U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-17-2011, 05:26 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
14,330 posts, read 19,498,388 times
Reputation: 18436

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlingtonian View Post
Evidently you didn't read my post or didn't understand it. Shame on your English teachers. Or your parents, if it's an inherent cognitive deficit at play.

I don't buy any GOP narrative. In fact, if there is one person most responsible for making me consider not voting for Obama again, it's Paul Krugman. Obama should have taken the mandate of the ballot box and renewed the New Deal. He should have punished the mortgage banker parasites; he did not. None have gone to jail. He should have unilaterally raised the debt ceiling; he didn't. He should have argued forcefully and much earlier for making corporations pay the taxes they're supposed to pay; he's barely touched this.

The Stimulus Bill was good, and the Healthcare Act was just OK--too little, but still, he got something. But that's not good enough.
Shame on you for not reading my post, not thinking for yourself, or using common sense. You completely ignore the reality that Congress is severely broken because of the tea party contingent and regressive obstructionism. President Obama has been hampered greatly by this reality, and it has hurt the country mightily. The GOP has had their way and the results reflect this. Romney, and all of the GOP candidates, are part of the problem.

To suggest that we elect someone who can get things passed with this tea party-cursed Congress, IS buying into GOP rhetoric despite your claims to the contrary. Face it, you have been suckered into blaming Obama not acknowledging the historically high obstructionist role of the GOP in Congress. Such a pathetic view would favor supporting an unsuitable person like Romney. Again, shame on you.

About my English teachers, my parents, you again are way off the mark. President Obama doesn't need your vote. There are enough enlightened people in this country who know the reality as I have described it here. Pub candidates don't have a chance in hell, but if you feel comfortable rationalizing that you should support Romney, do it. Count me among the many who find your line of reasoning absolutely ludicrous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-17-2011, 05:35 PM
 
Location: New-Dentist Colony
5,738 posts, read 8,940,261 times
Reputation: 3857
Quote:
Originally Posted by outbacknv View Post
As far as the "common sense" aspect of gun control is concerned that's a favored buzzword of groups such as HCI. What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" is difficult to understand?
SCUD missiles are arms. So are nuclear warheads. Weaponized anthrax spores. Are you suggesting that the Second Amendement, by implication, proscribes any prohibition of those?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 05:39 PM
 
3,083 posts, read 3,417,438 times
Reputation: 2350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlingtonian View Post
SCUD missiles are arms. So are nuclear warheads. Weaponized anthrax spores. Are you suggesting that the Second Amendement, by implication, proscribes any prohibition of those?
Are you being intentionally obtuse in asking such a question?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 05:44 PM
 
Location: New-Dentist Colony
5,738 posts, read 8,940,261 times
Reputation: 3857
Quote:
Originally Posted by outbacknv View Post
Are you being intentionally obtuse in asking such a question?
How is it obtuse? They are arms. The second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You said this means laws against automatics are unconstituional. By your logic, this would also apply to other arms. If an AK can't be banned because it's an armament, and the right to bear arms can't be infringed, then how would that not apply to those?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 05:52 PM
 
3,083 posts, read 3,417,438 times
Reputation: 2350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlingtonian View Post
How is it obtuse? They are arms. The second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You said this means laws against automatics are unconstituional. By your logic, this would also apply to other arms. If an AK can't be banned because it's an armament, and the right to bear arms can't be infringed, then how would that not apply to those?
Could any of your examples be considered individual arms?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 05:56 PM
 
Location: New-Dentist Colony
5,738 posts, read 8,940,261 times
Reputation: 3857
Quote:
Originally Posted by outbacknv View Post
Could any of your examples be considered individual arms?
Sure. I'm pretty sure a single example of any of them would be. A single shoulder/air missile launcher is an arm. What about suppressors (silencers)? Those aren't in themselves arms, but they're regulated to an incredible degree--because there's no good reason a law-abiding person would ever need one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 06:06 PM
 
3,083 posts, read 3,417,438 times
Reputation: 2350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlingtonian View Post
Sure. I'm pretty sure a single example of any of them would be. A single shoulder/air missile launcher is an arm. What about suppressors (silencers)? Those aren't in themselves arms, but they're regulated to an incredible degree--because there's no good reason a law-abiding person would ever need one.
A suppressor is an accessory, not an arm. They are easy enough to legally obtain if an individual is willing to fill out a few forms and pay the transfer fees. Being able to shoot at a range located near a populated area without disturbing that area's residents is ample reason to own one.

You obviously agree with gun control. Your talking points mirror those of HCI and their affiliates. Romney would be a great candidate for you to support.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 06:16 PM
 
Location: New-Dentist Colony
5,738 posts, read 8,940,261 times
Reputation: 3857
For the record, I'd never even heard of HCI till this thread, and I don't have talking points. I'm all for gun ownership as long as the gun has a legitimate, reasonable purpose. I'm not for anyone owning any gun they want with no restrictions.

I don't know how we got off on this tangent. This is about the last issue anyone should vote based on, with the economy as it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 06:51 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
34,598 posts, read 33,579,817 times
Reputation: 51703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlingtonian View Post
How do you know I'm not writing this from a cave in Tunisia, through the dim light of my aviator shades, the hookah smoke swirling about the keyboard?

I've never understood why some conservatives who are otherwise intelligent could really believe that any serious presidential candidate wants to (or could) "take their guns away." The most anyone would do is ban guns that are beyond the purpose of home protection and hunting, and establish a national database of who owns a gun--which is what most other countries do. (Did you know that in Germany, they even make you report when you move house?)

Seriously, why would even a liberal Dem want to take away hunters' guns? Or those of law-abiding target shooters/home protectors? Where's the political benefit? The die-hard extremists on the left for this issue aren't that many. And even the most meek attempt to prevent the next Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, etc., is met with rabid, borderline violent vitriol from the NRA.

Howard Dean got an A rating from the NRA, remember. And Obama's been in office four years; has he taken anyone's gun away yet? Has he even made increased gun regulations of the type I described a priority? (Has he even mentioned this?)
Here's a good one for you to read. It's from the 2008 race.

Mitt Romney's Skeleton Closet

Phony "Varmint" Hunter
Claimed lifelong NRA membership - signed up the year before
Illegal aliens did his lawn
Guy running his campaign quit after being accused of impersonating a police officer
No military service for him or his sons

Skeleton Closet - Mitt Romney, The Dark Side
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2011, 07:00 PM
 
Location: Texas
26,609 posts, read 11,144,503 times
Reputation: 6103
Quote:
Originally Posted by dixiegirl7 View Post
In some respects, Mitt Romney is more conservative than Rick Perry. However, he is not as extreme on other issues. It just depends on which issues you find important. He has a strong proven record of leadership and being able to work with people, so I think he can get things done. I really don't think he is as moderate as some make him out to be but he has not pandered to the tea party. He has just presented himself as he is. Many on the religious right will support Perry because of religion, but not all of the religious right have those bigoted views of a cadidate's religion.
really? You don't think the talk of secession was pandering?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:26 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top