Since someone brought up the issue on guns. The issue is not what type of gun you need for hunting. Last time I checked the right to hunt is not provided for in the constitution. The right to bear arms is. I own guns to protect my family from whatever group might try to impose their will on me. If five thugs invade my home I'd rather have an Uzi that shoots 950 rounds per minute than a double barrel shot gun, where I might get off two to four rounds a minute.
I don't hunt because I don't see the joy in it. This is just another issue that democrats (as an organization) don't understand. We all have the right to defend ourselves. The gun is the great equalizer. It is also a very harmful tool in the wrong hands. Hence the oversimplistic phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people". It's the truth. You may recall the guy in Japan that went psyco using a samari sword in the subway and killed a bunch of people. One person with a gun would have ended that alot sooner, with less casualties. If someone is so #### bent on believing guns are evil then that, my shortsighted friend is a "myopic" view.
Funny...I was born and raised in inner cities with gang activity around us and my family never owned a gun nor did we need them.
Im not a proclaimed democrat but your logic regarding the need for guns makes no sense. You basically only convinced yourself it is a need for alturistic reasons.
"He's got a gun..I should get one too." is really what you are saying.
Im not proposing a ban on guns..I just dont want nor need them..but basically I think it's funny you want the choice to keep dangerous inaminate object that is used more on people in this country accidental or intentional than hunting animals. But youre soooo passionate to condemn women no matter what circumstances who have to make a tough choice to have an abortion and live with the consequences as if you believe you can be empathetic enough to judge. Your points of views are basically a joke.
No there not. I think it is very short sighted of you to say that. You may make a valid point when you say that to own a gun simply because someone else has one.
I grew up in L.A. My uncle had two young men break into his house. He was about 60 years old at the time. Without his handgun, he would not have been able to defend himself against these thugs. Just because you haven't needed a gun doesn't mean you never will. I recently had a co-worker shot in the head and killed and his body dumped in the trunk of a car. The guys who murdered him probably could have used a knife just as easily so the fact that they used a gun doesn't really matter. Who knows if a gun would have helped him, but it's possible. I look at having a gun as wearing my seatbelt when I drive a car. It is strictly for self defense and that's all.
I don't have an Uzi, I used it as an example. That being said, if I found myself in that situation I would still rather have an Uzi as I'm sure any of you would.
BTW, several states have clauses in their state constitutions which explicitly guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear arms. So the US constitution doesn't even matter. It is a state matter and should stay that way. No states gun laws have been overturned or atleast none of which I am aware.
Since the attacks will probably come anyway I'll clarify my "I don't like democrats" statement. It's not that I don't like all many or some, I just don't like the way the party is at present. I have many friends and family that are democrats and we get along just fine.
Say, for the sake of argument, that guns are dangerous in the hands of someone that doesn’t know how to use one.
Would it be ok to require a license, just as a license is required to drive a car, or would this be stepping on the Second Amendment (if that’s the one)?
I think part of the argument against this analogy is that it’s not unlawful to own a car without a license, but you can’t legally drive it. So, should it be ok to own a gun with the understanding that you can’t use it legally without a license?
What about age? Any age can own and use a gun without restrictions? Got to be 16 to get drivers license.
It would seem that alot of people are afraid for some reason that if the government keeps track of who has guns, they might someday label gun owners as deviants or would make it easier for the gov to take them away.
However, that would be a conspiracy theory IMO and to require a license, at least at the local level anyway, would seem reasonable to me.
Then you agree with the view of most democrats and most gun control advocats, even though those with that view are almost universally labeled liberal and gun control nuts by many republicans, and definitely by the NRA.
That was not a loaded question. It was just to point out that there is no black or white as the NRA seems to want to paint it. The second amendment doesn’t say any gun anywhere anyhow by anyone, but that’s the way many interpret it, and to question that interpretation is to be againt the second amendment.
I got an automated political phone pro-Bush call from the NRA - a taped message from the NRA President - stating that as a fact in no uncertain terms, and blaming the liberal Democrats for trying to ban guns outright if they got their way - if Kerry was elected. (He had a bit of Rush gusto in his voice.) It was a real twisting of views in my opinion. It ticked me off – It ticked my wife off too and she is as pro Bush as it gets.
You have no idea what choices I've had to make in my lifetime. That has nothing to do with this issue. -------
And you know the choices of others particularly democrats. Imagine that.
I couldn't care less about democrats. I'm not talking about parties here. I'm talking about life. You seem to want to ignore that. You say you are against guns that can easily kill, yet you support a law that gives women and irresponsible men the right to easily kill unborn children.
"Like I said, you're off the deep end." -----
Nah...just calling your whiny senseless bullshit.
Senseless? You obviously haven't really read what I've written. Either that, or you are so scared by the reality of it that you can let it sink in.
"Huh?" ---
Yea I figured youd like to avoid that.
Gun + God + Capital Punishment = Moral
What kind of garbage is that? Is that your religion?
For someone who could careless you seem to put a lot of bullshit generlizations about life or people you know little about...you seem to ignore that.
-- "You say you are against guns that can easily kill, yet you support a law that gives women and irresponsible men the right to easily kill unborn children." -- Point me WHERE I said I was voting to ban guns...no..I guess you were too busy rambling bullsh*t you claim to care less that I was illustrating that VERY same point about *some* neo cons who support whole heartedly to have little restrictions on guns as opposed to a choice for women who may have to have an abortion.
--- "Senseless? You obviously haven't really read what I've written. Either that, or you are so scared by the reality of it that you can let it sink in" ---
No..your ramblings are senseless. The issues are very real...which is why I brought up the gun issues which you seem to afraid to let it sink in the realization that you subjectively support certain choices and not others.
---- "Gun + God + Capital Punishment = Moral [/quote]
What kind of garbage is that? Is that your religion?" ----
Yes..thats my religon ALL republicans like this!!! *rolls eyes* This sarcasm *is* actually garbage which is about the same as your most of your drivel.
This argument always gets me. The contradictions with the abortion issue are the same reasons that democrats don't have control of any of our government entities.
Democrats are for sucking a living person with nerves (with which to feel pain) out of a woman's womb using a high power suction device causing tremendous pain and death to the child.
Democrats are against properly spanking a child when the child needs it. Such as smacking the childs hand when it nearly touches a hot stove. Or, spanking the child for striking a sibling. Perhaps the child should touch the hot stove and suffer third degree burns then take a "time out" to reflect on the error of his/her ways.
Democrats are against killing a grown person who cuts another person to pieces using a small utility knife (or big knife for that matter). Note: in neither case was a gun necessary to kill.
I could go on but I believe you already see the contradictions. This is "par for the course" IMO
Name calling is not helpful. I am not sure where or when it started, but here it is. We have given labels to the names of Democrats and Republicans, Christians and Atheists.
Are you Anti-abortion or Pro-Choice? How about Pro-Abortion or Anti-Choice?
Can you be Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion? How about Pro-Abortion and Anti-Choice?
Does it make sense to send your sons and daughters to a foreign land to kill/be killed and then stand against the choice of a woman to not give birth to a child they cannot afford/support? Is your right as a parent more valid when your child is 18 years old instead of 18 hours old?
Can you bomb an abortion clinic and kill people and then also be non-judgemental in the eyes of God?
Should you force your beliefs on everyone else because your morality (in your eyes) is superior to those you would judge as less moral? Are you really more moral if you do?
I believe that many people feel they should not force their morality onto others. Some believe that the government should legislate morality. Some believe that christian morality is the only morality.
Folks, this is why we left England and many other countries to come here. We came for religious freedom. We came cause we didn't like being told what to believe. We came because we were willing to live in a land of freedom and tolerance. Why do we now want to become the very thing we left just a few generations back.
I never understood guys with judgements telling what a woman should do with her body regarding abortion as if it’s a joyous occasion…while from the same mouth fight to keep guns restrictive free.
Its always been a kettle/teapot thing to me…its about choices.
It was a real twisting of views in my opinion. It ticked me off -- It ticked my wife off too and she is as pro Bush as it gets. What's it like being married to a Republican
All of my responses were not made to you. I have tried to accurately quote the things I have responded to. I new this would be a hot issue and part of me wishes that I had stayed out of this place.
Heh, a case of not practicing what I preach. I shoul dhave tried better to understand you than to assume what you meant. Sorry.
I never understood guys with judgements telling what a woman should do with her body regarding abortion as if it's a joyous occasion...while from the same mouth fight to keep guns restrictive free.
The way the argument is waged is based upon the presupposition. Ever one knows a fetus is being killed. The next step is "Is that murder or not?" The folks who say it is murder say that choice should not be a part of the equation. A defense attuney never took a "pro-choice" defense in getting killer off. Folks that do not see it as murder and more like killing a pet or something less than human would say a choice is part of the equation. That doesn't mean they like killing, but that like in putting a pet down, the choice should be there. To effectively argue this without getting into left field the point at which a human is human is the big question. You cannot argue any other part of abortion really without ths question being answered first. Am I killing a few cells that aren't much more than shad or am I killing a person. The wild card in this is euthenasia adn the health of the mother. Maybe a person believes they are killing a person, but if they know the person will have a miserable life due to a genetic disease or birth defect, would this be a merciful killing thus justified? Or would the mother die as a result of child birth? As far as what goes into defining what a human being is, well, you guys can argue over that. My only point here is to try to give some focus if you guys are planning to intelligently and respectfulyl argue this. One mistake many people make in arguments is trying to argue everything at once. You have to argue the points stemming from a presupposition and take a documented route, not just jump to the end.
Say, for example, that having sex or posting things on the internet is dangerous in the hands of someone...
Point being... who is going to make that decision for you?
For the most part, Republicans. Yet, less government is one of the Republican Platform issues. It depends on the issues. Sex will be governed by the right and violence will be governed by the left. By the way, Libertarians will govern nothing.
What's it like being married to a Republican
Not bad actually. We talk politics, and agree on most issues actually. For the most part our votes cancel each other out though....except this year. In the local election we were both swing voters. My biggest challenge is getting her to look at the issues and the individuals running and stop blindly voting party. We'd all be better off if everyone would do that. She voted for Bush for the right reasons, even if I disagree with those reasons, and I can live with that. It's being a party sheep I can't live with....and that would still be true if she was Democrat. Informed decisions is not a political issue in my book.
Regarding the subject of republicans wanting less government…Im not so sure about that anymore.
I think republicans want less government in issues that adversely affect them…gun control…tax issues but anything that seem “immoral” that they wouldnt pursue like stem cell research, aborton, etc they would want more government control. I seen the opposite for democratic party in itself where the demographs seem to point urban areas where issues like abortion, gay rights, discrimination, etc are probably more important and having the “more off the rich” mentality is likely prevalent when it comes to tax burdens. Funny thing I noticed tho is that from both sides…they seem to want to promote censorship on freedom of speech depending on what you are saying. This conditional right seems hypocritical on both sides…just my observation. But all in all I dont think one wants less governing than the other…just different things equally
Bubba Your absolutely right…and its a personal war to be waging for them. I can safely say that in this life time I dont have to make that personal choice so I never put that much thought into it personally other than as a guy…I wouldnt want to do it.
I just didnt like the assertion still4given and truthseeker were suggesting that being pro-choice necessarily means that all personally would choose to abort. It is about choice. In the situation, if a woman was raped or the birth of the child would end her life…that’s going to be a tough decision regardless whether or not she believed it was murder…but it IS her choice and not to be dictated by an institution that is highly scrutinized. If a person was brain dead but the body was still alive by machines…the next of kin is allowed to choose to let the person go…could be interpreted as murder as well but it’s done all the time and the choice made is hardly questioned.
Regarding the subject of republicans wanting less government..Im not so sure about that anymore. You are right and that is one major sign that the current Republican Party doesn't represent what used to be THE Republican Party....Ike, Ronny...etc...even Pat Buchanan was vocal about this shift and he saw it as a bad sign.
Yes, hypocrisy is rampant in both parties....that's why I'm registered no party affiliation...not Independent, or some other who knows what fringe party. Where's a good MOTR Party these days?
Yes, this is not the Republican party of old. What an awful world if must be, if I start to think that Nixon may not have been all that bad…
Present Repubs don’t want less government, they want less of that part of government that doesn’t make their friends money. They want more government where it serves their friends. It’s that simple. This does not apply to all Repubs, there are still a few out there who are rational. But mostly the new republican is something new indeed. Great gads, now I’m beginning to think that Specter isn’t all that bad. Well, he is, but at least he has a brain and uses it.
Yes, this is not the Republican party of old. What an awful world if must be, if I start to think that Nixon may not have been all that bad... You got that right. Nixon was probably one of the brightest Presidents we've ever had. Even Reagan seems like a shining beacon to me. Heck - even Goldwater might be OK these days?!?!
Phoo - when you say your wife for voted Bush for the "right" reasons - what exactly are those reasons?
