Badnarik "Gun Control Means Being Able to Hit your Target"

[tpahl]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
Travis - has it occured to you that his position has not changed and that is why there is nothing more "current"?

If his position has not changed, then he should have his old position up on his official georgewbush.com website. But instead there is nothing that I can find on that site.

RE: the link I sent and your dismissal. You never stated you could not find it in a serious tone.

I said... quote "if anyone could give me the URL for GW Bush's position on guns this campaign that would be great. Strangely I can not find it anywhere on this campaign site."

I am sorry if you did not take that as a serious request. I really do find it odd that the candidate most all people that value the 2nd amendment are supporting has not one word about the second amendment on his site.

What I sent you was a quick google search. I had no vested interest to send you anything more. Had you sincerly asked for help I would have given it. Seems however if you are trying to make a point, who better to research the supportive material tha you? After all, you are the only one that knows the point of view you are trying to present.

I am trying to make a point. And that point is that Bush is weak on the 2nd amendment issue. Just saying he has no stated position on his website to me is not giving him a fair chance. perhaps I just am bad at navigating through his site. Using old position papers from past campaigns and third party sites I could have done, but felt that is not fair since his position could have changed or been misrepresented. That is why I was requesting something more recent and official in regards to Bushs stance on this position.

If you do not want to help me, that is fine. But do not post crappy sites that you did not even bother to look at and then get upset when I dismiss them.

Travis

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
Yes but he will have to address the expiring ban...it expires in Sep.....before the election....wait and see..
for the record though, I couldn't care less...I'm a Republican from the South...I AM my gun's control...

wouldn't you rather see a candidate that is pushing to ease or elliminate federal gun laws rather than maintain the status quo? Have you considered supporting badnarik? Even if he is not elected a strong showing will force the republican party to not take the 2nd amendment votes for granted as they appear to be doing.

Travis

 

[leojoeyjoe]

he doesn't have it on his site because he doesn't want it brought up because he doesn't want to say he is in favor of renewing a ban that the 2nd amendment folks are against...how many times do we need to explain it before you understand?

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by tpahl
If you do not want to help me, that is fine. But do not post crappy sites that you did not even bother to look at and then get upset when I dismiss them.

Not upset homer, just totally amazed that's all. There are better things in life to worry about than your whining that you can't find updated material in a position that has not changed.

Let's assume you got an "A" in P.E. in your senior year in H.S. It is now four years later and to the best of your knowledge, you haven't repeated your senior year and therfore the P.E. class. Would there be a logical reason to expect to see a new report card with today's date on it stating the same fact of four years ago?

Shit, if the position has not changed, get over it and post what you have; why would it upset you that he hasn't restated his potition, why should you care?

Don't expect others to find your info to support your position unless you have them on paid staff. You didn't even have the class to say thanks for the minimal effort given.
:cof:

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by HGROKIT

Let's assume you got an "A" in P.E. in your senior year in H.S. It is now four years later and to the best of your knowledge, you haven't repeated your senior year and therfore the P.E. class. Would there be a logical reason to expect to see a new report card with today's date on it stating the same fact of four years ago?

That is a horrible analogy.

Shit, if the position has not changed, get over it and post what you have; why would it upset you that he hasn't restated his potition, why should you care?

I have already stated why I care, but i will do it again. He is expecting the pro gun lobby support yet he is afraid to put anything on his official campaign site about his position on the 2nd amendment. That should tell the pro gun people something.

Don't expect others to find your info to support your position unless you have them on paid staff. You didn't even have the class to say thanks for the minimal effort given.
:cof:

I did not expect anybody to do anything. I asked politely. I did not demand. If you did not want to help, then just do not help. And if you post links that do not help what so ever, do not expect gratitude.

I did thank the person that posted the site with his positions from 2000. I did not thank you because your site had no information and required a subscription and it was obvious you had not even looked at it.

If anyone was offended that I asked for a link to Bush's current policy on gun control and felt I was demanding others to do work for me, I am truly sorry. In the future, please do not take any request for information from me as a demand. only respond if you feel like helping. Now if you have nothing to say about the actual topic (presidential candidates positions on the 2nd amendment or lack of position in Bush's case) then lets just end this whole crappy sub thread.

Travis Pahl

 

[HGROKIT]

i'll let it go, but have to say, Bush has a position. Why must you insist he does not simply because he hasn't restated it?

no need to answer, I've asked the question in several different ways. Either you don't get it or just don't want to acknowledge the position has not changed.

If i find something meaningful, I will share it.

Perhaps in some future thread, we might find common ground, then again we may not

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
i'll let it go, but have to say, Bush has a position. Why must you insist he does not simply because he hasn't restated it?

no need to answer, I've asked the question in several different ways. Either you don't get it or just don't want to acknowledge the position has not changed.

I admit he has a position on guns and I am assuming it has not changed. What I am questioning is two things...

1. First I am questioning what his decision not to restate his position on guns this election on his official website means.

His position has remained the same on virtually all issues except using the military for 'nation-building'. Yet he has put up his views on his official website for many other issues despite the lack of change. His lack of such a statement on guns does means something more than just that his position has not changed.

In my opinion it means he knows it is a weak position that would only cost him votes by advertising it.

2. Second I am questioning why so many 2nd amendment activists supported Bush in 2000 and why they might do so again when his views are counter to 2nd amendment activists views AND there is a candidate who fully supports the 2nd amendment (Badnarik).

 

[Avatar4321]

He probably isnt restating his issue because no ones trying to emphasize the opposite. if Kerry was running anti gun ads Bush would probably state his position. there is just no point in it. Its not an issue.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by tpahl
if anyone could give me the URL for GW Bush's position on guns this campaign that would be great. Strangely I can not find it anywhere on this campaign site.

The following site gives a good overview of Bush's position on gun control. Personally I believe that semi-automatic weapons should be available but only to those citizens that demonstrate teh ability to use them for protection for themselves and their famlies and not for criminal or terrorist purposes.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32170

 

[Isaac Brock]

Who the heck needs a semi-automatic weapon or assault rifle?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Who the heck needs a semi-automatic weapon or assault rifle?

I'd like one in case we ever need it.

 

[leojoeyjoe]

People use them for sport....for target practice....I have a good friend with an AK...he's responsible...in law enforcement....and its fun to take it out, buy some bullets and let 'er rip....

 

[pegwinn]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
People use them for sport....for target practice....I have a good friend with an AK...he's responsible...in law enforcement....and its fun to take it out, buy some bullets and let 'er rip....

I should be allowed to have *any* weapon I want. Until I personally abuse the right, you shouldn't have the right to abridge my right. did that make sense?

 

[leojoeyjoe]

No arguments here buddy....goin' shootin tuesday
not with the AK, though

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I'd like one in case we ever need it.

DK for Pres!!

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by pegwinn
I should be allowed to have *any* weapon I want. Until I personally abuse the right, you shouldn't have the right to abridge my right. did that make sense?

What would you need with nuclear weapons?

 

[pegwinn]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
What would you need with nuclear weapons?

I don't. Thats not the point. The second amendment says ". . . shall not be abridged". It doesn't say that I have to prove a need to possess the weapon. I should be able to have any weapon I choose. I can't build a nuke, but I have a helluva FAE device in mind as a booby trap if you break into my storage shed.

 

[ajwps]

Scenario:

During WW2 the Nazi storm troopers after conquering a great deal of Europe and Russia went into the citizen's homes, marched them outside and shot or hung them immediately.

In the distant future of the USA, if a tryant should arise through an election, just like ole Adolph and begin a campaign against many citizens because they were black, brown, Catholic, Jew or anyone he deemed undesirable, would you want to protect yourself from the army or police storming your home with a 38 caliber pistol?

If you think that this an impossibility right here in our country of freedom and equality, you are in for a big surprise. Before WW2, Germany was the most civilized country in all of Europe with poets, writers, thinkers, ballet, opera theaters and a government run by elections.

The operative words are always, forever and never. You might want some weapons (semi-automatic armor piercing bullets) in your possession that would keepany would be tyrant and his army from thinking about killing you and your family like sheep.

That does not mean that criminals or terrorists have any right to keep and bear arms and use the 2nd Amendment against our own people.

 

[dilloduck]

How about howitzers, apaches, and F-15s?----Does Mr. B think we should all be allowed to have these too?

 

[leojoeyjoe]

Actually I've got a friend with an apache..he just uses it to hunt deer though....