On Leaving The Republicn Party

[Gunny]

just got back from 12 days in France and it was my impression that they don't hate Americans- just Bush. They know how to make that distinction. They didn't support his invasion of Iraq for a very good reason- it was wrong. They also seem to be very environmentally-conscious and think Bush is anti-environment. I can see why they rioted over Sarkozy- thinking he will be in bed with Bush and his failed policies.

Horseshit. France had deals worked out with Saddam for cheap oil if France would vote to get sanctions lifted against Iraq. What would they know about right or wrong, when what they were doing was CLEARLY wrong.

 

[TeddyRoosevelt]

we sold Saddam under Reagan was OK? Where do think the WMDs he used came from, anyway?

 

[Gunny]

bullets kill people. Let's just regulate the ammunition. Imagine having to go to a state-owned franchise to purchase bullets for your gun. With all the guns in this country they could eliminate state income taxes and put all that money toward education! (I know cons think that education is a dangerous thing)

Guns don't kill people, and neither do bullets. PEOPLE kill people. I don't get what's so hard for some people to grasp the logic.

Disarming the law-abiding public is EXACTLY what criminals want you to do. I have yet to hear one of you "outlaw guns" geniuses to explain just how disarming law-abiding citizens is going to disarm criminals, who don't give a damn about the law to begin with. Yuo're just ensuring they KNOW they have nothing to fear, and VT was a perfect example of what happens to a disarmed public against an armed criminal.

 

[CSM]

PLEASE lighten up?

I was joking (the last post anyway).

The point I am trying to make is that our comment about bullets, at face value, is ridiculous. firearms and their associated ammunition are inanimate objects...the carry out no action on their own volition. While regulating ammunition is a means to gun control, the bottom line is that PEOPLE using firearms (with ammunition of course) kill other people. It's not guns, it's not ammunition, it is PEOPLE doing the killing.

 

[TeddyRoosevelt]

has obviously helped me see a lot more clearly. I would be more than happy to share-

 

[Gunny]

we sold Saddam under Reagan was OK? Where do think the WMDs he used came from, anyway?

We did not sell Saddam any weapons. Try again. We sold him some dual-use equipment, but his weapons were Russian and French. And while the CIA at some point helped his chemists refine mustard gas; which, to anyone's knowledge was never used, we did not provide him with the means of delivery, Russia did.

Do your homework.

 

[Gunny]

has obviously helped me see a lot more clearly. I would be more than happy to share-

Actually, the smoke's gotten in your eyes, dude.

 

[CSM]

we sold Saddam under Reagan was OK? Where do think the WMDs he used came from, anyway?

Actually, the chemical weapons Saddam used on the Iranians and his own people were manufactured in Iraq with materials imported from primarily Germany. I've posted links proving that on this board before and am just to lazy to go look for it again.

 

[TeddyRoosevelt]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml

 

[TeddyRoosevelt]

More guns = more violence

Less guns = less violence

The statistics have been proving this for years.

 

[Gunny]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml

The newspaper says a review of a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague.

Which is basically what I said. You lefties like to play semantics, so "dual-use" should be right up your alley.

Besides, what relevance does the US supporting Saddam in a war with a common enemy, and Saddam later invading an ally? One has nothing to do with the other, and Saddam is the one that changed the circumstances, not us.

 

[TeddyRoosevelt]

the U.S. is always right and can do no wrong. That's wonderful.

 

[Bern80]

More guns = more violence

Less guns = less violence

The statistics have been proving this for years.

not really. There are a lot (and I mean a lot) of variables that come into play with such a broad statement.

As a point I grew up in a small town in MN with a population in the area of roughly 40,000 people. I would be willing to bet that 40,000 people have more guns per capita than a group of 40,000 people in say Las Angeles. In my lifetime (26 yrs) there have been 2 murders in that area, one wasn't even with a gun. I'm guessing LA has a had a few more than that. that is not a unique situation and proves the above completely false.

 

[CSM]

Here is something that may provide some insight to te less informed:

http://www.exportcontrols.org/strengths.html

 

[Gunny]

the U.S. is always right and can do no wrong. That's wonderful.

That's a WHOLE lot better than the US is always wrong and can do no right.

 

[CSM]

not really. There are a lot (and I mean a lot) of variables that come into play with such a broad statement.

As a point I grew up in a small town in MN with a population in the area of roughly 40,000 people. I would be willing to bet that 40,000 people have more guns per capita than a group of 40,000 people in say Las Angeles. In my lifetime (26 yrs) there have been 2 murders in that area, one wasn't even with a gun. I'm guessing LA has a had a few more than that. that is not a unique situation and proves the above completely false.

I betcha there a bungh of folks in Darfur who wish they owned and knew how to use firearems....

 

[Gunny]

More guns = more violence

Less guns = less violence

The statistics have been proving this for years.

Baseless, blind, and ignorant that no TRUE statistics supports. The only persons disarmed by law are the ones who abide the law.

But here's a plan. You want me to give up my Constitutional right to bear arms? You give up your Constitutional right to free speech. My rights under the Constitution are no less important than yours. If you think it's okay to take away mine, then I think it's okay to take away yours.

 

[CSM]

Baseless, blind, and ignorant that no TRUE statistics supports. The only persons disarmed by law are the ones who abide the law.

But here's a plan. You want me to give up my Constitutional right to bear arms? You give up your Constitutional right to free speech. My rights under the Constitution are no less important than yours. If you think it's okay to take away mine, then I think it's okay to take away yours.

Hmm...almost a reasonable deal but I would ask that he/she surrender his/her right to vote....then I'll give up right to bear arms.

 

[Vintij]

That doesn't make any sense, Vintij.

1) There is evidence to exactley the contrary also. I know it gets cited a lot but do read "More Guns, Less Crime"

2) Tell me you don't see the contradiction you made in the last sentence above and this one:



Yet somehow you are willing to beleive they are all wise and all knowing on gun control? This thread started out as being about how self serving, disconnected and self righteous are politicians have become. But where guns are concerned, that's okay huh?



Wow that statement says a lot about you. Regular civilians? Have you been exposed to unusually high amounts of irresponsible people in your life, so much that you seriously believe that the vast majority of 'regular civilians' aren't capable of being trained and able to use firearms safely? Is it your basic philosophy that we elect people because of how much smarter we think they are than us?



No it doesn't. It is very basic math. I'm not sure why you don't get this. If you make a law banning guns there are only two groups of people who will have guns and one of them simply won't alway be there to save you before the other one kills you.

"1) There is evidence to exactley the contrary also. I know it gets cited a lot but do read "More Guns, Less Crime""

Proof that more guns equals less violence. Because in Europe its the exact opposite. Cite it please, and no I dont want to read that bias essay I want numbers. Numbers different from mine, which I got from the census beuro of Europe.

Im not trying to make a law banning guns. Its too late, did you not get my last post? America wants what america gets, its too late to ban guns. Im saying that Europe is alot better off in terms of Gun violence. The numbers dont lie, and an opinion column is not going to change my mind. Dont you read anything that relates to foreign countrys compared to our own?

Yes I do believe the governemnt is smarter than the American people. Maybe not me or you, but certainly over 30-40 million american people are alot less educated than members of congress. Probably more. I dont have the numbers right now, but I will look for them. Thats not to say that I want congress running the country on every aspect, but I am saying that they are less likely to make a mistake than 200 million gun owners. This always gets me with you pro-guns people. Tell me how can you legitimately stand there and argue that 200 million gun owners are highly trained and are incapable of making a mistake. Infact more gun mistakes are made in america than in any other country! Lets cut out the gun mistakes for a second, lets say there are 200 gun owners who can handle a gun perfectly, well great now we have to account for the missing guns, or the illegally sold guns (most in the world), then on top of that we have to account for the gun owners who CANT aim or who are NOT responsible, then we have to account for the drug related crimes, the gang related crimes, the murders.....etc. Please dont tell me that 200 million americans are honest enough to hold a gun in there hand. Obviously you dont know these americans.

What you people dont take into account is that even if .1 percent of people died a year due to gun related violence. That .1 percent more than europe, who has strict gun control laws. Thats .1 percent familys who dont lose a loved one because of someone elses mistakes, hates, or bad judgements relating to guns. Thats .1 percent of deaths, that come at the expense of americans who want to shoot dear? And who like holding guns and shooting clay? Protecting yourself is not an excuse because there are thousands of non-lethal weapons to protect your family with.

Here is the difference between me, and the rest of america! This one question. Answer this......Is one single 10 year old black girls life, worth more than all of your satisfaction of shooting animals and clay and targets? Would you give up your guns if it would have saved her life? That question right there makes me different from you people, because one single childs life is worth more than all the love and protection I will EVER have for a gun.

Let me guess, your going to compare what I just said to some emotional rant about how your family is worth more than her life blah blah blah blah blah......please dont respond with that, It has nothing to do with the question, because as I said before....a non-lethal gun works just like a lethal one, without the killing. If you dont know that then you havent seen some of these amazing guns.

back to reality

Im not taking away anyones right to bear arms, Infact my orginal post had nothing to do with gun control. What my main point was that Europe is not such a bad country to emulate, based on the huge gap between our gun related deaths, and theres. And Deaths in general really.

 

[Gunny]

"1) There is evidence to exactley the contrary also. I know it gets cited a lot but do read "More Guns, Less Crime""

Proof that more guns equals less violence. Because in Europe its the exact opposite. Cite it please, and no I dont want to read that bias essay I want numbers. Numbers different from mine, which I got from the census beuro of Europe.

Im not trying to make a law banning guns. Its too late, did you not get my last post? America wants what america gets, its too late to ban guns. Im saying that Europe is alot better off in terms of Gun violence. The numbers dont lie, and an opinion column is not going to change my mind. Dont you read anything that relates to foreign countrys compared to our own?

Yes I do believe the governemnt is smarter than the American people. Maybe not me or you, but certainly over 30-40 million american people are alot less educated than members of congress. Probably more. I dont have the numbers right now, but I will look for them. Thats not to say that I want congress running the country on every aspect, but I am saying that they are less likely to make a mistake than 200 million gun owners. This always gets me with you pro-guns people. Tell me how can you legitimately stand there and argue that 200 million gun owners are highly trained and are incapable of making a mistake. Infact more gun mistakes are made in america than in any other country! Lets cut out the gun mistakes for a second, lets say there are 200 gun owners who can handle a gun perfectly, well great now we have to account for the missing guns, or the illegally sold guns, then on top of that we have to account for the gun owners who CANT aim or who are NOT responsible, then we have to account for the drug related crimes, the gang related crimes, the murders.....etc. Please dont tell me that 200 million americans are honest enough to hold a gun in there hand. Obviously you dont know these americans.

Im not taking away anyones right to bear arms, Infact my orginal post had nothing to do with gun control. What my main point was that Europe is not such a bad country to emulate, based on the huge gap between our gun related deaths, and theres. And Deaths in general really.

And obviously you don't know gun owners. While I will give you that there are more than a few that are probably irresponsible gun owners, for the most part, I have never met one that could not operate and safely maintain their weapons at the basic level at least.

Expecting each and every gun owner to be as proficient with a weapon as the relatively few who didgently train with firearms on a reguarl basis is unrealistic.

You also cannot apply what criminals do with illegally sold firearms to law-abiding citizens owning firearms. That's abusrd. Criminals, by law, cannot legally purchase nor possess firearms. They are violating the law to begin with by doing so.

Comparing our culture to a Eurpoean culture wallowing in socialist mediocrity is about as far fetched.

You're making irrelevant comparisons to suit your argument.