U.S. Politics

Page 352 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
BroDeal said:
the risk to the average law abiding citizen is very low
Then why does the average law-abiding citizen need a gun? To protect himself from what?

This from the guy who points out that the risk from dying in a mass shooting is so low that we don't need any special laws to deal with them. For that matter, the risk of dying in a terrorist bombing is very low, too, so I guess we don't need to do anything about them, either.

In fact, as has been posted and discussed here before, considerable gun violence does involve "average law-abiding citizens". Not those committing some other crime, but engaged in some argument, usually alcohol-fueled.

While we're back on the gun argument, Scott the other day quoted or referred to Tom Paine in support of the second amendment. This Paine was such a fount of eternal wisdom, as relevant today as he was back then, I would love it if Scott would quote Paine's views on women's right to vote, or African-Americans' rights to do just about anything.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Merckx index said:
Then why does the average law-abiding citizen need a gun? To protect himself from what?

This from the guy who points out that the risk from dying in a mass shooting is so low that we don't need any special laws to deal with them. For that matter, the risk of dying in a terrorist bombing is very low, too, so I guess we don't need to do anything about them, either.

In fact, as has been posted and discussed here before, considerable gun violence does involve "average law-abiding citizens". Not those committing some other crime, but engaged in some argument, usually alcohol-fueled.

While we're back on the gun argument, Scott the other day quoted or referred to Tom Paine in support of the second amendment. This Paine was such a fount of eternal wisdom, as relevant today as he was back then, I would love it if Scott would quote Paine's views on women's right to vote, or African-Americans' rights to do just about anything.
Or what that other famous philosopher, Barack Obama, thought about gay marriage a couple years ago.

I guess we can now completely discount the wisdom of the founders.

Tell me, anything in the constitution or more specifically, the bill of rights, that you agree with?? Because I can use your same argument to shred the first amendment, the fourth amendment and so on.

Then why does the average law-abiding citizen need a gun?
Who the hell are you to say what someone else needs? It's simply not up to you to make that determination. End of story.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,279
0
0
Erm....what?

Texas fertilizer company didn't heed disclosure rules before blast

(Reuters) - The fertilizer plant that exploded on Wednesday, obliterating part of a small Texas town and killing at least 14 people, had last year been storing 1,350 times the amount of ammonium nitrate that would normally trigger safety oversight by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Yet a person familiar with DHS operations said the company that owns the plant, West Fertilizer, did not tell the agency about the potentially explosive fertilizer as it is required to do, leaving one of the principal regulators of ammonium nitrate - which can also be used in bomb making - unaware of any danger there.
Let's make it complicated:

Apart from the DHS, the West Fertilizer site was subject to a hodgepodge of regulation by the EPA, OSHA, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Texas Department of State Health Services, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Office of the Texas State Chemist.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
0
0
MarkvW said:
The conservatives will tell you that we don't need OSHA-type regulation of companies because the free market will take care of employees.

And it surely will.
I'm not sure if you are being humourous here. Historically, we see quite clearly that an unregulated free market DOES take care of "labor" (employees) - by consigning them to whatever status they can that is closest to indentured servitude or slavery. Maximize profits. No problems there. This is quite clear from an examination of economic history of the US, especially as it industrialized, and comparison with other economies, historically.

You know, I always say this about individuals: that actions speak louder than words; but for large groups, i.e. countries, it also holds true. I look, not at what they SAY they support, but what REALLY happens to the common man.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
hiero2 said:
I'm not sure if you are being humourous here. Historically, we see quite clearly that an unregulated free market DOES take care of "labor" (employees) - by consigning them to whatever status they can that is closest to indentured servitude or slavery. Maximize profits. No problems there. This is quite clear from an examination of economic history of the US, especially as it industrialized, and comparison with other economies, historically.

You know, I always say this about individuals: that actions speak louder than words; but for large groups, i.e. countries, it also holds true. I look, not at what they SAY they support, but what REALLY happens to the common man.
I'm being sarcastic. The "free market" is a hothouse flower that needs careful tending.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
hiero2 said:
I'm not sure if you are being humourous here. Historically, we see quite clearly that an unregulated free market DOES take care of "labor" (employees) - by consigning them to whatever status they can that is closest to indentured servitude or slavery. Maximize profits. No problems there. This is quite clear from an examination of economic history of the US, especially as it industrialized, and comparison with other economies, historically.

You know, I always say this about individuals: that actions speak louder than words; but for large groups, i.e. countries, it also holds true. I look, not at what they SAY they support, but what REALLY happens to the common man.
Yep. Particularly inner-city minorities.

What happens to the common man indeed.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Tell me, anything in the constitution or more specifically, the bill of rights, that you agree with?? Because I can use your same argument to shred the first amendment, the fourth amendment and so on.
No, you can't. Because my argument is not that the second amendment is out of date because someone who supported it had other views that are manifestly out of date. My argument is that by quoting Tom Paine, you are arguing from authority, rather than from merit. I'm not against the second amendment (or more precisely, your interpretation of it) because Tom Paine supported it. I'm just saying that Paine's support of it is totally irrelevant. It shouldn't factor at all into our view of it. By pointing out other views of his that even you wouldn't accept, my intention was to show the fallacy in assuming that an argument is strong because some particular individual supported it.

This, by the way, is the way the scientific mind works. We don't accept some theory because we believe its formulator was brilliant, and must have been right. That's backwards. We believe the formulator was brilliant, because we we find that his theory is supported by evidence. And I'm saying our views on the amendments, or any other laws or rules that govern modern society, should be based on the same reasoning. Merit, not authority.

The appeal to authority, unfortunately, tends to be part of the conservative mindset. I'm not saying all conservatives operate in this manner--for the most part, I don't think you do--but a great many do have this tendency to base their beliefs on who formulated them, rather than on critically thinking through their consequences. And yes, some on the left are guilty of the same thing.

Who the hell are you to say what someone else needs? It's simply not up to you to make that determination. End of story.
Of course it's up to me, and every other citizen, to make that determination. We have all kinds of laws constraining what individuals are allowed to do, and gun ownership is part of that debate. You can argue that my views on guns are wrong, dangerous, ill-informed, etc., but you can't validly argue that I have no right to have these views and to try to persuade others of their benefits. Which is basically what you're saying when you say I have no right to make that determination.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Merckx index said:
No, you can't. Because my argument is not that the second amendment is out of date because someone who supported it had other views that are manifestly out of date. My argument is that by quoting Tom Paine, you are arguing from authority, rather than from merit. I'm not against the second amendment (or more precisely, your interpretation of it) because Tom Paine supported it. I'm just saying that Paine's support of it is totally irrelevant. It shouldn't factor at all into our view of it. By pointing out other views of his that even you wouldn't accept, my intention was to show the fallacy in assuming that an argument is strong because some particular individual supported it.

This, by the way, is the way the scientific mind works. We don't accept some theory because we believe its formulator was brilliant, and must have been right. That's backwards. We believe the formulator was brilliant, because we we find that his theory is supported by evidence. And I'm saying our views on the amendments, or any other laws or rules that govern modern society, should be based on the same reasoning. Merit, not authority.

The appeal to authority, unfortunately, tends to be part of the conservative mindset. I'm not saying all conservatives operate in this manner--for the most part, I don't think you do--but a great many do have this tendency to base their beliefs on who formulated them, rather than on critically thinking through their consequences. And yes, some on the left are guilty of the same thing.



Of course it's up to me, and every other citizen, to make that determination. We have all kinds of laws constraining what individuals are allowed to do, and gun ownership is part of that debate. You can argue that my views on guns are wrong, dangerous, ill-informed, etc., but you can't validly argue that I have no right to have these views and to try to persuade others of their benefits. Which is basically what you're saying when you say I have no right to make that determination.
As long as guns remain legal to purchase you have no say in whether I or anyone else need a gun. I make that determination, not you.

There will be very little science that determines this issue.

For one segment of American society, guns symbolize honor, human mastery over nature, and individual self-sufficiency. By opposing gun control, individuals affirm the value of these meanings and the vision of the good society that they construct. For another segment of American society, however, guns connote something else: the perpetuation of illicit social hierarchies, the elevation of force over reason, and the expression of collective indifference to the well-being of strangers. These individuals instinctively support gun control as a means of repudiating these significations and of promoting an alternative vision of the good society that features equality, social solidarity, and civilized nonagression.

These competing cultural visions, we will argue, are what drive the gun control debate. They are what dispose individuals to accept certain empirically grounded public-safety arguments and to reject others. Indeed, the meanings that guns and gun control express are sufficient to justify most individuals’ positions on gun control independently of their beliefs about guns and safety. It follows that the only meaningful gun control debate is one that explicitly addresses whether and how the underlying cultural visions at stake should be embodied in American law.

http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/elj/55/4/Kahan.pdf
 
Scott SoCal said:
Who the hell are you to say what someone else needs? It's simply not up to you to make that determination. End of story.
I "needs" sum a dem chemical weapons, see. Gimmy sum a dem red ones and don't forget sum a dem blue ones too, and be quick about it or else, or else...see dis AK47 I'm carryin...get it?

So this is your idea about citizen liberty and a free society? Living in a country that doesn't consider at all restricting citizen access to the industry of death, but rather has made a profitable market of it? Though here you confuse "need" with desire, which is a huge difference.

You don't want the Gov. telling you what you can and can't have in this regard, fine. It won't be long, however, before 'Merica is reduced to an uncivilized battle zone like the Banana Republics we created, or those war torn African and Middle Eastern states.
 
Scott SoCal said:
As long as guns remain legal to purchase you have no say in whether I or anyone else need a gun. I make that determination, not you.

There will be very little science that determines this issue.
I’m tempted to reply: “As long as slavery remains legal, you have no say on whether I or anyone else needs slaves. I make that determination, not you.” That ought to make it obvious how wrong-headed your reply is. In the very limited sense that you can continue to own a gun and legally, no one can stop you, you are right. But of course that isn't what we're talking about on a forum of opinions, and you well know it. We're talking about whether a law should be changed, and again, of course I have a say in that determination.

But it’s not necessarily even a matter of changing the law. You read my statement, “Why do law-abiding citizens need guns?”, and immediately jumped to the conclusion that I’m advocating banning all guns. Or at least advocating stronger regulation of them. It never seemed to occur to you that an alternative implication of my statement is that by questioning whether people need guns, one might persuade people to stop buying them, even with no change whatsoever in current gun laws. And that I, and many others, would feel safer that way. Conservatives ought to be comfortable with this line of argument, since it implies so-called voluntary acts, not those compelled by the state.

If the authors of that quote you provided had a little broader understanding, they would realize that those two competing visions, in turn, reflect identities with small and simple vs. large and complex social groups—that is what really drives the gun control and virtually all other liberal vs. conservative debates. I've been over this before here. But since you like the notion of competing visions, I’ll suggest another one: positive rights and negative rights. A positive right, in this context, is the right to own a gun. A negative right is the right to live without the threat posed by a large population that is armed. You want to close the debate, and assert that only your positive rights matter. All I’m doing is pointing out that negative rights deserve a seat at the table, too.
 
Merckx index said:
I’m tempted to reply: “As long as slavery remains legal, you have no say on whether I or anyone else needs slaves. I make that determination, not you.” That ought to make it obvious how wrong-headed your reply is. In the very limited sense that you can continue to own a gun and legally, no one can stop you, you are right. But of course that isn't what we're talking about on a forum of opinions, and you well know it. We're talking about whether a law should be changed, and again, of course I have a say in that determination.

But it’s not necessarily even a matter of changing the law. You read my statement, “Why do law-abiding citizens need guns?”, and immediately jumped to the conclusion that I’m advocating banning all guns. Or at least advocating stronger regulation of them. It never seemed to occur to you that an alternative implication of my statement is that by questioning whether people need guns, one might persuade people to stop buying them, even with no change whatsoever in current gun laws. And that I, and many others, would feel safer that way. Conservatives ought to be comfortable with this line of argument, since it implies so-called voluntary acts, not those compelled by the state.

If the authors of that quote you provided had a little broader understanding, they would realize that those two competing visions, in turn, reflect identities with small and simple vs. large and complex social groups—that is what really drives the gun control and virtually all other liberal vs. conservative debates. I've been over this before here. But since you like the notion of competing visions, I’ll suggest another one: positive rights and negative rights. A positive right, in this context, is the right to own a gun. A negative right is the right to live without the threat posed by a large population that is armed. You want to close the debate, and assert that only your positive rights matter. All I’m doing is pointing out that negative rights deserve a seat at the table, too.
Scott doesn't think in broad social terms, because for him only the individual and his/her rights are what matters. The Gov. should thus only exist and function in light of safeguarding the individual's rights, for which any attempt to curtail personal liberty is viewed as a socialist conspiracy against the individual, no matter how rationally based and good for the community at large.

Hence the negative right you have proposed doesn't figure into Scott's world view, which is only a problem for those who can't stand liberty and living in a free country. It's the American way as he sees it and there is no argument, no matter how cogent or sensed, that could make him see otherwise.

Collectivism is simply anathema to him, an imposition by the Gov. that should only be vehemently opposed in block by his party members at Washington. What he doesn't realize, however, and which your post clearly elucidates, is that a society based exclusively on individual rights and individual liberty, in the purest and unadulterated senses, isn't a free society at all, but one under the chaos of a tyranny of individuals.

Ever since man took up the mantle of politics, considered in light of what it was meant to organize and give structure to - the polis - in what before had been a society prey to the most arrogant, the most exploitative and the most powerful; there has been an ongoing dialectic between positive rights of the individual and negative ones of the collective. It seems to me that the most civilized nations of the post-Enlightenment age have realized that a salubrious measure of both is required to ensure a state of liberty, but also civility (here the collective must be addressed and cared for); such that when one or the other is lacking the State devolves either into one of chaos and prepotency or one of oppression. Naturally neither can be considered fortuitous, nor civil.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
rhubroma said:
I "needs" sum a dem chemical weapons, see. Gimmy sum a dem red ones and don't forget sum a dem blue ones too, and be quick about it or else, or else...see dis AK47 I'm carryin...get it?

So this is your idea about citizen liberty and a free society? Living in a country that doesn't consider at all restricting citizen access to the industry of death, but rather has made a profitable market of it? Though here you confuse "need" with desire, which is a huge difference.

You don't want the Gov. telling you what you can and can't have in this regard, fine. It won't be long, however, before 'Merica is reduced to an uncivilized battle zone like the Banana Republics we created, or those war torn African and Middle Eastern states.
Let's cut to the chase, shall we?

So long as there is a criminal element there will be a natural apprehension of it and wish to prevail if and when confronted by it.

When you can guarantee the criminal element has no access to guns then maybe you'll be in a better position to tell the rest of us what our needs are.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Merckx index said:
I’m tempted to reply: “As long as slavery remains legal, you have no say on whether I or anyone else needs slaves. I make that determination, not you.” That ought to make it obvious how wrong-headed your reply is. In the very limited sense that you can continue to own a gun and legally, no one can stop you, you are right. But of course that isn't what we're talking about on a forum of opinions, and you well know it. We're talking about whether a law should be changed, and again, of course I have a say in that determination.

But it’s not necessarily even a matter of changing the law. You read my statement, “Why do law-abiding citizens need guns?”, and immediately jumped to the conclusion that I’m advocating banning all guns. Or at least advocating stronger regulation of them. It never seemed to occur to you that an alternative implication of my statement is that by questioning whether people need guns, one might persuade people to stop buying them, even with no change whatsoever in current gun laws. And that I, and many others, would feel safer that way. Conservatives ought to be comfortable with this line of argument, since it implies so-called voluntary acts, not those compelled by the state.

If the authors of that quote you provided had a little broader understanding, they would realize that those two competing visions, in turn, reflect identities with small and simple vs. large and complex social groups—that is what really drives the gun control and virtually all other liberal vs. conservative debates. I've been over this before here. But since you like the notion of competing visions, I’ll suggest another one: positive rights and negative rights. A positive right, in this context, is the right to own a gun. A negative right is the right to live without the threat posed by a large population that is armed. You want to close the debate, and assert that only your positive rights matter. All I’m doing is pointing out that negative rights deserve a seat at the table, too.
You draw no distinction between the right to own slaves and the right to bear arms. It's the second time you've compared the two. I find that odd.

Should the law be changed? I suppose we all have some say insofar as public opinion goes, unless of course you are an elected politician that actually votes on such matters. Unfortunately, liberals are losing this debate badly. But there's always the executive orders that this president seems ready to use according to the Vice President. Failures to persuade the public and elected representatives just mean nothing more than a shift in tactics.

But it’s not necessarily even a matter of changing the law. You read my statement, “Why do law-abiding citizens need guns?”, and immediately jumped to the conclusion that I’m advocating banning all guns. Or at least advocating stronger regulation of them. It never seemed to occur to you that an alternative implication of my statement is that by questioning whether people need guns, one might persuade people to stop buying them, even with no change whatsoever in current gun laws. And that I, and many others, would feel safer that way. Conservatives ought to be comfortable with this line of argument, since it implies so-called voluntary acts, not those compelled by the state.
Kind of like the prevailing conservative abortion argument. Persuade away. I can only imagine what kind of conversation I might stir up if I were to ask, "why would any woman need an abortion?"

How would your positive right/ negative right deal with inner-city issues and the literal terror many of those folks live under everyday? Do the law abiding there deserve a seat at the table?

And what shall we make of what this issue is really about? At the highest level it has exactly nothing to do with your idea of small and simple vs. big and complex. It's simple vs simple. One side wants to win while effecting the most damage to their political opponent. The other side wants to do exactly the same.

So persuade away. Maybe you should start with asking the criminal why they need a gun. Then perhaps move on to the law abiding.

Just a thought.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
rhubroma said:
Scott doesn't think in broad social terms, because for him only the individual and his/her rights are what matters. The Gov. should thus only exist and function in light of safeguarding the individual's rights, for which any attempt to curtail personal liberty is viewed as a socialist conspiracy against the individual, no matter how rationally based and good for the community at large.

Hence the negative right you have proposed doesn't figure into Scott's world view, which is only a problem for those who can't stand liberty and living in a free country. It's the American way as he sees it and there is no argument, no matter how cogent or sensed, that could make him see otherwise.

Collectivism is simply anathema to him, an imposition by the Gov. that should only be vehemently opposed in block by his party members at Washington. What he doesn't realize, however, and which your post clearly elucidates, is that a society based exclusively on individual rights and individual liberty, in the purest and unadulterated senses, isn't a free society at all, but one under the chaos of a tyranny of individuals.

Ever since man took up the mantle of politics, considered in light of what it was meant to organize and give structure to - the polis - in what before had been a society prey to the most arrogant, the most exploitative and the most powerful; there has been an ongoing dialectic between positive rights of the individual and negative ones of the collective. It seems to me that the most civilized nations of the post-Enlightenment age have realized that a salubrious measure of both is required to ensure a state of liberty, but also civility (here the collective must be addressed and cared for); such that when one or the other is lacking the State devolves either into one of chaos and prepotency or one of oppression. Naturally neither can be considered fortuitous, nor civil.
Back to many words I see.

I suppose on a broad level I tend to treat adults like adults.

But you may be correct. We really do need representatives like Mike Bloomberg telling us it's illegal to purchase and consume a 32oz Coke.

Why does anyone need a 32oz soda? And just go from there.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
I guess we should be asking why we need privacy?

Big complex social issues.

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.

"The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change."

http://politicker.com/2013/04/bloomberg-says-post-boston-interpretation-of-the-constitution-will-have-to-change/


I sure hope Bloomberg has aspirations for higher office.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Who the hell are you to say what someone else needs? It's simply not up to you to make that determination. End of story.
The American people make that determination, and the American people overwhelmingly wanted expanded background checks and stricter gun laws. Even the overwhelming majority of gun owners and NRA members. End of story.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
The American people make that determination, and the American people overwhelmingly wanted expanded background checks and stricter gun laws. Even the overwhelming majority of gun owners and NRA members. End of story.
Goosed stats notwithstanding, why didn't these new laws pass then?

A better question. Why are not the current laws being enforced?

Simple, simple answer. Do you want to answer it or shall I?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
And 2/3rds of all US gun related deaths are suicides. But then you knew that already.
Those are homicide stats from the CDC. They don't include suicides.

BTW, to what do you attribute the overall decline in gun violence?
There hasn't been. There was a spike in the mid 90s and since then we've returned back closer to historical levels.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/matthewherper/files/2012/12/weapons23.png

We also have a constitutional amendment. So what's your plan?
Since when does a constitutional amendment preclude the making of laws? You can't yell fire in a movie theater but we still have the 1st. You can't build pipe bombs - ie "arms" - in your basement but we still have the 2nd. Banning the sale and ownership of guns is entirely constitutional, despite what the NRA wants you to believe.

The long-term plan is to repeal or at least thoroughly water down the obsolete and outdated 2nd Amendment. Won't happen for a long time but it will happen eventually.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Goosed stats notwithstanding, why didn't these new laws pass then?
er, because 42 of 46 Rs in the Senate voted no?

btw I like how everything you don't agree with - climate change, Obama's reelection, polls on support for gun control - are "manipulated data", "bought votes", and now "goosed stats". Is it just easier to believe in conspiracy theories than to have to admit that most people don't see the world the way conservatives do? Fact is, here in the real world anthropogenic climate change is real, the majority of the American people preferred Obama, and 90% of Americans supported expanded background checks. Deal with it.

A better question. Why are not the current laws being enforced?

Simple, simple answer. Do you want to answer it or shall I?
I did answer it. I've answered it a number of times. I've even included quotes from ATF officials explaining how they have had to choose between focusing on prosecuting drug crimes or gun crimes because they don't have the manpower or resources to do both. I've also pointed out how the Rs, at the NRA's behest, have blocked the naming of an ATF director for what, over 8 years now? Not my problem that your ideology won't allow you to accept that.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
RetroActive said:
[/B]

Someone posted a photo and was questioning the contents, I knew where that was going as I'd come across it already a few times before. This is what some people are believing, who knows, you may even know a couple.

To the first bolded, that may be the case in the examples you've cited but there's ample evidence in many, many other instances that intelligence agencies are responsible for terrorist acts. I really hope this isn't news to you.
If you look at the bigger picture it's clear this is being used to set the stage for more of a police state and a wider war as military preparations are underway for the invasions of Syria and Iran.

I'm on the side that understands that, for example, Iraq didn't have WMD's - that was a lie- but now WMD's have been used in Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5x9_rvgjxI

I'm on the side that understands that the Syria and Iran invasions will draw in Russia and China as they've stated as much.

I'm on the side that's tired of of all this B.S. I'm on the side that's tired of, as was the case with 9-11, a few thousand American deaths leading to millions of deaths of others around the world in pre-planned invasions. I'm on the side that's tired of the hysterical, non questioning reactions of those whose aim is to protect their cognitive dissonance. I'm on the side that sees the police state, the oligarchy, the military machine, the faux media propaganda as all working to maintain a way of life that's unsustainable, and dying. I'm on the side that would like to see this madness end, not escalate.
Lets take this post and my response over to the US politics thread.... anyhow...
So Iraq never had WMD's? No idea what is on that video you posted red but I know for a fact they had them before. I saw them there on Feb 26th 1991 and he used them for the last known time on the Shi in an-Najaf & Karbala areas he used Nerve agent & CS gas that was in March 1991.
Millions and Madness hu :cool:

I guess your just talking about when Sad-dom broke the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and basically lied to keep his neighbors from invading with the constant threat of WMD's?

So back on topic. This did happen and there were victims.

 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
Wallace said:
As long as you understand that the difference between being hugely frustrated with our government, or even completely furious at at, and planting bombs or even arming yourself to kill "jack-booted government thugs" (i.e. policemen) is absolute, then I really don't care which side you're on.

I'll make a bet with you: on the day China or Russia becomes militarily involved in the Middle East I'll buy you a new set of wheels (not carbon fiber--let's not go overboard). If in the next year no major foreign powers have sent their militaries into the region, I'm thinking about DT hubs (Campy) laced to Ambrosio rims. Sound fair?
C'mon, I never said anything about planting bombs or arming myself, quite the contrary in fact.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/world/middleeast/russia-sends-warships-on-maneuvers-near-syria.html?_r=0
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/01/06/282035/russian-ships-near-syria-to-deter-west/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/02/13/syria-russia.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/22/us-syria-crisis-russia-idUSBRE93L0E920130422
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/25/us-syria-crisis-russia-idUSBRE92O08A20130325
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-g8-russia-idUSBRE84G18M20120517
http://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-china-warn-against-foreign-intervention-in-syria/29465
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/06/06/china-russia-say-no-to-war-with-iran/

That took about ten minutes, there's a lot more been going on. You can keep your wheels.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
er, because 42 of 46 Rs in the Senate voted no?

btw I like how everything you don't agree with - climate change, Obama's reelection, polls on support for gun control - are "manipulated data", "bought votes", and now "goosed stats". Is it just easier to believe in conspiracy theories than to have to admit that most people don't see the world the way conservatives do? Fact is, here in the real world anthropogenic climate change is real, the majority of the American people preferred Obama, and 90% of Americans supported expanded background checks. Deal with it.

I did answer it. I've answered it a number of times. I've even included quotes from ATF officials explaining how they have had to choose between focusing on prosecuting drug crimes or gun crimes because they don't have the manpower or resources to do both. I've also pointed out how the Rs, at the NRA's behest, have blocked the naming of an ATF director for what, over 8 years now? Not my problem that your ideology won't allow you to accept that.
er, because 42 of 46 Rs in the Senate voted no?
Better get rid of those R's then. What about the four D's? Better get rid of them too. Ideological purity and all.

BTW, don't worry about Max Baucus. He's quitting. The architect of Obamacare so disgusted with Sebelius's bungling of it he's not gonna stick around to get tarred and feathered.

You guy are pretty damn funny.

polls on support for gun control - are "manipulated data", "bought votes", and now "goosed stats"
Now you are just being dishonest.

I wonder what the poll results you tout would have been if the question would have been, " do you feel we need more stringent background check laws for gun purchases when the Department of Justice refuses to enforce the one's on the books now?" Hmmm? Do you honestly feel the average respondent has any idea that 1) There are background check laws on the books, and 2) we don't even prosecute those that commit federal crimes by lying on those checks? In fact, why don't you post the question asked by the poll you are so fond of. I'm interested to see just what was asked.

And please don't give me the further dishonesty of "we don't have the necessary budgets." Our federal expenditures this year will be about $3,900 Billion. Try and keep that in mind before spouting your talking points.

Lastly, don't you find it odd that only 4% of respondents feel as though gun control is the biggest issue facing the country today (recent Gallup poll)? Given the results of the poll you are in love with (when do 90+% of Americans agree on anything??) one would think that number would be so much higher.

But then again, this argument is all about emotion, isn't it?

I did answer it. I've answered it a number of times. I've even included quotes from ATF officials explaining how they have had to choose between focusing on prosecuting drug crimes or gun crimes because they don't have the manpower or resources to do both.
Then this is an absolute failure of government as it's most primary function is to protect it's citizens. Or it's a total garbage excuse. So which is it?

BTW, how'd that fast and furious gun running program work out? Not too good, huh? Not to worry, there will be another mass shooting by some deranged lunatic and then we can have this debate again. And again and again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS