I think we need a law against clowns like Jessie (and others clueless about weapons) speaking on gun issues. They're too uninformed, have an agenda and don't know military from non-military weapons. It's simply out of their wheelhouse.

Who has called someone racist on this board? It's been a long time since I have seen that and it wasn't even related to the government when it happened. Name names. Who said it? Who is calling people racist?

 

 

Some former posters here as well as some post in the past that was quickly edited or deleted.

Some former posters here as well as some post in the past that was quickly edited or deleted.

 

 

If you say so.

However, facilitating access to weapons to law abiding citizens also facilitates access to non law abiding citizens. The NRA position to "arm everyone" is rediculous, destructive and shows that the NRA is not part of the solution to gun violence. Jesse Jackson is no more radical than the NRA solution to gun violence.

 

Furthermore, the NRA compels memberships from gun owners like unions compel memberships from labor.

 

Why is the idea of arming every law abiding citizen not part of the solution? Statistics say different.

I think we need a law against clowns like Jessie (and others clueless about weapons) speaking on gun issues. They're too uninformed, have an agenda and don't know military from non-military weapons. It's simply out of their wheelhouse.

 

I'm not gun expert but I did wonder how the Aurora gunman was going to take down a plane.

Why is the idea of arming every law abiding citizen not part of the solution? Statistics say different.

He doesn't like the NRA, I have no problem with that, but demonizing them because of one's disdain is another story. I see nothing criminal in arming all law abiding citizens.

I'm not gun expert but I did wonder how the Aurora gunman was going to take down a plane.

:lol: Yeah, that one left me scratching my head as well.

So only worry about Islamic extremists?

 

 

That should be a primary concern but not the only one. Well organized, highly militant groups need to be monitored by the FBI.

 

The constant focus on 'right wing extremists' by DHS seems be misguided. DHS was supposedly formed to respond to outside entities who have infiltrated the country. It has traditionally been the role of the FBI to address purely 'internal' threats. The blurring of internal and external threats feels like a specific risk to Citizen rights. The Patriot act and the NDAA are the legislative examples of where this line of what is external and internal has been blurred the worst. A recent Federal judge ruling that the 'rules' of domestic detention and arbitrary killing of US citizens by the government regardless of their location will remain secret is something of a concern. As is the expanded use of military drones domestically.

However, facilitating access to weapons to law abiding citizens also facilitates access to non law abiding citizens. The NRA position to "arm everyone" is rediculous, destructive and shows that the NRA is not part of the solution to gun violence. Jesse Jackson is no more radical than the NRA solution to gun violence.

 

Furthermore, the NRA compels memberships from gun owners like unions compel memberships from labor.

 

Wow. Seriously? That's nonsense.

I remember posters making reference to Mountain Ref's ideas as being racist.

 

While I have said some border line things, I am not a racist. I do think there is racism on both sides of the fence. I think JJ is a racist, but that is what I think. If I think someone is being a racist I throw my 2 cents in and most of time say things I shouldn't on here which leaves the impression I am some big bad racist. Which is the farthest thing from the truth.

While I have said some border line things, I am not a racist. I do think there is racism on both sides of the fence. I think JJ is a racist, but that is what I think. If I think someone is being a racist I throw my 2 cents in and most of time say things I shouldn't on here which leaves the impression I am some big bad racist. Which is the farthest thing from the truth.

I think he's definitely a race baiter.

While I have said some border line things, I am not a racist. I do think there is racism on both sides of the fence. I think JJ is a racist, but that is what I think. If I think someone is being a racist I throw my 2 cents in and most of time say things I shouldn't on here which leaves the impression I am some big bad racist. Which is the farthest thing from the truth.

 

Be clear that I understand what you are saying. I just remember your comments being refered to as racist in previous post.

BTW, I believe that if anyone has a personal beef with southern extremists it is Jesse Jackson. While I believe he is doing his 'good liberal soldier' thing with this statement he has personal experience of an extremist action. His mentor was Martin Luther King and King was on a peaceful path to improving race equality. King even opposed the Freedom rides we discussed some time back. Jackson was there when King was murdered. It had to leave a scar on Mr. Jackson. It is easy to understand Jackson would long hold contempt for internal, violent extremists. So I give more leeway on this subject.

 

But there is a now a constant chorus line of demonizing gun owners. And this seemed to be part of that chorus. I even received the Catholic stance on this in a call to action email today from Rev. Delahanty today. I responded indicating I felt the Bishops calls were inappropriate. Based on the response I got back I probably owe a few Hail Mary's next weekend.

I love my Bible and my guns, but I am not some lunatic that wants to go kill.

 

Before JJ goes bashing the south, he needs to get up North to Illinois and stop the violence there.

All you say is true yet it has nothing to do with what I posted.

 

LN would not be a gun supporter that he is talking about. RTS wouldn't either. It wasn't a blanket statement so I say we bash him for what he actually said.

 

I think he's offered up an interesting topic of discussion.

 

Radical southern gun-owner.

 

Maybe I wouldn't be; maybe I would. I'm a very, very strong proponent of state rights and limited federal govt powers; a believer in adherence to the Constitution; and can easily appreciate the argument that a state should be able to withdrawal from the United States without having to fight a war to do so. So maybe I have the Confederate ideology that the Reverend was referring to.

all.

 

Jackson is just using the gun issue as an opportunity to get his mug in the news and generate some donations and paid speaking opportunites.

He's a total joke in my opinion and it would take a lot of convincing to get me to believe that any thing he says is a worthy topic of discussion.

 

A better topic of discussion: what has caused so many gun owners (southerners or not, and the Reverend is sadly mistaken if he thinks its just southerners buying guns, or even a specific type of gun like the AR) to want to own guns?

 

A lot of guns are owned for sporting reasons (hunting, sporting clays, trap, skeet and just general "plinking"). However a lot of guns are owned and being purchased for other reasons. Self-defense from crime is one reason. Isn't that a symptom of society's failure to be able to protect its citizens from violent crime? If you felt that society was effectively dealing with crime and that you were safe from violent crime, would you go out and spend money to purchase an unnecessary gun? I doubt that you would, and I'm sure wouldn't.

 

A lot of guns are owned and being purchased out of fear of the very government that is to serve its citizens. Isn't that a symptom of a lack of trust in our federal elected officials? The paranoia out there today is causing people to buy almost every type of gun as soon as it hits the shelf as well as ammo. I'm talking guns that wouldn't come close to being considered an assault weapon, so there should be no worry there. Yet reasonable and rational people I know are dramatically over paying for guns and ammunition these days. I don't get it; or at least I didn't get it until I questioned a friend why he recently bought a handgun at an inflated price. His response: right now the govt is trying to ban assault weapons. If they can ban assault weapons that are used in such very few crimes under the justification that assault weapons are too dangerous to own and too much a threat to society, then the type of guns that are used much more frequently in violent crimes (handguns) will be next. I asked him if perhaps he was being a bit paranoid, as it would be extremely difficult to get legislation approved banning handguns. His response: maybe, but he'd rather play it safe and go ahead and buy one now just in case. He expressed concern over the President's use of executive orders in the past. He threw back in my face that my relatives of the past would have never thought that the federal govt would be able to force me to have health insurance; to wear a seatbelt; and to take money from me to fund my own retirement (ie Social Security). But the federal govt has been able to do what once was unthinkable. He summed it up with: those that ignore history are bound to suffer from it. Bottom line: he didn't trust the President or Congress to protect his 2nd Amendment right.

 

To me, such thinking is a symptom of a belief, becoming more and more common these days unfortunately, that the federal govt cannot be trusted. What has the federal govt done to cause so many people to have that belief is really what we should be talking about. Just why do so people not trust the govt anymore? Have those with an agenda and the political power to get that agenda enacted pushed people to have beliefs that just a few decades ago would not be near as common as they are now?

 

That's worth discussing; not the symptoms.