virgil

Keynesian Socialist would be absolutely correct though. Besides, not being politically correct is nothing to be ashamed of, and that is where his ancestors come from. No, there's nothing wrong with being politically incorrect. But, there's a lot wrong with being a racist fool. If, by your twisted logic, the President is Kenyan because his ancestors were; does that mean that you are not American? Or, were your ancestors American Indians?

With the Kenyan socialist in the White House, At least one of you guys is not afraid (or is too dumb) to hide his true colors. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The UN does not have mandate over US soil. They make recommendations, that's it.

Doc, you give yourself far too much credit for your ability to paint an accurate picture by using such broad strokes. But, I'm glad to hear that you're amazed. As a hunter, why would I ever support the idea of making private ownership illegal- what a stupid statement. And, other than stating that I support the idea of common sense gun control legislation, what party lines are you referring to? As i previously stated, i'm not affiliated with any group and couldn't quote any of their lines- i'm speaking for myself as a hunter, gun owner, and rational human being. Also, I think it's funny that your definition of 'paranoid' accuses gun control advocates, or those who are open-minded to the possibility of gun control measures, as being paranoid and afraid that gun owners are 'out to get' them. Face it, noone is coming to take away your guns. We don't live in the wild west anymore.

I am surprised that one who constantly parrots back the mantra of every anti-gun organization across the country could be confused about the actual purposes of harrassment style gun laws. Your people have been pushing them for decades and you all really do understand the real purposes of those laws, and you also understand that it has absolutely nothing to do with effective public safety. My people? I'm not affiliated with, or even aware of, any anti-gun groups. However, i do believe that the intent of gun control legislation is to make the public safer. All of you guys have stated that the intent is to simply take your guns away. But, my question remains... why do you think that gun control advocates want to limit the number and certain types of guns available? Why do they want to 'take away your guns'? We can debate indefinitely as to whether or not previous gun control laws have been effective. The reason that I am curious about such staunch opposition of any and all gun control legislation is that paranoia and distrust seems to play a role. I have no reason to believe that there cannot be sensible gun control laws without fear that someone is going to come and confiscate my hunting rifles. I'm curious as to how so many of you guys equate gun control with the end of the world.

LOL.. I see that you are part of the "flock" believing that gun laws are for the safety of everyone. How you sheep allow the anti-gunners to make you believe this Horse$* is beyond me... I guess weak minds are easily manipulated Guess we'll have to take your word for it- you seem to be an expert on weak minds. As far as the sheep comment- following lock step w/ the NRA and gun nuts doesn't make you any less a sheep. It just makes you more of a wingnut. If you do not believe that these laws are intended for the purpose of public safety, what do you think is the motive? I'm not asking if you believe that passing these laws or closing the loopholes will solve any problems; I'm asking what you believe these efforts are intended to accomplish.

I doubt VJP wrote the article. He isnt taking anything out of context, if you actually read this article, it clearly states that Clayton E. Cramer was the one to originally write the article titled “The Racist Roots of Gun Control”, so if you are going to address anyone for taking anything out of context, you should be taking issue with Mr Cramer. I do understand that you are just acting like you usually do though, ya know, shooting the messenger. Pun may or may not be intended. Gun control efforts today are nothing more than a power grab by the anti-gun lobby. There are plenty of laws making real gun crimes illegal already. Nowhere in my post did i suggest or imply that vjp wrote the article. That's why i said that he was taking it out of context. I took it up with vjp because he re-posted the article and misrepresented some of it's references to further his position. Your post and insults toward me are just you acting as you usually do- trying to side with vjp, but not having the brains to write a coherent post. Go back to sleep.

I think you are purposely taking these statements out of context in order to villify your opposition again. The laws from the 1700's and 1800's restricting blacks from possessing weapons were clearly intended to ensure that they would be unable to defend themselves or to fight for equal rights. Gun control efforts today have no racial motives- they are intended to make society safer for everyone.

All this is interesting. But, you haven't addressed my question- why fight to keep this loophole open?

His statement was accurate....you commented it was stupid. Appears that anything you don't agree with gets run down rather than providing counter debating points. Was that clear enough or should I get my daughters crayons out and draw you a picture? Get over yourself Culver. His statement may have been accurate- but, like most of his others, it was out of context and intended to mislead. Yes, there is a Pulitzer prize for fiction. However, the website that I suggested won the Pulitzer prize for National Reporting. His response was stupid because it intentionally ingored this fact. So, take your crayons and choke on them. And, VJP- you must know by now that I don't take you seriously and am not concerned about your opinion of me or anything else for that matter. if you and I actually agreed on something, then I'd be concerned.

Now accurate is stupid? What are you talking about?

There's no whining from me- just making a point. And, I did suggest a credible news source on another thread, Puliter Prize-winning Politifact.com The clever response from one of the yahoos was that Pulitzer prizes are awarded for fiction- another stupid statement meant to misinform the easily mislead.

Wow, what a breath of fresh air. VJP posting more rhetorical propagando off the NRA website.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/16/national-rifle-association/wayne-lapierre-said-violent-crime-jurisdictions-re/ This Pulitzer Prize-winning website should qualify as an objective source of information.

Obviously frustrated in the fornication arena. Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1] Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them. An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another person or object.

Anyone notice that VJP has shifted his responses to anyone who opposes him? It used to be that anyone with a different opinion was weak, stupid, unpatriotic, illiterate, etc. Apparently, now they're all sexually frustrated or deviant.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/06/28/2011-06-28_mayor_bloomberg_launches_television_ad_warning_al_qaeda_terrorists_can_get_firea.html I'm curious as to the thought process behind maintaining the 'gun show loophole'.

Was that clip supposed to be informative? Are we supposed to be surprised to hear that the NRA is lobbying hard to oppose gun control by declaring gun control efforts to be an assault on the constitution? Or, was the part about 'protecting the rights of hunters' the part that we were supposed to latch onto? Personally, I'd prefer to have hunters rights lobbied for by a hunting organization, not the NRA.

Let me get this straight. VJP, are you saying that you purposely avoid certain roads because of tolls or because of privacy concerns due to EZ pass. It must take an awful lot of time and effort to come up with so many things to be suspicious about.

Thanks Bill. Gotta go to a meeting. Have fun boys.

Virgil, just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself "left" wing, or a democrat, or are you pro gun, just pointing out that you disagree with the ultra "right"? You can't possibly be all for banning guns if you hunt, right? I consider myself neither. I have liberal stances on some issues and conservative stances on others. I think that subscribing so strictly to one side or the other is what causes people to become close-minded and unwilling to consider the opposing point of view. I am absolutely not in favor of banning all guns. I would be in favor of any sensible gun control legislation that would protect our right to own sporting weapons.

So if facts are provided from a evidently biased source...and are valid facts, they are discounted as invalid because they could imflame people. It really sounds to me that anything that contradicts your view is discounted. Not disputed or proven wrong but you just have the ability to avoid the opposite view to yours in spite of any facts. That sure sounds like just what you have been complaining about with the guys opposite you views. I'm glad that you impressed Dave. The issue is that many of these 'facts' are actually not facts- they are opinions and misrepresentations of events intended to mislead. When some takes a fact (such as the unfortunate death of an ATF agent) and implies that the President masterminded the events that lead up to his death- then you are no longer dealing with facts. You're dealing with someone's implied theory as to what lead to the death. And so many of you guys are so happy to believe these conspiracy theories because it supports your agenda. The fact is that the agent was killed- everything else is propaganda; and you guys eat it up.

So why do you bother to respond at all? Just to fuel the fire! My mother use to say if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all. Good advice. Take a look and see who starts the majority of these posts. Then, send your mom's advice to VJP. Seriously, take a look at the sources of everything he posts. Not a single one of them comes from an objective news source. They're all from right wing propagandists.

Unless I am wrong ....I don't recall you providing any proof to back up any of your arguments, or contradictions to his. As I said earlier, something so entirely biased and intentionally inflamatory does not deserve rebuttal and shouldn't be dignified with a response.

Propaganda works for both sides of the argument to further ones agenda. What is lacking is impartiality based upon objective criteria. Exactly. But, when someone is so brainwashed, they can't recognize the difference between propaganda and fact. Comparing 2+2 to VJP's posts is absure and only demonstrates the lack of objectivity.