psssh Democrats
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=161189
Printed Date: 06 May 2026 at 11:27am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: psssh Democrats
Posted By: MP Sniper
Subject: psssh Democrats
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 4:15pm
|
Democrats can kiss my butt there just a bunch of tax raising, gun grabbing liberals who think peace can be found through peace but they dont take the time to look through out history at how war brought on peace:slavery,nazis,fascism,communists here i found a couple little videos portraying democrats lol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h4J9Jz8ikg - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h4J9Jz8ikg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLFCifVMfZE - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLFCifVMfZE lol bob hope http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYz4onPfuhE - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYz4oNPfuhE i liked this one also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLFjllDycJQ - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLFjllDycJQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBuiMlWAnbQ -
|
Replies:
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 4:22pm
 Bumper-sticker logic and blind-following stereotypes and generalizations make my head hurt. Your post is simply wrong, and is fed by nothing but ignorance. ------------- 
|
Posted By: 98cboy
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 4:29pm
|
psssssssssshhhhhhhhhh you!!!!!!!!!! ------------- 
|
Posted By: MP Sniper
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 4:37pm
|
lol i can give you two names off the top of my heads that are democrats and follow what iam talking about: jon corzine:7% sales tax Bill clinton: federal "assault weapon" (AW) and "large" ammunition magazine ban (biggest freaking buch a habloee i ever seen) |
Posted By: blackdog144
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 4:51pm
|
i dont care for democrats...
------------- http://imageshack.us">  
|
Posted By: Destruction
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 4:58pm
|
LOL NO WANDER THA SIMBOL FOR DEMOCRAS IS AN ASS BCUS THEY ARE ASS ------------- u dont know what to do ur getting mottor boatted Men are from Magmar, women are from Venusaur. |
Posted By: MP Sniper
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 5:03pm
| ^lol |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 5:23pm
|
Good lord. I know I should just let idiotic things like this go, but... How about Ford in Tennessee, or Webb in Virginia? |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 5:46pm
|
Is your mother Ann Coulter?
------------- 
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 6:03pm
You are implying Ann Coulter is a woman? -------------
|
Cedric wrote:Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 6:05pm
|
oh lawd, iz dat sum ignorance?
------------- 
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 6:19pm
|
I don't even know how to respond to this. ------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Apu
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 6:20pm
|
Why is it that everybody in here that has slammed the Democratic party comes off as very stupid in most of the posts I read by them. Hmm..? And how dare Clinton ban assult rifles. Lord knows we can't survive without fully automatic rifles.
------------- I need a new Sig... |
Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 6:40pm
Damn straight. As for the topic creator. You make us Republicans look like the Michael Moores of the Republican Party. Thank you. 
As for the Assault Weapons ban and Large Magazine Ban. I cant order Magazines for my M16A4 Service Rifle that I use in the United States Marine Corps. sent to me. I attempt to order higher quality more durable magazines than what are issued. What I know is brand new and will not fail on me when it counts. I cant get those in Massachusetts. Its against the law for me to own them in Massachusetts without a license that is nearly impossible to get depending on where in Massachusetts you live and the reason you give to the local Police Chief for wanting that license. I would love to have the ability to purchase a few Sig's and the Bushmaster firearms with no problem. But I cant. not because lack of money which I have (I would purchase a few years down the road) but because of the Democrats who control my state. Thats my main problem with the Dems. My ability to own a weapon that I am handed when I go to drill and what I'll be told to use in defense of my country. But I cant get better magazines than what is issued because of the dems. in my State. Thats my rant. |
Posted By: CarbineKid
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 6:45pm
I suggest you learn what the 1994 ban was before you try to talk about it. Full Autos have been regulated since 1934. |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 6:46pm
|
What if you focused all that rage on maybe getting the military to give you better stuff to start with?
-------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 8:46pm
But if it were a republican series of negative ad youtube vids the rank and file here would consider it informative and incitefull truth. Remmember most here fall left of the line and down on the compass :-) ------------- 
|
Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 10:17pm
Not my place to do that. If everyone had a gun, I highly doubt there would be as many gun crimes as there is now. Back in the day I am pretty sure kids would bring rifles to school to go hunting afterwards or to a shooting range. Hell there is a town in Georgia where it is mandated that at 18 you own a hand gun. I believe its the lowest crime rate in the nation. I also believe Texas has a pretty low crime rate, and most people are packing heat there too. I dont think a criminal would be likely to rob a bank, or shoot someone if he knew everyone else was packing heat and would shoot him. Besides. Guns dont kill people. People kill people. |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 10:22pm
|
libertarian. All your parties can suck me. ------------- |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 11:00pm
That, was the biggest collection of fallacy, false theory, urban legend, and bumper-sticker jargon I have seen strung together, Good job. -------------
|
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 11:06pm
|
Dems should'nt even carry the ideal they have ANY right to even propose gun regulations to begin with. Same as Repubs should'nt carry the ideal that they can impose Pro-life regulations and such. ------------- |
Posted By: Hippymon
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 11:08pm
w00t! preach on, umm.. communism, socialism, facism, liberals, demorcratism.. is there really any difference??? didn't think so. ------------- w0000t trolling is my specialty. |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 11:09pm
-------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 11:12pm
The Economic policies, are... a bit odd. I'll admit that. ------------- |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 11:15pm
Can you prove it wrong then please? I ask because I've met a fellow from around the California-Oregon boarder who lived in a town much like the one described by Kristofer and he told me their crime rate is non-existent. EDIT: Found the town he was referring to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw%2C_Georgia - Kennesaw, Georgia ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 11:18pm
Mutual Destruction works wonders. Order in choas. ------------- |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 29 October 2006 at 11:34pm
-------------
|
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 1:12am
And your points aren't? ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 1:32am
|
Aaand what points have I made in this thread yet?
-------------
|
Posted By: Lawless
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 4:47am
|
Hey! Mwwwaaaahhhhh!
I'll even throw in some tounge for ya...
------------- Name: Paul R. Warman II Location: The Boonies, MI Phone Number: (989)666-XXXX |
Posted By: Apu
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 6:48am
------------- I need a new Sig... |
Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 6:56am
Thank you. As for the speculation. The only spot I remotely speculated in is the Texas one. The bring rifles to school. Most elders Ive talked to. I'm talking like pre WW2 and WW2 vets said that. |
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 9:39am
Yeah, because people only shoot other people in self defense right? Not to mention vigilante justice is distinctly un-American. Jesus, an armed population makes a more peaceful society? Are you nuts? Look at the western United States in the 1870's....or most of Africa now....Sometimes I wonder if you people even buy your own crap... -------------  |
Posted By: RicWhic414
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 10:25am
|
honestly Im pretty far on the right side myself and I thought those videos were dump, you could pull crap up about republicans the same way they did about democrats.
------------- Tuesday starts the weekend... YAYAYA!!!! CHUFF CHUFF |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 10:42am
|
Thanks for clearing that up - NOW I finally understand why there is no crime in Iraq. |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 11:29am
|
Kristofer, where in MA do you live? My town is pretty good about the Class A LTC, and they never turn down qualified applicants but I hear horror stories about other towns. I'm not positive but I beleive you can appeal to the attourney general if you're denied. But yes, MA gun laws are crap since our assault weapons ban is identical to the old federal one. Also, if you're refering to the steel HK mags I've heard that they're good, but not better than the standard GI mags with the green magpul followers in terms of reliability. They might be more dent resistant, but they're also slightly heavier and longer. Mags manufactured during the ban are marked "government or law enforcement use only" since the federal ban is dead that's no longer required. I know for a fact that new mags are finding their way into the state. If I were you I'd keep my eyes peeled at gunshows. I'm not sure if new mags are really banned, since if you're willing to send a copy of your class A to many online dealers they will ship to you but dealers don't want to go through the trouble in most cases since MA will prosecute companies that sell to unlicenced individuals. I wouldn't mind the licensing requirements if this was a "shall issue" state where it's mandatory that they issue the license if you meet the requirements. Anyways, on the federal gun issue, Regan banned machineguns. Clinton did not. Both Bush's have also banned many imported weapons by executive order or through the BATFE. For the life of me I cannot figure out what the purpose of the AWB was for, what it stopped or why democrats, who so recently have been all about personal liberties, are so anti-gun. The only thing I can think of is the fact that most gun owners don't fit the demographics of their base, and if your political enemies are armed, well, that's kind of scary. |
Posted By: procarbinefreak
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 12:41pm
roflobster. |
Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 2:25pm
North Andover. Look online. When it comes to purchasing a high capacity magazine (holds over 10 rounds) they wont ship to MA because of MA state laws. |
Posted By: Rico's Revenge
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 2:39pm
|
Bleh... as a whole, party lines are so convoluted these days that you cannot uniformily declare one side correct and the other side incorrect. There are many good and reasonable people on each side. I truly believe (unfortunately) that how I vote in 2008 will be more of a defensive vote for the candidate I dislike less. I can think of only 1 Republican candidate I would half-way support (Rudi Giuliani) and not a single Democratic candidate I wouldn't hate (freakin' Hillary). My biggest beef with the hardcore Dems is that it seems that their actions tend to be based on a desire to be as extremely opposite of a Republican view rather than a logical, thought out stance. ------------- "Thats right, I play pump... your girlfriend borrowed my last set of batteries." "How many times a second are you going to miss me before I shoot you?" Dave Ellis Rocks!!! |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 3:09pm
|
Other than George Bush is wrong, I have not heard of one or any distinct plans from the Democrats on how to "fix" the "broken government" other than "Bush is wrong, Bush is corrupt, Bush is............" -------------
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 3:14pm
I can drink to that.
Ditto. Its the same with hardcores on both sides. Their whole point in life is to see how much they can possibly disagree with the other side no matter what is being said (oldsoldier, .Ryan) which gets nothing done but make society in general 1) Dumber, and 2) More devided. I would much rather keep an open head and mind, look at facts and come to logical conclusions. -------------
|
Posted By: Predatorr
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 3:16pm
There are endless arguments to be made here, but a developing nation will always be more violent than a developed one. Africa has a society of warlords, and had that society even before they had access to the Ak's you can see in all of the pictures. Up until the industrial revolution, America was a developing nation, and yes crime was up, but for the most part, all we know are billy the kid and other big time robbers. The average man was still a hard dough earner. You're comparing apples and oranges. |
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 3:21pm
|
Predatorr, very good point. Crime rates are not a very good use of evidance for guns one way or the other. So many things are variables in the crime rates around the world that the amount of guns really does not effect it. -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 3:26pm
|
If I remmember correctly here in America gun crimes are just over 50% of all violent crimes committed in the US, so lets say 49% are committed by other tools, be they metal, wood, plastic or flesh and bone, what number of these tools do we ban for the public good? Do we put more restrictions and or ban automobiles since the death toll from this tool outnumbers all others annually? Or do we assign more personal responsibility to the user? -------------
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 3:29pm
|
We do put restrictions on automobiles, yes. We also put restrictions on things like knives, same with guns. They are weapons. They were built as weapons. The other things you may mention were not built as weapons. Trying to say a .38 is the same as a hammer is funny. -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 3:32pm
|
By legal definition a deadly weapon can be a .38, or a hammer, or even a plastic spoon if used in the commision of a violent act. The design intent of the tool is secondary to the application of the tool in the eyes of the law. The intent of the user of the tool is the question. -------------
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 3:36pm
|
And which of these tools is the user more likely to use in a murder?
-------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 3:39pm
|
Depends on the situation and availability, in prison the plastic spoon or hammer, in open society the gun, there is no legal distinction.
I responded to a death in a NYC grade school where a standard #2 pencil was used to kill. The intent of the user determes the likelyhood of the use of any tool to kill or injure. -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 3:39pm
|
Yes, OS, but if I try to mug you with a spoon, how successful will I be? A gun may not make me a criminal, but it makes it a lot lot easier for me to perform my crime, and it makes the outcome a lot worse. A mugging with a knife is unlikely to result in multiple deaths; a mugging with a spoon even less so. Harping on about "personal responsibility" is non-responsive; it is a deflection. To pretend that the prevalence of guns in the US is not affecting the frequency and/or nature of crimes and accidents is intellectually dishonest. One can discuss degrees and contributing causes, but the basic idea that guns are a part of the discussion is pretty inrefutable. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 3:43pm
Generally agree. In response to some followups - while there clearly is a lot (too much) of "I am not a Republican" in the Democratic party, there are plenty of specific proposals out there by Democrats for what they WILL do if (re)elected. It's not all about un-GOP; there are some positive politics out there as well (on both sides). |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 3:43pm
|
So since I own several guns, the odds on me committing a violent crime is correspondingly greater than if I did not own any firearms? Or is it a case of personal responsibility with the ownership of said weapons. -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 3:44pm
|
Class time gotta go.................. -------------
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 3:49pm
Well if you keep them in your home the odds of you killing a family member or loved one greatly increases. -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 3:55pm
|
I have no numbers, but I would make a large wager that statistically speaking you are MUCH more likely to commit a violent crime if you own a gun than if you do not. Of course, there are causation issues involved, so that isn't entirely responsive, but the correlation is almost certainly there. But more importantly, there is a direct causal link between your gun ownership and the degree of violence that is likely to result from any violent incident you get involved with - whether or not you commit a crime. (Again, no specific numbers here for backup:) If you commit a crime with a gun, people are more likely to get seriously hurt than if you committed that crime without a gun. If someone commits a crime against you, people are more likely to get seriously hurt if you have a gun than if you don't have a gun. If a child finds your gun, somebody is more likely to get seriously hurt than if a child finds almost anything else you own. Guns are the great escalator. Small violence + spoon = small violence. Small violence + gun = big violence. When was the last time you heard of a road rage incident turning deadly with a spoon? The danger with guns is that they only have one speed: deadly. Every other weapon has some degree of modulation built in. With guns, everything becomes a life-or-death struggle.
Please translate this into something specific. I can't see the argument for all the rhetoric-fog.
|
Posted By: Predatorr
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 4:04pm
it doesnt matter what is used. If you get rid of guns altogether, you just might see crimes being committed with clubs again. I forget which enlightenment thinker it was (Locke?) who said that people are generally violent in nature. I think it's a distinct possibility, that people have a propensity to be violent, or whatever, but getting rid of guns won't solve anything. It's not the weapon in question, people will make another, it's the people to blame. With that said, it's just impossible to stop criminals from getting some sort of weapon, reasonably. I really don't have a solution to that problem, just a thought. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 4:22pm
|
Locke was Tabula Rasa, but that's not important... Pred - I agree that violent folk will find a way to be violent, but did you read my points about escalation? Yes, people will commit crimes with clubs, but I would rather have my house invaded by a guy wielding a club than a guy wielding a 9mm. Guns don't make the crime; they make the crime worse. |
Posted By: Predatorr
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 4:39pm
good point, i guess the question is how to eleminate crime from being a factor. is it the people, or the position they're in that leads them to commit a crime? |
Posted By: CarbineKid
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 5:08pm
IF your awaken at night by someone who broke into your house what you you rather have...a hammer, a spoon or .38? I've been there, and Im just glad I had the means to defend my life and that of my familys. I know you like bumper sticker logic, so I'll throw one out for you  . God made man, Sam Colt made them equal.
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 5:19pm
|
As for violent crime involving guns, what are the stats on how many of the people involved in muggings and gang killings are legally allowed to own guns anyways? I'd be willing to bet that most of them are not allowed to own firearms by their state laws if not federal. If you're a convicted felon you can not legally own a handgun. If you have restraining orders against you, you cannot own a handgun. Laws on long guns are not quite as restrictive, but they're close. Every time my dad purchases a firearm his misdemenor pot charges that were supposed to have been expunged from his record in 1975 show up, and I'd bet these gang-bangers have never had an NICS done when they buy their firearms. I think culturally we do have a problem with guns. We glorify vigalantism of the old west, gangsters of the prohibition era and modern ghetto crackhead culture pretty much speaks for itself. If someone steps on your nikes it's ok if not outright demaded that you shoot them in the face. However, there's a diffierance between ensuring criminals dont have guns and making sure average Joe doesn't have one, because he potentially could get pissed off at his old lady some day and shoot her. When you can't buy alergy medication that works or a box of ammo because of the actions of other irresponsible people, society has failed to stop the problem and has simple run out of ideas. Tae, I believe that state you gave about being X-many times more likely to kill a family member includes suicides and estranged spouses. Shame on you for crapping on other people's use of statistics. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 5:28pm
|
A vastly more difficult question - wish that I had the answer to that one. |
Posted By: Rico's Revenge
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 5:37pm
|
"Statistically speaking" you are MUCH more likely to commit a violent crime if you illegally own a gun than if you legally own a registered firearm. ------------- "Thats right, I play pump... your girlfriend borrowed my last set of batteries." "How many times a second are you going to miss me before I shoot you?" Dave Ellis Rocks!!! |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 6:37pm
|
Certainly true. But the overwhelming majority of guns owned ILLEGALY were initially bought legally. Most guns used in crimes were legally bought. |
Posted By: Predatorr
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 6:38pm
those two go hand in hand, owning a gun and the proclivity to commit a crime again |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 30 October 2006 at 10:00pm
I'm in a state with an assault weapons ban, and the street value of banned firearms is less than what you'd pay for them legally in other states or even what dealers pay wholesale. It just doesn't make economic sense that thse guns are being bought legally then sold for profit. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 31 October 2006 at 8:47am
|
^^^^ Bought legally by somebody other than the crime-committer. Most recent DOJ stats show that a majority of guns used in crimes were borrowed/given/bought from somebody who bought it legally, or stolen from somebody who bought it legally. This is a significant shift from pre-Brady times, when a bigger chunk of crime-guns were bought legally by the criminal. My recollection is that the "borrowed" category was the largest - I would have to look. My point was just the one you made - that there isn't a big gun-smuggling business in the US. No need, since you can obtain legal/formerly-legal guns fairly easily. The only guns that are really smuggled in any significant numbers are post-86 automatic weapons or other Class III weapons. As a result, legal gun owners are the largest contributor to the pool of guns used in crimes in the country. Not gun smugglers, not crooked dealers - legal gun owners. |