The Anti-gun candidate seeks pro-gun vote

[CCTAU 3,355]

Wolf in sheep's clothing. Achmed is for making sure that rapists have a better weapon to rape with than we have to stop them with. Only problem is, none of those rich liberal gun-hating bastards ever have to worry about getting raped....THEY ALL HAVE ARMED SECURITY GUARDS.

Anti-gunners are all the same, if there were no guns, then people would just be all rosy and nice. Only problem with that is that there will always be a bad guy. The bad guy will always take a chance on having a weapon from somewhere.

Achmed is promoting the Brady bunches' flawed agenda. He is as left wing as they come and is anti-gun. If you own a firearm and vote for this guy, you are promoting the anti-gun agenda. You need to examine which personal freedoms mean the most to you.

[TexasTiger 13,136]

You ask that "I keep my personal beliefs at bay." Interesting phrasing for a discussion board. Actually, my personal beliefs aren't driving my point here. I got my first gun when I was about 7. I own about 4 handguns now. I don't have a concealed carry permit, but I favor the availability of such permits provided that adequate safeguards are in place. If I felt I needed one, I'd get one. I don't see the laws changing in this regard in Texas any time soon, unless they get less strict. Dems aren't touching gun control in any significant way again any time soon. It cost them the Congress last time. But if folks in Chicago decide for or against concealed carry, that's up to them, IMO.

The rationale for limiting handgun purchases to one or two a month is that for the average law-abiding citizen, the ability to buy that many guns should not prove to be burdensome. If there were no limit, however, I could stock up at every gun shop in town, head out to east LA and sell them to gang banger ex-cons who can't buy them legally. Can most ex-cons who want them get them anyway? Sure. But why make it easier to transfer large quantities of firepower to folks who are dangerous and not entitled, especially when the restriction is pretty meaningless for 99.9% of law abiding citizens?

Why can't I buy more than one pack of sudafed a week? Cause idiots abuse it and I don't really need more than one pack a week.

"Cop Killer bullets" are a bit of misnomer, but typically refer to teflon coated bullets with a brass core that better penetrates surfaces than does lead. I'm not aware of restrictions on hollow-points, at least not anywhere I have lived.

Do I want to limit law-abiding citizens from owning firearms? Not in anyway I consider meaningful. Do I want the idiot down the street to have a howitzer sitting in his driveway? Not really. Do I want the dude next door buying 20 guns a month. Uh, no. Do I care if he has a handgun for protection or shotgun, or a rifle? Not as long as he keeps them away from kids who might shoot themselves or others.

If a whip smart inventor creates kevlar piercing bullets do I want him selling those at Walmart? No, I don't

No, we don't "fully enforce" any law.

What exactly is the rationale of limiting handgun purchases to 2 per month? granted, I cannot ever remember buying 2 per month anyway, so this would have no real impact on me other than setting a dangerous precedent in the limiting of constitutional rights. Can you think of anything else that if you meet the requirements to purchase the government limits? Should we limit alcohol purchases in an effort to curb DUIs?

What exactly is a "cop killer" bullet? Most of the press about "cop killer" bulllets erronously refered to hollow point type ammunition that is much less likely to penetrate the body armor that most police officers where (but is very effective against home intruders). If you are refering to armor pericing, depleted uranium or other penetrator ammunition, once again this wouldn't impact the vast majority of gun owners, but would also impact very few criminals. These types of ammunition are typically quite expensive and not easy to come by. I would doubt most criminals pay permium money for ammunition, or buy it from the types of shops that carry these types of "high end" ammunition - typically these types of shops are the most strict in following the laws.

Regarding "stricter" gun laws - I've got a few questions I'd like to hear your opinion on:

1) What is the "intent" of these "stricter" laws? Do you want to limit the availability of firearms to law abiding citizens?

2) Do you feel we "fully enforce" our exisitng laws today? How many criminals do you see let out early for "overcrowding" or "good behavior"? Is this really an issue of needing MORE laws and restrictions, or either enforcing the ones we have or increasing the punishments?

3) What additional types of laws do you propose that would deter the behavior of criminals? Other than disarming the law abiding citizens, what will more restrictions do for us?

Please try to keep your personal beliefs at bay - whether or not you see the need for a handgun, concealed carry, etc really has no bearing as to the current laws, protection of the second ammendment, etc.

I think much of "mainstream America" believe that the average American exercising his 2nd Amendment rights can do so buying only 60 handguns in a five-year period. Most folks don't have a problem banning cop-killer bullets.

More Americans favor "stricter gun control" than less strict.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...poll020514.html

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105721/Public-B...t-Own-Guns.aspx

I wonder why he hasn't used this same shifty tactic to try and get votes from anti abortion groups? His record and stances on that subject are just as far left wing as his gun control views.

Other than the fact that it is your natural reflex, what about his gun control views do you see as "far left wing?"

What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." that bothers far left dims? I use the term far left dims because there has been a war going on for control and directions of the Democrat party. That war is being won by the far left. Which can be evidenced by the one who will most likely be their candidate in the next election.

I understand that you don't want any restrictions and he supports some. But he does believe in an individual right to bear arms, which many on the "far left" don't believe in. The fact is, his views are pretty much in the mainstream of America. Everyone isn't an NRA absolutist. You're free to disagree with him, but I'm just saying this is typical of calling Dems who are more in the mainstream of America than so many of their right-wing critics who claim they are so extreme. The right wing doesn't really know where the middle actually is on most issues. They take an absolutist position that you can't get to the "right" of and call anyone to their left "far left" .

What are his beliefs - single shot only, to be purchased on intervals that he deems appropriate? If meet the requirements to own a firearm why in the heck should it be "1 per month?" Do we limit other purchases (at least not yet)?

I'm also curious about your "this is much more mainstream America" - what are you using to make this statement? Just because YOU believe that doesn't mean that is what "mainstream" America believes. The far left is no more elightened on "mainstream" issues than the far right, and in many cases are far more ignorant of the reprucussions of what they tout.

[GoAU 1,612]

A well thought out and spoken response. By "keeping personal beliefs out, I did not intend it to mean keep your opions out of a post, just as to what the law should be and to base it on intended consequences and how to achieve them.

You are correct that Texas would be one of the last places to emplace any "strict" gun control (TN would be right there too, thankfully) but my real concern is for the law abiding citizens in "occupied terrorites" such as CA, NY and the Peoples Demokratic Republic of Mass. and the "borderline states".

I had figured thats where you were heading with the limiting of handgun purchases, but I would also point out that there are already laws in place that account for weapon trafficing without a license and knowingly selling a handgun to a criminal, as well as to punish those who own guns illegally.

To my knowledge there is no limit that I have seen to buying Sudafed.

You ask that "I keep my personal beliefs at bay." Interesting phrasing for a discussion board. Actually, my personal beliefs aren't driving my point here. I got my first gun when I was about 7. I own about 4 handguns now. I don't have a concealed carry permit, but I favor the availability of such permits provided that adequate safeguards are in place. If I felt I needed one, I'd get one. I don't see the laws changing in this regard in Texas any time soon, unless they get less strict. Dems aren't touching gun control in any significant way again any time soon. It cost them the Congress last time. But if folks in Chicago decide for or against concealed carry, that's up to them, IMO.

The rationale for limiting handgun purchases to one or two a month is that for the average law-abiding citizen, the ability to buy that many guns should not prove to be burdensome. If there were no limit, however, I could stock up at every gun shop in town, head out to east LA and sell them to gang banger ex-cons who can't buy them legally. Can most ex-cons who want them get them anyway? Sure. But why make it easier to transfer large quantities of firepower to folks who are dangerous and not entitled, especially when the restriction is pretty meaningless for 99.9% of law abiding citizens?

Why can't I buy more than one pack of sudafed a week? Cause idiots abuse it and I don't really need more than one pack a week.

"Cop Killer bullets" are a bit of misnomer, but typically refer to teflon coated bullets with a brass core that better penetrates surfaces than does lead. I'm not aware of restrictions on hollow-points, at least not anywhere I have lived.

Do I want to limit law-abiding citizens from owning firearms? Not in anyway I consider meaningful. Do I want the idiot down the street to have a howitzer sitting in his driveway? Not really. Do I want the dude next door buying 20 guns a month. Uh, no. Do I care if he has a handgun for protection or shotgun, or a rifle? Not as long as he keeps them away from kids who might shoot themselves or others.

If a whip smart inventor creates kevlar piercing bullets do I want him selling those at Walmart? No, I don't

No, we don't "fully enforce" any law.

What exactly is the rationale of limiting handgun purchases to 2 per month? granted, I cannot ever remember buying 2 per month anyway, so this would have no real impact on me other than setting a dangerous precedent in the limiting of constitutional rights. Can you think of anything else that if you meet the requirements to purchase the government limits? Should we limit alcohol purchases in an effort to curb DUIs?

What exactly is a "cop killer" bullet? Most of the press about "cop killer" bulllets erronously refered to hollow point type ammunition that is much less likely to penetrate the body armor that most police officers where (but is very effective against home intruders). If you are refering to armor pericing, depleted uranium or other penetrator ammunition, once again this wouldn't impact the vast majority of gun owners, but would also impact very few criminals. These types of ammunition are typically quite expensive and not easy to come by. I would doubt most criminals pay permium money for ammunition, or buy it from the types of shops that carry these types of "high end" ammunition - typically these types of shops are the most strict in following the laws.

Regarding "stricter" gun laws - I've got a few questions I'd like to hear your opinion on:

1) What is the "intent" of these "stricter" laws? Do you want to limit the availability of firearms to law abiding citizens?

2) Do you feel we "fully enforce" our exisitng laws today? How many criminals do you see let out early for "overcrowding" or "good behavior"? Is this really an issue of needing MORE laws and restrictions, or either enforcing the ones we have or increasing the punishments?

3) What additional types of laws do you propose that would deter the behavior of criminals? Other than disarming the law abiding citizens, what will more restrictions do for us?

Please try to keep your personal beliefs at bay - whether or not you see the need for a handgun, concealed carry, etc really has no bearing as to the current laws, protection of the second ammendment, etc.

I think much of "mainstream America" believe that the average American exercising his 2nd Amendment rights can do so buying only 60 handguns in a five-year period. Most folks don't have a problem banning cop-killer bullets.

More Americans favor "stricter gun control" than less strict.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...poll020514.html

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105721/Public-B...t-Own-Guns.aspx

I wonder why he hasn't used this same shifty tactic to try and get votes from anti abortion groups? His record and stances on that subject are just as far left wing as his gun control views.

Other than the fact that it is your natural reflex, what about his gun control views do you see as "far left wing?"

What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." that bothers far left dims? I use the term far left dims because there has been a war going on for control and directions of the Democrat party. That war is being won by the far left. Which can be evidenced by the one who will most likely be their candidate in the next election.

I understand that you don't want any restrictions and he supports some. But he does believe in an individual right to bear arms, which many on the "far left" don't believe in. The fact is, his views are pretty much in the mainstream of America. Everyone isn't an NRA absolutist. You're free to disagree with him, but I'm just saying this is typical of calling Dems who are more in the mainstream of America than so many of their right-wing critics who claim they are so extreme. The right wing doesn't really know where the middle actually is on most issues. They take an absolutist position that you can't get to the "right" of and call anyone to their left "far left" .

What are his beliefs - single shot only, to be purchased on intervals that he deems appropriate? If meet the requirements to own a firearm why in the heck should it be "1 per month?" Do we limit other purchases (at least not yet)?

I'm also curious about your "this is much more mainstream America" - what are you using to make this statement? Just because YOU believe that doesn't mean that is what "mainstream" America believes. The far left is no more elightened on "mainstream" issues than the far right, and in many cases are far more ignorant of the reprucussions of what they tout.

[TexasTiger 13,136]

There are laws in place against selling metamphetamines, too, but people still buy up sudafed and produce it. That's why many states, including Texas, limit how much sudafed you can buy to what you would reasonably use.

The states you mention may tend to have more restrictions-- that's "states' rights" under federalism-- as long as they don't unduly limit a Constitutional right, they can do that. I think we're about to see that play out in DC where the restriction is too great and will be overturned. Although there may be a twist-- D.C. is federal and the Bill of Rights necessarily apply. Those 10 amendments did not originally apply against the states. Will the Court limit their decision to federally controlled areas or make it more broad?

A well thought out and spoken response. By "keeping personal beliefs out, I did not intend it to mean keep your opions out of a post, just as to what the law should be and to base it on intended consequences and how to achieve them.

You are correct that Texas would be one of the last places to emplace any "strict" gun control (TN would be right there too, thankfully) but my real concern is for the law abiding citizens in "occupied terrorites" such as CA, NY and the Peoples Demokratic Republic of Mass. and the "borderline states".

I had figured thats where you were heading with the limiting of handgun purchases, but I would also point out that there are already laws in place that account for weapon trafficing without a license and knowingly selling a handgun to a criminal, as well as to punish those who own guns illegally.

To my knowledge there is no limit that I have seen to buying Sudafed.

[GoAU 1,612]

How exactly do they limit OTC sudafed purchases? Do you have to register it? What would stop you from going to multiple stores and stocking up?

I guess the whole thing boils down to your comment about "unduly limiting a constitutional right - the states I listed are some examples of where a right has been unduly limited.

There are laws in place against selling metamphetamines, too, but people still buy up sudafed and produce it. That's why many states, including Texas, limit how much sudafed you can buy to what you would reasonably use.

The states you mention may tend to have more restrictions-- that's "states' rights" under federalism-- as long as they don't unduly limit a Constitutional right, they can do that. I think we're about to see that play out in DC where the restriction is too great and will be overturned. Although there may be a twist-- D.C. is federal and the Bill of Rights necessarily apply. Those 10 amendments did not originally apply against the states. Will the Court limit their decision to federally controlled areas or make it more broad?

A well thought out and spoken response. By "keeping personal beliefs out, I did not intend it to mean keep your opions out of a post, just as to what the law should be and to base it on intended consequences and how to achieve them.

You are correct that Texas would be one of the last places to emplace any "strict" gun control (TN would be right there too, thankfully) but my real concern is for the law abiding citizens in "occupied terrorites" such as CA, NY and the Peoples Demokratic Republic of Mass. and the "borderline states".

I had figured thats where you were heading with the limiting of handgun purchases, but I would also point out that there are already laws in place that account for weapon trafficing without a license and knowingly selling a handgun to a criminal, as well as to punish those who own guns illegally.

To my knowledge there is no limit that I have seen to buying Sudafed.

[channonc 466]

Not to completely hijack the thread... but Federal law requires that cold medicines such as sudafed be sold behind the counter. An individual may not purchase more that 3.6 grams/ transaction and no more than 9 g/month/person of pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine, and ephedrine. The pharmacy is required to have a written or electronic record of the name and address of the purchaser, date of purchase, and amount purchased. These records are kept for at least 2 years.

This was included in the Patriot act signed in 2006.

[GoAU 1,612]

Not to completely hijack the thread... but Federal law requires that cold medicines such as sudafed be sold behind the counter. An individual may not purchase more that 3.6 grams/ transaction and no more than 9 g/month/person of pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine, and ephedrine. The pharmacy is required to have a written or electronic record of the name and address of the purchaser, date of purchase, and amount purchased. These records are kept for at least 2 years.

This was included in the Patriot act signed in 2006.

Interesting - I didn't know that, thanks for educating me.

[CCTAU 3,355]

Not to completely hijack the thread... but Federal law requires that cold medicines such as sudafed be sold behind the counter. An individual may not purchase more that 3.6 grams/ transaction and no more than 9 g/month/person of pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine, and ephedrine. The pharmacy is required to have a written or electronic record of the name and address of the purchaser, date of purchase, and amount purchased. These records are kept for at least 2 years.

This was included in the Patriot act signed in 2006.

Interesting - I didn't know that, thanks for educating me.

A lot of the cold medicines are used to create meth. Which in turn can be sold to help fund terrorism.

As GoAu has stated, there are laws limiting the sale of firearms. If a person is buying a bunch of guns legally, you better believe that the BATF has his name. He is not running to CA to sell them to gang bangers. This is the same scare tactic used by the anti-gunners in every situation. As soon as somebody is shot, the antis come out with an automatic weapon was used to gun down innocent citizens. When in fact, many times, it's a semi auto and the whole thing was a gang war. But never mind the small facts. I bet there are a majority of folks in this country who believe you can just walk into a gun store and buy a machine gun. Never mind that the law against that has been on the books since 1964. This is the type of misinformation and disingenuous propaganda that achmed is a part of. He thinks we have a gun problem that can be fixed with more laws. That is the MAIN agenda of the anti-gunners. Instead of punishing to the max the criminals that use guns, they figure if they just tweek the laws enough, it'll stop crime. BS.

The only way to stop crime is to prevent it by EITHER 1) knowing your surroundings. 2) Showing that you are armed too. 3) Fleeing the situation faster than a bullet can travel. I would not suggest option 3. Having a cell phone and calling the police is an even lower option. Most times you just need to call the ME.

OR

The most effective option is to insure that the criminal never attacks again. The best way to do this is practice the three tap method...2 taps to the chest...1 to the head.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Advil Cold and Sinus works better than Tylonal Sinus. Now I have to wait in line at the pharmacy as well.Just another UN in conspiracy I tell you.