Curious
 

Were all of you this crazy in 1994 when President Clinton put the assault weapons ban in place?
If so can I get a link to your rantings either on here or somewhere.

Most of us weren't here in '94.

But, yeah, suffice it to say people weren't happy. Of course, the Marxist agenda hadn't been revealed to the extent it has today.....with people talking about the 2nd amendment pertaining to 'hidden history' & keeping slaves, etc. :rolleyes:

yeah, people were pretty upset, and from day one, the rhetoric from the Right against Clinton was vehement to a degree that was pretty unprecedented.

Disclosure: I was part of the Right then, and pretty ultra-Conservative, and did my share of Clinton-bashing

I think there has been a lot of sour grapes over the last two elections too. That adds to the ranting.

I really don't consider defense of the 2nd amendment as rantings.

Then:
The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment

The Republican Revolution, Revolution of '94 or Gingrich Revolution is what the media dubbed the Republican Party (GOP) success in the 1994 U.S. midterm elections,[1] which resulted in a net gain of 54 seats in the House of Representatives, and a pickup of eight seats in the Senate.

Now:
Maybe this ban will bring the Republicans back to the Senate.

Since when is it overthetop to be FOR the Constitution? Just curious.

Was the left always this crazy? Just curious.

All I recall is the run on huge rifle clips. China had a hard time getting enough to us to satisfy the demand. Prices went up.

But we saw that the ban did nothing. So, to dig up a law that didn't work and doesn't address the problem is just another way to take our rights and give the government more power.

columbine took place during the ban, and as usual in these instances the shooter had obtained the weapons illegally

You voted for an unqualified thug TWICE who is systematically destroying our economy, bypassing Congress to impose his will, and has now started on destroying our rights and you have the gall to call US crazy?

It has taken a few years to open my eyes and to see what is happening around me. I see pretty good now. You might ought to remove your head from its orifice, wipe your eyes and maybe invest in some good glasses. Then, you too, might see clearly.

I went out and bought two guns before the 94 ban... and then they were grandfathered... Where as now, such as with NY, they are requiring you to register or sell off your weapons.. Along with having a Dr report you if they think you're a nut job...

This time is a LOT different.. before it was a ban more on importation.. this time it's becoming a ban on ownership, AND having your personal business being reported to the proper authorities... We have a reason for patient confidentiality laws.. seems Unkle is forgetting that..

The accusations against Clinton were even more vile and disgusting, and usually unfounded, than the ones against Obama.

Can't say I agree with that. Obama-bashing has evolved into a transcendent sort of art form that leads otherwise intelligent people into gibbering, non-coherent, bubble blowing. Granted, I spent a significant portion of the 90's in the middle of the ocean in a grey metal can, but I've never seen anything like it.

Yes, in fact I dropped my FFL when Clinton and his hoodlums (BATF then - now ATF) decided they could enter my home anytime they choose without a warrant just because I had a FFL and a gun repair shop in my basement..

As far as my rantings..

You sure can, but you will have to gain access to the NRA files, Senate hard files etc, since I didn't own an on-line computer then.. I didn't have access to the web until 1998..

Not like you really care..
just more trolling to support a anti-gun, socialist agenda..

Obama is more nefarious than Clinton.

As far as not seeing anything like it, were you asleep during Bush's terms? Because I remember a whole bunch of snot-slinging hatred when he was in office.

He is also darker in complexion which might be why some people in the US are ranting more. Not you, but some people.

I never ranted against either shrub. I did say that the patriot act was unconstitutional and that both were war mongers, esp number 2. But I never said such horrible things as I have read about BO.

Wow so we are crazy and racist? Really??

NoClue - Thank you for your service

And it's absolutely incredible what some otherwise seemingly intelligent people believe! I will admit that I am grateful that I live in a country where people can say these things without fear of recrimination (to a point, anyway).

ETA: I signed up for this website because they have information about gardening and the like, and some of the more lunatic fringe beliefs spouted by a small but extremely vocal minority keeps me coming back, in part for the entertainment value.

I can't say about you personally w/o looking back, but the leftists on this site were at least as vile toward Bush as people are toward Obama.

This site did not exist in 1994, in fact the internet barely existed back then. I'm thinking your grasp of history is a bit suspect.

LOL I seldom support Stef but how can you even hint she doesn't care? Or call it trolling?

She seems to care a lot, to be deeply interested even if a bit misguided.

Yea, pretty much. I detested left wing commies then, detest them now.

Tax raising, gun grabbing, abortion pushing, prayer banning, spaghetti spined, nation destroying......oh, pardon me a moment, the lead is hot and ready to pour.

Perhaps, and I don't deny that some have said some really ignorant racist remarks. I do believe they are a very small minority though.

Daddy Bush lost me w/ his 'new world order' speech. Told me everything I needed to know about their politics.

And it also is why some people support him without question.

Remember, 95% of blacks voted for him, and only 45% of white. How can it be that the 45% could be racist, but the 95% are not?

As for being a war monger, Obama has them both beats all hollow. Not only did he continue and expand the manpower and $$$$ expenditures in two wars, but he also bombed Libya, Egypt. Syria, Lebanon . . . basically, if there's been an uprising in the Middle East in the past four years, Obama, and the CIC of the Armed Forces, has bombed there.

I agree with you about name calling, though, and I now refrain from even doing something as mild as calling either Bush41 or Bush 43 'shrub,' and I refer to Obama as Obama or, occasionally, POTUS. Give that BO has, until the start of this presidency, meant 'body odor', I don't use it. This is not because I respect any of them, it is because when a person wants to make a point about the bad actions of a POTUS, whichever POTUS they are referring to, the point gets lost when the poster calls him names.

Oh, I just realized that, if you have enough imagination, you might not know what POTUS is. POTUS is President of the United States.

Why are people who oppose a new assault weapons ban crazy? I was very much opposed to the 1994 assault weapons ban. I am even more against a new one. Why? Because one thing we learned from the 1994 assault weapons ban is that it didn't work. Gun violence went up while the 1994 assault weapons ban was in place. Gun violence went down after the 1994 assault weapons ban expired. Firearms ownership (especially those supposedly evil assault weapons) is now at an all time high but yet the rate of gun violence is at an all time low.

When you look at the facts logically and not emotionally it's hard to understand how anyone is crazy to think that a new assault weapons ban would not work.

That has been the case over and over but the gun grabbers ignore the facts. When DC enacted its gun ban, gun murders increased every year. When the courts threw it out, gun murders have declined every year since. Florida now has the highest number of CC permits in the country but gun crimes are at an all time low.

As for if there were people who objected as much back then -- yes, there were, but you didn't hear nearly as much about them because other than Rush and Fox news, there really wasn't a voice for the opposition; most media outlets were in the position to ignore those that didn't agree with them, and they did.

If you recall, two years later, the whole Monica Lewinsky thing blew up. But how is the really interesting thing. If you recall, Newsweek had the story, and nailed everything down and knew it was good, and chose not to run it. They refrained from publishing it for four weeks -- more than four of thier news cycles -- before the author got the idea that it wasn't refrain, it was refuse, and where did the author take the story?

To Matt Drudge, that's where, and that's also why the Drudge Report became successful. Huge story, Presidential scandal, major cover-up by national media outlet, right off the bat . . . How could he lose?

And it's still happening, even today. The whole John Edwards thing was left to the National Enquirer to follow and break. I mean, seriously, the National Enquirer scooped all the big papers because they just wouldn't follow up on not just rumors, but on JE's travel movements that they, themselves, had seen. I mean, they got scooped by the National Enquirer, people! How low do you have to sink to let the National Enquirer take a solid story away from you!

Oh my goodness, Benghazi! Most of the updates on Benghazi have been through on-line media, not national papers or broadcast media, because people know that if it looks bad for the current Admin, the MSM won't do anything.

Jared Loughner in Tuscon, Az, is another example of this. Remember how he was a right-wing nutcase that was spurned to violence by right-wing talk radio? Except, of course, that he wasn't, he was a registered (D) before he changed it to (I), and he actually worked on GG's campaign, and he supported legalization of marijuana (not a traditionally (R) stance,) and that he told people and wrote in his journal that he was increasingly unhappy about how far right she was, (not left,) and oh yeah, BTW, he was used just about every drug I've ever heard of, and many that I haven't, and he was, just coincidentally, also bat ---- crazy with how many restraining orders against him? And yet you still hear about how the Right needs to be more civil, and that JL was their fault . . . .

And how many would-be mass shooters have been stopped in the days leading up to and following Sandy Hook? Two that I know of, one here in Oregon, one in San Antonio, both stopped by armed good guys, but you only heard about them because there are people on here who keep bringing them up because, after all, they are relevant to the discussion about gun control.

So yes, there were people who felt this strongly, but it was much, much easier to either shut them up or ignore them.

Have you seen her second amendment was to support slavery nonsense? It's more than just suspect.

I'll stir the pot here but the background check legislation was enacted under Clinton's administration. That was protested quite a bit but IMO was a good idea.

If we had had the money back then we probably would have bought some soon-to-be-banned firearms just to have them.
For the record, I opposed the "assault weapon ban" then, and I oppose it now. Has nothing to do with the color of the president's skin.

Yes, the communists/socialist/marxist/fascist/lefties were all just as crazy with their rantings about gun control. Fortunately, the sane/rational folks made the ban temporary, for ten years, AND after such time it was blatantly obvious it was a failed policy, so it expired and was not even close to being renewed.

This time, it is different in the details, but still the same nonsensical ideas of the left being pushed through, yet again....only this time, the doors are being opened to tracking which leads historically to confiscation, and more horrid leftist controls. Will we see a rational temporary term to this one, and the protection of personal records as guaranteed by constitution, or is it truly the beginning of marxist/socialist/etc. horrid takeover, through personal tracking info being permanently kept, along with other leftist wet dreams.... Only time will tell.

Sorry, my post is on the computer in Al Gore's basement.

So since we don't agree with his anti American policies, we are now racists..

Sorry any credibility you might have had is gone.. I don't tolerate racists or those who play the race card when someone disagrees with their views..

Misguided?

Yea right, that is why she posted a re writing of history by a professor Bogus..

Trolling!

Or wants to know if we ranted and raved and where we posted those rant and raves in 1994, while she refuses to show where she posted. She is the one who said she posted the same thing in other places, yet when asked where she refuses to give that info.. Had she not brought it up, no one would have asked, but she gave the info freely till questioned about it..

Trolling!

Now supporting these weapons bans, truly shows me she doesn't care, because we all know they don't work.. a criminal isn't going to stop just because it's against the law..

Those that push that garbage don't really care about the deaths, they only care about using those deaths to push a political agenda..


So yes I can say she doesn't care and is trolling...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...stoftheday.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...stoftheday.png

However I'm gonna disagreee w/the snot...was much worse. Many 'kill Bush' & 'how to kill Bush' publications.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...stoftheday.png

Not to mention that many of the so-called 'racist' remarks are stuff that was said about Bush/es. But cannot say the same things about this idiotincharge b/c THAT'S racist. Tell me how that works.
One example-came from black people-was that the "Rs" are using the phrase: "Take our country back". They said that was racist. Funny that the Clinton's had the same phrase. Why racist now?
The Hitler reference...racist now but not then? Why?

No problem..

Guess what!

Those who do things detrimental to the safety of others wasn't listed as a definition of the word "care"

Making laws that only affect the law abiding citizens, and disarms them also wasn't under the word "care"

But was under the words "control" and "dictator"

I would suggest you look up the word truth
Also I would suggest you do research on American History.

I wonder how many of our white presidents have been called "thugs?"

Yes, as a matter of fact.
Sorry, no links, didn't even know about the internet back then. I didn't get to the 21st century as fast as everyone else, lol.
But, there are a few congressmen still in office that got some personal attention, one at a town hall type meeting he had regularly scheduled.
I didn't realize all the veterans in the room until I was done telling him exactly my views on the 2nd amendment and how things were going to go for him, his colleagues and Slick Willy.
Before the applause ended, all he had to say was, "I'm with you 1OO%"...*gulp*