Kerry scores 100%!

[Calif. Hunter]

John Kerry has voted for all 20 of the major 20 pieces of legislation supported by the anti-gun group headed by Sarah Brady...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1076007/posts

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Uh - no one has any comments on this? I guess it is taken for granted that Kerry is anti-2nd Amendment.

 

[Whiskers]

I think that deserves a NO vote for Kerry from every gun owner, hunter, and freedom seeking American.
Where is Elkgunner on this one.

 

[Ten Bears]

CH, it's bad when you have to resort to responding to yourself (I know). I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

[JoseCuervo]

OK, I'll bite.... and I won't even bother reading the link CH posted, and I can still get you guys calling me names....

Cali,
How do you figure Kerry is anti-2nd amendment. The quick look at the list of the items you linked to did not seem to have 2nd amendment items. They just had riders to laws, designed to keep bad people from having guns and keep guns that are not needed by anyone from getting on the street.

We should all be glad that Kerry was concerned with keeping us safe. Unlike Dubya who ignored all the warnings of Clarke's.

Whiskers, I saw nothing that would limit my hunting, in that list of Kerry's votes. Why should I, as a hunter, vote against Kerry? He is the one that wants to protect my Public Lands so I can find something to hunt. He is the one that wants to appoint a Salmon Czar, so I can catch wild Salmon in Idaho.

 

[Canoe]

ElkGunner,
Thinking that Democrats will not screw you out of your second amendment rights just because you are a gun owning democrat, is like standing out in the field thinking that the bull won't charge you because you are a vegitarian!

 

[Calif. Hunter]

If you bothered to read the article, you would have noticed that Kerry voted to (among other things) require the sale of a locking device with the firearm (added cost for no real benefit), block the backing of the new Civilan Marksmanship program (enabling more participation in the shooting sports and promoting the same), etc.

Funny, having to buy a lock or swear under penalty of perjury that I have an "approved" safe does not make me feel safer in the least.

Blocking further education and opportunities for new shooters only advances the agenda of the anti-2nd Amendment crowd.

And that is just two of the Kerry votes listed.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Calif. Hunter:
Kerry voted to (among other things) require the sale of a locking device with the firearm (added cost for no real benefit), block the backing of the new Civilan Marksmanship program (enabling more participation in the shooting sports and promoting the same), etc.

Blocking further education and opportunities for new shooters only advances the agenda of the anti-2nd Amendment crowd.

Cali,

Do you really think the additon of a $0.85 trigger lock adds significantly to the cost of a $400 pistol? We require tons of "locks" on equipment, from farm machines with clutch "locks" and PTO guards to washing machines with locks, or freezers. It is hardly an infingement on 2nd amendement rights to add an $0.85 cent trigger lock into a case....

And I don't see where the "Civilian Marksmanship" program is even needed nor is a threat to the 2nd Amendment. Am I missing something here? I learned how to shoot by going out to the BLM land with my dad and shooting washing machines and old Chevys. Isn't that the proper way?

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Do you really feel safer with the addition of an "0.85 cent" trigger lock? Do you see any reason why the government should tell you to keep your firearm locked? Do you think the government should tell you what you can buy or cannot buy, if it is a legal product?

You do not care if your government supports the shooting sports? What about when shooting is prohibited on BLM land, and the majority of voters (most of whom have never touched a firearm) supports that move? After all, shooting or hunting is not a Constitutionally protected right...

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Calif. Hunter:
Do you really feel safer with the addition of an "0.85 cent" trigger lock? Do you think the government should tell you what you can buy or cannot buy, if it is a legal product?

You do not care if your government supports the shooting sports? What about when shooting is prohibited on BLM land, and the majority of voters (most of whom have never touched a firearm) supports that move? After all, shooting or hunting is not a Constitutionally protected right...

Cali,
The government tells me all the time what I can and can not buy, and I don't feel like my rights are impacted. I can not buy a passenger vehicle without an airbag. The government controls what percentage of alcohol is in my wine. They control what countries my Cigars can come from. They dictate what temp my food must be served. Not a big deal if they say I need an $0.85 gun lock to be included with my $400 gun. And keep in mind, "they" is "we"....

Yeah, I really don't care if the gov't supports the shooting sports. Why should they provide funding for a "sport" that is more of a recreation? Should they fund "golfing"? Should they fund "Falconry"? Should they fund "skiing"? It seems like a funny business to be in, and again, I am not sure why you fault Kerry for his votes.

I do fault Dubya for not funding our school systems. I fault Dubya for not protecting our BLM ground so there is something to hunt.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Since you have no concern about your rights, there's nothing that will upset you but the possiblity that you might catch a fish??? Why should I care about catching a salmon in Idaho? I'll probably never fish there, and like a million other people who benefit from the electricity provided by dams or from the oil obtained from the oil fields of the West and Alaska, I'll just vote my own short-sighted agenda.

Personally, when the rounds were coming my way in SE Asia, I was glad to have been a member of the Long Beach Police Jr. Rifle Club since I was 10 - a government sponsored marksmanship program. I saw a lot of guys die who were not as proficient. But hey, they had 16 weeks of training. And probably a Dad who also did not believe in civilian marksmanship training.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Cali,
You still haven't shown me enough reason why we should not vote for Kerry, just because Sara Brady and he agreed on some relatively unimportant issues. I thought you would have some better arguments on this than the unnecessary cost of the $0.85 lock.

There are tons of good reasons to vote for or against Kerry/Bush. But the threats on the 2nd Amendment are not even valid in this campaign.

And you argument on the Civilian Marksmanship program is relatively minor in today's world, isn't it? I don't know that I ever see any of those programs here, and the few programs the local gun clubs have are populated by kids whose dads are members of the gun club. They would be shooting irregardless of the goverment funding. Would you have not been shooting as a 10 year old if not for the government? I have to confess, this program does not register on my list of hot buttons, for or against, and likely the funding is so minor, it is an irrelevant issue. Certainly not one to fill me with outrage and sway my votes.

And if you want to know why you should care about catching Salmon, because you have a young son (if I remember correctly from other posts) that he may one day want to catch a salmon in Idaho. It does not matter a "hill of beans" if you or I catch a Salmon in Idaho, but it does matter if MY kids do.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

We will simply have to disagree, EG. You see, I don't like the government telling me that I have to lock up my firearms, wear a seatbelt, wear a motorcycle helmet, eat food served at a certain temperature or any other intrusions into what is an area of personal choice. I don't like them telling me that I do not have the right to defend myself and I have to ask permission, like a peasant or serf, to carry a weapon. I should be able to buy a new car without an airbag if I want to. Demand for products and services will create much of what the government and the Democrats seem to think that they need to provide for us. They know what is best for us, better than we do? I simply do not like that attitude or approach, but you seem to find it acceptable.

Kerry and Bush are both politicians, and have both flip-flopped. Kerry has it down to a science, however, and I cannot trust him on a single issue - not one. (Except that he favors gun control - at least he is consistent on that issue.) He is anti-war, yet trumpets his vet status. He threw his medals at the White House - oh wait, those were his friend's medals, not his. He was for the military action in Iraq - no, wait, he was against it. He has flipped on every single issue I have examined.

Bush's very lack of sophistication, as someone else pointed out, leads me to trust him more. He may make mistakes, and like any politician, he favors those who back him. At the core, though, I think he does try to do what is best for the American people on what counts - national security, taxation, the economy (I do favor Reaganomics - argue about that all you want), and I believe I heard the other day that school test scores were way up, partly due to his "No child left behind" program. But then again, I do not rely upon the school district to teach my children everything they need to know - that is my job and their mother's job. We take our son to museums, we are charter members of the Aquarium of the Pacific, various zoos, and he has been to several states and Hawaii at the age of 5.

[ 03-25-2004, 10:16: Message edited by: Calif. Hunter ]

 

[RockyDog]

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/sportsmen/

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Big deal - Kerry hunts when the cameras are on him before the primaries in Kansas and Iowa - huge bird hunting states. Diane Feinstein has a CCW - but she doesn't anyone else to have one.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Cali,

If we were playing Chess, the only thing left for me to say would be Check Mate!

And if we were playing Poker, I would have to tell you that your Pair of Threes isn't enough with my Full House, Aces over Kings.....

Of all the takes on Kerry you could have had, you pulled some weak cards ($0.85 gun locks and Trap Shooting for Kids). There were better ones in the list.

But the bottom line is, Kerry is a hunter, and values hunting and the outdoors. Dubya doesn't hunt (shooting Killdeer and MeadowLarks is not hunting), and besides, if he did hunt, it would be the Texas thing, where you sit in a High Fence, and shoot deer at a feeder. Obviously Kerry is a better friend to hunters than Dubya.

Kerry won't take your guns, Dubya won't take your guns. That is even.

More chilling though, is Dubya wants to register your thoughts and your books. He wants to be able to use his Patriot Act to take away ALL of your rights, not just the ones with guns. Keep in mind the USSR did not fall because of an armed citizenry, it fell because they gave up control of peoples thoughts and idealogy.

No need to reply, I'll let it rest for a week, and give you time to come up with another topic.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

In the article on Kerry hunting, it plainly states that Kerry is an on-again, off-again hunter. (Kinda like his stance on everything.) Bush hunts quail every year and more than once, and more than just when the cameras are on him in a campaign.


I would like to know how anyone can register thoughts. (Talk about erroneous statements.)

I merely picked two of the first things in the list of anti-gun legislation that did not have to do with background checks, which you seem to approve of. There were many, many votes cast by Kerry that show his true stance on firearms ownership.

Nice of you to admit that you have been checkmated. Do you admit, then, that you like having the government make your choices for you?

"The government tells me all the time what I can and can not buy, and I don't feel like my rights are impacted."

[ 03-26-2004, 09:52: Message edited by: Calif. Hunter ]

 

[Calif. Hunter]

What else did Kerry support? A 5-day waiting period for all firearms purchases. (Proven to be no deterrent to criminals, who do not obtain their firearms through legal channels anyway - just like the backgrounds checks, a waste of time and tax dollars. Compare crime stats for states with waiting periods to those without delays.)

Criminal liability for failing to keep your guns locked up. (Gee, Mr. Burglar, would you wait while I open the gun safe? ) How about teaching kids not to touch guns? Oh wait, firearms safety program funds were voted down by Kerry, too. So the neighbor's kid, whose Dad does not own guns, will know nothing about gun safety.

But funding for inefficient, worthless gun buy-back programs would be in place, if Kerry's vote had carried the day.

And, if Kerry is not such an anti-gun politician, why does he rate an F, not a "C" or even a "D," but an "F" from Gun Owners of America?

 

[ELKCHSR]

It all really boils down to the fact that what some think the second amendment was originally designed for were so we could carry hunting rifles into the field for pleasure. That only tells us that those same individuals have not studied history in the least. Why was the second amendment created? Could it actually have been because the fore fathers that wrote the document knew of the inherent dangers of a Government gone awry, could it have been that they actually lived thru such times?
Those individuals that think our gun rights only reflect the hunting sector of our society have no idea of the true meaning of this fundamental right given us, or have their heads buried in the sand hoping that will help protect us.

 

[A-con]

Exactly right, EG.

Elkgunner
Sounds like CH just took your Queen.

If we can't convince you to VOTE BUSH, please, at least waste you vote on some no-name write-in like Buzz, and let the rest of us decide whos going to be President.

[ 04-03-2004, 22:14: Message edited by: A-con ]