Mar 31
What else was he lying about?
The press enables Democrats to lie about pretty much anything.
For instance, I remember John Kerry claiming to be “pro-gun” during his campaign for President. Now, of course, that he isn’t looking for PA’s vote, he shows us his true colors.
From Al Gore leaving the lights on and jetting around in private jets, to Chris Dodd having his own little finance empire, the press enables Democrats to lie about pretty much anything except abortion.
March 31st, 2009 at 11:25 am
Senator Kerry is an avid hunter and knows how to handle a gun. He supports gun ownership. He does I think draw a line when it comes to semi- automatic weapons though. These guns are not for hunting or even for protection- these are guns of war and should only be used by those who are defending America from our enemies. They do not belong on the streets of America,but in the hands of our soldiers only.
March 31st, 2009 at 11:32 am
Thanks for chiming in Margaret.
You can believe in taking my constitutional rights, and I suppose, so can John Kerry.
You, at least, are vocal and honest about your anti-constitutional position. Sen Kerry hides it until it is safe to expose.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I suppose you could call the muskets of the American Revolution the “assault weapons” of their day. Would Margaret have banned them as well? The 2nd Amendment was, as I understand it, for us to protect against our enemies, some of whom may well be internal, I do not think it was put there so we would be assured of the right to hunt or target shoot.
Her lack of firearms knowledge is, unfortunately, all too common among those who wish to deny us our rights. There are many semi-auto sporting guns used by many, and the semi-auto pistol is the standard in self-protection these days.
But the gun-grabbers really don’t care about the facts, as we know.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:36 pm
I do not profess to know a lot about guns, but I do know we have police and military personnel to protect us all nowadays. I feel safe in my home and I do not own a gun. I understand the need for some to hunt, but hunting came be done without assult weapons- which do so much harm and very little good. I would prefer to see no interest in these weapons other than for miliary reasons-you know- supply and demand. However and unfortunately, there appears to be to many Rambo’s who see some need for this type of gun protection.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Well, I’m a 21 year veteran cop and I hate to burst your bubble but if you are relying on us to save you have false expectations. We will try to get there in time, but you will likely be a victim before we do. Why would you depend on the police to defend you? Its a good fantasy but not reality. You feel safe in your home-do you ever venture out? What’s your plan then?
What is your actual definition of an assault weapon? Do you have one? You know little about firearms but want to say which ones should be banned. Its not hard to get this knowledge. Your decision making will be better if you do.
I think the 19th amendment is dangerous, but I have to respect it as law. Please respect my 2nd amendment rights.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Margaret – I appreciate you responding. We do try to be kind to all, even those with different views.
My response would be… that is a fine view for me. My view is different. I don’t force you to own a gun, why force me not to?
Freedom is a two way street. If I don’t bother you with it, why reach out and take it from me?
April 1st, 2009 at 12:12 am
I have no problem with you owning guns- just certain guns that cause extensive harm either directly or indirectly.
As for the officer who may not get there to protect me if need be. Frankly, I do not live in fear. I refuse to shut myself up and live with the thought that there is danger around every corner or the freedom I have should be given up. I grew up in and have worked in a large city as well as living in smaller Southern towns. I have never changed the way I live my life anywhere. If someone wants my possessions- they can have them. As for my life- I for the most part leave that in God’s hands. If need be there are other weapons that can cause bodily harm. I have actually thought about purchasing a small handgun, but just for the sport of shooting it at a target. This purchase however, is not a real priority right now.
I am happy we can have this discussion in an adult manner.
April 1st, 2009 at 7:00 am
Margaret – your analogy is like me saying “I don’t mind you speaking freely, just not about things I don’t afraid of”.
To us, firearms ownership is a Constitutional matter. As to the type, if a crook can get it, I should be able to own it to counter it. I personally feel there should be no restrictions on what I own, just restrictions on bodily harm/damage I do with them.
Once you define something as “scary” somebody else will have a lower threshold. Once down the slope, there is alway somebody ready to go further.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:14 am
Unlike free speech, guns can do mortal harm. The Constitution is a wonderful thing, but the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when there was more need to protect your family and your homestead. There also weren’t weapons such as we have today. I would not ask anyone to give up all their guns – thus still allowing the right to bear arms- but just those weapons like the semi-automatic. You mean to tell me you couldn’t live without this type of weapon?
Oh, and if these guns were outlawed, it would ensure that crooks could not make use of them- which is what the purpose of this whole discussion is about. I do not want these guns in the hands of criminals. And, if banning them is a way to achieve this goal them I am all for it. I wish all people keep and used guns in a responsible manner, but that is not the case. The intent of semi- automatic weapons is to do bodily harm-what other purpose does this type of weapon have?
There has got to be compromise on this issue. There are ways to ensure we do not go down, as you put it a slippery slop, to the end of no guns. I frankly do not think that is even possible nor would politician on the Democratic side really want to do this. Honestly, in the game of politics both sides prefer things as they are-extreme views on both sides- as long as they are able to raise money from our outrage.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:19 am
I know I may be asking for a lot, but couldn’t you do something with that picture of Senator Kerry? It really is not a proper image of the man. You may not agree with most of his policies or politics, but he is a patriot and loves this country. I had my differences with President Bush, but I would never of wanted to see him presented in drag.
April 1st, 2009 at 10:10 am
Margaret, I’m shocked that you judge men dressing in drag as if there is something “wrong” with that. Shocking. (-:
Sorry… the pic stays. The point of it is, what ELSE will Sen Kerry reveal about his real beliefs now that he isn’t trying to convince us to let him be President.
April 1st, 2009 at 10:11 am
As to #9… these guns are banned in Mexico, yet they have access to them.
If you can’t stop cocaine or illegal aliens from getting here you won’t stop these weapons from getting here for criminals to use. The only people your demands would affect would be us law abiding folks.
April 1st, 2009 at 10:11 am
“If these guns were outlawed crooks could not have them” !? Wow, amazing statment., I’m sure the family members of the four Oakland police officers will sleep easier knowing crooks wont be able to get these guns. Except that they are outlawed in CA and he wasnt legally allowed to have them. Hard to believe but this parolee who had been convicted of robbery and assault, and was believed to have committed rape and a homicide, actually violated a gun law.
I don’t know, you sound like a nice person, but you are living in fantasy land.
Not only do you want to ban guns, but sounds like you want to ban disrespectful photos of politicians you like. Slippery slope.
If you don’t like the constitution, change it. There is a process in place for that.
April 1st, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Senator Kerry always felt this way about guns. He never ran on banning guns. I had the opportunity to hear him speak live on a couple of occassions and when he spoke of guns he spoke about being a hunter and owning guns- I doubt a semi-automatic was nne of them. He spoke about controls on guns ownership but bluntly said he had no intention of banning them. I think you are wrong to assume he has changed his mind on this matter. He spoke honestly and with concern for the situation in Mexico.
Oh, and I have nothing against men in drag if this is how they want to dress. I happen to think Senator Kerry prefers a suit and tie. He sure does not make an attractive woman. And, I do not understand what that made up pictures of him has to do with a serious discussion about Constitutional rights and guns. Herbert Hoover was said to be found of dressing up this way and we all have seen the pictures from Saturday Night Live of Rudy Gulliani wearing a dress and wig. I never cared for Rudy in that get up either and I have no desire to even try and picture in my mind what HH might have looked like.
April 1st, 2009 at 5:14 pm
And, for Ken Nelson. I do not want to ban all guns. It is very sad what happened to those police officers, if guns were more difficult to acquire by those who should not own them and laws strickly enforced pehaps this would not have happened. Anythime innocents are felled by guns it pains me. I also have had a personal tragedy involving a gun death. However, I am only discussing semi-automatic weapons not other types of guns.
April 1st, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Well, I guess we see you at the ballot box or in court.
April 1st, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Since it appears we will never reach a compromise on the issue of gun control. I am interested in knowing what any of you would do about the boarder issue.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Good question Margaret.
I assume you are talking about the Mexican border and illegal immigration.
I favor extremely stiff penalties against employers found with illegal aliens in their work force. Extremely stiff penalties against the company, far in excess of what they save hiring illegals. To incentivize squealing, I’d share some of the penalties with whistleblowers. The E-Verify program has worked for hundreds of thousands of employers to know they have legal workers.
I think employer enforcement alone will remove most incoming illegals.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Oh… as to compromise on gun control… you can’t compromise on basic human and constitutional rights.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:36 am
I don’t disagree with stiff enforcement and penalties for employers hiring illegals, but the drug runners going back and forth accross the boarder are not illegal hires. They are involved in the illegal drug trade. They are the ones who carry the illegal semi’s and are causing the violence at the boarders.
I don’t consider owning a gun a human rights issue. And, as for the Constitution, there are always amendments. So, unfortunately, I am willing to compromise on the ownership of guns, but you are not-even if compromise would make our boarders safer and illegal drugs less available to our children.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:43 am
Come on Margeret… the children? Sign of a weak argument….
Who says I haven’t compromised on guns? I consider it a Constitutional and Human Right. Yet, there are many restrictions. Background checks. Waiting periods. Can’t buy pistols across state lines.
As to drug runners… a fence may help with that.
But do note that I favor drug legalization.