I'm posting this because I, and I'm sure many others here, respect his opinion. On the other hand; I hope he's completely wrong this time.
Jim

Mr. Graham is saying what the Scottish historian Alexander Tytler said
> in 1787 speaking about Athens. Look it up if you are unfamiliar with
> "Tytler's Circle"
>
> Worth reading.
> Time is like a river. You cannot touch the water twice,
> because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
> Franklin Graham was speaking at the First Baptist Church in
> Jacksonville, Florida, when he said America will not come back.
>

He wrote:
> The American dream ended on November 6th, 2012 in Ohio. The second
> term of Barack Obama has been the final nail in the coffin for the
> legacy of the white Christian males who discovered, explored,
> pioneered, settled and developed the greatest republic in the history
> of mankind.
>
> A coalition of blacks, Latinos, feminists, gays, government workers,
> union members, environmental extremists, the media, Hollywood,
> uninformed young people, the "forever needy," the chronically
> unemployed, illegal aliens and other "fellow travelers" have ended
> Norman Rockwell's America.
>
> You will never again out-vote these people. It will take individual
> acts of defiance and massive displays of civil disobedience to get
> back the rights we have allowed them to take away. It will take
> zealots, not moderates and shy, not reach-across-the-aisle RINOs to
> right this ship and restore our beloved country to its former status.
>
> People like me are completely politically irrelevant, and I will
> probably never again be able to legally comment on or concern myself
> with the aforementioned coalition which has surrendered our culture,
> our heritage and our traditions without a shot being fired.
>
> The cocker spaniel is off the front porch, the pit bull is in the back
> yard. The American Constitution has been replaced with Saul Alinsky's
> "Rules for Radicals" and the likes of Chicago shyster David Axelrod
> along with international socialist George Soros have been pulling the
> strings on their beige puppet have brought us Act 2 of the New World
> Order.
>
> The curtain will come down but the damage has been done, the story has
> been told.
>
> Those who come after us will once again have to risk their lives,
> their fortunes and their sacred honor to bring back the Republic that
> this generation has timidly frittered away due to white guilt and
> political correctness.

I thought Misfires was over. This is what ruins this site.

Thought. Ponder. Not post.

I don't think the site is ruined.

Best,
Ted

When you leave your "bubble" your will realize the "dream" did not end in 2012. When I go out in public I see people do exact same things they did 20 or more years ago with exception of portable phone use.

Please tell me the things Obama actually did that you do not like. I want to be happy.

Thank you.

Jim and many others here respect the pastor's opinion that the legacy of white Christian males is gone forever. We have his word for it and whom to blame:

" A coalition of blacks, Latinos, feminists, gays, government workers,
union members, environmental extremists, the media, Hollywood,
uninformed young people, the "forever needy," the chronically
unemployed, illegal aliens and other "fellow travelers" have ended
Norman Rockwell's America."

An American majority voted for Obama---twice.

A large percentage of rocky mtn bill's posts were in the former Misfires forum. Thus, it is quite hypocritical of him to make this comment now.

King Brown is wrong again about his contention that an American majority voted for Obama. The results in 2012 were a win by less than four percentage points; 51.1% to 47.2% for Romney. But remember that voter turnout was only 57.3% of eligible voters. As Donald Trump has noted, Romney ran a very poor campaign against an inept opponent. And Democrat get out the vote efforts were better than Republicans, too many of whom stayed home and allowed King and Jagermeister's anti-gun hero to win.

57.3% of 51.1% is not a majority of Americans. King has been corrected on this in the past by Brian, but he still persists in repeating false information. And of course, he still has nothing to say about Ohio Board of Elections worker Melowese Richardson, who admitted to voter fraud by voting for Obama six times... or any other instance of Democrat vote fraud. The ends justify the means for Socialist anti-gunners like King.

Franklin Graham did not make that entire statement, only the part about "America will not come back". The rest was from an article written by a veteran named Joseph Botts.

EDIT: After I logged out, I noticed rocky mtn bill ferguson was back again, reading this very thread. He says stuff like this ruins this site, yet he is drawn to it like a moth to a flame.

James' post is an ignorant. racist rant. The Rockwell past he pines for never really existed except in his myopic imagination. There's no point in postings like these. Many here agree with them, but no one else will ever see them as anything but the feeble whining of a grumpy old white guy. My point is that not all here hold James' views and that the site is better when we keep such opinions to ourselves.

So tell us Bill, why didn't you feel that way when you not only participated in Conservative bashing threads in Misfires, but actually started them too?

You can say that was then and this is now, but you were just as hypocritical back when Misfires was active. One thing we can be sure of is that when anti-gun Liberals like King or Jagermeister post their views, you will not protest in the slightest.

Looks to me like the American general elections this year have come down to democrats vs. guns. An American majority indeed voted for President Obama twice and yet gave both houses of the American legislature to republicans.

Trump's not my guy, but he sure gets my vote in November. I might even vote a straight ticket if that's still an option in the ballot booth...Geo

I've been called racist more times then I can count generally by people who damn well know better. Be that as it may; You can't prove a negative so there's no way to prove I'm not one and the Libtards who do this know it. Oh and BTW fool: Apparently reading is not one of your core skills as this post is NOT something I authored.

When there's not much trust in either of our American political parties we seem to prefer divided government. Getting nothing done seems preferable to getting the wrong things done...Geo

Keith, Misfires had a point, then. It ran its course. We're better off without it. Gun politics ought to be off limits here because nothing on a site like this has any influence on the course of events. There are no conversions here. Let's just sit back and enjoy our hobby here. You 'd be better off to put your energy into other venues where you might make a difference. I'm no hypocrit. The Republican Party is nuts. I can't help them. I'll try to stay out of it here, but James' post calls out for some response so that others here don't conclude his lunacy is the only view on this site.

James. Why do you suppose anyone might suspect you're racist.I didn't assume you wrote that crap, but by posting it , you gave it your endorsement.If you really believe something else, say so. I'd like to think differently of you. Otherwise, vote for Trump. He's your man.

I think the trust issue is one sided. There seems to be an unhealthy dose faith in near any dem politician, it's the folks leaning right that have issue based trust concerns. On the surface, there's a fellow that could be anywhere from lukewarm to exceptional, but certainly not a continuation of the last eight years. On the other side there's a gal that's hitched her horse to the last eight years. She has faith in the members of her congregation.

Bill, the real problem you have with gun politics here is that it illuminates the fact that the Liberal Left Democrats you support wish to infringe upon the Constitutional Rights of law abiding gun owners. How can we enjoy our hobby when those you support are constantly attempting to take it away in piecemeal fashion? I'd love to forget about it, but they never stop coming for more. What is there to have a conversation about? We all know that you will vote for the extreme anti-gunner Hillary Clinton. I've got news for you Bill. She doesn't like your guns either. Her idea of common sense gun control includes further restrictions on you and allowing frivolous lawsuits that bankrupt gun manufacturers. But she's a Socialist, so I know you'll overlook those little things.

By the way, you are a hypocrite. It was only about a week before Misfires was suspended that you started your mud-slinging "Republican's Incompetence Caucus" thread. Would you like me to replay some of it for you to refresh your memory?



King Brown had no problem with incivility when you posted that. What conclusions can we draw?

Oh I doubt if they really believe it. When Libtards are confronted with facts for which they have no logical response. They'll usually do 1 of 3 things:

1. They'll try to ignore the facts. Typical.

2. They will try to deride or belittle the facts.

3. They will attack the fact provider and it's usually something to the effect that they're a racist.

You apparently tried all three approaches in this case making yourself look like just what you are a Libtard Buffoon.

If you don't like the way Dave runs this site, complain to him about it. Or, better yet, put up some money and start your own where YOU can call the shots. Until then, if you inhabit this place you play by Dave's rules.

SRH

I always avoid these topics like the plague but this one can't be ignored. My opinion of Franklin Graham is too high. A quick 30 second search for the origin and truth of the statement revealed its hazy origin. Anyone interested in putting another scam to rest might read this report on the purported statement by Graham.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/americandream.asp

My goodness, I wish we could keep our discussions on Doublegunshop.com about double guns.

Yeah: Now everyone knows Snopes is a reliable source of information. I take everything that socialist entity states with a grain of salt. At the very least their opinions are slanted to the left.

james: if what you claim here is in fact graham's thesis, then it is sad that one so respected as he, could be so ignorant of history and human nature...think back to the period in our history from the 1840's to the early twentieth century...

first it was the irish and the germans who came... then it was the scandinavians and the italians... and then the jews from russia and poland...escaping tyranny...looking for a better life...same as were my english and spanish ancestors, some of the first non asian immigrants to these shores...

nothing has changed, except for the origin of the latest wave of humanity finding its way here...they too will assimilate, as did those who came before them...they will become us...and that is a good thing...it is what makes america exceptional.

and as for norman rockwell, here are some examples of his later work, that illustrate my point far better than any words...

http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/02/norman_rockwell_and_the_civil.html

Here is a typical Libtard protest including labeling the NRA as "racist" so I know I'm in good company when I'm given a similar label.
Jim

I read a few replies on page one....amazing how the truth upsets the socialist/communists in America.

Let me think....


What ruins this site is the fact that the fellow that owns it doesn't have the kA'hoonas to throw you socialist/communist bass'turds off this site...

S

Sorry for this but I thought that the first people to discover, explore and pioneer the American continent came over the land bridge from north east Asia during the last Ice Age. That would make all those that followed Immigrants.

Also just revelling in our new found Independence. Lagopus.....

Lagopus, first let me congratulate you and your country for the bold step you have chosen to take. It is my hope that it will enable your country and mine to re-establish ties that should always have remained close, as well as allow you to forge an even closer relationship to the US.

Second, we are all immigrants to North America, including the Asians who first arrived on our shores. To believe otherwise is to be mistaken. My question is always how long must one's ancestors lived here to be considered a North American. With a family tree that dates to prior to 1640 in NA, I don't think of myself as a product of immigration. I'm pretty sure the Protestants in Northern Ireland no longer think of themselves as Scottish.

Ed, you are close, IMHO but you are missing something important.

Disregarding the issue of whether the quote can properly be attributed to Graham, there is the serious concern that the fundamental uniting beliefs, that allowed America to become the remarkable melting pot that it has been, have been corrupted or ruined by elements of the political left, for whom the American experiment is better off destroyed in favour of socialist internationalism. The Irish, Germans, Scandinavians, Poles and Jews, dispite their mistrust of each other, had a unified belief in the value of "America" and how to realize it's advantages. Many think that uniting philosophy is gone.

What is really threatened is not merely some sociopathic statist demonization concept about "White European Males", but the philosophical and moral principles of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" that they came up with.

Now, it is the rise of the "Entitled Victim Cults", who completely believe they are entitled to other people's freedom, (wealth, production, etc) and are willing to support unconstitutional, sociopathic, statist politicians more than willing to enslave their fellow free and equal citizens and buy their votes with it.

Predictably, CNN is screaming "Blue Ruin" for the world over the Brexit vote, and suggesting it has little to do with the same situation here in the USA with the Trump phenomenon. If Brexit had failed, of course it would have been touted as the end of the Trump campaign. Interesting times indeed!...Geo

CNNs "Blue Ruin" is there version of the old Libtard saw r.e. concealed carry: "There will be blood running in the streets!" No one knows at this time what the outcome will actually be.

I've been here for a number of years but don't post a whole lot. Also a member of the Parker group. What really amazes me is how in God's name can anyone on a gun web site not be pro-gun 100%. I can remember going to school and leaving my shotgun in the office and getting it at the end of the day and go hunting on the way home. A kid can't today. No, we'll probably never see the USA as it was when we were kids. Is there something wrong with this thread ? NO, we should all think about these things and talk about them. God bless the NRA and all it's members - it's the only group that's saved the 2A, and the 2A is the only reason we have the others and our freedom.

We're all pro-gun here, Paul, but you'll always find someone who says others aren't pro-gun enough because they don't agree with their opinions.

King, I think he mentioned a hundred percent. How far left would one have to be to have an opinion of what a 100% is?

Being pro-gun 100 per cent, as I am, doesn't mean I subscribe to everything other 100 per cent pro-gunners believe. All agree to reasonable access to guns and all have varying opinions of what is reasonable, an enduring debate of democracies and this forum. One size doesn't fit all. Never has. My opinion as a liberal and a moderate in a liberal and moderate country doesn't make me less than any other member on this very distinguished international board. For the rare nibbling efforts to make them anti-gun, espousing a zealous originalist position, I encourage members to read them for what they are: a seriously contemplated opinion of another pro-gunner. I stand by them without apology or regret.

You would have to have some severe severe brain damage to claim to be pro-gun when you post crap like this on a gun related BBS:



















And one of my favorites is this quote by King Brown copied and pasted verbatim from his post # 308159 on 1/8/13 where he lambasted the NRA and suggested that they should consider the massive gun control Obama was attempting to shove down our throats as he exploited a tragedy to infringe upon our Constitutional Rights:

(Quote: King Brown)

"Your messages appear as from one who hasn't been involved directly in action of what it takes to beat back grabbers other than a NRA membership. (And that antagonizing NRA comment while the nation mourning was no service to our cause, as I said here at the time. Better that the NRA would consider what Obama proposing and it would respond in good time in the country's best interests etc.) Unwarranted inflaming of public opinion is a mistake, and in confrontations of this kind, it's the faux pas that can kill you. Some November dandies come to mind." (End Quote- King Brown, Post # 308159)

It was not possible to put that anti-gun statement made by King in a QUOTE box because that thread was locked by Dave Weber.

Pro-gun guys do not support and defend the most extreme anti-gun politicians such as Barack Hussein Obama, and they do not dishonestly claim that he has "kept his legislative gun in his holster...":



It is not pro-gun to frequently criticize the very successful efforts of 2nd Amendment preservation done by our NRA, as King does.

It is not pro-gun to attempt to LULL U.S. gun owners into complacency about the continual threats to our gun rights made by the Liberal Left Democrats that King Brown supports.

Check out King Brown's defense of his hero Obama on violating the Oath of Office by not preserving, protecting, and defending the 2nd Amendment:



What kind of 100% pro-gunner looks for dishonest loopholes in an Oath sworn on a Bible... to permit infringements upon the 2nd Amendment?

Answer: NONE.

King seems to think that you cannot be anti-gun so long as you own and shoot a few. A traitor to the U.S. who flies the flag on the 4th of July is still a traitor. His anti-gun words above are but a fraction of the anti-gun, anti-NRA, and anti-2nd Amendment rhetoric he has posted here. He is also fully aware of the equally anti-gun rhetoric posted by his fellow trolls Ed Good and Jagermeister. He would like to think it is all gone since Misfires was suspended, but I saved it all on a 4TB hard drive to remind him that he is as disingenuous as an abortion doctor who claims to be pro-life.

EDIT: Note that King Brown has edited his post directly above since I posted this. Still flailing... still in denial. He can read his own anti-gun words and still claim to be 100% pro-gun. That is both amazing and very sick. But it is not at all convincing, and will never change my opinion of him and the words he uses to undermine our rights.

SECOND EDIT: King Brown has further edited his post above to inform us that he stands by his anti-gun rhetoric, yet still considers himself to be pro-gun. This is a major problem we face. It's high time to reject the Trojan Horses in our midst who undermine us and are no more help to the cause of gun rights than a malignant cancer.

Keith:

TOUCHE!!

These lame brained gun control excuses should in my opinion be pinned on this forum so everyone can see just what a hypocrite Brown really is.

Jim

So, what's a fellow to think. Let's say I call you up and ask for your help to go door to door in NS and move all guns to the pro-gun 'storage' facility. You get all excited and say, I'm behind you a hundred percent. Should I be worried?

once again scut and his toadie fail to intimidate those who attempt to engage others in the gentlemanly exchange of ideas...

You would be worried that I'd lost my senses to be corrupted by anyone to make an arbitrary grab for guns wherever they were going, pro-gun or otherwise.

king, and others here who wish to engage in gentlemanly civil discourse... regarding the rights of u.s. citizens, it is my premise that the articles of the u.s. federal constitution define the powers and responsibilities of the federal central government as delegated to it by the states and the people... and, that the first ten amendments to that federal constitution, aka, the bill of rights, specifically prohibit the federal central government from involvement in any way with the rights of the states and the people in certain specific areas...

however, there is nothing specific nor implied in the bill of right that prohibit the states or the people from their involvement in those specific areas...

do you agree?

It's time to haul out the Libtard information dispenser of choice again!!

How many angels . . .? From Arizona Jim's claimed 20,000 gun laws emanating from municipal, state and federal jurisdictions it seems to me that states are involved negatively and positively concerning gun rights (and others) in certain specific areas, as you say, but subordinate to constitutional law as interpreted by the Court. Short answer, and I'm sure there are many others, but mine is from the federal showdown on Alabama's rights when the 101st and 102nd Airborne enforced the constitutional right of James Meredith to enrol at Ole Miss in 1962. I was there. A colleague Paul Guihard was killed on the campus that night.

A 100%, as long as it's reasonable.

+1, for the shorter answer.

so, then it all comes back to what is then each individuals idea of what is reasonable? if so, then there are no rules. no right nor wrong, only what makes one feel warm and fuzzy? gotta be more to running a society than that?

and king, as to enforcing the federal right of james meredith or anybody else to attend the university of mississippi, where in the articles or bill of rights was the power and responsibility delegated to the federal government to do such a thing?

There are rules, decided by our institutions at the wish of electorates, that change with the times, adjudicated by your highest court which is currently mostly conservative. Collectives, not individuals as you and me, make laws. Or am I missing something, Ed?

well sure king, of course what you say is true...but, keeping within the limits of the articles and the bill of rights do you see in justification for federal intervention into local decisions concerning who and who is not permitted to attend state funded universities?

Without looking at the bill, I guess it's like most other bills of rights, born equal with equal protection under the law. Kennedy didn't want to act for political reasons but was forced to by civil rights activists, including his brother. The state got the message when Hercs arrived with paratroopers, fixed bayonets, sandbagged positions with LMGs. The National Guard disappeared like driven smoke. It was quite a sight to watch retired General Walker's riffraff dispersed by a bayonet charge under drizzle-dampened street lights in the leafy, cobble-stoned square of Faulkner's town.

king: "born equal with equal protection under the law", has absolutely nothing to do with the bill of rights...sounds like you may be mixing in a little bit of the declaration of independence and one part of the 14th amendment.

following is link to a definition of the bill of rights, aka the first ten amendments to the federal constitution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

and here is my favorite part from the above link:

Originally the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. The door for their application upon state governments was opened in the 1860s, following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the early 20th century both federal and state courts have used the Fourteenth Amendment to apply portions of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. The process is known as incorporation.[2]

Do you remember this gentlemanly exchange of ideas Ed? This exchange was between Jim and your fellow anti-gun troll, King Brown. It occurred in the " Contraception Mandate - A New Libtard Smokescreen" Thread in July of 2014.

In this exchange, your pal King, who claims to be pro-gun, once again is disputing the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Then, as has happened numerous times in the past, Jim corrects him by providing quotes from the Framers of the Constitution. Read it and weep.

First we hear from King, who claims to be pro-gun. This is from his post # 372221 on 7/10/14:



Then we have Jim's reply minutes later in post # 372230



But this is nothing new. Your anti-gun pal King Brown has been trotting out the same anti-2nd Amendment bullshit here for years. Even when he is corrected about it, he still returns to repeat the same propaganda used by anti-gun organizations. Here he is posting falsehoods about Mark Levin's beliefs about the 2nd Amendment in 2013. We all know Justice Stevens is an anti-gunner on the Liberal Left wing of the Supreme Court, but King tried to portray him as a Conservative:



Here's a link to a thread where King was doing the same crap in 2007:

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=38521&page=1

And here is just one of the replies given to correct King then:



Pro-gun guys simply do not engage in stuff like this. They sure as hell don't repeat anti-gun dogma and propaganda multiple times. You are almost as bad as King when it comes to seeking out ways to denigrate or diminish the 2nd Amendment Ed. It is no surprise to see you two anti-gun birds of a feather always defending each other. Jim says King's anti-gun words need to be saved here. I agree. I am waiting for the day I can post every damned one of them as King's legacy in the "Silent Doubles" forum. As for you Ed, someone can start a "Silent Doubles" tribute to you now, because you are obviously brain dead.

It was a really good 14 1/2 hrs. on here until this post.

SRH

stan, if you care too, please do join in on our gentlemanly exchange of ideas regarding the articles of the constitution, the bill of rights and their application to the states and to the people...

Ed, if I knew what angle you're exploring specifically about state, federal, individual rights I may have been able to contribute more than my original notion that all rights are included in the constitution.

Our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of our constitution. Personal liberty, equality including women, protection from the state etc have to be consistent with the constitution, and I assume your Bill applies in the same way.

Even with all this, our rights are not absolute and can be limited by government, and again I assume the same applies there. Our constitutions are supreme. They keep the courts busy, particularly in applying protections of your Second.

Do you believe constitutional law is subordinate to state law in any way?

You're not alone King, not many folks follow along with the latest angle.

As to subordinating the Constitution, aren't state enforced sanctuary cities one of the reason that all Republicans are racists?

king: constitutional law is created by the federal congress and approved by the federal president and then a three quarters majority of the state legislatures must approve it before it becomes the law of the land. so, once the people thru their elected state and federal representatives delegate power and responsibility to the federal government, then any state law that is in conflict with the constitution becomes subordinate to the new constitutional amendment...

an example would be those states that had laws pertaining to the regulation of slavery...the federal constitution was amended in 1866 to abolish slavery. that amendment made all state laws pertaining to slavery subordinate to the new federal constitutional amendment which abolished that practice...

and the angle where i am exploring with this specifically, is to an interpretation of the responsibility and power of the federal government, the states and the people, as it pertains to the second amendment...

"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."

and as to the notion that all rights are included in the constitution...that comes from the english concept of rights, where rights are granted to the people by the british parliament...the british people have no unalienable rights. whereas, we the people of the united states, retain all of our unalienable rights not delegated to the federal government nor denied to us by our state or local governments...the 10th amendment is very clear about that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

so, as to an interpretation of the second amendment...pause until tomorrow...

This is very strange King. You claim in the "Strong $US vs. Pound Sterling" thread to have several distinguished international visitors staying with you. Yet you have been here most of the day posting your usual Liberal Left B.S. instead of entertaining your visitors. How very rude.

It would appear that engaging in an off-topic discussion in this thread with Ed Good is more important to you than your company. Are you and fellow troll Ed that intent on attempting to steer the discussion away from your anti-gun rhetoric?

I wouldn't blame your visitors if they just went home. But they would actually have to be visiting you in order to leave, wouldn't they? I sure hope I don't get similarly afflicted when I get old.

Please leave it be, Ed. The Second has been argued for generations. Clearly, imagined "inalienable"rights have been given and taken away. Arbiters seek what's reasonable for peace, order and good government. Canada has found a generally acceptable balance for an increasingly multicultural world.

We have already seen your idea of what the 2nd Amendment is Ed. But do you remember this gentlemanly exchange of ideas Ed? This exchange was between Jim and your fellow anti-gun troll, King Brown. It occurred in the " Contraception Mandate - A New Libtard Smokescreen" Thread in July of 2014.

In this exchange, your pal King, who claims to be pro-gun, once again is disputing the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Then, as has happened numerous times in the past, Jim corrects him by providing quotes from the Framers of the Constitution. Read it and weep.

First we hear from King, who claims to be pro-gun. This is from his post # 372221 on 7/10/14:



Then we have Jim's reply minutes later in post # 372230



But this is nothing new. Your anti-gun pal King Brown has been trotting out the same anti-2nd Amendment bullshit here for years. Even when he is corrected about it, he still returns to repeat the same propaganda used by anti-gun organizations. Here he is posting falsehoods about Mark Levin's beliefs about the 2nd Amendment in 2013. We all know Justice Stevens is an anti-gunner on the Liberal Left wing of the Supreme Court, but King tried to portray him as a Conservative:



Here's a link to a thread where King was doing the same crap in 2007:

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=38521&page=1

And here is just one of the replies given to correct King then:



Pro-gun guys simply do not engage in stuff like this. They sure as hell don't repeat anti-gun dogma and propaganda multiple times. You are almost as bad as King when it comes to seeking out ways to denigrate or diminish the 2nd Amendment Ed. It is no surprise to see you two anti-gun birds of a feather always defending each other. Jim says King's anti-gun words need to be saved here. I agree. I am waiting for the day I can post every damned one of them as King's legacy in the "Silent Doubles" forum. As for you Ed, someone can start a "Silent Doubles" tribute to you now, because you are obviously brain dead.

I might suggest you have that backwards Ed. It is the Napoleonic Code and the American Bill of Rights that started the idea that rights could be "given" by a government. The US also happened to note that some rights were intrinsic to just being a person.

The British system is more based on the idea that we have all the rights in the world to do whatever we want. But we allow the government, over time and with experience (English common law) to place some restrictions on us (take certain rights away).

The above statement by King about Canada's strict gun laws being "generally acceptable in an increasingly multicutural world" sounds very racist to me.

Hey King, are you discussing this problem of not being a lily-white mono-culture with your distinguished imaginary international house guests over breakfast this morning?

I was reading a National Observer article this morning comparing Canadian gun laws and homicide to the U.S. One thing that jumped out at me was the statement made by the Liberal PM after the San Bernardino terrorist attack earlier this year:

"“Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of San Bernardino tonight as they come to grips with today’s terrible tragedy,” said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in a tweet on Dec. 2.

However, the Liberals did promise during the election to tighten up gun laws that were eased under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The proposed measures include enhanced background checks for anyone seeking to buy a handgun or other restricted firearms and toughen up border security to prevent the illegal import of weapons from the U.S.

The Trudeau Liberals have also promised to repeal changes made by Conservative-era Bill C-42 that they say allows restricted and prohibited weapons to be freely transported without a permit."

One might think that a self-professed pro-gunner like King would be concerned about the threat made by the Liberal Government to re-institute the Long Gun Registry. But in my opinion, King never had anything to do with repealing it, and probably supported it. We all know that if the bloviator King had anything at all to do with the repeal of the Long Gun Registry, we'd have never heard the end of it. I believe that his recent claims about that are just as imaginary as his imaginary international house guests that he pretty much ignored by repeatedly posting and visiting this forum yesterday.

I wish I had the time to create a fictitious internet persona to bolster my credibility. But on the other hand, that would also make me pathetic too.

Oh yes, the promise by the Liberal PM Justin Trudeau to tighten up border security in the aftermath of San Bernardino sounds a bit like Donald Trump.

kieth....tell us about our Canadian gun laws and how strict they are please.

I don't know about Keith but just a quick perusal of Canadian Firearms laws produced this:
A significant number of the firearms I own would either be restricted or prohibited and I find that highly objectionable in what is purportedly a free Country:

Overview of Firearms-Control Laws and Regulations

At the federal level in Canada, firearms are predominantly regulated by the Firearms Act[1] and Part III of the Criminal Code.[2] Apart from these federal laws, “[p]rovinces, territories or municipalities may have additional laws and regulations that apply in their jurisdiction. For example, provinces are responsible for regulating hunting.”[3]

Categories of Firearms

The Criminal Code identifies “the various firearms, weapons and devices regulated by the Firearms Act.”[4] The Code classifies firearms into three categories: restricted,[5] prohibited,[6] and non-restricted.[7] Non-restricted firearms “include ordinary shotguns and rifles, such as those commonly used for hunting. But some military type rifles and shotguns are prohibited.”[8] Restricted firearms include “certain handguns and some semi-automatic long guns (not all semi-automatic long guns are restricted or prohibited). Rifles that can be fired when telescoped or folded to shorter than 660 millimeters, or 26 inches, are also restricted.”[9] Prohibited firearms “include most 32 and 25 caliber handguns and handguns with a barrel length of 105 mm or shorter. Fully automatic firearms, converted automatics, firearms with a sawed-off barrel, and some military rifles like the AK 47 are also prohibited.”[10]

My Luger collection for example would be prohibited and I find this alone to be ludicrous! And I also believe I've been told that those "deadly" M1 carbines are prohibited as well.
Jim

Well Dal, I'm not Keith, but I can talk a bit about how strict our gun laws are compared to the US. Especially concerning what are known as restricted (includes most hand guns) and prohibited guns and ATT's, the arbitrary assignment of guns to those categories based primarily on whether the gun looks scary or not and the utter inability to use a gun for defense.

Whatever your political viewpoints are and however they may differ from Keith's, to suggest our guns laws are not strict in comparison to the US is to negate any credibility you might have on the subject. Instead of pretending they aren't strict, perhaps a good argument in their favour might be worthwhile. Why, it's possible I might even agree with some of your points.

My objection to gun laws in Canada and the US is based mostly on my belief that there is no level of accommodation to the anti gun lobby that will satisfy them. EVERY law, every regulation is simply one step closer to a total ban of all types of firearms.

And that's spot on Canvasback. The "Democrats" are actually coming out and saying that's the ultimate goal from Clinton and Sanders right on down the line. The know that FULL IMPLEMENTATION Of "socialism" aka communism depends upon an unarmed populace.
Jim

dla (sic), I can buy and shoot an AR-15 or AK-47 utilizing 30 round magazines. How about you? I own a Colt Police Positive .32 S&W Long and an H&R 632 also in .32 S&W Long. I also own a Colt Police Positive in .32-20. How about you? I have two .25 caliber handguns, a Belgian Melior .25 ACP, and a T/C Contender with a .256 Win Mag barrel. How about you???

I can carry any of the above handguns with my concealed carry permit if I desire. What would happen to you there in Toronto if you got caught carrying a concealed .32 caliber handgun by your local Mounties or gendarmes? Why, I'll bet they'd club you like a baby seal. Considering the intellect you display here, it often seems as if that already happened.

We don't interfere with your gun rights, or lack thereof in Canada. We sure as hell don't need you or King attempting to undermine ours. We'd be happy to help you guys with any efforts you make with attempting to regain what you've lost if you actually wanted that. But we wouldn't respond with LULLING, or supporting and defending your anti-gun politicians.

We sure as hell wouldn't claim to be pro-gun and then post crap like King did here, right out of the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence playbook, where he once again tried to portray Gang Bangers as children:



Chuck Schumer says stuff like that. Hillary Clinton says stuff like that. Obama and Biden say stuff like that. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer say stuff like that. And King Brown says stuff like that.

Pro-gun guys DO NOT say stuff like that. Ever!

I agree.

'...to suggest our guns laws are not strict in comparison to the US...'

Where my statement did I 'suggest' your statement above?

'kieth....tell us about our Canadian gun laws and how strict they are please.'

Please read my text, not what you 'think' I said.

In Canada I can own handguns, black guns, hunting guns. I can take my handguns, black guns and hunting guns to shooting ranges across the province. I can sell handguns, and black guns and hunting guns across the country without using an FFL. I can keep handguns and black guns and hunting guns in my house. My kids have been shooting guns since their early teens. During the hunting season, I take my guns to work and go hunting till last light.

The fact that I can't walk around the streets with hand guns and black guns, hunt cougars with a desert eagle, or keep a loaded .45 beside my bed, does not make me feel any less of a gun owner. The fact that I cannot own ANY type of military firearm, does not make me any less of a gun owner. I currently have nearly a dozen guns, not bad for a soon to be labeled anti-gunner.

There is a price for the 'all or nothing attitude', unfortunately your paying the price in spades. Which is fine, have at it.

dal, as I understand it, if someone is breaking into your home it is illegal for you to use your 1910 boxlock non-ejector 12 guage to defend yourself.

As I understand it, if a battered woman's estranged husband kicks in the front door of her Canadian apartment it is illegal for her to use a firearm to defend herself.

Am I wrong?

I agree with you Mike, it is stupid if you could not, but you can. If a guy kicks in your door and rushes you, you can grab a kitchen knife and defend yourself, if you have the time.

If you feel your life is 'in danger' you may use deadly force. Basically, equal force to that you are confronted with. However, you would have to go and unlock your gun (either trigger lock or gun cabinet) get your ammo (separated from form your guns) then load and fire. And no, we cannot shoot people on our front lawn, whether in the chest, or their back.

Judging by the number of dead children in the U.S, and the lack of statistics showing how people have defended off a home invasion with a gun.....it sounds like a good idea, but in practice....

I have lived in Toronto for for thirty years, and NEVER felt I needed to arm myself. It is quite sad that some of you think you need to, or actually HAVE to. What a stressful way to live. My wife literally weeps for your country. It is sad what is going on there, I hope things turn around for you.

Yeabut you can pulp timber any damn way you please. Priorities, Mike.
Gives me an idea. Think I'll head over to King's and chop down my Christmas tree this year. Figure I can get across into New Hampshire before King knows what hit him. Hole up at ed's for a couple days and take the southern route through Buffalo home. You don't want to be on the 401 in Toronto during rush hour. Especially in a Yaris.

____________________________
99 to life. Mike Ness

So the 5-2 110 pound battered woman in my scenario would not be prosecuted if she could prove she had her gun unloaded and locked up and separate from its locked up ammunition at the time her 220 pound 6-4 husband kicked in the door.

And she would also have to prove that the difference in size made her pistol the equivalent force to his fists and/or knife and/or baseball bat and/or ball peen hammer.

Are you not suggesting Canadian laws are not particularly strict when compared to the US? That you can enjoy guns relatively unimpeded by restrictive regulations when compared to the US?

It seems relatively disingenuous to suggest you were not, that a careful reading of your statement would suggest otherwise and then to go on in your next post, quoted here, to show just how unimpeded you are.

So which is it. In comparison to US laws are you saying they are strict or not strict? I can read words with the best of them. Including the words that indicate your are playing with meaning.

Gee dla (sic) it sounds as if you are almost as lucky as those guys in Australia who can still consider themselves gun owners... even though they need to demonstrate need in order to get a firearms license, and cannot even own a Remington 1100 or a semi-auto .22 LR rifle.

Maybe when all you or your kids can own is a pellet rifle that produces a strict low velocity and energy, you will still be telling us that you are still a gun owner. That goal of the anti-gunners has already been reached in some places, and James (canvasback) is correct that the anti-gunners are never satisfied.

You didn't answer my questions about the .25 and .32 caliber handguns dla (sic). I honestly didn't know you guys were not permitted to own ANY military firearms. Wow. Did I tell you about the Russian SKS with an aftermarket 30 round magazine that is next to my bed? Very accurate and reliable, and more punch than the 5.56 mm. I don't have to lock it in a safe with ammo stored and locked separately either.

Having been in Toronto and Baltimore, I can assure you that it isn't the presence of guns in Baltimore that makes Toronto safer and less crime ridden. Before the failures of "The Great Society", it was much safer to walk a city's streets at night or even leave the doors to your home unlocked, despite being able to buy guns without any Background Checks, and even via mail order.

What do you think of King Brown proclaiming himself to be pro-gun when he makes all of these anti-gun, anti-NRA, and anti-2nd Amendment statements? How about his unbridled support for anti-gun politicians? Nevermind, I think I already know the answer. And I see you still haven't mastered the difference between "your" and "you're".

I wonder if Ian Thompson of St Catherines would agree with your claims that we are allowed to defend ourselves in the face of a violent and potentially deadly attack on our homes.

Or ask Mike Hargreaves of Toronto who was charged with multiple firearms offenses after thieves spent two days breaking into his safe while he was out of town.

Dal, there is theory and then there is practical. In Canada, the forces in power are heavily arrayed against gun owners, regardless of what the letter of the law reads.

I have lived in the most violent cities in Canada as well as several decades in Toronto. I too have never felt the need to arm myself. Big deal. That's not really the point. I too weep for a country. not the US though. I weep for Canada, with the insidious creep of the nanny state, the idea that we need the government to look after every aspect of our lives and that we are not just okay with but actually elect officials to push forward the daily loss of our freedoms. Orwell's nightmare vision is alive and well in Canada.

Is a crosscut saw considered a dangerous weapon in Canada? I don't want to do hard time in some Nova Scotia hell hole for stealing a tree.

____________________________
30 days in the hole. Humble Pie

A jury of her peers would decide her fate under those circumstances.

The majority of the cases, I would think, are murder suicide, so the husband already had a gun. The overwhelming weapon of choice is a kitchen knife in violent domestic disputes in Canada BTW. Her having an AR15 would be irrelevant in most cases, unless she's walking around her residence carrying it, loaded, and unlocked.

A buddy of mine had his wife (ex now) change the locks on their door. He came home after work and had to kick the door in. I guess she should had shot him dead, and create fatherless children. Yup, that's the way life should be, shoot first, then go oops later.

Think about it, do you need to carry, or have within reach, a loaded weapon to feel safe where you live?

Again, your way of life and culture is way different then ours.

Damn LR, why do you keep dragging humour into this thread??

'I don't want to do hard time in some Nova Scotia hell hole for stealing a tree.'

No hard time necessary LR, our prisons are apparently quite comfortable.

Oh, and we've come a long way from using cross cut saws to chop down xmax trees. A battery operated sawzall will suffice now a days.

Lot's of us would say he didn't have to kick the door in. Could have waited. Could have called for dispassionate third parties to help defuse the situation. I suppose there are a good number of motherless children in Canada who wish their mother had some means to protect herself when the husband/boyfriend kicked the door in.

In terms of accuracy, I would guess the 110 pound woman, waiting on the other side of the door with gun at the ready, likely has the upper hand with the usually somewhat intoxicated guy who just burst through the door. But not when she's unarmed.

Canvasback, our country is FAR from perfect. No country ever will be......ever. The justice system can also be imperfect, and at times, down right unfair. It is run by humans, and humans are fallible....some more than others unfortunately.

I agree with several of your points about the nanny state, which is why I did not vote liberal.

You would be surprised about how much we might agree upon. But being Canadian, I will not hate you for your views, or consider you and idiot, on points where we disagree.

'...Lot's of us would say he didn't have to kick the door in. Could have waited...'

So a poor decision, that results in your death is ok?

Tempers flare on our crowded highway, you get out of your car, then get shot...that's ok?

A lovely world, where a loaded gun on hand is the first line of defense. Sound familiar?

So as long as that battered woman could prove her gun and her ammo were locked up when her husband kicked in the door and that that battered woman's pistol was equal force to her husband's bulk and hammer she would be all right.

Had your buddy been battering her? Had she been to the hospital from his beatings? Did she have the equivalent of a restraining order on him, perhaps he was not to come within 100 yards of her?

Because of our Second Amendment firearms are with us. The criminals buy them illegally. In the event of a home invasion I would much rather have the double shotgun I shoot best loaded and next to my bed. I would call the cops and wait in the best position for them to come. Should the thug put me or my family in danger I would use my shotgun.

My office and shop are in a high crime neighborhood. My bookkeeper was working late one night and someone started hammering on the bolt keeping the metal door locked. She called the police and waited, armed, for them to arrive. All of the women that work for me have concealed carry permits. I paid for their class and, in some cases, for their pistol.

I think you said exactly what you suggested, but since you're a stickler for detail.

It's my understanding, that you don't have the right to own much of anything. There are differences between theory and practice, but you must seek permission to be licensed. What if your PAL mother Canada pulls that permission, or better yet bases her permission on how much money she can squeeze out of you, for fairness of course?

Dal, when did personal hatred come into the discussion? Ask King about me if you wish to know something of who I am. I do however, respond when I see posts that don't appear to make sense to me. Like you suggesting our gun laws were not strict in comparison to the US.

Please note when I responded, I wasn't saying one was better or one was worse....I was simply making the point that by almost any objective measure it is clear that Canadian gun laws are more restrictive than American gun laws.

And BTW, as someone who has imported and exported guns to and from various countries including the US, I am well familiar with the anomalous situation in the US regarding crossing borders with gun related items, be they state or national borders.

I agree, we do probably agree about lots....in fact I know we do. I follow your posts on some other sites. But, like every single other person I have ever met, including everyone on this site, I know we don't agree on everything. Which is fine by me. That's why we talk about stuff. If you, me, King, Keith and Mike agreed on every single thing, what would the point of talking be. I come on this site to learn and hope that in the same way, others may occasionally learn something from me. That's all. Doesn't matter the subject.

Excellent point Craig. We have no property rights of any kind in Canada....a tragic failure of Pierre Trudeau and his Liberal ilk when they conned the country with our "Declaration of Rights and Freedoms".

Canada has a less violent, more progressive social environment, a better educational and health system, reasonable gun laws etc because its citizens talk and act that way through their legislatures, Mike.

The country is not dysfunctional to the point it's currently paraded before the world. Our laws work for us, which is more than you can say for yours on the evidence of the schisms of your political parties reflecting how all Americans are fed up with them.

I don't feel encumbrances on my gun rights as you do on yours. I would protest taking assault rifles to a public meeting. I don't need to carry a gun for personal protection as so many Americans do. What you call strict I believe reasonable. We don't lock doors in the surrounding countryside, either.

"We don't lock doors...."

Interesting. Maybe I'll raid the fridge while I'm at it.

________________________
Vampires & Failures. Paul Westerburg

Hey dal, take a gander at the wording. All any of us truly need is big brother, but what we want and do are at polar opposites to the mantra. It's probably better not to admit to something that's illegal in Canada?

Quote:
"Judging by the number of dead children in the U.S, and the lack of statistics showing how people have defended off a home invasion with a gun.....it sounds like a good idea, but in practice....


I'm going to refute the "dead children" B.S. right here and now. The number consists of anyone under the age of 18 being counted as a child. Many of the ghetto gangbangers are under this age and the kill each other with remarkable consistency. That is what grossly inflates the "dead children" number but you will never hear a "Democrat" admit this.
The is just more Libtard B.S. just like the 30,000 "homicides" they keep using which includes suicides and justifiable shootings and the earlier whopper that 90% of the guns used in Mexican crime come from the United States.
Keep one thing in mind regarding "Democrats": If their lips are moving they are probably grossly exaggerating something or out and out lying.
Keith has been demonstrating this on a regular basis here when it comes to King Brown.

'Dal, when did personal hatred come into the discussion?'

That was not directed at you Canvasback. Sorry if it came across that way.

'.I was simply making the point that by almost any objective measure it is clear that Canadian gun laws are more restrictive than American gun laws.'

Again we agree.

Don't worry, Jim. King's day of reckoning will come. He's going to wake up one morning minus a tree and an empty fridge.


__________________________
The Lonesome River. RIP Dr. Ralph
https://youtu.be/KrvVZW41jhU

Every year Canada's and Australia's "gun rights" dribble away. A converted revolver's original caliber makes it illegal now, and it is so by just a police fiat. Australia's parliament has or is about to make certain lever action long arms illegal.

And so, in this forum, you argue for US politicians and a party that would impose "reasonable" gun control on us. You tell us that our Second Amendment rights are not important when we vote, that social justice, inequality, and redistribution of wealth are paramount issues for us.


You simultaneously criticize our choices and refuse to debate specifics. Do you think law-abiding American citizens should be able to own semi-auto rifles with removable magazines? What about semi-auto pistols?

Do you think we should have to have background checks when we give a shotgun to our son or sell one to our next door neighbor?

These issues are where the skirmish line is now in the US. If we lose those then a different class of weapons will be marked by the Democrats, say pump shotguns or lever action rifles.

But you won't take a stand because you know you can't defend those "reasonable" restrictions.

And you praise Obama and the Democrats and their politicians that want to suppress our rights. You snipe, slander, and smear the party and the candidates that support our Second Amendment rights. Even though it is settled law that the Second Amendment means we have a personal right to keep and bare arms you dispute that SCOTUS decision.

I think you frequently speak against the gun rights that Americans currently have. Appears you are happy with the ones that you still have.

Whoa, just stopped to reply on your second sentence. Never assume, Mike. I don't argue for any party to impose anything on Americans.

I have said often Americans choose how they want to live and accept the consequences of their actions.

You decide what the skirmish lines are, not me. I say what I believe are reasonable restrictions, as Canadians have through their legislatures.

I praised Obama who majorities of Americans believed would make a better president than others on offer. He'll be remembered as a great president.

You and I disagree respectfully but that doesn't make one less than the other. We're participating in a forum where a wide range of opinions are as common as rain.

I am happy with our gun laws and empathize with those in our fraternity who would make them closer to their wishes.

I also believe if Americans were polled---and maybe they have been---a majority of Americans would say there are too many guns in America.

None of this makes me anti-gun in any way.

Here's a thought to ponder...

"Am I an idiot?"

After considerable and careful analysis of this question I have come to the conclusion that yes, all ya'll are idiots.


______________________________
I had some pigeons living on my ledge
(Right on thru)
Dirty winged rats living on the edge
(Right on thru)
https://youtu.be/Py91zZgO8dc

Majorities? Yes, but remember that one vote above 50% constitutes a majority. Tell you what .... find one American who voted Republican that will say that Obama turned out better than they thought he would. If you can't, I have heard many say they voted for Obama and now regret it.

A great president? Yes, certainly .... by those for whom he championed their causes. Like you.

SRH

I didn't state that you argue for any party to impose anything on Americans. I argued that you argue for parties and politicians that are attempting to suppress Second Amendment rights. I state that you criticize at every opportunity our politicians and our party that support Second Amendment rights. And I argued that you tell us we need to quit holding our right to keep and bare arms so dear and put "social justice" issues ahead of that right.


Yet you root for and praise the wrong side in our politics on this gun forum. You know the current political assault on "assault weapons" by your favorite USA party is but a pretext. But you won't speak up here in support of it because it is impossible to defend. But you will make posts like this one:
I copied that from keith's post.

You are supporting more gun control for the US over and over and over on this BBS. Say what you will, you can't make posts like that one and not be advocating more gun control.

You also argued that he wouldn't try to impose more gun control on us. He did try. Over and over and over. And the party you ever frequently disparage blocked almost all his attempts. He did make twenty-seven executive orders for more gun control.




I agree.

But it is my opinion that in many different ways you say "I'm not arguing for more gun control in the US". But in many different ways you are.

If you would just come right out and say "It is my opinion that the USA needs to implement more gun control" I wouldn't be so persistent in this. In the past, when we reached this point, you say "I am not trying to impose gun control on the USA and I wouldn't if I could." Of course that wasn't the argument that I was making at the time. I am saying you are advocating more gun control for the USA but you won't do it directly. You won't make a list of controls you think we ought to implement. Your argument seems to me to be "Shame on y'all for not having more gun control laws, but I'm not arguing for more gun control for y'all. And since I am not arguing for more gun control for you I don't need to defend Obama's campaign for an 'assault weapon' ban. And again, shame on y'all"


I believe that they wouldn't. And when Obamacare passed the majority of Americans were against that and promptly threw the Democrats out of the majority in the House and Senate. And yet the party of the NRA and gun rights still retains both the House and the Senate.

But it does make you an advocate of more gun control for the USA.

Apology accepted. Easy to be misunderstood sometimes.

" find one American who voted Republican that will say that Obama turned out better than they thought he would."

me, me, me, pick me...

i voted republican...and obama did not live down to my worst expectations...he did no lasting harm to us that cannot be undone...that is the beauty of our political system of checks and balances...obama was neutered, politically speaking, when he lost control of the house in 2010...

obama turned out better than i thought he would...he was a good president...not great, not bad, just ok, so, so, c+, etc...

...thanks, ed, ...for proving my point. I can still hole up at your place after I roll King for a tree and the contents of his fridge, right?


_______________________________
Dave should ban all of you...for being boring.

Dubya, along with all previous Presidents combined, saddled bo with about nine trillion in national debt. Don't forget, dubya stuck almost a trillion of that on his watch, in consultation with bo, for for him to hit the ground spending when he got sworn in. By the time the current eight years ends in a short bit, bo will add about ten trillion more.

How 'lasting' will that be, and how do you suspect that will be 'undone'? Add in the revenue that was also spent, what does c+ mean in terms showing results for all that 'investment'?

This is almost as good as watching the Kardashians quibble about what color underwear to wear...

"You root for and praise the wrong side in our politics on this gun forum," you say. There's the nub of it, Mike. The wrong side? Think about it. A vote for Obama by your standard makes anti-gun of all the Republicans and Democrats who voted for him twice, as if guns were all that's on the country's mind in these parlous times.

I can't see the logic of how citing my posts concerning the Second would make me anti-gun unless you want to make me immortal for reporting accurately the wrong side as you see it of the liberal and conservative debate, which seems to be in liberal ascendancy from court findings. If you don't like it, don't blame me.

When the guys on the "right side" said Obama's election would be blue ruin for gun rights, I said accurately there may be cosmetic changes but he would keep his legislative gun in his holster to position the Democratic candidate in '16. Again not only prescient but accurate and not anti-gun.

All your assumptions without evidence is your right side whistling in the darkness of a presidential election. Members who use the board to promote their party fume against anyone who doesn't share their convictions. I don't have a dog in this fight. It's already over, and I said who would win.

That, again, doesn't make me anti-gun. It shouldn't require mention but new members may not be aware that this tiresome nonsense sprouts from ignorance. When Ed and I were musing above about precedence of rights generally, bills of rights, constitutional, inalienable etc another member said it was a racist statement of Canada's strict gun laws!

Consider comments about my Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters friends. I was with with them in London on the Sunday morning after the Friday Paris massacre as they wrote their analyses of its likely effect on markets the next day. doublegun members I correspond with privately about their polling and forecasting knew they were coming to visit.

Hate blinded him to that possibility. Now hoist on his own petard. I bear him no malice. He is to be pitied.

craigd; one should not blame any pres for the national debt, and in particular ob...pres cant spend a dime unless congress oks it...and ob never asked congress for a nickel...he has never submitted an annual budget request...every year congress hands ob gazillions of dollars, and says...here, spend this...an ob he say...uh, ok ifn you say so...

so, blame congress for the national debt...not the pres.

Hi King:

I don't call you anti-gun.

I say you advocate, on this BBS, more gun control in the USA.



And again, it is like you are saying "Shame on you for not having more gun control. But I am not advocating more gun control in the USA. So I don't have to defend Obama's assault on semi-auto rifles or the Democrats' drive for universal background checks. But shame on y'all again."

EDIT:
And Obama and his gal Hillary and their Democratic party are campaigning for a ban on semi-auto rifles with removable magazines - for all they are worth.

Hi, King

Like, London, London, or Ontario, London? Because everyone goes on and on about London, London--London is great, London is fantastic. Well it's not. It's rubbish . Really, really rubbish. Or as the Cockneys would say, apples and rubbish.

______________________________
I'm drinking & texting on I-94. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, if it gives you pleasure to think that way, it's alright with me.

Reminds me of the film librarian at the Manned Spacecraft Centre south of Houston, a young man with prematurely balding hair and one leg shorter than the other carrying a big revolver underneath his suit jacket.

What have you got that for, I said, thinking of the Texas law that excused murder in crimes of passion. It looked like Clint Eastwood's make-my-day. "That's my equalizer," he said. It made me wish I was lame.

London, London. It's my favourite big city. San Francisco my favourite small city. It's hard to explain because I've a hankering for Paris in a different way but I always think of London as my town. Fortunately my wife thinks the same way. I think cities are often rated by first impressions. Maybe yours was a bad one.

Makes you wish? You are. (kidding! kidding! kidding!). You're alright, King. My wife likes you.

___________________________
Just Like Hank. Walt Wilkens

Well, no doubt, in a discussion with you I need an equalizer. I have certainly been outgunned in our debates over the years.

But I think I made my point here.

I love London, London. There isn't a city in the world that I've been to and didn't like. Well, there was one time in Amarillo... I was just being silly.

__________________________
I Drink. Mary Gauthier

Hi, Mike

I got jumped in Amarillo back in 92. Ain't been back since.


_________________________
Crazy Mama. J. J. Cale

Well, if you come this way again drop me a line and we will bust some clays and eat some barbecued brisket.

And it wasn't me. I haven't jumped anybody since 1972.

PS---Obama and Clinton on assault rifles: I think of those firearms in the same way as bolt-action shotguns, not to seen in the public with one. A new generation hereabouts think I'm exercising a peculiar affectation with my doubles compared to their 3- and 3 1/2 inch automatics. Firepower is in. I think the first shot counts. I haven't seen better results in the field with automatics or magnums. Macho boom-bang another thing entirely.

I keep a double by my bed for home defense.

I carry a double in the field behind my French Brittanys.

And while I may not particularly cherish my black plastic-stocked semi-auto AK47 I do cherish my right (and others') to own one.

Jim's Liberal manure spreader doesn't come close to spreading the pure bullshit that King Brown does. Now King is claiming that all of his anti-gun rhetoric and support for anti-gun politicians is nothing more than "reporting accurately".

It is the totality and long term persistence of King Brown's anti-gun rhetoric that shows us what he is. He used to simply slink away from his comments, or move on to another thread when things got hot for him. The memory of his most recent anti-gun statement would fade into the archives. That is why I began saving all of his anti-gun, anti-NRA, and anti-2nd Amendment posts. In spite of overwhelming evidence, and even being repeatedly caught with the smoking gun in his hands, King still insists that he is pro-gun.

An abortion doctor who has not aborted his own children cannot thus claim to be Pro-Life. So it is with King and the few guns he claims to shoot.

By his standards, he might as well say that Hillary Clinton is pro-gun too, just because she claims to respect our rights, and that she is merely "reporting accurately" when she makes her calls to restrict access to semi-auto assault style guns and to bankrupt the firearms industry via the frivolous lawsuits that were stopped by Ronald Reagan under the 1986 FOPA.

King still insists that Obama has done no harm to the 2nd Amendment despite his repeated assaults, failed legislative attempts, and Executive Actions. You might as well say that attempted murder or rape is not a crime. King apparently wants us to forget that he managed to get two Liberal Left anti-gun Justices seated on the Supreme Court, and is jockeying for an anti-gun majority since Antonin Scalia died. King's comment is not prescient. It is not accurate. And it provides cover and support for Barack Obama, the most extreme anti-gun president in our history.

My opinion that King Brown is an anti-gunner who is here to undermine our 2nd Amendment Rights is based upon King's own words and deeds. He and Ed Good have a long history of denigrating and diminishing the 2nd Amendment, the NRA, and certain guns they dislike. I have found that their own words are the most effective tool to illustrate that fact. We have a few other anti-gun trolls, but King and Ed are the most prolific.



That was one statement made by King Brown that I actually agree with. But he simply hates the culpability or accountability of being confronted with his own anti-gun words.



Wrong again King! The question is, why do certain anti-gun Nova Scotians named King Brown dismiss the graphs and statistics? Why did you keep repeating this crap when you were repeatedly shown that it was a lie? I believe everyone here knows the answer to that... Because you feel it is your duty as a good little anti-gun Liberal Left soldier to continually work to nibble at our gun rights and stab us in the back.

Once again... real Pro-Gun guys DO NOT post stuff like that on a gun enthusiast forum. Ever.

Medical mistakes have moved up to become the third leading cause of death in the U.S. behind heart disease and cancer. The numbers are far far greater than deaths from assault style rifles... which are actually lower than deaths from hammers. But you won't see King Brown or dla (sic) crying about the AMA, ObamaCare, or Home Depot. Here's your statistics on guns and homicides again King... so you can ignore it again King.

What a fraud!

Hey King, were you perchance a member of the Canadian Olympic Team in the 100 meter slink? I see you've once again slinked away from your anti-gun rhetoric so you can return later to proclaim to be a staunch pro-gunner.

To illustrate that you have many times repeated the total falsehood you wrote about the homicide rate in the U.S. compared to other developed countries, allow me to refresh your memory with this, from your post # 347338 in the "Guns and the Crime Rate" thread from December of 2013:



That was a reply to James M. (Jim), who once again took the time to correct King's repeatedly false notions that our gun culture has led to the U.S. being the most violent and murderous developed country in the world... "by wide margins" according to that post King made. This is precisely why I have learned to verify any "facts" King posts here.

Here's Ted Schefelbein also taking the time to once again correct you King.



Ted was just wasting his time, because you went on many times to repeat the same tired anti-gun propaganda used by anti-gun organizations who have to resort to outright lies to advance their agenda. Aren't you the guy who has repeatedly claimed that you have never told a lie here... a lie being something you know to not be true???

Real Pro-Gunners just don't write stuff like that. Ever! They sure as hell don't repeat it over and over after being confronted with facts from sources like the United Nations, which is hardy a bastion of individual gun rights. Nor do they go on with attempts to LULL U.S. gun owners into complacency about the relentless and ongoing threats to the 2nd Amendment made by the Anti-Gun Liberal Left:



You've repeatedly shown us your personal "opposing position" to the 2nd Amendment, the NRA, semi-auto assault style rifles, concealable guns, large cap magazines, clips, etc. Yet you still claim to be Pro-Gun. Using your logic, I suppose the serial killer Ted Bundy could have called himself pro-woman just because he hadn't strangled his mother.

I continue to keep this fraud(Brown) on my ignore list but I have to ask the question? Just what does it buy this forum letting anti-gun trolls like King and others post here? Seeing another viewpoint? All one has to do is tune into the Obama News Network and you can see the lies, exaggerations and just plain B.S reported on a daily basis.
What you Won't see on the "ONN" is anything reported that's positive or factual regarding the RTKABA and that's why gun owners forums IMO are critical to maintaining our rights.
Jim

Gun owner forums are not only critical but essential to protect our rights. They get their legitimacy and influence from a representative structure of all aspects of our fraternity, not a radical rump promoting a particular party or point of view.

Consider the consequences of the GOP under the sway of Cheney, then sliding untagged to the Tea Party, followed by Trump taking control of the GOP, the trend of modern conservatism. Making a big tent wins elections, blackballing doesn't.

"Get him outta here" isn't the American way.

bravo king, for contributing to giving this thread some positive purpose...after all, it started with the absurd premise that the rev. graham is some kind of wacko white supremacist! how weird is that?

now, consider this in regard to our Inalienable right to keep and bear arms...enter the 14th amendment...specifically, the clause guaranteeing the equal protection of law for all citizens...that clause was recently cited in a supreme court decision, whereby an ohio state law defining marriage was struck down as a violation of the 14th amendment, because same sex couple marriage was not provided equal protection of the law...

so, does it stand to reason, that if states like new york, forbid its citizens from possessing a certain class of arm, described as "assault rifles" and other states like vermont, have no such prohibition, then the citizens of new york are being excluded from their right to equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 2nd and 14th amendment?

Ed, look at the Supreme Court 5-3 decision yesterday about abortion in Texas. And what I was quoted above: "Sure, we hold our constitutions dearly to our ideals but pro- and anti-gun control advocates use them to support opposing positions. Some of us are comforted by references to our constitutions although the evidence shows clearly that societies make of them what they will."

The Texas analogy of what states do and can't do with those "20,000 gun laws" and "inalienable rights" would seem to apply to Vermont and New York--- until the Supreme Court comes along and arbitrates on their constitutionality, finding pro and anti depending on Court and public points of view. Short answer: I don't know. The Court surprises me more often than not.

I guess when we understand that abortion is a Constitutional right, all the laws restricting luxuries like guns help us appreciate and value entitlements even more.

US state- and federal-sanctioned capital punishment, although failing in support relatively quickly, is in there, too.

I'm as conflicted as others believing in a woman's right to choose, and abhorring executions which I wouldn't do myself.

Another paradox.

While we are on thoughts to ponder and the wonderfulness of SC decisions, it strikes me that something is wildly F'd up when the SC guarantees a woman's right to choose while an Ohio court sentences a co-ed to life without parole from throwing away her newborn.

Talk about mixed messages! Which is it. Human life is sacred or not? Babies are to be cherished or thrown out?

Which circles back to the never-ending struggles of conscience of when life begins and the sacredness of all human life itself.

Reality is determined by the "observer:" if the child is wanted, he/she is a baby. If not, a fetus or mass of tissue.

So true. The scourge of moral relativity.

Morality doesn't enter into it? The treatment of moral questions? A high standard of humans values? Dialectical materialism?

Oh boy, here we go. Kant you all just give it a rest?


_________________________________
Knowledge is power got your books go read 'em
Ignorance is bliss...stupidity...I call freedom. Paul Westerberg

My experience is curiosity and enthusiasm are at the heart of anything worth doing. Your Kant pun slid nicely into his and the above nature of the observer and not least "Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to become a universal law." I learn from our exchanges. They temper my biases.

My dad knew how to temper biases real good. Usually with a left jab and a right cross.


_______________________________
Teacher you fixed needs to be broke. Paul Westerberg

Things must be really slow North of the Border...These Canadians are desperate .....Whats next? Rutabaga power...?

They are relatively slow, coming from peace, order and less authoritative government. No governance is all to one's liking but seems better to me from what's going on South of the Border, Last Dollar. From all accounts everyone's fed up with it.

Better stay North then...And maybe mind your OWN business. How about cleaning up the massive pollutions taking place in Western Canada...? OOOPS forgot, the Western Canadians don't pay any attention to the eastern windbags...All they do is add more pollution...

Hey, go easy on the little fella, LD. It's real easy to talk smack when you know big brother has your back. Maybe we let that big, mean bear swoop in from their secret Arctic base all the way to Cole Harbour and take a selfie with Lord Stanley. Hope that vaunted Canadian military is a whole lot better than the dumb f..ks they send to Grayling every year.

___________________________
Piove
https://youtu.be/G8B5p77JGss

Be kind. Whenever I see Kansas I think of dear Dorothy's and Toto's adventures in the Land of the Wizard of Oz, replicated here so majestically where we share opinions on everything in an international doublegun forum. Imagine Americans who built a world empire talking only to themselves!

Morality or a high standard of human values doesn't enter into it? Don't we create discussion so that we appear to be on the high road to an inevitable end?

I don't think so. I think examining the lives of most people would reveal a genuine striving to do good, whatever that might be. Not trying to look good. Reading your stuff for years, I never thought you were different from what you appear.

Politics, abortion, capital punishment... anything to slink away from your unmistakably anti-gun words, eh King? What ever happened to your impassioned pleas to keep this forum all double-gun all the time, and leave politics out of it?



I still can't believe that you actually made the ridiculous claim that your anti-gun rhetoric is nothing more than "reporting accurately..."



I'm sure you'd like everyone to believe that crap, but you have many times gone far beyond "reporting accurately" and followed up with your own anti-gun commentary. Here's some to refresh your memory:


King Brown post 433281 from "Trump on the Second Amendment" main forum 1/18/2016



It appears that the only "reporting accurately" going on there was you accurately reporting your anti-2nd Amendment beliefs that are in denial of our Individual RKBA. But it isn't simply a denial of our Individual RKBA King... it is a repeated denial... even after you have been corrected.

Only one of us is "reporting accurately" here King, and it sure ain't you. Dishonesty is not civility.

Hey LD, why don't you send some more of your brilliant citizens north to Alberta so they can spend more time tweeting about the effects of all that pollution and Global Warming, HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, like that moron Leonardo DiCaprio, except the warm wind he was feeling was a chinook.

You got some balls complaining about Canadian pollution. Glass houses man, glass houses. If you are going to pick on us, at least have the brains LR has and needle us about our lack of support for our own military.

Why don't you fools provide better support to your military? I could care less about Canadian pollution....That's a Canadian problem...I was just pointing out that you all are so busy sticking your noses into our business that you don't even care about your own messes. Sheeeit, I bet you don't even know who Corb Lund is...

It's a Canadian thing, LD. We pull more than our weight in wars---fourth and fifth largest naval surface fleet and air force in the Second from a country with a tenth of your population---and neglect the military in between. There's a mitigating factor. Canada didn't wait to get torpedoed into the First and bombed into the Second. It was in from the first of both world wars. There weren't years of isolationism and the US ambassador to the Court of St. James reporting US entry wasn't worth it because the British Commonwealth was finished. As for stupidity and sticking our nose where it wasn't wanted, we stayed out of Vietnam and Iraq, now acknowledged as unwarranted and costly sacrifices to colonialism..

Why don't you do something about that [censored] Obama?


Obviously you don't do anything about Obama for the same reason I don't do anything about our military. We can't. We are just individuals. I'm guessing we both vote for people and parties who we think may fix some of what we both see is wrong with our respective countries. But don't lump me in with the assholes in my country and I won't lump you in the the assholes in your country.

I don't shit on Americans, why shit on Canadians? What makes you think this is an American only forum?

And I've seen Corb Lund live. I'm from the prairies, man, of course I've seen him.

Thank you King.

I only said that because dumshit told me to..I dunno and don't care much how you support your Military...I am not a Canadian citizen, don't vote or pay taxes or reside there..So I don't have "Stature"...Unlike you fools, I think Canadians can run Canada without my help. I think we can run the US without yours...I'm glad you know who Corb Lund is...Got a lil drunk with him Last Tuesday...If you eastern Canadians can get some of your people off the dole, and get them to speak English, well. hell, maybe you could even contribute...

Holy crap. Didn't mean to start an international incident. At least we're off all that philosophical b.s. and back into good 'ol ultra nationalist flag waving.

Good luck with those Russians with your 4th largest navy and your 5th largest air force.

P.S. I love Canada. I'm half Canadian. Just breakin' your balls. There was an incident in Grayling with some of your troops . They never met a MF'er quite like me though.

_________________________________
I got one hand in my pocket and the other is giving a peace sign. Alanis Morisette

"Unlike you fools"!

I tried LD, but it's time for you to [censored] off back to wherever you went for a couple of years. If you can't have a conversation on any subject without slagging everyone in the vicinity then you are stupider than I imagined.

It's probably within your capabilities to distinguish what I write from what King writes but you are too lazy to bother. So, much as I hate to, I have to tell you for the second time....go [censored] yourself.

As far as getting people to speak English and get off the dole, how's that going for you and your Mexican friends. Like I said earlier in this thread....glass houses, man.

Just occurred to me.....you're an old fart now....probably still drunk from last Tuesday with Corb. That would at least explain your posts.

A week into Brexit and there still seems to be an England. Maybe there will always be an England now that some (a majority of) Brits have had the guts to give sovereignty another try...Geo

That canvasback gets nasty doesn't he? Maybe comes from all that masturbation of the mouth? AND of course he has to cross the border into the US rather than try to defend his Canadian position...Dole? French Language....What did you say about Glass houses? What a jerk....

Is that why you ran to Meh'hecO' ?

I like the food, and the fishing, jOsie..Didnt run, drove down in a Dodge truck....came back same way...

George, for an entertaining read, pick up the latest issue of The Spectator. Not everyone in GB is panicking, despite what we hear and read over in NA.