Gun Control, a hypocritical view - Page 2

NightShade · 11-05-2009, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boker

I know nothing of this man, but could it be that his constituents are anti-gun and he is doing his job as their representative to express their views despite his personal feelings?

his job is to what he feels is "the right thing".... if his constituents don't like it, they can vote for someone else. and he thinks being a hypocritical typical poltician is "the right thing"

Rick · 11-05-2009, 12:57 PM

Not quite true. There are three schools of thought on how politicians should vote.

1. According to the true tenants of the constitution.
2. In accordance with constituents wishes. They do, after all, represent the people.
3. In accordance with their own conscience since they know the details of the legislation before them they know more than their constituents.

I'm not advocating which is correct. Just listing them.

crashdive123 · 11-06-2009, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boker

I know nothing of this man, but could it be that his constituents are anti-gun and he is doing his job as their representative to express their views despite his personal feelings?

While that is certainly a possibility, why not then work to ban guns just in his district?

NightShade · 11-06-2009, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

Not quite true. There are three schools of thought on how politicians should vote.

1. According to the true tenants of the constitution.
2. In accordance with constituents wishes. They do, after all, represent the people.
3. In accordance with their own conscience since they know the details of the legislation before them they know more than their constituents.

I'm not advocating which is correct. Just listing them.

Exactly Rick!..... I was trying to get across point that there is different theories as to their "job"... You worded it perfectly!

Boker · 11-06-2009, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crashdive123

While that is certainly a possibility, why not then work to ban guns just in his district?

Because, according to the link, he believes in his rights to bear arms.

crashdive123 · 11-06-2009, 03:21 AM

My post was really made with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek. I am of the opinion that if an elected official that has sworn to protect the Constitution, bows to the desires of his/her constituents, his own personal desires, or the pressures from other sources - and that course that they choose violates the tenants that they were sworn to uphold - they should be removed from office.

Boker · 11-06-2009, 04:13 AM

Personally, I think we should run the anti-gun owners out of the country. We have the guns. What they gonna do? Throw rocks from just over the Canadian/Mexican border?

rwc1969 · 11-06-2009, 04:20 AM

They work under a different set of "laws?" than us. They break their own rules!

...and then punish us for doin less.

LostOutrider · 11-07-2009, 11:42 AM

"Gun control" is not the same thing as "anti-gun." I know that's a little complex for most wing-nuts (whichever side the wing is on) to get their head around, and the shouting heads don't want you to worry too much about things like details. Much easier to get the pitchfork crowd marching in lock-step if the issue is kept simple and dichotomous.

Sure, the guy is a scumbag if he's spent his career pushing anti-gun legislation for the 'common folk' then pulls a Cheney on some intruders. Still, that doesn't make gun control bad. I'm for automobile control and regulation, but I'm not a hypocrite for having two cars. I have firearms of my own and am a solid backer of CCW permits, but don't think unregulated ownership of assault rifles is a good idea. Booga! booga! Socialism! Rar!

crashdive123 · 11-07-2009, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LostOutrider

but don't think unregulated ownership of assault rifles is a good idea.!

How do you define assault rifle?

canid · 11-07-2009, 12:53 PM

how about we define assault rifle as any individual rifle with which an actual assault has been committed, and ban those.

i'd be fine with that.

FVR · 11-07-2009, 02:31 PM

I am always amazed at those who consider an assault rifle or weapon any diff. from any other firearm. They are both designed to kill. One just allows you to waste more ammo missing.

I don't own assault weapons anymore. I also don't own handguns as I have children and it's just not worth any risks. No matter what.

I'm down to muzzleloaders and shotguns. That being said, I don't give a rats arse what you own as long as you are a law abiding citizen. Well, I have my reservations with the guy next door who owns a basooka and a tank..........but hey, nice friend to have in a jam. LOL...only kidding about the next door neighbor Big Brother.

You do what you do to survive. If it's a single shot shotgun, knife, bat, etc or an AR-15 with a 30 round clip. Name of the game is to survive.

LostOutrider · 11-07-2009, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crashdive123

How do you define assault rifle?

I'm sure you could google up plenty of definitions to agree with or not, crash, without me giving you one to play with.

crashdive123 · 11-07-2009, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LostOutrider

I'm sure you could google up plenty of definitions to agree with or not, crash, without me giving you one to play with.

You're the one that brought it up. You must have some idea what you meant and why. Just responding to your post, but if you think it's all about playing - have a nice day.

oldsoldier · 11-07-2009, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SARKY

I'm still sharpening my pitchfork and preping my torch, I also have hot tar and feathers ready ! Does anyone have a telephone pole they can spare?

I've got 2 30' ones that the utility company gave me when the put in some new metal ones this spring. I'll donate both.

2dumb2kwit · 11-08-2009, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by canid

how about we define assault rifle as any individual rifle with which an actual assault has been committed, and ban those.

i'd be fine with that.

Well said.
I was thinking of banning all guns that have commited crimes, without a criminal, being in control of it.

oneraindog · 11-08-2009, 01:22 AM

"well i was going to use my gun to kill someone today but gosh they just passed this NEW law that says i cant do that with the gun i have and i cant get another one. guess ill just have to use a machete. THANKS NEW LAWS!"

sgtdraino · 11-08-2009, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pal334

Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74,
shot one of two intruders at his home just outside Tabor
City, N.C.. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the
politician's home county said.

The victim, Kyle Blackburn, was taken to a South Carolina hospital,

Wow. He shot the guy in NC, but they took the guy all the way into South Carolina for treatment???

Pal334 · 11-08-2009, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdraino

Wow. He shot the guy in NC, but they took the guy all the way into South Carolina for treatment???

Only the best for perps

Apparently it is right near Myrtle Beach SC, may explain the states

LostOutrider · 11-08-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crashdive123

You're the one that brought it up. You must have some idea what you meant and why. Just responding to your post, but if you think it's all about playing - have a nice day.

Ahh, easy enough to mistake me stating my belief as a desire or challenge for you to change yours. If you think that random bits of text posted on an internet message forum in support or opposition to such an issue counts as any more significance than play - then I'll take your nice day and raise you a pleasant evening.

11-05-2009, 12:57 PM	#22
Rick Administrator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Central Indiana Posts: 19,351 Blog Entries: 1	Not quite true. There are three schools of thought on how politicians should vote. 1. According to the true tenants of the constitution. 2. In accordance with constituents wishes. They do, after all, represent the people. 3. In accordance with their own conscience since they know the details of the legislation before them they know more than their constituents. I'm not advocating which is correct. Just listing them. __________________ Safe Zone LLC "The Most Trusted Name in Outdoor Gear". Check out our free Family Disaster Plan Buck 110 Folding Hunters are now in stock.

11-06-2009, 03:21 AM	#26
crashdive123 Super Moderator Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: North Florida Posts: 15,542 Blog Entries: 1	My post was really made with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek. I am of the opinion that if an elected official that has sworn to protect the Constitution, bows to the desires of his/her constituents, his own personal desires, or the pressures from other sources - and that course that they choose violates the tenants that they were sworn to uphold - they should be removed from office. __________________ Can't means won't!

11-07-2009, 11:42 AM	#29
LostOutrider Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Ozarks Posts: 175	"Gun control" is not the same thing as "anti-gun." I know that's a little complex for most wing-nuts (whichever side the wing is on) to get their head around, and the shouting heads don't want you to worry too much about things like details. Much easier to get the pitchfork crowd marching in lock-step if the issue is kept simple and dichotomous. Sure, the guy is a scumbag if he's spent his career pushing anti-gun legislation for the 'common folk' then pulls a Cheney on some intruders. Still, that doesn't make gun control bad. I'm for automobile control and regulation, but I'm not a hypocrite for having two cars. I have firearms of my own and am a solid backer of CCW permits, but don't think unregulated ownership of assault rifles is a good idea. Booga! booga! Socialism! Rar! __________________ Guidami verso casa

11-07-2009, 12:53 PM	#31
canid irregular meat sprocket Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Northern California Posts: 2,156	how about we define assault rifle as any individual rifle with which an actual assault has been committed, and ban those. i'd be fine with that. __________________ --------------------------- Peaks ore ate dad night harpoon..?

11-07-2009, 02:31 PM	#32
FVR Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: North Georgia Mountains Posts: 1,903 Blog Entries: 9	I am always amazed at those who consider an assault rifle or weapon any diff. from any other firearm. They are both designed to kill. One just allows you to waste more ammo missing. I don't own assault weapons anymore. I also don't own handguns as I have children and it's just not worth any risks. No matter what. I'm down to muzzleloaders and shotguns. That being said, I don't give a rats arse what you own as long as you are a law abiding citizen. Well, I have my reservations with the guy next door who owns a basooka and a tank..........but hey, nice friend to have in a jam. LOL...only kidding about the next door neighbor Big Brother. You do what you do to survive. If it's a single shot shotgun, knife, bat, etc or an AR-15 with a 30 round clip. Name of the game is to survive. __________________ Can't cheat the mountain, pilgrim. Mountain got it....

11-06-2009, 04:13 AM	#27
Boker Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 71	Personally, I think we should run the anti-gun owners out of the country. We have the guns. What they gonna do? Throw rocks from just over the Canadian/Mexican border?

11-06-2009, 04:20 AM	#28
rwc1969 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: SE Michigan Posts: 198	They work under a different set of "laws?" than us. They break their own rules! ...and then punish us for doin less.

11-08-2009, 01:22 AM	#37
oneraindog Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: seattle Posts: 168	"well i was going to use my gun to kill someone today but gosh they just passed this NEW law that says i cant do that with the gun i have and i cant get another one. guess ill just have to use a machete. THANKS NEW LAWS!" __________________ my primitive skills apprenticeship blog: http://modern-natural.blogspot.com/