Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Proposed Gun Control Legislation Does Not Violate Second Amendment - Say 52 US Law Profs


  • Please log in to reply
152 replies to this topic

#31 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,634 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 31 January 2013 - 02:38 PM

You know what...I could live with that. Absolutely. Ban these extraneous weapons with no other real purpose but allow handguns for self defense. This is a compromise that would work if people would understand what it's saying...all the gun nuts are seeing reading that is "they're still takin' our guns..." Moderation is the key and in my opinion moderation on gun control is the only possible solution.

Sigh...but I forget this is the United States of America...land of the corpulent, home of the Whopper...Moderation isn't in our vocabulary.



The point you're missing is that in the dozen or so threads that have come up since Newtown, those of us that you characterize as "anti-gun lunatics" have been calling for just this sort of compromise. No banning of handguns, no banning of hunting rifles. Just the limiting of the power and capacity of certain weapons, such as semi-automatics.

The other side of the argument (which Wetcoaster has been kind enough to post in the OP) are the ones opposed to compromise of any kind. Lapierre even goes so far as to call the fact that people want to debate gun legislation "tragic", which is ironic since the usual cast of gun-supporting characters on CDC like to refer to our arguments as "hyperbole".

Mr. Lapierre should learn the true meaning of the word tragic. Tragic is 20 families who have to carry on without their child, because clowns like Wayne Lapierre spew this kind of tripe and Millions of Americans buy it.

Edited by RUPERTKBD, 31 January 2013 - 02:39 PM.

  • 2
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#32 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 31 January 2013 - 02:40 PM

The point you're missing is that in the dozen or so threads that have come up since Newtown, those of us that you characterize as "anti-gun lunatics" have been calling for just this sort of compromise. No banning of handguns, no banning of huntimng rifles. Just the limiting of the power and capacity of certain weapons, such as semi-automatics.

The other side of the argument (which Wetcoaster has been kind enough to post in the OP) are the ones opposed to compromise of any kind. Lapierre even goes so far as to call the fact that people want to debate gun legislation "tragic". Which is ironic. since the usual cast of gun-supporting characters on CDC like to refer to our arguments as "hyperbole".

Mr. Lapierre should learn the true meaning of the word tragic. Tragic is 20 families who have to carry on without their child, because clowns like Wayne Lapierre spew this kind of tripe and Millions of Americans buy it.


"anti gun lunatic" and "pro gun lunatic" were not directed at anyone on CDC...more at the ones in the US that fit this description...the ones who will not even discuss middle ground. I will clarify next time.
  • 1
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#33 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,932 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 31 January 2013 - 02:46 PM

The point you're missing is that in the dozen or so threads that have come up since Newtown, those of us that you characterize as "anti-gun lunatics" have been calling for just this sort of compromise. No banning of handguns, no banning of huntimng rifles. Just the limiting of the power and capacity of certain weapons, such as semi-automatics.

The other side of the argument (which Wetcoaster has been kind enough to post in the OP) are the ones opposed to compromise of any kind. Lapierre even goes so far as to call the fact that people want to debate gun legislation "tragic". Which is ironic. since the usual cast of gun-supporting characters on CDC like to refer to our arguments as "hyperbole".

Mr. Lapierre should learn the true meaning of the word tragic. Tragic is 20 families who have to carry on without their child, because clowns like Wayne Lapierre spew this kind of tripe and Millions of Americans buy it.

Why your arguments (and others) related to the gun topic are often called hyperbole is because of just that, you use hyperbole.

And once again you fail to disappoint, blaming Wayne Lapierre's "spewing of this tripe" for Adam Lanza going on a shooting rampage.

So why again should people like this be taken seriously on Capitol Hill? Or in a court?

Edited by zaibatsu, 31 January 2013 - 02:47 PM.

  • 0

#34 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 31 January 2013 - 02:56 PM

z not to be a grammar nazi but wouldn't that be you don't fail to disappoint instead of you fail to disappoint...if he failed at disappointing you wouldn't be disappointed.
  • 1
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#35 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,225 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 31 January 2013 - 02:58 PM

52 recently employed professors maybe...Anyway, I believe the tens of millions of U.S. gun owners and Constitutionalists carry a lot more weight than some ivory tower dwelling political puppets.




Substitute guns for jobs
  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#36 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,033 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 31 January 2013 - 03:05 PM

Why your arguments (and others) related to the gun topic are often called hyperbole is because of just that, you use hyperbole.

And once again you fail to disappoint, blaming Wayne Lapierre's "spewing of this tripe" for Adam Lanza going on a shooting rampage.

So why again should people like this be taken seriously on Capitol Hill? Or in a court?


Says the guy calling people 'anti-gun nuts' and 'green nuts'.

Why should we take you seriously?
  • 0

#37 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 31 January 2013 - 03:37 PM

Ted Cruz .. consider the source .. master of stating the obvious ..

A bought and paid for spokesperson for the NRA and the gun manufacturers so what would one expect?
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#38 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 31 January 2013 - 03:54 PM

Why your arguments (and others) related to the gun topic are often called hyperbole is because of just that, you use hyperbole.

And once again you fail to disappoint, blaming Wayne Lapierre's "spewing of this tripe" for Adam Lanza going on a shooting rampage.

So why again should people like this be taken seriously on Capitol Hill? Or in a court?


Is it, or is it not. true that 20+ families are without their child or loved one due to gun violence in Newtown CT? How is it hyperbole if it is the truth? You are most fond of throwing the word 'hyperbole' around yet I doubt sometimes you even understand the meaning of the word?

The bottom line of gun violence is the people murdered and injured due to others having access to firearms that have no place being in the hands of the general public to begin with. As such, yes, I and others will use that bottom line, the stories of REAL PEOPLE affected by this issue, as examples of why fully automatic weapons should be restricted from the general public. It's not hyperbole, it's fact, the grassroots of what the REAL effect is on the every day person who lives in society.

But the condescending manner and tone in which you toss out the word 'hyperbole' whenever you don't like something that is written just shows you have nothing legitimate to counteract a post with. We all understand that quite clearly now as we have seen nothing but clear evidence of it since the threads on the tragic events in Newtown CT were posted.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 31 January 2013 - 03:59 PM.

  • 2

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#39 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,932 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:01 PM

z not to be a grammar nazi but wouldn't that be you don't fail to disappoint instead of you fail to disappoint...if he failed at disappointing you wouldn't be disappointed.

Probably written incorrectly, long work week affecting posting ability. ;)

Either way, hyperbole is evident. One does not need to blow something out of proportion and blame others for the actions of an individual, nor employ useless bans on gun types as that is ineffective, feel-good garbage. That is one of the key problems the gun control crowd has with their logic, and once again, why they won't get the support of Capitol Hill.

Edited by zaibatsu, 31 January 2013 - 04:04 PM.

  • 0

#40 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,843 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:02 PM

A bought and paid for spokesperson for the NRA and the gun manufacturers so what would one expect?


Ted is like Mitt .. a well oiled weather vane who seeks attention, and will change his position more times than Xavier Hollander at an EU Finance Ministers conference .. :P
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#41 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,634 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:36 PM

Why your arguments (and others) related to the gun topic are often called hyperbole is because of just that, you use hyperbole.

And once again you fail to disappoint, blaming Wayne Lapierre's "spewing of this tripe" for Adam Lanza going on a shooting rampage.

So why again should people like this be taken seriously on Capitol Hill? Or in a court?


It should be taken seriously, because people are quite literally dying.

I know you consider that statement to be "hyperbole" but the English dictionary and I disagree with you. The statistics to support my case are all over these gun threads.
  • 2
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#42 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,634 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:39 PM

"anti gun lunatic" and "pro gun lunatic" were not directed at anyone on CDC...more at the ones in the US that fit this description...the ones who will not even discuss middle ground. I will clarify next time.


Fair enough. Maybe you can provide some examples of "Anti-gun lunatics" for me.

I certainly haven't heard of a single person calling for an outright ban on all weapons. I've heard some of the por-gun crowd claiming that any further gun controls are the slippery slope that will eventually lead to it, but I've seen zero evidence to support that claim.
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#43 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:40 PM

Either way, hyperbole is evident. One does not need to blow something out of proportion and blame others for the actions of an individual, nor employ useless bans on gun types as that is ineffective, feel-good garbage. That is one of the key problems the gun control crowd has with their logic, and once again, why they won't get the support of Capitol Hill.


Oh, so sorry that reference to the 20+ families in Newtown is 'blowing things out of proportion' and offends/affects the sensibilities of your posts. And thank you for clarifying that trying to minimize fully automatic weapons in the hands that have no rational reason to possess them is just 'feel good garbage' . It explains so very much.

Or is 'blowing things out of proportion' as per your descriptor hyperbole?? It so difficult to tell when apparently the definition keeps changing according to one's personal whims.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 31 January 2013 - 07:02 PM.

  • 0

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#44 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,932 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:40 PM

It should be taken seriously, because people are quite literally dying.

I know you consider that statement to be "hyperbole" but the English dictionary and I disagree with you. The statistics to support my case are all over these gun threads.

So in your confusion you believe that those who support the second amendment are callous against people dying.

Of course, such outrage and overreactions are precisely the type of means that provided the PATRIOT Act and prior assault weapon ban to gain their ridiculous prominence in the first place.

Such hyperbole and excessive "feelings" on the matter certainly belong in personal opinions, but not in policy. You are asserting your clear overreaction to guns that does not withstand constitutional muster (and in such a contentious debate over a clear right the best idea is to leave it alone) should have a place in US policy. No, is the logical retort.

Edited by zaibatsu, 31 January 2013 - 04:44 PM.

  • 0

#45 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,033 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:41 PM

Probably written incorrectly, long work week affecting posting ability. ;)

Either way, hyperbole is evident. One does not need to blow something out of proportion and blame others for the actions of an individual, nor employ useless bans on gun types as that is ineffective, feel-good garbage. That is one of the key problems the gun control crowd has with their logic, and once again, why they won't get the support of Capitol Hill.


How can you say that with a straight face? lol
  • 1

#46 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,864 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:47 PM

Time to lighten up a little?

I just love the back and forth propaganda that each side keeps on coming up with - makes for great humour:


"A week after the Newtown, Connecticut shootings that left dozens dead, the National Rifle Association has blamed the media in general, and violent games specifically. In a press conference today, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre cast the blame for the massacre not on guns, but on the media, and on games."

http://www.gamesindu...-blame-on-games




Posted Image
  • 1

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#47 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,932 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:47 PM

How can you say that with a straight face? lol

You're typing this through an internet forum.. I don't need to further address such odd analogies.

Time to lighten up a little?

I just love the back and forth propaganda that each side keeps on coming up with - makes for great humour:


"A week after the Newtown, Connecticut shootings that left dozens dead, the National Rifle Association has blamed the media in general, and violent games specifically. In a press conference today, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre cast the blame for the massacre not on guns, but on the media, and on games."

http://www.gamesindu...-blame-on-games




Posted Image

Even though we know video games aren't the problem (NRA is dumb obviously), at least you're doing your part in "contributing propaganda". ;)

Edited by zaibatsu, 31 January 2013 - 04:49 PM.

  • 0

#48 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:48 PM

How can you say that with a straight face? lol


I wonder the same thing. But the fact is, your post content will be ignored or responded to with some flippant answer because the user has no response.....it's a form of trolling, really.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 31 January 2013 - 04:58 PM.

  • 1

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#49 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,033 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:53 PM

You're typing this through an internet forum.. I don't need to further address such odd analogies.


I don't think analogy means what you think it means.

Seriously though, come on, you must see your hypocrisy?
  • 0

#50 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:55 PM

Fair enough. Maybe you can provide some examples of "Anti-gun lunatics" for me.

I certainly haven't heard of a single person calling for an outright ban on all weapons. I've heard some of the por-gun crowd claiming that any further gun controls are the slippery slope that will eventually lead to it, but I've seen zero evidence to support that claim.


http://www.bradycampaign.org/

These people are pretty radically anti-gun. Well...they claim that they are only anti gun violence but some statements made by Sarah Brady lead me to deduce that she's got an agenda almost as fanatical as the NRA does pro-gun. Their website features a counter keeping track of people shot so far this year, and one that keeps track of people shot so far today. That seems pretty nutty to me.
  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#51 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,932 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:07 PM

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

These people are pretty radically anti-gun. Well...they claim that they are only anti gun violence but some statements made by Sarah Brady lead me to deduce that she's got an agenda almost as fanatical as the NRA does pro-gun. Their website features a counter keeping track of people shot so far this year, and one that keeps track of people shot so far today. That seems pretty nutty to me.

Ahh and they have been on the record as saying gun control is step one to their gun ban utopia.

Their standing in Washington with the Obama administration and Senate Democrats will undoubtedly get favourable legislation.

Thankfully the House is what stands in their way.

If Senate Democrats would stick to simple things, like required training, background checks, limitations on the mentally ill/recidivist gun violent criminals, there might be more agreement, but instead they're doing stupid crap like targeting their odd definition of an "assault weapon", and in some local jurisdictions largely Democrat politicians locally have outright tried banning specific types of guns including handguns.

Hence why they've helped create an environment where second amendment supporters won't budge. Not for that.

Edited by zaibatsu, 31 January 2013 - 05:08 PM.

  • 0

#52 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:20 PM

Ahh and they have been on the record as saying gun control is step one to their gun ban utopia.

Their standing in Washington with the Obama administration and Senate Democrats will undoubtedly get favourable legislation.

Thankfully the House is what stands in their way.

If Senate Democrats would stick to simple things, like required training, background checks, limitations on the mentally ill/recidivist gun violent criminals, there might be more agreement, but instead they're doing stupid crap like targeting their odd definition of an "assault weapon", and in some local jurisdictions largely Democrat politicians locally have outright tried banning specific types of guns including handguns.

Hence why they've helped create an environment where second amendment supporters won't budge. Not for that.


Now see...here is where you and I differ. I recognize that both parties are at fault for this entire gun control debacle...both share equal blame for this..not just the Republicans, and not just the Democrats. If it comes out of the mouths of one of those parties' members I am highly skeptical of it until there is evidence. I think that both parties, in House and Senate...are behaving like immature brats and they need to work out a compromise so the older members can go take their naps...everyone is so cranky nowadays up on the Hill...especially Boehner and especially Harry Reid. As I mentioned before...moderation is the only real logical solution...I wish it were an option.
  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#53 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,843 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:28 PM

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

These people are pretty radically anti-gun. Well...they claim that they are only anti gun violence but some statements made by Sarah Brady lead me to deduce that she's got an agenda almost as fanatical as the NRA does pro-gun. Their website features a counter keeping track of people shot so far this year, and one that keeps track of people shot so far today. That seems pretty nutty to me.


Does it coincide with the "Debt Clock" the neo-Cons like to put up behind them, tracking the cost of their "un-paid-for wars"? .. I think the two should be scynced together .. it would make for all sorts of comparisons .. Vegas could run games-of-chance off the inter-relationships .. oh, just imagine the fun!!! .. :towel:
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#54 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:32 PM

Does it coincide with the "Debt Clock" the neo-Cons like to put up behind them, tracking the cost of their "un-paid-for wars"? .. I think the two should be scynced together .. it would make for all sorts of comparisons .. Vegas could run games-of-chance off the inter-relationships .. oh, just imagine the fun!!! .. :towel:



Hahahaha thats a hell of an idea!!!
  • 1
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#55 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,932 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:35 PM

Now see...here is where you and I differ. I recognize that both parties are at fault for this entire gun control debacle...both share equal blame for this..not just the Republicans, and not just the Democrats. If it comes out of the mouths of one of those parties' members I am highly skeptical of it until there is evidence. I think that both parties, in House and Senate...are behaving like immature brats and they need to work out a compromise so the older members can go take their naps...everyone is so cranky nowadays up on the Hill...especially Boehner and especially Harry Reid. As I mentioned before...moderation is the only real logical solution...I wish it were an option.

There is an obvious compromise, but how does one compromise when Feinstein outright declares she's writing up an assault weapon ban legislation? There is no compromising with those who are determined to unjustifiably chip away at, or eliminate a very explicit right.

Republicans have their problems in other areas (particularly on the first amendment and fourth amendment) but as far as the gun debate is concerned, they clearly have a more vested interest in protecting it, so despite not supporting Republicans, hell, nor the NRA, at very least they are doing their part in preserving a right. Once the discussion veers off from the second amendment, you'll find me likely more to disagree with both of them, if not outright condemn their views. Despite the ACLU's clearly liberal policy, while I don't support them in any way, nor do I support Democrats, in all likelihood I would probably wind up siding with them (well, those for example who actually voted against retroactive immunity for AT&T, or voted against the PATRIOT Act) on first and fourth amendment issues.

There is a logical medium, which is why I voted for Gary Johnson. ;)

Edited by zaibatsu, 31 January 2013 - 05:36 PM.

  • 0

#56 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,843 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:38 PM

There is an obvious compromise, but how does one compromise when Feinstein outright declares she's writing up an assault weapon ban legislation? There is no compromising with those who are determined to unjustifiably chip away at, or eliminate a very explicit right.

Republicans have their problems in other areas (particularly on the first amendment and fourth amendment) but as far as the gun debate is concerned, they clearly have a more vested interest in protecting it, so despite not supporting Republicans, hell, nor the NRA, at very least they are doing their part in preserving a right. Once the discussion veers off from the second amendment, you'll find me likely more to disagree with both of them, if not outright condemn their views. Despite the ACLU's clearly liberal policy, while I don't support them in any way, nor do I support Democrats, in all likelihood I would probably wind up siding with them (well, those for example who actually voted against retroactive immunity for AT&T, or voted against the PATRIOT Act) on first and fourth amendment issues.

There is a logical medium, which is why I voted for Gary Johnson. ;)


Voted for Gary Johnson and takes "free Canadian Medicare"? .. how Libertarian of you ..
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#57 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:40 PM

There is an obvious compromise, but how does one compromise when Feinstein outright declares she's writing up an assault weapon ban legislation? There is no compromising with those who are determined to unjustifiably chip away at, or eliminate a very explicit right.

Republicans have their problems in other areas (particularly on the first amendment and fourth amendment) but as far as the gun debate is concerned, they clearly have a more vested interest in protecting it, so despite not supporting Republicans, hell, nor the NRA, at very least they are doing their part in preserving a right. Once the discussion veers off from the second amendment, you'll find me likely more to disagree with both of them, if not outright condemn their views. Despite the ACLU's clearly liberal policy, while I don't support them in any way, nor do I support Democrats, in all likelihood I would probably wind up siding with them (well, those for example who actually voted against retroactive immunity for AT&T, or voted against the PATRIOT Act) on first and fourth amendment issues.

There is a logical medium, which is why I voted for Gary Johnson. ;)


And as I'm a Green Party guy, I voted for Jill Stein. Logical mediums however have a difficult time being heard over the sounds of oral flatulence coming out of the blowholes of the Democrats and Republicans, unfortunately.
  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#58 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,932 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:45 PM

And as I'm a Green Party guy, I voted for Jill Stein. Logical mediums however have a difficult time being heard over the sounds of oral flatulence coming out of the blowholes of the Democrats and Republicans, unfortunately.

Indeed. :(
  • 0

#59 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,484 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:47 PM

And as I'm a Green Party guy, I voted for Jill Stein. Logical mediums however have a difficult time being heard over the sounds of oral flatulence coming out of the blowholes of the Democrats and Republicans, unfortunately.

I vote with muh guns!!! Just like muh hero! Yeehaw


Posted Image

Edited by Aladeen, 31 January 2013 - 05:48 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image

#60 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:48 PM

I vote with muh guns!!! Just like muh hero! Yeehaw





Hahaha I literally laughed out loud. Yosemite Sam should be the NRA's mascot...hahahahahahaha
  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.