Skip to main content

Why the people of the Shoals had such a love affair with this dude is beyond me. Here's a guy who did great things for Huntsville and Decatur while we were left to die on the vine. As we died, we kept right on voting for him and you know what the definition of insanity is. And the pro-democrat times daily praised him when he helped bring a steel industry to Decatur as a wonderful thing for the Shoals. Everytime he helped bring an industry to north Mississippi, what a wonderful thing it is for the Shoals. How many years was he in office? 10 years? 20? 30? It doesn't matter. In all his years on the job, only 3 decent additions to the Shoals has occured and it probably would have happened with of without him. So as the times daily smothers him in kisses as he leaves, I say get the heck outta here. But good news! I'm sure this other boy we've elected to take his place will be just as efficient at treating the Shoals as an afterthought so we ought to feel right at home.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Used to be an old saying back in the country that went like this; "He's a good ole boy, he just craps too close to the house" I guess he never did much harm and maybe we should be grateful. This new guy rarely mentioned the Shoals while campaigning, but constantly reminded the NASA and Huntsville folks that he would support them well.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
Well, I liked the guy and was one of those who kept voting for him even though I don't usually vote dem.


He may be a nice guy but he knows where his bread is buttered (Huntsville/Decatur) so we were never a priority for him. I've always advocated pledging our support to Wayne Parker or whoever ran against him as a solid voting block. That way, if Parker had a decent showing in the east, he would have won by mopping up in the west. He would have OWED his victory to us. But I guess we enjoy being the doormat to H/D too much to ever change.
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepyshoals:
Cramer did a fine job representing North Alabama. He stepped in and got the transportation money to finish the new bridge AFTER the state reps forgot to ask for it in their appropriations. And 30 years ago he was Huntsville's DA--so it wasn't his job to secure a bridge for us then.


Is this the same wonderful bridge that goes to a 2 lane hwy that already had too much traffic on it? Gun Ban Bud never did anything for NW Alabama. I'm glad he's gone, and wished it had been much sooner.
quote:
Originally posted by Smooth operator:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepyshoals:
Cramer did a fine job representing North Alabama. He stepped in and got the transportation money to finish the new bridge AFTER the state reps forgot to ask for it in their appropriations. And 30 years ago he was Huntsville's DA--so it wasn't his job to secure a bridge for us then.


Is this the same wonderful bridge that goes to a 2 lane hwy that already had too much traffic on it? Gun Ban Bud never did anything for NW Alabama. I'm glad he's gone, and wished it had been much sooner.


Bud did not "ban" enough guns. That was actually one of the good things he did. You assault weapon huggers who want to cuddle up with weapons designed exclusively to kill large numbers of human beings are strange. Really don't need that assault weapon to kill yourself a big ole rabbit, or a tasty raccoon.

*Before you get all nutty and go out and kill something, I am sitting here with my .357 in my special hiding place for personal protection. Not all gun owners feel that assault weapons should be on the market.
Last edited by meanasasnake
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepyshoals:
Cramer did a fine job representing North Alabama. He stepped in and got the transportation money to finish the new bridge AFTER the state reps forgot to ask for it in their appropriations. And 30 years ago he was Huntsville's DA--so it wasn't his job to secure a bridge for us then.


I didn't say it was his job. It was the job of our bungling defacrats of that era, probably Ronnie Flippo and Hefty Heflin. We sure could have used that bridge back then when at least 10,000 jobs were located at the south end (Reynolds, Ford, Union Carbide, TVA) and at least 4,000 jobs (all of the garment factories) on the north end. But now? Just another $100 million or so down the tubes.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
quote:
Originally posted by Smooth operator:
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepyshoals:
Cramer did a fine job representing North Alabama. He stepped in and got the transportation money to finish the new bridge AFTER the state reps forgot to ask for it in their appropriations. And 30 years ago he was Huntsville's DA--so it wasn't his job to secure a bridge for us then.


Is this the same wonderful bridge that goes to a 2 lane hwy that already had too much traffic on it? Gun Ban Bud never did anything for NW Alabama. I'm glad he's gone, and wished it had been much sooner.


Bud did not "ban" enough guns. That was actually one of the good things he did. You assault weapon huggers who want to cuddle up with weapons designed exclusively to kill large numbers of human beings are strange. Really don't need that assault weapon to kill yourself a big ole rabbit, or a tasty raccoon.


Would you participate in an experiment with me? In my yard, I'll put up a sign with the warning: I am armed. Enter at your own risk. In front of your house, put up a sign stating: I'm unarmed. I don't believe in guns. Big Grin That would be like saying: I don't have a gun, come on in! The only reason you are as safe as you are now is because criminals don't know whether you have a gun or not. On the whole, they are cowards who don't want to get shot. So who's house do you think they will take a shot at?
"Would you participate in an experiment with me? In my yard, I'll put up a sign with the warning: I am armed. Enter at your own risk. In front of your house, put up a sign stating: I'm unarmed. I don't believe in guns. That would be like saying: I don't have a gun, come on in! The only reason you are as safe as you are now is because criminals don't know whether you have a gun or not. On the whole, they are cowards who don't want to get shot. So who's house do you think they will take a shot at?"

QUOTE

"*Before you get all nutty and go out and kill something, I am sitting here with my .357 in my special hiding place for personal protection. Not all gun owners feel that assault weapons should be on the market."

Go back up and read my post again. The "ban" Cramer voted on involved automatic assault weapons - not hand guns OR hunting rifles. Like I said, one does not need automatic assault weapons for home defense - unless you are some deranged paranoid, anti-government, sessionist loon, who thinks the ATF is hiding in the woods around your house. In that case you do not NEED to own ANY kind of weapon.

I have lots of friends who own guns. I grew up in a house with many guns and my husband and I own several. I have never known anyone who posted a sign in their yard advertising the fact that guns were inside. Since one can't stay home 24/7 (unless you are that nut case who is waiting for the ATF to conduct a raid), I should imagine that advertising the fact that you have big guns would be inviting break-in and theft. I think our sign from "Certified Alarm" is just as effective. Your little "experiment" sounds like childish theatrical sarcasm.
Last edited by meanasasnake
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
"Would you participate in an experiment with me? In my yard, I'll put up a sign with the warning: I am armed. Enter at your own risk. In front of your house, put up a sign stating: I'm unarmed. I don't believe in guns. That would be like saying: I don't have a gun, come on in! The only reason you are as safe as you are now is because criminals don't know whether you have a gun or not. On the whole, they are cowards who don't want to get shot. So who's house do you think they will take a shot at?"

QUOTE

"*Before you get all nutty and go out and kill something, I am sitting here with my .357 in my special hiding place for personal protection. Not all gun owners feel that assault weapons should be on the market."

Go back up and read my post again. The "ban" Cramer voted on involved automatic assault weapons - not hand guns OR hunting rifles. Like I said, one does not need automatic assault weapons for home defense - unless you are some deranged paranoid, anti-government, sessionist loon, who thinks the ATF is hiding in the woods around your house. In that case you do not NEED to own ANY kind of weapon.

I have lots of friends who own guns. I grew up in a house with many guns and my husband and I own several. I have never known anyone who posted a sign in their yard advertising the fact that guns were inside. Since one can't stay home 24/7 (unless you are that nut case who is waiting for the ATF to conduct a raid), I should imagine that advertising the fact that you have big guns would be inviting break-in and theft. I think our sign from "Certified Alarm" is just as effective. Your little "experiment" sounds like childish theatrical sarcasm.


Sarcasm maybe but childish? If you've ever noticed, we live in a slippery-slope nation. First the take one thing from and then they come back again and again to take more and more. Probably 99% of Americans including me, don't own assault weapons. But mark my words, someday they will come for your trusty .357 and unfortunately there won't be a thing you can do about it.
Sarcasm maybe but childish? If you've ever noticed, we live in a slippery-slope nation. First the take one thing from and then they come back again and again to take more and more. Probably 99% of Americans including me, don't own assault weapons. But mark my words, someday they will come for your trusty .357 and unfortunately there won't be a thing you can do about it.[/QUOTE]

I heard a local gun dealer say once that: "there are extremists on both sides of the gun issue." He is completely right. Automatic assault weapons are designed to kill large numbers of people. Their availablity should be limited to law enforcement and military. I find no reason to the argument for their availability.

Please give me another example of something comparable to this which would be demontrative of this "slippery slope" you mentioned above.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Sarcasm maybe but childish? If you've ever noticed, we live in a slippery-slope nation. First the take one thing from and then they come back again and again to take more and more. Probably 99% of Americans including me, don't own assault weapons. But mark my words, someday they will come for your trusty .357 and unfortunately there won't be a thing you can do about it.


I heard a local gun dealer say once that: "there are extremists on both sides of the gun issue." He is completely right. Automatic assault weapons are designed to kill large numbers of people. Their availablity should be limited to law enforcement and military. I find no reason to the argument for their availability.

Please give me another example of something comparable to this which would be demontrative of this "slippery slope" you mentioned above.[/QUOTE]

Smoking for one. I've never smoked but its interesting to watch the progression. At first you could smoke anywhere. Then you couldn't smoke in theaters, then indoor arenas, then outdoor areans, then restaurants. Now in some areas you can't smoke in your apartment and in some places you can't smoke in public places.
Then there is fatty foods. At first they just put out warnings about fatty foods. Then they made food producers reduce the fat content of their products (caring not that they took away the taste that made the food worth eating in the first place), then they said stop super-sizing meals and now they are helping people sue the fast food industry because somebody has a heart attack because they have no self-control and they over-eat. That's a couple for now. Besides, the extremists have already stated that their goal is to have a gun-free America. Wouldn't THAT be hell on earth for law-abiding people when they can no longer defend themselves. And one more thing. Suppose a few criminals (they rarely work alone these days) break into your home carrying assault rifles. Would you stand a better chance with an assault rifle of your own or a .357? I know its not something we like to think about but its true. The criminals will always be able to get their hands on any type guns they want and we would be at their mercy. We would be now if they weren't sure if you are waiting for them with a .357 or an assault rifle. The only thing that keeps them at bay is the fact that they don't want to get shot.
quote:
Originally posted by kperk:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Sarcasm maybe but childish? If you've ever noticed, we live in a slippery-slope nation. First the take one thing from and then they come back again and again to take more and more. Probably 99% of Americans including me, don't own assault weapons. But mark my words, someday they will come for your trusty .357 and unfortunately there won't be a thing you can do about it.


I heard a local gun dealer say once that: "there are extremists on both sides of the gun issue." He is completely right. Automatic assault weapons are designed to kill large numbers of people. Their availablity should be limited to law enforcement and military. I find no reason to the argument for their availability.

Please give me another example of something comparable to this which would be demontrative of this "slippery slope" you mentioned above.


Smoking for one. I've never smoked but its interesting to watch the progression. At first you could smoke anywhere. Then you couldn't smoke in theaters, then indoor arenas, then outdoor areans, then restaurants. Now in some areas you can't smoke in your apartment and in some places you can't smoke in public places.
Then there is fatty foods. At first they just put out warnings about fatty foods. Then they made food producers reduce the fat content of their products (caring not that they took away the taste that made the food worth eating in the first place), then they said stop super-sizing meals and now they are helping people sue the fast food industry because somebody has a heart attack because they have no self-control and they over-eat. That's a couple for now. Besides, the extremists have already stated that their goal is to have a gun-free America. Wouldn't THAT be hell on earth for law-abiding people when they can no longer defend themselves. And one more thing. Suppose a few criminals (they rarely work alone these days) break into your home carrying assault rifles. Would you stand a better chance with an assault rifle of your own or a .357? I know its not something we like to think about but its true. The criminals will always be able to get their hands on any type guns they want and we would be at their mercy. We would be now if they weren't sure if you are waiting for them with a .357 or an assault rifle. The only thing that keeps them at bay is the fact that they don't want to get shot.[/QUOTE]

Smoking and bad eating habits are not Constitutionally protected behavior are they? Lol....Of course not. However, people are well within their rights to do both. Smoking in public places effects everyone in those places NOT just the person smoking, but everyone around them. Apartment owners can decide how to manage their properties. Many people prefer NOT to live in an apartment where a smoker has lived which places a great burden on the property owner. There are NO laws preventing smokers from living in apartment buildings. Such rules are established by the property owners. Same goes for used cars. Cars that have been smoked in re-sell for less.

Warning individuals about fatty foods and restricting fat content does NOT prevent people from eating fatty foods. Besides, these are not nation-wide laws.

I find it amusing that those of you rail against such efforts to restrict smoking in public and love the idea of fat people are the same ones complaining about skyrocketing healthcare costs. Lots of low income families eat at such places and have a high number of smokers. They have no insurance and when they develop heart disease or cancer they get free treatment. Your position is contrary to purpose.
Neither things you mention involve violent weapons designed for mass murder.

The extremists who would totally ban guns will not prevail. It just will not happen no matter the hysterical, overreaching arguments to the contrary. On the other hand, the extremists on the other side will not prevail either. Again, automatic assault weapons are not reasonable for personal protection. IF someone invades my home armed with automatic assault weapons, its over anyway. As you said, only about 1% of civilians own such weapons. The likelihood of such a thing happening to an average family is miniscule. It would be far more likely that the average family would lose a member to emphysema, heart-attack or cancer. The argument that banning automatic assault weapons availability will result in ALL guns being forceably taken away from the entire U.S. population is pure reactionary drivel.
I personally enjoy violent weapons designed for mass murder. I had one of my rifles jump off the rack one time, load itself, and bounced to the door, prepared to shoot up a schoolyard. Thank goodness I was able to stop it in time.

Hunting is not the only shooting sport. I participate in combat competitions all the time...pistol, rifle, shotgun, and multiple weapons. As I live in California and cannot legally possess scary firearms (the so-called "assault weapons") I've had to limit myself to long-range high-power precision shooting. Oh, mercy! This gun nut is practicing with a sniper rifle!!! Yes, indeed...I shoot paper silhouettes out to 600m. I lost the taste for hunting years ago. Now I enjoy making one-inch groups at 300m.

The "scary weapons" ban by Cramer et. al. focused on appearance of the rifle only. If it had a pistol grip it was bad; if it didn't it was not so bad. Never mind that the mechanical function of a scary rifle is indistinguishable from that of an autoloading hunting rifle. It's scary looking, and it becomes a scapegoat. A true "assault rifle" is capable of sustained automatic fire. For the unschooled among you, that is a "machine gun". Machine guns are cool, but you can spend a lot of money on ammunition shooting one. In fact, fully automatic weapons are some of the most highly regulated. I believe the statistic still holds in that a lawfully owned Title III (machine gun) has NEVER been used in a crime.

Instead of focusing on firearms, which gets a LOT of press and some big contributions from those who have their own reasons to disarm America, why didn't he work on putting criminals who use firearms into prison, and keeping them there, instead of buying into the discredited notion that guns cause crime?
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Sarcasm maybe but childish? If you've ever noticed, we live in a slippery-slope nation. First the take one thing from and then they come back again and again to take more and more. Probably 99% of Americans including me, don't own assault weapons. But mark my words, someday they will come for your trusty .357 and unfortunately there won't be a thing you can do about it.


I heard a local gun dealer say once that: "there are extremists on both sides of the gun issue." He is completely right. Automatic assault weapons are designed to kill large numbers of people. Their availablity should be limited to law enforcement and military. I find no reason to the argument for their availability.

Please give me another example of something comparable to this which would be demontrative of this "slippery slope" you mentioned above.


Smoking for one. I've never smoked but its interesting to watch the progression. At first you could smoke anywhere. Then you couldn't smoke in theaters, then indoor arenas, then outdoor areans, then restaurants. Now in some areas you can't smoke in your apartment and in some places you can't smoke in public places.
Then there is fatty foods. At first they just put out warnings about fatty foods. Then they made food producers reduce the fat content of their products (caring not that they took away the taste that made the food worth eating in the first place), then they said stop super-sizing meals and now they are helping people sue the fast food industry because somebody has a heart attack because they have no self-control and they over-eat. That's a couple for now. Besides, the extremists have already stated that their goal is to have a gun-free America. Wouldn't THAT be hell on earth for law-abiding people when they can no longer defend themselves. And one more thing. Suppose a few criminals (they rarely work alone these days) break into your home carrying assault rifles. Would you stand a better chance with an assault rifle of your own or a .357? I know its not something we like to think about but its true. The criminals will always be able to get their hands on any type guns they want and we would be at their mercy. We would be now if they weren't sure if you are waiting for them with a .357 or an assault rifle. The only thing that keeps them at bay is the fact that they don't want to get shot.


Smoking and bad eating habits are not Constitutionally protected behavior are they? Lol....Of course not. However, people are well within their rights to do both. Smoking in public places effects everyone in those places NOT just the person smoking, but everyone around them. Apartment owners can decide how to manage their properties. Many people prefer NOT to live in an apartment where a smoker has lived which places a great burden on the property owner. There are NO laws preventing smokers from living in apartment buildings. Such rules are established by the property owners. Same goes for used cars. Cars that have been smoked in re-sell for less.

Warning individuals about fatty foods and restricting fat content does NOT prevent people from eating fatty foods. Besides, these are not nation-wide laws.

I find it amusing that those of you rail against such efforts to restrict smoking in public and love the idea of fat people are the same ones complaining about skyrocketing healthcare costs. Lots of low income families eat at such places and have a high number of smokers. They have no insurance and when they develop heart disease or cancer they get free treatment. Your position is contrary to purpose.
Neither things you mention involve violent weapons designed for mass murder.

The extremists who would totally ban guns will not prevail. It just will not happen no matter the hysterical, overreaching arguments to the contrary. On the other hand, the extremists on the other side will not prevail either. Again, automatic assault weapons are not reasonable for personal protection. IF someone invades my home armed with automatic assault weapons, its over anyway. As you said, only about 1% of civilians own such weapons. The likelihood of such a thing happening to an average family is miniscule. It would be far more likely that the average family would lose a member to emphysema, heart-attack or cancer. The argument that banning automatic assault weapons availability will result in ALL guns being forceably taken away from the entire U.S. population is pure reactionary drivel.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I guess that's what people like you were saying about people like me in Germany just before the government took away their guns. Pure reactionary drivel. Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by Smooth operator:


Is this the same wonderful bridge that goes to a 2 lane hwy that already had too much traffic on it? Gun Ban Bud never did anything for NW Alabama. I'm glad he's gone, and wished it had been much sooner.


This is the State's fault. Congressmen have little to no say in how the State spends its money.
quote:
Originally posted by CrustyMac:
This is the State's fault. Congressmen have little to no say in how the State spends its money.


Nonsense. They can influence the state by dangling more money, or the threat of less money, if the state doesn't dance to the congressman's tune. A state ignores the wishes and whims of it's congressional delegation at it's own peril.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
I personally enjoy violent weapons designed for mass murder. I had one of my rifles jump off the rack one time, load itself, and bounced to the door, prepared to shoot up a schoolyard. Thank goodness I was able to stop it in time.

Hunting is not the only shooting sport. I participate in combat competitions all the time...pistol, rifle, shotgun, and multiple weapons. As I live in California and cannot legally possess scary firearms (the so-called "assault weapons") I've had to limit myself to long-range high-power precision shooting. Oh, mercy! This gun nut is practicing with a sniper rifle!!! Yes, indeed...I shoot paper silhouettes out to 600m. I lost the taste for hunting years ago. Now I enjoy making one-inch groups at 300m.

The "scary weapons" ban by Cramer et. al. focused on appearance of the rifle only. If it had a pistol grip it was bad; if it didn't it was not so bad. Never mind that the mechanical function of a scary rifle is indistinguishable from that of an autoloading hunting rifle. It's scary looking, and it becomes a scapegoat. A true "assault rifle" is capable of sustained automatic fire. For the unschooled among you, that is a "machine gun". Machine guns are cool, but you can spend a lot of money on ammunition shooting one. In fact, fully automatic weapons are some of the most highly regulated. I believe the statistic still holds in that a lawfully owned Title III (machine gun) has NEVER been used in a crime.

Instead of focusing on firearms, which gets a LOT of press and some big contributions from those who have their own reasons to disarm America, why didn't he work on putting criminals who use firearms into prison, and keeping them there, instead of buying into the discredited notion that guns cause crime?


I do not think the rights of a tiny number of Americans who wish to go out and fire them off just for the hell of it, surpass the right of the majority to restrict such weapons. There are lots of things minorities like to do that are restricted by law. This is no different.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:


I do not think the rights of a tiny number of Americans who wish to go out and fire them off just for the hell of it, surpass the right of the majority to restrict such weapons. There are lots of things minorities like to do that are restricted by law. This is no different.


let me get this straight, you are saying majority rules? it doesn't matter what the minority wants? how about abortion rights and Gay issues? With your thinking then the gays needs to just shut up in California because they lost.
quote:
Originally posted by Schnauzer1:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:


I do not think the rights of a tiny number of Americans who wish to go out and fire them off just for the hell of it, surpass the right of the majority to restrict such weapons. There are lots of things minorities like to do that are restricted by law. This is no different.


let me get this straight, you are saying majority rules? it doesn't matter what the minority wants? how about abortion rights and Gay issues? With your thinking then the gays needs to just shut up in California because they lost.


I am thrilled that you gleaned that bit of sarcasm from my post. You are correct. What is good for one is good for the other? Not neccessarily in my opinion, but it does give one pause. No one should shut up. In fact, they should work for what they believe in.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
I do not think the rights of a tiny number of Americans who wish to go out and fire them off just for the hell of it, surpass the right of the majority to restrict such weapons. There are lots of things minorities like to do that are restricted by law. This is no different.


You mean like the minority categorized as "gay" who want to be married? Right, like the majority has ruled on that one. Try another one, but this time limit your search to legitimate, non-criminal activities. "Majority rule" has never been the way things are here since the political left-leaning activist judges took the bench.

Besides, the majority of Americans don't want to restrict them. Only the limp-wristed progressive moonbats of the leftard brigade.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
I do not think the rights of a tiny number of Americans who wish to go out and fire them off just for the hell of it, surpass the right of the majority to restrict such weapons. There are lots of things minorities like to do that are restricted by law. This is no different.


You mean like the minority categorized as "gay" who want to be married? Right, like the majority has ruled on that one. Try another one, but this time limit your search to legitimate, non-criminal activities. "Majority rule" has never been the way things are here since the political left-leaning activist judges took the bench.

Besides, the majority of Americans don't want to restrict them. Only the limp-wristed progressive moonbats of the leftard brigade.


How silly. The majority of Americans do not support the average inbred white-pride, right-wing, angry nut-job owning automatic assault weapons. I am quite proud of the judicial branch who interpret the constitutionality of looney laws and overreaching majorities.

P.S. I was speaking of "legitimate, non-criminal activities". Do your homework.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Sarcasm maybe but childish? If you've ever noticed, we live in a slippery-slope nation. First the take one thing from and then they come back again and again to take more and more. Probably 99% of Americans including me, don't own assault weapons. But mark my words, someday they will come for your trusty .357 and unfortunately there won't be a thing you can do about it.


I heard a local gun dealer say once that: "there are extremists on both sides of the gun issue." He is completely right. Automatic assault weapons are designed to kill large numbers of people. Their availablity should be limited to law enforcement and military. I find no reason to the argument for their availability.

Please give me another example of something comparable to this which would be demontrative of this "slippery slope" you mentioned above.[/QUOTE]

Please snake, there is difference between an automatic and a semi-auto. Automatic guns require special license and strict rules that govern their movement. You libs like to play with words, please, I thought you had more intelligence than that. Do a little research and educate yourself on firearms. The liberal media is good at confusing those that have no clue.

I have several semi-autos that would fall under some proposed bans. All are hunting guns, like a BAR and Ruger 10/22, both look like hunting rifles to the average joe, yet under some of these crazed libs descriptions they might be called an AR assault rifle. I can dress the 10/22 up in a folding stock, all black, longer clip and it might look scarier yet it is the SAME gun in function and lethality.
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Sarcasm maybe but childish? If you've ever noticed, we live in a slippery-slope nation. First the take one thing from and then they come back again and again to take more and more. Probably 99% of Americans including me, don't own assault weapons. But mark my words, someday they will come for your trusty .357 and unfortunately there won't be a thing you can do about it.


I heard a local gun dealer say once that: "there are extremists on both sides of the gun issue." He is completely right. Automatic assault weapons are designed to kill large numbers of people. Their availablity should be limited to law enforcement and military. I find no reason to the argument for their availability.

Please give me another example of something comparable to this which would be demontrative of this "slippery slope" you mentioned above.


Please snake, there is difference between an automatic and a semi-auto. Automatic guns require special license and strict rules that govern their movement. You libs like to play with words, please, I thought you had more intelligence than that. Do a little research and educate yourself on firearms. The liberal media is good at confusing those that have no clue.

I have several semi-autos that would fall under some proposed bans. All are hunting guns, like a BAR and Ruger 10/22, both look like hunting rifles to the average joe, yet under some of these crazed libs descriptions they might be called an AR assault rifle. I can dress the 10/22 up in a folding stock, all black, longer clip and it might look scarier yet it is the SAME gun in function and lethality.[/QUOTE]

I heard a local gun dealer say once that: "there are extremists on both sides of the gun issue." He is completely right.

I stand by the above statement. My fathers Belgian made Brownings and Rugers are his favorites. He has been all over the U.S., Canada, and South America hunting. Even he supports banning some semi-automatic firearms. Never assume that people who disagree with you are "crazed libs", or without knowledge.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Sarcasm maybe but childish? If you've ever noticed, we live in a slippery-slope nation. First the take one thing from and then they come back again and again to take more and more. Probably 99% of Americans including me, don't own assault weapons. But mark my words, someday they will come for your trusty .357 and unfortunately there won't be a thing you can do about it.


I heard a local gun dealer say once that: "there are extremists on both sides of the gun issue." He is completely right. Automatic assault weapons are designed to kill large numbers of people. Their availablity should be limited to law enforcement and military. I find no reason to the argument for their availability.

Please give me another example of something comparable to this which would be demontrative of this "slippery slope" you mentioned above.


Never assume that people who disagree with you are "crazed libs", or without knowledge.


Maybe so its just that most of the time it looks that way because of what libs say and do. Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by kperk:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Sarcasm maybe but childish? If you've ever noticed, we live in a slippery-slope nation. First the take one thing from and then they come back again and again to take more and more. Probably 99% of Americans including me, don't own assault weapons. But mark my words, someday they will come for your trusty .357 and unfortunately there won't be a thing you can do about it.


I heard a local gun dealer say once that: "there are extremists on both sides of the gun issue." He is completely right. Automatic assault weapons are designed to kill large numbers of people. Their availablity should be limited to law enforcement and military. I find no reason to the argument for their availability.

Please give me another example of something comparable to this which would be demontrative of this "slippery slope" you mentioned above.


Never assume that people who disagree with you are "crazed libs", or without knowledge.


Maybe so its just that most of the time it looks that way because of what libs say and do. Smiler


Again, a quip which is about 1/3 as clever as you think it is. The "libs" are in control now. Just hold on and ride. I find it preferable to the right-wing, sudo-Bible thumpin, crazies who attached themselves to bush and Cheney. Clearly the majority of Americans agree with me. Otherwise we would be looking at President elect McCain.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
How silly. The majority of Americans do not support the average inbred white-pride, right-wing, angry nut-job owning automatic assault weapons. I am quite proud of the judicial branch who interpret the constitutionality of looney laws and overreaching majorities.


Objective proof, please.

You must love the ninth district. They're orbiting the seventh moon of Xantar. Their idea of government seems to be at odds with the constitution, but that must be one of those little technicalities you complain about.
quote:
Originally posted by CrustyMac:
quote:
Originally posted by Smooth operator:


Is this the same wonderful bridge that goes to a 2 lane hwy that already had too much traffic on it? Gun Ban Bud never did anything for NW Alabama. I'm glad he's gone, and wished it had been much sooner.


This is the State's fault. Congressmen have little to no say in how the State spends its money.


Oh yea, go take a look at the stadium and athletic facilities Roger Bedford has supplied to Russellville. We get a bridge to nowhere. All that being said, he had little to do with even getting that much. His efforts have always been focused on Huntsville. I'm glad his gun banning but is gone!
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
quote:
Originally posted by kperk:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Sarcasm maybe but childish? If you've ever noticed, we live in a slippery-slope nation. First the take one thing from and then they come back again and again to take more and more. Probably 99% of Americans including me, don't own assault weapons. But mark my words, someday they will come for your trusty .357 and unfortunately there won't be a thing you can do about it.


I heard a local gun dealer say once that: "there are extremists on both sides of the gun issue." He is completely right. Automatic assault weapons are designed to kill large numbers of people. Their availablity should be limited to law enforcement and military. I find no reason to the argument for their availability.

Please give me another example of something comparable to this which would be demontrative of this "slippery slope" you mentioned above.


Never assume that people who disagree with you are "crazed libs", or without knowledge.


Maybe so its just that most of the time it looks that way because of what libs say and do. Smiler


Again, a quip which is about 1/3 as clever as you think it is. The "libs" are in control now. Just hold on and ride. I find it preferable to the right-wing, sudo-Bible thumpin, crazies who attached themselves to bush and Cheney. Clearly the majority of Americans agree with me. Otherwise we would be looking at President elect McCain.


We sure as hell had better hold on! Hopefully America will respond as we did in '94. After 2 years of disaster with a commie lib prez and an idiotically liberal congress, we voted a truck load of that manure outta there!
Last edited by The Incriminator

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×