Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?

[Brixtonbulldog]

If you live in the USA, you don't give a shit about what happens to 99.999999% of the population.  You want to be able to defend you and yours when a bad thing happens.

bad guys don't need guns to hurt/kill you.  Three men with tire irons or 10 pound weight plates can kill you with no problem. 

I'll bet there are thousands of people every year whose final thought on the planet is "Damn, I'm about to die, and if I had a gun I could have prevented this".  They don't care what happens to "society" as they bleed out.

Absolutely.. no one looks out for you like yourself.  Call me greedy but why should I depend on gov't to look after the welfare of me and my family. 

Remember folks, cops only get there AFTER it's happened!!!

I agree completely.  I'm starting to like you.

Well you're about to hate me again.. the three issues that I vote on the most are taxes, property rights, and the second amendment.  Let's just say I've always been a big fan of these guys.

[240 is Back]

Remember folks, cops only get there AFTER it's happened!!!

11 minutes afterwards is the national average.

11 minutes from the moment the rapist nuts and climbs off of you, and you dial 911 on your cell, the cops will arrive to 'save the day'.

11 minutes from the moment the 7-11 clerk calls 911, as the teenage thugs caps your silly ass because you didn't turn over the car keys fast enough, the cops will arrive to 'save the day'.

Shit, I'm spending those 11 minutes finishing my lunch and taking a leak as the dead intruder lies motionless on the floor...

[Brixtonbulldog]

11 minutes afterwards is the national average.

11 minutes from the moment the rapist nuts and climbs off of you, and you dial 911 on your cell, the cops will arrive to 'save the day'.

11 minutes from the moment the 7-11 clerk calls 911, as the teenage thugs caps your silly ass because you didn't turn over the car keys fast enough, the cops will arrive to 'save the day'.

Shit, I'm spending those 11 minutes finishing my lunch and taking a leak as the dead intruder lies motionless on the floor...

Unless you live in Baltimore.. then it's 30 mins to 2 hours and the cops say "sorry, can't help you" when they show up.

[w8tlftr]

So if the socialist-democrats are successful in disarming law abiding citizens of their guns how long before they take away kitchen knives? Maybe they'll also push for laws so only the military and law enforcement can train in military combative fighting or martial arts?

Where does it stop for the greater good of society?

[w8tlftr]

Obama on D.C. Gun Ban: 'I don't like taking a stand on pending cases.'

I felt that [the first one] was a precedent for conceal-and-carry laws. There has not been any evidence that allowing people to carry a concealed weapon is going to make anybody safer. [The second one] is relevant to the D.C. handgun issue. I wanted to preserve the right of local communities to enforce local ordinances and this would have overturned municipalities being able to enforce their own ordinances. We can argue about whether the ordinances work or not. But I wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to regulate firearms.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzIxYjFmYTcxYjA4ZjZhMmI0MGY2Yzc4Y2E3MmJiZGE=

[Benny B]

So if the socialist-democrats are successful in disarming law abiding citizens of their guns how long before they take away kitchen knives? Maybe they'll also push for laws so only the military and law enforcement can train in military combative fighting or martial arts?

Where does it stop for the greater good of society?

idiot

[w8tlftr]

idiot

Try to follow along, Ace.

I know it's hard for you but try.

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

"Many assaults are impulsive, often triggered by alcohol or misuse of other drugs, and the long, pointed kitchen knife is an easily accessible, potentially lethal weapon, particularly in the domestic setting," say the doctors from the West Middlesex university hospital, London, in the British Medical Journal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/may/27/health.politics

It's already been tried. Once the liberal fascists you worship are successful at disarming law abiding citizens it won't stop. It'll be knives, then martial arts, then whatever they deem appropriate for the "common" good.

[Benny B]

Try to follow along, Ace.

I know it's hard for you but try.

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

you are a m-o-r-o-n

[w8tlftr]

you are a m-o-r-o-n

Go eat some grass, sheep.

[Benny B]

Go eat some grass, sheep.

you are a d-u-m-m-y

[w8tlftr]

you are a d-u-m-m-y

And you are b-o-r-i-n-g, Ace.

[Hedgehog]

The guns aren't going away with new gun laws.  All that happens is criminals who don't care have guns while citizens who need to defend themselves are stripped by ASSHOLES who take away thier right to defend themselves.

It's not "gun" related shootings.. it's "criminal" related shootings.  A gun is just an object.  Thinking "What if these persons wouldn't have the guns in the first place?" is ignorant and idealistic wishful thinking.

I would go so far as to say single woman who meet certain criteria (no criminal record, etc) should be encouraged to be armed at all times. 

This is just your opinion.

I just posted reference to actual research that shows that gun related killings are in general NOT criminals attacking innocents.

But rather, alcohol related.

And the gang related killings are also mostly within that very community.

I'm sorry, but you've been fed a lie by the NRA or whoever.

And before you get any more emotional and start crying asshole and bitch and motherfcuker and "liberal" again, how about actually look at the references I posted?

[Brixtonbulldog]

This is just your opinion.

I just posted reference to actual research that shows that gun related killings are in general NOT criminals attacking innocents.

But rather, alcohol related.

And the gang related killings are also mostly within that very community.

I'm sorry, but you've been fed a lie by the NRA or whoever.

And before you get any more emotional and start crying asshole and bitch and motherfcuker and "liberal" again, how about actually look at the references I posted?

I did look.. your arguments are based in fantasy and don't work in "the real world."  Nothing about your stance supports self defense.. which is a basic human right.

[Hedgehog]

I did look.. your arguments are based in fantasy and don't work in "the real world."  Nothing about your stance supports self defense.. which is a basic human right.

It wasn't arguments.

It is real data, accumulated data from crimes committed.

Look, I can appreciate that you do not want to accept that most gun related killings are done by intoxicated persons.

But that is a fact.

And I can also understand that you want to believe that criminals are attacking the innocent, and that the innocent community needs to arm up, to get guns to protect themselves.

But the facts are quite different.

Gun related killings by criminal people are done within the criminal society.

These are the cold, hard facts.

You are the one using soft emo arguments.

Playing the emo card et al.

Instead of trying to keep it real.

[Brixtonbulldog]

It wasn't arguments.

It is real data, accumulated data from crimes committed.

Look, I can appreciate that you do not want to accept that most gun related killings are done by intoxicated persons.

But that is a fact.

And I can also understand that you want to believe that criminals are attacking the innocent, and that the innocent community needs to arm up, to get guns to protect themselves.

But the facts are quite different.

Gun related killings by criminal people are done within the criminal society.

These are the cold, hard facts.

You are the one using soft emo arguments.

Playing the emo card et al.

Instead of trying to keep it real.

Dispute ANY point I have made.. please.. I dare you.

You're an idealist and you fail to see the fallacy of gun control.  I'm not talking about only gun-related killings.  I'm referring to violent crime in general whereas the facts support that the single best way to protect yourself from violence is with a handgun and knowing how to use it.

Here's another fact for you.. London banned all handguns, then violent crime jumped by almost 30%.  Similar figures occure wherever people are robbed of thier right to defend themselves.  Criminals have free reign.

And that's the way the cookie crumbles.

[Hedgehog]

It's already been tried. Once the liberal fascists you worship are successful at disarming law abiding citizens it won't stop. It'll be knives, then martial arts, then whatever they deem appropriate for the "common" good.

Wow. That's an oxymoron if I ever saw one.

Liberal fascists?

Fascism is probably one of the ideologies that are most directly opposed to liberalism.

It's similar to call someone a leftist rightwinger.

[Hedgehog]

Dispute ANY point I have made.. please.. I dare you.

You're an idealist and you fail to see the fallacy of gun control.  I'm not talking about only gun-related killings.  I'm referring to violent crime in general whereas the facts support that the single best way to protect yourself from violence is with a handgun and knowing how to use it.

Here's another fact for you.. London banned all handguns, then violent crime jumped by almost 30%.  Similar figures occure wherever people are robbed of thier right to defend themselves.  Criminals have free reign.

And that's the way the cookie crumbles.

How exactly am I an idealist?

Because I refers to hard facts?

Because I avoid referring to pics of the "founding fathers" in my rhetoric et al?

How is that being idealist?

[w8tlftr]

Wow. That's an oxymoron if I ever saw one.

Liberal fascists?

Fascism is probably one of the ideologies that are most directly opposed to liberalism.

It's similar to call someone a leftist rightwinger.

Look up H.G. Wells and the term "liberal fascism", Zack.

Then do some research on the political leanings of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. Hell, look up Woodrow Wilson while you're at it.

[Hedgehog]

Look up H.G. Wells and the term "liberal fascism", Zack.

Then do some research on the political leanings of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. Hell, look up Woodrow Wilson while you're at it.

Hitler was a Nazist.

Mussolini was a Fascist.

Stalin subscribed to Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism, his own versions of Communism.

None of these could even remotedly be described as even close to a Liberal.

USA and England were the two major homes of Liberalism in the early 20th century, and thus sworn enemies of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin.

[w8tlftr]

Hitler was a Nazist.

Mussolini was a Fascist.

Stalin subscribed to Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism, his own versions of Communism.

None of these could even remotedly be described as even close to a Liberal.

USA and England were the two major homes of Liberalism in the early 20th century, and thus sworn enemies of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin.

Hitler was a socialist. Nazism is socialism with a racist nationalist spin.

Mussolini, the founder of "fascism" was and always was a socialist first (his words).

Stalin, while a Maxist-Leninist was another socialist with a anti-semitic nationalist spin.

USA and England were "experimenting" with progressive liberalism (socialism) in the early 20th century. Wilson did things to squash freedom of speech that would have made Mussolini green with envy.

Now can you find me any sources that would indicate that Hitler, Mussolini, or even Stalin (all fascists, right?) supported anything promoted by "right-wing" conservatives? Oh, and did you look up H.G. Wells and the term liberal fascism?

[Decker]

Hitler was a socialist. Nazism is socialism with a racist nationalist spin.

Mussolini, the founder of "fascism" was and always was a socialist first (his words).

Stalin, while a Maxist-Leninist was another socialist with a anti-semitic nationalist spin.

USA and England were "experimenting" with progressive liberalism (socialism) in the early 20th century. Wilson did things to squash freedom of speech that would have made Mussolini green with envy.

Now can you find me any sources that would indicate that Hitler, Mussolini, or even Stalin (all fascists, right?) supported anything promoted by "right-wing" conservatives? Oh, and did you look up H.G. Wells and the term liberal fascism?

I would respectfully disagree.  Hitler was a fascist.  Mussolini was a fascist.  Socialism  has the people owning the means of production--sort of like an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP).  Did the german/italiancitizens own their means of production?  I don't know.  I doubt it since the governments of each respective country were merged in purpose with big business elites.  But I do know that these leaders married corporatism to government in a way that blurred the line between government for the people and government for big business. 

Neither HItler not Mussolini Stalin abolished private property.  They were hard right totalitarians using the State's power as a club on dissenters and opponents.

Just b/c a rightwing totalitarian calls his party or movement "socialist" does not make it so.

Semantics aside, the nazis also thought of themselves as Christians.

[Hedgehog]

Hitler was a socialist. Nazism is socialism with a racist nationalist spin.

No.


Mussolini, the founder of "fascism" was and always was a socialist first (his words).

No. He was a fascist.


Stalin, while a Maxist-Leninist was another socialist with a anti-semitic nationalist spin.

Socialism/Communism are similar as political ideologies, Stalin didn't describe himself as a Socialist frequently, but he definitely followed that school of thought.


USA and England were "experimenting" with progressive liberalism (socialism) in the early 20th century. Wilson did things to squash freedom of speech that would have made Mussolini green with envy.

Where did you get the idea that progressive liberalism is socialism?

Now can you find me any sources that would indicate that Hitler, Mussolini, or even Stalin (all fascists, right?)

I never claimed that Stalin was a Fascist. Fascism is a political ideology.


supported anything promoted by "right-wing" conservatives?

A right-wing conservative would be someone like Edmund Burke. I never said Hitler or Mussolini supported Conservatism (obviously not).

But they opposed Liberalism, as Liberalism vehemently promoted the idea of democracy.


Oh, and did you look up H.G. Wells and the term liberal fascism?

Sorry, haven't had the time to do that yet. I will though. However, HG Wells is novel writer. Not a political scientist or political philosopher.

[w8tlftr]

Hitler was a socialist. Nazism is socialism with a racist nationalist spin.

No.

Mussolini, the founder of "fascism" was and always was a socialist first (his words).

No. He was a fascist.


Stalin, while a Maxist-Leninist was another socialist with a anti-semitic nationalist spin.

Socialism/Communism are similar as political ideologies, Stalin didn't describe himself as a Socialist frequently, but he definitely followed that school of thought.


USA and England were "experimenting" with progressive liberalism (socialism) in the early 20th century. Wilson did things to squash freedom of speech that would have made Mussolini green with envy.

Where did you get the idea that progressive liberalism is socialism?

Now can you find me any sources that would indicate that Hitler, Mussolini, or even Stalin (all fascists, right?)

I never claimed that Stalin was a Fascist. Fascism is a political ideology.


supported anything promoted by "right-wing" conservatives?

A right-wing conservative would be someone like Edmund Burke. I never said Hitler or Mussolini supported Conservatism (obviously not).

But they opposed Liberalism, as Liberalism vehemently promoted the idea of democracy.


Oh, and did you look up H.G. Wells and the term liberal fascism?

Sorry, haven't had the time to do that yet. I will though. However, HG Wells is novel writer. Not a political scientist or political philosopher.

Zack, I'm just asking you to read up on this. All of the above scumbag listed were, in fact, socialists. They opposed individualism (of any kind), promoted nationalization of industry, promoted "social" programs, and all-in-all were very anti-capitalism. Does that come off as right-wing to you?

Regarding, H.G. Wells, he was the one that coined the term Liberal Fascism.

[w8tlftr]

I would respectfully disagree.  Hitler was a fascist.  Mussolini was a fascist.  Socialism  has the people owning the means of production--sort of like an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP).  Did the german/italiancitizens own their means of production?  I don't know.  I doubt it since the governments of each respective country were merged in purpose with big business elites.  But I do know that these leaders married corporatism to government in a way that blurred the line between government for the people and government for big business. 

Neither HItler not Mussolini Stalin abolished private property.  They were hard right totalitarians using the State's power as a club on dissenters and opponents.

Just b/c a rightwing totalitarian calls his party or movement "socialist" does not make it so.

Semantics aside, the nazis also thought of themselves as Christians.

Decker, I think we all agree what those men were fascists. I think we're all debating the definition of what fascism is.

This is Merriam-Webster's definition:

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>

How does this align itself with conservative (right-wing) values? The state before the individual? Centralization of government? Forcible suppression of opposition and economic and social regimentation? I won't even get into the anti-semitic issue.

So where am I going wrong? If the argument is, "if extreme left-wing politics is socialism then extreme right-wing politics must be fascism." I just don't see the argument for that statement.

From everything I've read on the topic (including Hitler and Mussolini) everything leads me to believe that fascism was the result of extreme socialism.

[Brixtonbulldog]

How exactly am I an idealist?

Because I refers to hard facts?

Because I avoid referring to pics of the "founding fathers" in my rhetoric et al?

How is that being idealist?

You ignore other facts and basic human needs to form your argument.  Those founding fathers would be disgusted with your idea of what rights we should have or not have. 

Saying drunks use guns to be violent could be 100% accurate.. WHO CARES?  I think the victim would much rather have a gun to defend himself than not, no? 

Saying criminals only attack other criminals is absurd.  Are you telling me rape victims and victims of home invasion are mostly criminals?!?!  I suppose you think an armed woman should rely on the competence of police instead of a gun.

Being so ignorant and idealistic must be a blissfull combination.