Dems closing in on fillibuster-proof majority

[Funk]

We got a flip-flopper here.

If the GOP finally concedes that Minnesota senate seat y'all might be smoking weed on street corners within a few months.

[Translucid]

Re: Dems closing in on fillibuster-proof majority

man, most of my friends and family here in tex-ass are convinced that obama's going to take all of our guns away personally and drive away laughing.

[John Mora]

Re: Dems closing in on fillibuster-proof majority

I hope you're gloating and laughing at them, then.

[The_Real_Crunk]

Re: Dems closing in on fillibuster-proof majority

If you take away everybodys guns, that only leaves the criminals with guns. That'll totally be lots of fun right? More people should carry guns, but they should all be required to take training courses to own them and be taught how to properly use them, and when situations demand that you use them.

Just giving every doofus a gun is bad news. Youll have people shooting each other all over the place. Properly train them though, and it'd all fair alot better, and I could almost guarantee there'd be a pretty big drop in crime when your average thug is afraid of getting shot at by everybody they might try to mug.

[Red Dragon]

Re: Dems closing in on fillibuster-proof majority

It's sad though, a lot of people are killed by thier own guns not because of stupid accidents, but because somone breaks in, finds it, and kills the gun's owner with it.

[IRC]

Re: Dems closing in on fillibuster-proof majority

Why is it always all or nothing with the gun nuts?

[Riotsword]

Re: Dems closing in on fillibuster-proof majority

How did this topic suddenly become about gun control?

[orius]

Re: Dems closing in on fillibuster-proof majority

Why is it always all or nothing with the [any issue] nuts?

Fixed it for you. It could be guns, abortion, immigration, foreign policy, or any other issue where both sides refuse to yield a millimeter. That's the biggest problem with our politics today, no one wants to compromise, except for a few politicians like Specter.

As a Pennsylvanian, I'm somewhat surprised by this. Specter's long been a moderate Republican who generally stuck with the party, and generally hasn't seemd to be overly supportive of a lot of Democratic policies. But then he's bucked the Republican too, usually when they were being blindly partisan. PA senators can't afford to be overly conservative, because they need votes from Philly, that's why Santorum lost a few years ago, he got far too close to Bush's policies. They can't be overly liberal either, because they'd lose the rest of the state, but this switch means that PA now has two moderate Democratic senators, which will probably shut out the GOP for the immediate future.

While I haven't always agreed with with him, I've always voted to re-elect him. I'd prefer a moderate to a partisan hack. But then it's not all that shocking given the Senate race for next year. He's got a moron arch-conservative challenger who's complaining aboout how Specter is little more than a traitor to his party, and that guy's gaining support. PA has a closed primary, so voters can only vote for their own party, and it looks like the idiot GOP leaders or at least their owners on the nation's right are backing the challenger. That's probably why Specter switched, his biggest threat is from arch-conservatives and not liberals, since a lot of the state's moderate Democrats will vote for him.

Right now what the stupid Republican leaders need to do is stop polishing the posteriors of the conservative extremists with their lips, and start concentrating on rebuilding a party base. They pretty much squandered all the opportunities and power they gained in 1994 by being a bunch of stubborn fools looking to settle old scores. Their refusal to make any compromises at all with Obama in favor of engaging in the political equivalent of sulking in the corner and sucking thier thumbs is an idiotic move that will just empower the Democratic majority and allow those fools Reid and Pelosi to have all the clout in crafting legislation. They need to focus on building more support on the coasts and in the large cities where the Democrats have overwhelming majorities, since actual political cometition is healthy. One-party systems breed a lot of incompetance and corruption.

[Eso Teric]

Re: Dems closing in on fillibuster-proof majority

If you take away everybodys guns, that only leaves the criminals with guns.

If by criminals, you mean law enforcement and the army. Then yes.

[altoecko]

Re: Dems closing in on fillibuster-proof majority

No, if criminals want guns they can get it. Outlawing gun for anyone but the army and law enforcement would give so much money to the Mafia it's not even funny.

[The Toecutter]

Re: Dems closing in on fillibuster-proof majority

We got a flip-flopper here.

If the GOP finally concedes that Minnesota senate seat y'all might be smoking weed on street corners within a few months.

That would indeed be the case if the democrats in congress actually viewed the herb that way. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

[Wavelength]

Re: Dems closing in on fillibuster-proof majority

About ****ing time the Republicans eat some humble pie.

It's unfortunate that the Democrats' platform in Congress has a lot of idiotic elements right now (in addition to a decent number of good elements, to be fair). And as Terr said, a great majority of Dem politicians right now--even Obama--are strictly anti-marijuana. You know, because the only thing both Parties can find common ground about is stifling peoples' freedoms.

[Wavelength]

Re: Dems closing in on fillibuster-proof majority

America needs to completely ban semi/automatic weapons for civilians, and needs to allow guns to be sold only through authorized dealers who perform background checks (right now, in most states, loopholes allow individuals to sell guns to anyone without a background check). I believe it also needs to ban handguns entirely, eventually, but that needs to be a slow, deliberate, process, or it will lead to increased incentives for crime like some of you guys have said. Phase it all out slowly, though, especially as better guns are created for the police, and we'd be able to reduce crime significantly over 50 years.

Japan's handgun ban, among other things, has led to (per capita) violent crime rates that are about eight times lower than ours, I think. And if you look at only gun-related violence, it's just a few percent of our numbers.

If you take away everybodys guns, that only leaves the criminals with guns. That'll totally be lots of fun right? More people should carry guns, but they should all be required to take training courses to own them and be taught how to properly use them, and when situations demand that you use them.

Just giving every doofus a gun is bad news. Youll have people shooting each other all over the place. Properly train them though, and it'd all fair alot better, and I could almost guarantee there'd be a pretty big drop in crime when your average thug is afraid of getting shot at by everybody they might try to mug.

All the training in the world won't help prevent needless deaths from people who are angry. All the training in the world won't help prevent needless deaths from people who are drunk. All the training in the world won't stop something like the VA Tech massacre from happening all over again. I honestly think we'd see U.S. homicides triple if it were legal to walk around with guns.

And all the training in the world won't prevent someone from using it if they wrongly think they're threatened. After all, if you see someone who looks like a thug walk near you... would you rather risk a small chance of being attacked, or just shoot the guy that you don't know?

The fact is, even if everyone were walking around with a gun, very few would be able to use it to defend themselves. The best you could do is attack the perpetrator before he committed more murders--and yes, that's a very valid reason to allow people to carry guns, but the number of needless deaths it would prevent is dwarfed by the number of needless deaths it would create.

It's sad though, a lot of people are killed by thier own guns not because of stupid accidents, but because somone breaks in, finds it, and kills the gun's owner with it.

I've *never* heard of that happening. I'm sure it has happened at some point, but then, it's not "a lot of people" and I'm sure the perpetrator would have killed the owner with a knife or something.

Can you think of three instances you've heard of this happening?

[gray]

Re: Dems closing in on fillibuster-proof majority

democrats = idiots

republicans = other idiots


people who think otherwise = yet another group of massive idiots

[Eso Teric]

Re: Dems closing in on fillibuster-proof majority

http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/NewsMax2001.html

That's right, this again, the town that requires each household to maintain a firearm and ammo, and the crime rate dropped to near nothing.