An honest assessment of Islam

[nyantler]

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.

Mostly because of how we have changed since liberalism took hold in the sixties.. and we have slowly moved away from what the country stood for back then

[Culvercreek hunt club]

      I have no problem when someone dislikes or disagrees with another's beliefs, but when someone wants to impose their beliefs and force them via laws on another individual that is minding their own business, that I have a problem with.

  So why don't you anti gun guys come out with it? 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"? What traumatic event happened in your life involving assault weapons that drives you to want them banned and/or regulated more?

And what's with the kool-aid in the SUNY schools, Albany especially?

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.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

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.

Mostly because of how we have changed since liberalism took hold in the sixties.. and we have slowly moved away from what the country stood for back then

LOL NY---see where dope, beads and sandals get you

[Doewhacker]

"questioning those who find it so easy to discount the values and rights that got us to where we are today."

A right like freedom of religon?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

"questioning those who find it so easy to discount the values and rights that got us to where we are today."

A right like freedom of religon?

exactly...and I have never said that any faith should not be granted the freedom to practice as  long as that 'practicing' does not step on another frredom I hold so dear for all of us...life.    And I question other members of Islam because many are so reluctant to speak out against those actions. It makes me question motives as I would question those type actions in any analysis of behavior

[virgil]

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. 

[nyantler]

" i have very liberal feelings on some issues and very conservative feelings on others.  to me, that's open-minded "

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

[Culvercreek hunt club]

  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. 

Let's be honest here, Given everyopnes committments in life there is never enough time to take up a every cause and do them any justice. It is human nature to persue those that you have the strongest feelings about and set priorities. We spend defending the beliefs/rights/causes that effect us or could effect us. Do I have the time to petition so the folks on the California coast will be able to have beach fires to sit by? I would love to assist becasue my beliefs guide me in the directio that they should be allowed. the mindset in that state is (and I know you hate the labels but) liberal. and in the pretense of contributing to global warming that activity has been tagged and is now illegal. But it is not in my top priorities.

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?

I love this country and are very proud of it and it's people. The advances we have made outshine the rest of the world. Through questions like you just posed your comments ring with a displeasure of what and where we are as a counrty. I am not sure of your intentions but that is how it reads ot me. I still believe we are the lead in the world. The counrty with the most influence that others love to hate. That will never change because many of the countries are backwards and unevolved socially. You speak of us having to change to get with the current viewe or world opinion or whatever the temrs you used. I ask you...who do you think we should be more like...what shining beacon out there would you like to model ourselves after and throw out //  modify our 'inept' Constitution.

what values are you referring to?  yours?  No not mine. The ones the country was founded on. The ones that most Americans use every day and don't even know it. And Virgil...if I have to list them for you I can understand why you have such a problem with topics like this.

i don't discount anyone's rights or values

But you have...as soon as you entertain the thought of restricting or removing a right to fit an opinion you or anyone else has. These aren't budget negotiations or items that require two sides on opposite sides of a table we are talking about. I will tell you what. 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. Underhanded interpretation is not the way to govern. If it needs to be clarified and/or changed there is a process to do it

- i haven't been the one calling for attacks on muslims.

Who are you refering to having done this? 

[nyantler]

I certainly never called for attacks on muslims... But I also am not naive enough to think that the Muslim world wouldn't love to see western civilization destroyed... find me a majority or even more than a handful of Muslims that denounce radical Islam... find me one muslim that wouldn't love to see Israel wiped from the Earth. I don't want to see Muslims erased from the world, I just want them to stop their BS.

[ELMER J. FUDD]

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'.

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.

[ELMER J. FUDD]

"questioning those who find it so easy to discount the values and rights that got us to where we are today."

A right like freedom of religon?

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.

[virgil]

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?

[virgil]

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.

[virgil]

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'.

[virgil]

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.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

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.

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

[virgil]

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.

[ELMER J. FUDD]

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?

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.

[Mr VJP]

Virgil, all of the infringements that have been placed on the right to bear arms since 1776 may be in violation of the 2nd Amendment and unconstitutional.

Without the SCOTUS ruling on every one of these oppressive laws, they continue to stand on the books to harass gun owners.  I believe many of these laws would be declared unconstitutional if they were in front of the SCOTUS. 

The US government works very hard, with great expense to taxpayers, to keep these laws from SCOTUS scrutiny though.  It took 40 years to get the handgun ban in Washington D.C. before the court and it was lifted.  But for 40 years D.C. residents suffered under an unconstitutional law that cost many innocent lives.

Gun ownership in America is a direct check on the power of the government.  That is exactly what the founders had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.  That is exactly why the government tries everything in it's power to nullify that right.

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Now come on off that fence boy! 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

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.

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).

It should have been handled just like they did with prohibition. Ammend the constituion to ban alcohol. They had the votes and when the heat got too much they had the votes to repeal it. Now they thought enough that they believed a right to use alcohol...among other componets of phrobition...was a right and needed an ammendment. I have looked. I can't find any reference to how we should be able to drink in any of our founding documents...lol. They took that route with a 'freedom' that was so obscure but to legislate against one that is clearly outlined in wrong. That is my point

[Doewhacker]

"That is exactly what the founders had in mind.."

Now how the hell do you or any other member here know what exactly the founding fathers had in their minds when they started out waaay back then? The endless interpretations on here are amazing, its like you fellas think you were there or something...wow I think some of you should run for office because you know it all so well.

[virgil]

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. 

[virgil]

  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.

[virgil]

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?