New class of posters

[bigus_D]

Really? What bill is that? Why don't you tell us all the horribles in the bill? How was it passed? Who supported and opposed it? It's incredible the amount of nonsense people write about 1986.

I assume he is talking about the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act.

I won't pretend to know all of the ins and outs, but this website has more information: Prevent Tyranny - Right to Bear Arms - 1986 - Firearm Owners Protection Act

After listing 12 positives for gun owners, it lists a few negatives.

There were additional changes that were seen as a “negative” by gun rights activists:

Prohibits civilians from possessing full-auto firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986.

Redefines 'machine gun' to include those sets of parts or parts that could be used to convert a semiautomatic firearm into a machine gun.

 

[groovatron]

Top 5 ways to get categorized "leftist" on INGO:

1: Say anything positive about any Democrat
2: Bring compassion into discussions about criminal justice
3: Disagree with the War on Drugs
4: Disagree with the War on Terror
5: Say Bush was a bad president

you rule

+1

I'm politically moderate, which around here makes me feel like a screaming liberal . To combat that, I read a couple of websites on social issues I care about and I feel like a right wing whacko.

The height of hypocrisy of the folks who say that anyone who doesn't agree with them is un-American. I thought that the right to disagree was sort of enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America. I have a lot of respect for folks who have thought through their opinions and who can articulate why they think the way they do. I don't have much respect for the folks who are merely parroting the loudest demagogues and who try to drown out anyone who disagrees with them. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum they are on.

The older I get, the more I learn this. As much as I like to argue, eventually I have to ask myself, why am I doing this. Is it to learn something or butter up my own ego. If the answer is the latter, then I take a breather and look for insight..............Oh crap, I used the word insight.....I must be a leftist

Anyone that says Bush was a great POTUS is a friggin retard.

What? But Reagan was the ultimate conservative president! You know, tripling the public debt. Great conservative policy there.

Actually I like him best when he was the governor of California. Excellent gun control legislation!

Not to mention the continued interest in the war on drugs. That dude spent a TON of money......and regulated our liberties.

Reagan brought the bear down and loved America, which is why he is so hated by the left.

Obama has brought the bear back, this time within our own country, and hates America. Which is why he's so loved by the left.

It's funny.....I kinda associate Obama as the left version of Reagan. They are/were both decent actors and beloved by some who bought into the BS. I suppose that's an unfortunate part of the job.

 

[irishfan]

It's funny.....I kinda associate Obama as the left version of Reagan. They are/were both decent actors and beloved by some who bought into the BS. I suppose that's an unfortunate part of the job.

I can already feel the flames heating up and coming your way. You put Obama and Reagan in the same sentence....BLASPHEMY

As far as the gun bill in 1986 there is one simple fact you can't overlook.....REAGAN SIGNED THE DAMN BILL!!!!!

 

[groovatron]

I can already feel the flames heating up and coming your way. You put Obama and Reagan in the same sentence....BLASPHEMY

As far as the gun bill in 1986 there is one simple fact you can't overlook.....REAGAN SIGNED THE DAMN BILL!!!!!

Okay okay......how bout Michelle and Nancy...

 

[CarmelHP]

As far as the gun bill in 1986 there is one simple fact you can't overlook.....REAGAN SIGNED THE DAMN BILL!!!!!

And, so what? Under what circumstances? Did he offer to veto it with the Amendment in it? What were the considerations in signing? Why was there a two week delay between passage and signing? Do you know anything about what went on? I know in your universe everything is a simple black and white where there is no policy discussions or trade-offs and if you're just casting calumnies and trying to demonize someone, you really don't care. The rest of us live in the real world.

 

[dross]

And, so what? Under what circumstances? Did he offer to veto it with the Amendment in it? What were the considerations in signing? Why was there a two week delay between passage and signing? Do you know anything about what went on? I know in your universe everything is a simple black and white where there is no policy discussions or trade-offs and if you're just casting calumnies and trying to demonize someone, you really don't care. The rest of us live in the real world.

When are you going to figure out that the real world is unattractive because it is complicated, boring, and requires advanced education?

Join the crowd, my friend. Let's order some pizza, buy a case of discount beer, and pass around the bong. In the ideological purity of the freshman dorm petri dish, we'll solve the world's problems without all those complex tradeoffs and compromises.

In that context, there are no good countries, no good systems, and no good politicians. Everything is pure, and all those who are less than pure are sellouts.

Pepperoni or Supreme?

 

[Fletch]

In the ideological purity of the freshman dorm petri dish, we'll solve the world's problems without all those complex tradeoffs and compromises.

Advocating for ideological purity does not necessarily make one unrealistic.

When I was involved in the fight to liberalize Michigan's concealed carry laws, we pushed for "Vermont carry" as hard as we could. When the time came that we had to face the choice of killing the bill or going with what we had, rather than what we wanted, I/we voted for an incremental improvement over none at all. It was better than nothing.

I don't care what you say about it, but I am NOT going to apologize for arguing in favor of the ideologically pure solution. It was the right thing to do, and it doesn't/didn't make me/us bong-smoking freshmen to argue it.

Ideological purity has a purpose in that it gives us direction: we're going THAT WAY. There is a time for purity, and a time for pragmatism, but you have to make sure that the pragmatic move still aligns with your direction. If it doesn't, why do it? Just to say you were good at making compromises?

 

[SavageEagle]

Hmmmm 1986 and Reagan you should do a little research...

While I agree Reagan did a lot for this country he also signed into law one of the worst laws for the 2nd and gun owners.

Yes. Yes he did. But he also didn't expand government like either Bush, Clinton, or this friggin idiot. We haven't had a GREAT POTUS since the Founding Fathers died. Until we find a way to take greed and corruption out of the equation in Washington it will never be the same.

 

[Phil502]

It amuses me that many on this forum believe that conservatives have exclusive claim on gun ownership and that everyone here thinks just like them. The presumption that left leaning posters must be trolls is even more amusing.

It's a big country with lots of different points of view. I've been a gun owner since before many, if not most, of you could spell g-u-n.

If I leaned any more left, I'd fall over. But, it's my country and my Constitution, too.

Where may I find some liberal sites that respect gun ownership and have as much varied info on firearms as on here (or just whatever is available)? I would love to post there and compare experiences with you.

 

[Fletch]

Where may I find some liberal sites that respect gun ownership and have as much varied info on firearms as on here (or just whatever is available)? I would love to post there and compare experiences with you.

PinkPistols.org?

 

[Phil502]

I found one, it's a doozy!

Liberals Who Love Guns | Facebook

 

[dross]

Advocating for ideological purity does not necessarily make one unrealistic.

When I was involved in the fight to liberalize Michigan's concealed carry laws, we pushed for "Vermont carry" as hard as we could. When the time came that we had to face the choice of killing the bill or going with what we had, rather than what we wanted, I/we voted for an incremental improvement over none at all. It was better than nothing.

I don't care what you say about it, but I am NOT going to apologize for arguing in favor of the ideologically pure solution. It was the right thing to do, and it doesn't/didn't make me/us bong-smoking freshmen to argue it.

Ideological purity has a purpose in that it gives us direction: we're going THAT WAY. There is a time for purity, and a time for pragmatism, but you have to make sure that the pragmatic move still aligns with your direction. If it doesn't, why do it? Just to say you were good at making compromises?

I can make those arguments too. I like ideological purity. Sometimes you can get it. Sometimes arguing it gets you a deal closer to it. Much of the time, however, you end up getting a solution that is bad, it's just not as bad as it could have been.

Reagan wasn't perfect, not even close, but if you believe in limited government, Reagan was miles better than Obama. We don't get our choice in presidential elections, we get the best available choice.

 

[Fletch]

I can make those arguments too. I like ideological purity. Sometimes you can get it. Sometimes arguing it gets you a deal closer to it. Much of the time, however, you end up getting a solution that is bad, it's just not as bad as it could have been.

Reagan wasn't perfect, not even close, but if you believe in limited government, Reagan was miles better than Obama. We don't get our choice in presidential elections, we get the best available choice.

My response came off a little stronger than I wanted it to, but I think we're pretty much on the same page here.

 

[irishfan]

Reagan wasn't perfect, not even close, but if you believe in limited government, Reagan was miles better than Obama. We don't get our choice in presidential elections, we get the best available choice.

Reagan was way better than Carter as well as better than both George Sr. and George W. as well as Clinton. I still stand by my opinion that he was not a great conservative or pro 2A as a President. If you are comparing him to those directly before and the guys who have followed him then yes he is ultra conservative.

I don't think everything George W. Bush did was bad just as I don't believe Bill Clinton did everything wrong but both made some MAJOR mistakes. President Obama is a progressive and I do agree with a few things he is doing but I do not agree with his policy as a whole. The healthcare bill is a major step toward socialism and against what I believe the founders desired for our country.

 

[smoking357]

The healthcare bill is a major step toward socialism and against what I believe the founders desired for our country.

Absolutely true, but if the socialism puts the militarism in a squeeze box and causes us to withdraw from our foreign wars and occupations, I'll consider Obama's socialism a lesser evil.

 

[Joe Williams]

Absolutely true, but if the socialism puts the militarism in a squeeze box and causes us to withdraw from our foreign wars and occupations, I'll consider Obama's socialism a lesser evil.

You don't consider socialism evil at all, you support that slavery, and stand against everything this nation is.

If you are going to have a stand, have the guts not to lie about, or sugar coat, what it is.

 

[smoking357]

You don't consider socialism evil at all, you support that slavery, and stand against everything this nation is.

If you are going to have a stand, have the guts not to lie about, or sugar coat, what it is.

Take a deep breath. Now another.

Now, just what on earth are you going on about?

It is true that I consider our rampant military budgets, endless foreign wars and our empire as one of the greatest threats America faces. If a little socialism can starve our military ambition, we'll be better off, especially since we'll keep the spending at home, and we won't be blowing it on enriching the wrong type of people and the wrong type of jobs. Since this country seems determined to overspend, social programs are better excesses than military programs.

While Jefferson did speak against forced charity, he also spoke strongly against meddlesome foreign intervention. At least Obama's excesses may help the odd American, and a domestic social program won't create a grudge that future generations will consider a blood debt against America.

Do I consider Socialism evil? Yes, as collectivist, it is a theft of property, thus evil, or immoral. That said, as I look at the span of world governments, Western European governments appear to be the most benign, libertarian and compassionate. In theory, a libertarian state is perfect. In practice, however, human failings and ambitions corrupt states, and the best shake a person can get presently appears to come out of Western Europe.

Can you dissent without calling me a slaveowner?

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

Do I consider Socialism evil? Yes, as collectivist, it is a theft of property, thus evil, or immoral. That said, as I look at the span of world governments, Western European governments appear to be the most benign, libertarian and compassionate. In theory, a libertarian state is perfect. In practice, however, human failings and ambitions corrupt states, and the best shake a person can get presently appears to come out of Western Europe.

Can you dissent without calling me a slaveowner?

No. Because that's what you are. You spend one sentence claiming to detest socialism, the rest of your post telling us how good it is.

You are a socialist. You know that it's an ugly word, and are trying to pretty your way out of it. I'm more blunt, and more honest. You are a socialist, and even you admit that means you are supporting slavery. You support evil.

Now, how bout telling us why we should submit to the chains your kind is trying to put on us, instead of eventually deciding enough is enough, and exterminating the evil and reclaiming our nation?

 

[smoking357]

No. Because that's what you are. You spend one sentence claiming to detest socialism, the rest of your post telling us how good it is.

You need to re-read. Should I write a sonnet to my contempt of socialism? A novella? Is an argument measured by its weight of words? Come, now. You're being silly and unreflective.

Further, that "good" you claim you found is a comparative good, if that.

You are a socialist. You know that it's an ugly word, and are trying to pretty your way out of it. I'm more blunt, and more honest. You are a socialist, and even you admit that means you are supporting slavery. You support evil.

Now, how bout telling us why we should submit to the chains your kind is trying to put on us, instead of eventually deciding enough is enough, and exterminating the evil and reclaiming our nation?

Oh, but you're not honest. Far from it. You're lying, because you need a straw man.

Further, in a discussion of the President, how utterly hateful or careless is it to employ the phrase "exterminating the evil"? Further, from whom do you want to "reclaim the nation?" 99.99999999999999% of all laws occurred prior to Obama's administration, a great many of them enacted by Republicans. Just what was Obama's that which cannot be suffered?

 

[Mike_Indy]

I've noticed it as well. Sorry to see it. But, it may help get to that 1,000,000 post thing I saw on another thread. Nah, just ignore them.


Sure hope the Rep thing is not going on. As a new poster it is not easy to come by.

Feeling pain for admin as they have to potentially deal with it.