I knew that you couldn't name one damn example of what you complained of. You do that a lot. Me and Swerved are doing just fine. You should defend you own remarks better and you wouldn't have my bootprints on your ass.
the reason both sides are unbending is that they do not agree with red's definition of progress. so you can call a change progress all you want, but basically you are just taking sides like everyone else. (except me i dont really have a dog in this hunt) perhaps, but the tradoffs, the cost/benefit, this is not for you to decide. if the people that you label as extremists dont see it as a net gain, and do not agree with your notions of "progress", then so be it. it is rational for them to be recalcitrant. like i said, i dont care much and i will be happy either way. they can ban guns or give them away for all i care, i see the benefits of both sides. but unlike you i have no silly notions about "progress", which really simply means red wants to get what red wants.
No, you don't agree. When you can't defend a stupid remark, you often try to make it seem as if everyone agrees with you. Well, they don't. If they do, let them speak for themselves. We're trying to have a serious discussion here and you are derailing it with trying to redefine commonly accepted terms, as usual. I'm not deciding, you ignoramus. I'm offering an opinion. You are simply being contrary. If you don't care, then STFU and let others carry on a discussion. Ain't it the truth. Another really, really pathetic argument.
You somehow inferred that I accused liberals of wanting to abolish private gun ownership. I neither said nor implied any such thing.
No, I didn't defend them. All I said I was that I was a member, but am not anymore. Surely, you just overlooked that sentence. FWIW I mentioned not being a member anymore because I got tired of the solicitation. Perhaps I should have added that even though they have vaguely similar interests (i.e. - not letting government run rampant on the second amendment as they tend to do with other things), it doesn't mean I'm a staunch supporter of theirs. I joined, then later decided it wasn't for me. Pretty simple, really. I owned firearms long before joining them though; it was a part of growing up for me. But then again, I don't see a firearm as a weapon. I see it as more of a tool... like an axe. You can use an axe as a weapon on a person, but that's not all it's good for. Much of my family had to hunt their own food up in North Louisiana, and a gun was the tool of choice. That appreciation of them was passed down over the years and made its way to me, though luckily I don't have to hunt my own food. I respect and appreciate guns and my ownership of them all the same though. The quote I was referring to was: If I misunderstood your post, then we'll leave it at that, which leads us to: Ahh, but I know that you implied (or so it seemed to me) that the NRA puts these thoughts of the government wanting to control whether we can have firearms or not (as quoted above), i.e. - to say people can't come up with that notion on their own. If that's not what you meant, then fine. Besides, of course I don't know you. Never met you... I just assumed you had the capacity to pick up on me just being a smartass. Guess that makes us even, since you seemed to have misunderstood my position regarding the NRA. I don't have as much of a problem with them addressing this, I'm a reasonable man. Just like I don't have a problem with not being able to get fully automatic rifles without going through the proper channels. But how hard is it to ponder, "Hey, this dude just bought 200 AR-15's with cash money... perhaps we should keep an eye on him?".. They could do that, right. It can't be any harder than catching someone's name on a no-fly list, or a would-be bomber in New York of Muslim decent, who's own father tried to turn him in before the attempted bombing.. :wink: Oh come on, I thought you'd at least get a chuckle out of the Billy thing. If nothing else you know I read your other posts and do in fact pay attention.. :wave: Speaking of paying attention... I've said it 3 times in this thread, so I don't see where saying it one more time could hurt. In a word, yes. If Joe Blow wants to go buy a Glock, 2 XD's, a Mini-14, and a shotgun then let him. Just be sure he's not a jackass that doesn't know how to use them, or that he's not a basket case that's frothing at the mouth at the opportunity to put a round in someone. I think this process should include training like CCW permits do, mainly so he doesn't accidentally shoot me, himself, or someone else when showing off his new toys. Also, more thorough background checks so that they don't sell a gun to a known violent criminal or basket case. This unfortunately was the case for the AZ shooter, as well as the Va Tech shooter.. These guys committed these crimes with weapons they bought. The fact that they both had documented mental problems should have been picked up on, but someone fell asleep at the wheel. Rather than admit that they screwed up, the government would rather just make more laws they won't be able to enforce to make it look like they're on top of things.
I totally agree with this on armor piercing bullets. And if I ever piss her off I hope I'm wearing a Bambi costume.
Speaking of Bambi.. My neighbor just brought me a deer hobby-kit.. 2lbs ground venison, 2lbs venison stew meat, 2 lbs of backstrap... Damn I love me some guns!
there would be a significant drop in deaths. thats enough for me. im not scared one bit of having my home invaded by a burglar or needing to overthrow the gov with a .357.
You are describing me. I'm against abusive control of this fundamental American concept. I simply believe that there are a lot of controls that are useful and necessary and that they do not infringe upon my rights. I mean that it is a paranoid delusion no matter who believes that "the government" wants to take away our firearms. The government is The People and the people don't want that so it won't happen. As SabanFan has shown, "liberals" are not demanding this either. There are a lot of moderate and liberal gun owners in tis country, it's not a conservative birthright. Not unless it is made illegal. The NRA would raise holy hell and the ACLU would back them. And not unless the gun dealer is cooperative. And remember these are't storefront gun dealers, they someone with am easily procured firearms license operating out of his barn. If they are selling guns to gun runners, they are not going to cooperate with the law. Better to just limit the number guns you can buy in a given period to one that doesn't infringe upon average citizens needs while also keeping large numbers of guns out of the hands of criminals. But the NRA backs the gun industry who don't want anything that hurts their sales, no matter what gangster buys them with drug money. You describe me again. SabanFan will froth at the mouth and call you a liberal now.
I would rather shoot people than animals. Damn swerved I think I am back to being a Liberal today....
