26 Nov 2016, 7:35 pm
26 Nov 2016, 8:00 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Darmok wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Yep I and many gun owners even democrat gun owners voted trump mainly over the fact Hilary and her democrat friends are super anti gun and ranted over and over about their horrible plans to strip the 2nd amendment to be worthless
You didn't have to worry. Hillary would have protected you.
Well, those are Native Americans, not white Americans. Who on the right are obsessed with keeping the guns in the hands of Non-Whites when they are attacked by whites?
We support the right of all United States citizens to own guns and defend themselves. Gun owners are of all races, backgrounds ,gender and sexual preferences. Lots of gays became gun owners after Florida. The left on.y attacks the very people they claim to defend its sickening
As a matter of fact, the messiah of the right, Ronald Reagan, had fought for laws keeping guns out of the hands of civil rights activists, based on fear of armed Black Panthers. Even before that, racist legislation had kept guns out of the hands of blacks while favoring armed whites.
Ronald regan isn't a messiah of the right. He's a well respected president due to his term in offfice coinciding with the unavoidable collapse of the Soviet Union. He's speech "tear down this wall" is what he's mostly known for.
Democrats started gun control right after the slaves were freed to you guess it prevent black folks from having their civil rights. Now democrats push it to deprive minority's and poor people from having their rights, they believe only rich white democrats should have rights not the gutter folk. They do declare as democrats use to say.
Well as a poor minority(disabled) I say f that to the democrats who think they're so much better and more important then me. They aren't and their life isn't any more valuable then mine or homeless people. Heck I'd probably save a homeless person before helping any of thos democrat politicians.
Trust me, more than enough conservatives see Reagan as their messiah, to the point of forgetting his bipartisanship with getting things done, and his personal friendship with Tip O'neil, and mis-imagining him as refusing to work across the aisles.
And those Democrats who had deprived freed blacks of owning guns were the conservative wing of the Democratic party, which after liberal Democratic civil rights legislation, and the machinations of the Nixon and Reagan administrations, became Republicans.
Mean like how you refuse to see our side of the Issue?
the democrats are not interested in bipartisanship they want their way or they freak out.
Yes we gun owners refuse to work across the aisles cause doing so would be shooting ourself in both feet. I'm super glad at least republicans choose to actually represent their voters and take a stand .
If gun owners were willing to work across the aisle with other matters important to liberals, perhaps liberals would be more willing to lighten up on the gun issue.
We already do. Again gun owners from from all backgrounds lots of them are democrats or independents. The democrats would have to drop gun control like the hot steaming pile of poop it is but they'll never do that they'd rather go go down with the ship. Until then gun owners will never trust democrats in congress. It'll take 10 years of them not pushed by for it and fighting for gun rights before we'd trust them. Too many times have we been lied to so they can get elected only for them to just turn around and push to ban guns
26 Nov 2016, 8:01 pm
Darmok wrote:
Raptor wrote:
I beleive 1968 was the last hoorah for the NRA for backing anti-gun legislation
Wait . . . are you saying it's not 1968 anymore?
Man, we need to print up some new calendars.
I kind of wish it were 1968 (in a way) so I could buy a new Mustang GT fastback with a 428 Cobra Jet under the hood or a Hemi Charger R/T.
26 Nov 2016, 8:04 pm
Raptor wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Ther new thing is saying the NRA is bad for gun owners.
That they only care about gun manufacturers.
That they only care about gun manufacturers.
And how!
They insist that the number of gun owners has shrunk dramatically due to the disgust at the NRA's kowtowing to gun manufacturers
and thier no-compromise stance on "sensible gun laws" :roll: but the sales numbers tell a completely different story.Well it's the same two guys buying millions of guns don't you know
26 Nov 2016, 8:07 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
26 Nov 2016, 9:42 pm
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I only repeat what I hear Republicans say about Reagan. Admittedly, the Reagan they revere is a product of their own imagination. The real Reagan would be called a RINO today by the Republican right.
Well, my ultra-conservaive neighbor did name his flat coated retriever Reagan but other than that I haven't heard that name tossed around that much from the right. Liberals, on the other hand, speak of Reagan the same way as the Jews do about Hitler.
Well, the tea party used to bring up Ronny Raygun all the time, as do conservative politicians. The trouble is, the Ronny of their imagination is not the real guy who had been President.
As for your other post about gun grabbing being primarily the liberal agenda - silly me, I thought healthcare, workers rights, and civil right for ethnic and sexual minorities were first on the agenda.
If gun rights supporters would get behind these issues, there might be some compromise made.
27 Nov 2016, 3:50 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
As for your other post about gun grabbing being primarily the liberal agenda - silly me, I thought healthcare, workers rights, and civil right for ethnic and sexual minorities were first on the agenda.
If gun rights supporters would get behind these issues, there might be some compromise made.
If gun rights supporters would get behind these issues, there might be some compromise made.
Many of us are behind those issues already, but won't touch you with a 10 foot pole so long as you support gun control. When Trump loads the Supreme Court with justices that destroy everything you hold dear for a generation, remember that you brought this on yourself by backing an issue you claim to not even care about. Personally, I win when Trump appoints justices that read "shall not be infringed" exactly as it's written, and I win when he screws up so badly that trust in the state generally is undermined. What do you get out of supporting gun control, besides annoying people like me to the point that we're willing to torch your most sacred ideals as collateral damage?
27 Nov 2016, 3:52 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
27 Nov 2016, 11:33 am
Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As for your other post about gun grabbing being primarily the liberal agenda - silly me, I thought healthcare, workers rights, and civil right for ethnic and sexual minorities were first on the agenda.
If gun rights supporters would get behind these issues, there might be some compromise made.
If gun rights supporters would get behind these issues, there might be some compromise made.
Many of us are behind those issues already, but won't touch you with a 10 foot pole so long as you support gun control. When Trump loads the Supreme Court with justices that destroy everything you hold dear for a generation, remember that you brought this on yourself by backing an issue you claim to not even care about. Personally, I win when Trump appoints justices that read "shall not be infringed" exactly as it's written, and I win when he screws up so badly that trust in the state generally is undermined. What do you get out of supporting gun control, besides annoying people like me to the point that we're willing to torch your most sacred ideals as collateral damage?
If the country sinks, then trust me, unless you're independently wealthy, then you're going to lose, too, pro-gun rights or not. And while you and some other gun rightsers are pro-health care, or pro-civil rights, I fear that the great majority are so enveloped by the right's ideology that they are not.
As for Reagan... again: I brought him up only to illustrate a point about the inconsistency of the right's interest in gun rights for all.
27 Nov 2016, 12:31 pm
sly279 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Ther new thing is saying the NRA is bad for gun owners.
That they only care about gun manufacturers.
That they only care about gun manufacturers.
And how!
They insist that the number of gun owners has shrunk dramatically due to the disgust at the NRA's kowtowing to gun manufacturers
and thier no-compromise stance on "sensible gun laws" :roll: but the sales numbers tell a completely different story.Well it's the same two guys buying millions of guns don't you know
Remember SonofGhandi? That's pretty much what he told me, that all those guns and ammo that have been sold in recent years have been by a very small number of extremists. We argued this topic for about a year before he finally gave up. I think his parting shot was that I'm a troll or words to that effect.
27 Nov 2016, 12:50 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I only repeat what I hear Republicans say about Reagan. Admittedly, the Reagan they revere is a product of their own imagination. The real Reagan would be called a RINO today by the Republican right.
Well, my ultra-conservaive neighbor did name his flat coated retriever Reagan but other than that I haven't heard that name tossed around that much from the right. Liberals, on the other hand, speak of Reagan the same way as the Jews do about Hitler.
Well, the tea party used to bring up Ronny Raygun all the time, as do conservative politicians. The trouble is, the Ronny of their imagination is not the real guy who had been President.
What about the tea party? I've never followed them like you have.
Quote:
As for your other post about gun grabbing being primarily the liberal agenda - silly me, I thought healthcare, workers rights, and civil right for ethnic and sexual minorities were first on the agenda.
If gun rights supporters would get behind these issues, there might be some compromise made.
If gun rights supporters would get behind these issues, there might be some compromise made.
My idea of civil rights in a nutshell has more to do with self empowerment and having the right to be the captain of one's own destiny without big brother looking over our shoulder. I could make a numbered list but it would be lost on you.
There would be no coddling of any one group, no entitlements to get free stuff at the expense of others, and no right not to have one's feelings hurt, etc...
One area where I would break from conservative party lines would be to promote government intervention in the regulation of healthcare costs of any service over a certain dollar amount. This makes the medical industry atone for thier own greed instead of putting it on the shoulders of the citizen/taxpayer by forcing them to purchase a product (i.e. Obamacare) or raising thier taxes (standard liberal fix-all).
27 Nov 2016, 1:03 pm
27 Nov 2016, 4:27 pm
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I only repeat what I hear Republicans say about Reagan. Admittedly, the Reagan they revere is a product of their own imagination. The real Reagan would be called a RINO today by the Republican right.
Well, my ultra-conservaive neighbor did name his flat coated retriever Reagan but other than that I haven't heard that name tossed around that much from the right. Liberals, on the other hand, speak of Reagan the same way as the Jews do about Hitler.
Well, the tea party used to bring up Ronny Raygun all the time, as do conservative politicians. The trouble is, the Ronny of their imagination is not the real guy who had been President.
What about the tea party? I've never followed them like you have.
Quote:
As for your other post about gun grabbing being primarily the liberal agenda - silly me, I thought healthcare, workers rights, and civil right for ethnic and sexual minorities were first on the agenda.
If gun rights supporters would get behind these issues, there might be some compromise made.
If gun rights supporters would get behind these issues, there might be some compromise made.
My idea of civil rights in a nutshell has more to do with self empowerment and having the right to be the captain of one's own destiny without big brother looking over our shoulder. I could make a numbered list but it would be lost on you.
There would be no coddling of any one group, no entitlements to get free stuff at the expense of others, and no right not to have one's feelings hurt, etc...
One area where I would break from conservative party lines would be to promote government intervention in the regulation of healthcare costs of any service over a certain dollar amount. This makes the medical industry atone for thier own greed instead of putting it on the shoulders of the citizen/taxpayer by forcing them to purchase a product (i.e. Obamacare) or raising thier taxes (standard liberal fix-all).
That's where we disagree. I support ssi, ssi , food stamps and other such aid. I'd be freezing in the street or in a gang if not for it. Mean I have guns and want to live so mugging I guess
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
27 Nov 2016, 5:24 pm
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I only repeat what I hear Republicans say about Reagan. Admittedly, the Reagan they revere is a product of their own imagination. The real Reagan would be called a RINO today by the Republican right.
Well, my ultra-conservaive neighbor did name his flat coated retriever Reagan but other than that I haven't heard that name tossed around that much from the right. Liberals, on the other hand, speak of Reagan the same way as the Jews do about Hitler.
Well, the tea party used to bring up Ronny Raygun all the time, as do conservative politicians. The trouble is, the Ronny of their imagination is not the real guy who had been President.
What about the tea party? I've never followed them like you have.
Quote:
As for your other post about gun grabbing being primarily the liberal agenda - silly me, I thought healthcare, workers rights, and civil right for ethnic and sexual minorities were first on the agenda.
If gun rights supporters would get behind these issues, there might be some compromise made.
If gun rights supporters would get behind these issues, there might be some compromise made.
My idea of civil rights in a nutshell has more to do with self empowerment and having the right to be the captain of one's own destiny without big brother looking over our shoulder. I could make a numbered list but it would be lost on you.
There would be no coddling of any one group, no entitlements to get free stuff at the expense of others, and no right not to have one's feelings hurt, etc...
One area where I would break from conservative party lines would be to promote government intervention in the regulation of healthcare costs of any service over a certain dollar amount. This makes the medical industry atone for thier own greed instead of putting it on the shoulders of the citizen/taxpayer by forcing them to purchase a product (i.e. Obamacare) or raising thier taxes (standard liberal fix-all).
There isn't anything wrong with self empowerment, as long as it isn't done to take power and self-respect away from someone else. That's why there needs to be government intervention at times.
As for the rest of your Randian manifesto - you'd have a different view of things if you were in a marginalized group, or if you needed a helping hand just to live. I think Sly gave you an excellent answer.
27 Nov 2016, 10:15 pm
sly279 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I only repeat what I hear Republicans say about Reagan. Admittedly, the Reagan they revere is a product of their own imagination. The real Reagan would be called a RINO today by the Republican right.
Well, my ultra-conservaive neighbor did name his flat coated retriever Reagan but other than that I haven't heard that name tossed around that much from the right. Liberals, on the other hand, speak of Reagan the same way as the Jews do about Hitler.
Well, the tea party used to bring up Ronny Raygun all the time, as do conservative politicians. The trouble is, the Ronny of their imagination is not the real guy who had been President.
What about the tea party? I've never followed them like you have.
Quote:
As for your other post about gun grabbing being primarily the liberal agenda - silly me, I thought healthcare, workers rights, and civil right for ethnic and sexual minorities were first on the agenda.
If gun rights supporters would get behind these issues, there might be some compromise made.
If gun rights supporters would get behind these issues, there might be some compromise made.
My idea of civil rights in a nutshell has more to do with self empowerment and having the right to be the captain of one's own destiny without big brother looking over our shoulder. I could make a numbered list but it would be lost on you.
There would be no coddling of any one group, no entitlements to get free stuff at the expense of others, and no right not to have one's feelings hurt, etc...
One area where I would break from conservative party lines would be to promote government intervention in the regulation of healthcare costs of any service over a certain dollar amount. This makes the medical industry atone for thier own greed instead of putting it on the shoulders of the citizen/taxpayer by forcing them to purchase a product (i.e. Obamacare) or raising thier taxes (standard liberal fix-all).
That's where we disagree. I support ssi, ssi , food stamps and other such aid. I'd be freezing in the street or in a gang if not for it. Mean I have guns and want to live so mugging I guess
The no-welfare thing is more pipe dream than anything. At this point we cannot simply do away with welfare programs. My plan if I had my way would keep welfare while at the same time pushing job training and placement programs at the same time. Also and equally important would be to create an environment friendly toward business establishment and growth. Yes, that means tax incentives and relaxed regulation. Even if that all worked splendidly we'd still need welfare programs but not nearly as much. It won't get any better than that from me and there's' plenty of room for it to be much more austere.
27 Nov 2016, 10:26 pm
Raptor wrote:
My idea of civil rights in a nutshell has more to do with self empowerment and having the right to be the captain of one's own destiny without big brother looking over our shoulder. I could make a numbered list but it would be lost on you.
There would be no coddling of any one group, no entitlements to get free stuff at the expense of others, and no right not to have one's feelings hurt, etc...
One area where I would break from conservative party lines would be to promote government intervention in the regulation of healthcare costs of any service over a certain dollar amount. This makes the medical industry atone for thier own greed instead of putting it on the shoulders of the citizen/taxpayer by forcing them to purchase a product (i.e. Obamacare) or raising thier taxes (standard liberal fix-all).
There would be no coddling of any one group, no entitlements to get free stuff at the expense of others, and no right not to have one's feelings hurt, etc...
One area where I would break from conservative party lines would be to promote government intervention in the regulation of healthcare costs of any service over a certain dollar amount. This makes the medical industry atone for thier own greed instead of putting it on the shoulders of the citizen/taxpayer by forcing them to purchase a product (i.e. Obamacare) or raising thier taxes (standard liberal fix-all).
Kraichgauer wrote:
There isn't anything wrong with self empowerment, as long as it isn't done to take power and self-respect away from someone else. That's why there needs to be government intervention at times.
My way and your nanny state way can't co-exist.
Quote:
As for the rest of your Randian manifesto - you'd have a different view of things if you were in a marginalized group, or if you needed a helping hand just to live.
You must be talking about my health care reform idea here although you're not specific. No surprise to me that you'd prefer to allow the fat cats to keep getting fat while John Q. Citizen foots the bill for it. Hey, as long as you and yours have your Obamacare who cares about anyone else...
Quote:
I think Sly gave you an excellent answer.
Sly has already smoked you out as an anti-gunner so I doubt you'll be back in his good graces anytime soon.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Will I regret it if I don't go on a lads holiday? |
21 May 2025, 6:04 pm |
| Trump’s pardons |
28 May 2025, 8:39 pm |
| Trump is SO CRAZY! |
06 May 2025, 10:13 pm |
| Trump says the U.S. will end sanctions on Syria |
13 May 2025, 9:45 pm |
