doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com ?

I'd hang out at the bar with Moa See Tongue his ownself if'n he was buyin'.


___________________________
The early bird always gets the worm. King Wilkie

Thot same myself, Dr. Sane. Maybe the unwarranted squealing is more from fear of the ballot box than rage against antis wherever they are. I haven't been able to arrive at any clear judgement of a single anti-gun among us although there are wide ranges of opinion on this mostly conservative board. The sky-is-falling and blue-ruin squealing comes from a few of the less mature.

I'm pretty sure it's because of some programming language that prevents you from getting less then two stars once you have them craig. Otherwise I'd have negative 20 stars or more!

FWIW, if I saw you at a gun show (which believe it or not I do frequent), I'd sit down and have a drink with you. I know you have an itch to explain to me how I am the enemy of your children's future. Could make for some fun conversation!

Since your judgement is still cloudy King, I'll try to find some time tomorrow to post a dozen or so quotes of anti-gun statements made by you, Ed, and nca. Then folks can decide whether you lack clear judgement or are living in a state of abject denial, or worse. It is rather immature to deny your own words. Stay tuned.

I hesitate to wade in here Keith, but I think perhaps, and know doubt you will provide me with evidence if I am wrong, that one might describe King as more anti 2cd Amendment than anti gun. He's definitely pro gun control a la the current state of affairs in Canada. He may have resigned himself to the idea that his political and social aspirations for our country are mutually exclusive with private gun ownership. But I don't think he is anti gun per se.

Unless one considers making views on gun ownership secondary to other views "anti gun".

Going hunting now.

I asked Dave what the stars meant about 5 years ago. He said they mean 'nothing'. It was just a part of this computer program and was unintentional when the website was set up. So, apparently stars are meaningless.

I think I've read all of King's quotes posted here, and I can't find any where he's asking for anyone to be kicked off the board. Disagree with him if you want, but make sure your accusations are accurate.

Now awaiting a rant about how he's anti-gun etc--several of which we've already seen here--and which has nothing to do with the point I was making above.

And while I don't always agree with Wonko, he makes a good point. Why worry about people you see as being anti-gun on this BB? Highly unlikely they're going to convert anyone here to their point of view. They represent a very small minority of the people who post here.

James, is it possible for anyone to be against the Second when there's an enduring national debate of what it is? Jim says the Second is an inalienable right. I've questioned what he means. Does he mean it can't be changed from its original purpose? Does he mean it's not open to debate, unquestionable?

If so, which interpretation from left and right is he using? The Supreme Court itself is loose as a goose in its findings, leaving boroughs, municipalities, towns, cities and states to make their own 2nd ajudications. Our estimable lagopus wasn't anti-2nd for posting this on another thread today:

"I find, from what I read, that each State has it's own interpretation on gun laws and what is legal in one state becomes an offence in the next. It must make it quite complex at times. What is it I hear about the severe restrictions on gun ownership in New York city and Washington D.C.? How to they view the 2nd. Amendment so differently? Just curious."

C'mon guys we all know kieth has the final say in who is anti gun. Guns should only be sold to anyone that kieth gives the final thumbs up to. There are U.S citizens that would not get a gun under kieth's rule or worthy of having a fully automatic M60 as their carry gun.....but of course....in kieth's mental view, that's not gun control or anti gun....that's just kieth deciding, and dam be anyone who thinks otherwise.

Can't wait for his typical 5 paragraph diatribe.

D.

Well, there has been some debate at the SC level but I wouldn't describe the SC's position as loosey goosey.

While not an American, when it comes to the US Constitution I personally am what might be called an originalist. It is the US Constitution and IMHO should not be "interpreted" for modern times. It attempts to deal with problems and issues that the founders felt were universal and timeless and the Supremes are often sorely tempted to make their own laws.

The founders clearly wanted the individual to be able to protect himself from an overreaching state and to be able to rein in that state. That theme, of protection against the excesses of the state, runs through the US constitution, as well as most other aspects of the politics of the day and the writings of the founders. To view it any other way is to be an activist, bent on expanding the power of the state at the expense of the individual.

One might think that good, one might think that bad. I think it's bad.

Without a good constitution up here but instead that silly Charter of Rights and Freedoms Trudeau Sr saddled us with, we have spent 30 years at the mercy of a activist, appointed SC, overriding the people's representatives, Parliament, accountable to no one and more often than not, leading public opinion rather than following. Rule by the elites who purport to know better. Beverley McLaughlin and Louise Arbour have been quite specific about how they know better than the rest of us. It's a very slippery slope. A bad state of affairs IMHO. Trudeau Senior was a traitor.