Plan to own a gun in Illinois? Good Luck!

[The Watcher]

If this passes in Illinois, it will be #### for the whole nation!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YOUR IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED - STOP DALEY FROM RAIDING YOUR GUN CABINET

Gun grabbers in the Illinois House today moved a resolution that would result in most of your guns being banned and confiscated.

HR 656, sponsored by rabid antigunner Rep. Julie Hamos (D-Evanston, directs the U.S. Congress to "extend and strengthen" the so-called "assault weapons" ban.

If Hamos and her friends get their way, then the list of banned guns would grow considerably to include a BAN ON ANY GUN MODEL, OR STYLE EVER PURCHASED BY ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY OR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

That would mean:

* All Colt revolvers would be banned and confiscated.

* All S&W revolvers would be banned and confiscated.

* All Ruger revolvers would be banned and confiscated.

* All Colt 1911 style pistols would be banned and confiscated.

* All Glock, S&W, Sig, H&K pistols would be banned and confiscated.

* All Trapdoor Springfields, Krags, M1903 Springfields, M1 Garands would be banned and confiscated.

Get the picture?

HERE IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO SAVE YOUR GUNS:

1. Call the following Representatives Wednesday and Thursday of this week and POLITELY inform them that you are opposed to HR 656 and POLITELY request that they VOTE AGAINST HR 656 if it comes up for a vote before their committee.

a. Rep. William Delgado (217) 782-0480

b. Rep. Patricia Bailey (217) 782-5971

c. Rep. Richard Bradley (217) 782-8117

d. Rep. Annazette Collins (217) 782-8077

e. Rep. Careen Gordon (217) 782-5997

f. Rep. Constance Howard (217) 782-6476

g. Rep. Lovana Jones (217) 782-2023

h. Rep. Pat Lindner (217) 782-1486

i. Rep. Eileen Lyons (217) 782-0494

j. Rep. John Millner (217) 558-1037

k. Rep. Chapin Rose (217) 558-1006

l. Rep. Jim Sacia (217) 782-8186

m. Rep. Ron Wait (217) 782-0548

2. PLEASE FORWARD THIS ALERT ON TO ALL YOUR GUN OWNING FRIENDS AND HAVE THEM CALL TOO.

3. PLEASE POST THIS ALERT TO ANY AND ALL INTERNET BULLETIN BOARDS TO WHICH YOU MAY BELONG.

Please act today - the future of the 2nd Amendment is up to you!

Gun Control is a Disease - You are the Cure

[Marble Eyes]

Just goes to show you that those stories about "sensable gun control" is and always was a lie and really about TOTAL gun confiscation.


Problem started with allowing the *******s to get away with FIOD or what ever they have that you must register your firearms thru.
Because now they know who has what and will send the big bad government to come get em if you don't turn them in. Been Tried and tested in Kalipornia.

[The Democrat]

It embarrasses me when any Democrat pushes legislation to ban (instead of regulate) guns and does it in a sneaky way.

I can live with some stupid gun legislation (within limits) because there are other issues more important to me, but this is nuts. We need more hard-hat Democrats who spit on this kind of thing.

[Lonnie]

Then my Remington 700 or any other rifle owned and used by any sheriff or police department would be illegal for me to own!!!!!
Yes, in my opinion, this type of legislation really does reveal the anti-gunners real agenda, total confiscation of all firearms. A disarmed populace can't resist tryanny can it???

Thanks, Lonnie

[Marble Eyes]

GASP! You own a Cop Killing High Powered Sniper Rifle with a scope? Oh my!

[The Democrat]

Please explain how a bunch of leaderless and unorganized hunters armed with Remington 700s would fight off a tyrannical government armed with tactical nuclear bombs, aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, laser-guided bombs, F-16s armed with napalm and cluster bombs, Blackhawk gunships, Abrams tanks, artillery, and infantry divisions equipped with Bradley fighting vehicles, machineguns, grenade launchers, TOWs and LAWs, assault rifles, and unlimited amounts of fuel, transport, ordnance, and ammunition? How long would you last before you got blown to #### by that stuff? How would you maneuver in the field? How would you get ammo resupply, how would you feed your men? This is fantasy, and this argument for gun ownership doesn't wash.

But even if there were no hunting (which may happen someday when the U.S. population exceeds 1 billion and there's no undeveloped land left) there would be an argument for keeping the First Amendment: To defend your home, person, and property from criminals. That's where a deer rifle, shotgun, or handgun comes in handy. We will always have a crime problem. But forget about trying to overthrow or fend off a despotic government in Washington D.C. with what's in your gun cabinet. Let's just hope we never get such a government, and work hard to make sure we never do.

[The Democrat]

I forgot to mention, the tyrant in D.C. also will have spy satellites watching you every time you crawl\e out of your spider hole to take a leak, and communications equipment that can intercept any telephone, cell phone, or radio communication you make. If you don't want a cruise missile shoved up your nose, you'll have to use tin cans and string.

[The Democrat]

In other words, I'm not optimistic that a "Minuteman" approach would work in this day and age.

[Art-Co]

Hey, I think the Afgans kicked the Russians rear ends even though the Russians had the Afagans out-gunned. Here is even a better story. I was an Illinois resident for over fourty years and move to Colorado a few years ago. Last year I went to visit family in Illinois and stopped at a gun shop in the burbs. When I noticed a old shot gun on the rack in the shop, I asked to take a looked at it. The person behind the counter said " sure , lets see your Illinois FOID card", I said it expired because I moved out of state. He said well I can't even let you look at the gun, Now tell me, How stupid is that????

Art

[Skindog]

Have some comments been nuked?

Or has Democrat run out of people to debate and has decided to debate himself!

[Drift Sock]

What's all the stress about? Based on the original post, this is only an advisory resolution. The Illinois legislature can't force the U.S. Congress to do anything....

This is useful, however, to learn who the anti-gun legislators are.

DS

[The Democrat]

The Democrat has begun talking to himself in his old age. Hey, doesn't everyone?

[JohnF]

You are right, self protection is one good reason to have guns around.

You miss the point on the Minuteman revolution though. It isn't that I believe I would outright win a war on the battlefield, my Ruger 10/22 against their 50BMG, but that I can not lose. If every man, woman, and child stood and got killed by the tyrant, what has the tyrant really won?

Besides, a tyrant doesn't get there overnight (here in the US anyway) and our peashooters could be useful before the tyrant gets nukes.

Your argument really points out that perhaps we aren't accounting for the intent of the second amendment; that is, an argument could be made that the idea was to keep the possibility of the creation of a militia that is on equal ground with the government's war machine so that the people could rise against a government gone bad. I'll even make the assertion that this is true and in the same sentence agree that at this point in history, completely inappropriate. That is unless I get the switch. Should we as a people decide we want to even the playing field, I'll take an F18 or F16 or, heck, even an A10. :)

Yes, I would rather my Kimber than slingshot againt the giant, either way, I'll win by not losing.

Oh, and aren't we sliding into a political discussion?

John

[Eyecrosser]

Would a person lose that battle, probably. But it sure beats just rolling over and giving up. A society of people without arms are not citizens, they are subjects!

[Question]

I assume you meant the SECOND amendment? Or am I missing your point?

[esoxlucius]

Looks like the commies and various assorted would be tyrants are at it again. If private gun ownership were no threat then why have commie regimes, Stalin, Tung, Castro, Mengistu, as well current commie backed regimes in the Sudan, Mozambique, and Ruwanda, (all declared "gun free zones" by the U.N.) preferred their subjects to be unarmed. The answer is obvious. Commies don't like war, they prefer genocide/mass murder where they have much more success than they do at war. Virtually without exception all modern day genocides/mass murders have been preceeded by civilian disarmament. Oh btw, they said it,(genocide), would't happen in those countries as well. Those "kooks, paranoiacs, and McCarthyites" who sounded the alarm were eliminated before the mass murder began. Is any country to "civilized" for this to occur? At one time there were few, if any, areas of the world more tech developed and "civilized" in arts and culture than Europe, yet genocide/mass murder galore. Again, if guns are no threat to the commies then why are they so rabid anti-gun?
As Yamamoto said in regards to a U.S. invasion and it's dubious odds for success, "There would a rifle behind every blade of grass..."
The commies are't worried about private gun ownership for nothing.

Not all dems are commies, but all commies are dems.

[Leechboy]

Despite the difference in fire power between current Gov't and our civilian militia, the second amendment still shines in it's forethought. The threat of armed resistance does/will some day change the way gov't acts toward it's citizens. A gun can take an individual life, and that's enough to sway the way certain people may act, especially when it's their life. -lb

[The Democrat]

Yes, Second Amendment is correct. We sometimes get confused in our old age. We also talk to ourselves when several of our personalities participate in the conversation.

[The Democrat]

Fortunately, we don't have any commies here. That's because the Democrats killed them all while most of the Republicans were getting their student deferments renewed. There's no correlation between the absence of commies and the fact we didn't purge the McCarthyites, kooks, or paranoics--after all, this is America, where the tent is big enough for everybody including right wing nut jobs--and this is easy to prove: When McCarthy said he had a "list" of commies in the government and waved a piece of paper, the sheet was blank. If there were any commies in the government he sure didn't know who they were. If we had to depend on McCarthy to root out those commies, they'd still be there. Thank God the working class kids from the Democratic wards of New York, Chicago, L.A., and the blue collar small towns stopped them in Vietnam before they could take over the Golden Gate Bridge. :7

[jarhead]

Democrap , Your to much.

[wouldchuck]

>Please explain how a bunch of leaderless and unorganized
>hunters armed with Remington 700s would fight off a tyrannical
>government armed with tactical nuclear bombs, aircraft
>carriers, cruise missiles, laser-guided bombs, F-16s armed
>with napalm and cluster bombs, Blackhawk gunships, Abrams
>tanks, artillery, and infantry divisions equipped with Bradley
>fighting vehicles, machineguns, grenade launchers, TOWs and
>LAWs, assault rifles, and unlimited amounts of fuel,
>transport, ordnance, and ammunition? How long would you last
>before you got blown to #### by that stuff? How would you
>maneuver in the field? How would you get ammo resupply, how
>would you feed your men? This is fantasy, and this argument
>for gun ownership doesn't wash.

In a revolutionary scenario such as you envision it would not be only the simple, civilian gun-owners against the tyranical government. Our Military is made of citizens just like you and me. They are sworn to first defend the Constitution, then the Commander In Chief. I would like to believe that, in an attepted over-throw of our Constitutional Government, the vast majority of our Military forces would be on our side.

In a simple gun grab such as what this Bill would amount to, anyone who refused to turn in their guns would be in violation of the laws. In such a case the Military is Constitutionally forbidden to get envolved (there's a fancy latin term for this that escapes me at the moment). Now, how many more Wacos or Ruby Ridges do you think the American people will stand for?

[Das Boot 3]

This thread is starting to look like a Walleye Militia chat site. The idea that a law banning sporting rifles and legally obtained handguns could be passed anywhere (including ultra left WA) is ludicrous. The delusion that a "armed populous" with 10/22s could be more than a distraction to a modern fighting force is without merit also. The posts belittling enviromentalists and branding Dems as "commie tree huggers" continue to amaze me. For a group of outdoorsmen and people that benefit from enviromental laws every time we put our boats in the water - it seems like biting the hand that feeds. Think about the condition of the great Lakes specifically the walleye haven of Erie in the early 1970s when the enviromental movement was in it's infancy and compare to today. It might be fair to say that the fish would not be safe to eat if they were even present without the "earth" movement of years ago.
The extreme position in any argument is only tenable for the true zealots that subscribe to it. It is not any more reasonable to chain yourself to a tree or destroy logging equipment than it is to gut enviromental laws to appease corporations intent on exploiting natural resources at any cost. Keep in mind that the landmark enviromental laws were signed by Republician presidents after being passed by Democrat controlled congresses. Liberal is no more of a bad word than Conservative is.......but god willing we will all be Moderates.

[GR8WTHUNTER]

What's all the stress about? Based on the original post, this is only an advisory resolution.

Everything needs a "start" to get moving. This will be better stopped long before it starts moving.

Here is something to ponder. The gun grabbers did not just present one restrictive proposed law. They have been working incramentally. They fight their battle to take away our right of gun ownership time and time again. Each time the settle for less than what they went to battle, but they are winning. Every time they get a little more towards their goals of stripping our rights. How many rights and freedoms are you willing to give up. If we say to ourselves that this is just a small thing and wont ad up to much every other year or so, what kind of an America will we be leaving for our Grandchildern and their grand childern.

[The Democrat]

Well spoken! Would that we could have two sensible political parties cooperating with each other on things that mutually benefit us and disagreeing civilly when we must disagree.

Washington is a state ruled by citizen initiatives as much as by its own legislature. Some years ago, the anti-gunners floated an initiative to register--not ban, mind you--handguns and require handgun owners to take a training course. The Soviet of Washington voted against it by a 3-to-1 margin. We haven't heard a peep from the anti-gunners ever since.

If gun registration can't pass here, it can't pass anywhere, so don't lose sleep over it.

[The Democrat]

Whatsa matter Repuke, truth hurts?! :7

A partial chickenhawk list:

Pretender George W. Bush -- joined Nat'l Guard to avoid Vietnam, refused to take flight physical, failed to show up for mandatory drills.

Vice Pretender Dick Cheney -- Five deferments, no military service.

Attorney General John "Nosy" Ashcroft -- requested deferment to teach business ed at a state college, did not serve.

Chief Propagandist Karl Rove -- avoided draft, did not serve.

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert -- avoided draft, did not serve.

Former Speaker of the House and Adulterer Newt Gingrich -- avoided draft, did not serve.

Majority Leader Dick Armey -- avoided draft, did not serve.

Majority Whip Tom "Big Mouth" Delay -- avoided draft, did not serve.

Senator Trent Lott -- avoided draft, did not serve.

Former Senator Phil Gramm -- four student deferments, did not serve.

Rep. Vin Weber -- did not serve.

Former Rep. Bob "B-1" Dornan -- avoided Korean War combat duty by enrolling in college acting classes.

Former Rep. J. C. Watts -- did not serve.

Richard Perle, dual citizen of U.S. and Israel -- did not serve in military of either country.

Iran-contra figure Elliott Abrams -- did not serve.

Former Mayor Rudy Guiliani -- did not serve.

Columnist George Will -- did not serve.

TV Commentator Chris Matthews -- did not serve.

TV Commentator Bill O'Reilly -- did not serve

Talk Show Host Rush Limbaugh -- did not serve.

Paul Gigot -- did not serve.

Bill Bennett -- did not serve.

Pat Robertson -- did not serve.

Bill Kristol -- did not serve.

CLUCK! CLUCK! CLUCK! CLUCK! CLUCK! CLUCK! CLUCK! CLUCK! CLUCK! CLUCK! CLUCK!

[Canadian Guy]

Yeah...With Bin Laden, American Stinger Missiles and the CIAs help. There's a price to be paid for everything in Life.

[BJ ShmeJay]

Still a lot of pent up anger over the what happened in the oral office huh?

Where was Clinton during Viet Nam(besides protesting on forgein soil)?

Heck, even the "best" person the Left(I do mean Left, it would be nice if they could put up a "Democrat") can put up for President, protested the VN war after he got out. Luckily for him, he came within a fingernail sctrach of getting really hurt.

[triton]

Gotta agree with democrat, All the so called hawks in washington that are dying to get us in a war are usually the ones who ran and hid when it was their turn to serve. I would love to see a draft so that George W's partygirl daughters could get a free trip to Najaf!

[The Democrat]

The "fingernail scratch" myth being circulated by the wingnut propaganda machine is as big a lie as the "Photoshopped" fake photo of Kerry and Fonda (truth: Kerry never associated with Fonda and publicly rebuked her), but let's cut the b.s. and get to the real issues.

Conservatives have pursued a deliberate strategy to demonize liberals in the public's mind because they can't compete on issues. The GOP has spent billions on this hate campaign. It's easy to see why they must resort to dirty politics when you compare the parties on issues.

I'm proud to be a liberal, both because of what liberals have done for our society, and because of what we're not:

Us: Liberals gave us the Constitution, Bill of Rights, free speech, free press, religious freedom, and due process of law.

Them: Arrest without charges, imprisonment without trial, and government spying on your financial, medical, school, employment, and library records. Believes public doesn't have right to know about government misconduct. Seeks to suppress dissent and criticism of government actions. Wants to force-feed their religion to our children in public schools.

Us: Liberals ended slavery and legal segregation, supported equal rights for minorities and women, and oppose discrimination.

Them: Promotes hatred of immigrants and gays, and wants to amend the Constitution to institutionalize anti-gay hatred and bigotry. Makes excuses for gay-bashing and abuse of POWs by U.S. troops. Blames everything on media and liberals.

Us: Liberals gave us free public education, the bedrock of our democracy and economic prosperity.

Them: Thinks testing is more important than learning. Promotes policies that undermine public education. Supports using taxpayer money to pay for private schooling with no standards or accountability.

Us: Liberals gave us the 40-hour work week, overtime pay, minimum wage, collective bargaining rights, child labor laws, workplace safety regulations, injured worker benefits, unemployment insurance, expanded health care, veterans benefits, and Social Security and Medicare.

Them: Opposes overtime pay, minimum wage laws, labor laws, safety laws, benefits for injured workers, unemployment benefits. Supports so-called "right to work" (anti-union) laws and union-busting. Believes health care is not a right. Supports making fewer low-income veterans eligible for health care at V.A. facilities. Proposes reducing future Social Security benefits by $1 trillion to divert this money into stock market (where it can be stolen) and supports eventual elimination of both Social Security and Medicare.

Us: Pro-worker and pro-consumer. Supports laws that protect consumers from fraudulent and predatory business practices.

Them: Pro-big business; supports anti-worker policies and seeks to weaken consumer protection laws.

Us: Supports balanced budget and fair taxation.

Them: Borrows and spends like a drunk sailor; wants to eliminate all taxes on corporations, capital gains, dividends, and investment income, and shift entire federal income tax burden to middle class wage earners, who will (of course) end up paying much higher taxes. Supports policies that concentrate more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

Us: Protect air and drinking water, food safety regulations, and public health programs; reduce pollution and require polluters to pay for toxic site cleanups. Create wilderness and recreation areas, and promote science-based sustainable-yield agricultural, fisheries, timber, and natural resource policies.

Them: Weaken or repeal Clean Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species acts; slash funding for toxic cleanups and shift cleanup costs from polluters to taxpayers; replace federal meat inspectors with taxpayer-financed cash subsidies to meat industry for wages of employee-inspectors subordinate to companies whose meat they inspect. Oppose programs to reduce HIV and sexually transmitted diseases.

Us: Supports policies that strengthen middle class families such as family-wage jobs and access to health care.

Them: Pays lip service to family values while party leaders frequently engage in sordid personal behavior (e.g., adultery). See, for example, "The Republican Wife Cheating Hall of Fame" at http://www.americaheldhostile.com/cheating.html. Politial diatribes evince obsession with sex, for unknown reasons (do we really want to know?).

The right tries to stigmatize liberals with hateful language (e.g. "commies," "traitors," "unpatriotic," "un-American") for the purpose of advancing a selfish agenda that enriches a few but hurts the vast majority of Americans. Right wingers also tend to be ethnocentric, xenophobic, nationalistic militarists--the kind of people who have started most of modern history's bloody wars.

Unless you define "Americans" as their selfish group and leave everyone else out, their policies are anti-American (because these policies hurt the majority).

My answer to the right wingers is:

I'M PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN LIBERAL!

[Shep]

I didn't know Slick Willy was a conservative?! Oh, that's right, a blow job isn't sex, therefore not adultery. Twist it anyway you want, Dem. It's your way, just like the rest. You berate Bush for joining the Guard. I was in the Guard. What do you have to say to me? Where was your idol, Bill Clinton. Oh, yea, he was not inhaling. JC Watts wasn't old enough to be in Viet Nam, and too old to be in the Gulf war. Why would you criticize him for not serving? Oh, yea, because he's a BLACK Conservative. How dare he think for himself! Criticizing JC Watts would be akin to criticizing Hillary for not serving. Too bad, she'd have been fragged.

Your last post is full of spoo. Just like most comments from most Politicians, full of vile and hatred. Shame on you. Spread your message of what your position is, without the vile lies and hatred you have.

Tight Lines All,

Shep

[sevenmmm]

Shep, just what part of Democrat's post do you think he deseserves to be called a vile liar and a hater?

He is neither and think you should retract this post.

[JohnF]

Oh Ouch, I hope I didn't come across as a zealot. (The 10/22 reference)

I'm far from it.

John

[Skindog]

How can things be so cut and dry? Your liberal, your conservative, were better than you, your bad were good, your wrong, I'm right, we can run the country better than you, blah blah blah!

It must be great to live in a world where everything is so black and white, right or wrong, moral or immoral.

Both parties are extreme. We need more moderate people in public service.

[Ric]

I agree with Shep. This is the kind of garbage that I thought was banned here. I know I clicked on it, but it was a thread about guns not some liberals political rant on how every conservative is evil.

[The Democrat]

Thank you for proving one of my points -- that right wingers are obsessed with sex. When Democrats want to discuss issues affecting the public's well-being, wingers remind us of Clinton's disgusting personal behavior. If your intent is to bait me into defending his behavior, forget it--he's indefensible. If I did that I'd get fired, sued for sexual harassment, and disbarred. But where in your response is the discussion of issues affecting the public's well-being? There isn't any. Which proves another of my points -- that right wingers have to distract people away from issues because they can't win on the issues.

I also want to thank you for proving that right wingers fib. I did not berate Bush for joining the Guard, I berated him for refusing to take his flight physical and skipping mandatory drills. No need to argue this point, anyone can read what I posted, and decide for himself whether you mispresented what I wrote.

And why shouldn't I berate Bush for getting himself ground by skipping his physical? It cost the taxpayers over $1 million to train him to be a fighter pilot, and he poured the taxpayers' investment in his training down the toilet. Do you want to defend that? Go right ahead, make it a campaign ad for Bush's re-election. I dare you. Personally, I think he should have been court-martialed. That's what they would have done to you or me, if we pulled that stunt. But I was a nobody, so when they told me to show up, I showed up (simpleton that I am).

Here's what I have to say to you: Thank you for serving our country honorably, and welcome home.

You lied again -- or, at least, made a stupid assumption -- when you called Clinton my "idol." As I recall, when you and I were serving in uniform, he was smoking dope in Moscow or London, or both places. I never voted for Clinton -- I voted for Dole in '96 and Perot in '92 -- because I like war heroes and don't like draft dodgers. This is emotional, not intellectual, and stems from my feelings of attachment to the men I was privileged to serve with in Vietnam (including a Medal of Honor recipient). But despite Clinton's shocking character flaws and disgusting personal behavior, he was a bright man who cared about people and did some very good things for our country; and in retrospect, I probably should have set aside my personal feelings and voted for him, because he turned out to be a good president.

Regarding J. C. Watts, is there a law against serving in the peacetime military? Other people managed to do it.

Now let's address your assertion that I put Watts in the "did not serve" list because he's black. According to this reasoning, everyone in the list is black, or I would not have put them in the list. I'll stop here because you don't need my help to see your argument falling apart.

I'm not sure what Hillary has to do with anything. I know of nothing that would have prevented her from serving in Vietnam as a nurse, for example, if she had so chosen. She didn't, so if you want to put her in the "did not serve" list, that's okay with me. Seems fair. But one thing I will say for Hillary, as a U.S. Senator, she doesn't vote against middle class wage earners, labor unions, the environment, food safety, nor does she vote for massive deficits or cuts in veterans benefits. I don't live in New York, but if I did, I would have voted for her before I would have voted for the guy who ran against her. If that offends you, good. On these issues, she's right, the Brand X party and its supporters are wrong.

Could you please be more specific about what you think I lied about? The vile and hatred, well, I don't know if I buy that characterization but I make no secret of the fact I think right wingers in general are liars and haters. If that kind of talk is vile, my response is stop lying and hating, and that will solve the problem.

[The Democrat]

Yes, it's banned, and this thread will get dusted. Don't blame me for that. I don't make the rules, I don't dust threads, and I don't start political arguments. On this occasion, esoxlucious did -- go back and read #15.

And when someone else starts it, why should I give him the run of this board, and say nothing in response? This doesn't seem an efficacious strategy to us liberals, as we tried that, and got our clocks cleaned. Get used to the liberals' new look, we fight back. If any of you want to stick political issues into Mr. Golden's message board I'll see you in the street at high noon.

How in #### could you think messages with subject lines like "Hot dog! A political pissing contest!", "O BOY! POLITICAL MUDSLINGING!", and "POLITICS!!! LET'S RRRUMBLE!!!" are about guns? I've always labeled my political posts honestly, and if you're here, it's because you wanna be.

[The Democrat]

Yeah, I agree, Skindog. We need to go back to two moderate parties and business-as-usual. If I can ever get these right-wing attack dogs off my back, I'd like to put my energy into purging the Democratic Party of its undesirable elements. The real Republicans have the same problem, but their task is larger and more daunting than ours.