$2.29

**imported_ut1** · January 10th, 2006, 09:03 PM

Apparently you've bought into the anti-NRA propaganda that the Brady Bunch has been pushing for a long time. I'm a Life member of the NRA, and have been one longer than the anti-gun/pro-gun fight you know started. Yes, they do want your squirrel guns and fowling pieces. They've proved over and over again that their push is to disarm America. I'm from the day when you could buy a pistol, shotgun, or rifle from Sears or a surplus store by mail, or at your local mercantile. Of course, back then, most folks knew that guns were tools of sport and necessity.
The point about the Uzi is a no-brainer, since they've been illegal to own without special permit for decades. (Yes, I owned one of those at one time. Best deer gun I ever had.) [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
I'm not even an avid hunter or shooter, but I support the rights of law-abiding citizens to engage in these activities.
I base my voting decisions on more than 2 issues, but those 2 are the first I ask about a candidate. If they are anti-gun or pro-abortion, they will not get my vote regardless.
I also happen to own some of the so-called "assault" rifles that the Bradys and Clintons went after. For them, anything that fired more than 3 rounds qualified as dangerous for the average citizen to own. If they had their way, my old Browning shotgun I'd like to hand down to my son would be illegal.

It looks like they've done a good job selling their propaganda to you. I'm too old and wise to buy into their veiled agenda.

**CoeburnCane** · January 11th, 2006, 09:40 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Apparently you've bought into the anti-NRA propaganda that the Brady Bunch has been pushing for a long time. I'm a Life member of the NRA,

[/ QUOTE ]

You lost ALL credibility in this discussion by being a life member of a biased political organization. All you will do is stand by the mantra and not be open to other ideas...so there's no use.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
The point about the Uzi is a no-brainer, since they've been illegal to own without special permit for decades. (Yes, I owned one of those at one time. Best deer gun I ever had.) [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care if there's a grin after this sentence--that's just a disturbing viewpoint to take.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
It looks like they've done a good job selling their propaganda to you. I'm too old and wise to buy into their veiled agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never think you know it all b/c by the time you think you do, it's all changed and then you know nothing. If that's not a famous saying, then it should be.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
I also happen to own some of the so-called "assault" rifles that the Bradys and Clintons went after. For them, anything that fired more than 3 rounds qualified as dangerous for the average citizen to own. If they had their way, my old Browning shotgun I'd like to hand down to my son would be illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chuck Heston told you this personally, right??? LOL--this is so ridiculous. I'm talking about military weaponry and you're talking about a Browning shotgun that should be a hunting weapon, sporting weapon, or collector's item.

Looks like you're the one that's been fed the line, and the hook's too sunk in for you to even fathom taking it out.

**1inStripes** · January 11th, 2006, 11:10 AM

I will say this a_f_f, according to a law professor I had at E&H, ut1 is right. This was coming from a liberal lady who was all for it to. She was so anxious, and hoped that every gun ever made was destroyed. Of course she didn't like it none to much when I used her own book to disprove her theory that wiping out guns will cut down on gun crime.

Unfortunately the bill was setup to take away any gun with more than 3 rounds, aka handguns, and even shotguns (remove the plug and most will shoot up to 6 or 7 shots).

**Biggin** · January 11th, 2006, 12:19 PM

I did a whole report on the Brady Bill in high school.

Having two or more of specific mods made a gun illegal.
Such as a folding stock, a flash suppresor, etc.......

**imported_ut1** · January 11th, 2006, 03:38 PM

You missed it all. I was NRA BEFORE the so-called anti-gun establishment came to the forefront. If anything, it was members such as I who insisted the NRA take a strong stand, instead of the other way around. The first thing Hitler did? Take all privately owned firearms. Stalin? Same thing. When you lose your right to own a firearm, regardless of how many rounds its capable of firing, you've just lost part of what you are guaranteed as a law-abiding citizen of the U.S. The NRA is NOT or never has been a political organization. It branched out into the lobbying aspect only when it became necessary to protect our rights.
The "deer gun" comment was a joke, man. Lighten up.
I did have an Uzi at one time in my younger days. An absolute engineering marvel. A lot of fun to shoot, but too dang expensive.

As far as military weaponry goes, there's been many a buck shot by surplus miltary rifles. The German made Mauser is still highly sought after today because of its quality, strength, and accuracy, not to mention value to collectors of such memorabilia.

Oh, yeah, as far as the "know it all" comment goes. History (experience) is our best teacher, and the actions of the anti-gun movement over the past few decades plainly show that their agenda is not just to take away the "military-type" arms. They're after all of them.

Herein is the lesson.

**CoeburnCane** · January 11th, 2006, 03:45 PM

Is the sky falling as well there, Chicken Little???

The U.S. Government wanting to regulate firearms to help reduce their availability for violent crime is not a bad thing. Better regulation is not a bad thing--and that does not mean a zero tolerance policy for any gun holding more than 1 bullet kept in Barney Fife's shirt pocket. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] It is not a conspiracy theory as the NRA has told you and as you apparently helped shape into what it is today, which I think is one of the more despicable political lobbies out there in DC today.

**R0cketer** · January 11th, 2006, 03:50 PM

If history is the best teacher, as you say, where exactly have we lost our rights during all the past 'evil empires' of Democratic control? I mean we have had presidents, surpreme courts, congress all being controlled by the evil anti-gun people, yet I haven't ever noticed them coming after my guns.

It's the same old argument and tactic and you at least on the surface, seem to be totally buying into it.

Republicans scream that the Democrats all wanna take your guns, Democrats scream that every Republicans are going to take your money and the only way to stop making this stuff be an effective tool and a guaranteed vote grabber is for people to look and realize that hey no matter which party is in there, which party has control and at times both have had pretty much unilateral control, none of them ever go to the extremist measures that the other side preaches.

Fact is, its funny that the Democratic party wants to take your 'right to have firearms' but yet here we are with a Republican party in control and we seem to be losing more rights (or at the worst, having more rights 'limited' 'circumvented' 'adjusted') than is funny.

I can't say that I'm more Democratic than Republican, everytime I do a survey about my stance or idealogy or politicial preference, I come down to very much middle of the road, somethings I agree with the Republican party, somethings I agree with the Democratic party, that is why I can laugh about the 'big bad gun grabbing Democratic' comments and see it for what it is, a scare tactic.

**imported_ut1** · January 11th, 2006, 05:11 PM

History was the teacher in that Hitler and Stalin were successful in taking away the guns, so read up on what they're best known for. The largest reason the anti-gun crowd hasn't successfully come after your guns is because of the NRA and others like it that stand and fight for your rights to legally own a firearm. Clinton (a Dem) signed legislation that was aimed at getting "assault rifles" off the shelves and out of the streets. While intentions may have been noble, it still included guns that are characterized by many as true sporting arms. By some of its supporters' own admission, it failed miserably and was mostly ineffective.
GCA came about under Lyndon Johnson, (a Dem).
I don't think I specifically pointed fingers at the Dems, but they do produce many more anti-gun proponents than the Reps do.

911 is mostly responsible for the "lost rights" you're talking about. Too bad some of those airline passengers weren't toting, then maybe 911 would have been a day we recognize a few average Americans for doing something heroic, like blowing away a bunch of terrorists.

Get the assault weapons? Sure, I agree. But let me play the devil's advocate here. There is no obvious value to them, unless the government tries to play like King George and we need another George Washington party thrown here. As a matter of fact, I believe that if George and some of his buddies could come back to life today, they'd probably look around and then say, "Boys, I think its time for another revolution." [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

The differences in our opinions are quite obvious. The country you have grown up in is much different from the one I did.
We prayed at school. We recited the Pledge of Allegiance, leaving in "One nation, under God". Most all of the boys carried knives to school. (Gasp!!) Of course, we knew they were for whittlin' and cleaning under your fingernails. When I went off to college, my deer rifle went with me, with the blessings of the Dean of Students. No one locked their doors in our neighborhood, mainly because there was no crime. Even the crooks knew that all those unlocked doors had loaded guns behind them, with people who were prepared to use them, if need be. A strong deterrent to crime, indeed.

Argue the point all you want, but that won't change the fact that they are after the guns, all of them. As long as there are those who are sympathetic to their cause, the fight will continue. And as long as I am able, they'll have someone to fight.

**CoeburnCane** · January 11th, 2006, 05:21 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
911 is mostly responsible for the "lost rights" you're talking about. Too bad some of those airline passengers weren't toting, then maybe 911 would have been a day we recognize a few average Americans for doing something heroic, like blowing away a bunch of terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even pre-911, no one was going to get a gun aboard an aircraft unless they were a US Marshall. No one. That's not a Dem or Repub thing...that's just a security issue.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Get the assault weapons? Sure, I agree. But let me play the devil's advocate here. There is no obvious value to them, unless the government tries to play like King George and we need another George Washington party thrown here. As a matter of fact, I believe that if George and some of his buddies could come back to life today, they'd probably look around and then say, "Boys, I think its time for another revolution."

[/ QUOTE ]

So what date are you planning the hostile takeover...like Hitler and Stalin did? [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
The differences in our opinions are quite obvious. The country you have grown up in is much different from the one I did.
We prayed at school. We recited the Pledge of Allegiance, leaving in "One nation, under God". Most all of the boys carried knives to school. (Gasp!!) Of course, we knew they were for whittlin' and cleaning under your fingernails. When I went off to college, my deer rifle went with me, with the blessings of the Dean of Students. No one locked their doors in our neighborhood, mainly because there was no crime. Even the crooks knew that all those unlocked doors had loaded guns behind them, with people who were prepared to use them, if need be. A strong deterrent to crime, indeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in other words, you're better than us and your opinion is better than ours because you grew up in a simpler time in which morals were more in the forefront than a global society is? Can you get anymore backhandedly arrogant and shortsided?

**imported_ut1** · January 11th, 2006, 05:38 PM

"Gun on board"...that was a little of my "tongue in cheek" humor. Think I'm a crackpot, don't you? [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Hostile takeover? I'm waiting on George Patton and Teddy Roosevelt to help me out with that. (Ronald Reagan will be our CIC)

Better than you? At what? I can program a VCR, which for my generation is now saying something.
You guys take this way too seriously, in that you read into my words that I have a "superiority complex". I'm just trying to point out that my viewpoints were shaped by my life experiences and the way things were when I was growing up. I wasn't inundated with either the pro-gun or an anti-gun propaganda that you have been subjected to. Our differences of opinion have been largely shaped by the world as we knew (know) it.
I have as much right to voice my opinion on here as you or anyone else. If you don't like my opinion, then join the crowd. There's many more like you out there. I won't lose any sleep over it.

Lighten up a little, and embrace the fact that there's always going to be someone like me out there. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Thread: $2.29

Thread Tools

Display

Re: $2.29

Re: $2.29

Re: $2.29

Re: $2.29

Re: $2.29

Re: $2.29

Re: $2.29

Re: $2.29

Re: $2.29

Re: $2.29

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions