[Littlefield]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

Jim said:


Don't evade the original question. What is the point of "ordinary (and many less than ordinary) owning semi-autos? Answer the question.

I hunt doves with a semi auto shotgun Remington 1100

[johnnyburst79]

Originally Posted by bomb #21

Are you moving to the Czech Republic or is that off now?

No, it is not off.

Originally Posted by trekguy

Angers you? Do you think he, himself, can make that happen?

He can start the process.

Originally Posted by trekguy

Last Saturday afternoon, I purchased a Rossi .223 with a 3x-9x scope. It's a break-open single shot. My son was lobbying hard for the semi-automatic .22. He's 13, and the thought of him being able to fire off 15 rounds as quick as he could pull the trigger was a little un-nerving to me. Of course, he said he would NEVER do that... but I know better. I did it with my Nylon 66 when I was that age. If you're target shooting, or even hunting, there is really no need for semi-auto firing. So, I can see where Obama is coming from on the semi-auto issue... even if I may not completely agree with him. It's a moot point anyway... Obama's opinion on the issue is not going to change anything... but he does have a right to have an opinion, just like we all do. I respect the fact that he's willing to lay it out there, even if it's not popular.

If you teach your son marksmanship, what is the problem?

Originally Posted by trekguy

I have to say that I am surprised by that comment. Because of one opinion, on one issue...???...

He wants to make me a criminal for owning a firearm. Of course he has a HUGE fight if he wants to do that, but nonetheless, still wants to.

Originally Posted by pyritechips

That is so ludicrous! The legitimization of something is justified because it is sells well? Tell me something; what is the purpose for the ordinary citizen owning and using semi-automatic weapons? Just because your antiquated constitution says they can? You feel encouraged to run away from your country because S-A weapons should be available to all and sundry? That is an alien concept from where I sit.

It can be an alien concept to you, that's okay The purpose? To protect myself, to partake in markmanship and firearms training.

I've already decided to move away prior to this remark

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by johnnyburst79

No, it is not off.



He can start the process.



If you teach your son marksmanship, what is the problem?



He wants to make me a criminal for owning a firearm. Of course he has a HUGE fight if he wants to do that, but nonetheless, still wants to.



It can be an alien concept to you, that's okay The purpose? To protect myself, to partake in markmanship and firearms training.

I've already decided to move away prior to this remark

An FYI in case anyone thinks bush is totally for guns!

...
Gun Control
While Bush supports some restrictions, in general he supports the basic right to gun ownership. Below are his stance on a few specific gun control issues.

"I’m in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them like felons & juveniles. I’m for enforcing the laws on the books.... We need to send a signal to people, don’t be illegally selling guns and don’t be illegally using guns. The best accountability for somebody who breaks the law with a gun is called jail, certain jail."
George W. Bush, Des Moines IA GOP Debate, Decemember 13, 1999 Guns for hunting and personal protection: YES
Raise legal age for gun ownership to 21: YES
Mandatory child-safety locks on guns: NO
Right to carry concealed weapon: YES
Ban certain types of ammunition: YES
Sue gun manufacturers for gun violence: NO
Ban on assault weapons: YES
Background checks (for purchasing firearms): YES
Waiting periods (as in the Brady Act): NO

...http://austin.about.com/cs/georgewbush/l/aa0112100d.htm

PS IMO the right wing is growing more supportive of gun control as the number of "Have Nots" grows! They're afraid!

[Farmgirl22]

Originally Posted by bassetman

You made the claim, you show the proof that I said Bush could do away with an amendment!

Ya know, I have to correct you yet again. I NEVER said that you claimed Bush could do away with amendments....in fact, here's my quote again:

Originally Posted by Farmgirl22

I find it funny that you say that, when you claim that GW did all sorts of damage while the Congress was forced to sit on their thumbs.

You are one of the "Bush bashing groupies" who conveniently forgets that Congress plays a major role in the decision making whenever you guys go on one of your rampages. You like to pretend that Congress was hired solely by Bush--instead of the reality of them being elected by us. It's not about necessarily just about changing amendments--it could be about going to war (which congress plays a part in) or whatever....it's just funny to me that when talking about Obama suddenly the Congress has a role, but when talking about Bush, they just sat on their thumbs while he did all the work. And you aren't the only one who forgets about Congress--you just happened to be the one that made the statement I responded to. *shrug*

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Farmgirl22

Ya know, I have to correct you yet again. I NEVER said that you claimed Bush could do away with amendments....in fact, here's my quote again:



You are one of the "Bush bashing groupies" who conveniently forgets that Congress plays a major role in the decision making whenever you guys go on one of your rampages. You like to pretend that Congress was hired solely by Bush--instead of the reality of them being elected by us. It's not about necessarily just about changing amendments--it could be about going to war (which congress plays a part in) or whatever....it's just funny to me that when talking about Obama suddenly the Congress has a role, but when talking about Bush, they just sat on their thumbs while he did all the work. And you aren't the only one who forgets about Congress--you just happened to be the one that made the statement I responded to. *shrug*

Which part did I contradict, that Bush did damage, or that Obama can't change the constitution by himself?

Originally Posted by bassetman
Thanks for sharing your secret inside information. However even if he did want to do that it would also take the House, the Senate and the majority of the states to approve it!

Originally Posted by Farmgirl

I find it funny that you say that, when you claim that GW did all sorts of damage while the Congress was forced to sit on their thumbs.

NOTE: I am NOT trying to make this thread about GW, and DON'T care to hear any other blathering about him...I was merely pointing out to Basset that he was contradicting himself. Thank you.

PS The GOP congress was not forced to sit on their thumbs, they CHOSE to do so!

[Sarge]

Does every stinkin thread that is started here at TSG has to, in some way, shape or form turn into a Bush thread? Give it a break already.

[trekguy]

Originally Posted by Sarge

Does every stinkin thread that is started here at TSG has to, in some way, shape or form turn into a Bush thread? Give it a break already.

Agreed. And, as most subjects come up... so do the knee-jerk, over-reactionary responses. In this case, Obama has an opinion about a certain form of gun...NOT ALL guns... just some types. But of course, people will project that out to the usual, ridiculous end result that he somehow wants to ban private ownership of guns.

I'll copy this one more time, and make it a bit bigger, as to assist some of those who are having difficulty comprehending...

Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment
creates an individual right,
and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.


and...

He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and
commonsense regulation.

[johnnyburst79]

Originally Posted by trekguy

Agreed. And, as most subjects come up... so do the knee-jerk, over-reactionary responses. In this case, Obama has an opinion about a certain form of gun...NOT ALL guns... just some types.

He wants to ban the most common type, the semi-automatic. Be it rifle, pistol, or shotgun, the citizens will only be allowed to own revolvers, bolt action rifles, and pump shotguns. I know what you are thinking, "so what? That's okay, there are plenty of forms of those types of firearms".

Since 1885, there have been semi-automatics, first starting with a shotgun. As its superiority over manually actioned firearms is clearly obvious, most firearms manufacturers proceeded to develop and perfect the semi-automatic. Everything from the latest 20 gauge magazine fed shotgun to the most revered firearm which helped win WWII, the M1 Garand, would be made illegal. That is a HUGE amount of firearms and would make almost every firearms owner in America a criminal. It is no small deal.

[Knotbored]

Cars kill more folks then guns-so maybe we should ban automatic transmissions on cars?

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by trekguy

Agreed. And, as most subjects come up... so do the knee-jerk, over-reactionary responses. In this case, Obama has an opinion about a certain form of gun...NOT ALL guns... just some types. But of course, people will project that out to the usual, ridiculous end result that he somehow wants to ban private ownership of guns.

I'll copy this one more time, and make it a bit bigger, as to assist some of those who are having difficulty comprehending...

Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment
creates an individual right,
and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.


and...

He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and
commonsense regulation.

View Obama's gun votes here

The facts stand in stark contradiction to what you posted above, Trekster.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Knotbored

Cars kill more folks then guns-so maybe we should ban automatic transmissions on cars?

People choke to death on ham, so I guess we need to shut down the pork industry too.

[Wino]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

People choke to death on ham, so I guess we need to shut down the pork industry too.

Your Muslim brothers will love you for that. BTW, how's the crescent Flt. 93 monument coming along these days??

[bill.aam]

While you do not come right out and say "Bush could do away with an amendment" you certainly imply that he can do what he wants, which I guess could mean he could even do away with an amendment.

All this really shows is your deep affliction with BDS....

Originally Posted by bassetman

You made the claim, you show the proof that I said Bush could do away with an amendment!

Originally Posted by bassetman

Happy BD Laura! Wingers seem think a president can do whatever he wants, sans congress (well I guess Bush has), but they can't!

[Farmgirl22]

Originally Posted by Sarge

Does every stinkin thread that is started here at TSG has to, in some way, shape or form turn into a Bush thread? Give it a break already.

Sorry Sarge....

[Farmgirl22]

Originally Posted by Knotbored

Cars kill more folks then guns-so maybe we should ban automatic transmissions on cars?

LOL! I agree though....I like my stick just fine. However, not everyone can drive it.