Rand is supporting gun control, I'm done supporting him

The only people who think the government is "tyrannical" are the anarchists

who live in fantasy land

who think that being required to pay 30-50% of your income in taxes is somehow "tyrannical".
 
I am very impressed by the principles of the forum posters.

It takes courage to call out a politician for going astray and not holding to the line that he would have taken. Wearing their fingers numb, day or night, rain or shine, typing these things out to clarify what they would have done. Who would take this toil of a few minutes of typing upon themselves, if not for the righteous crabs in the barrel?

First he did that thing 4 years ago, and now this. That's two things! I would shoot my own mother if she did two things wrong in 4 years. Good on all of you.

Very impressed.
 
Mad Raven said:
I am very impressed by the principles of the forum posters.

It takes courage to call out a politician for going astray and not holding to the line that he would have taken. Wearing their fingers numb, day or night, rain or shine, typing these things out to clarify what they would have done. Who would take this toil of a few minutes of typing upon themselves, if not for the righteous crabs in the barrel?

First he did that thing 4 years ago, and now this. That's two things! I would shoot my own mother if she did two things wrong in 4 years. Good on all of you.

Very impressed.
Click to expand...

He voted for gun control.

Deal breaker.

Trump supports gun control.

Deal breaker.

It is what it is.
 
Mad Raven said:
I am very impressed by the principles of the forum posters.

It takes courage to call out a politician for going astray and not holding to the line that he would have taken. Wearing their fingers numb, day or night, rain or shine, typing these things out to clarify what they would have done. Who would take this toil of a few minutes of typing upon themselves, if not for the righteous crabs in the barrel?

First he did that thing 4 years ago, and now this. That's two things! I would shoot my own mother if she did two things wrong in 4 years. Good on all of you.

Very impressed.
Click to expand...

Oh yes. You seem like the type that would shut up and fall in line. Good Job Comrade! America could use more folks like you. Too many people causing a ruckus over such silly little things.
 
Mad Raven said:
First he did that thing 4 years ago, and now this. That's two things! I would shoot my own mother if she did two things wrong in 4 years. Good on all of you.

Very impressed.
Click to expand...

well you're Mad.. so what.

I have refrained from criticism while he was running,,

but he lost my support long before this..
This was expected.

He would vote to give drones to Police.. He always votes more Police.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rad
TheTexan said:
It's not that bad, cmon. I mean..

So what, that between federal/state/county/city governments between them all take ~40-50% of my paycheck (it goes to good causes)












So what, that I cant reliably invest my savings because the Fed is keeping rates at 0% (They are preventing a crash, ya know)












So what, that all the money I would have saved went to the bankers (they earn their money fairly, doing banker stuff, ya know)







So what, that I cant enjoy LSD in my own home (wouldnt want to anyway)











So what, that doctors wont prescribe medication they know I need, for fear of their license being revoked (its for my safety)







So what, that I cant start a business without consulting at least 3 lawyers first (the laws exist for good reasons)






So what, that I cant be secure in my person/belongings when I drive on the road (driving is a privilege and for it I am thankful)
So what, that I cant be secure in my home because my neighbor might be a drug dealer (we'll win that war on drugs eventually, give it time)
So what, that an Officer can shoot my dog for basically no reason (its ok though: Officer Safety is of Paramount Importance)






So what, that an Officer can shoot me for basically no reason (if it makes the Officer safer I'm cool with it)




So what, that I pay ~40-50% of my paycheck in taxes, and the only thing I actually get are the roads (except toll roads those are extra)
So what, that I pay ~$100 just so that I can file my tax return (taxes are just a reality of this world get used to it)












So what, that the government knows every website and every search query I have ever used (whats the harm in that?)

















and also last one

So what, that automatic weapons are illegal (what on god's green earth could I possibly need an automatic weapon for???!?!?!!)
Click to expand...

W920wi2GVMv96.gif
 
Krugminator2 said:
We don't live in tyranny. On a scale of 1-10, my satisfaction with living in America is a 9.9999. I can't imagine a better place in world history to live. I consider myself very fortunate everyday.

I would change some things like dealing with the long run fiscal issues but my complaints with US are very small on a day to day basis.
Click to expand...
Fortunate because you can only exercise some of your rights? Why settle?
 
Anti Federalist said:
That's where the disconnect is.

Any honest assessment of how we live, how much government is in our lives, how much it takes from us, how many of us it imprisons and kills and puts under surveillance, would conclude we live in a tyrannical state far, far worse than the one our forefathers violently rebelled against 240 years ago.

You, on the other hand, think everything is just peachy, and just want a couple of mild tweaks around the edges in order to make more money.

So it now comes as no surprise to me, that you have no idea what I'm complaining about.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what I said.
 
Anti Federalist said:
He voted for gun control.

Deal breaker.

Trump supports gun control.

Deal breaker.

It is what it is.
Click to expand...


This goes here.

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?

by L. Neil Smith
[email protected]

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.
Click to expand...

http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html
 
Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.
Click to expand...

Could not have said it better myself.

I do not trust the politician, pundit, pasha, potentate or pooh-bah, that does not trust me to be armed.
 
phill4paul said:
If I were to consider myself a single-issue voter this, above all else, would be my single issue.
Click to expand...

Likewise I am also a very strong support of gun rights.

It is my firm belief, that the right to hunt deer, and the right to target shoot shall not be infringed.

Within reasonable limits of course.
 
TheTexan said:
Likewise I am also a very strong support of gun rights.

It is my firm belief, that the right to hunt deer, and the right to target shoot shall not be infringed.

Within reasonable limits of course.
Click to expand...

Well, sure. The CONstitution is very clear on it's reasonable limits of what the People should be allowed.
 
Anti Federalist said:
Could not have said it better myself.

I do not trust the politician, pundit, pasha, potentate or pooh-bah, that does not trust me to be armed.
Click to expand...


Nor I.

Personally, I'm rather fond of this particular section of that article:


If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
Click to expand...

It usually gets a few people's undies in a bunch. In fact, given the state of things around here lately, I'm surprised it hasn't ruffled a few feathers already.
 
Guys he's just playing the game. How else do you think he will become president?
 
CCTelander said:
It usually gets a few people's undies in a bunch. In fact, given the state of things around here lately, I'm surprised it hasn't ruffled a few feathers already.
Click to expand...

But, but, the CONstitution was created so that we could place reasonable limits on the limited rights allowed by the B.O.R. to the People. And, as we all know, "shall not be infringed" had a different context in Colonial times.

/snark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top