Just to prove gun control nuts are full of shit

[RedDuke]

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

No but I'm pretty sure you cry yourself to sleep about it and look for shooting stars to wish upon.

Actually, you are the one who seems to be fired up about the issue. Even though you not be willing to admit it, but psychologically, deep inside, you might feel like the change to gun control laws is coming. And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

When it does pass, hope you will not be mad for too long and cry going to sleep every night, thinking about good old days.

Like I said before, stock up on all your toys while you still can. Heard guns stores doing their monthly quotas in matter of days.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

It's mostly window dressing, but the republicans best come up with something or they're going to be an extinct political species. We get a mass killing about every 2-3 months and there's no doubt we'll see another one before spring. Republicans keep stonewalling and 2014 will be a political massacre. How do you think things will turn out with a solid dem majority in the house and senate for 2014-2106? If it were me, I'd at least want a seat at the table, and republicans are about to lose their voice entirely.

So every time the media and liberals work themselves into a frenzy, we have to compromise one of our principles?

We're doing it on taxes, because they're too timid to call obama's bluff on the fiscal cliff. At least Boehner took my advice and offered a tax increase on very high earners.

The vast majority of House republicans come from safe districts where gun control is very unpopular. Other than in the mainstream media, I see no evidence that people are suddenly demanding draconian gun control.

If a state wants to enact more gun control, they are free to do so, as long as they don't infringe on the Second Amendment. A number of states already have restrictions on magazine capacity. If that is so crucial, why not enact it on the state level and leave states that disagree alone.

Banning "assault rifles" is typical liberal feel-good idiocy. There is nothing about an "assault rifle" that makes it more dangerous than a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They have certain features that make them more convenient for home defense, plus gun fanciers think they look cool. That's about it. Of course, most liberals imagine they are fully automatic killing machines, right out of Rambo.

 

[RedDuke]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Yes. I would prefer state governments handle most of it. Except, of course, for national defense. There is absolutely no reason the Federal Government do any of it (other than national defense and a few, small regulatory agencies). State Governments are FAR more efficient than the Federal Government.

Ok, then we are on the same page about national defense and role of federal government along with regulatory agencies.

But that is pretty much what federal government does today on a larger scale obviously.

Next is money supply, who do you think should control/manage it? The list will go on and on.

Federal government has and should have its role in many fabrics of our society just like the states's governments. Each serves its distinct role, and as a result we are lucky enough to live in the best country on this planet.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from RedDuke:

Ok, then we are on the same page about national defense and role of federal government along with regulatory agencies.

But that is pretty much what federal government does today on a larger scale obviously.

Next is money supply, who do you think should control/manage it? The list will go on and on.

Federal government has and should have its role in many fabrics of our society just like the states's governments. Each serves its distinct role, and as a result we are lucky enough to live in the best country on this planet.

We are not even remotely on the same page. National defense, and maybe one or two agencies is what I am referring to. The Federal government has it's hands in EVERYTHING. From the post office and rail roads to banking and GM (though they sold that today for a large loss), the EPA, all the departments in the federal government, Fannie/Freddie...please. You're not using your brain when you say things like this.

Do yourself a favor and get educated. Click that link I posted.

As for the money supply, get rid of the Fed. Put a computer in it's place. Rates could be managed with a computer.

You are a proponent of BIG government. End of story.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

There is nothing about an "assault rifle" that makes it more dangerous than a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They have certain features that make them more convenient for home defense, plus gun fanciers think they look cool. That's about it. Of course, most liberals imagine they are fully automatic killing machines, right out of Rambo.

So true. As for high capacity mags, I'd just add that I can change a 10 capacity mag in 3 seconds. How does this stop ANYTHING except making it easier to carry more magazines?

 

[RedDuke]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

.. Banning "assault rifles" is typical liberal feel-good idiocy. There is nothing about an "assault rifle" that makes it more dangerous than a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They have certain features that make them more convenient for home defense, plus gun fanciers think they look cool. That's about it. Of course, most liberals imagine they are fully automatic killing machines, right out of Rambo.

What features make them more convenient for home defense? If there is an intruder in your home, hand gun is more effective and can be accessed easier (could be stored during the night next to bed on table stand). Similar applies to carry license.

Well, touch luck if something that looks fancy will be taken away. That's not in argument when lives could be saved in the future.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from RedDuke:

What features make them more convenient for home defense? If there is an intruder in your home, hand gun is more effective and can be accessed easier (could be stored during the night next to bed on table stand). Similar applies to carry license.

Well, touch luck if something that looks fancy will be taken away. That's not in argument when lives could be saved in the future.

Lives cannot be saved, as no criminal would be dissuaded. You're deluding yourself.

 

[RedDuke]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

We are not even remotely on the same page. National defense, and maybe one or two agencies is what I am referring to. The Federal government has it's hands in EVERYTHING. From the post office and rail roads to banking and GM (though they sold that today for a large loss), the EPA, all the departments in the federal government, Fannie/Freddie...please. You're not using your brain when you say things like this.

Do yourself a favor and get educated. Click that link I posted.

As for the money supply, get rid of the Fed. Put a computer in it's place. Rates could be managed with a computer.

You are a proponent of BIG government. End of story.

I know about federal departments, and the fact that you drink clean water, have decent guarantee that the food you buy is safe, and so on.... is all part of "big" government.

A small history example, when government tried to install first aqueduct in NYC in 19th century, there was huge opposition as this was an intrusion in peoples lives. "After all who gave the government the right to give people ability to drink clean water". As a result the project was delayed for 20 years or so. Once completed, the cases of cholera dropped significantly saving 10s if not 100's of thousands lives.

Would love to hear you find something bad about such government "intrusion" in people's lives. This was just a small examples, there are countless others.

I am proponent of middle approach. Anything too far to the left or right, is just not good for well being of our country.

 

[RedDuke]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

So true. As for high capacity mags, I'd just add that I can change a 10 capacity mag in 3 seconds. How does this stop ANYTHING except making it easier to carry more magazines?

In a movie theater, packed with people, 3 seconds will be a matter of life or death for many. The gunman was stopped in 1993 during LI railroad massacre when he paused to reload: "He killed six and wounded nineteen before being stopped by three of the passengers: Kevin Blum, Mark McEntee and Mike O'Connor."

We not talking about completely stopping this mass murderers all we can do is give the victims a chance.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

So every time the media and liberals work themselves into a frenzy, we have to compromise one of our principles?

We're doing it on taxes, because they're too timid to call obama's bluff on the fiscal cliff. At least Boehner took my advice and offered a tax increase on very high earners.

The vast majority of House republicans come from safe districts where gun control is very unpopular. Other than in the mainstream media, I see no evidence that people are suddenly demanding draconian gun control.

If a state wants to enact more gun control, they are free to do so, as long as they don't infringe on the Second Amendment. A number of states already have restrictions on magazine capacity. If that is so crucial, why not enact it on the state level and leave states that disagree alone.

Banning "assault rifles" is typical liberal feel-good idiocy. There is nothing about an "assault rifle" that makes it more dangerous than a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They have certain features that make them more convenient for home defense, plus gun fanciers think they look cool. That's about it. Of course, most liberals imagine they are fully automatic killing machines, right out of Rambo.

All I'm pointing out is that the country has shifted left, be it right or wrong. Now republicans can take the hard line approach and keep getting their heads handed to them with every election cycle, or they can try to keep their seat at the table with some compromise.
Like I stated earlier, it's all just window dressing, but the repubs have a tough choice. They can be part of designing the left leaning window, admittedly not their first choice, or they can get the door slammed in their face and take what comes. Republicans are in a very tough spot, frankly most of it their own doing. We're still seeing the reverberations of the Bush administration. The guy was a monumental fuck up, so much so that the country was willing to elect an inexperienced black guy with leftist tendendcies...TWICE.