Gun control and the misrepresentation of conservatism

[Phatscotty]

She's the definition of a Rino.

There is no question about this.

Rinos are not conservative. If they were, they wouldnt be a rino.

[Woodruff]

She's the definition of a Rino.
There is no question about this.
Rinos are not conservative. If they were, they wouldnt be a rino.

Is that better or worse than being a TPINO?

[BigBallinStalin]

You're angry that Rachel Maddow invited Meghan McCain to talk about gun control on her show in March of 2009? If you have a problem with the talking heads format, that's great, because it is mostly stupid, but having conservative guests on shows is good for conservatives. Especially charismatic and likable ones, like Meghan McCain. Which is odd, given that the liberal media has a preponderance of conservative guests.

Biggest, Unsubstantiated Post of the Year 2011




Honestly, I would like to see if that's a fact.


And I wonder if the relevant data played loosely with the defintions of liberal and tightly with the definition of conservative, and vice-versa.

So, still a contender for BUPotY 2011?

After presentation of the evidence, the Committee on Deciding Candidates for the Biggest, Unsubstantiated Post of the Year 2011 (CoDCftBUPotY) has decided to reject BBS' request.

[Phatscotty]

Megan Mccain does not represent conservativism.

[spurgistan]

Megan Mccain does not represent conservativism.

OK. So, should every person who gets called in to be a talking head against gun control be the most far right conservative they can find? is it possible that many of them didn't want to go on Maddow? Also, what is conservatism? Obviously, it's what phatscotty thinks, but I think you might get a few answers if you asked more people than just yourself. Meghan Mccain is a conservative American. She is against gun control. Her being on television is not a bad thing for pro-gun conservatives. This thread is exceedingly silly.

[Phatscotty]

Megan Mccain does not represent conservativism.

OK. So, should every person who gets called in to be a talking head against gun control be the most far right conservative they can find? is it possible that many of them didn't want to go on Maddow? Also, what is conservatism? Obviously, it's what phatscotty thinks, but I think you might get a few answers if you asked more people than just yourself. Meghan Mccain is a conservative American. She is against gun control. Her being on television is not a bad thing for pro-gun conservatives. This thread is exceedingly silly.

Here is a conservatives reaction to Megan Mccains most recent "naked" commercial.

Hint, it involves a bucket and some bad pork.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1GbVr-NQUA

Megan mccain proudly calls herself a progressive republican

[Baron Von PWN]

For a lot of people in poor neighborhoods, a handgun is much more reliable than expecting the cops to help you or expecting them to be able to reduce crime. My problem are the Concealed Weapons Permits costing about $250 per year. Those, who needs a handgun the most, can not really afford $250 per year for a piece of paper, so many "illegally" carry a gun. This illegal action is then exploited by cops for whatever purposes--good or bad.

For someone who usually asks for substantiation of statements, I think you will be fine with me asking you substantiate that one. I'm fairly certain there is very little data to suggest that is the case.

[BigBallinStalin]

For a lot of people in poor neighborhoods, a handgun is much more reliable than expecting the cops to help you or expecting them to be able to reduce crime. My problem are the Concealed Weapons Permits costing about $250 per year. Those, who needs a handgun the most, can not really afford $250 per year for a piece of paper, so many "illegally" carry a gun. This illegal action is then exploited by cops for whatever purposes--good or bad.

For someone who usually asks for substantiation of statements, I think you will be fine with me asking you substantiate that one. I'm fairly certain there is very little data to suggest that is the case.

Intuitively, it makes sense, and I base my observation on conversations with people. Sure, that may limit my obsevations to my immediate area; however, consider the following and maybe it's not so limited to my immediate area:

How many people in poor neighborhoods really appreciate cops? Judging from my conversations with 10 police officers, poor people tend to hate cops. Judging from my conversations with random people around my city, they tend to roll their eyes at me, thinking I'm an idiot (which they should because it's such an obvious answer). They usually don't want to cooperate with police because the police may be corrupt or untrustworthy, or those in power in the immediate neighborhood may punish others for cooperating with police. Therefore, relying on police becomes difficult, so a handgun for a lot of people in poorer neighborhoods is seen as more reliable.

[Phatscotty]

maybe Megan Mccain is a Progressive Conservative?

[GreecePwns]

There is a difference between conservatism and libertarianism and mini-archism.

EDIT: To Canadians, PC is basically Tea Party status right there.

[Timminz]

maybe Megan Mccain is a Progressive Conservative?

That was the actual name of the right-wing party in Canada up until fairly recently.

[Phatscotty]

maybe Megan Mccain is a Progressive Conservative?

That was the actual name of the right-wing party in Canada up until fairly recently.

We call them RINO's here

Republican In Name Only

[Woodruff]

maybe Megan Mccain is a Progressive Conservative?

That was the actual name of the right-wing party in Canada up until fairly recently.

We call them RINO's here

Republican In Name Only

Because if a Republican has the audacity not to follow the party line right down the line, they must not be real Republicans!

[Mr_Adams]

Because if a Republican has the audacity not to follow the party line right down the line, they must not be real Republicans!

Actually, what scotty fails to see, is that the Rinos ARE following the party lines to the T. The party has become a social left, economic Kenseyn (sp?) system supporting establishment, which the constituency is sick of. that is why Ron Paul is such a moving force. he wants to go with the government where the people such as myself want the government to go. DOWN in size, and BACk in it's intrusion on privacy. (See liberty defined, chapter 6)

[Phatscotty]

Because if a Republican has the audacity not to follow the party line right down the line, they must not be real Republicans!

Actually, what scotty fails to see, is that the Rinos ARE following the party lines to the T. The party has become a social left, economic Kenseyn (sp?) system supporting establishment, which the constituency is sick of. that is why Ron Paul is such a moving force. he wants to go with the government where the people such as myself want the government to go. DOWN in size, and BACk in it's intrusion on privacy. (See liberty defined, chapter 6)

we moved the party line.

[natty dread]

Gun control is good because if you don't control your gun then you may accidentally yourself.

[Woodruff]

Because if a Republican has the audacity not to follow the party line right down the line, they must not be real Republicans!

Actually, what scotty fails to see, is that the Rinos ARE following the party lines to the T.

That doesn't make any sense at all. A Republican following the Republican Party line "to the T" is a "Republican In Name Only"? How can that possibly be true?

The party has become a social left

When the hell did that happen? I certainly haven't seen it.

[Phatscotty]

Because if a Republican has the audacity not to follow the party line right down the line, they must not be real Republicans!

Actually, what scotty fails to see, is that the Rinos ARE following the party lines to the T.

That doesn't make any sense at all. A Republican following the Republican Party line "to the T" is a "Republican In Name Only"? How can that possibly be true?

The party has become a social left

When the hell did that happen? I certainly haven't seen it.

I know what he's saying, we are all three coming from different angles each.

Hes sayin the republicans tow the unconservative party line, and thats why the republicans are a problem.

[Mr_Adams]

The party has become a social left

When the hell did that happen? I certainly haven't seen it.

Sorry, left of where it should be.

[natty dread]

Controlling guns is also important because without proper control they can shoot you in the face. That's way not cool because then you'll lose face.

[Phatscotty]

Controlling guns is also important because without proper control they can shoot you in the face. That's way not cool because then you'll lose face.

same goes with a fork...

[spurgistan]

Because if a Republican has the audacity not to follow the party line right down the line, they must not be real Republicans!

Actually, what scotty fails to see, is that the Rinos ARE following the party lines to the T. The party has become a social left, economic Kenseyn (sp?) system supporting establishment, which the constituency is sick of. that is why Ron Paul is such a moving force. he wants to go with the government where the people such as myself want the government to go. DOWN in size, and BACk in it's intrusion on privacy. (See liberty defined, chapter 6)

Umm, see, the thing is, the Republican Party is farther to the right then it's been in around 50 years, at least economically. Note how the health care reform package we passed less year was significantly less comprehensive than Nixon's. Our taxes-to-GDP ratio was higher under Reagan source for BBS. BUPotY your ass.

[PLAYER57832]

Controlling guns is also important because without proper control they can shoot you in the face. That's way not cool because then you'll lose face.

same goes with a fork...

Yes, which is why parents take the time to teach kids how to use a fork. However, even those brought up in hunting families too often don't take the time to teach or learn themselves proper gun safety.

I DO blame the NRA, in part for this. I can remember back when they were the primary advocate of gun safety. They still hold those classes, but they also come out against almost any and all reasonable controls or regulation of guns.

We don't live in a wilderness any longer. A woman ought to be able to sit in her house during hunting season without fearing being shot. The NRA ought to enforce that kind of principle, not just "any gun is OK".

[BigBallinStalin]

Because if a Republican has the audacity not to follow the party line right down the line, they must not be real Republicans!

Actually, what scotty fails to see, is that the Rinos ARE following the party lines to the T. The party has become a social left, economic Kenseyn (sp?) system supporting establishment, which the constituency is sick of. that is why Ron Paul is such a moving force. he wants to go with the government where the people such as myself want the government to go. DOWN in size, and BACk in it's intrusion on privacy. (See liberty defined, chapter 6)

Umm, see, the thing is, the Republican Party is farther to the right then it's been in around 50 years, at least economically. Note how the health care reform package we passed less year was significantly less comprehensive than Nixon's. Our taxes-to-GDP ratio was higher under Reagan source for BBS. BUPotY your ass.

Taxes-to-GDP ratio? That's a cute game they're playing with statistics. If taxes remained the same while the economy grew, then "taxes" would seem smaller. If taxes remained the same while a recession occurred (which happened when Reagan came to power), then "taxes" would seem higher.

In other words, a taxes-to-GDP ratio is limited in its application--it doesn't say much.

But, as far as the American Right is concerned, Murray Rothbard wrote a book called Betrayal of the American Right, which is free at mises.org (http://mises.org/books/betrayal.pdf). His book discusses the history of the American Right, and how it has shifted into what a portion of it is today.


I lol'ed at "social left, economic Keynesian system" [whatthefuckamireading.jpg]

[Baron Von PWN]

For a lot of people in poor neighborhoods, a handgun is much more reliable than expecting the cops to help you or expecting them to be able to reduce crime. My problem are the Concealed Weapons Permits costing about $250 per year. Those, who needs a handgun the most, can not really afford $250 per year for a piece of paper, so many "illegally" carry a gun. This illegal action is then exploited by cops for whatever purposes--good or bad.

For someone who usually asks for substantiation of statements, I think you will be fine with me asking you substantiate that one. I'm fairly certain there is very little data to suggest that is the case.

Intuitively, it makes sense, and I base my observation on conversations with people. Sure, that may limit my obsevations to my immediate area; however, consider the following and maybe it's not so limited to my immediate area:

How many people in poor neighborhoods really appreciate cops? Judging from my conversations with 10 police officers, poor people tend to hate cops. Judging from my conversations with random people around my city, they tend to roll their eyes at me, thinking I'm an idiot (which they should because it's such an obvious answer). They usually don't want to cooperate with police because the police may be corrupt or untrustworthy, or those in power in the immediate neighborhood may punish others for cooperating with police. Therefore, relying on police becomes difficult, so a handgun for a lot of people in poorer neighborhoods is seen as more reliable.

They may feel that way, but wether or not it actualy provides any real protection is pretty questionable to me. How is a handgun goin to protect your home from a break an enter if you;re not there? how doese a handgun protect you if you get mugged(are you going to wipe the gun out when they already have a gun/knife on you?)?

This is one of those things bassed on "common sense" that keep being repeated, without much in the way of solid evidence to back it up. do a survey of victims of crime, compare gun owners to non gunowners and see if gun owners suffer from fewer crimes. Then you;d have something.