This is starting to look like a mandate....

 

 

 

Let's hope that this is a change for the better... But all life is change, and America is not exempt. The dejection on Fox news is palatable.

 

If you are in the Obama is Socialist camp, then Socialism must have been in the cards. Get used to it. To those who felt it was no real change to elect Obama, I guess an African-American in office is not change enough (it is change enough for me). To those who voted for Prop. 2... BOO! I guess equality is only on your terms, and this election of a black man is some sort of aberration. It was not long ago that blacks were NOT equal to the rest of "us." I would pray for you, if it wasn't a fruitless exercise for an athiest like me. We are all equal, and must strive for peace. This election can be good, you know. It might be a good thing for the world for a progressive America, since that is the definition of the term "progressive." Did you think of that, that you might be wrong thinking Obama is wrong for America? You could be wrong ("God" forbid)! I have seen enough politics where I am convinced, at least for now, electing a black man is the coolest thing America has ever done!

 

Now that there is no hanging chads to argue about, and it is pretty clear how America thinks, lets really work to understand the universiality of mankind. Peace to all.

 

One last thought... America is more than economics! It is leadership, where cooler heads might have a chance to prevail.

 

 

To those who won tonight.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm still in office for two months! Bwahahahaaa!

 

 

 

 

 

peace out, boy scout

 

 

 

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

Some Random Thoughts...

 

I want to remind people how cool how an Obama win is.

 

Today, every first grader from every inner-city school is saying: hey, I can be president of the United States. Is that not America, or what?

 

And the world is saying; "there is hope for America". Remember, we just elected someone to run the country, by the highest vote count ever, who could not even piss in the same bathroom as the whites a generation ago. That was not bullshit, it was the LAW. Is it not a good thing to give a whole generation of Americans the goal of POTUS? Instead of success equating rap stars and sports fame?

 

My senior year of high school (1979), also the highest recorded marijuana use by seniors, had a SWAT team on the roof of the school. As a result of race riots. Blacks agains Italians, and it was about something pretty stupid, in retrospect. (hint: it was about pot!) Doesn't it seem petty now, when equality for all is an achievable goal?

 

Do you hear the rumbling? It is the collective generations of people spinning in their graves. I am so proud. It is a genuine rebellion. Never mind the economic policies of Obama, the rebellion envisioned by the 60', 70's and 80's have begun to rear its head! It is not an economic thing, for those who want to narrow it in purely economic terms. That idea is self centered! We are seeing social change at is most base. A person of color to reach the top of the American political structure is something pretty damn special. If you want to call it Socialism, so be it. If you think that Obama will not bring any change, and that the whole system needs a reset, get real! A black man is in charge, is that not change? A real change has come, and if that is not enough for you, so what? Let's get a dose of reality, the American people will only accept a change on their own terms, and this is it!

 

So you label President Obama a "Socialist." Do you think any person of the age of the Civil Rights movement would be called anything else? Any notion of equality and fairness, especially in the framework of race, can be decried as socialist. It is a charge bordering on racism. The redistribution of wealth is an attractive notion to a class of people who have been denied real wealth their entire lives. As Chris Rock once said; a basketball player is rich, the owner of the team is wealthy! The equality of race, when you reflect, screams of socialism. Who cares? This is the change America needs, and Obama is intelligent enough to rise to the challenge.

 

The saving grace is that a mandate has been an achieved. A decisive victory which will quash any discussion of voter fraud and hanging chads. Thankfully ACORN is history. If it was even close, we would be arguing this election for months. The election will put to rest any doubt, and any opportunity for the Supreme Court to decide this election.

 

One last thought... leave it to a black man to clean up the mess of the rich white guy! Good luck President Obama.

 

Gooooo USA!

 

Phil

 

Hey maybe when Bush is out of office. We can convict him with war crimes if the son of the bitch didn't pardon himself first. We hung Saddam Hussien, now I want to see this bastard hang! Honestly do you not think that this man is capable of one more enormous fuck-up before he leaves? Smooth transition my ass. I'm happy McCain didn't win mostly because of his idiotic veep pick. Even Fox News had to report she was a complete dumbass. Finally a smart person in the White House!

 

-Schan

 

Excuse me Schan... you have taken it over the edge there. I was grooving with some of what phil is saying despite our differences. However, if thoughts like yours just there are the general theme of Obama supporters, I am proud to say I'm not one. Honestly, do you in earnest believe that our current president should be hanged? I can't even begin to tell you how much that sounds just like unbridled rage. Please check it, if you can.

 

- Danny

 

Pul-leez, you do remember that this is the man who allowed torture for anyone who is a suspected "terrorist", invaded Iraq under false claims of weapons of mass destruction, then said Saddam Hussien had to be removed because he was a threat, then said we had to bring democracy to Iraq, admitted to spying on Americans, approved waterboarding, made the faulty no child left behind act, fired U.S. attorneys for political reasons, spent billions on Katrina, alienated most of the United Nations, violated countless international laws the interior department was in a masive ethics scandal which involved billions of taxpayer's money from oil, we were at a surplus during the Clinton administration now we are at a deficit of 10 trillion dollars, now we are at 2 wars, one which we have to pull troops out of Iraq by 2012, the other which no one has any clue when it will end, he is trying to get himself pardoned from any war crimes before he gets out of office. Anyone who ruins countless lives and tries gets away with it is a coward. I'm sorry but you're protecting him for what, so he can go to his ranch and laugh his ass off at the people who got the short end of the stick? HE made those decisions, no one else said, "let's invade Iraq", "suspend habeas corpus". Saddam Hussien was tried by the Iraq government and he lost, he was the PRESIDENT. What we can't have a trial against the soon to be former president of the United States? He made just as many bad decisions as Saddam Hussien, he can have the same punishment as him. I believe in karma, what goes around comes around. I'm pretty sure Bush deserved it. I'm tired of seeing the constitution being ripped into shreds for his selfish gains, a failing economy, a failing education system, no privacy, no human rights, the stereotype that Americans are THAT stupid, and the people who commit crimes can get away with it.

 

Now which of these items I listed constitute unbridled rage? People died for less, and there is no way that this coward is going to get off scott free.

 

-schan

 

 

We have a peaceful transfer of power every four years, let's not forget that. Obama represents change not because of his skin color, but for the accepted change he represents in America. A man of color taking the place of a white man in the top seat of power, without bloodshed and rioting in the streets. Saddam Hussein won his initial election by 100% because he was a dictator, and promoted a more intense fear in his citizens. Bush won his election because we are soft and pudgy Americans and were afraid to lose our guns, beer and TMZ. We let this happen to us, without question. We must remember that a part of the right to vote is a right NOT to vote. The problem is that not voting is what gets us the mess we currently have. The change represented by Obama is working the system that we have now, and unless we have a violent overthrow of government (which is unrealistic) this is the extent of the change we can allow. Bush happened to America because we let him! Don't forget that! We will never have any war crimes for the President, since we sanctioned our leader implicitly. We are a country of Playstation 3 and Happy Meals and the comfort is really what we worship. The fear is so prevalent in a society because it is so easy, we are so comfortable. We need to be aroused from our drunken slumber due to TV and delivered pizza. Karl Marx referred to religion as an "opiate" of the masses, but entertainment is the real opiate. Video games, television and the Internet all conspire to keep our nation weak and pliant. And those in power have no problems keeping it that way. We talk about change, but when it comes to it we only can accept so much. Obama represents pushing the envelope of change, and it is good.

 

- Phil

 

technically we really didn't have a "peaceful" transfer of power EVERY 4 years, but it's a good guess. We still had the Great Depession going between the Hoover/Roosevelt transfer along with WW2. Mind you I don't think Obama actually has the capacity to change the fundamentals or bring extreme change but I'm hoping he couldn't do possibly worse than the current administration has done. Huh I don't think the PS3 was really that popular here, mostly it's the wii and Xbox 360. You do realize that after people stop celebrating how the GOP lost almost everything, there will be a huge political war and possibly a racial one coming soon. It's quite amusing that since Obama got elected, gun sales shot up dramatically. Don't they realize the that most of the time the people getting shot are the gunowners themselves? I'm sure they missed the article about that boy being killed handling a machine gun. I like the 2nd amendment, but it's riduculous giving citizens weapons that pierce through body armor, high powered assualt rifles, weapons that can take down a plane. What are they endorsing killing law enforcement? Seriously, a regular handgun and the occasional hunting rifle ought to be enough for the general public. You don't need military-powered weapons to defend yourself from the occasional nut with a knife. Democrats are NOT taking away your guns, they want the "big boy" toys left to the "big boys" I doubt they could actually pass a bill to ban regular handguns.

 

-schan

 

You unmasked me as someone who does not play videogames, I got rid of my PS2 two years ago. Waste of my time. I could be doing something else, usually something more constructive. The last game I did play was Call of Duty 3. Typical "guy"game. War and shooting! I get bored real fast. That is why I like the wiki, it is much more interactive. Real minds at work.

 

Gun sales are up because the f#@king rednecks out there are afraid of the ni##ers! That is real, and not me playing "Chicken Little"! The people killing law enforcement are different than the jackballs who are currently buying up the guns. It is the people who are talking about running to the hills, scared of the "dark man" impacting their lives. You know... "Christians." They are not only political types in America, but something that goes beyond party lines. As Ron White said, you can't fix stupid. Most gun deaths are by the owners own hand. Isn't that what Darwin predicted? It is just more efficient. I want those idiots out of my gene pool!

 

That is what makes Obama's election so important, and why I am so proud. We reap what we sow. These morons have looked down on people of color for generations, and now they are running scared because those people have spoken in the manner that they themselves have "fought and died for." Freedon isn't free, and that works both ways!

 

 

I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees. I have always been ready to throw my stuff in the back of my car and get the hell out of here.

 

I actually feel safer with someone like Obama in office. Someone who give a passing thought to people like me.

 

Even if it is a small step, Obama is a step in the right direction, even if you don't agree with him. Just let Bush pass into obscurity. We will never convict him of war crimes, hanging him will do nothing. Let's work to the future.

 

-Phil

 

Schan, I am not merely defending president Bush, I am scolding you. Your comments were vicious and unnecessary. He is stepping down from his office and not usurping power, and you want him dead. I see your comments as the violent lashings of an unsound mind. You can give me 10,000 reasons why he shouldn't have been president or whatever it is you believe, and I will have a civil conversation with you. Once you go over the edge and start calling for peoples' heads, people such as myself start to duck. Put down the axe and lets talk about it.

 

Phil, stop stereotyping people. I am out buying guns as we speak. My reasons have mostly to do with the potential for economic collapse. Guns and ammunition are intrinsically valuable. In an environment where money is worthless, I want to ensure that my family and I have food, water, shelter and something to defend them with. Not that I intend to call you out, I just wanted to get your attention. When faced with potential disaster I adhere to a corollary to Murphy's Law: expect the best and prepare for the worst. Bringing color into this discussion is bad form... My gun friends and I (gun friends = people with whom I go shooting and discuss gun lore) haven't anything against the "black man." Indeed, when last I went to a gun shop (this weekend) a good half of the customers there were black. I think you have characterized a group of people harshly and inaccurately. I am offended, personally. Maybe you don't mean it like I think, but I took it as a direct insult towards gun owners: calling us individuals who are likely to blow our own heads off in our racist backwards pursuits. Even if myself and all the people I know are the only exceptions to the rule, I'd prefer if you would leave open such a possibility before you start stereotyping.

 

- Danny

 

Danny, I apologize if I offended you personally. The things I have heard since the election has been unsettling, at best. I have heard the fear in both sides of this situation. And responsible people are saying some irresponsible things, either though they are saying it in measured and rational terms. Protecting the food supply, guarding their property. Very rational in word, but what the hell are they expecting? And those who will riot will probably have weapons that will equal (at least) the weapons you have. What, are they preparing for zombies? Certianly not the suffering of their fellow man. It is not the first time I have heard the election of Obama as the "end of days." Oh, pleeeeze!

 

You were not the group I was referring to, responsible gun owners. By using the word "responsible" it refers to the degree of understanding of the inherent power of firearms. Nobody is arguing that. Responsible gun owners should already have their guns, and not making impulse purchases. Another old corollary is don't pull a gun unless you intend to use it. Introducing a gun into any situation creates an environment where death is a likely outcome. The problem is; by making note of the degree guns are purchased after the election of Obama, the question is raised "did this phenomenon occur after other elections?" If so, then why make note of a normal occurrence? If it is an anomaly, then what is different about this election that caused the spike in gun sales? Hate to say it, but that is the color of the winner. So buying guns in record mumbers say something in and of itself. If you have a gun, and they have a gun, than the odds someone will get shot is certainly higher.

 

Exactly what is the potential disaster to which you refer? The sun did still come up on Wednesday. And do you think whites are the only racists? You are much smarter than that. I guess when I said "redneck" I really meant "ignorant." Having a gun in the home increases the odds of a accidental death exponentially.

 

Sunday at work, I had a very good day in sales. People were buying furniture, not the sign of the Apocalypse some have expected.

 

I think Schan is angry because war is wrong, in any form. It is an abomination, and needs to be controlled with the hope of elimination. We need voices like hers to remind us that war is not the answer. We will never get to the next level in human existence unless we at least acknowledge that war is bad. Obviously it is part of human nature, but the wanton waging of war (embodied by the Bush administration) is gratuitious and should be checked by someone with a more reflective demeanor. I don't know if Obama is the answer, but neither is arming yourself to the teeth. It just promotes fear. I have been working on that for this class, the promotion of fear. We have to understand that we are part of society, and an arms race is not furthering real safety for anyone.

 

-Phil

 

 

 

I should like to point out that responsible gun owners are also purchasing firearms in mass in anticipation of a potential assault weapons ban (or the like) such that those guns will be grandfathered in once such a ban takes place. I am afraid of a unilateral left federal government having the impetus to infringe upon second amendment rights. If I had the money, I would buy one of everything that might someday be illegal to purchase. Well... perhaps not everything.

 

I don't know what other people believe they are preparing for, I just know that I'm not taking any chances. As for armed mobs, I have to hope that while they may be so armed as I am, that my restraint and practice with firearms would pull me through. This doesn't seem like a likelihood to me, not in this country. It does however seem like a remote possibility. Since I think firearms are a valuable investment, it doesn't take much convincing for me not to take any chances. I would strongly disagree with Barack Obama if he made the assault weapons ban permanent, as he claims he will, even though I don't own any 'assault weapons' as he defines them. I just think that such bans are unconstitutional.

 

Perhaps Schan's anti-war voice would be a peaceful reminder if she were not proposing violence herself.

 

Finally, I agree that arming oneself to the teeth promotes fear. I don't believe that this fear is a bad thing. To me, an armed populace teaches the government to fear its citizens. Think of a situation where this next presidency and congress attempt a wholesale gun grab as was done in Great Britain. This recent padding of personal arsenals demonstrates to our central government that to attempt confiscate arms from the people would result in civil war. The people demonstrated in this election that the power is theirs to choose their government. The people now arm themselves to remind the new government who they work for.

 

I hope that it never comes to that... but it is always possible.

 

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

 

- Danny

 

 

 

Wow! Did Jefferson ever shoot an Intratec TEC-9? What is the general purpose of "assault weapons?" Do you think there should even be a resonable constraint on weapons such as those? Why are we having a reasonable discussion over such a ban? Freedom of speech has an agreeable common ground, such as shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater. But the 2nd Amendment has no such common ground. A weapon is a weapon, according to some proponants. For me, the type of weapon is an improtant distincion. The unbridled 2nd amendmant actually restricts liberty, where availability of weapons of mass destruction is an acceptable liberty for Americans. Iraq was not eligable for the same freedoms that we Americans enjoy. What you call a right, and the hope that Americans are rational and reasonable, is that some people are armed to the teeth with amazingly destructive tools. We only hope that they do not decide to exert their will on others, just because of a disagreement. Hey - they have the right to a flamethrower, and it is their right to point it at me, because I voted for Obama (or some other slight). A little extreme, but just as plausible as your argument.

 

Those who are seen to "take away your guns" just because they want to have reasonable constraints of these high powered mass killing weapons. I know you, and have some expectations of your reasonable nature, but what about others? Their right to live is the same as mine, except they have the power I do not. They have guns, and I do not. You can't have nuclear weapons, but according to that logic, why not? The 2nd amendment gives the right to those to be able to control me, for the price of a high powered tool. Is that peace? That will never be peace. At least the reasonable constraints on gun ownership levels the playing field. I am not suggesting taking away your right to own guns, but reasonable controls. Just like reasonable constraints on government. Who is reasonable? I think I would like to have some say in the matter.

 

Oh if we are having a drinking game: Reasonable, Reasonable, Reasonable (glug, glug, glug)

 

-Phil

 

 

TEC-9 Glug glug glug: colombine; glug glug glug; buzzword. You've just demonized a particular firearm that really isn't anything special. I hate to say it but I think you are really off the mark and have been pacified by the politically correct anti-gun left.

 

Lets talk specifics. The TEC-9 is a semi-automatic gas powered handgun. It has a rifle-like gas blowback system that clears spent casings and reloads the chamber. The short version is that it is a 9mm pistol with high magazine capacity that allows you to shoot as often as you pull the trigger. Let us think of other handguns that allow this: Beretta M9, Glock 17 (and other 9mm Glocks), Smith and Wesson M&P... and the list goes on. All of these handguns can exhibit every property of the Tec-9 even if they don't function the same way. If you were to outlaw any semi-automatic 9mm high capacity pistol, you would effectively outlaw the greater part of the handguns out there (meaning high-capacity semi-automatic pistols).

 

The only problem with the Tec-9 is that it can be more easily illegally modified to fire as fully automatic than can many other handgun designs. The Tec-9 that was used in the colombine shootings, however, had not received this modification. Also, the Tec-9 is no longer produced, and good riddance if you ask me. The thing was an unreliable piece of junk. One could do more damage with grand dad's double barrel 16 gauge.

 

What I'm saying is that you have basically just demonized any firearm that shoots as fast as you can pull the trigger. This means ALL modern defensive handguns; every last one including target pistols and double action revolvers. I wanted to point out that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

The ONLY thing that distinguishes an assault weapon (as defined by OOOObama) is that it is a semi-automatic weapon with a magazine capacity greater than 10 rds. This is not the military definition, however, by which assault weapons are only automatic firearms.

 

The TEC-9 was an example of a piece of junk that could be (in only its early variants) potentially MacGyvered into an extremely crude automatic weapon. This is more of a danger in thought than in practice to this date, however. In reality, one could make a grease gun out of plumbing fixtures with a little bit of know how.

 

I am trying to point out that pandora's box is open. Guns exist and will continue to do so. Beyond the existing ban on automatic weapons, any further bans step towards banning firearms outright. Banning firearms does not stop people from getting them, it only stops law-abiding people from getting them.

 

Before you start talking guns, make sure you know what you're talking about. By the way watch this video; it shows just how silly an "assault weapon" ban really is.

 

BY the way, you need extensive licensing to own even a non-functioning flame thrower. To own a functioning one... well, it doesn't happen amongst private citizens.

 

- Danny

 

P.S. Actually Phil, I think that this has solidified what I want to do for my evaluative argument. Make sure you watch that video: it is informative.

 

 

DANNY:

Are you opposed to capital punishment?

Historically (in many cases) the punishment for war criminals was capital punishment. That's what Schan was saying should happen to Bush. Are you opposed to capital punishment for war crimes regardless of the criminal in question?

- Jesse Nevel

 

 

 

My ignorance of weaponry is unmasked! I guess I was busy with my drinking game, but I do not remember saying anything about banning firearms! My point was... wait for it... the REASONABLE CONSTRAINTS ON THE UNFETTERED POSSESSION OF MUNITIONS. Why is there extensive licensing on flamethrowers? Isn't that just making my point? Is there no middle ground of your position? Just because I mentioned, in passing, an outdated weapon does not make my point about constraints on the 2nd Amendment invalid. That may make my lack of knowledge open for your scorn, but it does not devalue my position.

 

I am getting a little tired of how my opinions on Obama, or how Bush fucked up America, or something that is not espoused on Fox News is being called "left wing claptrap". Or "buzzwords". If I am a left wing shill, so be it. It is easy to focus on my relative lack of knowledge of guns, and argue that is why my main point is flawed. Your concept is flawed. To focus on details of individual weapons is not an argument, you have not illustrated why there is no need for some sort of control, to promote the general safety. In fact you just said it, or do you agree that flamethrowers are a right of the people?

 

Don't get me started on Columbine, especially when other shooters have not been brought to justice. A third shooter is well documented, but never made public. I was in Colorado Springs on that day, and lived there for a year or so afterward, so I am tired of hearing about spoiled rich assholes who could not deal with fucking high school by taking it out on their fellow students. I loved the photo of the police towing away Dylan Klebold's BMW from Columbine. BMW? I was driving a shitty Ford station wagon in high school, so how bad did those little shitheads have it? But I guess it was the price of freedom. I don't care if they used muskets, some sort of reflection on the concept of gun control is required.

 

My point is that the founding fathers had no concept of the list of your choice of weapons, or how gangs are shooting each other (and innocents) for a market share of the crack trade. Or the Boo Hoo bastards in Littleton. The constitution was developed to be flexible and malleable, to change with the times. That is why it works so well. Prohibition was repealed, so the Constitution is not infallible. How much firepower is enough? How many bullets will do the job of killing me? One. I don't give a fuck what caliber gun is pointed at me.

 

I would like my rights to include the right not to have a gun pointed at me by some deranged lunatic (it is not fun, I know, I have had one pointed at me in anger). The most dangerous lunatic is the one who believes he is in the right. You are flirting with the "right wing extremist" label, with no grey area. America is more than "me first." We must have some provision for the common good. The selfish nature of America is getting a little long in the tooth. Creating a society that celebrates peace is an attainable goal. We are part of existence, and cannot exist in a vacuum.

 

One last thought... the best way to honor our Veterans is to STOP MAKING MORE OF THEM. And take care of the ones we have.

 

- Phil

 

 

You miss my point Phil. It is clear that there need for common-sense standards on gun control. Firearms need to be kept out of the hands of criminals (i.e. the illegal traffic of black market guns need be stopped) and the current ban on automatic firearms is sensible.

 

I was zeroing in on your misconceptions. You come to the assault weapons ban's aid, but don't know what an assault weapon is. It was my intention to point out that these assault weapons, as defined by those people who would ban them, comprise such a large segment of firearm types that it creates a slippery slope towards banning firearms altogether. The flamethrower, for instance, does not fall into the category of 'small arms,' but rather military material.

 

Next, I didn't turn ANY of your opinions there into left wing claptrap as you say. In fact, all I wanted to do was to point out your misunderstandings of what gun control meant. First, don't put words in my mouth. Second, you must not have read my post thoroughly because I think it was, get this, NOT in conflict with your opinion about guns.

 

I have had a gun pointed at me in anger as well, but I have had more knives put to my throat than I can count on a hand. Any sort of gun control beyond that which is currently in place would not take a single gun out of the hands of criminals. Theirs are illegally owned, something that making the sales of firearms illegal (any kind of firearms) would not help. In fact, history shows that when extremely stringent gun controls are put in place, criminal shootings increase drastically.

 

You brought up Colombine, not me. As soon as you mentioned the weapon that has become the anti-gun buzzword for the killing machine those brats brought with them, most readers cognoscente of the situation would have made that connection. At least I did, especially since there are very few documented cases where people have been killed with TEC-9s other than Colombine. This is like evoking the image of vans filled with fertilizer/diesel bombs and not expecting a discussion involving Oklahoma City to ensue. That being said, I can understand what it means personally to you, having been so near. I have friends in the VT school of engineering and had some very tense moments during that shooting before finally learning they were okay.

 

I don't think that the constitution was intended to be a wavering document but rather was made intentionally vague as to be subject to interpretation. In examining the communications and writings of those responsible for the 2nd amendment, it seems very clear (and expectedly so) that their intention was to ensure that the government could never exert military control over the populace for the fear that they would be so armed as to make it logistically impossible. This meant, for the time, having weapons comparable to those used by their military. By weapons, I mean small arms. Today, a comparable weapon to those used by any military is the assault rifle: a fully automatic rifle-caliber weapon. These cannot be owned by civilians in this country with out a "Class III" firearms permit. The class 3 is reserved mostly for military personnel and the like, and requires some serious government background to possess. So assault weapons, as defined by the military, are already illegal and have been since the 30's. You don't see me, or a large number of gun owners griping about this because automatic weapons are a colossal waste of ammunition. We private citizens do not have the budget of the military, so this law was practically enforced financially by all those who would be unlikely to use automatic weapons nefariously.

 

The word, assault weapon, has been hijacked. The assault weapons ban would have nothing left to ban by military definitions. Assault weapons are already illegal, unless of course you define something else to be an assault weapon. This, as you might guess, has been done. An assault weapon has become any weapon with a magazine capacity over 10 shots, or that looks like an SBR (Scary black rifle). This is not a joke. In the state of California, where the assault weapons ban was adopted state wide, this law is positively arbitrary. One could buy a Springfield Armory M1A semi-automatic rifle in Cali. This firearm would be perfectly legal until you put some accessories on it. If you put a black folding stock on it: illegal. If you put a bigger magazine in it, illegal. If you put a barrel shroud on it, you're going to jail.

These are Very arbitrary measures designed to ban rifles that LOOK SCARY to people. In reality, you would likely find that any of the illegal rifles would be legal in their "sporting" variants. What this means is that they would be legal if they looked different. This has nothing to do with the actual functionality of these weapons, they are not assault weapons at all. The assault weapons ban is designed to ban weapons that LOOK like assault weapons. This is like banning hemp because it looks like marijuana.

 

The reality of it is that the anti-gun proponents want to truly ban civilian firearms ownership outright and will latch on to the fears and misunderstandings of the people in order to ban anything they can.

 

I don't want to continue on this rant here, because there is a very good potential essay that this could lead to. Instead I want to give you a list of some completely nonsense features of an assault weapons ban (once again citing california as the case).

 

12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:

1. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

-A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.

-A thumbhole stock.

-A folding or telescoping stock.

-A grenade launcher or flare launcher.

-A flash suppressor.

-A forward pistol grip.

2. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

3. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

 

The full text can be found at http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2.php

 

With the exception of the Grenade/flare launcher part, I don't see anything that is functionally dangerous. All of those features are purely aesthetic.

 

Finally, don't call me names, I'm avoiding the same for you.

 

 

Jesse, I don't think that President Bush committed war crimes of the gravity that merit capital punishment. But to give you an idea, I don't think that Saddam Hussein should have been hanged. A more fit punishment would have been for him to rot in prison for the remainder of his life. And keep in mind that he personally murdered vast numbers of his fellow countrymen, not by sending them to war, but by killing them personally. Not to mention ordering the use of chemical weapons on thousands of unarmed civilians within his own nation. The reason I think that he shouldn't have died was that he was no longer a threat alive. The only reason that he should have been hanged was to save money in keeping him. I think, however, that was a price worth paying lest a martyr was made.

 

Sure, try to convince me that Bush is guilty of war crimes, I might agree with some of your points. But the man does not deserve to die. You people, thats right you know who you are, blow Bush way out of proportion. I would only hold him accountable for those things that he personally is directly responsible for. Seeing as how he did not order any genocides, and that the Iraq war has had the lowest casualties of any war that America has declared by orders of magnitude, I'm going to have to say no to war crimes. I'm not saying that the Iraq war is good or justified. All I am saying is that you have to put this thing in historical perspective. It is the least bad war we have had, don't make it into the worst. Also, don't blame the man up top, the people on the sidelines are calling all the shots anyway.

 

Of course...

 

Don't mind the man behind the curtain

 

- Danny

 

 

Page Search: the first usage of both "assault" and "Colombine" were from you, my friend. I did not bring up either.

 

- Phil

 

By implication old bean. Implication I say! - Danny

 

Control of the conversation is important, the boys at Fox News heve made it an art form. - Phil

 

Colombine, for me, I had no intention of discussing, I was inundated with that bullshit every day for years. Rocky Mountain News had a story on the front page (or within a couple of pages) for a year SOLID! My game was to see when the "C" word would turn up. A year later the word turned up at least on page five. EVERY DAY! So beleive me, I do not want to revisit that bullshit. Those smug little assholes who caused so much grief because they didn't "feel the love" in school (pussies), have taken so much of my Zeitgeist! Although I am not for banning all guns, you cannot help but to question the policy as it stands. So the paradigm is that what is reasonable control, you hang out with gun owners and around more guns than I ever have been, and you have had more guns pointed at you and knives at your throat. Those are the odds. So unfettered gun ownership is OK? And you wonder why politicians want reasonable controls on gun ownership. Even if we know who are the criminals are, since they have the banned weapons. Arresting them would be more efficient.

 

- Phil

 

 

How does one go about determining which of Bush's actions he "personally is directly responsible for"? Are you suggesting that Bush should not be held accountable because he's influenced by his advisers/cabinet members? He's the President of the United States!

 

Sure, he didn't order any genocides. Sure, there have been bloodier wars. Neither of those two facts proves that Bush shouldn't be tried for war crimes. The fact that you "say no to war crimes" because the casualty number hasn't surpassed that of previous wars is perplexing. The President lied to the American public to justify the occupation of Iraq, making it that much more reprehensible for even a single soldier to die. And now, there are 4193 soldiers whose lives have been taken by this war. Thousands have been severely injured. You're also ignoring the Iraqi civilian body count, which is already more than 88,000 deaths.

 

I don't think Bush should be executed because I'm opposed to capital punishment. But it must be noted that you are not putting things in historical perspective; you are downplaying the criminality of the Iraq war and making excuses for the Bush administration.

 

- Jesse Nevel

 

 

I still believe that you have brought forth a heavy-handed dose of negative connotation. As I recall, I was, and am, quick to decry those things about president Bush's actions that I find reprehensible. I am not here to come to his unequivocal defense with regards to his decisions in entering the Iraq war. I suggested a more historical perspective with the intention that the reader might read some history, above and beyond the pithy support I supplied to point said person in the right direction. Certainly there was some sense of deceit, at least some of the pretenses for the Iraq war seemed to have been either false or miscalculated. I would like to point out, however, that this is the nature of being president. Historically speaking, once again, similar debacles have plagued presidencies consistently throughout the country's history. No president of the United States has ever been convicted of war crimes, much less executed. I won't argue that Bush screwed up, that is not what this argument about. This is a value judgement. Did he screw up bad enough that he deserves to die? I don't even know for certain if he actually made the mistakes. What if he was just the fall guy for others' lacks of judgment?

 

WIth regards to historical wars, was any single president who was either directly or indirectly responsible for the vietnam war executed? In my book, that was a far worse war with far less justifiable pretense than the Iraq war. I don't look back at history to tell you that this modern conflict "ain't so bad," but rather to find precedent on how our leaders are held accountable for their actions.

 

Whatever you may think, history shows that we have insufficient grounds (by a long shot) to execute the president. I already voiced that I think it is hateful and irresponsible to call for such a thing. Allow me to be abundantly clear, I am not here to have a discussion about the toll of the Iraq war. I only want to admonish those who would call for such radically violent actions.

 

My personal belief on the subject is that Bush alone is responsible for very few of the decisions that lead to the Iraq war, but takes the brunt of the blame as the official front of the executive branch. Maybe he deserves the brunt of the negative attention, that is the job he ran for. That however does not go beyond the shallow accusations of the media. I'm not telling you this to justify his or anyone else's actions. I just want to show how little we really know for certain. Certainly not enough to call for a man to be killed. Not nearly.

 

Also, I didn't ignore any civilian death count. I didn't even imply the the breakdown of cost in human life because I think it callous to quantify it. I can't help but to get the feeling that people are taking on my talking points particularly because I'm trying to show moderation here.

 

 

 

As for Phil, I'm going to write as intense of an evaluation of gun control as I can. Perhaps this would help to at least compile and analyze pertinent data.

 

 

- Danny

 

The fact that no president of the United States has ever been convicted of war crimes does not mean that no president of the United States ever deserved to have been convicted of war crimes.

- Jesse Nevel

 

 

Evidence and definitive proof are not one in the same. I can only provide the former.

- Danny