• D6fer said on Apr 14, 2009....

  You think everything is going well?......where am I? ....This is Earth right?.....The United States?
  
  

• beyondtheveil said on Apr 14, 2009....

  d6- I don't think that was the point of his post. 

• uniquely-ironic said on Apr 15, 2009....

  Are you saying we should emulate the whiny bitchy complainers that were a constant pain in the Republican's asses during the last presidency?  Okay. ;)

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 15, 2009....

  No.  I think you should stand by your foreign and financial policies.  They are sound and good.  You need to stop snapping at shadows.  It's making you look stupid and it's causing people to abandon your party.  If things keep up at this poitn only the most hardcore will remain and your party will be dead.  Republicans have been fleeing the party to become the increasingly "viable" Libertarian Party for years.  Thing is the Libs are still a decade out from being viable but they are taking the Repubs down.  It's going to be a Liberal Democrat country for a while if you guys don't get the shit together.

• stopmediabias said on Apr 15, 2009....

  "sigh"

   I did agree with your first paragraph then everything went downhill form there.  Lets start with this:

  "So please stop committing suicide because your pissed off that moderate won."

  You actually see our President as a moderate?  Even after he undid Clinton-era welfare reforms and his stance on abortion, terrorism, Gitmo,.... you can't be serious.

  "When Obama makes a minor gaff like adopting the wrong dog.  Shut up.  When he makes a move that you can't understand wait at least thirty days (this waiting period will become null and void if/when he proves himself to be incompent." 

   NO.  For 8 years the left in this country has not let one single thing slide on GW and downplayed or not mentioned at all any of his accomplishments.  Is there a President Obama gaff calender like there was for Bush?  If our President tells a fib, or is inconsistant or says one thing and does another then it is fair game and I guarentee you won't see the disrespect from us that you saw from them.  Imagine if Bush said we have 57 states.

  "remember Bush was given basically until 2006 before the Mainstream truly turned on him."

  I can't imagine where you came up with this.  The war started in 2003 and Abu Ghraib was in 2004 and the NSA spying lies broke in 2005.

  Conservatives don't give a shit what people do in their own homes just as long as they keep it there.  Why do Liberals want to force everyone to except taboos and redefine what it normal, and if you don't you must either be a racist or a bigot.

  And I hate to tell you but the Republican party is all ready dead.  They've turned into a bunch of candyasses.

  I don't know what your definition of social conservatism is but I would love to hear it before I tear to shreds this notion they are universally wrong on social issues.

   

   

   

• curmudgeon said on Apr 15, 2009....

  I voted libertarian but am still a member of the Republican party. I wasn't impressed by McCain. I thought Palin made a great speech at the Convention, but went downhill after that, and that sunk McCain for me. Not that Palin can't be a great candidate someday, but she just didn't handle her national media presence well. Had he chosen a stronger running mate (maybe from a State with more electoral votes???), I might have voted for him.
  
  Right now we are a party looking for a platform and a voice. Eventually the mood will turn against Obama, even if we're in better times. The question is whether Republicans will have their act together by then.
  

• ALIENated said on Apr 15, 2009....

  
  As you may or may not recall, I thought our choices were Tweedle Dee and
  Tweedle Dumb. That was true of the primaries and the general election. Who
  knows, some Supreme Court judges turn out to be just the opposite of what
  they were assumed to be. Maybe BO will become a conservative ... wow, I
  almost got that out with a straight face. What I really believe is that the
  Republicans better come up with someone better than McCain in 2012 (if
  we are still around then) or nothing will really matter. I may be one of those
  guys that kills himself in the privacy of his own home ... if my home is still
  private in 2012.
  
  

• NobodySpecial said on Apr 15, 2009....

  @curm
   
  I don't know if the mood will turn against Obama. The more I think and read about it, the less I think it will.
   
  The more you say about McCain the more I hate the current 'de facto two party system'. Even with health problems, McCain should have beaten Bush in 2000, and if nothing else should of been there in 2004.
   
  @stopmediabias
   
  Obama's really reversing terrorism policy. He's only deploying more troops to where Al Queada was actually training (which some if not many liberals consider to be an illegal war, but fuck the UN), military spending is going up, and it is really pro-American to hold even the worst people indefinitely.Gitmo is nothing but a politicized issue. In 'Gitmo' or the 'State', it is still in the US, plus if brought to the states, they wouldn't be in the federal prison system, they'd be in military prisons.
   
   

• javadewd said on Apr 16, 2009....

  I have to reiterate what D6fer said:
  
  "You think everything is going well?......where am I? ....This is Earth right?.....The United States?"
  
  This isn't Russia... This isn't Russia, right? Last time I looked this wasn't Russia... It was the United States of America. But, if I sat on my hands for 30 days -- like you recommend -- I'm sure that Obama could easily turn it into Russia the way that he ignores the written Constitution (liberals think it's "outdated and subject to interpretation" -- ask any trial lawyer -- and Obama has been slapping down Executive Orders like they're Hello Kitty memos!) and American Sovereignty in general (Obama's policy on the Tea Parties is that if he ignores them, they simply don't exist -- Narcissistic prick!).
  
  I'll also say this (again, what is this like the third time?) -- liberals care only about themselves and "fuck everybody else" is their attitude. It's their world and everybody else is just in it. They close their eyes, cover their ears, but can't seem to shut their fucking pie hole... While conservatives care about everybody *but* themselves most of the time, except when the situation calls otherwise. It's a universal fact (and even the Red Cross teaches) that you can't save somebody else when you're drowning, too.
  
  My wife is centristic (former liberal I might add) and she can't even understand why more people haven't woke up to the fact that this new president is shitting all over this beloved country of ours.
  
  

• D6fer said on Apr 17, 2009....

  javadewd.....so you're married to one too? lol....my wife is the same way.....she was raised in a union household.....she always voted Dem, but didn't really know why.....it's been a long process, but she is finally beginning to see the light....even she can see that Obama is nothing but hype and is a danger to American tradittions and culture. 

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 17, 2009....

  You mean the guy who's not going to reinstate the Assault Weapons ban?  That's the far left radical?  Seriously you guys are destroying what's left of your credibility by so badly mis charachterizing him.  It's shit like this that will make sure you aren't viable in four years. 

• javadewd said on Apr 17, 2009....

  Oh, shit, D6fer, this whole town is union (steel mill). I was talking to a laid-off gal the other day who wanted to start a business. We sat down and went through her business plan and no shit, right there at the top of her expenses was "union dues." I said, "Union dues? What the fuck is that about," and you know what she said? "Oh, well I can't go a week without paying my union dues, they take care of my family." I took a moment and then said, "Kinda like they are doing right now, eh?" She was starting a business because her unenjoyment ran out and the unions weren't giving her anything because she wasn't there long enough yet... She grew up in a union family, too... Talk about brain washed!

• stopmediabias said on Apr 18, 2009....

  Sean so he isn't reinstating the ban because it is a stupid ban and doesn't work, or right now it doesn't poll well.  Or could it be his attorney general stepped in it when he made the Mexico comment in which he said 60,70, even 90% of guns that end up in that country come from the US, when the number is actually around 17%.

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 19, 2009....

  The ban has clearly worked.  Our gangs for the most part are using hand guns in their turf wars not M16s.  (not that they don't occasionally get something bigger) the ban worked.  Just fine and proved that gun control works.  The question is if the price is too high.  The price being that should our government ever choose to enslave us that we have no defense.  And the price was WAY WAY WAY too high. 

  Besides does it really matter why he did something or that he did it?  You can't criticize (and I said this about Bush plenty of times too) the man for doing what the masses want and then turn around and cricize him for going against the masses.  You gotta pick one.  Personally I think a president that lives and dies by the polls is generally what should happen.  He should be listening to us.  He's there to enact our wishes and we trust him to do just that.  There are times when he's going to have more information than we have and thus makes a decision we wouldn't or couldn't based on our limited information but in general.  What we say should go.

• javadewd said on Apr 19, 2009....

  SR -- What's your source for "most [gangs] are using hand guns ... not M16s?"

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 19, 2009....

  You're seriously going to make me source a fact like the sky is blue?  Fine I'll get on it.

• javadewd said on Apr 19, 2009....

  It's just paper-thin, SR... I mean couldn't gang-bangers prefer pistols over automatic rifles due to their compact size and portability? I mean, it makes sense not to tote around a larger weapon like that unless you're looking to cause major damage... Perhaps they use them for more discreet encounters? I don't think that it is the lack of availability, but more of a practical motivation. I just have trouble jumping to the conclusion that a ban on automatic weapons has clearly worked, based on the type of weapon that gangs are using nowadays...
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 19, 2009....

  Then why not use them for drive bys?  For that matter why not use grenades or RPGs?  When you look at how much money you can make pushing drugs you could afford a grenade, you find that guy's house throw it in through the window and it's just done and over with?  Or how bout the severly lower gun violence ratio in nations that have stricter gun control like all of Europe. 

  Gun control works.  Every bit of evidence supports that it works.  Now in the US we are large (geographically) so some of the things other nations can accomplish we cannot.  Bottom line is it doesn't matter.  I think a man has a right to defend his family and a gun is an important part of that. 

  Again why does it matter WHY Obama took exactly the action that you wanted.  Why isn't it enough that he did the right thing? 

• javadewd said on Apr 19, 2009....

  I donno, SR, why don't they use automatic weapons in drive by shootings? It certainly hasn't stopped these folks here recently: [source 1] - [source 2] - [source 3]
  
  International Homocides by Country (compiled in 2000) -- WHO's 2004 report -- and NationMaster's 2006 report ...
  
  Gun control doesn't work. It only leaves the victims defenseless: [source][source][source]
  

• JusticeForAll said on Apr 19, 2009....

  At first, I was totally against anyone running for the Presidency. Then when Obama got elected, I didn't know what to think. I didn't like him, I couldn't STAND McCain...But now that I am actually seeing him push for things that have needed to be taken care of for a long time, I can honestly say... (long pause) so far, things are starting to go in a better direction. After what Bush screwed up, I wouldn't want to be in Obama's position. It's not something that I would wish on my worst enemy. If he can start improving things, All hail the Chief. May he still keep proving my wrong.

  While I don't believe in taking ALL guns away, I DO believe that we should have more regulations on guns. You can go to a gun show, and in most cases, not even show an ID and get any kind of gun you want. That's how guns tend to fall into the hands of criminals. I do believe there should be a ban on assault rifles, and I think that we should make the stipulations for getting a gun more harsh. I think if you have any kind of criminal history, violent or non violent, you should not be allowed to purchase a weapon. I know regardless, criminals will still find a way to ge ttheir guns, but lets make it even more difficult.

  Look at the Virginia Tech Shootings. There was a mentally ill young man that had access to an assault rifle. Where did he get it? A gun show. Didn't have to wait, didn't even have to show an ID.

  People have the right to defend themselves. I'm not saying to take everyone's guns away. I don't own a gun, and in fact, I can't stand them. However, We can't keep handing the ammo to the people that will use it against the innocent.

  As we speak, there is a bill in the Senate about global warming. Obama wants things to be done, and I am a huge supporter of this bill. Granted, it does have some aspects that I'm not sure of, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. He has an awful big mess to clean up and if he can even put a dent in it, I will be amazed. He's definitely trying.

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 20, 2009....

  Java, your own source discounts you.  According to your Wiki article the USA has one of the highest murder rates and the highest percentage with fire arms.  We loose to Columbia and Barbados with major drug cartels.  Even your data proves that Gun Control works.  PEriod.  End discussion.  Stop making yourself look stupid and agree with me that it does not matter.  It's not worth the price

• curmudgeon said on Apr 20, 2009....

  Actually from what I read some years ago, in the US concealed carry States have had lower crime rates than those with the strictest gun-control laws - so results on gun control are misleading at best.
  
  That mentally ill people are permitted to go around killing folks is a testament to our failure to help the mentally ill and care for those alienated from our society. Removing guns will not solve this problem. Not permitting folks to carry firearms for self-defense is what enabled Colin Ferguson to massacre so many people on the LIRR. People had to let him go on shooting until he had to swap mags before running him down. Innocent, law-abiding people are put at a tactical disadvantage.
  
  Oh - and Colin Ferguson purchased his guns legally.
  
  It really amazes me how gun control advocates can't see that millions of unqualified people are entrusted - that is, tested, licensed, and heavily regulated, with devices that kill far more than guns do every year - motor vehicles - yet no one talks about banning those.
  
  Where I agree with what Obama is doing, I will agree. Where I disagree, I will do that. The only thing is - I will most likely agree with decisions that conservatives would support  -like not renewing the assault weapons ban.
  
  Let's put it this way - eventually the honeymoon for Obama is going to end. Eventually he will make decisions that piss everyone off. Once he gains a critical mass of discontent (like the many 100-150k earners who supported him who will now see their taxes rise substantially), the Republicans will have a shot at drawing folks back.
  
  The only question is whether they will have alternatives and solutions ready by then.
  

• javadewd said on Apr 20, 2009....

  Actually, it shows that *overall* violence and murder per 100k has nothing to do with firearms. We're in the bottom 25%, even with the strict gun control laws in Europe that you claim... You need to learn how to read a table!
  
  

• JusticeForAll said on Apr 20, 2009....

  Every President makes decisions that piss people off. While I wasn't the biggest fan of Bush Senior or Junior, I do support the fact that they stood by their decisions. While they may not have been the best choices or the most popular ones, they stood firm by them. That's what a President should do.

  Motor vehicles are big weapons. We need to have laws that also prevent people who should not be driving from doing so. Granted, it's the same thing with cars as it is with guns. You can try to do everything in your power to prevent ANY kind of weapon (guns, knives, cars, whatever) from falling into the wrong hands, but every criminal will find a way.

  While I agree with some of the policies BO is putting into place, I certainly disagree with others. But he is going to do what he feels is necessary, regardless of how much people bitch and moan. He's a popular President now because he's letting the polls sway him. But once he realizes that he can't make everyone happy, he will make decisions that piss a lot of people off. Just like every other President in history.

• mongol said on Apr 20, 2009....

  If not for Palin I might have voted for McCain. Obama will do a fine job though once he grows into the office. I ended up voting for Obama, so I have a horse in this race. I'm sort of new here, and I love your stuff!!

  Look at the crap I found!

  http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/antichrist.asp

   

• javadewd said on Apr 20, 2009....

  Yeah, that's crap alright. How about them 2 girls 1 cup, eh?

• stopmediabias said on Apr 20, 2009....

  Does gun control work?
   
  First of all the assault weapons ban.  When I was 16 for Christmas I got a .22 rifle that you could put 17 bullets in and shoot all 17 bullets out semiautomatic.  This particular rifle was on the list of "assault rifles" that Liberals were trying to ban in one of many of these bills that has gone down in flames.  So it's not about assault weapons, it's about all weapons.  Most of these "assault" weapons are of a lessor caliber than some of the deer rifles you can buy in Walmart. 
   
  Second, most criminals who use guns in a violent way have all ready broke fifteen laws before they even fire the gun, do you think they care that it is illegal for them to possess it?  If gun control made guns inaccessable New York City would have a zero crime rate because even with a permit you cannot carry a handgun there. 
   
  Third if gun control works why do we need more?  Two bordering states that I live near are infested with gun laws and they have just as much if not worse gun violence than my state which has nearly no gun laws.
   
  Any gun control statistic is chances are flawed because it doesn't factor in the damage gun control does.  Have their been recent times when a well regulated militia would have saved lives?  

• mongol said on Apr 20, 2009....

  A gift link for everyone+SeanRenaud

  http://www.flixxy.com/presidents-morphing.htm

  You'll like this for sure!

   

• JusticeForAll said on Apr 20, 2009....

  Zero crime rate without guns? Hardly. What about all of the violent and non-violent crimes that are committed without weapons? Gun control works. It's not flawless, but it does make it harder to gain access to ANY gun. Not just assault weapons.

• brettls1 said on Apr 20, 2009....

  If you want to know the truth on racism read this book. Finally someone makes a stands against the blacks. Buy it at frustracism.com

• stopmediabias said on Apr 21, 2009....

  Sorry, my bad, I ment zero gun crime rate...

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 21, 2009....

  As long as there are guns there will be people who are able to get them.  However the harder they are to get the less people will have them.  IT's really quite simple to any adult.  Again why don't gang members use larger weapons?  Grenades in particular since they don't require anythign special to deliver or keep safe?  Because they simply are not available because they are illegal.  Sheesh.  IT's like you don't have any common sense at all. 

  Any stat on gun control taken from a particular state in the US is just shy of useless because we have pretty much zero border control between say California and New York.  I can drive the whole way and not get pulled over and searched once so who cares about the laws in CA when I can go to AZ (right next door) buy whatever I want and drive back.  The European states are much more accurate for this.

• javadewd said on Apr 21, 2009....

  This millennium is so disappointing... I want my Ronnie ray gun and my flying car that runs on garbage, damnit!
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 21, 2009....

  It would be cool.  I wonder how much garbage it would take if you could do that anyway.  I mean just on a energy per pound basis.

• javadewd said on Apr 21, 2009....

  I guess it depends on the energy needs of your flux capacitor... Is it still 1.21 jiggawatts?
  
  On a more serious level, the minister who married my wife and I does the whole bio-fuel thing and he stores about 100 gallons and can convert it to bio-diesel and can run his truck across two states every day for six to seven months... But granted that is a lot of highway driving versus city driving. If you could get fuel from garbage [source][source][source][source], which doesn't seem so far-fetched, these sources should at least point to the answer to that question...
  
  

• Misty_Eyed said on Apr 21, 2009....

  can't quite follow what you're actually trying to say in the original post. are you saying that moderate republicanism is the best way to go? (of course, i'm a lefty, so it doesn't really matter for my sake, but...well, I'm curious. is the point that being a moderate is the only way to restore the republican platform?)

• curmudgeon said on Apr 21, 2009....

  Well there is the school of thought that Republicans need to give way on social issues in order to gain more public support. The risk is that social conservatives will abandon the party and leave the fiscal conservatives with nothing. Sean's thesis is that social conservatives will have nowhere to go and therefore support the Republicans. Apart from the occasional rant on TV, tax policy and onerous regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley just aren't sexy enough for the general public to sink its teeth into.
  
  So we have this awkward alliance of pro-lifers, anti-gay marriage folks, and pro-business free marketers, flat tax proponents, anti-immigration groups, defense hawks, advocates for smaller government, strict interpreters of the Second Amendment, and Christian America advocates lumped together in this one tent.
  
  Frankly, there is far more diversity of opinion and motivation in the Republican party than there seems to be among the Democrats. The problem is we can't seem to come together again and mount a united movement - probably because we're so diverse.
  
  Right now, Obama is playing divide and conquer - advocating for miniscule reductions in government spending to styime the fiscal conservatives, advocating for increases in SpecOps capabilities to placate the hawks, and pledging to cut ineffective programs to placate the small government advocates. All that leaves Republicans is abortion, gay marriage and the rest of the social agenda.
  
  The Republicans will have to play a far cagier game with Obama than they seem capable of at this point.
  

• javadewd said on Apr 21, 2009....

  "...pro-lifers, anti-gay marriage folks, and pro-business free marketers, flat tax proponents, anti-immigration groups, defense hawks, advocates for smaller government, strict interpreters of the Second Amendment, and Christian America advocates..."
  
  Okay, I'll bite... Why couldn't one person be all of those?

• curmudgeon said on Apr 21, 2009....

  java - actually you're quite correct that some Republicans are of one mind on all these issues. I was just positing that some come to the party with one or more of these at the top of their wish-list and others father down on the bottom. I know Republicans who are not Christian, for example, and Republicans who lean more towards the pro-choice side.
  
  What initially drew me was the strict interpretation of the Second Amendment, and the Democratic reticence to field a strong national defense. As far as abortion, I'd be happier if we simply stopped funding Planned Parenthood. If it's a private medical decision, let it be a private financial transaction.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 21, 2009....

  Misty.  In a rare sign of humility on my part I'm going to clarify only a few things.  Simply because Curmudgeon simply said what I was saying more eloquently than I believe I could phrase it.  Good job Cur.  And you've been around me for what? going on two years?  You know I don't dole out huge sums of praise undeserved.

  Basically what he said.  The conservatives need to abondon the hard social issues that turn the "middle" away from them.  A lot of people (like me) currently vote democrate because given a choice between whacky limp wristed socialists and hardline Christians we'll take the socialists.  They are less likely to have an Inquisition. 

  A lot of us REALLY liked Ron Paul.  He's got a few nutty ideas like open borders and returning to the gold standard.  But really he has more good than bad.  And the Republican PArty shut him out this last election.  Granted that is at least in part because he's not one of them he merely ran as one because we are decades (if that) away from electing a Libertarian for president.  If they continue to cling to the social issues they will become increasingly marginalized until they are eventually a defunct party.  Which will in turn split the democrat party.  My guess is it would be the Fiscal Conservative Dems vs the Social Dems but I could be wrong on that. 

  If Palin runs Obama wins.  The only way he won't win is if he's fucked up so bad that nothing and noone can deny it

• javadewd said on Apr 21, 2009....

  Strangely, curm, I know democrats that are Reformed Christians... Scary, eh?
  
  I liked Ron Paul, too. That guy was bat-shit crazy... In a good way, like Ross Perot on crack, but the people that he attracted were waaaay over the top. It's bad enough getting pegged as a racist and/or sexist now that the election is over. The people that wanted to vote him in did everything including setting themselves and each other on fire... Crazy shit, man... I'm surprised with all the Ron Paul appearances on television lately that they haven't tried to pin the KKK (which was started by a handful of liberal lawyers from Tennessee after the Civil War) and the rest of the "Radical Right" to him.
  

• curmudgeon said on Apr 22, 2009....

  Sean - thanks! And thanks for putting up this topic!
  
  java - this world takes all kinds, man!
  
  I remember hearing some of Ron Paul's positions on Iraq and such. I'll have to do some research on him.
  

• mongol said on Apr 22, 2009....

  Liberals rule

• stopmediabias said on Apr 22, 2009....

  Sean-getting tired of this and was gonna pass but I can't pass this one up.
   
  "Again why don't gang members use larger weapons?  Grenades in particular since they don't require anything special to deliver or keep safe?  Because they simply are not available because they are illegal.  Sheesh.  IT's like you don't have any common sense at all."
   
  Holy cow dude, what is going on?  You are stating we don't have a grenade violence problem because grenades are illegal?  
   
  Its illegal to shoot someone without provocation but people still get shot plus statistics over and over show gun control compared to real crime control does not even match up.  Look at New York City before Guliani was elected.
   
  I think your common sense went out the window with the common sense of the dunderhead we have in office as President
   
    
   
   
   

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 22, 2009....

  Yes I'm stating we don't have grenade violence because grenades are illegal!  That exactly what I'm saying.  Unless your vouching that gangsters are upstanding citizens and don't use grenades because they are afraid of collateral damage.

  The fact is that it is next to impossible to get a grenade.  Where that not the case we would see a massive increase.  Again tell me why countries (not states where you can drive across an imaginary line and come back all in the same day, with out a passport or inspection of any kind) with strict gun control have lower gun violence and lower murder rates than the US?  Becuase when it is HARDER to get guns less people have them.  Just like less people smoke weed than drink.  I can go out right now and buy a bottle of damn near whatever but I need to have a connection to get weed.  Sure I could probably call up a friend who could call up a friend to get me some but it's not like driving to Vons.

  Same thing goes for guns.  I can just drive down to the Sports Mart and buy a rifle or a shotty or even a handgun (with a waitnig period) but I can't buy a fucking grenade.  Why is this so fucking difficult for you to understand?

• javadewd said on Apr 22, 2009....

  Stabbing people is illegal. I believe it's called "assault with a deadly weapon," but that can be said of somebody hitting me with a baseball bat. Which of these would you like to outlaw or make so expensive that either one (or both) would no longer cause people to use them in this type crime?
  
  It just seems like you could widdle this down in the extreme and invalidate the argument. I mean, I could kill somebody with a ball-point pen, but what the hell would I do if ball-point pens were made illegal?? I don't foresee our beloved government taking away our pens and making the most civilized nation in the free world resort to using Crayola Crayons unless the lobbyists for Crayola are dumping some huge bucks into the government coffers.
  
  Pen control works! Make them cheap so everybody has them, but don't train every pen-holder to kill somebody with it... It makes about as much sense. Those who want to kill will find a way.
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 23, 2009....

  Have you not read my personal opinion.  Gun control is wrong.  A man who cannot defend himself is not free. The government that disarms its populace has taken the first step towards enslaving them.

  None of that means that gun control is not effective.  Unless ball point pens or baseball bats are overwhelmingly more impressive than similarly sized and weighted sticks I think you're seriously grasping at straws.  Guns are designed to kill.  Sure they can be used in sports to shoot targets but whether we are talking muskets or machine guns they are designed to kill.  And grenades and assault rifles are really overkill for game hunting.  They are designed solely to kill human beings. 

• javadewd said on Apr 23, 2009....

  I think even Ted Nugent would agree that there isn't enough meat left on a rabbit if you use a grenade... Or an assault rifle for that matter...But he's not much for gun control, either.
  
  

• stopmediabias said on Apr 23, 2009....

  Sorry I don't understand, it is fuzzy logic to me.  If some wacko wants to go into a public place and kill a bunch of people it doesn't matter what instrument he uses. Making a particular instrument illegal hurts honest people and emboldens criminals.  Remember, the worst school disaster in history was not Columbine it was the Bath school disaster where bombs were the weapon of choice. 

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

  Grenades and things like 50's serve no purpose in society, but assault weapons do.

  Saying assault weapons are overkill for hunting is kind of silly.  Like I pointed out, most assault weapons these idiots want to ban are of a lower caliber than most deer rifles, they just look scary.  A madman could do a lot more damage with a .12 gauge then he could with an assault rife. 

  Maybe their is an arguement for not having AK 47's in the city, but this is not the what they are looking for.  They want all guns gone and things like AK's are just the first part of the battle.

  We have got to stop this stupid notion of rehabilitation for violent criminals.  Violent criminals need to be punished and taken out of society, if we solve this problem we would not have a gun problem. 

• javadewd said on Apr 23, 2009....

  Then we back into the genetics argument and weeding out killers before their born... Like SR has been touting. I guess it would save space. Those prisons get filled up quite often...

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 24, 2009....

  Actually you make a solid point there SMB.  The definition of Assault weapon is stupid.  Instead of dealing with caliber or more importantly how many rounds per second it can fire it instead focuses on bonuses.  In CA an M16 with a folding stock (basically you can hide it in a big jacket cus it folds in half) is legal because it's not an assault riffle.  However a rifle with a scope on it magically is.  The problem here though was a lack of team work.  You basically had gun control laws built by people who knew nothing about guns.  If the NRA had had SOME imput this hopefully would have turned out differntly.  Though again there is no way of knowing.  MAybe they would have tricked the people who didn' tknow into the same things.

• javadewd said on Apr 24, 2009....

  I'll second that "assault weapon" is redundant by definition. Also, even if these people who knew nothing about guns actually consulted 'experts', they really came out malformed and useless anyway... Not that I'm agreeing with gun control mind you... I'm simply saying that legislators may be lawyers, but they really don't know much about any given field and even when they consult a field, they are very out of touch with the field they are fighting for or against. The same can be said about any 'hot topic.' 

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 24, 2009....

  Yeah.  But this one is particularly twisted but I question if it was because the politicians in charge were idiots or if it was because the people they consulted wanted them to make dumb decisions. 

  Again I don't agree with gun control.  I simply don't dispute that it works.  That if it didn't the gang wars of the late 80s early  90s would have been fought with rockets and grenades and the like.  And while they occasionaly showed up they were not used as a whole because they were unobtainable.  

  Also SMB it makes a big deal what kind of weapon a whacko uses when he decides he wants to kill a bunch of people.  If a guy goes nuts and straps a bomb to himself and runs into Walmart thirty people are fucked.  PEriod end discussion.  IF he runs in with a machine gun I'd say on average ten to fifteen people are fucked.  If he runs in with a hand gun maybe eight.  IF he runs in there with a spear or a knife or a baseball bat he's gonna get maybe three (really old or really young) people before he is overpowered by the crowd.

• javadewd said on Apr 24, 2009....

  The answer is yes, SR.
  
  I thought it was in the movie "Deal of the Century," but I can't find the exact quote where the military colonel explains that two African tribes don't actually fly the planes, they simply gather atop a hill and roll the planes down the hills at each other... I think that's the logic that these experts used in explaining guns to lawyers.
  
  Also, most featured Hollywood serial killers don't use guns :
  
  Jason = machete and other sharp objects
  Freddy = knived glove and other sharp objects
  Michael Myers = whatever he can get his hands on
  
  Maybe Hollywood can make guns really scary and people will fear them... Just sayin'...
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 25, 2009....

  You mention three supernatural killers.  You could have a lteast gone with Hannibal LEctor.  I mean the three you mentioned. . .it's like saying that Dracula, the wolfman and Frankenstine all use their bare hands.  What bearing does this have to do with if it's easier (in real life) to kill someone with a rocket or with a baseball bat?

• javadewd said on Apr 25, 2009....

  Hannibal used a gun?
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 25, 2009....

  No.  That was kinda point.  At least he could be held up as a legit serial killer.  So could Dexter (of the show of the same name and book series) who I can't recall shooting anybody.  I have a hard time respecting that Jason used a MAchete.  True he did.  But guys took shotguns to his face and he just kept coming.  He had an unfair advantage.  Darth Vader used a sword too!

• mongol said on Apr 25, 2009....

  Did you mean Dear Republicans, or  DEER Republicans?

  I'm dazed and confused by this.

• mongol said on Apr 27, 2009....

  I'm sticking with Obama, but my latest posting suggests we should be like communist China.

• javadewd said on Apr 28, 2009....

  Or socialist Russia, perhaps?

• mongol said on Apr 28, 2009....

  All of this won't add up to a hill of beans if "curezilla" is correct about the swine flu pandemic that's coming

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 29, 2009....

  So far the Swine Flu is all hype.

• javadewd said on Apr 29, 2009....

  Not only hype, but fear-mongering on the part of the Obama administration. Much like Obama being black only when it suits him, fear-mongering (which every liberal and their illegitimate mother criticized for eight years) is okay, as long as it helps him get his way... 

Comment on "Dear Republicans,"

Currently tagged	Obama president bed-wetters President Obama racism fetishism republican conservative Republicans politics socialism (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment