Krugman: GOP has become embarrassing to watch.

[Slack3r78]

Beyond that, Republicans have become embarrassing to watch. And it doesn’t feel right to make fun of crazy people.

Thus, President Obama is being called a “socialist” who seeks to destroy capitalism. Why? Because he wants to raise the tax rate on the highest-income Americans back to, um, about 10 percentage points less than it was for most of the Reagan administration. Bizarre.

Then there are the claims made at some recent tea-party events that Mr. Obama wasn’t born in America, which follow on earlier claims that he is a secret Muslim. Crazy stuff — but nowhere near as crazy as the claims, during the last Democratic administration, that the Clintons were murderers, claims that were supported by a campaign of innuendo on the part of big-league conservative media outlets and figures, especially Rush Limbaugh.

Speaking of Mr. Limbaugh: the most impressive thing about his role right now is the fealty he is able to demand from the rest of the right. The abject apologies he has extracted from Republican politicians who briefly dared to criticize him have been right out of Stalinist show trials.

Last but not least: it turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html?_r=2

[Johan]

The Republican Party is in tatters, but principally from the actions of one particularly, amazingly horrible administration of Republicans, not from a lack of conservatives across the country. It may take a while, but the party will rise again, probably directly attributable to the excesses of the Democratic Party, which controls so many of the levers of power it will be quite difficult for them to restrain themselves from destroying themselves as they did in the run-up to 1994.

Also, Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning ECONOMIST. His political views are hit and miss, with a number of embarrassing misses.

As a conservative, I'm not concerned. Many of the Democrats who are now in Congress are actually more conservative on a number of issues than the Republicans they replaced, which is a large part of why many Republicans were replaced. Also, frankly, rearranging the chairs in Washington does little to impact my day-to-day life. When conservatives are in power, abortion continues unabated, government spending goes up, and laws get passed by the buckets. When Democrats are in power, the same thing happens. Little changes of any significance. We're still in Iraq. Still in Afghanistan. Still not getting along with North Korea and Iran. Still no peace in the Middle East. Still redefining things that ultimately are the same as they've always been.

[Slack3r78]

I'm just really not sure what to think of the GOP right now. Apparently Michael Steele had wanted to speak at one of these events and was not only turned down but essentially chastised and mocked by the events' organizers.

The party definitely has serious problems when even its supposed head, who has been on the job less than six months, isn't taken seriously within the party.

[Johan]

I'm just really not sure what to think of the GOP right now.

Right now is immaterial to 2010, which is literally light years away in terms of what can happen politically.

If Obama and the Democrats pick up more seats in the mid-term election, I'd say the Republican Party is wounded more seriously. If the Republicans gain, then that's evidence they were "Bushed" and not hurt long-term.

We'll see.

[Telefrog]

As a conservative, I'm not concerned. Many of the Democrats who are now in Congress are actually more conservative on a number of issues than the Republicans they replaced, which is a large part of why many Republicans were replaced. Also, frankly, rearranging the chairs in Washington does little to impact my day-to-day life. When conservatives are in power, abortion continues unabated, government spending goes up, and laws get passed by the buckets. When Democrats are in power, the same thing happens. Little changes of any significance. We're still in Iraq. Still in Afghanistan. Still not getting along with North Korea and Iran. Still no peace in the Middle East. Still redefining things that ultimately are the same as they've always been.

Yup. I'm more of a liberal that you, but even I see the same things. The reality of politics is always less gratifying than the speeches.

Up until a few years ago I was a staunch conservative, but I felt I had to leave the Republicans due to the influence and hold the religious sector had over the party. It amazes me to watch the direction the party has taken after this election. This is the lesson the Republicans have learned? To get more extreme and polarizing?

[Ancalagon]

I'd be surprised if the GOP can continue the way it is now and still expect to get any votes. I mean, that was a large part of why they lost last year - they are out of touch, they arent relevant anymore. Its not that people dont like conservatism, they do, its that the Republican party is just completely out of touch with reality.

[Johan]

Shockingly enough, in an election where Attila the Hun would probably have beaten a Republican (who wasn't ready for a change...really? EVERYONE was fed up with the Republicans; the real election was the Democratic primary, frankly), the party still drew 59 million votes. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/)

Time will tell. 2010 will be incredibly interesting. There are a few issues that still resonate at the voting booth for the Republican Party, one of them being gun ownership rights. We'll see if they can actually cohere around a political platform that addresses the concerns of everyday Americans, which they are woefully unable to do at the moment.

[Slack3r78]

Its not that people dont like conservatism, they do, its that the Republican party is just completely out of touch with reality.
Hey, even as left-leaning as I consider myself, I think most of you who have discussed this kind of thing with me know that I can respect conservative ideals and even consider some of them fairly admirable.

I sure don't get the batshit crazy the Republican party has been headed in lately, though. In fact, I really hesitate to call the GOP conservative anymore. Batshit probably really is the more descriptive term for them.

[Slack3r78]

one of them being gun ownership rights.
Agreed. Their problem right now is that the way they're going about it is really making them look a little crazy.

I used to go through 100-200 rounds a week at the local shooting range. I've been shooting once in the past two months because not only is ammo incredibly expensive, but I can't even find ammo to buy on a regular basis because every idiot redneck in the country has run out and started hoarding guns and ammo.

In the meantime, the Dems appear to be aware of how politically expensive the '94 AWB was for them as Reid, Pelosi, and Feinstein have all said, at least publicly, that this is not the time for a renewed AWB. I wouldn't be shocked if they eventually tried something, but I wouldn't expect it until after 2010 at the earliest.

[Ancalagon]

Hey, even as left-leaning as I consider myself, I think most of you who have discussed this kind of thing with me know that I can respect conservative ideals and even consider some of them fairly admirable.

I sure don't get the batshit crazy the Republican party has been headed in lately, though. In fact, I really hesitate to call the GOP conservative anymore. Batshit probably really is the more descriptive term for them.

Yeah, batshit crazy is a good word to describe them I think. I mean, Obama is a muslim terrorist? Is that the best you can do? Evolution is a liberal lie? Really? Obama is gonna take yer jerb? And yer gun?

They've almost become a tinfoil hat brigade - overwhelmed with paranoia and now mostly ineffectual because their world view no longer aligns with that of most voters except that most hardcore lifelong Republicans. It would be nice to see proper conservatives in politics though, I mean it would be nice to see the Republicans return to form. And how about a party that is pro-voter instead of pro-corporation for a change? I guess money talks loudest of all though.


In the meantime, the Dems appear to be aware of how politically expensive the '94 AWB

Theres some irony in the fact that, in South Africa, AWB is an acronym for the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (Afrikaner Resistance movement), the most hardcore right group. I dont think its really active these days though, since the end of apartheid.

[Johan]

And how about a party that is pro-voter instead of pro-corporation for a change?

When you find one, let Chris Dodd know. Hes going to need a new one for his reelection campaign in 2010. :D

Edit: Krauthammer on Obama. (http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/04/10/its_your_country_too,_mr_president)

[TrackZero]

I'd be surprised if the GOP can continue the way it is now and still expect to get any votes. I mean, that was a large part of why they lost last year - they are out of touch, they arent relevant anymore. Its not that people dont like conservatism, they do, its that the Republican party is just completely out of touch with reality.

Time for a new conservative party?

[total]

Wait, there is a difference between the two parties? Learn something new every day.

[Spockrocket]

Wait, there is a difference between the two parties? Learn something new every day.

Quoted for truth. The two party system blows. Perhaps if the Republican party doesn't recover until after the 2012 election, we'll see some more "third" parties actually gain strength.

I say after the 2012 election because unless Obama screws up royal, he's a shoo-in for re-election anyway.

[Slack3r78]

Quoted for truth. The two party system blows. Perhaps if the Republican party doesn't recover until after the 2012 election, we'll see some more "third" parties actually gain strength.

I say after the 2012 election because unless Obama screws up royal, he's a shoo-in for re-election anyway.
A true third party is a statistical impossibility within the framework of American government.

[Dorkandproudofit]

This thread is clearly biased!

Both parties are equally embarrassing to watch.

[Rakael]

You would honestly be surprised at how die hard some republican voters can be. I have to ride with one for 12 hours in an ambulance. I cannot tell you how many times I have nearly bitch-slapped that stupid cunt. Otherwise she is an enjoyable person, but when it comes to her politics she has no idea how to think for herself.

[TheFlyingOrc]

A true third party is a statistical impossibility within the framework of American government.

Well, we did almost have a third party president in '92.

[Slack3r78]

Well, we did almost have a third party president in '92.
A single viable candidate is not equivalent to a viable third party.

[Deadend]

You would honestly be surprised at how die hard some republican voters can be. I have to ride with one for 12 hours in an ambulance. I cannot tell you how many times I have nearly bitch-slapped that stupid cunt. Otherwise she is an enjoyable person, but when it comes to her politics she has no idea how to think for herself.

That is odd, I swear she was a college student here in MI. Party loyalty just means the party can shit all over your interests and you will just ask for more.

The GOP is acting like the Democrats apparently did in 1969, I don't know entirely, I wasn't around back then.

[rifter]

Well, we did almost have a third party president in '92.

You mean the guy that took half the Republican votes that let the Democrat win? I don't know that I would say he got anywhere CLOSE to being put in the "almost had a 3rd party president".

I agree with what others have said though, the GOP has gone WAY from their roots. I like to listen to Sean Hannity, and I would say he is one of the bigger voices of conservatism in the US... and he is even talking daily about what the Republicans need to do, to become relevant again.

The powerful arm of the Republican party is controlled by big corporations, and those are the ones that are driving the party into the dirt... well, I should say bedrock, at this point. I wish we could strip out the small-business/fiscally conservative republicans, and get them to start voting Libertarian, and just leave the Republican party behind.

[Raen]

That is odd, I swear she was a college student here in MI. Party loyalty just means the party can shit all over your interests and you will just ask for more.

Ah so you mean the system the UK uses :(

[Slack3r78]

I agree with what others have said though, the GOP has gone WAY from their roots. I like to listen to Sean Hannity, and I would say he is one of the bigger voices of conservatism in the US... and he is even talking daily about what the Republicans need to do, to become relevant again.
If Hannity is the party's voice of reason, that's a pretty good indicator of how serious their problems are.

Also, re: Perot: Pretty sure TFO was referencing the fact that Perot lead both GHWB and Clinton in the polls at one point.

[TheFlyingOrc]

You mean the guy that took half the Republican votes that let the Democrat win? I don't know that I would say he got anywhere CLOSE to being put in the "almost had a 3rd party president".

You need to research the 92 election. Perot was winning, and by a good margin, before he dropped out in the summer. He then re-entered the race and people's confidence was too shaken to pull the kind of votes he needed to win. Perot was a VERY viable candidate.

edit: he led with 39% of public opinion polls (VS 31 for Bush and 25 for Clinton) in June before he dropped out.

Slacker's point about that not indicating a viable party is fair, but the guy VERY easily could have been the president if he hadn't dropped out temporarily. He's no Nader.

[Primus]

You mean the guy that took half the Republican votes that let the Democrat win? I don't know that I would say he got anywhere CLOSE to being put in the "almost had a 3rd party president".


Dealing with this way of thinking is frustrating.

[Generation ABXY]

My politics are clear, so I don't imagine anything good would be caused by my jumping in here. However, I do have to ask, what's this whole thing about the Clintons being murderers? I have never heard that...

[TheFlyingOrc]

My politics are clear, so I don't imagine anything good would be caused by my jumping in here. However, I do have to ask, what's this whole thing about the Clintons being murderers? I have never heard that...

Conspiracy theory that they paid to have someone they knew killed. My grandma believes it, I don't know any more than that.

[J Arcane]

Agreed. Their problem right now is that the way they're going about it is really making them look a little crazy.

I used to go through 100-200 rounds a week at the local shooting range. I've been shooting once in the past two months because not only is ammo incredibly expensive, but I can't even find ammo to buy on a regular basis because every idiot redneck in the country has run out and started hoarding guns and ammo.

In the meantime, the Dems appear to be aware of how politically expensive the '94 AWB was for them as Reid, Pelosi, and Feinstein have all said, at least publicly, that this is not the time for a renewed AWB. I wouldn't be shocked if they eventually tried something, but I wouldn't expect it until after 2010 at the earliest.
I'm convinced at this point that much of the gun paranoia is as much about gun lobbies and gun sellers and manufacturers as any actual political will on the part of the administration to effect any actual policy.

Yeah, there's fucking Holder's remarks, but that's the only goddamn thing that's been "leaked" about shit that wasn't immediately proved to be bogus, and even Holder's idiocy got shot down the next fucking day by Pelosi and the rest of the House and Senate Dems.

[Johan]

Perot was a VERY viable candidate.

Dropping out or not, he didn't have a chance after Vice Admiral Stockdale's near mental breakdown on television during the VP debates.

There's no way Perot would have won after that, even if he hadn't dropped out previously. Stockdale, a genuine American hero, turned into a senile old man right in front of people. Sad, really. :(

[Voodoo]

Dropping out or not, he didn't have a chance after Vice Admiral Stockdale's near mental breakdown on television during the VP debates.

There's no way Perot would have won after that, even if he hadn't dropped out previously. Stockdale, a genuine American hero, turned into a senile old man right in front of people. Sad, really. :(

My favorite skit on SNL, ever : http://www.hulu.com/watch/4123/saturday-night-live-joyride-with-perot

[TheFlyingOrc]

Dropping out or not, he didn't have a chance after Vice Admiral Stockdale's near mental breakdown on television during the VP debates.

There's no way Perot would have won after that, even if he hadn't dropped out previously. Stockdale, a genuine American hero, turned into a senile old man right in front of people. Sad, really. :(

I don't remember the election (I was too young to pay attention), and I hadn't run into that in researching the election. Perhaps you're right.

[ShivaX]

I don't remember the election (I was too young to pay attention), and I hadn't run into that in researching the election. Perhaps you're right.

The worst part of it is that most of it came from Stockdale not being able to hear things due to him being tortured by the North Vietnamese. He was a pure badass and patriot when it came down to it.

On a mission over North Vietnam on September 9, 1965, Stockdale ejected from his A-4E Skyhawk, which had been disabled from anti-aircraft fire. Stockdale parachuted into a small village, where he was severely beaten and taken into custody.

He was held as a prisoner of war in the Hoa Lo prison for the next seven years. Locked in leg irons in a bath stall, he was routinely tortured and beaten. When told by his captors that he was to be paraded in public, Stockdale slit his scalp with a razor to purposely disfigure himself so that his captors could not use him as propaganda. When they covered his head with a hat, Stockdale beat himself with a stool until his face was swollen beyond recognition. He told them in no uncertain terms that they would never use him. When Stockdale heard that other prisoners were dying under the torture, he slit his wrists and told them that he preferred death to submission.

That is a fucking badass by any definition.

Of course Perot was insane anyway, so maybe its all for the best.

[Johan]

He was a pure badass and patriot when it came down to it.

Absolutely agreed. He was a genuine hero who was called upon too late in life to do something that was, by that point, beyond him, and hopefully people remember him for who he truly was, not for his last few years of struggle.

[Julip]

The Republican Party is in tatters, but principally from the actions of one particularly, amazingly horrible administration of Republicans, not from a lack of conservatives across the country. It may take a while, but the party will rise again. . .

As a long-standing conservative who enjoys shooting guns, supports small government, and fiscal responsibility (balancing our budget), I can't see a single person in the Republican party on the federal level that upholds the ideals that are important to me.

I'm a white male who voted a mixed ticket (some Republicans and some Democrats) this year. The Presidential election was a hard choice because McCain actually is a moderate that believes in many of the same things I do (or he did before the election), but I chose to vote for Obama because Sara Palin got chosen for the fact that she is a woman instead of her experience and McCain was an old man who had fought cancer in the past.

We conservatives need to stop watching Fox News and all their retarded bullshit. It's embarrassing and it leads to them creating discussions about things that are not important. Then our leaders start thinking about those things because constituents call and bug them about it.

I know I'm new, but the slow erosion of my political party into a group of sophomoric idiots that seem to prize their lack of intellectual prowess pisses me off.

[rifter]

I'm convinced at this point that much of the gun paranoia is as much about gun lobbies and gun sellers and manufacturers as any actual political will on the part of the administration to effect any actual policy.

Yeah, there's fucking Holder's remarks, but that's the only goddamn thing that's been "leaked" about shit that wasn't immediately proved to be bogus, and even Holder's idiocy got shot down the next fucking day by Pelosi and the rest of the House and Senate Dems.

California Senator Dianne Feinstein said that there would be no big moves to reinstitute the "Assault Weapons Ban" because the "time wasn't right". That, however, doesn't mean the "assault on your weapons we want to ban" has died down on the liberal side of the question.

I would hardly call a quote that says the TIME WASN'T RIGHT to mean it is off the table. It sounds like they are biding their time.

And, it is not like the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (http://www.drms.dla.mil/) has not ordered brass to be destroyed, to reduce the ammo supply and drive up costs, already. Thankfully, this move has been recinded (http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz125.html).

I don't think gun owners are insane... Obama has, on several occasions talked very negative about individual gun ownership. Do you think that means he will ignore it, when he gets into office?

[Johan]

- lots of good stuff -

I agree with you totally. Great post. Welcome aboard! :)

[AgtFox]

My politics are clear, so I don't imagine anything good would be caused by my jumping in here. However, I do have to ask, what's this whole thing about the Clintons being murderers? I have never heard that...
Really? It's one of the most popular conspiracy theories out there. I thought the list of people dying around the Clintons was over 100, but I did find the Snopes page that directs it as false (http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp) and a number of people that died. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but I remember this one being passed around quite a bit.

[J Arcane]

I would hardly call a quote that says the TIME WASN'T RIGHT to mean it is off the table. It sounds like they are biding their time.

And, it is not like the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (http://www.drms.dla.mil/) has not ordered brass to be destroyed, to reduce the ammo supply and drive up costs, already. Thankfully, this move has been recinded (http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz125.html).

I don't think gun owners are insane... Obama has, on several occasions talked very negative about individual gun ownership. Do you think that means he will ignore it, when he gets into office?
The "time wasn't right" is nothing more than political jargon for "no fucking way, but we don't want to piss off our Brady Bunch base". For once the Dems aren't being stupid, and I think they know how much the AWB hurt them politically.

The brass sales was, as far as I can see, a clerical error, that was corrected almost overnight, and as such would've been a complete fucking non-event were it not for "OMG OBANMA".

As for Obama, the man says a lot of fucking things, most of which are not fucking going to happen. His entire campaign was built around promising the fucking moon in a basket, but at this point he's rather resoundly failing to do fuck all about the rather more pressing issues at hand like wars and massive economic crises.

I'm not worried one fucking bit. What I am worried about, and annoyed with, are paranoid motherfuckers who immediately went into a psychotic froth convinced that the mere presence of a black liberal in office meant the vans were going to roll up any minute and take their precious fucking guns. I'm also annoyed with a gun industry that has so far been doing everything in it's power to milk said paranoia for all it's worth, so they can take their record profits to the bank.

The rest of us sane gun lovers are tired of not being able to buy even .22LR at the local shops, or find an AR for anything less than a 300% markup and a 6 month+ wait.

[ShivaX]

I'm not worried one fucking bit. What I am worried about, and annoyed with, are paranoid motherfuckers who immediately went into a psychotic froth convinced that the mere presence of a black liberal in office meant the vans were going to roll up any minute and take their precious fucking guns. I'm also annoyed with a gun industry that has so far been doing everything in it's power to milk said paranoia for all it's worth, so they can take their record profits to the bank.

The rest of us sane gun lovers are tired of not being able to buy even .22LR at the local shops, or find an AR for anything less than a 300% markup and a 6 month+ wait.

Whats a few dead cops compared to record profits in a down economy?

[Slack3r78]

As a long-standing conservative who enjoys shooting guns, supports small government, and fiscal responsibility (balancing our budget), I can't see a single person in the Republican party on the federal level that upholds the ideals that are important to me.

I'm a white male who voted a mixed ticket (some Republicans and some Democrats) this year. The Presidential election was a hard choice because McCain actually is a moderate that believes in many of the same things I do (or he did before the election), but I chose to vote for Obama because Sara Palin got chosen for the fact that she is a woman instead of her experience and McCain was an old man who had fought cancer in the past.

We conservatives need to stop watching Fox News and all their retarded bullshit. It's embarrassing and it leads to them creating discussions about things that are not important. Then our leaders start thinking about those things because constituents call and bug them about it.

I know I'm new, but the slow erosion of my political party into a group of sophomoric idiots that seem to prize their lack of intellectual prowess pisses me off.
Great post, glad to have you around.

[Johan]

The NRA is very comfortable right now, because quite a few of the Democrats voted into office replace Republicans who were actually less protective of second amendment rights. In other words, the Democrats have learned the hard way, and many of their reps/senators are actually gun-rights-supporters. That must be a bitter pill to swallow for the more liberal party members, but it's reality.

[Slack3r78]

The NRA is very comfortable right now, because quite a few of the Democrats voted into office replace Republicans who were actually less protective of second amendment rights. In other words, the Democrats have learned the hard way, and many of their reps/senators are actually gun-rights-supporters. That must be a bitter pill to swallow for the more liberal party members, but it's reality.
It's somewhat relieving for soft-liberals with libertarian leanings, to be honest.

[Ox]

The NRA is very comfortable right now, because quite a few of the Democrats voted into office replace Republicans who were actually less protective of second amendment rights. In other words, the Democrats have learned the hard way, and many of their reps/senators are actually gun-rights-supporters. That must be a bitter pill to swallow for the more liberal party members, but it's reality.
On this note, see this article (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/state/s_619685.html). Also, 65 House Democrats (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iadNpLRYIc0TsbKQg9DVDevMwynwD970ME800) have said they will oppose any attempt to reinstate an assault weapons ban.

As for Krugman: one might expect someone accusing half the country of being clinically insane to refrain from absurd comparisons. Michael Steele insulted some people, he was criticized for it, and he believed it necessary (either out of genuine contrition or a desire for political survival) to apologize. Either Krugman doesn't really know what the Stalinist show trials were, or he's mendacious. Odds are 6-5 and pick 'em.

[Julip]

As for Obama, the man says a lot of fucking things, most of which are not fucking going to happen. His entire campaign was built around promising the fucking moon in a basket, but at this point he's rather resoundly failing to do fuck all about the rather more pressing issues at hand like wars and massive economic crises.

I'm a conservative, but I disagree with you that Obama hasn't done anything in the 3 months he has been in office. While I don't agree with everything he did, he's done more in 3 months than Bush ever did in a full year of his presidency. . . unless you count clearing brush.

Ordered Gitmo and secret prisons to be closed within a year.
Forbade the use of torture.
Put a hold on prosecutions at Gitmo.
Froze the salaries of his senior staff.
Reinstated US aid to overseas health clinics that also discussed or provided abortions.
Rescinded Bush's Executive Order 13233 (which stopped access to the records of former U.S. Presidents), and imposed new rules on government transparency.
Created special emissaries to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Opened up communications with journalists on the right.
Created an exit plan for leaving Iraq and visited Iraq to speak to it's leadership.
Spoke to many countries in a diplomatic tour to Europe.
Gone before the American people to discuss and explain the economic problems facing the nation.
Spoken to both parties in the House and Senate to inform them that he will block special appropriations (pork) and is working on a national budget and that will nevertheless positively bankrupt our nation for decades.
Moved thousands of troops to Afghanistan so that our focus is back on finding bin Laden and stopping terrorists instead of securing our nation's oil interests.

The rest of us sane gun lovers are tired of not being able to buy even .22LR at the local shops, or find an AR for anything less than a 300% markup and a 6 month+ wait.

Guns to me are a tool for killing pests and humanely putting down injured livestock. As a rancher, I absolutely need to own a rifle and a shotgun. They're also fun for hunting and for going plinking. I've seen lots of guns and shot all sorts with friends, but I've never needed to own more than two.

Our hobby is fun and should not be restricted, but our hobby uses deadly weapons. Part of being responsible enough to have a hobby that uses deadly weapons is being willing to pay a little extra and wait a little longer so that it is more difficult for criminals to get guns.

I'm not the only guy at the shooting range or out hunting that feels this way too. We just usually aren't as loud as the guys who think that taxes and regulation aren't fair.

[torrefaction]

I'm a conservative, but I disagree with you that Obama hasn't done anything in the 3 months he has been in office. While I don't agree with everything he did, he's done more in 3 months than Bush ever did in a full year of his presidency. . . unless you count clearing brush.

Ordered Gitmo and secret prisons to be closed within a year.
Forbade the use of torture.
Put a hold on prosecutions at Gitmo.
Froze the salaries of his senior staff.
Reinstated US aid to overseas health clinics that also discussed or provided abortions.
Rescinded Bush's Executive Order 13233 (which stopped access to the records of former U.S. Presidents), and imposed new rules on government transparency.
Created special emissaries to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Opened up communications with journalists on the right.
Created an exit plan for leaving Iraq and visited Iraq to speak to it's leadership.
Spoke to many countries in a diplomatic tour to Europe.
Gone before the American people to discuss and explain the economic problems facing the nation.
Spoken to both parties in the House and Senate to inform them that he will block special appropriations (pork) and is working on a national budget and that will nevertheless positively bankrupt our nation for decades.
Moved thousands of troops to Afghanistan so that our focus is back on finding bin Laden and stopping terrorists instead of securing our nation's oil interests.



Guns to me are a tool for killing pests and humanely putting down injured livestock. As a rancher, I absolutely need to own a rifle and a shotgun. They're also fun for hunting and for going plinking. I've seen lots of guns and shot all sorts with friends, but I've never needed to own more than two.

Our hobby is fun and should not be restricted, but our hobby uses deadly weapons. Part of being responsible enough to have a hobby that uses deadly weapons is being willing to pay a little extra and wait a little longer so that it is more difficult for criminals to get guns.

I'm not the only guy at the shooting range or out hunting that feels this way too. We just usually aren't as loud as the guys who think that taxes and regulation aren't fair.

Welcome man, it's great to see posts like this. I'd give you SIX stars if I could.

[Ox]

If Julip is going to do this shit, I can finally retire.

*flies back to Krypton*

[Shrinn]

Nooo. We need Ox to fight Julip and create a neverending vortex of awesomeness and stinging words.

[Ancalagon]

I'm a conservative, but I disagree with you that Obama hasn't done anything in the 3 months he has been in office. While I don't agree with everything he did, he's done more in 3 months than Bush ever did in a full year of his presidency. . . unless you count clearing brush.

Ordered Gitmo and secret prisons to be closed within a year.
Forbade the use of torture.
Put a hold on prosecutions at Gitmo.
Froze the salaries of his senior staff.
Reinstated US aid to overseas health clinics that also discussed or provided abortions.
Rescinded Bush's Executive Order 13233 (which stopped access to the records of former U.S. Presidents), and imposed new rules on government transparency.
Created special emissaries to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Opened up communications with journalists on the right.
Created an exit plan for leaving Iraq and visited Iraq to speak to it's leadership.
Spoke to many countries in a diplomatic tour to Europe.
Gone before the American people to discuss and explain the economic problems facing the nation.
Spoken to both parties in the House and Senate to inform them that he will block special appropriations (pork) and is working on a national budget and that will nevertheless positively bankrupt our nation for decades.
Moved thousands of troops to Afghanistan so that our focus is back on finding bin Laden and stopping terrorists instead of securing our nation's oil interests.



Guns to me are a tool for killing pests and humanely putting down injured livestock. As a rancher, I absolutely need to own a rifle and a shotgun. They're also fun for hunting and for going plinking. I've seen lots of guns and shot all sorts with friends, but I've never needed to own more than two.

Our hobby is fun and should not be restricted, but our hobby uses deadly weapons. Part of being responsible enough to have a hobby that uses deadly weapons is being willing to pay a little extra and wait a little longer so that it is more difficult for criminals to get guns.

I'm not the only guy at the shooting range or out hunting that feels this way too. We just usually aren't as loud as the guys who think that taxes and regulation aren't fair.

Thats a very balanced point of view, I commend you sir. Welcome to CoG!

[Johan]

If Julip is going to do this shit, I can finally retire.

*flies back to Krypton*

He's your alt, isn't he? You just can't contain all the logic and awesome rhetoric in one account, can you? :)

[J Arcane]

I'm a conservative, but I disagree with you that Obama hasn't done anything in the 3 months he has been in office. While I don't agree with everything he did, he's done more in 3 months than Bush ever did in a full year of his presidency. . . unless you count clearing brush.

Reversing a bunch of old Bush decisions is hardly the magical utopia he preached of in the campaign.

I do agree with the decision to shift military focus to Afghanistan, though I think the ship has probably sailed on that doing any good at this point, and is again, just another "not-Bush" sort of move.

Guns to me are a tool for killing pests and humanely putting down injured livestock. As a rancher, I absolutely need to own a rifle and a shotgun. They're also fun for hunting and for going plinking. I've seen lots of guns and shot all sorts with friends, but I've never needed to own more than two.

My interests in firearms is not the same as yours. I don't hunt, and I don't own a ranch. I do live in a bad neighborhood however, where I don't feel comfortable without some form of defensive weapon in easy access. I'm also working on getting into the Air Force as Security Forces, and would like to be able to practice my shooting as much as possible before I ship off, so I can be sure to do well on arms qualifications.

For me, firearms are as much a hobby, as they are an important part of my future career, and it is frustrating to me that I'm now unable to practice on the weapons most applicable to that career because the costs have now skyrocketed thanks to this paranoia and the price gougers who are taking advantage of it.

Our hobby is fun and should not be restricted, but our hobby uses deadly weapons. Part of being responsible enough to have a hobby that uses deadly weapons is being willing to pay a little extra and wait a little longer so that it is more difficult for criminals to get guns.

I'm not the only guy at the shooting range or out hunting that feels this way too. We just usually aren't as loud as the guys who think that taxes and regulation aren't fair.

I'm not talking about taxes and regulation here. I'm talking about gun sellers who are taking advantage of an easily frightened consumer base to gouge customers for ridiculous profit.

Waiting periods and background checks and registration, those are all fine by me as far as I'm concerned, but this isn't government action we're talking about, it's the private sector taking advantage of the fear of government action to essentially deprive normal citizens of firearms far more effectively than the government ever could.

[rifter]

Our hobby is fun and should not be restricted, but our hobby uses deadly weapons. Part of being responsible enough to have a hobby that uses deadly weapons is being willing to pay a little extra and wait a little longer so that it is more difficult for criminals to get guns.

I'm not the only guy at the shooting range or out hunting that feels this way too. We just usually aren't as loud as the guys who think that taxes and regulation aren't fair.

Hold up here. I go out plinking, and know a LOT of gun owners who disagree with you, 100%. Very few criminals have been stopped by a 3 day wait. There HAVE been deaths though, because someone was not able to arm themselves quickly, when threatened by someone. Lets face it, restraining orders kill more people than guns themselves do... especially when a woman gets it for some insane man in her life. A piece of paper won't protect you... steel and lead, will.

I am 100% behind background checks. I also think they need to create state databases that can be specifically queried from other states to create a virtual, national database. (I live in Idaho, and don't mind Idaho having my info... I DO NOT want New York... or DC having my gun buying information). Most gun laws in place, hinder law abiding citizens... and do little to nothing to deter criminals. I have heard that stolen guns amount to 20% of crimes committed using guns. How many others come from private sale? How many crimes are ACTUALLY prevented with a wait, or background check? You would have to be a real dumb criminal to go in and buy a gun to use in a murder.

[Telefrog]

Reversing a bunch of old Bush decisions is hardly the magical utopia he preached of in the campaign.

What speech was this? I remember a lot of President Obama's speeches being about how it would be hard work and a challenge to get us back on track.

[National Kato]

Reversing a bunch of old Bush decisions is hardly the magical utopia he preached of in the campaign.

I'm pretty sure he campaigned on reversing Bush decisions and it was the major factor in his victory.

[J Arcane]

I'm pretty sure he campaigned on reversing Bush decisions and it was the major factor in his victory.
So "Hope" and "Change" were really just interchangeable for "Reverse" and "Rewind"?

[Vermillion]

Semi off topic....

What most people fail to realize, is that the gun lobby actually owns a significant number of the democrats that are currently in congress. In fact, several of the democrats elected recently actually have stronger second amendment stances than those republicans they replaced. There is NO chance that gun control changes and the automatic weapons ban becomes permanent (regardless of what is on Obama's website). Hell, Virginia couldn't even put in a required FBI check for gun sales after the Virginia Tech massacre. You don't get much better emotional steam than that. The fact of the matter is simply that the NRA is fear mongering, raising prices on ammo and weapons, and the poor and uneducated are eating it up. Stock in companies like S&W is up almost 30% in the year. I have no doubt that a vast majority of people in this country are actually sheep.

The fact is simply that Republicans and Democrats as parties don't really exist anymore. The politics of the greater good simply means "what pays best" and all politicians will move to center or whatever is the prevailing wind at the time to ensure they get to stay in office. For every "GOP" embarrassment, it's not hard to look at the Dems under the same microscope and see the same hypocracy.

I mean let's just look at Obama. Got in telling everyone that we need to do the right thing and adopt homeless dogs. 4 months in office, he's buying expensive custom dog breeds and pretending he never said it. The Breeders lobby owns Obama!

[Ox]

Waiting periods and background checks and registration, those are all fine by me as far as I'm concerned, but this isn't government action we're talking about, it's the private sector taking advantage of the fear of government action to essentially deprive normal citizens of firearms far more effectively than the government ever could.
Whoa, hold on. The gun manufacturers aren't sitting around saying, "Hey, we've got a full warehouse of guns here. Let's not sell them just to screw with people." More people want to buy guns right now than the factories are capable of producing. Until the demand falls or the factories are expanded, prices go up. In fact, the real problem is that the gun manufacturers haven't jacked prices enough -- they ought to raise prices until demand equals supply and there's no waiting period, but they're reluctant to alienate their customers over a short-term spike in demand and are only raising prices by a relatively small amount and imposing waiting lists reminiscent of Soviet bread lines.

That said, I haven't heard of 300% price increases -- most of the discussion I've seen has suggested something closer to 50-65%. Is this a regional thing, or am I misinformed?

[Ox]

I have no doubt that a vast majority of people in this country are actually sheep.
Off topic: have you ever noticed that every time somebody says something like this, his own viewpoint is just parrotting the same tired old attitudes you've heard a thousand times before? You'd think people who had so much scorn for the sheep would bother to come up with their own original ideas.

[Johan]

The gun manufacturers aren't sitting around saying, "Hey, we've got a full warehouse of guns here. Let's not sell them just to screw with people."

Can you prove this? :D

/lame troll off.

[J Arcane]

Whoa, hold on. The gun manufacturers aren't sitting around saying, "Hey, we've got a full warehouse of guns here. Let's not sell them just to screw with people." More people want to buy guns right now than the factories are capable of producing. Until the demand falls or the factories are expanded, prices go up. In fact, the real problem is that the gun manufacturers haven't jacked prices enough -- they ought to raise prices until demand equals supply and there's no waiting period, but they're reluctant to alienate their customers over a short-term spike in demand and are only raising prices by a relatively small amount and imposing waiting lists reminiscent of Soviet bread lines.

I'm not saying it's deliberate. I'm saying the effect is the same. Guns and ammo that used to be widely available for reasonable prices, now simply aren't. AWB-type guns in particular are now more expensive than pre-ban grandfathered guns were during the AWB period.

That said, I haven't heard of 300% price increases -- most of the discussion I've seen has suggested something closer to 50-65%. Is this a regional thing, or am I misinformed?Prices on anything that even vaguely resembles an assault weapon have gone up on average of 200-300%. AR-15s in particular have gone through the roof, but even cheap Galils and old SKSs are seeing significant increases in price despite not being worth barely more than the scrap metal.

About the only things you can still get a hand on for a reasonable price are shotguns, hunting rifles, and oddly, handguns, though in the latter case that's only because while the guns themselves are everywhere, the ammo for them has completely dried up.

[quidmonkey]

...parrotting...

You're doing it wrong.

Sorry, sorry, I just had to. I r grammar sheep.

[Ox]

Crap. I always get the bird and the cannon confused. I would make a terrible pirate. I'd be standing around saying, "Ra! Raaaaaaa!"

[TrackZero]

The powerful arm of the Republican party is controlled by big corporations, and those are the ones that are driving the party into the dirt... well, I should say bedrock, at this point. I wish we could strip out the small-business/fiscally conservative republicans, and get them to start voting Libertarian, and just leave the Republican party behind.

Heh, that's cute. We've had the opposite problem in Canada. The Conservatives (PC) used to be this great right-wing but mostly financial conservatism group. Totally viable as a party to vote for. They weren't "crazy" with the politics. Then along came the religious "culture war" nutjobs, they merged, and now the party is a fucking mess that I'd never go near. I really wish the "God people" would get the hell out of government, imposing your moral compass on other people isn't what government is meant to be for. And you're fucking up a party that I liked, for a time.

[TrackZero]

Until the demand falls or the factories are expanded, prices go up. In fact, the real problem is that the gun manufacturers haven't jacked prices enough -- they ought to raise prices until demand equals supply and there's no waiting period, but they're reluctant to alienate their customers over a short-term spike in demand and are only raising prices by a relatively small amount and imposing waiting lists reminiscent of Soviet bread lines.


So the "Tickle Me AK-47" is the new hot item of the season? ;)

[J Arcane]

So the "Tickle Me AK-47" is the new hot item of the season? ;)
Let me put it this way, if you see an AK in a store, expect to see it for twice the price it would've sold for 6 months ago, and still be gone by the end of the day.

[Telefrog]

Let me put it this way, if you see an AK in a store, expect to see it for twice the price it would've sold for 6 months ago, and still be gone by the end of the day.

As a capitalist, that tells me that the price is still too low. :D

[ShivaX]

Oh don't get him wrong, the GOP is totally in the pocket of the religious crazies.

They're just funded by the big corps. Then again the Dems are too, so thats nothing special. The Dems just do a better job of pitching their message towards the poor and middle class for the most part, then they leave lots of loopholes for the big corps and look the other way when they're supposed to oversee them.

[mister slim]

I don't think gun owners are insane... Obama has, on several occasions talked very negative about individual gun ownership. Do you think that means he will ignore it, when he gets into office?

Given the type of gun owners Obama is most likely to have experienced, it's not that surprising he would be negative. Doesn't mean he's going to take everyone's guns away.

[rifter]

Given the type of gun owners Obama is most likely to have experienced, it's not that surprising he would be negative. Doesn't mean he's going to take everyone's guns away.

I have NEVER ONCE thought he would take everyone's guns away.

I DO believe he will try to push legislation to "tag" bullets so you can see who purchased it... for the greater good. (having the side affect of driving the cost of ammunition to unheard of prices, and driving smaller ammunition manufacturers out of business. I DO think they will move on the AWB (which, I want to point out, stands for Assault Weapons Ban... not Automatic Weapons Ban... and doesn't, at ALL pertain to automatic rifles). They will wait for a "better" time, to push it through... but I believe they will, just like they did with Clinton.

I do think people are nuts for driving up the price of weapons and ammo right now. I can't help but think that Obama is laughing at them all.

[J Arcane]

There's no reason whatsoever to "tag" bullets, the barrels do a quite fine enough job doing that themselves. All you have to do is register the guns, or more accurately, the barrels, and you've got all the info you need to know.

[National Kato]

So "Hope" and "Change" were really just interchangeable for "Reverse" and "Rewind"?

More than you think. But I wouldn't fixate on catchphrases so much, especially ones created for a national campaign (e.g. 'Country First') and intended to brand ideas and thoughts that were much more detailed to a populace spoon fed on short attention span media. Reversing Bush's fuckups, gross misconducts, and rewinding the eight years of embarassment were exactly what America voted for by a majority.

[Ox]

I really wish the "God people" would get the hell out of government, imposing your moral compass on other people isn't what government is meant to be for.
Track, the most basic aspects of government are law enforcement and national defense. If those don't count as "imposing your moral compass on other people," nothing does.

There's no reason whatsoever to "tag" bullets, the barrels do a quite fine enough job doing that themselves. All you have to do is register the guns, or more accurately, the barrels, and you've got all the info you need to know.
Maryland tried that for a few years. It was expensive, but hey, anything to reduce gun crime, right? Guess how many crimes that registry solved? Zero (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16475-2005Jan17.html).

[Johan]

Reversing Bush's fuckups, gross misconducts, and rewinding the eight years of embarassment were exactly what America voted for by a majority.

Two-and-a-half years ago, the people voted in a Democratic Congress to do that very thing, and we were left with Dodd (love the AIG-bonus-bill-language from him!), Reid, Pelosi, and the like.

I think you are unnecessarily optimistic.

Track, the most basic aspects of government are law enforcement and national defense. If those don't count as "imposing your moral compass on other people," nothing does.

I was going to say the same thing and decided "why bother." The entire purpose of legislation is to do just that...enforce standards of behavior and conduct, which is essentially imposing morality on the group.

:shrugs:

For many people, it's only considered "imposing" if you disagree with the laws. If you agree with the laws, it's called "common sense." :D

[J Arcane]

Maryland tried that for a few years. It was expensive, but hey, anything to reduce gun crime, right? Guess how many crimes that registry solved? Zero (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16475-2005Jan17.html).

I'm not saying it's a good idea either, I'm just pointing out that existing ballistics methods are effective enough without inventing fairyland conspiracy theories about magic bullet stamps and things.

[Kenturion]

I mean let's just look at Obama. Got in telling everyone that we need to do the right thing and adopt homeless dogs. 4 months in office, he's buying expensive custom dog breeds and pretending he never said it. The Breeders lobby owns Obama!

Without trying to derail the thread, just a quick correction on this - the dog was not a purchase by the President, but a gift to his daughters from Sen. Ted Kennedy; and while the dog in question did originate with a breeder, Kennedy acquired him when the original purchasers decided the puppy wasn't a very good fit for their family. Also, as a way of keeping their promise to rescue a dog, the Obamas intend to make a donation to the D.C. Humane Society. Source: The Washington (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/11/AR2009041102484_3.html?sid=ST2009041202878) Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/12/AR2009041202872_3.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009041202878).

[Julip]

Reversing a bunch of old Bush decisions is hardly the magical utopia he preached of in the campaign.

I do agree with the decision to shift military focus to Afghanistan, though I think the ship has probably sailed on that doing any good at this point, and is again, just another "not-Bush" sort of move.
I listed a lot more than simply reversing Bush decisions. That's the sort of mindless rhetoric that makes people think all conservatives are slack-jawed rednecks who can't count. This is exactly the kind of rhetoric I hear all the time on Fox News and it's poisoning our party.

Instead of pretending that he isn't doing anything, we should be focused on the things that we think are wrong about his plans and working to get concessions from the Democrats who are in power. I don't like how much they are spending in this budget and I don't like that they aren't increasing taxation to do so. I know that reducing spending is generally seen as bad during a recession, but I think that we need to at least look at smarter ways to spend our money and make it stretch.

Those are examples of real issues that are important and that we could focus on if our party gets smart and focuses instead of continuing to spend our time fueling a culture war that people are sick of and that we are now outnumbered in.

On gun control, you live in a different culture where women may need to buy guns quickly to protect themselves so I understand why you feel differently from me. In my family, we teach girls not to date trash. Being rude to a woman in our family is asking for an ass-kicking, and hitting one puts you in jail for a long, long time (not that this has happened. Our women don't date trash and I am a convincing ass kicker). If one of our women was plagued by a man that she needed a restraining order from then she would stay with one of us until she felt safe. Also, Texas is a big, big place. . . a guy like that could just disappear.

Still, I get that I'm a moderate gun enthusiast. My hobby is important to me, and my livelihood is necessary to me, but I can live with some extra taxes and regulation on deadly weapons.

[Julip]

Crap. I always get the bird and the cannon confused. I would make a terrible pirate. I'd be standing around saying, "Ra! Raaaaaaa!"
This guys is sharp.

[ShivaX]

Instead of pretending that he isn't doing anything, we should be focused on the things that we think are wrong about his plans and working to get concessions from the Democrats who are in power. I don't like how much they are spending in this budget and I don't like that they aren't increasing taxation to do so. I know that reducing spending is generally seen as bad during a recession, but I think that we need to at least look at smarter ways to spend our money and make it stretch.

Too bad the GOP mantra is "cut taxes" no matter what the scenario is. They talk about balancing the budget, but they're only willing to cut spending, never increase taxes. Of course they're not willing to cut military spending or anything else for that matter, so they just cut taxes and then rant about fiscal responsibility.

The problem with the Republican party is they've become the party of opposition. If the Dems or Obama want to do something, they oppose it just to be the "other side". Meanwhile they let people like Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh act as their mouthpieces.

Personally I became like Reagen a few years back. "I didn't leave the Republican party, the Republican party left me."

[Julip]

Track, the most basic aspects of government are law enforcement and national defense. If those don't count as "imposing your moral compass on other people," nothing does.
There are laws that make sense for a country and laws that only make sense in a religion. For the most part, we choose laws that are good under both and we use Christianity as our guide in doing so.

I don't think there is any problem with religious voters choosing to vote Republican because they believe in stopping abortion by taking away choice. That's an issue they care deeply about just like I care deeply about small government and civil liberties, so they need to vote for the people who will fight for that issue. Personally, I'm anti-abortion but in a villainous, despotic way. If you are stupid enough to get pregnant despite all the contraception available you should be forcibly sterilized to help control population and improve the gene pool. I'm new so let me add that I'm mostly kidding. I'm not sure what I think on this issue other than that personally I choose responsibility.

The problem is when people want to legislate hate in the name of religion. Every civil rights movement has been most adamantly opposed by the radical religious right. Slavery, women's suffrage, segregation, black civil rights, and now homosexuals were all opposed politically by the radical right.

My problem with this is that it puts us down on the wrong side of history, and it prevents us from meeting more important goals. Plus, if minorities vote and they're doing so in increasing numbers, Christian white people are no longer the majority. Even if all of us vote for Republicans, we will lose. The culture war is not right, and it's not a sustainable political strategy for our party.

[J Arcane]

I listed a lot more than simply reversing Bush decisions. That's the sort of mindless rhetoric that makes people think all conservatives are slack-jawed rednecks who can't count. This is exactly the kind of rhetoric I hear all the time on Fox News and it's poisoning our party.

I'm not a conservative, I'm not a redneck, and I don't watch Fox News.

Find a different brush.

I see the economy around me collapsing, and the only thing being done about it is a lot of dicking about with more corporate handouts, the same corporate handouts that got us into this fucking mess in the first place.

On gun control, you live in a different culture where women may need to buy guns quickly to protect themselves so I understand why you feel differently from me. In my family, we teach girls not to date trash. Being rude to a woman in our family is asking for an ass-kicking, and hitting one puts you in jail for a long, long time (not that this has happened. Our women don't date trash and I am a convincing ass kicker). If one of our women was plagued by a man that she needed a restraining order from then she would stay with one of us until she felt safe. Also, Texas is a big, big place. . . a guy like that could just disappear.

I come from the same culture you do: one where an economy on a death spiral is leading to rising crime in every sector and region of the United States. Where a small town whose only major problems used to be rowdy boys drunk driving around town in pickup trucks, has suddenly seen a massive and disturbing increase in violent crime.

An 85-year old woman was murdered in her home recently during a simple robbery. A domestic dispute gone wrong led to some jackass running about my neighborhood with a firearm, and just a few weeks ago someone tried to break into my home while I was still in it, and thankfully turned tail and ran right out. The way things are I can't afford to expect every incident to go the same way.

And yet not so many years ago I didn't even worry about my doors being locked in this town. And you can damn sure bet if you haven't been hit by it yet, you will be.

And yet here I am, in a nation that is supposedly quite free when it comes to firearm ownership, being betrayed by my own "side" in that debate, simply because of a lot of racism, paranoia, fear-mongering, and profiteering.

[Julip]

@J Arcane - It sounds like you are having hard times, but I assume you already have guns or that you have had time since your hard times started to get a gun and take a course in how to use it.

[J Arcane]

@J Arcane - It sounds like you are having hard times, but I assume you already have guns or that you have had time since your hard times started to get a gun and take a course in how to use it.
Actually, I had to sell my two guns, partly because I needed the money, and partly because I was trying to be more responsible, and use said money, along with another sale that didn't go through, to raise cash to buy a more safe and effective weapon for defending myself, as the high-powered Russian WWII rifle that was my only usable weapon (the other is an collector's piece with no avilable ammo) really isn't safe to be using for that duty.

So I'll admit I'm a bit frustrated by my present times, and I apologize if it seems as if I'm taking it out on the audience here, but it is a very real problem in my mind, one that is making things difficult for people like me, and that I can only see leading down bad roads for a lot of folks who may not know all their options.

One of the pawnshops around here is actually selling a Jennings Nine. A firearm from a company that literally got sued into bankruptcy because their firearms are a severe danger to everyone around them. And I know it's going to sell, to someone like me, but less informed, and I suspect I'll see more shit like this as the situtation continues to spiral downward.

[Mason]

I come from the same culture you do: one where an economy on a death spiral is leading to rising crime in every sector and region of the United States.
Is it? (http://www.fbi.gov/page2/jan09/ucr_statistics011209.html) I really haven't seen national figures that indicate such a trend. Care to share?

[Generation ABXY]

As a long-standing conservative who enjoys shooting guns, supports small government, and fiscal responsibility (balancing our budget), I can't see a single person in the Republican party on the federal level that upholds the ideals that are important to me.

I don't know - there are a few people I see who fit that bill, and it'll be interesting to see what they do over the next four years. Oh, and I agree with the others: good post and welcome to CoG.

Really? It's one of the most popular conspiracy theories out there. I thought the list of people dying around the Clintons was over 100, but I did find the Snopes page that directs it as false (http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp) and a number of people that died. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but I remember this one being passed around quite a bit.

I have a notoriously poor memory, but from what I can recall, no, I never came across anything of that sort. Mind you, I doubt it would have meant much too me – I try not to put too much stock in those sort of rumors, so I'm not one one of these Obama “truthers” or anything.


Just a few comments on this, Julip:



Froze the salaries of his senior staff. Hadn't heard that, but if it is true, that's awesome; more people in Washington should do that.
Reinstated US aid to overseas health clinics that also discussed or provided abortions. I, for one, think this is a bad thing. If you want to have an abortion, that's your choice, but I don't want to play any part in it - especially overseas.
Rescinded Bush's Executive Order 13233 (which stopped access to the records of former U.S. Presidents), and imposed new rules on government transparency. Not sure if this is exactly the same thing, but there was a thread around here recently about how he has actually expanded some of the secrecy of the government, IIRC.
Opened up communications with journalists on the right. Whereas Bush completely shut them out?
Spoken to both parties in the House and Senate to inform them that he will block special appropriations (pork) and is working on a national budget and that will nevertheless positively bankrupt our nation for decades. Yeah, I'm not sure that one's going exactly the way he planned.


This guys is sharp.

Yep, definitely an Ox alt. :D

[Ox]

I don't like how much they are spending in this budget and I don't like that they aren't increasing taxation to do so.
Um, aren't they increasing taxes? Yeah, yeah, "not on 95% of Americans", but they are increasing taxes (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html).

I know that reducing spending is generally seen as bad during a recession, but I think that we need to at least look at smarter ways to spend our money and make it stretch.
Dt6eDFLoi6E
Now, the President is using a somewhat retrograde Keynesian economic analysis, but he's right: the whole point of stimulus is to waste money.

On gun control, you live in a different culture where women may need to buy guns quickly to protect themselves so I understand why you feel differently from me. In my family, we teach girls not to date trash.
Okay, I'm glad none of your female relatives date trash. But speaking hypothetically about other men who believe their female relatives won't date trash, those hypothetical men are idiots. The thing about trash is, it's usually incredibly charming, polite, and well-behaved for a surprisingly long while. No future wifebeater hits on the first date. They wait until they have the woman in their thrall. And it's basically impossible for a well-meaning male relative to realize there's abuse until the cops tell him about it.

Being rude to a woman in our family is asking for an ass-kicking, and hitting one puts you in jail for a long, long time (not that this has happened. Our women don't date trash and I am a convincing ass kicker). If one of our women was plagued by a man that she needed a restraining order from then she would stay with one of us until she felt safe. Also, Texas is a big, big place. . . a guy like that could just disappear.
Uh huh. Look, this is all admirable sentiment, and it speaks well of your character. It's also totally irrelevant. You think all those abused or stalked women out there don't have large, angry brothers? One in four (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1218) women has been sexually assaulted. ONE in FOUR. This is not something that happens only to the girls from bad homes. I literally cannot count the number of intelligent women, strong women, hard-nosed women, safety-conscious women, women from good backgrounds and supposedly good taste in men, whom I have known to be sexually or physically assaulted by the boyfriends or husbands.

And, of course, I'm not even going to bother to discuss the women who are assaulted by mere friends, or acquaintances, or strangers, or the women who are stalked by people they barely know.

Oh, and by the way, Texas punishes a first-time domestic assault offense with a maximum of one year in prison. Yeah, good luck getting the statutory maximum for a first-time offender without extremely egregious facts. And remember: a "first-time" offender isn't someone who did it for the first time, it's someone who has finally managed to screw up so badly he got convicted.

I'm sorry to come down on you like this, but I used to handle DV cases in Virginia -- another state where men like to brag they own shotguns and shovels and nice, big backyards. I once had a former Marine-turned-lawyer tell me that his daughters were safe because he was willing to reach into a man's chest and rip out his heart. Sure, buddy. I'll bet that scares the crap out of any guy who tries to rape your daughter while you're standing there.

There are laws that make sense for a country and laws that only make sense in a religion. For the most part, we choose laws that are good under both and we use Christianity as our guide in doing so.
"Make sense"? That's just a moral compass dressed up as an objective judgment. We could have very different laws and still function as a society (assuming that's even a valuable goal; there's that compass again).

Every civil rights movement has been most adamantly opposed by the radical religious right. Slavery, women's suffrage, segregation, black civil rights, and now homosexuals were all opposed politically by the radical right.
Wooo. Clearly, you're defining "radical right" as "whoever is opposed to all these great things," in which case, you're correct by definition. And sure, religion has been used on the bad side of all these arguments -- but it was also used on the good side, as well. Human beings are religious, and they use religion in their political arguments as readily as they use breath and words. Is it any better in your mind to endorse slavery from a strictly secular point of view? I think your objection has nothing to do with religion and is simply that you don't like people who oppose things you hold dearly.

My problem with this is that it puts us down on the wrong side of history, and it prevents us from meeting more important goals. Plus, if minorities vote and they're doing so in increasing numbers, Christian white people are no longer the majority. Even if all of us vote for Republicans, we will lose. The culture war is not right, and it's not a sustainable political strategy for our party.
You've got an interesting assumption that religious cultural values only appeal to white Christians. (PDF warning) 61% (http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_1208MBS.pdf) of Hispanic voters in California voted for Proposition 8. 70% (http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1378391.html) of black voters did. I'll grant you that certain aspects of the culture war may not be right, but if the Republicans want to attract Latino and African-American voters, this is definitely the way to go.

[Johan]

Not an alt.

:looks at the pretty shredded ribbons fluttering away:

Nope. Not an alt.

[Slack3r78]

That said, I haven't heard of 300% price increases -- most of the discussion I've seen has suggested something closer to 50-65%. Is this a regional thing, or am I misinformed?
No, your information is pretty much correct.

AR pattern rifles that would have been $600-800 in the past run $900-1200 now. AK pattern rifles are up a similar amount. Some old milsurp rifles like the M44 variant of the Mosin-Nagant are getting harder to find as people buy them up. I don't really keep up with shotguns but haven't noticed a huge jump in pricing there. Handgun prices haven't really moved all that much; I imagine partially because of the focus on assault style weapons and the known shortage of ammunition in popular handgun calibers.

Ammunition is either unavailable for cheap target ammo or about 50% higher than it was 9 months ago for premium self-defense ammo. Accessories like magazines are up 50-75% (Sig-Sauer recently announced that their handguns which have previously shipped with two magazines will now ship with a single magazine due to industry-wide shortages, for example).

Every major manufacturer of AR pattern rifles is reporting at least a 6-8 month backlog of orders. I've heard from a Sheriff in another part of the state that his department's been informed by their supplier that .45 ammunition is on at least an 8 month backorder right now -- he's seriously concerned that they don't have enough ammunition on hand to make it through the end of the year on their normal training regimen and is looking into alternatives like simunition to help tide them over. The ammunition manufacturer is apparently dealing with a shortage of components such as primers.

Point is, the shortages are very real, but 300% is hyperbole. Like you mentioned, there's a definite argument that maybe realistically that should be the kind of increase given the sharp rise in demand, but I haven't seen it, personally. I am kicking myself for not ordering the self-defense ammo I'd like when it was readily available at $24 a box, though. If you can find it, most distributors are selling the same ammo at $31 a box now, and it sells out quickly all the same.

[Slack3r78]

I, for one, think this is a bad thing. If you want to have an abortion, that's your choice, but I don't want to play any part in it - especially overseas.
Actually, what the Bush executive order (which was a reinstatement of an EO from the Reagan era, IIRC) did was deny funding to any group that did so much as mention abortion as an option. So if you have an aid group that provides clinical help to people overseas and they counsel somebody regarding abortion, they stand to lose all their US foreign aid dollars as a result, which negatively affects their other activities. It was a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Johan]

Actually, what the Bush executive order (which was a reinstatement of an EO from the Reagan era, IIRC) did was deny funding to any group that did so much as mention abortion as an option.

Regardless, the reality is that Obama's policies will increase abortions, and some of them will be funded by Americans who believe it is tantamount to murder.

That's offensive to many people, myself included. Fund it privately.

[BlackPete]

Time for a new conservative party?

Fixed that for you because right now there simply isn't one.

[Slack3r78]

Regardless, the reality is that Obama's policies will increase abortions, and some of them will be funded by Americans who believe it is tantamount to murder.

That's offensive to many people, myself included. Fund it privately.
So far as I'm aware, US aid dollars are still not allowed to go toward abortions or fund abortion-related activities. The problem was that if a group had any dealings with that whatsoever they lost all aid dollars, even though the programs could be separately managed and funded.

For me it comes down to whether its right to take away funding for a group that's providing some other kind of medical aid because they also engage in counseling in another area with private funds.

[Ox]

Actually, what the Bush executive order (which was a reinstatement of an EO from the Reagan era, IIRC) did was deny funding to any group that did so much as mention abortion as an option. So if you have an aid group that provides clinical help to people overseas and they counsel somebody regarding abortion, they stand to lose all their US foreign aid dollars as a result, which negatively affects their other activities. It was a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Not quite exactly true. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief was exempt from the Mexico City policy. And while the Hyde Amendment prevents us from funding abortions themselves, current policy allows our money to be spent on abortion counseling and (I believe) everything from bus fare to the clinic to a card that reads, "Happy Abortion!"*

* I do not know if such cards exist. But I have a strong feeling they probably do.

[Johan]

So far as I'm aware, US aid dollars are still not allowed to go toward abortions or fund abortion-related activities.

I don't believe you are correct in your assertion. Even if there is an "accounting" wall between funds, the reality is that when you provide money, you fund it, even if indirectly. That's why people were so pissed about the AIG bonuses...not because it was directly funded by taxpayer money, but because the taxpayer money in the "kitty" allowed the companies to be able to afford the bonuses.

If you fund it, you fund it, regardless of how you move the money around. Also, when you fund groups that advocate abortions, you draw away funds from groups that do not advocate abortions. Unless you print an eternal supply of money from the money press, then funding is limited.

[TrackZero]

Not an alt.

:looks at the pretty shredded ribbons fluttering away:

Nope. Not an alt.

Alt has been dealt with, offending party has been given an infraction and warning. Let me know if you notice anything fishy like this again (I just happened to notice this comment this time, which set me off).

[cp#]

Oh.. just now?

[TrackZero]

Oh.. just now?

Well, Johan did have the giant lamp pointing into the sky with the Track-signal on it, but I must have missed it.

[BlackPete]

So Julip really was Ox's alt, and he was having his alts debate with each other? :eek:

[DylonCorp]

I have doubts that Ox would impersonate a rancher.

But this could be another of his mind games.

[Dorkandproudofit]

Are you sure it was an alt? Did you check IPs, profiles, stuff like that? I hate to think that we wrongly banned someone for seeming like an alt.

I'm just worried, is all. Guy was refreshingly logical.

[Disgustipated]

Ox wasn't banned... 'tards.

And changing your title to simulate banning is queer.

[Esquilax1138]

...was refreshingly logical.

Well that is reason enough, we'll have none of that here! :D

[TrackZero]

So Julip really was Ox's alt, and he was having his alts debate with each other? :eek:

No. And Ox isn't banned.

[TrackZero]

Are you sure it was an alt? Did you check IPs, profiles, stuff like that? I hate to think that we wrongly banned someone for seeming like an alt.

No, I did it on a whim... Of course it was researched.

[total]

I don't believe you are correct in your assertion. Even if there is an "accounting" wall between funds, the reality is that when you provide money, you fund it, even if indirectly. That's why people were so pissed about the AIG bonuses...not because it was directly funded by taxpayer money, but because the taxpayer money in the "kitty" allowed the companies to be able to afford the bonuses.

If you fund it, you fund it, regardless of how you move the money around. Also, when you fund groups that advocate abortions, you draw away funds from groups that do not advocate abortions. Unless you print an eternal supply of money from the money press, then funding is limited.

So if a clinic funds abortion privately, you'd want them to have any government funding cut? For like, oh say contraception...or education on how to use said contraception.

[torrefaction]

Ox wasn't banned... 'tards.

And changing your title to simulate banning is queer.

Julip was. I doubt it's simulated. It certainly wasn't Ox's writing style, so if it was him, I'm impressed at his ability to switch character.

[Banacek]

Hahaha, looks like you know who strikes again.

Anyway, one would think that small government, fiscally conservative and socially neutral party could really gain a foothold after the two parties have had their way with this country. Too bad the two current parties will do everything in their power to crush it. Also, conservatives need to stand up and throw Limbaugh out. I know a lot of Republicans and he does not speak for them.

[Disgustipated]

Julip was. I doubt it's simulated. It certainly wasn't Ox's writing style, so if it was him, I'm impressed at his ability to switch character.

It's 100% simulated... and it wasn't Ox. Or me. :o

I will say this... whoever posted using the Julip alt is obviously a massive coward, the likes of which just couldn't get their small nuts pumped up enough to post it on their regular account.

[Ox]

Anyway, one would think that small government, fiscally conservative and socially neutral party could really gain a foothold after the two parties have had their way with this country. Too bad the two current parties will do everything in their power to crush it.
Is there any indication the major parties would need to crush such an upstart? Small government, fiscal conservative, social liberalism is popular on the Internet. But the pathetic yokels and grandmas get to vote too, and their votes count just as much as ours.

Also, conservatives need to stand up and throw Limbaugh out. I know a lot of Republicans and he does not speak for them.
Yes, by all means the Republicans should go on a crusade to identify dissident elements within the party and root them out with extreme prejudice. That's a surefire path to electoral success.

C'mon, every thread on this issue turns into the same three points: the crazy fundies are taking over the party and excluding the sane folks, the Republicans can't win unless they're willing to be a big ideological tent, and we need to retake the party and ruthlessly suppress anyone who disagrees with us. Typical posts will make all three points at the same time, usually with no regard for the obvious contradiction. Conducting purges is a great way to destroy a party, not to win elections. You think after 2002 and 2004 the Democrats went into a back room and said, "All right, everyone who doesn't agree entirely with us needs to GTFO"? 65 House Democrats oppose the assault weapons ban, and the leader of the Senate is ostensibly pro-life.

Not to mention the fact that every Republican disagrees with Rush Limbaugh. But none of them agree about which parts of Limbaughism they hate. What are they going to do, kick out the Evangelicals? Have fun winning elections after excluding 28% of the population, kids.

The GOP used to be what you want, approximately between Eisenhower and Reagan. And they routinely got whipped like a red-headed stepchild in every election. They got the Presidency twice: once when they nominated the former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe, and once when the Democrats decided to get us involved in a land war in Asia and then try to burn down Chicago. And despite Vietnam and the whole 'Kill, kill, kill' thing, Nixon won with a margin of 0.7%. I'm not saying I'm unsympathetic to your political views, but we ought to have the courage to acknowledge that all the Americans who agree with this platform could not collectively elect a dogcatcher.

[Ancalagon]

Now I'm really curious as to who Julip was.

[Johan]

So if a clinic funds abortion privately, you'd want them to have any government funding cut? For like, oh say contraception...or education on how to use said contraception.

No, you do make a good point. If it's funded privately, as you and others have said, it's pretty harsh to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Now I'm really curious as to who Julip was.

And I'm pretty freaking amazed I called it! I never get anything right, it seems! :)

[Ancalagon]

No, you do make a good point. If it's funded privately, as you and others have said, it's pretty harsh to throw the baby out with the bath water.



Poor choice of words!


And I'm pretty freaking amazed I called it! I never get anything right, it seems! :)

Congratulations! Sharing is caring though, so if you know who Julip was, wink wink nudge nudge.

[Johan]

Poor choice of words!

Damn...you're not kidding. :o

Congratulations! Sharing is caring though, so if you know who Julip was, wink wink nudge nudge.

All I have is my suspicion. It certainly wasn't me. I gave up alt-ing for Lent. :D

[Slack3r78]

No, you do make a good point. If it's funded privately, as you and others have said, it's pretty harsh to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Poor choice of words!
Bahahahahahaha!

[Telefrog]

Dammit! I missed the Alt-Julip and we didn't even get a lemonparty!

[Banacek]

Dammit! I missed the Alt-Julip and we didn't even get a lemonparty!

Oh, I assumed it was the man who's name begins with S, but maybe I was wrong...

[Banacek]

Is there any indication the major parties would need to crush such an upstart? Small government, fiscal conservative, social liberalism is popular on the Internet. But the pathetic yokels and grandmas get to vote too, and their votes count just as much as ours.

I don't think they would need to, even though all you need is 5% of the voting population to get started. That 5% is insanely hard to get. I really doubt that they would sit by and let it happen though.

[BlackPete]

Yes, by all means the Republicans should go on a crusade to identify dissident elements within the party and root them out with extreme prejudice. That's a surefire path to electoral success.

There's nothing wrong with publicly announcing that they do not endorse Rush's words if they are deemed poisonous to the political climate with statements such as, "I hope Obama fails." or tying him to muslim terrorists or whatever. When someone is more divisive than helpful, it's time to disassociate yourself from that person.

Of course that means they'd also have to stop apologizing to Rush for disagreeing with him.

[Slack3r78]

There's nothing wrong with publicly announcing that they do not endorse Rush's words if they are deemed poisonous to the political climate with statements such as, "I hope Obama fails." or tying him to muslim terrorists or whatever. When someone is more divisive than helpful, it's time to disassociate yourself from that person.

Of course that means they'd also have to stop apologizing to Rush for disagreeing with him.
pg2_MntkMzg

[Generation ABXY]

So...that's comedy, eh?

Christ, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, but if I had to choose between him and Bill Hicks, I have to say I'd take the former.

[DylonCorp]

So...that's comedy, eh?

Christ, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, but if I had to choose between him and Bill Hicks, I have to say I'd take the former.

Yes, it is.

Yes, you would.

[rifter]

Really? It's one of the most popular conspiracy theories out there. I thought the list of people dying around the Clintons was over 100, but I did find the Snopes page that directs it as false (http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp) and a number of people that died. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but I remember this one being passed around quite a bit.

The only one I remember hearing a lot about, was Vincent Foster. It has been years, but what I recall, was that the bullet went in behind the ear, and forward. Kind of difficult to pull that off with ones arm.

The body looked to have been moved.

No one heard the gunshot.

The resignation letter was torn up, and found at the bottom of the suitcase, a week later... AFTER investigators had gone through it once, and not found it.

The gist, is that it looked like a professional hit, and coverup.

There's nothing wrong with publicly announcing that they do not endorse Rush's words if they are deemed poisonous to the political climate with statements such as, "I hope Obama fails." or tying him to muslim terrorists or whatever. When someone is more divisive than helpful, it's time to disassociate yourself from that person.

Of course that means they'd also have to stop apologizing to Rush for disagreeing with him.
I don't listen to Rush, but I have heard his comments, and his response to criticism about him saying he hopes Obama fails.

Honestly, I 100% agree with him. I am in the same boat. I disagree with many of his policies. The horrifying huge amount of spending he has foisted upon several generations is a disgrace. I don't believe in socialism, yet Obama wants to expand the government greatly, displacing Capitalism with Socialism. Yes, I TOO want Obama to fail. At least, I want to see him fail to enact the social changes and federal changes that change the whole fiber of our country.

And don't think I don't realize Bush didn't betray us too. It seemed the closer to 8 years he got, the more liberal he slid.

[Generation ABXY]

Yes, you would.

I know...I just said that. :confused:

[torrefaction]

So...that's comedy, eh?

Christ, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, but if I had to choose between him and Bill Hicks, I have to say I'd take the former.

How does it feel to suck at life?

[J Arcane]

Dudes, I'm no lover of Limbaugh, and I actually like some of Hicks' stuff, but that was just shit, no pun intended. It wasn't funny, it was just juvenile shock jockeying on the order of a radio DJ, not to mention painting a picture that frankly I don't think even the most rabid leftist Air America type really wanted in their heads even for the schadenfreude.

[Generation ABXY]

Apparently, you need to reevaluate your life, too; perhaps we can form some sort of support group, J Arcane.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Bill Hicks is every angry guy in a college philosophy class except older.

I'd probably take him over Limbaugh, though. :)

[torrefaction]

Apparently, you need to reevaluate your life, too; perhaps we can form some sort of support group, J Arcane.

That's correct. Judging Hicks on that piece is ridiculous. Hicks is one of the single most influential comics of all time. He's been sampled in fucking Tool songs! He's literally up there with Lenny Bruce and George Carlin (#13 for comedians and comedy insiders Great Comedy Acts ever.)

All around, he was an amazing and influential person who had a lot of important shit to say.

tl;dr

I hate you.

[Ox]

There's nothing wrong with publicly announcing that they do not endorse Rush's words if they are deemed poisonous to the political climate with statements such as, "I hope Obama fails."
"Poisonous to the political climate", eh? Sure, if someone does something that poisons the political climate, I'll call him out on it. I just don't think saying this (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html) counts as poisoning the political climate:
I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed... Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."
Now, I don't think it's poisonous to claim that you know what Obama's plans and politics are. Nor do I think it's poisonous to claim that you think his economic policies would hurt the country. Is it poisonous to hope that Obama's policies are rejected by Congress? Is it poisonous to hope that in 2010 Republicans will acquire enough power to block Obama's policies?

I'll tell you what poisonous is: it's deliberately misinterpreting someone's words for political gain. It's claiming that Rush Limbaugh wants America to fail: that he said he is hoping for economic disintegration or military disaster as a way of revenge against a President with whom he disagrees. I mean, Christ: Rush Limbaugh is an asshole who says a lot of stupid and obnoxious stuff. Trying to exaggerate his obnoxiousness is not only dishonest, it's unnecessary.

Now, sure, when Rush Limbaugh says something truly inappropriate, I'm fine with Republican officeholders criticizing him. Heck, they can criticize him for having an annoying voice if they like. I just don't think it's a good idea to defame him.

[torrefaction]

NwP94n49Y7o

[Banacek]

How about calling out his hypocrisy? He claimed when Bush was President that we need to support him and his initiatives whether or not we agreed with them because he was the President. It's so weird that he doesn't have that same policy for Obama.

[Ox]

How about calling out his hypocrisy? He claimed when Bush was President that we need to support him and his initiatives whether or not we agreed with them because he was the President. It's so weird that he doesn't have that same policy for Obama.
I have a general policy against calling people out for hypocrisy: it's the tribute vice pays to virtue. Plus, I have moral principles, so I can criticize people on other grounds.

I don't listen to Limbaugh, so I don't specifically recall the statements about Bush you're talking about. If he said that Democrats needed to support Bush's policies despite disagreeing with them, that was a stupid thing to say. If he merely said that Democrats shouldn't go around saying stuff like "He's not my President" or calling Bush a fascist, then that's not inconsistent with Limbaugh's present opposition to Obama's policies. Until I see what he actually said, though, I can't tell whether you're accurately paraphrasing him. As I pointed out, Limbaugh is not paraphrased accurately very often.

[BlackPete]

Now, I don't think it's poisonous to claim that you know what Obama's plans and politics are. Nor do I think it's poisonous to claim that you think his economic policies would hurt the country. Is it poisonous to hope that Obama's policies are rejected by Congress? Is it poisonous to hope that in 2010 Republicans will acquire enough power to block Obama's policies?

I'll tell you what poisonous is: it's deliberately misinterpreting someone's words for political gain. It's claiming that Rush Limbaugh wants America to fail: that he said he is hoping for economic disintegration or military disaster as a way of revenge against a President with whom he disagrees. I mean, Christ: Rush Limbaugh is an asshole who says a lot of stupid and obnoxious stuff. Trying to exaggerate his obnoxiousness is not only dishonest, it's unnecessary.

I remember a certain group saying that if you didn't stand behind your president then you were a traitor. That same group is also pretty well known for twisting words around in their favour. Dammit, if only I could remember who they were...

BTW, didn't you get the memo? Hope is poisonous.

[BlackPete]

How about calling out his hypocrisy? He claimed when Bush was President that we need to support him and his initiatives whether or not we agreed with them because he was the President. It's so weird that he doesn't have that same policy for Obama.

DING DING DING! We have a winner -- hypocrisy is the magic word of the day! ;)

The GOP are hypocrites. Then again, so are the Democrats. I call them out as I see them regardless of party.

It's just that the GOP has brought it up to a pretty spectacular level these days.

[Generation ABXY]

That's correct. Judging Hicks on that piece is ridiculous. Hicks is one of the single most influential comics of all time. He's been sampled in fucking Tool songs! He's literally up there with Lenny Bruce and George Carlin (#13 for comedians and comedy insiders Great Comedy Acts ever.)

All around, he was an amazing and influential person who had a lot of important shit to say.

tl;dr

I hate you.

Meh, to each their own, I guess. I have an admittedly limited sampling of both, and both have often times come off as rather disgusting. So, for me, its a choice between the laughable (and not in a good way) rantings of a far-right radio host and what appears to be a terribly disturbing, unfunny “comedian.” I certainly wouldn't imply that picking one over the other would make someone a failure as a human being, but I'm tolerant in that way. ;)

I'll have to take your word on the whole influential thing, torrefaction; I've done well at not listening to Tool, and I have rather mixed feelings on the late George Carlin.

[Slack3r78]

Now, sure, when Rush Limbaugh says something truly inappropriate, I'm fine with Republican officeholders criticizing him. Heck, they can criticize him for having an annoying voice if they like. I just don't think it's a good idea to defame him.
I think the problem is when you have Limbaugh powerful enough in the party that a quote like this:

“Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh — his whole thing is entertainment. He has this incendiary — yes, it's ugly.”

Ends with Rush pretty much requiring Steele to suck him off and swallow too as atonement.

[Banacek]

DING DING DING! We have a winner -- hypocrisy is the magic word of the day! ;)

The GOP are hypocrites. Then again, so are the Democrats. I call them out as I see them regardless of party.

It's just that the GOP has brought it up to a pretty spectacular level these days.

Agreed. There's no reason to follow party lines. They're just a distraction at this point.

[National Kato]

Limbaugh wasn't the only voice calling out those who didn't support Bush's policies. The usual right-wing talking heads did it day in and day out. Calling out anyone who didn't support Bush's policies in Iraq, elsewhere, and at home, as 'unpatriotic' and 'traitorous.' Malkin, Hannity, Coulter...the whole bunch.

Of course, on November 5th, 2008 they all had their minds erased by the Hulu aliens. Convenient, that. Suddenly, they remembered that Americans don't always just fall in line with their President. They dissent, and often, when they disagree with where they feel their country is headed. They hold 'tea parties' fer crissakes. Of course, all this is now 'patriotic,' right?

How anyone could've missed this during an eight-year span is beyond me.

[Ox]

I remember a certain group saying that if you didn't stand behind your president then you were a traitor. That same group is also pretty well known for twisting words around in their favour. Dammit, if only I could remember who they were...
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Now I have to criticize Rush Limbaugh if anyone ever called someone a traitor for not standing behind the President. Limbaugh's an important guy, but I'm reluctant to say he has complete control over every dumb person in America.

I assume you're particularly singling out Ann Coulter. Coulter, much more than Limbaugh, has been rebuked by the major organs of the right wing. She doesn't get access to officeholders like Limbaugh does. She got fired immediately after 9/11 from National Review for an inflammatory article. The three major Republican candidates for President in 2008 specifically denounced her jokes about John Edwards.

You want me to say that calling all Democrats traitors is both incorrect and obnoxious? No problem. But you are tarring half the country with the obnoxious and repeatedly disavowed statements of a small group of idiots. That would be like me suggesting that all Democrats are responsible when Cindy Sheehan says, "This country is not worth dying for."

[Banacek]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279

Notice that Limbaugh did not say: "I hope the administration's liberal plans fail." Or (better): "I know the administration's liberal plans will fail." Or (best): "I fear that this administration's liberal plans will fail, as liberal plans usually do." If it had been phrased that way, nobody could have used Limbaugh's words to misrepresent conservatives as clueless, indifferent or gleeful in the face of the most painful economic crisis in a generation. But then, if it had been phrased that way, nobody would have quoted his words at all—and as Limbaugh himself said, being "headlined" was the point of the exercise. If it had been phrased that way, Limbaugh's face would not now be adorning the covers of magazines. He phrased his hope in a way that drew maximum attention to himself, offered maximum benefit to the administration and did maximum harm to the party he claims to support.

[Generation ABXY]

I think the problem is when you have Limbaugh powerful enough in the party that a quote like this:



Ends with Rush pretty much requiring Steele to suck him off and swallow too as atonement.

I hated that, too. If that's what you believe, Steele, than stick to it - I, and I'm sure many others, would respect you more for it. However, IIRC, Steele has proven himself to be, if nothing else, a bit spineless on a number of occasions. :(

[Ox]

Sure, Limbaugh deliberately laid out some juicy words so that dishonest people could take him out of context and he'd be more famous. That doesn't make it any less dishonest.

[Ox]

I hated that, too. If that's what you believe, Steele, than stick to it - I, and I'm sure many others, would respect you more for it. However, IIRC, Steele has proven himself to be, if nothing else, a bit spineless on a number of occasions. :(
On this note: Steele anonymously told reporters, back when he was running for Senate, that having the letter R after his name was a "scarlet letter." People figured out it was him and got annoyed. This was a defensible statement, but he apologized.

[Banacek]

Sure, Limbaugh deliberately laid out some juicy words so that dishonest people could take him out of context and he'd be more famous. That doesn't make it any less dishonest.

If that's what you want the face of your party to be, so be it. I think a lot of Republicans would disagree with you.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Limbaugh wasn't the only voice calling out those who didn't support Bush's policies. The usual right-wing talking heads did it day in and day out. Calling out anyone who didn't support Bush's policies in Iraq, elsewhere, and at home, as 'unpatriotic' and 'traitorous.' Malkin, Hannity, Coulter...the whole bunch.

I have a strong feeling that this is what you felt they said, and can't come up with an actual quote.

[Ox]

If that's what you want the face of your party to be, so be it. I think a lot of Republicans would disagree with you.
1. I'm not a Republican.

2. I don't like Limbaugh, which I've said several times now.

3. Speaking of people who deliberately misinterpret others' words, this was a good example.

4. Pointing out that many of Limbaugh's critics are unfair doesn't imply any approval of Limbaugh or his views. Indeed, it's precisely because I prefer honesty that I'm pointing out the malevolent tactics even where I agree with the object (i.e., to discredit Limbaugh). That's what decent people do.

I have a strong feeling that this is what you felt they said, and can't come up with an actual quote.
Coulter is guilty as charged: her book, Treason, said that the Democratic Party as an organization was "functionally treasonous." This is sufficiently close to calling all Democrats traitors (although she denied that's what she was saying) that I have no problem with ascribing that view to her. I don't know if there are similar quotes from Malkin or Hannity.

[Slack3r78]

I think there's a definite level of hyperbole coming from both sides, but I will say that the feeling I've increasingly gotten in the mainstream is this idea that it's impossible for two reasonable people to disagree with one another. It's gotten worse with the rise of entertainment-media, which is largely dominated by supposedly conservative voices -- be it Limbaugh or O'Reilly or Hannity. You've got it to some degree on the left, but the loudest voices in infotainment tend to be conservative and they do tend to go out of their way to be as outrageous as possible.

[mister slim]

Well, Malkin called out Rachael Ray for supporting terrorism.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I think there's a definite level of hyperbole coming from both sides, but I will say that the feeling I've increasingly gotten in the mainstream is this idea that it's impossible for two reasonable people to disagree with one another. It's gotten worse with the rise of entertainment-media, which is largely dominated by supposedly conservative voices -- be it Limbaugh or O'Reilly or Hannity. You've got it to some degree on the left, but the loudest voices in infotainment tend to be conservative and they do tend to go out of their way to be as outrageous as possible.

The media certainly has no interest in interviewing people who say "Well, I disagree with the other guy, but I might be wrong."

[Generation ABXY]

Well, Malkin called out Rachael Ray for supporting terrorism.

...

I'm almost afraid to look up why.

[Ox]

I think there's a definite level of hyperbole coming from both sides, but I will say that the feeling I've increasingly gotten in the mainstream is this idea that it's impossible for two reasonable people to disagree with one another. It's gotten worse with the rise of entertainment-media, which is largely dominated by supposedly conservative voices -- be it Limbaugh or O'Reilly or Hannity. You've got it to some degree on the left, but the loudest voices in infotainment tend to be conservative and they do tend to go out of their way to be as outrageous as possible.
Okay. I'm not sure I'm completely convinced where the preponderance is, but it doesn't really matter who is doing it more. What should be done about it? Should both parties exclude anyone who is obnoxious? Should politicians get on the teevee every time one of these jackasses says something stupid?

Obviously we want don't want a policy where politicians spend all their time apologizing and distancing themselves. Neither do we want a system where politicians never comment on obnoxious stuff people say. But any compromise between these two extremes allows each side to point fingers and say, "Oh, you must agree with so-and-so!"

Well, Malkin called out Rachael Ray for supporting terrorism.
Again, untrue. In a post entitled Of donuts and dumb celebrities (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/23/of-donuts-and-dumb-celebrities/), she said:
Sigh. You all know I’ve been a fan of Dunkin Donuts for quite some time–and have touted their strong position in favor of immigration enforcement.

Charles Johnson notes, and many readers have e-mailed about, Dunkin Donuts’ spokeswoman Rachel Ray’s clueless sporting of a jihadi chic keffiyeh in a recent DD ad campaign. I’m hoping her hate couture choice was spurred more by ignorance than ideology.
Ray was wearing a garment that Palestinian terrorists use a symbol of their cause. Malkin referred to this as "clueless", "dumb", a "blunder", and said she hoped it was done out of "ignorance." She left open the possibility that Ray was, indeed, deliberately wearing the garment to indicate her solidarity with the intifada, but I invite you to read the link yourself and tell me if you think she is saying that's the likely explanation.

Now, if you still think Malkin's statement was poisonous or somehow inappropriate, I'd be interested in hearing an explanation. But I assume you only heard about this thirdhand from some dishonest source and never bothered to check what she actually said.

[BlackPete]

You want me to say that calling all Democrats traitors is both incorrect and obnoxious? No problem. But you are tarring half the country with the obnoxious and repeatedly disavowed statements of a small group of idiots. That would be like me suggesting that all Democrats are responsible when Cindy Sheehan says, "This country is not worth dying for."

I didn't realize that half the country formed the GOP. All this time, I thought they simply vote for the GOP.

Yes, there is hyperbole coming from both sides, but when it comes to defending said hyperbole, then I can't help but see the GOP leading in this respect. Then again that could just be the Liberal Media(tm) in action.

Just to be clear: I am not attacking the GOP because they are the GOP. I am attacking partisans who place party before country, regardless of what party or country they're from.

When the GOP still appears to be at loss for words as to exactly why they lost the last election, then they'll just need to be beaten around the head until they either disintegrate or get it.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Now, if you still think Malkin's statement was poisonous or somehow inappropriate, I'd be interested in hearing an explanation. But I assume you only heard about this thirdhand from some dishonest source and never bothered to check what she actually said.
Ox, you seem to be confused. Fox News is the only network that should be subject to this level of scrutiny.

[BlackPete]

The media certainly has no interest in interviewing people who say "Well, I disagree with the other guy, but I might be wrong."

The media is a whole another subject (that I really shouldn't get into otherwise I wouldn't get any work done), but yes... that's basically it. If there's no news, then poke and prod people until they do something newsworthy.

[Telefrog]

...

I'm almost afraid to look up why.

Infamous Dunkin' Donuts advertisement with Rachel Ray wearing a throw that Malkin called "a jihadist keffiyeh". I wish I were kidding (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/23/of-donuts-and-dumb-celebrities/).

BTW, she didn't actually call her a terrorist or a traitor. In fact, she just labeled Ray as a celebrity that was ignorant of her fashion choices.

Of course, that's still wrong since that particular scarf has been around for literally centuries and isn't just worn by jihadists, but hey, what are facts?

Edit: Ox got it. Same conclusion.

[Ox]

BTW, she didn't actually call her a terrorist or a traitor. In fact, she just labeled Ray as a celebrity that was ignorant of her fashion choices.

Of course, that's still wrong since that particular scarf has been around for literally centuries and isn't just worn by jihadists, but hey, what are facts?
Lots of symbols have been around for centuries. But the whole point of a symbol is to communicate. Crosses are centuries-old and have had a lot of meanings during that time, but if someone wears a cross around her neck, it's reasonable to assume she's Christian.

[mister slim]

Again, untrue. In a post entitled Of donuts and dumb celebrities (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/23/of-donuts-and-dumb-celebrities/), she said:

Ray was wearing a garment that Palestinian terrorists use a symbol of their cause. Malkin referred to this as "clueless", "dumb", a "blunder", and said she hoped it was done out of "ignorance." She left open the possibility that Ray was, indeed, deliberately wearing the garment to indicate her solidarity with the intifada, but I invite you to read the link yourself and tell me if you think she is saying that's the likely explanation.

Now, if you still think Malkin's statement was poisonous or somehow inappropriate, I'd be interested in hearing an explanation. But I assume you only heard about this thirdhand from some dishonest source and never bothered to check what she actually said.

Oh come on, Ox, don't try to bullshit me.

[Ox]

How, praytell, am I bullshitting you?

[total]

Lots of symbols have been around for centuries. But the whole point of a symbol is to communicate. Crosses are centuries-old and have had a lot of meanings during that time, but if someone wears a cross around her neck, it's reasonable to assume she's Christian.

Depends on which way it's pointing.

[Slack3r78]

Lots of symbols have been around for centuries. But the whole point of a symbol is to communicate. Crosses are centuries-old and have had a lot of meanings during that time, but if someone wears a cross around her neck, it's reasonable to assume she's Christian.
I'm really tempted to post a youtube video of Bill Hicks discussing the cross just to rage the assholes in this thread.

You think that whenever Jesus comes back he's going to want to see a fucking cross? It's like going up to Jackie Onassis wearing a rifle pendant. 'Just thinking about Jack, Jackie.'

[Generation ABXY]

When the GOP still appears to be at loss for words as to exactly why they lost the last election...

White guilt?

You think that whenever Jesus comes back he's going to want to see a fucking cross? It's like going up to Jackie Onassis wearing a rifle pendant. 'Just thinking about Jack, Jackie.'

Seriously, he just must not be my brand of humor.

[BlackPete]

White guilt?

Heh, there was a thread over on fark discussing a similar topic. There was a guy actively campaigning for the GOP who stated that the GOP is the "big tent" party where everyone was welcome.

Everyone except latinos, certain blacks, gays, athiests, and of course Democrats, but aside from that, everyone was welcome.

[Ox]

Everyone except latinos, certain blacks, gays, athiests, and of course Democrats, but aside from that, everyone was welcome.
Wow. Nice. Remind me again: where the fuck do you get off criticizing anybody for being poisonous?

[Telefrog]

Lots of symbols have been around for centuries. But the whole point of a symbol is to communicate. Crosses are centuries-old and have had a lot of meanings during that time, but if someone wears a cross around her neck, it's reasonable to assume she's Christian.

Oh, I'm not disputing that. In this case, however, labeling that particular design as wholly the symbol of terrorism is incorrect. That style/pattern of keffiyeh is widely worn throughout Saudia Arabia. By civilians. Our allies. :p

Here, in the West it certainly has a bad reputation because most people associate it with angry Muslim jihadists screaming things on the news. The fact is that it's worn by everyday folks as well.

Edit: That is to say, it's not wrong from a certain point of view, but it does say a lot more about the person doing the clothing association than the actual person wearing it.

It's very much akin to Muslim countries identifying the cowboy hat as a symbol of US aggression and imperialism.

[mister slim]

How, praytell, am I bullshitting you?

Well, I thought you understood the history and symbolism of the keffiyeh and the absurdity of linking it to, say, beheading videos. If I was wrong I apologize for reading your mistake as intent.

[BlackPete]

Wow. Nice. Remind me again: where the fuck do you get off criticizing anybody for being poisonous?

Was this aimed at me? Or the guy who made that post I was referring to?

[Ox]

It's very much akin to Muslim countries identifying the cowboy hat as a symbol of US aggression and imperialism.
I think that a Saudi man who decided he was just going to wear a cowboy hat as he walked down the street would very much be seen as endorsing the US, including US foreign policy. And I don't think that would necessarily be an unreasonable view.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but Rachel Ray isn't an ordinary Saudi citizen, right? She's an American celebrity. It's a little atypical for American celebrities to dress like the ordinary citizens of some developing country unless they are trying to make a specific statement. Not inconceivable -- as Malkin acknowledged, Ray probably just thought it looked pretty -- but atypical. The fact that Ray just happened to choose a garment that isn't merely a garment, but also (for some people) a symbol of a politically fashionable cause, suggests at least the possibility that Ray deliberately intened to wear the garment as that symbol. Not likely, but worth mentioning, right?

Wearing a cowboy hat in Texas means you want to keep the sun off. Wearing a cowboy hat in Riyadh invites comment and speculation. Yeah, it's sunny in Riyadh as well. But the cultural milieu is one of the things that gives a symbol its meaning.

[Ox]

Was this aimed at me? Or the guy who made that post I was referring to?
Oh, sorry. I thought that passage was your editorial comment. The guy was actively campaigning for the GOP and said that blacks, latinos, gays, etc. weren't welcome? I'm going to guess he wasn't really campaigning for the GOP.

[Telefrog]

I think that a Saudi man who decided he was just going to wear a cowboy hat as he walked down the street would very much be seen as endorsing the US, including US foreign policy. And I don't think that would necessarily be an unreasonable view.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but Rachel Ray isn't an ordinary Saudi citizen, right? She's an American celebrity. It's a little atypical for American celebrities to dress like the ordinary citizens of some developing country unless they are trying to make a specific statement. Not inconceivable -- as Malkin acknowledged, Ray probably just thought it looked pretty -- but atypical. The fact that Ray just happened to choose a garment that isn't merely a garment, but also (for some people) a symbol of a politically fashionable cause, suggests at least the possibility that Ray deliberately intened to wear the garment as that symbol. Not likely, but worth mentioning, right?

Wearing a cowboy hat in Texas means you want to keep the sun off. Wearing a cowboy hat in Riyadh invites comment and speculation. Yeah, it's sunny in Riyadh as well. But the cultural milieu is one of the things that gives a symbol its meaning.

Didn't I just say this?

That is to say, it's not wrong from a certain point of view, but it does say a lot more about the person doing the clothing association than the actual person wearing it.

[mister slim]

Oh, I'm not disputing that. In this case, however, labeling that particular design as wholly the symbol of terrorism is incorrect. That style/pattern of keffiyeh is widely worn throughout Saudia Arabia. By civilians. Our allies. :p

Here, in the West it certainly has a bad reputation because most people associate it with angry Muslim jihadists screaming things on the news. The fact is that it's worn by everyday folks as well.

Edit: That is to say, it's not wrong from a certain point of view, but it does say a lot more about the person doing the clothing association than the actual person wearing it.

It's very much akin to Muslim countries identifying the cowboy hat as a symbol of US aggression and imperialism.

Technically, the black and white keffiyeh isn't at all common in Saudi Arabia or Iraq. It tends to be pure white or red and white.

[BlackPete]

Oh, sorry. I thought that passage was your editorial comment. The guy was actively campaigning for the GOP and said that blacks, latinos, gays, etc. weren't welcome? I'm going to guess he wasn't really campaigning for the GOP.

Ah, nope that was definitely his views. Naturally he got flamed to hell and back including from other Republicans, which was great to see.

Still, it's scary when such people run for office and possibly get elected.

[Johan]

So...PiRi is dead then? Cuz...just sayin, is all! :D

/lame troll off!

[Telefrog]

Technically, the black and white keffiyeh isn't at all common in Saudi Arabia or Iraq. It tends to be pure white or red and white.

Weird. During my tours in Saudi/Iraq, I saw it a lot. And not on terrorists.

Edit: In fact a little googling shows it to be pretty common thoughout the Arab Emirates.

[torrefaction]

So...PiRi is dead then? Cuz...just sayin, is all! :D

/lame troll off!

Well, yeah. Exactly like we said it would be, and this is exactly what we said would happen.

You can call me The Prophet, if you want.

[Slack3r78]

So...PiRi is dead then? Cuz...just sayin, is all! :D

/lame troll off!
PiRi's been dead. Something of a doomed from the start experiment, that was.

[BlackPete]

I do wonder what happened to PiRi though. It was active then one day it just... stopped.

[torrefaction]

I do wonder what happened to PiRi though. It was active then one day it just... stopped.

I heard a new site launched.....

[Banacek]

Yeah, I haven't checked out PiRi in a long time. It just died.

[Slack3r78]

I heard a new site launched.....
Really? Where? I mean, PiRi was going pretty well, I can't imagine what took the steam out of it.

[Johan]

I derailed the thread! I get one * for that!

* = star.

[Slack3r78]

I derailed the thread! I get one * for that!

* = star.
I give your star one star.

[torrefaction]

I give your star one star.

I give your one star no stars.

[Johan]

I give your star one star.

It's like a Russian babushka doll; stars within stars. Where's Carl Sagan when you need him? I miss his show.

Sorry...I'm on 'random thought' patrol, from fatigue and pain. Now, time to go. Ouch. I love it when it hurts.

[BlackPete]

I heard a new site launched.....

I decided to search for that by googling Siraris. A sexual dysfunction link came up in the first page of search results, and I decided not to investigate further.

[torrefaction]

I decided to search for that by googling Siraris. A sexual dysfunction link came up in the first page of search results, and I decided not to investigate further.

The Joke ---------------->


Your head ---------------->

[BlackPete]

The Joke ---------------->


Your head ---------------->

Oh I got the joke. I couldn't help googling anyway to see what he'd been up to lately ;)

[Telefrog]

Oh, crap! This US Soldier must be a Muslim terrorist!

http://i40.tinypic.com/2qatvdu.jpg

[ShivaX]

Oh, crap! This US Soldier must be a Muslim terrorist!



Beard? Check.
Scarf? Check.
Terrorist or terrorist sympathizer.

[Banacek]

Oh I got the joke. I couldn't help googling anyway to see what he'd been up to lately ;)

Last I saw he was yelling at people in our LOST threads :)

[DylonCorp]

Last I saw he was yelling at people in our LOST threads :)

I thought I was the only one who noticed that.

[Banacek]

I thought I was the only one who noticed that.

You're not the only one. I mentioned it to him but I'm guessing that I was ignored.

[chex]

Infamous Dunkin' Donuts advertisement with Rachel Ray wearing a throw that Malkin called "a jihadist keffiyeh". I wish I were kidding (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/23/of-donuts-and-dumb-celebrities/).

Oh please, it's just a bloody scarf, you can buy them in pretty much every store from Urban Outfitters to Forever21 (which might be owned by the same people, I can't keep them straight). Perhaps I have a slanted view because I went to an alternative high school, but kids were running around wearing the things ALL the time. And my father who served in Kuwait has several, last I checked he certainly wasn't interested in bombing anything. I just get annoyed when people over simplify things.

As far as guns are concerned, I just don't seen why you'd need an assault rifle where a handgun will do you just as well. I mean, my father owned a stupid amount of guns (come on dude, what do you need an AK for?) but when it came down to performing defence he'd have his colt .9 and mother would have her .45. Is it just me, or is it difficult to pack on a shot gun and an assault rifle and several hand guns, just in case? It's impractical, is what I'm getting at.

And that whole US funds going to support clinics that advise abortion, makes you directly responsible for people getting abortions thing... By the same logic, we, all of us here, commit torture. We pay taxes, some of that money goes to the military, some that goes to military prisons, some of that money goes to paying soldiers who commit torture. By that token, we may as well be terrorists. I'm sorry but slippery slope arguments hold no water with me.

I also find it hard to believe that crime rates are dropping... perhaps I am biased, my fiance is a firefighter/paramedic, and he is constantly on calls for violent crime (one girl cut another's back open with a box cutter), domestic abuse (in MN, firefighters are often sent as first responders to domestics) and arson (trust me, it is obscenely easy for them to tell when someone set the fire). I don't want to say I think that the statistics are lying, but I kind of feel like they are.

-shrug- just my two cents...

[Telefrog]

Oh please, it's just a bloody scarf, you can buy them in pretty much every store from Urban Outfitters to Forever21 (which might be owned by the same people, I can't keep them straight). Perhaps I have a slanted view because I went to an alternative high school, but kids were running around wearing the things ALL the time. And my father who served in Kuwait has several, last I checked he certainly wasn't interested in bombing anything. I just get annoyed when people over simplify things...

Did you even read the rest of that post, or my following posts? :confused:

[Johan]

Did you even read the rest of that post, or my following posts? :confused:

Reading is overrated; screw that noise!

aka: No, he/she didn't. :D

[J Arcane]

what do you need an AK for?

The same thing anyone else needs one for. It's a weapon, it's designed to kill people, in a most efficient and effective manner.

This line has become rather cliche at this point, and really it's nothing so much as it is a standard appeal to ridicule, because it's never actually rationalized, just tossed out there as if it should end all conversation.

Well guess what? It doesn't. And it never will. At least find a new cheap tactic if that's all you bring to the table.

[chex]

Reading is overrated; screw that noise!

aka: No, he/she didn't. :D

Yes, I did. I was pointing out that they're extremely popular among the 12-25 range of Americans of both genders.

As for killing people: Yeah, I get that. But... in the city?I guess what I'm really saying, why do you need something so incredibly high powered, if you're in the city. I am not against guns (even though they scare the ever loving hell out of me), and I am not against use of lethal force, what I do puzzle over is why people feel that an AK will kill some one any more dead than a .45.

[Rakael]

I would really love a big red button that when pushed, thermo-nukes all things political.

[ShivaX]

Yes, I did. I was pointing out that they're extremely popular among the 12-25 range of Americans of both genders.

As for killing people: Yeah, I get that. But... in the city?I guess what I'm really saying, why do you need something so incredibly high powered, if you're in the city. I am not against guns (even though they scare the ever loving hell out of me), and I am not against use of lethal force, what I do puzzle over is why people feel that an AK will kill some one any more dead than a .45.

Well technically the AK will kill them more easily if they get hit by it. Of course the real issue when it comes to self-defense is that rifles tend to be inferior to handguns in almost every scenario. A handgun also has the advantage of it being less likely to go through an intruder, through a wall and into your neighbor.

I don't think most people want AKs for self-defense though (well barring those who are preparing for a Waco-type scenario). Most want them for target practice and the like.

[pomeroy]

I thought I was the only one who noticed that.

No, I did as well. Of course, he was yelling at me for daring to have differing views on the show...so I was bound to notice.

[chex]

Regular high power (preferably plastic) explosives would be a nice alternative however. They tend to have a much lower instance of long term health problems.

That's that crux of my argument against large, high powered firearms with in city limits. High powered rounds have a nasty habit of continuing on through a number of targets.

I actually quite agree that this whole ammo/gun frenzy is annoying. I don't own any firearms, but several members of my family do, and use them to hunt for game that they eat through out the season. What I don't agree with is that someone, without a hunting license, in city limits, should be allowed assault rifles. I just don't see why a law abiding (city dwelling) citizen would need something like that. And just to have it is not a valid argument.

[J Arcane]

Well technically the AK will kill them more easily if they get hit by it. Of course the real issue when it comes to self-defense is that rifles tend to be inferior to handguns in almost every scenario. A handgun also has the advantage of it being less likely to go through an intruder, through a wall and into your neighbor.

I don't think most people want AKs for self-defense though (well barring those who are preparing for a Waco-type scenario). Most want them for target practice and the like.
Generally speaking, in an urban environment, in a relatively "standard" home invasion scenario, a shotgun or handgun is the more responsible option, because of the greater risk of overpenetration and thus collateral damage or even potential innocent casualties, though some handgun cartridges can be potentially dangerous for the same reason as well.

However, that's not the only potential scenario where such a weapon might come in handy. Defense against a larger armed force, such as a gang attack, or foreign invasion.

There's also as you point out, less lethal purposes, like hobbyist collecting and shooting.

Additionally there's the fact that I don't recall the Second Amendment saying "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, except for those arms chex doesn't think we should have."

[chex]

[QUOTE=JAdditionally there's the fact that I don't recall the Second Amendment saying "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, except for those arms chex doesn't think we should have."[/QUOTE]

Sigh. I feel like you're trying to question my fealty to the Constitution.
I love my country, I'm just pointing out how I feel. My opinion obviously differs from yours, and I could do without being insulted, thanks.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have them, as I have stated. I'm saying that I think there should be zoning on them just like there is on hundreds of over things. Like livestock, to draw a very simple parallel.

[rifter]

Sigh. I feel like you're trying to question my fealty to the Constitution.
I love my country, I'm just pointing out how I feel. My opinion obviously differs from yours, and I could do without being insulted, thanks.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have them, as I have stated. I'm saying that I think there should be zoning on them just like there is on hundreds of over things. Like livestock, to draw a very simple parallel.

Ok, lets draw a REAL parallel.

Lets ban your cellphone. You don't NEED it, a landline, is like a pistol, it gets the job done, and you don't need a cell phone. Hell, their use has led to deaths. This past weekend someone texting on the road ran into a cop car by the side of the road.

I use guns to blow off steam, shooting at a range... yet, because YOU don't like it, YOU think it is ok to take them away? Give up your cellphone first, then lets talk.

[mister slim]

Uh, Rifter, that is a horrible analogy.

[rifter]

Uh, Rifter, that is a horrible analogy.

How so? They both have killed people. Neither is a necessity...

[Hotcod]

just to jump in randomly a land line doesn't let me make calls on the move or make sure in an emergency i have a phone ready at hand. Or make sure people can contact me at all times when i want to be contacted, or let me use text or any of the other things that make cell phones so stupidly useful.

Your "real" parallel is hyperbola and dose little to really advance your argument. The difference in utility between having a cell rather than the land line is not at all in anyway parallel to the difference in utility between having a hand gun or shotgun for self defence and having a higher powered weapon.

What i can do with a cell vs a landline in terms of the reason i own them is far more vast than the difference between hand guns and high powered weapons in terms of there reason to be in the home.

If you want to shoot these guns at a range why not have them locked up and secure at the range?

[J Arcane]

How so? They both have killed people. Neither is a necessity...
Actually, both can be an absolute necessity in the right circumstance.

You're short-circuiting your own argument by trivializing the subject matter, while simultaneously essentially conceding to the opposing argument by taking it's flawed premise as fact.

[Hotcod]

You know i always find it hard to get involved in these debates since i live in a place where the chances of a assault rifle being a necessity are so slim that it's an almost laughable concept. It a scary thought that some of you guy say you have real reasons to want them in that regard. It makes it hard for me to really get in to these debates because it's near imposable to wrap my head around these ideas.

I'm not trying to make a point or anything it's just an obviation on the hugely different cultures involved when it comes to guns in the UK and US. Gun don't really figure in to my life. If i'm attacked on the street it's unlikely to be with a gun, if some one invades my home it's unlikely to be with a gun... and while i get the attraction of having the power to defend my home if the trade off is for those people coming in to my home to have guns and be ready to use them fearing i have guns... well... i'm not sure it's one worth making... maybe i'm wrong and maybe one day i'll wish i had a gun but in this context i doubt i will every have a wish for anything more hefty than a shot gun.

well, unless there zombies come

[J Arcane]

And yet a mere 65 years ago the UK was getting the shit bombed out of it and under the very real possibility of a foreign invasion by Nazi forces.

How quickly we forget our history.

[Hotcod]

And under that threat of invasion the home guard was set up and armed and the groundwork laid for an organised armed resistance if UK had been invaded and occupied.... odd that... like how all the resistance movements in all the places that where invaded ended up armed even with out having a rifle in every house.

If i was to attack the US in a typical war these days you know what i'd do? bomb the crap out of the cites and kill civilians in combat areas on site armed or not... until and organised resistance was formed a few guys running around with guns are not going to be a huge problem to a trained army but they would be a problem. And the way to deal with the problem? well by the very fact every civilian could be a combatant then every civilian becomes a target.

[chex]

I use guns to blow off steam, shooting at a range... yet, because YOU don't like it, YOU think it is ok to take them away? Give up your cellphone first, then lets talk.

Okay. Next issue? It's an interesting thing to have, I don't need it. The same goes for you and your guns. Unfortunately that argument works both ways, because you can cut a man's throat and kill him just as much as you can aim high and get a close-casket funeral. I can scream bloody murder just as effectively as I can dial 911.
Seriously, why do you need to take an assault rifle to blow off steam? Why does it relax you more than a handgun?

I think what you failed to grasp is that I am not against guns. I am not against handguns, shotguns, assault rifles, machine guns, or anti-tank/aircraft guns, or any other type of gun I have some how managed to forget, so please exclude that from your arguments.
I am against high powered rifles in the city. My problem, see previous post, is the high possibility of collateral damage. I don't care if you blow away the person attempting to burgle you, what I do care about is if the FMJ .50 round you were using winds up going through the law-breaker and winds up in an innocent. If you live out in the middle of nowhere and you're worried about waking up to a fucking Kodiak perusing your kitchen, I think you're in full rights to have a high power rifle and shoot the thing. I don't think you need a high power rifle to blow away some kid jacking your stereo (or what-have-you). That being said, I really don't know what a civilian would need with anything above, say an AK (which I'm not precisely sure why a civvie would need anyway, but like I said Kodiaks are rather intimidating).
What I do concern myself with is, what are people so ratched up about that they feel the need to get all the high power ordinance they possibly can. I fail to get the hysteria that seems to be oozing out of people's pores.

Hopefully I've cleared up all those messy little details I kept pointing out, everyone can stop trying to chew me out for being against their right to bear arms. Shoot 'em up all you want, I'm just concerned about the non-combatants and their property.

[chex]

well, unless there zombies come

In case of Zombies, I think that baseball bats or swords would be far more effective, as they never run out of ammunition. Unless they're those unstoppable zombies where the limbs keep coming after you even if they are dismembered... then you're fucked any way you look at it. =(

[J Arcane]

I would note, dear chex, that existing legal protections are already in place to prosecute those who endanger their neighbors in the process of defending themselves.

If someone breaks into my home, and I kill him in self defense, I'm golden, but if I also shoot up my neighbor's windows, I'm civilly liable for that, and if I should injure or kill my neighbor, I'm criminally liable, and am likely to go to jail.

Which is why for home defense purposes, responsible gun owners stick to pistols and shotguns for home defense.

[chex]

I would note, dear chex, that existing legal protections are already in place to prosecute those who endanger their neighbors in the process of defending themselves.

If someone breaks into my home, and I kill him in self defense, I'm golden, but if I also shoot up my neighbor's windows, I'm civilly liable for that, and if I should injure or kill my neighbor, I'm criminally liable, and am likely to go to jail.

Which is why for home defense purposes, responsible gun owners stick to pistols and shotguns for home defense.

... That's what I've been trying to say this whole bleedin' time, mate.
Let me expand upon that, yes this, also zoning so that people in city limits without a hunting license can't have HP rifles, because let's face it, not everyone that gets guns/rifles/whatevers is responsible. My father is foxtrot november and he had an AK and a classic Arisaka, and we lived practically in the middle of town.

[zarathstra]

Additionally there's the fact that I don't recall the Second Amendment saying "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, except for those arms chex doesn't think we should have."

Not only does it not include the last part of the sentence, you left off several important phrases as well, like "well regulated" and "militia."

Honestly, I really don't care if people own guns. I don't like them, but whatever, I don't like a lot of things. That said, where do people get this idea that having a right to bear arms means a right to any gun they could conceivably want? In this country we have a fundamental right to free speech, yet running into a crowded theater and shouting "FIRE!" is still against the law. We have a right to freely assemble, but in many cases mass assemblies require a permit. No other right we have is entirely unrestricted, what makes the Second Amendment different?

[rifter]

My problem, see previous post, is the high possibility of collateral damage. I don't care if you blow away the person attempting to burgle you, what I do care about is if the FMJ .50 round you were using winds up going through the law-breaker and winds up in an innocent. If you live out in the middle of nowhere and you're worried about waking up to a fucking Kodiak perusing your kitchen, I think you're in full rights to have a high power rifle and shoot the thing. I don't think you need a high power rifle to blow away some kid jacking your stereo (or what-have-you). That being said, I really don't know what a civilian would need with anything above, say an AK (which I'm not precisely sure why a civvie would need anyway, but like I said Kodiaks are rather intimidating).


Honestly, I would suggest a handgun or shotgun for real home defense. Not a rifle. But, it is fun to go out shooting. I wouldn't pull out a rifle in a home invasion. So, over-shot is not an issue. I can't think of any injuries that have occurred from over-shooting, in a defense scenario. I have heard of it in drive-bys... and other situations where someone was breaking the law to begin with.


What I do concern myself with is, what are people so ratched up about that they feel the need to get all the high power ordinance they possibly can. I fail to get the hysteria that seems to be oozing out of people's pores.


I know a lot of people that own guns. I don't know any that try to get the highest power they can. They get cool guns. I want a PS90 (civilian P90)... not because I am going to go Rambo with it. It is because it is an awesome looking gun, that is fun to shoot. And, quite honestly, it is low-powered, compared to an AR15 or AK47. It is all about the cool factor. It is fun to shoot a cool looking gun.

[chex]

Honestly, I really don't care if people own guns. I don't like them, but whatever, I don't like a lot of things. That said, where do people get this idea that having a right to bear arms means a right to any gun they could conceivably want? In this country we have a fundamental right to free speech, yet running into a crowded theater and shouting "FIRE!" is still against the law. We have a right to freely assemble, but in many cases mass assemblies require a permit. No other right we have is entirely unrestricted, what makes the Second Amendment different?

Thank you for succinctly and eloquently summing up what I have been trying and apparently failing to say.

[Johan]

Not only does it not include the last part of the sentence, you left off several important phrases as well, like "well regulated" and "militia."

The Supreme Court already weighed in on the issue in the D.C. case, and ruled for a private right to arms, and against excessive regulation. Stare decisis says you'll be dead before that's overruled, and so will your kids and grandkids, just like abortion will never go away for the same legal principle. Courts don't like overturning even poorly reasoned decisions.

No other right we have is entirely unrestricted, what makes the Second Amendment different?

There are already plenty of restrictions on gun ownership, so which right are you talking about as being unrestricted? :confused:

[chex]

I know a lot of people that own guns. I don't know any that try to get the highest power they can. They get cool guns. I want a PS90 (civilian P90)... not because I am going to go Rambo with it. It is because it is an awesome looking gun, that is fun to shoot. And, quite honestly, it is low-powered, compared to an AR15 or AK47. It is all about the cool factor. It is fun to shoot a cool looking gun.

Okay, cool. Apparently you know a lot calmer people than I do. Presenting me this evidence helps to calm me down, because pretty much everyone I've talked to, up to this point has been mad for the highest powered, biggest round, farthest penetration thing that they could dream of, and it has set my teeth on edge (as evidenced). Apologies if you felt insulted.
That being said I still don't agree with inner-city possession of HPRs. We can agree to disagree?

[zarathstra]

The Supreme Court already weighed in on the issue in the D.C. case, and ruled for a private right to arms, and against excessive regulation. Stare decisis says you'll be dead before that's overruled, and so will your kids and grandkids, just like abortion will never go away for the same legal principle. Courts don't like overturning even poorly reasoned decisions.

Although I do believe it was the Founding Father's intent that the Second Amendment allow people to bear arms for the purposes of forming militias for local defense, I fully realize that that opinion is not shared by the courts or a majority of the population. I was merely pointing out the irony of adding phrase to the end of the amendment to make a point while at the same time leaving off the phrase at the beginning that most people forget even exists.


There are already plenty of restrictions on gun ownership, so which right are you talking about as being unrestricted?

I realize that as well. People in this thread have been getting hot and bothered by the suggestion that they should be restricted from owning an assault rifle, and bringing up their right to bear arms as a defense. I was merely pointing out that the right to bear arms is not a free license to own a Howitzer in the same way that having a right to free speech does not give one the right to endanger others by shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

[Generation ABXY]

Not only does it not include the last part of the sentence, you left off several important phrases as well, like "well regulated" and "militia."

Honestly, I really don't care if people own guns. I don't like them, but whatever, I don't like a lot of things. That said, where do people get this idea that having a right to bear arms means a right to any gun they could conceivably want? In this country we have a fundamental right to free speech, yet running into a crowded theater and shouting "FIRE!" is still against the law. We have a right to freely assemble, but in many cases mass assemblies require a permit. No other right we have is entirely unrestricted, what makes the Second Amendment different?

As you said, running into a theater and shouting "FIRE" is against the law (with the obvious exception, 'natch), but you can still do it. If you're looking for a similar limitation on guns, I would say it is the fact that it is illegal to murder someone. I should be able to own any gun I want without fear of reprisal, but if I actually use it on someone without cause, I also have to face the consequences of my actions. It is a matter of personal responsibility...even if that has become something of a dirty term these days.

[rifter]

Honestly, I really don't care if people own guns. I don't like them, but whatever, I don't like a lot of things. That said, where do people get this idea that having a right to bear arms means a right to any gun they could conceivably want? In this country we have a fundamental right to free speech, yet running into a crowded theater and shouting "FIRE!" is still against the law. We have a right to freely assemble, but in many cases mass assemblies require a permit. No other right we have is entirely unrestricted, what makes the Second Amendment different?
Mainly, from a historical perspective, reading what the founding fathers SAID about the 2nd amendment, AND the right to bear arms... they had pretty much thought of it as an open right. What I don't know, is if they considered canons a right as well. Of course, I can't say that I think the average person should own a howitzer or functional tank either.

Another thing to consider, WHERE there are restrictions on stuff like free speech, it is a pretty narrow area that is restricted. Discharging a firearm into the ceiling in a crowded theater has the same restriction, for the same reason. So, there ARE restrictions there, as well.

[rifter]

Okay, cool. Apparently you know a lot calmer people than I do. Presenting me this evidence helps to calm me down, because pretty much everyone I've talked to, up to this point has been mad for the highest powered, biggest round, farthest penetration thing that they could dream of, and it has set my teeth on edge (as evidenced). Apologies if you felt insulted.
That being said I still don't agree with inner-city possession of HPRs. We can agree to disagree?
I can agree to disagree.

Though, when you say most of the people that you know, are rabid about getting higher caliber guns, what for exactly? Home defense? To me, that borders on very dangerous. The key to gun ownership, is that you have to be EXTREMELY careful with them. As a gun owner, I have heard of these kinds of people, and quite honestly, they scare the shit out of me.

I guess for me, I don't see the value of restricting guns, for (in my experience) what amounts to a VERY few bad apples. I just really, REALLY hope that Darwinism thins these morons out, before they hurt others.

[zarathstra]

I guess for me, I don't see the value of restricting guns, for (in my experience) what amounts to a VERY few bad apples. I just really, REALLY hope that Darwinism thins these morons out, before they hurt others.

I have a fairly personal reason for wanting nothing to do with guns: Once, I cut myself on a bagel. A toasted bagel, but a bagel nonetheless. If I'm a danger to myself with baked goods, can you imagine the horror the would result from me picking up a gun?

[zarathstra]

As you said, running into a theater and shouting "FIRE" is against the law (with the obvious exception, 'natch), but you can still do it. If you're looking for a similar limitation on guns, I would say it is the fact that it is illegal to murder someone. I should be able to own any gun I want without fear of reprisal, but if I actually use it on someone without cause, I also have to face the consequences of my actions. It is a matter of personal responsibility...even if that has become something of a dirty term these days.

My point was that if something we hold as dearly as free speech can be restricted, what makes people think that gun ownership should be any different?

[Johan]

My point was that if something we hold as dearly as free speech can be restricted, what makes people think that gun ownership should be any different?

Everything is ultimately restricted to some degree. Even the individual right to life can be "restricted" by the state in the case of conviction of capital offenses.

It's all a question of how much/to what degree. The disagreement is in where to draw the lines, but there are always lines to be drawn.

[chex]

I can agree to disagree.

Though, when you say most of the people that you know, are rabid about getting higher caliber guns, what for exactly? Home defense? To me, that borders on very dangerous. The key to gun ownership, is that you have to be EXTREMELY careful with them. As a gun owner, I have heard of these kinds of people, and quite honestly, they scare the shit out of me.

I guess for me, I don't see the value of restricting guns, for (in my experience) what amounts to a VERY few bad apples. I just really, REALLY hope that Darwinism thins these morons out, before they hurt others.

Neat.

They're concerned that the Obama administration is going to take away their rights to giant guns. That's pretty much it. They generally try to square it under "I need to protect my house/car/cattle/daughter from the burglars/cow-tippers/evil mens!" But... you don't need a Tommy (or other high powered whatever, forgive me, I'm tired) to take out a law breaker. Sorry, none such.

As far as Dariwnism is concerned... The only species it's working for anymore are the finches of the Galapagos... :( Humans seem to have a fondness for protecting the atrociously stupid.

[BlackPete]

Damn... this would definitely get me to vote for the GOP: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/lesbian-youtube-video-emb_n_186723.html

As Virginia political blog Not Larry Sabato details, someone who runs the RPV's official YouTube channel was apparently way into a YouTube video titled "The Kiss," a video that could potentially redefine the age-old "Virginia is for lovers" motto to include lesbian softcore erotica.

I think you'll agree, this video is probably NSFW, unless you work for the Republican Party of Virginia.

Hot lesbian sex? Sign me up!

[zarathstra]

Everything is ultimately restricted to some degree. Even the individual right to life can be "restricted" by the state in the case of conviction of capital offenses.

It's all a question of how much/to what degree. The disagreement is in where to draw the lines, but there are always lines to be drawn.

That was my point, I think. We may, in fact, have been saying similar things all along. Forgive me, its very late.

[BlackPete]

Wow... OK I think we all agreed that Rush is one big fat troll, but still... wow:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_041409/content/01125110.guest.html


RUSH: You know what we have learned about the Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers that were wiped out at the order of Barack Obama, you know what we learned about them? They were teenagers. The Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers who took a US merchant captain hostage for five days were inexperienced youths, the defense secretary, Roberts Gates, said yesterday, adding that the hijackers were between 17 and 19 years old. Now, just imagine the hue and cry had a Republican president ordered the shooting of black teenagers on the high seas. Greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.

They were kids. The story is out, I don't know if it's true or not, but apparently the hijackers, these kids, the merchant marine organizers, Muslim kids, were upset, they wanted to just give the captain back and head home because they were running out of food, they were running out of fuel, they were surrounded by all these US Navy ships, big ships, and they just wanted out of there. That's the story, but then when one of them put a gun to the back of the captain, Mr. Phillips, then bam, bam, bam. There you have it, and three teenagers shot on the high seas at the order of President Obama.

I stopped reading there... but I'm hoping that he was joking. Still, it's Rush... so I doubt it.

[Generation ABXY]

My point was that if something we hold as dearly as free speech can be restricted, what makes people think that gun ownership should be any different?

And what I'm saying is, it is. You can't needlessly raise an alarm, and you can't shoot someone without a damn good reason – those sound like pretty reasonable restrictions to me. Furthermore, I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that respect of the latter is at all contingent upon what they are armed with.

[Slack3r78]

what I do puzzle over is why people feel that an AK will kill some one any more dead than a .45.
Well, 7.62x39mm carries roughly 3 times the kinetic energy of .45 ACP, so there's that.

[zarathstra]

And what I'm saying is, it is. You can't needlessly raise an alarm, and you can't shoot someone without a damn good reason – those sound like pretty reasonable restrictions to me. Furthermore, I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that respect of the latter is at all contingent upon what they are armed with.

Because we're talking about your right to bear arms, not the right to defend yourself. I'm speaking of (and I believe the amendment we're discussing is as well) your right to own and posses firearms. You keep talking about your right to use violence to defend yourself. I think those are separate (if related) issues.

[Generation ABXY]

Because we're talking about your right to bear arms, not the right to defend yourself. I'm speaking of (and I believe the amendment we're discussing is as well) your right to own and posses firearms. You keep talking about your right to use violence to defend yourself. I think those are separate (if related) issues.

Perhaps that is the disconnect.

[Ox]

Mainly, from a historical perspective, reading what the founding fathers SAID about the 2nd amendment, AND the right to bear arms... they had pretty much thought of it as an open right. What I don't know, is if they considered canons a right as well. Of course, I can't say that I think the average person should own a howitzer or functional tank either.
Unfortunately, the Founders themselves wrote extremely little about the Second Amendment. This is a major reason why the Second Amendment received no love for so long.

Courts have moved away from original intent jurisprudence, however (where you try to hold a seance and ask Jefferson what he meant), and toward original meaning jurisprudence (where they look at 18th-century dictionaries and stuff and try to figure out what most people would have assumed the Constitution meant). There are some old laws from post-Charta England about the right of Protestants (but not those filthy Catholics!) to own arms for their own defense and things like that. Heller is quite easy to read, I think, so I'd direct you to that opinion for a pretty thorough discussion about the historical evidence. Basically, from the 13th to the 18th centuries, Protestant Englishmen expected to be able to own armor, pikes, pistols, muskets, rifles, and swords. The Crown would provide heavier stuff like cannons and siege equipment. Thus, the most important passage of Heller goes through a list of existing regulations on firearm ownership (including prohibitions on automatic weapons) and says, "All good."

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have them, as I have stated. I'm saying that I think there should be zoning on them just like there is on hundreds of over things. Like livestock, to draw a very simple parallel.
An interesting idea, and it deserves serious treatment. However, you must bear in mind that different constitutional rights have different levels of protection, and even stuff like zoning can easily fall afoul of them. I believe you mentioned the example of requiring permits for mass rallies, which is permissible: but you failed to mention that no city can refuse to issue a permit for a rally based on the content of the speech, regardless of the danger that (say) counterprotestors may riot. Nor may a municipality impose a permit regulation that is any more restrictive than absolutely necessary to protect a compelling government interest. So, for example, if I wanted to have a mass rally calling for the dissolution of the United States government and the imposition of a racist regime in the middle of a poor black neighborhood plagued with violent crime, the city would probably have to issue it even though we can pretty easily predict the situation may get out of hand.

You want to say that high-powered rifles are flatly impermissible within cities. Is that like saying I can't march at 4am in a residential neighborhood with a bullhorn, or is that like saying I can't preach Communism? Is gun ownership protected like speech, or like a different right, or in a totally novel manner? These are difficult questions unanswered by SCOTUS and which, I believe, neither the Right nor the Left can point to the Constitution and say, "Oh, it's clear from the text." Nor can one say that "common sense" answers these questions.

[Deadend]

Ox, hate speech, and bullhorns are terrible and annoying as hell respectively. A rifle with a 30 round clip can kill a large number of people directly at a fast pace. That is why many people look at it differently. Someone can make a speech that can cause other people to choose to riot, but a gun is a person deciding to kill someone directly. Assault rifles just make it much easier to kill lots of people fast.

I know a lot of people that own guns. I don't know any that try to get the highest power they can. They get cool guns. I want a PS90 (civilian P90)... not because I am going to go Rambo with it. It is because it is an awesome looking gun, that is fun to shoot. And, quite honestly, it is low-powered, compared to an AR15 or AK47. It is all about the cool factor. It is fun to shoot a cool looking gun.
You scare me man. Guns are not toys, and you make it sound like a toy right there. I know you talk about responsibility, but a PS90 was designed and exists for the purpose of killing a bunch of people.

Also the whole defense of assualt rifles pushing off in invading army of whatever is crap. Attack choppers, tanks, air-strikes... defending your home via small arms against an army has not worked for the last 60 years or so. The best you can do is have the enemy get annoyed and go home. But if someone with a tank wants you dead, even a M-60 won't do jack shit.

Also, Rush is a fuckwad still. That has not changed in the last few days.
but he is a hypocrite (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_040809/content/01125107.guest.html) As I think he implies several days ago that heavy force should be used?
I think he needs to go snort some more painkillers.

[Banacek]

Wow... OK I think we all agreed that Rush is one big fat troll, but still... wow:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_041409/content/01125110.guest.html



I stopped reading there... but I'm hoping that he was joking. Still, it's Rush... so I doubt it.

Rush is a shock jock. By definition he says shocking things to increase his ratings and his market share. Nothing he says surprises me, all he cares about is ratings. What shocks me is that the GOP would embrace him.

[pomeroy]

Rush is a shock jock. By definition he says shocking things to increase his ratings and his market share. Nothing he says surprises me, all he cares about is ratings. What shocks me is that the GOP would embrace him.

What shocked me was when they apologized to him for saying he didn't run the party.

[Ancalagon]

Wow... OK I think we all agreed that Rush is one big fat troll, but still... wow:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_041409/content/01125110.guest.html



I stopped reading there... but I'm hoping that he was joking. Still, it's Rush... so I doubt it.

Next thing he'll be telling us that they were teenage Christians fighting against the Muslim terrorist Captain but getting smacked down by Obama's navy. And they all had double cancer and super AIDs, and had been denied treatment by Obama himself because he spent the healthcare money on providing free abortions to schoolgirls.

Anyway.... frankly piracy is serious enough to warrant their actions, unfortunately being a teenager is no excuse. Oh its okay if little Timmy wants to hold up international shipping, hes only a teenager. Let him grow out of it.

There are some old laws from post-Charta England about the right of Protestants (but not those filthy Catholics!) to own arms for their own defense and things like that. Heller is quite easy to read, I think, so I'd direct you to that opinion for a pretty thorough discussion about the historical evidence. Basically, from the 13th to the 18th centuries, Protestant Englishmen expected to be able to own armor, pikes, pistols, muskets, rifles, and swords. The Crown would provide heavier stuff like cannons and siege equipment. Thus, the most important passage of Heller goes through a list of existing regulations on firearm ownership (including prohibitions on automatic weapons) and says, "All good."


Is it fair to say that we can group assault rifles and other automatic weapons with the likes of cannons and howitzers, since they are more useful for warfare than for hunting and/or personal defense?

[J Arcane]

Also the whole defense of assualt rifles pushing off in invading army of whatever is crap. Attack choppers, tanks, air-strikes... defending your home via small arms against an army has not worked for the last 60 years or so. The best you can do is have the enemy get annoyed and go home. But if someone with a tank wants you dead, even a M-60 won't do jack shit.

Actually, I think history in the last 60 years has done a fantastic job of showing how much trouble a seemingly disorganized but armed civilian populace can do even in the face of a large, powerful, professional military. Somalia, Iraq, Vietnam, Chechnya, Afghanistan (on multiple occasions) . . .

Not to mention there's the deterrent effect of knowing that the populace is such. There's the infamous quote from one of the Japanese admirals in WWII, that to invade the US mainland would be suicide, "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass".

I'm also rather fond of some of the ideas Washington hinted at about the idea that every person able to hold a rifle is essentially part of a vast civilian army, a true militia of the people as it were, and given that at the time we'd just got done revolting against an overwhelmingly more powerful military force who only failed to crush us completely because they were too busy elsewhere, it seems like he might have had some recent events in mind when he formulated such ideas.

Look, I'm no warmonger here, I firmly believe in the principle that violence should always be the last resort of a truly civilized man, but when it comes down to the line and my life and liberty and home are at stake, and the decision comes down to whether it is some other force who may never come defending those things, or my own two hands on my rifle, I know which one I'd feel a lot more secure with.

Which would you prefer? And would you really seek to deny those who prefer the latter access to the most efficient and effective means to do so?

[alienmastermind]

What shocks me is that the GOP would embrace him.

What shocks me is that anyone would be able to embrace that big fat ass of his.

[Slack3r78]

Is it fair to say that we can group assault rifles and other automatic weapons with the likes of cannons and howitzers, since they are more useful for warfare than for hunting and/or personal defense?
Well, yes. But the constitutional rationale for a right to bear arms isn't for hunting, though self-defense probably does fall into the security of a free state.

[alienmastermind]

Also, on the subject of weapons ownership. What pussies we've become if we don't understand that the thing that keeps a government from becoming tyrannical is the willingness of the people to fight against it. When you take away the means of protecting yourself, and leave it ONLY in the hands of the state, you've got serious problems ahead.

I live a good distance away from the nearest town, and the nearest cop (who only works 9-5 in that town) is always more than 20 minutes away if there's a gun-needin' emergency out here. I own 2 pistols and three rifles. I'm for gun ownership, but don't think that I'll join the NRA, as they're getting far too kooky about their political activism.

Not having legal guns means only criminals have guns. Doesn't work for drugs, probably won't work for guns. Legalize and tax them. Just decriminalize drug use/addiction.

[Ancalagon]

I wonder in practice how much your guns can influence decisions? I seriously doubt that any modern police force would lose to an armed civilian populace. Armored vehicles, riot gear, tear gas, this is stuff civilians just dont have. So I question how much power your guns really give you in terms of influence over the government. Security yeah, I can see the benefit of that, fair enough, and I agree drugs should be legalized.

[alienmastermind]

Because your police force, your military, ultimately are made up of volunteers. So, if there's lots and lots of superior firearms but no one to use them, what chance do they have? I'm not saying everyone will drop their posts, but many would if it came to revolution.

Here's what people actually can do:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw94nN5qc_M&feature=related

Ultimately, they lost, but these cops don't seem to be overwhelming them right away.

[rifter]

You scare me man. Guns are not toys, and you make it sound like a toy right there. I know you talk about responsibility, but a PS90 was designed and exists for the purpose of killing a bunch of people.

You are right... that is what the P90 is DESIGNED for.. though, I would argue it is designed to kill a few people, not a lot. It is designed for personal defense, which is why it is a small, bullpup design. They are designed to be a step up from a sidearm, but with SOME of the power of a rifle. Basically, when a guy in a disabled tank, and needs to defend himself, he has a P90, because it is compact, and easy to stick inside the tank. From what I have read, that is the why they were designed.

As for ME... it would not be in my collection to use against another person. It would be there JUST to shoot targets with. Nothing more. Civilian issue PS90s also have long barrels, and are semi-auto, not full auto. I have one gun, and one gun only to defend myself. It is my pistol. All others guns I own are used for target practice or hunting. And even the hunting rifles and shotguns I own, have not been out hunting for probably 20 years. (Maybe 22 years).

[rifter]

Is it fair to say that we can group assault rifles and other automatic weapons with the likes of cannons and howitzers, since they are more useful for warfare than for hunting and/or personal defense?
Assault rifles are not automatic rifles. You can't buy a fully-automatic rifle, without some pretty major restrictions, including County Sheriff's personal signature, hefty tax, and only certain guns manufactured before 1986.

[ShivaX]

Is it fair to say that we can group assault rifles and other automatic weapons with the likes of cannons and howitzers, since they are more useful for warfare than for hunting and/or personal defense?

The thing is, we already do. Automatic weapons are illegal to own for just about everyone. Theres a few out there but the permits and everything involved are pretty crazy.

When politicians call something an "assualt weapon" it just means it looks scary or cool. Thats it. An AR-15 isn't an automatic weapon, but it is an "assualt weapon" according to lawmakers. Of course you can get around that by changing some parts around so that it looks different. Functionally its the exact same, but since it looks different and lacks a bayonet lug, its no longer an assault weapon.

Its just stupid semantics, which is why people backlashed so hard against it. They aren't banning machine guns from our streets, they're banning guns that look a certain way.

[Hotcod]

Not having legal guns means only criminals have guns. Doesn't work for drugs, probably won't work for guns. Legalize and tax them. Just decriminalize drug use/addiction.

This is true but misses the point. Like i said before the chances of me being involved in a gun crime in the UK are much smaller than the chances of being involved in a gun crime in the US. If gun control is as strict as it is here it mostly means only organised crime tends to use them. If some one attacks me at home or in the street it's very unlikely they'll do it with a gun. This frankly means i'm far less likely to get killed and at what price? not brandishing a gun in the face of the guy with the gun? for some property? the only time i can think of it being worth the risk is if the person braking in to my house is actively hurting my family... and again in that case the chances of it being done with a gun are tiny.

If you make it hard to own guns with strict jail time for owning them then guns become high value high risk items that will not be used by every one for every damn thing. A general "street gang" having a gun over here tends to be a big thing and gang shootings are big news...

So in other words yes banning guns means only criminals have guns but having and using those guns becomes such a risk that vs the reward of there general use they are less likely to be used... even more so if they know they don't need them.

not sure how right that is and at this stage banning guns in the US would be near imposable but i get a bit sick of the argument that if you ban guns it means that the use of guns in crime in the US wouldn't change

[Ox]

Ox, hate speech, and bullhorns are terrible and annoying as hell respectively. A rifle with a 30 round clip can kill a large number of people directly at a fast pace.
And preaching the violent overthrow of the United States government and the institution of a Communist regime during the height of the Cold War posed no risk to life or limb? Speech is often an inherently dangerous activity.
Someone can make a speech that can cause other people to choose to riot, but a gun is a person deciding to kill someone directly.
I agree that we ought to prohibit firearms ownership to people who wish to kill a bunch of other innocent people. I don't believe wanting a gun is dispositive evidence that you are going to kill a bunch of people.

@alienmastermind: stop making points I wanted to make.

Is it fair to say that we can group assault rifles and other automatic weapons with the likes of cannons and howitzers, since they are more useful for warfare than for hunting and/or personal defense?
No. First, assault rifles are not always or even typically automatic weapons. Second, "more useful for warfare" isn't the litmus test: armor and pikes weren't exactly used to defend your home from criminals or for hunting. Third, this would seem to make a mockery of the phrase "well-regulated militia": a militia is not a hunting band or a neighborhood watch group, but the entire corpus of all able-bodied men capable of being summoned for military service in times of war or insurrection. Heller specifically said, "The right 'to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game' is worthy of the mad hatter."

In fact, I think United States v. Miller is the most instructive case here. I'll quote part of the Heller summary of Miller:

The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal indictment for transporting an unregistered
short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants
were “bear[ing] arms” not “for . . . military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use." Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [shortbarreled
shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
“Certainly,” the Court continued, “it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” Beyond that, the opinion provided no explanation of the content of the right. This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”).
Miller specifically looked to see if militaries equipped their forces with short-barreled shotguns, concluded they did not, and therefore held that such weapons weren't covered by the Second Amendment. You now propose to reverse that and say that any weapon that militaries do use is therefore also prohibited? What, then, would the Second Amendment cover?

Finally, I want to quote a little more language from Heller. I'm sorry for such lengthy and tedious quotes, and I'll excise the legal citations so it's easier to read, but it should be obvious why I think it's relevant to this discussion.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

What I find interesting is the question: do women have the right to keep and bear arms? Women, after all, would not have been considered part of the militia in 1791, when the amendment was adopted. And even today, the US military does not permit women into combat roles -- a prohibition that has been upheld as compliant with the Equal Protection Clause by the Supreme Court. I don't favor limiting the right to women, but I'm almost callous enough to hope a legislature somewhere does so in order to see how the courts deal with it.

[Ink Asylum]

Also, on the subject of weapons ownership. What pussies we've become if we don't understand that the thing that keeps a government from becoming tyrannical is the willingness of the people to fight against it. When you take away the means of protecting yourself, and leave it ONLY in the hands of the state, you've got serious problems ahead.

Because your police force, your military, ultimately are made up of volunteers. So, if there's lots and lots of superior firearms but no one to use them, what chance do they have? I'm not saying everyone will drop their posts, but many would if it came to revolution.

You just contradicted yourself.

[Slack3r78]

Assault rifles are not automatic rifles. You can't buy a fully-automatic rifle, without some pretty major restrictions, including County Sheriff's personal signature, hefty tax, and only certain guns manufactured before 1986.
The NFA stamp is only around $200, and the CLEO requirement can be circumvented by forming a living trust. The pre-86 thing is pretty much a hard-written rule, though.