Here Comes the Executive Order on Background Checks

[bmbutch]

Experts warn that eating eggs will make your heart explode.....Wait, Experts now say maybe they're good for you.
Experts warn that Global Warming will destroy the planet....Wait, make that an Ice Age....Wait, climate change....yeah, can't go wrong with that, it does change.
Experts warn bacon will kill you.....Maybe so, but it's still bacon!
Experts warn playing video games will make you insane/killer/unsociable/etc.,....Wait, maybe not, maybe they keep your brain active....Wait, do "Experts" really know anything, and what/who makes them "Experts"?

Is it must me, or do these so called "Experts", really know what they are talking about, or do they just make shtacko (<-- Speilling?) up?

 

[Birds Away]

 

[IndyDave1776]

Wow. Tinfoil hat much?

WTF do you mean? It has already pretty well happened. Most of the foundation is laid, as your nonsensical posts prove. How is there any tinfoil in the assertion that certain political elements have used their positions to condition people into believing exactly what you believe which is completely contrary to our proper system of government? Your argument is not terribly different from telling me I am crazy for saying that it is possible to put a man in space when it has already been done.

The post I was responding to specifically accused me of spending other people's money to assuage my conscience. So unless you've got a dollar amount to go with your reply, it's not even remotely relevant.

You can start with the budget for the Department of Education and the portion of the NASA budget that the Kenyan has reallocated to defending the concept of global warming rather than exploring space.

 

[Lowe0]

WTF do you mean? It has already pretty well happened. Most of the foundation is laid, as your nonsensical posts prove. How is there any tinfoil in the assertion that certain political elements have used their positions to condition people into believing exactly what you believe which is completely contrary to our proper system of government? Your argument is not terribly different from telling me I am crazy for saying that it is possible to put a man in space when it has already been done.



You can start with the budget for the Department of Education and the portion of the NASA budget that the Kenyan has reallocated to defending the concept of global warming rather than exploring space.

What Kenyan?

 

[IndyDave1776]

What Kenyan?

The one whose grandmother was caught making the declaration she witnessed his birth in Kenya regardless of what his photoshopped ersatz birth certificate may say, you remember, the one that was so poorly generated that the first version of it fell apart into layers under my scrutiny in spite of my lack of computer abilities much deeper than posting here?

 

[dieselrealtor]

I don't think he understands that liberalism is a package & the entitlement programs are woven into everything they do.

 

[churchmouse]

I don't think he understands that liberalism is a package & the entitlement programs are woven into everything they do.

It is a serious case of denial.
He is well within hi rights as a citizen to have this opinion.
As more and more join the ranks of the mind blocked we slip farther and farther towards the brink.
I say this from a long and active life time of experiences. I watch and listen. I cringe when someone actually says a Clinton will make a good POTUS.
No, the offerings on both sides are not the best but that one is just a bad bad bad choice.
And yes, redistribution is the basis of their beliefs. Hit and a score.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't think he understands that liberalism is a package & the entitlement programs are woven into everything they do.

I would agree, but would have a tendency to cut it down to 'I don't think he understands' as a general statement.

 

[Lowe0]

I don't think he understands that liberalism is a package & the entitlement programs are woven into everything they do.

Actually, I do understand that party platforms come as a package. My entire point is that there's too much woven into one party's platform that I absolutely cannot support, and as such, despite agreeing with their position on guns, I cannot vote for them.

 

[Birds Away]

Indoctrination completely successful. Next victim, please.

 

[dieselrealtor]

If I have to choose a candidate based on one question, more freedoms or less freedoms I believe that candidate's beliefs will likely match my own closest.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Actually, I do understand that party platforms come as a package. My entire point is that there's too much woven into one party's platform that I absolutely cannot support, and as such, despite agreeing with their position on guns, I cannot vote for them.

We get it. Indoctrinating other people's children against their parents' wishes and buttf*cking are more important to you than actual constitutional rights and the freedom envisioned by our founders.

 

[Expat]

We get it. Indoctrinating other people's children against their parents' wishes and buttf*cking are more important to you than actual constitutional rights and the freedom envisioned by our founders.

OHHHHH! *snap*

 

[Birds Away]

We get it. Indoctrinating other people's children against their parents' wishes and buttf*cking are more important to you than actual constitutional rights and the freedom envisioned by our founders.

You're not going to make a dent, Dave. Just let it slide. No need to fulfill his mission for him.

 

[dieselrealtor]

Like having a conversation & acting like someone isn't there?

 

[dusty88]

I wish I had the link handy, because I was reading an article a couple of days ago that addressed your question. It's shifting demographics: as shooting sports pick up millenials, urban dwellers, women, racial minorities, etc., it's going to be harder for traditional gun rights candidates to connect with and engage those individuals.

Even though I agree with the Republican Party's practical arguments on gun control (only disarms law abiding citizens, guns will still get in via border smuggling, rounding up guns w/o violence is impossible), they still don't have a candidate that I could vote for (though I do like Paul's views on the role of the military outside the U.S., or at least his views from before they shifted for the primary). Eventually, gun rights PACs may take notice of "gun culture 2.0" and start developing candidates that people like me can vote for. Until then, I'm stuck picking the lesser of two evils.

I have more sympathy with your viewpoint than some of the other folks here. IOW, I'm no longer fond of our foreign entanglements and overall, I don't think the Republican party is any better for us than the Democratic party. I have some strong fear of Hillary Clinton, but I'll admit it's difficult to prove her deception to everyone's satisfaction, so I don't true to persuade anyone on that issue.

What I will suggest though is that you give gun rights a higher status when using your vote.

There are 2 reasons why.

First, how many other things are really influenced by which politicians get elected? Overall both parties continue to order more military action. Both parties spend more money and increase the size of government. Both parties are largely effected by lobbyists such as bank and trial lawyer lobbies. One party may have spoke more in favor of gay marriage, but it was clear it was always going to be a court and state issue. All that rhetoric on either side was wasted. The same is true for the drug war (lots of rhetoric, both sides beholden to a few beneficiaries). Gun laws are different. While a few Democrats favor our gun rights, the ones we are discussing here don't. Hillary has declared the NRA her greatest enemy.

Secondly, there is that really, really real reason for the second amendment. It's one responsibility we as citizens can still help hold up in this republic. I know that doesn't need to be said in THIS forum but you know there are plenty of citizens who think the idea that Americans need to be armed "in case" their government acts up is crazy. Those people apparently have already forgotten Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and never considered our government's behavior at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

I think we are brewing a dangerous recipe if we elect the wrong people this year. We have some conservatives calling for more scrutiny of Muslims. If such a thing happens, the regulations won't be written against "muslims". They'll be written to give the government more power of surveillance, detention, etc. Add to that recipe the DHS description of the type of people who are most dangerous (gun owners, Ron Paul fans, veterans, those who stock emergency supplies) and that finally top it off with Hillary Clinton. What you may get 3 years from now is strict surveillance of an NRA meeting or your local shooting group that uses the wrong keyword on social media.

Gun rights are not my only important issue; they are however the only issue where I can politically make a difference.

 

[KG1]

We get it. Indoctrinating other people's children against their parents' wishes and buttf*cking are more important to you than actual constitutional rights and the freedom envisioned by our founders.

I've been denied by the rep Nazis so I owe you one.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Even though I agree with the Republican Party's practical arguments on gun control , they still don't have a candidate that I could vote for. Eventually, gun rights PACs may take notice of "gun culture 2.0" and start developing candidates that people like me can vote for. Until then, I'm stuck picking the lesser of two evils.

I think it's interesting that all these traditional Democrat-voting demographics are getting into shooting sports and now that makes them think twice about gun control. And, if the Republicans could only provide a candidate that has enough warm fuzziness going on, those more intelligent and sensitive of gun lovers might just get totally on board.

The funny part is that, since those folks didn't have a problem infringing on the freedom of gun owners until they became gun owners, it's pretty clear that they didn't pick up any sense of fairness or freedom, just that their perspective shifted a little bit. They still don't believe any more in the meanings of either fairness or freedom, they'll just keep applying it in areas other than guns.

 

[bmbutch]

I've been denied by the rep Nazis so I owe you one.

Got him!

 

[Lowe0]

I think it's interesting that all these traditional Democrat-voting demographics are getting into shooting sports and now that makes them think twice about gun control. And, if the Republicans could only provide a candidate that has enough warm fuzziness going on, those more intelligent and sensitive of gun lovers might just get totally on board.

The funny part is that, since those folks didn't have a problem infringing on the freedom of gun owners until they became gun owners, it's pretty clear that they didn't pick up any sense of fairness or freedom, just that their perspective shifted a little bit. They still don't believe any more in the meanings of either fairness or freedom, they'll just keep applying it in areas other than guns.

You're assuming that I was opposed to the freedom of gun owners before I started shooting. I wasn't. The practical views on gun control that I previously listed are the same ones I've had as long as I can remember.