assault weapon ban again

[Ease]

Originally Posted by Cardboard Junkie

My fav. 308 Norma Mag...(Reach out and touch someone. On the paper everytime at 1000 yards.

Yikes that's like 5-6 bucks a shot! You handloading?

[Cardboard Junkie]

Originally Posted by Ease

Yikes that's like 5-6 bucks a shot! You handloading?

I used too, now I just save my brass and send it to a buddy in Detroit. He reloads. Another great round is Marlin 444 Sporter, (465 grains)....jeeesh talk about a handheld lightning bolt, I'm convinced you could kill a Marmon truck with it. Even a near miss would probably do it, Ha ha. Dave

[Ease]

465 grains! U mean 46.5 right?
Here's a little something for yall's reading pleasure...

http://freebeacon.com/the-watermelon-hunter/

[Cardboard Junkie]

265 grains......typo

[quinnsryche]

Yea! More guns! That will definitely make things better. We keep shooting all these terrorists on American soil while keeping the population safe. Wait, stop, oh that's right, no terrorists caught here but school kids and innocent bystanders keep dying by psychos who love automatic/assault weapons. Why do you need 40 guns? Can you fire them all at once, or are they placed strategically ever 2 feet from you in your home? Yup, that sounds safe AND sane.
Continue on with the gun love fest.

[Cardboard Junkie]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

Yea! More guns! That will definitely make things better. We keep shooting all these terrorists on American soil while keeping the population safe. Wait, stop, oh that's right, no terrorists caught here but school kids and innocent bystanders keep dying by psychos who love automatic/assault weapons. Why do you need 40 guns? Can you fire them all at once, or are they placed strategically ever 2 feet from you in your home? Yup, that sounds safe AND sane.
Continue on with the gun love fest.

Aloha Tony, I don't need 40 guns. Just like I don't need 400,000 baseball cards. I collect, enjoy, hunt, and invest with firearms. All are in a vault except the 2 handguns I usually carry everywhere I go. Some are works of art, some are marvels of engineering. Peace and Love, Dave.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Cardboard Junkie

Aloha Tony, I don't need 40 guns. Just like I don't need 400,000 baseball cards. I collect, enjoy, hunt, and invest with firearms. All are in a vault except the 2 handguns I usually carry everywhere I go. Some are works of art, some are marvels of engineering. Peace and Love, Dave.

See, now that's what gun control should be about. A gun owner responsibly being in control of his guns.

I don't think there's any reasoning with people who hate guns so much. I guess they think guns have a brain of their own and decide to go shoot people all by their own design. They load themselves up, make a plan, go to the scene and fire away, all without the help of the human being.

Turn off CNN and come back to Earth.

Sincerely, Clayton

[quinnsryche]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

I don't think there's any reasoning with people who hate guns so much. I guess they think guns have a brain of their own and decide to go shoot people all by their own design. They load themselves up, make a plan, go to the scene and fire away, all without the help of the human being.

Not at all. No gun, no shooting deaths. Plain and simple. It's not the gun, it's the psycho/criminal who uses it. I don't agree with the "person A will use weapon B if they don't have a gun". Just not true. Guns give a disconnect from the crime. Most people wouldn't have the guts to commit a crime/murder if they had to do the job physically. Hammer/bat/crowbar crimes would not rise significantly if guns were banned.

[vintagetoppsguy]

You are from Chicago, the city with the toughest gun laws in the country - yet the same city with one of the highest gun murder rates in the country. If gun bans work, why aren't they working in Chicago?

[Cardboard Junkie]

Guns don't kill people.......bullets do! (written in jest.)

[yanksfan09]

Criminals would have a field day if they knew all guns were out of honest law-abiding citizens hands. Criminals don't follow gun laws, only good people who follow laws do. Guns are necessary for home defense, I never understood how people can't see that. That's all I have too say, as I hate political threads in my cards place.

[Leon]

Personally I think this needs to be a mental health debate more than a gun debate. Don't take the guns away from law abiding people. Then the only ones with them will be the criminals. I think everyone should own a gun (who is able to), personally. It would give shooters some pause. I also like the idea of school administrators packing heat too (when licensed to do so).

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Leon

I think everyone should own a gun (who is able to), personally. It would give shooters some pause.

Agreed!

In 1982, the city of Kennesaw, Georgia had a population of 5,242. That year, they passed a city ordinance that requires every head of household to maintain a firearm, with some exceptions of course (mentally unstable nut jobs). Since that time, household burglaries dropped from 65 in 1982 to 26 in 1983. The following year (1984) there was only 11. The statistics show that mandatory gun ownership has reduced crime in that city.

Today, that city has a population of 29,783. The population had incresed 5X, yet crime rate has decreased. In 2007, they were voted by Family Circle magazine as one of the "10 best towns for families" and celebrated 25 years of no murders. Imagine that!

In contrast to that, the City of Chicago has a handgun ban, yet continues to have one of the highest murder rates in the country.

The anti-gun cry babies can argue all they won't, but the statistics don't lie.

[drc]

The obsessive overaccumulation of guns probably is a sign of mental illness. Not joking.

And I'm not talking about an antique gun collector hobbyist.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by drc

The obsessive overaccumulation of guns probably is a sign of mental illness. Not joking.

And I'm not talking about an antique gun collector hobbyist.

How do you draw that comparison? And, why not the overaccumulation of other things? Baseball cards? Cars? My wife's shoes?

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by drc

The obsessive overaccumulation of guns probably is a sign of mental illness. Not joking.

And I'm not talking about an antique gun collector hobbyist.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Agreed!

In 1982, the city of Kennesaw, Georgia had a population of 5,242. That year, they passed a city ordinance that requires every head of household to maintain a firearm, with some exceptions of course (mentally unstable nut jobs). Since that time, household burglaries dropped from 65 in 1982 to 26 in 1983. The following year (1984) there was only 11. The statistics show that mandatory gun ownership has reduced crime in that city.

Today, that city has a population of 29,783. The population had incresed 5X, yet crime rate has decreased. In 2007, they were voted by Family Circle magazine as one of the "10 best towns for families" and celebrated 25 years of no murders. Imagine that!

In contrast to that, the City of Chicago has a handgun ban, yet continues to have one of the highest murder rates in the country.

The anti-gun cry babies can argue all they won't, but the statistics don't lie.

I've read these statistics as well, but you won't hear about this on the brainwashing cable media. All they want people to hear about are people getting shot *especially people getting shot in groups, as it goes with their agenda.

I wish the news went back to reporting facts. If they did, there would be no hype about gun restriction/bans. The statistics in Chicago should make every citizen want to own a firearm, for protection.

Sincerely, Clayton

[quinnsryche]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You are from Chicago, the city with the toughest gun laws in the country - yet the same city with one of the highest gun murder rates in the country. If gun bans work, why aren't they working in Chicago?

I don't live in Chicago anymore, too dangerous.
I guess I need to be more specific. My point is no PRODUCTION of guns for public consumption. Just assault weapons and semi-automatic/automatic weapons, not handguns or hunting type rifles. The public does not need those kind of guns. Rifles for hunting, handguns for protection, thats it. Just because someone WANTS something doesn't mean they should HAVE something. You can't have certain cars, medication, food, pets etc. in the US because we are smart enough to know some of these things are dangerous.
Stricter pentalties for having a illegal gun or using one in a crime. We need more jobs in this country, build more prisons and hire more guards. That would put a TON of people to work and lock up the scum.

[daywalker2029]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

My point is no PRODUCTION of guns for public consumption. Just assault weapons and semi-automatic/automatic weapons, not handguns or hunting type rifles. The public does not need those kind of guns. Rifles for hunting, handguns for protection, thats it.

but where do you technically draw your line ? you suggest no semi-automatic weapons? but then suggest handguns for protection ? do you mean only revolvers and not semi-automatic handguns ? if thats the case what about a double action vs single action revolver ?

also what technically defines a weapon as an "assault weapon" ?? - the reason i ask is b/c i live in NY (where we also have some of the strictest gun laws on record) - right after sandy hook ny gov't rushed to pass new restrictions - the ironic thing is that my modern AR15 is no longer allowed to be bought/sold in the state and next month will need to be registered with NY state for me to maintain legal ownership, while my fathers WWII M1 carbine is not affected at all - funny thing is his old carbine is by the definitions outlined in the orig 94 ban MORE of an "assault weapon" than my modern AR15 is

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

I don't live in Chicago anymore, too dangerous.
I guess I need to be more specific. My point is no PRODUCTION of guns for public consumption. Just assault weapons and semi-automatic/automatic weapons, not handguns or hunting type rifles. The public does not need those kind of guns. Rifles for hunting, handguns for protection, thats it. Just because someone WANTS something doesn't mean they should HAVE something. You can't have certain cars, medication, food, pets etc. in the US because we are smart enough to know some of these things are dangerous.
Stricter pentalties for having a illegal gun or using one in a crime. We need more jobs in this country, build more prisons and hire more guards. That would put a TON of people to work and lock up the scum.

Tony,

I disagree with you on the gun issue, but I couldn't agree with you more on the stricter penalties. I read somewhere that only 1/10th of one percent of applicants caught lying on a gun purchase application are prosecuted. That is ridiculous! I think we need to work on enforcing the gun control laws that we do have before talking about enacting new laws. I also agree with the idea to build more prisons. Overcrowding has the scumbags getting out early.

[teetwoohsix]

Building more prisons will not fix the problems, because prisons only house criminals around more criminals-there is no rehabilitation, no program to change the criminal into a productive member of society when they get out. So, in essence, what you get is a criminal who completed his/her sentence hitting the streets with no new skills & not much of a chance to rebuild their lives. That is why the recidivism rate is so high. If you want to fix the problems, fix the criminals.

California built what, 33 prisons? Compared to how many Universities? Building prisons is not the answer-unless they are rehabilitated while in prison. They need to learn trades, skills, and transition into society with employers who will employ ex-felons. Locking people in cells for years, just to release them into the real world doesn't fix anything. Go to South Central Los Angeles, or Oakland California, and then tell me more prisons work These places are still warzones & have been for decades.

And, you can have all of the gun restrictions and bans you want, but you are only hurting law abiding citizens because criminals don't get guns the legal way-so they don't care about gun laws, etc. This is the point.

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

In my last post I talked about "fixing criminals". The current system does the "punishment" part, but that's about it. There is only one place that I know of that understands the depth of the "revolving door" problem (dumping convicts back into society after spending years in prison with no rehabilitation). What do you think is going to happen?

This program should be the model for prisons to use. But, the problem is that the system doesn't care if someone cycles in and out of their system, because people build their careers off of other peoples mistakes.

If society wanted to stop crime, there are MANY obvious solutions:

http://delanceystreetfoundation.org/

Until a deeper understanding of what is wrong with this country begins, things will probably continue to spiral downhill. You can legalize, regulate, and tax a few things and probably watch crime drop by 75%. Just my opinion.

Sincerely, Clayton

[cubsfan-budman]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

In my last post I talked about "fixing criminals". The current system does the "punishment" part, but that's about it. There is only one place that I know of that understands the depth of the "revolving door" problem (dumping convicts back into society after spending years in prison with no rehabilitation). What do you think is going to happen?

This program should be the model for prisons to use. But, the problem is that the system doesn't care if someone cycles in and out of their system, because people build their careers off of other peoples mistakes.

If society wanted to stop crime, there are MANY obvious solutions:

http://delanceystreetfoundation.org/

Until a deeper understanding of what is wrong with this country begins, things will probably continue to spiral downhill. You can legalize, regulate, and tax a few things and probably watch crime drop by 75%. Just my opinion.

Sincerely, Clayton

just speaking off the cuff here, but isn't that a problem with privatizing things like jails? private companies exist to make money. prisons make money by having inmates.

there's no impetus to "solve" crime problems because the prisons NEED inmates.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

just speaking off the cuff here, but isn't that a problem with privatizing things like jails? private companies exist to make money. prisons make money by having inmates.

there's no impetus to "solve" crime problems because the prisons NEED inmates.

Exactly

If you (or anyone) take the time to check out the link I posted, you will see a program that works. The current system is a failure, in my opinion, because they just "shelve" people. There is no "fixing the problem". Some people have the attitude "who cares about these scumbags?" but guess what- those scumbags will be back in someones neighborhood again, with no skills and no help, and will more than likely go back to what they know.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Ease]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Exactly

If you (or anyone) take the time to check out the link I posted, you will see a program that works. The current system is a failure, in my opinion, because they just "shelve" people. There is no "fixing the problem". Some people have the attitude "who cares about these scumbags?" but guess what- those scumbags will be back in someones neighborhood again, with no skills and no help, and will more than likely go back to what they know.

Sincerely, Clayton

Thanx for that link Clayton, I'd never heard of that. I'm sure you understand that many of those scumbags, though, are too far gone, and no amount of help or rehabilitation will help.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Ease

Thanx for that link Clayton, I'd never heard of that. I'm sure you understand that many of those scumbags, though, are too far gone, and no amount of help or rehabilitation will help.

You're welcome Eric, thanks for reading it.

And yes, I do understand that many are too far gone, or flat out don't want help. I honestly don't have much sympathy for those types. I just think there should be more to it than locking people up, and then returning them to the streets full of hatred toward society with no skills or hope. I mean, where's the common sense in this. Punishment is one thing, but rehabilitation and opportunity has to play into it otherwise you don't change anything.

Sincerely, Clayton

* Edit to add: I am currently reading a book called "Education Of A Felon" written by a man named Edward Bunker. I am about halfway through the book, and it is one of the most intense books I've read (so far). It was a Los Angeles Times Best Book Of The Year and won a few awards.

Edward Bunker tells his life story.He played Mr.Blue in Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs. So far I can say it's worth reading, this guy has been through hell but obviously became a productive member of society. Check it out if you can.

[teetwoohsix]

Alright, my apologies for derailing the thread- I know the topic is about an assault weapon ban, not fixing society

I am more into preserving our rights (all of them) that are supposed to be protected with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This is not an old out dated piece of paper, but the supreme law of the land that these politicians, as well as the police and military, promised to protect and uphold.

My worry is that when you start taking away people's rights, there will be more to follow. Once they are gone, good luck getting them back. Now, I highly doubt that any logical sane person would want a menatlly ill individual owning any type of firearm, and the same goes for gun violence in general. I am against all of that-but the question begs- who decides if someone is mentally ill? If you have depression , anxiety, or insomnia, does that make you mentally ill? I think everyone has these feelings from time to time. I know I do, but I am dealing with a very painful physical medical problem. But, does that make me mentally ill?

Barry, I wish you would have stayed in this conversation, as you are one of my favorite posters and I always enjoy your opinion. We don't all have to agree to talk about this subject. But I understand it upsets you.

Thanks to everyone who has participated in this thread, it's nice to see people's opinions on issues like this. I respect everyone's opinion, even if I disagree with you.

I feel there is more of an agenda with this subject, and that we've been lied to so many times by the powers that be, so it comes down to TRUST. So, understanding history, along with many "official lies", I don't trust the agenda. We are supposed to be the Land of the Free....but we have more people incarcerated in this country than any other country in the WORLD !!!!! We have the Patriot Act (warrantless wiretapping), the NDAA ( indefinate detention of American citizens with no due process, no right to a jury trial of your peers, all because you were "labled" a terrorist by some unknown person). All in the name of "keeping us safe". Are we ever going to get back to the country we used to be before 9-11-2001? Freedom? Liberty? Remember?

"Shall Not Be Infringed".

And do something already about Corzine damnit !!!!! (just had to throw that in ).

Sincerely, Clayton

[Ease]

Great post Clayton. I need to watch the news more or something. I'd never heard of Jon Corzine.

[teetwoohsix]

Thanks Eric.

You won't hear much of Corzine anymore on the news. It's been swept under the rug.

Sincerely, Clayton

[barrysloate]

Clayton, I left this discussion because I don't really think you guys are willing to listen to other opinions. You all have your minds made up, and when somebody disagrees with you you don't really hear them. You simply say they are wrong. There's no give and take, no real discussion at all, so I won't waste my time with it. And yes, I disagree with a whole lot of the specious arguments in this post but I choose to continue to stay out. Please don't send any questions my way because I won't be answering them.

[drc]

I (probably obviously) disagree with Clayton on the gun issue, but agree that if prisoners are going to be re-introduced into society in the future you should work to make them ready for society, address their drug/psychological etc problems. Even if you're an ultra conservative, anti-crime person this only makes common sense. The ex-prisoners could very well move into your and your family's neighborhood. So which would you rather they be released from prison as-- someone who can get a job and integrate into normal society, or some who is even worse than when he went in? Rehabilitating prisoners is good both for the prisoners and society in general-- and the crime rate . . . It's hypocritical and defies common sense to both complain about criminal recidivism while preventing prisoners from getting rehabilitation and treatment.

[esd10]

the problem is with the new proposed ban it will not just take so called assault rifles out of our hands but they are going after anything with a clip/magazine

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Clayton, I left this discussion because I don't really think you guys are willing to listen to other opinions. You all have your minds made up, and when somebody disagrees with you you don't really hear them. You simply say they are wrong. There's no give and take, no real discussion at all, so I won't waste my time with it. And yes, I disagree with a whole lot of the specious arguments in this post but I choose to continue to stay out. Please don't send any questions my way because I won't be answering them.

Thanks for your response Barry

I'm willing to listen to everyone's opinions, and I respect your position. I won't send any questions your way. I try to always stay open minded about everything, and I know this is a touchy subject.

Hope all is well with you-

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by drc

I (probably obviously) disagree with Clayton on the gun issue, but agree that if prisoners are going to be re-introduced into society in the future you should work to make them ready for society, address their drug/psychological etc problems. Even if you're an ultra conservative, anti-crime person this only makes common sense. The ex-prisoners could very well move into your and your family's neighborhood. So which would you rather they be released from prison as-- someone who can get a job and integrate into normal society, or some who is even worse than when he went in? Rehabilitating prisoners is good both for the prisoners and society in general-- and the crime rate . . . It's hypocritical and defies common sense to both complain about criminal recidivism while preventing prisoners from getting rehabilitation and treatment.

Thanks David, I agree with this 100%.

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

In the recent thread regarding "our open forum" on the main page, I was a bit suprised at the resistance I recieved by just saying "long live the first amendment". I was told my understanding of the first amendment was as "limited" as my understanding of the second amendment. I was also singled out for mentioning the word "God" one time, even though it was in the context of "natural, God given rights".

This made me realize that many people clearly have different opinions on what the Constitution means, and/or what it WAS MEANT to mean.

How "conditioned" are you?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ebudnWlh4


I hope that before anyone blasts me, that you watch this. It is an hour and a half film *all credits for this film belong to Larken Rose*. Watch it when you are bored, or, when you want to have a deeper understanding of what the Constitution was MEANT to be.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Runscott]

Clayton, you have the right to say anything you want in an internet forum, subject to Leon's restrictions, which I think are extremely fair and prudent.

But you also have to realize that forum posters come in all sorts of flavors. There are a few who sit around quietly with a bug up their @ss because of something you typed that offended them, perhaps months ago, and perhaps totally inadvertently - join the club of those who have accidentally offended Adam at some point. I never did figure out what I did to piss him off, but it's been too much effort trying to get back in his good graces.

I'll go down in flames defending someone's right to say what they want, provided they don't call names or go overboard insulting my intelligence...or anyone else's. I guess that's the Libertarian in me, so you know what my thoughts are regarding the Constitution.

I have a TON of friends on this forum, so I am proof that speaking your mind works just fine - keep it up.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

In the recent thread regarding "our open forum" on the main page, I was a bit suprised at the resistance I recieved by just saying "long live the first amendment". I was told my understanding of the first amendment was as "limited" as my understanding of the second amendment. I was also singled out for mentioning the word "God" one time, even though it was in the context of "natural, God given rights".

This made me realize that many people clearly have different opinions on what the Constitution means, and/or what it WAS MEANT to mean.

How "conditioned" are you?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_pfgt6R7S8

I hope that before anyone blasts me, that you watch this. It is an hour and a half film *all credits for this film belong to Larken Rose*. Watch it when you are bored, or, when you want to have a deeper understanding of what the Constitution was MEANT to be.

Sincerely, Clayton

Clayton, I don't think people were intentionally trying to blast you, it's just that your viewpoints tend toward the extreme. I honestly can't dedicate 90 minutes of my time to watching a video that will presumably be nothing more than right-wing propaganda. But I can tell you that throughout American history, there have been politicians and judges who have held a very strict and literal view of the constitution, and those who view its application in more practical terms.

Point being that it's simply hard to govern in the context of rigid ideology. Put aside your arguments of "freedom" for a second, and try to view the other side of the gun control debate - America is one of the very few developed countries without much gun control, and the murder rate is more than double that of other countries. It's hard to be free if you're dead. Meanwhile the countries with lax control like South Africa also suffer from a very high murder rate.

I don't think that's ideally how a society ought to function. But it is how societies function without gun control. Asking them to function otherwise goes against human nature - people who own guns are far more likely to kill themselves as well as other people. So just realize that there is another side of things, call it the "social contract", if you will, that says, although we would like to be free in the truest sense of the word, there are compromises that need to be made for the well-being of our society.

[Cardboard Junkie]

I decided to take a break reading about all the constitutional and religious stuff and take my new 4 wheel drive ATV for a spin......

[teetwoohsix]

Thanks Scott, I appreciate the support.

cysemour, I knew you wouldn't watch the film The funny thing about it, is that I am a registered Democrat. So much for the "extreme right wing gun nut" theory And, I am not "extreme" at all, I've never even been to a "protest" before

I admit, I don't feel I identify with either Democrat or Republican 100%, I think I will label myself an "Independant" from now on. I will vote for someone based on their "values" and not because someone belongs to a particular party.The "two party system" keeps the country divided, and people no longer are willing to hold someone accountable if they belong to "their party", which is truly shameful.

The video is non-partisan, you may want to give it a look.

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

That was funny David

Don't hurt yourself on that thing

Sincerely, Clayton

[vintagetoppsguy]

Until this past weekend I have never owned an assault rifle. However, I have always supported those that chose to do so.

I have shot many of them in the Army and they never really appealed to me outside military life. I just didn't find them practical.

All that changed this past weekend. With the recent events of the federal government (IRS) targeting folks based on their political and religious beliefs, I decided it was time to purchase one. I also purchased 2500 rounds, 500 of which are armor piercing.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Thanks Scott, I appreciate the support.

cysemour, I knew you wouldn't watch the film The funny thing about it, is that I am a registered Democrat. So much for the "extreme right wing gun nut" theory And, I am not "extreme" at all, I've never even been to a "protest" before

I admit, I don't feel I identify with either Democrat or Republican 100%, I think I will label myself an "Independant" from now on. I will vote for someone based on their "values" and not because someone belongs to a particular party.The "two party system" keeps the country divided, and people no longer are willing to hold someone accountable if they belong to "their party", which is truly shameful.

The video is non-partisan, you may want to give it a look.

Sincerely, Clayton

Ninety minutes for a homemade video is a lot to ask, even a non-partisan one.

Never would have guessed you were a registered Democrat, lol. The two-party system probably does keep the country divided, our system is unlike most democracies were there are many different parties and parties are able to combine votes to form a coalition.

One thing I will say is that too often people belong to a political party and are simply told what to think by the leaders of that political party. At times that can be good, but other times it can be bad. For instance, Republicans not believing in global warming despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, or Democratic support for some failed goverment programs like school busing, ethanol, etc.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Ninety minutes for a homemade video is a lot to ask, even a non-partisan one.

Never would have guessed you were a registered Democrat, lol. The two-party system probably does keep the country divided, our system is unlike most democracies were there are many different parties and parties are able to combine votes to form a coalition.

One thing I will say is that too often people belong to a political party and are simply told what to think by the leaders of that political party. At times that can be good, but other times it can be bad. For instance, Republicans not believing in global warming despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, or Democratic support for some failed goverment programs like school busing, ethanol, etc.

Well, even though it was a homemade video, it effectively shows the importance of the Constitution; as it was meant to be. And it was designed to wake people up, in a non partisan way.

When I asked the question "how conditioned are you?" it was because I understood that the media has people believing that anyone who is for "the Constitution" or "the second amendment" must be a "right wing extremist" or a "gun-nut". Since when did believing in your Constitution become "extreme"?! Since when did the second amendment defenders only side on the right? We, as Americans, should all be concerned for the loss of our rights equally. We should all be concerned, as Americans- regardless of political party, when politicians try to justify (usually in the name of "safety") taking freedoms away.

No one in their right mind believes in gun violence. But, people do understand that it's the individual holding the gun that is responsible for what he/she does with the gun. As was said in the other thread-and applies to any rights we have- individual responsibility goes hand in hand with freedom and liberty.

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Clayton, you have the right to say anything you want in an internet forum, subject to Leon's restrictions, which I think are extremely fair and prudent.

But you also have to realize that forum posters come in all sorts of flavors. There are a few who sit around quietly with a bug up their @ss because of something you typed that offended them, perhaps months ago, and perhaps totally inadvertently - join the club of those who have accidentally offended Adam at some point. I never did figure out what I did to piss him off, but it's been too much effort trying to get back in his good graces.

I'll go down in flames defending someone's right to say what they want, provided they don't call names or go overboard insulting my intelligence...or anyone else's. I guess that's the Libertarian in me, so you know what my thoughts are regarding the Constitution.

I have a TON of friends on this forum, so I am proof that speaking your mind works just fine - keep it up.

I agree with you, and I actually don't hold a grudge with Adam or anyone else for that matter, simply because I believe in freedom of speech I can respect anyone's opinion regardless of whether I agree with it or not. If people want to hold a grudge with me, I'm ok with it.

I've made plenty of friends on this board, and value being a part of Net54. I know this is a vintage baseball card forum, but I also think it's healthy for us to be able to discuss what is going on in the world. Especially in these trying times.

I just hope people are awake, because if this country is ever going to "fix itself" the first step (in my opinion) is to understand why the problems are happening. The next step is to put our petty differences aside and work together for solutions. We need leaders who have our best intentions at heart, and leaders who the children (tomorrows future) can look up to.

And when it comes to our freedoms and liberties, we all have the same things at stake. That video is important.

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Until this past weekend I have never owned an assault rifle. However, I have always supported those that chose to do so.

I have shot many of them in the Army and they never really appealed to me outside military life. I just didn't find them practical.

All that changed this past weekend. With the recent events of the federal government (IRS) targeting folks based on their political and religious beliefs, I decided it was time to purchase one. I also purchased 2500 rounds, 500 of which are armor piercing.

Since the last posts on this thread, it's had 2,609 views Even if a fraction of those people viewed the link I posted to the film, I am thrilled. Thank you. And, David, I don't blame you for stocking up. DHS is doing the same thing. Couple that with the latest NSA spying, I believe people should be very concerned- what, exactly, is going on?

Sincerely, Clayton

[Cardboard Junkie]

The silence is deafening.......eyes wide shut?

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Cardboard Junkie

The silence is deafening.......eyes wide shut?

Nice.

"In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act"~ George Orwell

Happy 4th of July-

Sincerely, Clayton

[EvilKing00]

Along these lines - I have had some ideas for many years now to punish the most heinous criminals. (IMO) child moseltors, people who have killed kids. These people should not go to jail and live off our tax dollars.

There should be public hangings, held in Times squair (NYC) that is also on PayPer View. This will not only rid the offender from ever doing it again, but also save money in our tax dollars not housing and feeding them forever AND with the pay per view raise ALOT of funds to lower my taxes. Damn we may even pay off out national debt in a few years.

I know with all the liberals this would never happen but I still think its a great idea.

No need for gas chambers, injections, electric chairs or even firing squads all that costs money. A rope can be re-used over and over.

Think about the deterrent this would be as well, lol

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by EvilKing00

Along these lines - I have had some ideas for many years now to punish the most heinous criminals. (IMO) child moseltors, people who have killed kids. These people should not go to jail and live off our tax dollars.

There should be public hangings, held in Times squair (NYC) that is also on PayPer View. This will not only rid the offender from ever doing it again, but also save money in our tax dollars not housing and feeding them forever AND with the pay per view raise ALOT of funds to lower my taxes. Damn we may even pay off out national debt in a few years.

I know with all the liberals this would never happen but I still think its a great idea.

No need for gas chambers, injections, electric chairs or even firing squads all that costs money. A rope can be re-used over and over.

Think about the deterrent this would be as well, lol

I can see your point, don't necessarily agree with it, but I do want to address it.

I think what might happen in your plan may have an adverse effect, albeit unintended, on homicide rates.

Why not go out in a public spectacle. A final blaze of unearned glory. Your name on front page headlines. Seems better then the alternative.

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

I can see your point, don't necessarily agree with it, but I do want to address it.

I think what might happen in your plan may have an adverse effect, albeit unintended, on homicide rates.

Why not go out in a public spectacle. A final blaze of unearned glory. Your name on front page headlines. Seems better then the alternative.

well I guess that's possible, but in the past when public hangings, stonings, being burned at the stake actually happened, from all accounts it was a deterrent.

Watching a guy get hung isn't much of a blaze of glory, its not a firework show like a firing squad, or even climatic like a beheading, but rather unimpressive quiet and usually the guy swinging will soil him self. Rather undignified.