I'm not a republican. HTH. And yes, referring to someone as a nazi when trying to make a point is what you did, hence, the Ghodwins law comment.
Like I said, it's the classic liberal tactic. Calling people racists, idiots, red necks, wackos, gun nuts, using gestapo tactics, etc rather than addressing issues and problem solving. The left is very intolerant of other peoples point of view and beliefs they don't agree with.
The republicans certainly have a message problem. It's going to be an uphill battle for them going against a party that promises more and more stuff from the government. When their are more takers than payers, we are fucked. We are getting close.
Culture matters.
The only views I don't agree with are those that involve discrimination and a refusal to compromise. That's it.
Promising more stuff from the government? Sheesh. Such a load of bull. You actually think that Democrats want people to be unemployed and on welfare? Now you're just listening to Fox News way more than a healthy person should. It's ridiculous. If that's the case, then why does Obama celebrate when the unemployment rate goes down? More takers than payers? Now you're on the verge of losing touch with reality.
The problem is that republicans in Congress don't want to work with him & compromise because they don't want him to be viewed as successful. In many of their congressional districts, it makes more sense to simply say "NO" than to actually be a constructive problem solver.
Culture matters? What the hell does that mean?
By the way, if you have another name for people that think high-capacity 30-clip magazines are necessary, please let me know. I come from a family of hunters, and we've never felt the need to empty 30 bullets into a deer in rapid succession.
I don't need my 30-round magazines, however, it is a right that's guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment. When people start to realize it's a right and not a want or a need, we'll have better understanding of the problem.
If the question starts to become "why do you need or want something?" we're fucked.
Why do people do need spinners on their cars when they can ride a bicycle instead?
Why do people do need to go to football games and create all those green house emmissions?
Why do people do need a 24-pack of PBR, I've never felt the need to empty 24 cans of great beer in rapid succession?
You actually believe the founding fathers envisioned 30-round magazines when they wrote the 2nd amendment? And you're comparing 30-round magazines to beer?
And people wonder why Washington, DC is in gridlock. People can't even agree on what is "common sense."
Sounds like your version of "common sense" is what you want to enforce on everyone else. Seems like what the Christians do.
My view of common sense is to actually consider how circumstances have changed since the days when people needed 30 seconds to load a musket. If people actually believe that the founding fathers envisioned 30-round magazines, then why don't we allow people to carry hand grenades, or own fighter jets? Aren't those "arms?" The reason is because "common sense" drew the line.
Let's see what Thomas Jefferson (a founding father) thinks about strict constructionism: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
I'm not a republican. HTH. And yes, referring to someone as a nazi when trying to make a point is what you did, hence, the Ghodwins law comment.
Like I said, it's the classic liberal tactic. Calling people racists, idiots, red necks, wackos, gun nuts, using gestapo tactics, etc rather than addressing issues and problem solving. The left is very intolerant of other peoples point of view and beliefs they don't agree with.
The republicans certainly have a message problem. It's going to be an uphill battle for them going against a party that promises more and more stuff from the government. When their are more takers than payers, we are fucked. We are getting close.
Culture matters.
The only views I don't agree with are those that involve discrimination and a refusal to compromise. That's it.
Promising more stuff from the government? Sheesh. Such a load of bull. You actually think that Democrats want people to be unemployed and on welfare? Now you're just listening to Fox News way more than a healthy person should. It's ridiculous. If that's the case, then why does Obama celebrate when the unemployment rate goes down? More takers than payers? Now you're on the verge of losing touch with reality.
The problem is that republicans in Congress don't want to work with him & compromise because they don't want him to be viewed as successful. In many of their congressional districts, it makes more sense to simply say "NO" than to actually be a constructive problem solver.
Culture matters? What the hell does that mean?
By the way, if you have another name for people that think high-capacity 30-clip magazines are necessary, please let me know. I come from a family of hunters, and we've never felt the need to empty 30 bullets into a deer in rapid succession.
I don't need my 30-round magazines, however, it is a right that's guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment. When people start to realize it's a right and not a want or a need, we'll have better understanding of the problem.
If the question starts to become "why do you need or want something?" we're fucked.
Why do people do need spinners on their cars when they can ride a bicycle instead?
Why do people do need to go to football games and create all those green house emmissions?
Why do people do need a 24-pack of PBR, I've never felt the need to empty 24 cans of great beer in rapid succession?
You actually believe the founding fathers envisioned 30-round magazines when they wrote the 2nd amendment? And you're comparing 30-round magazines to beer?
And people wonder why Washington, DC is in gridlock. People can't even agree on what is "common sense."
Sounds like your version of "common sense" is what you want to enforce on everyone else. Seems like what the Christians do.
My view of common sense is to actually consider how circumstances have changed since the days when people needed 30 seconds to load a musket. If people actually believe that the founding fathers envisioned 30-round magazines, then why don't we allow people to carry hand grenades, or own fighter jets? Aren't those "arms?" The reason is because "common sense" drew the line.
Let's see what Thomas Jefferson (a founding father) thinks about strict constructionism: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Your assumption is you're enlightened and the masses need your guidance to protect them from themselves. This special knowledge and understanding you have must be shared...neigh, imposed on others....sort of like the Christians.
I don't own guns or really give a shit about them. But I do know millions of people have 30 round magazines or whatever the fuck you call them and use them for their enjoyment and recreation and whatever else they want to do with them that doesn't hurt anyone. But since a few people used them to kill and hurt others, enlightened people are deciding no one can have them because its not common sense to have them. I mean, who needs them?
Who needs a big v8 SUV? Unless you can prove you need one, its detrimental to society to have one. And who needs a 64 oz big gulp? Isn't a 12 oz plenty? Just common sense. Don't you think making $100k is plenty? At a certain point, anything more is just excess. Common sense tells my your heat should be set to 69. Anything higher is just wasteful. Put on a sweater.
Oh..and I can pull TJ quotes that would suggest we should take up arms and overthrow the current administration, but cherry picking quotes is not something I wish or engage in. You're no better than the Christian hypocrites you criticize.
I'm not a republican. HTH. And yes, referring to someone as a nazi when trying to make a point is what you did, hence, the Ghodwins law comment.
Like I said, it's the classic liberal tactic. Calling people racists, idiots, red necks, wackos, gun nuts, using gestapo tactics, etc rather than addressing issues and problem solving. The left is very intolerant of other peoples point of view and beliefs they don't agree with.
The republicans certainly have a message problem. It's going to be an uphill battle for them going against a party that promises more and more stuff from the government. When their are more takers than payers, we are fucked. We are getting close.
Culture matters.
The only views I don't agree with are those that involve discrimination and a refusal to compromise. That's it.
Promising more stuff from the government? Sheesh. Such a load of bull. You actually think that Democrats want people to be unemployed and on welfare? Now you're just listening to Fox News way more than a healthy person should. It's ridiculous. If that's the case, then why does Obama celebrate when the unemployment rate goes down? More takers than payers? Now you're on the verge of losing touch with reality.
The problem is that republicans in Congress don't want to work with him & compromise because they don't want him to be viewed as successful. In many of their congressional districts, it makes more sense to simply say "NO" than to actually be a constructive problem solver.
Culture matters? What the hell does that mean?
By the way, if you have another name for people that think high-capacity 30-clip magazines are necessary, please let me know. I come from a family of hunters, and we've never felt the need to empty 30 bullets into a deer in rapid succession.
I don't need my 30-round magazines, however, it is a right that's guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment. When people start to realize it's a right and not a want or a need, we'll have better understanding of the problem.
If the question starts to become "why do you need or want something?" we're fucked.
Why do people do need spinners on their cars when they can ride a bicycle instead?
Why do people do need to go to football games and create all those green house emmissions?
Why do people do need a 24-pack of PBR, I've never felt the need to empty 24 cans of great beer in rapid succession?
I'm not a republican. HTH. And yes, referring to someone as a nazi when trying to make a point is what you did, hence, the Ghodwins law comment.
Like I said, it's the classic liberal tactic. Calling people racists, idiots, red necks, wackos, gun nuts, using gestapo tactics, etc rather than addressing issues and problem solving. The left is very intolerant of other peoples point of view and beliefs they don't agree with.
The republicans certainly have a message problem. It's going to be an uphill battle for them going against a party that promises more and more stuff from the government. When their are more takers than payers, we are fucked. We are getting close.
Culture matters.
The only views I don't agree with are those that involve discrimination and a refusal to compromise. That's it.
Promising more stuff from the government? Sheesh. Such a load of bull. You actually think that Democrats want people to be unemployed and on welfare? Now you're just listening to Fox News way more than a healthy person should. It's ridiculous. If that's the case, then why does Obama celebrate when the unemployment rate goes down? More takers than payers? Now you're on the verge of losing touch with reality.
The problem is that republicans in Congress don't want to work with him & compromise because they don't want him to be viewed as successful. In many of their congressional districts, it makes more sense to simply say "NO" than to actually be a constructive problem solver.
Culture matters? What the hell does that mean?
By the way, if you have another name for people that think high-capacity 30-clip magazines are necessary, please let me know. I come from a family of hunters, and we've never felt the need to empty 30 bullets into a deer in rapid succession.
I don't need my 30-round magazines, however, it is a right that's guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment. When people start to realize it's a right and not a want or a need, we'll have better understanding of the problem.
If the question starts to become "why do you need or want something?" we're fucked.
Why do people do need spinners on their cars when they can ride a bicycle instead?
Why do people do need to go to football games and create all those green house emmissions?
Why do people do need a 24-pack of PBR, I've never felt the need to empty 24 cans of great beer in rapid succession?
You actually believe the founding fathers envisioned 30-round magazines when they wrote the 2nd amendment? And you're comparing 30-round magazines to beer?
And people wonder why Washington, DC is in gridlock. People can't even agree on what is "common sense."
Let's see, at the time the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, a musket was a military-style assault weapon yet they didn't preclude ownership of military-style weapons.
At the time they wrote the 1st Amendment, they didn't envision blogs yet we're still free to exercise freedom of speech online.
And yes, why not compare beer to a 30-round magazine. Alcoholism and drunk driving kill people everyday. I don't know the exact figures but I'd be willing to bet Sven's $20 that more people are killed annually because of drunk drivers than are killed by weapons with 30-round magazines.
Homosexuality From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about homosexuality in humans. For homosexuality in other animals, see Homosexual behavior in animals.
Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual activity between members of the same sex or gender. As an orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectionate, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex. "It also refers to an individual's sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."[1][2] Homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation, along with bisexuality and heterosexuality, within the heterosexual–homosexual continuum (with asexuality sometimes considered a fourth). Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors,[1][3] especially with regard to early uterine environment.[4] While there are those who still hold the view that homosexual activity is "unnatural" or "dysfunctional",[5][6] research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.[1][7] Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people (homophobia) have, however, been shown to cause significant psychological harm, and are especially damaging to children who are homosexual or bisexual.[7][8] The most common terms for homosexual people are lesbian for females and gay for males, though gay is also used to refer generally to both homosexual males and females. The number of people who identify as gay or lesbian and the proportion of people who have same-sex sexual experiences are difficult for researchers to estimate reliably for a variety of reasons, including many gay people not openly identifying as such due to homophobia and heterosexist discrimination.[9] Homosexual behavior has also been documented and is observed in many non-human animal species.[10][11][12][13][14] Many gay and lesbian people are in committed same-sex relationships, though only recently have census forms and political conditions facilitated their visibility and enumeration.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] These relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential psychological respects.[2] Homosexual relationships and acts have been admired, as well as condemned, throughout recorded history, depending on the form they took and the culture in which they occurred.[25] Since the end of the 19th century, there has been a global movement towards increased visibility, recognition, and legal rights for homosexual people, including the rights to marriage and civil unions, adoption and parenting, employment, military service, equal access to health care, and the introduction of anti-bullying legislation to protect gay minors. The word homosexual is a Greek and Latin hybrid, with the first element derived from Greek ὁμός homos, 'same' (not related to the Latin homo, 'man', as in Homo sapiens), thus connoting sexual acts and affections between members of the same sex, including lesbianism.[26][27] The first known appearance of homosexual in print is found in an 1869 German pamphlet by the Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny, published anonymously,[28] arguing against a Prussian anti-sodomy law.[28][29] In 1879, Gustav Jäger used Kertbeny's terms in his book, Discovery of the Soul (1880).[30] In 1886, Richard von Krafft-Ebing used the terms homosexual and heterosexual in his book Psychopathia Sexualis, probably borrowing them from Jäger. Krafft-Ebing's book was so popular among both layman and doctors that the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" became the most widely accepted terms for sexual orientation.[31][32] As such, the current use of the term has its roots in the broader 19th-century tradition of personality taxonomy. Many modern style guides in the U.S. recommend against using homosexual as a noun, instead using gay man or lesbian.[33] Similarly, some recommend completely avoiding usage of homosexual as it has a negative, clinical history and because the word only refers to one's sexual behavior (as opposed to romantic feelings) and thus it has a negative connotation.[33] Gay and lesbian are the most common alternatives. The first letters are frequently combined to create the initialism LGBT (sometimes written as GLBT), in which B and T refer to bisexual and transgender people. Although early writers also used the adjective homosexual to refer to any single-sex context (such as an all-girls school), today the term is used exclusively in reference to sexual attraction, activity, and orientation. The term homosocial is now used to describe single-sex contexts that are not specifically sexual. There is also a word referring to same-sex love, homophilia. Some synonyms for same-sex attraction or sexual activity include men who have sex with men or MSM (used in the medical community when specifically discussing sexual activity) and homoerotic (referring to works of art).[34][35] Pejorative terms in English include queer, faggot, fairy, poof, and homo.[36][37][38][39] Beginning in the 1990s, some of these have been reclaimed as positive words by gay men and lesbians, as in the usage of queer studies, queer theory, and even the popular American television program Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.[40] The word homo occurs in many other languages without the pejorative connotations it has in English.[41] As with ethnic slurs and racial slurs, however, the misuse of these terms can still be highly offensive; the range of acceptable use depends on the context and speaker.[42] Conversely, gay, a word originally embraced by homosexual men and women as a positive, affirmative term (as in gay liberation and gay rights),[43] has come into widespread pejorative use among young people.[44] History
Main articles: LGBT history and Timeline of LGBT history Societal attitudes towards same-sex relationships have varied over time and place, from expecting all males to engage in same-sex relationships, to casual integration, through acceptance, to seeing the practice as a minor sin, repressing it through law enforcement and judicial mechanisms, and to proscribing it under penalty of death. In a detailed compilation of historical and ethnographic materials of Preindustrial Cultures, "strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures; it was accepted or ignored by 21%, and 12% reported no such concept. Of 70 ethnographies, 59% reported homosexuality absent or rare in frequency and 41% reported it present or not uncommon."[45] In cultures influenced by Abrahamic religions, the law and the church established sodomy as a transgression against divine law or a crime against nature. The condemnation of anal sex between males, however, predates Christian belief. It was frequent in ancient Greece; "unnatural" can be traced back to Plato.[46] Many historical figures, including Socrates, Lord Byron, Edward II, and Hadrian,[47] have had terms such as gay or bisexual applied to them; some scholars, such as Michel Foucault, have regarded this as risking the anachronistic introduction of a contemporary construction of sexuality foreign to their times,[48] though others challenge this.[49] Regarding homosexuality nature and historic expression there are two seemingly opposite positions. These are represented by a constructionist and an essentialist approach. In general Social constructionism considers that there are "social constructions" resulting from the many characteristics of a particular social group, and not from some essential nature of the individual self. On the other hand Essentialists defend the existence of real essences that define the individual’s expressions, and social learned aspects are only secondary. David M. Halperin devotes a chapter:Homosexuality: a cultural construct of his work One Hundred Years of Homosexuality to this subject.[50] He says that the essentialism applied to sexual categories means that the terms like "gay" or "straight" refer to culturally not modifiable, essentially personal traits. On the contrary, Constructionists mean that these terms are the names of social processes. Halperin leans towards this last position, as he considers that sexuality, including homosexuality, has been expressed in essentially different ways in different historic societies, as it is in present day ones. He, nevertheless, cites Esteven Epstein [51] that compares the controversy between essentialists and constructionists to the general nature versus nurture debate. As one of the main representatives of essentialists he cites John Boswell, and Michel Foucault as a prominent constructionist.[52] Gay generally refers to male homosexuality, but may be used in a broader sense to refer to all LGBT people. In the context of sexuality, lesbian refers only to female homosexuality. The word "lesbian" is derived from the name of the Greek island Lesbos, where the poet Sappho wrote largely about her emotional relationships with young women.[53][54] Africa Though often ignored or suppressed by European explorers and colonialists, homosexual expression in native Africa was also present and took a variety of forms. Anthropologists Stephen Murray and Will Roscoe reported that women in Lesotho engaged in socially sanctioned "long term, erotic relationships" called motsoalle.[55] E. E. Evans-Pritchard also recorded that male Azande warriors in the northern Congo routinely took on young male lovers between the ages of twelve and twenty, who helped with household tasks and participated in intercrural sex with their older husbands. The practice had died out by the early 20th century, after Europeans had gained control of African countries, but was recounted to Evans-Pritchard by the elders to whom he spoke.[56] The first record of possible homosexual couple in history is commonly regarded as Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum, an Egyptian male couple, who lived around 2400 BCE. The pair are portrayed in a nose-kissing position, the most intimate pose in Egyptian art, surrounded by what appear to be their heirs. Americas
Dance to the Berdache Sac and Fox Nation ceremonial dance to celebrate the two-spirit person. George Catlin (1796–1872); Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC Among indigenous peoples of the Americas prior to European colonization, a common form of same-sex sexuality centered around the figure of the Two-Spirit individual. Typically this individual was recognized early in life, given a choice by the parents to follow the path and, if the child accepted the role, raised in the appropriate manner, learning the customs of the gender it had chosen. Two-Spirit individuals were commonly shamans and were revered as having powers beyond those of ordinary shamans. Their sexual life was with the ordinary tribe members of the same sex. Homosexual and transgender individuals were also common among other pre-conquest civilizations in Latin America, such as the Aztecs, Mayans, Quechuas, Moches, Zapotecs, and the Tupinambá of Brazil.[57][58]
A woman spying on a pair of male lovers. China, Qing Dynasty. The Spanish conquerors were horrified to discover sodomy openly practiced among native peoples, and attempted to crush it out by subjecting the berdaches (as the Spanish called them) under their rule to severe penalties, including public execution, burning and being torn to pieces by dogs.[59] East Asia In East Asia, same-sex love has been referred to since the earliest recorded history. Homosexuality in China, known as the passions of the cut peach and various other euphemisms has been recorded since approximately 600 BCE. Homosexuality was mentioned in many famous works of Chinese literature. The instances of same-sex affection and sexual interactions described in the classical novel Dream of the Red Chamber seem as familiar to observers in the present as do equivalent stories of romances between heterosexual people during the same period. Confucianism, being primarily a social and political philosophy, focused little on sexuality, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Opposition to homosexuality in China originates in the medieval Tang Dynasty (618-907), attributed to the rising influence of Christian and Islamic values,[60] but did not become fully established until the Westernization efforts of the late Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China.[61] Homosexuality in Japan, variously known as shudo or nanshoku has been documented for over one thousand years and was an integral part of Buddhist monastic life and the samurai tradition. This same-sex love culture gave rise to strong traditions of painting and literature documenting and celebrating such relationships. Similarly, in Thailand, Kathoey, or "ladyboys", have been a feature of Thai society for many centuries, and Thai kings had male as well as female lovers[citation needed]. While Kathoey may encompass simple effeminacy or transvestism, it most commonly is treated in Thai culture as a third gender. They are generally accepted by society[citation needed], and Thailand has never had legal prohibitions against homosexuality or homosexual behavior.
I'm not a republican. HTH. And yes, referring to someone as a nazi when trying to make a point is what you did, hence, the Ghodwins law comment.
Like I said, it's the classic liberal tactic. Calling people racists, idiots, red necks, wackos, gun nuts, using gestapo tactics, etc rather than addressing issues and problem solving. The left is very intolerant of other peoples point of view and beliefs they don't agree with.
The republicans certainly have a message problem. It's going to be an uphill battle for them going against a party that promises more and more stuff from the government. When their are more takers than payers, we are fucked. We are getting close.
Culture matters.
The only views I don't agree with are those that involve discrimination and a refusal to compromise. That's it.
Promising more stuff from the government? Sheesh. Such a load of bull. You actually think that Democrats want people to be unemployed and on welfare? Now you're just listening to Fox News way more than a healthy person should. It's ridiculous. If that's the case, then why does Obama celebrate when the unemployment rate goes down? More takers than payers? Now you're on the verge of losing touch with reality.
The problem is that republicans in Congress don't want to work with him & compromise because they don't want him to be viewed as successful. In many of their congressional districts, it makes more sense to simply say "NO" than to actually be a constructive problem solver.
Culture matters? What the hell does that mean?
By the way, if you have another name for people that think high-capacity 30-clip magazines are necessary, please let me know. I come from a family of hunters, and we've never felt the need to empty 30 bullets into a deer in rapid succession.
I don't need my 30-round magazines, however, it is a right that's guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment. When people start to realize it's a right and not a want or a need, we'll have better understanding of the problem.
If the question starts to become "why do you need or want something?" we're fucked.
Why do people do need spinners on their cars when they can ride a bicycle instead?
Why do people do need to go to football games and create all those green house emmissions?
Why do people do need a 24-pack of PBR, I've never felt the need to empty 24 cans of great beer in rapid succession?
You actually believe the founding fathers envisioned 30-round magazines when they wrote the 2nd amendment? And you're comparing 30-round magazines to beer?
And people wonder why Washington, DC is in gridlock. People can't even agree on what is "common sense."
Let's see, at the time the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, a musket was a military-style assault weapon yet they didn't preclude ownership of military-style weapons.
At the time they wrote the 1st Amendment, they didn't envision blogs yet we're still free to exercise freedom of speech online.
And yes, why not compare beer to a 30-round magazine. Alcoholism and drunk driving kill people everyday. I don't know the exact figures but I'd be willing to bet Sven's $20 that more people are killed annually because of drunk drivers than are killed by weapons with 30-round magazines.
YES! YOU'RE RIGHT! More people are killed by drunk drivers every year, and do you have any idea how much MORE regulated and controlled drunk driving and car ownership is vs. gun ownership? A great deal more.
It's required that you take a driving test. That you own insurance. That you pull over when a police officer believes you're doing something wrong. Your license can be suspended and taken away. Need I go on? In other words, you can't simply walk off the street and purchase and operate a car like you can a gun (at a gun show or gun shop).
Thank you for making my point.
And give me a break on the whole musket being an assault weapon of the 18th century.
I'm not a republican. HTH. And yes, referring to someone as a nazi when trying to make a point is what you did, hence, the Ghodwins law comment.
Like I said, it's the classic liberal tactic. Calling people racists, idiots, red necks, wackos, gun nuts, using gestapo tactics, etc rather than addressing issues and problem solving. The left is very intolerant of other peoples point of view and beliefs they don't agree with.
The republicans certainly have a message problem. It's going to be an uphill battle for them going against a party that promises more and more stuff from the government. When their are more takers than payers, we are fucked. We are getting close.
Culture matters.
The only views I don't agree with are those that involve discrimination and a refusal to compromise. That's it.
Promising more stuff from the government? Sheesh. Such a load of bull. You actually think that Democrats want people to be unemployed and on welfare? Now you're just listening to Fox News way more than a healthy person should. It's ridiculous. If that's the case, then why does Obama celebrate when the unemployment rate goes down? More takers than payers? Now you're on the verge of losing touch with reality.
The problem is that republicans in Congress don't want to work with him & compromise because they don't want him to be viewed as successful. In many of their congressional districts, it makes more sense to simply say "NO" than to actually be a constructive problem solver.
Culture matters? What the hell does that mean?
By the way, if you have another name for people that think high-capacity 30-clip magazines are necessary, please let me know. I come from a family of hunters, and we've never felt the need to empty 30 bullets into a deer in rapid succession.
I don't need my 30-round magazines, however, it is a right that's guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment. When people start to realize it's a right and not a want or a need, we'll have better understanding of the problem.
If the question starts to become "why do you need or want something?" we're fucked.
Why do people do need spinners on their cars when they can ride a bicycle instead?
Why do people do need to go to football games and create all those green house emmissions?
Why do people do need a 24-pack of PBR, I've never felt the need to empty 24 cans of great beer in rapid succession?
You actually believe the founding fathers envisioned 30-round magazines when they wrote the 2nd amendment? And you're comparing 30-round magazines to beer?
And people wonder why Washington, DC is in gridlock. People can't even agree on what is "common sense."
Sounds like your version of "common sense" is what you want to enforce on everyone else. Seems like what the Christians do.
My view of common sense is to actually consider how circumstances have changed since the days when people needed 30 seconds to load a musket. If people actually believe that the founding fathers envisioned 30-round magazines, then why don't we allow people to carry hand grenades, or own fighter jets? Aren't those "arms?" The reason is because "common sense" drew the line.
Let's see what Thomas Jefferson (a founding father) thinks about strict constructionism: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Your assumption is you're enlightened and the masses need your guidance to protect them from themselves. This special knowledge and understanding you have must be shared...neigh, imposed on others....sort of like the Christians.
I don't own guns or really give a shit about them. But I do know millions of people have 30 round magazines or whatever the fuck you call them and use them for their enjoyment and recreation and whatever else they want to do with them that doesn't hurt anyone. But since a few people used them to kill and hurt others, enlightened people are deciding no one can have them because its not common sense to have them. I mean, who needs them?
Who needs a big v8 SUV? Unless you can prove you need one, its detrimental to society to have one. And who needs a 64 oz big gulp? Isn't a 12 oz plenty? Just common sense. Don't you think making $100k is plenty? At a certain point, anything more is just excess. Common sense tells my your heat should be set to 69. Anything higher is just wasteful. Put on a sweater.
Oh..and I can pull TJ quotes that would suggest we should take up arms and overthrow the current administration, but cherry picking quotes is not something I wish or engage in. You're no better than the Christian hypocrites you criticize.
You still haven't answered my hand grenade and fighter jet argument. I'm sure most people would use hand grenades and fighter jets (and tanks) responsibly, but these "arms" are illegal in the hands of everyday Americans. Why? Because common sense drew the line. Why do we have speed limits? Because a few reckless drivers ruin it for the rest of us that will drive fast responsibly.
So, because some people have an interest in shooting high capacity magazines? That's a justification? Well, I'm sure a lot of people would have an interest in using bazookas for recreation. Should we make them legal? Somebody's recreational enjoyment is not the most important thing here. The law has already decided to draw limits on peoples' recreational enjoyment in plenty of areas.
When giant SUVs and big gulps are routinely used to kill people intentionally, then we can have that debate.
And when you compare a Big Gulp to a weapon that has one purpose - to kill people - then I think there is no chance of talking rationally anymore.
I'm not a republican. HTH. And yes, referring to someone as a nazi when trying to make a point is what you did, hence, the Ghodwins law comment.
Like I said, it's the classic liberal tactic. Calling people racists, idiots, red necks, wackos, gun nuts, using gestapo tactics, etc rather than addressing issues and problem solving. The left is very intolerant of other peoples point of view and beliefs they don't agree with.
The republicans certainly have a message problem. It's going to be an uphill battle for them going against a party that promises more and more stuff from the government. When their are more takers than payers, we are fucked. We are getting close.
Culture matters.
The only views I don't agree with are those that involve discrimination and a refusal to compromise. That's it.
Promising more stuff from the government? Sheesh. Such a load of bull. You actually think that Democrats want people to be unemployed and on welfare? Now you're just listening to Fox News way more than a healthy person should. It's ridiculous. If that's the case, then why does Obama celebrate when the unemployment rate goes down? More takers than payers? Now you're on the verge of losing touch with reality.
The problem is that republicans in Congress don't want to work with him & compromise because they don't want him to be viewed as successful. In many of their congressional districts, it makes more sense to simply say "NO" than to actually be a constructive problem solver.
Culture matters? What the hell does that mean?
By the way, if you have another name for people that think high-capacity 30-clip magazines are necessary, please let me know. I come from a family of hunters, and we've never felt the need to empty 30 bullets into a deer in rapid succession.
I don't need my 30-round magazines, however, it is a right that's guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment. When people start to realize it's a right and not a want or a need, we'll have better understanding of the problem.
If the question starts to become "why do you need or want something?" we're fucked.
Why do people do need spinners on their cars when they can ride a bicycle instead?
Why do people do need to go to football games and create all those green house emmissions?
Why do people do need a 24-pack of PBR, I've never felt the need to empty 24 cans of great beer in rapid succession?
You actually believe the founding fathers envisioned 30-round magazines when they wrote the 2nd amendment? And you're comparing 30-round magazines to beer?
And people wonder why Washington, DC is in gridlock. People can't even agree on what is "common sense."
Sounds like your version of "common sense" is what you want to enforce on everyone else. Seems like what the Christians do.
My view of common sense is to actually consider how circumstances have changed since the days when people needed 30 seconds to load a musket. If people actually believe that the founding fathers envisioned 30-round magazines, then why don't we allow people to carry hand grenades, or own fighter jets? Aren't those "arms?" The reason is because "common sense" drew the line.
Let's see what Thomas Jefferson (a founding father) thinks about strict constructionism: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Your assumption is you're enlightened and the masses need your guidance to protect them from themselves. This special knowledge and understanding you have must be shared...neigh, imposed on others....sort of like the Christians.
I don't own guns or really give a shit about them. But I do know millions of people have 30 round magazines or whatever the fuck you call them and use them for their enjoyment and recreation and whatever else they want to do with them that doesn't hurt anyone. But since a few people used them to kill and hurt others, enlightened people are deciding no one can have them because its not common sense to have them. I mean, who needs them?
Who needs a big v8 SUV? Unless you can prove you need one, its detrimental to society to have one. And who needs a 64 oz big gulp? Isn't a 12 oz plenty? Just common sense. Don't you think making $100k is plenty? At a certain point, anything more is just excess. Common sense tells my your heat should be set to 69. Anything higher is just wasteful. Put on a sweater.
Oh..and I can pull TJ quotes that would suggest we should take up arms and overthrow the current administration, but cherry picking quotes is not something I wish or engage in. You're no better than the Christian hypocrites you criticize.
You still haven't answered my hand grenade and fighter jet argument. I'm sure most people would use hand grenades and fighter jets (and tanks) responsibly, but these "arms" are illegal in the hands of everyday Americans. Why? Because common sense drew the line. Why do we have speed limits? Because a few reckless drivers ruin it for the rest of us that will drive fast responsibly.
So, because some people have an interest in shooting high capacity magazines? That's a justification? Well, I'm sure a lot of people would have an interest in using bazookas for recreation. Should we make them legal? Somebody's recreational enjoyment is not the most important thing here. The law has already decided to draw limits on peoples' recreational enjoyment in plenty of areas.
When giant SUVs and big gulps are routinely used to kill people intentionally, then we can have that debate.
And when you compare a Big Gulp to a weapon that has one purpose - to kill people - then I think there is no chance of talking rationally anymore.
I didn't compare a big gulp to a weapon. I said a big gulp is something that those using "common sense" said should be banned. You fail to see the point. Common sense is a subjective term. Your common sense it right, the Christian's common sense is wrong. Does common sense tell us that 30 round clips, hand grenades, and fighter planes should be banned? Does it tell us that 10 round clips should be banned? Does it tell us that we should only allow six shooters? One shot muzzle loaders?
You then use an argument that when used against something you believe in you scoff at. "What about hand grenades and fighter jets?". 'If gays get married what’s to keep people from marrying a goat". Common sense?
Here is what will happen. You can ban 30 round clips and assault rifles because of common sense. gun deaths won’t change, but we can all feel good because we "did something". Meanwhile millions of law abiding citizens will have another freedom chipped away. Then the next one will be chipped at, then the next and the next. That's why the NRA says "fuck you, we're not budging". They have seen it before and know once they start giving a little it will never end. It's what happened to smokers. Little by little they were chipped away. Now there is almost total ban on smoking anywhere. Why? Common sense I suppose.
How many strawmen do you intend to burn in this thread?
STFU already
I'm 81% sure that we're going to have to get drunk and run over them. Burning is out. There's a ban on fire starting devices and accelerants. That leaves shooting them with AR 15s sporting 30 round magazines or driving over them in a drunken state, but practically speaking, ammo shortages rule out shooting as an option. That leaves the drunk driving option wide open for those willing to ignore the laws and regulations that make doing so an illegal action, and as Passion has pointed out, many are currently more than willing to break those laws.
How many strawmen do you intend to burn in this thread?
STFU already
I'm 81% sure that we're going to have to get drunk and run over them. Burning is out. There's a ban on fire starting devices and accelerants. That leaves shooting them with AR 15s sporting 30 round magazines or driving over them in a drunken state, but practically speaking, ammo shortages rule out shooting as an option. That leaves the drunk driving option wide open for those willing to ignore the laws and regulations that make doing so an illegal action, and as Passion has pointed out, many are currently more than willing to break those laws.
I think we should ban alcohol. It's just common sense.
Comments
Let's see what Thomas Jefferson (a founding father) thinks about strict constructionism:
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
I don't own guns or really give a shit about them. But I do know millions of people have 30 round magazines or whatever the fuck you call them and use them for their enjoyment and recreation and whatever else they want to do with them that doesn't hurt anyone. But since a few people used them to kill and hurt others, enlightened people are deciding no one can have them because its not common sense to have them. I mean, who needs them?
Who needs a big v8 SUV? Unless you can prove you need one, its detrimental to society to have one. And who needs a 64 oz big gulp? Isn't a 12 oz plenty? Just common sense. Don't you think making $100k is plenty? At a certain point, anything more is just excess. Common sense tells my your heat should be set to 69. Anything higher is just wasteful. Put on a sweater.
Oh..and I can pull TJ quotes that would suggest we should take up arms and overthrow the current administration, but cherry picking quotes is not something I wish or engage in. You're no better than the Christian hypocrites you criticize.
Let's see, at the time the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, a musket was a military-style assault weapon yet they didn't preclude ownership of military-style weapons.
At the time they wrote the 1st Amendment, they didn't envision blogs yet we're still free to exercise freedom of speech online.
And yes, why not compare beer to a 30-round magazine. Alcoholism and drunk driving kill people everyday. I don't know the exact figures but I'd be willing to bet Sven's $20 that more people are killed annually because of drunk drivers than are killed by weapons with 30-round magazines.
It's required that you take a driving test. That you own insurance. That you pull over when a police officer believes you're doing something wrong. Your license can be suspended and taken away. Need I go on? In other words, you can't simply walk off the street and purchase and operate a car like you can a gun (at a gun show or gun shop).
Thank you for making my point.
And give me a break on the whole musket being an assault weapon of the 18th century.
So, because some people have an interest in shooting high capacity magazines? That's a justification? Well, I'm sure a lot of people would have an interest in using bazookas for recreation. Should we make them legal? Somebody's recreational enjoyment is not the most important thing here. The law has already decided to draw limits on peoples' recreational enjoyment in plenty of areas.
When giant SUVs and big gulps are routinely used to kill people intentionally, then we can have that debate.
And when you compare a Big Gulp to a weapon that has one purpose - to kill people - then I think there is no chance of talking rationally anymore.
So you're saying the musket wasn't the military weapon of the 18th century?
Again, nobody addresses my hand grenade, bazooka, and fighter jet argument.
I didn't compare a big gulp to a weapon. I said a big gulp is something that those using "common sense" said should be banned. You fail to see the point. Common sense is a subjective term. Your common sense it right, the Christian's common sense is wrong. Does common sense tell us that 30 round clips, hand grenades, and fighter planes should be banned? Does it tell us that 10 round clips should be banned? Does it tell us that we should only allow six shooters? One shot muzzle loaders?
You then use an argument that when used against something you believe in you scoff at. "What about hand grenades and fighter jets?". 'If gays get married what’s to keep people from marrying a goat". Common sense?
Here is what will happen. You can ban 30 round clips and assault rifles because of common sense. gun deaths won’t change, but we can all feel good because we "did something". Meanwhile millions of law abiding citizens will have another freedom chipped away. Then the next one will be chipped at, then the next and the next. That's why the NRA says "fuck you, we're not budging". They have seen it before and know once they start giving a little it will never end. It's what happened to smokers. Little by little they were chipped away. Now there is almost total ban on smoking anywhere. Why? Common sense I suppose.
STFU already
Just point me in their direction - I'm 3 sheets to the fahking wind