virgil

And every time you post, one can hear the theme from "Looney Tunes". Then change the channel on your tv- shouldn't be watching cartoons at your age anyway.

just take the assault weapon ban. If they felt it was needed they shoud have done it through ammendment. Go back even further. they did it for fully automatic weapons too. (And I don't think households need them). careful, if you start mentioning higher education on this thread, you'll really get attacked.

just take the assault weapon ban. If they felt it was needed they shoud have done it through ammendment. Go back even further. they did it for fully automatic weapons too. (And I don't think households need them). my question was referring to this specifically. how were the changes/restrictions/bans arrived at?

Now come on off that fence boy! [img alt=]http://huntingny.com/forums/Smileys/akyhne/tongue.gif[/img] http://huntingny.com/forums/Themes/ganymedes_20rc3/images/icons/clip.gif[/img] foghornleghorn_01.jpg (129.57 kB, 842x1024 - viewed 0 times.) grow up. again, show your true colors. not surprising that you'd use cartoons to bolster a childish position.

Worship peacefully? Yes, but once worshipping includes attacks on non-believers, then I say no, that's not what was meant. They wanted to worship freely without the church (Englands catholic church) governing their lives. Was that not how it was back then? I now the king was the other problem. You never told us where you got the "wrapped in the flag" thing. I think Steve863 has a similar stance as you, I may need to go back and read some posts, but Steve863, what's up? I think Virgil may be taking some heat here. But even if your stance is some restriction, like say no high cap. magazines, you can't give them an inch... that;s why VJP and all these other guys are so passionate about this topic. My point in that post was to show that the constitution does need to be viewed as a document that reflected the time it was written- at that time, our forefathers would never have imagined to include the words 'synagogue' or 'mosque'. if they had used the word 'church', as you did when paraphrasing the constitution, then entire groups would not have the same freedoms that you do. as far as the 'wrapped in the flag' phrase, i'm not understanding your question. i'm sure that i didn't invent it- what's the curiosity? i think the phrase is pretty self-explanitory. my meaning in using it is that by painting only ourselves and others who think just like us as the only 'real americans' and all others as 'infil-traitors', we look silly, small-minded, ignorant, and intolerant.

Do you see that the way it has taken place to this point has been outside what most would consider those normal channels. And there in lies the distrust of the actions honestly, no. please explain.

I wuld have more respect for the proponents of restricting firearms if they tried to go the right way and proposed a constitutional ammendment to clarify what they want. If they think they have all of this support, just come out with it. If they believe they have the 75% support...have at it. else get off the topic. i agree. nothing should be changed without going through the proper procedures. there are processes that should be followed. i would be opposed to any modification to the constitution or any new law that did not go through proper procedures- even if i was in favor of the change.

I believe Culver summed it up well. I don't understand why hunters are on a hunting forum and are actually in favor of restriction on hunting implements (assault rifles or not). I want a good reason as to why. Seriously did something happen that influences that belief? It seems to me that all the pro gun forum members are willing to back up what they beleive with facts and experiences. You are in over your head as far as how many people are awaiting responses to questions. It's probably getting confusing. (it is for me!) Also, where did you get the "wrap yourself in the flag" term? I'd be willing to bet you haven't been voting or paying taxes very long. I honestly want to see where you're coming from. again, i never specifically said that i was in favor of restrictions- only that it would not be unreasonable to consider restrictions. and, no, i don't have any personal history that causes me to feel this way- just a sincere belief that society has a right to be governed by laws that suit the needs of the people. you're right, it is getting confusing- i'm taking fire from all sides. no matter. i feel as comfortable defending my position as you all do. and as far as the implication that i might be too young to have a valid opinion, i'm 39 years old. i'm just sick of everyone implying that only those who think just like them can be considered 'real americans'.

To me thats riding the fence ... not making a commitment.. passive... going with the flow...Open minded is a buzz term for not being able to make up your own mind based on what is going on around you... I like choosing a side.. with firm convictions and a non-passive attitude .. you either believe in something or you don't... I am a closed minded individual until you prove to me that my convictions are wrong. Then I'll be the first to jump the fence and fight for my new convictions on that side... the fence riders continue to let injustices go on until they get so out of hand that they are forced to choose a side or be eaten up.. which is usually way too late... young people with little real world experience seem to be prone to taking the fence riding position... and fall easy prey to the liberal college professsors selling their progressive agenda that's great, closed-minded and proud of it. that's precisely why you'll never be taken seriously by mainstream society. careful consideration of each issue without checking party agendas is anything but 'riding the fence'. it's a refusal to be fenced in.

If you think about it, the founding fathers probably meant it as "we can go to a church that doesn't rule the people". just saying. right. and if they had written it that way into the constitution, then it wouldn't protect the rights of people to worship at synagogues and mosques, right?

Liberal or possibly even farther left. And it shows in your posts and reactions. How can you interpert Elmers' comments any other way...easy. He is asking that since you are obviously a gun owner you are not in the "non-owning and have no use for guns' people and group. And based on your comments on Islam it appears you are not practicing it....a group/creed. you seem to take an very passionate support position of these yet appear not to be a part of them. That was his question. very simple....and not a peep about race until you brought it up.....refer to the first two sentences in this post of mine. Just observations based on your actions and posts...and that is reflecting my true nature---questioning those who find it so easy to discount the values and rights that got us to where we are today. you might have a point- if that is the case, my apologies to elmer. however, this is the mindset that i don't understand- why should we only defend the rights or beliefs of the groups that we belong to? again, it's you guys who wrap yourselves in the flag that are the quickest to defend this way of thinking. and, as far as 'liberal or further left', that means nothing to me. i have very liberal feelings on some issues and very conservative feelings on others. to me, that's open-minded and reasonable. i think it reduces someone's credibility when their entire belief system fits so neatly under silly labels- liberal, conservative, left, right. you're patting yourself on the back for 'questioning those who find it so easy to discount the values and rights that got us where we are today'. where exactly is that? what values are you referring to? yours? i don't discount anyone's rights or values- i haven't been the one calling for attacks on muslims. in fact, i've never even said specifically that we absolutely should have stricter guns laws, only that it's something that would be reasonable to consider. i've simply stated that it's not unreasonable to adapt our laws, according to the will of the people, to keep up with the evolving world.

pullig out the racist card on that comment speaks volumes to your true nature. It is clearly evident what group you belong to. really, and what group is that? how could you interpret his question/comment any other way? the implication was obvious. and, by defending it, you might be showing your true nature. what do you think he meant by 'group/creed/people' in the context of that question. a few of you have implied that i belong to a particular group. i'm asking honestly, what group are you talking about? and, i'm curious, exactly what do you mean about my 'true nature', since we know each other so well.

And what are your thoughts on our current drilling operations here at home? don't honestly know much about it. i tend to be on the 'environmentalist' side. so, i'm more in favor of researching new energy sources.

How about the oil rich countries. We sit here at their mercy for a large portion of our consumed oil and again dish out aid. Is that for fear that they will hold their product from us. Could be the only justification of it... i think you just answered your own question, and mine. we are dependent on them. if we play hardball, we lose. look what's happened to gas prices since tensions rose in the middle east over the past few months. what would you have to say if we pulled all of our aid to the oil producing countries and gas shot up to $12 a gallon and poeple couldn't heat their homes? would you applaude the government for taking a stand or call them incompetent for putting us in such a position? as far as the other countries, there must be reasons that we are not aware of. i just think that it'd be a good idea to find out those reasons before we condemn it all and move toward isolationism.

Why are you sticking up for other people/groups/creeds, yet you are apparently not part of the group you are defending? Why are you afraid of other citizens owning guns, yet calling other forum members "paranoid"? You'd have been better off not chiming in if this is the best you can do. What group/people/creeds are you referring to? sounds xenophobic/racist/homophobic to me. Wrap yourself in the flag and then condemn someone who sticks up for others- Is that how it should work?- only stick up for those who look and think just like you? Is that your idea of the American way? Why don't you explain exactly what you meant by that post? and, i'm not necessarily afraid of other citizens owning guns. however, i do recognize that a significant portion of the population is; and i think it's reasonable to acknowledge the legitimacy of their concerns, instead of jumping up and down about how 'they're coming for our guns and trying to take away our rights'.

Virgil....take a run down this list...look at all the ones that run their mouths about how Bad and evil we are...then look at the list of countries that I really can't think of as serving any purpose for us to contribute to. They are numbers from 2008 which are teh latest I have ever come across i understand your point on an emotional level. but, do we really want our government to act emotionally regarding world affairs- isn't that partly why we are currently fighting two wars? do we disown our kids or divorce our wives as soon as we have an argument and say bad things out of emotion? it's easy to make bold statements about what our leaders should and shouldn't do without having to consider the consequences. have you honestly given any thought to WHY we provide aid to the countries on that list? do you honestly think we're doing it just to be nice and that by taking it away we'll be teaching them a lesson?

we do agree on some thing Arrow [img alt=]http://huntingny.com/forums/Smileys/akyhne/wink.gif[/img] ...that is BS. And let's go one step further. dump all the foreign aid...today...not a freaking cent more. let them see who they think is in the lead then [img alt=]http://huntingny.com/forums/Smileys/akyhne/wink.gif[/img] are you serious? do you really think that we aid foreign countries for entirely altruistic reasons? we only aid countries where we have a financial or strategic interest. if we cut off aid and destabilize these parts of the world, we will suffer. who would you like to cut off aid to?

I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks of the US.. It's because of us that a lot of those countries aren't speaking German right now.. especially France!! that may be true. but, if not for the french, we'd all have british accents. maybe it's time to realize that it is us who have fallen behind. the world no longer sees us as the leader they did fifty years ago.

In you comments you often compare their actions to those of other religions from long ago...the crusades and such. Culver, are you sure you're not confusing some of my posts with someone else's. i am not a student of religion and have never posted anything about the 'crusades and such'. This is a different world now, as you are fond of mentioning in the gun control threads to justify how inept the Constitution is. Comparing the actions of a religion in current times with the actions of those of 100's of years ago does not make sense. Actions that were common and acceptabel then are far from that now. now, why is it that you can apply this logic to the religion question, but accuse me of disparaging the constitution when i apply it to the gun issue? i never have and never would call the constitution 'inept'- stop trying to rile everyone up. why can't you disagree without trying to throw gas on the fire by misrepresenting my words. i didn't post the descriptions of the actions of any religious groups from years ago- it seems that everyone on this thread knows how to use google. but, i agree with your point that actions that were acceptable many years ago are not necessarily acceptable now- which is why i feel that it's not unreasonable to consider updating our laws to reflect the current needs of the country today. why the need to constantly question the patriotism of anyone who has a position different from yours?

i'm not defending islam or any other religion. my point is that it is wrong to condemn entire groups because of the actions of a small minority of their members. there are countless examples throughout history of various groups doing horrible things. the fact is that there are millions upon millions of muslims in the world and there is a very small percentage committing crimes against humanity. i just think it's dangerous and a bit ignorant to paint with such broad strokes.

Definition: Jihad is the Arabic for what can be variously translated as "struggle" or "effort," or "to strive," "to exert," "to fight," depending on the context. In the West, the word is generally understood to mean "holy war," and the terms are given, inaccurately, exclusively military connotations. The Quran does call for "jihad" as a military struggle on behalf of Islam. But the Quran also refers to jihad as an internal, individual, spiritual struggle toward self-improvement, moral cleansing and intellectual effort. It is said that Prophet Muhammad considered the armed-struggle version of holy war "the little jihad," but considered the spiritual, individual version of holy war--the war within oneself--as "the great jihad." Including the "jihad" as one of the five pillars of Islam is another common Western misunderstanding. Jihad is not among the five pillars of Islam (the profession of faith, prayer five times a day, fasting during Ramadan, alms for the poor and performance of the Hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca, at least once in each Muslim's lifetime). Still, "jihad" is considered to be every Muslim's duty--be it the struggle to improve society, preventing the exploitation of the poor or vulnerable, or improving oneself before the Day of Judgment. Are you so sure that there's nothing in the bible or the Torah that could be taken out of context and used to make believe that another entire religous group should be lumped together and condemned? yes, the people who launched the attacks on 9/11 were muslim. but, they don't represent all muslims.

They have the same right to practice their religion as anybody else. But I don't know of any other religion that is being given a pass for killing people. Religions don't kill people. People kill people. Isn't that the stance all you guys take on guns? - it's not the guns,it's the criminals using them.

culver- are you really interested in my feelings about capital punishment? or would you prefer to stick with the versions of my thoughts that you and the boys have listed today, from capital punishment to utopia. if you're really interested, i'm all for capital punishment. even though it's been proven not to be a deterrent, i still think it's a reasonable punishment for certain crimes. and are you really sure that there were guns made in the u.s. before there actually was a u.s.? someone made a statement that implied that my feelings on the gun laws issue are because i'm thinking with my heart as opposed to my brain- i disagree entirely. again, from the time we started this thread a few days ago, i never claimed to have all the answers on the issue. but, i do feel that we can come up with something better than we currently have. i don't think that the answer to a complicated question is to refuse to address it. the gun problems in this country continue to worsen because the only people debating the issue are fanatics and extremists on either side.

the rest of the world has been riding on the back of America and its progress forward for many many years.. all starting with the second amendment and the ability to fight for our freedom that some now want to take away so we can slow back down to the speed of the rest of the world.. I don't get it you're right, you don't get it. again, antiquated thought processes. this is how an intelligent debate can be ruined by a crackpot, and why the rest get lumped together as crackpots by the public. to imply that the second ammendment was responsible for this country's progress is absurd. let's be honest, we are no longer the world leader in all things. we're the ones that need to catch up with much of the rest of the world. and, no, i don't own handguns. can't imagine why i would NEED one. i understand your point about gun laws not deterring criminals. but, i don't think that the answer is not to have laws. we have drug laws that don't eliminate the drug trade. it doesn't mean we should just legalize it, should we? if there are bans on ownership, there'd be bans on the manufacturing and sales. again, i never said i've got the whole thing figured out. but, i'm sure that it can be done. they don't seem to have these problems in England- there are plenty of hunters there, and the police don't even carry guns.

my feelings on this issue are not due to apathy. i honestly do not believe that we should have the right to own weapons that are not intended for sporting purposes. i do not make believe that i have all the answers on the issue- what defines 'hunting weapon versus assault weapon, etc.'. i just feel that there should be restrictions for the greater good of society in general, even if that means imposing on the 'rights' of some responsible people who either own these types of guns or would like to. i really don't think it's such a slippery slope. i compare it to controlled substances. we have laws against those for good reason. why one and not the other. last thing, i know it's great for dramatic effect to mention hitler. but, it's really a silly comparison. and, as far as i recall, it was the french who armed the colonists, not a stockpile from back home.