How Will You Vote in the Future?

[Auld Phart]

and please stay off of public roads.

Including the public roads Ike provided?

 

[Auld Phart]

Single issue voters shouldn't be allowed to vote, they're too stupid.

By that logic no one should be allowed to vote.

Zander doesn't have any logic and misses the entire point.

If a politician can be bought and paid for by the NRA, then they aren't going to be representing their constituents, which is what they are supposed to be elected to do.

If a politician can be bought and paid for by the NRA, then they aren't going to be representing their constituents, which is what they are supposed to be elected to do.

only the NRA?

How about ProLife, unions, etc?

 

[Auld Phart]

Nobody is "bought and paid for" by the NRA.

The NRA are pikers (spending less than $20 million /year) compared to the drug companies (over $200 million per year)- are you gung-ho about not voting for anyone who receives money from Pharmaceutical Companies?

How about Banks and Investment firms?

What about the US Chamber of Commerce? Do you hate them too?

They contributed $50 MILLION in 2016 alone, including $30 MILLION to the Trump campaign.

Counting up how much the NRA spends on campaigns, lobbying
Over 20 years they have spent $200 million. Big pharma spends that every single year.

And? That's a Red Herring. I never said I agreed with big pharma buying politicians either.

If you're against politicians being bought by any lobbying group in general then to only boycott the NRA-bought politicians is hypocritical, and here you're being given an example of a group of lobbyists who spends far more than the NRA to buy politicians, and yet you're not up in arms. The question is whether or not you're a hypocrite pretending to be noble but really just trying to attack a group of people you disagree with politically: gun owners.

Wrong. There is a huge difference between the NRA and Big Pharma, and you have also committed a logical fallacy. Just because I said I would not vote for a person who takes money from the NRA, but haven't put up a post saying I wouldn't vote for someone that takes money from Big Pharma doesn't mean that I will.

There are a couple issues with Big Pharma. One is they say they have to charge a lot for drugs because the amount of testing the federal government requires before they can sell them. But at the same time, the federal government is in bed with them by not allowing people to buy drugs from other countries where generic versions are more readily available. So the issue with drug prices is the fault of Big Pharma AND the federal government. I supported Bernie Sanders plan to make it so people and companies could get drugs from other countries, which would force lower prices on drugs, but the CONSERVATIVES shot it down.

There is a huge difference between the NRA and Big Pharma,

you're right.

NRA isnt' raising the price of needed drugs out of sight

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Counting up how much the NRA spends on campaigns, lobbying
Over 20 years they have spent $200 million. Big pharma spends that every single year.

And? That's a Red Herring. I never said I agreed with big pharma buying politicians either.

If you're against politicians being bought by any lobbying group in general then to only boycott the NRA-bought politicians is hypocritical, and here you're being given an example of a group of lobbyists who spends far more than the NRA to buy politicians, and yet you're not up in arms. The question is whether or not you're a hypocrite pretending to be noble but really just trying to attack a group of people you disagree with politically: gun owners.

It is pathetic with all of Lewdog's Democrats being bought by one leftist lobby after another he melts down only over the NRA. Democrats are bizarre people

The funny thing is the NRA is not leading anybody or anything. They are not a PAC. They are merely a club that represents gun owners and gun ownership.

Democrats going after armed citizens would be nothing more than a Deplorable moment. So they figure in order to get to those Americans that they hate so much, use the NRA path instead. This way they are attacking an organization instead of a group of citizens.

That's a great point. Leftists like Lewdog go after the NRA because it hides that their target are just gun owners.

When I've disagreed with the NRA, it's been because they took positions that were too soft on gun ownership, not to hard.

Schools have become a target. As the Texas shooting showed, shootings stop when the second gun arrives and not before. So let's have the second gun already there. And the third, forth and fifth ...

These leftist allow the party to think for them. Ask any one of them to specifically why they hate the NRA or what the NRA had to do with any school shooting, and they can't tell you. They don't know why. All they were told is to hate the NRA and it's all they really know.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nobody is "bought and paid for" by the NRA.

The NRA are pikers (spending less than $20 million /year) compared to the drug companies (over $200 million per year)- are you gung-ho about not voting for anyone who receives money from Pharmaceutical Companies?

How about Banks and Investment firms?

What about the US Chamber of Commerce? Do you hate them too?

They contributed $50 MILLION in 2016 alone, including $30 MILLION to the Trump campaign.

Counting up how much the NRA spends on campaigns, lobbying
Over 20 years they have spent $200 million. Big pharma spends that every single year.

And? That's a Red Herring. I never said I agreed with big pharma buying politicians either.

If you're against politicians being bought by any lobbying group in general then to only boycott the NRA-bought politicians is hypocritical, and here you're being given an example of a group of lobbyists who spends far more than the NRA to buy politicians, and yet you're not up in arms. The question is whether or not you're a hypocrite pretending to be noble but really just trying to attack a group of people you disagree with politically: gun owners.

Wrong. There is a huge difference between the NRA and Big Pharma, and you have also committed a logical fallacy. Just because I said I would not vote for a person who takes money from the NRA, but haven't put up a post saying I wouldn't vote for someone that takes money from Big Pharma doesn't mean that I will.

There are a couple issues with Big Pharma. One is they say they have to charge a lot for drugs because the amount of testing the federal government requires before they can sell them. But at the same time, the federal government is in bed with them by not allowing people to buy drugs from other countries where generic versions are more readily available. So the issue with drug prices is the fault of Big Pharma AND the federal government. I supported Bernie Sanders plan to make it so people and companies could get drugs from other countries, which would force lower prices on drugs, but the CONSERVATIVES shot it down.

I didn't commit a logical fallacy, because I was literally asking you. Rather, the other poster was asking you and I latched onto their question. A question you still haven't answered. Nor is it just the NRA and Big Pharma. What about AIPAC? What about every other lobbyist organization that gives money to politicians? Almost 100% of politicians take lobbyist money from some organization or other, so if your complaint is that the NRA owns the politicians they give money to it's only logical that every lobbying group owns every politician they give money to and since nearly all politicians take lobbyist money you can't vote for any politician ever. Otherwise you're a hypocrite putting forward a false argument for why you oppose the NRA.

 

[Lewdog]

They contributed $50 MILLION in 2016 alone, including $30 MILLION to the Trump campaign.

Counting up how much the NRA spends on campaigns, lobbying
Over 20 years they have spent $200 million. Big pharma spends that every single year.

And? That's a Red Herring. I never said I agreed with big pharma buying politicians either.

If you're against politicians being bought by any lobbying group in general then to only boycott the NRA-bought politicians is hypocritical, and here you're being given an example of a group of lobbyists who spends far more than the NRA to buy politicians, and yet you're not up in arms. The question is whether or not you're a hypocrite pretending to be noble but really just trying to attack a group of people you disagree with politically: gun owners.

Wrong. There is a huge difference between the NRA and Big Pharma, and you have also committed a logical fallacy. Just because I said I would not vote for a person who takes money from the NRA, but haven't put up a post saying I wouldn't vote for someone that takes money from Big Pharma doesn't mean that I will.

There are a couple issues with Big Pharma. One is they say they have to charge a lot for drugs because the amount of testing the federal government requires before they can sell them. But at the same time, the federal government is in bed with them by not allowing people to buy drugs from other countries where generic versions are more readily available. So the issue with drug prices is the fault of Big Pharma AND the federal government. I supported Bernie Sanders plan to make it so people and companies could get drugs from other countries, which would force lower prices on drugs, but the CONSERVATIVES shot it down.

I didn't commit a logical fallacy, because I was literally asking you. Rather, the other poster was asking you and I latched onto their question. A question you still haven't answered. Nor is it just the NRA and Big Pharma. What about AIPAC? What about every other lobbyist organization that gives money to politicians? Almost 100% of politicians take lobbyist money from some organization or other, so if your complaint is that the NRA owns the politicians they give money to it's only logical that every lobbying group owns every politician they give money to and since nearly all politicians take lobbyist money you can't vote for any politician ever. Otherwise you're a hypocrite putting forward a false argument for why you oppose the NRA.

Yes and I didn't answer it because that isn't what this thread is about. It's as simple as that.

...and yes you did commit a logical fallacy when you jumped to assumptions about my stance on Big Pharma simply because I hadn't stated it.

 

[Norman]

And? That's a Red Herring. I never said I agreed with big pharma buying politicians either.

If you're against politicians being bought by any lobbying group in general then to only boycott the NRA-bought politicians is hypocritical, and here you're being given an example of a group of lobbyists who spends far more than the NRA to buy politicians, and yet you're not up in arms. The question is whether or not you're a hypocrite pretending to be noble but really just trying to attack a group of people you disagree with politically: gun owners.

It is pathetic with all of Lewdog's Democrats being bought by one leftist lobby after another he melts down only over the NRA. Democrats are bizarre people

The funny thing is the NRA is not leading anybody or anything. They are not a PAC. They are merely a club that represents gun owners and gun ownership.

Democrats going after armed citizens would be nothing more than a Deplorable moment. So they figure in order to get to those Americans that they hate so much, use the NRA path instead. This way they are attacking an organization instead of a group of citizens.

That's a great point. Leftists like Lewdog go after the NRA because it hides that their target are just gun owners.

When I've disagreed with the NRA, it's been because they took positions that were too soft on gun ownership, not to hard.

Schools have become a target. As the Texas shooting showed, shootings stop when the second gun arrives and not before. So let's have the second gun already there. And the third, forth and fifth ...

These leftist allow the party to think for them. Ask any one of them to specifically why they hate the NRA or what the NRA had to do with any school shooting, and they can't tell you. They don't know why. All they were told is to hate the NRA and it's all they really know.

NRA protects the constitution, the 2nd amendment.

That's why they hate it, don't be silly.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Counting up how much the NRA spends on campaigns, lobbying
Over 20 years they have spent $200 million. Big pharma spends that every single year.

And? That's a Red Herring. I never said I agreed with big pharma buying politicians either.

If you're against politicians being bought by any lobbying group in general then to only boycott the NRA-bought politicians is hypocritical, and here you're being given an example of a group of lobbyists who spends far more than the NRA to buy politicians, and yet you're not up in arms. The question is whether or not you're a hypocrite pretending to be noble but really just trying to attack a group of people you disagree with politically: gun owners.

Wrong. There is a huge difference between the NRA and Big Pharma, and you have also committed a logical fallacy. Just because I said I would not vote for a person who takes money from the NRA, but haven't put up a post saying I wouldn't vote for someone that takes money from Big Pharma doesn't mean that I will.

There are a couple issues with Big Pharma. One is they say they have to charge a lot for drugs because the amount of testing the federal government requires before they can sell them. But at the same time, the federal government is in bed with them by not allowing people to buy drugs from other countries where generic versions are more readily available. So the issue with drug prices is the fault of Big Pharma AND the federal government. I supported Bernie Sanders plan to make it so people and companies could get drugs from other countries, which would force lower prices on drugs, but the CONSERVATIVES shot it down.

I didn't commit a logical fallacy, because I was literally asking you. Rather, the other poster was asking you and I latched onto their question. A question you still haven't answered. Nor is it just the NRA and Big Pharma. What about AIPAC? What about every other lobbyist organization that gives money to politicians? Almost 100% of politicians take lobbyist money from some organization or other, so if your complaint is that the NRA owns the politicians they give money to it's only logical that every lobbying group owns every politician they give money to and since nearly all politicians take lobbyist money you can't vote for any politician ever. Otherwise you're a hypocrite putting forward a false argument for why you oppose the NRA.

Yes and I didn't answer it because that isn't what this thread is about. It's as simple as that.

...and yes you did commit a logical fallacy when you jumped to assumptions about my stance on Big Pharma simply because I hadn't stated it.

I didn't jump to assumptions about your stance. I said if you don't apply the same logic to other lobbying organizations that you do to the NRA then you're a hypocrite. And that question is relevant to what this thread is about. It seems like you're not answering it because you know that you can't really defend your position.

 

[Lewdog]

And? That's a Red Herring. I never said I agreed with big pharma buying politicians either.

If you're against politicians being bought by any lobbying group in general then to only boycott the NRA-bought politicians is hypocritical, and here you're being given an example of a group of lobbyists who spends far more than the NRA to buy politicians, and yet you're not up in arms. The question is whether or not you're a hypocrite pretending to be noble but really just trying to attack a group of people you disagree with politically: gun owners.

Wrong. There is a huge difference between the NRA and Big Pharma, and you have also committed a logical fallacy. Just because I said I would not vote for a person who takes money from the NRA, but haven't put up a post saying I wouldn't vote for someone that takes money from Big Pharma doesn't mean that I will.

There are a couple issues with Big Pharma. One is they say they have to charge a lot for drugs because the amount of testing the federal government requires before they can sell them. But at the same time, the federal government is in bed with them by not allowing people to buy drugs from other countries where generic versions are more readily available. So the issue with drug prices is the fault of Big Pharma AND the federal government. I supported Bernie Sanders plan to make it so people and companies could get drugs from other countries, which would force lower prices on drugs, but the CONSERVATIVES shot it down.

I didn't commit a logical fallacy, because I was literally asking you. Rather, the other poster was asking you and I latched onto their question. A question you still haven't answered. Nor is it just the NRA and Big Pharma. What about AIPAC? What about every other lobbyist organization that gives money to politicians? Almost 100% of politicians take lobbyist money from some organization or other, so if your complaint is that the NRA owns the politicians they give money to it's only logical that every lobbying group owns every politician they give money to and since nearly all politicians take lobbyist money you can't vote for any politician ever. Otherwise you're a hypocrite putting forward a false argument for why you oppose the NRA.

Yes and I didn't answer it because that isn't what this thread is about. It's as simple as that.

...and yes you did commit a logical fallacy when you jumped to assumptions about my stance on Big Pharma simply because I hadn't stated it.

I didn't jump to assumptions about your stance. I said if you don't apply the same logic to other lobbying organizations that you do to the NRA then you're a hypocrite. And that question is relevant to what this thread is about. It seems like you're not answering it because you know that you can't really defend your position.

I'm not answering the question because that's not what this thread is about. I want it to stay on topic and not get muddled with a bunch of other topics.

 

[kaz]

If you're against politicians being bought by any lobbying group in general then to only boycott the NRA-bought politicians is hypocritical, and here you're being given an example of a group of lobbyists who spends far more than the NRA to buy politicians, and yet you're not up in arms. The question is whether or not you're a hypocrite pretending to be noble but really just trying to attack a group of people you disagree with politically: gun owners.

It is pathetic with all of Lewdog's Democrats being bought by one leftist lobby after another he melts down only over the NRA. Democrats are bizarre people

The funny thing is the NRA is not leading anybody or anything. They are not a PAC. They are merely a club that represents gun owners and gun ownership.

Democrats going after armed citizens would be nothing more than a Deplorable moment. So they figure in order to get to those Americans that they hate so much, use the NRA path instead. This way they are attacking an organization instead of a group of citizens.

That's a great point. Leftists like Lewdog go after the NRA because it hides that their target are just gun owners.

When I've disagreed with the NRA, it's been because they took positions that were too soft on gun ownership, not to hard.

Schools have become a target. As the Texas shooting showed, shootings stop when the second gun arrives and not before. So let's have the second gun already there. And the third, forth and fifth ...

These leftist allow the party to think for them. Ask any one of them to specifically why they hate the NRA or what the NRA had to do with any school shooting, and they can't tell you. They don't know why. All they were told is to hate the NRA and it's all they really know.

NRA protects the constitution, the 2nd amendment.

That's why they hate it, don't be silly.

True, but I don't see where Ray contradicted that

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They contributed $50 MILLION in 2016 alone, including $30 MILLION to the Trump campaign.

Counting up how much the NRA spends on campaigns, lobbying
Over 20 years they have spent $200 million. Big pharma spends that every single year.

And? That's a Red Herring. I never said I agreed with big pharma buying politicians either.

If you're against politicians being bought by any lobbying group in general then to only boycott the NRA-bought politicians is hypocritical, and here you're being given an example of a group of lobbyists who spends far more than the NRA to buy politicians, and yet you're not up in arms. The question is whether or not you're a hypocrite pretending to be noble but really just trying to attack a group of people you disagree with politically: gun owners.

Wrong. There is a huge difference between the NRA and Big Pharma, and you have also committed a logical fallacy. Just because I said I would not vote for a person who takes money from the NRA, but haven't put up a post saying I wouldn't vote for someone that takes money from Big Pharma doesn't mean that I will.

There are a couple issues with Big Pharma. One is they say they have to charge a lot for drugs because the amount of testing the federal government requires before they can sell them. But at the same time, the federal government is in bed with them by not allowing people to buy drugs from other countries where generic versions are more readily available. So the issue with drug prices is the fault of Big Pharma AND the federal government. I supported Bernie Sanders plan to make it so people and companies could get drugs from other countries, which would force lower prices on drugs, but the CONSERVATIVES shot it down.

I didn't commit a logical fallacy, because I was literally asking you. Rather, the other poster was asking you and I latched onto their question. A question you still haven't answered. Nor is it just the NRA and Big Pharma. What about AIPAC? What about every other lobbyist organization that gives money to politicians? Almost 100% of politicians take lobbyist money from some organization or other, so if your complaint is that the NRA owns the politicians they give money to it's only logical that every lobbying group owns every politician they give money to and since nearly all politicians take lobbyist money you can't vote for any politician ever. Otherwise you're a hypocrite putting forward a false argument for why you oppose the NRA.

Trail lawyers are a large contributor to the Democrat party at election time. It's why we have to read through three pages of safety idiocy before we get the actual instructions on how to start our weed whacker. It's why Democrat ambulance chasers have been able to sue McDonald's about anything from a woman spilling hot coffee on herself to a kid being fat. It's why our doctor can no longer treat us for many issues, and instead, refer us to five different specialists that are a great expense to our insurers causing our premiums to be unaffordable to many people.

Why is it unions are just about a thing of the past except for the government unions and UAW? It's because Democrats get a kickback at election time for all those union contributions they helped insure.

Republicans are pro-firearms while the Democrats are anti-firearms. Then they are upset when an organization like the NRA supports their same cause.

 

[blackhawk]

I personally will not vote for a candidate that takes campaign contributions from Planned Parenthood abortion is legal and PP has a right to perform them but I see no reason why the tax dollars from those who oppose abortion should be given to an organization that performs them. In my opinion Planned Parenthood can get any extra funds they need through fundraising and private donations.

 

[Zander]

If you're against politicians being bought by any lobbying group in general then to only boycott the NRA-bought politicians is hypocritical, and here you're being given an example of a group of lobbyists who spends far more than the NRA to buy politicians, and yet you're not up in arms. The question is whether or not you're a hypocrite pretending to be noble but really just trying to attack a group of people you disagree with politically: gun owners.

Wrong. There is a huge difference between the NRA and Big Pharma, and you have also committed a logical fallacy. Just because I said I would not vote for a person who takes money from the NRA, but haven't put up a post saying I wouldn't vote for someone that takes money from Big Pharma doesn't mean that I will.

There are a couple issues with Big Pharma. One is they say they have to charge a lot for drugs because the amount of testing the federal government requires before they can sell them. But at the same time, the federal government is in bed with them by not allowing people to buy drugs from other countries where generic versions are more readily available. So the issue with drug prices is the fault of Big Pharma AND the federal government. I supported Bernie Sanders plan to make it so people and companies could get drugs from other countries, which would force lower prices on drugs, but the CONSERVATIVES shot it down.

I didn't commit a logical fallacy, because I was literally asking you. Rather, the other poster was asking you and I latched onto their question. A question you still haven't answered. Nor is it just the NRA and Big Pharma. What about AIPAC? What about every other lobbyist organization that gives money to politicians? Almost 100% of politicians take lobbyist money from some organization or other, so if your complaint is that the NRA owns the politicians they give money to it's only logical that every lobbying group owns every politician they give money to and since nearly all politicians take lobbyist money you can't vote for any politician ever. Otherwise you're a hypocrite putting forward a false argument for why you oppose the NRA.

Yes and I didn't answer it because that isn't what this thread is about. It's as simple as that.

...and yes you did commit a logical fallacy when you jumped to assumptions about my stance on Big Pharma simply because I hadn't stated it.

I didn't jump to assumptions about your stance. I said if you don't apply the same logic to other lobbying organizations that you do to the NRA then you're a hypocrite. And that question is relevant to what this thread is about. It seems like you're not answering it because you know that you can't really defend your position.

I'm not answering the question because that's not what this thread is about. I want it to stay on topic and not get muddled with a bunch of other topics.

You're full of baloney.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you're against politicians being bought by any lobbying group in general then to only boycott the NRA-bought politicians is hypocritical, and here you're being given an example of a group of lobbyists who spends far more than the NRA to buy politicians, and yet you're not up in arms. The question is whether or not you're a hypocrite pretending to be noble but really just trying to attack a group of people you disagree with politically: gun owners.

Wrong. There is a huge difference between the NRA and Big Pharma, and you have also committed a logical fallacy. Just because I said I would not vote for a person who takes money from the NRA, but haven't put up a post saying I wouldn't vote for someone that takes money from Big Pharma doesn't mean that I will.

There are a couple issues with Big Pharma. One is they say they have to charge a lot for drugs because the amount of testing the federal government requires before they can sell them. But at the same time, the federal government is in bed with them by not allowing people to buy drugs from other countries where generic versions are more readily available. So the issue with drug prices is the fault of Big Pharma AND the federal government. I supported Bernie Sanders plan to make it so people and companies could get drugs from other countries, which would force lower prices on drugs, but the CONSERVATIVES shot it down.

I didn't commit a logical fallacy, because I was literally asking you. Rather, the other poster was asking you and I latched onto their question. A question you still haven't answered. Nor is it just the NRA and Big Pharma. What about AIPAC? What about every other lobbyist organization that gives money to politicians? Almost 100% of politicians take lobbyist money from some organization or other, so if your complaint is that the NRA owns the politicians they give money to it's only logical that every lobbying group owns every politician they give money to and since nearly all politicians take lobbyist money you can't vote for any politician ever. Otherwise you're a hypocrite putting forward a false argument for why you oppose the NRA.

Yes and I didn't answer it because that isn't what this thread is about. It's as simple as that.

...and yes you did commit a logical fallacy when you jumped to assumptions about my stance on Big Pharma simply because I hadn't stated it.

I didn't jump to assumptions about your stance. I said if you don't apply the same logic to other lobbying organizations that you do to the NRA then you're a hypocrite. And that question is relevant to what this thread is about. It seems like you're not answering it because you know that you can't really defend your position.

I'm not answering the question because that's not what this thread is about. I want it to stay on topic and not get muddled with a bunch of other topics.

So you can't defend your position. Anyone can see that the question is entirely relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[kaz]

Wrong. There is a huge difference between the NRA and Big Pharma, and you have also committed a logical fallacy. Just because I said I would not vote for a person who takes money from the NRA, but haven't put up a post saying I wouldn't vote for someone that takes money from Big Pharma doesn't mean that I will.

There are a couple issues with Big Pharma. One is they say they have to charge a lot for drugs because the amount of testing the federal government requires before they can sell them. But at the same time, the federal government is in bed with them by not allowing people to buy drugs from other countries where generic versions are more readily available. So the issue with drug prices is the fault of Big Pharma AND the federal government. I supported Bernie Sanders plan to make it so people and companies could get drugs from other countries, which would force lower prices on drugs, but the CONSERVATIVES shot it down.

I didn't commit a logical fallacy, because I was literally asking you. Rather, the other poster was asking you and I latched onto their question. A question you still haven't answered. Nor is it just the NRA and Big Pharma. What about AIPAC? What about every other lobbyist organization that gives money to politicians? Almost 100% of politicians take lobbyist money from some organization or other, so if your complaint is that the NRA owns the politicians they give money to it's only logical that every lobbying group owns every politician they give money to and since nearly all politicians take lobbyist money you can't vote for any politician ever. Otherwise you're a hypocrite putting forward a false argument for why you oppose the NRA.

Yes and I didn't answer it because that isn't what this thread is about. It's as simple as that.

...and yes you did commit a logical fallacy when you jumped to assumptions about my stance on Big Pharma simply because I hadn't stated it.

I didn't jump to assumptions about your stance. I said if you don't apply the same logic to other lobbying organizations that you do to the NRA then you're a hypocrite. And that question is relevant to what this thread is about. It seems like you're not answering it because you know that you can't really defend your position.

I'm not answering the question because that's not what this thread is about. I want it to stay on topic and not get muddled with a bunch of other topics.

So you can't defend your position. Anyone can see that the question is entirely relevant to the topic at hand.

Leftists are vacuous.

Lewdog - I won't vote for anyone supported by the NRA.

What about those supported by leftist groups?

What does that have to do with it?

Lewdog would suddenly get it if we flipped sides

 

[miketx]

I personally will NEVER vote for a candidate that takes campaign contributions from the NRA. I'm not for taking everyone's guns, but I do however think as a civilized society we shouldn't be the Wild West. I find it astonishing that the same Conservatives that are for limited federal government, and having as few federal gun laws as possible, suddenly find that the solution to school shootings is getting the federal government MORE involved in making schools as secure as prisons.

As long as politicians are bought and paid for with NRA money, they will not look to pass laws and fund programs to solve this crisis we are currently having.

You are an idiot.

 

[Resnic]

I personally will NEVER vote for a candidate that takes campaign contributions from the NRA. I'm not for taking everyone's guns, but I do however think as a civilized society we shouldn't be the Wild West. I find it astonishing that the same Conservatives that are for limited federal government, and having as few federal gun laws as possible, suddenly find that the solution to school shootings is getting the federal government MORE involved in making schools as secure as prisons.

As long as politicians are bought and paid for with NRA money, they will not look to pass laws and fund programs to solve this crisis we are currently having.

I sincerely don't mean this to be rude or seem like I am attacking you.

You're looking at the problem the wrong way. You're letting media coverage, rhetoric and narrow vision to guide your thoughts. You're not thinking it through to it's real conclusion.

You say it's the wild west, you say the NRA is part of the problem and your blaming conservatives. You're 100% wrong in all of those.

When it comes to gun violence let's go to the root of the problem. Look at who is causing the gun violence. Criminals, dopeheads and crazies.

So I pose a question.

Would you rather have a country with more gun control?

Or

Would you rather have a country with no dopeheads, criminals and crazies running around?

If you remove from society, discourage and treat criminals, crazies, and dopeheads like what they are then you don't need gun control.

When I was a boy I went bear hunting with my uncle in Colorado and the stewardess put our guns in a closet at the front of the plane, my local hardware store sold guns and dynamite and all you needed was cash, we had fewer gun laws than now and we had very little gun violence compared to now.

I say we need more criminal control, not gun control.

What you propose is like a city with high crime, rapes, drugs and murder and the mayor saying "we know everything is bad so we're installing more cameras". What good is that? Get rid of the people causing the problems.

I want a country that needs fewer rules because it's filled with decent, considerate, moral people with standards and values. We had that before and we can have it again.