quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Then stop posting the crap and slander you get off the Limbaugh show and other similar right-wing sources of hate and dishonest propaganda.
It isn't true and, though you certainly have the right to your opinion, the constant posting and reposting of that bunch of insulting and slanderous lies, clearly intended to demean Hillary Clinton and have negative influence on her election hopes, is long passed old.
We know what you think.
ENOUGH! already.
----------------------------------------------
ok moron, i don't ever listen to limbaugh, i am not a conservative and think you are the biggest jerk on allstocks, as many others would agree
and your intelligence is right up there will a bag of sand
Posts: 1551 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
bdgee's is a scum who always resurts to insults-
bdgee has NP intlligence..is there intelligence in constant insultsand hate?
He was educated, that is true but emotionally abused cause he toally insultsnd abuses -
Bdgee is an example of a man who got educated but no intelligence or awareness and sorry those ya insult didnt ABUSE ya - so get HELP
Posts: 864 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Originally posted by bdgee: "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994", was not and is not a "gun ban".
"it was presented as such by the Clintons. and much celebration took place." is false. Neither of the Clintons characterized that act as banning guns and neither proposed to ban guns, then or now.
That act seriously restricts specific fully automatic weapons that have exterior magazines and those that have inboard magazines that hold more than 5 rounds, but even then it is not a strict ban on even those guns.
It was NOT a bill pushed through Congress by or sponsored by either of the Clintons. It is an absurdly impractical and superfluous bill. Maybe the Clintons knew exactly what they were doing in claiming it was effective, as it has quieted the clamor of the anti-gun extreme, who seem, foolishly, to think it accomplishes something toward their dream.
To my knowledge, no one in any federal position that might actually be effective or have influence on the question, has ever proposed a "gun ban". Should some day some such official actually have the foolish gall to so propose, I am certain he would be laughed at, unless there is in the meantime an amendment to the Constitution changing the 2nd Amendment (which is about as likely as casual vacation trips to the dark side of the moon in our lifetime.
budge, i have to say that you have no comprehension of what that bill did.
is specifically by name BANNEDthe manufacture of more than a dozen guns.
it also banned the POSSESION of detachable magazines manufactured after the ban was put in place. it banned the manuf. of guns with the following attributes:
* A folding or telescoping stock * A pistol grip * A flash suppressor * A grenade launcher * A bayonet lug
none of these things matter one way or another when considering the realities of the danger of firearms.
as i said? it was stupid.
the Clintons hand walked the chit thru congress and took credit for it.
Bill Clinton didn't even wait for the ink to dry before he signed it. you should be glad you are not a history buff.
you always seem to want to latch onto simple semantic differences instead of acknowledging that not everybody communicates with the precision of a mathematician. most don't want to even if we CAN because it gets boring and tedious.
lastly. the Clintons did do alot of stuff that you attribute to GOP slander.
slander is only slander if it's a lie.
look it up.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
budgee is alot like hillary, maybe why he loves her so much, and why so many on here don't like either,lol
Posts: 1551 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
i think he'll make mistakes like the rest, and he won't be able to do most of what he wants or promises, but he represents an opportunity to heal alotof old wounds in this country. and he seems to me to be honest for a politician. -i know that ain't saying much, but it's something...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glass, I know quite well what that act does and did and IT IS NOT A GUN BAN as you claimed it was.
I think the act is absurd, but I know it is not a "gun ban" and I think you know that too, yet keep pushing that malicious propaganda.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, of course not. A president really ain't supposed to have a bunch of hands-on power except in emergencies, anyway. It wouldn't kill me to have Bill back--even though he kinda' lucked out on the dot.com deal--cuz I think public dissatisfaction would affect him more than it does Rove/Cheney.
But at this point, sidestepping the Roosevelt-succession dealie is prolly a good move for everybody. I mean, let's face it--if BO gets in too deep? He's not stoopid. He would call whomever...and get the response. Even Bush wasn't able to sell seaport security...
posted
". . . an opportunity to heal alotof old wounds in this country."
yup, I agree. Historic proportion, there. And even the reddest-necks are sick of the nickel-and-dollaring into daily budgets. So there's some grace-time on "backlash."
Of course, there would be some who would agitate and try to cause trouble, but BO's smart enough not to fall into that trap. I bleeve he would shut that down, post haste.
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Glass, I know quite well what that act does and did and IT IS NOT A GUN BAN as you claimed it was.
I think the act is absurd, but I know it is not a "gun ban" and I think you know that too, yet keep pushing that malicious propaganda.
budge, it banned the manuf. of guns. you can say i said what ever you want. the Clinton gun ban banned some guns.. and it banned the possesion of certain gun hardware. that's banning no matter how much you wanna parse words.
as for malicious propaganda? calling it a ban is not propaganda. your defense of the clintons is pitiful. you are in some sort of denial...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Glass, I know quite well what that act does and did and IT IS NOT A GUN BAN as you claimed it was.
I think the act is absurd, but I know it is not a "gun ban" and I think you know that too, yet keep pushing that malicious propaganda.
budge, it banned the manuf. of guns. you can say i said what ever you want. the Clinton gun ban banned some guns.. and it banned the possesion of certain gun hardware. that's banning no matter how much you wanna parse words.
as for malicious propaganda? calling it a ban is not propaganda. your defense of the clintons is pitiful. you are in some sort of denial...
actually, it should be called sumpin like "attack weapon ban" or "assault gun" ban...
I call you both out, lol...
It *does* restrict stuff we could get before; it doesn't "BAN" what most of us consider household/hunting gear...
And really? As posted perhaps in another thread, what I find PARTICULARLY pertinent: that act ALSO empowered peeps like myself working with at-risk youth.
Jeez...how would I know, until years later...going through this "exercise" ?
posted
it doesn't "BAN" what most of us consider household/hunting gear..
it did ban personal "protection of household" gear.
an AR-15 is a semi-automtic rifle. technically? it tried to ban the manuf. of them.
in reality? they had to make a few modifications to continue manufacturing them.
the intent of the writers of the bill and the signer of the bill was to score political victory .
of course Hillary won't be going after 2nd ammendment rights anymore, she learned just how much people didn't like that the first time...
i have a student right now who grew up skateboarding and playing b-ball at the local police station as result of that bill...
if you read the bill? you'll notice the gun laws were all very late additions to a bill that took years to write, and were in fact pushed for by the Clintons.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:i have a student right now who grew up skateboarding and playing b-ball at the local police station as result of that bill...
if you read the bill? you'll notice the gun laws were all very late additions to a bill that took years to write, and were in fact pushed for by the Clintons.
Talk to me...explain
You know how I am about at-risk youth.
The bill itself? Doesn't bother me about "late additions" or "years to write"...What's your point?
Moreover, it was not a Clinton bill, as you keep claiming.
You might as well declare the law requiring that new cars have seat belts is a ban on manufacturing cars, because it is exactly the same argument.
Neither is a law that forbids dispensing of paregoric without a prescription a ban on selling or manufacturing pharmaceuticals.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: " it banned the manuf. of guns"
FALSE!!!!!!
i'm beginning to wonder about you budge.
even Bill and Hillary called it their own bill and they even call it a ban.
you seem to be interested in rewriting everybodys hard-drives.
the bill in question was a good bill until they went after the 2nd ammnedment.
it most certainly did infringe upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.
as usual you fail to support your claims which is a requirement of a debate so i'll just assume you are rabblerousing and not instersted in discourse.
here is the exact wording of the bill from the LOC ..
you might note that it refers to SEMI-auto no full atuo is mentioned.
i know this law backwards and forwards and have since it was introduced.
i was very involved with shooting sports at the time this law was passed, i even shot with members of the national teams representing the miltiary,
(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--
`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--
`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
`(iv) Colt AR-15;
`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
`(vii) Steyr AUG;
`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;
`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.
those were banned, by name. the ban failed. because it was poorly crafted, but the political intent was not only to ban them, it was to create an atmosphere of actually doing something, and if the people had not spoken up in response to this ban? more intensive bans would have followed. IMO? Bush himself would have added to them if he though it would not be political suicide. everything else he did amounts to political suicide anyway, but most of it was able to be done because people were afraid.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: " it banned the manuf. of guns"
FALSE!!!!!!
i'm beginning to wonder about you budge.
even Bill and Hillary called it their own bill and they even call it a ban.
you seem to be interested in rewriting everybodys hard-drives.
the bill in question was a good bill until they went after the 2nd ammnedment.
it most certainly did infringe upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.
as usual you fail to support your claims which is a requirement of a debate so i'll just assume you are rabblerousing and not instersted in discourse.
here is the exact wording of the bill from the LOC ..
you might note that it refers to SEMI-auto no full atuo is mentioned.
i know this law backwards and forwards and have since it was introduced.
i was very involved with shooting sports at the time this law was passed, i even shot with members of the national teams representing the miltiary,
(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--
`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--
`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
`(iv) Colt AR-15;
`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
`(vii) Steyr AUG;
`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;
`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.
those were banned, by name. the ban failed. because it was poorly crafted, but the political intent was not only to ban them, it was to create an atmosphere of actually doing something, and if the people had not spoken up in response to this ban? more intensive bans would have followed. IMO? Bush himself would have added to them if he though it would not be political suicide. everything else he did amounts to political suicide anyway, but most of it was able to be done because people were afraid.
You need to stop eagerly misrepresenting facts!.
Your opinion is one thing and you certainly have a right to them. Also, you have every right to intentionally spread lies, which is exactly what you do with respect to the Clintons and guns whenever you choose. But you need to be careful to distinguish between your opinions and your interpretations and what are the actual facts, which you not only fail to do, but repeatedly, you assign those opinions and interpretations as THE facts they are not.
You have repeatedly cast that bill as the sole proprietorship of the Clintons, neither of whom had ever been in Congress at the time that bill was introduced, evaluated, written and rewritten, voted on, and passed by Congress. The Clintons clearly are not the proprietors of that Act of Congress as your incessant claims say. It was an Act of Congress, and was not a "Clinton anti-gun bill".
Moreover, contrary to what you so eagerly want to have us believe, only a small part of that bill had anything to do with guns and no gun of any kind is "banned" by that bill in that rather small part of the bill which even mentions guns at all.
It is not an "anti-gun bill" any more than the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which declares that bridges, overpasses, and underpasses beneath certain specified dimensions are not allowed, is a federal ban on bridges, underpasses, or overpasses. (Note carefully that that portion of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956which restricts portions of the interstate highway system is only a very small portion o the bill and it would be a gross falsehood to characterize the bill as a "ban on highways.")
Moreover, you have repeatedly and falsely claimed it to be a "gun ban", which it is not and you have claimed it is only a gun bill, which it is not. There really is no way to say it otherwise, you are perpetuating a lie! That bill does restrict severely the manufacture and possession of some very specific guns, but DOES NOT BAN EVEN THOSE GUNS.
Why is it that you choose to believe that your out of bounds irrational hatred of the Clintons grants you license to skew facts and promote lies to alter facts and demean them and their considerations, without challenge?
How does your vicious hatred of the Clinton grant you unquestioned authority to violate the bounds of honor and publish falsehoods in order to pursue another topic which you at least equally and in similar irrationally hold, which is the the claim that anyone that is in a position to do so has ever even suggested canceling the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and taking away your, or my, guns? That claim is ludicrous.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, your claim (after cutting and pasting here a list of guns specified in that act), referrfing to that lis, that "those were banned, by name" is not true.
The manufacture of those guns was, after a specified date, disallowed, but the bill goes into very specific detail to declare that any of those guns manufactured before that date are not banned in anyway and even after that date, under certain circumstances, those guns may be owned, held. etc.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
The claim that it is a "Clinton gun ban" and that the Clintons proposed or sponsored the bill is a fiction of the right wing Clinton hate machine. That sort of attack and propaganda is nothing more than a tool in a hateful smear campaign, not a truth. (Set it alongside the demanded false "fact" that Saddam Hussain was the financial backer of the 9/11 attack and the "proof" they gave us that Iraq was full of WMDS at the time of the invasion. You may find thousands and thousands of sites on the net purporting to establish those as fact....they are there, but they are not credible or factual.)
I am not fan of the Clintons (and I don't appreciate being so labeled anymore than I liked being called a communist and unpatriotic and un-American when I pointed out that Saddam did not have the WMD that Bush and crew claimed.), but I am a big fan of eliminating the hate that now pervades and dominates our politic, to the extent that compromise is impossible, thus denying to us the strength and values of a healthy republic.
These insinuations about the Clintons are 99.99% false, promote hate, and distract from appropriate political processes by fomenting fear and, via their constant and repeated promulgation by the right-wing, deny the truth to the public.
That you may find links to internet sources that speak of and publish that "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994" is a "Clinton gun ban" is, rather than factual or informative or providing substance, a condition brought falsely to bear in the mind of the right-wing due to the immensity of their hate campaign. They intend you to afraid due to the lie. There is no substance to the lie.
* There is no effort or consideration of the democratic party to "ban guns".
* The Cintoins are not responsible for [i]Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994"
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
News accounts from the era may or may not be helpful.
For months and months after the invasion of Iraq, the prevailing news accounts insisted that the caches of WMDs would be uncovered at any moment.
News accounts from the era were that the Oklahoma City Bombing was carried out and masterminded by foreign infiltrators, principally of left wing credentials and thought.
And news accounts from the era assured us the John Kennedy was shot by Cubans in retaliation for U.S. plots to assassinate Castro.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't care if you BELIEVE that "the CLINTONS themselves claim it as their own" it is not so!
"as do their supporters (except you)" I have never been a supporter of the Clintons. I am not now.
You are the delusional one, in believing that you May, without correction, publish any brand or amount of lies and slander against the Clintons, based purely on the skewed and illogical hatred you have toward them.
You are spreading vicious lies and slanders, just to smooze your ego and hatred. It is disgusting.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
