[typoon]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136153,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html (Just incase people don't like it from the first source)

"John Kerry (search) goes hunting in Ohio on Thursday morning, hoping to shed his elitist image and portray himself as just a regular guy."

Looks like Anti-Gun Kerry is going huntin for geese as well as votes. The more he tries to make himself look "less" elitist the more he looks it.

I wonder what PETA will have to say about this?

[Spliffdaddy]

Shooting wounded ducks in the back, no doubt.

"That Mallard was carrying a loaded bazooka...I swear"


Or maybe Kerry will get wounded by an ejecting shotgun shell.

"Purple Heart...I earned another one!"

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

"Purple Heart...I earned another one!"

[constrictor]

I know Republicans have a hard time with the whole "world is not black and white" thing.

They have a hard time seeing that just because someone supports more common sense gun control, they still support the 2nd Amendment.

They have a hard time seeing that just because someone is concerned about American citizens' civil liberties, that they believe in the Patriot Act's intention to give law inforcement the power they need to stamp out terrorism.

They have a hard time seeing that just because someone believes President Bush is a failed leader, that they are not communists or terrorists (this one is good, since there is no possible logical connection between the two).

Yet, both sides are guilty of this to some degree, since Democrats have a hard time seeing that, just because someone holds the above views, it doesn't make them an asshole....necessarily.

[Spliffdaddy]

"They raped, cut off heads and limbs, burned villages - I was there, I witnessed it." - John Kerry describing his experience with other duck hunters

[itai195]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Shooting wounded ducks in the back, no doubt.

"That Mallard was carrying a loaded bazooka...I swear"


Or maybe Kerry will get wounded by an ejecting shotgun shell.

"Purple Heart...I earned another one!"

It's coming right for us!

[Spliffdaddy]

"Well, I'm using a fully automatic Mossberg 12 gauge with a folding stock, flash supressor, and it's modified to accept a 38-round hi-capacity drum-fed auto-loader." a smiling Kerry told inquisitive reporters after his unsuccessful duck hunt.

[Spliffdaddy]

"We were hunting from a small camouflaged aluminum boat...", Kerry was quoted as saying after the duck hunt, "...it was Christmas Day.". Kerry continued, as tears rolled down his cheeks, "the mission to hunt for Blue-winged Teals had taken us into Cambodia."

[Mrjinglesusa]

[Spliffdaddy]

Later in the week, Kerry sent a letter to PETA executives describing the duck hunt in which he was forced to participate.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war criminals."

[Spliffdaddy]

Meanwhile, President Bush dodged controversy during his own recent duck hunt by declaring the airspace above his duck blind to be a "No Fly Zone", thereby justifying engaging fire.

By the end of the day, President Bush had shot down four Mallards, a Beechcraft Bonanza, and engaged at least three other bogeys later identified by the CIA as being Al Quaeda operatives who were collaborating to build a so-called 'dirty bomb'.

[OldManMac]

You guys quack me up!

[finboy]

Originally posted by constrictor:


They have a hard time seeing that just because someone supports more common sense gun control, they still support the 2nd Amendment.

No, it's just that a lot of folks actually care enough to look at Kerry's voting record. Clearly, he doesn't support the 2nd Amendment -- he's pandering for votes. It's obvious to those who aren't already dazzled by his pandering on something else.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by finboy:
No, it's just that a lot of folks actually care enough to look at Kerry's voting record. Clearly, he doesn't support the 2nd Amendment -- he's pandering for votes. It's obvious to those who aren't already dazzled by his pandering on something else.

Explain to me how voting for gun control is against the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment says that the "Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". ARMS is not defined. Arms to the writers of the Bill of Rights meant muzzle loading pistols and muskets that took TIME to reload. No magazines, no fully or semi-automatic, no UZIs. I don't think they had the foresight to see that ARMS also means nuclear weapons, bombs, grenades, fully automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, etc. Gun control legislation is IMPORTANT to clarify what "arms" in the 2nd Amendment actually covers. No gun control legislation is trying to take away your right to own a shotgun. But you DO NOT need a semi-automatic weapon to go hunting.

[constrictor]

I fully support the children of certain gun owners finding and using their parents' guns on themselves and/or their parents. It always warms my heart to hear of another child getting pissed at mom and dad and taking them out while they sleep. This helps select out more of the bad genes for future generations. However, to decrease the risks to classmates, neighbors and co-workers, it is certainly reasonable to restrict access to assault-style weapons that put others in danger.

Keep gun violence in the family. That's what I say.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
But you DO NOT need a semi-automatic weapon to go hunting.

Let's see how you feel the next time someone says "you DO NOT need the right to free speech."

It ain't about what I need, it's about what the govt. can do with my rights. Kerry clearly doesn't understand what the govt. role in that is.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by finboy:
Let's see how you feel the next time someone says "you DO NOT need the right to free speech."

Riiiiiiiiiight.

[itai195]

Originally posted by finboy:
Let's see how you feel the next time someone says "you DO NOT need the right to free speech."

I'm only responding to this because someone already took the bait, but free speech rights are not absolute. Thus, totally disingenuous argument.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by finboy:
Let's see how you feel the next time someone says "you DO NOT need the right to free speech."

It ain't about what I need, it's about what the govt. can do with my rights. Kerry clearly doesn't understand what the govt. role in that is.

OK. According to the 2nd Amendment, I have the right to keep and bear ARMS. Off to look for a nuclear warhead. It IS my right to own one, correct? Do you believe this? That the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own a nuclear weapon if I can find one? If not, why? The 2nd Amendment says ARMS, it doesn't clarify what KIND of arms. And if you answer that that is not what the amendment intended, then I ask you do you think it intended semi-automatic weapons when all they knew were muzzle-loading weapons?

[constrictor]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
OK. According to the 2nd Amendment, I have the right to keep and bear ARMS. Off to look for a nuclear warhead. It IS my right to own one, correct? Do you believe this? That the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own a nuclear weapon if I can find one? If not, why? The 2nd Amendment says ARMS, it doesn't clarify what KIND of arms. And if you answer that that is not what the amendment intended, then I ask you do you think it intended semi-automatic weapons when all they knew were muzzle-loading weapons?

Damnit, Jim, stop asking these questions that requiring thinking to answer!

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by constrictor:
Damnit, Jim, stop asking these questions that requiring thinking to answer!

I know, I'll try to stop. But it's HARD WORK.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
OK. According to the 2nd Amendment, I have the right to keep and bear ARMS. Off to look for a nuclear warhead. It IS my right to own one, correct? Do you believe this? That the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own a nuclear weapon if I can find one? If not, why? The 2nd Amendment says ARMS, it doesn't clarify what KIND of arms. And if you answer that that is not what the amendment intended, then I ask you do you think it intended semi-automatic weapons when all they knew were muzzle-loading weapons?

Ok, I'll give this a shot, so to speak. In the event that we have to retake this country by force of arms, it would be nice to have the weaponry to do it. Muskets vs military automatic weapons isn't very "do-able".

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Ok, I'll give this a shot, so to speak. In the event that we have to retake this country by force of arms, it would be nice to have the weaponry to do it. Muskets vs military automatic weapons isn't very "do-able".

If we have to retake this country by force of arms, we have bigger problems than what kind of weaponry we have at our disposal.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
If we have to retake this country by force of arms, we have bigger problems than what kind of weaponry we have at our disposal.

No, not really. We have the right to defend ourselves, even from our own gov't. Some kids today don't want to think about it, but it's unavoidable. It's just a matter of fact. It will happen, it happens in every country's history... sometimes many times.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The framers of the Constitution understood this, it's too bad many in our society today do not.

[kido]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
If we have to retake this country by force of arms, we have bigger problems than what kind of weaponry we have at our disposal.

To quote True Romance, "It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it."

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by kido:
To quote True Romance, "It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it."

Dammit! Stop making logical comments, you'll spook the herd!

[constrictor]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Dammit! Stop making logical comments, you'll spook the herd!

Yes, because logic also tells us there's no difference between the threat posed by a regular handgun and a MAC-10. Just ask most cops and they'll tell you the same thing.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by constrictor:
Yes, because logic also tells us there's no difference between the threat posed by a regular handgun and a MAC-10.

In the hands/collection of a responsible gun owner, there's not.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
In the hands/collection of a responsible gun owner, there's not.

And logic tells us that all gun owners are responsible, as the news has shown us again....and again.........and again...........

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
In the hands/collection of a responsible gun owner, there's not.

This thread reminded me that it's about time to clean my gun and change out the clip. I try and do that by the end of every October.

Thanks guys!

Oh, and what a pansy: Kerry wouldn't even carry his own goose! Wouldn't want to get those fingernails dirty Kerry-Poo! Be sure to bring along a Goose-Caddy Kerry-Poo!

Maury

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by constrictor:
And logic tells us that all gun owners are responsible, as the news has shown us again....and again.........and again...........

Come on, surely you're not so numb as to NOT recognize the difference between people that OWN A GUN and people that HAVE A GUN. Do you REALLY think all the gun crimes you're referring to were committed by someone that has legally obtained and licensed himself/herself as well as the firearm?

Surely not...

Maury

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by constrictor:
And logic tells us that all gun owners are responsible, as the news has shown us again....and again.........and again...........

You hear the extreme cases of irresponsibility and criminal behavior, not responsible gun owners.

[kido]

Originally posted by constrictor:
And logic tells us that all gun owners are responsible, as the news has shown us again....and again.........and again...........

Obviously, since the number of crimes involving MAC-10s is equal to the number of MAC-10s sold in the United States.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
OK. According to the 2nd Amendment, I have the right to keep and bear ARMS. Off to look for a nuclear warhead. It IS my right to own one, correct? Do you believe this? That the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own a nuclear weapon if I can find one? If not, why? The 2nd Amendment says ARMS, it doesn't clarify what KIND of arms. And if you answer that that is not what the amendment intended, then I ask you do you think it intended semi-automatic weapons when all they knew were muzzle-loading weapons?

The farmers of the Constitutional era carried weapons that were more advanced and accurate than those carried by regular armies. Artillery and other "weapons of mass destruction" weren't commonly in the hands of individuals.

I guess if I tried hard enough I could come up with some absurd example of free speech run amok. But that doesn't really get us anywhere.

[constrictor]

d/p

[constrictor]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Come on, surely you're not so numb as to NOT recognize the difference between people that OWN A GUN and people that HAVE A GUN. Do you REALLY think all the gun crimes you're referring to were committed by someone that has legally obtained and licensed himself/herself as well as the firearm?

Surely not...

Maury

Do you really think all the crimes I'm referring to were not?

Plus, I thought this "exception to the rule" type of thinking was supposed to make you guys convulse and swallow your own tongues?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by constrictor:
Do you really think all the crimes I'm referring to were not?

Plus, I thought this "exception to the rule" type of thinking was supposed to make you guys convulse and swallow your own tongues?

Show me some numbers to back up your original thought. And who are �you guys?�

Maury

[constrictor]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Show me some numbers to back up your original thought. And who are �you guys?�

Maury

You show me the numbers, Jethro. You're the one who brought up the proportion of the criminals I'm speaking about who are gun owners.

Figure the other one out on your own.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by constrictor:
You show me the numbers, Jethro. You're the one who brought up the proportion of the criminals I'm speaking about who are gun owners.

Figure the other one out on your own.

Nope. You�re the one that started this rabbit chasing by saying �logic tells us that all gun owners are responsible, as the news has shown us again....and again.........and again.� That comment implies that the news shows us that the crimes *are* committed by [b]gun owners[b], and you didn�t bother to support said comment.

Thus, show some numbers � or did I take your comment to literally?

Maury

[constrictor]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
[B]Nope. You�re the one that started this rabbit chasing by saying �logic tells us that all gun owners are responsible, as the news has shown us again....and again.........and again.� That comment implies that the news shows us that the crimes *are* committed by [b]gun owners, and you didn�t bother to support said comment.

Thus, show some numbers � or did I take your comment to literally?

Maury

Again, as a follow-up to my post on gun violence in the home, how many times in the past ten years have we heard of children securing their parents' guns and committing crimes against all sorts of different people in many different circumstances? Who could argue that these parents are responsible gun owners? They didn't secure their weapons, and they didn't teach the proper respect and responsibility of owning firearms to their children.

As much as you'd like to believe all gun owners are responsible, card-carrying Republicans who protest at Planned Parenthood and only have sex with their wives for procreation, many are stupid, careless, and even reckless. Of course this is not the majority, but they do exist. Hence, gun control, in the form of background checks along with other such measures, and limitations on certain assault-style weapons is needed. I'm sure the parents of Columbine can take heart in the fact that we have learned and done nothing to prevent that kind of thing happening again. I bet a lot of them believe in the 2nd Amendment, too.

[Isaac]

the US has used weapons against people in the US many times... to think that you can defend yourself from your army with a bolt action rifel or a pump action shotgun is non-sense... now, no nukes are not justifiable, because there use is not justified in just about any circumstance... it's just about impossible to use a nuke without killing non-volentary combatants.... but a tank or an assult rifel, that would be helpful... though infantry is probably still the best defense force, and the primary concern should be defense, not retaliation (so you don't need so many tanks)....

to allow the state to know who has what, is to give the state a hitlist... yes, people should be smart about gun use, but it's probably still better to teach childern about responsible use rather then hide or lock it away....

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by constrictor:
Again, as a follow-up to my post on gun violence in the home, how many times in the past ten years have we heard of children securing their parents' guns and committing crimes against all sorts of different people in many different circumstances? Who could argue that these parents are responsible gun owners? They didn't secure their weapons, and they didn't teach the proper respect and responsibility of owning firearms to their children.

As much as you'd like to believe all gun owners are responsible, card-carrying Republicans who protest at Planned Parenthood and only have sex with their wives for procreation, many are stupid, careless, and even reckless. Of course this is not the majority, but they do exist. Hence, gun control, in the form of background checks along with other such measures, and limitations on certain assault-style weapons is needed. I'm sure the parents of Columbine can take heart in the fact that we have learned and done nothing to prevent that kind of thing happening again. I bet a lot of them believe in the 2nd Amendment, too.

BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH

Stats -- give me some RESEARCH, some numbers, man!

Maury

[constrictor]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH

Stats -- give me some RESEARCH, some numbers, man!

Maury

These were the only ones I was able to find:


``````````99````````````
`````````9999```````````
`````````9999```````````
`````````9999```````````
`````````9999```````````
`````````9999```````````
`````````9999```````````
`````````9999```````````
``99 99 99999 99 99````
`9999999999999999999```
99999999999999999999 ```
99999999999999999999999`
999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999 9999
99999999999999999999 9999
99999999999999999999 9999
999999999999999999999999`
`99999999999999999999999`
```9999999999999999999```

[Mithras]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, not really. We have the right to defend ourselves, even from our own gov't. Some kids today don't want to think about it, but it's unavoidable. It's just a matter of fact. It will happen, it happens in every country's history... sometimes many times.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The framers of the Constitution understood this, it's too bad many in our society today do not.

So I take you answer yes to the personal nuclear weapons question?

P.S. Constrictor, cool it. Don't be a dope.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by constrictor:
These were the only ones I was able to find:

That really helps prove your opinion and build credibility, Bucky.

Maury

[constrictor]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
That really helps prove your opinion and build credibility, Bucky.

Maury

I'll have to try a little bit harder to care about that since this is an obscure political forum on a computer website. Are the stars at night as big and bright as they say? It must be mesmerizing.

[Gee-Man]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Oh, and what a pansy: Kerry wouldn't even carry his own goose! Wouldn't want to get those fingernails dirty Kerry-Poo! Be sure to bring along a Goose-Caddy Kerry-Poo!

I love this. Kerry's the only man on either ticket who's actually killed people and been in combat, yet he's mocked as a "pansy". Lovely bizzaro-world logic there.

[Spliffdaddy]

Yeah, if you count shooting a wounded guy in the back, then Kerry has indeed killed somebody.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Yeah, if you count shooting a wounded guy in the back, then Kerry has indeed killed somebody.

If you are going to post non-sense, so will I: At least Kerry fought for his country and didn't dodge the draft by having his Daddy's cronies get him into the Guard when there was a waiting list and then not even fulfill THAT duty by going AWOL.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Ok, I'll give this a shot, so to speak. In the event that we have to retake this country by force of arms, it would be nice to have the weaponry to do it. Muskets vs military automatic weapons isn't very "do-able".

Well, I certainly hope for your sake that you've stocked up on tactical nukes, armor-piercing shells, and grenades.

Because without them, you wouldn't stand a chance.

And it's your constitutional right to own them.

-s*