VOTE OBAMA

what's this stuff about obama having a gay affair and smoking crack 9 years ago?

I'm not going to "stick with the democratic party" because I have never voted before, and right now I am registered Republican.  I would rather see a third term for Bush then Hillary in office.  I wouldn't go as far as to say I'll leave the country in she were to get elected, because I have to stay in school for a majority of the following term, but Hillary Clinton as president would be a worst case senerio.  Also, I have no clue who Ed Schultz is.  I'm guessing he would have probably said that about any Republican frontrunner.

.

McCain is Bush's evil twin...not literally, but in all things that matter. They're actually identical.

I also don't know who Ed Schultz is, but he couldn't have said that if RP got the nod. The Bush 'organization' he speaks of does not exclude Hitlery though. On the issues that matter, they're all the same.

Maybe my point was lost somewhere in my ramblings... I do not want to government to use the word marriage... Never mind quer rights, and never mind religion in politics, marriage is an antiquated, patiarchal system of ownership and property management.  It needs to be done away with.  The fed. govt should ONLY offer civil union licenses, to all couples regardless of gender(s).  (This CU licenses would offer ALL of the same rights and privileges that current marriage licenses offer, and all states and companies would eb required to acknowledge them as legitimate and honor them.  If folks want to also get married, that would be up to them finding a chuch willing to marry them, so the church's could be selective if they wanted and not allow queer or fat chikcs or puerto ricans or whoever they decided they disliked at that point in time.  But "marriage" would be nothing more than a religious sanctioning of a political contract that was already established, and it would confer no legal rights or privileges, it would be an honorary thing, and every denomination would be allowed to control it as they wish).

Ahh, thank you for the clarification, Oberon. I wouldn't say I disagree with that idea. Another concept I'd like to see culture moving towards is marriage without state recognition or civil union licensing. I imagine this is how polygamists do it, only legally unionizing with their first wife and the rest just live with them, but I just don't like the idea of getting state authorization if you don't have to.

Come on.  You didn't ever seriously think that Paul would ever get the GOP nod, did you?  He's just not like them enough.  Only the person that dosen't really have a chance at winning can speak their mind, and that's exactly what Ron Paul did.

I can nearly asure you though, if McCain wins, Guantanamo will no longer be used as a POW prison and it's safe to say that tourture will no longer be used.  I just don't think that a man who was a POW himself, would allow that kind of thing to continue. 

Alright, none of this has to do with Obama, but I haven't bothered to look at any other political threads.

It wasn't about winning as much as it was shaking the system, though a win would have been nice. The RP Revolution still trudges on, the objective has just changed...

It would be nice if everything we thought was correct

One of the reasons I don't trust McCain on torture is because he's a military man. No offense to those in the armed services, but I don't trust them in government. While I salute him for his service to this country, I know what he's gone through both from the US gov and our enemies overseas, and for anyone who's seen it all to say they would [i]never[/i] use torture is more than just a little overstating. Guantanamo is not a jail that shouldn't exist, it just shouldn't be so easy to send someone there. Our nation has enemies, and after formally charging someone and setting a trial date, keeping them in custody is not unjust. Torture should almost never be used, 'almost' being the key word. Anybody that contends they wouldn't use torture on someone if they know they have information that is time sensitive and will save American lives is either a weakling or a liar. If McCain were to say, "I'd only authorize torture when it's 100% necessary and facts that are based on solid evidence ensure someone has information we immediately need to know," I'd believe him. Bush also contests that the US gov't doesn't use torture. We know this is not true. They also say waterboarding is not torture. If you can't do it to your dog in public without getting arrested, it's probably torture. So because McCain takes the same stance as the Bush administration, I don't trust him. (I borrowed the dog line from some libertarian dude, I forget his name, just mentioning it because I hate when people steal cleverisms and use them as their own).

And, recently, while openly opposing it, John McCain signed a bill supporting waterboarding...

Really?  Well that blows my argument out of the water.  Still Obama>McCain>Clinton.

 [QUOTE]

I'm not much on 9/11 conspiracy theories, cause I see a major lack of evidence on both sides, but I agree that there's complete control by NWO groups like the Council on Foreign Relations over American politics. The last 5 presidents have been members of this group, and you'd be hard pressed to find any other organization that Clinton and Bush or Reagan and Clinton, etc, would both belong to. Kerry was a member as well, and I'm sure most of you know about skull and bones. During the 'don't taze me bro' vid, the guy was asking Kerry why he seceeded from the race in 2004 so quickly with so many reports of voter fraud. When he mentioned skull and bones, the police moved in. [/QUOTE]

I think the 911 stuff is just a small piece of the NWO cake.  I agree that there is a lack of evidence, but a lot of the theories make sense when you look closely at the NWO plan.  As far as the CFR goes... I'm pretty sure all of the current frontrunners in the presidential race are members.  This isn't good.  I haven't seen many of Alex Jones' documentaries, but what I have seen has been really convincing.  I have always been a big fiction reader, but after listening to Jones' show almost everyday I have been feeling more and more compelled to read some non-fiction, specifically one about the Bilderberg Group.  I've been basically ignored politics and most current events for many years now, I got tired of being angry and not being able to help anything, but I can't ignore it anymore.  Things are getting out of hand around here and the idea of a New World Order scares the ever-living shit out of me.

9/11 definitely was very convenient for the entire movement towards consumerizing the middle east, that''s for sure. I'm just reluctant to take a position on it because being on the side of the 9/11 truthers is a good way to turn people off to anything else you'd have to say, which is unfortunate but true. My estimate on the matter is that it was more of an event the adminsitration "allowed" as opposed to "orchestrated", and they just capitalized on the resulting fear of terrorism. It's interesting that you said you were never into non-fiction, because for years I never read novels because I felt better reading something 'real', but I've come to understand fiction is a language universal to anyone, no matter what political leaning, affiliation, etc, which I kinda learned from The Palahniuk's work.

Also, didn't Mccain vote for the Military Commissions Act suspending Habeas Corpus leaving people stuck over in places like Guantanamo?

It just seems that he wouldn't support that either after spending five years, or what have you, as a POW.

I agree with what you said about 9/11.  I don't know for sure what to think, but the more documentaries I see and radio interviews I listen to, the harder I find it to believe it was a terrorist act.  Especially since they guy they arrested for it conveniently admitted to the 1993 attempt on the WTC, Oklahoma City, as well as the bombing of a building that wasn't even built yet...  I don't think it was built until two years after he confessed to it.  I've also seen and read more about the WTO protests in Seattle in 1999 and the events that took place there and the Oklahoma City bombing.  I hate to think I'm becoming a conspiracy theorist because I've always though most of them to be extremists or just eccentric, but I find a lot of the evidence, especially with Oklahoma City hard to ignore.  And then there are the weird coincidences...  Like when the governer's brother wrote a book in which a character named Tom McVeigh bombed the Murrah building.  Or the pilot episode of the Lone Gunmen in March of 2001, where terrorists attempted to fly a plane into the World Trade Center.  The Lone Gunmen thing is a bit of a stretch, I know, until you hear Dean Haglund, formerly of the X-files talk about it.  Okay, I'm starting to freak myself out talking about this, so I'm going to stop now....

If you haven't read anything by Jon Ronson, do so NOW! Hilarious accounts in

THEM: Adventures with Extremists

and

The Men Who Stare at Goats

He examines figures like Alex Jones, showing how they are paranoid, but also showing how they could very well have a point. He never really ridicules his subjects, just presents them as they are, theories and all...

Monkeywright - great call. I'm a big Ronson fan. I didn't realise he was on the radar in the U.S, good to know he's got some readers/watchers over there!

The Bohemian Grove/Bilderberg Group stuff from THEM is hilarious.

 The more I read about Obama, the less I like him.  I still think he's better than the others... maybe, but there is a lot about him that I find unsettling.  First there is the Global Poverty Act which will raise foreign aid spending by .7% of Gross National Product.  Thats a lot of money over time, don't we all ready spend enough of our tax money outside of the US?  The bill also puts restrictions on gun ownership, I'm not sure about the connection there, but I believe in the 2nd Amendment.  The scariest thing about Obama is his lead foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski.  Brzenzinski is a mega-globalist and has been involved in some pretty scary stuff.  He is the co-founder of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, and the mastermind of the Carter Administration. Zbigniew Brzezinski with the help of the US GOV helped fund and establish Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan beginning in the 1980s.  In books he has written he has admitted to and even bragged about being involved in the creation of Al-Qeada.  These guys believe in open borders and world government.  The involvement of Brzezinski and his connections to the Trilateral Commission plus the connections to the Bilderberg Group and the CFR make me think that Obama has been picked as a puppet for the NWO agenda.  

i'm on it.

Mel, one film you might wanna look for is an HBO production called, "Path to Paradise". It was made in the 90s about the first World Trade Center bombing. It makes the terrorists look like morons, because supposedly, had they parked the explosives against the north wall (or vice versa, opposite wall) of the garage they put it in, the towers would have probably fallen in 93, or whenever it was. It's pretty crazy to watch something like that post-9/11 and wonder how we didn't see it coming.

There were tons of clues when we look back that make it seem as though we all should have known. Weird story that makes me think it was allowed rather than orchestrated by the gov't...my grandparents neighbors in NY are like friends of the family. Their son lived in the city, I forget if it was the Bronx or Queens, but he befriended a Palastinian dude and his roommate in 2000, and they'd often hang out on weekends. The weekend before Sept. 11, either the 8th or 9th, he and a few friends had dinner together, and at the end of the meal, he told them all not to go into Manhattan on Tuesday (Sept 11). He didn't think anything of it at the time, but once everything happened, it blew his mind. I don't know how long it was afterwards, but he went to the guy's apartment and it was empty. Al Queda plant to supervise the attack as a civilian? CIA dude who knew it was happening? Who knows.

I gotta say just from what I've seen of Alex Jones stuff, I know at least one of his major points was refuted by science. He played up how in the vid of the plane hitting the tower, you see what he says is a missle launch before impact, as the building begins imploding before the two items meet. This was actually caused by air pressure in front of the plane. And if they did have a missle on the plane, why launch it? It could go off in the explosion anyways. That vid caused a lot of people to laugh him off, and then dismiss anything else he had to say after that. I personally haven't watched his stuff, so I can't really comment, but he's someone you can't use as a source in political discussion with any party regulars.

Another recommended film since Oklahoma City was brought up is "Waco: The Rules of Engagement". It's a docu about what happened in Waco, obviously, after the FOIA lawsuits uncovered all the info. I think it won an oscar. After I saw it, I read a book by David Hardy called, "This Is Not An Assault", very informative book about the lawsuits and congressional hearings investigating the incident. Hardy, as some of you may recognize, is also the author of the book, "Michael Moore is a Big, Fat, Stupid, White Man".

 I haven't really seen or heard any of Jones' theories on 9/11 as far as how it went down, just the reasoning behind it and the problems with the official story afterward.  And he did see it coming, check out this clip from his show in July 2001:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=H6uvHoiOjOg

also, as far as quoting alex jones as a source, thats the beautiful thing about him, you don't have to quote him.  He gets all his info from newspaper articles and public declassified documents.  Its all the stuff thats available but not widely reported by the mass media.  If you haven't seen his stuff I would really suggest you watch Endgame, or any of the others.  They are all available for free download on his website or on prisonplanet.tv.

That video is pretty nuts. I did just buy box of Citizens Rule Books from Alex Jones' site last week.

On a side note, here's an interesting story.

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/25/democratic-house-divided-pa-man-stabs-brother-in-law-over-election/

Hmmm....Foxnews.  Don't trust them Giggan. It's all lies. Lies and slander!

Okay, so - Alex Jones. He's a charismatic guy, that's for sure. He's also a propagandist and fear-monger. I'd be very careful what I choose to believe from Jones, even through the snippets of news and "evidence" that he presents. He uses similar tricks to Loose Change 9/11, the "doc" by a young filmmaker who wanted to create a fictionalised account of 9/11, but ended up turning it into a "factual piece". Devices such as rhetorical questions, straw men, logical fallacies and plain manipulation of facts are used by both Jones and Avery.

Moderate opinion and rationality tend not to pull in the listeners/viewers. However, that doesn't mean that Jones never raises interesting points. (I have to say though - that given the amount of time he dedicates to talking about these threats, that it would have been surprising if he hadn't said something that could be construed as "predicting 9/11". I mean, the World Trade Centre had already been bombed before. Planes have been blown up before. It's not such a stretch to think that such things might happen again.)

But, here's my main problem. I don't know about over there, but over here a common charge levelled against the government when they release their latest data on a foiled terror plot is that they are scare-mongering - using fear to help sanction such actions as invading Iraq, drafting ID cards, or continuing support for Afghan occupation.

Whether or not you believe that there was a terror threat, it's an interesting point. And ironically one that often heard from so-called "consipracy theorists". Well, as far as I can see, Alex Jones does something very similar - (though the interesting question is what does he want to achieve through his actions? More listeners? More fame? A revolution? Who knows.)

I'll just give one example of Alex Jone's scare-mongering and hyperbole: he claimed that the y2k threat was a masked operation by government ops to declare martial law when all the systems went down. He advocated storing guns and food (a very paranoid-militiaman way of seeing the world). Obviously, y2k turned out to be a huge nothing, and that didn't happen. But at the time, he believed it, and backed up his claims with a heap of stuff.

Anyway - that's just my take on him. I don't listen to him, because every time I have he sounds more like Fox News, or other "news as entertainment" types of outlets. Just because he's passionate, doesn't mean he's right, but you already know that.

In response to Riddlegimp:

I agree with some of the things you say about Jones, yes he is charismatic, and yes, I suppose he is a fear-mongerer and as I have said before, I do not, by any means, agree with everything he says.  But when you question why he is doing what he is and bring up the points of more money and listeners... I have to disagree.  The part about more listeners may be correct, but I don't see any personal gain in it.  I see him as a man who truly believe in what he preaches.  One of the things that makes me believe in him the most is the fact tha the is obviously not after money.  He has produced 12 documentaries, they all vary in quality, but they all have their own merits.  Each of these documentaries are available for purchase, but they are also available for free download.  He even encourages his listeners to download his videos and show them to others.  He obviously isn't in it for the money.

As far as 9/11 goes I have never seen Loose Change, nor do I care to, that is not my main concern as far as what is going on in this country right now.  Jones talks about a lot more than that, honestly, 9/11 isn't something he talks about all that often.  My concerns mostly involve the decline of the US dollar, the lack of concern for continuity of government (as of right now, if there is a state of emergency in the US the president is entitled to act completely of his own volition, congress doesn't matter a bit), the loss of state rights, the decline of power imposed by the constitution and the threat of a police state. 

Next, I have to disagree with what you said about Jones' prediction of the the attack on the WTC being obvious.  It wasn't just that it was an attack, or that it was the same building that had been attacked before.  It was the fact that it was an excuse to start a war.  Lets go back to the "Palastinian" hijacking of an Air France plane in the 1970s.  They were hijacked and forced to land in Idi Amin's Uganda before negotiating to get at least the non-Isreali passengers back home.  It was later revealed, by Isreali newspapers, that is was actually Isreal that was behind the whole thing and they were only trying to convince the public that they had a reason to start a war with Palestine.  That is just one example, this shit has happended throughout histoty.  It has been admitted on National televeision (C-SPAN) that there is not enough evidence against Bin Ladin to name the attack against the WTC as one of his crimes.  There is not even enough evidence to present a case to the Grand Jury.  He is simply named as the mastermind, though there is miniscule evidence against him.  Not to mention that he was actually a CIA cooperative in previous years.

More than anything, Jones takes published facts and information and makes it known to his listeners.  Anything that he talks about can be read about in respected newspapers or researched in the Library of Congress.  He is afraid of the New World Order and wants to do everything he can to stop it.  He is a voice for those of us who are also afraid of the NWO and makes information about it more available.  Everything he talks about comes from a legitiment source that can be found and read by any of this listeners.

As every day passes more and more of our rights are being threatened .  The saddest part about it is that most Americans aren't even aware of it.  I mentioned before that in any state of emergency Bush can act wihtout consulting congress, he can also call up the state National Guard for Federal purposes, our military is given permission to torture not only prisoners of war, but possible witnesses as well as their children for information.  Things are getting far out of hand over here and I think it is to a greater extent than most people realize.  As soon as the next law is passed that infringes upon a major amendment of the constitution, I am packing my bags and getting the fuck out of here.

Well, as I said - it's not that he doesn't raise some interesting points. And god knows there have been and continue to be some horrendous acts committed by goverments and big business. I'm also not suggesting that he is definitely in it for the money - but (as he might ask of government bodies) I think it's always worth asking what he stands to gain by acting the way he does. I won't speculate any further than that.

Also, I know what you're saying about published facts. But, let me just state my position on this. First of all, anything that is published is not automatically a fact. Why is it that some "newspaper articles" should be treated as having more veracity than others? Secondly, what he does is present carefully chosen "facts" that back up his argument. While there's nothing wrong with this per se, it does mean that you get a distorted view. It's the difference between typing "Cloverfield" and "Cloverfield sucks" into a search engine and concluding that because you typed in the second term and the results that came back suggested that Cloverfield sucks, then Cloverfield must indeed suck! (god knows why I chose that example)

Anyway - don't get me wrong - I'm all for people thumping tubs and shaking the system, but I prefer to get my info from a less hysterical and clearly biased source.

Let's all go live in Iceland anyway - they've got hot springs, rotten shark delicacies and volcanoes!

Wow, sounds very Messiah-like.  I have seen little of what he puts out, and it doesnt interest me.  If Michael Moore uses half truths and fancy editing to sell his stories, well, Jones uses quarter truths, and is a waste of my time, personally.  If you think he is really standing up for you and your voice then by all means, worship at his altar.  It seems more likely to me his is narcistic, paranoid and OCD, and feels that he needs to get his views out to the public because he is so much smarter and better than everyone.  Except his views are the results of incredibly carefully constructed pieces of public information that are not coherent until he makes them coherent.  He actively constructs his own beliefs, using his paranoia as catalyst, they arent sui generis, not even to him.  Even if some of the things he says raise interesting points, I dont think he is doing to help others.  He is doing it for himself.  But thats just me.  If you feel like he is speaking up for you then by all means listen to him and share what he says, I support it.  Free speech is for everyone, right? 

I suppose that the fact that I felt a need to respond in such a manner is in fact representative of my relationship to my own ego and opinions, similart o what I just accused Jones of.  So I will cop to that.  But this is a forum message board which maybe 2 dozen people will see, adn half of them already disagree with me before reading it.  So its not quite the same...

messiah like?  worship at his altar?  I think thats a bit much.  all I meant is that he reports on things that the mass media doesn't and gets out stories we might not hear otherwise.  I don't think he is a voice from us, but to us.

some time ago I probably would have said some of the same things you have.  I scoffed at some of the things he said, considering them just too far out.  Then I decided to be open minded to the him and found that though there are still things I think rediculous there are a lot of things that I consider to be very valid.  Its not his opinions I'm listening too, its the sources he has used to form the opinions, sources that I have read for myself.  And if you think he is doing all of this for himself, what exactly is it that you think he stands to gain?

I'll get back to you on this, i have to go to work.

All he has to gain is the fulfillment of his own ego.  Often, for many folks, that is more gratifying than money.

I am open minded to him, and to the theories he esposes.  I think theyre shrouded more in paranoia and grasping straws than other theorists, but I agree he does (or can on occasion) if nothing else raise interesting points.   I have nothing against that nor against doing somethign jsut for the sake of bloating youer ego or beeping your own horn, good for him.  But of the few times I have listened to him I was at the end by and large not convinced of anything other than how much I thought his logic was full of fallacies.  Other folks are printing and espousing equally subversive, controversial, anti-establishment, anti-NWO stuff, and doing it in ways I find more amenable and intelligent.  But I am open minded to him and what he is doing, he just doesnt do it well enough, in my opinion, for my continued viewership. 

I dont doubt that a bunch fo Moore's motivations are similar.  While a large part of his work is motivated on getting the truth out there and asking important questions about how our government and society work, i do not doubt for a second that another part of his motivation is a fulfillment of his own conceptions of grandiosiry.  For me, however, he just does it better than Jones, I think.  Well enough that I can watch it, notice some fallacies or slants on the truth, and still be left with important and burning questions and new social and political motivation, while watching Jones does not have a similar effect.

As far as the Messiah comment goes... your specific wording there just frightened me, a little.  While it most likely is not indicative of your relationship with Jones, it seemed to me to be a blind devotion or faith, the belief that he was finally doing for you what no one else has or can do for you.  Granted I am at Harvard getting a Masters of Divinity so I am surrounded by Christians (I am a Tibetan Buddhist), many of whom are on ordination tracks in various Christian denominations, so maybe I just have Messiah-complexes on the mind.  No offense meant, it was just the gut reaction I had when reading your words, thats all.

Pretty good debate tonight if anybody watched.  I would love to stay and discuss it, but I'm tired so I think I'll go to bed instead.

.

Well, normally I wouldn't, but that article was sent to me. It's comic relief, you need not worry about the facts.

Amen! Now if we could only get politicians to address those issues! That's the real nuts and bolts of what's destroying us right now.

This is true, and a direct violation of the Constitution. People often forget the first clause of the Second Amendment, which asserts that a well organized militia is the necessary defense of a state (I believe that no states in the union regulate militias anymore). The nat'l guard does not qualify because they can be ordered up by the president. While the Gov has final say, the president can circumvent this. Also, the militia was an organization consisting of everyone capable of serving. The Nat'l Guard is restrictive, therefore not, by definition, a militia. The militia was also intended to act as law enforcement, though more organized forms (local police) were not restricted from existing, they were not needed in most towns. Sheriff's departments handled law enforcement of the judiciary, such as prisoner trasnport and warrant service.  Jones, in fact, recently posted a raw vid of a military training drill simulating 'terrorist' crackdowns in The US. They were being trained that resistance to martial law = terrorism. They were being asked if they would shoot American citizens, many didn't answer. I'll have to find that vid. In that case, Mel is right, Jones isn't the source. However, as an organizer of sources, it's reasonable to say he'll organize them to paint whatever picture he wants, but that doesn't make the information any less-true.

The unfortunate thing is that we are the last line of defense of freedom. Other countries may enjoy different freedoms, but none define so many inate natural negative rights of its citizens as the united States. When things start to suck, everyone come up to NH. Join the Free State Project. We're not participating in REAL-ID, too Cool stuff about NH:

No seat belt laws.

No state income/sales tax.

Shall-issue Liscense to Carry, $10 for 4 yrs.

Low crime, poverty rates.

Top 5 state in education.

Your representatives are people, their office is generally their home, and you can call them and will be greeted by their spouse or chidren, not a secretary. Also, any citizen is free to come to the state house and testify on a bill they find important, good, or bad. Check it out, liberty people. If at the very least for when the ish hits the fan: http://www.freestateproject.org

I was on the Ron Paul wagon, but Obama is looking much more realistic now. As much as I love Ron Paul's stance, a vote for Obama just counts a lot more. It sucks that I have to vote that way, but at this point I would. Untill i get convinced that a vote for Ron Paul would not be a waste I'm voting Obama.

For a number of reasons, I could never support Obama, and right now I'm tackling the ethical question of whether I can cast my vote for someone like McCain as a lesser of two evils. I imagine your state has not had a primary yet, and you're not talking about the general election. While the decision is yours as to whether Obam is worth it as a lesser of 2 evils to Clinton, I'd suggest voting for RP because you won't feel guilty voting your heart and the end result helps the pro-liberty crowd gauge the size of the resistance.

Ha.  It's amusing that you could call McCain the lesser of two evils.  That man is evil.  He's a freakin' Nazi.  (That just a little joke, Giggan.  No worries, mate).

Honestly, I think McCain is the lesser of all evils in terms of the Republican candidates (RP included) in the long run.  However, I would take Hilary over him any day, and I am not a fan of Hilary at all.  I just think McCain has too many frightening policies and ideas, and just because he is good at going on TV and making fun of himself does not mean he warrants a presidential nomination.  While I dont doubt he is smarter than Bush and might very well do more *good* than BUsh (which is, seriously, not a difficult thing to accomplish) I am confident he will also do much more harm to our country than either Obama or Clinton would.

However, thanks to Ralph Nader, (who received millions of campaign dollars from some big-name Republicans) there's now a good chance that McCain might sneak past the Democratic candidate.  Because Nader is certainly not going to steal any votes from his base.

The issues (for me): Doesn't mean I agree with them on their stance, just between the two, here's the breakdown:

War - Obama

Socialized Medicine - McCain

Gun Control - McCain (He still SUCKS on this issue, but at least he's not trying to ban handguns)

Federal Reserve - Neither

Cares about the Constitution - Neither

Ending Prohibition - Obama (he's only 'sorta' for no fed raids on Pot Clinics)

Judicial Appointments - Neither

Taxes - McCain (though he'll tax us indirectly through inflation)

Backing currency - Neither

Free Speech - Obama (only because I haven't seen him infringe it yet)

Nat'l ID - Neither

Abolish Homeland Security, Dep't Ed, other worthless departments and Fed Law Enforcement - Neither

Border Security - Neither (and making US citizens get passports is not security from invaders)

Globalization/Elminating American sovereignty - Neither

The way I break it down, McCain and Obam are the same. Since guns and totalitarianism in general are my issues, I have to decide whether I see a major diff between those two there. I'm not voting for Obam, and I don't want to vote for McCain unless he has some overnight epiphany, though I'm not holding my breath. With either candidate, I'm not getting what I want.

And I don't see Nader affecting the election. I won't vote for him because if I'm going to protest vote on someone I know won't win, I'd at least vote for someone I like. People who vote for Nader are those who either would not vote ordinarily or would vote for someone else who isn't one of the annointed ones. For example, if Ron Paul was running third party, I wouldn't automatically support him unless I decided, as I'm trying to now, that neither of the appointed ones are worth my vote. I may write him in for Novermber even though I know he's not running and will also not win. And I agree, McCain is a nazi. But in a vote between Hitler and Stalin, can one chose a lesser evil, or is it moral to abstain from the vote? This is why I'm torn.

Pick up the latest ROLLING STONE, great profile on how NUTS McCain is vs. OBAMA (lots of rocknroll support).  Good lord, there is NO WAY i could ever think for a second that MCCAIN in the lesser of the two evils vs. ANY DEM - he wants to start WW3, seriously - whatever your issues and fears are, OBAMA is way less to worry about

and as far as handguns, aren't there other countries where handguns are illegal? how many handgun deaths are there a year? check this article out:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH...

30,000 gun deaths in 2004, the last year for good stats, as far as i can tell - wonder how that number would drop if handguns were illegal - you could still have rifles for hunting, and home protection

My feeling about gun control is that you should not be able to fire a gun faster than you can pull a trigger, which is to say, get rid of automatic weaponry outside of the military.  Realistically, handguns only real use is for against other people, but that's not to say they shouldn't exsist.

i see no reason for civilians to own handguns, except for the fact that other civilians own handguns.

Obviously giggan will never agree with me (or, my guess is, the two posts above me either) on this issue, and that's cool.  I am sure it is part because he wants a less controlling federal government and in part because he likes guns, which are both his right.  personally, i think we need stricter hand gun laws.  First off, I agree with Mricpx that no one short of law enforcement and military need semi automatic or automatic weapons, and even law enforcement dont really need the latter (again, except for the fact that they exist on the street in the hands of people going up against cops).  I think there should be a federal minimum requirement (i dont know what that would be exactly, but some sort of baseline) and then states could build upon that as they see fit.  The number of gun fatalities in America every year is staggering when compared to other countries, both industrialized and developing.  I dont know the reasons for it and I dont know the solution but I do know that there are numerous people in this country owning guns who i dont think should be.  When the right to bear arms was included in the Constitution, the social and political contexts were significantly different than they are now, as were the type of fire arms.  Similar to literalist readings of the Bible, it just doesnt worked, and needs to be re-examined.   But to do so would deprive Americans of their "[G]od given right" so we cant do it.  Well, I disagree.  The amount of gun violence in our country is a disgrace, and something needs to be done about it. 

(In fact, i am also entirely against hunting for sport, and ideally dont see civilians needing guns at all, because i dont think hunting should be legal.  but that is just all hypothetical, because irrelevent of my disapproval, that is something that i think folks have a right to do, whether it disgusts me or not.  what i really want is for people to realize how ridiculously contemptible hunting for sport is, and then want to give it up.  Aint going to happen in this eon, nor in this realm of existence.  But thats OK.  When those folks enter the bardo states they will have some interesting shit waiting for them.  I am sure I will too, as we create our own realities and I am for certainly not devoid of kleshas, wrong views or attachments.....)

similarly, i am against the death penalty and against the majority of the prison industrial complex as well.  never mind non-violent offenders (aka drug users, who make up something liek 50% of the prison population, and the vast majoirty of whom are black) but the prison system does not work.  Again, I do not have solutions.  I am not a politician or a strategist and all I know is I see a broken system that is continually getting worse.  I am not the man to fix it, but it certainly needs fixing.

Lets be honest, here.  I am a friggin' VEGAN.  I dont believ in enslaving (abusing, commidfying) animals.  How could I on a clear consciousness ever support what I see as atrocities?

And Giggan, I would say it is more democratic to not vote than to vote for someone you dont agree wtih (though our wonderful two party system will call you unpatriotic if you refuse to eat at its limited, useless buffet.  that only has one item.  and its crap.).  That being said, while i assume a lot of Nader voters are going to be people that would not vote for a Reublican or Democratic candidate anyway, I would be willing to bet that there are more folks who would have voted Democrat that will switch to go for Nader then there are on the Republican side.  A number of pundits think that Nader lost Gore the electoral college in 2000, and he has the same potential to do the same to Obama (or Clinton).  The fact that nearly 1 out of every 10 supporters that gave Nader more than $1,000 in 2004 were GOP members/Bush supporters, it is incredibly clear that the Republican party is well aware of this fact.  (Similarly, if RP decided to run as an independent as well, I bet there would be a few Democratic party members throwing some money he was, to try and steal some votes from McCain.)  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/09/MNGQQ7J31...

 Okay, I didn't read any of that after "I don't see any reason for civilians to own handguns..."  How about the Constitution for a start?  The bigger the government gets and the more they deny us the rights guaranteed by the constitution, the worse things will get.  As they slowly take away our rights and hope no one will notice the minor changes until one day, oops we're living in a police state.  Then you will wish you had a gun.

And that's part of the problem...people don't read, care, or look for other opinions, they just dig in and say FUCK YOU.  I'l just say Oberon got it right in the post above.  When we're in a police state, shit, guns will just be part of it.  If that's the future you see, then we're all fucked anyway.  All guns do is kill people, much like cigarettes, they have no purpose but to kill.  You can't lump in guns with free speech, it's just not fair or accurate.  I do agree with a lot you say Des, and think that big govt and business is a mess, and not a good thing, but we do need to get rid of handguns and rapid fire weapons.

That is a lie!

Seriously ScribblingDes, disagree with me all you want, but at least read my post before doing so.  I see numerous current pragmatic reasons for folks to handguns, the largest being that so many people already own them and society has convinced numerous people that having a gun is the equivalent of having safety.  I recognize that.  I also discussed my relationship with the Constitutional right to bear arms in my post.  But you didnt read that part.  So read it before you criticize it and offer your dystopian opinions.

How do you guys feel about my proposal to sell North Jersey to NY City?  We would use the profits the buy Delaware and call the new state "New Delaware" so they would go for it.  This would also keep the same number of total states, so it wouldn't mess up our flag and piss off the rest of the country.  South Jersey has all the Nuclear power plants, prisions, and Atlantic City.  It only makes sence.  I think abotu twenty years ago, their was a nonbinding proposal to secede and about six of the counties passed it.  I think I could get this movement going again.

oh yeah *shakes fist at ScribblingDes*

Hahaha, you guys have no idea how this issue gets me going. Mel, months ago, my response would have been similar to yours upon seeing wick's first anti-gun post. But I purposely didn't post until later because I knew (from experience) an emotional response would remove both parties (mine and his) from being able to look at the issue objectively. The 2nd Amendment is a clear issue where emotion is on one side, and historical evidence and fact is on another. I'm really going to try to make the argument as simple as possible, but I could literally write a boo on this. Though it's kinda already been done for me. Read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" for loads of evidence that gun control has always led to more crime. Here's just a list of random facts off the top of my head.

*Adolph Hitler authored the US' model for gun control, it was based off of the Nazi weapons act.

*The first gun control implemented in America was designed to prevent recently freed slaves from owning firearms.

*In all 20-something recognized genocides of the past century, guess how many had gun control? (I'm letting you off easy with this one, seeing the list is far more emotional. Any further denial that gun control leads to genocide and I'll be forced to pull it out, its quite lengthy.

*Switzerland has one of the lowest firearm-related crime rates in the world, and they require every man to own a pistol and what we call an "assault" weapon.

*DC is one of the world's murder by criminal with handgun capitals. Yet guns are banned...

*Massachusetts, California, New York, DC, Chicago...we associate these places with high crime. Guess how easy it is for law abiding citizens to carry there. (Near impossible)

*New Hampshire, for example has one of the lowest crime rates in the country. We have some of the least restrictive gun laws. Coincidence?

*About machine guns, they are fairly restricted now by gov't (though legally obtainable). The reason they're not used in crime is that they're impractical. Even shooting up a public place with one is impractical because the culprit would find themselves out of bullets in no time.

*More children under the age of 5 drown in water buckets (yes, simple buckets of water, or whatever liquid occupies them) than children under the age of 10 are killed by gunshot wounds. Waterbucket control, anyone?

*Guess how many of the recent school shootings occurred in gun free school zones. The recent one in Illinois, well, Illinois is one of two no-issue carry states, meaning no one can carry a handgun. The instructor in the room it occurred in said he had a CCL (I imagine he means in another state) and that he felt he could have prevented or lessened the devastation of the criminal had he been carrying.

As the Virginia Law was signed by the governor banning legal guns from college campuses, it was either the dean or the pres of the school was there, and said, (paraphrase), "This bill will make our school safer from gun violence." ...whatdayaknow? Thank you Alex Jones, cause after I wrote this, I looked for that quote. I was a little off, but still same effective meaning. A Jones' site article was where I just found it (though I had originally read it in an NRA article).  http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/170407helpedkiller.htm

*Less to do with gun control, but its interesting to note that ever school shooter since columbine was either on or had been on antidepressants (there were two specific brands the reports mentioned).

*After Bernard Goetz shot three criminals on the subway in New York in the 80s, crime for I believe the next 2 weeks dropped over 90%. ("I believe" applies to the length of time, it was between 2-3 weeks before it began rising again, then the guardian angels ramped up in the subways, the giuliani got in and took credit for reduced crime).

*The simple truth is that guns will always be attainable, and the decision you have to make for yourself who you want to have them. There's the violent sociopaths who will always have them. The free-minded patriots like myself who will never give them up (or die protecting the right) and then finally comes the law abiding sheep, who would have them if they're legal but only then. I myself am law abiding up to a point, but I am not obedient to tyranny. Edward Abbey said it best, "If gus are outlawed, number me among the outlaws." The founders were keen on this, just go to one of those cool quotes sites and search Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin's quotes on guns. It's quite enlightening. (Side note - Madison praised NH for their philosophically sound Constitution, especially Article 10, our right of revolution, which obliges the people to replace the gov't when they become destructive in their means).

Notice I barely mentioned the Constitution in here because that's a historical argument that goes way over everyone's heads most of the time. Granted, no one these days even knows what a militia is (it is not a paramilitary group that meets in the woods). If you wanna get into the Constitutional aspect of guns, almost all forms of gun control are expressly prohibited by the 2nd Amendment, and our current federal background checks system is not an implied enumerated power (though states could network this database if they really wanted to). I'll leave it there with the Constitutional aspect of gun control, but when it gets down to it, just know that the God-given right exists not only philosophically, but on this document that is supreme law of the land as well. Simply because it is law is no reason to follow it. You follow it because it makes the utmost sense to do so, and is dangerous to security to trample (notice they specifically wrote "being necessary for the security of a free state". No where else in the Constitution is anything "necessary". Side note, Madison also considered a conscientious objector clause to the US Constitution, but decided against it because since the militia was to be organized by the states, the states could determine whether to opt-everyone in or not).

Whether or not you as an individual wish to carry a gun, though I sincerely believe that forcing guns upon you would lessen crime, as a libertarian I respect your right to conscientiously object. You need not consciously respect the fact that me carrying a gun, or at least having the opportunity to reduces crime, but I do ask that you not infringe your historically flawed ideologies on my wellbeing. Guns kill people like pencils misspell words.

Oberon - I especially enjoyed reading your post. In the way it was written, I was becoming angered by some of your suggestions, and immediately my nerves would be soothed as you wrapped each idea up with 'though I wouldn't force this upon people', etc. That right there is the great thing about a free nation. We can share ideas, disagree, but not try to force these ideas upon each other. I just noticed I quoted Edward Abbey twice in this post (once in sig, once up above), yet he's someone I only agree with politically maybe 60% of the time.

OK, correct me if I say anything wrong or stupid here, but if we get rid of handguns ( a weapon that can be concealed) but still allow rifles for hunting, wouldn't that be better?  Isn't there a way to go after gangs/criminals to find handguns and rid the US of them?  Now, this has nothing to do with the contitutional right to bear arms.  Hard to argue with that, it is in the constitution, but it IS from a different time.  And jesus, what do you think would happen if everybody was "required" to carry a gun.  I think gun deaths would probably go up about 1000% don't you?  I'm not sure what the solution is - better screening process, better security at public places, better way of keeping records of who owns guns.  Maybe getting rid of handguns ISN'T the solution, but what is?

Giggan, I appreciate your post and it's points, but the vast majority of it is propaganda.  I dont mean that in a defamatory way, but rather I could find an equal number of compelling facts that argue every single point you raise.  Both sides of the issue have their publication materials, and your post is, for the most part, just one of them.  I am nto going to bother posting any propaganda from the other side soely because I know it will not sway you, just as nothing in your post swayed me in the least.  In the end I believe that most folk arguing for looser gun control laws are self-serving and short-sighted.  And then they find miscellaneous facts to support them.  While I will acknowledge that a LOT of folks arguing for things, irrelevent of what side of the fence they are, are short sighted, this is one of those issues in which it seems to me predominant.  And there are short sighted folk on this side of the fence too, arguing that stricter gun control laws are all that are needed to cure the serious problem of violence in America, which is certainly not true, as the problem is much more systemic and infects (and is glorified in) almost every aspect of American culture, but from my experience most folk on this side of the fence recognize that and only advocate stricter gun laws as one step out of many.

If there were not so many people being killed by guns in America, with a number rising every year, it would be a non-issue for me.  You can cite as many facts as you want about where violent/gun related crimes occur, but I am confident that stricter gun control laws across the board would reduce gun deaths, and loosening gun control laws across the board would increase them, in both instances especially in the first 5 years or so following the changes.

This is a point I will submit to, to a certain degree.  But it is only because of our (as a nation) lack of imagination that we allow ourselves to be fooled into believing that such things, though.  You're falling for a lie if you really think otherwise.

How old is the Constitution?  How DRASTICALLY have the American society, culture, economy, and political machine changed since then?  The 2nd Ammendment is clear, I agree.  That is why it needs to be changed. 

Neither growth nor greatness come from stagnation.  Only indifference and death.  Change the Constitution!  Make it work for now! 

I am not advocating a ban on guns.  While that would be ideal it is both unrealistic and would lead to too much dissent, especially at first.  Maybe as part of a 20 year plan or something.  No, I advocate stricter gun laws, making it more dofficult to own them, more difficult to get a license for a concealed firearm, limit the number an individual can own, and then other things, such as every year when renewing a gun license you would have to account for every gun registered to you, things along these lines.  Make them more difficult to get and make them more regulated, and increase the penalties for not following the rules.

And this, by the way, is the exact reason it terrifies me that either you own a gun, Giggan, or will soon.  Because it is folk who talk like you who do things like this.  And, no, I dont think this is a good thing.  I think it is heinous, and in fact does not lead to reduced crime but rather leads to an insurgence of vigilantes, many/most of whom will have their own prejudices, and the number of innocent deaths will go up.  (Never mind that the shooting of a non-violent / non-theatening "criminal" is a n innocent death).

How would you feel, Giggan, if you and your buddies are smoking a fat one in your dorm room, and the guy down the hall comes in with a gun, says you are all criminals, and shoots the lot of you? As long as we live in a country where grass is illegal, which it will be for a while yet, if you smoke it makes you a criminal, and in fact would probably serve more jail time than someone arrested for shoplifting.  So society has determined you the greater criminal.  Who gets to say that such crimes are not worthy of vigilante executions?

*********Wow.  Re-reading this it seems pretty harsh.  Well, it is pretty harsh, and I suppose I mean it.  But, Giggan, you seem like a pretty smart guy.  I am not insulting you, and I dont think you, when you have a gun, will go around shootin' folk you dont like.  But so a great many people that sing the same song as you do are not quite as smart.  (Which isnt to say that smart people dont kill people.  Just that smart people arent as easily convinced about the malleability of morality.)

.

I would think that, if Switzerland didn't do this experiment for us and their crime rates shot down (no pun intended). I realize it may sound crazy, but it works. More guns=less crime. That's not propaganda, because it is supported by fact. Simply compare gun laws in places with higher crime to those with lower crime.

Big brother, yay!

.

Bottom line - bans don't work. Bans on guns. Bans on drugs. Bans on sodomy. Censorship. Everything slipped through the cracks if there's a demand for it. If people want to shoot someone, they will acquire a gun. I think another reason this slips most of our minds is we see guns as complex weapons, when they're incredibly simplistic. You can make a derringer out of a metal pipe with a simple welding kit. All bans due is create a crime out of something that is otherwise a right and punishes those who are caught.

While this is often true in almost every political exchange, it can't be used as a blanket statement. I purposely listed simple facts. For every X-many shootings in a "gun-free" zone, perhaps you could find one or two in a regular place. And for every one of those that you find, I could find an article of a robbery, rape, or burglary averted.

That is not a statement backed by fact. I posted many facts which rebute that. You have not posted anything but personal inclinations as of yet.

Do you see how you surrender logic with each clause of that sentence? If it's a point you submit to, then you admit that there's truth in it. Then you say you, and us, the nation, only believe it because we're fooled into it...in that case, is it not true anymore? Then you say its an outright lie. Well, looking to other nations that have done, in many ways and many variations of what you are proposing, they all still see high rates of gun crime. The only exception I can think of is Japan, though they literally are another sort of world over there. Society itself is very controlled and based on an honor system. They are not free in the ways we are here. But if you enjoy that sort of submissive culture, by all means, pick the place that suits you. Japan still has gun-related crime just as Saudi Arabia still has drug use, even though they execute dealers by publicly beheading them every year. Force cannot be used to solve problems. Try logic and reasoning, it works well when applied (the libertarian philosophy).

Evidence of the incredibly drastic views we have of our same world...

In the world I see, there is no US Constitution because it is not abided by. The majority of all federal law is unConstitutional, as the powers they exert are not enumerated. Yet you say the Constitution is holding us back. How can it if it's not being applied?

Your solution is to do things like NY and Massachusetts. What are their crime rates? Not to mention, you're going to be putting non-violent people like myself away because I do not submit to those measures. Which is why I live in NH and not NY anymore (my fam moved here when I was a child, but I'd never go back). For every 'difficulty' you propose, keep in mind who these laws apply to. Only those who follow the law. Criminals are the people who shoot people once they have guns. They're also the people who bring guns into places guns are supposed to be "banned". What makes you think they'll abide by petty law over murder statutes? For sociopaths who view killing as a moral non-issue, they're not going to, for the greater good, submit to restrictive policies. Which is why organized crime was against the expiration of the assault weapon ban because it destroyed their sales market.

Getting back to this fact, that you're suggestions would incarcrate of kill people like me, I'd like to refer to this video of Mitt Romney. It's scary how the human mind works.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NY6UTnS6Z-A

He can't physically say, "Yes, I will arrest you. I will incarserate you, a disabled, ill person seeking treatment that your doctors confirm is the best for you." Just like the military, currently training for 'insurgency in the Unites States' being asked if they would shoot American citizens. Most of them don't answer, even though that's what they're being trained to do. Only they call them 'terrorists'.

Do something like what? Defend life, liberty, and property? Does that mean Bernie Goetz did something wrong by shooting three youths who wished to mug him? Not to mention one of them was carrying a sharpened screwdriver, they all had criminal records, and I think one is in prison now for a rape that occurred ex post facto. Rather than getting into the particulars of the case, I'll just ask if you honestly feel he did the wrong thing. I imagine you may side with the jury, who declared he was justified in shooting them, but he still was not allowed to have a gun. Do you honestly side with this lopsided logical? You can shoot someone, but you can't use a gun to do so...that's %$#@ed up.

The problem with that logic is people still have to justify why they felt threatened enough to shoot someone. In NH, we don't have a rash of these problems, because murder is still against the law. I'm Consitutionally ensured the right to bear arms, "...in defense of (my) self, liberty, property, and the state." (Section I, Art. 2a). Because I'm allowed to protect myself doesn't give me a license to kill. I could try and lie and say I killed someone in self defense that was actually innocent, however, I could use the same argument in stabbing someone, beating them, etc. I could strangle someone and say they provoked it, and adrenaline took over. That's why we have courts. Being as how I'm not proposing we get rid of courts, I'm confident we'd be protected from the Wild West view of things you fear would come as a result of governments modeling laws off of places with less crime and less gun restrictions. (By the way, the 'wild west' point gets brought up by many d-bags like sarah brady, oblivious to the fact that most of the infamously violent cities of the 'wild west' had gun control).

I've never smoked weed. But that's beside the point. Okay, let's use NH as a model again. Smoking weed is against the law (a misdemeanor, and on the 12th I'll be at the state house handing out fliers for decriminalization). Underage drinking is against the law. I'll admit, I've been 'guilty' of that non-violent offense. Under NH state law, no one can shoot me for doing these things. Why? Because guns are used in defense of people's selves their liberty, their property and the state. I'm violating none of those by committing victimless crimes. You have the idea in your head that these things will happen, but frankly, anyone looking at the facts will tell you they do not. Bernard Goetz didn't shoot those punks on the subway for panhandling.

Executions, in my mind area punishment or sentence carried out for some reason. Firearms used in self defense are a last resort, so there would be no, "executions".

After seeing you're edit, I understand that you aren't so much aiming these potential problems at me, but I see the right to carry of all people having less to do with political articulation as it does defense of one's self. Ignorant use of anything can land someone in trouble, drunk driving, throwing rocks off a bridge, etc. Therefore, firearm responsibility is as important as the right itself. I can't imagine what it's like to be raised in an anti-gun household and buy or acquire a gun for the first time alone. I've introduced most of my friends to shooting (those who were interested) and I know some will chose to own firearms at some point and some will chose not to, because it is a responsibility. Ignorance and irresponsibility can be avoided through training and education, but malice cannot be prevented from existing. Which is why I believe everyone should have the ability to exist on the same playing field, nobody should be forced to be a victim, and everyone should have the ability to acquire, maintain, and bear arms.

I'll extend the invitation to you two, Oberon and Wickercat, that if you ever find yourself in NH and want to experience the gunsmoke craving, you've got a ticket to the range, on me.

I'd like to ease everyone's minds right now. This video brought a lot of joy to my life when I found it a few weeks ago, and maybe seeing the man jam will ease your mind, and so I speak with music...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QiYyHNgeFA8

An on topic post!!!  Really interesting Obama article, discussing the Republicans he is (potentially) eyeing for his cabinet, among other things:

 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3466823.ece

Some highlights:

"Remember New Hampshire!" --(that one was for you, Giggan!)

He drew the noisiest whoops and cheers of the day when he admonished parents for their failings. “Turn off the TV set, put the video game away. Buy a little desk or put that child at the kitchen table. Watch them do their homework. If they don’t know how to do it, give them help. If you don’t know how to do it, call the teacher. Make them go to bed at a reasonable time. Keep them off the streets. Give them some breakfast. Come on! And since I’m on a roll, if you’re child misbehaves in school, don’t cuss out the teacher! Do something with your child!”

It is impossible to imagine either Clinton or McCain addressing a crowd in this manner without sounding bossy and patronising. Obama pulled it off with humour.

Clinton has been outshone by a candidate who resembles her husband more than she does. At a rally in Beaumont, Texas, Samantha Bartley, 40, said she had expected to vote for Hillary. “Because we knew him, we thought we knew her. Bill inspired me when I was young. Now I’ve got my 18-year-old, my 20-year-old and my 21-year-old all voting for the first time. Barack Obama’s charisma reminds me of Bill and makes me feel young again.”

for some reason, all of a sudden, this thread is all messed up for me (not content, but actual page layout) so I do not know what video youre talking about, Giggan, and even fi I did I dont understand your paragraph introducing it...

I agree, I did not produce any facts.  I said I wasnt going to.  They are out there, less than a Google search away.  I presented my opinions on the issue.

This is fallacious.  The number of factors influencing crime and murder rates between any two countries is much more than gun control laws.  You cannot take one difference among many between two countries and claim it is the reaosn that any of the differences exist.  So, no, your supposition is not supported by fact.  It is a fact that Switzerland has less crime (and gun deaths) than the USA, and it is also true that it has more lenient gun laws.  But there are myriad other factors in play.  This is Michael Moore/Alex Jones quality manipulation here, folks.  Dont fall for it Giggan.  Use WHOLE truths to back your opinions, not manipulative half truths that you have openly spoken out against.

This is supposition, not fact. Again, a manipulation of data to appear as coherent facts, sir.  Not truth nor a realistic portrayl of the situation.

I agree my response is somewhat convoluted.  I submit to the fact that it is a reality that guns are out there, and that since guns are out there it is dangerously unrealistic to even propose getting rid of them entirely.  However, I am saddened because the logic you offer, which is not coming from you but numerous NRA and other pro-gun agendas, is due to a lack of imagination and I so not support it at all and lament that it has become accepted as fact.

I am confused as to why you fall back on the Constitutional right to bear arms, then...

This is true, but not entirely so.  There is a significant amount of gun violence and deaths caused by legally registered guns.  Many of these guns are owned by people who rightfully should not have been given guns in the first place (according to existing gun laws, which are circumvented in order for profit).  Included in stricter gun laws would be stricter sentencing for possessing an unregistered firearm or for having in your possesion a firearm not registered to you.  This is in part why I would expect gun owners to yearly prove that they still have in their possession all of the guns that are registered to them, with serial numbers in tact).  In addition to things I mentioned, another important part would be a stricter and more diligent watch over gun distributors.   I would not be putting someone like you in jail, assuming you have no convictions for non-victimless crime and have no psychiatric record that suggest you are a danger to yourself or others, you would have to fill out some paperwork and wait for a waiting period and then you would have yourself a gun.  Maybe you would be put away if you carried it concealed, because I see little reason for that for civilians and think those laws should be seriously strengthened, but you would be allowed to own one and protect your house and your family ang your safety.

I admit I do know the case, and from your post was under the impression he killed the youths in question.   IF he illegally had a concealed weapon, yes he should have been punished for that.  Was he allowed to protect himself and his porperty?  Yes, but without lethal force and without more than necessary force.  Since I do nto know the particulars of the case I will stop there, except  for adding that any crimes committed by any of the offenders since that time are in no way imaginable justification for anything he did.  While we can use past (and in this case, future?) actions as a means of assessing people, we cannot convict them for such things.

My point is that not everyone is of equal level-headed temperment.  Yes, drug possession or underage drinking are misdemeanor, non-violent offenses (which really begs the question, why are folks arressted on pot possession often in jail longer than folks arrested for manslaughter?  But thats another thread...)  even though they are such trivial crimes, if such vigilantism is promoted, it is not a stretch to imagine that an over-excited goon down the way who doesnt like you will find perfect justification in his enforcement of the law.  It is a very slippery slope, to start promoting vigilantism.

Ideally.  IN the scenario presneted above, though, when an over-excited, new gun owner who decides he will interpret the law as he sees fit because it has become socially acceptable to do so, who shoots someone for a petty offense such as pot possession.  Would that not be an execution?

[Quote=Giggan]

 Therefore, firearm responsibility is as important as the right itself. I can't imagine what it's like to be raised in an anti-gun household and buy or acquire a gun for the first time alone. I've introduced most of my friends to shooting (those who were interested) and I know some will chose to own firearms at some point and some will chose not to, because it is a responsibility. Ignorance and irresponsibility can be avoided through training and education, but malice cannot be prevented from existing. Which is why I believe everyone should have the ability to exist on the same playing field, nobody should be forced to be a victim, and everyone should have the ability to acquire, maintain, and bear arms.

 When you find a way to regulate responsibility while you're handing out guns, then we will talk.  Until then this is a pipe dream.  Tougher gun laws, regarding selling, buying, possessing and using them, is an attempt to construct and enforce some of the repsonibility you are referencing.

[Quote=Giggan]

I'll extend the invitation to you two, Oberon and Wickercat, that if you ever find yourself in NH and want to experience the gunsmoke craving, you've got a ticket to the range, on me.

Thanks for the invite.  I have been toa  gun range, on more than one occasion.  Guns are fun, I get that.  Doesnt mean I think everyone should be walking around with holsters at their belt. 

I dont have a source for it, but I remember a few years ago statistics coming out (again, propaganda from the opposite side of the fence than you, Giggan) that showed that gun owners (who purchased with the intent to protect themselves) accidentally shoot themselves or their loved ones more often than they protect themsleves, and having a gun in your house does not make your house any safer against burglary or theft.

 Wow, I don't have time to read all of the replies since my last post, but I will post a few sources to back up my earlier statement.

Anytime a totalitarian regime has come about in recent history it has begun by disarming its citizens.

[QUOTE]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control

A position taken by gun rights advocates is that an armed citizenry is the population's last line of defense against tyranny by their own government. They point out that many soldiers in the American Revolution were ordinary citizens using their privately owned firearms. In addition, the people's power to replace elected officials by voting is sufficient to keep the government in check.

Indeed, there is a historical regularity in that totalitarian regimes pass gun control legislation as a first step of their reign of terror. The sequence is supposed to be gun registration, followed some time later by confiscation. Nazi legislation is the most famous example of this sequence, but it also occurred in Marxist regimes.

Invasion by hostile outside forces is another reason gun rights advocates oppose registration. If captured, the associated records would provide invaders with a means of locating and eliminating law-abiding resistance fighters. Location and capture of such records is a standard doctrine taught to military intelligence officers. Registration aside, gun rights advocates point out that an armed citizenry is a strong deterrent against a foreign invasion. [/QUOTE]

The Libertarian Party Website pretty much sums up my feelings:

[QUOTE]

http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-rights.shtml

Email this page
 Printer friendly page

Why Libertarians Support Equal Rights for America's Gun Owners

Libertarians, like other Americans, want to be able to walk city streets safely and be secure in their homes. We also want our Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of our civil liberties. In particular, Libertarians want to see all people treated equally under the law, as our Constitution requires. America's millions of gun owners are people too.

Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity. Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties.

Constitutional Rights

America's founders fought the Revolutionary War to throw off British tyranny. Most of the revolutionaries owned and used their own guns in that war. After the war, in 1789, the 13 American States adopted the Constitution, creating the federal government. Before ratifying the Constitution, the people demanded a Bill of Rights to prevent our government from depriving them of their liberties as the British had done.

One of the most important protections we have against government tyranny is that we are presumed innocent of any crime until proven guilty, before a jury, in a proper trial.

Gun control advocates would declare all gun owners guilty without trial, simply for owning guns, even though millions of them have never used their guns to harm another person. Such blanket condemnation is immoral, unfair andcontrary to the principles on which America was founded.

The Prohibition Lesson

Gun control advocates are much like the prohibitionists of the early 20th Century. By making liquor illegal, they spawned organized crime, caused bloody, violent turf wars and corrupted the criminal justice system. Today's war on drugs has exactly the same results.

Prohibition didn't stop liquor use; the drug laws can't stop drug use. Making gun ownership illegal will not stop gun ownership.

The primary victim of these misguided efforts is the honest citizen whose civil rights are trampled as frustrated legislators and police tighten the screws.

Banning guns will make guns more expensive and give organized crime a great opportunity to make profits in a new black market for weapons. Street violence will increase in new turf wars. Criminals will not give up their guns.But, many law abiding citizens will, leaving them defenseless against armed bandits.

The Right of Self Defense

Libertarians agree with the majority of Americans who believe they have the right to decide how best to protect themselves, their families and their property. Millions of Americans have guns in their homes and sleep more comfortably because of it. Studies show that where gun ownership is illegal, residential burglaries are higher. A man with a gun in his home is no threat to you if you aren't breaking into it.

The police do not provide security in your home, your business or the street. They show up after the crime to take reports and do detective work. The poorer the neighborhood, the riskier it is for peaceful residents.

Only an armed citizenry can be present in sufficient numbers to prevent or deter violent crime before it starts, or to reduce its spread. Interviews with convicted felons indicate that fear of the armed citizen significantly deters crime. A criminal is more likely to be driven off from a particular crime by an armed victim than to be convicted and imprisoned for it. Thus, widespread gun ownership will make neighborhoods safer.

Foolish politicians and police now seek to ban semi-automatic "assault rifles". They ignore the fact that only honest citizens will comply; criminals will still have them. Such a ban will only increase the criminals' ability to victimize the innocent.

Personal Responsibility

Guns are not the problem. They are inanimate objects. Gun control advocates talk as if guns could act on their own, as if human beings cannot control them, so the uncontrollable guns must be banished.

Let us put the responsibility where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. If he or she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or harm has been done. Leave them in peace. But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others.

Rather than banning guns, the politicians and the police should encourage gun ownership, as well as education and training programs. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion. America's founders knew that. It is still true today.

[/QUOTE]

Now, I think everyone should listen to and what is on this website:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c6d_1195533394

It mentions the gun ban in Washington DC and how after its passing the murder rate actually went UP, even though the national rate went DOWN.  Also, a county in California required citizens to own guns, did the crime rate go up there?  No.

If someone comes into my house to rob or hurt me I am going to feel a lot safer pointing a gun at them than anything else.  I am not quick or strong and would not be able to defend myself physically.  Even a knife wouldn't likely help me, I have little faith that I would be able to get close enough to the person threatening me and stab them in the right place without being seriously harmed in trying.  

 
I would write more, but I have a very cute boy to go see!