Town of Oconomowoc reverses course, OKs Internet gun business

[Bruce V]

lisa wrote:

ok, let me set the record straight, maybe i came off as sounding ignorant, stupid, whatever u all might want to think, I guess these violent responces were just a little bit over the line, I dont disagree with guns for hunting, police, and people in the service........ atleast selling them in the stores you need to give the id, and see it what makes it so safe to sell them over the internet??? does that mean anyone can get one??? oh and when i say stores, i dont mean grocery??? ok? gosh, it was a innocent response to something i disagree with, does not mean i hate guns or anyone who uses them properly...sorry that i upset so many people by one innocent response....

Lisa,

The wrath being vented at you is because your comments are typical of most anti gun zealots. You comment on something you obviously know nothing about, your comment is based on emotion rather than fact.

FACT: Internet gun sales ARE regulated by big brother, the other posters are correct. Firearms bought over the internet must be sent to a licensed firearms dealer who preforms the MANDATORY background check required under Federal law.

The media, politicians and anti gun groups foster and rely on an ignorant, emotional populace to accomplish their goal of total control. THINK with the brain God gave you, do research, don't act on your emotions, not just on the gun issue, but on everything.

[Wolverine]

Tory II wrote:

Chadwick likes you Armed Veteran.
Refer to me when it was that even one of these gun hating, freedom hating NAZIS finally admitted publicly (here at Topix) that the proponents of gun possession were right. Tell me who or when was "won over". I've yet to see it.
They don't want to be called what they are (NAZIS) because they want to continue to try and win US over. If we could prove they're a bunch of Nazis, they couldn't win anyone over, and they know it. They try to control the debate by issuing rules rather than issuing convincing arguments. We're supposed to allow the antigun Nazis a voice. As if we have something to gain by doing so. In the end, it's not who is right or wrong that will win, it's who has the most power.
A Nazi believes the individual must surrender his freedom for the benefit of the common good. An antigun socialist (a politically correct name for 'liberal') is a Nazi. Omama and Bush (especially Omama) are antigun socialists.
According to them, if we call them Nazis they will refuse to consider the argument (debate). So, according to them, if I refer to them as Nazis, they will continue to choose the worst course of action (not the best course).
Imagine if Thomas Jefferson referred to the King as the 'chimp' in the Declaration of Independence. What would Amerika be like today?
BTW, Jefferson would hang people like Chadwick and Lisa (people who claim to be freedom loving gun owners.)
Amerika is becoming a nation of Nazis (and they'll do anything to keep me from saying it, 1st amendment or not).
Our gun rights are not negotiable, especially with the Nazis.

Amen. The time for civility is over. These pukes have been destroying our rights for over a century now. I do understand where some of the newcomers still hold to the unwritten law of polite discourse. I however had passed that zenith. I will no longer tolerate anyone violating my rights, or advocating for their destruction. And if I want to call a NAZI, a NAZI, I will. NO MORE COMPROMISES with progressives or conservatives who are attempting to destroy us from within.

[Armed Veteran]

Tory II wrote:

A Nazi believes the individual must surrender his freedom for the benefit of the common good. An antigun socialist (a politically correct name for 'liberal') is a Nazi. Omama and Bush (especially Omama) are antigun socialists.

Actually, that is the quintessential definition of a "communist". "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." -- Karl Marx

What I was referring to was the tone of how we, the freedom-loving, gun-owning, 2nd-A supporting crowd, communicate with the non-politician types (citizens) when trying to convey our disdain for the current batch of politicians that happen to be running things at the moment. What I have found out over time is that their are 4 very distinct groups of people that make up our society. About 20% that are diehard liberal to the bone. You can lay all the factual proof you can find at their feet and they will not believe it. They will continue to believe that the government is/has the answer for everything. About 20% are the opposite end of the spectrum. Diehard conservative. About 10% have absolutely no interest in politics and couldn't care less about what goes on in Washington. It's the remaining 50% that are what concerns me mainly. They are on the fence on a lot of issues because they don't know all the facts, and a lot of them blow whichever way the political winds blow at the time. A bunch of people I know will tell you they are a Democrat, but when you quiz them on their stance on certain issues, they lean conservative. So what are they...moderates. It's the middle-of-the-roaders that we need to concentrate our educational efforts on. Most of them are gun owners, but they don't see the IMPORTANCE of maintaining that freedom, or how bad the diehard liberals want to remove that freedom.

Feel free to get into all the shouting matches you want. Lord knows I will defend your right to do so with my last breath. But our energies would be better spent working on the middle 50% than fighting with the immoveable 20%.

[Armed Veteran]

Wolverine wrote:

<quoted text>Amen. The time for civility is over. These pukes have been destroying our rights for over a century now. I do understand where some of the newcomers still hold to the unwritten law of polite discourse. I however had passed that zenith. I will no longer tolerate anyone violating my rights, or advocating for their destruction. And if I want to call a NAZI, a NAZI, I will. NO MORE COMPROMISES with progressives or conservatives who are attempting to destroy us from within.

The word "nazi" has been so over-used for the last 8-10 years we really need to stop using it. No one here is calling for the round up and complete annihilation of an entire race like what happened in WWII (except maybe radical Islamofascists, but that's not what we are talking about in this thread).

[Armed Veteran]

And who is talking about compromising anything? Certainly not me, for I won't.

[Bruce V]

Armed Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, that is the quintessential definition of a "communist". "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." -- Karl Marx
What I was referring to was the tone of how we, the freedom-loving, gun-owning, 2nd-A supporting crowd, communicate with the non-politician types (citizens) when trying to convey our disdain for the current batch of politicians that happen to be running things at the moment. What I have found out over time is that their are 4 very distinct groups of people that make up our society. About 20% that are diehard liberal to the bone. You can lay all the factual proof you can find at their feet and they will not believe it. They will continue to believe that the government is/has the answer for everything. About 20% are the opposite end of the spectrum. Diehard conservative. About 10% have absolutely no interest in politics and couldn't care less about what goes on in Washington. It's the remaining 50% that are what concerns me mainly. They are on the fence on a lot of issues because they don't know all the facts, and a lot of them blow whichever way the political winds blow at the time. A bunch of people I know will tell you they are a Democrat, but when you quiz them on their stance on certain issues, they lean conservative. So what are they...moderates. It's the middle-of-the-roaders that we need to concentrate our educational efforts on. Most of them are gun owners, but they don't see the IMPORTANCE of maintaining that freedom, or how bad the diehard liberals want to remove that freedom.
Feel free to get into all the shouting matches you want. Lord knows I will defend your right to do so with my last breath. But our energies would be better spent working on the middle 50% than fighting with the immoveable 20%.

Calm, rational, factual UN-COMPROMISING information is what the 50% need, and we must give them. We at least stand a chance of swaying their opinion.

[Tory II]

Tory II wrote:
A Nazi believes the individual must surrender his freedom for the benefit of the common good...

Armed Veteran wrote:

Actually, that is the quintessential definition of a "communist". "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." --...

No it's not. And your response appears completely different from my definition. Communism is a form of economy (govt owns the means of production), Naziism is a philosophy. Fascism WAS the Nazi form of economy. Your argument is the argument used by socialists to convince voters that Obama was not a socialist.

Hitler hated the communists and invaded Russia. But communism and fascism are close cousins (all the same to me). Both take freedom from the individual AND establish a giant bullying govt. America was established to protect the freedom of every individual, not the group, majority or minority. The Founding Fathers did that by a written Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They wanted a limited govt, not an unlimited govt that would bully citizens (by first disarming them).

Naziism, Communism, and even Socialism involve either dictatorship or Totalitarianism. Being overly specific about it is just a tactic to smear someone.

Using the label 'nazi' helps that 50% to think about their demands on the people and govt.

[Wolverine]

Armed Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>
The word "nazi" has been so over-used for the last 8-10 years we really need to stop using it. No one here is calling for the round up and complete annihilation of an entire race like what happened in WWII (except maybe radical Islamofascists, but that's not what we are talking about in this thread).

I use terms that define the condition or belief. Always have, always will. I will not be nice just to be nice. That is why we have lost rights, slowly but steadily for the last 100 years or so.

[Highlander]

Chadwick wrote:

<quoted text>
And just who in this particular forum are you defending those rights against? Lisa says she supports your right to firearms. She's just worried that they're going to just be handed out to anyone. I'm NRA. So when you go on your mini-rant about how important gun rights are, just who is that directed at?'Cause that seemed like a speech with a target.
<quoted text>
Grow up and toss the protocol? What, are children known for their cogent arguments where you're from, and they then grow up and start slinging insults instead of making and defending a point?
The name-calling doesn't destroy an argument; it means that no one is going to listen to you anymore, except (some of) the people who already agree with you. Historically, the communists were the ones who started the trend of calling everyone who wasn't one of them a fascist, so that they wouldn't have to argue anything on the merits. Fascists are just bad, and my opponent is a fascist, so I'm right. It doesn't further the discourse — it ends it.
I couldn't care less whether the words hurt you, especially after reading your two posts here, which seem to be intentionally designed to insult rather than make a point. I just don't feel the need to insult you to make a point. In fact, it rather gets in the way, as who you are is not relevant to any points you want to make. You say that we're "talking about our rights" here, but we're not. YOU are. I happen to agree with you, but you're just doing a terrible job of making your point.
<quoted text>
That's exactly right. That's why I'll always defend your right to say whatever you want. If you got some other impression, I think you decided to misread my statements. You've got the right to be a dick all you want, and I'm not about to stop you. It makes me seem like a reasonable person when we disagree on something. Or when we agree on something.

So then, you're a COMMUNOFASCIST sympathizer?
.
COMPROMISE, COMPROMISE, COMPROMISE!
.
ANYTHING to make the opposition feel better, right?
.
Name calling has a VERY VALID purpose: IT SERVES TO IDENTIFY THE ENEMY IN =NO= UNCERTAIN TERMS.
.
Maybe you've been imbibing the liquor of socialists? It shows.

[Taurus]

lisa wrote:

ok, let me set the record straight, maybe i came off as sounding ignorant, stupid, whatever u all might want to think, I guess these violent responces were just a little bit over the line, I dont disagree with guns for hunting, police, and people in the service........ atleast selling them in the stores you need to give the id, and see it what makes it so safe to sell them over the internet??? does that mean anyone can get one??? oh and when i say stores, i dont mean grocery??? ok? gosh, it was a innocent response to something i disagree with, does not mean i hate guns or anyone who uses them properly...sorry that i upset so many people by one innocent response....

Violent responses??? Sheesh. your ignorance is staggering!

[Taurus]

Chadwick wrote:

.... But then I scroll down, and I read your posts, and they're so angry and hateful ......

Same old cliche terms like "hateful". Do you ever have an original thought of your own???

Chadwick wrote:

that I want to automatically disagree with you, because you come across as a truly bad person, whereas she's just wrong.

Lighten up Francis, don't soil your pink thong.

Chadwick wrote:

So you can go ahead and make your arguments. But they're not going to ever convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you. And they might drive away some who otherwise would (such as myself).\

Good riddance!!

Chadwick wrote:

So yeah, you are part of the problem. Not the guns one, but the one where we can't have a civil conversation in this country, because everyone seems to just default to hate of the other side.

Oh? Because YOU say so? You can't debate the issues that Wolverine raises so instead you'll do the gutless thing and accuse him of being part of the problem? Sounds like you have issues of your own you want to deflect away from.

Chadwick wrote:

When your very first sentence calls the other person a fascist, you're not part of a conversation anymore; you're just screaming at people.

Now you went and soiled that pink thong.

[Taurus]

Chadwick wrote:

<quoted text>
And just who in this particular forum are you defending those rights against? Lisa says she supports your right to firearms.

Really?
She posted the following....
"I dont disagree with guns for hunting, police, and people in the service........"

She doesn't support my right if I don't adhere to her hunting, police, or people in the service criteria.

Still want to defend her without knowing her stance Mr. Public Defender??

Chadwick wrote:

She's just worried that they're going to just be handed out to anyone.

She should inform herself before she worries herself like that.

Chadwick wrote:

I'm NRA.

As in Negotiating Rights Away? It's because of people like you that I quit the NRA and their lukewarm support for the 2nd Amendment. Brag if you will, but do it with something substantial.

Chadwick wrote:

So when you go on your mini-rant about how important gun rights are, just who is that directed at?'Cause that seemed like a speech with a target.

Done with your diatribe??

Chadwick wrote:

Grow up and toss the protocol? What, are children known for their cogent arguments where you're from, and they then grow up and start slinging insults instead of making and defending a point?
The name-calling doesn't destroy an argument; it means that no one is going to listen to you anymore, except (some of) the people who already agree with you. Historically, the communists were the ones who started the trend of calling everyone who wasn't one of them a fascist, so that they wouldn't have to argue anything on the merits. Fascists are just bad, and my opponent is a fascist, so I'm right. It doesn't further the discourse — it ends it.

Read: "I can't defend my position therefore I'll post psychobabble.

[Taurus]

Chadwick wrote:

Wolverine, don't pretend that only liberals want to take your rights away. Both major political parties want to take away your rights, it's just a question of which party wants to take which rights from you. Together, they're doing their damnedest to give us an authoritarian government. You and Tory II can masturbate each other all you want, but when you stop talking to anyone who says anything mildly different from yourself, you've removed yourself from the political process.
Armed Veteran, thanks for saying what needed to be said here from the start.

Did you post this between conquests after trolling the playground?

[Wolverine]

Taurus wrote:

<quoted text>
Same old cliche terms like "hateful". Do you ever have an original thought of your own???
<quoted text>
Lighten up Francis, don't soil your pink thong.
<quoted text>
Good riddance!!
<quoted text>
Oh? Because YOU say so? You can't debate the issues that Wolverine raises so instead you'll do the gutless thing and accuse him of being part of the problem? Sounds like you have issues of your own you want to deflect away from.
<quoted text>
Now you went and soiled that pink thong.

Thank you Taurus. It is nice to be validated now & then. The Progressives & the Compromisers hate me because I am mean to them. But I will not compromise on our rights. And I will never vote for another Repub/ocrat ever again, and neither will my wife. I can't wait for the mid-term elections to hand the 2 controlling parties theirasses and send them packing!

[Armed Veteran]

Bruce V wrote:

<quoted text>
Calm, rational, factual UN-COMPROMISING information is what the 50% need, and we must give them. We at least stand a chance of swaying their opinion.

Exactly my point.

[Armed Veteran]

Wolverine wrote:

<quoted text>I use terms that define the condition or belief. Always have, always will. I will not be nice just to be nice. That is why we have lost rights, slowly but steadily for the last 100 years or so.

I didn't say be nice just to be nice. What I am saying is save the brashness for those that deserve it, and use civility to educate the ignorant. If the ignorant STILL refuse to see the light after been given the facts, then unload on them.

[Armed Veteran]

Tory II wrote:

Tory II wrote:
A Nazi believes the individual must surrender his freedom for the benefit of the common good...
<quoted text>
No it's not. And your response appears completely different from my definition. Communism is a form of economy (govt owns the means of production), Naziism is a philosophy. Fascism WAS the Nazi form of economy. Your argument is the argument used by socialists to convince voters that Obama was not a socialist.
Hitler hated the communists and invaded Russia. But communism and fascism are close cousins (all the same to me). Both take freedom from the individual AND establish a giant bullying govt. America was established to protect the freedom of every individual, not the group, majority or minority. The Founding Fathers did that by a written Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They wanted a limited govt, not an unlimited govt that would bully citizens (by first disarming them).
Naziism, Communism, and even Socialism involve either dictatorship or Totalitarianism. Being overly specific about it is just a tactic to smear someone.
Using the label 'nazi' helps that 50% to think about their demands on the people and govt.

Communism is the extreme form of socialism, and in case you haven't noticed, our government is trying to take over everything (automotive industry, banking, health care, etc.).

[Tory II]

The most famous Nazi (socialist), Adolf Hitler was un-compromising (to his death). He destroyed Europe and Germany.

The typical Amerikano is socialist and un-compromising.

Hitler did everything the Founding Fathers warned against. The only difference between Hitler and Obama are that Hitler was a murderer and a rascist. Obama is just like him in many important ways. Bush has a lot in common with Hitler too (more so than Obama).

Americans should hate Nazis. They fought a war against them in WWII. They've forgotten any lessons learned. The exception is we believe we can be socialists because we won't commit genocide or become rascists.

Amerika is becoming just like Nazi Germany. The only thing that could change this is to convince Americans the importance of the 2nd amendment.

[Armed Veteran]

Wolverine wrote:

<quoted text>Thank you Taurus. It is nice to be validated now & then. The Progressives & the Compromisers hate me because I am mean to them. But I will not compromise on our rights. And I will never vote for another Repub/ocrat ever again, and neither will my wife. I can't wait for the mid-term elections to hand the 2 controlling parties their asses and send them packing!

You won't get an argument from me, because your argument is sound. What I think you need to work on is your debating technique, but to each their own. Plod on.

[Tory II]

Armed Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>
Communism is the extreme form of socialism, and in case you haven't noticed, our government is trying to take over everything (automotive industry, banking, health care, etc.).

Our socialist (Nazi) govt is trying to control everything. That's what socialism is, govt control over the economy via regulations.

Communism is when the govt owns all property. There are different degrees of anything. Some Communes are cooperative.

When people argue about what capitalism, socialism, and communism are, it's because they want to distract from the real issue. Economics versus govt control over citizens (Nazis).

In Amerika, if you're a Nazi then you should be called one. Being a Nazi is about as un-American as anyone can be.