Mr VJP

I believe the more they try to ban something, the more people want them. Problem is, some violent criminals never considered using them until they hear how they may be banned. Suddenly they think, "If they're that dangerous, I need to get one!"

But people are not responsible for gun violence, the guns are!

I believe it was C. Heston who defined it perfectly. "Political correctness is tyranny with manners."

Start a new post. Pagans still exist? I though they were just atheists.

Neither am I. But as a collector of firearms, I expect someday to see this rifle sell for a premium. What would Jack O'Connors 270 Win Mod 70 sell for today? I think Rinella will be that well known someday.

He's used it for years on his show. He has donated it and it is up for auction. It's a custom lefty in 7mm Mag. Currently @ $3500 http://www.32auctions.com/organizations/18470/auctions/20920/auction_items/481516

Yeah, George Orwell was hilarious.

Political Correctness has a way of preventing truth from being discussed.

When I was a boy I went to a restaurant with my uncle. One look at the menu's prices and my uncle said he wanted to leave. The waiter came out of the back, came over to take our order and my uncle got up politely saying we decided we weren't going to stay after all. The waiter was black. My uncle was labelled a racist. The moral of the story is, if you don't know for a fact someone is a racist, you do yourself no justice by accusing them of being such. Perception is reality to those who don't take the time to live in the real world.

Truth is truth, no matter who, or what group reports it. Argue with the published report, rather than attack someone for airing it. That's suppression of ideas at it's worst. One could make a case that banning machetes is racist if one cares to stoop low enough to further their agenda. But I think the facts about the issue would prevail in the end.

There is an old saying about assuming things. Linking a site PROVES something? You are obviously not a lawyer with a concept of what constitutes proof. Why would you be so quick to extrapolate assumptions about anyone's beliefs based on a single post about an issue, especially when it is posted for discussion? To be honest with you, I believe your judgement is clouded by your personal bias. Like I said before, not one person ever addressed anything in the article. If it was racist, it should have been very easy to show how it was.

Is the guy who is trying to ban machetes a Liberal Progressive?

Actually, most often what is posted are facts about Liberals and Progressives. It can't be helped if those are insults.

Any site that discusses white issues is considered racist by Progressives. There is a huge double standard in America about race issues and what is deemed racist. But since it works in favor of the Progressive agenda, it's a good thing, as far as they're concerned.

I think we are actually in the throes of the 2nd "Civil War".

None of this would even be a worry if all of the poor terrorists could get good jobs!

Racist site? Who gave it that label? The article posted was up for debate. Not one person debated the truth or fiction in the article. Even a racist site can publish truth. If you think it's a lie, prove it, don't attack the source with unfounded labels. Heck, the entire GOP has been labelled racist for that matter. The NAACP isn't labelled racist though. Why? There are plenty of posts about hunting on this site if that's all you want to read. Nobody's stopping you.

I see what you're saying, but who would pay for that? How many people would be eligible for that equal time on media outlets? What about Political Action Committees? Would they not be allowed a voice on issues in America? In this country, money is power. It always has been. In fact, in most of the world it is the same way. Should we round up all of the rich folks, take their money and cut off their heads? That has been done in some countries in the past, but the new power elite have turned out to be much worse.

I see what you're saying Phade. But unless you can point out facts as to why a post is pure BS in your opinion, you are not debating the issues, you are attacking the poster. If a post presents truth and it aggravates you, you're in denial. If it's not true, prove it with facts. Otherwise, it's best not to reply to it at all. Attacking the poster is simply an attempt to shut down debate on an issue a person does not want debated. The only reason I can think of for someone doing that is covering up truth and facts, or not having the facts at hand. Either that, or their belief system is one of pure idol worship without ever investigating the truth of what they choose to believe.

Obama would veto that ban.

"White Privilege"

Yes I can. Anyone who objects will just have to learn to be tolerant. LOL!

BTW, what the DHS does. as far as labeling people threats, should very much concern people who happen to be gun owners. Same goes for any ban on any type of implement someone wants to consider a dangerous weapon.

It's in the politics section of the site. Nobody makes anyone read these posts here. Besides there are many issues in politics that do directly affect hunting, hunters and gun owners. Many have been discussed here in the past. Why is it people who disagree with a political post can't destroy it with factual debate and intelligent responses? Stooping to insults just proves they have no defense in the debate and have let frustration get the better of them. I can't see how anyone thinks they win that way.

Politics of all kinds affects hunting and hunters. Christmas trees were brought up in this thread. A comment about Christmas was posted and insults followed. Anyone who posts insults, instead of addressing the issues in a post like a rational, intelligent, tolerant human being, should be taken to task. Where is all of the tolerance we are always told people want forced on all of the US here?