Victory for the Constitution!

Email Print posted by alphasigmookie 06/26/2008 02:14:26 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
"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."

The supreme court handed down a great victory for the constitution today.  In a 5-4 decision the court overturned the countries most restrictive gun law and afirmed the individual right to armed self defense. 

While I realize many democrats are fuming over this decison, the sooner they realize that trying to fuck with America's guns is a losing issue, the sooner they can actually hold on to a majority for once.  Here are some quotes from Democrats who get it:

"This opinion should usher in a new era in which the constitutionality of government regulations of firearms are reviewed against the backdrop of this important right." — Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.


"I think this is a long overdue decision; I don't think the precedent has been seriously reaffirmed in decades." — Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.


"The Supreme Court's decision underscores our country's commitment to protecting the fundamental rights on which America was founded. Today, America has reaffirmed its promise to the right to bear arms." — Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Texas.


Today, the Supreme Court upheld Americans' Second Amendment rights and I applaud the court's decision. I strongly support every citizen's right to keep and bear arms." _ Rep. Steve Kagen, D-Wis.

Here are some quotes from Democrats who don't:

"I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it." — Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

"Today, President Bush's radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future." — Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

"More handguns will lead to more handgun violence."  - Mayor Fenty (D)
< How Not To Vote | 15 +129 >
 Display:
Victory for the Constitution! | 137 comments (137 topical, 0 hidden)
Complete agreement (none / 0)
I couldn't agree more Alpha - the Dems really need to lay off the gun control issue - its a non-winner for them. I am glad to see people like Feingold stand up for the whole Constitution. Since I'm out on the road, I don't know what Obamas reaction has been, but he needs to be real careful here - if he comes out raging against it, he can kiss a lot of his independent support goodbye. I personally think its a damn shame and a bad sign that this was a 5-4 decision. This should have been unanimous. Having it this close is a serious threat not only to the second amendment, but to the entire Constitution. I fear this is only a temp fix as Obama will surely put more Ginsburgs and Souters on the bench! This still by no means makes up for the horrendous Child Rape and Gitmo decisions earlier this year, but we'll take them as we get em! :)

by bobo1 on 06/26/2008 03:06:15 PM EST

3 for 3 (none / 1)
This still by no means makes up for the horrendous Child Rape and Gitmo decisions earlier this year, but we'll take them as we get em! :)

This is where we disagree, I think they were right on on both those cases too. 

by alphasigmookie on 06/26/2008 03:25:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That is not surprising (none / 0)
You are not a deranged psychopath like bobo.

by ProfRich on 06/26/2008 03:32:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well... (none / 0)
This deranged psychopath (thanks Rich) might be persuaded into agreement with you on the Gitmo case, but the Louisiana case was pretty bad - a state decided a punishment for a heinous crime and the 5-4 court decided to legislate from the bench in deciding what is "appropriate". This court is really teetering on abuse of power with some of their opinions! As for Gitmo, I will defer to our mutual friend Ken and say that perhaps we just need to stop taking prisoners, or at least stop telling the public that we have them. This way they can go back to not worrying about how we treat them!! :)

by bobo1 on 06/26/2008 03:45:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We agree on one thing (none / 0)

"This court is really teetering on abuse of power with some of their opinions!"

I would probably go further than that but not for these decisions.

"a state decided a punishment for a heinous crime and the 5-4 court decided to legislate from the bench in deciding what is "appropriate".&qu ot;

Yeah, that's the 8th amendment.  I don't know a thing about this case but the courts can rule a punishment "cruel or unusual" and overturn it.  Maybe this was, maybe it wasn't but for you to act like this is a violation of federalism shows an incomplete understanding of the Bill of Rights.

Ultimately the court clearly has the right to throw out a punishment, whether they should throw out any particular punishment we can argue about.

by ProfRich on 06/26/2008 04:19:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I understand federalism, professor... (none / 0)
I disagree with the ruling based on the fact I think child rapists should be publicly executed on TV. I would volunteer to do it free of charge to the state. I'd even chip in the gun and bullet. This is akin to the ruling a while back that said states can't execute retards because they are retards - again, the Supremes can rule it, but they dhouldnt have because it was a stupid ruling! I think the court's overstepping the will of the people by overruling the legislatures this way. They have become abusive in this respect, and have seriously limited the notion of "States Rights" something I personally believe the framers intended for the Constitution to uphold. Personally, I don't want Commies like RBG and Beyer deciding anything for me - this is why its important not to have Democrats controling all three branches!

by bobo1 on 06/26/2008 04:37:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Again (none / 0)
Your hatred for libs all the sudden is puzzling since you wanted to vote for Edwards.  That's interesting...  But since you're "on the road" I assume you're taking in lots of right wing radio (judging by your recent comments), so maybe it's not that interesting.

by Spencer on 06/26/2008 04:45:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Being on the road... (none / 0)
Yeah, I can't get NovaM 1480 Phoenix out here (hell I can't get anything in English in southern Az!) I think I liked Edwards originally because of his hair. In person, it looks fabulous! I saw him in Charlotte in 2005. Anyway, I still don't like Obama - maybe if he picks edwards or Clinton for VP he'll get me to vote for him - probably not, but it couldn't hurt! :)

by bobo1 on 06/26/2008 05:53:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
WHY!?! (none / 0)

That's what I'm asking you.  Why is Edwards more appealing to you?  He has views to the left of Obama, and he's a first class panderer.

Same question with Clinton.  She's a smidge to the right of Obama, and she's also a panderer (along with every politician).

Again, what would make either of those tickets more appealing to you?  You seem to hate all things liberal, so I guess I'm just not seeing it.

by Spencer on 06/26/2008 06:01:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
most obvious answer (none / 0)
Bobo is racist.

by desertpear on 06/26/2008 06:43:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hold up now. (none / 0)
Don't beat us to the finish.  ;)

by Spencer on 06/26/2008 08:04:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Whose supporters... (none / 0)
are bringing up the race card over and over?

Big hint - not McCains...

:)

by bobo1 on 06/26/2008 09:31:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Really (none / 0)

"If Obama wins will we still call it White House?"

"Swing State" with picture  of noose

"Run Obama Run" from the KKK

Huh?  Those were all from Obama supporters.

Maybe its not McCain supporters, they are pretty busy cheering for the terrorists these days.

Me, I am voting for the anti-terrorist candidate. 

by ProfRich on 06/26/2008 09:40:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're a McCain supporter??? (none / 0)
If you are for the anti terrorist candidate, you surely can't be for Obama! Surely you jest...

by bobo1 on 06/26/2008 09:46:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Haven't you heard? (none / 0)

The McCain campaign is praying for a devestating terrorist attack because they think it may give Grampa Death a coupld of points in the polls.

We Obama folks would like to see the terrorist attempts to kill Americans shut down.

Its been in all the papers. 

by ProfRich on 06/26/2008 09:57:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What I know is... (none / 0)
Between the 2 choices, if I had to pick one who I knew would go over there to kill terrorists without having academic debate or personal regret in doing so, it sure as Hell wouldn't be Obama. I don't like McCain anymore than you do, but I and most Americans know who will push the button and nuke the towlies (or any other group of terrorist leaning) without whining about it. It surely isn't a guy named Barack Hussein Obama. "Sometimes love just aint enough..." Have a good day! :)

by bobo1 on 06/26/2008 10:12:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Then why? (none / 0)
Is his campaign hoping for a terrorist attack in the U.S.?

by ProfRich on 06/26/2008 10:29:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Isnt it obvious, Rich (none / 0)
If we get attacked again, McCain will have his reason to push that red button... I thought even you could figure that out!

by bobo1 on 06/26/2008 10:32:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's right (none / 1)

Because you'd rather vote for Edwards.

I notice in all of this, you still never managed to answer my question about what makes Edwards more appealing to you.  You've made a dumbass joke about his hair and all that, but his ideas are essentially the same as Obama's.  You're going to complain about race being injected into the debate, but can you tell me other than race, what's the big difference between the two?  (Side note, you can't complain that others inject race into a debate when you just used Obama's middle name to imply that he would be soft on terror.)

I imagine here that you're going to say something about how Obama's supporters are soooo terrible and that that's what drove you away from him, but I'll remind you preemptively that A LOT of the people on this and other liberal forums (Kos, etc.) were originally Edwards supporters, and they didn't seem to drive you away from him.

The question remains... 

by Spencer on 06/27/2008 12:09:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Apologies (none / 0)
to alphasigmookie for the hijack.

by Spencer on 06/26/2008 06:06:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What if...? (none / 0)
Obama started wearing an Edwards wig?

by ProfRich on 06/26/2008 08:42:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That would be a good start... (none / 0)
:)

by bobo1 on 06/26/2008 09:29:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Calm down psycho (none / 0)

"the 5-4 court decided to legislate from the bench in deciding what is "appropriate"&quo t;

I said you can argue all you want about whether this was C&U punishment but you can't call it legislating from the bench.  It is in their purview, period.  There is a big difference in arguing over functionality and arguing over where a line should be drawn.

Oh, and I suppose you want Rush shot on national TV for exploiting those little girl hookers he likes to frequent  in the Carribbean?  Or is it only American children who deserve protection? 

 

by ProfRich on 06/26/2008 04:53:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Get your facts straight, professor (none / 0)
First of all, my shrink says I'm a sociopath, not a psychopath - big difference, look it up if you need to. Secondly, Rush goes to the Carribean to fuck little boys, not girls, DUH! Haven't you ever listened to his show? Talk about some closet issues! Pay better attention next time to detail ( you're always bitching at me for details!) Thanks for your continued love and support! :)

by bobo1 on 06/26/2008 05:48:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Again, so I understand (none / 0)

Bobo says little boy rape=ok

little girl rape=death penalty

Draw your own conclusions there folks.

Also, you should rethink your opposition to the ruling outlawing the execution of retards.  It could save your life.

:-) 

by ProfRich on 06/26/2008 08:41:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
They havent caught me yet... (none / 0)
and they never will!!!!

Thanks for your thoughts!

:)

by bobo1 on 06/26/2008 09:33:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
bobo on the road? (none / 0)
Where? I'm gonna run on Vandy's track this afternoon and then take in some live music this evening.

by KenTX on 06/26/2008 04:56:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No problem Bobo... (none / 0)
Hey it's just a bunch of black kids getting shot in DC. No worries right?

by MRFred on 06/27/2008 01:09:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey Fred... (none / 1)
I dont know if you've ever been to DC, but it the black kids doing the shooting there for the most part. Having permission to have a handgun in your home there is gonna make those same black kids think twice before going around shooting at those who are truly innocent...

Thanks again for your comments...

:)

by bobo1 on 06/27/2008 01:28:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Several Times (none / 0)
I doubt it.

by MRFred on 06/27/2008 02:14:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh yes (none / 0)
Bobo is from the burbs. Make no mistake about that.

by z1p101 on 06/27/2008 02:48:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The Decision was a Travesty! (none / 0)
The decision on the Second Amendment was a typical example of Judicial Activism by the Conservatives.  The lying Conservatives and their double talk 1984 speak on their phoney strict construction! 

The disenting opinons nailed it an exposed ocmpletely how the Conservatives on the court made up their arguments out "of whole cloth."

The propsed versions of the Second Amendment had "to protect oneself" as the additional purpose of the right along with the purpose "to bear arms," but James Madison and the Congress did not accept the purpose of "self defense" when they adopted the 2nd Amendment. Instead the Congress adopted an amendment that said the "right to keep and bear arms" was for the purpose of havig a well regulated militia.  Thus any law that does not intervere with a well regulated milita is constitutional as it applies to the right to keep and bear arms. 

Scalia's opinon is phony as a two dollar bill when he says that without further modification the words "to bear arms" applies to hunting or self defense. 

Washington DC's law said that guns could not be kept loaded and the laws of urban areas such as New York and Philadelphia of 1791 when the amendment was created also required that people keep their gun powder in special containers on the top floor so if the gun was on the bottom floor it had to be kept unloaded. It that law was allowed in the 1790s then strict construction says that law would be allowable today.  So the Conservatives on the court today are not using strict construction in this decision.

Instead they are using judicial activism because they have essentiall ignored stare decisis and the Miller case and have created a new right that did not exist when the Constitution was written and amended.

by Gregory Wonderwheel on 06/27/2008 03:48:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I am sickened (none / 0)
That this decision was not unanimous. Mookie and bobo need to think long and hard before entering the voting booth. Where does the Magic Ethiopian stand on judges and the second amendment?

by KenTX on 06/26/2008 04:44:52 PM EST

lawl (none / 0)
Please.

The Second Amendment is in no danger from Obama.

by jarett on 06/27/2008 12:44:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Communists would agree... (none / 0)

Well at least Trotsky would agree with the decision. There always seems to be a odd connection btwn Trotskites and Republicans (PNAC)...hmmm

 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/26/2008 05:12:32 PM EST

lemmee see (none / 0)
If I got this straight? Stalinist Russia granted the proletariat the right to keep and bear arms? You nitwit.

by KenTX on 06/26/2008 05:24:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken is no historian (none / 0)

Stalin ran Trotsky out of the country and later had an agent murder him in Mexico City with the first pick used to climb the Matterhorn.  The agent had actually married Trotsky's daughter to infiltrate the Trotsky family.

So your Stalin=Trotsky equivication is, as so often, nonsense. 

by ProfRich on 06/26/2008 05:27:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
oh my! I stand corrected. (none / 0)
So citizens of the Soviet Union had the right to keep weapons for personal use?

by KenTX on 06/26/2008 05:58:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Idiot... (none / 0)
Trotsky wanted the Russian population to be armed against the Stalinist Thermidor! He used the SAME logic that Republicans use, that the population should be armed to protect themselves against the abuse of state power. Stalin, like Prof said kicked him out because he challenged Stalin and the bureaucratic machinery of the USSR.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/26/2008 06:09:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
begs the question (none / 0)
So you admired Stalin more than Trotsky? I realize you always favor dominance of the State over the individual.

by KenTX on 06/26/2008 06:26:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
They (none / 0)
both had their good points, Stalin industrialized the Soviet Union in 10 years...not even China can say that. Without Stalin Hitler's Germany would be in control at least of Eurasia today, but in terms of the socialist revolution Stalin was a complete disaster. Trotsky was theoretically closer to Lenin and Marx, and would have forcibly supported the expansion of communism, since he felt that Russia was only a means to an end to worldwide revolution, Stalin was reactionary in that he accepted capitalist notions of the state and foreign policy...which eventually destroyed the USSR. So, if I had to say I were either it would be Trotsky, who was for to abolition of the state.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/26/2008 07:10:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
For the record (none / 0)

I myslef am not a Stalinist or a Trotskyite but if I had to choose Trotsky all the way.

Although big props to Moscow Joe for beating the Nazis for us.
 

by ProfRich on 06/26/2008 08:44:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Smart Man (none / 0)
Trotsky wanted the Russian population to be armed against the Stalinist Thermidor!

It seems like he was a smart man. 


"Trotsky agreed that a new socialist state and economy in a country like Russia would not be able to hold out against the pressures of a hostile capitalist world, as well as the internal pressures of its backward economy. The revolution, Trotsky argued, must quickly spread to capitalist countries, bringing about a socialist revolution which must spread world-wide."

by alphasigmookie on 06/26/2008 06:28:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This is sort of a general point, but (none / 0)
if you have guns because you want a revolution against the government and you let a law stop you, then you weren't really serious about the whole thing in the first place.

by Spencer on 06/26/2008 06:32:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
@ Spencer (none / 0)
Thats why the Revolution was betrayed, the communists were to destroy the state and replace it with a dictatorship of the proletariat (something that Republicans might actually like, quite liberitarian and pro-gun), Stalin and the bureaucratic minions destroyed the revolution and created a neo-Czarist dictatorship in its place, like most revolutions.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/26/2008 06:43:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well... (none / 0)
I am reading the "Revolution Betrayed" by Trotsky and he basically the destruction of the USSR in 1936 by its own inherent class contradictions...so to those who believe that the USSR was an authentic "communist" experiment...please read Trotsky before you make ignorant claims. Indeed, what is interesting is that many of the PNAC/neocons were Trotskytes...makes u wonder doesn't it about the connections btwn the extreme left and right.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/26/2008 06:40:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That is true (none / 0)
Lenin and Trotsky's Russia wasn't that bad a place.  Stalin's was hell on earth.

by ProfRich on 06/26/2008 08:48:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I have no idea (none / 0)

I was just saying Trotsky was not only not a Stalinist, he was an anti-Stalinist.

And since Trotsky never got to run the show this argument does not even begin to engage Nick's point but we all appreciate the attempt to change the subject. 

by ProfRich on 06/26/2008 08:43:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Maybe I'm crazy... (none / 0)
but I think most liberals, including myself, if they are pro-gun control at all, it is near the very bottom of the priority list.

I am actually gun rights with a few, resonable, control laws.  DC was too strict, but then again both DC and NYC crime went down with strict gun control laws.  Maybe its not such a bad thing as a temporary solution.

No time to go into it now.  Maybe later.

by richardshort2001 on 06/26/2008 06:32:14 PM EST

wrong! (none / 0)
I'm glad you're on the right side of the issue, but this statement is blatantly false. 

"DC was too strict, but then again both DC and NYC crime went down with strict gun control laws. "

http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=qyoLuTjguJA

http://www.journals.uchicag o.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/46798 8

"Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths. If those states without right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, county- and state-level data indicate that approximately 1,500 murders would have been avoided yearly. Similarly, we predict that rapes would have declined by over 4,000, robbery by over 11,000, and aggravated assaults by over 60,000. We also find criminals substituting into property crimes involving stealth, where the probability of contact between the criminal and the victim is minimal. Further, higher arrest and conviction rates consistently reduce crime. The estimated annual gain from all remaining states adopting these laws was at least $5.74 billion in 1992. The annual social benefit from an additional concealed handgun permit is as high as $5,000."

by alphasigmookie on 06/26/2008 06:50:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll give you DC (none / 0)
I didn't do enough research, was rushing that post.  There are plenty of numbers out there that show gun control does reduce crime- look at Europe - so it probably depends on a combination of many factors. 

I believe that gun accountability is better than gun control.  Your gun kills someone and you don't report it stolen (i.e. you aren't being a responsible gun owner by keeping track of where your guns are) you are held accountable.

Basically, I have no problem at all with responsible gun owners, but people need to be just that, responsible.

by richardshort2001 on 06/27/2008 12:09:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Car accountability? (none / 0)
Are you also for car accountability?  If someone steals your car and kills someone with it should you be charged with a felony as well?

As for europe you can't attribute that to gun control alone, there are far too many cultural differences.  My best guess is that frankly they're just tired of killing eachother after 2000 odd years of doing so every chance they got. 

by alphasigmookie on 06/27/2008 05:02:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Europe misconception (none / 0)

You do understand that the Euros currently not killing each other are not the same ones who were killing each other 2000 years ago, right?

And you get that the people over here are just as much descended from the people over there as the people over there are, right?

So your theory is a like of violence in our historical past (which is a shared past with Europe) is the reason for the high murder rate in the U.S. and the lack of gun control is irrelevant? 

 

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 07:56:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah (none / 0)

I don't really give a shit I just find the absurdist extremes of the NRA annoying mostly.

Do you know who does care?

Women, particularly mothers.  Do you know who votes on this?  Gun nuts and moms.  What do you think there are more of?

38% of people want more gun control.  48% say its about right as is.  11% want less.  Like I said, I don't care that much but I find it hilarious that the trolls think this is a big electoral win for them.  I guess the Dems are gonna lose the gun nut vote now.

by ProfRich on 06/26/2008 08:47:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
About right (none / 0)
The reason the numbers are as you claim is that the NRA and pro constitutionalist have won for the most part.  True we've lost CA and NJ and a few other locations, but for the most part we're willing to conceed those losses and simply never move to those places.  For the most part we're fine with the way things are, but will fight like hell against the 38% miniority that believe an overprotective nanny state can protect them from the bad man with a gun (and that the state will never become the bad man with the gun).   

by alphasigmookie on 06/27/2008 03:04:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Math (none / 0)

So the big bad 11% minority is going to fight against the "38% miniority", huh?

Democracy in action! 

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 03:18:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
teacher teacher (none / 0)
you should know that 48+11= 59 which is the percentage of Americans that DON'T want more gun control!  My state already allows me to own this... 



and carry these....



I dont' need any LESS gun control, I just don't want any more! 

by alphasigmookie on 06/27/2008 03:31:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I just came. (none / 0)

"For the most part we're fine with the way things are, but will fight like hell against the 38% miniority that believe an overprotective nanny state can protect them from the bad man with a gun (and that the state will never become the bad man with the gun)."

Again, if you're afraid to break a simple gun law, how are you going to fight the state?

by Spencer on 06/27/2008 03:49:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That is an awesome point! (none / 0)
I live in Texas.  Believe me, if the government is trying to prevent people who don't like them from stockpiling a large amount of weaponry I can tell you from personal experience they are failing spectacularly.

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 05:04:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Pay attention (none / 0)
The issue at hand is less gun control, not more.  The SC ruled for less.  Follow along.

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 04:52:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
false argument (none / 0)
you posted statistics in general about how americans felt about gun control (likely in their own cities and states).  If you were to ask them if they wanted DC style gun restrictions where they live I'd be willing to bet my left nut that the numbers would be WAY different.  Try having Obama propose renewal of the "assault weapons" ban and see what his poll numbers do. 

by alphasigmookie on 06/27/2008 05:26:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That wouldn't hurt him (none / 0)

The reason gun control doesn't seem so bad is the notion that we should all be allowed to have AK-47s, howitzers and cluster bombs and shit really only comes up when no one but the gun nuts is paying attention.

I remember Rosie O'Donnel's million mom march.  It blew away the million man march in attendance.

WOMEN DON'T LIKE GUNS.

I know you don't get it. But seriously, ask yourself, how much do you (or me or any of us guys) really know about women? 

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 05:50:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My woman (none / 0)

has a 0.357 magnum, a 0.22 rifle, and a 12 gauge riot gun with buckshot.

She hates liberals. She insisted we go to Crawford and stand down the forces of Cindy Sheehan. She wanted to "kick some hippie asses".

My wife. I think I'll keep her. 

 

 

by KenTX on 06/27/2008 06:04:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sure... (none / 0)
shes not a self-hating lesbian? She did marry you...:S

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/27/2008 06:11:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If you guys only knew, (none / 0)
How many women are attracted to men with brains AND muscles, you would start working out. In the case of Nick, you would start working out AND growing a brain. Women dig masculine men. I'm not playin'.

by KenTX on 06/27/2008 06:43:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Can we ever (none / 0)
have a discussion on this forum that doesn't eventually involve you telling us all how virile you are?  I suspect it's one of those "all hat, no cattle" situations that you Texans talk about.

by Spencer on 06/27/2008 07:35:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm challenging your manhood. (none / 0)
It's part of the education process. If you become manly, you will no longer be a liberal.

Real men don't vote Democrat.

by KenTX on 06/28/2008 12:29:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Real men (none / 0)

stand up for their principals. Punk bitches brag about themselves behind the safety of a keyboard even when they admittedly live in their daddy's shadow.

Which are you? 

by z1p101 on 06/28/2008 01:05:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Let's put it like this. (none / 0)
The weakest guy in all of Texas would have no challenge kicking the ass of the toughest guy in all of New Jersey.

That pretty much holds for all of "New England", or whatever you call that rat colony that you live in.

by KenTX on 06/28/2008 01:15:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yea (none / 0)

Right, OK.

Whatever you say Ken. I think your dad needs his car washed this weekend so you better start preparing.

You don't want to disappoint him now, do you?

by z1p101 on 06/28/2008 01:33:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
So... (none / 0)
Ken by not answering my question...your wife is lesbian? Thanks for telling me...

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/28/2008 02:12:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Na (none / 0)

Would a lesbian marry such a tough and viral man?

He is even an ex high school football hero. Just ask him, he will tell you.

However, he is not half the football hero his Dad was. 

by z1p101 on 06/28/2008 02:37:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 0)
Its not like she would notice the difference

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/28/2008 02:59:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
She's probably using him to get to his dad (none / 0)

by ProfRich on 06/29/2008 12:24:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Good thing one women doesn't make a demographic (none / 0)

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 06:18:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
some gals do (none / 0)
I bet a lot of the military wives do--that's how I first began shooting; I had a boyfriend who was an Army Ranger a loong time ago in college.  I have two girlfriends that hunt for meat.  Both are liberals, sorry Ken.

by desertpear on 06/27/2008 08:12:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Glad to hear it (none / 0)
I think a lot of the problem is fear of the unknown.  I have taken 2 of my wife's friends (both liberals) to the range with me and both enjoyed themselves and came back with a better appreciation for shooting sports. 

by alphasigmookie on 06/27/2008 08:30:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
so true (none / 0)

Just stick a mini-14 in their hands and let them blast away and you have instant gun nuts. 

I don't kill animals with them though.  I leave that to my girlfriends and hope I can get some meat from them. 

by desertpear on 06/27/2008 08:44:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama Supported DC Gun Ban!! (none / 0)
All of this horseshitte about Stalin and Trotsky is just more liberal diversionary tactic designed to obscure the important facts of the case.

Here is Senator Barack Hussein Obama in his own words, in front of the camera, defending his support of the DC Gun Ban, and calling it constitutional.

Mookie and bobo, beware the Stalinist Democrat who is running for president. It's no mere coincidence that Obama's biggest fans (Rich and Nick) are also Stalin's biggest fans.

by KenTX on 06/27/2008 12:18:49 AM EST

Quit making shit up (none / 0)

What justifies you calling me a Stalin fan?  Stop telling lies about me.  Didn't you learn your lesson the last time!

And considering a whopping 11% of Americans want less gun control I am not sure this is a good tactic for you guys.  Oh, and the DC gun ban was absolutely constitutional when Obama said that.  I know its all a little complex for you but try to keep up. 

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 07:49:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
they're your words (none / 0)
"What justifies you calling me (and Nick) a Stalin fan?"

Rich: “Although big props to Moscow Joe for beating the Nazis for us.”

Nick: “Stalin and Trotsky both had their good points, Stalin industrialized the Soviet Union in 10 years...not even China can say that. Without Stalin Hitler's Germany would be in control at least of Eurasia today.”

"I am not sure this is a good tactic for you guys.  Oh, and the DC gun ban was absolutely constitutional when Obama said that.  I know its all a little complex for you but try to keep up."

527 ads with a black guy trying to take away your guns can be very effective in trailer parks. I know its all a little complex for you but try to keep up.

by KenTX on 06/27/2008 11:28:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok (none / 0)

Yeah, Russia ground the German war machine to dust.  If acknowledging that makes you a Stalinist, the world is filled with them.  I notice you didn't cut and paste the part of that post where I denounced Stalin.  Nice intellectual honesty, Ken.  Or did you somehow not read the sentence before the one you posted?  You are such a hack.

Run the gun stuff.  The gun nuts weren't voting Dem anyway and most people either don't care or don't want less gun control.  And haven't you repeatedly acknowledged women is a major and vital swing block for McCain?  I wonder if making this a major issue will turn more NRA voters to McCain or more housewives to Obama?  Think it through.

Also, I think it should be noted this is the crowning achievement of the entire conservative revolution.  From 1968 to now, all those election wins and controlling the conversation and this is pretty much the only potentially lasting change the right wing revolution managed to accomplish.  Yeah, they stole a lot of money and cut a lot of rich folks taxes but those are temporary year to year things.  How many real changes have they put in place?

Compare the Dems of the FDR-LBJ period and the long term structual changes they accomplished to the Nixon-Bush Republicans.

A recap:

Abortion- Still legal

Gays- still free, marriage still a states rights issues just like when you started

Seperation of church and state- still upheld

Habeas Corpus-temporarily ignored but now reaffirmed

Welfare- reformed (by a Dem) but essentially still intact 

Segregation- GOP failed to keep it alive

Inheritance tax- temporarily lowered but will be right back in a few years

Social Security- not privatized

Immigration- still coming strong

Deregulation- for now, easiest thing in the world to put it back

Progressive taxation- lessened it but not in any permanent way 

Anything else?

See the difference between this crowd and the revolution of FDR?

But on the postive side of the ledger, the gun industry sales will go up and more people will get shot.  That will be pretty hard to undo.

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 12:02:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A Great Victory .... (none / 0)
I'm sure these former DC residents are overjoyed.
  • 3 Children Shot In Northeast Washington
  • Woman Shot Walking  in Northeast Washington
  • Mother Shot With Family In D.C.
  • Man shot dead, 2 wounded in Washington DC
  • Woman fatally shot at Washington DC YMCA Center 
  • 18-Month-old Boy Shot
  • D.C. Teen Is Shot To Death In Home...

and on and on and on.

To bad we don't worry about the individuals right to not get their head blown off. That truly would be a great victory.


by MRFred on 06/27/2008 01:00:12 AM EST

How can... (none / 0)
Americans live in cities? It sounds like a guerilla war!

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/27/2008 01:03:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Easy... (none / 0)
keep your head down, don't go out at night and sleep in the bathroom..in the tub.

by MRFred on 06/27/2008 01:12:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Sad Story (none / 0)
Those are some nice sad stories Fred, now point to me any of those crimes commited with a legal firearm....

That's right criminals will have guns no matter if there is a law or not.  The only thing the law impacts is if the innocent victims get to have a fighting chance.  How did severe gun restrictions impact the UK?



Fred, why don't you post a graph of how prohibiting handguns in DC lowered the crime rate... 

If you can't find that, how about a study that conclusively shows that gun control lowers crime rates? 

by alphasigmookie on 06/27/2008 05:16:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Well... (none / 0)
Guns dont cause crimes, but they sure enable them to occur. About the UK, the biggest reason crime went up from 1979-92 is because "That-whore" was in power and destroyed employment and the welfare state in the UK, as people become desperate they become more likely to engage in crime.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/27/2008 11:20:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
getting warmer (none / 0)
" About the UK, the biggest reason crime went up from 1979-92 is because "That-whore" was in power and destroyed employment and the welfare state in the UK, as people become desperate they become more likely to engage in crime. "

Getting closer there Nick...you are starting to realize that the correlation between gun ownership in crime is limited at best and negative at worst (more studies showing legal ownership of firearms DECREASE crime rather than the other way around).  The real causes of crime are of course socialogical.&n bsp; All gun control does is create an asymetrical power structure where criminals are in an advantaged position (because they don't care about laws and have guns anyway).  Since you are very big on fairness, the fairest thing you can do is provide people the right to armed self defense. 

by alphasigmookie on 06/27/2008 02:48:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You must be irrational (none / 0)
"The real causes of crime are of course socialogical.&n bsp; All gun control does is create an asymetrical power structure where criminals are in an advantaged position"

 That's exactly WHY I support gun control laws, the gun itself doesn't cause the crime, it cannot. What the gun does do is EMPOWER and ENABLE crime to occur. If there were less guns, there would be less gun related crime (duh!), by less guns I mean not merely restricting the access to guns but to stop production of hand guns. I am ok with firearms for hunting, or recreational use, but I do not see ANY utility in hand guns. I know of no one who owns or carry's a hand gun here in Canada, I think it is illegal to do so, and we have a MUCH lower crime rate. There are many factors to that, an actual government, social services, ok economy, access to education, AND lack of access to guns. We have our gun crime thanks to YOUR liberal gun laws, they are illegally imported from the US and end up in gangs...USA ruins life.

 

 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/27/2008 05:57:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
False! (none / 0)
Nick Nick Nick...you wan't unbreak the egg.  You can't put the cat back in the bag.  IF you could somehow eliminate all firearms from the face of the planet and all knowledge of how to build them and make gun powder THEN I could possibly support gun control.  Unfortunatly you can't do that.  Thus your choices are to disarm the innocent and only allow the criminals and tyrants to have guns OR you allow everyone the choice to have guns, leveling the balance of power.  Which to you think is the more egalitarian solution? 

by alphasigmookie on 06/27/2008 06:16:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Where did I make this crucial assertion? (none / 0)

" IF you could somehow eliminate all firearms from the face of the planet" ?

Re-read my post...get a clue.  

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/27/2008 06:27:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hold your hand (none / 0)
Do I have to hold your hand through everything!?!

I never said you did.  I said that was the only way that the logic that you proposed...Gun control = fewer guns = fewer gun deaths...works.  Since the world already contains a large number of guns ,and criminals by definition do not follow the law, all gun control does is assure asymetrical power between a criminal and his victim.  With legalized guns at least the victim has a choice to be on equal footing and the criminal has to wonder if his target is a dangerous wolf of a docile sheep. 

Here is the argument from an economics perspective...guns and drugs are two perfect examples of supply finding a way to meet demand.  No matter how hard you try to restrict both, criminals and addicts will find a way to get their hands on them.  The only thing that tougher restrictions do is make it more profitable for the gun runners and drug dealers.  The only way to solve the problem is to eliminate demand.  Supply side solutions are pointless. 

by alphasigmookie on 06/27/2008 06:44:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
False (none / 0)

 


Since the world already contains a large number of guns ,and criminals by definition do not follow the law, all gun control does is assure asymetrical power between a criminal and his victim.  With legalized guns at least the victim has a choice to be on equal footing and the criminal has to wonder if his target is a dangerous wolf of a docile sheep.  


Then, basically let everyone in the society be armed? Thats absolute insanity, I barely trust people to vote let alone to hold everyone else's lives in their hands. I do not own a gun, none of my friends families own guns, yet we seem to be relatively safe. This logic you present is non-existent outside of the US, no where is this argued apart from the US. Basically no one here would buy this specious argument because its transparently bull-shit. Civilized countries and cultures realize that "an eye for an eye makes the world go blind"...sorry for the cliche, but its true. The end of gun crime has to start somewhere, it is a question of the chicken and egg, so lets just pick one or the other and get it done with. In addition, how many innocent people are killed when people ASSUME they are doing nefarious things and are not? Its just a all-round HORRID idea, created by the gun-lobby to SCARE the American people into supporting their profits. American, right-wing politics = politics of fear, no logic necessary.


"The only way to solve the problem is to eliminate demand.  Supply side solutions are pointless."


Err...wrong, the solution is to BAN HAND GUN PRODUCTION (including bullets)...problem solved. Yes gun crime will continue after the ban, but over the years through attrition the rate of gun crime will decrease to near nil. Again, re-read what I wrote not what you want to read.

 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/28/2008 02:21:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I've got an idea (none / 0)
Why don't you focus on WHY people kill eachother and not WHAT they use? 

by alphasigmookie on 06/28/2008 04:35:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Bc (none / 0)
thats only dealing with 50% of the problem...no guns...no gun crime...crime will always exist so why empower the scum? If there are no guns...and no gun crime...then normal people do not need them! OMG LOGIC!

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/28/2008 11:28:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Realism (none / 0)
Because your logic only works in your simplified imaginary world.  Sure wouldn't it be great if everyone could live in peace and we could magically make all guns and weapons disapear?  Group hug anyone? 

Unfortunatly the real world doesn't work like that.  Guns have been invented so they will always exist, you can't uninvent technology.  You can pass laws banning guns.  You can limit manufacturing.  However there are already hundreds of millions to billions of guns in existance.  You can't get rid of them all.  And even if you some how could, you couldn't prevent people from manufacturing guns and ammo underground.  It doesn't take much to mold bullets from melted wheel weights.  Gunpowder is simply charcoal, sulfer and potassium nitrate. 

As for the practicality of confiscating weapons. the US has had over 100k troops doing house to house searches all over Iraq and they can't even come close to even slowing down the avaliablity of arms.  The only practical outcome is a situation where the opressive government and criminals have guns and law abiding citizens can only hope they both decide to leave them alone.  As even you have admited there will always be crime and since you can't really eliminate guns there will always be gun crime.  I will grant you that with highly restricted firearm avaliability criminals may decide to stick to swords and knives, but this still gives  them an advantage over law abiding citizens because they can't carry weapons in your "safe" world. 

I do however support more training and education about gun safety and responsible gun ownership.  A big part of America's problems (guns, alcohol, sex etc) stem from the fact that our culture both celebrates them and demonizes them at the same time.  Becasue we spend so much time telling our kids that they are all bad we are never really honest with them and teach them how to use them reasponsibly.  The swiss don't have problems with gun violence despite their high ownership because the people who own them have been trained how to use them properly.  The french don't have a bunch of alcoholic high school students because they are tought to drink casually and don't have to wait till their parents leave to have a major kegger behind their backs.  The real problem in America is that we have been so coddled and tought to think that everything is someone else's fault that we have completely lost all sense of personal responsibility (credit card debt and mortgage crisis anyone?).  Fix the core problem and maybe we can talk about limiting gun ownership. 

by alphasigmookie on 06/28/2008 10:05:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Imagination (none / 0)

I was listening to Sviridov's classic Time Forward...enjoying life...then I read your post!

"Because your logic only works in your simplified imaginary world.  Sure wouldn't it be great if everyone could live in peace and we could magically make all guns and weapons disapear?  Group hug anyone? "

Where did I say to ban all forms of gun production, and where did I say that all guns were to disappear? The one with the imagination here is you, making up arguments that aren't there...since this is the thesis of your entire argument...you really wasted your time. Grade: F *I mark papers...and you would fail in my class* :)

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/28/2008 10:39:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You were right about one thing (none / 0)
I certainly am wasting my time with you!

Rebuttal:

"Where did I say to ban all forms of gun production, and where did I say that all guns were to disappear? "

Post before:


" If there are no guns...and no gun crime...then normal people do not need them! OMG LOGIC!"

Logic?  I feel for the poor schmucks that get stuck with you as their TA!

by alphasigmookie on 06/28/2008 11:03:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wrong... (none / 0)

Before, I made a qualification specifying which forms of guns should be banned from production:

If there were less guns, there would be less gun related crime (duh!), by less guns I mean not merely restricting the access to guns but to stop production of hand guns.

 Err...wrong, the solution is to BAN HAND GUN PRODUCTION (including bullets)...problem solved.

Secondly, I never said I was against every form of gun ownership:

I am ok with firearms for hunting, or recreational use, but I do not see ANY utility in hand guns. 

ERGO, you lose...all refernces to guns after those qualifications, implied those qualifications to be assumed by the astitude reader...you get a F still....burn! 

 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/28/2008 11:35:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
mookie (none / 0)
I gave up trying to explain the concept of freedom to this Stalinist about five minutes after he showed up in the forum. Its pointless, because all individual liberty is evil to a true liberal. Remember the diamond-shaped political spectrum. Nick is nowhere near Jefferson.

by KenTX on 06/28/2008 11:44:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Funny goy you are! (none / 0)

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/28/2008 11:57:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
They have Jews (none / 0)
In Uruguay? Who knew?

by KenTX on 06/29/2008 12:20:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What the hell (none / 0)

would know about freedom and liberty? You would mount government controlled cameras in your home if it meant getting a tax break.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "

Ben Franklin, one of our founders.

"During time of war, the president is given far-reaching executive authority to prosecute the war. Even the Bill of Rights do not supersede this authority."

KenTX, neo con boot licker. 

by z1p101 on 06/29/2008 01:16:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
z1p101 knows what's up! (none / 0)
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "

Ben Franklin, one of our founders.

I love that quote!  Based on that statement i'm assuming you're supporter of the 2A!  Without the 2A the rest of the BOR is virtually useless! 

by alphasigmookie on 06/29/2008 05:31:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Of course (none / 0)

you can't pick and choose which ones you like and which ones you don't for political expediency like Ken does.

by z1p101 on 06/29/2008 01:01:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
foreigners don't have constitutional rigths (none / 0)
I’m concerned with guarding the civil liberties of Americans, not foreigners.

For example, the subject of this thread is the fact that four Supreme Court justices opined that the Second Amendment does not provide an individual with a constitutional right to own firearms. They actually tried to use this ruling to eliminate the Second Amendment.

Was there any outrage from Zippy? I can’t find any.

Zippy is much more concerned about the warrantless surveillance of a cell phone conversation between an al Qaeda operative in Afghanistan and another al Qaeda operative in Iraq.

Zippy is much more concerned about the constitutional rights of an al Qaeda operative, taken prisoner on the battlefield in Afghanistan. He wants to give them a jury trial in the American courts.

Zippy is much more concerned about military personnel interrogating al Qaeda detainees with stress techniques.

by KenTX on 06/29/2008 04:57:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Outrage? (none / 0)

I only have enough left for what has happened not for what might have happened.

"Zippy is much more concerned about the warrantless surveillance of a cell phone conversation between an al Qaeda operative in Afghanistan and another al Qaeda operative in Iraq."

If that were the case I would not be concerned. However, the White House has admitted to wire tapping people within our boarders without warrants. They say they were only doing it Al Quada members. Why should I believe them? True Conservatives and Libertarians are distrustful of government by nature. What does that make you? I suggest you take your test again and be honest this time.

Don't bother telling me about your football carrier or your dad or calling me gay because I don't care.

"Zippy is much more concerned about the constitutional rights of an al Qaeda operative, taken prisoner on the battlefield in Afghanistan. He wants to give them a jury trial in the American courts."

There are many documented cases of people who were picked up in the "Afghanistan sweep" who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and were falsely accused. Don't bother to link to your "they rejoined the battle" stories because if I was picked up for no reason and shipped off to a secret prison where I was put in "stress techniques" for years all I would be thinking the whole time is if I get out of here I will look for payback. If you were half the man you claim to be you would understand that but you would most likely go back to your boot licking ways.

"Zippy is much more concerned about military personnel interrogating al Qaeda detainees with stress techniques."

Living in a society that prides itself in liberty, freedom and democracy is not the safest way to live but you do need to lead by example.

To sum up, if you allow them to take one part of your Bill of Rights away it will not be long before they want them all. If they can throw "them" into secret prisons forever it will not be long before they come for you. History teaches us that and in my opinion it is not worth a lousy tax break. The odds that I will be shot to death are higher than any other industrialized country but I accept this risk because I believe in our way of life. Isn't that what you are always trying to explain to Nick? Since you are such a Libertarian and a Goldwater fan you should understand these concepts.

by z1p101 on 06/30/2008 03:05:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
stubborn (none / 0)
for some stupid reason I kept thinking he is capable of reasoanble thought.  I guess I was wrong.  Oh well, I tried...

by alphasigmookie on 06/29/2008 05:35:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You better not (none / 0)
be talking about me Mr. illiterate.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/29/2008 11:34:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nice graph (none / 0)

Why don't you get a clue. Pointless.

The UK gun crime rate is significantly lower than the US by factor of 10. 80,000 gun shot wounds in the US vrs 11,000 gun incidents of all kinds..including murders, in the UK There is no comparison of the 2 countires and no direct proof that gun ownership lowers violent crime.

Show me direct empircal proof that gun ownership lowers violent crime. Violent crime has been dropping nationwide in the US for several years now. Show me that gun ownership directly lowers violent crime nationwide. Prove it. You can't.

Of course you conveniently overlook other factors..like drugs:

 


I could demonstrate how rising oil prices  lowers violent gun crime, or rising Fox News ratings lowers violent gun crime...or the decline in rating for American Idol lowers violent gun crime.

By the way, those are nice sad facts.

I wasn't aware tha kids are part of the well regulated militia. I guess kids need to start packin heat in mookie world. Time's change I guess.

Most Americans cant even drive a car correctly much less own a gun. No matter, the SCROTUS has spoken. Keep you head down kids.

by MRFred on 06/27/2008 03:40:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
thanks for proving the point (none / 0)
my point was that there was very little correlation between gun control and LOWERING crime rate (and if there was it was a negative correlation).  I have said EXACLY that the causes of crime have nothing to do with gun avaliability.  Drugs is a perfectly fine example.  If you want to reduce crime, decriminalize drugs, don't disarm innocent citizens. 

by alphasigmookie on 06/27/2008 03:50:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Your welcome (none / 0)
Now that I proved my point, how about proving yours.

by MRFred on 06/27/2008 04:24:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
As usual, (none / 0)
Fred can't even interpret his own graphs.

The crime rate began its precipitous decline exactly 18 years after widespread abortion became legal in the U.S.

The moral to the story: We should do everything we can to prevent the birth of children with defective genes including:

1. widespread abortion
2. readily available birth control
3. excessively long prison sentences
4. increased gang-related deaths
5. enhanced war on drugs (see #3)
6. Eliminate welfare and WIC
7. Free guns for all gang-bangers

by KenTX on 06/27/2008 04:04:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
As Expected (none / 0)
A complete non-sequitor and thinly veiled racist rant. Nice. As expected....

by MRFred on 06/27/2008 04:27:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you're the racist, gringo (none / 0)
You're trying to keep my Hispanic gang banging cousins imprisoned on your liberal utopian plantation. You throw my people a little welfare money to buy votes.

You're trying to keep the borders wide open so that more of my Latino cousins can swarm in and over-run the country. You want to increase the number of illegal aliens to buy votes.

by KenTX on 06/27/2008 04:37:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A friend and I have been talking... (none / 0)

About the new Republican coalition. 
First, it has to keep the anti-tax, anti-regulation, pro-corporate and wealthy people because that is what the whole damn thing is about.

I think they might ditch the whole anti-immigration thing and crazy go nuts embracing the Catholics.  Try to court the shit out of the brown vote.

Right now they have:

Rich and corporate (not going anywhere).

Racist (dying out, suspect they will be abandoned).

National Defense voters (Dems are waging a war for these and the GOP has done a terrible job in this arena)

Religious nutjobs (Old school protestantism is on the decline, nontheless, I think the future may be here, but with a more Catholic bent).

Anyone else have a vision of the next GOP coalition? 

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 05:12:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you guys figured it out! (none / 0)
good job!

Here's the key. (don't tell anyone)

Mexicans don't like blacks, and vice versa.

by KenTX on 06/27/2008 05:23:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I have been worried about that (none / 0)

But then the GOP found something they hate faaaaaaar more.

La Migra! 

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 05:47:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm not convinced (none / 0)

That they can corral the Catholics.  Definitely some, but not all.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables> <w:SnapToGridInCell> <w:WrapTextWithPunct> <w:UseAsianBreakRules> <w:DontGrowAutofit> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui ) } </style> <![endif]--> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:"&qu ot;; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan ; font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:&qu ot;Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding