New gun legislation?

[JackANSI]

IMO, if you stop gathering your information at the end of the news report, no matter who you watch, please step away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself

[slackin@dabass]

wow. well... i am all for people owning guns... and i guess the government needs to regulate it so completely incompetent morons don't get any.


i already see the gap in this legislation... gibson980 already has guns registered in his name...

Watch out I'll McNair your ass, minus killing myself!

you'd get a sex change and plastic surgery to look like a 20 year old iranian girl and kill me?



your sick, man... totally sick

[slackin@dabass]

Didn't you get the memo, Songsmith? Liberals don't have Christmas any more. They celebrate happy holidays. God forbid we use the "C" word! Oh, wait! I said "God," I hope I didn't offend any rockpage atheists!

To Paul: Both sources are biased. The NRA has its equivalent in Michael Moore. Fox news has its CNN, etc. Fox news is just more open about their leanings. CNN is in a transparent denial of their loosly veiled liberal bias.

Liberals bitch about Fox news but the truth is, they are just mad because it finally evened the playing field.

Bias is not just in the information you present, it is in HOW and WHAT you CHOOSE to present. I can highlight the good things about guns and you can highlight the bad. Michael Moore is a master of this and makes his "documentaries" on this principle. People tend to think that documentaries are an objective source and often don't question them or use their critical thinking skills to evaluate them. Look, guns are a tool. They are a tool for killing but they are also called the great equalizer because they allow the weak to be strong and therefore defend themselves.

Go check out the movie Men with Guns. It's by a south american director. You'll have to read the subtitles, but it highlights the fact that those who have the guns, have the power. In the world environment, those without are powerless. Just because it is good NOW, doesn't mean it will be good for our children or grandchildren. I would rather leave their options open just in case.

The movie takes no part in the gun debate. It's a powerful story that illuminates the reality for many in the world today.

+1

[bassist_25]

Instead of making simple smart ass answers, how about taking my question seriously, where is the "objective" source that liberals wouldn't roll their eyes at? You will not find topics like this in liberal journals, period. So how would you find the source if you disdain conservative sources so much?

I made a smart assed answer because that's what the response warranted. I usually don't engage you in debate on here, because majority of your reponses are ad hominem. The burden of confirming your thesis isn't on me. You're probably not going to find an article against gun control in a conservative source. Who would have thunk that? See what I'm saying?

Also, never did I say I "disdain conservative sources so much." There's that ad hominem again. I just deal with research on a daily basis as a large part of my career and have to be able to cogently consume the information that I'm reading and the results that I'm finding. I just had to do a bunch of work on sweatshops for my supervisor and had to bust my ass to find research that wasn't liberal in bias.

[songsmith]

Instead of making simple smart ass answers, how about taking my question seriously, where is the "objective" source that liberals wouldn't roll their eyes at? You will not find topics like this in liberal journals, period. So how would you find the source if you disdain conservative sources so much?

I'd like to point out the inverse. If the New York Times is too liberal for you, and you only get your "truth" from neocon sources, how would you look at any issue objectively? It's a trick question. Neo conservatives don't want, like, or need objectivity. They want, like, and need validation of their personal beliefs, reality be damned.
Case in point: In the far-right media, the Bush admin didn't happen. It just didn't. Obama is fully responsible for the economic meltdown, and a trillion was never spent in Iraq. 4200 of our best kids are still drawing breath. There is ZERO war coverage on the right, no talk of prisoner torture, no stories about secret agencies Congress didn't know about, no culpability for the entire executive branch of gov't. No talk of the deregulation of banking that precipitated the economic crisis, no mention of anything that happened before last November, save for Rush doing a week's shows on why the AIG execs should get a million dollars each for driving their company into the nearest embankment. There's only sour grapes, anger that America turned it's back on the people who put us here. I'm going to say it for the millionth time, and hope somebody gets it: We had an election, and the citizens of America seized control from those who failed us. For the conceptually-challenged, that would be the far-right who had control until 11/08. Obviously, the far-left had a part in the downfall of the neo's, but it was really the middle that changed it. It's just that the wingleberries NEED to blame their wingnut counterparts for everything. It's been said that the Hannitized Dittoheads make up about 10% of the electorate, and the Hippie Treehuggers also make up about 10%... they just get more attention because the empty can rattles the most. There's still 80% of us who, according to a concept of democracy called Majority Rule, have a pretty important say in things. Don't like it?
Throw a Tear Party or something.--->JMS

[songsmith]

Didn't you get the memo, Songsmith? Liberals don't have Christmas any more. They celebrate happy holidays. God forbid we use the "C" word! Oh, wait! I said "God," I hope I didn't offend any rockpage atheists!

Sweet oblivion. Thanks for making my point.--->JMS

[Banned]

Instead of making simple smart ass answers, how about taking my question seriously, where is the "objective" source that liberals wouldn't roll their eyes at? You will not find topics like this in liberal journals, period. So how would you find the source if you disdain conservative sources so much?

I'd like to point out the inverse. If the New York Times is too liberal for you, and you only get your "truth" from neocon sources, how would you look at any issue objectively? It's a trick question. Neo conservatives don't want, like, or need objectivity. They want, like, and need validation of their personal beliefs, reality be damned.
Case in point: In the far-right media, the Bush admin didn't happen. It just didn't. Obama is fully responsible for the economic meltdown, and a trillion was never spent in Iraq. 4200 of our best kids are still drawing breath. There is ZERO war coverage on the right, no talk of prisoner torture, no stories about secret agencies Congress didn't know about, no culpability for the entire executive branch of gov't. No talk of the deregulation of banking that precipitated the economic crisis, no mention of anything that happened before last November, save for Rush doing a week's shows on why the AIG execs should get a million dollars each for driving their company into the nearest embankment. There's only sour grapes, anger that America turned it's back on the people who put us here. I'm going to say it for the millionth time, and hope somebody gets it: We had an election, and the citizens of America seized control from those who failed us. For the conceptually-challenged, that would be the far-right who had control until 11/08. Obviously, the far-left had a part in the downfall of the neo's, but it was really the middle that changed it. It's just that the wingleberries NEED to blame their wingnut counterparts for everything. It's been said that the Hannitized Dittoheads make up about 10% of the electorate, and the Hippie Treehuggers also make up about 10%... they just get more attention because the empty can rattles the most. There's still 80% of us who, according to a concept of democracy called Majority Rule, have a pretty important say in things. Don't like it?
Throw a Tear Party or something.--->JMS

Is there a liberal out there that can not follow MSNBC and blame everything on Bush? Reading your post is like watching CNN, NBC, MSNBC and PBS all at the same time. Is there going to be a point in some future where liberals will accepts some blame for ruining this country?

Not when they can blame everything on Bush. What an easy cop out.

[lonewolf]

I'm going to say it for the millionth time, and hope somebody gets it: We had an election, and the citizens of America seized control from those who failed us. For the conceptually-challenged, that would be the far-right who had control until 11/08. --->JMS

That date is incorrect even for the politically challenged. If you are referring to the change in the White House, the correct date is 1/20/09.

If you erroneously believe that the free spending, Democrat-mirror-image Republican Congress and White House were "far-right", then the date that they lost control was 1/03/07.

After that, it was political stalemate. Except, of course, for Frank Sinatra Day which they signed a week too late for his birthday.

[JackANSI]

Is there a liberal out there that can not follow MSNBC and blame everything on Bush? Reading your post is like watching CNN, NBC, MSNBC and PBS all at the same time. Is there going to be a point in some future where liberals will accepts some blame for ruining this country?

Not when they can blame everything on Bush. What an easy cop out.

Pot, I have a friend I want you to meet, his name is kettle....

[songsmith]

Is there a liberal out there that can not follow MSNBC and blame everything on Bush? Reading your post is like watching CNN, NBC, MSNBC and PBS all at the same time. Is there going to be a point in some future where liberals will accepts some blame for ruining this country?

Not when they can blame everything on Bush. What an easy cop out.

Why is everybody suddenly making my points in these effing threads? I say, " The far-right is denying the Bush Admin's failures," and you say "Bush didn't do it, liberals did." Niiiiice.
Remember the Iraq War, Joe? Remember a year and a half ago, when every few weeks there'd be a statement saying, "These next few weeks are critical, we need patience from the American people." If you didn't give them all the time in the world, you were Unamerican. The wingnuts were Patriots and we weren't, because we didn't "support the troops." Well the worm has turned, my friend. I urge you to have patience with Obama's policies. If you really care about your country, that is.
What you tear-partiers feel is the frustration that your views are no longer the mainstream.
Awesome.--->JMS

[songsmith]

That date is incorrect even for the politically challenged. If you are referring to the change in the White House, the correct date is 1/20/09..

Really? That's all you got on that one?

the free spending, Democrat-mirror-image Republican Congress and White House were "far-right",..

So I can assume you voted non-Republican in those elections? Because Bush was a conservative hero, both in 2000 when he was the "antidote" to the moral shortcomings of Bill Clinton, and in 2004, when he was vanquishing terrorism worldwide and protecting us from certain annihilation. He was a conservative when he was elected by the conservative base. Twice. Calling Bush a liberal now is a cop-out and completely irrelevant.--->JMS

[hicksjd9]

Songsmith,

Your points have nothing to do with gun control which was the original purpose of this thread. You are simply defending your party/bashing the opposing party and skirting the issue at hand.

This thread has been derailed. Remember in a worthwile debate the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. Sadly, people who can't make very good points tend to try to move the argument in another direction to draw attention away from the fact that they have nothing useful to add. Notice how I talked about the liberal grinches that stole Christmas

BTW, saying someone makes your point does not indicate that you had made a worthwhile or coherent point to begin with.

Sorry to "gang up" on you. Where are your liberal buddies? They need to come to your aid and even things out a bit.

[zman1200]

All this talk +new gun laws(major job losses)+cap and trade(more job losses)+more spending(temporary jobs) = the 2nd GREAT DEPRESSION

[PanzerFaust]

If you want an AR15 join the military you'll love what
they have to offer...

I don't want to shave my head and shower with men....

I just want to shoot the hell outta shit..... haha.....

[JackANSI]

Songsmith,

Your points have nothing to do with gun control which was the original purpose of this thread. You are simply defending your party/bashing the opposing party and skirting the issue at hand.

Umm, you're the one who decided to focus on his little comment about christmas...

Then went on to demostrate his point later about bias.

Bias is not just in the information you present, it is in HOW and WHAT you CHOOSE to present. I can highlight the good things about guns and you can highlight the bad. Michael Moore is a master of this and makes his "documentaries" on this principle. People tend to think that documentaries are an objective source and often don't question them or use their critical thinking skills to evaluate them. Look, guns are a tool. They are a tool for killing but they are also called the great equalizer because they allow the weak to be strong and therefore defend themselves.

Go check out the movie Men with Guns. It's by a south american director. You'll have to read the subtitles, but it highlights the fact that those who have the guns, have the power. In the world environment, those without are powerless. Just because it is good NOW, doesn't mean it will be good for our children or grandchildren. I would rather leave their options open just in case.

You first talk about biased 'documentaries' then proceed to mention a film showing how a dictatorship or weak democracy tightens control of the population through murder and the the threat of violence that only makes the point that governments in south america keep power by having bigger guns in the army than in the general population.

This is the US, not a south american near-dictatorship, doesn't apply. Plus is not a documentary either so there is the possiblity that the author's bias and use of emotion was used to push his biased point on to you under the guise of being a completely independent documentary about south american countries and their militaries. It was taken from a true story, but hopefully we all know what artistic license means.


Everyone has, at some point, strayed from the topic... You can't marginalize someone's point using that alone.

The US has crushed the supposed 4th largest army on the planet without much of a fight, and you think assault weapons are going to defend you from that?

And no, I'm not arguing that there should be gun control just because there isn't anything we can do to defend ourselves, so why bother... Don't even go there.

What if because of the lack of controls, a minority group who wrongly insists that the majority control has gone too far and gathers the weapons needed to overthrow the majority? Is that what the 2nd amendment was made for? No, it was written to protect the majority rule from tyrannical oppression of a minority. And I really think the spirit of that amendment is really lost on many.

And like I said previously, if the majority wants gun control, who are you to challenge the majority in a democracy? Even the constitution can be changed by the majority.

If you don't like that the majority rule, go live in Iran, I hear they like those kinds of thinkers there.

If the majority doesn't want gun control, then this whole topic is moot and you have nothing to worry about. So calm down.

[lonewolf]

And like I said previously, if the majority wants gun control, who are you to challenge the majority in a democracy? Even the constitution can be changed by the majority.

I am a citizen of the federal constitutional republic of the United States Of America whose specific rights are protected under the Constitution. The United States is not a democracy and was purposely designed that way to prevent ochlocracy or mob rule.

These inalienable rights are very specific and were never intended to be conditional, diluted or expanded based on subjective legal opinion or test of need, want or fear.

Perceived necessity--even by a majority-is not an excuse to limit these rights. If a majority of the people deems that a Constitutional right should be curtailed, the Constitution has a legal remedy--the amendment process. Too difficult a process? Good. It was intended that way so that the truths of these visionary minds would not be snuffed out by lesser beliefs whose inferior logic is based only on "wants" and "needs"... and "fears."

[JackANSI]

Still doesn't deflate the fact that the majority seems to want it..

[lonewolf]

Still doesn't deflate the fact that the majority seems to want it..

Yes, we do have a lot of pathetic, whiney little bitches, don't we?

[JackANSI]

Nice to have an expert's opinion on that.

[witchhunt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLzo9pOXa-s

[Banned]

Nice to have an expert's opinion on that.

Exactly, a lifetime of dealing with whiny little liberal bitches like the ones on Rockpage, will make one an expert on them.

[songsmith]

I heard Hitler was a whiny liberal bitch!

This thread flashback brought to you by Neoconservatism. Neoconservatism, turning sour grapes into whine since 11/5/08 --->JMS

[zman1200]

Please read!

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~weinfurt/gun.html

I think you will find this interesting. I am one of the few American manufacturers still around, I make sporting goods products. If these current bills become laws unemployment could surpass 17%. The local power plants are already selling off and laying off. Gun manufacturers use quality American made products. THe effects will tear thru the job market like a disease thru a third world country.

[HurricaneBob]

Remington, the "Original" point and click interface.

[nakedtwister]

My 2 cents. I own guns. I am a law abiding citizen. I am an American. It doesn't matter if I am a Rep., Dem., Cons., Lib. etc.. My Constitution says I have the right to bear them. I like to shoot stuff. I don't hunt anymore by my choosing ( too lazy ). I have a permit to carry if I choose ( haven't carried yet for 10 yrs. other than to go target shoot). I like the fact that if I choose to carry for self defense I can. Lets all understand something. Guns don't kill people. Stupid people do. Someone earlier made mention about the guy who was shot with the .50 cal.. Tragic as it was, he was a qualified technician who made the mistake of looking down the barrel of a loaded weapon that jammed. The red hot barrel caused the round to fire. Not the guns fault. Not the manufacturers either. Not mine nor yours. Here is a story about our Govt. agencies that makes my skin crawl. A friend of my Uncle has an FFL license. He is a collector. The ATF went into his house while he was at work and ripped his house apart to check out his weapons. Everything was legal. They left the house in total disarray, doors wide open, unattended. Now if a child had wandered in there, and heaven forbid, would have gotten hurt , whom do you think would have gotten charged? Not the Govt.. Gun control is as easy as lockin' em' up', makem' safe, and educating the people that use them. And for those that wish to take them away from me .......

" From my cold dead fucking hands"