oh State of the Union

[Zosi]

This is why I'm a conservative, we strive on ideas, where as the other side of the fence has no ideas, only complaints.

If that's your reason for being a conservative, I'm very sad for you. I'd rather someone be a conservative because they agree with conservative views after weighing both sides, not because they're mentally incapable of realizing that opinions and ideas of the other side deserve respect and acknowledgment, even if they disagree with every single word of them. I can respect someone who agrees or disagrees with me based on the *merits* of my ideas, but I have zero respect for someone who can't even face disagreement without resorting to name-calling or trash-talking.

However, I'm sure it's easier to just listen to Limbaugh or Hannity and ape whatever their criticisms of liberalism today are. Maybe some day you'll realize that thinking for yourself and forming your own opinions are actually pretty cool, but until then, enjoy your shallow viewpoints held together by the lies you tell yourself until you're convinced that they're true.

P.S. - Before you start railing on me for being a liberal, you may want to consider that one does not have to have a particular party affiliation in order to hate mindless sheep. They're despicable, no matter what party they claim to be a member of.

[Delta_9]

Ah okay, kind of misunderstood. I think it was from atleast late 1990s. As for gas, its pretty much already hit a soft cap. $3.50-$3 seems to be the point where people sit back and go "meh fuck that, I'll walk/ride".

They are weapons made in the U.S that are killing young Americans in the hood, should'nt we invade the hood too?

Before this gets into a "omg lets ban guns". http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

Because when you ban those firearms you sure are taking them out of the hands of people that would use them to hurt others.

EDIT: Realize I'm kinda starting it by posting that, but had to be said.

[Rammses]

It didn't have to be said.

[riddaraan]

Ah okay, kind of misunderstood. I think it was from atleast late 1990s. As for gas, its pretty much already hit a soft cap. $3.50-$3 seems to be the point where people sit back and go "meh fuck that, I'll walk/ride".

Apparently you haven't been to Texas. I'm afraid that here, having a car, truck, or other form of private transportation, is pretty much a necessity. Even the poorest people I know own a car. And those that don't, are about as bad off as you can get.

[Delta_9]

Apparently you haven't been to Texas. I'm afraid that here, having a car, truck, or other form of private transportation, is pretty much a necessity. Even the poorest people I know own a car. And those that don't, are about as bad off as you can get.

Wasn't a statement to cover 100% of Americans. There are always exceptions to the rule. And nope never been to Texas, driven through a couple times on the way back to Arizona and that's about it. ;p

[Jones]

And American weapons in Israel killing Palestinians.

Let's not even get into South America.

Or Africa while we're at it.

The only interest America has had in Africa since slavery has been a source of animals to fill our zoos with, silly.

Diamonds yo!

[Ushallbeasgods]

[quote=Delta_9]Ah okay, kind of misunderstood. I think it was from atleast late 1990s. As for gas, its pretty much already hit a soft cap. $3.50-$3 seems to be the point where people sit back and go "meh fuck that, I'll walk/ride".

[quote=Silverbane][quote=Tonko][quote=Egon][quote=senoska][quote="Egon":1rx49nbj][/quote][/quote][/quote]

They are weapons made in the U.S that are killing young Americans in the hood, should'nt we invade the hood too?[/quote][/quote]

Before this gets into a "omg lets ban guns". [url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=510801&in_page_id=1770"]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770[/url]

Because when you ban those firearms you sure are taking them out of the hands of people that would use them to hurt others.

EDIT: Realize I'm kinda starting it by posting that, but had to be said.[/quote:1rx49nbj]

Because let's ignore all the countries who don't have a gun culture and don't seem to go around shooting each other. Figure this you take care of the most disadvantaged in society (social safety net) and they don't turn around and shoot up the place.

[Delta_9]

Because let's ignore all the countries who don't have a gun culture and don't seem to go around shooting each other. Figure this you take care of the most disadvantaged in society (social safety net) and they don't turn around and shoot up the place.

And what countries are those? Honest question.

EDIT: Suppose Japan maybe one, but not as if crime doesn't happen there.

[Rammses]

Because let's ignore all the countries who don't have a gun culture and don't seem to go around shooting each other. Figure this you take care of the most disadvantaged in society (social safety net) and they don't turn around and shoot up the place.

And what countries are those? Honest question.

EDIT: Suppose Japan maybe one, but not as if crime doesn't happen there.

Go find some statistics of gun crime in UK compared to the US. I don't understand, were you trying to make a point with your link? Liverpool probably has the most dangerous areas in all of Brittain, of course there will be some guns in the wrong hands there. You can have your reasons for supporting the right to bear arms, I don't see why it should be discussed here though, but your attempted point is incorrect and your linked article is largely irrelevant. The statistics are clear enough regarding this.

[Delta_9]

I wasn't being sarcastic with that question. I know what the statistics are. My point is, that you can not prevent violent crime by simply banning the weapon and when you do you just create a underground market for them.

[Octavious]

I wasn't being sarcastic with that question. I know what the statics are. My point is, that you can not prevent violent crime by simply banning the weapon and when you do you just create a underground market for them.

exactly, see: alcohol

The real 'lol' comes from Bush stating No Child Left Behind is a success...riiiight...

[Ushallbeasgods]

I wasn't being sarcastic with that question. I know what the statics are. My point is, that you can not prevent violent crime by simply banning the weapon and when you do you just create a underground market for them.

exactly, see: alcohol

The real 'lol' comes from Bush stating No Child Left Behind is a success...riiiight...

Maybe a ban is not the right policy decision. But you can't deny a culture of guns and fear along with weak social safety nets is helping.

Its a pointless discussion because the right to bear arms will always be a fact in the US and raising taxes, even if it is to support the people who need help, is a big no-no.

[Charla]

Its a pointless discussion because the right to bear arms will always be a fact in the US and raising taxes, even if it is to support the people who need help, is a big political no-no.

fixed. Now keep the thread alive until Guartz, Skurlover and Swampdonkey show up!

[Haelian]

I wasn't being sarcastic with that question. I know what the statics are. My point is, that you can not prevent violent crime by simply banning the weapon and when you do you just create a underground market for them.

exactly, see: alcohol

The real 'lol' comes from Bush stating No Child Left Behind is a success...riiiight...

I remember when Bush claimed he would be called the "education president." Hilarious. Standardized testing was already thoroughly hated by faculty and students at schools before Bush came along, I can't even imagine how bad it is now.

[Ushallbeasgods]

I wasn't being sarcastic with that question. I know what the statics are. My point is, that you can not prevent violent crime by simply banning the weapon and when you do you just create a underground market for them.

exactly, see: alcohol

The real 'lol' comes from Bush stating No Child Left Behind is a success...riiiight...

I remember when Bush claimed he would be called the "education president." Hilarious. Standardized testing was already thoroughly hated by faculty and students at schools before Bush came along, I can't even imagine how bad it is now.

Teacher's aren't trained and paid to assess if their students are capable of proceeding to the next grade right?

[riddaraan]

I wasn't being sarcastic with that question. I know what the statics are. My point is, that you can not prevent violent crime by simply banning the weapon and when you do you just create a underground market for them.

exactly, see: alcohol

The real 'lol' comes from Bush stating No Child Left Behind is a success...riiiight...

I remember when Bush claimed he would be called the "education president." Hilarious. Standardized testing was already thoroughly hated by faculty and students at schools before Bush came along, I can't even imagine how bad it is now.

Teacher's aren't trained and paid to assess if their students are capable of proceeding to the next grade right?

Sadly, this is the focus of our education of educators these days. My girlfriend is in her last semester of college, doing her student teaching. The main focus is "Standardized Testing", not "Education."

And crazy enough, this testing begins at the Pre-K level.

[Rammses]

I wasn't being sarcastic with that question. I know what the statistics are. My point is, that you can not prevent violent crime by simply banning the weapon and when you do you just create a underground market for them.

This is contradictive as the statistics indicate that liberal gun laws do in fact lead to an increase of violent(lethal) crime.

As for the countries, the problem is obviosuly not that gun crime exists, that is just an inevitable fact and will remain so in the foreseeable future. The problem is the frequency. For countries with less gun crime than the USA, try any western country, those with strict gun laws in particular.

[Ushallbeasgods]

I wasn't being sarcastic with that question. I know what the statistics are. My point is, that you can not prevent violent crime by simply banning the weapon and when you do you just create a underground market for them.

This is contradictive as the statistics indicate that liberal gun laws do in fact lead to an increase of violent(lethal) crime.

As for the countries, the problem is obviosuly not that gun crime exists, that is just an inevitable fact and will remain so in the foreseeable future. The problem is the frequency. For countries with less gun crime than the USA, try any western country, those with strict gun laws in particular.

My personal view is that restrictive gun laws work. Your deterring the petty criminal, the citizen gone crazy and generally anyone who is not hell bent on getting a gun.

Underground markets will exist and if someone really wants a gun they will get one but this will at least stop those ones who are not really killers from becoming killers.

Secondly and I think this is largely ignored in the US gun debate is the fact that most criminals are poor. You don't take care of those who need to be taken care of (and I mean social safety nets, health care, welfare etc etc) until they can get back on their feet and they will turn to crime.

The Europeans aren't peace loving non violent hippies because of the pot... ok well its because of the pot and the extensive social programs that take care of their citizens when they need it the most.

[riddaraan]

Since this has turned into a "crime & punishment" debate, I just wanted to throw out my thought, and see if anyone bites.

Basically, the reason that so many underground, illegal guns are purchased, is because often times, petty criminals (who get caught in stings) wind up belly flopping for the cops, so that the police can go after bigger fish. And on and on it goes, until they find the "source" of the problem. It's much like this in the way of drugs, so we'd have to assume it to be true with guns as well.

However, by doing the catch & release method on small time offenders, you allow them to wander back into civilization, without rehabilitation, to perpetuate the growth of the cancer. Unfortunately, by the time the police actually manage to wrangle anyone of any importance, it's too late, and some small fish has grown large and fat, and replaces the fallen emperor of evil.

Obviously, this means that a majority of our crime problems, including gun control, are based upon the failed tactics of our law-enforcement and criminal justice systems. Before we start barging into legislation and pointing fingers, I think we should take a deeper look and evaluate the failure of the core of our judicial system.

Even if you cut down the giant tree, you still have the millions of roots in your yard.

I believe in enforcing stronger penalties for small time criminals. However, I also believe in re-defining what "small time criminal" means. Busting a guy for a dime sack, and throwing him in the slammer isn't right, especially when a hidden majority of the population partakes in the herb.

But catch a guy with an illegal gun just once? Let's talk about cruel & inhumane.

[Ushallbeasgods]

Since this has turned into a "crime & punishment" debate, I just wanted to throw out my thought, and see if anyone bites.

Basically, the reason that so many underground, illegal guns are purchased, is because often times, petty criminals (who get caught in stings) wind up belly flopping for the cops, so that the police can go after bigger fish. And on and on it goes, until they find the "source" of the problem. It's much like this in the way of drugs, so we'd have to assume it to be true with guns as well.

However, by doing the catch & release method on small time offenders, you allow them to wander back into civilization, without rehabilitation, to perpetuate the growth of the cancer. Unfortunately, by the time the police actually manage to wrangle anyone of any importance, it's too late, and some small fish has grown large and fat, and replaces the fallen emperor of evil.

Obviously, this means that a majority of our crime problems, including gun control, are based upon the failed tactics of our law-enforcement and criminal justice systems. Before we start barging into legislation and pointing fingers, I think we should take a deeper look and evaluate the failure of the core of our judicial system.

Even if you cut down the giant tree, you still have the millions of roots in your yard.

I believe in enforcing stronger penalties for small time criminals. However, I also believe in re-defining what "small time criminal" means. Busting a guy for a dime sack, and throwing him in the slammer isn't right, especially when a hidden majority of the population partakes in the herb.

But catch a guy with an illegal gun just once? Let's talk about cruel & inhumane.

Ok I'll bite. Who is to say that our system of "jails" and "punishment" is the most effective? Who is to say that an alternative system of "punishment" will not work? If we really want to dig to the core of our justice system we need to ask ourselves if the very implied notion of jails = punishment is even right.

Maybe there are alternatives that we have not even considered. Just saying...