# Another one just for Tiger---From rifle form



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT

It is getting harder and harder to take you serious like an adult. Your analogy makes no sense what so ever. It is a feeble attempt to rationalize your position. You have stated in the past that you were not for the AWB, but that you were angry that Bush didn't sign it. That also makes no sense. If someone said they were going to hurt you and didn't would you also be disappointed?

I don't care if your 16 or 60, this has nothing to do with age, but your acting like a spoiled child. Blaming him for not signing it -- let me draw you an analogy. Your friends at Iraq Body County say they will send you a petition against the war, and you say you will sign it. If they don't send you one, and that is the only way to get one, should those who are against the war say you betrayed them, and were not true to your word because you did not sign it. This is exactly the way you are treating this? Try to rise to adult like debate.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"You have stated in the past that you were not for the AWB, but that you were angry that Bush didn't sign it. That also makes no sense. If someone said they were going to hurt you and didn't would you also be disappointed? "

If a friend told me that they were going to hit me, and then backed down they are hardly a friend for threatening me in the first place. You act as if Bush is on the side of the shooters, when in reality he has no reserves about stiffing them if the polls tell him to do so.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You can't have it both ways MT, you are either for or against the assault weapons ban. If you are against it, you should be happy. If you are for it then you should be angry at those who didn't send it to Bush. Just make up your mind that all. I don't see Bush as part of the picture. I would have been disappointed if it had even reached him, and even more disappointed if he had signed it. How would you have felt if he signed it?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> You can't have it both ways MT, you are either for or against the assault weapons ban. If you are against it, you should be happy. If you are for it then you should be angry at those who didn't send it to Bush. Just make up your mind that all. I don't see Bush as part of the picture. I would have been disappointed if it had even reached him, and even more disappointed if he had signed it. How would you have felt if he signed it?


My logic is perfecally reasonable. Your logic is however just the opposite of its name. He cannot be for shooters and for signing the ban at the same time. He chose to have his cake and eat it too, and you still support him as a champion for shooters.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > You can't have it both ways MT, you are either for or against the assault weapons ban. If you are against it, you should be happy. If you are for it then you should be angry at those who didn't send it to Bush. Just make up your mind that all. I don't see Bush as part of the picture. I would have been disappointed if it had even reached him, and even more disappointed if he had signed it. How would you have felt if he signed it?
> ...


I agree, he can not be for shooters and for the assault weapons ban both. However when he said he would sign it if it came to his desk I am sure he had faith that the republican control would not send it to him. If they did he would have followed his word, and I would have been disappointed. Bottom line is he didn't and your angry. Why are you angry because he didn't fight for it so that you had something legitimate to complain about? What a whiner, that is your problem isn't it. You don't like him because he is republican, and you dislike him even more because he will not do something stupid and turn conservatives against him. Tough world MT. We have followed all the way through on your twisted logic on this same subject before. If you want to continue so that the real shooters (as opposed to shootists) can see how silly you are, by all means continue.

Again you are ducking questions. Answer the question, how would you feel if he had signed it?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I agree, he can not be for shooters and for the assault weapons ban both. However when he said he would sign it if it came to his desk I am sure he had faith that the republican control would not send it to him. If they did he would have followed his word, and I would have been disappointed. Bottom line is he didn't and your angry. Why are you angry because he didn't fight for it so that you had something legitimate to complain about?


You have a propencity for missing my points. If he was really a champion of shooters he would have smacked his hand down and said no, I will not sign it as it is rediculous and does not benefit the community. Instead he said he would sign it. This is like if Saddam said that he would kill all Jews in his nation, but later decided not to, and then you tried to call him a Champion of Jewish culture.



> You don't like him because he is republican, and you dislike him even more because he will not do something stupid and turn conservatives against him.


You like him simply because he is republican, and are blind to the flaws of his decisions because of it.



> Answer the question, how would you feel if he had signed it?


Sorry its just that you throw so many peices of flawed logic I have a hard time reading them all. I would be against yet more had he signed it, as it did not benefit the public and did nothing to lessen crime or aid police. Now your logic will of course be "Well since he didn't sign it you disagree with him both ways!" Not so. Because he didn't have the balls to say no to it in the first place I was against him.


----------



## the_rookie (Nov 22, 2004)

you have no points MT they make no sense... Also the assault rifle ban im glad that it did not get signed again i currently own a mini 14 only shot it twice though. The fact of the matter is there should have been no ban in the first place


----------



## TheEnd (Jan 6, 2005)

ill lay this down strait to both of u bush is no hunter not a friend to hunters just a big goon who took a pic with a shot gun. he wants our votes and the way i see it is that there is many many many hunters in the united states alone while and he was competing with karry its all good but it made him look like an idiot in the pictures uke: :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT

I would get your point if you would say it that way to begin with. That I can agree with. I too wish he would have said he would never sign it. I do know why he said he would in an election year. I wish politics was more honest than that, but I am sure his saying he would was political strategy. I wish none of them would do that. Is it a reflection on them, or us, or both?

The rookie

Your right also, that bill should never have seen the light of day.

MT

I email, call, and write republican senators. I try encourage them to be more environmentally friendly. Even if your 16 and can not yet vote you are still entitled to representation. Call or write democratic senators and encourage them to be more supportive of the second amendment. Wouldn't it be nice to vote for someone you like rather than voting against the person you dislike most.

People perhaps think I really like politics, but I look at it more like a necessary evil. Nothing dumber than someone saying the election is over and I am sick of that stuff. That just means you and I have to carry the water for them. By that I mean we must fight for the second amendment because others are unwilling, or think someone else will do it for them. MT, if you have that much energy put more of it into positive things. I am trying to positively influence the party of my choice, but I would be just as happy if the democrats would move to a more satisfactory platform. I could care less which party would do what I want, I just want one of them to do it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I would get your point if you would say it that way to begin with. That I can agree with. I too wish he would have said he would never sign it. I do know why he said he would in an election year. I wish politics was more honest than that, but I am sure his saying he would was political strategy. I wish none of them would do that. Is it a reflection on them, or us, or both?


That is the way I put it in the first place as well, either way the matter is settled, and we are agreed. We should treasure this moment.



> Wouldn't it be nice to vote for someone you like rather than voting against the person you dislike most.


I agreed with nearly all of Kerry's points save his stance on firearms.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Deleted screwed up. Later :withstupid:


----------

