• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Score one for OkeeDon the Democrat....

Junkman

Extra Super Moderator
The best reason yet to be a Democrat...... :whistle:
 

Attachments

  • democrat.jpg
    democrat.jpg
    32.6 KB · Views: 206

Cowboyjg

Country Club Member
Site Supporter
Time for a "this picture needs a caption"


"Hi there, how do you feel about cigars?".........LOL
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I think Gore's problem was largely that he was about as exciting as a 6'4" tall piece of lumber.

Nothing he did could excite the voters. The only constituents he did attract, and still does attract, are the dedicated enviornmentalists.
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
B_Skurka said:
I think Gore's problem was largely that he was about as exciting as a 6'4" tall piece of lumber.

Nothing he did could excite the voters. The only constituents he did attract, and still does attract, are the dedicated enviornmentalists.

Ditto, his wife would have nixxed it anyway and frankly she would have been a decent poster child for the slogan!
 

OkeeDon

New member
Oh, ye who try to define a different group than your own...I'm a Ted Turner environmentalist, dedicated to that extent and no further, and I strongly supported Al Gore.

First of all, it was perception, fueled by right-wing jokes, which labeled Gore that way. All ye of Fox News persuasion, and all ye who used to worship Limbaugh, I expect you to buy into that "conventional wisdom". Gore is actually very funny. Even if he were not, I would vastly prefer a guy who knows how to think as opposed to someone who publicly avows he does not read newspapers or follow news reports.

Gore is best known leading the downsizing of the Federal staff levels, something the so-called small-government righties immediately reversed as soon as they got in office. Gore is actually more conservative than the current bunch.

By the way, Ted Turner supported environmental activities because he believed that money was to be made by being "green".
 

OkeeDon

New member
Big Dog said:
Ditto, his wife would have nixxed it anyway and frankly she would have been a decent poster child for the slogan!
Wow, now we're getting even further afield. First of all, whose wife are we talking about? Certainly not Tipper; she almost posed a negative for Gore because of her conservative campaign against explicit language in rock and rap music. If we're talking about Hilary, she obviously would NOT have been a poster child for anything sexy.

C'mon, guys, if you're going to get your rocks off trying to put down Democrats, actually study them a little and try to get your facts somewhat near the actual people. I probably watch Fox News even more than most of you, under the heading of , "Know Your Enemy".
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
OK I guess I am confused. I was not trying to insult or even poke fun at Gore with my statement about his obvious lack of charisma, nor was my statement about his voter base written to deride him.

The facts are the facts.

The solid constituent base that he established is not one of folks who believe in his fiscal concervatisim, his downsizing of his staff or anything related to those things. He has a solid base of dedicated enviornmental voters (notice I didn't say tree huggers or enviornmental zealots/wackos, etc). That is who his 'core' base is and those voters are his only real strong supporters. He is also best known for his enviornmental issues in national polls, not for his creation of the internet, is staff reductions, etc. And he has written books on the topic of enviornmental issues, gone on speaking tours on the topic. It is what people actually identify with him as policy. Not to say he didn't do other things. But Gore = Enviornment in the eyes and minds of most who know of him.

There are always exceptions. The 'core' supporters for Gore were & still are the dedicated environmentalists. And that is not an insult in any way.
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
[font=&quot]I was actually complimenting Tippers good looks, not her opinions!

I'm a registered Independent admitedly favoring the Republicans. Both have their evils. I have no where near the political savvy as you Don. Maybe you can shed some light for me.

Why do I feel primarily that the Democrats...........

1. Criticize with no answers of their own to correct the problem on most every major issue.
2. Are the watch dogs of Politically Correct which I feel has got totally out of hand
3. Would weaken the country in Defense and Foreign Policy (It's scarry to think what Gore would have done after 9/11)
4. Protect the welfare system and fail to address the system of abusers and generations of laziness
5. Are protected from the media

Feel free NOT to answer.....

I usually don't discuss politics cause I ain't got a leg to stand on. This is my perception and BTW..........I got a list for the Republicans as to why.....

1. They seldom have a closing plan (good ideas done half assed)
2. They tend to assume the middle class is on their side and concentrate on the extremes (low & high) which continues to widen the gap.
3. They spend too much
4. They fail to address the welfare system
5. They have forgotten small business (farms)

Hey, this is my country bumpkin views and only mine. Give me a good reason and I'll take the ass whippin'!!
[/font]
 

OkeeDon

New member
The 'core' supporters for Gore were & still are the dedicated environmentalists. And that is not an insult in any way.
Well, while they may not have all been "core" supporters, you make it sound like a majority of voters in 2000 were dedicated environmentalists...I just disagree with you. I think there are many reasons to support Gore, even it much of his vote was against Bush rather than for Gore.
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I'll add an observation from my own neck of the woods. I heard way to many comment that they would vote for Bush, because of the gun issue. And I heard the same argument last election. Bush got votes because these folks believed the Dems would enact legislation to take away their guns. You can't argue facts with them, they're going to believe what they want, but I think this perception did help dubya get into the whitehouse for two terms!
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
OkeeDon said:
Well, while they may not have all been "core" supporters, you make it sound like a majority of voters in 2000 were dedicated environmentalists...I just disagree with you. I think there are many reasons to support Gore, even it much of his vote was against Bush rather than for Gore.


No Don that is not what I wrote nor what I meant. In any election there will be people who will vote for their 'party' or the canditate of their party. There will be people who will vote for the lesser of two evils. There will be people who vote for the taller candidate, the one with better hair, the one they feel is more likeable. There are dozens of reasons to vote for anyone.

None of that changes, nor does it take away from the fact that the strongest group of supporters Al Gore had, and still has, are the dedicated enviornmentalists. They, as a group, generally believe in his message very strongly and they are the folks he mobilized the most effectively. There are many people who voted for him who could not be described as core supporters. And in that light take a look at my votes for Dub-ya. I am not a supporter of our current President but I voted for him, and I believe presented with the choices I was given he was the better choice (both times). The fact that I voted for him is no different than the fact that many people who are not enviornmentalists voted for Al Gore. But it doesn't mean they were core supporters of him or any of his policies any more than I am a core supporter of George Bush or any of his policies.
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Doc said:
I'll add an observation from my own neck of the woods. I heard way to many comment that they would vote for Bush, because of the gun issue. And I heard the same argument last election. Bush got votes because these folks believed the Dems would enact legislation to take away their guns. You can't argue facts with them, they're going to believe what they want, but I think this perception did help dubya get into the whitehouse for two terms!

Will the Democrats take our guns?
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Based on VOTING RECORDS, folks like Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Biden, Metzenbaum and perhaps a 100 more Democrats would gladly take your guns, and have historically voted for every (or nearly every) gun restriction/ban to come across the floor. Again in all fairness, there are dozens of strong pro-gun Democrats, however as a % of the party, they are overwhelmed by the Democrats who favor strict gun control and/or outright bans.

Now based on VOTING RECORDS, there are Republicans who are also anti-gun folks and would do the same thing. However, as a % of the total party, Republicans who favor strict gun control or outright bans are a very small % and Republicans who favor gun rights are a fairly large %.

However, as a whole, the Democratic Party has put in its national platform, on more than one occasion, that it favors various levels of gun bans, typically aimed at handguns. On a state by state basis, the Democratic Party has also placed various levels of gun bans into their party platform. The Repbulican Party has never done that at either state or national level.



For those who want to look up voting records, the NRA has a database. I presume, but have not checked, that "Handgun Control, Inc" (under one of its many reincarnated names) keeps a similar database that rates pro-gun and anti-gun votes.
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Being a NRA member for 30 years and a active Friends Of The NRA member I sorta knew the answer. I was looking for a response from Don. I've heard them all, just trying to find out if there may be any NEW reasonable ideas on convincing me to give up my guns.

Our problem is not guns, it's the fact we are not enforcing the laws we have now on violent crimes commited with guns. People who commit crimes with guns need to be severely punished and please don't ask me what severe is cause it's extreme!

Man I better stop now...................:peace:
 

OkeeDon

New member
[font=&quot] 1. Criticize with no answers of their own to correct the problem on most every major issue.
I don't think that's true. If you suggest an issue, I'll try to supply the suggested answer. The accusation you're making is a common statement among the right-wing media, but saying it doesn't make it true.

2. Are the watch dogs of Politically Correct which I feel has got totally out of hand
Most Democrats thin k that PC is as silly as most Republicans; there are Republicans who support it as well as Democrats. This is not really a political issue. The simple fact is that the entire nation has moved away from derogatory terms. Do you want to return to the days of "nigger", "wop", "kike", "jap", "chink", "mick", etc.? The United States is no longer a homogenous nation, and there are people from every conceivable background. In fact, I'd say that the traditional image of a white, Christian American is in the minority. What is the purpose of offending them?

Now, if you want to talk about multi-culturalism replacing traditional values, I will agree with you. I have no problem with multi-culturalism in addition to dead, white Europeans. But, again, it's more of an educational thing than a political thing, and all educators, regardless of their political party, go a little overboard with their sacred cows.

3. Would weaken the country in Defense and Foreign Policy (It's scarry to think what Gore would have done after 9/11)
This is by far the most mistaken accusation that is in common use. What is your example? The weakening of our defense was a result of the end of the cold war, and it was started in the first Bush administration, because we didn't need as much military. Since then, while troop strength is down, the military folks I listen to on CSpan say that the military is stronger than ever as a result of improved weapons and techniques. These were started in the Clinton administration, and would have been continued by Gore. There is no lack of will to use our military among Democrats. Clinton bombed Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan, among others. There is no reason to doubt that Gore would have reacted any differently after 9/11; all Americans supported the defense of our nation. In fact, the amazing thing is that the wimpy Bush actually had the balls to stand up for something, although it's lilely it was Cheney doing the propping up.

I have to go on and say that the use of our military would have been a heck of a lot more intelligent than the current status; invading Iraq was just about the dumbest thing anyone has done in this century. And, unlike those Democratic Congressmen who caved in, I said it was wrong before we ever went in. My very conservative wife also said we should not go, but for a totally different reason -- she said it was shameful that the US was making the first strike.

4. Protect the welfare system and fail to address the system of abusers and generations of laziness
I take back what I said above -- this one is the wildest. President Clinton supported and signed the first effective welfare reform act in our history. Now, here is one of the classics of Republican lies and misrepresentation. The GOP will (and did) claim that Clinton vetoed several welfare bills before they finally watered one down that would suit him. The truth is that Clinton has always supported welfare reform; he supported and caused it to be passed in Arkansas as Governor. The GOP knew that, and knew that if they didn't do something, Clinton would get credit for welfare reform as President. The GOP hated Clinton and would do anything -- ANYTHING, even if it hurt the country -- to try to discredit him. So, what they did was write and pass, in Congress, absolutely ridiculous welfare reform blls that no one, even themselves, wanted to see passed. They KNEW Clinton HAD to veto these jokes, so they were safe in sending them up. I often wonder what would have happened if Clinton had called their bluff and signed one of them; there would have been panic. But, he cared too much (more than they did) about the nation to take that risk.

Finally, they passed one that was realistic. It was still stronger than many liberals would have liked to see, but Clinton was not -- and never has been -- a "Liberal", so he signed it. Frankly, no GOP President would have taken the risk, but Clinton was a true leader.

5. Are protected from the media
Gasp! Are you serious? The media crucified Clinton, when they have given every other major leader a pass for the same sort of personal behavior (except Gary Hart, and he might as well have wagged his weenie at the media). I could go into detail after detail about the peccadilloes of Republicans whose activities were known by the media, but not reported, but I think you know them as well as I do, and are simply and conveniently forgetting them.

Now, in fairness, let's look at your other list:

[/font][font=&quot] 1. They seldom have a closing plan (good ideas done half assed)
Well, Iraw was a half-assed idea done half-assed, but why quibble. I can think of several things they've done very well, not half-assed, like cutting spending on infrastructure in order to cut taxes, and taking away privacy rights, but none of them were good ideas. So, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

2. They tend to assume the middle class is on their side and concentrate on the extremes (low & high) which continues to widen the gap.
No, they have duped the middle class into believing them, while they concentrate on their true agenda. I'm not quite sur why, because it doesn't make a lot of sense, but the middle cass goes on supporting them This may be the biggest con job in histoy. Thy have the sheep so well convinced that they keep up their support even in the face of logic and contrry facts.

3. They spend too much
Incredible, isn't t? The party of fiscal conservatism now has much more of a "borrow and spend" policy than the Democrats EVER had as 'tax and spend".

4. They fail to address the welfare system
Well, here I have to disagree. They did finally send Clinton a bill that could be signed. Of course, if you are still thinking that the welfare system is like it was back in the 70's and 80's (which were mostly Republican regimes), you're out of date. The Democrats largely fixed it. The Dems were also much, much better at catching welfare and medical fraud; the GOP ended much of that by gutting the watchdogs' budgets in order to give taxes back to the rich.

5. They have forgotten small business (farms)
Have they EVER been in support of farmers? That's pretty much always been the bailiwick of Democrats, like Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, along with every other meaningful program that has helped people who really need help. Republicans cut school lunch budgets by declaring ketchup as a vegetable...
[/font][font=&quot]

[/font]
 

OkeeDon

New member
Sorry, I was busy writing my last response and didn't see the guns question until now. Will Dems take away your guns? A flat NO. Will they want to keep track of where the guns are? YES. Are they doing this so they can take them away at some future date? NO. Will you believe me if you are an NRA member? NO. Is that because the NRA is fanatic on the subject and lies to you about the Democrats? YES. Is it worth discussing any further with an NRA member? NO. Is that because they are brainwashed? YES. Are there any ex-NRA members who have seen the truth? YES. Do they believe the NRA any longer? NO. Is the NRA a rapid, fanatical organization who will stop at nothing to promote their twisted agenda, even if it results in people getting killed? YES.

Bob, I'm surprised at you. We had this conversation in the past. What part of Kerry the hunter and gun owner don't you believe? I think you came real close to calling him a liar, last time. I said then, and I say again now, that if he was anti-gun he could not and would not have taken the risk of losing that faction by "faking" a hunting trip. I don't believe your reasons for not voting for Kerry were valid; I think you got sucked into the mind trap like a lot of other good folks.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Actually Don, they already have taken away the guns in several areas. Washington DC enacted a ban, as has California. The bans are fairly specific. They did require the selected guns had to be either turned it, or shipped outside of the jurisdiction. I would suggest that given those two choices, that is the equivalent of taking them away.


Don, I am just as surpried with you hanging onto the lie of Kerry being a hunter. That man is a liar when it comes to guns. He has a published voting record to look at. His voting record proves he is a liar. His so-called hunting pictures show him keeping his distance from the birds that he claimed to have killed, and no photographers were allowed on the publicized hunt to prove he ever actually participated. Further, his gun handling antics show him publicly (in a crowd, while on a podium) with his finger on the trigger of a shotgun, which of course violated all sorts of gun safety rules. So he obviously must have failed his hunter education classes.
 

California

Charter Member
Site Supporter
Big Dog said:
Our problem is not guns, it's the fact we are not enforcing the laws we have now on violent crimes commited with guns.

Maybe this could never work, but I have this thinking-outside-the-box idea that might make legitimate owners happy while reducing unintended deaths:

Make owners strictly liable for whatever use is made of their guns. Even if, especially if, the gun gets stolen and is used to commit a crime. As owners accepted this responsibility and added theft security it would make a drastic reduction in armed crime since most misused guns were stolen.

Sort of like an owner's responsibility for a dog trained to kill.

Ownership coupled with responsibility. The American way.
 

bczoom

Super Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
California said:
Make owners strictly liable for whatever use is made of their guns. Even if, especially if, the gun gets stolen and is used to commit a crime. As owners accepted this responsibility and added theft security it would make a drastic reduction in armed crime since most misused guns were stolen.
I'm game, if.... they allow me to better defend anyone stealing my "stuff". If they want to steal my "stuff" (including my guns), by law, I currently can't use deadly force to protect my property. If I can used deadly force on any B&E or person stealing, I'm game.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
California said:
Maybe this could never work, but I have this thinking-outside-the-box idea that might make legitimate owners happy while reducing unintended deaths:

Make owners strictly liable for whatever use is made of their guns. Even if, especially if, the gun gets stolen and is used to commit a crime. As owners accepted this responsibility and added theft security it would make a drastic reduction in armed crime since most misused guns were stolen.

Sort of like an owner's responsibility for a dog trained to kill.

Ownership coupled with responsibility. The American way.


If your dog is stolen, taken away by a criminal and then that dog mauls a child you are not liable for the actions of the dog. Seems to me that you are applying an uneven set of standards.
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Sorta think that's unreasonable. Someone steals my gun (which BTW is in a very secure safe), they shoot someone and I'm some how responsible. That'd be like someone stealing my hammer and them killing someone with it and they come get me!

Another one of my opinions as far as gun ownership is..........

A gun is a tool, no different from a knife, car or hammer. The person operating the tool is responsible for the results of it's operation!

Wow after finishing and posting I noticed the barrage, good luck with the retort.........
 

Dargo

Like a bad penny...
GOLD Site Supporter
It's no secret that I have a lot of firearms. I collect them. More than 80% of them have never been fired. They have proven to be a much better investment than my stock market investments. All of my guns are locked in very expensive, high quality, safes. No cheapy $700 crap safes that I can get into with a hammer and a crow bar. Anyway, how would one reasonably hold me responsible if someone came in while I was on vacation with torches and other tools required to break into my safes and steal my guns; later to commit crimes with those guns?!

Realistically I have done everything I can do to prevent my firearms from getting into not only my kid's hands, but those of criminals. There is no way that I could assure, under all circumstances, that my firearms could not be stolen. I don't think any reasonable judge or jury could see how I would be responsible if these firearms were used in the commission of a crime. I feel rather strongly that I am doing my part to insure as best I can that such a thing does not happen.

I won't even go into the other items. It is interesting to me that people see me as being 180 degrees off of how they see things, and I see them as being 180 degrees off from the way I see things. I see the same events, read the same papers, watch the same news reports, but yet come up with a completely different take on things. Interesting. I suppose it would all be boring if we were all the same.

I actually like to listen to Alan Colmes, Alan Keyes, G. Gordon Liddy, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly for talk radio. I have listened to Al Franken in the past and I think he is even worse of a political commentary host than he was as a comic; and I thought he sucked as a comedian. Oh yeah, I don't care for Limbaugh. He comes across as annoying to me. He must dislocate his shoulder every day patting himself on the back. I do think Fox News has less of a political agenda than CNN, but CNN still does a good job getting some of the stories. I just have to wade through their liberal spin on things. On CNN's website, I get a kick out of their "polls". I can tell that I have a different outlook on things than most people who visit their site. I get a kick out of seeing how far off their "polls" are than what actual public opinion is.
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Thanks Don for the reply! The Democrats need you as a spokesman cause I've never heard a Democrat speak as solidly as you just did.

I support the NRA because I don't want the slightest trend towards what happened in Canada and Australia! England isn't allowed more than 1 pound of powder in the home for reloading. If it takes some extreme measures to thwart such ideas, I'm in, sorry!
 

BoneheadNW

New member
Big Dog said:
I support the NRA because I don't want the slightest trend towards what happened in Canada and Australia! England isn't allowed more than 1 pound of powder in the home for reloading. If it takes some extreme measures to thwart such ideas, I'm in, sorry!
We wouldn't want a murder rate as low as England's! Isn't that why we fought them off in 1776? :2gunsfiri :14_6_20: :14_6_12: :gun1:

Bone
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Actually in some areas we have a murder rate lower than England's and lower than London in particular. Also, states with high firearms ownership rates and concealed carry laws that allow for private citizens to carry handguns on their person have crime rates that are falling, generally have crime rates that are either lower than restrictive states, or are falling faster than restrictive states, or both. And oh by the way, the crime rate in England, for violent crimes against persons, is climbing while ours is falling.
 

OkeeDon

New member
Wow, a lot of stff, where to start?

Dargo, you don't believe the call-in polls, but you claim to know how the public really thinks. How do you know this? Is it the entire public, or just the public of which you are aware? Have you ever talked to people of different economic status or different backgrounds? Different education levels? Do you really try to understand how they may have arrived at their views, or do you see everything through a wealthy guy's glasses?

I don't listen to any talk radio. Those guys are all producing their shows in such a way that they only get views they agree with, or they ridicule any other views. There is nothing more slanted or biased. By the way, there is only one progressive in the list you mentioned - all the rest are about as radical right as you get, and, like most radical rightists, blindly opionated.

My opinions are based on observation and my own conclusions, not on what someone else tries to tell me to think, or out of fear of not being accepted. My primary sources are CSpan and government web sites. I do watch cable news (CNN, MSNBC, Fox) and I do read newspapers (our local conservative Scripps paper and the more progressive Palm Beach Post), but they are balanced, and I primarily watch them to see the spin (from both sides). I'm amused by the spin.

Voting records -- I looked through that list, and I saw absolutely nothing that said anything about taking away guns. Brady Bill, assault weapons ban, large capacity clip ban, trigger locks, gun show loophole, internet gun sales, cop killer bullets, and manufacturer liability -- but nothing that would prohibit gun ownership. I support every one of the bills Kerry supported. One of the titles was "School Safety Act", and the stupid web site said that Kerry voted "against gun owners". What, gun owners are in favor of less safety in the schools? That proves my point that gun fanatics care more about their damn guns than they do even school kids. Same with cop killer bullets, assault weapons and large capacity clips. They ought to be ashamed. Most states have vehicle inspection laws because the things can limit certain types of guns and ammo if they are exceptionally dangerous and useless for any "normal" use of a gun?

Bob , did you think you'd get away with your sneaky little qualification, "They did require the selected guns had to be either turned it, or shipped outside of the jurisdiction." (Emphasis added by me). I'd like to see the specific "bans" you mentioned; sounds like the assault weapons ban, to me, or maybe Saturday night specials. I do not know of a single jurisdiction in the United States that has an outright ban on possesion of any and all guns, which is what taking away guns means. If there is still one gun in private hands anywhere in the jurisdiction, then guns have not been taken away. "Guns taken away" is what regimes like dictators do. Any administration that could appoint John Ashcroft as Attorney General is much closer to a tyrannical dictatorship than any Democrat has ever conceived.

California, I'm impressed. Great minds and a single track, and all that stuff. I once conceived an organization known as "ARGO": Association for Responsible Gun Ownership. I even started to set up a web site, but got sidetracked with something that actually affected my life, rather thann rhetoric.

The idea was that there is a chain of responsibility involved with guns. If a manufacturer never builds one, no one can use one improperly. However, I'm enough of a conservative to be unwilling to regulate free enterprise. Therefore, the next step in the chain is initial purchase. If no one bought a gun, there would be no guns to use improperly, because manufacturers would soon stop production if no one bought them.

Therefore, once a person has purchased a gun, thereby introducing it into the world, so to speak, like giving it birth, then the purchaser becomes liable for whatever is involved with that gun. The precedent is the responsibility of the parent for a child. If a parent does not want that responsibility, the choice is clear -- do not have any children. If a person does not want ultimate responsibility for the use of a gun, do not purchase the gun.

If a person makes the decision to purchase the gun and introduce it to the world, that person -- especially if they are a true conservative who values individual responsibilty, should accept the responsibility that gun ownership involves. One must protect one's gun to the extent that it cannot be stolen or acquired by anyone who might misuse it.

I understand and respect the idea that guns don't kill people; people kill people. I also understand that guns make it easier to kill people, and safer for the killer, because they operate at a distance, with easy concealment, and with a greater speed and more finality than any other weapon manageable by one person. With a gun, I can hide behind a tree and kill you from across the street. With a knife, I have to come within arm's length of you. There are similar analogies for any other form of weapon.

Therefore, the gun, and only the gun (and tasers with fatal levels, and death rays, and terminal lasers, and anything else that can be defined as ballistic or operates from a distance like a ballistic weapon, such as a cross bow), must be subject to special conditions because of its special nature.

ARGO had a simple credo: you can own any arms you like, from a Saturday night special to a suitcase nuclear device, but (1) it must be registered when you purchase it, and all subsequent sales must be registered; and (2) you must accept ultimate responsibility for any use to which the weapon might be put.

This includes theft of any sort. If you are responsible for the existence of a gun, and that gun is subsequently used in a crime, you are equally guilty of the crime. Don't want the responsibility? Don't buy the gun.

I am constantly amazed at the folks who preach responsibility for one's actions, and then try to create special circumstances if their gun is stolen. The damn gun wouldn't exist if you didn't buy it; therefore no crime could be committed with it if you didn't buy it; therefore if it is used in a crime, it's your fault. Don't duck your responsibility. I don't give a damn how many guns you have, but you better be able to account for all of them.
 

OkeeDon

New member
B_Skurka said:
Actually in some areas we have a murder rate lower than England's and lower than London in particular. Also, states with high firearms ownership rates and concealed carry laws that allow for private citizens to carry handguns on their person have crime rates that are falling, generally have crime rates that are either lower than restrictive states, or are falling faster than restrictive states, or both. And oh by the way, the crime rate in England, for violent crimes against persons, is climbing while ours is falling.
You're correct for the most part. However, you have fallen victim to the trap of cause and effect. Areas with high gun ownership tend to be more rural areas which would have lower crime rates regardless of how many guns there are, and areas that are restricted, are restricted for a reason -- there is more poverty, more joblessness, and therefore more crime, therefore more of a reason to enable restrictions.

Thus, the rate of gun ownership has no direct bearing on the crime rate. You could make just as valid a point on, say, tractor ownership (meaning not valid at all).
 
Top