Is this forum hipicritical or am i missing something (OC while writing this)

Since this is so far off in left field, and off topic...

I found this and think this gal hits the mark, Only thing I didnt hear was "you need to protect yourself, so load it up".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXeCAeACmJE

Dave_pro2a said:

News flash: liberals and democrats ARE the ones trying to take away our gun rights.

Click to expand...

It is not just "democrats" and "liberals" that are a threat to gun rights. Here is an old oped that ran in the New York Times back in 1991 in favor of the BRADY BILL. It could be argued that absent this mans support the bill wouldn't of been as popular as it was and may not have even passed. oh and as Governor he gave California a 15 DAY WAITING PERIOD FOR HANDGUNS!!!
If you already know who I am talking about then you get a gold star for the day.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html

It never fails to amaze me that in so many areas this man had a great view of the proper and limited role of the federal government, and a respect for states rights, yet when it came to guns or drugs that all went right out the window.:banghead:

I mention this because its important to call out all the attackers of liberty even if it happens to be someone we usually like or respect.
And we shouldn't lose focus by attacking ANY single group.

END_THE_FED said:

It is not just "democrats" and "liberals" that are a threat to gun rights. Here is an old oped that ran in the New York Times back in 1991 in favor of the BRADY BILL. It could be argued that absent this mans support the bill wouldn't of been as popular as it was and may not have even passed. oh and as Governor he gave California a 15 DAY WAITING PERIOD FOR HANDGUNS!!!
If you already know who I am talking about then you get a gold star for the day.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html

It never fails to amaze me that in so many areas this man had a great view of the proper and limited role of the federal government, and a respect for states rights, yet when it came to guns or drugs that all went right out the window.:banghead:

I mention this because its important to call out all the attackers of liberty even if it happens to be someone we usually like or respect.
And we shouldn't lose focus by attacking ANY single group.

Click to expand...

Exceptions prove the rule.

For the most part.

A majority.

Generally speaking.

Compare gun laws in red states versus blue states.

A majority of Dems voted for the 1994 AWB, a majority of Repubs didn't.

Et cetera.

You are arguing that the sky isn't blue (to use a colloquialism).

amzbrady said:

I found this and think this gal hits the mark, Only thing I didnt hear was "you need to protect yourself, so load it up".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXeCAeACmJE

Click to expand...

No I won't pull up my pants. I'm too .

Dave_pro2a said:

Exceptions prove the rule.

For the most part.

A majority.

Generally speaking.

Compare gun laws in red states versus blue states.

A majority of Dems voted for the 1994 AWB, a majority of Repubs didn't.

Et cetera.

You are arguing that the sky isn't blue (to use a colloquialism).

Click to expand...

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I am just saying its important to not forget about the exceptions and to call them out
Attack the issue or person not the party/label

Both parties have attacked our liberties and ignored the constitution and I for one generally speaking have trouble telling the two apart.

I was just pointing out that even those who most would think of as very "conservative" have bought into the false utility of gun control and other liberty stifling laws.

END_THE_FED said:

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I am just saying its important to not forget about the exceptions and to call them out
Attack the issue or person not the party/label

Both parties have attacked our liberties and ignored the constitution and I for one generally speaking have trouble telling the two apart.

I was just pointing out that even those who most would think of as very "conservative" have bought into the false utility of gun control and other liberty stifling laws.

Click to expand...

Nobody's perfect (not even Reagan).

Metalhead47 said:

Nobody's perfect (not even Reagan).

Click to expand...

I know just think of the anti gun laws he signed while heading up the state of California.

We used to have many moderators for this forum. THe problem was that some of them were enforcing their beliefs and not the rules, while one was particularly cruel and engaged in baiting and other trollish behavior. John put a stop to it and IMHO saved the integrity of the site. Since that time the forum has become a little less exciting but alot more respected.

I do not like all of the rules (I really Hate #11) but I respect the evenhanded way in which they enforce the rules.

The root question is where does gun rights activism end and cop bashing end? This is often a very hard question to answer when a cop clearly violates the rights of LACs. I have often used the acronym JBT and never been censured for it on this site. That is because I keep it specific. Criticize only that which is clearly outrageous behavior by LEOs and John will allow it every time.

I know your frustration, I have felt it many times myself. My advice is stay with the forum. It isn't perfect, but it is about as fair, open minded and pro gun rights as you will find on the internet.

sudden valley gunner said:

I know just think of the anti gun laws he signed while heading up the state of California.

Click to expand...

I know, but before you blame Reagan (or Bush or Obama for that matter) for signing leftist laws, remember who wrote those laws in the first place. Now Reagan's tenure both as pres and gov comes just before my own political cognizance, but IIRC in both situations the legislatures who passed the laws up to him were dominated, if not controlled, by libs.

But did they have a veto proof majority?

END_THE_FED said:

But did they have a veto proof majority?

Click to expand...

I honestly don't know (I'm trying to look that up now). I wouldn't be surprised if they did, especially in Kali. I'd also like to know what backroom deals may have been brokered as well (as in, I'll sign this law if you'll pass that one).

Veto proof majority or not, they didn't need one as Ronnie fully supported the Brady Bill...

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html

Tomas said:

Veto proof majority or not, they didn't need one as Ronnie fully supported the Brady Bill...

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html

Click to expand...

Well, seriously now, he was shot, and arguably was only alive because Brady did his job. I see no way for him to NOT fully support the Brady Bill.










Furthermore, any veto would have been on Clinton to handle anyway.........

Brady Bill

Understood - it wasn't on his watch, and he didn't have direct control, but he did influence the outcome.

My only reason for bringing it up at all is that Ronnie is a Republican icon, and I tire of seeing the constant slams against Democrats as being the bad guys.

(Hint, I'm not a Republican, and as often vote for a Democrat as a Republican. I do not vote for a party, but for the person running, and choose them based on who I feel will do the best job from the meager choices offered. I'm a crotchety old 'Nam vet who has carried since I got back, but I'm not some died-in-the-wool ultra conservative right wing republican, I'm a little on the liberal side of the line and it annoys the Hell out of me to be badmouthed for not being conservative or Republican enough even though I have supported by word and action the lawful carrying of firearms for longer than many of you have been alive. Sorry, you pushed a button. I'll go quietly...)

Tomas said:

Understood - it wasn't on his watch, and he didn't have direct control, but he did influence the outcome.

My only reason for bringing it up at all is that Ronnie is a Republican icon, and I tire of seeing the constant slams against Democrats as being the bad guys.

Click to expand...

The slams against the dems as the bad guys seem perfectly logical to me. ALMOST their entire agenda is counter to the typical libertarian & conservative values held by most here. ALMOST all of the Republican agenda (at least ideologically, if not in practice) is in agreement with those on here. To single out Reagan for doing a handful of "bad things" while in office despite all the good he actually did because you don't like dems being bashed as the "bad guys," despite both their record and party ideology of assaulting our liberties, well it seems pretty absurd to me. Republicans seem to get into the most trouble when the stop acting like republicans and start acting like liberals. Let me put it like this: What your saying, seems to me at least, is akin to bashing American troops for the handful of atrocities they've committed at war, while they guys they were fighting had a well established policy of committing atrocities as SOP. You see what I'm saying here?


here goes tangent again....

Metalhead47 said:

The slams against the dems as the bad guys seem perfectly logical to me. ALMOST their entire agenda is counter to the typical libertarian & conservative values held by most here. ALMOST all of the Republican agenda (at least ideologically, if not in practice) is in agreement with those on here. To single out Reagan for doing a handful of "bad things" while in office despite all the good he actually did because you don't like dems being bashed as the "bad guys," despite both their record and party ideology of assaulting our liberties, well it seems pretty absurd to me. Republicans seem to get into the most trouble when the stop acting like republicans and start acting like liberals. Let me put it like this: What your saying, seems to me at least, is akin to bashing American troops for the handful of atrocities they've committed at war, while they guys they were fighting had a well established policy of committing atrocities as SOP. You see what I'm saying here?

Click to expand...

Uh, read what I wrote again. In no way is what I wrote akin to bashing American troops, etc. what I wrote is saying that bashing ALL "dems" or ALL "non-conservatives" is flat wrong as not ALL are anti firearm folks.

It is fine to badmouth a particular person for their behavior, just as it is OK to bash a particular LEO for improper behavior, but as has been said over and over here is it not alright to bash an entire group (LEOs, Dems, Blacks, etc.). Does THAT make any sense to those who don't get it? I'm not saying that any group is all angels, but that one needs to be more focused on one's screeds so as not to alienate those who are on your side by bashing them in a collective manner.

Hell with it. Either one gets it or one doesn't. If one doesn't, it's not my job to educate 'em.

Moving on.

Tawnos said:

The real reason they deleted your thread and don't agree with you is because you can't spell hypocrisy

Click to expand...

Maybe he meant we are critical of Hippies, oh wait that's two P's never mind.

I hate to hijack this thread yet again but that just seems to be my nature

From the experiences I have had in my short life I have come to a semi peaceful realization (my own belief I apologize if this upsets anyone in advance)

First off let me quantify this response with the fact that I am a vet and served as a "green side HM with 2/4 3/5 and 5th Regimental HQ of the USMC.

I have noticed that IN GENERAL the politicians affiliated with the Republican side of the house are orgasmic over trying to expand the military and make it larger than China's is. The also tend to want to involve that military in wars and conflicts and skirmishes and battles and "decisive tactical actions"

The politicians affiliated with the Democratic political party tend to want to minimize the standing military and make it a meager representation of America's sovereignty and power. They also TEND to not give a rats behind about Vets or how they are treated post-conflict (war, skirmish.... ad nauseum)

So who is really the winner in either scenario? Who makes out the best? There really is no "great political party" they all pretty much stink like a red neck after a chili eating contest (I am one of those too btw)

ChuckUFarley said:

I find it quite intresting that certain posts get flagged and deleted, lets say something to do with possibly calling out the injustice that some LEOS (in washington no less) have perpetrated and or the basic rights being lost (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness).

Now I know they could technically be considered OT but what gets me is how other posts are allowed to stay up that have nothing to do with the topic at hand either. Say the capture of the barefoot bandit thread for instance, while i enjoy some of the conversation and dont believe it should necissarily be deleted, it seems there is a an anti-anti stance going on here. I am not saying it should be ok to bash anyone but if were going to say we cant talk about it because it does not relate then shouldnt it go for all threads that dont relate.

I personally believe the state of our Police forces in Washington State are very reletive to this forum, but i understand many dont, but i just ask that those who dont like a certain topic to "NOT GO THERE" and let those who want to discuss it discuss it, or throw your off topic comments on every single thread that has nothing to do with OC.

Click to expand...

Think about how many anti-gunners, Law Enforcement, and legislators see this forum. Cop bashing and the like paints the movement in a bad light.

This is partly why many of the guys I have met that USE to be on here are no longer around and the ones I know in the real world won't bother because they can't ask questions that may seem off topic, but are still valid. MY ONLY COMPLAINT is I do see people doing OT stuff then chew others out for doing it. That's BS anyway you look at it. I don't see people being as welcome on here as it was 2 years ago+ when I joined.