NationStates Jolt Archive

'gavnook' (по-русски, это 'гавнук') is what I call myself on the rest of the internet. It means 'poo-head' in Russian. The gigantic thread about liberals wanting to ban guns compelled me to write a page of my thoughts on the subject. It starts like this:

Lately, I've been participating in discussions on gun control on the NationStates
forum. Recently, somebody started a thread titled "So why exactly do Liberals want to completely ban guns". I'm almost always eager to get involved when the topic is gun control, but I stayed away from this one at first because of the title. I despise the such usage of terms like "liberal" or "conservative" especially when they're used to make absurd gross generalizations. Eventually, the thread grew so large I felt I was missing out. I couldn't resist. It turns out a number of self-described "liberals" wanted to make it clear that they don't want to completely ban guns. Many have said they just want some control over guns.

Read the rest here (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=gavnook).

I'm trying to work on my writing ability. Constructive critism toward that end will be greatly appreciated. I will add more on the subject later, probably including responses to comments.

:( nobody cares :(

The central problem being that most "liberals" on this forum are not the same as the "liberals" in the halls of power and fame.

Those "liberals", from Nancy Pelosi to Hillary Clinton to Barbara Striesand to Dianne Feinstein want to license owners, register guns, and then confiscate all of the guns, and then jail any owners who do not immediately comply.

They don't make a secret of it.

Historically, Hitler did the exact same thing. In fact, Senator Metzenbaum introduced a translation of Hitler's confiscation and registration order as legislation.

MGNY, that's a really good point. A random pairing of a Democrat and Republican politician are probably much more likely to have more in common with each other than with their voters. This defenitely applies here, considering how today's federal gun laws never could've been passed with out Republican support.

MGNY, that's a really good point. A random pairing of a Democrat and Republican politician are probably much more likely to have more in common with each other than with their voters. This defenitely applies here, considering how today's federal gun laws never could've been passed with out Republican support.

It's the nature of power. Any party in power will want to exercise it in a way most designed to keep it. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about gun control or the Patriot Act, Democrat or Republican.

Something the Founding Father's knew about, and tried to set up the system to keep itself from running amok.

We'll see if it continues to work.

It's the nature of power. Any party in power will want to exercise it in a way most designed to keep it. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about gun control or the Patriot Act, Democrat or Republican.

Something the Founding Father's knew about, and tried to set up the system to keep itself from running amok.

We'll see if it continues to work.

Considering your unplacable and often unpredictable positions, are you a Republican MGNY?
I've never met a bisexual or gay Republican. I thought they were like unicorns.

Considering your unplacable and often unpredictable positions, are you a Republican MGNY?
I've never met a bisexual or gay Republican. I thought they were like unicorns.

Then make me a unicorn. Don't count your boobies until they are hatched.

I'm for personal freedom. Freedom to carry a gun and use it in self-defense. Freedom of sexual orientation. I don't want government to be involved in my life. At all. Probably closer to libertarian, but as a matter of philosophy (the Bush administration aside), the Republican party in the long run is more likely to grant my wishes than the Democratic party.

Okay. I'm a Libertarian myself, but wasn't expecting you to claim that you were.
It's so very more your party. The Republicans have dropped your ass like next week's worst stock.

Okay. I'm a Libertarian myself, but wasn't expecting you to claim that you were.
It's so very more your party. The Republicans have dropped your ass like next week's worst stock.

I've gotten tired of the Democratic Party's promises. At least I know where the Republicans stand. That, and they let me carry a gun.

A lot of gay people would not be subject to harassment and death if people knew they were armed. Take Matthew Shephard, for instance. He was beaten to death by several unarmed assailants and left for dead. If he had been armed, the story would have been a little different.

No one is going to give people of an alternative sexuality any larger respect (marriage, for instance) until we can get past the politeness issue. And you can't legislate politeness.

Don't think that just because someone wants to own a gun, that they're a redneck.

You're telling me not to take away your guns??? :eek:
I'm a Libertarian! We're trying harder than the Republicans to keep America as armed as the constitution allows!
http://www.lp.org

A lot of gay people would not be subject to harassment and death if people knew they were armed. Take Matthew Shephard, for instance. He was beaten to death by several unarmed assailants and left for dead. If he had been armed, the story would have been a little different.
Couldn't agree more on that one. Why would a homo/bisexual not own a gun these days?
Perplexing.

Couldn't agree more on that one. Why would a homo/bisexual not own a gun these days?
Perplexing.

Saw on another thread that someone's gf was raped. Why would a woman not carry a gun?

Since 1986, the US Justice Department has recommended resisting all attackers, since compliance with an attacker has been proven to invite further abuse, from rape to death.