We have guns. ;-)
... To err is human, to forgive is against SysOp policy.
Agreed. Perhaps a "Property insured by Smith & Wesson" sign can
help too, in some areas. :-)
Hehe. Maybe an NRA sticker? I've actually heard of some people installing false cameras just to serve as deterrents.
NRA sticker doesn't help if you're not home. It tells the robbers that yo have firearms in the house, and there's a chance you don't have them all l d up in a safe or vault room. A friend came up with the strategy of placi
cheap Walmart gun locker in his garage full of rakes and brooms, while th
Hehe. Maybe an NRA sticker? I've actually heard of some people
installing false cameras just to serve as deterrents.
On 09 Apr 2020, Moondog said the following...
NRA sticker doesn't help if you're not home. It tells the robbers that have firearms in the house, and there's a chance you don't have them al d up in a safe or vault room. A friend came up with the strategy of pl
cheap Walmart gun locker in his garage full of rakes and brooms, while
Seem like leaving a broken laptop on your car seat. The laptop may be broke but you've just inticed them to break the window.
-=- HSM -=-
-=ssh/http/telnet://thefreespeak.com=-
DaiTengu wrote to Moondog <=-
Hehe. Maybe an NRA sticker? I've actually heard of some people
installing false cameras just to serve as deterrents.
If I was a theif, and I saw an NRA sticker, I'd immediately
assume that house was perfect for robbing, as they likely just
leave guns laying all over.
Most of the NRA members I know are horribly irresponsible
with their firearms.
There are plenty of other organizations that promote responsible
gun ownership that deserve support.
That's strange... I know MANY members, and not a single one of
them is in any way irresponsible with firearms.
You're not just making that up for political points, are you?
There are plenty of other organizations that promote responsible
gun ownership that deserve support.
Probably true, but why the inference that the NRA doesn't deserve
support?
... Eye witnesses were on the scene in minutes.
Any "serious" safe should be bolted (internally) to the floor
and/or wall to prevent that scenario.
... Behind every great man is an amazed mother-in-law!
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Musicians generate al
By: Gamgee to DaiTengu on Fri Apr 10 2020 06:39 pm
That's strange... I know MANY members, and not a single one of
them is in any way irresponsible with firearms.
You're not just making that up for political points, are you?
There are plenty of other organizations that promote responsible
gun ownership that deserve support.
Probably true, but why the inference that the NRA doesn't deserve
support?
Irresponsible was a poor choice of words on my behalf. Some
owners I know have nice safes and even bunker-like rooms with
heavy steel doors, while others stash guns in their closets,
dresser drawers, or under beds without any form of security cable
ot other form of retention. A locked gun cabinet with a glass
front is ok to stop junior and his buddies from touching
firearms without permission, however that won't stop a criminal.
Most serious collectors are willing to spend the extra money to
store their assets, however I don't feel it's uncommon for the
owner who has a deer rifle, and maybe a shotgun or .22 rifle to
have less than adequate security in place to protect those
firearms.
I don't have any disagreement with what you're saying here. My
point was that the other poster (DaiTengu) was trying to make it
appear that most/all "NRA members" were (by definition)
irresponsible gun owners.
That is obviously not true, and was said for strictly political
reasons. I would go so far as to say that, as a group, NRA
members are *FAR* more responsible than non-members.
ryan wrote to Gamgee <=-
That is obviously not true, and was said for strictly political
reasons. I would go so far as to say that, as a group, NRA
members are *FAR* more responsible than non-members.
I'm not casting my vote in any sort of gun debate, but are you
really going to try denying conjecture by offering conjecture?
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Musicians generate al
By: Gamgee to DaiTengu on Fri Apr 10 2020 06:39 pm
That's strange... I know MANY members, and not a single one of
them is in any way irresponsible with firearms.
You're not just making that up for political points, are you?
There are plenty of other organizations that promote responsible
gun ownership that deserve support.
Probably true, but why the inference that the NRA doesn't deserve support?
Irresponsible was a poor choice of words on my behalf. Some
owners I know have nice safes and even bunker-like rooms with
heavy steel doors, while others stash guns in their closets,
dresser drawers, or under beds without any form of security cable
ot other form of retention. A locked gun cabinet with a glass
front is ok to stop junior and his buddies from touching
firearms without permission, however that won't stop a criminal.
Most serious collectors are willing to spend the extra money to
store their assets, however I don't feel it's uncommon for the
owner who has a deer rifle, and maybe a shotgun or .22 rifle to
have less than adequate security in place to protect those
firearms.
I don't have any disagreement with what you're saying here. My
point was that the other poster (DaiTengu) was trying to make it
appear that most/all "NRA members" were (by definition)
irresponsible gun owners.
That is obviously not true, and was said for strictly political
reasons. I would go so far as to say that, as a group, NRA
members are *FAR* more responsible than non-members.
Long live the Second Amendment.
... Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
Most of the NRA members I know are horribly irresponsible
with their firearms.
That's strange... I know MANY members, and not a single one of
them is in any way irresponsible with firearms.
There are plenty of other organizations that promote responsible
gun ownership that deserve support.
Probably true, but why the inference that the NRA doesn't deserve support?
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
Some of it I think comes down to investment, or lack of
recognition of investment versus the price of a good safe. It's
like the feeling some get when investing in good optics. For a
hunting rifle you could spend as much on a scope as you did the
rifle, howver some buy a $50 for an $700 rifle and call it good.
Granted there are some good budget optics out there, but if you
get into competition, takes carbine defensive courses or rely on
a firearm to work in the worst weather and harsh conditions, a
better optic should be expected.
Back to a safe, a $400-$500 safe is a starting point. Even then,
some can be cut into by pros easily if they're not bolted down or
placed in a hard to access area.
DaiTengu wrote to Gamgee <=-
Most of the NRA members I know are horribly irresponsible
with their firearms.
That's strange... I know MANY members, and not a single one of
them is in any way irresponsible with firearms.
See, it's all subjective.
There are plenty of other organizations that promote responsible
gun ownership that deserve support.
Probably true, but why the inference that the NRA doesn't deserve
support?
The NRA leadership is so blinded by their raging hard-ons for
the 2nd ammendment that any suggestion that changes gun ownership
laws, no matter how small, becomes "THEY'RE TAKING AWAY OUR
GUNS!"
The NRA leadership is so blinded by their raging hard-ons for the 2nd ammendment that any suggestion that changes gun ownership laws, no matter how small, becomes "THEY'RE TAKING AWAY OUR GUNS!"
The NRA leadership is so blinded by their raging hard-ons for the 2nd ammendment that any suggestion that changes gun ownership laws, no matter how small, becomes "THEY'RE TAKING AWAY OUR GUNS!"
Re: Re: Musicians generate all me
By: Gamgee to Moondog on Sat Apr 11 2020 10:49 am
Any "serious" safe should be bolted (internally) to the floor
and/or wall to prevent that scenario.
Agreed.
But many serious safes I have are only granted against 30 minutes of assault
But then, you need to carry so much equipment that is no longer practical a
Absolutely. In the firearm and related accessories business, the
old saying "You get what you pay for" is VERY applicable. There
are probably some expected-use cases where a budget scope or
similar would be good enough, but only for casual
shooters/hunters, generally.
Back to a safe, a $400-$500 safe is a starting point. Even then,
some can be cut into by pros easily if they're not bolted down or placed in a hard to access area.
Indeed. No matter the price of the safe, it should always be
bolted down. Even a cheap "locker", which in some situations
might be enough protection, should be bolted down. No reason not
to do that.
I understand your point, and I suspect we won't likely agree much
on this issue.... But let me ask you this, to see if you think I
might be right:
Your "no matter how small" statement is the key. Yes, some folks
(in the NRA and elsewhere) do get upset at even small changes in
gun ownership laws. Why? Well, it's quite simple. Everyone
knows that Americans wouldn't stand for some bold and complete
revocation of gun ownership rights in this country, done in one
fell swoop. So, if one's goal is to ACTUALLY accomplish that
(removing guns from the common citizen), the ONLY way to succeed
is to do it a very little bit at a time. Kind of like stealing a
few cents from a rich bank account every day, over the course of years/decades. Nobody will notice such a small thing. But, over
the course of a generation or two, huge changes can be done, and
all of a sudden..... It's illegal to own a gun in America. That's
the method that the anti-gun crowd is using. Don't bother trying
to deny that, because it's an obvious truth, and everyone on both
sides knows that. It's the old "slippery slope" scenario. I mean,
just look at states like California, and how far they've already
come in their pursuit of this issue. There are MASSIVE restrictions
in place there RIGHT NOW, that are not present in nearly any other
state. If allowed to continue, how can the end result be anything
other than the complete dis-arming of America?
I say all of that in a logical manner and non-confrontational
tone. How else can the erosion of rights guaranteed to us by our
national Constitution be described? It's quite plain and clear
that that is the goal of (most of) the left-wing political party
in this country. For those that enjoy the legal use of firearms
for recreation/competition, how can they just stand idly by and
watch their rights be taken away? How would you react if some
group of people wanted to take something away from you that you
had a right to be doing?
Let me know your thoughts on the above.
I understand your point, and I suspect we won't likely agree much
on this issue.... But let me ask you this, to see if you think I
might be right:
Your "no matter how small" statement is the key. Yes, some folks
(in the NRA and elsewhere) do get upset at even small changes in
gun ownership laws. Why? Well, it's quite simple. Everyone
knows that Americans wouldn't stand for some bold and complete
revocation of gun ownership rights in this country, done in one
fell swoop. So, if one's goal is to ACTUALLY accomplish that
(removing guns from the common citizen), the ONLY way to succeed
is to do it a very little bit at a time. Kind of like stealing a
few cents from a rich bank account every day, over the course of years/decades. Nobody will notice such a small thing. But, over
the course of a generation or two, huge changes can be done, and
all of a sudden..... It's illegal to own a gun in America. That's
the method that the anti-gun crowd is using. Don't bother trying
to deny that, because it's an obvious truth, and everyone on both
sides knows that. It's the old "slippery slope" scenario. I mean,
just look at states like California, and how far they've already
come in their pursuit of this issue. There are MASSIVE restrictions
in place there RIGHT NOW, that are not present in nearly any other
state. If allowed to continue, how can the end result be anything
other than the complete dis-arming of America?
I say all of that in a logical manner and non-confrontational
tone. How else can the erosion of rights guaranteed to us by our
national Constitution be described? It's quite plain and clear
that that is the goal of (most of) the left-wing political party
in this country. For those that enjoy the legal use of firearms
for recreation/competition, how can they just stand idly by and
watch their rights be taken away? How would you react if some
group of people wanted to take something away from you that you
had a right to be doing?
The NRA leadership is so blinded by their raging hard-ons for the
2nd ammendment that any suggestion that changes gun ownership laws,
no matter how small, becomes "THEY'RE TAKING AWAY OUR GUNS!"
I don't hear that from the NRA at all. What I hear is if we let you take away our AK-47 what will you take next? Besides even if a federal Law was passed each State has their own laws. Try and get the Texas or Florida gun owners to give up their guns. They would never let that happen without a gunfight a real gunfight. Would you be willing to be in that fight? Maybe we should take guns away from cops too?
See, this is the progression that the NRA and their lobbiests has driven into e
veryone's minds. If you want to close the gun-show loophole and expand backgro
nd checks, what you really want to do is take away everyone's guns.
DaiTengu wrote to Gamgee <=-
Your "no matter how small" statement is the key. Yes, some folks
(in the NRA and elsewhere) do get upset at even small changes in
gun ownership laws. Why? Well, it's quite simple. Everyone
knows that Americans wouldn't stand for some bold and complete
revocation of gun ownership rights in this country, done in one
fell swoop. So, if one's goal is to ACTUALLY accomplish that
(removing guns from the common citizen), the ONLY way to succeed
is to do it a very little bit at a time. Kind of like stealing a
few cents from a rich bank account every day, over the course of years/decades. Nobody will notice such a small thing. But, over
the course of a generation or two, huge changes can be done, and
all of a sudden..... It's illegal to own a gun in America. That's
the method that the anti-gun crowd is using. Don't bother trying
to deny that, because it's an obvious truth, and everyone on both
sides knows that. It's the old "slippery slope" scenario. I mean,
just look at states like California, and how far they've already
come in their pursuit of this issue. There are MASSIVE restrictions
in place there RIGHT NOW, that are not present in nearly any other
state. If allowed to continue, how can the end result be anything
other than the complete dis-arming of America?
I get that mindset, but I really disagree with the premise.
There are too many laws, and too much is ingraned into our
culture for the US to ever ban guns completely. It definitely
would take a cultural revolution to do so, and such a revolution
would take many genrations to the point that the vast majority of
US citizens would want to ban all firearms. At that point, who
are we to care? We'll be long dead, or our minds would have been
changed and we'll probably be on board with it.
When I'm talking about "small things" I'm talking about
common-sense gun laws that the majority of US citizens support.
closing the "gun show loophole" and similar, small, sane things
that can help keep firearms out of the hands of those that only
want to use them to harm others.
While I'm quite left leaning, I'm also against an "assault
weapons ban". I'd really love to see more data and more studies
done to support such a thing, but the NRA has lobbied to get laws
passed so such data is not collected or made available, and such
studies cannot be funded by the government.
I say all of that in a logical manner and non-confrontational
tone. How else can the erosion of rights guaranteed to us by our
national Constitution be described? It's quite plain and clear
that that is the goal of (most of) the left-wing political party
in this country. For those that enjoy the legal use of firearms
for recreation/competition, how can they just stand idly by and
watch their rights be taken away? How would you react if some
group of people wanted to take something away from you that you
had a right to be doing?
It may be subjective, but I'm quite left-wing. All my friends
are quite left-wing, large portions of my family are left-wing.
Most of us own more than one gun, and many of us own "assault
weapons". I'm pretty sure that it's the pro-gun, right-wing
fearmongers that have people worked up into a tizzy that "every
liberal wants to take away your guns".
See, this is the progression that the NRA and their lobbiests has driven into everyone's minds. If you want to close the gun-show loophole and expand background checks, what you really want to do is take away everyone's guns.
See, this is the progression that the NRA and their lobbiests has driven in >veryone's minds. If you want to close the gun-show loophole and expand bac >nd checks, what you really want to do is take away everyone's guns.
The problem is that it is not just the NRA. The politicians who want to clo the loopholes (probably not a bad idea) will also come out and say things about taking all guns. They are probably just trying to get some folks
from the ultra-left to vote for them but with that language they leave the rest of us no reason to trust them.
* SLMR 2.1a * Sir! Jem'ha'dar warship approachin-- ^{+Kx NO CARRIER
DaiTengu wrote to Gamgee <=-
Your "no matter how small" statement is the key. Yes, some folks
(in the NRA and elsewhere) do get upset at even small changes in
gun ownership laws. Why? Well, it's quite simple. Everyone
knows that Americans wouldn't stand for some bold and complete revocation of gun ownership rights in this country, done in one
fell swoop. So, if one's goal is to ACTUALLY accomplish that
(removing guns from the common citizen), the ONLY way to succeed
is to do it a very little bit at a time. Kind of like stealing a
few cents from a rich bank account every day, over the course of years/decades. Nobody will notice such a small thing. But, over
the course of a generation or two, huge changes can be done, and
all of a sudden..... It's illegal to own a gun in America. That's
the method that the anti-gun crowd is using. Don't bother trying
to deny that, because it's an obvious truth, and everyone on both
sides knows that. It's the old "slippery slope" scenario. I mean,
just look at states like California, and how far they've already
come in their pursuit of this issue. There are MASSIVE restrictions
in place there RIGHT NOW, that are not present in nearly any other state. If allowed to continue, how can the end result be anything
other than the complete dis-arming of America?
I get that mindset, but I really disagree with the premise.
There are too many laws, and too much is ingraned into our
culture for the US to ever ban guns completely. It definitely
would take a cultural revolution to do so, and such a revolution
would take many genrations to the point that the vast majority of
US citizens would want to ban all firearms. At that point, who
are we to care? We'll be long dead, or our minds would have been changed and we'll probably be on board with it.
There aren't that many laws, and it's just a matter of them being revoked/changed one at a time until the anti-gunners have what
they want. A perfect example (again) is California - look at how restrictive it is compared to a state like maybe TX or FL. All of
that has happened in *ONE* generation (or less). As for it taking
multiple generations - how do you feel about "Climate Change"?
That's a standard lefty issue. If you'll be long dead before that
will affect you, why do you care about it? The EXACT same logic
applies to gun control.
When I'm talking about "small things" I'm talking about
common-sense gun laws that the majority of US citizens support.
closing the "gun show loophole" and similar, small, sane things
that can help keep firearms out of the hands of those that only
want to use them to harm others.
That's another lefty myth. I go to gun shows frequently, and
often buy something. This "loophole" you mention does not exist
from what I have ever seen. Every single firearm I've ever
purchased at a gun show required me to show ID, fill out the
required federal paperwork, and have a background check done (on
the spot before the sale was completed). Every single time. To
your point, I'm very much in favor of absolute requirements for
background checks before any gun sale.
While I'm quite left leaning, I'm also against an "assault
weapons ban". I'd really love to see more data and more studies
done to support such a thing, but the NRA has lobbied to get laws passed so such data is not collected or made available, and such studies cannot be funded by the government.
I'm not quite sure what this means, and can't comment on it.
I say all of that in a logical manner and non-confrontational
tone. How else can the erosion of rights guaranteed to us by our national Constitution be described? It's quite plain and clear
that that is the goal of (most of) the left-wing political party
in this country. For those that enjoy the legal use of firearms
for recreation/competition, how can they just stand idly by and
watch their rights be taken away? How would you react if some
group of people wanted to take something away from you that you
had a right to be doing?
It may be subjective, but I'm quite left-wing. All my friends
are quite left-wing, large portions of my family are left-wing.
Most of us own more than one gun, and many of us own "assault
weapons". I'm pretty sure that it's the pro-gun, right-wing fearmongers that have people worked up into a tizzy that "every
liberal wants to take away your guns".
I'd say you and your family/friends are NOT typical of the left
side then. Not at all. Most people screaming for more gun
control absolutely think that NO American should have ANY guns,
for ANY reason.
The bottom line of this whole topic/debate for me is this: Even
if guns are completely outlawed, it won't really change anything
in regard to "gun violence". The criminals who commit gun
violence will still have guns. There just won't be any "good
guys" with guns who might be able to stop them. It's an over-used
analogy, but I think it's true: Heroin/meth/crack are all illegal,
but are they still available to those who don't care about laws?
Yes. Guns would be exactly the same way. I'm really not sure how
people don't get that. Another thing is to look at Chicago -
probably the WORST gun violence area in the nation, and they have
the MOST STRICT gun laws in the nation. Hmmmmm.... what does that
tell us?
... Forbidden fruit is responsible for many a bad jam.
Re: Re: Musicians generate al
By: DaiTengu to HusTler on Fri Apr 17 2020 06:15 pm
See, this is the progression that the NRA and their lobbiests has driven into everyone's minds. If you want to close the gun-show loophole and expand background checks, what you really want to do is take away everyon guns.
I agree there is fearmongering to a certain degree.
But it is not a gun problem.
As a Spaniard I have seen the same phenomena unfold on other areas, usually
First they ban you to walk him around in the park on a leash except on a cer
Then they ask you go get an official paper each time you want to deworm or v
Then they demand you to get a dog license for owning the dog at all.
Then they demand that your dog is held in a cage every moment he is with no
None of these messures are equivalent to a ban of dogs, but when you add the here despite not having an official ban. 12 years of small laws will destroy
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
The bottom line of this whole topic/debate for me is this: Even
if guns are completely outlawed, it won't really change anything
in regard to "gun violence". The criminals who commit gun
violence will still have guns. There just won't be any "good
guys" with guns who might be able to stop them. It's an over-used
analogy, but I think it's true: Heroin/meth/crack are all illegal,
but are they still available to those who don't care about laws?
Yes. Guns would be exactly the same way. I'm really not sure how
people don't get that. Another thing is to look at Chicago -
probably the WORST gun violence area in the nation, and they have
the MOST STRICT gun laws in the nation. Hmmmmm.... what does that
tell us?
The "loophole" is face to face transfers with other non dealers.
Let's a say I want to sell a shotgun, and I can sell it for more
face to face than to or t hrough a dealer. No paperwork is
needed for an FTF. All they suggest is to use good judgment and
do not sell to someone that looks unstable or shady. FTF
transfers happen all the time. It's just easier to hook up at a
gun show.
The same scenario exists for multiple other transactions. Cars
(to avoid sales tax), fireworks, moonshine, etc... We (and the
government) can't control everything, no matter how hard some
folks would like to.
Arelor wrote to Gamgee <=-
The same scenario exists for multiple other transactions. Cars
(to avoid sales tax), fireworks, moonshine, etc... We (and the
government) can't control everything, no matter how hard some
folks would like to.
Standard government pretense is to have the items registered with
a unique identifier, have a database of owners, and verify
regularly that the owner has the item. That is the spaniard
approach. It really makes it very difficult for a registered
weapon to leak out of the system. But it is also a de-facto ban
because not much people will go through the paperwork to get it
legal - specially in a country such as here, where rules change
fast, and your gun may be outlawed tomorrow and taken away from
you, or the condition of the licenses changed.
Heck, you cannot sell a gun in person here. You have to send it
to the army office and the buyer goes to the army office to pick
it up.
The standard way of getting a gun in the 60s around here was to
ambush a Civil Guard and give him a good pounding, then take his
gun. But failing that there are the underground workshops making
this stuff. But as far as I know the main sources of illegal
weapons in Spain are 1) Policemen 2) Eastern Europe dealers 3)
Stashes of civil war weapons that got abandoned and then found.
Yes, there is people with civil war grenades and obuses around
:-)
Personally, I am wery of registers, because the government uses
them mainly for two things. To tax registered items and to
confiscate registered items. You only miss prepaid phones and
pre-paid credit cards when you need to do something that needs
discrection and you discover those have to be registered. Hard to
explain but it is a blackberry to the economy. It is suffocating
to have a phone line uniquely linked to you in a country where
the pacifier branch of the army has been commanded to quell
criticism to the government.
Re: Re: Musicians generate al
By: Gamgee to Moondog on Sun Apr 19 2020 04:39 pm
The same scenario exists for multiple other transactions. Cars
(to avoid sales tax), fireworks, moonshine, etc... We (and the government) can't control everything, no matter how hard some
folks would like to.
Standard government pretense is to have the items registered with a unique i o leak out of the system. But it is also a de-facto ban because not much peo r the condition of the licenses changed.
Heck, you cannot sell a gun in person here. You have to send it to the army
The standard way of getting a gun in the 60s around here was to ambush a Civ
weapons in Spain are 1) Policemen 2) Eastern Europe dealers 3) Stashes of c
Personally, I am wery of registers, because the government uses them mainly ction and you discover those have to be registered. Hard to explain but it i ism to the government.
Eventually computers will
have the ability to gather enough information about you to build simulations or forcast your behavior and habits.
Regarding Civil War weapons, firearms made in the early 20th century tend to be made well.
Re: Re: Musicians generate al
By: Moondog to Arelor on Mon Apr 20 2020 01:16 am
Eventually computers will
have the ability to gather enough information about you to build simulati or forcast your behavior and habits.
Pretty much. This is why I am always advertising things such as Tor and I2p, forfeit many necessary services. Plus, they can figure out who you are by wa
Regarding Civil War weapons, firearms made in the early 20th century tend be made well.
There is a bit of everything. The red side used a lot of italian weapons tha
The problem is that it is not just the NRA. The politicians who want to close the loopholes (probably not a bad idea) will also come out and say things about taking all guns. They are probably just trying to get some folks from the ultra-left to vote for them but with that language they leave the rest of us no reason to trust them.
That's a big reason Beto lost all his momentum in the democratic primaries. AFA
IK, he was the only one to take that bold stance, and he paid for it.
The big issue is that organizations like the NRA will then claim that EVERY Dem
crat wants to take away everyone's guns, and the right-wing media will repeat t
at over and over until everyone is convinced it's the truth.
Re: Re: Musicians generate al
By: Dumas Walker to DAITENGU on Sat Apr 18 2020 10:45 am
The problem is that it is not just the NRA. The politicians who want to close the loopholes (probably not a bad idea) will also come out and sa things about taking all guns. They are probably just trying to get some folks from the ultra-left to vote for them but with that language they leave the rest of us no reason to trust them.
That's a big reason Beto lost all his momentum in the democratic primaries.
The big issue is that organizations like the NRA will then claim that EVERY
Polls show differently.
DaiTengu
... An honest politician is one who, when bought, stays bought.
That's a big reason Beto lost all his momentum in the democratic primaries. >IK, he was the only one to take that bold stance, and he paid for it.
The big issue is that organizations like the NRA will then claim that EVERY >crat wants to take away everyone's guns, and the right-wing media will repe >at over and over until everyone is convinced it's the truth.
I think he was. Joe Biden has never said anything that radical that I know of, but Joe did offer Beto a job should he win in the Fall. That makes me trust Joe a lot less than I might have.
* SLMR 2.1a * "I never met a chocolate I didn't like." --Deanna Troi
| Sysop: | Chris Crash |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huntington Beach, CA. |
| Users: | 557 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 26:48:36 |
| Calls: | 10,381 |
| Files: | 5 |
| Messages: | 359,493 |