How Guns Won?

Because Holder was stupid and arrogant in lying to Congress and the gun lobby would like to tack his hide to the wall as a trophy as a reminder to anybody in the political arena not to mention the GOP looking to bag bigger game for the election in November.

I didn't say that the current administration believes in what it says....but they are mindful of the consequences that anti gun sentiment may sway votes to the other candidate.
 
Let's take it easy on the conservative/liberal stuff. One of our great mistakes has been allowing the gun culture to be portrayed as tied to one particular side of the political spectrum.
Click to expand...

But it IS tied to one end of the political spectrum, if there is such a thing as a political "spectrum". There's no way you can be for the self-reliance of responsible gun ownership and be for the nanny state. They're opposing viewpoints.
 
There's no way you can be for the self-reliance of responsible gun ownership and be for the nanny state.
Click to expand...
It's not nearly that black-and-white. I've supported representatives for both parties over the years, and will continue to do so as I see fit. The right letter next to a politician's name on the ballot is no guarantee that he'll do everything his constituents want, nor does it guarantee that he won't go back on his word.

Take a look at who voted for what in 1993, then tell me this breaks evenly at party lines.
 
I love how every one of these whines starts off with the implied assumption that anyone who doesn't favor even MORE gun control is defacto unreasonable.
Click to expand...

That is why "reasonable" is such a weasal word. It's no different then the old "Have you beat your kids lately?"

The conversation starts with "Let's have a reasonable discussion on guns. Hey, no one NEEDS an assault rifle."

Gun owners respond "It's not about need, it's about my rights"

Gun control advocates say "See! They're being unreasonable!"

"Reasonable" is just code for "You should agree with us because we have all the answers"
 
Tom Servo:
"It's not nearly that black-and-white. I've supported representatives for both parties over the years, and will continue to do so as I see fit. The right letter next to a politician's name on the ballot is no guarantee that he'll do everything his constituents want, nor does it guarantee that he won't go back on his word."

I think we are looking at two political spectrums: One the Republican/Democratic Parties specturm.

The other is the progressive/conservative spectrum.

But in each spectrum there is crossover. Usually most people are not totally committed to either, but vary from issue to issue. So a socially liberal person (advocating welfare etc for example) may still support RKBA while a conservative person (opposing welfare etc for example) may support gun control.

So labelling is a dangerous thing to base assumptions upon.
 
Tom Servo and JimPage seem to get it, and that is a breath of fresh air. As a socially liberal person sometimes I can’t stand the gun culture. The implication that I'm a fellow conservative and will welcome the spewing of anti-liberal rhetoric simply because I'm pro gun is ridiculous. I’m frustrated by the overbearing political environment that goes along with “gun culture” and I'm sick of hearing "liberal" being spit with venom as a synonym for un-American. Going to a gun store only to be inundated with this kind of talk makes me appreciate online shopping for more than just the lower prices.

Guess what? The only way to ensure that our rights don't erode is to stop the partisanship in order to attract more people like me. By winning over more liberals (note the lack of rancor), you’ll ensure that the call for gun bans remains a hopeless fringe position. That is not going to happen if the environment stays unwelcoming. Thankfully, this forum does a good job of keeping the focus on firearms and ensuring that the discussion doesn’t stray too far politically. The staff and the mods understand that gun rights are an American issue, not just a conservative talking point.

Oh, and anyone ragging on public radio needs to turn off the conservative talk radio and decompress once in a while. Unless you are a hard right reactionary you would see that public radio is centrist politically and most stories are apolitical.

I'll not tolerate anyone who speaks ill of This American Life. :p
 
The gun support position is not absolutely tied to conservatives. Nor is hatred of guns absolutely tied to liberals. Surveys show this.

Thus, we don't do that name calling because we are smarter than turning mixed probabilities into absolutes.

Take the hint, folks!
 
One of our presidential candidates once signed anti gun legislation in his state as governor. In his races for President he is pro gun now.
 
I had posted this elsewhere, not having noticed an already underway discussion here. The followijmng might be of interest to some.


so speath Time magazine

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have a look at Time magazines cover story about how gun control lost.

Start with the "semiautomatic assault rifle" depicted on the cover, but wait, it gets better, as with the following. "smokeless powder is a variation on black powder". funny thing, I had always thought that black powder was a mechanical mixture of sulfur, charcoal and potassium nitrate, granulated as to provide the desired burning rate, while smokeless powder was and remains a chemical compound, for instance nitric acid reacting with cellulose, then dewatered in some manner or other. Silly me, I suppose that Time knows best, or is once again, their editorial policy holding sway, facts be damned?

Funny thing, but there seems no mention of The Anti Gun Lobby having told the same old fairy tale once to often, How many times can one cry wolf, and remain credible? That might prove to be an interesting question.

Can't seem to find this issue on-line and damned if I will buy such rubbish. Maybe I'll read it at my local library.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top