I hate bi-partisan politics and elections seasons....

hellonwheels's picture

...especially ones like this where I am forced to choose the lessor of two evils.

Both candidates want to define any firearm with over a 5 round capacity as an assault weapon. For those that don't know, that makes nearly every pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, or semi-auto rifle illegal to own or fire, let alone sell.

Now, to most of you kids on here, that won't matter a bit, but personally for me, it's a HUGE issue.

I firmly believe in our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. without them, we surrender any and all ability to fight a corrupt government, prevent foreign interference in domestic issues, and they have personally protected my life in the past.

While they are not as essential in everyday life as they were 200 years ago, but I still view them as an essential right that is about to be lost.

on the second part of the issue, I am torn as a voter for gay rights and gay marriage. While Romney hasn't brought up the issue much-he was smart to avoid it, he has a pretty clear view on gays in the military and gays getting married.

I HATE with a passion being a single issue voter, and in past elections, gun control has been a huge one for me-but my rights and being defined as a second class citizen under an arrogant a-hole like romney is the one reason I will vote for Obama.

Romney is honestly a fool. While he may have a college education (not sure where he went or how he graduated high school), but his knowledge of foreign affairs continues to astound me.

Tonight, in the debate, he mentioned assage, referencing the WikiLeaks guy, while discussing Syria, when he meant to reference Assad, the ultra-douche who has been murdering people to hold onto his dwindling power there for almost a year now.

Also, they spent far too much time on the issues of Benghazi and the attacks during the Arab Spring.

In Romney's world, Syria and Iran are landlocked nations, and depend on each other for trade. not the case at all...

Shouldn't a basic knowledge of the world and it's countries/rulers be a pre-requisite for governing a nation, and one of the most powerful at that? I mean honestly, Romney is an idiot.

He also went as far as stating that the Pushtan people in Afghanistan are all talibs, which is total bullshit. While I have never been to Afghanistan, my father had in the military, and also, I have had several friends serve in the mountains up there.

While there are a few tribal leaders loyal to them taliban, the majority are peaceful people who are goatherders and simple farming nomads, not terrorist supporters.

It is interesting to see the conservative right coming back Obama right now, I recommend watching the daily show with John Stewart today. So funny, and so true.

While I do stand to lose my gun rights thru Obama's re-election, I also realize that I stand to lose a lot more if he isn't elected.

I dunno. I am so over bi-partisan politics...Every four years, we take steps forward, then four years later, we take giant steps back. No matter who gets elected, it comes down to who controls the house and the senate in a partisan system, and while Obamacare may be socialism, it is a necessary evil as well. without it, I would be fucked.

Mitt seems to believe the average american household income is around $200k. maybe in some areas, but definitely not the whole country.

I am also pissed because I am going to miss my friends in witchburn playing w/ the dio disciples tomorrow night, as they kick off their tour...if you haven't checked them out, do it. they're awesome.

My dad alwys did do things @ the worst possible times. I will be heading to montana to spread his ashes and meet with the lawyers next week, so it will be a rough one for sure.

I am also in charge of writing up an obituary, which is further complicated by the fact that I broke my hand and wrist last week.

typing this crappy entry took me almost an hour. lol. well, i won't be on for a week, no internet or tv access in MT. later,



hellonwheels's picture

oh. also...

on my way home, there were a bunch if bigoted church members from a local catholic parish on the highway with reject r-74 signs. Ten years ago, hell, even 6 years ago, I probably would have been out there with them, and instead, all I could feel was a sense of pity and disgust for them. I wanted to pull over my car and chat with them, or flip them off, but instead continued on my not so merry way. fuck, I hate being defined as a second class citizen for something I had NO control over, fuck.


Mental wounds not healing, driving me insane, i'm goin' off the rails on a crazy train- the ozzman

elph's picture

Your comments on those...

misguided religious puppets championing reject r-74... nothing but 100% agreement from me!

However, we do disagree on our interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. My understanding is that it was written with the sole intent of authorizing a government-supported militia... although not explicitly forbidding personal ownership of arms (left much too vague).

hellonwheels's picture

not entirely...

Keith. The second amendment was actually written for the most part to ensure that there would never be the chance of total government power. It was put into that document to allow the people of the colonies to form a well regulated militia....while the need for a 'well-regulated' militia may not be there today, the need of civilians to keep their government in check still is.

To quote V "people should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people."

And yes, I realize I am saying that on a site that is monitored by the government, trust me on this one-the content of oasis is viewed by the fed, as found out by an old aquaintence of mine I met on this site,

However, I do feel like owning a gun, or at least the right to bear arms, is protected in the constitution. While many may take it at its most liberal meaning, such as tanks, grenades, full autos, etc...I think the right of a person to protect their family and property, as well as to hunt wiht a decent rifle, shall not be infringed. the ban won't affect me much as it sits right now, but still. it's bullshit.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the gun thing. All I know is several prominent military members of my family, including one of the most famed generals of the great war will roll over in their graves if that bill passes.


Mental wounds not healing, driving me insane, i'm goin' off the rails on a crazy train- the ozzman

swimmerguy's picture

Perhaps, but

I don't have too many problems with gun rights, but I think we've gone too far in our blind support for making sure as many people have guns as possible.

And your idea that having guns is to keep the government in check, I'm not sure where you're coming from. Sure, back in the late 1700's when they wrote the Amendment, if the government decided to go all tyranny on the People's asses, they'd be able to overthrow it, that's what the Revolution was.
But back then, all they had were muskets. Regular people had muskets, the government had muskets, not really much else.

Today, though, while regular people have semi-automatics, the government has automatics, tanks, nukes, cruise missiles, body armor, drones, and I'm sure, plenty they don't tell us about.
And, of course, we shouldn't give regular people any of those things.

But the government has them. If our US government right now, today, decided to become a tyranny, and Midwestern Joe was going to stop them, he'd be crushed. We spend way more on our military as % of GDP than we do on personal gun sales.
In other words, guns do nothing to stop the government from doing what they want, they'd be able to do nearly anything they want with our military might.
They'd kill a few resisters, and everyone else would fall into line.

So how do we stop our government from becoming a tyranny? A culture of generally free press and generally representative government, and certain ever-vigilant people to stop the government when it abuses power.
As well as our country usually having general, basic respect for humanity. If the government decided to crack down and become a dictatorship, the army and police would probably revolt as individuals, unless the takeover was flawless or done over a long time.

I'm not a gun control nut, but your argument we use guns to "keep the government in check" seems to be without substance.
The rest seems to mostly be "I like my guns".
I don't think we should ban guns, obviously, cause we did that for drugs and it totally fucking failed, people will do what they want. But in our society as is, too many people can get ahold of weapons too easily.
The difference between drugs and guns is that with drugs, you hurt yourself, but with guns, you hurt others.

And the government monitors this site? Don't they have better things to do with public money?


elph's picture

Multiple dittos throughout!

I've already had my brief "say" (above)... and I realize that this debate will likely remain immortal.

But I'm sure many others cannot avoid thinking:

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols

Theirs were explosives --- not assault rifles --- but no difference symbolically!

It's high time for the 2nd Amendment to be re-written in unambiguous language reflecting true American ideals... not those of certain leaders of the NRA (a once-great organization deserving of admiration)!

Bosemaster42's picture

I agree wholeheartedly,

with the right to bear arms being protected. Our forefathers wrote this amendment to the constitution to protect the 'people' from an overzealous government. Simply, anyone who believes giving up or restricting this right will take weapons off the street, preventing criminal use is sadly mistaken. Guns can be purchased easily, legal or not.
There has already been a surge in legal purchases of weapons which could become illegal in the future.
Personally, I have no need for assault weapons. I do occasionally go to a gun range to hone my shooting skills, I prefer rifles, however, I've fired many types of handguns at this range. It's already quite difficult to obtain a license to carry in this state. All I know is you don't give any of your rights up to the government. It would be akin to voting for a tax on yourself, only an idiot would agree to that.

elph's picture

You may be right...

...just don't know, however, whether it's "all that clear!"

I have zero credentials (not even informally!) as a constitutional scholar... but I'd appreciate guidance (link; URL) as to where I might find documentation that could lead me to a similar understanding:

"Our forefathers wrote this amendment to the constitution to protect the 'people' from an overzealous government."

Bosemaster42's picture

I'm not either,

However, I understand the importance of this amendment in relation to 'The freedom of the people'. As rewritten by Thomas Jefferson, " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'http://billofrights.org/
The wording is quite straightforward and clear. This particular amendment was intended to protect the people from their own government. If, for example, there was a force within the government attempting to change these basic rights or our government starts doing things the majority of people disapprove of, we have the right, as a group, to take action against said government. There are many possibilities to consider, of course.
In layman's terms, the people of the United States have the right to possess and keep weapons to protect ourselves from outside invasion, as well as, a government that is deemed out of control and threatening the rights of it's legal citizens.
The Assault Weapons Ban of 1984, signed into law by Bill Clinton, was essentially unconstitutional. First of all, there's no such thing as an assault weapon. Anything that anyone can brandish in an attack on any person, can be considered an assault weapon.
This ban specifically targeted semi-automatic weapons with specific add-on features which are essentially cosmetic. The biggest problem with this ban for gun owners and dealers, was the inclusion of semi-auto handguns with a capacity of more than five rounds. Typically, most semi-auto handguns have a ammo clip of 7-10 rounds depending upon the gun. Fully automatic guns manufactured prior to the ban were grandfathered and therefore, not banned.
The ban was dissolved as of 1994 despite many attempts at reinstating it since then. The ban did nothing, I repeat nothing to deter crime. All it did do, was increase the price of auto and semi-auto weapons.

hellonwheels's picture

Depends on your state,

but here in the evergreen state, it's actually quite easy. Just requires a small fee, some paperworkl, and you're golden.

Mental wounds not healing, driving me insane, i'm goin' off the rails on a crazy train- the ozzman

jeff's picture


Are you getting this from NRA mailings or something? Gun control isn't even an issue in this election, and Obama has done nothing related to gun control in his first four years. He recently said he would consider revisiting an assault weapons ban as part pf putting every option on the table to reduce violence. That's hardly a campaign promise.

Plus, if he reinstated the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban, I can't find anything that would outlaw a pistol. Sounds like NRA fearmongering to me.

"You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks" - Dawes, When My Time Comes (http://youtu.be/Z0FrcTX6hWI)

Bosemaster42's picture


I'm neither a member or supporter of the NRA. You're right about the current administration not doing anything to reinstitute the 'Weapons ban'. However, Obama did state, in the last debate, he would consider revisiting the ban. He also mentioned his home state of Illinois, specifically Chicago, as having the highest murder rate per capita. He went on to mention that most of these murders were committed with cheaper hand guns. With that, it sounded to me he would be more than willing to take away or restrict the right of ownership. He also mentioned getting to the root of why all these crimes are taking place. Correcting human behavior, although not impossible, seems pretty futile.
I agree if more younger males were working decent jobs instead of living the life of street thugs, it would reduce some of the crime. Unfortunately, when given the choice of working 40 hours a week, taking home $250-300 a week, or selling drugs on the street making $500-1500
a week, which do you think they will choose?

jeff's picture


But that is you drawing a conclusion of what he meant by getting to the root, no? If he didn't say, you don't know his answer.

Also, revisiting a ban on assault weapons doesn't mean he's getting rid of the second amendment. Just that a gun with no other purpose than killing many people quickly may not be necessary for the general public. It seems pretty casual to think the people who wrote the second amendment meant there should never be any restrictions. What was available then... muskets?

"You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks" - Dawes, When My Time Comes (http://youtu.be/Z0FrcTX6hWI)

Bosemaster42's picture


I'll admit I am drawing a conclusion. I don't trust politicians in general, especially when they are vague about their answer. It could be because he wasn't prepared to answer it in detail, I can't speak for him.
Flint-locks and muskets were the only guns at the time the amendment was written and ratified. It didn't take long(less than a century) before more advanced rifles and six shooter pistols were introduced.
The problem with the ban was the inclusion of semi-automatics. Most people don't understand the difference between a fully automatic versus a semi-automatic. It's the full auto weapons that can do the most damage in the wrong hands. Secondly, the ban did nothing to deter crime. Criminals buy guns illegally and don't possess or pay for the required licenses and training. It's true, I do enjoy shooting guns and I will never be apologetic about it. Safety is the key.