Re: I got to stay out of the politic groups...
Nick Hull
"ViceGrip" <vice...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Went looking for more groups like this one. Found a group talking
> politics and the morality of owning a gun. Got me wound up when they
> used the argument that because automobiles are registered and drivers
> are licensed and that system is working so well, that we should have
> the same system for guns.
>
> Counting to 10 just didn't work.
You just don't understand. With auto/driver licencing & registration
car thefts and accidents have disappeared. Welcome to 1984 ;)
--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
dan_...@hotmail.com
ViceGrip wrote:
> Went looking for more groups like this one. Found a group talking
> politics and the morality of owning a gun. Got me wound up when they
> used the argument that because automobiles are registered and drivers
> are licensed and that system is working so well, that we should have
> the same system for guns.
>
> Counting to 10 just didn't work.
>
automobile capable of driving over 65. Only the police and military
need those kind of assault vehicles. No civilian needs or can be
trusted with that much power.
Of course you don't need to register or license a vehicle just to buy
or own one, or to drive it on your own private property. You just need
a license to drive it on publicly shared roads.
OK, back to work...
Gonzo
I have gotten into heated debates in non-firearm or gaming web forums with
people and have come to the conclusion that you simply can't win an
argument.
Why? Because of ignorance. Ignorance is the #1 tool used by the Anti-Gun
crowd and this is why they push the "Gun Freedom=AW=machine gun killing
Bambi" argument. They want their listeners to be dumb of the true meaning
of the 2nd amendment and about firearms in general.
And if they can't get away with outright lying they resort to emotional
sensationalism and graying of the facts.
One major thing I have noticed is that Europeans on the Net are the most
prone to jump this anti-gun circle jerk. Add to that, teenagers and most
females. I have therefore come to the conclusion that it may be more of a
case of envy or jealousy than anything else and the ones that are the most
passionate in their gun ignorance are the ones that can't own them in the
first place.
You are right though as it is hard not to jump in and at least counter this
stuff and offer them an education in the FACTS. Most will not listen but
the silent majority just might. Good luck and fight the good fight. Just
don't let anger position you as the bad guy.
http://home.hot.rr.com/gonzostation
"ViceGrip" <vice...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4qdsn$12i$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> Went looking for more groups like this one. Found a group talking
> politics and the morality of owning a gun. Got me wound up when they
> used the argument that because automobiles are registered and drivers
> are licensed and that system is working so well, that we should have
> the same system for guns.
>
> Counting to 10 just didn't work.
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Win a FULTON ARMORY dedicated .22 AR-15 or a HENRY GOLDEN BOY .22 rifle
> protecting your Second Amendment rights in MPFO's latest raffle. Last
> call for tix on this one! See us on the web at http://www.myguns.net
turbina...@yahoo.com
it and came back to r.g. This group is great - learned a great deal
over the years. You can't believe everything you read but there are a
lot of knowledgeable people here and most are very friendly and willing
to help. As far as I can tell though, the only problem is that there
are a lot of opinions as to what's "best" and you really oughta try 'em
all out and form your own conclusions.
Turby
Doug T
yourself lucky. Much of what I've seen on those groups boils down to
"Your a bleep. No your a bleep and your momma wears combat boots. Yes it
is. No it isn't you bleep bleep.'
Anyway back to the automobile analogy. Actually it's a pretty good one.
I can buy all the cars I want, no license or registration or very many
rules apply as long as I use them on private property (some states it's
illegal to drive drunk on your own property). If I license me and the
car then I can drive it on any public road anywhere in the USA with no
further hassle. I can buy supplies for it anywhere no FIOD card
required. Out on the farm I can let my 12 year old drive it if he can.
I can just as easily buy an automatic with cruise control (wish I could
do an automatic firearm that easy) as not. I can buy a car that makes as
little noise as I want, in fact it's encouraged and some sound
moderation is mandated if I want to drive on public roads.
So the car analogy is not as stupid or antigun as it might seem. I
haven't stated the reply as best as it has been done in the past if you
want to research it.
Doug T
OtisWinslow
against their property redistribution schemes. Naturally they
want them registered so they can come get them.
"ViceGrip" <vice...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4qdsn$12i$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
The Lone Weasel
> Went looking for more groups like this one. Found a group talking
> politics and the morality of owning a gun. Got me wound up when
> they used the argument that because automobiles are registered and
> drivers are licensed and that system is working so well, that we
> should have the same system for guns.
>
> Counting to 10 just didn't work.
Then go back to your moderated rec.guns where they censor anything that
might make you think contrary to gunlobby disinformation, then VICE will
truly have a GRIP on YOU...
You're just another gunlobby sucker claiming Second Amendment gun rights
where you have none because you're too fucking ignorant to disabuse
yourself of a damn marketing scam...
Fool.
________________
The Gallup Poll. Oct. 11-14, 2004. N=1,012 adults
nationwide. MoE ą 3.
"In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of
firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as
they are now?"
More Strict Less Strict Kept As Now No Opinion
% % % %
10/11-14/04 54 11 34 01
1/9-11/04 60 06 34 -
10/6-8/03 55 09 36 -
10/14-17/02 51 11 36 02
10/11-14/01 53 08 38 01
5/5-7/00 62 05 31 02
4/00 61 07 30 02
12/99 60 10 29 01
8/99 66 06 27 01
6/99 62 06 31 01
5/99 65 05 28 02
4/99 66 07 25 02
2/99 60 09 29 02
4/95 62 12 24 02
12/93 67 07 25 01
3/93 70 04 24 02
1991 68 05 25 02
1990 78 02 17 03
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
Sean
<vice...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Went looking for more groups like this one. Found a group talking
>politics and the morality of owning a gun. Got me wound up when they
>used the argument that because automobiles are registered and drivers
>are licensed and that system is working so well, that we should have
>the same system for guns.
>
>Counting to 10 just didn't work.
>
>
>
Oh that's one of my favorite arguments from the gun grabbers. When
they ask me how I could be against something that sounds so reasonable
and works for automobiles I explain to them that you can still buy a
car without registering it and the people who are asking you to
register your car are not advocating confiscating your car. Unlike the
gun grabbers.
If there were national groups spending milllions of dollars per year
advocating the confiscation of all cars then there would be a lot more
people against registering cars.
Sean
WSG
> politics and the morality of owning a gun. Got me wound up when they
> used the argument that because automobiles are registered and drivers
> are licensed and that system is working so well, that we should have
> the same system for guns.
>
> Counting to 10 just didn't work.
>
Better than counting, just ask if auto registration is so effective, then
why do automobiles kill so many? More people die by car than by
gun.
Bill
michae...@yahoo.com
> Found a group talking
> politics and the morality of owning a gun. Got me wound up when they
> used the argument that because automobiles are registered and drivers
> are licensed and that system is working so well, that we should have
> the same system for guns.
The biggest difference is supposed to be that in the USA driving is a
privilege but keeping and bearing arms (aka owning and carrying guns)
is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.
OTOH In most places cars and drivers need only be registered and
licensed to operate on _public_ roads. I wonder if the folks at that
other group would go for firearms registration and licensing in
exchange for a CCW license good in any country where you can operate a
motor vehicle?
Larry Fishel
licensing places, wait in line, pay a few bucks, take a test and then
go walk around shooting in any public place and noone would complain as
long as you were shooting properly it would make perfect sense...
Brian Sullivan
Tens of thousands dead each year. Hundreds of thousands injured. People
driving with suspended licenses, uninsured, unregistered. They get a slap on
the wrist. Incredible that some nitwit would call that "working so well". I
hope the nuclear power industry strives for better statistics! A statement
like that could only come from someone who sees and hears what they want to.
Don't trouble them with real numbers!
Brian
Vermont
"ViceGrip" <vice...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4qdsn$12i$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> Went looking for more groups like this one. Found a group talking
> politics and the morality of owning a gun. Got me wound up when they
> used the argument that because automobiles are registered and drivers
> are licensed and that system is working so well, that we should have
> the same system for guns.
>
> Counting to 10 just didn't work.
>
>
>
jimmykent67
equation that driver licenses BARELY keep all the loons off the road.
WHY would it work better for guns?
zach
ViceGrip wrote:
> Went looking for more groups like this one. Found a group talking
> politics and the morality of owning a gun. Got me wound up when they
> used the argument that because automobiles are registered and drivers
> are licensed and that system is working so well, that we should have
> the same system for guns.
>
> Counting to 10 just didn't work.
The simple answer is to say that "sure, first do away with all of the
prohibitive gun laws, and we'll love to register them as long as they
are treated just like cars are." It would be a wonderful situation in
most states. Think about it.
Zach
pape...@myway.com
ViceGrip wrote:
# Went looking for more groups like this one. Found a group talking
# politics and the morality of owning a gun. Got me wound up when they
# used the argument that because automobiles are registered and drivers
# are licensed and that system is working so well, that we should have
# the same system for guns.
#
# Counting to 10 just didn't work.
To be fair, that's a perfectly reasonable idea. If you don't take into
account the Second Amendment. ;)
Of course, this assumes the thread was about the US. I suspect other
countries generally treat firearm ownership as a privelege and not a
right. Probably more like automobile ownership.
Pumbaa
license guns as they use for cars. I only need money or good credit to buy
any type of car. I can get a Honda Civic or a 200 MPG sports car. So treat
ALL guns the same: revolvers, pistols, rifles, fully automatic rifles. They
are all guns. I don't remember having to be fingerprinted to buy a car or
have a background check, or even tested to see if I was an alcoholic. As
far as driver's licenses go a person can take a simple test and keep
retaking it until he passes. So everyone gets a gun license that makes the
effort. You can drive your car in any State so the gun license should
include all States including NYC and Washington, DC. The government should
provide gun ranges at tax payer expense to test potential gun owners. Once
you demonstrate you can safely shoot a gun you just renew your license every
four years and never have to take a "road", i.e., actual shooting again.
I also believe even if you can't get a driver's license you can get a car
and have someone drive it for you. So why can't I collect a Thompson
submachine gun and just keep it? I promise not to shoot it. If you own
your own land, I do have a farm, I can operate a car on it without a
driver's license as it is private property.
"ViceGrip" <vice...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4qdsn$12i$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> Went looking for more groups like this one. Found a group talking
> politics and the morality of owning a gun. Got me wound up when they
> used the argument that because automobiles are registered and drivers
> are licensed and that system is working so well, that we should have
> the same system for guns.
>
Joe Kultgen
news:d4t546$nha$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu:
> I used to waste some time in talk.politics.guns, but no more.
> Everyone who bothers to go there already has his (or her) mind made
> up, and while there might be an exchange of ideas for the first 4 or 5
> posts, it quickly breaks down into LONG threads of personal attacks
> and name calling. I'd rather hit myself on the head with a ball peen
> hammer for a while.
> Marty
>
>
Been there too.
The problem isn't with the guns but with the politics. It does serve as
a shining example of why we're winning battles but losing the war out in
the real world.
Put simply, not enough people still believe in freedom or even have a
real understanding of what the word means. People today think freedom
means being able to live your own life your own way so long as you
aren't harming anyone else. That's not enough and never has been.
Freedom is watching somebody else engage in behavior you find pointless,
idiotic, or even repulsive and walking away muttering, "It's a free
country." instead of "There oughta be a law."
The prohibitionists have always been out there. It's always been easier
to convince the herd that some group should not be permitted to engage
in some hazardous activity than it has been to defend freedom. If you
wade into a swamp full of prohibitionists like "talk.politics.guns" with
the notion that gun laws are a bad thing but other victimless crimes
need to be punished you deserve to sink out of sight.
Fortunately what happens in usenet news groups is largely irrelevant.
Out in the real world the best we can hope for is that enough people who
still believe will vote with their feet and keep the dream alive.
Later,
Joe
SaPeIsMa
"Marty" <mov...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:d4t546$nha$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
>I used to waste some time in talk.politics.guns, but no more. Everyone
> who bothers to go there already has his (or her) mind made up, and while
> there might be an exchange of ideas for the first 4 or 5 posts, it
> quickly breaks down into LONG threads of personal attacks and name
> calling. I'd rather hit myself on the head with a ball peen hammer for
> a while.
> Marty
>
Gee Marty, just out of curiosity, how long have you practised ball-peen
skull bashing on yourself ?
Could it be what led you to actually read talk.politics.guns with the
assumption that it was anything but a circus for entertainement purpose only
?
:-)
Dad
"Marty" <mov...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:d4t546$nha$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
>I used to waste some time in talk.politics.guns, but no more. Everyone
> who bothers to go there already has his (or her) mind made up, and while
> there might be an exchange of ideas for the first 4 or 5 posts, it
> quickly breaks down into LONG threads of personal attacks and name
> calling. I'd rather hit myself on the head with a ball peen hammer for
> a while.
> Marty
>
Reminds me of talking with the ex wife.
--
Dad
One more gun is just enough, maybe.
dg
give input only ends up getting you really pissed off.
--Dan
"ViceGrip" <vice...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4qdsn$12i$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> Went looking for more groups like this one. Found a group talking
> politics and the morality of owning a gun. Got me wound up when they
> used the argument that because automobiles are registered and drivers
> are licensed and that system is working so well, that we should have
> the same system for guns.
>
> Counting to 10 just didn't work.
>
>
>
Charlie Durand
"ViceGrip" <vice...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4qdsn$12i$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> Went looking for more groups like this one. Found a group talking
> politics and the morality of owning a gun. Got me wound up when they
> used the argument that because automobiles are registered and drivers
> are licensed and that system is working so well, that we should have
> the same system for guns.
>
> Counting to 10 just didn't work.
You gotta go to those groups looking for entertainment and maybe to
understand what the "other side" is saying about an issue. You definitely
won't change any opinions and if you happen to make a really good point it
will only lead to abuse being heaped on you.
Same goes here though. We all have our opinions and it's probably a rare
event when it gets changed by something someone else tells us. We believe
what we believe and it's tough to change.
It is hard when you really believe in something though and you hear someone
taking the opposite position.
And we all know that every driver on the road deserves to be there because
they were tested and those tests are very rigorous and they don't just give
a license to anyone and we all know that no one would dare drive a car
without a license. It's the perfect solution for lots of things. How about
state licenses to become a parent while we're at it? No license, no kids.
And I'm just kidding, no one needs to take that last line seriously.
The Lone Weasel
# I used to waste some time in talk.politics.guns, but no more. Everyone
# who bothers to go there already has his (or her) mind made up, and while
# there might be an exchange of ideas for the first 4 or 5 posts, it
# quickly breaks down into LONG threads of personal attacks and name
# calling. I'd rather hit myself on the head with a ball peen hammer for
# a while.
I can argue facts as long as you want, and promise not to make any
personal attacks or use cusswords since this is a moderated newsgroup.
But I'll give you fair warning - when we're done your views about the
Second Amendment will be changed - but your gun rights won't.
I leave it up to you and your moderator.
[begin example]
The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it
is said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the
amendments: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed." O. & W. Dig. 7. The
clause in the constitution of this state, which it is said
to violate, is the 13th section of the bill of rights:
"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms,
in the lawful defense of himself or the state." O. & W. Dig.
14.
The object of the clause first cited, has reference to the
perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea,
that the people cannot be effectually oppressed and
enslaved, who are not first disarmed. The clause cited in
our bill of rights, has the same broad object in relation to
the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal
right to the citizen. The right of a citizen to bear arms,
in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute.
He does not derive it from the state government, but
directly from the sovereign convention of the people that
framed the state government. It is one of the "high powers"
delegated directly to the citizen, and "is excepted out of
the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed
to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law,
and independent of the law-making power.
Cockrum v. State, 24 Texas 394 (1859)
[end example]
Chris Morton
>
>mov...@webtv.net said:
>
># I used to waste some time in talk.politics.guns, but no more. Everyone
># who bothers to go there already has his (or her) mind made up, and while
># there might be an exchange of ideas for the first 4 or 5 posts, it
># quickly breaks down into LONG threads of personal attacks and name
># calling. I'd rather hit myself on the head with a ball peen hammer for
># a while.
>
>I can argue facts as long as you want, and promise not to make any
...you just don't WANT to.
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
WVho...@sbcglobal.net
#
## Went looking for more groups like this one. Found a
#group talking
## politics and the morality of owning a gun. ># Counting
to 10 just didn't work.
#If you still think you have a personal right to keep and
#bear arms under
#the Second Amendment apart from active duty in the
#National Guard, we can
#disabuse you of that notion in talk.politics.guns.
#
That would depend on how deeply Socialists and Democrats are
entrenched in your state.
Doug McKay
Country. These people are all of a psychological type. They will not go
away. In their mind, it is better to be safe and untroubled than free.
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel
safe." -- Dianne Feinstein
D.L. Man
"ViceGrip" <vice...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4qdsn$12i$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> Went looking for more groups like this one. Found a group talking
> politics and the morality of owning a gun. Got me wound up when they
> used the argument that because automobiles are registered and drivers
> are licensed and that system is working so well, that we should have
> the same system for guns.
>
That's just wrong. They think that they are onto something I bet.
Mike Kelly
> Marty
I too abandoned those groups. Granted, I was one who had my mind made up
for the most part, but not entirely. I just grew frustrated with the
kindergarten sophistry, mall ninja bravado, and so on. I am pretty
passionate about the right of ordinary citizens to have firearms, but you're
right--I was either preaching to the choir or the infidel, neither of whom
were likely to be affected.
MK
Rick Courtright
# If you can't think for yourself or argue facts rather than just opinions
# inspired by gunlobby misinformation, better stick to this moderated
...
# the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed
# to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law,
# and independent of the law-making power.
Ok... so what side ARE you on?
Rick
Marty
# Second Amendment apart from active
# duty in the National Guard, we can
# disabuse you of that notion in
# talk.politics.guns.
I'd argure with this, except "The Lone Weasel" obviously thinks "the
people" refers only to the state and federal governments, and like I
said, talk.politics.guns is a waste of time. I'm done with this thread,
and our moderator may wisely not even let THIS in...
Marty
ViceGrip
Exactly what I found. Can't figure out why I went there in the first
place.
The Lone Weasel
> Exactly what I found. Can't figure out why I went there in the first
> place.
I don't know why you're still posting in TPG - maybe you're not the
brightest bore in the rack, eh ViceBlip?
Beat it, punk.
_________________
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England:
Introduction
Of the NATURE of LAWS in general.
ง. 2.
2. IF words happen to be ftill dubious, we may eftablifh
their meaning from the context; with which it may be of
fingular ufe to compare a word, or a fentence, whenever they
are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or
preamble, is often called in to help the conftruction of an
act of parliament. Of the fame nature and ufe is the
comparifon of a law with other laws, that are made by the
fame legiflator, that have fome affinity with the fubject,
or that expreffly relate to the fame point. Thus, when the
law of England declares murder to be felony without benefit
of clergy, we muft refort to the fame law of England to
learn what the benefit of clergy is: and, when the common
law cenfures fimoniacal contracts, it affords great light to
the fubject to confider what the canon law has adjudged to
be fimony.
Stan
Constitution(driving is considered a privledge, not a right) another is
that you need no lic. or registation to own a car(I owned a car before
I had a drivers lic. and drove on private property before it was
registered) only to drive on the pubic way. Do those that liken cars to
guns also think that the gun lic. and registration should be good in
all 50 states as well as other countries like the drivers lic.? Do
they also think that anyone who passes a simple test should get one?
> Stan
Anonymouse
on government owned roads and there's no requirement that vehicles be
licensed, titled, or registered.... nor the drivers... if not driven
on public roads.
so using the same standards you can have/shoot ANYTHING without ANY
infringement as long as your not shooting it on public property.
I want an 8" howitzer. :-}
to target shoot with....
on my privately owned farm.
ViceGrip wrote:
> Went looking for more groups like this one. Found a group talking
> politics and the morality of owning a gun. Got me wound up when they
> used the argument that because automobiles are registered and drivers
> are licensed and that system is working so well, that we should have
> the same system for guns.
>
> Counting to 10 just didn't work.
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Win a FULTON ARMORY dedicated .22 AR-15 or a HENRY GOLDEN BOY .22 rifle
> protecting your Second Amendment rights in MPFO's latest raffle. Last
> call for tix on this one! See us on the web at http://www.myguns.net
--
Leinad .22/.45/.410 Over & Under Derringer Parts Sets
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7154359098