This proves my theory that the more open minded people become, the more liberal they become, we've put up with the mistakes that Bush has made, while also praising his accomplishments, but as soon as we voice our own opinions on how the country is being run it's "o no, it's over now, those are lies, Bush has done nothing wrong." Have yall not noticed how ridiculous the Fahrenheit 911 parady's are? Instead of stating their own facts about these situations, all the conservative "liberators" seem to do is feed out counters to the facts expressed by Moore. When we voice all of our views, they're researched, and well addressed, all that conservatives seem to be able to do is mock our opinions and complain that they're are made up and entirely false......

You've won the election, you get four more years with your (and this is my opinion) pathetic candidate, who will keep throwing around his Christian faith to back his "moral" values, and his claims of WMD's. You've got it for four more years......just let it go.....

boomstick wrote: Tippy, you might want to pick this book up http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060763957/qid=1099799593/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-5374892-2733457?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 - Good Book

hmmm just by judging the title of this book I can guess that this author has the ability to voice his unbiased opinions in a very mature and logical manner

Hades wrote: boomstick wrote: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060763957/qid=1099799593/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-5374892-2733457?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 - Good Book Tons of arguements that can be used against Moore are in this book.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, Captain of the Obvious.......Captain of the Obvious everyone........ *unsteady uplause*

pballa j.r. wrote: Squirl master:  You do realize that they do make medicine to help with cramps right?

Hey buddy, thanks for the insight.....no, but seriously, join the thread at anytime......

I enjoyed it. Thought it brought up some great points about how Americans in general coddle guns and get all freaked out about possible "Infringments" of the 2nd ammendment. This coming from a gun owner.

boomstick wrote: Tippy, you might want to pick this book up http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060763957/qid=1099799593/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-5374892-2733457?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 - Good Book

I read that book, its awesome. Its so true as well

JeffJensen wrote: boomstick wrote: Tippy, you might want to pick this book up http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060763957/qid=1099799593/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-5374892-2733457?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 - Good Book   I read that book, its awesome. Its so true as well

hmm that's what I thought about Moore's movies......isnt that funny.....well we can't both be right.....can we?

Wha? There's a complete set of Calvin and Hobbes at the Libraries! OMG must go there now!

I don't see there being a draft anytime soon. The war in Iraq isn't going nearly that badly. Not even close. And unless their gonna charge me for looking at porn underaged then I've nothing to worry about. I don't even like Bush and I can see that.

Slothbutt wrote: Gun control is about as smart as a screen door on a submarine. Your only taking guns from law abiding citizens. The criminals aren't affected at all.

That is a horrible argument. 

First off, gun control isn't about "taking guns away."

Second, by this logic we shouldn't bother with speed limits, because the speeders won't obey them anyway.

By definition, criminals are people who disobey laws.  The idea that we shouldn't have laws because criminals won't obey them makes no sense at all.

Slothbutt wrote: The 2nd is by far the most important. Without it there would be no way to defend all the other amendments.

Wrong.   The First Amendment is without question the most important, because without the freedom of speech democracy couldn't exist.  Democracy = freedom of speech.

The Patriot Act doesn't scare me one bit... so a police officer can get approved by senior Justice Department official and get a court order authorizing them to look at my email and the library books I've checked out...

How about the part where they can execute a search warrant without telling until several months later?  "Uh, we searched your house last June, BTW, and here's the warrant.  If you want to contest the warrant now, go right ahead."

How about the part where they can pick and detain INDEFINITELY any alien (including people who have been here for 50 years), merely because John Ashcroft thinks they MAY be a threat to national security, with NO TRIAL, NO LAWYER, and NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER.

Currently, about 1,100 aliens have been held without trial since late 2001.

There not going to go through all the trouble if they don't suspect you of something.

This coming from the guy who just talked about using his guns to defend the Bill of Rights?   You have got to be kidding.  The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is that the police doesn't get to go searching and whatnot just because "they suspect you of something."  Your positions are completely contradictory.  It appears the only right you are willing to protect with your gun is your right to have a gun.

fractus.scud wrote: I would never go to the aclu's site barrel break. Reallly, I DESPISE(sp) them.

How do you know you despise them without visiting their site?  Shouldn't you learn about them a little?

They are all Kerry endorsing liberals.

Yeah, they're so liberal that they defend the Klan and students with pro-Bush t-shirts.  And if you are going to despite everybody who endorsed Kerry, you have to deal with about 48% of the country.

There ideas basically screw up democracy.

You mean the ideas of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to assemble?  Yeah, that's some bad bad stuff.

The way they talk church should be illegal.

Yeah - we should make laws about what people can think about churches and god.   :/

I can't believe I just wasted my time responding to this post.

pballa j.r. wrote: The most illegal thing I have ever done was smoke some cheba.  I could care less about the patriot act.

I hear that argument was really popular in Germany in the 30s.

Mehs wrote: Whoa Clark Kent, calm down there, don't get too hyped up with gaurding your liberal views.

Which view exactly of mine is "liberal?"

Please specify, because everything I posted so far is deeply conservative.

Clark Kent wrote: Mehs wrote: Whoa Clark Kent, calm down there, don't get too hyped up with gaurding your liberal views.   Which view exactly of mine is "liberal?" Please specify, because everything I posted so far is deeply conservative.

I don't think these people understand what the term "liberal" means. It means to be open to change, if needed. I am glad to have a liberal mind, it means I won't be stubborn and continue without reform.

I admire your fight Clark, and your points have been correct, not liberal.

BARREL BREAK wrote: the entire text of the patriot act is there, if you feel like reading it...

I might be late, but here's the link to the Text of the Patriot Act.

Bon' Appetit.

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12251&c=207 - http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12251& ;c=207

BARREL BREAK wrote: as far as i can tell, ACLU is one of the most informative sites on for information on the patriot act, by far the scariest legislation passed since the McCarthy era

The ACLU is also backing NAMBLA's Right to exist.

....probono

Darur wrote: Second, by this logic we shouldn't bother with speed limits, because the speeders won't obey them anyway. In a sense, yes.  Look at it this way, whats more likley to happen, a teenager with some fast car obey the speed limit, or a law abiding citizen follow the limit?  The latter of course.  It acctually would be safer to increase speed limits because speeders can go their speed, and the public will keep up.  A driver who stubbornly follows the speed limit is less safe then a driver that goes with the flow. By definition, criminals are people who disobey laws.  The idea that we shouldn't have laws because criminals won't obey them makes no sense at all. Where does he say we should have no laws?  He is saying gun control is stupid because the criminals will have them anyway, he is not saying take away the laws.

You are missing the point.  By this logic, we shouldn't bother to make murder illegal, because murderers will ignore the law.  By that theory, ANY law is a waste, because criminals break the law.  THAT is why this is a horrible argument.  Applying this theory leads directly to a (literally) lawless society.

Darur wrote: Clark Kent wrote: fractus.scud wrote: There ideas basically screw up democracy. You mean the ideas of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to assemble?  Yeah, that's some bad bad stuff. There comes a point where defending freedoms gets outright stupid.  Although spreading messages of hate (KKK, Nazis) is freedom of speech, your forgetting the people who are being affected.  I certinetly would not be happy if some group of people started shouting about how Whites are this and that and called us deragtory names.  Then again, judging by your sig you enjoy insulting people's views on religon.

See, the thing about freedoms is that they aren't freedoms if they are selectively applied.  It hurts you and me directly when the Nazis and the Klan aren't allowed to speak.  In fact, that is the purpose of protecting the freedom of speech.  Popular views don't need protection - it is only the unpopular views that need to be protected.

And yes, people are being affected - that is the nature and purpose of speech.  And that is also why speech is protected.  You are speaking directly to the central issue of the freedom of speech and democracy - and you are on the wrong side.

And, BTW, why do you think my sig is insulting to religious people?  I certainly don't see it that way.  If anything, it's insulting to people in Chicago.

AdmiralSenn wrote: The majority of people that are going to buy a gun for the purpose of killing someone aren't going to go to a gun store anyway. It's too easy to get caught by some kind of security measure or ID method. In other words, let people have their guns no matter what type they are, and focus more on preventing the importing and sale of illegal weapons.

Just read those two paragraphs slowly a couple of times...    :)

Darur wrote: Norway :  Relaxed gun laws, strict registration rules, high gun ownership and very little crime.

In what parallel universe does Norway have relaxed gun laws?  Oh, I see, by separating out the "strict registration rules", what is left is "relaxed".  Very clever.  It is time-consuming and paperwork intensive to get a gun in Norway, and you have to show cause for need - you can't just walk into the gun shop and pick one up.  The registration requirements in Norway would give the NRA a collective heart attack. 

Further, Norway has a very anti-gun culture.  Hunting is popular, but the whole "must have gun to protect my family" view so common in America doesn't exist there.

Police in Norway do not carry guns.

Anyway, I digress.

[Various other claimed gun/crime relationships listed, curiously omitting the USA:  Easy gun acquisition, high gun ownership, the highest violent crime rate of any industrialized country.]

Now we can also look at Japan.  Murder is practically non-existent and guns are practically outlawed, but bear in mind they have almost no rights.  The Jappanese have almost no protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

Now I have to giggle.  You are trying to argue the correlation between high gun and low crime, and when you see a data point you don't like (Japan), you change the subject to "but they have no rights".  That is an entirely different issue from whether gun control "works," and doesn't change the effectiveness (if any) of gun control in Japan.

And, of course, this sudden fervor about search and seizure from a guy who claimed a few posts ago that the Patriot Act doesn't frighten him...

But, of course, this whole point is silly, because Correlation <> Causation.

Using Norway, we might say:  Norway - no death penalty, low crime.  Texas - death penalty, high crime.  Therefore, death penalty leads to crime.

Or:  The sun is usually shining when ice cream sales are high.  Therefore, ice cream sales make the sun come out.

Correlational data can be useful, particularly in social sciences where causational data can be hard to find, but an effort should at least be made to control for other variables, instead of just tossing general statements out there.

Reb Cpl wrote: The ACLU is also backing NAMBLA's Right to exist.

And why shouldn't NAMBLA be allowed to exists?  The ACLU isn't arguing in favor of permitting sex with underage boys.

I would be very frightened indeed if NAMBLA membership were somehow made illegal.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.  There are a very few exceptions/limitations (mostly procedural), but as soon as we start restricting speech based on the content/substance, the First Amendment, and the whole of democracy, is at peril.

Clark Kent wrote: Reb Cpl wrote: The ACLU is also backing NAMBLA's Right to exist. And why shouldn't NAMBLA be allowed to exists?  The ACLU isn't arguing in favor of permitting sex with underage boys. I would be very frightened indeed if NAMBLA membership were somehow made illegal. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.  There are a very few exceptions/limitations (mostly procedural), but as soon as we start restricting speech based on the content/substance, the First Amendment, and the whole of democracy, is at peril.

I agree, if the government started to make these groups illegal, we wouldn't be free. Regardless of whether or not you agree with what the groups stand for, I personally do not, these groups still have their right to speak out. If KKK wants to rally and speak badly of minorities, it is their right, it doesn't mean their message is intelligent.

I think "ROGER and Me" is an excellent movie, along with his other movies. Michael Moore has been standing up for the little guys for a while. Yeah, the CEO of GM shut down his plant to save money, but it seems as if no care was given to the people he laid off. Take a trip up to Flint, Michigan if you really want to see the damages. It's not pretty. I know personally that it could happen to me some day and I would want to have someone help me and fight for me. I think everyone would.

Not saying it's easy.  But between sitting and complaining about how hard/expensive it is and doing something about it, I vote for doing something about it.

This country was populated by people who risked everything they had to look for something better.  So sit around and complain is an embarassment to our heritage.

Yes, losing your job sucks the big one.  No argument there.  Yes, relocating to look for another job also sucks.  That doesn't make it any less necessary, given the alternative.

I sympathize with people who lose their jobs.  I do not sympathize with people who don't do what is necessary to get another one.

Dune wrote: It's always much easier for people to talk about it then for people who have had to go through it.

That's a copout.

I have lost jobs.  I have also relocated my entire life, more than once, to look for something better.

I am speaking from personal experience.

AdmiralSenn wrote: Yes... I don't see a problem with them.

Uh huh.  So what type of gun control do you favor exactly?

As am I. All I was stating is that I think people deserve more sympathy and help because it's not always their fault they get screwed. There are just some people that cannot go out and get another job and that must be recognized. To simply state "screw the little guy" is to say that I would never be the little guy so its alright. That's just selfish.

There we can agree - as a society, it benefits all of us that people are working.  But we also need people to help themselves.  If the entire Flint (or w/e) economy is dependant entirely upon a single factory, which then closes, perhaps the "correct" solution is that we close down Flint as well?

My point is that nobody is "entitled" to a job.  If jobs go away, we (society) should help people find new ones, and try to match workers with jobs, but all too many times I have heard people moan about how there are no jobs "here" and I don't want to move "there" to get a job.

Take our own Hway - this year alone he lost a couple of jobs.  But he kept on plugging, and is working again.  Probably not the job he really wanted, and he has to make sacrifices for the job, but he is collecting paychecks while countless others are still complaining about the job they lost.

Sympathy is great - I am all in favor of sympathy when bad things happen.  But unless you are doing what you can to control your own situation, you will get no sympathy from me.

Ok - so then I presume you support the Brady Bill and adjunct laws, which make it harder for "baddies" to buy guns.

Before the Brady Bill, a significant number of guns used in crimes were purchased in gun shops by the criminals.  Since the Brady Bill, that has changed.  The Brady Bill appears to be working, at least to some extent.

Since the Brady Bill, many guns used in crime were acquired by stealing/borrowing/buying them from people who bought them legally.  Presumably many straw buyers, as well as stupid buddies and careless owners.

This development is presumably what is being addressed by the law you were complaining about in your initial post in this thread, Senn.  This is directly related to a clear trend in criminal gun use, and it is hitting right where the crime is.  At last count, guns used in crimes were as likely to come from friends and family as from "the street."

While we should certainly crack down on gun smugglers, this law appears to be consistent with your general intent, so isn't that a good thing?

Darur wrote: No matter what, criminals will have guns.

Not true.  Or, at least, not true except in a very very general sense of SOME criminals will have guns.

Countries with tougher gun control laws generally have fewer crimes committed with guns, because fewer criminals have guns.  Will some enterprising criminals find a way to get guns?  Sure.   But a broad statement that "criminals will have guns" is meaningless.

When you make guns harder for citizens to get, you are depriving them of tools of defence.

The goal of US gun control is, generally, not to keep guns from law-abiding citizens.  That has never been the intent.  US gun control is attempting to figure out who the law-abiding citizens are. 

Gun control DOES NOT stop criminals from getting guns.

This particular piece of NRA rote propaganda is obviously wrong.

Let's start at a high level. 

Can we agree that Osama bin Laden would have nuked the US by now if he could?  From the simple fact that we haven't been nuked, we can conclude that Osama was unable to get his hands on a nuclear weapon.  I call that successful gun control by way of anti-proliferation laws and treaties.  Those same laws and treaties have done an outstanding job of keeping nukes and other WMDs out of the hands of most baddies.  Some criminals (like our allies India and Pakistan) have managed to build these guns anyway, but by and large anti-proliferation gun control has been a smashing success.

Similarly, don't you think that the Oklahoma City loonies would have preferred to use Semtex rather than a poop bomb?  I'm sure that wasn't by choice.  Score another one for gun control, for keeping dangerous explosives out of the hands of criminals.

When was the last time you heard of a crime committed with an RPG?  Not in a while?  Me neither.  Contrast that with Iraq, where everybody and their cousin has one.  Check that box also for gun control, keeping RPGs, mortars, M203s and similar explosive projectile devices out of the hands of the baddies.

How about the Columbine boys?  Most, if not all, of the guns they had were initially bought legally by somebody.  Don't you think they would have loved to have a few more full auto guns, not to mention an M203 or two?  Maybe a couple of pounds of Semtex instead of homemade pipe bombs?  Those boys didn't bring semiautos because they thought it would be more sporting - they just couldn't get their hands on better guns.  Gun control kept worse weapons out of the hands on those criminals as well.

I could go on, but that would be boring.

Criminals can always get guns off the black market.

No, they can't.  I don't know where in town the black market is, and I am scared to find out.  If I were going to commit a crime, I would not go with a black market gun.  SOME criminals can get their guns off this black market, yes, but certainly not all.  If that were the case, the Columbine shooting would have been a lot worse.

If you want to keep people safe, you need to focus on keeping illegal guns out of the country, not takeing guns you can find in a store and outlawing them.

With the exception of the AWB, no gun control efforts (TMK) since 1986 have attempted to "outlaw" guns currently for sale.  It is all about the process - waiting periods, background checks, registration.  Nobody is trying to outlaw guns.

Moreover, some 60% of gun crimes in the US are committed with guns legally bought by somebody - probably more, since the remaining 40% of gun crimes committed with illegal gun purchases presumably include guns stolen from legal purchasers.  If we are going to control gun violence by gun source, the black market should not be our only, or even main, focus.

Gun control simpley doesnt work.

This statement is laughably false.

In addition to the examples mentioned above (thank god for anti-proliferation), more than 100,000 firearms purchases have been stopped following background check EACH YEAR since the Brady Act.  Is it your argument that each of those 100,000 rejected purchasers just went around the corner and bought a gun from the local black market dealer?  If it were that easy, do you really think people would even bother with gun stores?

Moreover, what do you mean by "work"?

Gun control isn't just about keeping guns away from people.

Ask any cop who has investigated a domestic shooting.  Check the local registry.  The husband has a firearm registered that matches the caliber used in the murder?  Time to ask the husband about his gun...

During the 90s, employing registration data, the FBI was able to determine that a very high percentage of guns used in crimes were bought at a very few gun stores.  Following sting ops, these dirty gun dealers were arrested and their stores closed.

Registration makes law enforcement easier.  Gun control makes it easier to catch the criminals after the crime.

To flatly declare that gun control "doesn't work" is just non-sensical.

Criminals are not going to walk into a gun store, buy a shotgun then go kill someone, they are going to buy them off the black market.

You are wrong.  The facts are that at guns used in at least 60% of gun crimes are acquired legally (my data is a little old, but I am confident that the numbers aren't off by that much).

"Gun control" is one of those buzzphrases that gets tossed around for political gain.  I have yet, however, to meet a single person who is truly against gun control.  The only question is how much gun control. 

Would it make you uncomfortable if your neighbor had a Abrams tank, fully loaded, sitting on his lawn with the main gun pointed at your house?  What, you wouldn't like that?  You think that should be illegal?  Congratulations, you are in favor of gun control.  How about letting children play with live hand grenades?  No, you don't think that should be legal either?  Gun control.

So can we please stop with the general propaganda statements about "gun control", and instead discuss specific measures?  It would make a lot more sense to discuss the AWB, or the Brady Act, or FOPA, or some other specific proposed measure.  But talking about "gun control" is about as helpful as talking about "discrimination."