election

[ferguzzi]

I bought a grease gun the other day.

It's not very accurate, but you sure could come to a sticky end!

sorry.

[OldButNotDead]

Sorry about the gun questions but it would be nice to see where folk are coming from. The lads do seem to be putting some sort of message out but I'm not sure what it is.

 

 

Here’s an opinion from a US citizen who has lived several elsewheres. I don’t feel threatened by increased restrictions on gun distribution or use, but as a real American I do understand and appreciate the strong element of “wilderness” here that many of my fellow citizens value. I sometimes miss this feeling in Europe. Not actual outdoor wilderness, since that’s mostly disappeared here as well, but cultural wilderness, where it feels like anything is possible and we are free from the constraints of a civilized society. Maybe citizens of other countries enjoy this vicariously, explaining why our cultural exports (i.e. films) have been so popular, and in part why developing countries have a justifiable FU attitude about “behaving responsibly”?

 

In the land of guns and automobiles, guns and automobiles often function less as consumer goods, and more as highly charged symbols. To a goodly number of people, possessing the physical objects literally means: “I am free”. It’s about emotion and subjective value. That’s why you can’t argue that “logically” having a job or food or health care for your child provides more freedom than a firearm. If someone feels better having a gun than they would having those other things, then it’s logical that they would mainly be concerned about the loss of their gun(s).

 

To each his own. It's a whack of cash in the bank that keeps my (freedom) anxieties at bay. Practicing flexibilty of mind don't hurt, neither.

[waspp]

All right I'll bite (again, what a sucker )

 

Is this purely a 'sporting' weapon or is there another purpose?

 

Is it likely that the weapon and ammunition will have to be handed back?

 

Enquiring minds and all that

 

To answer your question yes. and maybe. To be honest guns are fun both to shoot and look at. They are much like Guzzis fun to ride and fun to look at, as well as modify and customize. There have been various laws and bans some which have come and gone but this may be the last chance to own some certain types of guns. Just imagine if they were going to ban the sale of all two wheeled machines above 50cc. its kinda the same thing.

[Richard Z]

To answer your question yes. and maybe. To be honest guns are fun both to shoot and look at. They are much like Guzzis fun to ride and fun to look at, as well as modify and customize. There have been various laws and bans some which have come and gone but this may be the last chance to own some certain types of guns. Just imagine if they were going to ban the sale of all two wheeled machines above 50cc. its kinda the same thing.

 

They can have my guns. When they pry them from my cold dead hands.....

[Orson]

wow

 

A Presidential press conference...I had forgotten what those were.

 

And he told Pelosi what he expected of her.

[savagehenry]

First let me state I backed neither the Republican or Democratic candidate when I voted in now my 7th election. As an American citizen, I hope for the best from our new Commander in Chief, both for us, and as a leading symbol to the rest of the world. Based on the campaign, and now the last weeks decisions, I fear we will get anything but that. He didn't even mention the Russians and their announcement of their plans to further their missle program in his press conference. He did not take a single question from any news source he felt is not completely on his side, and even removed them from them from his campaign plane to be replaced with "fluff" publications in a very blatant attempt to squelch ANY percieved dissent. America, and the world, have a right to know, and ask ANY question. David Axlerod, Mr. Obamas campaign head stated on PBS television, "The Choice, 2008", aired just two weeks ago, that Mr. Obamas plan for his run for the Presidency was to NEVER make ANY decisions, and NEVER vote for or against ANYTHING. He voted "PRESENT" 160 times as my state Senator, far more than any other in either house. As a tax paying constituent of his home state, I am greatly offended. I helped pay his wages for the last four years, and hoped he would try to improve the nation's situation. His STATED PLAN was to do NOTHING, save further his own personal ambitions and rise to power. IMHO, both parties care not so much "who's winning" as long as they both continue to wield that power exclusively. "Absolute power corrupts....".....ah, you all know the rest. REPUBLICRATS and DEMOPUBLICANS, thats our choice in the "Land of the Free"...

[macguzzi]

First let me state I backed neither the Republican or Democratic candidate when I voted in now my 7th election. As an American citizen, I hope for the best from our new Commander in Chief, both for us, and as a leading symbol to the rest of the world. Based on the campaign, and now the last weeks decisions, I fear we will get anything but that. He didn't even mention the Russians and their announcement of their plans to further their missle program in his press conference. He did not take a single question from any news source he felt is not completely on his side, and even removed them from them from his campaign plane to be replaced with "fluff" publications in a very blatant attempt to squelch ANY percieved dissent. America, and the world, have a right to know, and ask ANY question. David Axlerod, Mr. Obamas campaign head stated on PBS television, "The Choice, 2008", aired just two weeks ago, that Mr. Obamas plan for his run for the Presidency was to NEVER make ANY decisions, and NEVER vote for or against ANYTHING. He voted "PRESENT" 160 times as my state Senator, far more than any other in either house. As a tax paying constituent of his home state, I am greatly offended. I helped pay his wages for the last four years, and hoped he would try to improve the nation's situation. His STATED PLAN was to do NOTHING, save further his own personal ambitions and rise to power. IMHO, both parties care not so much "who's winning" as long as they both continue to wield that power exclusively. "Absolute power corrupts....".....ah, you all know the rest. REPUBLICRATS and DEMOPUBLICANS, thats our choice in the "Land of the Free"...

Typical politian then!

[Skeeve]

Is this purely a 'sporting' weapon or is there another purpose?

 

Anything can be repurposed. And our Bill of Rights doesn't protect ownership of sporting weapons, it protects ownership of the same kind of weapons as would be expected of a standard infantryman.

 

Is it likely that the weapon and ammunition will have to be handed back?

 

It might be. And in that case, it shall be: one round at a time, with purposeful aim, and resolve that the govt. cannot exceed their charter. I believe the term is "voting from the rooftops."

 

We're in deep shiznit over here: our govt. of checks and balances is gone all awry, with a legislative branch dominated by one party, and the executive branch soon to be in the hands of that same party, a political party w/ a history of adhering to the party line [vs. maverick legislators voting against ill-conceived legislation proposed by other members of their own party.] Personally, I blame the 17th Amendment, w/ some distaste left over for the 16th.(sigh) What fools these mortals be!

[dlaing]

Anything can be repurposed. And our Bill of Rights doesn't protect ownership of sporting weapons, it protects ownership of the same kind of weapons as would be expected of a standard infantryman.

As I read the 2nd amendment, it is ambiguous enough that you cannot draw an exact conclusion. There is no restriction on what kind of weapons we can keep and bear, if we are a member of a well regulated militia.

Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, body armor, anti-aircraft, anti-battleship, air craft, battleships etc.

But are we well regulated if we have Nuclear and Chemical weapons? I suppose that is where other laws like the Geneva Convention come into play.

If we are not a member of a well regulated militia, we are not guaranteed any right to keep and bear arms, by the 2nd amendment.

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.

But, gun advocates have gone to great lengths to redefine the second amendment and courts have often ruled in their favor, and the popular consensus is that we have some rights to keep and bear arms, even if we are not in well regulated militias.

 

Gun control has followed the assassinations of the Kennedys and the attempt at Reagan.

Unless some right wing nut job goes and shoots at Obama, we are not likely to see any major changes. Maybe that is what they are betting on????

I just hope we don't more Waco like ATF raids.

There is a big difference between building up arsenals for defense against the ever-coming armageddon, defense against burglars, or simply pleasure of gun ownership, vs. offense with purpose such as terrorism, treason, or crime.

[dlaing]

It might be. And in that case, it shall be: one round at a time, with purposeful aim, and resolve that the govt. cannot exceed their charter. I believe the term is "voting from the rooftops."

A perfect example.

Should we be reporting you to homeland security?

[macguzzi]

Well you were warned about the misuse of this post regarding GUNS Jaap please close this before it gets nasty. Thank god europeans understand how dangerous guns are particularly this rememberance weekend.

[John in Leeds]

Well you were warned about the misuse of this post regarding GUNS Jaap please close this before it gets nasty. Thank god europeans understand how dangerous guns are particularly this rememberance weekend.

 

 

I understand Mac's sentiments but please be patient - when the personal abuse starts ok then chop it but at the moment I am learning something. About attitudes of free gun ownership supporters, the possible changes under the new administration and the law as it currently applies in the US.

 

It would be good if contributors could exercise some personal restraint - unless of course people don't want the truth to be known here.

[jrt]

John, the nonsense and posturing was what I was warning against on the first page. No, I didn't shut the thread down then, and I don't plan or want to now. I would find that as distasteful as you would.

'So it has come to this'.

I'm thinking it's close. But you are right; there isn't any name calling or personal slander.

 

Just a reminder folks- please be respectful of others, whether you think they deserve it or not.

And let's just move away from the discussions of guns. There is a large difference in the perception of guns and gun ownership on either side of the ocean.

Take it to personal messages or email if you want.

 

 

thanks,

Jason

[richard100t]

Anything can be repurposed. And our Bill of Rights doesn't protect ownership of sporting weapons, it protects ownership of the same kind of weapons as would be expected of a standard infantryman.

 

 

 

It might be. And in that case, it shall be: one round at a time, with purposeful aim, and resolve that the govt. cannot exceed their charter. I believe the term is "voting from the rooftops."

 

We're in deep shiznit over here: our govt. of checks and balances is gone all awry, with a legislative branch dominated by one party, and the executive branch soon to be in the hands of that same party, a political party w/ a history of adhering to the party line [vs. maverick legislators voting against ill-conceived legislation proposed by other members of their own party.] Personally, I blame the 17th Amendment, w/ some distaste left over for the 16th.(sigh) What fools these mortals be!

The specific purpose for the second amendment to our Constitution, meaning the Founders thought it second in importance only to the freedom of speech, was for the citizens to have to means to rise up & overthrow its government should the need arise. The notion that it is to protect sportsmen or hunting is absolutely ridiculous. If a citizen militia cannot bear arms that are sufficient to protect itself from tyranny then they are already being subjected to a form of such. In the last generation or so people have come to expect everything from the government without ever having to provide anything in return. As long as enough of the people are kept poor enough, AND stupid enough, legislators will find a way to whittle away at their civil rights. I really dont give a damn how other people in other nations conduct their affairs, thats their business. But I prefer much less government annd more freedom here in America.

[Greg Field]

Folks who look around would find the following hard to deny:

 

Millions of Americans who would otherwise naturally align themselves with and would be solid Democrats are held back by the constantly reinforced knowledge that the Democratic Party will push for further restrictions on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. If the Democratic Party would simply commit to preserving the status quo, and then prove it for a few years, all these folks would return to the fold and no George W. Bushes would be elected president for the next 40 or more years.