What specific gun control measures would you support?

[Night Strike]

They can bear all the arms they can bear. They just can't shoot no one.



Git er done!!!!

People have the freedom of speech in politics........as long as they only say the things on the government-approved list.

[Juan_Bottom]

They can bear all the arms they can bear. They just can't shoot no one.



Git er done!!!!

People have the freedom of speech in politics........as long as they only say the things on the government-approved list.

Goddamn C-Span and their devilish censorship!

[thegreekdog]

So when AT&T gives money to the Obama campaign, Obama is an evil puppet for the corporations, but when corporations do that with gun clubs that is just normal business.

I think Saxi's point is that you champion the cause of the Democratic party on issues where the Democrats aren't accepting corporate money (e.g. the NRA) while ignoring the Democratic party on issues where the Democrats are accepting corporate money. Therefore, denigrating the NRA as a corporate machine that influences Republicans with dollars seems rather hypocritical of you.

I would note, further, that it may be that the Democrats are enlisting the assistance of major (and evil) corporations, such as Walmart, an entity which you've lambasted, in the current gun control battle. How does that make you feel?

[saxitoxin]

It's not even the NRA, per say, they're some kind of shell for the Gun Manufacturers. The NRA has only 4 million members, but American gun manufacturers donate millions of dollars to the NRA every year to keep it highly influential.

a silly and dreary, cookie-cutter bogeyman argument

Kidney Care Partners - the advocacy group for people with renal failure - is funded by AMGEN which gets rich off manufacturing SENSIPAR, a drug given to kidney patients. IIRC, Duramed, makers of the Plan B pill, funds NARAL. The head of Autism Speaks (celebrated group that organized the Michael Savage boycott in '07) is the former Marketing Manager for the division of J&J that sells anti-autism drug Risperdal (known - as of 2 months ago - as the drug that gives people who take it diabetes ... a fact he knew and helped cover-up even while he was being toasted by Hillary Clinton and Hollywood's A-list).

The only things that are part of the popular narrative in U.S. are things placed on the agenda by issues management firms paid by competing Wall Street interests. If you suddenly want to dismiss any opinion reinforced by a corporate front group, the rabbit hole is going to take you a whole lot deeper than the NRA. Every position you've ever supported here in the Club, no matter how righteous it seems to you, is suddenly untenable.

The Democrats have their base convinced that everyone except them is being fooled by special interests, and they are part of some aristocracy of intellect. The Republicans have their base convinced that everyone except them is trying to introduce a regime of elites. Both are carefully crafted appeals to prey on the human individual's constant, instinctual, fear of rape ingrained in their psyche from 10,000 years living as feudal serfs.

So when AT&T gives money to the Obama campaign, Obama is an evil puppet for the corporations, but when corporations do that with gun clubs that is just normal business.

I have yet to hear you express any discontent - or, indeed, anything other than cheery resolve - that Obama authorized AT&T to wiretap your phone for $1 million.

[BigBallinStalin]

Maybe wiretaps provide better coverage? How can you oppose better coverage--especially when your favored political team arranged the deal?

[Symmetry]

A TGD, Saxi, BBS combo.

[BigBallinStalin]

[saxitoxin]

2/3 of Spree Shooters since 1982 have had observable signs of a mental illness. Meanwhile only the law giant insurance conglomerates paid for gets attention ...

Mental health advocates say a landmark 2008 law meant to expand access to millions of Americans has gotten back-burner treatment by the Obama administration because of its relentless focus on the Affordable Care Act.

“[W]hile this historic law was passed four years ago, the administration has yet to issue a final rule, potentially leaving many Americans who need and have a right to these services without access to them,” the senators wrote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/f ... 86185.html

[Juan_Bottom]

A TGD, Saxi, BBS combo.

So when AT&T gives money to the Obama campaign, Obama is an evil puppet for the corporations, but when corporations do that with gun clubs that is just normal business.

I think Saxi's point is that you champion the cause of the Democratic party on issues where the Democrats aren't accepting corporate money (e.g. the NRA) while ignoring the Democratic party on issues where the Democrats are accepting corporate money. Therefore, denigrating the NRA as a corporate machine that influences Republicans with dollars seems rather hypocritical of you.

I would note, further, that it may be that the Democrats are enlisting the assistance of major (and evil) corporations, such as Walmart, an entity which you've lambasted, in the current gun control battle. How does that make you feel?

I resent all of that.
They didn't enlist the help of Wal*Mart, they made Wal*mart come to the bargaining table. Wal*Mart wasn't even going to send a representative. It's just what I would have done if I were the VP. If I were the president/king, then I would do a lot worse to Wal*Mart's ability to conduct business as usual. I would wage an all-out Teddy X1million war... But true politicians are in the business of compromise, which appears to be something that everyone is missing in the current environment of vitriolic & virulent politics. So what if I decide to compromise on some things and support a Democrat? Or a Republican?

And I would note, further, the Democrats are also our best bet to repeal Citizen's United. That'll f*ck some sh*t up for some big-ass Corporations. There is nothing wrong with supporting the Democratic party when they need the support. What in the unholy flying f*ck has the Republican Party done lately that I could support? Have they done anything you support? I'm even getting frustrated with Jim Sacia, and that's sad.

Legislate vaginas? I <3 Vaginas.
Block Gay Marraige? I <3 the gays.
Creationism in Schools? Am I retarded?
Block Raising taxes on the rich? f*ck the rich! They should pay their fair share.
Block paying America's Bills? Stamp the coin! I <3 good credit!
Block the Gun Discussion? I <3 Kids not being shot!
Blame Poor People for the Economy? I <3 me!
Stop black people from voting? I <3 Black People!

If that is Saxi's point, it's dumb, though that's ok because he's a character. When have I ever participated in a fight where Democrats where accepting money and doing evil with it? Maybe you could say I supported Obama in the election, and I say he's one of the best presidents we've ever had, and that's evil of me. But he was the best and even the most unifying of the candidates, and he is one of the top 20 presidents. That's not my fault, because I didn't live in 1851, and I didn't nominate Romney!

I never said a word about Republicans, that was you. I have used the term "gun enthusiasts" whenever I talk about the people blocking gun control legislation. If this was a red/blue argument then It would be a lot easier to be on the offensive. Unfortunately, the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers of America also donate money to and openly support Democratic Candidates. Harry Reid himself is personal friend with Wyane LaPierre.

I really wish all of CC could argue with the points instead of putting people into specific catagorys all the time and assuming that they must believe this or that. You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with your vision of me when you do that. You don't ever see me arguing with stuff you never said. I might dissect your post, but at least I'm dissecting your words... how silly is this?
Except for BBS, because he's on Ignore. He can dissect himself.
I ain't even mad, I only wonder how long this kind of an environment can continue. I feel like I catch it because this site is conservative and they take their anger out on us liberals. Like "oh you're a Liberal d*ck, you want to take my guns away!" Uh, I never said that, and no Liberal does. It's like we've gone from using Ad-Hominen attacks to forming Ad-Hominen opinions when we think.

[Juan_Bottom]

I have yet to hear you express any discontent - or, indeed, anything other than cheery resolve - that Obama authorized AT&T to wiretap your phone for $1 million.

I make no comment about something I know nothing about, and that means I'm somehow responsible. 10-4

Where were you in 1990?

[saxitoxin]

A TGD, Saxi, BBS combo.

So when AT&T gives money to the Obama campaign, Obama is an evil puppet for the corporations, but when corporations do that with gun clubs that is just normal business.

I think Saxi's point is that you champion the cause of the Democratic party on issues where the Democrats aren't accepting corporate money (e.g. the NRA) while ignoring the Democratic party on issues where the Democrats are accepting corporate money. Therefore, denigrating the NRA as a corporate machine that influences Republicans with dollars seems rather hypocritical of you.

I would note, further, that it may be that the Democrats are enlisting the assistance of major (and evil) corporations, such as Walmart, an entity which you've lambasted, in the current gun control battle. How does that make you feel?

I resent all of that.
They didn't enlist the help of Wal*Mart, they made Wal*mart come to the bargaining table. Wal*Mart wasn't even going to send a representative. It's just what I would have done if I were the VP. If I were the president/king, then I would do a lot worse to Wal*Mart's ability to conduct business as usual. I would wage an all-out Teddy X1million war... But true politicians are in the business of compromise, which appears to be something that everyone is missing in the current environment of vitriolic & virulent politics. So what if I decide to compromise on some things and support a Democrat? Or a Republican?

And I would note, further, the Democrats are also our best bet to repeal Citizen's United. That'll f*ck some sh*t up for some big-ass Corporations. There is nothing wrong with supporting the Democratic party when they need the support. What in the unholy flying f*ck has the Republican Party done lately that I could support? Have they done anything you support? I'm even getting frustrated with Jim Sacia, and that's sad.

Legislate vaginas? I <3 Vaginas.
Block Gay Marraige? I <3 the gays.
Creationism in Schools? Am I retarded?
Block Raising taxes on the rich? f*ck the rich! They should pay their fair share.
Block paying America's Bills? Stamp the coin! I <3 good credit!
Block the Gun Discussion? I <3 Kids not being shot!
Blame Poor People for the Economy? I <3 me!
Stop black people from voting? I <3 Black People!

If that is Saxi's point, it's dumb, though that's ok because he's a character. When have I ever participated in a fight where Democrats where accepting money and doing evil with it? Maybe you could say I supported Obama in the election, and I say he's one of the best presidents we've ever had, and that's evil of me. But he was the best and even the most unifying of the candidates, and he is one of the top 20 presidents. That's not my fault, because I didn't live in 1851, and I didn't nominate Romney!

I never said a word about Republicans, that was you. I have used the term "gun enthusiasts" whenever I talk about the people blocking gun control legislation. If this was a red/blue argument then It would be a lot easier to be on the offensive. Unfortunately, the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers of America also donate money to and openly support Democratic Candidates. Harry Reid himself is personal friend with Wyane LaPierre.

I really wish all of CC could argue with the points instead of putting people into specific catagorys all the time and assuming that they must believe this or that. You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with your vision of me when you do that. You don't ever see me arguing with stuff you never said. I might dissect your post, but at least I'm dissecting your words... how silly is this?
Except for BBS, because he's on Ignore. He can dissect himself.
I ain't even mad, I only wonder how long this kind of an environment can continue. I feel like I catch it because this site is conservative and they take their anger out on us liberals. Like "oh you're a Liberal d*ck, you want to take my guns away!" Uh, I never said that, and no Liberal does. It's like we've gone from using Ad-Hominen attacks to forming Ad-Hominen opinions when we think.

I only read the first sentence in this novel. If it got better, I apologize.


ex-Board of Directors

[saxitoxin]

I have yet to hear you express any discontent - or, indeed, anything other than cheery resolve - that Obama authorized AT&T to wiretap your phone for $1 million.

I make no comment about something I know nothing about

and that means I'm somehow responsible.

never underestimate the importance of blind obedience

In any case, my original point is that it's laughably hypocritical for a corporate prop to accuse others of being corporate props. But it fits within the current Democrat frame of assuring their supporters that they are part of some aristocracy of intellect battling against their easily beguiled countrymen because they can recite the names of court decisions they've never read and barely understand beyond "iz bad"; Citizen's United, all that. Until the switch in '06 that was the Republican frame (and it probably will be again, one day).

Annnnywho ... now is probably the point you should send one of your Astronomer or Molecular Biologist friends to this thread to tag in for you.

[Juan_Bottom]

never underestimate the importance of blind obedience

In any case, my original point is that it's laughably hypocritical for a corporate prop to accuse others of being corporate props. But it fits within the current Democrat frame of assuring their supporters that they are part of some aristocracy of intellect battling against their easily beguiled countrymen because they can recite the names of court decisions they've never read and barely understand beyond "iz bad"; Citizen's United, all that. Until the switch in '06 that was the Republican frame (and it probably will be again, one day).

As opposed to what you do which is make a funny picture then ad hominen your opponent to death. You have no beliefs, you support nothing but yourself. It makes so much easier for you to attack other people on a personal level, but that doesn't make it ok. At least, even if everyone in the world thinks I'm stupid, at least I'm willing to lay the cards out on the table and say "I believe this is whats right, because of X, Y, and Z reasons."

Annnnywho ... now is probably the point you should send one of your Astronomer or Molecular Biologist friends to this thread to tag in for you.

Did you fan me? 011045? Ari will do just as well with you calling her a dipshit stupid drone as I will. Seems dumb to waste anyone else's time when you don't debate any facts, you only debate people.

[thegreekdog]

So when AT&T gives money to the Obama campaign, Obama is an evil puppet for the corporations, but when corporations do that with gun clubs that is just normal business.

I think Saxi's point is that you champion the cause of the Democratic party on issues where the Democrats aren't accepting corporate money (e.g. the NRA) while ignoring the Democratic party on issues where the Democrats are accepting corporate money. Therefore, denigrating the NRA as a corporate machine that influences Republicans with dollars seems rather hypocritical of you.

I would note, further, that it may be that the Democrats are enlisting the assistance of major (and evil) corporations, such as Walmart, an entity which you've lambasted, in the current gun control battle. How does that make you feel?

I resent all of that.
They didn't enlist the help of Wal*Mart, they made Wal*mart come to the bargaining table. Wal*Mart wasn't even going to send a representative. It's just what I would have done if I were the VP. If I were the president/king, then I would do a lot worse to Wal*Mart's ability to conduct business as usual. I would wage an all-out Teddy X1million war... But true politicians are in the business of compromise, which appears to be something that everyone is missing in the current environment of vitriolic & virulent politics. So what if I decide to compromise on some things and support a Democrat? Or a Republican?

I don't like parsing out quotes, so apologies, but I want to make sure I get to everything in an organizated and coherent manner.

The question with respect to Walmart is this - do gun control advocates need Walmart to advance their agenda? If the answer is yes, then Walmart will come to the table and receive something in return. This is how government works. Compromise is great. Dealing with Walmart is not compromise so much as "hey, we need Walmart on our side on this one, because we need their money and clout and in return we'll give them more money and clout, such as tax incentives and competition incentives." A compromise would pit gun control advocates and anti-gun control advocates against each other to hammer out a sensible law that would deal with potential new Sandy Hook problems. As far as I can tell, that's not happening. I don't blame either party for it, but you certainly seem to blame anti-gun control advocates. And those people tend to be labelled "Republicans."

And I would note, further, the Democrats are also our best bet to repeal Citizen's United. That'll f*ck some sh*t up for some big-ass Corporations. There is nothing wrong with supporting the Democratic party when they need the support. What in the unholy flying f*ck has the Republican Party done lately that I could support? Have they done anything you support? I'm even getting frustrated with Jim Sacia, and that's sad.

The Democrats have no interest in overturning Citizen's United. How can you continue to ignore the funds pouring into Democratic coffers from big corporations? How can you continue to ignore the issue advertisements paid for by rich people? Why is one political party (Republicans) more at fault than the other political party (Democrats) for the current state of affairs? Say what you want about BBS and his long-winded explanations that always seem to end with "and read these four books," but rent-seeking and public choice theory are pretty damn well the standard in the United States.

I agree with mostly everything you say about the Republican party, I just don't see a major difference between the two parties, despite the rhetoric and virtiol being bandied about. I've made that clear a number of times. The only thing I support that the Republicans have proposed in the recent past was the handling of the debt, and I can't even get on board with that since most Republicans won't cut defense spending. But if you asked me what I support that the Democrats have done, the answer is to repeal DADT, and that's about it. You seem to have a lot more pluses in your Democratic Party column and that's great, but please don't make the mistake of thinking that the Democratic Party, on an issue by issue basis, is not controlled by big companies and rich people in the same way the Republican Party is controlled by big companies and rich people.

Legislate vaginas? I <3 Vaginas.
Block Gay Marraige? I <3 the gays.
Creationism in Schools? Am I retarded?
Block Raising taxes on the rich? f*ck the rich! They should pay their fair share.
Block paying America's Bills? Stamp the coin! I <3 good credit!
Block the Gun Discussion? I <3 Kids not being shot!
Blame Poor People for the Economy? I <3 me!
Stop black people from voting? I <3 Black People!

If that is Saxi's point, it's dumb, though that's ok because he's a character. When have I ever participated in a fight where Democrats where accepting money and doing evil with it? Maybe you could say I supported Obama in the election, and I say he's one of the best presidents we've ever had, and that's evil of me. But he was the best and even the most unifying of the candidates, and he is one of the top 20 presidents. That's not my fault, because I didn't live in 1851, and I didn't nominate Romney!

I never said a word about Republicans, that was you. I have used the term "gun enthusiasts" whenever I talk about the people blocking gun control legislation. If this was a red/blue argument then It would be a lot easier to be on the offensive. Unfortunately, the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers of America also donate money to and openly support Democratic Candidates. Harry Reid himself is personal friend with Wyane LaPierre.

I really wish all of CC could argue with the points instead of putting people into specific catagorys all the time and assuming that they must believe this or that. You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with your vision of me when you do that. You don't ever see me arguing with stuff you never said. I might dissect your post, but at least I'm dissecting your words... how silly is this?
Except for BBS, because he's on Ignore. He can dissect himself.
I ain't even mad, I only wonder how long this kind of an environment can continue. I feel like I catch it because this site is conservative and they take their anger out on us liberals. Like "oh you're a Liberal d*ck, you want to take my guns away!" Uh, I never said that, and no Liberal does. It's like we've gone from using Ad-Hominen attacks to forming Ad-Hominen opinions when we think.

I am disagreeing with you. I'm disagreeing with your characterization of the issue. You characterize the NRA and gun supporters as being puppets of gun manufacturers. And that's fine to say that, but it's also hypocritical. Why do you not characterize the president as being a puppet of health insurance providers or Hollywood or Apple? The answer is because you agree with his stance on issues influenced by those groups (for the most part). Because you are a gun control supporter, you feel the need to denigrate the NRA and gun-supporters, who tend to be Republican, under a corporate cronyism argument. So, aren't you making the ad-hominem attack? If you wanted to talk about the issue of gun control, and not the issues of corporate croynism/rent-seeking/public choice theory, then you would post and continue to post stastics showing the Assault Weapons Ban, a similar proposal, or a new proposal, would work.

I'm undecided, for the most part, with respect to gun control. The reason I'm undecided is because there is a conflict in my mind between wanting to make the US safe and the facts of gun control. When the Assault Weapons Ban was passed, gun homicides were not reduced. Handguns are, by far, the most used weapon in homicides. The Assault Weapons Ban did not solve that problem. Furthermore, the Assault Weapons Ban would not have banned the AR-15 that was used in the Sandy Hook shootings, or, if it did, the gun manufacturers would have built a similar weapon that had a different look and name, and which was suddenly not banned. This is fairly simple factual stuff that I've yet to see you address. Intsead, you've concentrated on ad hominem attacks against gun owners, gun owner supporters, the NRA, and gun manufacturers. And that's fine if you want to do that, but then I should be free to label you a hypocrit for not making those same attacks on supporters of issues you are in favor of.

[BigBallinStalin]

never underestimate the importance of blind obedience

In any case, my original point is that it's laughably hypocritical for a corporate prop to accuse others of being corporate props. But it fits within the current Democrat frame of assuring their supporters that they are part of some aristocracy of intellect battling against their easily beguiled countrymen because they can recite the names of court decisions they've never read and barely understand beyond "iz bad"; Citizen's United, all that. Until the switch in '06 that was the Republican frame (and it probably will be again, one day).

As opposed to what you do which is make a funny picture then ad hominen your opponent to death. You have no beliefs, you support nothing but yourself. It makes so much easier for you to attack other people on a personal level, but that doesn't make it ok. At least, even if everyone in the world thinks I'm stupid, at least I'm willing to lay the cards out on the table and say "I believe this is whats right, because of X, Y, and Z reasons."

Annnnywho ... now is probably the point you should send one of your Astronomer or Molecular Biologist friends to this thread to tag in for you.

Did you fan me? 011045? Ari will do just as well with you calling her a dipshit stupid drone as I will. Seems dumb to waste anyone else's time when you don't debate any facts, you only debate people.

Apparently, sax struck a nerve. Unfortunately, JB seems to lack the ability to acknowledge his own hypocritical opinions. His ideology is a dangerous one, which unfortunately negatively affects all of us, and his kind completely fails in aiding those who oppose crony capitalism.

[Symmetry]

Ah another Saxitoxin, BBS, TGD trifecta attack. I'd say JB struck a nerve, given the response.

[saxitoxin]

never underestimate the importance of blind obedience

In any case, my original point is that it's laughably hypocritical for a corporate prop to accuse others of being corporate props. But it fits within the current Democrat frame of assuring their supporters that they are part of some aristocracy of intellect battling against their easily beguiled countrymen because they can recite the names of court decisions they've never read and barely understand beyond "iz bad"; Citizen's United, all that. Until the switch in '06 that was the Republican frame (and it probably will be again, one day).

As opposed to what you do which is make a funny picture then ad hominen your opponent to death. You have no beliefs, you support nothing but yourself. It makes so much easier for you to attack other people on a personal level, but that doesn't make it ok. At least, even if everyone in the world thinks I'm stupid, at least I'm willing to lay the cards out on the table and say "I believe this is whats right, because of X, Y, and Z reasons."

The fact you want to be part of a winning team so badly that you will support candidates, positions and groups that are working against your best interests doesn't define your beliefs. It defines your lack of self-esteem.

[saxitoxin]

Ah another Saxitoxin, BBS, TGD trifecta attack.

this is how this thread went down ...



you can all fill in who is which character yourselves

[BigBallinStalin]

Ah another Saxitoxin, BBS, TGD trifecta attack.

this is how this thread went down ...



you can all fill in who is which character yourselves

I chose one of the Baldwin brothers.

[Juan_Bottom]

The question with respect to Walmart is this - do gun control advocates need Walmart to advance their agenda? If the answer is yes, then Walmart will come to the table and receive something in return. This is how government works. Compromise is great. Dealing with Walmart is not compromise so much as "hey, we need Walmart on our side on this one, because we need their money and clout and in return we'll give them more money and clout, such as tax incentives and competition incentives."

What did Biden offer Wal*Mart other than the chance to be heard? Do we know that he said anything to them except "come here or you'll regret it?"

A compromise would pit gun control advocates and anti-gun control advocates against each other to hammer out a sensible law that would deal with potential new Sandy Hook problems.

Wal*Mart makes money off of these guns. They've run out of stock three times since the shooting. They are making money, and that profit is being pitted against gun control advocates. There's no reason for a corporation to want to cleft their cash flow.

You seem to have a lot more pluses in your Democratic Party column and that's great, but please don't make the mistake of thinking that the Democratic Party, on an issue by issue basis, is not controlled by big companies and rich people in the same way the Republican Party is controlled by big companies and rich people.

I don't believe that either party is controlled by big corporations.
I believe that members in each party typically believe exactly what they say, and that they often prove it with their actions. There are elements within each party that are less sincere, and they surround themselves with aides and lobbyist. They take minor or important roles on all types of congressional committees. Mitch McConnell is my favorite example of this. He's an insincere douche bag, and powerful, but I don't believe that he's unpatriotic or that he is lying when he espouses his beliefs in Jesus and trickle-down economics. To many politicians the ends justify the means.
And yes, all politicians will make alliances with various businesses and corporations during their careers, but that does not make them sell-outs either.

The Democrats have no interest in overturning Citizen's United.

Government moves very slowly, and it always has. We had an Army in the Field fighting England before we declared war. Overturning Citizen's United is also going to take a long time. But Why don't you believe that the Democratic Party has any interest in overturning Citizen's United? I can name 5 Dems who have said that they support overturning it, and that's not including Obama, who said it should be a long-term goal for this term.

I am disagreeing with you. I'm disagreeing with your characterization of the issue. You characterize the NRA and gun supporters as being puppets of gun manufacturers. And that's fine to say that, but it's also hypocritical. Why do you not characterize the president as being a puppet of health insurance providers or Hollywood or Apple? The answer is because you agree with his stance on issues influenced by those groups (for the most part). Because you are a gun control supporter, you feel the need to denigrate the NRA and gun-supporters, who tend to be Republican, under a corporate cronyism argument. So, aren't you making the ad-hominem attack? If you wanted to talk about the issue of gun control, and not the issues of corporate croynism/rent-seeking/public choice theory, then you would post and continue to post stastics showing the Assault Weapons Ban, a similar proposal, or a new proposal, would work.

You're expanding too far and have forgotten my original remark, which was:
"It's not even the NRA, per say, they're some kind of shell for the Gun Manufacturers. The NRA has only 4 million members, but American gun manufacturers donate millions of dollars to the NRA every year to keep it highly influential."
Most of what you just said was you expanding my argument into areas you might have though I would take it, but they're not. The members of the NRA do support their club, and they do believe in what their club is promoting, or they'd leave their club. I can show you web story's from a few who have left the NRA over their refusal to cooperate with sensible gun control legislation. But the NRA gets it's major funding not from it's members, but from the American Gun Manufacturer's. It's a symbiotic relationship where everyone involved gets exactly what they want. You probably remember that in the 90's the American gun manufacturers funneled a lot of money to the NRA so that they could lobby Congress to outlaw class-action lawsuits against Gun Manufacturers. This is what I meant by shell, they pump money into the NRA instead of into their own lobbyists, and get the same result with less exposure. All of this influx of money makes the NRA more influential than it would be otherwise, but our American gun manufacturers don't control the NRA at all because they don't have to.
I agree that I used questionable language, but I always like to.

I support ObamaCare because it's far closer to what I want than the current system, and because it will do more good than harm. That's a compromise.

I'm undecided, for the most part, with respect to gun control. The reason I'm undecided is because there is a conflict in my mind between wanting to make the US safe and the facts of gun control. When the Assault Weapons Ban was passed, gun homicides were not reduced. Handguns are, by far, the most used weapon in homicides. The Assault Weapons Ban did not solve that problem. Furthermore, the Assault Weapons Ban would not have banned the AR-15 that was used in the Sandy Hook shootings, or, if it did, the gun manufacturers would have built a similar weapon that had a different look and name, and which was suddenly not banned. This is fairly simple factual stuff that I've yet to see you address. Intsead, you've concentrated on ad hominem attacks against gun owners, gun owner supporters, the NRA, and gun manufacturers. And that's fine if you want to do that, but then I should be free to label you a hypocrit for not making those same attacks on supporters of issues you are in favor of.

You miss my reasoning TGD!!!! I'm in favor of a hand-gun ban. In threads that you've participated in I've said that I'd like to negotiate over what we can do to about assault rifles, because they're not typically used. And that it's hand guns I'm after. But all that we can get from our countrymen is an assault rifle ban. It's hand guns we need to be headstrong over, not assault rifles. We need those enthusiasts to address the facts in the world we live in, and not the ones in their fantasies. And to help us to make America safer. Nobody is getting what they want because they live in that dark Fantasia land where Obama is Hitler and there are roving bands of Burgle-Rapists everywhere. Until today, we've had no idea what the executive branch was planning to do about gun violence, so I couldn't attack them for only asking for an Assault-Rifle ban.

When I joined CC I was on the other side of the debate, but I've learned and I've changed my mind about gun control. You should be on my side here, as we're thinking the same.

[Juan_Bottom]

The fact you want to be part of a winning team so badly that you will support candidates, positions and groups that are working against your best interests doesn't define your beliefs. It defines your lack of self-esteem.

Ummm.... ya, no.
I'm an Atheist. And I'm a Social Democrat. One of the few ultra-far-left people on this website. It aint so easy to accuse me of being a sell-out when I'm so consistently sticking to my principles and annoying the f*ck out of everyone here.
You don't seem to understand just how massively big the United States is, and I don't blame you. It's hard to understand how freaking huge this place is. It's so big we've got different dialects and accents. Hundreds of languages even. So what I'm driving at is this; we are a fucking huge country with a shitload of different opinions. I'm not selling out by supporting Obama, I'm making a compromise, and the whole goddamn country does the same for their presidential choice.
It's not always so black and white to say that if any American believes in their president then they're a bad guy too. It's easy for judgmental-you to say that "Obama's drones never sleep and they shoot kids. So supporting him is evil." And you're right, on some levels, but not on one of practicality. I can support him for the job while also saying that I don't agree with every policy. They put a band-aid on the issue by sending checks to the victims families, and that's not even reasonable imho. But you don't get to judge me and say I'm a sell-out because I'm not an Anarchist and because I support my president on whatever issue.
In giant-f*cking America we have two choices for president each four years. No, there are no viable third party candidates... and I don't see you starting a people's revolution. If you vote third party then you take a vote away from the candidate who's views are closer to your own, and the other person is one vote closer to victory. Vote for Romney, Vote for Obama, either way the drones will fly. Elect Obama and you get Nationalized Corporate-sponsored free healthcare, vote for Romney and Gays can't get married. The best choice is what it is, so I vote for Obama while calling for an end to the war on terror.
So if you know soooo much more about how this issue is all black and white; Who was your candidate again? I mean, last time I checked you're so old you're always rambling about the good ole days with Ralph Nader..... Ralph-f*cking-Nader... when did he have a shot, a kajillion years ago? Does he go into bars and drink himself silly talking about that one glory year he had? Do you?
Ralph Nader is just fine I suppose in 2012 if you live in a fantasy world where you're a 9000 -year-old West German playboy. But in the real world real people have to make tough decisions and they have to vote. Obama may not be the best person for the job in your opinion, but I've told you who I supported, and you've stayed mum about your own support so I can't mock you back. And you bully me personally for it. THAT speaks to your lack of self-esteem.

[Ray Rider]

As opposed to what you do which is make a funny picture then ad hominen your opponent to death.

The irony is thick...

[chang50]

Juan you are not an ultra far left person,as far as I can see if you lived in Europe you would be seen as a moderate Social Democrat.Don't allow yourself to be defined by a country that has lurched massively to the right from an already far right setting.

[Night Strike]

What did Biden offer Wal*Mart other than the chance to be heard? Do we know that he said anything to them except "come here or you'll regret it?"

By forcing all private sellers of firearms to perform background checks on their buyers, people are more likely to go to a big-box store such as Walmart to buy a new firearm from someone who knows how to do the background checks than to go to a person who just sells their used or personally acquired firearms. Walmart benefits because there is one fewer reason to go to a smaller provider.

Juan you are not an ultra far left person,as far as I can see if you lived in Europe you would be seen as a moderate Social Democrat.Don't allow yourself to be defined by a country that has lurched massively to the right from an already far right setting.

There is nothing that our government is doing that is to the right, much less the far right, especially in regards to Constitutionalism and economics. Our government spends without reproach and will eagerly deny our Constitutional rights in any area they can get their hands on. Those aren't conservative positions.

[thegreekdog]

Ah another Saxitoxin, BBS, TGD trifecta attack.

this is how this thread went down ...



you can all fill in who is which character yourselves

I chose one of the Baldwin brothers.

I don't know why you guys made me Ari, merely because I'm a lawyer.