Any National Rifle Association members in the house?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,534
911
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Why would anyone admit openly to being a Libertarian? You do realize that the United States has a two party system of government right? The only thing these third parties do is occasionally remind the two main parties who really runs things...the people.
I'm having difficulty finding this two party system of government in the Consitution. Perhaps you could point out to me where it is mentioned?

It isn't mentioned but it is nevertheless a fact.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Charlton Heston = D.I.A.F

1. charlton heston is no longer the figurehead of the NRA
2. charlton heston never ran the show at the NRA
why you hate charlton heston i'll never know
 

mwtgg

Lifer
Dec 6, 2001
10,491
0
0
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Why would anyone admit openly to being a Libertarian? You do realize that the United States has a two party system of government right? The only thing these third parties do is occasionally remind the two main parties who really runs things...the people.
I'm having difficulty finding this two party system of government in the Consitution. Perhaps you could point out to me where it is mentioned?
I'm finding it difficult to understand how you are labeling Democrats as communists? Did I miss something? Are we setting our clocks back to 1950?

Perhaps Socialists would be better.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,997
37,170
136
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555

How so? Do you even know what necessity is? If I made your point, you should explain it at least so I get it...cuz your trying to get your point across to me, and it's not working.

You reasoning is that they are not needed and if we think they are we should have to defend our reasoning based on your subjective criteria.

I might decide that hunting is barbaric and outdated, thus you have no further need of you firearms and I would not not oppose restrictions/bans being placed on them.

See how it works?


Yes, and they've tried placing restrictions on hunting. They have changed the calibers allowed, and things of that nature, and God forbid, if they decided that hunting was "barbaric and outdated" which would never happen as long as there are republicans around, you would have a rebellion among not just the southern states, but many woodland states where hunting preserves make a living off of hunting for sport.

How are your interests somehow more elevated than mine to deserve such special attention? In short, they aren't.

Your position is based on desire not need. You don't apply the same standard to things you don't have an interest in.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.


 

gar3555

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
3,510
0
0
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555

How so? Do you even know what necessity is? If I made your point, you should explain it at least so I get it...cuz your trying to get your point across to me, and it's not working.

Allow me.

Well, you don't need to hunt either. Therefore your guns are unnecessary...ie: you don't need them.

So, give it up or I'm going to put you in jail.

Wow, your pointing out the extreme cases...ie no one needs guns. In the same sense that you don't need that computer in front you...so why don't you hand that over to me. I use my fire arms for sport, and food...the point is that no one I know, and I know a lot of gun users being from rural kansas, has any NEED for an AR or any kind of rifle of that sort. We use something called common sense around here.

Yeah, but I can't kill someone with my computer.

You can get food at your local supermarket. We don't need hunters running around armed in the woods shooting Bambie and Thumper. Now turn in your guns or I'm going to throw your ass in jail for a good long time.


and I can't kill anyone with a gun either because I'm not a monster

Well, I don't trust you enough to allow to roam the countryside with guns. And since you can go down to your local supermarket and buy meat there you don't need to hunt.

Now give up your guns now so I don't have to throw you in the clink.

Well, then its a good thing you don't live near me because everybody I know trusts me with a gun, and I know everyone in the area I hunt, so I am allowed to roam around and kill what I please, and I'm sorry disturbs you, and you would "throw me in the clink" for it.
And as for hunting only for meat and sport, there is a greater thrill that comes from the hunt, and a true sportsman would agree with me, that there is a greater game played when you hunt, if you do it right, and not just show up and blast through a heard with some thing like an AR.
 

gar3555

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
3,510
0
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555

How so? Do you even know what necessity is? If I made your point, you should explain it at least so I get it...cuz your trying to get your point across to me, and it's not working.

You reasoning is that they are not needed and if we think they are we should have to defend our reasoning based on your subjective criteria.

I might decide that hunting is barbaric and outdated, thus you have no further need of you firearms and I would not not oppose restrictions/bans being placed on them.

See how it works?


Yes, and they've tried placing restrictions on hunting. They have changed the calibers allowed, and things of that nature, and God forbid, if they decided that hunting was "barbaric and outdated" which would never happen as long as there are republicans around, you would have a rebellion among not just the southern states, but many woodland states where hunting preserves make a living off of hunting for sport.

How are your interests somehow more elevated than mine to deserve such special attention? In short, they aren't.

Your position is based on desire not need. You don't apply the same standard to things you don't have an interest in.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.


Thank you for pointing out your critical flaw
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,534
911
126
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555

How so? Do you even know what necessity is? If I made your point, you should explain it at least so I get it...cuz your trying to get your point across to me, and it's not working.

You reasoning is that they are not needed and if we think they are we should have to defend our reasoning based on your subjective criteria.

I might decide that hunting is barbaric and outdated, thus you have no further need of you firearms and I would not not oppose restrictions/bans being placed on them.

See how it works?


Yes, and they've tried placing restrictions on hunting. They have changed the calibers allowed, and things of that nature, and God forbid, if they decided that hunting was "barbaric and outdated" which would never happen as long as there are republicans around, you would have a rebellion among not just the southern states, but many woodland states where hunting preserves make a living off of hunting for sport.

How are your interests somehow more elevated than mine to deserve such special attention? In short, they aren't.

Your position is based on desire not need. You don't apply the same standard to things you don't have an interest in.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

His argument is that of a child's.
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
63
91
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: preslove
:roll:

I can't believe how many people on this board are so ignorant of American political history. Modern American politics has descended from two main political forces that arose following the closing of the American west in the waning days of the 19th century; Populism (lower class/rural reaction to changes brought about by the industrial revolution) and Progressivism (middle/upper class/urban reaction to changes brought about by the industrial revolution). The Democrats successfully fused the two during the New Deal. In the years following the Republicans created their own coalition of populists and progressives using social issues and extreme laissez faire economics. Communism never gained a foot-hold in America, and only those with a sloppy, adolescent understanding of Communism could confuse it with American political thought.
Wow. You think insults alone will win your argument? :roll:

There are countless factors that led to modern American politics. Claiming that it only descended from the Populist and Progressive movements at the turn of the 20th century is IMO ignorant in the extreme.

I would never trust the opinion of anyone (concerning politics) who boiled political theory down to communism and fascism. Populism and Progressivism are the main forces in American politics because they were the domestic, American, Red-White-and-Blue reactions to the rise of Modernity. Until there is a huge shakeup in modern America we will be using them as our key guides. They share similarities with European developments, but also have HUGE differences. The closest we ever came to Fascism was during the National Recovery Administration (NRA ;)) of the "first new deal" of FDR. IT FAILED! Why? It probably has something to do with American individualism.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
The only problem I have with the NRA is that the organization attracts Whackos like sh!t attracts flies. Of course that's not to say all NRA members are whackos.
 

gar3555

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
3,510
0
0
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555

How so? Do you even know what necessity is? If I made your point, you should explain it at least so I get it...cuz your trying to get your point across to me, and it's not working.

You reasoning is that they are not needed and if we think they are we should have to defend our reasoning based on your subjective criteria.

I might decide that hunting is barbaric and outdated, thus you have no further need of you firearms and I would not not oppose restrictions/bans being placed on them.

See how it works?


Yes, and they've tried placing restrictions on hunting. They have changed the calibers allowed, and things of that nature, and God forbid, if they decided that hunting was "barbaric and outdated" which would never happen as long as there are republicans around, you would have a rebellion among not just the southern states, but many woodland states where hunting preserves make a living off of hunting for sport.

How are your interests somehow more elevated than mine to deserve such special attention? In short, they aren't.

Your position is based on desire not need. You don't apply the same standard to things you don't have an interest in.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

His argument is that of a child's. The fact that he cannot see it only reinforces his belief in it.



I love it, you've degraded your arguement to name calling...thanks
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: DMT
I just got my membership card in today! Man what a week!
Do you have to jump through hoops of fire to join? You act like it's some kind of major accomplishment.

 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,534
911
126
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555

How so? Do you even know what necessity is? If I made your point, you should explain it at least so I get it...cuz your trying to get your point across to me, and it's not working.

You reasoning is that they are not needed and if we think they are we should have to defend our reasoning based on your subjective criteria.

I might decide that hunting is barbaric and outdated, thus you have no further need of you firearms and I would not not oppose restrictions/bans being placed on them.

See how it works?


Yes, and they've tried placing restrictions on hunting. They have changed the calibers allowed, and things of that nature, and God forbid, if they decided that hunting was "barbaric and outdated" which would never happen as long as there are republicans around, you would have a rebellion among not just the southern states, but many woodland states where hunting preserves make a living off of hunting for sport.

How are your interests somehow more elevated than mine to deserve such special attention? In short, they aren't.

Your position is based on desire not need. You don't apply the same standard to things you don't have an interest in.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.


Thank you for pointing out your critical flaw

What is his critical flaw? Why is his desire any less important than yours?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,997
37,170
136
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: DMT
I just got my membership card in today! Man what a week!
Do you have to jump through hoops of fire to join? You act like it's some kind of major accomplishment.

lol

Only if you call the burning sensation in you ass after you write the check a "hoop of fire".
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,534
911
126
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: DMT
I just got my membership card in today! Man what a week!
Do you have to jump through hoops of fire to join? You act like it's some kind of major accomplishment.

No, you just have to send money and pick which magazine subscription you want.
 

gar3555

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
3,510
0
0
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555

How so? Do you even know what necessity is? If I made your point, you should explain it at least so I get it...cuz your trying to get your point across to me, and it's not working.

You reasoning is that they are not needed and if we think they are we should have to defend our reasoning based on your subjective criteria.

I might decide that hunting is barbaric and outdated, thus you have no further need of you firearms and I would not not oppose restrictions/bans being placed on them.

See how it works?


Yes, and they've tried placing restrictions on hunting. They have changed the calibers allowed, and things of that nature, and God forbid, if they decided that hunting was "barbaric and outdated" which would never happen as long as there are republicans around, you would have a rebellion among not just the southern states, but many woodland states where hunting preserves make a living off of hunting for sport.

How are your interests somehow more elevated than mine to deserve such special attention? In short, they aren't.

Your position is based on desire not need. You don't apply the same standard to things you don't have an interest in.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.


Thank you for pointing out your critical flaw

What is his critical flaw? Why is his desire any less important than yours?

My point...obviously my desire is less important as the two of you have degraded my (BIG WORD COMING UP) opinion because it doesn't match yours.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,534
911
126
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555

How so? Do you even know what necessity is? If I made your point, you should explain it at least so I get it...cuz your trying to get your point across to me, and it's not working.

You reasoning is that they are not needed and if we think they are we should have to defend our reasoning based on your subjective criteria.

I might decide that hunting is barbaric and outdated, thus you have no further need of you firearms and I would not not oppose restrictions/bans being placed on them.

See how it works?


Yes, and they've tried placing restrictions on hunting. They have changed the calibers allowed, and things of that nature, and God forbid, if they decided that hunting was "barbaric and outdated" which would never happen as long as there are republicans around, you would have a rebellion among not just the southern states, but many woodland states where hunting preserves make a living off of hunting for sport.

How are your interests somehow more elevated than mine to deserve such special attention? In short, they aren't.

Your position is based on desire not need. You don't apply the same standard to things you don't have an interest in.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.


Thank you for pointing out your critical flaw

What is his critical flaw? Why is his desire any less important than yours?

My point...obviously my desire is less important as the two of you have degraded my (BIG WORD COMING UP) opinion because it doesn't match yours.

We never said your desire was less important than his.
 

gar3555

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
3,510
0
0
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555

How so? Do you even know what necessity is? If I made your point, you should explain it at least so I get it...cuz your trying to get your point across to me, and it's not working.

You reasoning is that they are not needed and if we think they are we should have to defend our reasoning based on your subjective criteria.

I might decide that hunting is barbaric and outdated, thus you have no further need of you firearms and I would not not oppose restrictions/bans being placed on them.

See how it works?


Yes, and they've tried placing restrictions on hunting. They have changed the calibers allowed, and things of that nature, and God forbid, if they decided that hunting was "barbaric and outdated" which would never happen as long as there are republicans around, you would have a rebellion among not just the southern states, but many woodland states where hunting preserves make a living off of hunting for sport.

How are your interests somehow more elevated than mine to deserve such special attention? In short, they aren't.

Your position is based on desire not need. You don't apply the same standard to things you don't have an interest in.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.


Thank you for pointing out your critical flaw

What is his critical flaw? Why is his desire any less important than yours?

My point...obviously my desire is less important as the two of you have degraded my (BIG WORD COMING UP) opinion because it doesn't match yours.

We never said your desire was less important than his.

Then why is it so hard for you to just accept my opinion on this subject?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,997
37,170
136
Originally posted by: gar3555
My point...obviously my desire is less important as the two of you have degraded my (BIG WORD COMING UP) opinion because it doesn't match yours.

My opinion doesn't enable others to infringe on other people's desires, unlike yours.

 

gar3555

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
3,510
0
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555
My point...obviously my desire is less important as the two of you have degraded my (BIG WORD COMING UP) opinion because it doesn't match yours.

My opinion doesn't enable others to infringe on your desires, unlike yours.

so your saying that my (BIG WORD AGAIN) opinion is wrong, and that I should believe yours because your right
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,534
911
126
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555
My point...obviously my desire is less important as the two of you have degraded my (BIG WORD COMING UP) opinion because it doesn't match yours.

My opinion doesn't enable others to infringe on your desires, unlike yours.

Exactly!
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,997
37,170
136
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555
My point...obviously my desire is less important as the two of you have degraded my (BIG WORD COMING UP) opinion because it doesn't match yours.

My opinion doesn't enable others to infringe on your desires, unlike yours.

so your saying that my (BIG WORD AGAIN) opinion is wrong, and that I should believe yours because your right

Given the history of anti-gun efforts in this country, I would describe it as self-defeating.
 

gar3555

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
3,510
0
0
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555
My point...obviously my desire is less important as the two of you have degraded my (BIG WORD COMING UP) opinion because it doesn't match yours.

My opinion doesn't enable others to infringe on your desires, unlike yours.

Exactly!

See once again, my opinion is wrong just because it doesn't match yours, and just because I believe some guns to be unnecessary, I am wrong, I never said that they shouldn't be allowed to have them because they should.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,534
911
126
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555
My point...obviously my desire is less important as the two of you have degraded my (BIG WORD COMING UP) opinion because it doesn't match yours.

My opinion doesn't enable others to infringe on your desires, unlike yours.

so your saying that my (BIG WORD AGAIN) opinion is wrong, and that I should believe yours because your right

We are saying that you should reconsider it. If you support the right to ban certain guns for no other reason than the fact that they look like military weapons then don't be surprised when your right to own sniper...er, hunting rifles are next in line after our rights are revoked.
 

gar3555

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
3,510
0
0
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555
My point...obviously my desire is less important as the two of you have degraded my (BIG WORD COMING UP) opinion because it doesn't match yours.

My opinion doesn't enable others to infringe on your desires, unlike yours.

so your saying that my (BIG WORD AGAIN) opinion is wrong, and that I should believe yours because your right

We are saying that you should reconsider it. If you support the right to ban certain guns for no other reason than the fact that they look like military weapons then don't be surprised when your right to own sniper...er, hunting rifles are next in line after our rights are revoked.


I wouldn't ban an AR just because it "looks" like a military rifle, I have fired one, my old roommate has one, they are good guns, they just aren't necessary guns to people that use guns for sport. I believe that anyone who hunts deer shouldn't be allowed to use anything bigger than a .270 as it is not necessary, I'm not saying that anyone with a .3006 or bigger should be thrown in jail.