BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[SoCoKHntr]

CVC wrote: SoCo - we have a Democrat controlled Congress so if we have high gas prices, high medical costs, etc. then the Democrats share much of the blame. The Democrat controlled Congress appropriates the funding for the war in Iraq. Without their consent, the President could not wage war in Iraq.

Now, I will say our efforts in Iraq are misguided and counterproductive. I would not have in Iraq trying to instill democracy. Bomb the terrorists in Iraq, but we have no business trying to impose democracy on a country that doesn't want it or is not willing to fight for it. We need to stay mobile to address terrorism in other parts of the world and not be mired down in Iraq.

Do I believe that under Obama our individual rights will be threatened - yes. Is that the only reason I won't vote for him - no.

I believe he is inexperienced and lacking of substance. I do believe you can judge a person by those with whom he associates. The Reverend Wright hates America - just listen to his speeches. Mrs. Obama hates America - “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country,” Mrs.Obama.

I am proud of our Country. I am proud of our freedoms. Unfortunately, Michelle Obama is not or at least hasn't been until her husband started his campaign for President.

Well, I do agree the Dems have been pretty spineless for the past three years, but until then it was a Repub controlled Congress who wrote Bush blank check after blank check and authorized everything he requested. I understand the Rev. Wright thing is bothersome to you and you have a right to feel that way, but being a Minority (Hispanic, Latino, whatever classification fits) and feeling the sting of racism at times in my life from whites, I understand where his anger comes from. Especially since he lived through those turbulent times when it was far more prevalent. Do I agree with him? Hell no, but again I see where his anger comes from. I think it's a non realistic view to only look at our country like a knight in shining armor. There are great things about our country and there are not so great things at different times in our history each one (good/bad) has seen more light.

[SoCoKHntr]

CVC, if you can stomach it (it's Rolling Stone) read this article on the Republican controlled congress during the Bush years. If you do read it tell me what you think of their tactics. I personally can't see how any decent person could support people like these.

http://www.rollingstone.com/po.....gress_ever

[CVC]

I read the article and would have thought it had a bit of a liberal bias had it been in any other publication than Rolling Stone magazine :D

You won't see me defending too many Republican politicians. The D's have their Ted Kennedy and Barny Frank and the R's have Foley and Craig and so on.

It is because of politicians on both sides that I rank protecting the second amendment so high. Without our ability to defend ourselves against criminals, foreign enemies and our government, we will become victims and servants.

I don't vote party line - I voted against Congressman Ryan last election, not for Congresswoman Boyda, but this next election, I most likely will vote for Boyda. She's done a good job and responded positively to me when I urged her to sign onto the amicus brief supporting the 2nd amendment.

The politicans that I support tend to be unelectable - Ron Paul, Alan Sharp and that type of intellectual, libertarian, constitutionalist politician. They don't promise you the world, but tell you like it is and what we need to do to remain free and strong and the general population tends to not like that rhetoric.

[SoCoKHntr]

I hear you man! It would be nice to have some good moderate people who can take all facets of a situation and hammer out the best possible solution. Unfortunately we haven't seen that in a long, long, time. The last thing I will say is I hope there are more positive things in our future because recent times have been very bleak from where I'm standing.

Again, to you I apologize for any negativity and wish you well as well as good hunting and shooting!

[CVC]

SoCoHntr - no problem. If we all thought exactly alike there would be no need for an election.

No matter what, the fall is going to be interesting leading up to November.

[expatriate]

Wow, SoCo...that's amazing. I specifically said that I was not comparing anyone to Nazis or the Holocaust, but was talking about people being willing to sacrifice others if it doesn't affect them personally. I was worried that you might not be able to grasp the metaphor, so I even explained what it meant. And yet you STILL got it wrong and thought it was about Nazis.

If you can't grasp something so simple, even when it's explained to you in clear and simple terms, then I don't have a ghost of a chance explaining things like the power of congressional committees, long-term effects of judicial appointments, administrative processes in bureaucracy, executive discretion, or the role of precededent in our legal system.

The Constitution is our birthright, and individual liberty the crown jewel held dear by the founding fathers. It saddens me to see Americans so willing to make Esau's choice and sell their birthright for a mess of pottage. The seeds of tyranny are sown on the edges of society, by marginalizing beliefs or activities and legislating their elimination. If you allow them to grow, they'll be in your backyard before you know it.

You may not care, but I do. I took an oath to defend the Constitution, and that's what I'm going to do in November.

[SoCoKHntr]

expatriate wrote: Wow, SoCo...that's amazing. I specifically said that I was not comparing anyone to Nazis or the Holocaust, but was talking about people being willing to sacrifice others if it doesn't affect them personally. I was worried that you might not be able to grasp the metaphor, so I even explained what it meant. And yet you STILL got it wrong and thought it was about Nazis.

If you can't grasp something so simple, even when it's explained to you in clear and simple terms, then I don't have a ghost of a chance explaining things like the power of congressional committees, long-term effects of judicial appointments, administrative processes in bureaucracy, executive discretion, or the role of precededent in our legal system.
.

Just because you begin your comparison with the caveat 'I'm not comparing you to such and such,' and then go on to make that very comparison doesn't give you a free pass on it. What you are doing is a very insidious tactic. You play the innocent card while every time you talk about those that disagree with your view you bring up 'examples' of some of the worst figures in world history. Hardly grown up or honest debate.

Your other tactic is to present yourself as the end all be all expert on Government, politics, and National defense. You aren't interested in real debate just the opportunity to point out to others your 'expertise' and tell them how wrong they are. Well, that was an easier sale eight years ago. Not so much today, there are far too many people who have been feeling the pain of the last eight years to buy that song and dance anymore.

Well anyway, I wish you well and I am secure in the knowledge you will exercise your right to cast your vote as I will.

Take care!

[expatriate]

SoCo, you haven't debated squat -- because debate requires you to present facts and positions to analyze. You haven't done either.

Politics of fear? Sometimes fear is justified. But the problem I have is when you point out the negatives in a politician's record and he throws rhetoric like "politics of fear" around rather than address the issue raised.

I have a much bigger problem with the politics of ignorance -- those who count on an electorate too shallow to check facts or verify anything. I'm talking about politicians who dodge criticism rather than answer it, or who attack the credibility of someone questioning them rather than speak to the issue.

For the record, here's where your buddy Obama stands on guns:

- He wants to keep guns out of inner cities (that's a ban to you and me), and blames gun dealers for "dumping" guns on communities.

- He favors banning sale or transfer of all forms of semiautomatic weapons, increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms, and require manufacturers to provide child safety locks.

- He voted "No" on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers for damages arising from misuse of their products.

- On July 13, 2006, he was one of only 16 senators to vote against an appropriations bill amendment that would prevent federal agents from confiscating firearms during emergencies. He believes that New Orleans was justified to confiscate firearms from the law abiding in the aftermath of Katrina, leaving them defenseless after police protection collapsed.

- As a state senator, he also supported limiting handgun purchases to one per month.

- He has also stated that he believes the D.C. gun ban to be constitutional.

- When Hale deMar was prosecuted for defending his family in his own home with a handgun in a city that banned handguns, state legislators proposed legislation to protect the right to self-defense for people like deMar -- Obama voted against it.

- He also argued in favor of renewing the Clinton gun ban, and termed it "common sense."

But as I said -- you can't understand a simple metaphor. So I expect such facts to fall on deaf ears or be discounted as some sort of political fearmongering. You know -- "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

If you would care to debate, I challenge you to produce anything from Obama's record that suggests he supports the rights of gun owners or believes the second amendment extends beyond hunters in rural areas.

So will you debate the issue I just threw down, or will you once again dodge it and come up with some reason why you don't have to discuss the matter?

[SoCoKHntr]

Expatriate, you win. I don't have the time or energy to go searching for information to counterpoint every thing you stated and then have you counterpoint and then counterpoint again. I will conclude with this, I don't share your view that if he is elected, which he likely will be, that our guns will be taken away. It is my firm belief that I will continue to have the same freedom with my guns that I currently posses. There are also a host of other issues pertinent to this country that rank as high and some even higher that have determined who I will cast my vote for.

I wish you a good day Sir.

[bitmasher]

SoCoKHntr, I agree that there is a lot more to an election and perhaps more pressing issues than gun rights.

However, I would respect your position more if you simply said, gun rights are less important to me than health care, the economy, or whatever else you find intriguing about Obama. That's fine, I can live with that, although I may disagree in some instances.

Where you fall off the rocker is to say "I'm voting for Obama and nothing will happen to my guns". This statement very well may be true, but it will be absolutely no thanks to Obama. Given the right political circumstance he is an avowed gun grabber, past-present-and-future. That's not fear...its fact.

As for the Democrat vs Republican, I look at like this. In 1950 we ran a basically balanced federal budget, basic health care was more widely available and affordable, American agribusiness and manufacturing were stronger. In the intervening 68 years, its been a steady successions of dunderheadedness on both sides of the aisle that has put us where we are.

[expatriate]

Well said, Bit. There are liberals out there I have a lot of respect for, because when you engage them you find substance behind their rhetoric -- they've done their homework and can put together substantive arguments to support their position. Moreover, you can discuss politics with them point for point. Unfortunately, what frustrates me today is how that is a rare thing -- where we once used to debate with facts and logic, now it's about emotion, outrage, and embracing victimization.

The following link is a perfect example. Bush goes to Israel and says it's a bad idea to negotiate with terrorists and their backers, which is timely since Jimmy Carter just went over and sipped tea with Hamas. And what does Obama do? Does he clarify his position on the matter? Nope. He starts caterwauling about how he has been viciously attacked with false charges.

What? Senator Obama, not everything's about you; it was Carter over there recently hugging and kissing Hamas. Did you completely miss the concept that Israel might be nervous about American policy after seeing a former president embracing their #1 enemy? The comments were about Carter, you dolt. But if you want to make it about you, how about clarifying your position in favor of dialog with the world's leading terrorist backers and finding out what we can do to address their grievances against us? How about clarifying without all the grandstanding about how you've been victimized? And oh, by the way, why didn't you condemn Carter? And what are you going to do when a foreign power questions your position? Obama would've earned some respect if he would've agreed that it's wrong to negotiate with terrorists, perhaps condemn Carter's trip, and clarify his position. If the point was to try to say he wouldn't negotiate with terrorists (which it seems he was trying to do), that would've been the way to do it. But no -- that would mean breaking the prime directives of never agreeing with Bush and never questioning Carter. Instead, he chose to throw a tirade like a 14 year-old girl on hormone overload.

I'm just sick of politicians throwing fits and claiming dirty politics and vicious attacks simply because a question comes up anywhere near their policies. Grow up, get a spine, and debate like an adult instead of dodging and carrying on like a spoiled teenager. I expect far more from someone who aspires to be President.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit.....s-iss.html

[SoCoKHntr]

bitmasher wrote: SoCoKHntr, I agree that there is a lot more to an election and perhaps more pressing issues than gun rights.

However, I would respect your position more if you simply said, gun rights are less important to me than health care, the economy, or whatever else you find intriguing about Obama. That's fine, I can live with that, although I may disagree in some instances.

Where you fall off the rocker is to say "I'm voting for Obama and nothing will happen to my guns". This statement very well may be true, but it will be absolutely no thanks to Obama. Given the right political circumstance he is an avowed gun grabber, past-present-and-future. That's not fear...its fact.

As for the Democrat vs Republican, I look at like this. In 1950 we ran a basically balanced federal budget, basic health care was more widely available and affordable, American agribusiness and manufacturing were stronger. In the intervening 68 years, its been a steady successions of dunderheadedness on both sides of the aisle that has put us where we are.

bitmasher, your points are taken. You are correct in that I can't put my chips in with a candidate who I vehemently oppose on every other issue, but on guns he say's don't worry I got you covered there.

The gun issue is a sticky situation and I can see points on each side. I don't want it to be so easy for a mentally ill person or heat of the moment potential murderer to be able to get a gun. I know, with guns laws criminals will still get guns because, well, their criminals. I don't think gun laws will greatly effect organized crime who will get them anyway.

But, some sensible laws could halt a schizophrenic bent on mass murder from getting a hold of some high capacity killing machines before he is able to carry out his act.

Or it could hinder and stop the guy, who never before cared to own guns, who got fired from his job and goes over the edge deciding to purchase a Glock and take out the office.

It could also hinder the doomsday prophet holed up in a compound sexually violating children who stockpiles machine guns to ward off any interference from Law Enforcement from stopping his predatory orgy.

One one side you have the group who believes it should be a free for all where everyone has the right to have a mini-gun, AK-47, grenades, and what have you. You then have the other extreme which believes so much as a watergun should be banned. Well, I don't fall into either camp. I believe the answer falls somewhere in the middle and as things evolve and change the laws will also have to.

I don't think the camp that wants to completely outlaw guns will ever get their way. Sportsmen and the shooting hunting industry is far to high a moneymaker that our Gov. would ever allow that to happen. The acquisition of the all mighty dollar is after all our countries number one priority.

[CVC]

Quote: I don't think the camp that wants to completely outlaw guns will ever get their way. Sportsmen and the shooting hunting industry is far to high a moneymaker that our Gov. would ever allow that to happen. The acquisition of the all mighty dollar is after all our countries number one priority

I am being lazy here - think I'll blame it on getting up at 3 am to go turkey hunting today. See, maybe I could be a liberal, I am already not accepting responsibility for my own laziness :evil:

Anyway, didn't they recently ban guns in Austraila and Canada? I suppose I should look up the details, but .....

Finally, I think this thread is going to last as long as the democrat primary!

[Fisher King]

CVC wrote: Quote: I don't think the camp that wants to completely outlaw guns will ever get their way. Sportsmen and the shooting hunting industry is far to high a moneymaker that our Gov. would ever allow that to happen. The acquisition of the all mighty dollar is after all our countries number one priority

I am being lazy here - think I'll blame it on getting up at 3 am to go turkey hunting today. See, maybe I could be a liberal, I am already not accepting responsibility for my own laziness :evil:

Anyway, didn't they recently ban guns in Austraila and Canada? I suppose I should look up the details, but .....

Finally, I think this thread is going to last as long as the democrat primary!
They didn't ban guns in Canada yet, but let the Liberals in and hand guns simi auto and pumps may go the way like they have in Australia :sad:
Our hand guns are practicaly baned now, you need to take a course and you are only alowed to travel with your hand gun to the range and back by the shortest posible route. we are not alowed to protect our selves but we are alowed to call 911 dial a prayer after we have been asulted for a cop to come and take a statement after the fact.
Infact in our country if a thug breakes into your house and you have a broken window or a dog and the thug cuts himself or the dog bits him he can come back and sue you :o :sad: .
Belive me your second emendment rights are something I envey and something I would fight for if I were you. But thats just my opinion and you know what they say about opinions and a sertain body part.
Regards and sorry for butting into a debate that doesn't envolve me , but just thought you would like to see how things can go.
Fisher King.

[CVC]

I appreciate you setting the record straight regarding guns in Canada, your insight and input. Thanks.