Gun Control Poll

[bluestateguy]

On a scale of 1-10, to what extent do you support gun control? 1 represents no gun control, while 10 represents support for complete government confiscation of all privately owned guns.

[a560]

1. i think the word gun should be banned from DU

its a very offensive word to me.

[FeebMaster]

2. I voted 1 for no gun control.

I'm sure everyone is shocked.

[Maurkov]

39. Heh.

I'm only shocked that you didn't invent a 0 option. :)

[FeebMaster]

46. I was just following the parameters of the poll.

It did feel a little weird voting 1 when I want 0 gun control though.

[pinto]

3. where does this fit?

Gun registration, three day waiting period, background check, no gun show loophole sales, registered resale, and if your child assaults someone with your gun you and your child get charged?

Not too dissimilar from automobile registration process and ownership regs....

[DoNotRefill]

5. that'd qualify as an 8 or 9....

BTW, in case you missed it, there's no "right to keep and drive cars" enumerated in the Bill of Rights...and charging you with a crime a family member commits reeks of corruption of blood....

[pinto]

6. Good point re: Constitution. It's an established right of a well regulated

militia. (I think that's how it reads). If we assume they meant the general population, then I'm for no control.

[DoNotRefill]

11. the key is the word "people"...

"people" doesn't constitute just a select militia like the National Guard, since the National Guard is a very small segment of the People.

BTW, it reads "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That's from Black's.

[DoNotRefill]

4. I voted 2...

The only gun control I support is keeping it illegal for convicted felons and those adjudicated mentally defective to own guns. Other than that, criminalize the conduct, not the tool.

[pinto]

7. how about adding any violent offense, gang related offense, trafficking

offense or domestic violence offense? I'd go with that.

[DoNotRefill]

9. That falls under the "felony" category....

except for domestic violence, which SHOULD be a felony.

[FatSlob]

74. 100% agreement

I voted the same.

[pinto]

8. so, finally, I voted a 3. thanks.

[FeebMaster]

10. You went from wanting

registration, a national waiting period, background checks, and registered private sales to a 3 in 5 minutes?

That may be the fastest conversion I've ever seen outside of a mugging.

[MrSandman]

12. DNR is a smooth one...

I also voted one.

[pinto]

13. I'm not converted, I'm trying to be realistic. My brother carries a gun,

I won't have one in the house. He's not wrong and I'm not right.

[Me Me Meme]

14. I had to vote for 1

In reality, I think a 2 or a 3 is a more appropriate attitude. But I've also grown to distrust the spirit of my opponents on this issue to negotiate in good faith. So I refuse to compromise anymore, I'm going for the whole enchilada, and hopefully will wind up with something close to what I wanted when it's all said and done.

[MrBenchley]

15. I'll give it a nine cause the kids can dance to it

Wow....this is even lamer than the "let's have a revolution and shoot somebody" poll....

[jtb33]

16. Wow...

I thought Benchley would for sure be a "10" on this...

Anyway, I'm a "2". I agree with "DoNotRefill": gun ownership/posession should continue to be illegal for convicted felons, those who are determined to be "mentally deficient" and those who have convictions related to domestic abuse (and other violence-related crimes).

[MrBenchley]

17. So tell us, jtb

what exactly does a two mean....and how is it EXACTLY differtent than a three...or a four?

[Me Me Meme]

19. well...

Two is EXACTLY one less than three, and two is EXACTLY two less than four. :)

[jtb33]

23. I think

that the only "defined" choices in his poll are 1 and 10, anything other than those two choices is going to be rather ambiguous. I feel that new MG's shouldn't be "banned" (yes, I know you can still buy pre-86 ones, but new ones should be available IMO), and many other useless laws/restrictions on the books are unnecessary.

BTW, even though a convicted felon serves his time, I don't think that that should be the end of it. What if he was a convicted felon for armed robbery, attempted murder, etc... ? I don't think that such people should EVER be allowed to own a firearm again. Now, if they were a convicted felon for something like what Martha Stewart was convicted of (non-violent crime), then I think that's another story.

I picked a "2" but I suppose that could easily be construed as a "3" or a "4".

Iverglas, I based my "I thought Benchley would for sure be a "10" on this..." as exactly that - read it again: "I thought". That means that from his posts I have read that he is not a supporter of the right for people to keep an bear arms. However, I don't know - for all I know he could in fact want to allow "bolt action hunting rifles" or shotguns in the hands of the people. I never saw a clear position from him on that, but based on his vote of "9", I am going to assume that he's not out for an all-out ban, and that he thinks that in some cases (?) it's okay for the citizenry to own firearms.

[MrBenchley]

31. Gee, now what could be wrong with

a poll with so few actual defined choices?

"I based my "I thought Benchley would for sure be a "10" on this..." as exactly that"
One fo the wonders of the RKBA crowd is that they are not only quick to tell me what they think (inaccurate, misinformed and delusional as THAT is). but quick to tell me what I think too.

[jtb33]

32. Okay...

MrBenchley, I apologize then. Can you elaborate as to why you chose "9" as opposed to a "10" (or "8")?

[MrBenchley]

36. Because the teens can dance to it...

Just like I said

[jtb33]

37. Ah...

lol...

[FeebMaster]

18. My only problem with the ban for convicted felons

is that convicted felons should be in prison and if they aren't in prison then their debt to society should be paid and they should have the same rights as everyone else.

I'd consider compromising on this issue if it were simply illegal for felons and the legally insane, if it were a law that was enforced when the person breaking it was caught. I won't support any background check for everyone at purchase time.

[iverglas]

21. hmm

convicted felons should be in prison and if they aren't in prison then their debt to society should be paid and they should have the same rights as everyone else.

Do five-year-olds have an unpaid debt to society?

If not, why shouldn't they be able to exercise the same rights as everyone else?

(We'll be accurate here. They do have the same rights as everyone else; they just aren't permitted to exercise some of them, for themselves, in some circumstances.)

.

[Me Me Meme]

24. That question will be worth answering

just as soon as you find a 5 year old felon.

[iverglas]

25. I can't think of when

That question will be worth answering
just as soon as you find a 5 year old felon.

that statement might make sense.

Are five-year-old non-"felons" really permitted to possess firearms??

.

[Me Me Meme]

26. of course

it doesn't make sense. But it makes no less sense than comparing five year olds and felons to begin with. Five year olds, being minors, have no RKBA to begin with. Comparing them to felons on any level is a chickenshit argument, and you know it.

[iverglas]

27. like I was saying

Five year olds, being minors, have no RKBA to begin with.

... Where does it say that in your constitution?

Are five-year-olds not people? If you prick them, do they not bleed?

I wonder: do they also not have the right not to be deprived of life or liberty without due process?

Open season on five-year-olds, I guess. Should be easy pickings, considering how all disarmed they are.

.

[Me Me Meme]

28. I'll check...

"Are five-year-olds not people? If you prick them, do they not bleed?"

OK, I'll have to concede this point to ya, Iverglas...

I just stuck a thumbtack in my five year old daughter's forearm and sure enough, she bled! Screamed a lot, too.

I guess you win this round. :)

[Columbia]

29. The Shylock defense for universal RKBA?

Sure, why not? I'll go with that.

[MrBenchley]

35. Damn strange, isn't it?

It certainly isn't rare to have stories in the news of children of all ages shot and wounded or killed. And those of us who express any concern are told in no uncertain terms that we are enmies of the RKBA and out to destroy the Second Amendment.

But then those who express that opinion also think Britons and Canadians are unarmed slaves to the queen.

[Young Socialist]

64. it wasn't the queen that disarmed the British,

I seem to remember it was the thatcher junta in 1987 that banned semi-autos and then the major regime followed up with the handgun grab. both of those assclowns were viciuos riech wingers, nice friends you've got there in the anti-freedom camp.

[MrBenchley]

69. Ah, RKBA "history"

It's just as defective as RKBA "logic"....

"September 30, 1997
(CNN) -- In Britain and Australia new laws, prompted by massacres in those countries, were causing gun owners to hand in weapons ahead of Tuesday midnight deadlines.
In Britain, the grace period for a tough new anti-gun law ends, while in Australia, it was the last day the government would pay people for turning in automatic and semi-automatic weapons banned by new state laws.
The deadline in Britain was part of the Firearms Amendment Act, which was introduced after a gunman killed 16 school children and their teacher in the Scottish town of Dunblane a year and a half ago.
The ban tightens what was already one of the world's strictest gun laws. It took effect in July, but a grace period for the handover was extended until the end of this month.
The new law bans the possession of all handguns of .22 caliber and above and those able to fire more than one shot at a time. "

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9709/30/britain.aus.gunban/

[FeebMaster]

30. That's nice but we're talking about

convicted felons and their rights, not five year olds. If you're asking do I support RKBA for 5 year olds, then the answer is I don't support laws prohibiting 5 year olds from owning guns. How is a 5 year old going to buy a gun? Where is a 5 year old going to get the money to buy a gun? How is a 5 year old going to get to a gun store to buy a gun? Who is going to sell a gun to a 5 year old? Maybe we could keep this conversation based somewhere in reality?

[iverglas]

33. fer sher

then the answer is I don't support laws prohibiting 5 year olds from owning guns. How is a 5 year old going to buy a gun? Where is a 5 year old going to get the money to buy a gun? How is a 5 year old going to get to a gun store to buy a gun? Who is going to sell a gun to a 5 year old?

I dunno. Maybe the same people who sell guns to convicted felons?

If there's a buck to be made, there are always people willing to make it, eh?

It seems you failed to take the point.

You said: convicted felons should be in prison and if they aren't in prison then their debt to society should be paid and they should have the same rights as everyone else.

What you were doing was positing an unpaid "debt to society" as the basis on which the exercise of a right could be restricted or denied.

I said: Do five-year-olds have an unpaid debt to society?

That was a rhetorical question. Obviously, five-year-olds do not have an unpaid debt to society.

So obviously, there is some other ground for denying five-year-olds the exercise of this "right".

(Your answer, that you don't support that denial, I take as silly. You have given reasons for allowing the exercise of the right -- your series of questions -- that simply amount to "they won't be able to exercise it anyway, so why not let them exercise it?" In point of fact, they will be perfectly able to exercise it. All they'll have to do is have an idiot parent or sibling or local drug dealer who gives them a firearm. Or trade their teddy bear collection for one. I don't really think that you support permitting five-year-olds to exercise the "right" to possess firearms at all. But how about Ten-year-olds? Thirteen-year-olds? Concealed carry permits for them? Or just allow them to carry firearms around openly like everyone else, if you're an opponent of requiring permits ...)

So gosh, can you think of some other reason that might provide justification for prohibiting the exercise of the "right" to possess firearms in the case of, oh, someone who had been convicted of threatening his/her spouse with death by firearm? The "debt to society" (which is in fact just some silly notion that someone has decided to toss in here, and has nothing to do with anything at all) will have been paid after a couple of years, I'd imagine. Me, I can still see potential justification for denying such a person the exercise of the "right" to possess firearms.

Of course, up here in Canada, a criminal conviction of any kind is no more a bar to possessing firearms (unless it is a condition of a sentence that has not expired) than it is a bar to voting. The question is whether it is not in the public interest for any individual to possess firearms. Martha Stewart could make an application for a licence to do so, and Karla Homolka (now out of prison after serving time in connection with the torture/murders for which her husband Paul Bernardo is serving a life sentence) can make an application for a licence to do so once her parole ends. Their applications will be judged on their merits.

Maybe we could keep this conversation based somewhere in reality?

Certainly. I'll take the reality in which there are some people whose possession of firearms would really obviously not be in the public interest, and from the elevated risk of harm at whose hands the public can reasonably expect to be protected. Many people convicted of violent criminal offences, and virtually all five-year-olds, fall into that category.

.

[FeebMaster]

34. This is what I get for attempting to compromise.

No gun laws.

[MrSandman]

56. Well...

How about after the time that would be commensurate with the maximum sentence for the crime? Take care of pled away or early release time?

After that full restoration of franchise, etc.

[FeebMaster]

58. How will it be enforced?

Background checks at purchase time or charges when they're caught?

[MrSandman]

59. I have to say background checks...

I know, it will cause a lot of denials needing appeals. It should be the responsibility of the offender to provide documentation to NICS for purging his/her name prior to eligibility for purchase. Part of their debt should be to assume responsibility for restoration of rights.

My first question would have been, "Would you consider time concurrent or consecutive for multiple offenses?" I think the longest sentence.

I know, we differ on the issue of background checks. As long as NICS works as well as it does(from a purchaser), I have no problem with it. In fact, I think it should preempt state laws requiring waiting periods, permission of the great leader of the local community...

[iverglas]

20. yes, do tell

I thought Benchley would for sure be a "10" on this...

Can you explain that thought process for us? Like, maybe, tell us what FACTS you considered in reaching that thought?

This would be one of them:

10 represents support for complete government confiscation of all privately owned guns.

Now, if you think that an orange is a citrus fruit, you will consider, essentially:

(a) a citrus fruit has seeds and skin and no core and grows in Florida;
(b) the thing I am looking at has seeds and skin and no core and grew in Florida.

Voilà -- it's an orange!

In this case, we have:

(a) a person who supports for complete government confiscation of all privately owned guns scores 10;
(b) the MrBenchley I am looking at _____________.

Fill in the blank to show us how you reached your personal voilà, would you?

.

[Columbia]

22. Funny...

I don't see any 9 voted in the poll? :shrug:

Tell us what part of gun rights you support, by the way, that makes you a 9 and not a 10?

[MrBenchley]

38. No shit, sherlock....

And I don't support any part of "gun rights"...the notion that an individual right to own guns is any part of the second amendment is a pile of horseshit, as the courts have upheld again and again and again and again.

[Columbia]

40. So then...

I guess you were one of the ones who voted 10. Why did you say you voted 9 then?

[iverglas]

41. damn, eh?

I guess you were one of the ones who voted 10. Why did you say you voted 9 then? Why lie?

So ... I guess all those who claim that there is no "right to drive" in the US constitution support confiscation of all motor vehicles by the government?

Are you REALLY unable to distinguish between there is no constitutional right of individuals to do "X" and the government should take away all individuals' means of doing "X"?

If I were you, then, based on the evidence in your post that you are unable to so distinguish, I would ask "why so stupid"?

But that would be a violation of the local rules, so *I* do not ask.


(html fixed)

.

[Columbia]

42. I wasn't asking you

I was asking MrBenchley specifically why he thinks himself a 9 rather than a 10. And he was unable to provide an answer. And considering there was NO vote of 9 when there are two votes of 10 then I must consider the possibility that he in fact voted 10 even though he said 9 in this thread. But who knows, maybe he is in fact a closet believer in absolute gun rights and was among the plurality who voted 1. :shrug:

[TX-RAT]

43. Mr Benchleys a closet believer in gun rights?

Hells freezing over.

[Columbia]

44. Watch out for...

The flying pigs too.

[MrBenchley]

55. You know, isn't it a joy to discuss issues

with someone so trigger happy that he can stare at the sentence "And I don't support any part of "gun rights"...the notion that an individual right to own guns is any part of the second amendment is a pile of horseshit, as the courts have upheld again and again and again and again." and THEN say about its author "he's a closet believer in gun rights"?

It's that kind of intellectual rigor and general attention to fact that gives me the respect I have for the RKBA cause and its adherents.

[iverglas]

47. ask me whether I care

Here is what your UNEDITED post said. Tough that I read it, eh? --

I guess you were one of the ones who voted 10. Why did you say you voted 9 then? Why lie?

Benchley actually SAID:

I'll give it a nine

He didn't SAY that he had VOTED 10. I haven't "voted" in the stupid poll either. Knowing Benchley as we do fairly well, my assumption would be that he did NOT "vote" in the stupid poll, but expressed an opinion about it instead.

You stated -- AFTER HE SAID THAT -- that you "guess"ed he had "voted 10". That's not a guess; that's a statement of belief that is contrary to the known facts. It is a statement made without a shred of foundation.

You CLAIMED THAT HE HAD LIED. That's the only possible interpretation of a statement of belief about what someone did that is false, a question as to why they said they did something else, and a question as to why they lied, I'm afraid.

And your current statement:

I was asking MrBenchley specifically why he thinks himself a 9 rather than a 10.

is NOT a remotely reasonable interpretation of what you said.

And considering there was NO vote of 9 when there are two votes of 10 then I must consider the possibility that he in fact voted 10 even though he said 9 in this thread.

Except that, since he did NOT say that he had "voted" 9, you really also had to consider the possibility that he DID NOT "VOTE".

That being, in many people's minds, a more reasonable possibility than that someone pointlessly lied about a stupid poll.

But who knows, maybe he is in fact a closet believer in absolute gun rights and was among the plurality who voted 1.

And maybe he does not believe that the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution grants/acknowledges an absolute individual right to possess firearms, BUT HE DOES NOT ADVOCATE THAT ALL FIREARMS BE CONFISCATED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Yup, that there is still the most reasonable explanation, I'd have to say.

And anyone who failed to notice that there was a reasonable explanation for whatever phenomenon s/he is concerned about would be just really well advised not to accuse someone else of lying about said phenomenon.

.

[Columbia]

51. Still wasn't asking you

"And maybe he does not believe that the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution grants/acknowledges an absolute individual right to possess firearms, BUT HE DOES NOT ADVOCATE THAT ALL FIREARMS BE CONFISCATED BY THE GOVERNMENT."

Why are you trying to speak for him? Do you know? You lambaste me for hypothesizing what he voted and you do the same. Why don't you get off your high horse once in awhile. Geez.

[iverglas]

52. actually

Why are you trying to speak for him?

I didn't notice that I was. Unlike you.

Do you know?

Actually, yes. I actually pay attention. It isn't that difficult. But it makes it damned hard to pretend and "guess" and ascribe "hypothetical" ideas to ... which of course I'm not in the habit of doing anyway.

You lambaste me for hypothesizing what he voted and you do the same.

You didn't hypothesize; you claimed, and you accused, all without any foundation.

I hypothesized, with quite a good foundation.

Why don't you get off your high horse once in awhile. Geez.

Geez. I suppose because I regard the horse called "do not make false allegations of wrongdoing against other people" as a pretty important one. I sure prefer sitting on it to getting run down by it.

.

[Columbia]

61. oh dear me

You have an excuse for everything don't you? :freak:

[iverglas]

68. gosh, if only

You have an excuse for everything don't you?

... I'd had some "thing" that I needed an excuse for, and I'd offered an excuse for it ...

If you are never going to tell me what the hell you're talking about, how the hell am I supposed to know?? Copy & paste is just 2 clicks away.

.

[Columbia]

75. As your pal would say

Been there, done that.

[MrBenchley]

77. No, what I'd say is RKBA "logic" or whatever it is

Still think I'm a closet believer in that septic little creed?

[MrBenchley]

54. UNable to provide an answer?

I have specifically answered THREE times now in the manner of American Bandstand, because this is a juvenile and useless poll.

"maybe he is in fact a closet believer in absolute gun rights"
And I answered THAT as well.

[TX-RAT]

45. Fishing in Manitoba next month come join us.

Sassaginagac lake.

[iverglas]

49. heh

I was in Manitoba once. Right there in Winnipeg at Portage and Main in February -- that's a sort of Canadian icon for as cold as it gets.

http://www.seemagazine.com/Issues/1999/1021/icu.htm

The most hilarious thing is when Joe Edmonton starts up with the spiel within earshot of a guy from Winnipeg, for example. I’ve seen this sort of confrontation reach the point where I found my hand tightening around the neck of my hastily-emptied beer bottle, waiting for the whole thing to explode, ready to jump in to defend the Arctic honor: "Semper fi, Joe . . . in cases like this, Manitoba counts as Eatern Bastards!"

Now the Winnipeg guy will be laying down the old "blah blah Portage and Main blah blah windiest corner yadda yadda" bit, trowelling it on thick like Bugs Bunny cartoon mortar, and this does not impress Joe Edmonton. He’s seen freakin’ GRADERS at 3 a.m. stuck in snowpiles so huge you could build whole architecturally-controlled starter-home Farms at Willow Creek subdivisions on them! He was STANDING RIGHT THERE when they pulled that bum out of a drift – FROZEN SOLID! The brewing fight never gets tapped, though . . . hey, man, what’s the point? Let’s not cause trouble, eh? I guess we can BOTH live in hell and work construction.

But that was in 1971, when the Liberal Party paid our way to go to a convention, and I haven't been back. (But you can read about us in an old paperback by a right-wing newspaper columnist named Lubor Zink - don't you wish Rush Limbaugh were named Lubor Zink? -- if you can find who made off with my copy of it ...) Flew to Edmonton and Calgary once. Never been to the Pacific coast. Been all over the Atlantic provinces a few times. But just an effete Central Canadian citydweller at heart. ;) Although of course not as effete as the Torontonians.

So, do you visit often?

.

[TX-RAT]

50. Every year

We fly into Gimli, then drive to pine dock and take the float planes out to the lake. I wouldn't miss it for the world, the northern lights, the bear, the moose, the caribou, the Crown Royal( made in Gimli). Northern paradise for sure.

[MrBenchley]

53. It's amazing that somebody can think I voted at all

I sure haven't given an answer that could possibly make anybody think I took it seriously, unless they were --oh.

[Me Me Meme]

48. You WILL lose.

'And I don't support any part of "gun rights"'

As long as there are people like you and people like me, there will never be compromise. And you'll lose eventually. It's inevitable. Oh, there will be swings in the battle for sure. We'll gain some ground here, lose a little there. But we'll come out on top.

Your precious AWB is DEAD.

Almost every state in the union now has shall-issue or permitless CCW. We'll get Wisconsin next year. Then it's on to making them all permitless.

You were destined to lose from the beginning. We're already armed.

The sad thing is that you'll do, as you have done in the past, massive damage to the left by pursuing this mindless vendetta of yours.

Your turn, Bob. Give me a smart-ass one liner now. It's all you've got, and we both know it.

[MrBenchley]

57. Ooh...is there anything as lame as an internet tough guy?

Geeze, so far this year, the disgraceful immunity bill is dead...and now the country sees that tboth the gun show loophole closing AND the assault weapons ban renewal will pass in the Senate, to the overwhelming approval of voters. And we got a presidential candidate who is kicking Chimpy's ass that supports both of those.

Want to hear a winning strategy for gun control and Democrats? We push the assault weapons renewal. MAKE the GOP stand up and say "Yes, we think loonies and criminals should be able to outgun the police." Show the entire country--or at least the 77% of voters who see no reason why anyone needs to get their shaky sweaty hands on assault weapon, that the GOP is in bed with the scummiest industry around. The voters will either push the Republican into going for gun control--or more likely, vote for a Democrat.
Push for closing the gun show loophole--since 90% of voters want that sucker closed and criminals kept from buying guns. Again, make the GOP explain why they think criminals and lunatics should be able to bypass the system. The voters will either push the Republican into going for gun control--or more likely, vote for a Democrat.
We push for the McCarthy bill to strengthen the background check system to get out of the Senate cpmmittee where Hatch and his loonies have bottled it up. It's already passed the House. The voters will either push the Republican into going for gun control--or more likely, vote for a Democrat.
Make the unelected drunk deal with the bills on his desk. If he signs them, good. If he vetoes them, we drag out the old tape of the NRA boasting they work out of his office. Or even better, let President Kerry sign them after January.

"We're already armed."
And yet you still keep wailing in fear, afraid even to go to church without a popgun in your pocket. And your cause is entirely nuilt on denial, distortion and deception.

"The sad thing is that you'll do, as you have done in the past, massive damage to the left"
Who the fuck do you think you are kidding? If that were even remotely true, the RKBA crowd wouldn't have to be dredging up turds from right wing cesspools like Neewsmax and MensNewsDaily. You wouldn't be reduced to cheering for Republicans time and again.

"Give me a smart-ass one liner now. It's all you've got"
Gee, I got actual facts on my side. All you got is the Republican party and a bunch of corrupt scumbags who sell guns. I'll stick with mine. The smell is much bettter.

P.S.: Bob Boudelang is not my name---he's a parody of the sort of mindless shitheel who clogs the internet putting out right wing crap...such as "we have a right to own guns" and "we should get out of the UN" and "the Bill of Rights is only for individuals." Guess some people can't tell the difference between truth and fiction.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

62. Like I said....

Guess somebody dsidn't read the long and ridiculous "we need guns in church" series the "enthusiasts" posted here the other day.

"But in the '02 elections Roger Moe said he would under no circumstances sign a CCW bill, Pawlenty said he would, and for the first and only time in 24 voting years I cast my vote for a Republican. "
And so you endorsed a whole bunch of scummy policies that hurt honest men and women just so you could have a popgun in your pocket. Good going.

"Piss on the R's and the D's. I'm concerned with the M's - ME and MINE."
Says it all.

"So don't you presume to know anything about me on the basis of one issue."
Geeze, why would I give a shit about YOU? It's not like YOU are likely to bring a lot to the cause of, say, environmental action, if YOU keep standing up at any meeting to announce how much YOU like Republicans because they'll give YOU a gun and that YOU don't give a crap about anybody or anything else.

[Me Me Meme]

63. Wrong again

'Guess somebody dsidn't read the long and ridiculous "we need guns in church" series the "enthusiasts" posted here the other day.'

Of course I saw it, and others like it before. I wasn't registered at that time.

Churches are private property. If they don't want guns there they have that right. If they don't want 'em in the parking lot, same thing. Yeah, they gotta hang a sign. That's only a big deal if you want it to be. And there is an "and" where there should be an "or" in the CCW law. A teaspoonful of bipartisanship and that change would squirt through the legislature like grease through a goose.


"Says it all."

Yes. It says I look out for my own interests. Because I can't depend on anyone else to.


"Geeze, why would I give a shit about YOU?"

Obviously you care very deeply about of all of this and everyone here. You wouldn't spend the time and effort otherwise, unless you simply don't have any other excuse for a life. Which is it?


"It's not like YOU are likely to bring a lot to the cause of, say, environmental action"

Bullshit through and through. Again you don't know me. I spent half my life in CA, and I stood outside and collected signatures for actions as far back as the fight to stop the Peripheral Canal. (we WON!) And I can't even count how much money I've given to the Sierra Club over the years. We were recycling in Berkeley in the early '70's - back when you had to clip the rings off the bottles yourself and haul all that shit to the recycing center. And way before it was cool and effortless.

And your smart-ass remark about about "wiping your ass with a pine cone" in another thread indicates that you don't spend much time outdoors. Between April and October I'll spend a cumulative month and a half sleeping outdoors. I camp a LOT. And every time I backpack, I wind up not only packing out my own trash, but the crap that other hikers and campers leave. I pick up my shotgun hulls when I'm hunting, for fuck's sake!

Spare me the bullshit. I've tried to take care of the planet all my life. What have YOU done lately?

[MrBenchley]

65. Nope...

Sounds like I was right on the money.

"And your smart-ass remark about about "wiping your ass with a pine cone" in another thread indicates that you don't spend much time outdoors."
Hey, you're the one who announced indoor toilets is a cause for armed revolution ....

[Me Me Meme]

72. Armed what???

What the fuck are you talking about?

[iverglas]

66. I'm so flattered!

I'm concerned with the M's - ME and MINE.

I just knew that it was about moi! Not that bit, the other bit, the me me meme bit. Moi's meme:

ME ME ME.

There isn't a politican out there - of ANY stripe - that truly represents my interests.

Well, some of us don't think that's actually the only job of politicians.

Some of us think that some of some other people's interests are, just occasionally, more important than some of our own interests.

But in the '02 elections Roger Moe said he would under no circumstances sign a CCW bill, Pawlenty said he would, and for the first and only time in 24 voting years I cast my vote for a Republican. The fucking bill tied in committee last time out, and it was now or wait another 4-8 years. Screw THAT. I'm sick to death of my party repeatedly abandoning the few issues that are important to me (guns are just one, and they're not even the most important, actually).

I guess this one wasn't of any importance at all:

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2003/04/14_scheckt_righttoknow/

Gov. Tim Pawlenty has signed into a law a measure that would require any woman seeking an abortion to wait 24 hours before the procedure is done. Minnesota is now the 19th state to have such a law. The Minnesota Senate passed the bill and sent it to the governor earlier Monday afternoon. ...

Several senators said they're concerned the bill provides women with incorrect information.

For example, the bill states women have a higher risk of breast cancer if they have an abortion. Many leading medical groups, like the National Cancer Institute, say there's no cause-and-effect relationship between the two.

It does several other obnoxious things, and is of course simply unconstitutional.

Opponents say the bill is an attempt to undermine a woman's legal right to have an abortion.

Guess what: they're right. But what does ME ME care, eh? It's only someone else's liberty, and of course actual relevant things like life and health and happiness, being interfered with.

So don't you presume to know anything about me on the basis of one issue.

Amazingly, everything you just said confirms just about anything that I would have "presumed to know".

You considered founding your own party? The ME ME party. A platform consisting of "everything I want and fuck the rest of you".

... we've had our shall-issue CCW for a year now and I haven't even gotten around to getting mine. No real hurry, as I'm not prone to going places where I feel there are extraordinary security risks. It's about liberty and the freedom to choose ...

Yeah. And repeal of the law that prohibits me from pooping in the park would be about liberty and freedom to choose too. And what a good thing it would be.

And what brainless pap an argument based on "liberty" and nothing else obviously is.

.

[MrBenchley]

67. Yeah, but you're a craven slave of the Queen

with your effete indoor bathroom....

By the way, isn't it hilarious to hear somebody pout: "don't you presume to know anything about me on the basis of one issue" when every one of his posts have been an extremist pronouncement on that one issue, one of them proclaiming that he voted Republican on the basis on that one issue?

"repeal of the law that prohibits me from pooping in the park would be about liberty and freedom to choose too."
Yes, but some people seem to think you'd learn a valuable lesson in individual freedom if you did. And the end-product would illustrate what that opinion is worth, too.

[iverglas]

70. would that be

repeal of the law that prohibits me from pooping in the park would be about liberty and freedom to choose too.
And the end-product would illustrate what that opinion is worth, too.


... horseshit??

Well, only if I happened to be on my high horse at the time, I suppose.

.

[MrBenchley]

71. LOL!!

So in 228 years, according to some people, the rallying cry of the revolution has gone from "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" to "I wanta poop in the park and fuck everybody else's opinion."

I wonder if you can guess at the level of "national pride" I've been feeling lately.

[Me Me Meme]

73. :) :) :)

The handle was inspired in equal part by you and some of Ontarios's Finest, thank you. Ya'll Canadians are good for something :)

"I guess this one wasn't of any importance at all:"

Nope. I got no dog in that fight. Next. I'll tell you what - I'll fight for women's reproductive rights if they'll give me a break on RKBA whether it make 'em uncomfortable or not. I'm not above mutual back-scratching, but I'm looking out for number one.

"Some of us think that some of some other people's interests are, just occasionally, more important than some of our own interests."

I'm not often one of those people. Sometimes, but not often. Sorry! Besides, I'm more often interested in local community issues these days than national ones. I believe charity begins at home - and doesn't travel very far.

As to where Canadians poop, I neither know nor care. If you try that shit here, you'll likely be dealt with accordingly :)

'You considered founding your own party? The ME ME party. A platform consisting of "everything I want and fuck the rest of you".'

Seriously...you're obviously highly intelligent, and certainly a far more nuanced individual then what comes across online, despite the truly massive volume of words you're capable of dispensing(!). Gimmee a break. I'll do anything for a friend, and most anything for an acquaintance. And I spend more time playing guitar or riding bicycles or watching films (NetFlix is AWESOME!) than I spend having anything to do with firearms. But nobody's trying to ban guitars or bicycles or DVD's. So that becomes the (heated) discussion, and our only point of contact.

It's not like I'm even all that political, period. That's why I've been reading this site for so long and never registered.

[AmyJ]

76. I know

this won't make me popular but I voted for 8. Guns just scare me. Other countries with strict gun control laws don't have anywhere near the level of gun violence this country has and I just don't understand why we can't do anything about it.