From the Mouths of Democrats

[Shadan7]

What Glock 31 said. I'm newly registered here, though I've been lurking for the better part of a year. I've been a gun owner and shooter for about 40 years. And I'm a progressive independent - one who has a low UID on dKos (under this same 'handle' - go check it out if you want) and regularly tries to get other progressives to understand that there is NOTHING progressive about limiting my freedom as defined under the 2nd Amendment (or any of the others).

But the key isn't arguing who is more in support of the RKBA. It is getting more of our fellow citizens to understand guns, to shed the fear and BS they've been fed about guns.

7

 

[steelheart]

Some people just don't get it - or refuse to get it

There are some who have lives in which firearms is not the end all be all of their existence. There is also nothing wrong with feeling other issues have more importance than whether or not "high-capacity magazines" are available for consumers.

I know you can understand this concept, even if you may not like the same.

There are other important items in the Bill of Rights.

OK - grab your SKS and 3 mags. You first. Owning a gun does not give you the faculty to "say" anything to the government. It provides you the proclivity to enjoy the chimera: “I am a force to be reckoned with!”

It may be fun to envisage holding the Senate hostage, but lets get real. You are not about to storm the capitol in your BDU's; pockets full of MRE's and ammunition, ready for a long standoff.

Trip 20 provides a prime example of the kind of thinking that is the root of the problem among gun owners. As I stated earlier,

When gun owners say "There are 'other issues' to consider," what they are really saying is "There are more important issues to consider," plain and simple.

Trip 20 says -

There are some who have lives in which firearms is not the end all be all of their existence.

That's not the issue.

whether or not "high-capacity magazines" are available for consumers.

That's not the issue, either.

In a nation of almost 300 million citizens, we have a minority of less than 1000 politicians who sit in Washingtom and try to play God with our right to arms, the one right which secures all others. That, my friends, is the issue.

There are other important items in the Bill of Rights.

I never said there weren't; my point is that our right to arms is the one right which secures all others and as such, defending it must be job #1. Nothing could be more fundamental; nothing could be easier for thinking people who value freedom to understand.

Trip 20 goes on to mock the very concept of "The Government" answering to We The People -

OK - grab your SKS and 3 mags. You first. Owning a gun does not give you the faculty to "say" anything to the government. It provides you the proclivity to enjoy the chimera: “I am a force to be reckoned with!”

It may be fun to envisage holding the Senate hostage, but lets get real. You are not about to storm the capitol in your BDU's; pockets full of MRE's and ammunition, ready for a long standoff.

I have never advocated the above actions, which are unreaistic and counterproductive.

While Trip 20 is entitled to think what he will think, his outlook is riddled with Sheeple thinking and is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

 

[Heist]

I've always found that calling names like 'sheeple' is a fast track to a productive and mature discussion.

 

[steelheart]

I call 'em like I see 'em.

"Sheeple" is an outrage, but this type of ridicule is okay in your book, huh?

OK - grab your SKS and 3 mags. You first. Owning a gun does not give you the faculty to "say" anything to the government. It provides you the proclivity to enjoy the chimera: “I am a force to be reckoned with!”

It may be fun to envisage holding the Senate hostage, but lets get real. You are not about to storm the capitol in your BDU's; pockets full of MRE's and ammunition, ready for a long standoff.

Don't look now, Heist - your double standard is showing.

 

[Heist]

Whoah.

Cool down, sport. I'll let the bogus personal attack attempt slide.

What's with all the Democrat hate? They seem to be where the bulk of leftism is concentrating, but there's plenty of gungrabbers in the Republican ranks as well. Broaden the horizons to all freedom instead of just gun-freedom, and it looks even worse. I could make another thread titled 'from the mouths of republicans'. What would it prove- that 90% of politicians are greedy, self serving, nearsighted power hungry critters? I think everyone knows this already.

Would you and others give up some of your other rights in exchange for unrestricted unlimited firearms ownership for life, on a national scale?

 

[Marko Kloos]

I dont think I ever heard of a Republican actually LEADING a gun grab.

The reason why I can't buy a reasonably priced HK91, UZI carbine, PSG-1 or Steyr AUG is because a Republican President banned their further import via Executive Order in 1989.

Clinton at least went through the legislative process to get the 1994 ban passed; Bush 41 just got rid of those evil assault weapons with the stroke of a pen.

Wanna run that statement by me again?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I would like to know for what issues the 'guns are the most important' crowd will use these guns to protect.

Lay your cards on the table. I've never seen this group say they would actually physically fight for anything except guns.

What freedoms would have to be threatened for the anonymous commando crowd to take up arms?

Higher taxes, establishment of a state religion, a relegalization of segregation, putting gay people in camps? I certainly didn't see any armed rebellion to bring voting rights to blacks in the South? I didn't see any armed rebellion to help my mother get a job during the Depression when she was having trouble due to discrimination.

There is a history of Blacks defending themselves (Deacons for the Defense) but most of the gun culture states weren't that friendly to them. Gays in the Stonewall riots seemed more to stand up for themselves then the lines in the sand crowd.

Empirically, rights have been gained through the courts and ballot box. Too many of the gun culture were opposed to those rights. It is clear to me that gun people should be libertarian and not social conservative. The latter usually are as much a threat to rights as the extreme left. There is no difference from some nut who is totally PC or one trying to ban the Teletubbies as a threat to straight people.

I also wonder, how come with all the antigun laws that are passed, we haven't seen the anonymous gun crows do something even mildly confrontational. They read books like Unintended Consequences and draw lines in the virtual sand of electrons. I didn't see squat for the Brady Bill, AWB, etc., etc.

One could go to California to start the just fight! Pack up now.

And for the record - we see the higher ups of the GOP - Bush I, Reagan, Dole, Bush II - all happily in favor of various gun bans. How about quitting the NRA as a vote of RKBA confidence?

I find the folks who think guns are the primary defense of rights would be hard put to say what they would fight for and they fail to understand the working of democracy.

A president who would destroy free speech, impose his or her religious values, discriminate against people based on various characterisitics is a threat to democracy. If this president was gun friendly - so what!

I don't need a gun friendly authoritarian that takes away most other freedoms.

So I call them as I see them. The guns only crowd are usually happy with the idea of a gun friendly authoritarian, social conservative, hard right president who would kick some 'liberal' butt even in violation of the BOR.

If there was a president who was not a hard right social conservative but maybe even lefty or libertarian and more gun friendly than the GOP dude who was concerned with flag burning and gay marriage (as GWB is starting up to rouse the base and cover up his flopperinos) would the guns only crowd vote for that guy.

That's the philosophical problem. I've seen folks say that they wouldn't vote for a gun friendly dem who was for gay marriage and abortion because they are nuts on those topics.

Thus life is complex for complex minds and not for others.

 

[FirstFreedom]

It is unfair to use the POS organization ACLU as a brush to paint Democrats with, and you should take that out of your quotes please since the thread title says "from the mouth of DEMOCRATS". They are not a DEMOCRAT organization. They have opinions and ideals, but are not necessarily affiliated with a political party. So don't taint the good Democrats with the ACLU's bad name! The other quotes are fair to show some of the bad seeds and bad ideas within the Democrat party.

 

[steelheart]

Well it looks like I'm not the only one here who needs to cool down!

Woo-wee, where to start... Okay, how about here:

What's with all the Democrat hate?

I never said I hate Democrats - I have several friends who are of that persuasion. Just last week, I went to a birthday party that was full of Democrats. Shocking, huh? I didn't even burst into flames - aren't you proud of me?

I'll tell you what I do despise, Heist: Politicians - of any party affiliation - who attack and attempt to destroy or screw with our right to arms. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe it is my fault that 90 to 95 percent of those type of politicians happen to be Democrats. Attacking me for reporting the facts is a case of "shooting the messenger." No matter how many times you shoot the messenger, the message remains the same.

Next up:

The reason why I can't buy a reasonably priced HK91, UZI carbine, PSG-1 or Steyr AUG is because a Republican President banned their further import via Executive Order in 1989.

Yes, it's true: Daddy Bush (R) did an end run around the Constitution, stabbed us in the back, and created a totally senseless law via XO, causing the prices on imported semiauto rifles and carbines to skyrocket. What Daddy Bush did was unconstitutional, unethecial and unexcusable. The fact remains that I never said Republican politicians are without sin regarding our right to arms. When R's do "feces" like that, they deserve the same fate as (D) antigun bigots - unemployment at the next election. For once, Marko and I are singing off the same sheet of music. Jeez, who would've thought?

A president who would destroy free speech, impose his or her religious values, discriminate against people based on various characterisitics is a threat to democracy. If this president was gun friendly - so what!

Wrong. TOTALLY wrong. I can only speak for myself, but I say ALL of the Bill of Rights - Amendments 1 through 10 - should be protected. Isn't that what the politicians have to swear to do before they can take office? Yes, it is. My point is this, and it is a point that many still refuse to acknowledge: The Second Amendment is the one right that makes all the others possible. It is the underpinning of the entire Bill of Rights.

It is unfair to use the POS organization ACLU as a brush to paint Democrats with

It is a sheer flight of fantasy to try and claim that the ACLU and the Democratic party are not singing off the same sheet of music. As far as our right to arms, they most obviously are - which is confirmed by the quote I listed from the ACLU.

Both the Democratic party and the ACLU are built upon the socialist political philosophy, which is diametrically opposed to the concepts embodied in the Constitution and the vision of THe Founders of this nation. There can be no serious debate about that point.

So don't taint the good Democrats with the ACLU's bad name!

If "the good Democrats" are so good regarding our right to arms, who are they and where are they??

Name for us one in ten Senate (4 out of 44) and House (20 out of 201) Democrats who are staunch defenders of the Second Amendment. Just ten percent. Name the pro-RKBA bills they have authored, sponsored, voted for and passed. Name their pro-RKBA achievements - just ten percent.

We're waiting, First Freedom. Just ten percent. With all "the good Democrats" as you claim, it should be a cakewalk.

 

[MeekAndMild]

Well said, Glenn!

 

[steelheart]

If "the good Democrats" are so good regarding our right to arms, who are they and where are they??

Name for us one in ten Senate (4 out of 44) and House (20 out of 201) Democrats who are staunch defenders of the Second Amendment. Just ten percent. Name the pro-RKBA bills they have authored, sponsored, voted for and passed. Name their pro-RKBA achievements - just ten percent.

We're waiting, First Freedom. Just ten percent. With all "the good Democrats" as you claim, it should be a cakewalk.

Still waiting, First Freedom...

 

[Hal]

I've never seen this group say they would actually physically fight for anything except guns.

Glenn,,,I'm about this close to it --><-- over a non gun issue.

The Democrats in our county council have proposed removing the county Sheriff in favor of a county police department - - in other words - they wish to remove our right to vote for the top law dog of the county.
I can't believe the arrogance of those ******** - (people).!

And yes - I'm fighting mad about it....

 

[kentak]

Well said, Glenn.

Here's a scary thought. How many members of this forum believe that Hillary and her crowd is more of a threat to liberty than Pat Robertson and his crowd? That is NO choice for people who understand what freedom really is all about.

K

 

[kentak]

Hal

You haven't lost your right to vote for county council, have you? Seems like that's where your anger and energy should be focused.

 

[steelheart]

The Democrats in our county council have proposed removing the county Sheriff in favor of a county police department - - in other words - they wish to remove our right to vote for the top law dog of the county.
I can't believe the arrogance of those bastards!

They did something similar in Indianapolis - combined the city police force with the county sheriff department as a "cost saving measure." Interesting that they never mentioned whether the Marion county Sheriff or the Indianapolis chief of police would be the final authority over the combined force. I don't see much of a problem, as long as all LE officers fall under the jurisdiction of the elected county Sheriff.

The Democrats in our county council... I can't believe the arrogance of those bastards!

It's no surprise to me - I'd say look for more incidents of this in the future when you have a Democrat-controlled county council. They don't want the voters to have control of who is the highest ranking LEO in the county, as the U.S. Constitution dictates - they want that job to be held by one of their politically appointed lap dogs.

Tell me again about how Democrats are our friends and care about the Constitution.:barf: :barf:

 

[steelheart]

If "the good Democrats" are so good regarding our right to arms, who are they and where are they??

Name for us one in ten Senate (4 out of 44) and House (20 out of 201) Democrats who are staunch defenders of the Second Amendment. Just ten percent. Name the pro-RKBA bills they have authored, sponsored, voted for and passed. Name their pro-RKBA achievements - just ten percent.

We're waiting, First Freedom. Just ten percent. With all "the good Democrats" as you claim, it should be a cakewalk.

Still waiting, First Freedom...

 

[invention_45]

Both the Democratic party and the ACLU are built upon the socialist political philosophy, which is diametrically opposed to the concepts embodied in the Constitution and the vision of THe Founders of this nation. There can be no serious debate about that point.

It has just occurred to me that the Constitution itself is a bit of a socialist document.

Look at what the Constitution sets out to do. It sets out to take power away from a group and redistribute it to another. The Founders sought to wrest power away from the Crown, which got its power any old way it could.

When you can take power by any means available to you, you're truly free. The Constitution was written to curb that freedom (which, before it, the Crown had).

What's "socialist" and what isn't is largely a matter of where you happen to sit in the power structure, I dare say.

 

[invention_45]

I heard a Democrat on the radio today advocating killing President Bush

Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

These two veiled threats don't look that different to me.

Also, although I certainly don't advocate killing anybody who doesn't DIRECTLY threaten me, isn't the ability to kill those perceived to be threatening our freedom what the 2nd gives us?

To advocate the 2nd above all else because it is the "teeth" in the bill of rights is to pretty much say you have the right to be armed against those who would take your other freedoms away. To then turn around and condemn somebody for advocating doing exactly that is picking and choosing which restrictor of freedom you want "controlled" and which not.

Pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

Unless maybe there's some other reason you prefer Republicans over Democrats, in which case your issue is NOT 2nd related at all.

 

[Eghad]

If the Republicans are so pro gun then why do we still have the GCA of 68 and the BATFE still harrasing folks? If the Republicans thought that they could get more votes from gun hating liberals than gun loving folks they would flush you down the crapper so fast you wouldnt have time to yell.

Dubyah has already demonstrated that with his gutless answer on the assualt weapons ban.

 

[steelheart]

Tourtured logic at its finest

It has just occurred to me that the Constitution itself is a bit of a socialist document.

Invention 45, PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPE and stop blowing smoke up everyone's keister. Please!!

By making the above statement, you are showing the world that you have never once read the Constitution - which guarantees "A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT." Nothing could possibly be more farther removed from socialism.

The Constitution was written to curb that freedom

WRONG.

The Constitution was written to curb unlimited government power, which the crown had, which is one of the hallmarks of socialism. The Bill of Rights was written to guarantee the rights and freedoms of We The People. Once again, you are proclaiming to the world that you have no grasp of the substance or meaning of the Constitution.

To advocate the 2nd above all else because it is the "teeth" in the bill of rights is to pretty much say you have the right to be armed against those who would take your other freedoms away.

That is precisely the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment - to guarantee the people's right to be armed against those who would take their freedoms away. And yes, we do have the right to be armed against those who would take our freedoms away. It's right there, in the Bill of Rights.

To then turn around and condemn somebody for advocating doing exactly that is picking and choosing which restrictor of freedom you want "controlled" and which not.

Which is exactly what the leftist/socialist antigun bigots - 90 to 95% of whom also happen to be Democrats - do on a daily basis.

Pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

Exactly. The leftist/Democrat/socialist people in this nation love to screech about "the right to choose," yet they work day and night to destroy our right to choose to not be a victim of violent crime.

That is nothing less than hipocracy elevated to an art form.

What's "socialist" and what isn't is largely a matter of where you happen to sit in the power structure

WRONG.

Socialism is a political philosophy with distinct criteria. Either a person, group or political party meet those criteria - and are therefore defined as socialists - or they don't.

As always, the relativism which you advocate in this regard is an invalid concept for all except those who espouse a double standard or those who cannot bear to call a spade a spade.

I must congratulate you on your inventiveness - your two above posts are true masterpieces of tortured logic.


You might want to think about siting down for a couple of hours and reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights and then actually thinking about what the words therein mean, rather than blindly accepting what the leftist sources you have obviously been listening to tell you they mean.

Think for yourself, man!