Interesting analysis of the 2004 elections

[Petrosjko]

Gun control, as advocated by Sarah Brady et al is intellectually bankrupt, and by adopting it the Democrats have taken a fallacious stance that has only been propped up by misrepresented statistics and emotional hysteria.

They've lied for years, producing bullshit about people being 42 times more likely to shoot a family member or friend than a criminal, hundreds and hundreds of dead children a year from accidents, referring to semi-automatic weapons as 'assault weapons' and 'automatics', the list goes on and on.

Furthermore, as constructed the 2nd Amendment codifies an individual right to bear arms, which they have deliberately distorted.

It's a key issue for me because if they're willing to lie and distort that issue, what credibility do they have on other issues?

[Chmee]

Gun control, as advocated by Sarah Brady et al is intellectually bankrupt, and by adopting it the Democrats have taken a fallacious stance that has only been propped up by misrepresented statistics and emotional hysteria.

They've lied for years, producing bullshit about people being 42 times more likely to shoot a family member or friend than a criminal, hundreds and hundreds of dead children a year from accidents, referring to semi-automatic weapons as 'assault weapons' and 'automatics', the list goes on and on.

Furthermore, as constructed the 2nd Amendment codifies an individual right to bear arms, which they have deliberately distorted.

It's a key issue for me because if they're willing to lie and distort that issue, what credibility do they have on other issues?

Petro, I know that this is one of those emotionally charged issues that people tend to see in black & white, so I'm reluctant to even get into it. But as long as people with a passing familiarity of the Constitution (like the members of the U.S. Supreme Court) are capable of taking the view that the current regulations regarding firearms are Constitutional, I think it's only fair to concede that there are multiple valid, rational, and defensible viewpoints on this topic. The people who consider every viewpoint but their own on this topic as some kind of sin against humanity aren't doing the political process any favors.

If we get a new Supreme Court ruling on this that rolls back the last 30 years of firearms regulation, I'll probably disagree with it, but I'll view it as the law of the land and I won't see the people who came up with it as somehow unAmerican or irrational. This is just a place where I think educated minds can differ.

[Petrosjko]

This is just a place where I think educated minds can differ.

No, they can't, and I'm going to have to shoot you now for even suggesting it.

*gets out rubber band*

Any last words?

[Chmee]

This is just a place where I think educated minds can differ.

No, they can't, and I'm going to have to shoot you now for even suggesting it.

*gets out rubber band*

Any last words?

You should need a permit for that rubber band!

[Glocksman]

Gun control, as advocated by Sarah Brady et al is intellectually bankrupt, and by adopting it the Democrats have taken a fallacious stance that has only been propped up by misrepresented statistics and emotional hysteria.

They've lied for years, producing bullshit about people being 42 times more likely to shoot a family member or friend than a criminal, hundreds and hundreds of dead children a year from accidents, referring to semi-automatic weapons as 'assault weapons' and 'automatics', the list goes on and on.

Furthermore, as constructed the 2nd Amendment codifies an individual right to bear arms, which they have deliberately distorted.

It's a key issue for me because if they're willing to lie and distort that issue, what credibility do they have on other issues?

Petro, I know that this is one of those emotionally charged issues that people tend to see in black & white, so I'm reluctant to even get into it. But as long as people with a passing familiarity of the Constitution (like the members of the U.S. Supreme Court) are capable of taking the view that the current regulations regarding firearms are Constitutional, I think it's only fair to concede that there are multiple valid, rational, and defensible viewpoints on this topic. The people who consider every viewpoint but their own on this topic as some kind of sin against humanity aren't doing the political process any favors.

If we get a new Supreme Court ruling on this that rolls back the last 30 years of firearms regulation, I'll probably disagree with it, but I'll view it as the law of the land and I won't see the people who came up with it as somehow unAmerican or irrational. This is just a place where I think educated minds can differ.

Viewpoints of the individuals here aside, gun control is one of those issues were support may seem to be a mile wide but it's only an inch deep.


Sure, depending upon the phrasing of the questions asked, a majority of Americans say they support increased gun control.
But is it a 'deciding issue'?
No, it falls under the heading of 'it'd be nice, but I decide my vote on other grounds' for the vast majority of gun control supporters.
In other words, embracing Sarah Brady does little if anything to gain a candidate votes even in areas that favor gun control.

On the other hand, as Al Gore found out, that embrace can be the kiss of death in areas that don't favor such laws.
Pro-gun people vote based on that issue, and Gore's support of gun owner registration schemes cost him his home state, and hence the election.

Kerry realized this. That's why he went on those hunting photo-ops and tried to paint himself as a 'friend of sportsmen'. Too bad his voting record doomed that effort to fail.

[Chmee]

Gun control, as advocated by Sarah Brady et al is intellectually bankrupt, and by adopting it the Democrats have taken a fallacious stance that has only been propped up by misrepresented statistics and emotional hysteria.

They've lied for years, producing bullshit about people being 42 times more likely to shoot a family member or friend than a criminal, hundreds and hundreds of dead children a year from accidents, referring to semi-automatic weapons as 'assault weapons' and 'automatics', the list goes on and on.

Furthermore, as constructed the 2nd Amendment codifies an individual right to bear arms, which they have deliberately distorted.

It's a key issue for me because if they're willing to lie and distort that issue, what credibility do they have on other issues?

Petro, I know that this is one of those emotionally charged issues that people tend to see in black & white, so I'm reluctant to even get into it. But as long as people with a passing familiarity of the Constitution (like the members of the U.S. Supreme Court) are capable of taking the view that the current regulations regarding firearms are Constitutional, I think it's only fair to concede that there are multiple valid, rational, and defensible viewpoints on this topic. The people who consider every viewpoint but their own on this topic as some kind of sin against humanity aren't doing the political process any favors.

If we get a new Supreme Court ruling on this that rolls back the last 30 years of firearms regulation, I'll probably disagree with it, but I'll view it as the law of the land and I won't see the people who came up with it as somehow unAmerican or irrational. This is just a place where I think educated minds can differ.

Viewpoints of the individuals here aside, gun control is one of those issues were support may seem to be a mile wide but it's only an inch deep.


Sure, depending upon the phrasing of the questions asked, a majority of Americans say they support increased gun control.
But is it a 'deciding issue'?
No, it falls under the heading of 'it'd be nice, but I decide my vote on other grounds' for the vast majority of gun control supporters.
In other words, embracing Sarah Brady does little if anything to gain a candidate votes even in areas that favor gun control.

On the other hand, as Al Gore found out, that embrace can be the kiss of death in areas that don't favor such laws.
Pro-gun people vote based on that issue, and Gore's support of gun owner registration schemes cost him his home state, and hence the election.

Kerry realized this. That's why he went on those hunting photo-ops and tried to paint himself as a 'friend of sportsmen'. Too bad his voting record doomed that effort to fail.

Where does that wishy-washy policy-by-polling end? Separation of church and state? Reproductive issues? First Amendment rights? At some point do they just call themselves Republicans and say Nader was right, there's no difference between the parties, Hail the Party?

[Glocksman]

Gun control isn't a Democrat versus Republican issue or a liberal versus conservative issue except perhaps at a national level and even then its not a universal rule.

A lot of conservative commentators favor gun control while there are some liberals who do not.
Ditto (heh ) regarding Democrats and Republicans. Lincoln Chaffee is one asshat who is strongly for gun control while there are a whole lot of Democrats who are against it.

I would vote for a progun Democrat in an instant over an antigun Republican.

[Chmee]

Gun control isn't a Democrat versus Republican issue or a liberal versus conservative issue except perhaps at a national level and even then its not a universal rule.

A lot of conservative commentators favor gun control while there are some liberals who do not.
Ditto (heh ) regarding Democrats and Republicans. Lincoln Chaffee is one asshat who is strongly for gun control while there are a whole lot of Democrats who are against it.

I would vote for a progun Democrat in an instant over an antigun Republican.

I'll continue to vote for moderates on the issue. Anybody suggesting a total ban on firearm ownership is living on such a remote political planet that their disconnect from reality would be the reason I couldn't vote for them.

But, I'll continue to be in favor of keeping full-auto rifles with grenade launchers out of the hands of minors .... too radical for ya?

[Petrosjko]

But, I'll continue to be in favor of keeping full-auto rifles with grenade launchers out of the hands of minors .... too radical for ya?

Go back to Masschussets, ya fuckin' commie.

[Illuminatus Primus]

But, I'll continue to be in favor of keeping full-auto rifles with grenade launchers out of the hands of minors .... too radical for ya?

I don't see why any adult (obviously not a child) with the proper restrictions could not own a 40 mm grenade launcher (with appropriately low fragmentation, low HE grenades) for sport shooting if they respected a series of sensible laws.

Keep in mind that extremely powerful weapons are generally never used in crimes, and those that are are essentially never purchased legally. And bans can due little to stop some people, apparently.

A maniac podiatrist in the Tampa Bay area (less than 10 minutes from my home) amassed an enormous arsenal of submachine guns, assault rifles, belt-fed machine guns, several Light Antitank Weapons, a Stinger surface-to-air missile launcher, and enough homemade and professionally manufactured explosives to destroy his cityblock.

I tell you that you certainly cannot buy Stingers in the U.S. legally.

[Chmee]

But, I'll continue to be in favor of keeping full-auto rifles with grenade launchers out of the hands of minors .... too radical for ya?

I don't see why any adult (obviously not a child) with the proper restrictions could not own a 40 mm grenade launcher (with appropriately low fragmentation, low HE grenades) for sport shooting ...

We don't get a lot of elk in Washington that wear body-armor or hide in fortified bunkers ....

[Petrosjko]

We don't get a lot of elk in Washington that wear body-armor or hide in fortified bunkers ....

Hunting is a total red herring on the issue, one that Kerry et al have avidly been embracing since Clinton's infamous duck hunts.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I don't see why any adult (obviously not a child) with the proper restrictions could not own a 40 mm grenade launcher (with appropriately low fragmentation, low HE grenades) for sport shooting if they respected a series of sensible laws. [underlined, italicized, bolded, colored and enlarged emphasis for people who cannot fucking read]

[Chmee]

My (admittedly weak) humorous reference was because I consider hunting a part of sport shooting ... not the be-all end-all of it.

But weighing the very minimal benefit of citizens legally stockpiling grenade rounds vs. the potential downside, I don't think I'd be voting for that, no.

[RedImperator]

Where does that wishy-washy policy-by-polling end? Separation of church and state? Reproductive issues? First Amendment rights? At some point do they just call themselves Republicans and say Nader was right, there's no difference between the parties, Hail the Party?

Slippery slope. Gun control IS intellectually bankrupt and wouldn't even accomplish what its proponents say it would. Abandoning a bad policy that they love in San Francisco is not the same as folding up on issues of fundamental civil and human rights.

[Illuminatus Primus]

My (admittedly weak) humorous reference was because I consider hunting a part of sport shooting ... not the be-all end-all of it.

But weighing the very minimal benefit of citizens legally stockpiling grenade rounds vs. the potential downside, I don't think I'd be voting for that, no.

Vs. the potential and never illustrated ever by anyone potential downside? I really like when people treat statistical non-entities as a reason to scale back the possible full-extent of people's rights (read: the Ninth Amendment).

As shown many times before, most high-end arms are not preferable for organized or premeditated crime in many ways. So you just have a risk from total lunatics. As illustrated previously by the kindly podiatrist who wanted to "kill all the rags" with "zero residual presence" - whether your weapon is banned or not does not really matter. He acquired antitank rockets anyway. And somehow I doubt the law-biding citizen is going to go plot a terrorist rampage after paying the tax, registering his grenade launcher, buying the highly expensive sub-military sport rounds, and passing psyche and background screenings. Especially when he can grab that RPG-7 on the black market with no strings.

[Chmee]

Vs. the potential and never illustrated ever by anyone potential downside? I really like when people treat statistical non-entities as a reason to scale back the possible full-extent of people's rights (read: the Ninth Amendment).

As shown many times before, most high-end arms are not preferable for organized or premeditated crime in many ways. So you just have a risk from total lunatics. As illustrated previously by the kindly podiatrist who wanted to "kill all the rags" with "zero residual presence" - whether your weapon is banned or not does not really matter. He acquired antitank rockets anyway. And somehow I doubt the law-biding citizen is going to go plot a terrorist rampage after paying the tax, registering his grenade launcher, buying the highly expensive sub-military sport rounds, and passing psyche and background screenings. Especially when he can grab that RPG-7 on the black market with no strings.

Ok, I know this is a losing argument with many folks on this issue, but I'll state my position just so we're clear. I have no faith in the average 'law-abiding citizen,' because I commute to work on a freeway every day. And every single day I see people who were licensed to operate a motor vehicle and operate it in a fashion that only a meth addict who had been dropped on his head repeatedly should operate it .... basically, everyday experience teaches me that a lot of people are simply IDIOTS.

So, in my view, how easy should it be for that idiot to get his hands on something with a fair degree of destructive power? Far easier than getting a driver's license, which I know they abuse maniacally?

When I go hiking, sport-shooting, anything involving outdoors time in our National Forests and Parks, I routinely come across evidence of some chuckleheads who have operated their firearms irresponsibly .... shooting up shit, not policing their spent rounds in a campsite, poaching ... whatever.

I would love to believe that people are generally responsible with dangerous instruments, but practical experience tells me that WAY too many of them aren't. So as a responsible gun owner, I know I am in the minority when I think that it's too frickin' easy, even today, for idiots to get their hands on powerful firearms. I wish it was harder. Not impossibly hard, but I'd like to see someone demonstrate a minimum amount of competence with a weapon before they can run out and buy them.

I'm not optimistic that the political support exists to make it happen ... but in the meantime, I'll support legislation that makes it easier to keep powerful instruments out of the hands of idiots before the fact, not after the tragic occurrence.

[Elfdart]

Back then the Republicans won almost every election without any Southern votes.

And that was when the South was a stagnant backwater that could be safely written off.


Today it's the fastest growing area of the country. To write it off completely would be electoral suicide.

I didn't say write it off completely. Florida is, after all, a southern state. So are Missouri and West Virginia. But the Chigger Belt: Texas to Georgia to the Carolinas and Kentucky should be written off.

Abraham Lincoln put it very well in 1860 at the Cooper Union speech(thanks to Kos):

You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section - gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section, is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started - to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet it as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge? No! Then you really believe that the principle which "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live" thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration.

In other words, if crackers won't vote for Democrats, it's their problem. Whoever gets nominated in 2008 (Kerry, Gore, Dean, Clinton) will do himself or herself a huge favor by not wasting time, money or effort in the deep South. Go where you can actually get votes.

[Knife]

snippity the slippery slope.

So, according to your logic, ex the knives, cank the cars, get rid of the small little happymeal toys that kids choke on, and everything that any moron ever killed himself with.

We as citizens in a free country are just to dumb to be free.

To 'take a right' away from me, you better have more than 'I see stupid people' as an argument.

[Chmee]

snippity the slippery slope.

So, according to your logic, ex the knives, cank the cars, get rid of the small little happymeal toys that kids choke on, and everything that any moron ever killed himself with.

We as citizens in a free country are just to dumb to be free.

To 'take a right' away from me, you better have more than 'I see stupid people' as an argument.

When they make a happymeal toy that can take out a dozen people at 400 yards, be sure and get back to me.

Compare apples to apples, not apples to ball bearings. We routinely regulate things that are dangerous when used by unqualified idiots. Yes one can drive a car on the freeway, no one can't drive a Formula One car on the freeway, because although it's one's perfect right to kill themself through stupidity, it's not their right to take a half dozen of us with them in a fiery inferno.

[Glocksman]

At some point do they just call themselves Republicans and say Nader was right, there's no difference between the parties, Hail the Party?

On a lot of issues, there is no real difference between the parties.

Illegal immigration:
Both the Democrats and the Republicans are too busy sucking illegal immigrant cock to actually think about enforcing the damned law and deporting them back to Mexico despite polls showing time and time again that a majority of people favor it.

Free Trade:
Back in 1992, candidate Bill Clinton talked about 'fair trade' and tying China trade to human rights and trade practices issues.

President Clinton did a 180 and adopted the Republican 'free trade' stance.

Guns:
What a lot of people forgot in the hoopla surrounding the expiration of the 1994 AWB is that the first restrictions on so-called 'assault rifles' were put into place by George Bush on the advice of 'Drug Czar' (and Gambling addict) Bill Bennett.

Those restrictions are still in place, along with a lot of the Clinton era EO's.
GWB refuses to lift them.

Drugs:
Both parties are wholeheartedly committed to this senseless 'War on Drugs'.

Foreign Policy:
Despite all that's happened since 9/11, you still don't see any serious discussion from either side of the aisle about our relationship with Israel and the problems that have arisen from it.

Where there is a stark difference between the two parties, its over some of the hot button social issues like abortion and gay rights.

There also is a difference over how to deal with the looming Social Security crisis.
A lot of Democrats want to deny that the crisis even exists while a lot of Republicans want to turn it over to the tender mercies of Wall Street. Neither one is acceptable.

Nader's full of shit on a lot of things but he's right when he says that on a lot of subjects both parties act the same way.

[Chmee]

At some point do they just call themselves Republicans and say Nader was right, there's no difference between the parties, Hail the Party?

On a lot of issues, there is no real difference between the parties.

Illegal immigration:
Both the Democrats and the Republicans are too busy sucking illegal immigrant cock to actually think about enforcing the damned law and deporting them back to Mexico despite polls showing time and time again that a majority of people favor it.

Free Trade:
Back in 1992, candidate Bill Clinton talked about 'fair trade' and tying China trade to human rights and trade practices issues.

President Clinton did a 180 and adopted the Republican 'free trade' stance.

Guns:
What a lot of people forgot in the hoopla surrounding the expiration of the 1994 AWB is that the first restrictions on so-called 'assault rifles' were put into place by George Bush on the advice of 'Drug Czar' (and Gambling addict) Bill Bennett.

Those restrictions are still in place, along with a lot of the Clinton era EO's.
GWB refuses to lift them.

Drugs:
Both parties are wholeheartedly committed to this senseless 'War on Drugs'.

Foreign Policy:
Despite all that's happened since 9/11, you still don't see any serious discussion from either side of the aisle about our relationship with Israel and the problems that have arisen from it.

Where there is a stark difference between the two parties, its over some of the hot button social issues like abortion and gay rights.

There also is a difference over how to deal with the looming Social Security crisis.
A lot of Democrats want to deny that the crisis even exists while a lot of Republicans want to turn it over to the tender mercies of Wall Street. Neither one is acceptable.

Nader's full of shit on a lot of things but he's right when he says that on a lot of subjects both parties act the same way.

Well I look at this two ways. First, there's no such thing as a generic Republican or Democrat ... both parties have a wide spectrum of ideological beliefs within their membership, so there is certainly bound to be areas of overlap.

Second, Nader is tripping heavily if he believes that there are not fundamental differences in Executive policy from electing one or the other ... differences even the most casual observer could easily recognize. Environmental policy and judicial nominations would be the first two that come to mind, but the list is considerably longer than that.

[Glocksman]

Second, Nader is tripping heavily if he believes that there are not fundamental differences in Executive policy from electing one or the other ... differences even the most casual observer could easily recognize. Environmental policy and judicial nominations would be the first two that come to mind, but the list is considerably longer than that.

Sure there are fundamental differences, but those differences aren't as stark as a lot of people would have us believe. Neither party is really 'ideological' in the sense that all members subscribe to a common set of beliefs.

For example, Indiana's retiring Governor (a Democrat named Joe Kernan) has much more in common with a lot of Republicans than he does with the national leadership of his own party. Similarly, Lincoln Chaffee has a lot more in common with Ted Kennedy than he does with Ted Stevens.

Nader's incorrect when he says both parties are the same, but he's right in the sense that both parties have adopted the same positions on certain issues and that this unspoken consensus shuts off debate on those issues.

[Chmee]

Second, Nader is tripping heavily if he believes that there are not fundamental differences in Executive policy from electing one or the other ... differences even the most casual observer could easily recognize. Environmental policy and judicial nominations would be the first two that come to mind, but the list is considerably longer than that.

Sure there are fundamental differences, but those differences aren't as stark as a lot of people would have us believe. Neither party is really 'ideological' in the sense that all members subscribe to a common set of beliefs.

For example, Indiana's retiring Governor (a Democrat named Joe Kernan) has much more in common with a lot of Republicans than he does with the national leadership of his own party. Similarly, Lincoln Chaffee has a lot more in common with Ted Kennedy than he does with Ted Stevens.

Nader's incorrect when he says both parties are the same, but he's right in the sense that both parties have adopted the same positions on certain issues and that this unspoken consensus shuts off debate on those issues.

Ralph could only believe that if he paid 0% attention to local politics ... those debates occur within the parties 24x7, 365 a year.

[Petrosjko]

Time to dig out my 'political parties' speech.

Basically, political parties have no fixed ideologies. They have no principles and no inherent ethics. They are machines designed for the purpose of getting votes.

That's not to say that individual members within the party do not have ethics, or a screed against the existance of parties. But it is a recognition of the facts.

I've said it in the past, but Chmee wasn't around for it- if the fundamentalist Christian base that the Republicans draw on for their solid support suddenly decided tomorrow that abortion was cool and boys kissing was no big deal, a good portion of the leadership would spin on the proverbial dime to accommodate the change. Likewise if the NEA went nuts and suddenly started yelling for school vouchers, watch the Democrats decide that it's a great issue to get behind.

Parties are a necessary evil for a republican system, but they should not have such things ascribed to them that they do not possess, such as inherent ethics.