Sept. 18, 2014 |
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
I don't think "his color" has as much to do with it as his statements where he has come out directly and said we need to take any weapon off the street that holds more than 10 bullets. His anti-gun commentary hasn't exactly been subtle; did you watch the state of the union? I find it shameful that everytime you disagree with the president, someone wants to call you a racist. I thought George Bush was a moron and yet no one accused me of hating white people. I find Sam Brownback to be a complete blowhard- yet no one claims I hate Christians. Stop playing the race card with criticism directed at Obama.
No, when you disagreed with George Bush, you were called a traitor.
Bet Chaney wrote that!
During a conversation with several former coworkers and NRA members last week, the statement that drew the most praise during the "gun laws" part of it was, "That (trigger) can't last forever, somebody will get him." When (even at my age) it was realized by the group I was totally prepared to engage in a fist fight over the statement the subject changed. It was far from the first time I have heard these type of comments made. Just what am I supposed to think?
he doesn't want to take the guns, he wants to stop the clips from being sold, big difference
Letter sounds just like a post by Tusch.
Ignoring the obvious is the card you have to play and it's a poor card at that.
I will be at the gun show near KCI hearing all of the racism you deny exists.
All the angry middle age closeted haters will come out. Try and spin that.
Did you write this letter?
Pretty original play of the race card in the article - otherwise not really worth the read
June 21, 1992, a delivery driver returns to 1243 Western Avenue in Topeka, Kansas
to give a customer a box of fried rice that wasn't added to the order. As the driver
leaves his vehicle two youths fire a pistol in the air to get the driver's attention.
The driver who has a cast on his favored hand gets back in the truck and starts
to put the key in the ignition. One kid has a Raven 25. Cal concealed under his
sleeve to where only the driver sees it. The money bag is under the seat.
The driver has no bag visible and tells the shooter he has no money only food.
The shooter soon walks away. The driver leaves and later calls the cops.
The driver buys mace instead of a gun and works at the job another four years.
The driver decided to live another day and pay his rent and keep being
vigilant on the job and three years go by before another robbery attempt
occurs even as this driver goes to Colonial Park, Ripley Park, Central Park,
and Pine Ridge housing areas in Topeka during the early 1990's
when Topeka's murder rate per capita was higher than NYC.
Who was the driver? me. Guns don't help you survive alone...
vigilence and street smarts do.
Staying away from an open sewer like Topeka helps too
Or I brought mace to a gunfight and lived to post about it
let me make the clarification here. the original second amendment dealt with
flintlock rifles like ones I've helped collect in the past. if you're going to be
a literal interpreter of the US Constitution like say Antonin Scalia the
Second Amendment would deal with Flintlock rifles that were around
in 1787. Percussion rifles didn't appear for another 30 years. The Second
Amendment has nothing to do with Billy Bob doomsday prepper and his
AR-15 or other assault weapons. Only fear mongerers buy this arguement.
Meaningless point. The 2nd amendment guaranteed the people the right to bear the most advanced technology of its day. If your point were true, the the first amendment would only apply to verbal and written speech. They never dreamed that one day Al Gore would invent the Internet but it too is covered by the 1st amendment.
Unfortunately, technology has outgrown morality and common sense.
The other side also had your beloved flintlocks then too, not AR 15s. It meant whatever it took to prevent the Constitution from being destroyed. I am not into tacti-cool either & think a lot of them are morons too, but who said it was against the law to be tacti-cool? Also, are you deader when shot with a flintlock than an AR15? What would a nut case like Adam Lanza do to a room full of children with a machatte? (sp) Flamesuit on.
The first amendment dealt with printing presses. Does that mean it doesn't protect what you say on the internet?
If we are to look at original interpretations of the Constitution, perhaps all women and minorities would be happy giving back their rights.
"People fear confiscation of guns, but this country is simply too armed to be completely unarmed by the government. "
So people shouldn't be concerned about a partial confiscation? The government may not ban every gun in existence, but if the ban includes every gun you own then for you it is a complete confiscation for the owner.
And the fear of confiscation is real. The Feinstein bill if it were to pass would ban and require forfeiture of some guns to the government. A bill in the MO legislature bans certain guns including hunting guns and requires their destruction or forfeiture to the government so yea, the fear is justified.
Playing the race card is an old and tired tactic that has lost any effect.
Got a link to verify this?
There is no debate on whether he said it or not - the debate involves what he meant when he said it.
Of course - and plenty more. The numbers I've crunched would indicate about a TEN, 10, Years supply and the ammunition includes "hollow point" shells! You should read more than the Lamestream Media News.
Are you still trying to sell that tired old lie?
Did you read yesterdays paper (the journal world)? An article verified the Government has putchased Billions of ammunition recently. So, it's not a lie.
Yes, but they are buying in bulk to save money wink wink.
Actually, that news is old news. It is also something the government has done for various agencies whose employees are armed for decades now.
If you wish to cower in your bunker wetting your pants over this, feel free to do so. I'd prefer you'd actually learn the facts rather than listen to fearmongers such as rockchalk1977.
The link I provided also explains the why.
rockchalk1977 just simply subscribes to the Bill O'Reilly school of "I'm not making any accusations. I'm just asking questions".
Read the last line? "We rate the email Mostly False." Note word "mostly." And there are others confirming the purchases.......
There is no argument about the purchases. It is all the conspiracy theories behind the purchases. You obviously subscribe to them.
Did you also notice that it is old news ? You are about 1-2 years behind on paranoia. Actually, more than that since Homeland Security has been ordering ammo since it was created
fred, I agree with your posts! I read the same thing about the order for the ammo too. Notice how you can't buy any anymore? Not even .22? My main hobby is target shooting at an indoor range. I am getting to where I need ammo and their isn't any. Great, just Great.
The 2nd amendment's exisitance is to deal with the potential of a government to oppress the citizenry. our country is only 237 years old, give or take. We are infants, and a bit naive to feel it "can't happen here". Hitler, Stalin, Mbarek, Ghadaffi, Assad, The Shah, etc all banned guns. Ironic, as the US military is engaged in 50+ countries in the world, that we have had to, and continue to, try to drop weapons to populations trying to rebel and defend themselves against their governments. No one agree's with the killing of small children or that hunters need assault rifles to kill a deer. All smokescreens, in my opinion. But the US hasn't been invaded and our citizenry being armed will always have something to do with that. Notice our "Gun safety" regime has sent 20 f-16's and Abrams tanks to the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt. Guns to Mexico, etc. Ask why we're always sending troops qnd guns to foreign lands?. WE are their guns. It's a fundimental belief that, in essence, defends us from the government taking the other rights of Freedom of religion, free speech, etc. Background checks? Fine. Register what we have, where we keep it, allow fines for failure to tell the government? Would that arguement make sense in these other countries? No. Those people, in retrospect, will have been idiots to do so. As is anyone that thinks "it can't happen here". The reason it can't happen is we have the guns now. Let these things happen, and it makes it more likely that it can happen here.
You need to read the second amendment again. There is no mention of protecting yourself from the government. The word "A well-regulated militia being necessary" refers to the fact the there was no standing army at the time. If the government needed an army to defend against invasion, it could call up citizens and they would need to bring their flintlocks with them. They would not be supplied by the government. I don't believe that is the situation any longer. The government has a military and the national guard is the well-regulated militia. Both have been supplied with all kinds of weapons to protect our country from invasion. And I'm pretty sure they have enough to take you down too. The countries you mention were all dictatorships with one-man or party rule. You really should pay more attention to what is happening in Topeka where they are taking away your rights every day and most Kansans won't even notice until they are gone. No one is taking your guns - the fact that living in a house with guns is more dangerous than living in one without ought to tell you something. But hey, if you feel safer with a gun, go right ahead and spend your hard-earned money on them. I will ocntinue to spend my money on things I can enjoy with my children, grandchildren, and friends.
NRA members, consider this. Most of you paid your one time fee for your lifetime membership. That's small money to the NRA. Every year gun manufacturers and dealers pay them BIG money for their lobbying efforts. So who do they really represent? Gun owners or the people who make money from gun sales? Why do they want to keep you scared and buying more guns and ammo?
Cappy - back it up with a source.
Please, try to keep up.
The link in the article that it uses to support its contention doesn't show the donors list like they say it does.
Donations don't mean the same as paying them to lobby on their behalf but I will concede it amounts to basically the same thing.
But even so, as a NRA member, I don't care. Works for me.
the correct title of this should be: propaganda sells guns. ignorance buys them. NRA makes millions.
From Friday, Feb 15th Lawrence Journal World: Government buying Ammo,
Department of homeland security wants to purchased 750 million Rounds of ammunition over the next 5 years, plus they want to buy an additional 1.6 Billion rounds of ammo over the next 4 or 5 years. They use as many as 15 millon each year in training.
Do the math: 15 million per year use from a supply of 1.6 billion bullets = 100 year supply of ammunition. What is this ammo for?
You really exemplify the headline. Do you understand that this news is old news?
"Dixon said one of the contracts would allow Homeland Security to buy up to 750 million rounds of ammunition over the next five years for its training facilities. The rounds are used for basic and advanced law enforcement training for federal law enforcement agencies under the department’s umbrella. The facilities also offer firearms training to tens of thousands of federal law enforcement officers. More than 90 federal agencies and 70,000 agents and officers used the department’s training center last year.
The rest of the 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition would be purchased by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal government’s second largest criminal investigative agency."
I don't think you or other conspiracy minded folks paid attention to the reorganization of law enforcement agencies that happened when the Department of Homeland Security was created.
Even the Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), known as the man who described President Obama and his wife as "uppity" in an interview, is not concerned with the ammo purchases.
"DHS contracted with a manufacturer for 40 caliber ammunition not to exceed 450 million rounds. Like with most of their contracts, prior to negotiating DHS headquarters in Washington reaches out to all the agencies under their umbrella, including state and local police forces, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), etc, and asks them all how much of a certain item they need. Once they have an account of the full amount of an item needed and have reviewed those requests, they put out a request for an “Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity” (IDIQ) contract. This contract allows them to purchase up to a certain number of needed items without requiring them to purchase a specific item and allows them to purchase this item over a certain number of years. This is a common form of contract used by DHS for many of their needed supplies, including working dogs, computer equipment, vehicles, etc."
Be sure to note the date on the article.
I went to the KC Expo Gun Show in NKC today. AK's, FN-FAL's, Mini-14's.
a couple of Browning Dewat Machine guns, and a number of 50. Cal
armor piercing rifles and 9/11 conspiracy theorist booths and Anti Obama
shirts abounded. I saw a couple of WW I weapons.... a Ross, a 71/84 Mauser,
and a couple of Eddystone 1917 30-06's. Nothing like the old days
when we collected WW I guns at shows like this. Sad to see the crazies
and their quasi military weapons have taken over. I saw a couple of Native
guys, about Ten African Americans, and about the same Latino crowd amongst thousands
of people as I walked through the whole show isle by isle.
I wonder why we don't welcome at these shows. I wonder if these
demographics gel with the whole fear sells thing.
It isn't "fear selling guns." It's a simple knowledge of history and current state of affairs.
During his first term, the Obama apologists delighted in saying "See, He doesn't really want your guns. So what are you afraid of?" It is now crystal clear that he DID want your guns, he just wanted a second term more. Some of the wildest-eyed conspiracy theorists are even suggesting that the Sandy Hook shooting coming as soon after the election as it did was no coincidence. I don't believe that. I think he just took Rahm Emanuel's advice never to let a good crisis go to waste.
Regardless of who you think is to blame for all our troubles, keep in mind that gun control legislation is notorious for producing only unintended results.
I've been a gun owner and hunter in this state for well over 40 years. I've shot trap and sporting clays in competition for over 20. I own shotguns, rifles, and handguns. Every gun I presently own, I bought after completing a background check. It's easy, and consumes very little time. In the past, I've sold dozens of guns privately, without background checks. I'd be hard pressed to tell you where 10% of those guns are now. Knowing that, and knowing that the preponderance of firearms confiscated in Chicago since 2008 were originally purchased in other states bothers me. Gun ownership is a right, granted. But with rights comes responsibility. I find it interesting that the very people that are screaming from the rafters about the need of strict ID laws to protect the integrity of the vote totally dismiss the notion of universal background checks to help protect the integrity of firearms ownership.
At last a rational gun owner. I knew you were out there but it is hard to hear you over all the rantings. Thanks.
The Geddy Lee thing is cool and I totally agree with you. I've lived in Kansas since
1981. I got my first Stevens 20 gauge shotgun for Christmas in 1978 when I lived
in Moss Bluff, LA. People hun and fish as a necessity down there . I've helped
collect weapons for three decades for historical purposes. I helped locate
an 1889 Belgian FN Mauser carbine that fell before the Antique weapons
date of 1898 that didn't require a background check as an antique and it
took five years to locate one that was affordable. I'm an educated gun snob.
I have no use for crazies or chest thumpers on this issue. Gun owning
is a responsibility not a birth rite. If guns were kept out of the hands of
crazies or doomsday people would Mr. Obama had to have acted? no.
There is no need to act if people are responsible. Some people ruin it
for others and it's not the President's fault. Sane Republicans backed
gun control in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Too bad sane doesn't
gel with the GOP now. Fear does.
Why does the fear and gun stockpiling
occur? Maybe that NRA poster and the man’s color on the poster in Tulsa answered this question.
---race baiting. and the left wonders why race relations are actually worse since the election of Mr. Obama.
here's an example of an answer.
thanks Mr. Ford. thanks a lot.
now why would gun owners, relying on the second amendment, have reason to worry so strongly about gun confiscation, abridgement of their second amendment rights?
we have a president who thinks it is constitutional to have a "kill deck" that includes american citizens whom he can choose to have bumped off by drone, thus shredding the due process potections guaranteed under the fourth amendment. he has rdered american citizens killed from this, without* legal process in court.
we have a president who has shredded the freedom to exercise one's faith under the first amendment. in his first weeks in office, his "justice department" sued to try to force religious* organizations (including church organizations) to hire people not of their faiths, for faith-related activities; through sleezy vote buying obamacare was shoved through the congress-just barely-that forces americans to pay for policies that cover abortions against their consciences, force employers to provide services/products against their consciences, all violating deeply held belefs about life.
*we have a president that further byway of Obamacare violated the tenth amendment, but the supreme Court stopped that while failing to stop the rest of he unconstituional mess. [Roberts inappropriately reformed Obamacare as a tax scheme in order to approve it, not his job as chief Justic.]
we do have a president who clearly has the attitude of not letting a good crisis go to waste. outlawing large clips doesn't really fix the problem, neither does outlawing so-called assault rifles (a meaningless pejoritive term). when we see a president engage in these useless games instead of, for example, pursuing real change to get violently dangerous mentally ill persons off the street, we have to wonder.
ignore your culpability and blame those who raise ignored issues
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·