View original posti don't have time for a point by point rebuttal, so let me hit the highlights....
View original post
View original postYou can't by-name attack the GOP like that and then criticize your party for not be left-wing enough and expect anyone not to view you as a democrat. Nobody agrees with their party down the line, except by freak coincidence.
View original posti'm not asking for agreement on party lines. i personally don't agree with political parties in general, but since they are convenient ways to identify policies, they do their jobs for the most part. however, the current crop of GOP legislators at the national and state levels are pushing policies which have no basis in reality (voter ID laws, the NC sea level law, the VA redistricting debacle, and others which i don't have time to list). when the dems start pushing policies which have no basis in reality, we can all sit and point to those policies and ridicule them appropriately.
Yeah, requiring a Photo ID to prove who you are everywhere except in a voting booth is crazy 
Dems criticizing the GOP for redistricting is totally valid because the Dems never do anything weird there, oh and that NC sea level law, passed the NC senate 40-1, presumably meaning records indicating their are 17 Dems NC senators are wrong... unless they had some reason to vote that way, like assuming that where buildings and roads are concerned 15-30 years is what you plan around, not 90, since the things need near total replacement over those timelines and the necessary improvements are expensive and upkeep on them would generally run 5-10% annually. Build a road 30 years before you need it paying 10% on upkeep and interests on your loans and you bought it 4 times not one, do it 90 years out and you bought it 10 times.
View original post
View original postThere's nothing calm and polite about throwing around words like paranoid, unhinged, and coward. The National Gun Registry concept is more about future fears, but also comes down to how these checks as suggested do nothing, I can still go buy a gun and sell it to a criminal and be totally safe from the law. So an NGR seems like a logical follow up to many because the current form is so neutered useless that it seems like it only exists to be a vessel for future expansion. Why on Earth would you expect people not to wonder what the game plan is when a group known to mostly 'not favor gun registry' in the same way they 'didn't favor gay marriage' until last year suddenly propose a useless feel good measure?
View original postLook, you keep calling us paranoid but when we know damn well much of the left wants them banned entirely our
'paranoia' has justification, it's only been a few months since you were saying we should mirror the Australian policy of not treating self-defense as legit grounds to own a weapon.
View original postand there is that paranoia again. "the left wants them banned entirely", really? point me to anyone in a position to make gun laws who says we need to ban all guns. we've had a national registry for automatic weapons since 1986 and yet none have been seized in a government crackdown unless they've been used in crimes. the government is pretty aware of where those guns are, who owns them, and nobody seems to be worried about them being taken away. trying to say that "one day, maybe someone might come to take the guns away" is not an argument that is reasonable when the reality proves otherwise.
If you're going to quote me to me at least have the decency not to leave off the immediately preceding bit "much of...".
Also, while its fairly absurd to say that not saying something most Americans strongly oppose out loud if you're an elected official, quite a few have done that.
Diane Feinstein: "If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in -- I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
And considering how regularly liberal rant sin comments and left wing formulas talk about banning all guns, she's an anomaly only in the sense that she's an elected official who said it out loud. Now I don't think most democrats, or most elected dems, want to ban all guns, hence 'much of', but if her view was really outrageous she'd have been primaried and denounced. So don't go beating your chest and weeping crocodile tears like 'much of' is some absurd baseless slander.
View original postand it is not only possible to still own guns in australia, but people still get killed by them on a semi-regular basis. you keep insisting that the number of gun deaths in the US is acceptable to you, but to me that sounds like you think murder is perfectly acceptable as long as people use guns to do it. well if we implemented an australian style system of gun ownership, we'd still have an acceptable murder rate to you. or at least, i'm assuming that a high murder rate is ok to you, so a lower one should be as well. what makes their system work so well is that someone commits a horrible crime with a gun and they say "let's figure out how to keep this from happening again". in the US, the same horrible crime has our lawmakers saying "this law would not have stopped the horrible event that just happened, therefore it won't stop any horrible events ever". for most of us, this is no longer an acceptable position to take. we've been doing worse than nothing for 20 years, it's time to try something else now.
Murder is wrong, hence we have laws against it, building an apartment building out of kindling is wrong, hence we have laws against that, owning a gun is not wrong, and you keep bringing up gun deaths while claiming you don't want them all banned seemingly ignoring that almost all of those are handguns, the weakest of firearms, while simultaneously ranting about getting rid of the more powerful ones. You see no contradiction in this?
Rhetorical question that, I know you don't, which is why it i foolish of me to even talk to you about this. You've had your chance, hoards of them, to make your case, I'm utterly unconvinced, and I doubt anyone on this site isn't pro or con at the moment, but what's the point? It's a dead issue for at least a couple election cycles. People are over-saturated on the subject, so do take this as genuine advice and not just a desire not have to parry any more thrusts from you on this for a while, you're not doing anything but preaching to the choir and hardening the opposition with these posts, the handful of fence sitters right now won't read them anyway, and most probably don't vote either.
- 18/04/2013 03:15:15 PM
520 Views
*NM*
- 19/04/2013 11:01:31 PM
202 Views