Saw a "gun sense" booth today

[billt]

Republicans do not champion capitalism. They are socialists, every bit as much as the Democrats.

If you actually think and believe in stupidity like that, there is no further point in debating this with you. The only thing politically dumber than a liberal, is someone who actually believes both parties are "the same". God help us. About all that you could say that would make me feel relieved, is telling me you don't vote. Or else voted for Ron Paul, which is the same thing. Now it's all starting to make perfect sense why Jet Girl champions you so. Jesus.

 

[Fletch]

If you actually think and believe in stupidity like that, there is no further point in debating this with you. The only thing politically dumber than a liberal, is someone who actually believes both parties are "the same".

I didn't say they were the same. I said they were both socialists. Republicans are German-style socialists, and Democrats are Soviet-style socialists. Democrats will push as hard as they can for Soviet-style socialism, but at the end of the day they're more than willing to accept German-style as a compromise, and the Republicans are all too happy to give it to them. It keeps their friends' pockets lined.

Remember that it was Bush who pushed for the great socialist interventions when the banking industry had issues dealing with their bad loans. TARP was not a capitalist responses to the crisis. Nor was the Reagan response to the similar S&L crisis in the 1980's. The capitalist response would have been to let the banks fail. Capitalism is every bit as much about destruction as it is about building. Republicans refuse to acknowledge this, and it is mirrored in their so-called "adversaries" on the other side of the aisle bailing out the auto makers.

It's Republicans who have nationalized all but the very last bit of the air travel industry, in moves that would have made Hugo Chavez proud. It is Republicans who have made the power industry a vassal of the State. It is Republicans who keep the defense industry afloat despite top military advisers over multiple administrations repeatedly stating that it makes stuff they don't need, to the tune of billions of dollars a year.

All of this is socialism, and it all costs.

 

[billt]

So tell me Fletch, who wants to rid you of your gun rights more, Republicans or Democrats?? It's a one word answer. You only have 2 to pick from, so please spare me a meaningless 4 paragraph dissertation.

 

[Fletch]

So tell me Fletch, who wants to rid you of your gun rights more, Republicans or Democrats?? It's a one word answer. You only have 2 to pick from, so please spare me a meaningless 4 paragraph dissertation.

Why do you think gun rights are more important than economic freedom?

 

[billt]

Why do you think gun rights are more important than economic freedom?

That's not what I asked you. Are you incapable of giving a simple one word answer, to as simple of a question as I could possibly ask? Who do you think wants to destroy your gun rights more......Republicans or Democrats?

 

[Fletch]

That's not what I asked you. Are you incapable of giving a simple one word answer, to as simple of a question as I could possibly ask? Who do you think wants to destroy your gun rights more......Republicans or Democrats?

I reject the premise of the question. Gun rights are important, but they are not the most important thing. Gun rights follow economic freedom, not the other way around.

 

[printcraft]

That's not what I asked you. Are you incapable of giving a simple one word answer, to as simple of a question as I could possibly ask? Who do you think wants to destroy your gun rights more......Republicans or Democrats?

I reject the premise of the question. Gun rights are important, but they are not the most important thing. Gun rights follow economic freedom, not the other way around.

LOL

 

[billt]

I reject the premise of the question. Gun rights are important, but they are not the most important thing. Gun rights follow economic freedom, not the other way around.

Fletch, this is telling me all I need to know about you. Guys like yourself do this all the time. You're asked a very simple, direct question that requires an equally simply one word answer. And regardless of how many times the question is put to you, you'll refuse to answer it. You'll duck and dodge, all the while trying to shift focus to something else, and create a smoke screen to avoid answering it. If, for whatever reason, you won't answer the question, then simply don't reply. Don't try to baffle me with bull$h!t. It ain't workin. I can stay on topic, you can't seem to if your life depended on it.

 

[red46239]

This thread is a perfect example of how the 2-party system breeds ignorance. We are essentially given 2 platforms to choose from. IMO most informed, rational people see items in each platform that they agree with. The problem is that most people don't understand a party's entire platform. They know that 'Republicans support guns' or 'Democrats support gay marriage' (or pick your own example) and they vote that way based solely one piece of the puzzle. They either pick the one item that is most important to them and vote that way, or they vote based on the few facts they know about each party (or they vote Democrat because my daddy was a Democrat, so I am too). This leads to a huge amount of 'low information voters' (to steal from Sean Hannity) that can swing a vote one way or another. Were there no parties, voters would have to actually pay some attention to what the politicians they are voting for ACTUALLY stand for. Politicians would have to spend more energy getting there platform out there and less energy trying to apply stigmas to the other party.

They other side of it is: 'Well, since you identify yourself as a liberal, you must be a socialist that wants to take my guns'. OR 'Well, since you identify yourself as a conservative, you just support huge corporations and don't care about little Sam working for minimum wage'. Again, ignorance. Maybe person #1 MOST identifies themselves as a liberal, but is a gun nut.

Yes, we can talk about 3rd party candidates, but the reality is that both the Republican and Democratic parties are so big and have so much money that they are able to crush any 3rd party candidate and brush them off as some wacko out of left field.

I don't like to be labeled as 'belonging' to any party. Before anyone asks, I consider myself a Conservative trending towards Libertarian in most aspects. Again, I don't agree with everything that implies, but that label is most closely related to my personal beliefs. And no, I do not think that 'Conservative' and 'Republican' are always the same thing. Maybe they should be, but they don't seem to be in practice.

Anyways, just my thoughts on the subject. No, I'm not calling anyone ignorant. No, I'm not directing any of my examples at anyone in particular.

 

[Fletch]

Fletch, this is telling me all I need to know about you. Guys like yourself do this all the time. You're asked a very simple, direct question that requires an equally simply one word answer. And regardless of how many times the question is put to you, you'll refuse to answer it. You'll duck and dodge, all the while trying to shift focus to something else, and create a smoke screen to avoid answering it. If, for whatever reason, you won't answer the question, then simply don't reply. Don't try to baffle me with bull$h!t. It ain't workin. I can stay on topic, you can't seem to if your life depended on it.

I am staying on topic. You are the one who introduced the conflation of of gun rights with economic policy. This entire thread has been a debunking of your belief that anti-gun = socialist and pro-gun = not socialist. Now that the discussion has pretty much shown all of your assertions to be erroneous, you are attempting to redefine the scope of inquiry in a desperate attempt to score a "win". It is common knowledge in the USA which of the major parties tends to support gun control and which tends to support gun rights, though there are plenty of exceptions to be had on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately for you this fact is only minimally relevant to the discussion of the socialist nature of both parties, a discussion which has thus far only served to illuminate your willful ignorance of the history of the economic policies of the party you champion.

 

[billt]

This thread is a perfect example of how the 2-party system breeds ignorance. We are essentially given 2 platforms to choose from. IMO most informed, rational people see items in each platform that they agree with. The problem is that most people don't understand a party's entire platform. They know that 'Republicans support guns' or 'Democrats support gay marriage' (or pick your own example) and they vote that way based solely one piece of the puzzle. They either pick the one item that is most important to them and vote that way, or they vote based on the few facts they know about each party (or they vote Democrat because my daddy was a Democrat, so I am too). This leads to a huge amount of 'low information voters' (to steal from Sean Hannity) that can swing a vote one way or another. Were there no parties, voters would have to actually pay some attention to what the politicians they are voting for ACTUALLY stand for. Politicians would have to spend more energy getting there platform out there and less energy trying to apply stigmas to the other party.

They other side of it is: 'Well, since you identify yourself as a liberal, you must be a socialist that wants to take my guns'. OR 'Well, since you identify yourself as a conservative, you just support huge corporations and don't care about little Sam working for minimum wage'. Again, ignorance. Maybe person #1 MOST identifies themselves as a liberal, but is a gun nut.

Yes, we can talk about 3rd party candidates, but the reality is that both the Republican and Democratic parties are so big and have so much money that they are able to crush any 3rd party candidate and brush them off as some wacko out of left field.

I don't like to be labeled as 'belonging' to any party. Before anyone asks, I consider myself a Conservative trending towards Libertarian in most aspects. Again, I don't agree with everything that implies, but that label is most closely related to my personal beliefs. And no, I do not think that 'Conservative' and 'Republican' are always the same thing. Maybe they should be, but they don't seem to be in practice.

Anyways, just my thoughts on the subject. No, I'm not calling anyone ignorant. No, I'm not directing any of my examples at anyone in particular.

And the fact of the matter is, you can carry on all you want about a 2 party system. It's all you have, and most likely all you're going to. After you're done, all you have to vote for is one or the other, period. The same as everyone else. Complaining about it is like going to a restaurant and trying to order something that isn't on the menu. No matter how hard you try, you're not going to eat.

Every one of these political arguments go the same way every time. No matter how hard you try to deny it, your going to have to vote for one or the other. Same as everyone else. And the fact also remains if you choose to vote Democrat, you're voting away you're gun rights, regardless of what you think you're voting for.

 

[Fletch]

And the fact also remains if you choose to vote Democrat, you're voting away you're gun rights, regardless of what you think you're voting for.

Pretty sure Jon Tester's constituents would disagree.

 

[OWGEM]

I never said they were. Again, EVERY MAJOR gun control law passed since the National Firearms Act of 1934, was sponsored by, and voted into law by DEMOCRATS.

Again you are ignoring facts. The 1968 Reagan/Republican gun control legislation was a major gun control law.

Every gun bill that reaches the House or Senate floor becomes a battle between the Democrats, who want it passed, and the Republicans who want it voted down. Every single one.

You seem to ignore last year's Democratic Senate defeating every attempt at gun control legislation.


You remind me of some quotes I saved... "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."


And... "To discuss politics on an Internet forum is like explaining the Higgs boson to a three year old. It isn't going anywhere. There maybe a bigger waste of time somehow somewhere, but I am not looking for it."


I'm out of here.

 

[printcraft]

You seem to ignore last year's Democratic Senate defeating every attempt at gun control legislation.

Yep, those damn dirty Republicans keep bringing gun control up for a vote time and time again, year after year.

 

[billt]

Pretty sure Jon Tester's constituents would disagree.

This is another thing. You refuse to understand that Democrats in general will rob you, and everyone else of their gun rights over Republicans. Even though it's been proven to you over 8 decades of political history. You'll cherry pick a Democrat here and there, to prop up, and to try and "prove" the obvious facts don't exist.

Are there pro gun Democrats?....Yes. Are there anti gun Republicans?.... Yes. But the fact is, and always has been, Democrats overall are no supporters of the Second Amendment, and will always support anti gun legislation to the fullest, when compared to the Republicans. Their agenda demands it. The only exception is when they're cornered, and face reelection. They will then pander to whoever supports their needs....For the time being. Harry Reid was your most recent example.

 

[Fletch]

This is another thing. You refuse to understand that Democrats in general will rob you, and everyone else of their gun rights over Republicans. Even though it's been proven to you over 8 decades of political history. You'll cherry pick a Democrat here and there, to prop up, and to try and "prove" the obvious facts don't exist.

Are there pro gun Democrats?....Yes. Are there anti gun Republicans?.... Yes. But the fact is, and always has been, Democrats overall are no supporters of the Second Amendment, and will always support anti gun legislation to the fullest, when compared to the Republicans. Their agenda demands it. The only exception is when they're cornered, and face reelection. They will then pander to whoever supports their needs....For the time being. Harry Reid was your most recent example.

Someone else mentioned Harry Reid, he was not my example.

This is not about cherry-picking. This is about treating people as individuals instead of labels -- my thesis from the beginning of this thread. Jon Tester seems to be a good guy, and his voting record backs that up insofar as gun rights are concerned. He's not the only one I've encountered, he's just the one that popped into my head. I won't dismiss anyone on the basis of a label. I want to know what they believe, how they intend to vote, and how that stacks up against the other guy as well as my own beliefs. I'm not going to blindly support a Dick Lugar just because he has an R and that's supposed to be a win for gun rights, because it clearly isn't. A person who switches sides on an issue should clearly be counted on the other side of the issue regardless of his party. And again, there are some issues more important than gun rights.

 

[JetGirl]

Are there pro gun Democrats?....Yes. Are there anti gun Republicans?.... Yes.

That's funny...because earlier when I was stating that not all antis are libral/socialist/democrat/etc., the exchange was:

I feel it's important to point out that not all antis are "liberal/socialist"... .

I'm not saying or even suggesting that you're lying. But with all due respect, I'm 61 years old, and I've yet to meet one that wasn't the other.

 

[billt]

You seem to ignore last year's Democratic Senate defeating every attempt at gun control legislation.

I'm not ignoring anything. We've already covered that. Start paying attention to the thread. The NRA bought and paid for Harry Reid by endorsing him over Sharon Angle in the 2010 mid term race. Part of that deal was Reid would either not allow Feinstein's resurrected Assault Weapons Ban to come up for a vote, or else would guarantee the failure of it's passage, along with any other anti gun legislation. He bit because he needed the NRA's support to defeat Angle. He had 2 choices. Go it alone, and possibly lose the biggest election of his political career, or else play ball with the NRA and be somewhat assured of a victory over Angle. The race was so close Reid himself admitted he probably would have lost without the NRA's endorsement.

Reid is the most powerful man in the Senate, and can easily leverage the way any Democratic Senator votes. Reid did what he did because of political pressure, not because he's some great supporter of the Second Amendment. You want facts, look at them all. Not just what's obvious to you. The only way Harry Reid, or any other Democrat will EVER vote against gun legislation, is if they're forced to.

 

[billt]

Someone else mentioned Harry Reid, he was not my example. This is not about cherry-picking. This is about treating people as individuals instead of labels.

It doesn't matter who's example it was. You do that and you will lose every gun rights battle on Capitol Hill. You have 2 parties. Each member of those parties gets a yea or a nay vote on every bill that's voted on. On the subject of gun control you will ALWAYS have more Democrats voting for gun control, than you have voting against it. When they're voting on a gun bill, that's all that matters. Not how they feel about abortion, or if they support marrying your dog, affirmative action, or anything else.

Again, it's a 2 party system. One party is for gun banning, (Democrats), the other is not, (Republicans). Even with a few stragglers going opposite of party lines, that will still hold. You don't like a 2 party system. And I'm quite sure you'll make 178 points as to why. None of it matters in the least because a 2 party system is what you have to work with and under. Everything else is nothing but smoke filled, coffee house crap. You'll have to pardon me for putting political reality above your wishful thinking.

 

[searpinski]

Why not (instead) go informed and ask them to back up their beliefs with facts: Gun Facts - Debunking Gun Control Myths

This. We aren't out to be jackasses, but we want our message heard in an intelligent manner.