Warning to Republicans: First female president cannot be Democrat
The War On Women propaganda is already in effect and the culture is being wired to believe that Republicans are at war with women. Hillary Clinton is going to be the victim and Republicans are going to be made out to be the big bully.
You ready to deal with that, Republicans?
To a liberal, the first qualifying factor is a woman’s so-called right to kill her child and make someone else pay for it….
Republicans, for the love of God, do not let the Democrats elect the first female president!
~ Alfonzo Rachel warning Republicans that they should not allow the first female president to be elected from the Democrat Party, via ZoNation’s PJTV, December 28
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
He’s absolutely right. The Republicans were digging their own grave when they never took Bachmann seriously.
No one took Bachmann seriously. But here’s hoping the Republicans nominate her next time around.
The “tolerant Left” seems to believe conservative blacks are dumb lackeys, and conservative women are dumb, flighty dingbats. Stereotypes are at the core of their beliefs.
Conservatives stress the wrongness of leftist ideas. It doesn’t matter who they are. It only matters what they intend to do.
Here’s a novel idea: we vote for the candidate we think is most suited to the job.
What we are living with now is a candidate who is NOT a leader, who is NOT qualified to lead this country, and we have him because people voted for him out of their emotional projections onto his image rather than vote for him because of the job he did or didn’t do. Too many Americans voted with their easily-manipulated-by-the-media emotions, instead of their intellect.
I’m not voting for someone’s skin color, or ovaries, thank you very much.
ninek, you may disagree with our decision to vote for President Obama, but it’s wrong to dismiss that decision as based on “easily manipulated-by-the-media emotions.” I used my intellect to decide who to vote for, and I assume most other people did too.
Michelle Bachmann is not serious presidential contender. She’s only representative and comes across as an extremist. There are plenty of principled conservative women who can appeal to a broad base(such as Kelly Ayotte or Susana Martinez), but Michelle Bachmann(or Sarah Palin for that matter) is not among them.
I remain skeptical of anyone who voted for President Obama.
The Democrats (and their media lapdogs) have deceived the American people into believing that government can provide us with benefits paid for by the rich people – at no cost to the rest of us. They should rename the Democratic Party – the Demagogic Party.There are not enough rich people to provide the government with enough revenues to satiate its appetite for spending. In fact, these new taxes will not even provide enough money to even make a dent in last years deficit, much less this years – especially since the rich people have already taken measures to avoid tax increases. Yet many people voted for Obama and his class warfare, his outrageous deficits and his attacks on religious freedom.
If you believe you were not manipulated by the media, then you are against the Bill of Rights, against fiscal responsibility and in favor of government controlled economy (also known as communism).
“Too many Americans voted with their easily-manipulated-by-the-media emotions, instead of their intellect.” – this is what helped create and drive the tea party types. Fox, WND etc. generating loonie tunes political agendas.
I kinda hope someone like Bachmann gets nominated next time - a guaranteed defeat for the republicans.
Seriously, if the republicans want to get a female president up then they’ve got a lot of work to do. None of their current high profile women are any more than extremist loons who would shred society. Of course they need to get past their inherent misogyny first.
Wow, Reality. That’s a lot of character attacks with no supporting evidence, even for you.
What about Michele Bachmann is/was extreme or loony to you (other than that she dares not bow before the “progressive” feminists’ throne of abortion)?
As much as I’d love to see a pro-life woman as the first female president, I must say that Bachmann and Palin are a bit too “out there” for me. They would certainly be better than a pro-abortion woman, but the poll numbers aren’t exactly on their side.
None of their current high profile women are any more than extremist loons who would shred society. Of course they need to get past their inherent misogyny first.
You don’t think society isn’t “shredded” already, Reality?
Andrew, I’m quite happy to let Palin’s and Bachmann’s records speak for themselves. You’re aware of many of the statements they’ve come out with. They range from crazy to dishonest.
Not as much as it would be if it weren’t for the democrats resisting the republican ethos of ‘every man for himself’ Mother In Texas.
I would gladly vote for Kelly Ayotte.
Why? She’s a Penn Stater!
I would be open to considering Condi Rice for President. The two Republicans shown in the picture…I wouldn’t trust them to watch our hermit crabs, let alone run the country.
This video probably says it best about Obama supporters and their delusional thinking. There is a religious message in the last few seconds which posters can regard or disregard as it is the first 5 minutes I find the most profound. Perhaps some of our Obama supporting posters will see themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo-TkzGFe4s
Andrew, I’m quite happy to let Palin’s and Bachmann’s records speak for themselves. You’re aware of many of the statements they’ve come out with. They range from crazy to dishonest.
Oh come on, Reality. Don’t tease us like that. Quote one of those – let me see if I have all the adjectives here – crazy, dishonest, extreme, “loonie,” or misogynistic statements. I’m giving you a free punch here, and you’re not going to take it? Please quote one extreme or loony statement from Michele Bachmann. Just one.
here you go Andrew, knock yourself out.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/republicans/a/michele-bachmann-quotes.htm
http://www.ranker.com/list/the-most-controversial-michele-bachmann-quotes/pilgrimsprogressive
Reality,
LOL, If you agree that carbon dioxide is so dangerous, I can only suggest you stop breathing! You’ve been blowing off CO2 since you took your first breath.
How about you try sitting in a cubicle with nothing but carbon dioxide in it Mary? Let me know how you get on.
Almost nothing is dangerous, until the amount is wrong
Reality,
Ever hear of oxygen poisoning?
http://chemistry.about.com/od/toxicchemicals/ss/Oxygen-Poisoning.htm
Almost nothing is dangerous, until the amount is wrong.
Yes Mary, I have. We are obviously both aware that raised levels of carbon dioxide, oxygen or many other things can be harmful. What’s your point?
Reality,
LOL. Have you heard any “concerns” about the levels of oxygen? Look Reality, you posted the video about Michelle Bachmann commenting on CO2 and Keith Blowharderman commenting on it. I’m just responding. If you agree CO2 is such a problem, quit breathing.
Reality –
What did you think of the fiscal cliff deal last night?
Is this GOP going to officially fracture into two parties? What a mess!
While it is certainly true that many million people voted for Obama because of media manipulated emotions, we must not forget that our in house Obama-supporting trolls like Reality and EGV voted for him because of his extremist pro-abortion stance. Their support wasn’t mindless; they know exactly what they’re doing.
John L -
That is an ignorant post – a flat out lie, stupid, and barely worth a response – but since I want to set the record straight, I’m going to rise above the ignorance of that post and put in my two cents.
I voted for Obama, primarily, for two reasons:
1) I believe that the health care path the GOP had us on was in a downward spiral that would eventually collapse the entire health care system. I could not support that path.
2) I believe that the current economic policies of the GOP, if they were to find themselves in the majority, would be tragic for the middle and lower class.
My vote had nothing to do with abortion – if you’ve read my posts, you would know that I support Obama in spite of his abortion stance. I simply don’t believe that the GOP would do anything to get rid of abortion, and their economic and health care policies would lead to more abortions.
Again – my two cents on your classless post.
EGV, if you had read my posts, you would know that I don’t believe a single word you say. Your “reasons” for voting Obama are absurd. The Democratic Party spent months ridiculing Mitt Romney as the author of Obamacare, yet you say that you fear Romney would have collapsed the health care system. That leaves your only potentially valid argument, that Romney would have screwed the poor and middle class by giving all the money to his rich buddies. That argument, which has no basis in reality, has arbitrarily been used against all GOP candidates by all partisan liberal pro-abortion Democrats like yourself for many decades.
John –
If you don’t believe a word I say, simply don’t read my posts. I’d rather have you ignore me than slander my name when you yourself have now admitted that you are simply making up what you believe I am.
If Romney would have said that yes, he embraces health care reform like he created – that would have been one thing. He worked hard to distance himself from that view to the point to the extreme that he no longer supported what he himself had championed. It was an odd view.
I wouldn’t say that the argument has been used arbitrarily – I’d say it has been used systematically against rich elitists like Romney that don’t care about the middle and lower class, and would sacrifice the average American to ensure that the elite don’t have to pay another dime in taxes.
Why do my words matter anyway though, make up your own narrative. You are like Donald Trump (though hopefully with better hair).
EVG, Romney repeatedly said that he supported Romneycare and similar state-level solutions. His main problem with Obamacare is that it is federal. And absurd Democratic Party talking points about how the GOP just hates the poor are absurd, enough said. But you don’t care about any of that, obviously. I will give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you are a senile old man who doesn’t know which way is up. As for me I am a disappointed young man – disappointed by the endless fundamental dishonesty and/or craziness of the Democratic party, and by the stupidity and ineffectuality of the GOP.
John L –
I’m a 36 year old father of three.
On 60 minutes, Romney made the case that it was a good option that people without health insurance simply go to emegency rooms, get their care, and leave states to pay for it.
This was a few years after he made the (accurate) case that emergency room care should be the last resort and what he argued for (in the paragraph above) was a “form of socialism”.
Romney was a great mind of health care that was forced to take very stupid, very dangerous, and very illogical positions to fit into the anti-health care reform mold.
But again, you’ve called me a liar once on this thread – so what do I know. Make me an old man, make me whatever you want. Doesn’t matter anymore.
I wouldn’t say that the argument has been used arbitrarily – I’d say it has been used systematically against rich elitists like Romney that don’t care about the middle and lower class, and would sacrifice the average American to ensure that the elite don’t have to pay another dime in taxes.
Oh, EGV,
I thought better of you. That’s equivalent to the Red Scare, thinking a Soviet spy was under every bed. How many millions did Romney have to give away to meet your standards?
Your Party is the intrusive one. Not just the bedroom, but the kitchen and every other room they can seek to control.
Meanwhile, we warn of a very real “in the red” scare. And you seem no more serious about that than Obama is. You just keep demonizing the successful, till they’ll be an endangerized species. Brilliant plan.
Hi Ex. I was gobsmacked that enough republicans saw sense to pass the vote. I would hope that the lunatic fringe starts to get the message.
The message is simple. Obama won, the incumbent was returned. The dem’s increased their numbers in the senate. The repub’s reduced their numbers in the house. Analysis of ‘who’ actually lost their seats shows that the tea party scaremongers are quite likely to be swept aside at the midterms. Dem’s will hold all levels and a real, positive and constructive policy agenda will be able to be enacted.
“many million people voted for Obama because of media manipulated emotions” – no, they did so because they saw past the shallow and manipulative policies of the ‘every man for himself’ greed party.
“his extremist pro-abortion stance” – the only thing that is extremist is your making such a ludicrous statement.
“Your Party is the intrusive one. Not just the bedroom, but the kitchen and every other room they can seek to control.” – that’s a funny thing to say since it is republicans who are anti-abortion, anti-contraception, anti-homosexual and anti-unmarried sex. And it is their supporters who squeal, squawk, moan, groan and complain when the gubmint won’t enact legislation to ensure things stay that way. “Give us arms, don’t feed the poor, don’t charge taxes, let the sick die, teach the bible not science….”.
Can you be more off-target? No one’s asking the government to give them firearms, or not to feed the poor, or charge taxes, or let the sick die, or replace science with the bible.
But apparently you do want the government to take away firearms, make it harder for the poor to feed themselves, and charge even more taxes in a race where revenue can never beat the spending you want.
And more of the sick will die due to the inefficiency and desperate, draconian measures your side will ensure. And no one’s trying to outlaw science. It’d just be nice to be able to question these elite wizards, not just accept their word as gospel (so to speak).
Well not ‘give’ them arms, but let them have whatever arms they want. When that amendment was written there wasn’t the weaponry there is today. To those who say ‘so what, it still means we are allowed to arm ourselves with what’s available’ I say ‘we have nukes, should you be entitled to buy some of those too?’
Many republicans believe in almost zero welfare.
Many republicans believe in almost zero taxation.
The audience at a GOP convention cheered at the idea of people dying because they couldn’t afford health care.
Many republicans at state level constantly strive to replace science with creationism.
Northern european countries have significantly higher taxes and social welfare. They have lower crime rates, lower drug abuse rates, lower teen pregnancy rates and yes, lower abortion rates. They also score higher on the happiness index.
What happens to people who are no longer useful to the left? They are thrown into the trash. This has happened to numerous individuals and groups. Some examples: Lisa Jackson–EPA director, Hillary Clinton (multiple times), at least 14 persons who carried out Fast and Furious, hundreds of Mexicans in that same operation, UN ambassador -Susan Rice, passed over for the white guy, Christopher Stevens, ambassador to Libya, 90 percent of those diagnosed with Down Syndrome, girl babies (by planned parenthood which says sex selection abortion is ok). I could go on endlessly but am typing on an iPhone. The point is … To the lefties, you are trash to your side when you are no longer thought to be useful, and when dumping you is expedient. Your side does not recognize intrinsic value of humans and this will affect you someday.
Hi Pharmer,
Believe it or not, lefties have finally found a tax they don’t like. Democrat senators, including Klobuchar, Stabenow, and that clown and rape fantasizer Al Franken, are now looking to delay and eventually eliminate the medical device tax. One of many taxes that will be levied so as to provide “free” health care. You know those devices like pacemakers, catheters, etc. that are made by eeeeeeevil companies who employ thousands, in…believe it or not…states these senators represent! Far be it from me to suggest these senators might be motivated by a concern for their own re-election.
Of course this same collection of clowns voted FOR Obamacare to begin with, but that’s beside the point. One can’t expect our lawmakers to actually read the laws they pass, especially when they’re 2700 pages. From what I have read the Dear Leader is not willing to repeal this tax even though thousands of layoffs have already begun.
http://www.businessschooljournal.com/companies-slash-budgets-and-layoff-workers-to-prepare-for-medical-device-tax/
Oh the gods do indeed punish (wo)man by answering their prayers!
Uh Reality, 12:18am
There has always been major weaponry not available to the public. I never recall my neighbors being armed with tanks, bazookas, and cannons.
One of those European countries that you so greatly admire, Switzerland, has a gun in every household, and owners trained to use them. That might help explain the low crime rate you cite.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/switzrld.html
It also explains why the Germans chose not to invade in WW2. Given the armed citizenry and the mountainous terrain conducive to guerrilla warfare, the Nazis would have been decimated.
The gun control hall of fame
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/fame.html
The audience at a GOP convention cheered at the idea of people dying because they couldn’t afford health care.
It was at a Tea Party sponsored debate, actually. And the hypothetical person was dying because he chose not to buy health insurance, not because he couldn’t afford healthcare.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1109/12/se.06.html
Don’t let the facts get in your way.
Uh Mary, the low crime rate in Switzerland is because gun owners have the concept in mind of the citizenry protecting their nation against invaders. In the US the concept is individuals defending themselves against each other and the ebil gubmint. They also have much tighter licence and ownership rules and regulations.
Yeah great Navi, what a wonderful mindset, so civilized. So do you cheer when a speeding driver gets killed? How about when a smoker dies? I suppose you cheer when someone dies of AIDS because they failed to use a condom at some stage?
Yeah great Navi, what a wonderful mindset, so civilized. So do you cheer when a speeding driver gets killed? How about when a smoker dies? I suppose you cheer when someone dies of AIDS because they failed to use a condom at some stage?
I didn’t say that I personally agree with the sentiment. Many Republicans (including Rick Perry) were still horrified by it. My purpose was only to show that you greatly overstated your case.
Is anyone else completely unable to edit their comments after posting them, or is it just me having problems?
Uh Reality,
In Switzerland you are well aware that the homeowner has a gun and knows how to use it. That can do much to discourage a breaking and entering. Who cares about any “concepts”? BTW, when was Switzerland last invaded? Somehow I don’t think the population is on perpetual alert for an invasion. Licensing and regulation or not, homeowners have guns. Let’s just say all those guns don’t cause crime.
Hi Navi,
I can’t either.
“That can do much to discourage a breaking and entering” – I think you’ll find there are many more reasons for their lower crime rate than the fact that people have guns. If you look at their society overall you’ll find it is much more civilized and less aggressive. There is a greater spirit of social inclusion and better social welfare.
“Who cares about any “concepts”? – yes, of course, I should have realised.
“Somehow I don’t think the population is on perpetual alert for an invasion.” – then you onviously know little about the Swiss military systems, infrastructure and readiness.
“Let’s just say all those guns don’t cause crime.” – yet they do in the US.
Reality,
LOL. The fact remains that private gun ownership does not in itself promote crime or violence and in fact goes a long way toward keeping people safe. Yeah right, everyone loves each other and frolics with the bunny rabbits in the forest. Spare me.
Also, being the Swiss could even scare off the Nazi war machine and there are no war rumblings going on near Switzerland, I doubt that the Swiss, however well prepared, aren’t exactly sweating out a potential invasion.
Reality,
Dynamite, hammers, fireplace pokers, knives and baseball bats cause crime too, right?
“The fact remains that private gun ownership does not in itself promote crime or violence” – I agree, it is the social fabric which drives crime and violence.
“and in fact goes a long way toward keeping people safe.” – only in places like the US.
“I doubt that the Swiss, however well prepared, aren’t exactly sweating out a potential invasion.” – they’re not ‘sweating it’ because they are prepared.
“Dynamite, hammers, fireplace pokers, knives and baseball bats cause crime too, right?” – as I said, it is the social fabric which drives crime and violence.
Wait now Reality,
You can’t have it both ways. According to your 6:26PM post guns cause crimes in the US. However equally deadly weapons such as knives, hammers, baseball bats, dynamite, and fireplace pokers don’t. Its the social fabric which drives crime and violence.
So which is it Reality?
Private gun ownership does not in itself promote crime or violence, it is the ownership of guns by people who are driven to commit crime by a less than positive social fabric which promotes crime and violence. Especially given the number of weapons US gun owners have in their possession compared to Switzerland. An excessive number of guns owned by people who shouldn’t have them causes more crimes to occur. Less guns, less crime and violence.
Reality,
So you would agree that less hammers, knives, baseball bats, dynamite, and fireplace pokers, as well as guns, would mean less crime and violence as well? If you do a little googling you will discover that knives and clubs kill about an equal number of people though fireplace pokers don’t. Also, dynamite has a great potential for mass killing. I think I bring up a very legitimate point here.
Navi
If I may ask a follow-up.
Are you saying you are in favor of letting people die if they don’t buy insurance?
Mary -
I am all ears in regards to why Americans have a lot more homicides in general, and a lot more gun violence than any other industrialized nation in the world. You keep making claims that guns aren’t bad – so please let me know – why do we kill so, so, so many more people than are killed in any other modern nation. Enlighten me.
EGV,
Why people are more violent here is your guess as well as mine. I suppose we could dwell on all sorts of possible sociological reasons. However it does seem a little unfair to pick on guns since knives, hammers, and clubs kill the same number of people. Do you keep a lot of these items in your house EGV? Have they driven you to insane acts of violence? We do, as well as a gun which we won’t hesitate to use on anyone breaking and entering our house.
Look at it this way EGV, the killer of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman didn’t have a gun, unfortunately neither did Nicole or Ron.
Mary -
My questions first.
So you don’t know why Americans are so much more violent, but you are SURE that it has nothing to do with having more guns than anyone else? Or do you only think it, but really have no idea?
Are you sure in your mind about both things, or are you really guessing about everything here?
EGV,
If I had the answer to that question I would retire a millionaire. I’m sure there are a lot of sociological debates and arguments but do I know for certain? Nope. Do I have all kinds of theories and opinions? Yes.
LOL, come on EGV, of course I don’t believe it is because of guns. I also don’t believe its because of knives, baseball bats, and hammers either. They kill as many people as guns.
Oh and EGV, how many thousands die on our streets because of cars? I assume you own at least one. We own three. All three of my children have one as well.
Now how many knives, hammers, and baseball clubs do you have in your house EGV? Also, do you own a car?
Don’t you agree its unfortunate that neither Nicole or Ron had a gun that night as well?
I doubt that 20 young children and six teachers would be dead if the crazy man hadn’t had access to guns.
On the same day a crazy man went berko in China. He wounded dozens of children. He didn’t kill them. Perhaps the US could learn something from Chinese firearm laws.
Thanks Mary -
I just wanted to confirm that you were just guessing on most of this. I’m a big fan of statistics – and when you look at a long list of countries – and the US has a massively higher rate in gun deaths than anyone else – and the only really strong difference that you can find between nations is the number of guns we have – it just lends itself very, very strong the thought that the number of guns and types of guns have something to do with it.
You are wrong on the type of weapon – 67% of homicides in the US are because of guns (67.8% in 2011) – that means that all other types combined could only be 32.2%.
On automobiles – yes – many are killed because of cars. And we have a lot of regulation to try to decrease those numbers, which we’ve been successful in doing. You seem to be making the argument that we should get rid of drunk driving and speeding laws because we have so many cars, that we can’t possibly regulate it. I think we’ve decreased deaths a lot through regulation of cars, and we could do the same with guns.
Can only speculate on Nicole and Ron – if it was somebody they knew stopping by, who knows if they would have thought it was a dangerous situation. If they had a gun, who knows if there would have been an accidental death. Who knows at all. We’re looking at one situation. Even if we got rid of all guns, we’d still have homicides. What I do know is that I don’t believe we are meaner than any other nation. I don’t think we are more immoral or dangerous. I don’t think we have unique TV or video games to make us more violent. I believe that we love our guns, and the result of this love is we have more people die by gun violence.
Look at the numbers – try to come to a different conclusion.
Reality,
Yeah right. Do the Chinese have knife control laws? He slashed those children with knives.
In 1927 a loonie in Michigan blew up a school, killing twice as many children as Newtown. I doubt he could have done that without access to dynamite. Do you know anything about dynamite control laws? Timothy McVeigh used common farm feritilizer, i.e manure to blow up the Murrah bldg in Oklahoma City. Do you know of any manure control laws?
Mary –
I think you are under this weird assumption that rules are only good if they stop EVERYTHING. What you are essentially doing is saying “well, we had illegal abortions happen when their were abortion laws, so why try to regulate anything at all”.
Certainly, even if there was more gun control, people would still die.
But looking at the stats, if we did it right (didn’t build in too many loopholes) – less people would die. ALL LIVES WOULD NOT BE SAVED. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth the effort – and worth working to save some lives.
EGV,
Guessing at what? I’m well aware we have a massively larger death rate from gun violence than any other country. It lends to a very strong thought? Not definite proof EGV. Now who’s guessing?
I stand corrected on the murder stats. However it does show that roughly 1/3 of all homicides are not committed with guns, 2/3s are, give or take. So since weapons and not people commit murder, shouldn’t we go after household items such as knives, hammers, and baseball bats that also result in deaths?
You still haven’t told me if having knives, hammers, and baseball bats in your home have driven you to acts of murder. Would a gun be more inclined to do so?
Also, do you plan to give up your vehicle? No matter how careful you are you could easily lose control of your car on a slippery street and slam into a car full of people. No I’m not referring to drunk driving or reckless speeding, I’m referring to every day types of accidents that can take innocent lives. Tell me EGV, have you never crossed a center line, been distracted, braked your car just in time, or swerved just in time to avoid hitting someone?
Also how about manure control? Timothy McVeigh used that to kill hundreds.
As for Nicole and Ron, come on EGV, do you not think a gun would have given one of them a fighting chance? Their killer butchered both of them, and he didn’t need a gun to do it.
EGV,
Did anyone ever tell you that when you assume you make an “ass” out of “u” and “me”?
Kindly refrain from assuming to know what I think.
Also would you kindly repost. I can’t make any sense out of what you’re trying to say.
Mary -
Maybe we ought not beat our heads into the wall on this. I’ll answer your questions, but you can be done then. I mean, if you personally look at the homicide rates of countries in the world, and see that it is much, much higher…and then see gun ownership rates, and see that is it much, much higher…yet you cling to the belief that guns have nothing to do with it? I can’t argue with that. Some people will beleive what they want to believe.
On your question on other weapons – yes, there are crimes committed by other weapons. I’m failing to see your point. If WalMart started to sell large swords, and people bought these swords, and we saw a huge increase in murders using these swords – would your argument be that we should certainly keep the swords legal because somebody else might kill with a bat? A very silly, illogical argument.
I have a baseball bat in the house and many kitchen knives. And no, they don’t make me more of a murderer. But if I was, how many people do you think I could go into a school and kill with a bat? Let me ask you this – if you heard there was a school killing in the US, is your first question to other people “what sort of weapon did they use – was it a bat?”. That would be unheard of – mass killings with other weapons are incredibly rare.
On the cars – I don’t think you are getting it. It isn’t realistic to think every death can be prevented. But do you think car regulations go too far? Should we get rid of drunk driving and speeding laws just because some people die anyways? No – we regulate and save lives.
On Nicole and Ron – it might have given them a fighting chance. It might not have. And it might have resulted in an accidental shooting. We’ll never know.
EGV,
When you get a chance, visit the gun control Hall of Fame
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/fame.html
On my assumption post – what I’m saying is…you seem to be making the case that if a single death might result anyways, than it is senseless to regulate things at all.
This is a very similar argument to a pro-choicer saying that abortion would happen even if abortion were illegal, so why even try to have laws to clamp down on it.
Gun regulations won’t eliminate all murders in America. But looking at other countries and their regulation, it is hard to think that if we regulated guns (and didn’t create too many loopholes), that gun deaths would decrease.
Mary –
That site is fine and yes, there have been bad people involved in gun regulation.
Our lack of regulation kills people. Put a picture together of all the kids who have died in school shootings – all the people who have died in mass theater shootings – the nearly 10,000 gun deaths a year – put their pictures on a page, and that can be the hall of fall recognizing the results of the freedom that you love so dearly. Maybe you think it is fine – that these deaths are acceptable for the freedom to have guns. I don’t think they are acceptable and I think we should do something about it.
EGV,
I view this as a sociological problem, not a gun problem. Do I have the answer? I wish I did, I could retire very wealthy and save some lives.
How is it every household in Switzerland has a gun but people aren’t shooting each other right and left? How is it a maniac in China slashes up schoolchildren? There are no simple answers or solutions. Beserk people who want to kill will kill, there is no rationale. You can be minding your own business and some nutjob will push you into a busy street or slam into your car. We had that happen where I live and two police officers lost their lives.
My argument makes perfect sense EGV. Your home and garage are full of potential deadly weapons. They don’t cause you to go beserk and use them. I mentioned the school killing by dynamite, the Murrah building as well. When people want to kill en masse, they will find a way, guns or no guns.
Mary –
Please explain what you mean by “sociological problem”.
Look through the list of mass murders committed in our countries history. Non-gun ones are pretty rare. I’ve never heard of a mass baseball bat clubbing. And the China incident – pleaes let me know how many kids died. Give me the number.
In fact, let’s stick with China. If that crazy guy was in the US, how many people do you think would have died? The odds of him getting a hold of a gun are infinitely higher here – but in China, he couldn’t get one. So he ended up with a knife.
AND NOBODY DIED!
The China indicident should be the PERFECT example for you to dive into. Why did 20+ people have to die in the US on the same day nobody died in China – both in incidents in schools.
Answer – because in the US, we have guns all over, so it was easy for a crazy guy to get something that allows him to kill lots of people in a hurry.
That’s what you aren’t getting. People will hurt and kill people with bats and knives – but it is darn near impossible to kill people in mass with either of those weapons. Guns – well, we’ve seen it.
I encourage you to look up some stats and move beyond Fox News articles on this subject.
Ex what would be your ideal solution for gun control/laws in the US? What do you think is the best way to handle them?
EGV,
For heaven’s sake what I mean is this is an issue open to debate, sociological, psychological, etc. Some may argue its lack of mental health care, others may argue family breakdown, others may argue the glorification of violence in music and videos. Many opinions but no answers.
Well none-gun would be the school blown up and the Murrah building. Let’s not forget the thousands who died in 9/11 without a gun being fired. How many people who have died in acts of arson? I know of someone who was on probation for trying to kill his girlfriend that way. Let’s see, the Tate/Labianca murders which involved mainly knives.
An informative article. http://www.dailypaul.com/267016/study
As for China, yes thankfully no one died, but it certainly wasn’t for lack of trying. It proves my point that beserk people will use whatever weaponry is available. Sadly this wasn’t the first knife attack. In March of 2010, eight Chinese schoolchildren were murdered by a knife wielding assailant. In April of that year, Chinese preschool children were attacked by a hammer wielding assailant, and 28 schoolchildren were stabbed in a knife incident. In May of 2010 7 Chinese schoolchildren and two adults were killed by a meat cleaver wielding assailant. Maybe Chinese teachers should have guns, ya think?
EGV, I think its YOU who needs to look up some stats and info on this subject.
For a peeved maniac with a desire to confront and attack a large group of people a gun is the easy and less risky way. With a knife or a bat they might think twice.
Every time a gun is used someone dies, usually many.
Every time a knife is used few are killed, sometimes none.
“Maybe Chinese teachers should have guns, ya think?” – sure, until a teacher goes postal. How about an armed guard, oh wait, they might go postal too. Better have two, no wait, the one who goes postal will surprise and kill the other before he proceeds. Three might do it, the third might get the first while the first is getting the second.
I think its easier, cheaper and more effective to significantly reduce the number and availability of guns.
Yeah right Reality,
I’m sure these beserkos gave it a lot of thought before they went on their hacking and hammering sprees.
Maybe a Chinese teacher with a gun could have saved the lives of several children, and spared the survivors of the hammer attacks lives impaired by brain damage.
Oh did I mention the Chinese man who slashed the faces of women on the subway? Darn, when are those Chinese getting knife and hammer control along with their gun control?
People punch people and they fall and hit their head and die.
People suffocate people with pillows.
People give people overdoses of medication and they die.
People with guns kill more people than people without guns. It’s really that simple.
Your ever more ludicrous conflations don’t justify a gun culture.
Reality will you answer the question I posed to Ex? I am genuinely curious.
Jack, I like the idea I heard (not sure which country) where people keep their firearm at the local police station and have to sign it out with a reason for doing so.
So you don’t believe in having a revolver for home defense or anything like that?
Do you know anything about the illegal gun trade?
No Jack, I don’t. More guns lead to more guns, it just ramps up.
Nothing at all Jack.
“No Jack, I don’t. More guns lead to more guns, it just ramps up.
Nothing at all Jack”
Okay, maybe I am just screwed up because I got into the criminal sector when I was too young, but I can’t imagine a world where there is no need for home defense weapons. You know I was a drug runner and eventually a dealer right? Do you think that legality and restrictions ever stopped any of us from smuggling and selling drugs, and do you think that our firearms were legally obtained? Some of the guns came from gun shows, and I do approve of legislating to close that loophole, but a lot of them were smuggled. I can only see that growing worse if we criminalize firearms unless we figure out what we are going to do about the drug problem in this country, since I am pretty sure the really unsavory people who run that whole business will quickly capitalize on the demand for illegal firearms in the drug world. And then actual law-abiding citizens won’t have anything to defend themselves. I’m kinda rambling, sorry about that, but I really don’t see it ending well. I actually do understand where you and Ex are coming from but I think it might be more dangerous than you think.
I still maintain it ramps up Jack.
I have seen very few cases where an innocent armed with a gun has achieved a good outcome when confronted by thugs with guns. If criminals know or think a property owner may be armed they will just come with more people with more guns. Most of the criminal activity in the circumstances you describe are ‘in house’.
“If criminals know or think a property owner may be armed they will just come with more people with more guns. Most of the criminal activity in the circumstances you describe are ‘in house’.”
If by “in-house” you mean everyone who is unfortunate to get in the way when they take someone out, yeah. And us scum of the earth are people too, man.
I don’t agree with the “they will just come with more people with guns” thing. A lot of criminals just have enough self-preservation that they would rather rob or break into a house where they know no one is armed, just like petty thieves would rather sneak into some unlocked empty house than break into a locked house with the owners home.
But anyway, I do think that smuggling and illegal arms trade would be a huge issue with criminalizing guns in the US. South American cartels would be happy to provide us with our gun needs, just like they keep us in cocaine.
I wasn’t inferring that the death of a criminal is any less negative than the death of a non-criminal Jack. What I meant was that the criminals you described are more likely to shoot each other than shoot non-criminals so I don’t see the need for the non-criminals to be armed. It would be unlikely to help them when a situation arises anyway.
If the criminals are using illegally held or obtained guns now that guns are legal, how would it be any different if guns were illegal? If non-criminals decided to obtain smuggled, illegal guns then they would become…criminals. How many do you think would be likely to do so?
Some help for Reality: http://gunssavelives.net/
” If the criminals are using illegally held or obtained guns now that guns are legal, how would it be any different if guns were illegal? If non-criminals decided to obtain smuggled, illegal guns then they would become…criminals. How many do you think would be likely to do so?”
Some would become criminals by buying illegal firearms, I am sure. Probably not an incredible amount but some would.
Do you think security guards should be disarmed?
Hmm, I don’t know whose side this might support. A Swiss man shooting several people.
http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-swiss-village-shooting-20130103,0,1484364.story
I think that police and appropriately checked and trained security guards in certain situations should be armed Jack.
“I think that police and appropriately checked and trained security guards in certain situations should be armed Jack”
Hmm, what about ranchers who need to protect their livestock? Should they be allowed to have arms? How do you feel about hunting, the deer population would explode if hunters didn’t bring it down since we killed all their natural predators?
Ex-GOP, I’m not saying that. I’m not in favour of hospitals letting people die, though I am no expert on how to design a healthcare system that maximizes efficiency. I live in a country where medicine has been publicly funded since before I was born, a policy that has its own advantages and warts as compared to what America has (and it’s not going anywhere in the foreseeable future). So this isn’t something that I’ve done lots of research on. I know that healthcare is a very important issue for you, and I do apologize if this seems like a cop-out. But I’m afraid that I’ll have to leave the weekly Obamacare textwall contests to you, mp, rasqual, truthseeker, Mary, Hans, and others that like these things. I’m simply unqualified to formulate a strong argument about a 2000 page bill that I haven’t read.
Navi I didn’t know you weren’t from the US. If you don’t mind telling me which country are you from? I am really curious about what drawbacks and advantages you see in your country’s publicly funded healthcare system, but if you don’t want to get into that on this blog I totally understand (it can get kinda vicious lol). I am still trying to formulate my opinion on healthcare here and I like to hear all different opinions, especially from people who have grown up under a different system than the US one. I have talked to a couple Australians and Canadians who really like their systems, so I am just curious.
Hey Jack. Lets skip the next few rungs on the ladder and get to the crux. OK farmers may in some cases have good cause to need firearms. They should be stringently licenced and regulated. Some people like hunting and sometimes its not entirely ‘un-conservation’. Hunters should also be stringently licenced and regulated and their weapons should be stored by the police or a similar authority and booked out.
For your standard, urban dwelling citizen, there is no real cause to justify possessing a firearm.
Hi Jack. Yes, I am Canadian. Some advantages of our system include much lower per capita spending on healthcare and overall high quality services for all. Drawbacks include longer wait times (meaning that many travel to the U.S. for treatment) as well as fewer doctors and nurses per 1000 people.
This topic does get quite heated, though I would still say that it’s much more civilized here than it is on many other sites. On a side note, how did we get from female presidents to gun control and healthcare anyway?
“Hi Jack. Yes, I am Canadian. Some advantages of our system include much lower per capita spending on healthcare and overall high quality services for all. Drawbacks include longer wait times (meaning that many travel to the U.S. for treatment) as well as fewer doctors and nurses per 1000 people.”
That’s about what I have been told. It honestly sounds to me (in my own selfish way) that I would prefer to live under that system, at least I would get some healthcare lol.
“On a side note, how did we get from female presidents to gun control and healthcare anyway?”
All threads on this blog devolve into religious or healthcare debates in some form. It is known.
“Hey Jack. Lets skip the next few rungs on the ladder and get to the crux. OK farmers may in some cases have good cause to need firearms. They should be stringently licenced and regulated. Some people like hunting and sometimes its not entirely ‘un-conservation’. Hunters should also be stringently licenced and regulated and their weapons should be stored by the police or a similar authority and booked out.
For your standard, urban dwelling citizen, there is no real cause to justify possessing a firearm.”
Okay I understand your position pretty well now. I don’t really agree but that’s cool. Can us people who live in Miami at least have a handgun so we can protect ourselves from drug shootouts?