doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Offensive tag-lines

Ben Franklin said it best, "We need to hang together, or rest assured we will all hang seperately" (or words to that effect).

Gentleman,

We are about to take part in one of the most important elections in the history of our great nation. Today, the SCOTUS announced that they will hear the DC gun ban case. Up until now, guns and hunting has not been an issue on the campaign. You can bet that no matter how they rule, it will become one now.

The last time I looked, Republicans, Democrats, Independants, Greenies or what have you are ALL Americans first, last and always.

Although I am not yet sold on the front runners on the Republican side, the other alternative (a certain NY Senator) is flat out scary and will spell disaster for this country, IMHO .

Lets be polite, be Gentleman, agree to disagree, hear both sides, and when it comes time to pull the lever, pull it for the right person who will take us forward and protect ALL of OUR God given rights.

Now, back to double guns (and gun dogs).

Jake, Jack's response is proof enough that nothing was "stifled". And it's his position (and the whole hate speech/hate crime nonsense) that I'm denigrating, not him. And as I pointed out earlier, a tag line isn't "discourse" anyhow. It's simply an expression of the individual's philosophy (or perhaps an attempt at humor). There's no need to respond to it at all. It's not like Jim said, to any specific Democrat, "Hey, if you're a Democrat, you might as well be a member of AQ."

As Voltaire said, "I may not believe in what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

DOUBLE GUNS! DOUBLE GUNS! DOUBLE GUNS!

We never did see all those pics...

Voltaire huh? Good to know. In a book? Jake

Like Jakeroo, I really shouldn't get enmeshed with this thread, but sometimes I can't ignore it. Mike Bonner and John Mann have it right. What part of Weber's directive don't some of our members understand? Having said that, I'll now indict myself with the rest of the posters. Rabbit -- Hate the sin but love the sinner? Gunflint's observation is largely correct. It is offensive. It is tasteless. It is, indeed, an order of magnitude less than mature and thoughtless in the extreme. Jakeroo -- if we abide by Weber's dictum, he doesn't have the right on this forum. He does have the right to say anything he believes, however small-minded or tendentious, and Jack M., I and others have an equal right to disagree -- but we shouldn't have to do it here. Larry B. -- words a man writes do not have to have a face to be transparent. Did Jack M. or others of us "crawl out of the woodwork"? Poor choice of words -- or a good indication of the writer's mindset? Larry, I can't help but feel you didn't spend enough time on campus parsing language or logic, which is odd since your published work indicates a passing familiarity with the written word (and has my admiration). Let's see, as long as he didn't name a specific Democrat, the tag line doesn't really mean what it says. Does this mean that what a man writes or says may depend on what the definition of "is" is?
None of this is meant to be confrontational, but Weber's directive needs to be more closely observed.
Regards to all of you, Democrats and Republicans. In equal measure. Will

Well Jake, Voltaire wrote a lot of different things: plays, poetry, books, letters on various subjects. But we can be pretty sure it was on paper--since there wasn't any internet back then!

Yeh, Amazing........CONFUCKULATIONS.

Larry, That I assumed. Wondering if you had the direct source. Well, with the power of Google it appears that the quote may be a paraphrase.

http://www.classroomtools.com/voltaire.htm

Regards, Jake

Wasn't that Bill ClintOns line.