I posted, in the misfires section, an awesome picture of a whale visiting our boat. In a very short time, Keith and the aptly named "Bonehead Doc" had posted politicly oriented racial slurs to that thread. I commented on that and Keith suggested that if I didnt like it, I should quit. Thats what I am going to do. I am so disappointed that what used to be a really enjoyable place to share experiences, data and wit has degenerated to this level. The misfires section and even this one at times is full of racial and sexist slurs, insults, threats of violence, talk of torture, conspiracies...life is too short to put up with stuff like that....
I understand Chuck, on another site I made the mistake of trying to have a civil discussion about grouse hunting with a .410. You'd think I was on a Muslim site and had disparaged Allah the way I got dumped on. Internet bullies pretty much turn me off and that sure turned me off to that website. Steve
Also feel this way. However, that's the other side of free speech. As Peter the Great of Russia rightly noticed, when no limitations are imposed on what people say, everyone's stupidity is apparent. Don't take these rants personally, they are really only displays of the level of mental and emotional development, and speak more about the speakers than about what the speakers think they're bullying. And remember these speakers have the right to speak their mind out same as you and me.
On the other hand, I think we all should be thankful for the misfires section. It serves as a sort of a goblin reservation, a vent for certain people's feelings, keeping most of unrelated emotions out of the main section. Without misfires, these rants would have to happen in main section, and that would really be the end of the forum. Let it be... Practice Zen... Don't take it too hard.
I read all the posts & I don't see what Last Dollar is upset about.
The only possible objection I have is that I think the whale looked a lot more like Hillary Clinton in a wet suit than the first lady.
LD posted a very cool and interesting photo of something that many will never have the chance to experience up close, and he's probably tired of such things being used as a base for clever political comments.
Yea, LD take it easy, I agree with the gentleman above, because I still can't find where it was all that bad. And some of the comments were kind of funny!!
The thread was under "Full Frontal Nudity...". I'm not sure what his motives were for that prurient title, but maybe he should have called it "Great Pictures of a Whale". Don't get your knickers in a knot LD when you are the guy with the clever come on. You folded your tent when you moved to old Mexico. Enjoy.
In normal human discourse it is possible to have civil conversations with people who might disagree on any number of issues and at any level. Gun forums, for some reason, seem to bring out the vulgar and the name-callers. I am on a number of other lists (art, science) and nobody there politicizes posts, expresses constant negative thoughts and makes up crap about our government, our President and fellow Americans and wallows in nutty conspiracy theories.
This isn't the worst forum - other gun sites are far worse but the unbalanced rants that get posted on these forums will just confirm the anti's impressions of the gun world if they ever discover these sites. Just imagine the damage that would be done if just a dozen or so of the foulest rants were to go viral!
Shotgun World went crazy with racist crap around 2008 but the moderators seem finally to have it under control.
LD, I would prefer that you stay. Loved that picture and the others from your time on the water.
Unless something got deleted, I couldn't find anything in that thread that was racist, unless not enjoying Inuit delicacies is now considered racist, but I get your overall point.
Take a break, go catch some fish and come on back and show us the pics.
Too bad, whales are such interesting creatures. I would like to hear more about them.
I was flying in an exercise off a carrier that was tactical, no electronic emissions - no nav aids. I had made an apparent miscalculation with my navigation and the carrier was not where I thought it to be. I was running out of fuel and the visibility went to hell so I got on the deck to get below the overcast to try to get a visual on the carrier. There I see a monster white whale with scars all over it. I was sure I had flown into the twilight zone. I got aboard the carrier but told no one my white whale story fearing I'd get sectioned 8 out. Years later I went on a whale watching cruise and got up the nerve to ask one of the crew what I had seen. It turns out it was not an unusual sighting at all. What I saw was a Blue whale that had rolled over on his back sunning his stomach. Their stomachs are white and they have a billows that expands to bring in food, thus the appearance of scaring. It wasn't Mobe Dick after all.
Chuck, Like a bad chimichunga, these knotheads will pass.
Take a little sabbatical from DoubleGunShop. Do what that great little dog you have does...be cool and chill, eat some good food, check out the scenery.
You've been a pretty interesting participant here, LD and I'd hate to see you fold your tent and slip away. This sure ain't the worst place on the internet to spend a little time and learn some more stuff about guns. Do what you have to...Geo
I posted, in the misfires section, an awesome picture of a whale visiting our boat. In a very short time, Keith and the aptly named "Bonehead Doc" had posted politicly oriented racial slurs to that thread. I commented on that and Keith suggested that if I didnt like it, I should quit. Thats what I am going to do. I am so disappointed that what used to be a really enjoyable place to share experiences, data and wit has degenerated to this level. The misfires section and even this one at times is full of racial and sexist slurs, insults, threats of violence, talk of torture, conspiracies...life is too short to put up with stuff like that....
Oh please! Get over yourself. The Misfires Forum is a place for adults to vent. If you think the replies to your post are "politically oriented racial slurs", you have led a very sheltered life. Quit whining over nothing. JR
Oh please! Get over yourself. The Misfires Forum is a place for adults to vent. If you think the replies to your post are "politically oriented racial slurs", you have led a very sheltered life. Quit whining over nothing. JR
+1...........
LD, pack up your trailer and move it further South in Mexico where there is no internet service or throw your laptop out of the boat..........
You love to dish it out, but can't take it huh.......
But don't worry Last Dollar, I won't be whining to Dave Weber and asking him to move this one, because I'd like some of the guys who agree with you to understand your hypocrisy. You can always dish it out, but you can't take it. I'd say good riddance, but you've played this "I'm taking my marbles and going home" game before. I wish it was true, but you've been so disingenuous that I dare not get my hopes too high.
What does folding a tent have to do with Doubleguns? Last Dollar is a Hypocritical Turd who has dumped on dozens, if not hundreds of posts both here and in Misfires. When Jim (Italiansxs) put up a 2nd Amendment related thread here after the Sandy Hook tragedy, Last Dollar was one of the most vociferous whiners who wanted it moved. Like a crybaby, he threatened to leave us then if Dave did not move it. He was silent for several days, then He started a new thread entitled "Banned" which featured a picture of a Baseball Bat fitted with a tactical grip and light and sights. This was post #308332, posted 1/9/13, just a few days after his tantrum on 1/5/13 (post #307759) in the "Re: Shotgun News Editorial" thread. It was OK for him to put up a decidedly off topic thread, but not for Italiansxs. He apparently thinks it's OK to put up an off topic thread now because he's looking for sympathy. Even when 2nd Amendment threads were moved to Misfires, Last Dollar would come into the discussion and whine, insult, name-call, and complain about the length, tone, or tenor of the discussion. Same for political discussions even though our Administrator specifically made Misfires a forum for those topics.
Over and over, we have seen this same behavior. If he approves or initiates... it's OK. If he disapproves or disagrees... it's bad.
Just a few days ago, we were regaled with stories from Last Dollar about all of the letters and faxes he has sent to his Colorado legislators and friends about impending anti-gun legislation. He was also very critical of gunowners who did not do those things. Yet in the recent past, both here and in Misfires, he has complained that criticism of gun owners who are politically inactive would push away allies and those who are on the fence.
How do you please someone like this? How can you be on both sides of an issue and pretend you're not? I don't know if it has to do with time of the month (menstrual cycle) or menopause or what? I probably would never antagonize Last Dollar the way I do if it wasn't for his "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude. I think hypocrisy is the lowest form of dishonesty and deception.
Speaking of which, the responses from Gnomoron and homer were precious. Those two (among others) spent months telling us that Obama was pro-2nd Amendment and would never infringe on our Civil 2nd Amendment rights. They disagreed with, and mocked anyone who warned that Obama had a 100% anti-gun voting record and an anti-gun agenda. Here's Gnomoron still mocking gun owners who now actually see the president exploiting the emotions of a tragic event, actively pursuing this agenda that has been proven to be ineffective in reducing violent gun crime and massacres done by mentally deranged individuals:
"In normal human discourse it is possible to have civil conversations with people who might disagree on any number of issues and at any level. Gun forums, for some reason, seem to bring out the vulgar and the name-callers. I am on a number of other lists (art, science) and nobody there politicizes posts, expresses constant negative thoughts and makes up crap about our government, our President and fellow Americans and wallows in nutty conspiracy theories." Quote from Gnomoron, the liar.
Some here may think I should not call Gnomoron a liar, but I only began that after he falsely claimed that I had been e-mailing him although I had never once contacted him in any way, shape, or form other than to openly debate on these forum pages. When I called him on it and repeatedly asked for proof, his lame response was to pretend to ignore me. It's interesting to note the caliber of some (not all) here who sympathize with Last Dollar. I am blunt. I tend to call a spade a spade. But I have never lied to, or about, anyone here. I have made a few mistakes over the years and sucked it up and admitted my errors and openly apoligized. I'm sure not perfect. I don't mean to offend anyone except those who are offensive or deceptive.
On that note, I hope you, King Brown, will go back to the Misfires thread "Re: Has Anyone Read this?" and read my response to your post yesterday. Dishonesty still ain't civility.
I'm reluctant to comment here because this is not missfires. Anyway, all the best to you whatever you decide. I had just seen possible buddy whales to your picture, calving south of Maui just a week earlier. I just enjoyed your picture.
I was going to stay out of this but I think this needs to be said. I doubt if there's anyone on this forum who has been subjected to more ethnic and racial slurs as I have primarily because I have continuously brought the need to fight for our constitional rights to everyone's attention. I have literally been labeled with just about everything obnoxious in the book which I suspect has been a baiting attempt to get me to go ballistic. Frankly; I'll leave that type of grandstanding to Bill O'Reilly. Dave Weber agreed that informational discussion of attempted incursion into our 2nd Amendment rights and activities were permissible and we can engage in this discussion to thwart these attacks and certainly it belongs in the mainstream part of this forum. Since I can now post firearms legislation information over here the attacks have for the most part abated. However, even when I used to flinch a bit at some of the trash and bile I was receiving I never once threatened to leave this forum. I looked at leaving as a victory for the closet anti's(yes we know who you are and what your intent actually is in posting here) and I refuse to give up the fight. If anyone truly feels that they can't put up with the heat as the old saying goes then the really out to get out of the kitchen or as it applies here off the forum. As a further point: I have no problem whatsoever with someone who is an anti and who believes that gun control is effective and cares to honestly state their reasons. There are individuals such as Keith here who can demolish just about any argument presented from that side. My problem is with individuals posing as legitimate gun owners who are anything but legitimate. Jim
I ducked out of misfires a while back for pretty much the same reason - too much bullshit being sprayed around and in a way that unavoidably dirties everyone there. You know who you are.
The situation is made even worse b/c of the gun control debates and struggles going on. In the current environment, crap like those post-ers' both sullies responsible people who own guns and alienates people who might otherwise be inclined to help fight against the gun control-lers. What reasonable person would want to be associated with the likes of Keith, PA24 and their like-minded fellows? None of them.... And those same reasonable people will surely be persuaded by their behavior to oppose anything supported by the likes of Keith, PA24 and their like-minded fellows. it's bad enough that I'm inclined to suspect them as being on Bloomberg's payroll for the specific purpose of making gun owners and shooters look bad. It wouldn't be the first time someone shat on a blog to do that.
I come to this site to learn about double guns, share information about double guns and hunting and shooting with them, and enjoy myself. Not to put up with puerile abuse.
Jim (Italiansxs), you spurred my memory about the time Last Dollar referred to you as a stupid WOP, a derogatory racial and ethnic slur. Just another example of the class act we're dealing with here.
Dave in Maine, Do you remember our last exchange when you posted some comments about Obama's current anti-gun assault, and I asked you if you weren't one of the guys who supported Obama and said he would not be a threat to the 2nd Amendment?
You denied that it was you, so I produced a number of posts you had made that did just that. This little exchange started on page two of your thread "Re: Something to Read and Circulate Widely" (post#311663 on 1/30/13). Remember when I said that if you tried to defend your denial, you would have a fool for a lawyer? Uh, you fell silent as a church mouse. No response because I caught you in a lie. You just silently slithered away. And now you have the stones to come slithering back and ask what reasonable person would want to be associated with the likes of me. Now you suggest that Doug and I are shills for Bloomberg to make gun owners look bad. Don't Lawyers like you have a bad enough reputation for dishonesty and lack of integrity? And just how good a lawyer can you be when a layman like myself can so easily destroy you? Did you really think I'd let you get away with it?
You sir, are a dirtbag of the highest order. The spring thaw must be bringing all of the hypocrites out.
I ducked out of misfires a while back for pretty much the same reason - too much bullshit being sprayed around and in a way that unavoidably dirties everyone there. You know who you are.
I come to this site to learn about double guns, share information about double guns and hunting and shooting with them, and enjoy myself. Not to put up with puerile abuse.
DIM....
You were embarrassed big time because you were caught lying in public and defending your liberal voting and anti-gun stances on this board......Keith and I challenged your lies,.... So we do understand your negative attack here, no worries, we consider the source.......
Are you happy with YOUR Obama now that he attacks the second amendment which you said he would not........?........It appears you did not and still do not know what you are talking about.....are you still in denial.......?.....LOL
I ducked out of misfires a while back for pretty much the same reason - too much bullshit being sprayed around and in a way that unavoidably dirties everyone there. You know who you are.
The situation is made even worse b/c of the gun control debates and struggles going on. In the current environment, crap like those post-ers' both sullies responsible people who own guns and alienates people who might otherwise be inclined to help fight against the gun control-lers. What reasonable person would want to be associated with the likes of Keith, PA24 and their like-minded fellows? None of them.... And those same reasonable people will surely be persuaded by their behavior to oppose anything supported by the likes of Keith, PA24 and their like-minded fellows. it's bad enough that I'm inclined to suspect them as being on Bloomberg's payroll for the specific purpose of making gun owners and shooters look bad. It wouldn't be the first time someone shat on a blog to do that.
I come to this site to learn about double guns, share information about double guns and hunting and shooting with them, and enjoy myself. Not to put up with puerile abuse.
Wow, seems like an awful lot of baggage to tote around.
LD- Until one completely accepts that conversation with those people is the equivalent of wrestling with the pigs and totally disengages it is hard to enjoy this site. And with that I will leave this discussion with apologies as every comment here is off topic.
How does Baracks asstate? How does Liz Warrens asstate? How does Sherrod Browns asstate? How does Patrick Murphys asstate? ...I could go on all day but you get it. America isnt voting the Ignoramus ticket. (its too bad for Scott Brown that he got brought in when -as Morning Joe says-the Republicans are the party of the stupid.)
Edited by homer (11/09/12 08:10 AM)
Above is a little quote by homer (from the Re: Vote The Second Amendment on Tuesday thread, post#299844, on 11/9/12), another class act. Oink oink!
I'd hope folks here would read some of homer's other classy and intelligent posts from that thread, and compare them with my posts. Remember, I'm the villian here, and the pig. I don't know why homer wants to bow out now after making two off-topic posts in Last Dollar's off-topic thread. Hypocrite lite today, I guess.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. It's not surprising homer is supportive of LD as they are two of a kind. _________________________
LD I will miss you. Please PM me and let me know what is going on with you and Flash.
A friend of mine tells a story about his father. They lived in Clovis, a small town in Eastern New Mexico. His dad was crazy about professional wrestling. Went to every match within driving distance and took the family. Upon returning home the whole family would play wrestle. The mom accidentally broke her arm in one of the play matches. At one professional match the father got so incensed at the misbehavior of Dirty Dick Murdock he jumped into the ring and started fighting him.
After that night he told his son "I am going to have to give up going to the wrestling matches. I am just like an alcoholic only it is wrestling." He never went to the wrestling matches again as long as he lived, another fifty years.
You don't have to read the Misfires section to keep your posting privileges. And as long as off topic posts don't turn to politics people are pretty tolerant of them in this section.
By the way, I have a hemorrhoid. It seems the more I scratch at it the more intolerable it becomes. As you are much older (and chubbier) than me I thought you might have some sage advice on hemorrhoid discomfort management.
Some people just leave. Schoolgirls tend to slam the lunch tray on the table and march away in a huff.
Shane, come back!
I just love Shane!
Shane is not only the greatest western ever made but the greatest movie ever made. With Van Heflin, Jean Arthur, Jack (Walter) Palance, Ben Johnson not to mention Alan Ladd, how many academy award winners can you have in one movie!!
Joe, you remind in a way of my interview long after the war with a Canadian infantry officer's batman who did heroic things in desperation on the Dutch-German border: "I don't buttle to no one."
Giving in on this board to bad manners, foul language, racist slurs, bigotry, mischief and meanness is to be corrupted by it.
King Brown, thanks for the new word - buttle, actually I found two meanings. Your interviewee obviously meant "I won't be anyone's butler" while the modern meaning discusses perspiration and dead skin flakes... I like the older meaning better.
jOe, you're okay, I shake my head at some of your true but insensitive blunt remarks, but I've come to the conclusion that you don't do it out of meaness, it's just your nature. I actually view threads I wouldn't view otherwise when I see that you've added one of your succinct missives
Ah Methinks it's time for "Tales From the Ranch!!"
*"Late again," the third-grade teacher said to little Sammy.
*"It ain't my fault this time, Miss Crabtree. You can blame this'un on my Daddy. The reason I'm three hours late is my Daddy sleeps naked!"
*Now, Miss Crabtree had taught grammar school for thirty-some- odd years. Despite her mounting fears, she asked little Sammy what he meant by that.** Yesiree- another living testament to the dangers of our druggie society- a dog becomes a crack-head because the man of the house make it accessible to him- and even the kiddies- meth labs even on wheels, druggies and pimps in the streets and alleys of all our major cities, and now even the Homer and Jethro elements chimes in--wonder what sort of loads the old gent had in his two-holer- both barrels were choked how- and was it a hammer or a hammerless shotgun. Somehow I'm more inclined to think a Hardware Store, or Rears and Sawbuck or Monkey Wards "Nitro Marvel" was the escopeta de nuit--and I'll kick in a few bucks to get that poor dog into a rehab program, so he can start shaggin' the 'yotes on the farm instead of doin' rock or crack cocaine-
*Full of grins and mischief, and in the flower of his youth, little Sammy and trouble were old friends, but he always told her the truth.
*"You see, Miss Crabtree, out at the ranch we got this here low down coyote. The last few nights, he done ate six hens and killed Ma's best milk goat. Last night, when Daddy heard a noise out in the chicken pen, he grabbed his shot gun and said to Ma, "That coyote's back again, I'm a gonna git him!''**
"Stay back, he whispered to all us kids!">
"He was naked as a jaybird, no boots, no pants, no shirt! To the hen house he crawled, just like an Injun on the snoop. Then, he stuck that double barreled 12 gauge shot gun through the window of the coop."
"As he stared into the darkness, with coyotes on his mind, our old hound dog, Zeke, had done woke up and comes sneaking' up behind Daddy. Then, as we all looked on, plumb helpless, old Zeke stuck his cold nose in Daddy's crack!"
Miss Crabtree, we all been cleanin' chickens since three o'clock this mornin'!"
I for one will miss you and hope that you don't leave. It's fair to say you have been around the block a few times and I am sure that keith and and his cabal of crazies are not the first thugs you've encountered. You speak sense to their non-sense and retreating only empowers them when they should not be empowered because they do far much more damage to second amendment rights then their worst fears about Obama. keith has nothing left but name calling, whether directed at you, other members or the administration. He lives in that bubble where information and fact are blocked and only spin gets through. At some point he will realize that he's been marginalized and shut up. Or maybe not. That bubble those guys live in is really effective at skewing reality.
Well Well Well: I for one have been wondering when the likes of nca225 would crawl out from under his rock. Another "non contributor closet gungrabber"trying to derail the quest to preserve our 2nd Amendment rights. You have NEVER contributed ONE positive thing to this cause. All you do is criticise the ones who do like Keith,Pa24,Dave K etc. They post facts and well thought out discourses you post well----- this isn't the Misfires area so I'll leave it at that. I would suggest you keep your name calling, racial and ethnic slurs out of the main area here as I suspect Admin. won't have much patience with you.
Dave W: It would certainly be fine with me(and I expect several others) if you moved this thread into Misfires where it should have been started in the first place. The whining from the gungrabbing dwarfs who infest that area is becomming tedious.
I for one will miss you and hope that you don't leave. It's fair to say you have been around the block a few times and I am sure that keith and and his cabal of crazies are not the first thugs you've encountered. You speak sense to their non-sense and retreating only empowers them when they should not be empowered because they do far much more damage to second amendment rights then their worst fears about Obama. keith has nothing left but name calling, whether directed at you, other members or the administration. He lives in that bubble where information and fact are blocked and only spin gets through. At some point he will realize that he's been marginalized and shut up. Or maybe not. That bubble those guys live in is really effective at skewing reality.
We needed your moral compass, tolerance and confidence before things had gone too far.
You should go with him nca, there's probably room in his Mexico trailer for you........you don't take up much room mentally or otherwise as I recall.........
You should go with him nca, there's probably room in his Mexico trailer for you........you don't take up much room mentally or otherwise as I recall.........
+2,
been away and thought for a minute the board was taken over by miss teen forum with the "folding up the tent" BS Geeze LD remember this line ? Godfather 1 aka "1"
And here's a little quote from nca225 from post #307515 on 1/3/13 from the thread "Re: I'm Not"...
"NO F-U your not done you illiterate f#@K. You just quoted exactly what I had said, but you apparently dont understand what OR means. I would of never figured you to be a Clinton disciple but here you are! Is/or, you seem to have a very fluid definition of either. Get yourself some hooked on phonics products and learn how to read and comprehend you dumb piece of shit."
Edited by nca225 (01/03/13 08:49 PM)
For those of you who don't visit Misfires very often, nca225 is a frequent Liberal Obama supporting contributor who recently came out of the closet and admitted his anti-Second Amendment stance. He's one of the anti-gun trolls Jim spoke of, but at least he finally showed his true colors. The quote above was one of several similar replies to me within that same thread. Doesn't sound like the same guy who came here to ask Last Dollar to please stay, does it?
I will disagree with Jim that this should be moved to Misfires. Last Dollar put it here on the front page after all the times he loudly complained that Second Amendment posts here were off topic. He knew he was off topic with this as well. We need to remember that the rules didn't apply to him or folks he agreed with. King Brown can explain that double standard thing better than I. Since LD chose to personally attack me in this "cry for sympathy thread", I'd really like for folks to see posts from the classy and high quality people who are asking LD to stay. Other than a few who have been longtime personal hunting friends of LD, all we've got for cheerleaders is the Rainbow Coalition.
edit: Apologies to my friend James (Canvasback) who reminded me he is not part of the Rainbow Coalition. But we already knew that!
Hey Keith, I asked him to stay, not because I'm an old hunting buddy of LD but because I like looking at the pictures he posts of recently caught and soon to be eaten fish. Especially when it's something stupid like minus 20 up here in the Great White North.
Hope that doesn't mean you think I've switched sides and joined the Rainbow Coalition. Although I may if they start admitting advocates of small, fiscally conservative governments that spend money carefully, believe they have an obligation to serve their constituents, support strong property rights and believe in the Constitution of the United States. Oh snap, I'm not American. Ignore that last part.
But I won't be holding my breath.
In all seriousness though, and perhaps it's just me but I like it when Dave in Maine, nca255, Gnomon and the rest post on here.
I like it better when the foolishness or hypocrisy of their positions is clearly revealed when subsequent posters, yourself included, take them to task and dissect their position. I mean, if we can't do that, maybe our positions shouldn't be so firmly held. Their usual inability to cogently respond to a challenge to their beliefs ( i say beliefs, because they operate from a position of faith, rather than truth ) reminds me I'm most often on the side of truth.
I believe firmly in both the idea and actuality of free speech. This leads me to the old rights and responsibilities issue. I like our right to free speech. I therefore have a responsibility to allow others the same opportunity to exercise their right of free speech, no matter how stupid or repugnant. I also, and this may just be a personal peccadillo, feel like I have a responsibility to sift through the shit and try to discern if there is anything worth keeping.
IMHO, we shouldn't be driving them away with relentless personal attacks, we should be destroying their positions. We should be making it clear to anyone who takes the time to read these threads that there are curtain ideas put forward by a few members here that, if I'm being generous, are ill considered. And if I'm being more blunt, are either stupid or disingenuous.
James, As you know, I haven't forced anyone out. Last Dollar seems to have bagged up his marbles and went home in a huff and hissy-fit over something that was more innocuous than many of his posts. He probably expected more sympathy than he's getting. Sorry if I inadvertantly included you in the Rainbow Coalition... collateral damage I guess, since I know you are light years away from being an extreme leftist liberal. I edited my last post to reflect that. I too enjoyed a lot of Last Dollars fish pictures, and I even liked the baseball bat with sights and tactical grip. I just thought it was very hypocritical for him to post that just days after leaving after another tantrum, and right after he whined about Jim's Second Amendment thread. It was more of that double standard thing that King can explain to you across the frozen tundra. I always pulled my punches with LD because he was a Lefever guy and I figured he couldn't be all that bad. But that kinda went out the window after he crossed a line with me. I guess I'm really out of the will now!
I'm not here to infringe upon anyone's free speech. Only our Site Adinistrator can do that, and Dave gives us a pretty wide berth. We also have the right to not read things we don't like, and the power to not cry like little girls. Most of us, anyway. He could have used the Ignore function or just pretended to ignore me like Gnomoron and King do, while still hurling insults and innuendo in the third person under the guise of faux civility. And dishonesty is still not civility in my book. I sometimes visit a Volkswagen TDI (turbo diesel) forum, and just the mere mention that you can use Mobil 1 synthetic oil in a TDI will get you a severe profanity and insult laced rebuke from the Administrator before he unceremoniously banishes you. This is childs play here.
Ahhh, Keith. You make me smile. What are you thinking....Mobil 1 in a TDI. I'm still trying to figure out how to get the silver Passat W8 wagon back from my ex. She thinks I bought it for her. Best sleeper I ever had. Eight cylinders that rev freely to a 7500 rpm redline. Drove it out to my hunting lodge one year at 150 mph, once I got out of radar alley on Hwy 1 heading west out of Winnipeg. It was so bland, even the cars that saw me didn't notice.
Speaking of my ex, perhaps I am advancing this point because I've become used to biting my tongue at the civil yet utterly dishonest drivel that comes my way from her. But I do it for a good reason. It's the right thing to do for my boy.
And while this may seem like a stretch for some, I think the same approach would be valuable here. It's not that I accept any of her lies, doublespeak or misinformation. She gets called on them all. But it's without rancour and once each bit of BS has been put to rest, it's dropped and she has a chance, although I know it will never happen, to start fresh and get it right each time she opens her yap to me.
I keep a smile on my face and truth in my heart. I discredit today's bullshit today and then move on, hoping but not expecting, that one day, in the face of relentless accuracy, she will see the error of her ways ( the trying to lie to me part ) and make a change for the better. The only thing i demand is that she be the best mother she can be. I am suggesting we take the same approach here.
You say it's child's play here compared to other on-line communities. I wouldn't know as this and gunnutz are the only forums I frequent. Most of my time spent on forums is spent here. So this is the one I care about.
I am not suggesting we give the lies a pass. Just that we focus on discrediting the post (assuming we are able to) not the poster and then move on.
And finally, to those who might be bothered by the various non gun issues raised in this post, I don't care. The selective whining that goes on about that is consistently the silliest thing about this forum.
Quote: "I keep a smile on my face and truth in my heart. I discredit today's bullshit today and then move on, hoping but not expecting, that one day, in the face of relentless accuracy, she will see the error of her ways ( the trying to lie to me part ) and make a change for the better. The only thing i demand is that she be the best mother she can be. I am suggesting we take the same approach here"
Canvasback: I agree this would be an excellent approach if the anti libtards like nca225 ever tried posting some facts which they invariably don't do. When you support the side of an issue such as gun control that's obviously wrong when the real facts are examined by anyone above the moron level in intelligence you're going to avoid doing so like the plague. "Gun Control" is very obviously based upon a position of people control to achieve socialist ends which is to disarm the population to further socialist goals. What they do instead is attack people like me when we post facts that either expose or refute their position. I was on the receiving end of posts like Keith cited above because they can only do this, try to change the subject or try to ignore you. If the so called "mainstream news media" were to relate the real facts about "gun control" so that the general public wouldn't be mislead the proponents would be laughed off the air. Keith: In reflecting on your point that this thread should be left here I've come to agree with you that it should. Let those on this forum who don't want to get involved see just how bizarre and vindictive the anti's really are. Perhaps this will encourage those on the sidelines to become more actively involved in this major struggle were in to preserve our rights. Jim
Jim, I firmly believe repeating the facts, ad nauseum, and finding different, more acceptable ways to say the same thing is the only way we will have the right to own guns privately in 50 years. We have listened to 40 years of lies about guns and gun owners. That has had a huge effect on the average non gun owner's opinions about guns and gun ownership. We will not win the war of words that we must wage by belittling or name calling. It will be won by a relentless focus on an emotional position that is bolstered by facts and by doing so find common ground with those who are not gun owners.
We have had our asses kicked by the other side for 40 years. Gun ownership BY HOUSEHOLD in the US is at a historical low of less that 35%, down from over 50% not too long ago.
For example, there is a case to be made from focus groups conducted in Canada, that gun owners can find common cause with university age, urban women. Because we both share the belief that we shouldn't have to submit to the unfair judgement of others for our own, private and legal activities and behaviors.
We need to stop responding to the gun grabbers. That leaves them dictating the terms of the debate. Discredit their point and then drop them. I don't argue with 4 year olds, or those that think like 4 year olds. I tell them the facts and move on.
We need to get waaayyyyy more sophisticated in our messaging. Keith is right, we should all join the NRA. But at the same time, the NRA needs to get better at messaging to the broader public.
The following aired on 20/20 in 2007. That's MSM. We need to ask ourselves "What do we have to do to get more of this on TV?" Freaking out because some idiot reporter in Washington broke stupid Washington laws about magazine capacity on his TV show may be satisfying but it doesn't win converts. This report from John Stossel does.
"Gun Control" is very obviously based upon a position of people control to achieve socialist ends which is to disarm the population to further socialist goals.
Jim
Jim, that may be true for those crafting the message. The politicians and the media. But it is not true for the millions of people who believe them when they are told guns are the problem. We need to stop worrying about the end game for socialist politicians and consider how to get Mr and Mrs Average AND THEIR CHILDREN back on our side.
The NRA has been so villified by the media that the mere mention that I'm a NRA member makes many people think I'm an extremist. There's a perception problem that the NRA has to fix. Otherwise, the NRA is part of the problem.
The NRA has been so villified by the media that the mere mention that I'm a NRA member makes many people think I'm an extremist. There's a perception problem that the NRA has to fix. Otherwise, the NRA is part of the problem.
Absolutely Chuck. That is so true. What the NRA should do with every dime it gets from its members is find and hire a media/advertising/marketing company of the caliber of....say the one that does Nike's stuff, and change the nature of the discussion.
Canvasback, in my very first post within this thread, I said that I think hypocrisy is the lowest form of dishonesty and deception. I still feel that way, and most especially when it masquerades itself under a thin veneer of faux civility. The approach you take with your ex for the sake of stability in your sons life is admirable, and hopefully one that works out well. I've seen that approach backfire to the point where the kids turned (at least temporarily) against the better and more honest parent, but in time, the kids are usually able to figure things out and the situation is reversed.
So it is on larger scale issues such as gun control. But where a childs feelings and loyalties may turn on a dime, even if it is heartbreaking in the interim, the damages done after ineffective knee-jerk legislation often takes decades to reverse. Jim makes an excellent point above where he says, "Gun control is very obviously based upon a position of PEOPLE CONTROL to achieve socialist ends which is to disarm the population to further socialist goals." Most of this people control is based on dishonesty and lies which are repeated so forcefully and so often that they are eventually accepted by a majority of the people.
That's why some of us have been so vehement in calling out the lies and misinformation provided here by some of our resident Liberal leftists and anti-gun trolls. Ditto for the hypocrites who say one thing and do another... and who can always dish it out but can't take it. Some of them have been so thoroughly indoctrinated that they still believe Obama is not a threat to the Second Amendment. Gnomoron is still saying that our warnings of Obama's anti-gun proclivities are conspiracy nut theories... even as it's happening! Take a look at the quote I provided from homer. He gets much of his information and ideas from Morning Joe and MSNBC. I myself watch MSNBC frequently, and am always astounded at the lies and misinformation given there. Right after one of the Debates, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chairperson of the DNC made the claim that Romney did not care about Israel because he never even once mentioned them. FOX News replayed clips from the Debates where Romney spoke about Israel fourteen times! People like homer believe those lies and will never be dissuaded, no matter what we say or how nicely we say it. They also repeat those lies and influence folks who don't watch any news, but still vote. Just enough gun owners actually believed that Obama supported the RKBA, and believed (for the second time)he would put a priority on improving employment and the economy. Then you have a few percent who would vote for Satan as long as it kept the government handouts coming. Add in a little voter fraud (see my thread on today's news of voter fraud in the battleground state of Ohio in Misfires), and you end up with the assault we're facing now. Lies have consequences!
I also said in my first post here that the only people I mean to offend are those who are offensive or deceptive. I still feel that way. I can start out by engaging them with facts or logic, but I just don't have time to continually engage in a civil debate with liars and poseurs who pretend to support gun rights but constantly undermine them by disseminating incorrect information, lulling, and drumming up support for avowed anti-gun politicians. While it might seem nice to engage them in polite discourse, to continue on that path long after you've provided evidence that they're wrong only gives them credence and legitimacy. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is one of the definitions of insanity. The truth is never rude, and dishonesty is not civility.
The NRA has been so villified by the media that the mere mention that I'm a NRA member makes many people think I'm an extremist. There's a perception problem that the NRA has to fix. Otherwise, the NRA is part of the problem.
Read this statement and think about it for a minute. The NRA is not part of the problem. The problem, as Chuck has noted, is an NRA that has been villified by a dishonest media, just as gun owners have been villified by the formula prescribed by Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder. Does anyone really think you or the NRA can reverse that by kow-towing to liars or by dealing with the devil? Time to wake up!
The NRA has been so villified by the media that the mere mention that I'm a NRA member makes many people think I'm an extremist. There's a perception problem that the NRA has to fix. Otherwise, the NRA is part of the problem.
Read this statement and think about it for a minute. The NRA is not part of the problem. The problem, as Chuck has noted, is an NRA that has been villified by a dishonest media, just as gun owners have been villified by the formula prescribed by Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder. Does anyone really think you or the NRA can reverse that by kow-towing to liars or by dealing with the devil? Time to wake up!
I agree, its not the NRA thats the problem,there is no way the liberal-controlled by the administration media is ever going to put the NRA,or its members in any positive light.
The Newtown tragedy which bought out all the anti gun plans that had been "stored" for just the right time-to exploit the deaths of children to further the goal.None of what has been proposed by the left would have stopped it.The NRA had the right solution and its being done in many more schools now.Armed protection for ALL the schools not the 1/3 of the elite.
Universal back round checks-registration,mag bans AW bans do nothing but provide a path to tax and future confiscation. The NRA had it right, "The only solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
DaveK is exactly right! There is a recipe or formula that is being used on us, and the media lies, fake polls, and dissemination of inaccurate information is very intentional. Remember Raum Emmanual's words, "You never let a crisis go to waste..."
Read "Rules For Radicals" by Saul Aulinsky, one of Obama's mentors and decide if you want to become unwitting pawns in their game. The end game is the elimination of the private ownership of firearms in the U.S. If you deal with the devil, the devil will win every time as he is very patient and cunning.
To get back on topic... just think... if our friend Last Dollar had not folded his tent, he might be here screaming that I'm a conspiracy nut and that HIS thread now belongs in Misfires! Thanks for letting this play out Dave Weber. This too shall pass.
Keith, Dave, For the record, I'm a life member. Still, I believe there's a perception by the a majority of the people I come in contact with daily, that the NRA and it's members are extremists, and not in a good way. Now given that I live in suburban Kommiefornia, I think that's not a surprise. Who created that perception is water under the bridge. But if the NRA and it's members can't fix this perception, it's a problem in the battle to maintain gun rights. A big problem, in my opinion. You may have a different opinion.
It's not water under the bridge Chuck, because the Liberal Leftist Democrats are still actively spreading the lie. We counter it by doing what we've been preaching for months. Get the truth out there. Bring kids and women into the sport. Recruit new NRA members and upgrade existing memberships to show we are strong and united. Get involved politically and remind your legislators that we will watch their votes and any infringement of our Civil 2nd amendment rights is grounds for dismissal at re-election time. Gotta go to work now. Someone has to help pay for reckless spending. Bye!
Keith, Dave, For the record, I'm a life member. Still, I believe there's a perception by the a majority of the people I come in contact with daily, that the NRA and it's members are extremists, and not in a good way....
Those people probably feel exactly the same way about guns themselves. If you can't get fair press, you may as well make your own. Isn't the NRA sponsoring a NASCAR race. I'd honestly like to see them become an NBA sponsor, but the price tag may be out of reach.
Jim, I firmly believe repeating the facts, ad nauseum, and finding different, more acceptable ways to say the same thing is the only way we will have the right to own guns privately in 50 years. We have listened to 40 years of lies about guns and gun owners. That has had a huge effect on the average non gun owner's opinions about guns and gun ownership. We will not win the war of words that we must wage by belittling or name calling. It will be won by a relentless focus on an emotional position that is bolstered by facts and by doing so find common ground with those who are not gun owners.
Agree completely. The personal belittling and name-calling here serves no good purpose. It's counterproductive, reinforces negative stereotypes, plays into the way much of the news media frames our picture.
I think the same about raising the specter of socialist conspiracy. Generally characterizing political action by those who fear guns as socialist conspiracy will alienate a lot of folks with open minds who recognize nanny state tendencies -- not socialist ideology or conspiracy -- in their friends and family members who fear guns. And though it feels good to me to do it, I'm wasting my breath even bothering to characterize gun foes as nanny staters. To persuade, we'll do best to abandon personal attacks, put our smarts into clear statements of fact, and put our passion into words that express the values of freedom.
Never giving an inch means in the end that's about what you'll end up with. You can give up everything to midfield and still have 50 yards. I throw this in here in the hope that Keith will be able to get up steam and blow a blood vessel. How you doin' Jay?
Stick with it chaps. From over the pond a couple of thoughts, every adult male in Switzerland over the age of 18 has to do a certain period in national service and is required to keep a rifle at his home, many choose to keep them after their 2 years or so service (they have to account for ammo on an annual basis). As far as I know there has only been one mass shooting in Switzerland. They have not been invaded for about 700 years ? As the famous Japanese admiral in the second world war put it before the Japanese entered he said (can´t remember his name) "America will never be conquered, there is a gun behind every blade of grass". In the UK you can´t own a handgun unless military or police, (our Olympic team have to go to France to practice !!??) and the only people with handguns are the crooks and there are a lot, 44 killed with firearms last year, best, Mike
Never giving an inch means in the end that's about what you'll end up with. You can give up everything to midfield and still have 50 yards.
Jack
Was that a Neville Chamberlain quote ?
We already have "given and inch" thousands of gun laws on the books now and they did not change a thing ! To give in anything to a group that tries to exploit dead children is not going to make us safer or prevent it from happening again.
Off topic but two more Democractic Senators are retiring and that means Senator Reid has now six Senate seats to protect, which means of course he could lose majority just by losing all of those seats plus I believe fourteen in 2014. He's sweating now but IF YOU DON"T GET OUT AND VOTE THE SENATE WILL REMAIN Democratic. So get off your a$$ and vote!!!
Never giving an inch means in the end that's about what you'll end up with. You can give up everything to midfield and still have 50 yards. I throw this in here in the hope that Keith will be able to get up steam and blow a blood vessel. How you doin' Jay?
Jack
Hello Mr. Jack rabbit! If I've upset YOU to the point that you hope I pop an aneurism, then I must be doing a good job for the cause of support for the Second Amendment. We all know you're no fan of that quaint and unnecessary anacronism.
Had my annual physical last week and all is excellent. Blood pressure was 110/63. Odds of having a stroke or aneurism in the near future... very slim. But hey, thanks for thinking about me ace. I'll try to think about you sometime.
Jay (Gunflint Charlie), is your friend Jack the kind of guy you're advising me to sing Kumbaya with? Well, in this instance anyways, I think we can agree that Humpty Dumpty spoke, in a rather scornful tone, with crystal clarity and there is no need for consulting extraneous sources. I know you meant well.
Interesting thread. I never realized anyone on this forum would vote for Obama. And being from farm country in the mid-west, just assumed everyone was an NRA member. I need to get out more. Paul
Never giving an inch means in the end that's about what you'll end up with. You can give up everything to midfield and still have 50 yards. I throw this in here in the hope that Keith will be able to get up steam and blow a blood vessel.
Jack
That last little bit may have been said lightheartedly, but I doubt it. The clear inference is you disapprove of Keith's tactics of calling all to defend their statements for accuracy but you are willing to engage in snide put downs. If you don't think Keith's way is working, how is yours helping? In fact you are doing exactly what your friend Jay agreed with me that we should stop.
And the first part of your post references something I wrote as quoted by Jay. I thought I was clear but let me be unequivocal.
I am not suggesting for a second that any legal or regulatory compromise be agreed to with the anti gun folk. Because they are not after compromise. They are only after our guns and every law, every regulation is only a step towards that goal. We can't strike a "bargain" with them and imagine we are done with that. Once they have achieved something, they just move on to working towards the next level of infringement.
We can, however, consider both our strategies and our tactics for fighting this battle.
I'm suggesting the ones we have been using have been wholly ineffective for keeping the majority of people, non gun owners, emotionally and philosophically on our side. And that if we don't find a better way to communicate to those people then we will ultimately lose.
Your friend Jay found something to contribute, something to be positive about. Perhaps you'd like to expound on your ideas of how regulatory and legislative compromise could help us achieve our goals.
Keith, I'm not much concerned with ranking points of 2nd amendment purity, more about how we influence somewhat interested voters to view gun owners and gun rights more favorably. Focus on facts gives us the best odds of drawing those at least willing to try to see our side of the argument. Negative personal stuff, not so much.
Feels a little strange to read both you and Jack referencing things I've said in the past.
Keith, I'm not much concerned with ranking points of 2nd amendment purity, more about how we influence somewhat interested voters to view gun owners and gun rights more favorably. Focus on facts gives us the best odds of drawing those at least willing to try to see our side of the argument. Negative personal stuff, not so much....
I believe I've seen on this thread alone that facts don't matter to many dems that visit here, but they'll drive by with quick personal attacks, check out, and are given credibility for having a side to an argument. Maybe, gotta concentrate on really important points like feeling better about an issue.
I think the same about raising the specter of socialist conspiracy. Generally characterizing political action by those who fear guns as socialist conspiracy will alienate a lot of folks with open minds who recognize nanny state tendencies -- not socialist ideology or conspiracy -- in their friends and family members who fear guns. And though it feels good to me to do it, I'm wasting my breath even bothering to characterize gun foes as nanny staters. To persuade, we'll do best to abandon personal attacks, put our smarts into clear statements of fact, and put our passion into words that express the values of freedom. Jay
IMHO very well said. While the politicians that are leading the charge may be dyed in the wool socialists, the vast majority of non gun owners, who are being persuaded that gun regulation is a good thing, are misinformed and afraid of guns. They are not socialists.
While they may be true, evoking conspiracy theories of gun grabbing socialist aching to pervert the founding fathers intentions and put you under the heel of an all controlling state does our cause a disservice.
We need to find a way to make the accepted wisdom of American society that guns are simply a tool, neither good nor bad.
While the rational for that concept is grounded in fact, achieving that end requires appealing at an emotional level to counter the emotional and factual lies the antis have been feeding society for the last 40 years.
I believe I've seen on this thread alone that facts don't matter to many dems that visit here, but they'll drive by with quick personal attacks, check out, and are given credibility for having a side to an argument. Maybe, gotta concentrate on really important points like feeling better about an issue.
There is a lesson to be learned here, Craig. The antis stay on message. They have developed over decades a successful method of gaining ground...it consists of lies, misinformation and personal attacks....but it's working for them and no matter what we have done in the past, they are still gaining ground.
Perhaps instead of deriding them, we should examine them carefully, figure out what makes them successful and adapt our strategies and tactics.
Maybe getting people to feel good isn't such a bad thing.
When I am in a discussion here and my counterpart insults me I can ignore it and go on to make my point. If I respond with an attack the window to make my case is closed and a never ending and counter-productive exchange of insults begins.
We have had our asses kicked by the other side for 40 years. Gun ownership BY HOUSEHOLD in the US is at a historical low of less that 35%, down from over 50% not too long ago.
Originally Posted By: Paul Harm
Interesting thread. I never realized anyone on this board would vote for Obama. And being from farm country in the mid-west, just assumed everyone was an NRA member. I need to get out more. Paul
Originally Posted By: canvasback
Perhaps instead of deriding them, we should examine them carefully, figure out what makes them successful and adapt our strategies and tactics.
James,
As citizens, in your country and ours, North America in general, continue to migrate in mass to the urban metro centers for work or companionship or whatever, the 35% gun ownership figure slowly slips under the waves as the rural lifestyle goes bye-bye.......this is nothing new, this has been happening for the last 60 + years.....
In my opinion, this social fact far more effects what we see happening today with the increased anti-gun mentality than "who calls who what"......
Coupled to this majority metro life style, the fact that females out number males by a significant margin and that large numbers of children from both sexes are raised by single parents, usually female, and in large metro areas of varying sizes, one can easily see that the proper recipe for dwindling gun ownership is in place and growing........
Hollywood alone, does more damage and enlists more anti-gun trainees world wide than any other method.......from movies to gaming, negative media and right on down the line..........
In some respects it is like trying to stop the advancement of the killer bees from the Southern Hemispheres......
As citizens, in your country and ours, North America in general, continue to migrate in mass to the urban metro centers for work or companionship or whatever, the 35% gun ownership figure slowly slips under the waves as the rural lifestyle goes bye-bye.......this is nothing new, this has been happening for the last 60 + years.....
In my opinion, this social fact far more effects what we see happening today with the increased anti-gun mentality than "who calls who what"......
Coupled to this majority metro life style, the fact that females out number males by a significant margin and that large numbers of children from both sexes that are raised by single parents, usually female and in large metro areas of varying sizes, and you can easily see that the proper recipe for dwindling gun ownership is in place and growing.......
In some respects it is like trying to stop the advancement of the killer bees from the Southern Hemispheres......
Doug,
Seldom do I agree with you but you are on to something here. I think you have to ask what is causing this shift in population demographics. My answer to that is free market economic forces. People are moving to where the jobs are because the "Job Creators" move their businesses to where they feel it is most economically beneficial to them. No great surprise there.
However the catch is that the benefits of such a move are usually the product of policy brought about by the same party that seeks out your support on the basis of protecting your second amendment rights by the phantom onslaught of the the anti's. This seems to me to be a very large scale example of the Republicans pissing on all of your collective backs and then telling you its just raining.
pa: good thought provoking post...sounds realistically pessimistic though. i hope you are wrong.
our only hope seems to be to exercise control through the ballot box. we need to encourage all of our friends to vote, particularly in the upcoming congressional elections! it is horrifing to imagine the dems taking back the house in 2014!
However the catch is that the benefits of such a move are usually the product of policy brought about by the same party that seeks out your support on the basis of protecting your second amendment rights by the phantom onslaught of the the anti's. This seems to me to be a very large scale example of the Republicans pissing on all of your collective backs and then telling you its just raining.
Originally Posted By: canvasback
Originally Posted By: Gunflint Charlie
I think the same about raising the specter of socialist conspiracy. Generally characterizing political action by those who fear guns as socialist conspiracy will alienate a lot of folks with open minds who recognize nanny state tendencies -- not socialist ideology or conspiracy -- in their friends and family members who fear guns. Jay
While they may be true, evoking conspiracy theories of gun grabbing socialist aching to pervert the founding fathers intentions and put you under the heel of an all controlling state does our cause a disservice.
We need to find a way to make the accepted wisdom of American society that guns are simply a tool, neither good nor bad.
While the rational for that concept is grounded in fact, achieving that end requires appealing at an emotional level to counter the emotional and factual lies the antis have been feeding society for the last 40 years.
"Phantom onslaught of the anti's"???
"Socialist conspiracy"????
"Conspiracy theories"???
There were conspiracy nuts in Poland who said Hitler was about to invade. It wasn't so nutty when the tanks were rolling into Warsaw. Same thing here. It's a little late in the game to be talking about phantom onslaughts and conspiracy thoeries when it's actually happening right before your eyes.
Do we really accomplish anything with non-gunowners whose opinions we'd like to reshape by pretending to be dumb? I'm not buying it. We have facts on our side. We're actively showing them that guns are merely inanimate objects and tools... showing them that hammers killed more people last year than so-called Assault Rifles. And I truly don't believe the demographic has changed all that dramatically since Clinton and the Liberal Democrats got their asses handed to them in the 1994 mid-terms. They still can't make a move without exploiting the emotions of people grieving dead children. If anyone here really wants to believe the propaganda that gun ownership by household is down 15% or that 80% of NRA members support Universal Backround Checks, I've got some swamp land for sale... mineral rights not included.
I'm afraid what a lot of this boils down to is a small minority who feel we should play some faux civility game with the closet anti's and Obama cheerleaders who infest this forum. I just checked the mirror. I still don't have a "Stupid" tatoo on my forehead.
As for those who keep saying we ought to be doing something differently to accomplish our goals, for God's sake, please tell us what that something is already. Then actually do it. Demonstrate "something" that works better than what we and the NRA has been doing and show us verifiable results. I'm not from Missouri, but show me anyway. Seeing is believing and I haven't yet seen where some of these prescriptions are worthwhile, but I have seen where they only lead to attrition. It's real easy to change my attitude about anything. Show me a better way that actually works.
edit: Correction: if gun ownership by household was really down from 50% to 35% of U.S. households, the overall drop would actually indicate that something like 30% of gunowners have sold or scrapped their guns and chose to not keep a gun for protection or sport. Has anyone here actually seen that??? Sales figures over the last decade tell a dramatically different story. The whole notion is ridiculous, but that's what you'll get if you deal with liars and take liars at their word.
edit: Correction: if gun ownership by household was really down from 50% to 35% of U.S. households, the overall drop would actually indicate that something like 30% of gunowners have sold or scrapped their guns and chose to not keep a gun for protection or sport. Has anyone here actually seen that??? Sales figures over the last decade tell a dramatically different story. The whole notion is ridiculous, but that's what you'll get if you deal with liars and take liars at their word.
Keith,
James will pop up pretty soon and I for one would like to know where he got that statistic......
I have seen where lot's of old timers die and their entire collection, however big or small is sold, never to be replaced. I personally have purchased guns from folks who are selling their dad's guns after his passing, with statements like "don't use guns, so selling them all".....I'm sure you've heard similar statements......how many and what the total numbers are as the older generation dies off, who knows............
We do know that the under this administration gun sales have soared.......whether it's first time buyers or guys like us buying more guns, who knows........possibly the NRA has some stats with that detail, not just new members per month and all the increases monthly for NICS checks.......
History tells us that pacification and yielding to more proposed gun legislation is NOT THE ANSWER AND NEVER WORKS.........
Chicago is a prime example, highest gun crime rate and the Chicago Police, Chicago Politicians are trying to convince everyone that more gun laws will REMOVE THE ILLEGAL GUNS ALREADY ON THE STREETS AND IN USE WHICH WERE ALL ACQUIRED ILLEGALLY IN THE FIRST PLACE................
Not talking about "faux" civility Keith, nor pretending to be dumb -- just plain, simple, civility.
Name-calling alienates many, and discourages others. Count me in both groups. I sometimes listen anyway, and sometimes overcome reluctance to engage where it presents, because the subject strayed from is important to me. But ad hominem attacks draw attention from reasoned argument. They cause people we need to persuade to stop listening. They make me think of unpleasant reality shows on TV.
If you think something is gained from name-calling that weighs in it's tactical favor, I'd like to hear.
I think you're overstating to assert that this board is infested with "closet antis and Obama cheerleaders". If that means you see a "Stupid tattoo" on my forehead, so be it. As for a "small minority" arguing for civility, consider that the total participants in this thread number fewer than a merely small minority of board members. I think AmarilloMike's view is close to that of the majority -- 2nd amendment supporters who turn away from the incivility.
edit: Correction: if gun ownership by household was really down from 50% to 35% of U.S. households, the overall drop would actually indicate that something like 30% of gunowners have sold or scrapped their guns and chose to not keep a gun for protection or sport. Has anyone here actually seen that??? Sales figures over the last decade tell a dramatically different story. The whole notion is ridiculous, but that's what you'll get if you deal with liars and take liars at their word.
The survey results reflect that over these decades the number of homes without guns increased faster than the number with guns. There are a whole lot more "homes" today. I see this change in my world, but have no clue whether the survey presents an accurate picture of the % rate decline.
NEW YORK, March 10 (UPI) -- The number of American households with guns has declined by more than 15 percent since the 1970s, data from the General Social Survey indicates.
In the early 1970s, household gun ownership was at about 50 percent and has steadily dropped to 34 percent in 2012, The New York Times reported Saturday.
The General Social Survey -- conducted by the National Opinion Research Center, NORC, at the University of Chicago -- polled about 2,000 people from March to September in 2012. The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Although gun ownership was at 32 percent in 2010, researchers said the difference in the statistics was not significant.
"There are all these claims that gun ownership is going through the roof," said Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "But I suspect the increase in gun sales has been limited mostly to current gun owners. The most reputable surveys show a decline over time in the share of households with guns."
However, the Times said it is hard to tell what the actual rate of household gun ownership in the United States is, because various recent national polls reported a wide range of rates between 35 percent and 52 percent.
"I'm sure there are a lot of people who would love to make the case that there are fewer gun owners in this country, but the stories we've been hearing and the data we've been seeing simply don't support that," said Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association
Yet, Tom W. Smith, director of the General Social Survey, said his poll findings were in line with two other national trends -- a drop in hunting and in violent crimes.
"If there was a national registry that recorded all firearm purchases, we'd have a full picture," he said. "But there's not, so we've got to put together pieces."
Keith, I fully realize that EVERY poll can be manipulated to give a specific result. But beyond that to your point, a very good one if I may say, of what to do that is different. I've suggested a starting point already in this thread. To repeat, consider how effective the antis have been at spreading their message, infiltrating the MSM, Hollywood etc., consider exactly how it has been done and craft a long term strategy to do the same and win back those opinion making machines. Get the NRA to consider hiring the very best marketing firms in the world to craft an emotional strategy that gets fence sitters and mildly anti gun citizens to change camps and identity with firearms owners. This isn't rocket science. It is what consumer goods companies do every day around the world. Use every trick in the books to win support for their product by creating an emotional connection to their target market.
Doug, you make a very good point about the rural to urban migration and it's effect on gun owning households. To me, that just means we need to work harder and find better ways to bring non gun owners onto our side.
nca, I have to disagree with your analysis that it is the policies of the Republicans that is driving rural folk to the cities. It is social and economic realities that reach far beyond partisan policies.
And Jay, keep at it. Civility is worth it. There is nothing about truth thats gets in the way of civility.
Let me say for the record, I believe I stand with Keith. I believe he has been correct to ask those posters to explain their logic, source or rational for some of their statements on here. But I would suggest that having asked the questions, having made your point quite eloquently as is usually done by the complete lack of response, you could them move on. It is quite possible to expose foolishness, lies and manipulative statements and allow the readers to come to their own conclusions. When done well, as you usually do, the majority will likely come to the same conclusion you have about the poster. You don't need to spoon feed us. That's what I'm talking about when I say "civility"
Every one keeps talking about gun violence, how about violence and bad behavior in general. I poached this article from another website http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...Africa-U-S.html I think it's very enlightening. For instance, take away guns and how much have stabbing and blunt force trauma deaths increased? I think more often than not a killers gotta make do with the tools on hand, and make no mistake our hands and feet are tools. Steve
I personally know several people that if asked publicly if they owned a gun would reply NO. This is expected when people want to keep their ownership private. If I were called by some agency and asked this question I'd reply NO. Why? Because it's no ones business but mine whether I own a gun or not. It is commonly believed* and reported that the are somewhere around 300 million guns in this Country. I work with just about every estate company in my area and they tell me it's common to find firearms in the belongings of a deceased individual when doing an inventory for an estate sale and is often times a surprise to the rest of the family as even family members don't always know if someone owns firearms. The latest estimate is that there are 114 million households in the United States. If only 1/3 of these have firearms it reduces to around 38 Million households with guns. This would round to about 8 guns per household which would essentially put all these households in "collector" mode! *BTW: I believe the real number is significiently higher than 300 million but there's no way to substantiate this. Jim
Jim, I've been wrestling with that same equation. 100 million plus households, 280 to 300 million guns.
Where I'm getting to is that I don't think 8 guns is all that much any more. I was thinking about what I owned long before I became a "collector". I only hunted birds, yet I had two 12 gauges, a 16 gauge, a .243 win I won at a Delta dinner and a 7 mm Rem Mag I bought in anticipation of an elk hunt that didn't pan out. If hand gun ownership wasn't so difficult I know I would have had at least one of those. And here's my point. I didn't think that was very much. It was like how many shoes did I own or how many screwdrivers. It just was what it was. So 7 or 8 guns per household in the US....wouldn't surprise me.
I'd still like to shoot a hand gun one day but that's my own home grown battle to fight. I hate to say it but the regulatory crap up here means I won't be buying one.
I've suggested a starting point already in this thread. To repeat, consider how effective the antis have been at spreading their message, infiltrating the MSM, Hollywood etc., consider exactly how it has been done and craft a long term strategy to do the same and win back those opinion making machines. Get the NRA to consider hiring the very best marketing firms in the world to craft an emotional strategy that gets fence sitters and mildly anti gun citizens to change camps and identity with firearms owners. This isn't rocket science. It was what consumer goods companies do every day around the world. Use every trick in the books to win support for their product by creating an emotional connection to their target market.
James,
Thanks for the NRA, New York Times information and the link, quotes and data.......
I agree with what you say in your quote copied above....I further believe the NRA could and would benefit greatly with a new ad campaign.....something designed to soothe and interest non-gun owners.......Years ago, the NRA and the shooting sports associations used famous people to promote the sport (and not just Robert Stack), guns and associated products with very bright, progressive and rewarding advertising themes that brought great interest from all walks of life...............
Those ad campaigns appeared to be designed to attract the non-gun owner and first time gun buyer and shooter......this is the market that needs to be targeted IMO....
If you want to sell a product or a lifestyle, it is far more rewarding to promote the lifestyle or product than to defend it..............JMO
On the other hand, the negative media will never change and wallows in sensationalism to sell their product.......
Not talking about "faux" civility Keith, nor pretending to be dumb -- just plain, simple, civility.
Name-calling alienates many, and discourages others. Count me in both groups. I sometimes listen anyway, and sometimes overcome reluctance to engage where it presents, because the subject strayed from is important to me. But ad hominem attacks draw attention from reasoned argument. They cause people we need to persuade to stop listening. They make me think of unpleasant reality shows on TV.
If you think something is gained from name-calling that weighs in it's tactical favor, I'd like to hear.
I think you're overstating to assert that this board is infested with "closet antis and Obama cheerleaders". If that means you see a "Stupid tattoo" on my forehead, so be it. As for a "small minority" arguing for civility, consider that the total participants in this thread number fewer than a merely small minority of board members. I think AmarilloMike's view is close to that of the majority -- 2nd amendment supporters who turn away from the incivility.
Jay
Careful there, my friend; you're pretty close to rational thought and cogent expression of it .
Do we really accomplish anything with non-gunowners whose opinions we'd like to reshape by pretending to be dumb? I'm not buying it. We have facts on our side. We're actively showing them that guns are merely inanimate objects and tools... showing them that hammers killed more people last year than so-called Assault Rifles. And I truly don't believe the demographic has changed all that dramatically since Clinton and the Liberal Democrats got their asses handed to them in the 1994 mid-terms. They still can't make a move without exploiting the emotions of people grieving dead children. If anyone here really wants to believe the propaganda that gun ownership by household is down 15% or that 80% of NRA members support Universal Backround Checks, I've got some swamp land for sale... mineral rights not included.
Keith, I have no intention of arguing about statistics with you, or anyone. We both know they say what the person producing them wants. And who said anything about playing dumb. I'm talking about adding an element to the argument that I think has been missing.
So I ask you this question. If the strategies and tactics of the NRA and the gun owning public have been as successful as you suggest, why is it even possible that the antis can use the death of children to advance their cause? If they weren't exploiting an underlying unease about firearms the larger population would rise up in revulsion at their crass opportunism.
What I'm talking about is figuring out how to change public perception of non gun owners to the default position that guns are good. Not the current default position held by non gun owners that guns are bad. I don't think that will happen with the current efforts.
I'm not complaining about all the good hard work done by the NRA in the past nor am I suggesting they stop. There is a reason they are considered the most powerful lobby in Washington. But to a large degree, they focus on Washington. What would happen if they used Madison Avenue to focus on the average Californian. What if they focus on making non gun owners feel okay about guns, even though they don't own any and don't intend to.
We don't need to change the minds of gun owners. We need to change the minds of the people who don't now and won't be in the future owning guns.
Remember, there is nothing wrong with the personal choice NOT to own guns, just as there is nothing wrong with owning them. Lots of room for both views. What we need to change is the idea that those who don't own guns need to take our guns away from us.
We won't be achieving that by facts alone. We won't achieve it by making them feel stupid. We won't achieve it by scaring them. And we won't achieve it by insulting them.
We may achieve it by giving them something positive they can believe in.
I'm not so sure we (gunowners) are using bad liturgy. I feel more certain that there are just not enough of us speaking out.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
How do you fight the attitude that also causes people not to even vote? Find the answer to that and we've got the answer to gun control. They (antis) do NOT outnumber us, they are just louder.
I've suggested a starting point already in this thread. To repeat, consider how effective the antis have been at spreading their message, infiltrating the MSM, Hollywood etc., consider exactly how it has been done and craft a long term strategy to do the same and win back those opinion making machines. Get the NRA to consider hiring the very best marketing firms in the world to craft an emotional strategy that gets fence sitters and mildly anti gun citizens to change camps and identity with firearms owners. This isn't rocket science. It was what consumer goods companies do every day around the world. Use every trick in the books to win support for their product by creating an emotional connection to their target market.
James,
Thanks for the NRA, New York Times information and the link, quotes and data.......
I agree with what you say in your quote copied above....I further believe the NRA could and would benefit greatly with a new ad campaign.....something designed to soothe and interest non-gun owners.......Years ago, the NRA and the shooting sports associations used famous people to promote the sport (and not just Robert Stack), guns and associated products with very bright, progressive and rewarding advertising themes that brought great interest from all walks of life...............
Those ad campaigns appeared to be designed to attract the non-gun owner and first time gun buyer and shooter......this is the market that needs to be targeted IMO....
If you want to sell a product or a lifestyle, it is far more rewarding to promote the lifestyle or product than to defend it..............JMO
On the other hand, the negative media will never change and wallows in sensationalism to sell their product.......
Doug - you are 1000% correct, and I wish someone could get this message across to the NRA leadership. The media has cast gun owners as a fringe of paranoid survivalists and potential mass murderers. The best response is change that perception and the NRA is failing miserably in that regard. The old Charlton Heston battle cry will not win this fight - angry rhetoric just feeds the media storybook.
I'm not so sure we (gunowners) are using bad liturgy. I feel more certain that there are just not enough of us speaking out.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
How do you fight the attitude that also causes people not to even vote? Find the answer to that and we've got the answer to gun control. They (antis) do NOT outnumber us, they are just louder.
SRH
If that is true Stan, why do you think they aren't speaking out?
Are they lazy, just being private about what they own or do they feel intimidated in today's world about admitting to gun ownership?
Quote: "The media has cast gun owners as a fringe of paranoid survivalists and potential mass murderers. The best response is change"
It doesn't matter one bit to the "mainstream news media" what image we as gun owners want or try to portray. Keep in mind the media are under liberal/socialist control** and are working hand in hand with ultra liberal politicians to insure we lose as much of our 2nd Amendment rights as possible. Any attempt to paint gun owners in a favorable light will be accepted about as readily as providing even more factual information that Obama is a fake and a fraud. They have managed to even keep the NRA from buying airtime to tell the truth about responsible gun owners and the networks have refused. Our best hope in avoiding another "gun control" debacle is the real threat that Democrats supporting it will be defeated in next years elections. That's why it's so important to keep writing to your congressmen even if they don't support our position.
** Yes I know there are some exceptions and many will point to Fox news. However that idiot O'Reilly went on a tirade with a bunch of lies about buying machine guns and bazookas at gun shows awhile back and has never retracted these remarks.
The old Charlton Heston battle cry will not win this fight - angry rhetoric just feeds the media storybook.
The only reason it won't work is because American manhood has been emasculated. That's right "pussyfied" by our current education system and the media. Nowdays boys run around with so many body piercings they look like they fell in a tackle box.
Not talking about "faux" civility Keith, nor pretending to be dumb -- just plain, simple, civility.
Name-calling alienates many, and discourages others. Count me in both groups. I sometimes listen anyway, and sometimes overcome reluctance to engage where it presents, because the subject strayed from is important to me. But ad hominem attacks draw attention from reasoned argument. They cause people we need to persuade to stop listening. They make me think of unpleasant reality shows on TV.
If you think something is gained from name-calling that weighs in it's tactical favor, I'd like to hear. Jay
So many comments, questions, and suggestions, I hardly know where to begin. But I'll start with this: It's an observation, not a complaint. I've noticed it for quite a while now, but haven't said anything... partially on purpose... partially because I revel in being thick skinned. I have no problem defending my points, and no problem defending myself. I'm not the only one. There are a few of us here who regularly stick our necks out knowing full well we're going to get smacked. We don't whine or cry or threaten to leave because we understand these are only words that cannot hurt us. I don't expect that things will change because I finally put this observation into print, but I think it's food for thought.
I, and some others, have been on the recieving end of these civility lectures for some time. I have pointed out in the past that the so-called civility of this "revered and distinguished board" is largely a myth, because I have spent a good deal of time going back into the archives and found that spite, malice, name calling, insults, rudeness, etc., have been around since the beginning. When I've pointed this out, several old hands have risen up to verify my statement. But what stands out, and is done way too often to be mere coincidence, is that those of us with a more conservative bent and who most staunchly defend the Second Amendment always seem to be held to a much higher standard.
Your first post Jay, and subsequent posts, illustrate this perfectly. I am getting repeated lectures on civility. Your other friend Jack (rabbit), got no such lectures or disapproval, despite wishing upon me what???... a stroke or aneurism or some other debilitating condition. Yet I get called out repeatedly by name while he gets a pass. How do you rationalize that?
I don't wish to single you out in this, for you are hardly alone. At the risk of doing more "spoon feeding", (apologies to Canvasback), there are a number of folks who do exactly the same thing to me and several of the other guys who regularly and unflinchingly support conservatism in government, or the Second Amendment, or both. Since James (Canvasback) knows who I'm talking about, I'll leave the names of his fellow Canadian and others out of it... this time. Yet the overt and covert anti's and the Obama cheerleaders are given a total and complete pass no matter how rude, crude, vile, or dishonest they are. We've seen it several times within this very thread.
I could accept being held to a higher standard if I thought the intent was pure, and the outcome productive. But I don't think it's so much a higher standard as it is a double standard from most of the critics. Even the Anti's, and I'm talking about the leadership of the Anti's, don't seem so very concerned that a rude, nasty, insulting, or dishonest message will hurt their chances at infringing upon our rights. So if you and Canvasback, and others are so certain that the Anti's are eating our lunch... while using that same uncivil and disingenuous formula... why are you so certain that hitting back can only hurt our chances? If it's working for them, why wouldn't the same work for us, especially if we leave out the dishonesty part?
I'm just putting this out there and asking the question. I am not suggesting that we make incivility a national pro-gun campaign. I've repeated ad nauseum what I feel has worked and will continue to work. I'll agree that perhaps the NRA could do a better job of portraying gun owners as normal law abiding folks who simply care about personal responsibility and a Civil Right. And I still maintain that the single most effective way to convert the feelings of a non-gun owner is to inform them honestly and get them out shooting so they can see what they've been missing and where they've been decieved. But I am saying some of you are making way too much of this civility thing, especially when so much of it here is nothing more than window dressing to cover and perpetuate deceit. And you're not being at all even handed in dispensing advice.
Quote: "The media has cast gun owners as a fringe of paranoid survivalists and potential mass murderers. The best response is change"
It doesn't matter one bit to the "mainstream news media" what image we as gun owners want or try to portray. Keep in mind the media are under liberal/socialist control** and are working hand in hand with ultra liberal politicians to insure we lose as much of our 2nd Amendment rights as possible. Any attempt to paint gun owners in a favorable light will be accepted about as readily as providing even more factual information that Obama is a fake and a fraud. They have managed to even keep the NRA from buying airtime to tell the truth about responsible gun owners and the networks have refused.
That is just the point Jim, trying to buy air time TO DEFEND gun owners is a frivolous adventure, for the most part, tit for tat won't get it done..........sponsoring a NASCAR race in Texas WHERE EVERYBODY ALREADY OWNS A GUN, is also a waste of advertising dollars for the NRA IMO....
The NRA, the NRA members and the present non-gun owning public would benefit more from an ad campaign that promoted POSITIVE gun ownership endeavors, sportsmanship, history and gun collecting, family unit participation etc., in depth and "consistent".......
All NRA members just received the new DVD from the NRA on self defense, costly advertising for sure, I think the NRA has touched on almost every point regarding self defense for years and years, it's time to move on to other positive promotional advertising......
As an aside, the T.V. shows that show a bunch of Gun Shop yo-yo's out in a field "blowing up" explosive targets, do more damage than good and do not reflect a positive image on gun ownership .......this type of gun owner projection is what we are up against, like it or not.........
Quote: "As an aside, the T.V. shows that show a bunch of Gun Shop yo-yo's out in a field "blowing up" explosive targets, do more damage than good and do not reflect a positive image on gun ownership .......this type of gun owner projection is what we are up against, like it or not........."
Doug: I couldn't agree with you more here. I was actually relieved when most of these idiotic shows were cancelled as I thought the "redneck gun owner" image portrayed was assinine.
Keith: We as conservatives will always be held to a much higher standard than liberals. I too remember when I was being constantly verbally attacked with all kinds of ethnic and racial slurs that not one of the gun grabbers here who pose as gun collectors objected or raised any issue about this whatsoever. Jim
To turn things around more emphasis has to be put on shooting sports and that won't happen until the media quits shoving sports involving a damn ball down the publics throats. When will they realize that it takes more skill to put a bullet in a bullseye at 200+ yards than a golf ball in a hole? When will they realize that it takes more skill to bust clays than it does to put a biskitball in a hoop? When are they going to realize that the shooting skills will also put food on the table and protect them as well? I don't think it will happen until the gentler gender of the species once again measures men by their ability to defend and provide food.
Keith, I too have noticed the double standard. If you look back, you will see that rabbit was called to task for his personal wishes for your health. Just not by Jay. But as you say, you can take it, I'm sure.
More importantly, rabbit was invited to defend his claim about the value of compromise in this arena. He has chosen not to so far. I thinks it's fair to say that open minded, intelligent people reading this thread will arrive at one of two conclusions regarding rabbit's contribution. It will be either that he has not looked at the thread since he posted or it will be that his observation was foolish, not grounded in the current facts or the history of the issue and he has no ability to defend his comment or advance the concept behind it.
There is some chance that, should he read this, rabbit will conclude my comments and question to him are not worth responding too, unless a particularly fun put-down occurs to him. For that is what I have observed of his style over the last few years in these areas of discussion. But Keith, don't you think everyone else sees that too?
There, I spoon fed everyone.
Doug, you have certainly grasped what I have been trying to get at. Changing the frame of reference somehow. Getting out of the rut of being reactive and defensive. Finding a way to reach those we have been alienating.
Personally I think a message crafted targeting urban university and college attending women 16 to 30 who are non gun owners. I had my niece over last weekend. She's 24. Has an undergraduate degree. Attending college for fashion design and merchandising. Has always lived either in Toronto or Vancouver. She thinks I'm nuts for having guns. There is no way she wouldn't be a registered democrat if she lived in the US. And I know she thinks gun regulations are a good idea, although I also know she knows nothing about the issue. These are the people we need to be talking to. Not NASCAR attendees. We've got them already.
Had a reason, while doing something completely unrelated, to open the safe. First thing I did was pull out a shot gun and watch her reaction. She was horrified. So I put the gun in her hands. It was the first time she has ever held one. Instructed her on how to hold it. How to keep her finger OFF the trigger and out of the trigger guard. I watched her expression change from concern to curiosity. Now, for her, the gun is no longer the scary, taboo weapon it was before Sunday. It's just a thing. She held one and didn't kill anyone. Big surprise.
Keith, I didn't like the personal bomb Jack threw your way. I didn't take it literally, and I don't think you did either. You probably recognized it as a subversive echo of my reaction to something you wrote about me a while back. James responded that it was at odds with my argument for civility, and I agree it was.
My remarks in this thread have been about behavior that I think hurts our argument for gun rights. I've not called out anyone individually for particular examples. I addressed you directly when you responded to the case against incivility with what I took to be a defense of it. I think I'd respond similarly about the value of civility, non-selectively, to anyone.
I'm not so sure we (gunowners) are using bad liturgy. I feel more certain that there are just not enough of us speaking out.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
How do you fight the attitude that also causes people not to even vote? Find the answer to that and we've got the answer to gun control. They (antis) do NOT outnumber us, they are just louder.
SRH
If that is true Stan, why do you think they aren't speaking out?
Are they lazy, just being private about what they own or do they feel intimidated in today's world about admitting to gun ownership?
Stan, if it is mostly the first two, how does that explain a society that sits still when a 6 year old boy is suspended from school for pointing his finger and saying "bang" and the justification of the suspension is that it may have been traumatizing to the other children? Or ditto by using selective bites to create a gun shaped cookie.
This is no longer one-off, aberrant behavior by misguided teachers. This is school board level policy that is next to immune to the outcry of common sense their foolishness provokes. I think there are a lot of gun owners keeping silent because they have been made to feel badly about their hobby's tools.
Our fellow member Chuck H made the point that many people find the mere fact that he is an NRA member sufficient cause to brand him an extremist, whatever that means to them. I suspect Chuck is a confident and proud gun owner and hunter, not given to panic attacks over whether others approve of his pastimes and passions. But I would guess there are plenty who are.
keith aren't you the guy who has asked to come meet me in ME or PA so we could settle our differences? What else could you mean but to fight me? Did you offer not to piss on me even if I were on fire, along with a lot of other disparaging remarks every time you mention me? Your such a martyr for the cause you big pussy. I know I've posted nasty remarks about you in turn but I don't pretend to hold myself above the fray like your trying to do. Deny it as much as you want but you are a hypocrite just as much as I am. Difference is that I embrace my hypocrisy cause I'm making a judgment call. Your just a sinner masking yourself as a saint and your not fooling anyone who isn't sucking your dick like all your buddies here.
Nca225, instead of attacking Keith at this late date, perhaps you might like to expand on your earlier statement that the rural to urban flight is a direct response to GOP policies.
It might not be as fun for you as calling Keith names but depending on what you write, I'm sure you will reveal something interesting either about GOP policies and social evolution in the US or yourself.
Canvas, I'm done trying to educate or aid in debate here. These people don't want debate or a discussion or even a different point of view. Not to long ago, they all turned on Homeless cause he didn't fall in line. They will do it to you too if you do not keep up their party line.
Your free to wax philosophical on why Republican economic policies did not drive a massive population shift from rural areas to economic centers over the last century to current.
I come here only to look at a lost craft, see what's for sale, and to throw the shit back at the shit throwers. And I certainly don't care what these guys think of me.
Judging by the "quality" of nca225's posts I feel he would require remedial education before he could even begin to "fold a tent" . I suspect he'd have to be started with folding a napkin and might eventually be able to comprehend bigger foldable items as time goes on! Jim
....Your such a martyr for the cause you big pussy. I know I've posted nasty remarks about you in turn but I don't pretend to hold myself above the fray like your trying to do. Deny it as much as you want but you are a hypocrite just as much as I am. Difference is that I embrace my hypocrisy cause I'm making a judgment call. Your just a sinner masking yourself as a saint and your not fooling anyone who isn't sucking your dick like all your buddies here.
Maybe, you might notice on that hojOe thread, no one turned on him, but I did notice a bunch of facts show up. So much for tolerance and civil discourse. Maybe when you jump in wanting to suck stick, things take a downhill turn.
Canvas, I'm done trying to educate or aid in debate here. These people don't want debate or a discussion or even a different point of view. Not to long ago, they all turned on Homeless cause he didn't fall in line. They will do it to you too if you do not keep up their party line.
Your free to wax philosophical on why Republican economic policies did not drive a massive population shift from rural areas to economic centers over the last century to current.
I come here only to look at a lost craft, see what's for sale, and to throw the shit back at the shit throwers. And I certainly don't care what these guys think of me.
Nca, to your first point, I'm happy to take my chances. You may have noticed I'm not exactly following the party line you think dominates here. I disagree with Jim on some key things, I disagree with Keith on others. I'm sure Craig and I will part company on some subject sometime. In the meantime, I say what I believe, do my best to answer challenges and try not to attack the person, just the idea. As I've said to you before, it's a better way to go.
As far as the insidious GOP policies that strip the land and crowd the cities, my suspicion about the inaccuracy of your supposition is that the same migration has taken place in most other 1st world nations, as well as quite a few others. Even countries that have no US Republican policies in place. So if you really believe what you said, do me the curtesy of explaining why. I didn't throw any shit at you. I just asked you to explain your point as it didn't fit with my understanding of world history.
As far as your last point, I too am here for those first two reasons. But your third reason, the throwing shit back part. Even if you are just throwing it back, you are still getting shit all over yourself. Can't believe you really enjoy that.
I have a good friend who grew up in Idaho, taught school his whole career in AK, who took some summer courses at one of the liberal universities (I'd have to ask him again which one)in CA.
He relayed to me that during one class, they were discussing the use of animals, habitat, etc in teaching a unit. He mentioned at an opportune time, that he owned firearms and hunted. According to him, he was basically torn apart by the majority of the class. He stood his ground, but of course, was not able to sway any on his beliefs. They had no desire to hear what he had to say about it. In their view, he was knuckle dragging troglodite, that didn't deserve to be teaching our children.
I would have to say that, in large part, many gun owners and hunters keep their firearm collecting and hunting interests to themselves to avoid just this onslaught from those on the left.
I'm fairly certain if he had been in a similar situation at an Alaska or Idaho university, this wouldn't have been an issue.
canvasback: The fact that you and I disagree on some points is irrelevent to me. You back your arguments up with facts and this requires that issues be looked at from a different perspective at least for me. That to me is fine,healthy and the primary reason we're here exchanging information. As Cameron pointed out above 30 + years on indoctrination by the left wing teachers union has had an effect. They, the students in this case, don't care what your arguments may be even if based in fact and well thought out. They have been indoctrinated to believe firearms and firearms owners are evil and need to be eradicated. This is the primary reason I take the position that reasoning with the "mainstream news media" is a waste of time. They made there minds up long ago to cast their fate with the socialists devils. No amount of reasonableness is going to have any effect with them. The only "reasonable" point they agree on is that firearms must be strictly regulated and eventually confiscated. Anything less then that is just an intermediate point in their struggle to eradicate firearms from private ownership. I remember when the GCA 1968 was being argued and passed. The lefty socialists maintained at that time it would be all that was needed to protect society from "firearms abuse". Gun owners and the NRA caved in at that time and took them to their word that this was "sensible" legislation and what was required to appease them and here we are today. Jim
Jim, I absolutely agree with your first point. God help me if I get to the point of not listening. As a business mentor used to say to me, tell me what I need to know that will change my course of action. I don't need re-inforcement for that which I'm already doing.
And I know that what Cameron describes is happening all across North America. What I have been hammering about in this thread is about the need, difficult as it may be, to reach those people. And what I'm saying is our past methods don't work.
The nice thing about young people Jim, is there is a new crop every couple of years. (I cribbed that line with a slight adjustment from my younger, competitive dating years. LOL). So bad as it is now, with the right message and delivery, it is possible to win back ground. Not too many 23 year old women across North America self identify as a "feminist". The younger crowd recognized that old school feminists had just become ridiculous and were in act anti male.
Finally, please don't confuse my willingness to engage in discussion, to listen and consider, my apparent "reasonableness" with a willingness to agree to ANY new anti gun law. Remember, I live in Canada. I live already under a level of gun control you would find intolerable. I know that the core enemy of my beliefs thinks he knows better than I how I need to live my life. I know they will only give up on trying to take my guns when they have them.
An interesting sidenote on the story I relayed a bit ago, was, that my friend had been with the same classmates for a few weeks, or longer, when he mentioned his passion for hunting and guns. He was a respected classmate up to that point, afterward a leper, ostracized for his love of guns and hunting.
This is but one example of the rabidness of the liberal antigun beliefs, completely lacking in logical thought when it comes to firearms.
nca225, it appears you are off your meds again. I never asked you to come meet me in PA. to settle our differences. I did invite you to PM me if you should ever travel here so you could have the opportunity to say the things you were saying directly to my face. I don't believe that would ever happen because I believe you are cowardly. I never once said I wanted to fight you. That is your interpretation. Don't twist what I've said. Who knows where such a meeting could lead? We might become fast friends... or not.
Perhaps you should re-read my first post in this thread. I specifically said that I don't mean to offend anyone here except those who are offensive or deceptive. That would include you on both counts, so I'm not being hypocritical at all. You provide the perfect example for Canvasback and Gunflint Charlie and others that, while civility is nice and has it's place, attempting to be civil with someone like you is about like trying to cure terminal cancer with an aspirin. Canvasback has noted that there are areas where we disagree and debate our differences. This is one area where he has lost me completely, for I can't fathom why he would even want to try to debate or reason with the likes of you. At this point, only mental illness could explain why you keep coming back.
We sometimes see the same thing on a much larger scale. Our nation, and others, are attempting diplomacy and civility with Ahmadinijad and the Mullahs in Iran over nukes. In the end, it probably won't work and we will end up dropping bombs on them. All of our talks and sanctions and civility will have been a silly waste of time. We may find that we would have been better off to react with anger sooner. After Gunflint Charlie's thoughtful and persuasive posts, it seems yours prompted him to throw up his hands. I agree in principle with what he said, but it only works when you are dealing with rational, intelligent, civil people. You are none of the above. I think it's only a matter of time before Canvasback reaches the same conclusion about you. Most here already have.
craigd made the important distinction and correction that we did not attack Homeless jOe in a recent thread. As he noted, we debated and argued through many pages of facts and tried to persuade him to change his position. He may have done so, but even if he didn't, we still like him and accept him because he is not dishonest. Don't do him the injustice of lumping him in with you. He is nothing like you. I'm sure he doesn't want or need you to defend him. Last Dollar, who began this thread invoking my name...we certainly had our differences. But he is a better man on his worst day than you are on your best day. You are in a class by yourself.
Oh, one other thing... I see you still haven't mastered the difference between the words "your" and "you're". I don't think we were taught that until third grade, so I guess I shouldn't expect so much.
....Your such a martyr for the cause you big pussy. I know I've posted nasty remarks about you in turn but I don't pretend to hold myself above the fray like your trying to do. Deny it as much as you want but you are a hypocrite just as much as I am. Difference is that I embrace my hypocrisy cause I'm making a judgment call. Your just a sinner masking yourself as a saint and your not fooling anyone who isn't sucking your dick like all your buddies here.
Maybe, you might notice on that hojOe thread, no one turned on him, but I did notice a bunch of facts show up. So much for tolerance and civil discourse. Maybe when you jump in wanting to suck stick, things take a downhill turn.
They,the liberals on here love to dish out the insults, Chris (nca225) is at the bottom of the heap,a name calling coward of there ever was one,he tries to blend in like he a fellow gun owner but his purpose is to drag down in discussion as far and fast as he can and not let it go forward
As to the Homeless "debate",you are 100% right,we hammered him with facts-he had NONE ,then he ignored all of them ! here is one more for the head in the sand group
They come up with a statistic and have the media repeat it over and over again and people will start not only believing it but start quoting it as well. That is until someone finally says how did you come up with that figure? Then its, "Well, they did a study" "Who did a study" "Well, the National Coalition to get rid of firearms" "Oh, that must have been a real objective study"
Quote: "craigd made the important distinction and correction that we did not attack Homeless jOe in a recent thread. As he noted, we debated and argued through many pages of facts and tried to persuade him to change his position. He may have done so, but even if he didn't, we still like him and accept him because he is not dishonest. Don't do him the injustice of lumping him in with you. He is nothing like you. I'm sure he doesn't want or need you to defend him. "
I agree that Homeless jOe wasn't attacked in the thread regarding background checks. I too am adament in my disagreement with his position on this but I also recognize that he is a true and ardent fellow gun collector and hunter. Nor if you will look back did he personally attack anyone who disagreed with him.
BTW: For those who like to bandy about the term "sensible gun laws" I will remind you that there are approximately 20,000 gun laws in the United States at present. I guess no one has yet enacted a "sensible" gun law in 20,000 attempts! Jim
Like many I started life in the party into which I was born, Democrat, I stayed there long after I could not see myself anywhere in it, because??, hell I don't know other than stubbornness and not trusting the other side any more.
I can find plenty wrong with key positions in both parties. I cannot say I find plenty right in either
Today I claim no party.
The older I have gotten the more I see both sides playing the taxpayer for a fool in how the money is spent and favors are doled out. They use the favors to bribe voters and the policy positions to scare or cause love from those not otherwise purchased. It is all a sad business. It is sad as most voters are either ignorant (idiots) in their failure to be informed or complicit.
I studied rhetoric and debate early in life and I understand how to turn any position on its head. Through all the politics I listen to and am subjected to I continue to have one overwhelming set of principles. They are the original principles upon which our government was founded. Those principles simply put state men are born free and government should exert as little control as required. They are principles that have been eaten away by laziness, sloth, and deception. I genuinely fear that the majority of voters today would rather a length of chain and a full bowl of chow than freedom and the danger of choosing wrongly. Voluntary serfdom is here to stay if it is not fought off.
Whether we are discussing what the left calls gun control or health care in Nanny state NYC the lack of candor and specific truth is awesome. Disarmament will save lives, so will requiring everyone to drive a suburban, so will mandating community exercise and controlled home menus to ensure sound nutrition. If you want some well-meaning hypocrite who rages against the same crew they party with on Martha’s Vinyard or Hawaii to control your life, pick up your dog collar and get your owner’s name stamped on it. I note the other side has simply become a different kind of owner. Maybe the new brilliant ruling class will let you have a 12 oz soda tonight after the 20 oz limitation fails to stem the tide of opulent obesity that is the byproduct of our national prosperity. I still remember my grandfather who starved growing up in the Appalachia of Northwest Italy. He was a little man whose hunting clothes I outgrew by the 8th grade. He was small because he was hungry most of his childhood. He loved to hunt and he loved to eat (not overeat) as they were affirmations of his freedom and founded on his hard work.
I do not believe that people in the state house in Topeka are any more endowed with wisdom than the ones in Washington. At least I can look the local one in the eye and feed them a sensible argument that occasionally might actually be heard. National solutions are typically one size fits all bull.
National bureucrats are no smarter if not more stupid. The government that allows Darwinistic mechanisms to decide economically what is actually the most efficient solution and will yield the best prosperity and least waste. Natural selection is ugly but efficient. I look at the federal dollars poured into rediculous "green" solutions and failed mass transportation schemes and grieve. I doubt are grandchildren will believe the National Debt investment was worth it to them who have to pay it back without them or their parents receiving much benefit.
Today the clowns who demand more legal restrictions on the right to bear arms are the same disingenuous group that is failing to enforce the current laws. It is an obvious question that we do not actually know if the current laws work or not, as simply things like false signed statements in background checks are not prosecuted. If the current BATF focused on the legitimate enforcement of the current law and it proved a long term failure to solve fundamental issues and the weapons were shown as the problem (not fatherless amorality – or ludicrous failure to address care for the mentally ill) then I might be willing to increase legal restrictions and create more regulation.
As of today I have no faith or confidence in Washington based solutions in this area not because they cannot possibly work; there is a real possibility something better good be crafted. I have no confidence because a group the governmental institutions in DC are to ineffective and corrupt who have regularly demonstrated by their conduct to have only a remote likelihood of enacting and executing any true solutions.
You may have wondered how you could add to the thread but I think you have. I also think there is profound wisdom in your assessment of the political classes, regardless of the side.
I stay on the right because at least the right "says" they don't want big government, even when it is at odds with their actions.
Since this seems to me to have turned into a discussion about being more effective in bringing more people into the gun owners fold I offer the following constructive criticisms:
Use "Obama" instead of "The Kenyan". Even though the users of "The Kenyan" believe he was born in Kenya the overwhelming majority of Americans believe Obama was born in Hawaii. I believe the use of this phrase in gun BBSs alienates many that we might attract.
Avoid all racial references. "Thugs" are black and white, Chinese and European. And there are black gangs, white gangs, Chinese Gangs, and European gangs. Same thing with "welfare recipients."
Use "conservative" instead of "Republican" and "liberal" instead of "Democrat" I used to be a Democrat precinct chairman. My cousin was elected 47th district attorney as a Democrat. I will concede that that was awhile ago. But there are Democrats that are pro gun-rights and they know other Democrats that are neutral. If those Democrats felt comfortable here that would be helpful to our cause. If, at every opportunity, we try to convert or persuade or shame them into giving up their party most will leave. But we don't want people leaving, we want them joining.
Eliminate the use of "libtard" and words like it.
Use opponents instead of "enemies". Enemies are strafed, bombed, assassinated, sniped, murdered, nuked, gassed, shot, blown up, sunk, shot down, impaled, hanged, or stabbed. Opponents are disgreed with in discussion or scored against in a football game.
My post is about selling gun-ownership to the general public, not about balancing the budget or how to solve the welfare problem or how to stop illegal immigration. I think from my previous posts ya'll know I am as conservative as most of you. And since this is a gun website we might just leave all those topics alone, even in the Mis-Fires section.
Dale Carnegie wrote a book about how to win friends and influence people. It sounds corny but there are some tremendously powerful tools in it that are very useful for selling ideas and products. Get a copy and read it.
I read the New York Times to get a better idea of what the opposition is thinking. They sometimes quote BBS posts. I remember one article written after a Texas Department of Public Safety rifleman in a DPS helicopter inadvertently killed an illegal alien in the back of a fleeing pickup. They quoted posts from a BBS that was titled something like "Texas Free Republic". The posts were horrible, insensitive, and racist. What the NYTs did with that article was imply that everybody that was against illegal immigration and for deportation thought the same way as the miscreants they quoted.
And just because we aren't being quoted in the NYTs does not mean we aren't being quoted and linked to on other BBSs.
The late Bill Davis was something of a second Dad to me. Many times I would call him and complain about having to do X to get Y. His answer was frequently something like "Do you want to be right or do you want to get laid", "Do you want to be right or do you want to make money", "Do you want to be right or do you want to be effective" or "I swear, you couldn't sell razor blades in a prison." I urge everyone posting here to use the MisFires to try to be effective in growing the gun community.
Just a general thought and not directed towards you Mike. Your comments have genuine value. It may be helpful to understand though that all of the negative strategies that you mention are used effectively by liberal democrats, and thus by all democrats due to the support of their vote. nca gnom and dave in maine all popped in and out earlier with intolerant personal opinion in an effort to support LD, and the board in general finds that acceptable.
I had mentioned previously the califoria vote to overwhelmingly reject gay marriage, but those very same folks in the very same voting booth overwhelmingly support lib representation. Maybe substitute gun control for gay marriage. That leadership and the judges that they appoint for life do not respect the result of the vote, and most citizens generally roll over.
Thanks Craig. And I appreciate the tone of your post.
If we respond to every slight and insult and our antagonist does the same it goes on ad infinitum... So if we just ignore the slight and proceed on as if it hadn't been made there is a chance of ending the counter-productive un-ending exchange.
I do think public opinion matters. If public opinion doesn't matter in gun rights then what I was selling in my post doesn't matter. But suppose the gun laws that were just passed in Colorado had been passed in Texas. Perhaps some kind of virus implanted a Lemming/cliff instinct in the politicians in Austin. I have no doubt 90% of the state senators and state representatives that voted for it would be voted out in the next election. If the Governor did not veto it he would get the heave-ho too. And Governor Perry's re-election record is only rivaled by Stalin's. The new legislature would repeal the gun law. From ISS's posts here I believe it would be the same in Arizona.
Distill it down, boil off the rhetoric, get to the root of the matter.
The reason civilized discussion is so uncommon is that the two major parties want it that way.
They both sell animosity.
Proof of the matter is the ACLU coming down on the side of gun control. What could be more of a Civil Liberty than gun ownership and gun freedoms? They needed something to sell, they picked gun control because it was available.
Nobody has any respect for the constitution, and that is the underlying cause of most of our lack of civil discourse.
If you pick either of our two major political parties, you simply decide which end of the constitution you want erroded.
Quote: "From ISS's posts here I believe it would be the same in Arizona."
Our Governor Jan Brewer is actually a gun show attendee on occassion. She and the State of Arizona are strong supporters of our 2nd Amendment rights and this puts us at the top of Obama's SH*tlist. I understand your points Mike however this isn't a one way labeling. We gun owners are routinely called "nuts kooks rednecks" and just about every other derogatory term you can imagine. We who firmly believe that Obama is out and out lying about his Country of origin are labeled "Birthers" by the mainstream news media which is extremely derogatory and demeaning. Additionally 64% of the Republicans polled firmly believe he was born in Kenya and that totals millions of people. I guess some of us will be less intense with the liberals when we start getting a fair shake ourselves. Oh and BTW 267 convicted illegals some with very serious criminal records(reported in todays Arizona Republic) were just released in Arizona due to "lack of funds". If that POS occupying the WhiteHouse cared one bit about the safety of our residents he certainly could have done something to prevent this. I respect the Office of the President but I have NO RESPECT for the current occupant.
Additionally 64% of the Republicans polled firmly believe he was born in Kenya and that totals millions of people.
64% of 22% is 13%.
64% of 34% is 22%
My point is do you want to be right or do you want to win?
I want to win.
What is the 22% and the 34% that you are taking 64% of to end up with 13% and 22% respectively?
Maybe we wouldn't be in this mess if more folks weren't intimidated by those who ridiculed folks who wanted Universal Backround Checks to begin with Presidential candidates. A majority of voters also clearly believed that the current occupant of the White House would fullfill his promise to make job creation his top priority if re-elected. It appears that wasn't true either. The mere fact that a majority believes something or can be deceived does not make it right.
Please also note that the same hypocrites who ridicule the Obama "birthers" did not hurl the same critism or insults at those who questioned John McCain's qualifications because he was born to U.S. citizen parents on a U.S. military base in the Phillipines.
To answer the question: "Do you want to be right or do you want to win?" I'd have to answer: Both!
To want to win at all costs, even if it means being deceptive or fearing our own tongue, lowers us to the Democrats, I mean Liberals, level. The avowed anti-Second Amendment crowd want to end the private ownership of guns. Period. If we wore halos and choir robes, they would portray us as a religious cult. There is no way we can win them over. No matter how nice you are, you are still a gun owner, and you need to be controlled out of existance.
The link GLS provided above is quite interesting and I recommend clicking on it. The part I found most interesting was the paragraph about the many Democrat gunowners who feel betrayed by a party leadership that attacks their gun ownership rights while getting nothing of value in return. That's really quite strange to me... they feel betrayed, yet they do nothing to hold these anti-gun Democrat politicians accountable or get them to reverse their positions. They keep marching in lockstep and re-electing them. Maybe we wouldn't be in this mess if more of them voted with their brains instead of their hearts. Is this the Lemming gene that you spoke of Mike?
Use opponents instead of "enemies". Enemies are strafed, bombed, assassinated, sniped, murdered, nuked, gassed, shot, blown up, sunk, shot down, impaled, hanged, or stabbed. Opponents are disgreed with in discussion or scored against in a football game.
Dale Carnegie wrote a book about how to win friends and influence people.
If you played a football game where the rules were changed every quarter, the game would be called pacification.....If the referee's lied to the spectators on every call, they would be called liberals and pacifists........
If you believe what Dale Carnegie says, then you believe in pacification and b.s., not real world observations, only salesmanship..........
The Democrats-Liberals passing new gun legislation, whether on a Federal or State level, know already that the new laws-legislation will accomplish nothing, save nothing, stop nothing, reduce nothing, but will only punish the innocent in the end......this is pacification on a large scale......
You're probably not old enough to remember LBJ from your state who sold the U.S. down the river, in more ways than one, all for pacification and his "Great Society"......this was pacification on a major scale and still effects all aspects of life in the U.S.A. today.
If you choose to watch queers/gays, or whatever you wish to call them now days that is "politically correct", marry, parade in your town, adopt and raise children and receive government funding as do normal male-female married couples, as is defined by current law, and fund same, then you believe in pacification.......
If you believe the way to increase more minority law enforcement employees is by "lowering the standards" to increase their chances of success, then you believe in pacification.........
The list is very long on this subject, but you probably get the idea.........
Pacification is the mainstay of the Democrat Party. The general population is very easy to fool with pacification, always has been, because the general population does not embrace FACTS.........
I for one, choose not to subscribe to pacification at any level...........
Keith I go back to the NRA. In order to maximize their membership and effectiveness they stick to the one issue. They don't have a litmus test on social issues nor political party nor do you have to tell them where you think Obama was born. They believe that would reduce their base, dilute their message and impair their effectiveness.
Being civil and tactful is not winning at all costs. It is common sense and good strategy.
Do you want to be right or do you want to be effective?
Doug I do remember LBJ and have read three and a half volumes of Carow's now four volume biography of him. I don't like LBJ by the way.
The more there are of us the more clout we have. The more people we push away the less clout we have. Tact, civility, and sticking to our issue increases our numbers.
Being politically correct is the misguided liberal idea that you can pick up a turd by the clean end. Then blame the bad smell on the person who found it instead of the one who dropped it.
Doug I do remember LBJ and have read three and a half volumes of Carow's now four volume biography of him. I don't like LBJ by the way.
The more there are of us the more clout we have. The more people we push away the less clout we have. Tact, civility, and sticking to our issue increases our numbers.
Mike,
As discussed earlier on this thread, the majority of our population lives in large Metropolitan cities coast to coast....
These metro areas have the majority of the electoral college as well as the majority of the population thus lead the nation in national elections....and they continue to vote Liberal to their own destruction HISTORICALLY on their individual state level..........
It was suggested and agreed by many that the NRA should spend some of their ad dollars on new campaigns directed to convincing and attracting these city dwellers, whatever their ethnic background or gender, who are primarily anti-gun and extremely Liberal.......
Since these city dwellers are primarily Democrats and very Liberal by nature of their life style, it becomes obvious that the task of converting them is difficult as they live in cities over-run with crime and armed criminals who do not buy guns at gun stores........
If you lay an animal carcass on an ant hill, it is soon devoured completely.............tact, civility and sticking to our issues are overwhelmed by rude, aggressive liberals WHO WILL NOT EMBRACE OR EVEN READ-LISTEN TO FACTS...............
How DO YOU propose, in this aggressive world of name calling liberals, that their beliefs are addressed and changed......?......Swim with sharks, but just don't cut yourself.......?.......
If you believe what Dale Carnegie says, then you believe in pacification and b.s., not real world observations, only salesmanship..........
Most every walk of life and attempt to influence other people's opinion is basic salesmanship. One can't force change of opinion or alienate those whose opinions one wishes to change or remain the same. We pretty much preach to the choir here but that doesn't mean that everyone in the choir has to agree with how the sermon is delivered.
Doug the Misfires section is not danger of being devoured by liberal ants.
And there is a spectrum from conservative to liberal. Some liberals support gun rights. Some conservatives support gay marriage. It is not two camps, one armed and one unarmed. It is not one camp supporting gay marriage, amnesty, increased welfare benefits, limiting CO2 emissions, putting benefits ahead of reducing the deficit and the other camp opposing all those things. Most people are have a mixed bag of these beliefs.
People that have more experience, research results, and political savvy in supporting and upholding gun rights have determined that focusing on their primary purpose and ignoring issues outside THE purpose is the best way be successful in that mission.
The way to bring more people to our point of view is to be friendly, reasonable, tactful, and to disagree in an always agreeable manner.
If, by reading our posts, they think we are dressed up in white sheets, planning the overthrow of our government, advocating reeducation camps for their gay brother and his friends, and that we will verbally beat down anyone that disagrees with us on any one item on our list of beliefs we will lose them.
For the record I am against gay marriage, racial quotas, ObamaCare, amnesty, the dream act, and free birth control pills.
Your point went over my head Doug. Fox News is selling advertising. The Sheriff is a politician running for re-elction. We aren't selling advertising nor are we politicians.
Again, the NRA has not taken a position on gay marriage, global warming, the deficit, amnesty, welfare reform, or extending unemployment benefits. Apparently the NRA thinks that those type actions are counter-productive to protecting gun rights and attracting people to their marksmanship program.
Mike the point I'm making is that a conservative won't pick up the turd. In fact he's going to tell the liberal, "I refuse to pick it up and if you pick it up don't blame me or anyone else except yourself or the one who dumped it."
We "pacified" the liberals with the GCA in 1968. We were given assurances that it was all that was required in the "Gun control" arena.
We again "pacified" the liberals with the Owners protection Act of 1986. Once again we were told this was the end of it.
We fought a hard battle against the Clinton Administration and ended up with the "Assault Weapons Ban". No pacification this time and the Liberals paid heavily for this feel good legislation in the mid term election is 1994. The sunset provision kicked in in 2004 and this ban expired without accomplishing anything. No one not even the liberals can produce anything showing this ten year ban had any effect on crime whatsoever.
I think it's apparent just what "pacification" got us in the past so there is really no sense to it now. The Liberals don't really want another assault weapons ban or universal background checks. They want your guns ALL OF THEM! These are just steps to reach that goal.
Here's what I believe the liberals true view of "Pacification " is as related to "gun control". Definition below:
Definition: "The act of forcibly suppressing or eliminating a population considered to be hostile."
We "pacified" the liberals with the GCA in 1968. We were given assurances that it was all that was requird in the "Gun control" arena.
We again "pacified" the liberals with the Owners protection Act of 1986. Once again we were told this was the end of it.
We fought a hard battle against the Clinton Administration and ended up with the "Assault Weapons Ban". No pacification this time and the Liberals paid heavily for this feel good legislation in the mid term election is 1994. The sunset provision kicked in in 2004 and this ban expired without accomplishing anything.
I think it's apparent just what "pacification" got us in the past so there is really no sense to it now. The Liberals don't really want another assault weapons ban or universal background checks. They want your guns ALL OF THEM! The se are just steps to reach that goal. Jim
Jim we agree on the aim of our opponents. We agree on almost everything as far as ends. It is only the "how" that I disagree with you on.
Doug the Misfires section is not danger of being devoured by liberal ants.
Mike,
I didn't think we were speaking in terms of just the MisFires section......but maybe that is your interpretation.....?.......There is no place on this board, top or bottom, that stays on topic BTW, it's called human nature.........
Nice and cordial has been tried since at least 1968 continuously......guess it doesn't work............
You can be Neville Chamberlain if you want, but I don't think it will bear any fruit........
The NRA is strong and not passive one bit BTW.........
We agree to disagree I would say.....good luck......
I think being civil is the right thing to do. I also believe being civil makes it much easier for the anti's to pursue their agenda due to ignorable resistance.
Gotta reach that urban grade school kid whose being hammered with the lib agenda in all areas. Not going to impress them with fact and civility. I think it'll take very short, in your face, entertainment approaches. That and truckloads of dc lobbying money.
Mike, sorry to drift off here, but your trailer setup looks really nice.
Doug, have to say I agree with Mike here. I don't think either he or I are advocating compromise, or passivity or weakness. This isn't a choice between Neville Chamberlain's self delusion and the way you are advocating. It is entirely possible to civil and to stick to the issues. It is possible to be civil and have implacable resolve.
Doug, I'm a salesman as was my father, my brothers, my uncles, my grandfathers and my great grandfathers. They built companies, employed thousands over the years, became leading politicians in Canada and their names and achievements are remembered, honoured and studied. Be careful who you are speaking to when you throw the the term "salesmanship" around in a derogatory fashion. Accomplishment is not the sole preserve of engineers and the military.
What we need to do with the great number of non gun owners is, in fact, salesmanship. It may be outside of your fields of expertise but it has value. Good salesmanship is the art of getting your own way, in a method and with an outcome that leaves all parties pleased. Isn't that what we are after?
And as far as Craig's assertion we need to reach that urban grade school kid, I think he is dead right. But whatever tactic we have been using hasn't been working all that well. To use a old marketing term, we need an aspirational message to go along with the facts.
The aspirational message used by the left is that they will save lives by regulating guns out of existence. Now we all know that is bullshit. But really, for those who aren't paying attention, who can argue with saving lives? It is a positive idea that no one who is sane can argue with.
I'll say it again, facts and logic only move the ball so far down field. We need positive emotion on our side as well.
Keith I go back to the NRA. In order to maximize their membership and effectiveness they stick to the one issue. They don't have a litmus test on social issues nor political party nor do you have to tell them where you think Obama was born. They believe that would reduce their base, dilute their message and impair their effectiveness.
Being civil and tactful is not winning at all costs. It is common sense and good strategy.
Do you want to be right or do you want to be effective?
Well Mike, I am not the NRA, so I can and do have opinions on the economy, jobs, abortion, taxes, spending, man-made global warming, gay marriage, socialized medicine, and a whole litany of other issues including whether a presidential candidate meets the Constitutional qualifications to run. It is very important that the NRA stay within its' own lane for the reasons you cite. I am not a single issue organization that may lose members if I stray into another area. I don't have members, but I am not alone in my beliefs. I am entitled to my opinions and am free to have opinions.
The anti's are assaulting our rights because we let them win elections. They won largely by being dishonest and uncivil. They lied and I believe they even cheated where they could. (See my recent post on voter fraud in Ohio.) I don't want us to go down that road, so I'd rather we counter it by exposing lies and not giving credence to the lullers and closet anti's here.
Craigd and Canvasback both agree that we need to reach the urban schoolkid with a new message. I would counter that no catchy sound bite message is likely to counter a six hour per day liberal left drumbeat. I wish the guys who keep saying we need to modify our methods and message would finally show us their ideas, and more importantly, show us where it has worked. In mono-cultural and civilized Great Britain, the same Liberal forces systematically stripped away most rights of law abiding gun owners as they passively watched thinking that each new solution would be the last. The anti's want your guns and they don't care whether you are civil or not. In fact, being polite and civil probably smooths their path and enables them.
Look at the rash of vehicle crashes last week where over 20 teens were killed in several states including 6 in one vehicle not that far from me. 7 teens die every day on average in vehicle crashes. That's the equivalent of a Newtown massacre every 3 days. Where are the Liberals and their solutions that might save even one life? Has Obama even mentioned it? This is about guns and the dishonest folk who are out to infringe upon our Civil Second Amendment rights.
The aspirational message used by the left is that they will save lives by regulating guns out of existence. Now we all know that is bullshit. But really, for those who aren't paying attention, who can argue with saving lives? It is a positive idea that no one who is sane can argue with.
You're right but how many times have we countered by proving that having guns saves lives? How are we supposed to argue with some educated dumb ass who doesn't have enough sense to pound sand in a rat hole? What it all boils down to is the people in power want to stay in power. To do it they have infiltrated the media and educational system to create a whole army of puppets that will do their bidding.
By the way Mike, I can't find that joke about Mrs. Obama and the whale having the same size vagina. Where is that ? Or were you exaggerating to make a point? Someone at the New York Times might misinterpret something like that. You may have inadvertantly caused irrepairable harm to the pro-gun cause.
The aspirational message used by the left is that they will save lives by regulating guns out of existence. Now we all know that is bullshit. But really, for those who aren't paying attention, who can argue with saving lives? It is a positive idea that no one who is sane can argue with.
You're right but how many times have we countered by proving that having guns saves lives? How are we supposed to argue with some educated dumb ass who doesn't have enough sense to pound sand in a rat hole? What it all boils down to is the people in power want to stay in power. To do it they have infiltrated the media and educational system to create a whole army of puppets that will do their bidding.
Since 1980 it has been 8 years of Reagen, 4 years of Bush, 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Bush and now it will be 8 years of Obama. That's 20 years of the GOP compared to 16 years of the Democrats, regularly alternating. All the while the liberal malaise has continued to infect our institutions. Sounds to me like we have been winning on average politically but losing consistently socially. That's why I am suggesting we re examine how we deliver our message. The same old same old ain't working. I don't know how anyone can argue with that.
I agree Canvasback. Just a few days ago, Sen. Ted Cruz was questioning Sen. Dianne Feinstein on her views, re: restricting the Second Amendment vs. restricting the First Amendment. Once again, Sen. Feinstein spouted the lie that people are leaving gunshows with bazookas and military assault weapons which would be full auto by definition. This is the "logic" behind her cause of advancing Universal Backround checks.
Perhaps the NRA should respond with confrontational full page newspaper ads challenging Sen. Feinstein to go to any gun show and purchase either a bazooka or full auto weapon without a backround check. This is how you beat a liar. Not by civilly debating them and allowing them to repeat the same tired lies.
Doug, I'm a salesman as was my father, my brothers, my uncles, my grandfathers and my great grandfathers. They built companies, employed thousands over the years, became leading politicians in Canada, and their names and achievements are remembered, honoured and studied. Be careful who you are speaking to when you throw the word "salesmanship" around in a derogatory fashion.
What we need to do with the great number of non gun owners is, in fact, salesmanship. It may be outside your fields of expertise, but it has value. Good salesmanship is the art of getting your own way, in a method and with an outcome that leaves all parties pleased. Isn't that what we are after?
I must say James, I agree with everything that Keith posted above, especially the paragraph about England and how they ended up caving in to the Liberals and giving, giving, giving until there was nothing left to give......The English have even posted on here relating this transgression and advising us to HOLD TIGHT AND NOT BUDGE, DO NOT GIVE ONE INCH, LEST WE END UP LIKE THEM............
With your super salesmanship James, it is beyond my understanding how you think you can convince any hard core anti-gun liberal to become a gun collector or an avid hunter NO MATTER HOW NICE AND CIVIL YOU WERE OR HOW YOU USED YOUR GOLDEN TONGUE AND THE DALE CARNEGIE RHETORIC IF YOU HAD IT MEMORIZED........it hasn't happened and just won't happen.........please do not put a negative spin on this statement.........
I understand your tendency to be nice and use cordial exchanges with liberals, I am just saying that you will not and have not convinced them to change opinions........they will keep voting and your gun rights will continue to decline as they already have in Canada and England by being passive and civil and polite ........we DO NOT wish to go down the same road..........
We've been cordial since 1968 and it doesn't work, we are on the proverbial slippery slope......rhetoric with liberals must change.......
How come you did not convince your 24 year old niece before this age of the advantages of being a gun owner and hunter and let her hold a gun before two weeks ago......?......Just curious........
My prior post on this thread regarding the NRA's possible advertising target campaign was meant to reflect the "possibility" that YOUNG people like your niece, (prior to a hard core formed anti-gun liberal state), might be targeted with NRA advertising to show the value of gun ownership and sportsmanship etc.........
Have you ever changed a hard core anti-gun ADULT Canadian liberal to a gun toting, hunting buddy in all honesty......I doubt that you have......this would be my point, no matter how polite and civil your approach was.......
BTW, I did not IMO, speak derogatory of salesman in my previous thread.....With your sales experience and background, YOU KNOW that a "need or desire" is required BEFORE you can CLOSE anyone on any deal no matter how many Dale Carnegie courses you take, that is the point........the salesman's job is to create that desire as you know.....with liberals you have your finger in the dam and that is all my friend.......
To close a liberal with a closed mind and one that will not embrace facts but lives in a fantasy world is near impossible.......that is why the NRA deals with facts in advertising and public speaking, because these hard core liberals are considered lost, so facts must be used to hopefully persuade a few of common sense.......sometimes it works, but most of the time it does not........JUST LOOK AT THIS OUT OF CONTROL ADMINISTRATION AS AN EXAMPLE.....
Doug, I'm busy and will give you a fuller response later but your question about my niece deserves an answer. Because for most of her short life and all of it since she was 4, she lived about 2000 miles away from where I lived. She moved to about an hour drive from me last summer. I have taken her younger sister hunting several times over the last two years, as soon as she moved closer to me.
Question: "Perhaps the NRA should respond with confrontational full page newspaper ads challenging Sen. Feinstein to go to any gun show and purchase either a bazooka or full auto weapon without a backround check. This is how you beat a liar. Not by civilly debating them and allowing them to repeat the same tired lies."
I essentially did this with McCain several years ago with his "close the gun show loophole" campaign with Lieberman. However you'll have to permit me to substitue the term "terrorist weapons" for "assault weapons". When I challenged him to go to a gun show with me and point these weapons out he got mad and hung up the phone and he's a "Republican"!! Jim _________________________
Keith you are certainly entitled to your opinions on anything. You are certainly entitled to express them on everything. You are free to insult and attempt to bully, badger, intimidate and shame those who disagree with you. You are free to harangue at every opportunity any Democrats, lawyers, liberals, independents, or barely Republicans who show their Nom De Screen here. You are entitled to wage a never ending exchange of insults with anybody willing to volley.
But doing what you are entitled to do and being effective are not the same thing. Connecting other issues to gun rights makes us less effective. It dilutes the message and it drives off many people that would otherwise be our allies. That is why the NRA is a single issue organization. Because they are experts at being effective they know that is how they can be the most effective.
The kid in the classroom is not the only category we need. I doubt we are reaching very many of them on this website. My guess is that mostly middle age and older white guys find and come to this website. People in that category have a high probability of voting, joining the NRA, writing to their elected representatives, teaching gun safety courses etc... I think it is counterproductive for keeping gun rights if they become offended and stop coming here.
And I tell you the same thing I told Jim. On ends I agree with you on almost everything. It is just on the how that I split opinion.
I would rather win the gun rights struggle than be right about everything.
Well: I believe I've located another group we should reach out to. Please view the Youtube thread I posted last nite in the Dave Weber thread in the main area. Jim
Please also note that the same hypocrites who ridicule the Obama "birthers" did not hurl the same critism or insults at those who questioned John McCain's qualifications because he was born to U.S. citizen parents on a U.S. military base in the Phillipines.
Keith,
I have a question: Was not Obama's mother an American citizen? And if so, even if he was born in Kenya, is he not therefore also an American citizen? This is not an opinion or a flame, but simply something that I've not heard discussed or explained. Thanks.
Please also note that the same hypocrites who ridicule the Obama "birthers" did not hurl the same critism or insults at those who questioned John McCain's qualifications because he was born to U.S. citizen parents on a U.S. military base in the Phillipines.
Keith,
I have a question: Was not Obama's mother an American citizen? And if so, even if he was born in Kenya, is he not therefore also an American citizen? This is not an opinion or a flame, but simply something that I've not heard discussed or explained. Thanks.
No...there is a clause that requires them to be born on US soil......most U.S. Military bases are U.S.Soil (I say most because I know of one for absolute certain that actually isn't)...as are Embassies overseas (legally by international Treaties and SOFA agreements).
If he was born in Kenya....that would disqualify him on that reason alone.
No...there is a clause that requires them to be born on US soil......most U.S. Military bases are U.S.Soil (I say most because I know of one for absolute certain that actually isn't)...as are Embassies overseas (legally by international Treaties and SOFA agreements).
If he was born in Kenya....that would disqualify him on that reason alone.
Was Mitt Romney's father born on U.S. soil in Mexico?
*He has publicly claimed he was born in Kenya but this before he ran for President and it wasn't an issue.
*Furthermore he claimed he was born either in Kenya or was a citizen of Indonesia in order to qualify for foreign student aid while in college and that's why I believe his records are sealed.
*Again that's why the phony Hawaiin birth certificate was created to cover up the fact that he claimed foreign citizenship at one time.
*He also needed an SSN and "Adopted" one from the State of Connecticut where he NEVER resided.
*If you effectively renounce your U S citizenship as he apparently once did, that alone would disqualify you from claiming natural citizenship and be eligible for the presidency.
Again this is MY opinion but I believe it's shared by millions of others in this Country. Jim
US citizenship and requirements for being the President are two different things.
US Citizenship upon birth if you were born on US soil or either parent was a US citizen at the time of your birth and you were not born on US soil.
To be President you have to have be a citizen and born on US soil.
So you can be born a US citizen and still be ineligible for President.
Am unaware of any race requirements in any case.
Thanks Mike. A quick google search produced this:
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
1) Anyone born inside the United States * 2) Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe 3) Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. 4)Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national 5)Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year 6)Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 7)Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) 8)A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
It looks like #7 above includes Obama, and I don't see anything about "U.S. soil". Am I missing it?
Certainly it certainly appears you are right about citizenship.
But to be eligible to be president you have to be born on US soil (natural born). Otherwise there would not have been a controversy about Obama's birth certificate. As you point out it would have been a moot point.
US citizenship and requirements for being the President are two different things.
US Citizenship upon birth if you were born on US soil or either parent was a US citizen at the time of your birth and you were not born on US soil.
To be President you have to have be a citizen and born on US soil.
So you can be born a US citizen and still be ineligible for President.
Am unaware of any race requirements in any case.
Thanks Mike. A quick google search produced this:
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
1) Anyone born inside the United States * 2) Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe 3) Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. 4)Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national 5)Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year 6)Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 7)Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) 8)A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
It looks like #7 above includes Obama, and I don't see anything about "U.S. soil". Am I missing it?
I believe he actually falls under #1. Hawaii became a state in 1959 and Obama was born in 1961, so he was born in the U.S. - not outside the U.S.
US citizenship and requirements for being the President are two different things.
US Citizenship upon birth if you were born on US soil or either parent was a US citizen at the time of your birth and you were not born on US soil.
To be President you have to have be a citizen and born on US soil.
So you can be born a US citizen and still be ineligible for President.
Am unaware of any race requirements in any case.
Thanks Mike. A quick google search produced this:
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
1) Anyone born inside the United States * 2) Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe 3) Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. 4)Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national 5)Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year 6)Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 7)Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) 8)A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
It looks like #7 above includes Obama, and I don't see anything about "U.S. soil". Am I missing it?
I believe he actually falls under #1. Hawaii became a state in 1959 and Obama was born in 1961, so he was born in the U.S. - not outside the U.S.
That is assuming he really was....it took them a couple years to forge a Hawaii birth certificate....and he has claimed to be born elsewhere back before he ran for president.
THe fact they couldn't or wouldn't produce one when asked...and in fact spent Millions fighting it producing it only after fighting it so long, like they were stalling until they found someone who could do it...makes it impossible for most rational people to believe it was a real one.
IF they had simply produced it a month or two after first being asked....it would be a non-issue. I believe they didn't because they couldn't.
I believe he actually falls under #1. Hawaii became a state in 1959 and Obama was born in 1961, so he was born in the U.S. - not outside the U.S.
Yeah, but that's a whole 'nother issue (as pointed out by doc). I'm trying to determine why it matters if he was born in Kenya when his mother was a citizen.
That's the site I quoted, and I still can't see anywhere it says that being born on U.S. soil is a requirement. Can you point it out to me? Thanks.
I re-read it and I can't. And I see what you were talking about now. This was it - right?
"Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)"
Fin2feather, your Google search gave you the result you clearly seem to desire as an Obama supporter, but it proves you can't believe everything you read on the internet. #7 above would indeed provide "U.S. citizenship", but not "natural born U.S. citizenship" as required by the Constitution as a qualification to become President. Close, but no cigar.
By citing #7 above, are you saying you believe Obama was born in Kenya too? If #7 above provided the necessary qualification, Obama could publicly announce that he was born in Kenya, as he claimed when he was a freshman U.S. Senator. There would have been no need to provide a phony computer generated Hawaiian birth certificate. The birthplace of Mitt Romney's father would have no bearing on his qualifications as long as he and his mother were born in the U.S. I wonder why Mike is not taking you to task for even bringing that hateful question up?
I've looked at the mountains of evidence that shows Obama is likely not a natural born U.S. citizen including admissions from his own mouth and the words of his Kenyan grandmother who said she was present at his birth in Kenya. The items cited by Jim above barely scratch the surface. If some of you wish to ignore all that without proof or refutation because you fear being labled, that is your choice. The "most transparent administration in history" still has not provided Obama's educational records which might either prove that he is not a natural born U.S. Citizen or show that he fraudulently received aid for foreign students.
So where and what is the definition of natural born citizen?
I agree that if Obama had been born in Kenya that under #7, because of his mother, he would have been eligible for the presidency. And so the whole thing would have been a moot point as Keith points out.
Keith you are certainly entitled to your opinions on anything. You are certainly entitled to express them on everything. You are free to insult and attempt to bully, badger, intimidate and shame those who disagree with you. You are free to harangue at every opportunity any Democrats, lawyers, liberals, independents, or barely Republicans who show their Nom De Screen here. You are entitled to wage a never ending exchange of insults with anybody willing to volley.
But doing what you are entitled to do and being effective are not the same thing. Connecting other issues to gun rights makes us less effective. It dilutes the message and it drives off many people that would otherwise be our allies. That is why the NRA is a single issue organization. Because they are experts at being effective they know that is how they can be the most effective.
The kid in the classroom is not the only category we need. I doubt we are reaching very many of them on this website. My guess is that mostly middle age and older white guys find and come to this website. People in that category have a high probability of voting, joining the NRA, writing to their elected representatives, teaching gun safety courses etc... I think it is counterproductive for keeping gun rights if they become offended and stop coming here.
Mike, as I said much earlier in this thread, the only folks I mean to offend are those who are offensive or deceptive. Nothing has changed, but your first paragraph above suggests that I bully, badger, intimidate, or shame EVERYONE I disagree with. Nothing could be further from the truth and I can't imagine why you wish to paint me with that broad and inaccurate brush. That is why you and I continue to debate civilly without rancor or insults... I don't think you are offensive or deceptive. I do sometimes think you are mistaken, just as you think I am sometimes mistaken. I think you are mistaken about this just as I think you were mistaken about a joke being posted in Last Dollars Whale thread that compred the vagina sizes of the First Lady and the Whale. I still maintain that trying to engage and debate civilly with liars only gives them encouragement and an audience. I have no plans to treat liars and those with an anti-gun agenda nicely.
I don't see how discussing other political topics in the same forum as gun rights issues hurts a thing, especially when advancement of the socialist agenda and advancement of infringement of RKBA appear to be joined at the hip. This Misfires forum is dedicated to discussing almost anything. I wish we did discuss Seccond Amendment topics in the main Doublegun forum, but some have prevailed in having them banished here where the total number of views since the inception of Misfires numbers less than a single thread on the main forum (Favorite Game/Gun Picture-2012 Season, with 95013 views to date). Since we are so limited in readership here, this is mostly just a few of us regulars chewing the fat. I seriously doubt that the future of gun rights is going to depend on what we say here. I really don't think the Colorado legislature enacted sweeping anti-gun legislation because I say that nca225 is an idiot.
I see your point about agreeing with me and Jim about almost everything, but having a difference of opinion in how we express our beliefs. I still can't help looking at history both here and abroad and noticing that playing nice with anti-gunners has only led to more and more useless and ineffective gun laws that encroach upon the rights of the law abiding gun-owner. I guess that puts me in the same category of Doug (PA-24) who told you that it appears he would agree to disagree with you.
Keith, I'm not "saying" anything. I asked a couple of questions, and then I asked a couple of questions about the answers I received.
It was stated here that one must be born on U.S. soil to run for president; that's obviously incorrect, and that was my reason for asking about Mitt Romney's father. I don't see how that question equates to being hateful.
The website I quoted (and Mike referenced also) states that the constitution gives no clear-cut definition for a natural born citizen, and that it leaves the laws set by congress to define it. According to the website, Title 8 lists the requirements, and further states plainly that if a person falls within one of those categories, he is qualified to run for president.
If that is not correct, please explain why not. As yet I don't see that anyone here has.
Fin2feather, I gave you the answer in the second sentence of my reply to you. Arnold Schwartznegger is a "U.S. Citizen", but not a "natural born U.S. Citizen". Hence he cannot run for President. The computer generated Hawaiian birth certificates that took almost two years to produce were an attempt to prove Obama was born on U.S. soil, having only one citizen parent, because that is part of the requirement for eligibility. As Mike correctly pointed out to you, it would have been a moot point otherwise since his mother was a U.S. Citizen. The issue wasn't citizenship. It was Natural born citizenship. But there is also the question of renounced citizenship when Lolo Soetoro moved his wife and young Barry Soetoro to Indonesia.
Since Mitt Romney's father was not running for President, I can't imagine why you even brought that up. But when he did attempt a run, it was legal because both of his parents were U.S. Citizens. If he had gotten far enough to be nominated, it is almost certain that his citizenship would have become a hot issue which may have been decided in court. If it happened with a Republican candidate today, the doubters would not be categorized as crazy by our Liberal biased press. I sarcastically made the "hateful" reference because we who question Obama's qualifications are frequently called haters, or racists, or birthers, or other unflattering names. Those who question George Romney or John McCain's citizenship are not held to the same standard.
I didn't say that you were saying anything... I was just asking if your citing of citizenship qualification #7 indicated that you yourself believed that Obama was born in Kenya. That seemed to be the loophole you were looking for since you said, "It looks like #7 above includes Obama, and I don't see anything about "U.S. soil". Am I missing it?" That very strongly suggested to me that you also believe Obama was born in Kenya, but I just wanted to be sure.
Keith, I'm not "saying" anything. I asked a couple of questions, and then I asked a couple of questions about the answers I received.
It was stated here that one must be born on U.S. soil to run for president; that's obviously incorrect, and that was my reason for asking about Mitt Romney's father. I don't see how that question equates to being hateful.
The website I quoted (and Mike referenced also) states that the constitution gives no clear-cut definition for a natural born citizen, and that it leaves the laws set by congress to define it. According to the website, Title 8 lists the requirements, and further states plainly that if a person falls within one of those categories, he is qualified to run for president.
If that is not correct, please explain why not. As yet I don't see that anyone here has.
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES WHOSE ELIGIBILITY WAS QUESTIONED
Every president to date was either a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 or born in the United States, EVERY PRESIDENT EXCEPT TWO, Chester A. Arthur and Barrack Hussien Obama, ALL the other presidents had TWO U.S.-citizen parents.
Chester A. Arthur was rumored to have been born in Canada, but actually was born in Vermont to a Vermont born mother and an Irish born father who became a naturalized citizen in 1843, 14 years after Chester was born.
Barrack Hussien Obama is the only President to have a non-U.S. citizen parent in the history of the United States of America. In lawsuits Plaintiffs argued that it was irrelevant whether he was born in Hawaii, but argued nevertheless that he was not a natural born-citizen, because his citizenship status at birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 which governed Kenya at the time......some lawsuits still continue......
Doug I am not arguing one way or another in this post where Obama was born.
I am curious and am asking for a website link that explains why, if he was born in Kenya, he is ineligible for President.
I believe that you have to be born on US soil to be eligible for President. I have heard that all my life. I remember when McCain ran the question came up. I looked at the Constiution and have been trying to ferret out what part says that a citizen born in Kenya can't be president. I don't have some delusion t that I am going to make a world shaking discovery that a citizen could be born in Kenya and still be president. I am sure that has been checked very carefully by hundreds of thousands of people over the last two centuries.
I am asking where in the law it defines "natural born citizen".
Keith, Arnold Schwartnegger is a naturalized U.S. citizen, and as such is not eligible to run for president. As you and I both know, "naturalized" citizens and "natural born" citizens are two entirely different animals; Arnold is not germane to the discussion.
The question is, what is the constitutional definition of a natural born citizen? As I understand it, there is not one. If you have it, please provide it.
Also, please show me where it says one must be born on U.S. soil if one has only one parent who is a citizen. I did not see it in the text I read. If it is stated elsewhere, please provide it. That, of course, was my only reason for referencing Mr. Romney, because if that is true (and no one has yet shown me that it is) then I wondered why he was allowed to run.
I don't know if Obama was born in Kenya or not, and I certainly did not imply that he was or wasn't. I only positied the question because as I read the definition and the requirements, he qualifies as a natural born citizen no matter where he was born.
Being born in Kenya IMO is a moot point in regards to Obama's eligibility to be president. The fact that his mother remarried,moved to Indonesia with his new "father" who was an Indonesian citizen where Obama became a citizen of Indonesia is the root of the issue.** The fact that he used this citizenship to apply for foreign student aid as a student in the United States and traveled to places restricted to US Citizen's on an Indonesian passport is the key point. At that point in time he was no longer an American citizen period. If anyone thinks Obama was a natural born American citizen in 2008 than Lee H Oswald should have run for the Presidency against Kennedy rather than assassinating him. Jim ** Yes this is documented and NO I'm not spending my time pulling up links to it again.
I'm Still Waiting and actually have been waiting for Months for someone to refute what I and others posted which is factual and posted in multiple other places on this forum. As far as I can see the liberal's here are no different the the "mainstream news media" examples they immitate in that they ignore what the can't refute as being in error. This is the primary reason I Usually don't even bother with these threads anymore. There is no interest on the Liberals part who post here in getting to the truth. All they want to do is protect their resident idiot the Kenyan and the rest of his ilk. Jim
Here's one of many references I found Fin2feather, but I must admit to also finding your source and others that claimed variations of the same thing. I also found references that did in fact claim that both parents must be U.S. Citizens for foreign born children to qualify, and I read several references from The Federalist papers and opinions of the founders of their reasoning behind wanting only candidates that would be unlikely to be influenced by backround or foreign birth. I didn't have to look very long or hard to find what you asked for, so you could easily have found it yourself unless you perhaps didn't want to. It also appears that this subject has never been definitively decided by the Supreme Court because no case on this matter has come before the court.
In the link above is a whole slew of information related to Obama's mysterious, secretive, and largely unvetted past. This website was began by Atty. Phil Berg from Philadelphia, who is a Democrat and was a huge Hillary Clinton supporter. Atty. Berg was just one of several attornies who felt there was enough evidence that they filed lawsuits to get the truth. Unfortunately, the Courts have ruled that they did not have legal standing to sue. I am still in full agreement with the opinions of italiansxs (Jim) in this matter, and agree with his assessment that the only refutations so far have been a very questionable computer generated document and unfounded ridicule which has been somewhat effective in quelling further questions. If and when I am proven wrong, I'll admit it and apologize. No public figure who has nothing to hide spends millions of dollars to supress information. But Donald Trump was willing to spend millions to see those hidden educational records. That money would have provided a lot more help to the victims of Hurricaine Sandy than seeing the imposter-in-chief embracing Gov. Christie.
So to be clear and remain on point: 1) There is no constitutional definition of what constitutes a natural born citizen. 2) There are conflicting sources, some of which state that in order for a foreign-born child to qualify as a natural born citizen only one parent must be a U.S. citizen, and some which state that both parents must be U.S. citizens. 3) There is no stipulation that to be eligible to be president a foreign-born child must be born on U.S. soil. Is that correct?
Maybe. It depends upon which source you want to believe. You've zeroed in on the ones you prefer. I'll give you my definitive answer when I am seated on the U.S. Supreme Court and am called upon to decide such a case. I was hoping to be elected Pope so that I could excommunicate Joe Biden and shoot pigeons in St. Peters Square.
But since you want to remain on point, and the original point was about Barack Obama's citizenship, we're back to discussion on his birthplace which he himself has stated was Kenya. If that is ever proven despite desperate and costly attempts to obfuscate or show otherwise, then the citizenship of his Kenyan father would dictate that he is, and remains, a Kenyan citizen as governed by the British Nationality act of 1948 which Doug referenced above.
So to be clear and remain on point: 1) There is no constitutional definition of what constitutes a natural born citizen. 2) There are conflicting sources, some of which state that in order for a foreign-born child to qualify as a natural born citizen only one parent must be a U.S. citizen, and some which state that both parents must be U.S. citizens. 3) There is no stipulation that to be eligible to be president a foreign-born child must be born on U.S. soil. Is that correct?
You forgot #4) when the president is black all bets are off.
I think the answer to my question is that people smarter than me have been studying this for two hundred years and have determined that the law and Constitution say you have to be born on US soil to be President (or Vice President).
You forgot #4) when the president is black all bets are off.
You dumb ass. I don't care if the SOB is green. Just as long as he is a citizen, does his job, and remains faithful to the U.S. Constitution. So far he has done none of the above.
Maybe. It depends upon which source you want to believe. You've zeroed in on the ones you prefer. I'll give you my definitive answer when I am seated on the U.S. Supreme Court and am called upon to decide such a case. I was hoping to be elected Pope so that I could excommunicate Joe Biden and shoot pigeons in St. Peters Square.
Yeah, I hear the benefits that go with that job are pretty good! But, just to be clear: I don't prefer any. I found a source and asked if what it stated is correct; apparently no one knows for sure.
BTW, I'm sure that engaging in racist exercises concerning the nationality and origin of our president is really a great way to endear your 2nd amendment positions with those same young urban youth you want on your side in the debate. Keep up the good work!
BTW, I'm sure that engaging in racist exercises concerning the nationality and origin of our president is really a great way to endear your 2nd amendment positions with those same young urban youth you want on your side in the debate. Keep up the good work!
thrifty here. How come you sound the same whether you're trying to convince someone to stay or lying about motivation. I can see where you're a valuable asset to the gun control crowd.
BTW, I'm sure that engaging in racist exercises concerning the nationality and origin of our president is really a great way to endear your 2nd amendment positions with those same young urban youth you want on your side in the debate. Keep up the good work!
For your information we are talking about the Constitutional requirements for the office of the presidency. The last three pages of this thread have had nothing to do about his color except the racist SHIT that spews out of your mouth. So quit trying to play the race card. Even a stupid fish wouldn't get caught if he didn't open his mouth.
You forgot #4) when the president is black all bets are off.
You dumb ass. I don't care if the SOB is green. Just as long as he is a citizen, does his job, and remains faithful to the U.S. Constitution. So far he has done none of the above.
+3........
It makes no difference if this elected official is even from this planet........
HOWEVER, IT DOES MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE THAT HE HAS DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING EXCEPT EXPAND OUR DEBT FOUR FOLD, HAS TRASHED OUR ECONOMY AND INCREASED UNEMPLOYMENT, INCREASED TAXES ON EVERYTHING, INCREASED PAYROLL TAXES (GUESS THE RICH FOLKS AREN'T GOING TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING) , RUINED FOREIGN AFFAIRS, RADICAL FEDERAL SPENDING, HIGHEST FUEL PRICES IN HISTORY, TRASHED WORLD OPINION OF THE U.S., ALIENATED AT LEAST 50% OF THE CITIZENS IN THIS COUNTRY, DAMAGED AND POSTPONED AN AGGRESSIVE OIL INDUSTRY "HALTING ALL FEDERAL DRILLING", HALTED VETERAN SCHOOL BENEFITS WHILE APPROVING STUDIES ON OVERWEIGHT LESBIANS AND SO FORTH..........AND NOW FOLKS, FOR A HEADLINE ONCORE HE IS ATTACKING YOUR CIVIL 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.......
I suppose some members on this board and some non-members who peek in here occasionally would approve of this behavior and job performance, but again I say, most with an I.Q. over 40 would not approve of this job performance on ANY LEVEL AND ON ANY SUBJECT.........
** His STAR performance is GUN SALES, HE WILL PROBABLY GO DOWN AS THE BEST GUN SALESMAN IN HISTORY.....the numbers reflect his gun sales performance, and without even trying, and with just a little help from the likes of Biden, Reid, Feinstein, Pelosi and the other elected liberals........
It must also be noted that this sitting Obama elected official spent 369 million tax payer dollars on Obama & family travel from January 2012 thru December 2012..........While the British Royal Family in their entirety (everywhere, all members, all travel) spent 7 million British taxpayer pounds for the same travel period, including the Queen, Prince Harry's travel to and from Afghan etc....TOTAL.................Interesting comparison, even if you factor in +6, the travel expenditures of this Obama family are staggering........But I do remember when Gnomon said, in answer to one of my posts last year, regarding Obama's travel, "Well Doug, didn't you know a president must travel".........So I guess Gnomon is one of the happy Obama voters we have on this board.........
I know some of you here are proud of this Obama job performance, just think, now that his efforts are directed towards our civil 2nd amendment rights, I am sure the tax payer funded expenditures to accomplish nothing (but potential erosion of civil rights) will make you even happier............And more taxes to pay for their radical spending.........
If you like a steady stream of lies, increased taxes, a decreased paycheck (if you're lucky enough to have a job) , eroding civil liberties, a trial and error federal government, radical White House spending sprees matched only by some dictators, then your two time liberal zero experience Obama vote should maintain your warm cozy feeling as the screws are turned down.......enjoy the ride, you deserve it.........
Something tells me there would be no discussion on this issue if he was white.
You might try to figure what that thing is that's talking to you and try to determine if it's giving you good advice. Who you following around that's so terrific, Are you sure they're making you feel better. thrifty.
Something tells me there would be no discussion on this issue if he was white.
I think you're wrong. History has shown that second presidential terms tend to be disasters. When the full weight of recently passed tax legislation comes to bear on the economy, along with the weight of projected, and, unsustainable government debt levels, the repeated shrieking of "racists" to anyone who dares question fiscal policy will all but be forgotton.
Something tells me there would be no discussion on this issue if he was white.
NO CIGAR. You completely missed again. Refer back to Doug's post above your racist drivel. Refer back to keith's post #318069 about Judge Clarence Thomas. If anyone here wears a white robe and hood it's you.
Something tells me there would be no discussion on this issue if he was white.
Bullshit.........the left ALWAYS tries to play the race card when everything else fails.
Doesn't matter if he's purple...being half black or even all black isn't an excuse or justification for being a dumb SOB that doesn't have the common sense your average earthworm has.
Something tells me there would be no discussion on this issue if he was white.
nca225 is just showing how ignorant and out of touch with reality he is.
I doubt if ANY Democrat has ever caught more heat(well deserved) then Clinton while he was in office and the last time I looked he was still lily white. For those who already said it playing the race card is the only thing these Obama appologists can do. Obama's accomplished NOTHING positive in 4 + years and I hope and pray we get rid of him before he brings the whole economy down.
Originally Posted By: nca225 Something tells me there would be no discussion on this issue if he was white.
Bullshit.........the left ALWAYS tries to play the race card when everything else fails.
Doesn't matter if he's purple...being half black or even all black isn't an excuse or justification for being a dumb SOB that doesn't have the common sense your average earthworm has.
Dumb SOB's plague all ethnic groups....
BHD has it right,chris is full of shit-as always
All the left has EVER done is keep the black race on their "plantation",trading welfare/food stamps for votes. The Left libtards like that chris nca225 have always been the party of racism:
It was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, who founded the Ku Klux Klan.
Woodrow Wilson segregated Federal Buildings and jobs after 50 years of integration under largely Republican administrations.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted Jim Crow Laws.
It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted "separate but equal".
It was the Democrat Party in the South that supported the Ku Klux Klan.
It was George Wallace and the Democrat Party in the South that said "Segregation Forever".
It was Orval Faubus and the Democrat Party that wanted the Arkansas National Guard to enforce segregation, and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, that sent the 101st Airborne to integrate the schools.
[b] It was Bull Connor, a member of the Democrat National Committee, who turned the hoses on the marchers in Birmingham, and it was the Republicans who made up the majority that passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, over the filibuster of such Democrat paragons as William Fulbright and Al Gore Sr. - and Grand Kleagle Byrd.
(And no, the Dixiecrats didn't join the Republican Party - most of them remained Democrats.)
It was the Democrats who kept Grand Kleagle Byrd in the party.
It was Democrats who called General Colin Powell a "house [censored]".
It was Democrats who called Condi Rice - who grew up with and knew the little girls in Birmingham who were blown up, by Democrats - an "Aunt Jemima" and ran cartoons of her with fat lips doing Hattie McDaniel riffs.
It was Democrats, or at least Obama supporters, who called Stacy Dash a hundred different racist names for daring to leave the Democrat plantaion. (sic) It's the Democrats who hold annual dinners honoring Andrew Jackson, who owned slaves and who orchestrated the Removal, the Trail of Tears, the near genocide of several of the Indian Nations.[/b]
Add your own examples; there are many. To get you started: the Democratic racism of low expectations known as affirmative action along with its diversity and pluralism relatives encompassing only certain so called minorities, contempt for those clinging to their guns and/or religion, suburban dwellers, NASCAR aficionados.
Quote: "It was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, who founded the Ku Klux Klan"
And it was a Republican President Abraham Lincoln who freed the slaves but that doesn't matter to many of the Blacks today. Their apparent goal is to get right back into slavery by voting (96%) for the party and guy whose plan is to institute Socialism( which is a form of slavery) across the board. "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs" the underlying basis for Socialism a failed form of government where ever it's been attempted. Jim
The country of Liberia in Africa was set up by ex-slaves from America. While not government sponsored, I think it gets real complicated here, most of the initial inhabitants were slaves from America. I believe it was Lincoln's intention to send more or all of them back over there after the war.
Some of the inhabitants were former slaves-the area of the pepper coast, later, the grain coast, and, later yet, Liberia, was inhabited for centuries prior to the country of Liberia being founded. The newer, former slave residents were mostly lighter skinned, better educated, English speaking, and not interested in a tribal-nomadic hunter-gather existance. There was plenty of friction to the newcomers, some of which continues to this day.
The newer, former slave residents were mostly lighter skinned, better educated, English speaking, and not interested in a tribal-nomadic hunter-gather existance. There was plenty of friction to the newcomers, some of which continues to this day.
Best, Ted
Can they use a tax payer educated, English speaking, lighter skinned, community organizing, not interested in hunter-gathering (except money) former President who likes to travel by any chance........?..........
The newer, former slave residents were mostly lighter skinned, better educated, English speaking, and not interested in a tribal-nomadic hunter-gather existance. There was plenty of friction to the newcomers, some of which continues to this day.
Best, Ted
Can they use a tax payer educated, English speaking, lighter skinned, community organizing, not interested in hunter-gathering (except money) former President who likes to travel by any chance........?..........
this post is much to intense. relax guys...I know it is frustrating. but, all we can do now is to bide our time and vote for conservative candidates in the 2014 congressional elections...and then, thank goodness we have presidential elections every four years.
and guys: shame on you for your insensitive racial posts. I thought you were better men than that.
Are you talking about the one where nca225 intentionally tried to portray our collective disgust with a socialist gun-grabbing liar named Barack Obama as racism? I'd have to agree that was pretty damn insensitive.
I still say the meat smells like a plugged sewer so the whales are safe from me.
I suspect he'd have to be started with folding a napkin and might eventually be able to comprehend bigger foldable items as time goes on! 
