Join the fight

[laserfish]

I would never call you any offensive name. Not my nature. I do however, think you are wrong on your stance concerning taxes, guns and probably most everything else political. While not a libertarian, I do stand for the Constitution and Liberty. In my life, Liberty means that some people will do some things that I do not like. You would probably fight like crazy for the First Amendment right for some to publish (insert whatever example you wish). I despise much of what is published in print and on the internet and those who produce it believing that it is a dead weight on the morals of our society. However, I do not wish to ban it, as much as I hate it because I believe the Constitution means what it says. That is the difference between you and me. Democrats expect tolerance and compromise but give neither. This gun control debate goes much deeper than just the second amendment. It goes to the very heart of how our nation was founded and the foundation it was built upon. I believe that what I make through the sweat and effort a my job belongs to me, and you wish to give your freedom and liberty over to the government who thinks they know better how to take care of you and your money than you do. It has been stated many times here before, punishing the law abiding citizen does nothing to alleviate crime. The criminals will continue to be criminal and ignore the law. We have outlawed mass murder, but yet it continues to happen, the same will be if there are outlawed weapons. The criminals will have them and use them regardless of the law.

[WakerideN]

guns dont kill people ... people kill people. drugs are illegal.. well in most places.. and people are still high?

This is all lame if you ask me. 3 things people dont agree on. well maybe 4 now.

1.Money
2.Sex
3.POLITICS
4.Block or NOT to block nobody

In the end, are you all really that worried one way or another? you will own one(or many) or not, and find a way to buy\get one if you cant.

now if they made boating illegal and such.. then I would be onboard and fired up....hahah

[Nobody]

guns dont kill people ... people kill people. drugs are illegal.. well in most places.. and people are still high?

This is all lame if you ask me. 3 things people dont agree on. well maybe 4 now.

1.Money
2.Sex
3.POLITICS
4.Block or NOT to block nobody

In the end, are you all really that worried one way or another? you will own one(or many) or not, and find a way to buy\get one if you cant.

now if they made boating illegal and such.. then I would be onboard and fired up....hahah

At least Block Somebody.

Nice write up Laserdude. Very well written.

[IDBoating]

now if they made boating illegal and such.. then I would be onboard and fired up....hahah

Don't laugh. I was in an online discussion in another forum and there was nearly 100% consensus that powerboating should be "regulated" and "restricted" (their exact words). Among their many reasons were that powerboats are inefficient and therefore excessively polluting, there was no "need" these days for most people to own powerboats except for police/fire/rescue/public transportation, if people want to enjoy the outdoors they can do so in far less "damaging" ways that have a "smaller environmental footprint", powered boats inevitably lead to gas/oil spills that contaminate the water, and so forth.

When I tried to defend powerboating I was overwhelmingly "shouted" down. I had almost no one on my side. I was immediately reminded of the whole firearm ownership controversy; it seems that if you don't participate, you cannot fathom why anyone else would want to. Furthermore, non-participants are quick to accept the anti's arguments because they appeal to their emotions and because they, themselves, would not be affected by bans and restrictions and regulations. Since restrictions emotionally sound good ("If it only saves one life...") and they don't care about the activity anyway, they have no interest in defending the rights of others to choose for themselves.

Don't get comfortable just because the current controversy doesn't directly affect YOU. Each victory such busybodies win emboldens them to chase after their next wet dream. Remember how Al Gore wanted to ban the internal combustion engine? They won't talk the soccer moms out of their minivans just yet, but it would be very easy to paint wakeboats (in particular) as gas-guzzling, environmentally insensitive pollution machines that contaminate the water, dirty the air, waste resources, you-name-it. "We don't want to touch the legitimate uses of internal combustion engines, but nobody needs a wakeboat. Fishing and pontoon boats can carry just as many people and do it a lot more efficiently."

Wakeboats are the semiauto rifles of the boating world: A relatively small market segment that is easy to demonize. It's very, very dangerous to let precedents be set.

[WakerideN]

Don't laugh. I was in an online discussion in another forum and there was nearly 100% consensus that powerboating should be "regulated" and "restricted" (their exact words). Among their many reasons were that powerboats are inefficient and therefore excessively polluting, there was no "need" these days for most people to own powerboats except for police/fire/rescue/public transportation, if people want to enjoy the outdoors they can do so in far less "damaging" ways that have a "smaller environmental footprint", powered boats inevitably lead to gas/oil spills that contaminate the water, and so forth.

When I tried to defend powerboating I was overwhelmingly "shouted" down. I had almost no one on my side. I was immediately reminded of the whole firearm ownership controversy; it seems that if you don't participate, you cannot fathom why anyone else would want to. Furthermore, non-participants are quick to accept the anti's arguments because they appeal to their emotions and because they, themselves, would not be affected by bans and restrictions and regulations. Since restrictions emotionally sound good ("If it only saves one life...") and they don't care about the activity anyway, they have no interest in defending the rights of others to choose for themselves.

Don't get comfortable just because the current controversy doesn't directly affect YOU. Each victory such busybodies win emboldens them to chase after their next wet dream. Remember how Al Gore wanted to ban the internal combustion engine? They won't talk the soccer moms out of their minivans just yet, but it would be very easy to paint wakeboats (in particular) as gas-guzzling, environmentally insensitive pollution machines that contaminate the water, dirty the air, waste resources, you-name-it. "We don't want to touch the legitimate uses of internal combustion engines, but nobody needs a wakeboat. Fishing and pontoon boats can carry just as many people and do it a lot more efficiently."

Wakeboats are the semiauto rifles of the boating world: A relatively small market segment that is easy to demonize. It's very, very dangerous to let precedents be set.

I am not suprised. nor worried. and those are valid points.
guess then I just break out my kayak.

[Timmy!]

Ha!

[konajay]

Don't laugh. I was in an online discussion in another forum and there was nearly 100% consensus that powerboating should be "regulated" and "restricted" (their exact words). Among their many reasons were that powerboats are inefficient and therefore excessively polluting, there was no "need" these days for most people to own powerboats except for police/fire/rescue/public transportation, if people want to enjoy the outdoors they can do so in far less "damaging" ways that have a "smaller environmental footprint", powered boats inevitably lead to gas/oil spills that contaminate the water, and so forth.

When I tried to defend powerboating I was overwhelmingly "shouted" down. I had almost no one on my side. I was immediately reminded of the whole firearm ownership controversy; it seems that if you don't participate, you cannot fathom why anyone else would want to. Furthermore, non-participants are quick to accept the anti's arguments because they appeal to their emotions and because they, themselves, would not be affected by bans and restrictions and regulations. Since restrictions emotionally sound good ("If it only saves one life...") and they don't care about the activity anyway, they have no interest in defending the rights of others to choose for themselves.

Don't get comfortable just because the current controversy doesn't directly affect YOU. Each victory such busybodies win emboldens them to chase after their next wet dream. Remember how Al Gore wanted to ban the internal combustion engine? They won't talk the soccer moms out of their minivans just yet, but it would be very easy to paint wakeboats (in particular) as gas-guzzling, environmentally insensitive pollution machines that contaminate the water, dirty the air, waste resources, you-name-it. "We don't want to touch the legitimate uses of internal combustion engines, but nobody needs a wakeboat. Fishing and pontoon boats can carry just as many people and do it a lot more efficiently."

Wakeboats are the semiauto rifles of the boating world: A relatively small market segment that is easy to demonize. It's very, very dangerous to let precedents be set.

Good point, reminds me of a thread awhile back where wakeboarding/surfing was trying to be banned on a certain lake. Where will it end?

[IDBoating]

Where will it end?

Generally with a revolution, at the cost of many lives.

[IDBoating]

And regarding that shopping list, here's a great quote:

"Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms" should be the name of a convenience store, not a federal department.

[robert theisen]

Mr Morgan from the WVCDL exposes the Media mouth as a gun fearing person.Most people that run their mouths spreading B.S. to the sheep of the world do have common sense.Did you see the instant FEAR and Respect Mr Morgan got from the Media Mouth when he stated he was armed right now? LOL Media Mouth knew he was a loser in their so called debate. Mr. Morgan was the rational one,Media mouth reminded me of the boy who cried wolf.I for one could care less what the media feeds the sheep.I know their are wolves out there in society,some of them dress in sheeps clothing.That's why i own a gun or two.

[konajay]

Mr. Morgan rocked that interview

[shawndoggy]

just heard a stat on the way home that the majority of gun deaths in the united states (60ish percent is the number I think I heard) are suicides.

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/25/170299...s-suicide-rate

[Ewok]

I heard the same interview

[labrat]

Assault weapons

As said before we have the right to bear arms. Was this written when we had a cycle rate of a round every 30 seconds or more with musket loaders not assault weapons. As I said I am in favor of the second amendment but I am not in favor of having assault weapons in a home where obviously junior has gotten access and has gone to school to prove a point. It is a little easier to storm and individual who has a bolt or lever feed semi-automatic if that need occurs but with doubled up clips on a modified assault rifle that is now automatic I don't think that was the intention of the 1791 amendment. in an assault weapon even the single shot repetition rate is devastating in its own right.

I love the point that we need weapons to keep the military in check. If there was a military coup we could not possibly hold back the military. First you have to ask is our military that brain washed as a volunteer force. To me this point was valid in a small town but I doubt that the volunteer military would be called up against domestic enemies unless there was a need as provide in the oaths our servicemen take.

the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.[3]

[edit] Text of the Oath


I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]

[robert theisen]

One problem with the oath is Obama doesn't believe in God.Nor does he believe in defending the constitution against all enemies. Debt being the #1 enemy and overspending being the second.As well as giving our Military weapons and planes to other countries.