Have Republicans Gone Insane?

[CaneBrain 95]

And the new governor of Ohio is.....whatever democrat runs in the next election. Small government never seemed so big.

[MPaler 72]

Well, Ohio's Republican governor signed the new budget today which included a last minute abortion bill that wasn't debated anywhere. We now have the strictest abortion laws in the US. It includes 2.7 billion worth of cuts targeting the poor and middle class, tax cuts for the wealthy, and an increase in sales tax which is also regressive. The term pro-life has become such a joke, because Conservatives are anything but. They are anti-life when it comes to women, poor, and minorities. Closing Planned Parenthood and taking away health access for the poor is reprehensible. They also threw in raping the women with vaginal ultrasounds, waiting periods and if they are having a "crisis" they can't be sent to a public hospital, only a "private" read Christian hospital where they can't get a life saving abortion if needed. They have truly become the party of Fascism, Jesus Brotherhood, and the wealthy elite.

...As your answer given to a republicans-on-guns debate.

 

That is priceless. I wish you libs would better regulate your meds. Hey, I have an idea....how about....put that in....a thread...about....ABORTION. Then, you can go there and start your first post with "Well, Ohio's Republican governor thinks that more strict gun control has nothing to do with abortion, but he is so wrong.....

 

Silly lefties, sanity is for the rest of us.

[funyet 53]

Dude, if you're sane, I'm a roast beef sandwich.

[MPaler 72]

England and Japan have a combined death from gun total of about 50 per year. Are those countries worried about being overthrown by their governments? And really, we aren't even talking about taking the guns away, simply some sensible precautions like we do for every other dangerous thing in the US. Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.

 

Instead of making your argument based on the most unbelievable (50? Combined, only 50?) stat I have ever seen someone throw out (please provide link to that combined stat, please, if you even have one that is not some lone blogger making it up as he goes) try looking at this if you can stand it.

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528 That was actually done by someone who does not just make stuff up. Or, gor just why it works in Japan, how about: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/japan-safe-guns-article-1.1223065

 

Quote:

"Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.

 

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

 

In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.

 

In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.

 

The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place."

 

 

 

What was that combined number again?

[MPaler 72]

Dude, if you're sane, I'm a roast beef sandwich.

 

Hello Mr. Roast Beef sandwich. By-the-by, try quoting the original post or mentioning names. Makes who you are talking to/about far easier to discern, incase your reply does not end up directly under the comment you are commenting back to and even then, it removes all doubt. Then again, that is a typical liberal thing, isn't it? Assume everyone all around the world just knows what you are talking about at any given moment. You probably agree then, abortion is a good counter point when talking about guns? I'm sure you do. Let me help you; you just fill in your response within the supplied parentheses with your own words (where it says "insert your..."):

 

"Hey, MPaler, that response made by Roll about Abortion, that made perfect sense when talking about guns because (insert your argument supporting that statement). As you can see, (insert your additional evidence supporting your argument), and that is why it makes sense to me."

 

Or, just put some obvious, silly remarks you think would be funny, into those spaces, as that will also serve the same purpose.

 

 

 

Silly lefties, common sense is for the rest of us.

[funyet 53]

Hello Mr. Roast Beef sandwich.

 

[CaneBrain 95]

I think we all know to whom he was referring.

[MPaler 72]

I think we all know to whom he was referring.

 

So, do you often listen to what a roast beef sandwich tells you? Wait, your roast beef sandwich talks to you?

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

This guy is outta his fckin mind.

 

The liking of his own posts really solidified it for me. Well, that and all of his gibberish

[MPaler 72]

 

So, a is calling a

a

 

News alert! Roast beef sandwich discovered communicating with humans thru social media using pictures!!!

[MPaler 72]

This guy is outta his fckin mind.

 

The liking of his own posts really solidified it for me. Well, that and all of his gibberish

 

What, you don't like your own posts? Then don't post them! (liking my own post was an inside joke I failed to share with the world, so sorry I did not include you in the joke. But you are in it now. Happy?)

 

And since you never bluff players too ignorant to understand what you are trying to do, I should not try to converse with people too ignorant to understand what I am saying, either.

[funyet 53]

liking my own post was an inside joke I failed to share with the world

 

[MPaler 72]

Wait,I think it's trying to communicate with us again....apparently, it only knows one picture; give it time. It's only a roast beef sandwich...maybe we can communicate back with it.....

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Dude. Stfu. Seriously, you think you're clever, but you're making a fool of yourself.

 

I'm one of the more Conservative posters on this site and think you're a nitwit.

[mrdannyg 274]

I hate this argument so much, because everyone is so god damned horrible at it.

 

 

I'm pretty centrist. I tend to vote Democrat because I believe the influence of the Christian lobby destroys any chance the GOP has of governing responsibly. (Yes, I understand there are factions that own the Democrats, too, but I think the Christian right is the worst.) I vote Republican at a local level reasonably often, assuming the candidate doesn't run too far to the right. I suppose I am technically left of center, because I believe the worst of the right is worse than the worst of the left, but I have voted Republican quite often.

 

As far as the gun debate goes, I've done a 180 over the last year. I used to be hardcore gun control, but it was never a voting issue for me, because I grew up in a pretty gunless family. Until I was 21, I had never held a firearm. We didn't hunt or shoot or whatever, so I didn't care about guns. As far as I saw it, guns were, for the most part (and simplified past the point of reason) an instrument of death, not safety. For the most part, I thought 2nd Amendment was archaic, a relic of a different time. I've never been compelled by the "we need guns to defend ourselves against robbers and shit" argument. I've always found it philosophically and empirically lacking.

 

That being said, I honestly believe disarming the public is dangerous. Too often populations become too complacent too quickly. "Things have been fine for four generations? THINGS WILL ALWAYS BE FINE!" A populace capable of defending itself from the government, even when that government is checked and seemingly benign, is crucial to Democracy. The will of the people depends on the people being able to enforce their will. The previous sentence, a year ago, would have driven me insane if I'd read it, but now it makes sense to me. The 2nd Amendment was the Founders' way of ensuring the public could fight for the other 9, which is something I didn't really grok until lately.

 

Exactly how armed the public should be not an easy question to answer, which is why we have this debate, and I believe there should be more restrictions than there are in many cases, but I can respect the notion that gun ownership is an absolute, inalienable, fundamental right.

 

I never thought I would say that.

 

 

EDIT: I still don't own a gun, and I likely never will. Gun control is still way down the voting list for me.

 

 

MOST IMPORTANT EDIT:

 

Everything Balloon Guy and MPaler say is still fucktarded.

 

Jesus Christ, BalloonGuy, the reason Democrat-sponsored gun bills allow huge mags or assault weapons or whatever is because Republicans would never pass anything else. Even if the left has a majority, passing a tough gun bill is swallowed by politics moments after it's written. You know that, right? How politics works?

 

Jesus Christ, MPaler, what are you talking about?

 

My problem with the crux of your post is that the American public is so far removed from actually having the ability to defend itself from the government that it shouldn't even be used as an argument for or against. If we were debating whether private citizens should be able to own tanks and nuclear weapons, or whether someone should or shouldn't be held in jail while awaiting trial for shooting a police officer if they claim self defence, then we'd be arguing that point.

 

The Second Amendment is dead. It is an anachronism. There's no reason to discuss gun control except as it pertains to public safety (which may mean more or less), because relating it to your ability to defend yourself against the current state of government is absurd.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Instead of making your argument based on the most unbelievable (50? Combined, only 50?) stat I have ever seen someone throw out (please provide link to that combined stat, please, if you even have one that is not some lone blogger making it up as he goes) try looking at this if you can stand it.

 

http://townhall.com/...banned-n1464528 That was actually done by someone who does not just make stuff up. Or, gor just why it works in Japan, how about: http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1223065

 

Quote:

"Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.

 

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

 

In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.

 

In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.

 

The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place."

 

 

 

What was that combined number again?

 

That's hilarious. Don't you really have the ability to look at this and discern what I said or what they wrote. Notice they don't list the actual deaths, which as I said, averages around 50 per year. You scream about gun violence rising in that country and list yearly stats that wouldn't be a good night in half the Louisiana counties. And do you know why the gun violence is rising there? Most believe it is carry over violence from the US as disgruntled youth emulate Americans. England along with the rest of the civilized world looks on us with horror, and simply wonder if we'll ever get it. As long as their are people like you here looking at any information with confirmation bias to confirm your love of violence over children dying or people wanting to live free from gun violence, then they will continue to consider us the uncivilized heathens that we are.

[Roll the Bones 74]

...As your answer given to a republicans-on-guns debate.

 

That is priceless. I wish you libs would better regulate your meds. Hey, I have an idea....how about....put that in....a thread...about....ABORTION. Then, you can go there and start your first post with "Well, Ohio's Republican governor thinks that more strict gun control has nothing to do with abortion, but he is so wrong.....

 

Silly lefties, sanity is for the rest of us.

 

What's hilarious is that I made that post in a thread "I started" about Republican insanity. Looks like more proof showed up.

[MPaler 72]

That's hilarious. Don't you really have the ability to look at this and discern what I said or what they wrote. Notice they don't list the actual deaths, which as I said, averages around 50 per year. You scream about gun violence rising in that country and list yearly stats that wouldn't be a good night in half the Louisiana counties. And do you know why the gun violence is rising there? Most believe it is carry over violence from the US as disgruntled youth emulate Americans. England along with the rest of the civilized world looks on us with horror, and simply wonder if we'll ever get it. As long as their are people like you here looking at any information with confirmation bias to confirm your love of violence over children dying or people wanting to live free from gun violence, then they will continue to consider us the uncivilized heathens that we are.

 

So, this is exactly what you posted;

 

"England and Japan have a combined death from gun total of about 50 per year. Are those countries worried about being overthrown by their governments? And really, we aren't even talking about taking the guns away, simply some sensible precautions like we do for every other dangerous thing in the US. Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people."

It's roughly 155, not 50 (.25 per 100,000, 62 million people). So yes, less death than US, but at the same time a clear increase in gun violence which will what? Lessen those numbers? And how are they showing any increase in gun violence despite all those restrictive gun laws? Just how does that happen? Would not more restrictive laws equal less gun violence? Fewer deaths? I thought that was the point of more restrictive gun laws. I understand that it cannot compare to our own rates, however, it is on the rise despite all those restrictions. Why? How? "Most believe it is carry over violence from the US as disgruntled youth emulate Americans." Really? That is awfully convenient. So, no matter what we do, it is still our fault? Our fault that gun crime is increasing in other countries? That isn't a lame excuse? Why is this effect showing only in the last few years? If that were true, there would there be a history showing that, right? I should think so.

 

So restrictions do work as expected and if they do not, blame it on America, not the restrictions for failing to work as promised. That about right? Have I got that correct?

[MPaler 72]

Dude. Stfu. Seriously, you think you're clever, but you're making a fool of yourself.

 

I'm one of the more Conservative posters on this site and think you're a nitwit.

 

Clearly, you have mistaken me for caring. I did notice you did not seem to mind Funyets post, who I was posting back. Friend of yours? At any rate, how about you STFU and mind your own posts. Fair enough? You deal with loony libs your way, I'll deal with them mine.

[MPaler 72]

What's hilarious is that I made that post in a thread "I started" about Republican insanity. Looks like more proof showed up.

 

Perhaps you should revisit your original post? It was about insane Republicans and the gun laws stated as proof of that insanity. Not abortion. I rest my case. We continue to talk about guns. I should think Republicans and Abortion warrants it's own post. Clearly, you do not agree.

 

You are correct! Hilarious!

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

What's the consensus, 16 year old kid who thinks he's the smartest one in the room because he's used to hanging with other 16 year olds?

[ShakeZuma 585]

My problem with the crux of your post is that the American public is so far removed from actually having the ability to defend itself from the government that it shouldn't even be used as an argument for or against.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Egyptian_revolution

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_civil_war

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

[mrdannyg 274]

http://en.wikipedia...._of_Thermopylae

 

http://en.wikipedia....ench_Revolution

 

http://en.wikipedia....volutionary_War

 

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Vietnam_War

 

https://en.wikipedia..._in_Afghanistan

 

http://en.wikipedia....2001â€"present)

 

https://en.wikipedia...tian_revolution

 

http://en.wikipedia....ibyan_civil_war

 

http://en.wikipedia....yrian_civil_war

 

I have no idea what you're getting at. I assume you're referring to successful revolutions by an armed populace. I'm going to have a hard time comparing the military dichotomy of what the average American can legally have to their government with most of those examples.

 

And, unlike in most of those examples, an unarmed revolution actually has the potential for success in today's era.

 

Despite my weak counterpoints, I will allow that an armed revolution could have the desired effect in the United States today. So while I don't consider the Second Amendment to be sufficient to be the sole justification for lawmaking, I will retract my earlier statement and allow that it should be used as a general consideration.

[CaneBrain 95]

Be serious, Shake.

[MPaler 72]

I have no idea what you're getting at. I assume you're referring to successful revolutions by an armed populace. I'm going to have a hard time comparing the military dichotomy of what the average American can legally have to their government with most of those examples.

 

And, unlike in most of those examples, an unarmed revolution actually has the potential for success in today's era.

 

Despite my weak counterpoints, I will allow that an armed revolution could have the desired effect in the United States today. So while I don't consider the Second Amendment to be sufficient to be the sole justification for lawmaking, I will retract my earlier statement and allow that it should be used as a general consideration.

 

Does gun ownership rivaling population hasten the will to enter a conflict, as it is far easy to start a revolution with an armed population than without? I should think so, yes. On the flip side of that coin, does that alone keep our Government in check; prevent them from going too far, making them eventually pull back in fear of that conflict? I also think so, yes. Are they aware of the quote "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." (http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/TJ.html) Then, could gun ownership actually be the biggest obstacle standing in the way of tyranny being put upon us by our own Government? Has there ever been, in world history, such a well armed population that has fallen into tyranny at the hands of their own government? I do not think there has.

 

Then the mere absence of a threat alone is not a good reason to reduce or disarm. A man standing holding a gun might not ever use it in his defense. Many would then ask "why stand with that gun then, if you have never had to use it in your defense against criminals?” And he would answer "because without it, I am visibly defenseless and therefore invite the criminals to commit their crimes against me. By standing here with this gun, they will instead seek out others they can more safely commit crimes against, those standing without a gun, like...you.”

 

So, a balanced approach is called for, is it not? More guns should go into areas that have higher crime/are vulnerable (schools and other public locations via more concealed carry permits). More restrictions should be placed on the “full tilt war” grade guns (you need to defend your house against an invading army? If ever you do, you will clearly have problems that larger/more guns will not help). Change the "no guns allowed" signs to "This is a concealed carry weapon permit only zone", as that makes you think twice about just how much resistance you will come up against should you decide to go on a shooting spree; simply put, you will not know.

 

Does that sound too far out?