tvashtarkatena

When I first logged onto this site, one of the first things I ran into was FW calling somebody a "commie". I thought to myself: "What, was this guy frozen around 1956 and just re-thawed?" Like his party, laughably out of touch.

The fact that you don't know these safeguards are already in place disqualifies you from further commentary on this subject. When you buy a firearm you are subject to an automatic FBI background check and, unless you have a CWP, there is a 3 to 5 day wait. The check does not include the serial number of the weapon and the record of the check is supposedly purged after 12 or 18 months. If the states can't keep track of mental patients then something certainly needs to be done about that. I can't think of anyone who wants mental patients with guns. How would registering guns solve this problem? Really? Hmm, last time I checked I could purchase a firearms without any background check or waiting period -- from a friendly private seller! Hell, if I was a felon or a mental patient, a firearm is as close as the nearest classifieds ad. Look what I can buy here! No background checks needed! Felons and mental patients welcome! And it's even got a bayonet, for after you blow through the 300+ rounds of ammo (included). But, I'm glad to hear that you support legislation to close this loophole. It's a little surprising, since you crazy gun fuckers have usually fought to the death for the right to sell your guns privately to felons and mental patients. Way to give 'im wood, buddy.

What's mildly amusing about FW is that he doesn't realize that the rest of the world, outside his right wing, round padded cell, doesn't view the word 'socialist' as an insult. Humans survived extinction because we are social creatures. From an evolutionary standpoint, we are designed to be 'socialist'. The sharing of wealth started about 5 million years ago and has been the key to our success ever since. Sharing the wealth through through progressive tax policy is one key to our national survival today. No country remains socially healthy without a strong, stable middle class. When the middle class unravels, the social glue that holds our society together frays and disintegrates into the kind of chaos that only desperate humans can create. Our middle class has been eroding ever since Reagan began concentrating wealth in this country through regressive tax policies, deregulation, and other forms of corporate favoritism. A strong, stable society makes the rich rich. They become so from the labors of others, not just themselves. They got more out of the system; it is right to expect them to pay more back into it. So often the hyperwealthy of societies with a weak middle class (the third world, which seems to be FW's end game for our country) accumulate and maintain their wealth through corruption and monopolization, not 'hard work'. In this society, most of the friends I know who became wealthy didn't work any harder than anyone else; they simply got lucky. It's sad that FW worships material wealth above social justice, the overall well being of Americans, and all the other higher virtues at the core of our society. There's not a lot to admire there.

the Magna Carta from 1215 contains some fun pearls like this'n: "31. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall take another's wood for castles or for other private uses, unless by the will of him to whom the wood belongs." Take my wood for private uses, FW.

Well, as long as no one asks me to screw a pig then..... Seriously Bob, in my opinion, it weakens a very strong and honest post to end it that way. It will lead to insults back in return, and your points, as spot on the money as they are, will not be read or addressed. Take care all! Keep being yourself, Bob. We love you the Euro-psycho-way you are.

You bring up some great points here Tvash. I always like the way you (often)present your opinion with clarity even if I do not always agree. It would be good if more people would do this instead of just spraying non-sensical boring BS. I think the reality of the gun situation is that, the more controls and limitations you put on honest citizenry, the more dependant we are on the police. I don't like that. Regardless of what I like, criminals will continue to have guns just like they continue to make meth, import heroin, kidnap children, etc.. I have personally been in a situation where I was facing the probablility coming face to face with a certified nut job who had broken into my house and had previously stated that 5 evil demons were telling him to kill his own son, my step-son. I knew he had been on the streets for a year and guns are easy to get ILLEGALLY. So I was comforted by the fact that I was able to lock and load in order to defend my wife, two infant daughters, and stepp-son. If you think gun control would have kept this whacko from getting a gun then explain to me why he is able to buy other illegal substances. As it turned out, the police got there and scared him off. But a few seconds later could have made a huge difference. Nearly every illegal gun out there is manufactured legally and sold through a federally licensed arms dealer at some point. States and municipalities that have cracked down on these dealers; particularly the ones operating out of their homes, have driven illegal gun purchases elsewhere. Unfortunately, one bad dealer can distribute a hell of a lot of guns to the wrong folks. So, as I stated, enforcing existing controls on these dealers and revoking federal licenses from dealers without a legitimate storefront would go a long way towards cutting off the supply of weapons used in crime, at least according to the studies I've read. This shouldn't bother anyone who feels the need to have a gun around for protection or sport. By all means, shoot some psychos for the rest of us. Er, not me, though.

So if your car had no headlights and was spewing oil, the cops wouldnt need to pull you over and possibly ticket you...because your license already took care of that??? Wow, I had no idea. You might not also be aware that you need to renew tabs on your car (the licensing I was refering to), which requires emmissions inspection here and other types of inspection elsewhere. That's gonna cost ya big someday.

I wouldn't support policies that allow me to own a gun, for example.

There goes a substantial portion of McCain's base.

The Toothless Daughter-Fuckers of America and United Mullets for Dog Fighting Rights just endorsed Obama as well.

The point spread agreement here is rare. Even USA Today's 'retards only' poll numbers have fallen in line: WP/ABC 54/41 WSJ/NBC 52/42 USAToday/Gallup 51/44 Time 50/43 NYT/NBC 51/38 Gallup 50/42 CNN 53/43 FOX 48/38 LA Times 50/41 Newsweek 52/41

NYT, WSJ, New Yorker, The Economist Read periodicals that actually have access to the people they're writing about, not idiots who carp from their cubicles.

That's gonna leave a mark.

The 2nd amendment doesn't prohibit licensing of guns. It doesn't prohibit restrictions on gun ownership. By way of example, the constitution wouldn't prohibit the government from denying gun ownership rights to convicted felons, just as it doesn't prohibit denying those felons voting and other rights. A one time tracking system like point of sale doesn't take into account a change of status (Ex: someone who just shot up a liquor store) like a renewable licensing system does. If cars were licensed only at point of sale, you could have vehicles with no headlights spewing pure burning oil on the road. Not in society's best interest. Abortion is a very different issue, because it must balance the rights of the mother versus the rights of the unborn. The issue of when the unborn attains independent 'personhood' is central, and there really is no other constitutional issue that is similar. The gun rights issue is a classic balancing of public safety with individual rights; there are many, many prior examples of this (smoking, driving, yelling "fire!" in a theatre, etc).

I don't think it's that simple, at all. What "arms" were you given the right to bear? Tanks? Artillery? What "arms", if any, are you willing to outlaw? Should people be able to own nuclear weapons? Where does it stop? Surely you agree with some form of gun control, as I doubt many would argue that citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons. So, where do you draw the line? I don't think it's "simple as that." No, it's not a simple issue at all. The second amendment is cryptic and ambiguous. If the government ever decides to confiscate guns, despite all the bluster from blowhards like AKA, they'll just come and take them...and AKA and every other "cold dead hand-ites" in the country will just give them up...just like they've done fuck all while the government took away their privacy, habeaus corpus, and probable cause rights. What, you're going give up your freedom, life, your family's life, and everything you own so you can keep guns you need to protect all of the above? I'm snickering over here. Fuck you, blowhards. There isn't anyone in this fine country who believes your obvious posing. I'm curious, purely hypothetical but if you could propose one significant but seemingly impossible policy change in this country that would have lasting financial consequence, what would it be? You've expressed your dislike for the military before so might you propose the withdrawal of US troops based in foreign countries along with the abolition of a standing army in favor of a system similar to Switzerland's? ( The Swiss Report; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia) Granted, this system would require compulsory military service for able-bodied citizens and would require the keeping of an automatic weapon in your home. Since we currently spend 60% of our discretionary federal budget on the military, the obvious place to cut is that wedge of the pie. Here's how I would propose to do that: 1) Get out of Iraq. 2) Increase our efforts in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban and other terrorist groups, and stabilize that region. 3) Reduce our nuclear arsenal to a fraction of what it is currently, and resume leadership in worldwide nuclear disarmament. 4) Mothball several carrier battle groups. 5) Pass legislation to eliminate no-bid and cost plus contracts. 6) Yank a host of services from private contractors and give them back to the military. 7) Mothball a significant portion of a nuke subs. Regarding gun control, it's not really a big issue for me one way or the other, although I'm abviously amused by the bullshit artists out there who claim they'll stand up against the gubmint when the time comes. From what I've read, the most significant change we could make would be to enforce existing regulation of federally licensed arms dealers, and, most importantly, eliminate those dealers who operate out of their homes without a storefront. It is this latter group who are responsible for distributing the lionshare of weapons that are eventually involved in crimes. I have no problem, and see no problem, with licensing guns, just as I have no problem with licensing a car, boat, or other potentially lethal machine that operates in the public space. The gun related issue I care most about, and the biggest problem in this country regarding gun ownership, is children getting accidentally shot. Unfortunately, the solution to that lies in the realm of personal responsibility. This type of accident, along with hunting accidents, continue to happen far to often; testiment to the fact that, despite the NRA's bullshit campaigns, far too many gun owners are far too careless.

I don't think it's that simple, at all. What "arms" were you given the right to bear? Tanks? Artillery? What "arms", if any, are you willing to outlaw? Should people be able to own nuclear weapons? Where does it stop? Surely you agree with some form of gun control, as I doubt many would argue that citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons. So, where do you draw the line? I don't think it's "simple as that." No, it's not a simple issue at all. The second amendment is cryptic and ambiguous. If the government ever decides to confiscate guns, despite all the bluster from blowhards like AKA, they'll just come and take them...and AKA and every other "cold dead hand-ites" in the country will just give them up...just like they've done fuck all while the government took away their privacy, habeaus corpus, and probable cause rights. What, you're going give up your freedom, life, your family's life, and everything you own so you can keep guns you need to protect all of the above? I'm snickering over here. Fuck you, blowhards. There isn't anyone in this fine country who believes your obvious posing.

He must have pissed them off somewhere along the line. Those New Yorkers...playing nice just isn't in their lexicon. Not like the gentile PNW.

"B"oxers or "B"riefs?

"B"ackward.

They haven't endorsed a Republican candidate since Ike because they've all sucked ass.

No surprise, but a well written summary. NYT

More likely some loon with a disgruntled boyfriend. Can anyone guess what the "B" might stand for?

I couldn't agree more here, Bill. With the highest violent gun crime rate in the first world, our country is just about perfect the way it is; no improvement necessary. And there are too many laws. Fewer laws is better. No laws at all would be best. And don't forget that the Japanese used torpedoes and bombs to attack Pearl Harbor; not guns. Guns are not the problem. I mean, what's next, a law to take away our torpodoes and bombs? As for the kid in the highschool, what's the difference between 5 rounds in the mag, semi auto, and 30 rounds full auto? About 25 bodies, but with 6.5 billion people on the planet, bodies are a cheap commodity. Where would it end? Requiring a license to carry concealed a boxcutter? Can you imagine how many stockboys with priors would lose their jobs?

The New Democrats: Want everybody armed? OK.

The New Democrats: Guess who's paying for the bail out today?