GOP National Convention

[coda]

I don't know why you think this is a plot to eliminate all guns. I believe I am with the majority of citizens who want a reasonable amount of gun control, without eliminating guns entirely. This notion of no restrictions is absurd on its face: shall we begin to allow people to own tanks? Rocket launchers? How about an Apache?

I expect that the presumption that this is a 'plot' to eliminate all guns is a result of the anti-gun lobby saying that their approach to the ultimate elimination of the legal ownership of firearms in the US is the prohibit one gun or class of guns at a time. I don't have time to search for citations but guarantee it's been said on a number of occasions by a number of leaders in the gun control lobby. This is no different than the attempt by the anti-abortion lobbies attempt to make all abortions illegal one procedure at a time. It's a very effective strategy hence it's popularity on both sides of the political spectrum.

I'm in favor of performing abortions with guns (that oughta get both sides riled up).

I'm of the opinion that the framers of the Constitution, remember the bad old days of oppressive government and the need for a rebellion, wanted to ensure that a potentially oppressive government wouldn't restrict the tools of it's own demise. To that end, yes, I think private ownership of tanks is not unreasonable. Of course in the real world there are some obvious complications. I do know that, should it become necessary to a majority of our populace, I want the people to have enough firepower to overthrow a corrupt centralized government. It's that an unlikely scenario? Sure but keep an eye on Putin in Russia right now and remember that any democracy is a fragile, fragile thing.

[chm2023]

I do know that, should it become necessary to a majority of our populace, I want the people to have enough firepower to overthrow a corrupt centralized government. It's that an unlikely scenario? Sure but keep an eye on Putin in Russia right now and remember that any democracy is a fragile, fragile thing.

So comes the revolution, it's gonna be you and Billy Bob and the rest of the gun freaks against the nuclear arsenal of the US government. Gosh, wonder how that will turn out???

Actually democracy is a remarkably resilient thing--look how many nitwits and villians it has survived! (And is still surviving!!)

[coda]

So comes the revolution, it's gonna be you and Billy Bob and the rest of the gun freaks against the nuclear arsenal of the US government. Gosh, wonder how that will turn out???

Actually democracy is a remarkably resilient thing--look how many nitwits and villians it has survived! (And is still surviving!!)

Sticks and nukes may break my bones but calling me a 'gun freak' is just funny.

Your arguement is a specious one particularly in the case of a mass popular uprising. Of course I was speaking hyperbolically but I stand by the statement. If there's reason enough for a popular uprising I certainly hope it turns out well. I expect you'd be hoping the same thing.

Finally, if you think all the southern states were democracies during Jim Crow I'd hazard there are a number of people besides myself who would disagree. Germany was a democracy before WWII, infact Hitler was a popularly elected leader who effectivly dismantled the democratic institutions of the Weimar Republic. We are now watching the possible end to democratic rule in Russia. Democracy is a fragile, fragile thing which must be protected by the citizens who hold it so dear.

[Pete Hanlin]

Entertaining thread... I'd just echo the reference to the similarity of the NRA to the Anti-Life lobby (whoops, I meant "Pro-Choice"). Basically, each group views any restriction of their "rights" to be unreasonable. This is what happens in "absolute" conflicts- that is, arguments where there are absolute positions with little room for compromise. Perhaps the most blatant example of an absolute conflict would be Israel vs. Palestineans (neither side is ever going to truly compromise, because compromise in an absolute conflict is equivalent to losing).

Anyway, I don't know why Bush would even hesitate to debate Kerry. Kerry will no doubt be more eloquent (as was Al Gore), but I firmly believe the more the American public knows about John Kerry, the less likely he is to win the election. So, LET KERRY SPEAK!!! Perhaps even more interesting, though, would be having Kerry debating himself. He certainly has enough issues where he has alternatively advocated both sides to make for at least three or four debates all by himself!
;)

[coda]

Entertaining thread... I'd just echo the reference to the similarity of the NRA to the Anti-Life lobby (whoops, I meant "Pro-Choice").

Pete, I'm curious, where do you stand on capital punishment?

[Spexvet]

[HTML]
...
I personally am glad it is gone. It should never have been enacted. It was written by the anti gun lobby as a step to eliminate all guns.


Rep

The same way that restricting stem cell research is a step toward eliminating all freedom of a woman's choice.

[Spexvet]

Entertaining thread... I'd just echo the reference to the similarity of the NRA to the Anti-Life lobby (whoops, I meant "Pro-Choice").

That's right - Pro-choice and anti-choice.;)

...
Anyway, I don't know why Bush would even hesitate to debate Kerry. Kerry will no doubt be more eloquent (as was Al Gore), but I firmly believe the more the American public knows about John Kerry, the less likely he is to win the election. So, LET KERRY SPEAK!!! Perhaps even more interesting, though, would be having Kerry debating himself. He certainly has enough issues where he has alternatively advocated both sides to make for at least three or four debates all by himself!
;)

Our President speaks:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...040413-20.html


"Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it? THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet."

It's a shame they removed all the "umm"s and "err"s.

The "both sides of the issue" line is becoming cliche. Others have posted examples of W, himself, flip-flopping. If Kerry voted for "no child left behind" because it sounded like a good idea, then found that in practice it was not working, shouldn't he speak out against it? It looks like he's taking "both sides" ha, ha, ha. But I'd rather someone correct their mistake than continue down the wrong path with "strong leadership", like you-know-who.

[Spexvet]

I'm in favor of performing abortions with guns (that oughta get both sides riled up)..

I believe that only unborn fetuses should be allowed to own assault weapons.;)

I'm of the opinion that the framers of the Constitution, remember the bad old days of oppressive government and the need for a rebellion, wanted to ensure that a potentially oppressive government wouldn't restrict the tools of it's own demise. To that end, yes, I think private ownership of tanks is not unreasonable. Of course in the real world there are some obvious complications. I do know that, should it become necessary to a majority of our populace, I want the people to have enough firepower to overthrow a corrupt centralized government. It's that an unlikely scenario? Sure but keep an eye on Putin in Russia right now and remember that any democracy is a fragile, fragile thing.

I imagine assault weapons in the hands of The Black Panthers, Aryan Nation, and Kent State Rioters would be ok by you, then? They all were "fighting" against what they percieved to be an evil government.

[coda]

I imagine assault weapons in the hands of The Black Panthers, Aryan Nation, and Kent State Rioters would be ok by you, then? They all were "fighting" against what they percieved to be an evil government.

Well the Aryan Nation and Black Panthers certainly had weapons and would have had them regardless of our national gun legislation. The Kent State STUDENTS were not rioting.

Certainly in the case of the Aryan Nation and to an only very slightly lesser degree the Black Panthers these were not popular uprisings. In the case of the Kent State students they were not rising up against oppresive government nor a nondemocratic one though I will concede that they were participants in the closest thing to a popular uprising in a very long time.

In as far as many in the Aryan Nation and Black Panthers were convicted felons, then no, I don't believe they should have been able to legally own or posses weapons. The non-felons should have been able to.

But to go back to the point I generally think you were trying to make, yes I belief that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." IMHO the framers were clearly distinguishing between an Army controlled by the federal government (well covered in the Consitution) and independent (or State not Federal) militias. The National Guard is no longer independent from the federal armed services and states no longer field militias. That leaves the burden on the people. Ideally I'd like to see states organize "well regulated Militia"s with citizen volunteers owning THEIR OWN WEAPONS.

Finally, I do believe that ANY errosion of our civil rights, be it of speach, religion, gun ownership, etc., is a move in the wrong direction.

[Spexvet]

Well the Aryan Nation and Black Panthers certainly had weapons and would have had them regardless of our national gun legislation. The Kent State STUDENTS were not rioting.

I beg your pardon and stand corrected. Let me restate as "demonstrating students".

Certainly in the case of the Aryan Nation and to an only very slightly lesser degree the Black Panthers these were not popular uprisings.

I imagine a "popular" uprising would start in a similar way, though.

But to go back to the point I generally think you were trying to make, yes I belief that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." IMHO the framers were clearly distinguishing between an Army controlled by the federal government (well covered in the Consitution) and independent (or State not Federal) militias. The National Guard is no longer independent from the federal armed services and states no longer field militias. That leaves the burden on the people. Ideally I'd like to see states organize "well regulated Militia"s with citizen volunteers owning THEIR OWN WEAPONS.

While I Believe that the framers had some great ideas, and were ahead of their time, I don't think they were perfect, as constitutional ammendments support. Slavery, omitting a woman's right to vote, and having to own land to vote are some issues on which I feel they erred. It has also been a long time, and the framers could not conceive of assault weapons. I support an American's right to own a front loading musket. Actually, I have no problem with rifles or shotguns. I am on the fence regarding hand guns. I believe that anybody having an assault weapon should be shot with one.;)

Finally, I do believe that ANY errosion of our civil rights, be it of speach, religion, gun ownership, etc., is a move in the wrong direction.

How do you feel about the Patriot Act?

[coda]

I imagine a "popular" uprising would start in a similar way, though.


While I Believe that the framers had some great ideas, and were ahead of their time, I don't think they were perfect, as constitutional ammendments support. Slavery, omitting a woman's right to vote, and having to own land to vote are some issues on which I feel they erred. It has also been a long time, and the framers could not conceive of assault weapons. I support an American's right to own a front loading musket. Actually, I have no problem with rifles or shotguns. I am on the fence regarding hand guns. I believe that anybody having an assault weapon should be shot with one.;)


How do you feel about the Patriot Act?

I stand strongly against the Patriot Act and have from the beginning when I protested it at a number of rallies both during the 'debate' in congress and after it's raitification.

Sure the framers made mistakes I just don't believe that the second ammendment is one of their more aggregious ones. It would have been nice if they were a little clearer in their justification though. ;)

[Spexvet]

I stand strongly against the Patriot Act and have from the beginning when I protested it at a number of rallies both during the 'debate' in congress and after it's raitification.

Sure the framers made mistakes I just don't believe that the second ammendment is one of their more aggregious ones. It would have been nice if they were a little clearer in their justification though. ;)

I agree with you on the Patriot Act.

I think the framers were as clear as they could be from their point in time. So much has changed since then. If they had specifically excluded things like bombs and cannons, I don't think there would be much debate about assault weapons.:cheers:

[coda]

I think the framers were as clear as they could be from their point in time. So much has changed since then. If they had specifically excluded things like bombs and cannons, I don't think there would be much debate about assault weapons.:cheers:

Hmmm, excellent point. I may have to use that one myself one of these days.

[mrba]

There is a "civilian" version of the AK 47, manufactured domestically, that is now legal to sell. (Check the internet, the sellers call it an AK 47). Though your point is a good one, I'm sure the people killed by this weapon will find comfort in the fact that it's not the original military weapon.

You just keep hittin on a dead horse. YOU OBVIOUSLY DON"T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. The civilian version of the AK 47 as you call it, functions differently, and is a different gun in terms of ability to mow down people.

[Spexvet]

Hmmm, excellent point. I may have to use that one myself one of these days.

The point, or the assault weapon?

[chip anderson]

Some of you folks just don't get it. No one was ever killed by a weapon (unless it was defective and destroyed the user). Guns, Rocks, Fishing Poles, Ropes, dynamite, bows-and-arrows, catapults etc. don't kill hurt or maim people. People do these things

Now do I think the average civilian needs cannons, machine guns, bazookas, etc?
No.
Do I really believe the "Right to keep and bear Arms" exhists for the individual as an "inalienable" (definition: Granted by God, not the law) right? Do I think this is in the Constitution to protect the citizen from the Government and other threats?
Yep.
Do I think in today's world the citizenry could really defend or destroy a corrupt government with the weapons he could procure?
No.
Do I think all (sane) citizens should possess and be trained in the public education system to use, firearms?
Yep.
Do I think a crime problem would exist if every citizen were known to be armed or able to be armed?
No, at least not on a violent or physical level. Or at least not at a high incidence rate.
Do I think if none of the citizens were armed crime would be less? Do I think the Government or the police would protect the citizenry better?
No.

The founding fathers knew what they were talking about. Too bad we don't seem to have people that smart anymore.

Chip

[chm2023]

Some of you folks just don't get it. No one was ever killed by a weapon (unless it was defective and destroyed the user). Guns, Rocks, Fishing Poles, Ropes, dynamite, bows-and-arrows, catapults etc. don't kill hurt or maim people. People do these things

Now do I think the average civilian needs cannons, machine guns, bazookas, etc?
No.
Do I really believe the "Right to keep and bear Arms" exhists for the individual as an "inalienable" (definition: Granted by God, not the law) right? Do I think this is in the Constitution to protect the citizen from the Government and other threats?
Yep.
Do I think in today's world the citizenry could really defend or destroy a corrupt government with the weapons he could procure?
No.
Do I think all (sane) citizens should possess and be trained in the public education system to use, firearms?
Yep.
Do I think a crime problem would exist if every citizen were known to be armed or able to be armed?
No, at least not on a violent or physical level. Or at least not at a high incidence rate.
Do I think if none of the citizens were armed crime would be less? Do I think the Government or the police would protect the citizenry better?
No.

The founding fathers knew what they were talking about. Too bad we don't seem to have people that smart anymore.

Chip

Chip, did you ever see Bowling for Columbine? You should, it presents a very interesting POV on this whole gun thing; I would be interested in your take on it.

[Spexvet]

Some of you folks just don't get it. No one was ever killed by a weapon (unless it was defective and destroyed the user). Guns, Rocks, Fishing Poles, Ropes, dynamite, bows-and-arrows, catapults etc. don't kill hurt or maim people. People do these things

Can we agree that it is the combination of weapon and user that causes the killing. Since we can't get rid of the people (legally, Chip), we need to cut down on the weapons.

Now do I think the average civilian needs cannons, machine guns, bazookas, etc?
No.
Do I really believe the "Right to keep and bear Arms" exhists for the individual as an "inalienable" (definition: Granted by God, not the law) right? Do I think this is in the Constitution to protect the citizen from the Government and other threats?
Yep.
Do I think in today's world the citizenry could really defend or destroy a corrupt government with the weapons he could procure?
No.
Do I think all (sane) citizens should possess and be trained in the public education system to use, firearms?
Yep.
Do I think a crime problem would exist if every citizen were known to be armed or able to be armed?
No, at least not on a violent or physical level. Or at least not at a high incidence rate.
Do I think if none of the citizens were armed crime would be less? Do I think the Government or the police would protect the citizenry better?
No.

Welcome to Tombstone, or Dodge City - keep your six gun ready.

The founding fathers knew what they were talking about. Too bad we don't seem to have people that smart anymore.

Chip

Your consistency is reassuring. Those who don't agree with you are not "that smart anymore". Couldn't be we just disagree with you, could it? If Albert Einstein was pro gun control, would he be not "that smart anymore"?

[chm2023]

Sticks and nukes may break my bones but calling me a 'gun freak' is just funny.

Your arguement is a specious one particularly in the case of a mass popular uprising. Of course I was speaking hyperbolically but I stand by the statement. If there's reason enough for a popular uprising I certainly hope it turns out well. I expect you'd be hoping the same thing.

Finally, if you think all the southern states were democracies during Jim Crow I'd hazard there are a number of people besides myself who would disagree. Germany was a democracy before WWII, infact Hitler was a popularly elected leader who effectivly dismantled the democratic institutions of the Weimar Republic. We are now watching the possible end to democratic rule in Russia. Democracy is a fragile, fragile thing which must be protected by the citizens who hold it so dear.

But you are making my point--Germany is now a democracy, the southern states (and northern to be honest!) do provide the benefits of democracy to all; re Russia, well who is to say this is the end game? Though frankly, given that Putin got about 90% of the "vote" in the last election, I think that ship has sailed.

[Pete Hanlin]

Pete, I'm curious, where do you stand on capital punishment?
Basically, I am pro death penalty- but I do take pause at the fact that capital punishment in America does seem to be unequally and, at times, unjustifiably administered in our justice system.

As to whether this stance is contradictory with my pro-life beliefs (which, I assume, is the reason you raise the question), I believe not. I am "pro-life" (or "anti-choice" depending upon one's leanings) because I believe an unborn child is a living being who should be afforded the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- just like everyone else. Regarding choice, a woman (and man) makes a choice whether to procreate. That choice takes the form of deciding to have intercourse. If a new life is the result of that act (and nature dictates it sometimes is), then the choice has been made. At that point, the child is being sheltered and raised by the mother in her womb (not altogether different than the shelter and care expected after a baby emerges from that womb).

Regarding capital punishment, it comes down to choice as well. Basically, the criminal has made a choice to take the life of another person (murder is by far the most prevelent crime to which capital punishment is applied). This choice has consequences, and- in some states- those consequences may include the possibility of capital punishment. I fail to see what conscious decision an unborn child has made which merits its termination. If my children become inconvenient to the point that I choose to no longer parent them, should I be permitted to have them surgically terminated? I think not. How then, is it justifiable to terminate the life of a child- a child who, if left alone to develop, will continue to grow and develop much like a child outside the womb?

This just happens to be my stand- I'm not advocating that anyone else should share them. In our country, it would seem the majority feels that the obligation of a woman (and man) to raise a child is subjective and inferior to the "right" to choose not to parent the child they have conceived. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of our country has deemed this "right" to be actual. I think any argument against abortion would have to be done on behalf of the rights of the unborn child to life, liberty, etc. However, since unborn children do not vote (yes, that's cynical- but that's about the sum of it, isn't it?).

Furthermore, I don't really feel that those who are pro-abortion are morally "inferior" to those who are pro-life. Based on their belief system, they are comfortable with this stance. I am not to judge between my opinion and theirs- I can only speak from what I personally believe.

[Pete Hanlin]

I'd rather someone correct their mistake than continue down the wrong path with "strong leadership", like you-know-who.
I would rather a leader define what s/he believes the right path is, lay down their rationale, and then stick to his/her course of action. In my opinion (and obviously you do not share this opinion, which is fine), the Bush administration has done exactly that. You may not like, agree, condone, feel pride in, or otherwise support the administration's actions or policies, but I believe the positions of this administration are both consistent and fairly discernable. For me, that represents good leadership.

Regarding the "wrong path" speculation, I tend to disagree with that assessment. I believe- by and large- the policies of this administration have been correct ones. I would rather we hadn't expanded Medicare to cover medications (huge and costly mistake and misappropriation of federal- I mean "my"- dollars), and I would have liked to have seen stronger tax cuts (but the GOP Congress didn't have the hutzpah to enact the package asked for by the admin), but overall I'm quite satisfied. That, I suspect, is why I will vote to re-elect the administration.

Assuming you disagree, I invite you to express that disagreement by voting for John Kerry (or better yet, for Ralph Nader).
:cheers:

[Spexvet]

...This just happens to be my stand- I'm not advocating that anyone else should share them. In our country, it would seem the majority feels that the obligation of a woman (and man) to raise a child is subjective and inferior to the "right" to choose not to parent the child they have conceived. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of our country has deemed this "right" to be actual. I think any argument against abortion would have to be done on behalf of the rights of the unborn child to life, liberty, etc. However, since unborn children do not vote (yes, that's cynical- but that's about the sum of it, isn't it?).

Furthermore, I don't really feel that those who are pro-abortion are morally "inferior" to those who are pro-life. Based on their belief system, they are comfortable with this stance. I am not to judge between my opinion and theirs- I can only speak from what I personally believe.

Pete,
This sounds like you are pro-choice. I don't think anyone is really "pro-abortion". That would be someone who encourages women to have abortions, or who seeks legislation requiring women to have an abortion. You are like me. I would never try to convince a woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy, but I would never make that choice for her, either. I would even discourage her from that path.

It really comes down to a power struggle. Those who are anti-choice want to impose their values on others, those who are pro-choice want to retain the to choose. This is very similar to my interpretation of your fiscal philosophy. Who can best judge what should happen with your money? Who can best judge what should happen to her body.

Rather than the negative position of "you can't have an abortion", I would like to see anti-choice supporters take a positive position, where they promote adoption, or a support women. It could be that some financial support, a place to live healthcare coverage or day care would convince a woman to continue a pregnancy.

[mrba]

This sounds like you are pro-choice. I don't think anyone is really "pro-abortion". That would be someone who encourages women to have abortions, or who seeks legislation requiring women to have an abortion.

Planned parenthood is well documented to have done this for years.

[Spexvet]

Planned parenthood is well documented to have done this for years.

They offer all the alternatives (that they are allowed to, thanks to the repressive regime in the white house). Document where they have encouraged women to have abortions, or seek legislation requiring women to have an abortion, as I said.

[mrba]

Not sure I could document it, and I am not the person to ask. However if you ask anyone at crisis pregnancy center, who counsels post abortion women, you will learn a great many things on the topic I'm sure.