|
: Open your eyes. The ACLU reference was made to illustrate the fact that there are groups out there(the ACLU for example) willing to defend rights that some or most people disagree with. They support NAMBLA for instance. Your almighty defender of the Constitution is supporting a group that promotes child rape. And you're trying to vilify the NRA? Give me a break. Unless you can provide evidence otherwise, the leaders of the NRA have called for nothing more than civil disobedience. Hardly the loonies you make them out to be. That is exactly the reason I support the ACLU. I truly believe that even an odious organization such as the Klan has the right to exist and hold demonstrations. It would be most undemocratic if one were to try to regulate people's beliefs, no matter how repugnant they may seem. However, the moment the legal boundary is breached, the law should step in. : "jack-booted government thugs" is definitely an overstatement but hardly a complete falsehood. I'll leave you with Ruby Ridge and Waco, TX as examples of less than stellar behavior on the part of federal employees paid to protect the citizens of the United States. As far as GW goes, he's just another reactionary public official trying to cover his ass. The fact that he resigned his membership is a point lost on me. Ruby Ridge and Waco are two different scenarios. The Ruby Ridge fiasco was the result of overzealous actions on the part ATF agents and an informer. However, Randy Weaver could have showed up for his trial and avoided the showdown with the ATF. I will agree that the Waco episode was completely mishandled. However, there were significant reasons for the apprehension of David Koresh. He had stocked up a huge illegal stash of weapons and was sexually exploiting the little girls who live on his compound. Whatever wacky beliefs the Branch Davidians had was immaterial to the case. Koresh broke the law, and many of them were serious ones. One can't judge the majority of law enforcement agents by the actions of a few wayward ones. I'm not fan of cops either, but that doesn't mean I would like to challenge them by breaking the law. You mentioned civil disobedience. What good reason does the NRA have to urge its members to defy the law? Ruby Ridge and Waco? So, what then, is the purpose of having cops around? By the way, if you read carefully, I said the person who turned in his NRA membership was Bush Sr, not Dubya. : The stats don't lie. Look at the numbers to see what demographic most violent gun crimes are committed by. Pointing out the obvious is hardly racist, but the truth does hurt sometimes. I'm sure a bleeding heart liberal such as yourself will find my comments blatently racist but I assure you I'm not. I'm sure MLKjr would agree that determinig why minorities commit more crimes is a better long term solution than banning guns. Stating a statistical fact is indeed not inherently racist at all. However, the insinuation of "ethnic diversity" being the root cause of gun crime is as racist as saying that Caucasians have a propensity to be serial killers because most serial killers tend to be white. There is a big difference between stating a fact and making a stereotypical judgement. I do agree that the banning of guns will not solve the problem. But, I have never advocated the banning of guns to begin with. I only said there should be restrictions as to the kind of weapons civilians can own. : The right to bear arms does indeed include ownership of "mean looking black guns". Whether you like it or not. Who cares what the reason for owning the gun is, if it's in the hands of a responsible gun owner? You may not understand the reasons or have any use for such a weapon but that in itself is not reason enough to outlaw them. Very few crimes are even committed with these types of guns. The .223 used by the snipers in the D.C. area isn't exactly a powerful weapon of mass destruction. There is no logical reason for a ban which is why the NRA is fighting to repeal it. With 200 million guns in the hands of Americans you can hardly consider the NRA a front for extremist right wingers. Guns are a part of America's history and current everyday life. "Mean-looking black guns"? Haha, you probably think I've never even touched a firearm before. Once upon a time, I did wear fatigues and had a standard-issue M16. I was also trained to use a 40mm M203, 5.56mm SAW, 7.62mm FN Mag 58 GPMG, .50 cal Browning M2HB, LAW, and a few others. Do I believe any of these weapons have a place in the civilian realm? No. As I have mentioned, these weapons are meant to inflict the maximum possible damage in the shortest possible time. Are you saying that pistols and shotguns aren't sufficient for home protection? How does one hunt with an Ingram Mac-10? Squeeze off a clip in the general direction of the target? You are right that I do not understand or have any use for such weapons. So, should civilians be allowed to possess and make their own bombs? I personally don't have a need for them, but I suppose others might have a legitimate use for them. Hey, if this is the case, why don't people stock up on every possible weapon they can afford and start their own private armies? Where do you draw the line? : I don't despise people who listen to rap music, but it was a nice BS try to polarize a non-issue. Go ahead and play your race card if you want but its a lame tactic. Maybe you should listen to rap music so you could better form an argument on the matter. Its subject matter speaks for itself so I'll let it stand on its own. The NRA doesn't need to insinuate that most viloent gun crimes is commited by blacks because it's a FACT! So I repeat, stating a fact is not racist. Like you extreme left counterparts in the US government, you want to strip every American of personal responsibilty and replace it with another useless, ineffective law. If you think keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens will eliminate gun crimes then you have your head up your ass. The root cause of the problem is the person holding the gun. Figure out what makes that person violent and treat them for it and the problem is solved and my right to own a grenade launcher remains intact. I know the difference between right and wrong so there's no danger of me using it on a bunch of schoolkids. I'm not playing the race card at all. I've read a previous post of yours where you automatically assumed some black rapper was a hoodlum without knowing much about him. Please explain how that isn't stereotyping. I'll repeat that I've NEVER advocated a blanket ban on all weapons. I merely called for sensible restrictions. It would be totally irresponsible if there were to be no boundaries. You stated that "the root cause of the problem is the person holding the gun." The crooks will always get their hands on the weapons of their choice. So, legislation only makes it a tad more difficult for them to acquire their weapons. However, if an otherwise sane man were to go berserk, would you rather he had a pistol or a grenade launcher? That is the crux of the matter! You've never heard of ordinary law-abiding citizens committing weapons-related offences? I absolutely believe in people taking responsibility for their own actions. Legislation is not supposed to strip people of their personal responsibilities. It exists to set limits. Otherwise, why are there laws in the first place? : Have fun at your next ACLU meeting. Tell the child rapists I said hello and if they ever come near any child that's close to me or my family I have a a great big ol' high powered rifle with their name on it. Have a nice day. Your depiction of the ACLU as defenders of child rapists is laughable. People are entitled to have their own views. As long as they don't cross any legal limit, they should not be harassed by anyone. By the way, I'm not a member of the ACLU. However, I do know what they stand for and the important role they play in the defence of the constitutional rights of the people, regardless of ideological beliefs or political persuasion. Go ahead, slam the ACLU all you want. You just don't realize how much they've done for you.
|
