On 17/07/2011 11:42 AM, Pete C. wrote:

>
> This is another significant failing of left wingers, trying to claim
> that somehow the only people who want to protect their constitutional
> rights are on the other wing. The fact is that there is little if any
> political bias in the distribution of gun owners, millions of
> center-left people own guns. I'm very much in the center and I will
> certainly do everything I can to protect my constitutional rights,
> whether first, second or any other amendment. The attempts to falsely
> equate legal gun owners with crime are pathetic and disgusting.


My personal view is that those on the right talk a lot about their
constitutional rights while those on the left tend to be concerned about
the constitutional rights of others.




>
> As for taxes, low taxes are indeed good for me and for the country as a
> whole. High taxes invariably lead to substantial corruption and waste.

No. Politics and the government trough lead to corruption. Politicians
need support to win an election and they need money to run a campaign to
win that support. The big donors want something in return for their
donations.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 17/07/2011 11:42 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >
> > This is another significant failing of left wingers, trying to claim
> > that somehow the only people who want to protect their constitutional
> > rights are on the other wing. The fact is that there is little if any
> > political bias in the distribution of gun owners, millions of
> > center-left people own guns. I'm very much in the center and I will
> > certainly do everything I can to protect my constitutional rights,
> > whether first, second or any other amendment. The attempts to falsely
> > equate legal gun owners with crime are pathetic and disgusting.
>
> My personal view is that those on the right talk a lot about their
> constitutional rights while those on the left tend to be concerned about
> the constitutional rights of others.

Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
constitutional rights of others?

>
> >
> > As for taxes, low taxes are indeed good for me and for the country as a
> > whole. High taxes invariably lead to substantial corruption and waste.
>
> No. Politics and the government trough lead to corruption. Politicians
> need support to win an election and they need money to run a campaign to
> win that support. The big donors want something in return for their
> donations.

Taxes are the tool of the left to steal from the productive in order to
buy the votes of the poor and ignorant for their party.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

> Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
> constitutional rights of others?

I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

sf wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> > Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
> > constitutional rights of others?
>
> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".

No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
inaliable human right of self defense. The only nuts are in the
paranoid, irrational and unethical anti-gun camp.

On 7/17/2011 2:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
> inaliable human right of self defense.



So who is denying you your rights to own a gun? Since Obama came into
office, gun ownership hasn't had any significant changes. In fact, the
Prez signed a law making it permissible to carry a weapon in many
federal parks.

I remember the before the election the hue and cry was that Obama was
going to "take away our guns".. and then there was the big "no ammo"
scare. Neither happened.

The single most heinous government act that denies people their
constitutional rights is the Patriot Act... initiated by Bush... and
extended by Obama.

So exactly which of your "constitutional rights" have been taken away
since the last election?

(BTW - I am in favor of people being allowed to own guns, but I want
them registered)

George L

George Leppla wrote:
>
> On 7/17/2011 2:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
> > No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
> > inaliable human right of self defense.
>
> So who is denying you your rights to own a gun?

Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples
constitutional rights are indeed being trampled. Ask folks who's rights
were trampled by the now expired ugly gun ban. When the second amendment
was written it wasn't about "sporting" guns, or antique guns, it was
about guns that were the then state of the art and defensive use was
very much what was being considered.

> Since Obama came into
> office, gun ownership hasn't had any significant changes.

Due only to the fact that Obama isn't out at the left wing like the rest
of his party, and due to the fact that gun owners have representation to
fend off the constant attacks from the left wing.

> In fact, the
> Prez signed a law making it permissible to carry a weapon in many
> federal parks.

As I've noted Obama isn't out on the left wing like most of his party
is.

>
> I remember the before the election the hue and cry was that Obama was
> going to "take away our guns"..

There certainly was well warranted concern until it became apparent that
Obama wasn't as left as his party wanted him to be.

> and then there was the big "no ammo"
> scare. Neither happened.

Sorry, this once certainly did happen. I clearly remember having to
search around to find ammunition for my normal range outing and hunting,
and I don't do either all that frequency. I recall months of zero
availability of certain calibers of ammunition. Fortunately the supply
has caught up with demand and metals prices have come down a bit as well
bringing ammunition prices down a bit as well.

>
> The single most heinous government act that denies people their
> constitutional rights is the Patriot Act... initiated by Bush... and
> extended by Obama.

While there are some concerns with the Patriot Act, have you ever
stopped to consider that both Bush and Obama have supported it based on
the classified information that they receive on the threats to the US
that you never hear about? I had hoped that when Obama extended it, the
left wing might have picked up on that hint and realized that there was
a good reason for it. Of course it seems that they just cling to their
ideology without any reflection on such realities.

>
> So exactly which of your "constitutional rights" have been taken away
> since the last election?

The right to choose who I do or don't do business with (Obummercare
mandate)? As for the second amendment, or just as easily the first
amendment, if you ignore the attacks on it until the right is taken
away, it's too late.

>
> (BTW - I am in favor of people being allowed to own guns, but I want
> them registered)

And exactly what to you believe registration would accomplish? Certainly
it has nothing whatsoever to do with crime, since criminals are not
allowed to own guns.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 15:01:47 -0500, George Leppla wrote:

> On 7/17/2011 2:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
>> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
>> inaliable human right of self defense.
>
> So who is denying you your rights to own a gun? Since Obama came into
> office, gun ownership hasn't had any significant changes. In fact, the
> Prez signed a law making it permissible to carry a weapon in many
> federal parks.
>
> I remember the before the election the hue and cry was that Obama was
> going to "take away our guns".. and then there was the big "no ammo"
> scare. Neither happened.
>
> The single most heinous government act that denies people their
> constitutional rights is the Patriot Act... initiated by Bush... and
> extended by Obama.
>
> So exactly which of your "constitutional rights" have been taken away
> since the last election?
>
> (BTW - I am in favor of people being allowed to own guns, but I want
> them registered)
>
> George L

what are you, some kind of commie? i suppose you support a ban on private
ownership of bazookas, too!

your pal,
blake

On 17/07/2011 3:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> sf wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, "Pete >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
>>> constitutional rights of others?
>>
>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
>
> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
> inaliable human right of self defense. The only nuts are in the
> paranoid, irrational and unethical anti-gun camp.

But what about the other people's rights. How about the rights for
minorities or *** rights? It seems that when people are concerned
about their rights, for some reason the first thing they come up with is
gun rights.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 17/07/2011 3:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > sf wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, "Pete >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
> >>> constitutional rights of others?
> >>
> >> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
> >
> > No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
> > inaliable human right of self defense. The only nuts are in the
> > paranoid, irrational and unethical anti-gun camp.
>
> But what about the other people's rights. How about the rights for
> minorities or *** rights?

How about them? I'm a gun owner, and I'm straight, but if you recall I
had some strong words for the anti *** crowd back in the thread about
Kat Cora and her partner and their children.

> It seems that when people are concerned
> about their rights, for some reason the first thing they come up with is
> gun rights.

Perhaps because I'm not a minority and I'm not ***? When anti *** or
anti minority (not to be confused by anti illegal immigrant) laws are up
for votes I actually get off my but and go vote against them. BTW, gays
and minorities also own guns.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> But what about the other people's rights. How about the rights for
> minorities or *** rights? It seems that when people are concerned
> about their rights, for some reason the first thing they come up with is
> gun rights.

And now lightbulbs. Michelle Bachman won't let the
commies take away our lightbulbs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008447

On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:13:04 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> On 17/07/2011 3:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> sf wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, "Pete >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
>>>> constitutional rights of others?
>>>
>>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
>>
>> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
>> inaliable human right of self defense. The only nuts are in the
>> paranoid, irrational and unethical anti-gun camp.
>
> But what about the other people's rights. How about the rights for
> minorities or *** rights? It seems that when people are concerned
> about their rights, for some reason the first thing they come up with is
> gun rights.

well, marriage for homosexual queers isn't a right. me owning as many
handguns as i possibly can is.

see how simple it is?

your pal,
blake

"Pete C." > wrote:
> sf wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
>>> constitutional rights of others?
>>
>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
>
> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
> inaliable human right of self defense. The only nuts are in the
> paranoid, irrational and unethical anti-gun camp.

I have no problem with those that have a gun for self defense. Do they need
to carry one in the open? No. Do they need semi automatic weapons with
those extra large clips? No.

People should not be able to own an full automatic or a semi automatic
weapon. I am also for gun registration and to pass an exam on the use of
the guns. Took keep the guns out of those that have committed a crime and
to those that have mentally problems.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Nad R wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote:
> > sf wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, "Pete C." >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
> >>> constitutional rights of others?
> >>
> >> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
> >
> > No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
> > inaliable human right of self defense. The only nuts are in the
> > paranoid, irrational and unethical anti-gun camp.
>
> I have no problem with those that have a gun for self defense. Do they need
> to carry one in the open? No.

Not many of us do carry guns in the open, other than during hunting
seasons. We have *concealed handgun licenses* and that is how we carry.

> Do they need semi automatic weapons with
> those extra large clips? No.

Absolutely we do. The second amendment was written in reference to arms
that were then state of the art, and it is our constitutional right to
state of the art arms.

>
> People should not be able to own an full automatic

Yes, they should, and the few people who do own them are well qualified
and background checked.

> or a semi automatic
> weapon.

Absolutely they should. The second amendment in now way put any limits
on the type of arms that a citizen had a right to.

> I am also for gun registration

Which would accomplish what exactly, other than harass those exercising
their constitutional rights? Criminals aren't allowed to have guns. How
about we make you register your speech with authorities before you are
allowed to express it? All public speeches have to be pre registered
with authorities, if you want to change your speech you have to register
it or you get arrested.

> and to pass an exam on the use of
> the guns.

Pretty much everyone with a CHL has passed a background check and a
proficiency exam at a range. In some states you have to re-test and
requalify periodically just like a LEO.

> Took keep the guns out of those that have committed a crime and

Laws have long existed for this, nothing new is required. Check the
stats with most any state, plenty of criminals are rejected from gun
purchases. Perhaps we should be arresting the criminals in the ATF who
have been running guns into Mexico.

> to those that have mentally problems.

Laws currently exist for that, but your beloved ACLU and the like think
they somehow infringe on the rights of the mentally ill and routinely
attack such laws. Lax reporting by mental health facilities and those
who come in contact with the mentally ill (like Jared Longher) are the
problem, not guns. If mr Longher couldn't get a gun you can be pretty
certain he would have used a different weapon, perhaps just stealing a
larger truck and plowing it into the crowd.

On 7/17/2011 6:02 PM, Nad R wrote:
> "Pete > wrote:
>> sf wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, "Pete >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
>>>> constitutional rights of others?
>>>
>>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
>>
>> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
>> inaliable human right of self defense. The only nuts are in the
>> paranoid, irrational and unethical anti-gun camp.
>
> I have no problem with those that have a gun for self defense. Do they need
> to carry one in the open? No. Do they need semi automatic weapons with
> those extra large clips? No.
>
> People should not be able to own an full automatic or a semi automatic
> weapon. I am also for gun registration and to pass an exam on the use of
> the guns. Took keep the guns out of those that have committed a crime and
> to those that have mentally problems.
>

So you want something a little stronger than being able to just walk in
and purchase a gun as easy as say buying a sandwich and a beverage as we
can do now? (actually we can't)

Here is the current required form:

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

There is also an online version. All of the information you enter on the
form is verified.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 14:42:18 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> sf wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
>>> constitutional rights of others?
>>
>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
>
> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
> inaliable human right of self defense. The only nuts are in the
> paranoid, irrational and unethical anti-gun camp.

no, the only nuts are in the paranoid, irrational and unethical camp that
thinks the government is going to take away their guns. when has this
happened?

the NRA has been making fools of you for decades (and making tons of money
doing it).

blake

On 17/07/2011 1:10 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 17/07/2011 11:42 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> This is another significant failing of left wingers, trying to claim
>>> that somehow the only people who want to protect their constitutional
>>> rights are on the other wing. The fact is that there is little if any
>>> political bias in the distribution of gun owners, millions of
>>> center-left people own guns. I'm very much in the center and I will
>>> certainly do everything I can to protect my constitutional rights,
>>> whether first, second or any other amendment. The attempts to falsely
>>> equate legal gun owners with crime are pathetic and disgusting.
>>
>> My personal view is that those on the right talk a lot about their
>> constitutional rights while those on the left tend to be concerned about
>> the constitutional rights of others.
>
> Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
> constitutional rights of others?
>
>>
>>>
>>> As for taxes, low taxes are indeed good for me and for the country as a
>>> whole. High taxes invariably lead to substantial corruption and waste.
>>
>> No. Politics and the government trough lead to corruption. Politicians
>> need support to win an election and they need money to run a campaign to
>> win that support. The big donors want something in return for their
>> donations.
>
> Taxes are the tool of the left to steal from the productive in order to
> buy the votes of the poor and ignorant for their party.


The rich tend to vote. The poor don't bother. The rich tend to donate to
campaigns. The poor cannot afford to.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 17/07/2011 1:10 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> On 17/07/2011 11:42 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> This is another significant failing of left wingers, trying to claim
> >>> that somehow the only people who want to protect their constitutional
> >>> rights are on the other wing. The fact is that there is little if any
> >>> political bias in the distribution of gun owners, millions of
> >>> center-left people own guns. I'm very much in the center and I will
> >>> certainly do everything I can to protect my constitutional rights,
> >>> whether first, second or any other amendment. The attempts to falsely
> >>> equate legal gun owners with crime are pathetic and disgusting.
> >>
> >> My personal view is that those on the right talk a lot about their
> >> constitutional rights while those on the left tend to be concerned about
> >> the constitutional rights of others.
> >
> > Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
> > constitutional rights of others?
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> As for taxes, low taxes are indeed good for me and for the country as a
> >>> whole. High taxes invariably lead to substantial corruption and waste.
> >>
> >> No. Politics and the government trough lead to corruption. Politicians
> >> need support to win an election and they need money to run a campaign to
> >> win that support. The big donors want something in return for their
> >> donations.
> >
> > Taxes are the tool of the left to steal from the productive in order to
> > buy the votes of the poor and ignorant for their party.
>
> The rich tend to vote. The poor don't bother. The rich tend to donate to
> campaigns. The poor cannot afford to.

The left uses taxes and criminal level "non tax" taxes to take money
from the middle class and use it to buy the votes of the poor and
ignorant. The left busses the poor and ignorant to polling places while
reminding them that if they vote for their party they will get more
handouts.

On 17/07/2011 3:44 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>

>> The rich tend to vote. The poor don't bother. The rich tend to donate to
>> campaigns. The poor cannot afford to.
>
> The left uses taxes and criminal level "non tax" taxes to take money
> from the middle class and use it to buy the votes of the poor and
> ignorant. The left busses the poor and ignorant to polling places while
> reminding them that if they vote for their party they will get more
> handouts.

Whose fault is it that the middle class ends up paying the taxes? There
seems to be lots of loopholes for the rich.

On Jul 17, 2:00*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:


> The rich tend to vote. The poor don't bother. The rich tend to donate to
> campaigns. The poor cannot afford to.



I drive a cab. Around election time I see a lot of placards for
this or that politician on the lawns of nice homes. Sometimes I see
them on vacant lots. It's a form of littering. Begging actually.
Begging in abstensia. Begging to get elected. Then, if they get
elected, their first order of business is outlawing panhandling. That
the poor don't contribute to campaigns as much as the rich is probably
true, but not because they can't afford it. Maybe also because they
got a real education in life early on and know that the whole process
is a waste of time no matter who they vote for.

TJ

On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:10:22 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 17/07/2011 11:42 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> This is another significant failing of left wingers, trying to claim
>>> that somehow the only people who want to protect their constitutional
>>> rights are on the other wing. The fact is that there is little if any
>>> political bias in the distribution of gun owners, millions of
>>> center-left people own guns. I'm very much in the center and I will
>>> certainly do everything I can to protect my constitutional rights,
>>> whether first, second or any other amendment. The attempts to falsely
>>> equate legal gun owners with crime are pathetic and disgusting.
>>
>> My personal view is that those on the right talk a lot about their
>> constitutional rights while those on the left tend to be concerned about
>> the constitutional rights of others.
>
> Then why do those on the left constantly try to attack the
> constitutional rights of others?

example, please?

blake

On 2011-07-17, Dave Smith > wrote:

> My personal view is that those on the right talk a lot about their
> constitutional rights while those on the left tend to be concerned about
> the constitutional rights of others.

I kinda agree, but word it a tad bit differently:

"Democrats take your money and give it to those who haven't earned it.
Republicans take your money and keep it for themselves." --nb

nb