Connecticut truthers B S is bad for concealed carry

[Rhino]

In the hopes of getting this thread back on track, jdmaddog101 was saying in the original post that some people are trying to claim that the Sandy Hook shooting was some sort of government created fiction designed to demonize gun owners in order to pass more restrictive gun legislation, presumably at both the federal and state levels. jdmaddog101's main point was that these so-called 'Connecticut truthers' cast an unfavorably bad light on gun owners. He already stated that democrats are mainly the party pushing restrictions on gun rights, and that he doesn't agree with them on that front even though he is a democrat. He made that statement as a clarification after his comment about no one trying to take away gun rights and guns being here to stay, so it seems clear he didn't intend the original comment as many have taken it here. Chalk it up to a poor choice of words, bad typing skills or whatever, but he's aware of threats to gun rights, so I think we can stop beating that horse. I hope the rest here can cut him the same break. Personally I just think he chose his words very poorly with the taking away gun rights and guns here to stay remarks, and the resulting reaction completely diverted focus away from the topic he wanted to discuss.

As for being a democrat, everybod'is entitled to their opinion and their choices. This forum isn't limited by political affiliation, and he supports gun rights, so I'd say that makes him more of a friend than an enemy. I've yet to meet a Republican who agrees with everything the Republican Party does either. They've pissed me off so much lately that I don't even refer to myself as a Republican anymore. So the man being a democrat hardly makes him anti-gun, and it doesn't make him a de facto enemy of the membership here either.

As for supporting Obama ......... okay, you got me there. Obviously jdmaddog101's one of the worst judges of character in human history. But again, everybod'is entitled to their opinion.

Nobody has to agree with me on any of this of course. I just think much is being made over poor wording and misunderstandings. Just my two cents.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Just sayin....
Link Removed


Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

 

[BluesStringer]

Listen man I strongly support gun rights.

Not if you vote Democrat, you don't. You cannot support that which you consistently vote against. Voting Democrat is voting against gun rights, period.

As an attempt to be slightly conciliatory, I'll admit that voting for many Republicans is likewise voting against gun rights. Most anti-gun Republicans who hold conservative values otherwise though, are defeated as long as it's in a red district. As a party, Republicans are not anti-gun, and of the candidates who are, they are consistently condemned and fought against by the rank and file. If and when you can say that about both the Democrat party and its rank and file, you can claim to support gun rights (assuming you don't continue to consistently vote for anti-gun candidates). For now though, if you're a gun enthusiast, you are decidedly not a 2nd Amendment supporter if you consistently vote for candidates who are against the 2nd Amendment. No amount of calling people fools or any other names will change that fact.

Blues

 

[jhodge83]

In the hopes of getting this thread back on track, jdmaddog101 was saying in the original post that some people are trying to claim that the Sandy Hook shooting was some sort of government created fiction designed to demonize gun owners in order to pass more restrictive gun legislation, presumably at both the federal and state levels. jdmaddog101's main point was that these so-called 'Connecticut truthers' cast an unfavorably bad light on gun owners. He already stated that democrats are mainly the party pushing restrictions on gun rights, and that he doesn't agree with them on that front even though he is a democrat. He made that statement as a clarification after his comment about no one trying to take away gun rights and guns being here to stay, so it seems clear he didn't intend the original comment as many have taken it here. Chalk it up to a poor choice of words, bad typing skills or whatever, but he's aware of threats to gun rights, so I think we can stop beating that horse. I hope the rest here can cut him the same break. Personally I just think he chose his words very poorly with the taking away gun rights and guns here to stay remarks, and the resulting reaction completely diverted focus away from the topic he wanted to discuss.

As for being a democrat, everybod'is entitled to their opinion and their choices. This forum isn't limited by political affiliation, and he supports gun rights, so I'd say that makes him more of a friend than an enemy. I've yet to meet a Republican who agrees with everything the Republican Party does either. They've pissed me off so much lately that I don't even refer to myself as a Republican anymore. So the man being a democrat hardly makes him anti-gun, and it doesn't make him a de facto enemy of the membership here either.

As for supporting Obama ......... okay, you got me there. Obviously jdmaddog101's one of the worst judges of character in human history. But again, everybod'is entitled to their opinion.

Nobody has to agree with me on any of this of course. I just think much is being made over poor wording and misunderstandings. Just my two cents.

Link Removed

 

[BluesStringer]

In the hopes of getting this thread back on track, jdmaddog101 was saying in the original post that some people are trying to claim that the Sandy Hook shooting was some sort of government created fiction designed to demonize gun owners in order to pass more restrictive gun legislation, presumably at both the federal and state levels. jdmaddog101's main point was that these so-called 'Connecticut truthers' cast an unfavorably bad light on gun owners. He already stated that democrats are mainly the party pushing restrictions on gun rights, and that he doesn't agree with them on that front even though he is a democrat. He made that statement as a clarification after his comment about no one trying to take away gun rights and guns being here to stay, so it seems clear he didn't intend the original comment as many have taken it here. Chalk it up to a poor choice of words, bad typing skills or whatever, but he's aware of threats to gun rights, so I think we can stop beating that horse. I hope the rest here can cut him the same break. Personally I just think he chose his words very poorly with the taking away gun rights and guns here to stay remarks, and the resulting reaction completely diverted focus away from the topic he wanted to discuss.

As for being a democrat, everybod'is entitled to their opinion and their choices. This forum isn't limited by political affiliation, and he supports gun rights, so I'd say that makes him more of a friend than an enemy. I've yet to meet a Republican who agrees with everything the Republican Party does either. They've pissed me off so much lately that I don't even refer to myself as a Republican anymore. So the man being a democrat hardly makes him anti-gun, and it doesn't make him a de facto enemy of the membership here either.

As for supporting Obama ......... okay, you got me there. Obviously jdmaddog101's one of the worst judges of character in human history. But again, everybod'is entitled to their opinion.

Nobody has to agree with me on any of this of course. I just think much is being made over poor wording and misunderstandings. Just my two cents.

Link Removed

 

[Rhino]

Just sayin....
Link Removed

The Wounded Knee Massacre didn't take place at a school.

 

[BC1]

Not if you vote Democrat, you don't. You cannot support that which you consistently vote against. Voting Democrat is voting against gun rights, period.

Blues

Everyone needs to remember that advice when thinking about Chris "crispy Crème" Christie. Party be damned, he'll go along with serious gun control attempts. The only state where a CCW is virtually non-existent is led by a rep governor.

 

[BluesStringer]

Everyone needs to remember that advice when thinking about Chris "crispy Crème" Christie. Party be damned, he'll go along with serious gun control attempts. The only state where a CCW is virtually non-existent is led by a rep governor.

Not inconsistent with anything I said. For one thing, Jersey is a blue state. For another, conservatives and/or Republican rank and file across the country oppose Christie on exactly the grounds you articulate, among others to boot. Conservatives and/or Republicans have no reason on Earth to vote for Christie, anymore than I had a reason on Earth to vote for Romney in '12.

Considering your admonition above BC, who will you vote for if Christie stays a Republican and wins the nomination? I think I'm safe in assuming that everyone who's read anything about my thoughts on voting does not have to ask me that question. For anyone who hasn't read my thoughts, Christie has no more chance of getting my vote than Romney did, which is to say, exactly zero chance.

I maintain that one cannot support something that they consistently vote against. Voting for Christie would be voting against the 2nd Amendment. No (R) or (D) next to anyone's name is going to mitigate that fact for me, unlike most of the millions of Republicans who voted for Romney, and will likely also vote for Christie if given him as one of the two "choices."

Blues

 

[BC1]

Not inconsistent with anything I said. For one thing, Jersey is a blue state. For another, conservatives and/or Republican rank and file across the country oppose Christie on exactly the grounds you articulate, among others to boot. Conservatives and/or Republicans have no reason on Earth to vote for Christie, anymore than I had a reason on Earth to vote for Romney in '12.

Considering your admonition above BC, who will you vote for if Christie stays a Republican and wins the nomination? I think I'm safe in assuming that everyone who's read anything about my thoughts on voting does not have to ask me that question. For anyone who hasn't read my thoughts, Christie has no more chance of getting my vote than Romney did, which is to say, exactly zero chance.

I maintain that one cannot support something that they consistently vote against. Voting for Christie would be voting against the 2nd Amendment. No (R) or (D) next to anyone's name is going to mitigate that fact for me, unlike most of the millions of Republicans who voted for Romney, and will likely also vote for Christie if given him as one of the two "choices."

Blues

For the first time I thought am I about to join the ranks of those who won't vote? While in the past this was inconceivable I find myself dragging my feet. Hopefully Crispy won't make it through the primary. I would like Rand Paul if that's at all possible. I'm reading a book on ancient Rome right now and see strong similarities between the laziness of great empires. What happened to great empires throughout history? They became fat, happy, lazy and imploded. We're falling as Rome did and the people are too stupid to see it.

 

[Eidolon]

For the first time I thought am I about to join the ranks of those who won't vote? While in the past this was inconceivable I find myself dragging my feet. Hopefully Crispy won't make it through the primary. I would like Rand Paul if that's at all possible. I'm reading a book on ancient Rome right now and see strong similarities between the laziness of great empires. What happened to great empires throughout history? They became fat, happy, lazy and imploded. We're falling as Rome did and the people are too stupid to see it.

I find it interesting that it's mostly the lame stream media that is touting Christie as the Republican front runner while doing everything they can to discredit him almost 2 years before the next presidential election. I'd vote for Ryan before Christie and probably Paul

 

[BC1]

I find it interesting that it's mostly the lame stream media that is touting Christie as the Republican front runner while doing everything they can to discredit him almost 2 years before the next presidential election. I'd vote for Ryan before Christie and probably Paul

New info uncovered shows Barry knew Libya was a terrorist attack... that's not newsworthy at MSDNC or it's broadcast cronies.
Fast-n-Furious... that's also not newsworthy.
The U.S. Attorney General lying under oath... not newsworthy.
IRS targeting conservative of groups... that's not newsworthy either.
.
What's newsworthy? A traffic jam.

 

[MyFred]

LEO....that explains it all......

 

[jdmaddog101]

In the hopes of getting this thread back on track, jdmaddog101 was saying in the original post that some people are trying to claim that the Sandy Hook shooting was some sort of government created fiction designed to demonize gun owners in order to pass more restrictive gun legislation, presumably at both the federal and state levels. jdmaddog101's main point was that these so-called 'Connecticut truthers' cast an unfavorably bad light on gun owners. He already stated that democrats are mainly the party pushing restrictions on gun rights, and that he doesn't agree with them on that front even though he is a democrat. He made that statement as a clarification after his comment about no one trying to take away gun rights and guns being here to stay, so it seems clear he didn't intend the original comment as many have taken it here. Chalk it up to a poor choice of words, bad typing skills or whatever, but he's aware of threats to gun rights, so I think we can stop beating that horse. I hope the rest here can cut him the same break. Personally I just think he chose his words very poorly with the taking away gun rights and guns here to stay remarks, and the resulting reaction completely diverted focus away from the topic he wanted to discuss.

As for being a democrat, everybod'is entitled to their opinion and their choices. This forum isn't limited by political affiliation, and he supports gun rights, so I'd say that makes him more of a friend than an enemy. I've yet to meet a Republican who agrees with everything the Republican Party does either. They've pissed me off so much lately that I don't even refer to myself as a Republican anymore. So the man being a democrat hardly makes him anti-gun, and it doesn't make him a de facto enemy of the membership here either.

As for supporting Obama ......... okay, you got me there. Obviously jdmaddog101's one of the worst judges of character in human history. But again, everybod'is entitled to their opinion.

Nobody has to agree with me on any of this of course. I just think much is being made over poor wording and misunderstandings. Just my two cents.

For those of you who say I do not support 2nd amendment because I vote democrat you are mistaken, although I greatly disagree with many of them on gun rights it's the party I most agree with, like a citizen whom is pro choice on abortion and still votes republican. But let's drop and no longer mention the politics thing in the end they are all sell outs. Next point New Jersey does not issue carry permits, the only non Leo that can carry a gun is an armored truck driver and they can only carry on duty. Now to the guy that said I used a poor choice of words your right see a friend of mine forwarded me a link of these truthers and I was so pissed I immediately started this thread typing while angry.

 

[BluesStringer]

For those of you who say I do not support 2nd amendment because I vote democrat you are mistaken, although I greatly disagree with many of them on gun rights it's the party I most agree with, like a citizen whom is pro choice on abortion and still votes republican. But let's drop and no longer mention the politics thing in the end they are all sell outs. Next point New Jersey does not issue carry permits, the only non Leo that can carry a gun is an armored truck driver and they can only carry on duty. Now to the guy that said I used a poor choice of words your right see a friend of mine forwarded me a link of these truthers and I was so pissed I immediately started this thread typing while angry.

That's funny. If I had to guess, I would've said you were typing while blitzed out of your freakin' mind.

As for pro-baby-killers who vote Republican, you'd first have to know what the Republican candidates in question think about baby killing. Take Romney or Christie for instance, both were militant pro-baby-killing before the 2012 election season, which really begs the question, why would either the voter or the candidate be pro-baby-killing if the Republican platform meant anything anymore? The question really answers itself, doesn't it? Just like why would a Democrat voter or candidate be a 2nd Amendment advocate? In both cases the questions answers themselves - no reason whatsoever.

A Republican who is pro-baby-killer is a RINO at best, and a disgustingly morally bankrupt aberration to the party rank and file at worst. But they'll vote for them anyway, and the party will treat them at least as good as the platform-adherent for the duration of their time in office. Hell, it even came out that Romney made millions off the abortion industry before the primaries were even over, and the party and convention delegates went along with ram-rodding his nomination through even to include shutting down the speech time that one of the other candidates had earned under current convention rules at the time.

I was very consistent during the 2012 election about Romney voters supporting abortion, gun control, and myriad other issues on which Romney put himself on the wrong side, and I'm just as consistent with Demtards about them supporting gun control by voting Demtard.

A Democrat who is pro-gun or a pro-2nd-Amendment activist is the enemy of the Democrat Party, their voters, and their colleagues in DC, who will then be treated like a pariah by them for the duration of their time there. In other words, they will be deprived of the power the confused voters who sent them there meant for them to have. To the extent that are any such Democrat legislators in office now, they are completely powerless, useless and meaningless to the political landscape of this country.

What a great "pro-gun" legacy to leave this world with, huh?

I have no idea where the limits are for political expediancy or hypocrisy are, either from the voters or the politicians. Just don't ask me to call it anything but what it is. Voting for Democrats is voting against gun rights.

Blues

 

[2Awarrior]

And that doesn't leave us with much to vote for, maybe a quarter of the Republicans at this point. In my state there doesn't seem to be anybody to run against the incumbent Demtard governor. Jersey has a republican in charge, but it may as well be Dianne Feinstein.
Are we conservatives going to be able to prop somebody up for the next presidential election who'd stand a chance?
Man the lifeboats.

 

[BluesStringer]

And that doesn't leave us with much to vote for, maybe a quarter of the Republicans at this point. In my state there doesn't seem to be anybody to run against the incumbent Demtard governor. Jersey has a republican in charge, but it may as well be Dianne Feinstein.
Are we conservatives going to be able to prop somebody up for the next presidential election who'd stand a chance?
Man the lifeboats.

I think the nationwide percentage of anti-gun-rights Republicans is less significant than you posit here, but that would be quibbling over trivialities. The fact remains that you're right to some significant degree that there are very few rights and/or Constitution-conscious politicians of either party or at any governmental level worthy of true conservatives' votes. Going on the premise that that is true, I don't really see the point of voting anymore. I went in 2012 to vote for my state and local elections, which did bear some fruit in that our gun *privileges* were expanded a bit in '13, but we're nowhere nearer to actually having rights in this state than NY or CT or anywhere else in this country is. Granted *privileges* can be revoked just as easily as they were granted. Easier even, because the people who are limited most by them are the same people who grant them.

Rather than manning the lifeboats, I think all we're left with in the politics of our current condition is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. This ship's hull (the Constitution) is ripped from stem to stern, the lifeboats have all been deployed with very few passengers aboard, and she's goin' down just as assuredly as the original Titanic did.

This "CT Truther BS" BS is just as meaningless as voting is anymore, so I guess I should just pipe down about who votes for whom and/or which party. Old habits die hard.

Blues

 

[2Awarrior]

This "CT Truther BS" BS is just as meaningless as voting is anymore, so I guess I should just pipe down about who votes for whom and/or which party.

My frustration USED to be directed at the politician of any party who rode his campaign lies and empty promises into office.
But nowadays, I find myself growing more and more angry at my fellow citizens, like the dumba$$es who voted Barry in not once but twice, and will likely do the same with Emperor Cuomo. Like that Czech newspaper quote from a while ago -

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of idiots such as those who made him their president."