If you were to vote today

[prole]

I imagine that some of these folks, after several more years of dissappointment (a perpetual condition with this crowd), will eventually settle on the bottom of the political abyss: Lyndon LaRouche.

 

New Deal Moonies

[akhalteke]

I wont vote for Obama just because of his stance on guns. He believes in a total ban on handguns, weapons in homes and "assault rifles". This is the most telling about Obama's lack of understanding when it comes to the average citizen. I don't know what I am going to do on the 4th, but I sure as hell know what I wont do; vote Obama.

 

Who told you this? This is patently false.

 

Reeeeeeeeely?

As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

 

Well kids I believe in freedom of speech in theory, but reserve the right to constrain this right at the state and county level. WTF? Are you guys actually swallowing this guys' double speak?

35. Do you support state legislation to:

a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.

b. ban assault weapons? Yes.

c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

 

Huh.... really?

Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.

Site. Please, at least research your candidates' position before running your suck about what ou think he might think about an issue. Obama is the most anti-gun politician to have ever run for the presidency of the United States of America.

 

To so strongly violate the 2nd amendment to the constitution seems to show his lack of understanding and knowledge about the average individual as well as the sheer pompous contempt for the average American citizen.

 

Let me leave you all with this tidy quote from our not so distant past:

This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.

 

--Adolf Hitler 1935

 

 

 

 

 

[ken4ord]

You gun toting yahoos never cease to amaze me. I mean I like firing guns it's fun, yeah they are useful for hunting, but come on do you really need to protect yourself with them? WTF, are you really that scared that the boogeyman is going to come and get you? Sista pleaz! In my 40 years of living have I never felt the need to have a weapon to protect myself, and actually I think I would feel a hell of lot safer knowing assualt weapons and most hand guns were banned, background checks were mandatory, and there were waiting periods. Gun ownership is a right but as far I am concerned if you aren't responsible enough that right should be able to be revoked, 2nd amendment or not. And by the way just a little history lesson, that piece of paper refered to as our Constitution was written a very long time ago, as great as it ideas are, it could use some updating.

 

As for a presidential canidates view on gun ownership, it probably on the bottom of the list, well below much more important things such as, the current financial crisis, unemployment rate, balancing the budget, health care, education and our invovlement in world politics.

 

 

[Fairweather]

Gun ownership is a right but as far I am concerned if you aren't responsible enough that right should be able to be revoked, 2nd amendment or not. And by the way just a little history lesson, that piece of paper refered to as our Constitution was written a very long time ago, as great as it ideas are, it could use some updating.

 

 

 

 

It can be updated any time. It's called the amendment process. Do you consider the first amendment 'outdated' too? I mean, the writers could never have conceived the internet...or television or even radio! Hell, maybe Obama can manipulate the states and congress into the opening of a constitutional convention! Wouldn't that be just wonderful! People like you scare me. You must be part of that 50% TTK is talking about.

[ken4ord]

Gun ownership is a right but as far I am concerned if you aren't responsible enough that right should be able to be revoked, 2nd amendment or not. And by the way just a little history lesson, that piece of paper refered to as our Constitution was written a very long time ago, as great as it ideas are, it could use some updating.

 

 

 

 

It can be updated any time. It's called the amendment process. Do you consider the first amendment 'outdated' too? I mean, the writers could never have conceived the internet...or television or even radio! Hell, maybe Obama can manipulate the states and congress into the opening of a constitutional convention! Wouldn't that be just wonderful! People like you scare me. You must be part of that 50% TTK is talking about.

 

 

Talk about paranoia, you really think that one person (Obama) could manipulate states and congress into changing the constitution as he likes??? Also you are missing my main point, gun ownership is in my opinion (I hope I am still allowed to have an opinion) should be of the lowest priority of the items I mentioned above. How does gun ownership really help anyone pay their bills, have a decent job, get health care when needed, protect there children from being sent someplace to kill and get killed under false pretenses and allow their children and themselves to decent education????

 

Oh BTW, I am probably a lot more scarier that you think I am. I just realize that my socialist/green/democratic and somewhat anarchistic views and desires would never really work in this society. Mainly because of people who are more concerned about themselves, than they are the greater good of humankind. I can live with it because I know that we all have different beliefs and ideas how things should run, that is why the socialism and anarchy has never worked. The Green party seem just democratic with an emphasis on the environment, will probably never get their chance, but oh well.

[tvashtarkatena]

Dood, if you never got laid, you might be into guns, too.

[ken4ord]

I guess for some too they help pay the bills...."Yo sucka give me yo wallet befo' I busta cap ur ass!!!"

[Fairweather]

And by the way just a little history lesson, that piece of paper refered to as our Constitution was written a very long time ago, as great as it ideas are, it could use some updating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...How does gun ownership really help anyone pay their bills, have a decent job, get health care when needed... and allow their children and themselves to decent education????

 

 

Besides the aforementioned gun ownership, the constitution of the United States guarantees none of these things you mention. You should read it.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Fairweather

[Fairweather]

Dood, if you never got laid, you might be into guns, too.

 

Um...Is this why you were on cc.com at 1:40 in the morning? Or is Mrs. TTK on another one of those "business trips"?

[prole]

Gun ownership is a right but as far I am concerned if you aren't responsible enough that right should be able to be revoked, 2nd amendment or not. And by the way just a little history lesson, that piece of paper refered to as our Constitution was written a very long time ago, as great as it ideas are, it could use some updating.

 

It can be updated any time. It's called the amendment process. Do you consider the first amendment 'outdated' too? I mean, the writers could never have conceived the internet...or television or even radio! Hell, maybe Obama can manipulate the states and congress into the opening of a constitutional convention! Wouldn't that be just wonderful! People like you scare me. You must be part of that 50% TTK is talking about.

 

Hey Dumbass, here are some other things the founding fathers did'nt foresee in the flintlock, ball and powder, musket, whatever era:

Cocaine

the Tec-9

Suicide Attacks at Wendy's

High School

John Woo

The Drive-By

Meth

Snoop

Detroit

Virginia Tech

As usual, in the name of freedom you're blindly clinging to an outmoded belief at complete odds with reality.

 

Why do you always need to evoke the 1st Amendment in order to defend the second? Can it not stand on its own merits? Why not evoke the 4th (a much better barometer of individual freedom from the State)? Is it because you've been happy to undermine that one in the "changed realities of the 21st century"? What are the merits of a "free market" in assault weapons these days? Is the Constitution holy scripture? You're happy to evoke the amendment process in theory as an example of its flexibility and the sage wisdom of the "fathers", but you seem not so keen on exercising that right. Nearly every other advanced democracy in the world has changed, amended, or outright replaced its constitution numerous times in the last 200 years. What's our problem?

 

 

[ClipStick]

Isn't Obama's stance on guns, which leaves it open to state and local government a "conservative" stance....His personal belief is anti-gun...I could imagine his years on the south side of Chicago may have influenced that opinion. His Political belief, according to the above quote, is that it is up to private citizens and the state's government to vote for and inforce gun handling laws....Just like Washington state's concealed weapon law. This is a state law, not a federal law...or like the D.C. handgun ban...it is a local/state law, not a federal law...

 

He isn't gonna send the ATF to Washington state to take away your precious guns...

 

[prole]

 

Mmmmm...precious guns.

 

[video:youtube]

[billcoe]

....gun ownership is in my opinion (I hope I am still allowed to have an opinion) should be of the lowest priority of the items I mentioned above. How does gun ownership really help anyone pay their bills, have a decent job, get health care when needed, protect there children from being sent someplace to kill and get killed under false pretenses and allow their children and themselves to decent education????

 

 

IMO, this is the root of power in keeping the other amendments and rights on the table for you.

___________________________________________________________

 

ps, voted Libertarian, Bob Barr. And Trash I didn't vote for Carter or Reagan either, picked a 3rd party. I don't recall who it's been that long. Turned out that as I was driving to the polls after work, all 3 major networks called it over for Carter and gave it to Reagan.

[prole]

I didn't vote for Carter or Reagan either, picked a 3rd party. I don't recall who it's been that long.

 

So the "protest vote" really does work!

[billcoe]

Of course....Cough * cough* well...it didn't work for Al Gore, so no...hmmm, wait: I guess that it did work for Geo W Bush however, so yes, I guess I have to agree with you after all as you are correct once again Komrade Prole! :-)

[joblo7]

status quo is not self evolving.

[prole]

I always thought the most important part of Nader's 2000 platform was the emphasis on changing the system itself to make it more inclusive for third, fourth, and fifth parties along the lines of a proportionally representative system. Absent such systemic change, voting for a third party in a winner take all system dominated by two historically entrenched parties is, as Nader highlighted, not only throwing your vote away but potentially self-defeating. Seems pretty straightforward.

[Bug]

I voted last night.

Pro-Obama.

It is my hope that people who cannot tollerate differring opnions will be banned from owning guns.

 

But that has nothing to do with Obama and his agenda.

Gun control is a waste of time if no one can afford one anyway.

If you really want to discuss who is or is not in touch with what Palin calls "real America" look at who wants to continue taxing the lower and middle classes at a higher rate than those making $250K and above.

I cannot fathom how anyone can still support someone like Bush. Why is that relevant? Because Palin will make Bush look like a moderate Democrat. Let's see, what was McCain's voting record on taxation? Oh yeah, 98% along party lines.

Schlepps.

[ClipStick]

What about the Important issues...

 

What's everyones thoughts on Initiative 1000 or 985????

 

 

Me I'm 100% for 1000....Everyone should have the right to die...

 

and 985...It's like I want transportation to work, but this is such an open ended idealogical use of money, I can't back something with little or no regard to what it will do ...so no..

[STP]

I always thought the most important part of Nader's 2000 platform was the emphasis on changing the system itself to make it more inclusive for third, fourth, and fifth parties along the lines of a proportionally representative system. Absent such systemic change, voting for a third party in a winner take all system dominated by two historically entrenched parties is, as Nader highlighted, not only throwing your vote away but potentially self-defeating. Seems pretty straightforward.

 

I agree with some of your ideas, man, but I'm gonna hafta call bullshit on this one, otherwise why would Nader still stay involved with politics? Merely to sustain gadfly status? Not that I disagree with your argument but it doesn't leave room for freedom. I don't accept it. It's too deterministic.

 

This illusion of choice engendered by the two party system is just that,...illusion. As if casting your vote for a particular party in the bipartisan system confers legitimacy to that party to make all of the changes it proposes, a mandate if you will. The way I see it, those minor parties represent a constituency whose collective voice can be heard if given media exposure. In other words, these parties address a need. In that respect, it seems that these parties can influence the national dialogue and if the conditions are right then hopefully impact the platforms of the two major parties.

 

Now, in some other countries, the ruling government has to form coalitions where the other parties can share in some of the power. Sure, it happens here to some extent, for example, inner city Democrats working with rural Republicans to support a bill that finances both food stamps and agricultural subsidies. Politics does make strange bedfellows.

 

But I know, the reality as it is, is that you're given two options: Work within the existing framework of the bipartisian system, Libertarians, for instance, believed that the Republican Party represented the best opportunity to push their agenda. Or, form a third party challenge. With our monolithic political system, it would take extraordinary conditions for the latter option to be viable. There's still a possibility however. It's not impossible. I'm no historian but there have been times when a particular party disintegrated or morphed into something different. I would suppose that the present economic crisis would foot that bill.

 

As I said above, the third party challenge addresses a need that should be examined and perhaps incorporated into the existing platform. Absent that, maybe a "community organizer" type person can elevate the third party supporters into a real challege to the status quo system of the pro-Statist Democratic and Republican Parties.

 

"Politics is war without bloodshed...."

[akhalteke]

our Constitution was written a very long time ago, as great as it ideas are, it could use some updating.

 

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

[akhalteke]

Gun ownership is a right but as far I am concerned if you aren't responsible enough that right should be able to be revoked, 2nd amendment or not. And by the way just a little history lesson, that piece of paper refered to as our Constitution was written a very long time ago, as great as it ideas are, it could use some updating.

 

It can be updated any time. It's called the amendment process. Do you consider the first amendment 'outdated' too? I mean, the writers could never have conceived the internet...or television or even radio! Hell, maybe Obama can manipulate the states and congress into the opening of a constitutional convention! Wouldn't that be just wonderful! People like you scare me. You must be part of that 50% TTK is talking about.

 

Hey Dumbass, here are some other things the founding fathers did'nt foresee in the flintlock, ball and powder, musket, whatever era:

Cocaine

the Tec-9

Suicide Attacks at Wendy's

High School

John Woo

The Drive-By

Meth

Snoop

Detroit

Virginia Tech

As usual, in the name of freedom you're blindly clinging to an outmoded belief at complete odds with reality.

 

Why do you always need to evoke the 1st Amendment in order to defend the second? Can it not stand on its own merits? Why not evoke the 4th (a much better barometer of individual freedom from the State)? Is it because you've been happy to undermine that one in the "changed realities of the 21st century"? What are the merits of a "free market" in assault weapons these days? Is the Constitution holy scripture? You're happy to evoke the amendment process in theory as an example of its flexibility and the sage wisdom of the "fathers", but you seem not so keen on exercising that right. Nearly every other advanced democracy in the world has changed, amended, or outright replaced its constitution numerous times in the last 200 years. What's our problem?

 

 

All great reasons to own firearms. As is the increasingly large size of government. Remember the real reason that the 2nd amendment was put into place; as a final checks and balances for government. We haven't needed it in over 225 years, but that doesn't mean we wont.

[akhalteke]

Isn't Obama's stance on guns, which leaves it open to state and local government a "conservative" stance....His personal belief is anti-gun...I could imagine his years on the south side of Chicago may have influenced that opinion. His Political belief, according to the above quote, is that it is up to private citizens and the state's government to vote for and inforce gun handling laws....Just like Washington state's concealed weapon law. This is a state law, not a federal law...or like the D.C. handgun ban...it is a local/state law, not a federal law...

 

He isn't gonna send the ATF to Washington state to take away your precious guns...

 

He believes in a federal ban on "assault rifles" as well as handguns. He states that states can take away but not give gun rights back to citizens. How is this conservative? at very best, depending on where you live, you cannot have many of the guns you currently own, nor carry them for personal defense. This is absolutely outrageous.

[billcoe]

....

 

All great reasons to own firearms. As is the increasingly large size of government. Remember the real reason that the 2nd amendment was put into place; as a final checks and balances for government. We haven't needed it in over 225 years, but that doesn't mean we wont.

 

To those who want the gov't to control weapons. I'd ask you to look around at the people you know...your neighbors and climbing partners...the question is: do YOU trust them more than you trust the President? If the answer is yes, then consider how you feel about them having weapons and control vs just the current "great leader" or the next "great leader".

 

Bottom line for me:

 

A) Political power can and does come from weapons (look around the globe for examples).

 

B) I trust my fellow citizens (that's pretty much all you, even the assholes on this site) more than I trust the power hungry people who often run for office. I want all of you to have weapons to provide a check and a balance on those other assholes.

 

Simple choice for me.

___________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

[prole]

Gun ownership is a right but as far I am concerned if you aren't responsible enough that right should be able to be revoked, 2nd amendment or not. And by the way just a little history lesson, that piece of paper refered to as our Constitution was written a very long time ago, as great as it ideas are, it could use some updating.

 

It can be updated any time. It's called the amendment process. Do you consider the first amendment 'outdated' too? I mean, the writers could never have conceived the internet...or television or even radio! Hell, maybe Obama can manipulate the states and congress into the opening of a constitutional convention! Wouldn't that be just wonderful! People like you scare me. You must be part of that 50% TTK is talking about.

 

Hey Dumbass, here are some other things the founding fathers did'nt foresee in the flintlock, ball and powder, musket, whatever era:

Cocaine

the Tec-9

Suicide Attacks at Wendy's

High School

John Woo

The Drive-By

Meth

Snoop

Detroit

Virginia Tech

As usual, in the name of freedom you're blindly clinging to an outmoded belief at complete odds with reality.

 

Why do you always need to evoke the 1st Amendment in order to defend the second? Can it not stand on its own merits? Why not evoke the 4th (a much better barometer of individual freedom from the State)? Is it because you've been happy to undermine that one in the "changed realities of the 21st century"? What are the merits of a "free market" in assault weapons these days? Is the Constitution holy scripture? You're happy to evoke the amendment process in theory as an example of its flexibility and the sage wisdom of the "fathers", but you seem not so keen on exercising that right. Nearly every other advanced democracy in the world has changed, amended, or outright replaced its constitution numerous times in the last 200 years. What's our problem?

 

All great reasons to own firearms. As is the increasingly large size of government. Remember the real reason that the 2nd amendment was put into place; as a final checks and balances for government. We haven't needed it in over 225 years, but that doesn't mean we wont.

 

I'm simply (not at all) shocked that your answer to the problems associated with gun violence is more guns. And as far as the 2nd Amendment being the final safeguard of our rights, more often than not just as much as the State, it's the people with guns and their fucked up ideas about freedom that I would need protection from.

Edited October 22, 2008 by prole