False Flag Gov't Schemes for Gun control:

[i'va biggen]

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/03/25/w...mp-437158.html

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Just like you "didn't vote for Odumbo", speedy.

Idiot. I voted for Obama twice. As usual, you have absolutely no proof to back up your idiotic statements.

I also voted for Bush twice.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Idiot. I voted for Obama twice. As usual, you have absolutely no proof to back up your idiotic statements.

Precisely, speedy! And you admitted it, speedy, and that's all the proof that is required.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I came in the middle of this conversation (she was very understanding...) so I might have missed something. When you say Clinton in the future, you're going to have to separate Bill from Hillary unless the context explains that. So you say that (I think) Hillary is to the left of Obama....I have to disagree. Hillary and Obama studied with the same master; Saul Alinsky. Saying that one is more of a socialist than the other is like comparing two cobras about which is more poisonous. The only differences that I see is that Hillary as a woman will be required to prove how tough she can be and that means we go to war with someone...and win. Obama doesn't care about winning for the other different between him and Hillary. Obama, whether he was born in this country or not, does not really consider himself an American. He has no American pride. I think that Hillary will at least have that and like I said any war that she starts, she wants to win.

I could say that based on recent history that Hillary is more corrupt with things like the aftermath of Benghazi, her emails, and the Clinton Global Iniative but I imagine that Obama will make a lot of money after he leaves office. A lot of money. He might be our first billionaire ex-president.

The following is one person's comparison of H. Clinton vs Obama.

"Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.


Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a “hard core liberal” per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal,” Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama."

Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/h...on-is-liberal/

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Idiot. I voted for Obama twice. As usual, you have absolutely no proof to back up your idiotic statements.

I also voted for Bush twice.

Do you always make the same mistakes twice?

Jim

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The following is one person's comparison of H. Clinton vs Obama.

"Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.


Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a “hard core liberal” per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal,” Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama."

Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/h...on-is-liberal/

0zombie crying...


BooHoo...

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The following is one person's comparison of H. Clinton vs Obama.

"Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.


Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a “hard core liberal” per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal,” Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama."

Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/h...on-is-liberal/

Comparing who's more Liberal Clinton vs Obama is like comparing who's fatter Chris Christie or Rush Limbaugh, lol. What's a few difference in pounds. They're both fucking fat, obese even. Same with the two idiots. They're both Liberals of the highest degree. If you're looking for a big gap it just isn't there. They're both bad news ....

Jim

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Comparing who's more Liberal Clinton vs Obama is like comparing who's fatter Chris Christie or Rush Limbaugh, lol. What's a few difference in pounds. They're both fucking fat, obese even. Same with the two idiots. They're both Liberals of the highest degree. If you're looking for a big gap it just isn't there. They're both bad news ....

Jim

I go back to my original point. If Conservatives think Obama is too Liberal, Clinton is farther to the left than Obama. How much farther to the left is, like you say, hard to determine and irrelevant to some degree.

[i'va biggen]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/23-reason...162500248.html

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I go back to my original point. If Conservatives think Obama is too Liberal, Clinton is farther to the left than Obama. How much farther to the left is, like you say, hard to determine and irrelevant to some degree.

The bottom line is they are both worthless. This country wants to be known for it's greatness and it's economic prowess and fairness to all. Yet we keep electing leaders who dilute those values. They piss down our backs and tell us it's raining. It's time we ace the blinders and take a look around.

Jim

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Speedowearer, does this seem reasonable?

http://www.wolkeworks.com/Gun_Control_.html

That's a rather long article to which to reply. First, there are 2 reasons given in the article, IMHO, why people in this country need access to guns -- self-protection and arming militia against a government running amok, tramping our right. I prefer to disregard the second reason for the moment.

The author makes many valid points but, as with most gun rights advocates, tends to stereotype those that want to limit gun ownership in any way.

"The unspoken assumption is that anyone with a gun, even otherwise law abiding, peaceful citizens, is a threat, not just criminals. In some respects, that reflects the left's view of people as requiring government supervision because of their inability to govern themselves."

True to me, but oversimplified. Yes, I look at anyone with a gun as someone who could potentially be a threat to me. Police officers make mistakes and on rare occasions kill innocent people. Obviously criminals do. So do law-abiding citizens (google Fred Yazdi). Laws are in place to try to minimize the risk of gun owners to others. "Inability to govern themselves" is a bit strong. I don't think asking people who want to carry a handgun in public to show a certain level of ability in handling and shooting the handgun and show a minimum level of knowledge of the laws pertaining to carrying and firing the handgun is too much to ask of them.

It should be obvious that the government cannot monitor each home to ensure that guns or prescription drugs are kept out of the reach of minors. All government can do is penalize adults when their children are caught. Most laws are like that. They can't stop criminal behavior by monitoring criminals. They can only create deterrence by penalizing the commission of the crime. This country has myriads of laws regulating guns and penalizing their illegal use. Creating more laws is the typical bureaucratic solution to helplessness. Clearly, this is not the solution.

True. I agree. I also agree with the author's statements on assault weapons and ammo.

The left scoffs, claiming society would resemble the wild west and too many people would settle disputes by shoot outs. As an example, they need only point to inner cities where murders, even over trivialities, are all too prevalent, even in schools. This may be true, but it ignores the cultural and socioeconomic conditions in those areas that lead, for example, to criminal gangs. In this, they are wont to deprive millions of peaceful, legitimate gun owners of their right to bear arms as a means to prevent a tiny minority from abusing that right. That's typical of government.



One of the author's stereotypes of "the left". Probably less than a handful of people believe that putting guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens would lead to the "wild west". I most certainly agree that cultural and socioeconomic conditions are responsible for the majority of the homicides in this country and I have stated that many times.

Moreover, the left believes the social conditions in the 18th Century, where armed citizens were needed to fend off Indian attacks and foreign invaders since militias were practically the only military force, no longer apply. In fact, they say the wording of the 2nd Amendment indicates that the founders were saying the right to own a gun is dependent on being in a state regulated militia. The Supreme Court, after examining the intentions of the framers and studying the wording of the amendment, ruled differently, saying it guarantees the individual's right to bear arms.

And the Supreme Court has also ruled that the individual's right to bear arms is NOT absolute. Restrictions can be put on that right.

The right generally believes that the cause of gun violence, especially among young deranged men who commit massacres, is attributable to underlying psychological and cultural causes, not the tools they use to inflict their carnage. In fact, the right claims that virtually all of the perpetrators of mass killings are by young teenaged boys on psychotropic drugs. (They also point out that these kids are all liberal Democrats, which may or may not be the case.) The right points to a country like Switzerland, where most people are required to own automatic weapons, and still the country has a very low level of violence. So, the problem lies not in the availability of guns, but in the culture that produces deranged killers.


I agree that most gun violence can be attributed to psychological and cultural causes and not due to the number of guns on the streets. However, I disagree with the author's statement that "virtually all of the perpetrators of mass killings are by young teenage boys on psychotropic drugs." Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik. Harper-Mercer. Mohamood Abdulazeez. Dylann Roof. Elliot Rodger. Nidal Hassan. Ivan Lopez. Andrew Engeldinger. Wade Page. James Holmes. The list can go on. None of these men were teenagers, although a couple were in their early 20s. Liberal Democrats? I have no idea. And Switzerland it is estimated that only 45.7 per 100 people own guns, as opposed to 88.8 per 100 in the U.S

In any case, whenever there's a multiple homicide event, such as Aurora or Sandy Hook, the horror tends to activate anti-gun proponents into banning guns that are quite rare in the commission of a homicide.

Again I agree. The problem is that whenever there is an Aurora or Sandy Hook, the people most affected by the event (parents, relatives, friends) are devastated and want SOMETHING done by our leaders. In statements I have read, these people most affected do not focus on increased security but rather on increased gun control. So the leaders, whether Republican or Democrat, push for gun control. Probably some less than others though.

In the meantime, we're left with what's practical, and that is enforcing existing gun laws while not curtailing the right of the citizenry to defend themselves. Not everyone wants to carry a gun. Not everyone should be permitted to. But if a reasonable number of people who have been trained and investigated carry concealed weapons, the slaughter can be stopped sooner and even prevented.

I agree totally with the first sentence. I also agree with the first part of the 4th sentence in that people who have been TRAINED and INVESTIGATED should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. Of course, this goes against the desires of those who support Constitutional Carry. The second part of the 4th sentence is pushing it a bit too far. The author has already stated that gang violence is the main contributing factor to the homicide rate in the U.S. and that this gang violence is NOT prevalent in most areas of the U.S. If everyone in my town legally carried a concealed handgun, the number of people killed in gang violence would not be decreased at all.

Imagine, for example, that Chicago, where reportedly 446 children were shot in schools and which has a very high murder rate despite stringent gun control regulations, created a city militia of trained concealed weapons carriers who would be authorized to stop violent crimes. At least it's a way to start.

Just wondering. . . Is this your solution to stopping violent crime?

IBHankering -- Don't even bother responding to this. I will try to respond to anyone else who either agrees or disagrees with me.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

The bottom line is they are both worthless. This country wants to be known for it's greatness and it's economic prowess and fairness to all. Yet we keep electing leaders who dilute those values. They piss down our backs and tell us it's raining. It's time we ace the blinders and take a look around.

Jim

Okay. You're anti-Clinton and anti-Obama. What about GWB? How do you rank him?

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Okay. You're anti-Clinton and anti-Obama. What about GWB? How do you rank him?

May I answer? GWB is an Establishment war criminal, and should be in prison. What say you, Jim?

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

That's a rather long article to which to reply. First, there are 2 reasons given in the article, IMHO, why people in this country need access to guns -- self-protection and arming militia against a government running amok, tramping our right. I prefer to disregard the second reason for the moment.

The author makes many valid points but, as with most gun rights advocates, tends to stereotype those that want to limit gun ownership in any way.

"The unspoken assumption is that anyone with a gun, even otherwise law abiding, peaceful citizens, is a threat, not just criminals. In some respects, that reflects the left's view of people as requiring government supervision because of their inability to govern themselves."

True to me, but oversimplified. Yes, I look at anyone with a gun as someone who could potentially be a threat to me. Police officers make mistakes and on rare occasions kill innocent people. Obviously criminals do. So do law-abiding citizens (google Fred Yazdi). Laws are in place to try to minimize the risk of gun owners to others. "Inability to govern themselves" is a bit strong. I don't think asking people who want to carry a handgun in public to show a certain level of ability in handling and shooting the handgun and show a minimum level of knowledge of the laws pertaining to carrying and firing the handgun is too much to ask of them.

It should be obvious that the government cannot monitor each home to ensure that guns or prescription drugs are kept out of the reach of minors. All government can do is penalize adults when their children are caught. Most laws are like that. They can't stop criminal behavior by monitoring criminals. They can only create deterrence by penalizing the commission of the crime. This country has myriads of laws regulating guns and penalizing their illegal use. Creating more laws is the typical bureaucratic solution to helplessness. Clearly, this is not the solution.

True. I agree. I also agree with the author's statements on assault weapons and ammo.

The left scoffs, claiming society would resemble the wild west and too many people would settle disputes by shoot outs. As an example, they need only point to inner cities where murders, even over trivialities, are all too prevalent, even in schools. This may be true, but it ignores the cultural and socioeconomic conditions in those areas that lead, for example, to criminal gangs. In this, they are wont to deprive millions of peaceful, legitimate gun owners of their right to bear arms as a means to prevent a tiny minority from abusing that right. That's typical of government.



One of the author's stereotypes of "the left". Probably less than a handful of people believe that putting guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens would lead to the "wild west". I most certainly agree that cultural and socioeconomic conditions are responsible for the majority of the homicides in this country and I have stated that many times.

Moreover, the left believes the social conditions in the 18th Century, where armed citizens were needed to fend off Indian attacks and foreign invaders since militias were practically the only military force, no longer apply. In fact, they say the wording of the 2nd Amendment indicates that the founders were saying the right to own a gun is dependent on being in a state regulated militia. The Supreme Court, after examining the intentions of the framers and studying the wording of the amendment, ruled differently, saying it guarantees the individual's right to bear arms.

And the Supreme Court has also ruled that the individual's right to bear arms is NOT absolute. Restrictions can be put on that right.

The right generally believes that the cause of gun violence, especially among young deranged men who commit massacres, is attributable to underlying psychological and cultural causes, not the tools they use to inflict their carnage. In fact, the right claims that virtually all of the perpetrators of mass killings are by young teenaged boys on psychotropic drugs. (They also point out that these kids are all liberal Democrats, which may or may not be the case.) The right points to a country like Switzerland, where most people are required to own automatic weapons, and still the country has a very low level of violence. So, the problem lies not in the availability of guns, but in the culture that produces deranged killers.


I agree that most gun violence can be attributed to psychological and cultural causes and not due to the number of guns on the streets. However, I disagree with the author's statement that "virtually all of the perpetrators of mass killings are by young teenage boys on psychotropic drugs." Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik. Harper-Mercer. Mohamood Abdulazeez. Dylann Roof. Elliot Rodger. Nidal Hassan. Ivan Lopez. Andrew Engeldinger. Wade Page. James Holmes. The list can go on. None of these men were teenagers, although a couple were in their early 20s. Liberal Democrats? I have no idea. And Switzerland it is estimated that only 45.7 per 100 people own guns, as opposed to 88.8 per 100 in the U.S

In any case, whenever there's a multiple homicide event, such as Aurora or Sandy Hook, the horror tends to activate anti-gun proponents into banning guns that are quite rare in the commission of a homicide.

Again I agree. The problem is that whenever there is an Aurora or Sandy Hook, the people most affected by the event (parents, relatives, friends) are devastated and want SOMETHING done by our leaders. In statements I have read, these people most affected do not focus on increased security but rather on increased gun control. So the leaders, whether Republican or Democrat, push for gun control. Probably some less than others though.

In the meantime, we're left with what's practical, and that is enforcing existing gun laws while not curtailing the right of the citizenry to defend themselves. Not everyone wants to carry a gun. Not everyone should be permitted to. But if a reasonable number of people who have been trained and investigated carry concealed weapons, the slaughter can be stopped sooner and even prevented.

I agree totally with the first sentence. I also agree with the first part of the 4th sentence in that people who have been TRAINED and INVESTIGATED should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. Of course, this goes against the desires of those who support Constitutional Carry. The second part of the 4th sentence is pushing it a bit too far. The author has already stated that gang violence is the main contributing factor to the homicide rate in the U.S. and that this gang violence is NOT prevalent in most areas of the U.S. If everyone in my town legally carried a concealed handgun, the number of people killed in gang violence would not be decreased at all.

Imagine, for example, that Chicago, where reportedly 446 children were shot in schools and which has a very high murder rate despite stringent gun control regulations, created a city militia of trained concealed weapons carriers who would be authorized to stop violent crimes. At least it's a way to start.

Just wondering. . . Is this your solution to stopping violent crime?

IBHankering -- Don't even bother responding to this. I will try to respond to anyone else who either agrees or disagrees with me.

You are a single issue anti-gun voter and a 0brobro dick sucker... at least you admit it...

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

You are a single issue anti-gun voter and a 0brobro dick sucker... at least you admit it...

That's all you can come up with? I thought you had a modicum of intelligence. I guess I was wrong.