaign and a registration requirement for current rifle owners that will necessitate another state-wide database. It will drive at least one multi-million dollar machining company out of the state. The costs are open-ended -- another government blank check for a problem that only exists in the mind of a small handful of special interest zealots. The Long Beach Press-Telegram calls AB-50 a “pointless law used by politicians in attempts to get credit for fixing problems that don’t exist." One can only wonder as to why the Governor signed a bill like AB-50, especially now. Could it be he wasn't altogether serious when he said that the bottom line comes first? Maybe he is just so anti-gun that even a fairy-tale problem denounced by every major intelligence and federal law enforcement agency in the nation somehow takes precedence over basic supplies for schoolkids. Or perhaps he just didn't have a clue what he was doing, and that may be the worst. Throughout this process we have seen lawmakers fall into two groups: those gullible few who will believe anything and those who ask for some semblance of proof. This is not a political party division, it is a character division. We saw honest and intelligent challenges raised to AB-50 by Democrats and Republicans alike. While leaders like Republican Assemblyman Jay LaSuer fully understood the falsehoods put forth by VPC puppet Koretz in the AB-50 hearings, others like Democrat Senator Vasconcellos simply recognized an unsubstantiated lie when he saw one. He challenged the utter lack of proof for the wild claims made by AB-50 proponents and became furious when he realized that Koretz and his ilk thought he was easily duped. Sadly, this does not seem to apply to California's Governor. It is ironic that a man who personally owns an M48 tank feels that the citizens under his rule cannot be trusted with a target rifle. It is pathetic that he'd take money from schoolkids and teachers to fund a ban. Never mind that nobody has used a fifty caliber rifle in a crime in his state. Ignore the fact that no other state has given such a ban the slightest credit. In fact throw out altogether the statement made by Robert Johnson, chief spokesman for the TSA when he said "We just don't think fifty caliber rifles rank high on the list of possible threats." Neither did anybody else Governor - but a whole lot of parents are gonna wonder why junior has nothing to write on! It has been a long hard battle for America's Left Coast. We thank everyone who worked so hard and gave so generously to protect our brothers and sisters to the West. Sadly, it is a tough fight when legislators like Assemblyman Longville say to your face "I don't care about the facts, I vote the way I'm told to." From barring testimony at hearings to conjuring "ghost voters," the Koretz team continued to stack the deck until AB-50 became inevitable. The final step, pulling the wool over the Governor's eyes, seemed the easiest hurdle of all. It is up to the citizens of California to demand an explanation. As for us, we can only turn our eyes to the rest of the nation. The snake oil salesmen that pushed AB-50 are doubtlessly hard at work drafting similar bills for other states, gleeful that the easy marks in the California legislature have "legitimized" their farce as much as any California decision can. As we go forward we look ahead to thousands of sportsmen who enjoy the fifty caliber sports to continue to do so as they have for decades, free of injury, free of crime. While we do so, we will remember to look up from the firing line and wave to Californians as they watch from the sidelines and wonder why. If you get an answer from your new Governor, be sure to let us know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #3 September 20, 2004 Those damn gun taking republicans! I personally would love to have a match grade 50 cal for target shooting. I guess I need to get off my ass and get one before its banned nationwide huh?Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #4 September 20, 2004 Yep. Just wait for Patriot II - you'll be lucky to be able to hang on to a 30.06. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #5 September 20, 2004 QuoteThe weapon, which can weigh up to 28 pounds, fires a bullet about 6 inches long and is typically used by game hunters and target shooters. WTF?! What moronic asshole wrote this article?! What kind of game is hunted with .50BMG? I know people go out and have a rip "plinking" with the things, but game?? And, more to the point, "a bullet about six inches long"?! Try "cartridge," ya dumb typical media fuck! Ain't nothing I know of fires a BULLET six inches long. Maybe if these anti-gun morons wanted to actually think for even just one second, they'd ask, "How are we stopping a safety problem when these things are, like, NEVER used in crimes?!" Do they really believe that terrorist acts will be done with BULLETS and not with powders, liquids, aerosols, germs and explosives? Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #6 September 20, 2004 QuoteDo they really believe that terrorist acts will be done with BULLETS and not with powders, liquids, aerosols, germs and explosives? You know, I honestly think they do. I think people believe that if certain weapons aren't banned that terrorist will go on a shopping spree and then attack cities in waves. I'm not kidding, I think people believe that shit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,131 #7 September 20, 2004 >Do they really believe that terrorist acts will be done with BULLETS and >not with powders, liquids, aerosols, germs and explosives? It is a lot more likely that a terrorist will use a gun than a nail clipper to kill people, yet they were confiscating them for a while in airports. It has more to do with fear than logic. Get people afraid enough and they will let their government do some stupid things in the name of protection, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #8 September 20, 2004 QuoteYep. Just wait for Patriot II - you'll be lucky to be able to hang on to a 30.06. Well, maybe if this time your Democrat demagogues don't VOTE FOR IT like they did the first one, we'll be spared it. Maybe this time they'll read it, and like the heroes that we know Democrats are, they'll work their asses off to prevent it from becoming law! But I'm sure you'll just blame Republicans for it, just because it may be sponsored initially by them -- as though Democrats don't have the power in Congress to block bad legislation. And if they lack the power, well, I guess it's because there are not enough of them in Congress -- which is because the people didn't WANT what they were SELLING when came election day! The people can't be wrong: their will is what our government is all about. And if they put a Republican majority in Congress, well, their will be done. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #9 September 20, 2004 Quote>Do they really believe that terrorist acts will be done with BULLETS and >not with powders, liquids, aerosols, germs and explosives? It is a lot more likely that a terrorist will use a gun than a nail clipper to kill people, yet they were confiscating them for a while in airports. It has more to do with fear than logic. Get people afraid enough and they will let their government do some stupid things in the name of protection, You must mean the way Democrats play up the evils of allowing the public to own guns, and then waging a cynical, lying war against so-called "assault weapons that spray bullets." -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,131 #10 September 20, 2004 >You must mean the way Democrats play up the evils of allowing the >public to own guns, and then waging a cynical, lying war against so-called >"assault weapons that spray bullets." No, actually I meant the way they used to confiscate nail clippers. It is ironic, though, that you are posting this in a thread about a republican governor who just banned a "confirmed tool of terrorists." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #11 September 20, 2004 Quote>You must mean the way Democrats play up the evils of allowing the >public to own guns, and then waging a cynical, lying war against so-called >"assault weapons that spray bullets." No, actually I meant the way they used to confiscate nail clippers. It is ironic, though, that you are posting this in a thread about a republican governor who just banned a "confirmed tool of terrorists." Schwarzenegger is no Republican. He's Hollywood. Who pushed the law banning the "confirmed tool of terrorists"? Leftist gun banners who 99% of the time are Democrats. The same ones who typically try to convince the gun-owning public that the gun-owning public have stated in polls that they support laws that would make them the gun-surrendering public? How can you expect to be taken seriously if you deny that's the truth? -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #12 September 20, 2004 Quote>You must mean the way Democrats play up the evils of allowing the >public to own guns, and then waging a cynical, lying war against so-called >"assault weapons that spray bullets." No, actually I meant the way they used to confiscate nail clippers. It is ironic, though, that you are posting this in a thread about a republican governor who just banned a "confirmed tool of terrorists." Are you saying that, "Get people afraid enough and they will let their government do some stupid things in the name of protection," could not be taken to refer to the hysterical "assault weapons ban," the hysterical paranoia about the "semi-automatic killing machines" (which were (not really) banned under the 1994 law), and the hysterical efforts (and lying) that your Democrat masters used to try to resurrect the dead ban? Your statement could not apply to all of that? -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #13 September 21, 2004 QuoteQuote>You must mean the way Democrats play up the evils of allowing the >public to own guns, and then waging a cynical, lying war against so-called >"assault weapons that spray bullets." No, actually I meant the way they used to confiscate nail clippers. It is ironic, though, that you are posting this in a thread about a republican governor who just banned a "confirmed tool of terrorists." Schwarzenegger is no Republican. lol.. is that why he was featured so prominently at your convention??____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #14 September 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote>You must mean the way Democrats play up the evils of allowing the >public to own guns, and then waging a cynical, lying war against so-called >"assault weapons that spray bullets." No, actually I meant the way they used to confiscate nail clippers. It is ironic, though, that you are posting this in a thread about a republican governor who just banned a "confirmed tool of terrorists." Schwarzenegger is no Republican. lol.. is that why he was featured so prominently at your convention?? So was Zell Miller. He's ostensibly a Democrat. He behaves/thinks/votes more like a Republican. If I said he was some sort of model of the typical Democrat, you could rightly say, "Miller's no Democrat." -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #15 September 21, 2004 QuoteDo they really believe that terrorist acts will be done with BULLETS and not with powders, liquids, aerosols, germs and explosives? When it comes to excuses for gun bans, facts don't matter. Only fear-mongering. Dan Blather went forward with a story about Bush's National Guard service, despite faulty documents, just because he *wanted* to believe it. Likewise, liberal legislators go forward with gun bans, despite all the lies, just because they *want* to believe them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Douva 0 #16 September 21, 2004 QuoteYep. Just wait for Patriot II - you'll be lucky to be able to hang on to a 30.06. So, what you're saying is that using fear tactics to take away the rights of citizens isn't simply a Democratic or a Republican thing? Interesting.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,131 #17 September 21, 2004 >So, what you're saying is that using fear tactics to take away the > rights of citizens isn't simply a Democratic or a Republican thing? > Interesting. It goes back much farther than any US political party. Get a hold of Machiavelli's "The Prince." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #18 September 21, 2004 Quote>So, what you're saying is that using fear tactics to take away the > rights of citizens isn't simply a Democratic or a Republican thing? > Interesting. It goes back much farther than any US political party. Get a hold of Machiavelli's "The Prince." and he was simply expounding on the ways and means of it... it goes back much farther than that....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Clownburner 0 #19 September 21, 2004 QuoteWell, maybe if this time your Democrat demagogues don't VOTE FOR IT like they did the first one, we'll be spared it. Please tell me you're kidding and you're not really that naive, right? The only person in the senate who voted against PATRIOT I was a democrat. Have a look at the official record, if you like. PATRIOT was introduced in a such a way it was almost impossible, politically, for anyone to vote against it, and virtually no one had time to read it before it was voted on. That ought to be illegal. But I agree, the .50 cal ban is ridiculous and absurd, and I'll be calling the governor and telling him so.7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez "I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #20 September 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote>You must mean the way Democrats play up the evils of allowing the >public to own guns, and then waging a cynical, lying war against so-called >"assault weapons that spray bullets." No, actually I meant the way they used to confiscate nail clippers. It is ironic, though, that you are posting this in a thread about a republican governor who just banned a "confirmed tool of terrorists." Schwarzenegger is no Republican. lol.. is that why he was featured so prominently at your convention?? I believe that democrats spoke as well. Your answer holds no weight.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #21 September 21, 2004 Here is an excellent dissection of the many lies surrounding .50 caliber BMG rifles: .50 Caliber Liars Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #22 September 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteWell, maybe if this time your Democrat demagogues don't VOTE FOR IT like they did the first one, we'll be spared it. Please tell me you're kidding and you're not really that naive, right? The only person in the senate who voted against PATRIOT I was a democrat. Have a look at the official record, if you like. PATRIOT was introduced in a such a way it was almost impossible, politically, for anyone to vote against it, and virtually no one had time to read it before it was voted on. That ought to be illegal. But I agree, the .50 cal ban is ridiculous and absurd, and I'll be calling the governor and telling him so. That's my point. Big deal if the only person who voted against it was a Democrat. That's supposed to be the proud moment for the Democratic party against the "invasive" Patriot Act? That the single vote against it was one of them? How does that change the fact that ALL of the rest of them voted FOR it? You're right about it being borderline criminal to vote for legislation you haven't read and don't understand. Both sides should swing for it. In fact, Congress should be VACATED of anyone who does such a thing. But your Dems did it, just like the Repubs did, and yet the liberals here keep castigating the Repubs for the Patriot Act almost exclusively, and implying directly that "If you want Patriot II, vote for the Republicans," as though the Democrats are the only ones who have awakened from the dangerous stupor of voting for this kind of thing. How do you know that Republicans in Congress will not also vote against an updated version? -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #23 September 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>You must mean the way Democrats play up the evils of allowing the >public to own guns, and then waging a cynical, lying war against so-called >"assault weapons that spray bullets." No, actually I meant the way they used to confiscate nail clippers. It is ironic, though, that you are posting this in a thread about a republican governor who just banned a "confirmed tool of terrorists." Schwarzenegger is no Republican. lol.. is that why he was featured so prominently at your convention?? I believe that democrats spoke as well. Your answer holds no weight. really? how about arnolds years of support for previous republican administration.. anyone who disbelieves that Arnold is not and has not always been a diehard republican has their head in the sand...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #24 September 21, 2004 Quoteanyone who disbelieves that Arnold is not and has not always been a diehard republican has their head in the sand... Ever heard anyone say, "I'm a social liberal, but a fiscal conservative"? Arnold is a fiscal conservative (except when it comes to spending millions that the state doesn't have on a useless ban on a kind of gun never used in crime) but a social liberal -- hence the moronic support for the .50 cal. ban. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #25 September 21, 2004 all of which STILL makes him a republican no matter how much you wish to deny it....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
PhillyKev 0 #6 September 20, 2004 QuoteDo they really believe that terrorist acts will be done with BULLETS and not with powders, liquids, aerosols, germs and explosives? You know, I honestly think they do. I think people believe that if certain weapons aren't banned that terrorist will go on a shopping spree and then attack cities in waves. I'm not kidding, I think people believe that shit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #7 September 20, 2004 >Do they really believe that terrorist acts will be done with BULLETS and >not with powders, liquids, aerosols, germs and explosives? It is a lot more likely that a terrorist will use a gun than a nail clipper to kill people, yet they were confiscating them for a while in airports. It has more to do with fear than logic. Get people afraid enough and they will let their government do some stupid things in the name of protection, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #8 September 20, 2004 QuoteYep. Just wait for Patriot II - you'll be lucky to be able to hang on to a 30.06. Well, maybe if this time your Democrat demagogues don't VOTE FOR IT like they did the first one, we'll be spared it. Maybe this time they'll read it, and like the heroes that we know Democrats are, they'll work their asses off to prevent it from becoming law! But I'm sure you'll just blame Republicans for it, just because it may be sponsored initially by them -- as though Democrats don't have the power in Congress to block bad legislation. And if they lack the power, well, I guess it's because there are not enough of them in Congress -- which is because the people didn't WANT what they were SELLING when came election day! The people can't be wrong: their will is what our government is all about. And if they put a Republican majority in Congress, well, their will be done. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #9 September 20, 2004 Quote>Do they really believe that terrorist acts will be done with BULLETS and >not with powders, liquids, aerosols, germs and explosives? It is a lot more likely that a terrorist will use a gun than a nail clipper to kill people, yet they were confiscating them for a while in airports. It has more to do with fear than logic. Get people afraid enough and they will let their government do some stupid things in the name of protection, You must mean the way Democrats play up the evils of allowing the public to own guns, and then waging a cynical, lying war against so-called "assault weapons that spray bullets." -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #10 September 20, 2004 >You must mean the way Democrats play up the evils of allowing the >public to own guns, and then waging a cynical, lying war against so-called >"assault weapons that spray bullets." No, actually I meant the way they used to confiscate nail clippers. It is ironic, though, that you are posting this in a thread about a republican governor who just banned a "confirmed tool of terrorists." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #11 September 20, 2004 Quote>You must mean the way Democrats play up the evils of allowing the >public to own guns, and then waging a cynical, lying war against so-called >"assault weapons that spray bullets." No, actually I meant the way they used to confiscate nail clippers. It is ironic, though, that you are posting this in a thread about a republican governor who just banned a "confirmed tool of terrorists." Schwarzenegger is no Republican. He's Hollywood. Who pushed the law banning the "confirmed tool of terrorists"? Leftist gun banners who 99% of the time are Democrats. The same ones who typically try to convince the gun-owning public that the gun-owning public have stated in polls that they support laws that would make them the gun-surrendering public? How can you expect to be taken seriously if you deny that's the truth? -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #12 September 20, 2004 Quote>You must mean the way Democrats play up the evils of allowing the >public to own guns, and then waging a cynical, lying war against so-called >"assault weapons that spray bullets." No, actually I meant the way they used to confiscate nail clippers. It is ironic, though, that you are posting this in a thread about a republican governor who just banned a "confirmed tool of terrorists." Are you saying that, "Get people afraid enough and they will let their government do some stupid things in the name of protection," could not be taken to refer to the hysterical "assault weapons ban," the hysterical paranoia about the "semi-automatic killing machines" (which were (not really) banned under the 1994 law), and the hysterical efforts (and lying) that your Democrat masters used to try to resurrect the dead ban? Your statement could not apply to all of that? -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #13 September 21, 2004 QuoteQuote>You must mean the way Democrats play up the evils of allowing the >public to own guns, and then waging a cynical, lying war against so-called >"assault weapons that spray bullets." No, actually I meant the way they used to confiscate nail clippers. It is ironic, though, that you are posting this in a thread about a republican governor who just banned a "confirmed tool of terrorists." Schwarzenegger is no Republican. lol.. is that why he was featured so prominently at your convention??____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #14 September 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote>You must mean the way Democrats play up the evils of allowing the >public to own guns, and then waging a cynical, lying war against so-called >"assault weapons that spray bullets." No, actually I meant the way they used to confiscate nail clippers. It is ironic, though, that you are posting this in a thread about a republican governor who just banned a "confirmed tool of terrorists." Schwarzenegger is no Republican. lol.. is that why he was featured so prominently at your convention?? So was Zell Miller. He's ostensibly a Democrat. He behaves/thinks/votes more like a Republican. If I said he was some sort of model of the typical Democrat, you could rightly say, "Miller's no Democrat." -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #15 September 21, 2004 QuoteDo they really believe that terrorist acts will be done with BULLETS and not with powders, liquids, aerosols, germs and explosives? When it comes to excuses for gun bans, facts don't matter. Only fear-mongering. Dan Blather went forward with a story about Bush's National Guard service, despite faulty documents, just because he *wanted* to believe it. Likewise, liberal legislators go forward with gun bans, despite all the lies, just because they *want* to believe them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #16 September 21, 2004 QuoteYep. Just wait for Patriot II - you'll be lucky to be able to hang on to a 30.06. So, what you're saying is that using fear tactics to take away the rights of citizens isn't simply a Democratic or a Republican thing? Interesting.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #17 September 21, 2004 >So, what you're saying is that using fear tactics to take away the > rights of citizens isn't simply a Democratic or a Republican thing? > Interesting. It goes back much farther than any US political party. Get a hold of Machiavelli's "The Prince." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #18 September 21, 2004 Quote>So, what you're saying is that using fear tactics to take away the > rights of citizens isn't simply a Democratic or a Republican thing? > Interesting. It goes back much farther than any US political party. Get a hold of Machiavelli's "The Prince." and he was simply expounding on the ways and means of it... it goes back much farther than that....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Clownburner 0 #19 September 21, 2004 QuoteWell, maybe if this time your Democrat demagogues don't VOTE FOR IT like they did the first one, we'll be spared it. Please tell me you're kidding and you're not really that naive, right? The only person in the senate who voted against PATRIOT I was a democrat. Have a look at the official record, if you like. PATRIOT was introduced in a such a way it was almost impossible, politically, for anyone to vote against it, and virtually no one had time to read it before it was voted on. That ought to be illegal. But I agree, the .50 cal ban is ridiculous and absurd, and I'll be calling the governor and telling him so.7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez "I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #20 September 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote>You must mean the way Democrats play up the evils of allowing the >public to own guns, and then waging a cynical, lying war against so-called >"assault weapons that spray bullets." No, actually I meant the way they used to confiscate nail clippers. It is ironic, though, that you are posting this in a thread about a republican governor who just banned a "confirmed tool of terrorists." Schwarzenegger is no Republican. lol.. is that why he was featured so prominently at your convention?? I believe that democrats spoke as well. Your answer holds no weight.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #21 September 21, 2004 Here is an excellent dissection of the many lies surrounding .50 caliber BMG rifles: .50 Caliber Liars Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #22 September 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteWell, maybe if this time your Democrat demagogues don't VOTE FOR IT like they did the first one, we'll be spared it. Please tell me you're kidding and you're not really that naive, right? The only person in the senate who voted against PATRIOT I was a democrat. Have a look at the official record, if you like. PATRIOT was introduced in a such a way it was almost impossible, politically, for anyone to vote against it, and virtually no one had time to read it before it was voted on. That ought to be illegal. But I agree, the .50 cal ban is ridiculous and absurd, and I'll be calling the governor and telling him so. That's my point. Big deal if the only person who voted against it was a Democrat. That's supposed to be the proud moment for the Democratic party against the "invasive" Patriot Act? That the single vote against it was one of them? How does that change the fact that ALL of the rest of them voted FOR it? You're right about it being borderline criminal to vote for legislation you haven't read and don't understand. Both sides should swing for it. In fact, Congress should be VACATED of anyone who does such a thing. But your Dems did it, just like the Repubs did, and yet the liberals here keep castigating the Repubs for the Patriot Act almost exclusively, and implying directly that "If you want Patriot II, vote for the Republicans," as though the Democrats are the only ones who have awakened from the dangerous stupor of voting for this kind of thing. How do you know that Republicans in Congress will not also vote against an updated version? -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #23 September 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>You must mean the way Democrats play up the evils of allowing the >public to own guns, and then waging a cynical, lying war against so-called >"assault weapons that spray bullets." No, actually I meant the way they used to confiscate nail clippers. It is ironic, though, that you are posting this in a thread about a republican governor who just banned a "confirmed tool of terrorists." Schwarzenegger is no Republican. lol.. is that why he was featured so prominently at your convention?? I believe that democrats spoke as well. Your answer holds no weight. really? how about arnolds years of support for previous republican administration.. anyone who disbelieves that Arnold is not and has not always been a diehard republican has their head in the sand...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #24 September 21, 2004 Quoteanyone who disbelieves that Arnold is not and has not always been a diehard republican has their head in the sand... Ever heard anyone say, "I'm a social liberal, but a fiscal conservative"? Arnold is a fiscal conservative (except when it comes to spending millions that the state doesn't have on a useless ban on a kind of gun never used in crime) but a social liberal -- hence the moronic support for the .50 cal. ban. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #25 September 21, 2004 all of which STILL makes him a republican no matter how much you wish to deny it....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
