January 19, 2013
— CAC After two back-to-back cycles of disappointment, I'll admit I'm feeling a bit disillusioned. Technically 2014 should give us a lot of hope, with a lot of easily winnable races up for grabs. So let's take a look.
So far, so good.
Republicans have two very, very winnable races in Alaska and Montana, with incumbents Begich and Baucus sweating bullets. In the event former governor Schweitzer decides to primary Baucus, that race will become a tough get, but for now Baucus' scandals and popularity nosedive puts him in a far, far more vulnerable position than Tester was last November. Senator Begich had the 6-year gig of occupying an Alaskan Senate seat he won by beating (barely) a man who loved internet tubes marred in a scandal. Up for re-election in a midterm, and with several strong Republican options on the table, he isn't likely to survive.
Other potential gets are in Arkansas, Louisiana, and South Dakota, seats currently held by Pryor, Landrieu and Johnson who each enjoyed comfortable re-election in 2008 but with health care votes under their belt and strong contenders in each of their states, not to mention the shifting tide of red over blue in each of them, none of them will enjoy the same trip next November.
The seat vacated by Jay Rockefeller in West Virginia is now Capito's to lose, and lose she may if there is a contentious primary, the sky is blue, and West Virginia Democrats shoot a target in a commercial. A toss-up for now.
North Carolina positions itself nicely as the sixth major pickup opportunity for the GOP, with Hagan up for re-election, sans Lizzy Dole as her opponent, and Obama at the top of the ticket. The Tar Heel state was one of the few to switch back to red in the Presidential race despite turnout nearly matching 2008. Next years' electorate will likely mimic something akin to 2002/2006/2010 more than that. With state-level gains by the Republicans continuing last November, the GOP needs to consolidate behind a candidate quickly but has a very good chance at snagging and restoring the Senate delegation to all-red.
Lastly we have the seat vacated by John Kerry and open for a special election, which means Scott Brown has a second chance at life. In an off-year race, Republicans stand some sort of shot, and as Brown has proved, special elections boost that further. With positive ratings, solid name recognition and no clear Democratic challenger, he has an excellent chance to win, and taunt Warren as a result.
Taking all this into account, I can see a 2-3 seat gain for the Republicans.
Why so low when there are eight potential gets?
These are all the races that were gimmies/near-gimmies for us in the last two elections. Races we blew either due to the sheer stupidity/madness of our candidate or their inability to campaign effectively in states that went to Romney by double-digits.
Never, ever, ever, ever, ever underestimate the power of stupid.
Posted by: CAC at
07:31 AM
| Comments (588)
Post contains 516 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Jeanne of the North at January 19, 2013 08:02 AM (7Cvas)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 19, 2013 08:03 AM (XkWWK)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows where thou concealest thy þr0n at January 19, 2013 08:03 AM (Lxw+T)
Posted by: CAC at January 19, 2013 08:03 AM (aYKjq)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at January 19, 2013 08:03 AM (++kZl)
The bench here is not deep.
Posted by: Jeanne of the North at January 19, 2013 08:04 AM (7Cvas)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 19, 2013 08:05 AM (XkWWK)
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at January 19, 2013 08:06 AM (n8LUb)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 08:06 AM (tBnjP)
Posted by: CAC at January 19, 2013 08:07 AM (aYKjq)
Posted by: CAC at January 19, 2013 08:08 AM (aYKjq)
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at January 19, 2013 08:09 AM (n8LUb)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows where thou concealest thy þr0n at January 19, 2013 08:09 AM (Lxw+T)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 19, 2013 08:09 AM (9Bj8R)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 19, 2013 08:11 AM (XkWWK)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at January 19, 2013 08:12 AM (++kZl)
Posted by: CAC at January 19, 2013 08:12 AM (aYKjq)
I think that's correct, although I thought Romney would win, so there's that. Maybe we'll see a reprise of the SNL skit with a huge Jimmy Carter after a nooklear accident.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 08:13 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows where thou concealest thy þr0n at January 19, 2013 08:13 AM (Lxw+T)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 19, 2013 08:14 AM (XkWWK)
Posted by: CAC at January 19, 2013 08:15 AM (aYKjq)
True, if we put forward a bunch of politically clueless halfwits again, that could happen. Because thinking strategically is for quisling RINOs.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 08:16 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: John Elway and the GOP at January 19, 2013 08:17 AM (fyQQl)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 08:18 AM (tBnjP)
Posted by: TexBob at January 19, 2013 08:18 AM (6S4Ai)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows where thou concealest thy þr0n at January 19, 2013 08:18 AM (Lxw+T)
Posted by: spypeach at January 19, 2013 08:18 AM (pwTow)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows where thou concealest thy þr0n at January 19, 2013 08:20 AM (Lxw+T)
It isn't just conservatives who will be looking at ideology. The Democrats will be looking at the ideology of our candidates, to find the ones who are both deeply conservative, and easily beatable. The Todd Akin strategy worked well in Missouri, so expect it to be repeated everywhere.
For me, if it's a choice between a more moderate candidate who's electable, and a dyed-in-the-wool conservative who's unacceptable to much of the electorate, I'll take the moderate. Because, frankly, having one of our own guys fuck us up the ass with Vasoline is better than having an Obamatron fuck us with the barbed cock of Satan.
Posted by: Brown Line at January 19, 2013 08:21 AM (dKXn1)
Again, I think this is correct, and that his popularity will do a Wiley Coyote running off a cliff. He'll look okay for a while and then sayonara.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 08:21 AM (6TB1Z)
In the meantime, I will just have to bug the shit out of my Rep.
Posted by: sTevo at January 19, 2013 08:22 AM (VMcEw)
Posted by: CAC at January 19, 2013 08:22 AM (aYKjq)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 19, 2013 08:23 AM (9Bj8R)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 08:24 AM (tBnjP)
And he's still sending me emails asking for money. I got on his list because I left him an email telling him to withdraw because he was an idiot. Apparently separating his email lists into "likes you" and "hates your stinking guts" is to difficult for him.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 08:24 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: nip at January 19, 2013 08:24 AM (11Tdq)
A lot can happen between now and November 2014.
The Dems lost both houses of congress back in 1994...because of the threat of HillaryCare and the Gun Ban that Clinton did sign into law.
Now, we have ZeroCare® coming into effect, and the threat of new Gun Bans.
But the population is stupider now, than it was in 1994.
These are the ones that the Dems have been waiting for.
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 08:26 AM (fH4X9)
Well, them and the 20 million new dependents Obama wants to add to the electorate. This is my real worry. Apparently I don't have a heart.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 08:27 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 19, 2013 12:03 PM (XkWWK)
I've never considered AllahPander as being on our side.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 08:28 AM (rXEoZ)
I'm not ready yet thus you're spared my drivel this time.
regards,
sven
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 08:29 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: ilrndude at January 19, 2013 08:31 AM (aUnng)
Posted by: Colonel Pooteh at January 19, 2013 08:31 AM (l1Jnv)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 19, 2013 08:32 AM (QLuGB)
Posted by: NCKate at January 19, 2013 08:32 AM (Pf/z7)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 08:34 AM (tBnjP)
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 08:34 AM (rXEoZ)
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 08:35 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 08:35 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: Brown Line at January 19, 2013 12:21 PM (dKXn1)
It isn't better. It is just as bad.
The idea it is better is what got us to where we are today.
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 12:24 PM (tBnjP) Right on, eman. Out with Boner and McConnell and the rest of the whiners, criers. I've said it once and I'll say it again. Pelosi and Reid are absolute wretches. But their ability to tow their party line and crack the whip cannot be underestimated- and lets be honest, we have to give them points for corraling their herd of cats. If our side had a tenth of those skills, then perhaps the barbed cock of satan wouldn't be midstroke in America's ass. But here we are. Until the repubs find their nutsack, nay recover it from Madame Pelosi's House of Ill Repute, then we're doomed. Plant a Victory Garden, stock up on ammo and learn a skill like making beer. At least you'll have that when the wheels come off.
Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 08:36 AM (0SmH0)
Posted by: Andy at January 19, 2013 08:36 AM (OZPoa)
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at January 19, 2013 08:37 AM (R8hU8)
Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at January 19, 2013 08:37 AM (DGIjM)
41...I've never considered AllahPander as being on our side.
Having the Dems in power is 'good for business'...if you're a conservative pundit.
Which is why I have found myself looking sideways at some of the things that people like Rush, Beck, TepidAir, and Fox...who weren't really all that helpful in defeating King Clusterfuck.
Remember how they were saying "He's toast"...and "Anyone can beat him"?
What bullshit that was.
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 08:37 AM (fH4X9)
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 12:35 PM (6TB1Z)
The didn't. They cared about getting the oil back in production. BP will just hire new people. An no one will give a shit two weeks from now.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 08:37 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: M. Murcek at January 19, 2013 08:37 AM (GJUgF)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 19, 2013 08:38 AM (QLuGB)
40 These are the ones that the Dems have been waiting for.
Well, them and the 20 million new dependents Obama wants to add to the electorate. This is my real worry. Apparently I don't have a heart.
----------
So then I guess Rubio is not on your list of contenders, pep?
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 08:40 AM (fH4X9)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 08:40 AM (tBnjP)
South Dakota has the sympathy factor going. No one wants to attack Tim Johnson, since he's physically and mentally too far gone.
Unfortunately, that leaves us with a United States Senator who's physically and mentally too far gone.
Posted by: Ted K. at January 19, 2013 08:41 AM (knRXi)
You're catching on there, comrade. NEVER underestimate the ability of the Republican Party to screw up, renege on campaign promises, and retain the anointed leadership in positions of power regardless of results.
Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 08:41 AM (Cnqmv)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 19, 2013 08:41 AM (9Bj8R)
Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at January 19, 2013 08:42 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 08:42 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 19, 2013 08:42 AM (9Bj8R)
Posted by: Marmo at January 19, 2013 08:43 AM (pcgW1)
Posted by: Ted K. at January 19, 2013 12:41 PM (knRXi)
Thing is Johnson is just a case where it is impossible to deny, but the saddest part is that there are so many others that are undiagnosed, but clinically insane or incompetent.
Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 08:44 AM (Cnqmv)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 19, 2013 12:32 PM (QLuGB)
Well I garunfuckintee you it ain't gonna be the NY Jets!
Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 19, 2013 12:41 PM (9Bj8R)
cleveland browns
huh did i hear a laugh ?
just.you.wait.and.see!
Posted by: ette at January 19, 2013 08:44 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 08:44 AM (tBnjP)
Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 08:44 AM (0SmH0)
Most R senators are just high priced whores.
Ahem. With us at least you get something in return for your money.
Posted by: High Priced Whores at January 19, 2013 08:44 AM (0WLla)
1. When asked about abortion, DON'T SAY ANYTHING.
2. The Media is NOT your friend, and they will NEVER BE your friend. Their one objective is to DESTROY you. That is the sole purpose of their every encounter with you, the reason behind every question they ask.
Write these things down and memorize them.
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at January 19, 2013 08:45 AM (xjpRj)
I blame Boehner far more for this than McConnell because the orange-skinned sot has a fucking majority to work with and doesn't do jackshit. But don't worry; the whining fuck has Gabe blaming it all on "teh extreme right" instead of the nicotine slave's lack of leadership and sheer laziness.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 08:46 AM (rXEoZ)
I've often commented here that I don't like presidential candidates who have never accomplished anything but getting elected and giving speeches, regardless of how full of red meat the speeches are. Rubio is a prime example, as is Cruz. I'm not saying they're bad people, or that they won't be my choice later, but neither has been around long enough for me to even consider them yet. Going to law school, even Harvard Law, isn't enough for me. Furthermore, Rubio's amnesty lite tells me that he's not the person lots of folks around here seem to think he is.
I freely admit I could be wrong about him, but we won't know for awhile. I suppose that for some, getting crushes on unknowns adds a certain frisson to politics, but that's not my style. I'm more, shall I say, conservative.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 08:48 AM (6TB1Z)
It seems when it comes to abortion the GOP has adopted the Jon Cary solution. Personally deep inside the echo chamber of a brain, against. But publicly must sound all squishy and being supporting.
The lukewarm approach never works. Stand as a goat or stand as an ewe.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 19, 2013 08:48 AM (QLuGB)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 08:49 AM (tBnjP)
Posted by: nip at January 19, 2013 08:49 AM (11Tdq)
76
I've often commented here that I don't like presidential candidates who have never accomplished anything but getting elected and giving speeches, regardless of how full of red meat the speeches are.
Pep- you've nailed it. This is one of the biggest problems I have with most candidates as well. Professional policians- a creature that was never intended to be allowed to spawn, thrive and grow in our Republic.
Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 08:50 AM (0SmH0)
Posted by: ChrisValentine at January 19, 2013 08:50 AM (ht3c8)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 19, 2013 08:51 AM (QLuGB)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at January 19, 2013 12:45 PM (xjpRj)
3. Memorize basic talking points and practice how to deftly respond by answering any question with a response that you want to give, not necessarily answer the question posed.
4. Never give an interview with anyone where you don't have your own videographer recoding every second of interaction on- and off-set.
Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 08:51 AM (Cnqmv)
The Rs were given a mandate in 2010.
And all they did was go along and get along with the bankrupting of America. That is why people stayed home in 2012. If they wanted to win, maybe they should have fought a bit for the people who put them there. Who trusts them anymore? What have they done to earn it?
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 08:52 AM (OQpzc)
71 The best thing the GOP could do for this country is disband and let its fragments reform into new parties.
One of those new parties will have what it takes to construct a new republic.
While the prospect of this is nice to think about...it would only ensure the successes of the Dems.
The Dem-party used to be the more conservative of the two parties.
But the far left gradually took it over.
Conservatives have gradually been taking over the Rep-party.
Look at all the red states that used to be dark blue.
I think we need to keep supporting this transformation...and get some new leadership in the Rep-party, instead of the spineless old guard that is still clinging to power.
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 08:52 AM (fH4X9)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 08:53 AM (tBnjP)
Posted by: GuyfromNH at January 19, 2013 08:54 AM (YOe1f)
I've often commented here that I don't like presidential candidates who have never accomplished anything but getting elected and giving speeches, regardless of how full of red meat the speeches are.
Pep- you've nailed it. This is one of the biggest problems I have with most candidates as well. Professional policians- a creature that was never intended to be allowed to spawn, thrive and grow in our Republic.
Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 12:50 PM (0SmH0)
Unfortunately there's a JEF in the White House for 8 years that shits all over this way of thinking; with which I agree btw.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 08:55 AM (rXEoZ)
Try to think of just one or two important conservative issues that the Republican Party has truly supported, presented honestly in public, followed through on, and delivered on (even if it got stopped in the Senate).
If that exercise doesn't calibrate the RINOs for you nothing will.
Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 08:56 AM (Cnqmv)
90Sure, lots of seats are winnable, but since the Repubs are the Stupid Party™, we'll end up nominating knuckleheads who are fascinated by rape and the mysterious functions of lady parts... Morons.
Guy- great point. Maybe it was good that the guys like Akin, who would be so foolish as to give an answer to such a clearly loaded question, lost the race. Perhaps he could have done greater damage as a senator. I don't know. Perhaps that is just sour grapes on my part; surely the troll that beat him is far worse than Akin's buffoonery.
Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 08:56 AM (0SmH0)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 08:56 AM (tBnjP)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at January 19, 2013 08:56 AM (azHfB)
Posted by: USS Diversity at January 19, 2013 08:58 AM (MPjT8)
Posted by: Aaron at January 19, 2013 08:58 AM (Tlix5)
Fighting gun control
A real budget out of the house it controls
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 08:59 AM (6TB1Z)
CAC!
Glad so see you're getting coherant again. I was worried we had lost you for a while there.
I kinda agree that we need to see how 2013 rolls out to guess what 2014 is going to look like. This could be some sort of repeat of 2006 whereby people do tire of giving the party in power (ish) a second chance and turn on them. Or King Clusterfuck/Race card may poison the well so completely that people are afraid to vote R ever ever again (lest we..erg...give them freedom or something.)
Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 08:59 AM (GaqMa)
Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 12:56 PM (Cnqmv)
I usually can't stand to listen to that blowhard Hugh Hewitt but he was spot on following the 2010 elections when he was hectoring the House Repubs for not doing what they had a clear mandate to do. Everything was "trust us, we'll get it done later" which we're still waiting for.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 08:59 AM (rXEoZ)
Posted by: USS Diversity at January 19, 2013 12:58 PM (MPjT
Actually, we should ask our own candidates that question in primaries, and if they don't have a bullet-proof response they should be eliminated immediately. The abortion albatross will be hung around R candidates until someone frames a reasonable response to it.
Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 09:02 AM (Cnqmv)
96 Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 12:52 PM (fH4X9)
Seriously?
---------
Yes, eman....the Dem party used to be the more conservative party.
JFK wouldn't be able to get elected today, as a Dem.
It was the DNC convention in 1968 that was stormed by the hippies, protesting the Dems.
And now...the hippies have taken over the Dem party.
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 09:03 AM (fH4X9)
Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 01:02 PM (Cnqmv)
I think there are about 3 different "reasonable responses" floating around the HQ these days.
AllenG has his "it's the economy, stupid" response. Ace goes for the "meh, I'm pro-life anyway" response, and I roll out the deflection on why we aren't improving our rape response (thus rending the abortion/rape conflagration significantly more moot.)
The problem is, for some reason, our candidates don't read this blog.
Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 09:04 AM (GaqMa)
It was the DNC convention in 1968 that was stormed by the hippies, protesting the Dems.
And now...the hippies have taken over the Dem party
It always comes back to the dirty hippies. And the Commies- Coulter was right about them as well. Morons should read Richard Pipes' Concise History of the Russian Revolution to see the progs playbook. All this has been done before, and will be done again. Wish more people could see that.
Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 09:05 AM (0SmH0)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 09:07 AM (tBnjP)
Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 01:04 PM (GaqMa)
I consistently have found more reasoned, intelligent positions and discussions on this blog concerning Republican and Conservative issues than I have ever heard from the entire Republican establishment.
Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 09:07 AM (Cnqmv)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:08 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 01:04 PM (GaqMa)
The problem is also that we get a bunch of Arlen Specters, Charlie Crists, Dick Lugars and Mike Castles who get too fucking comfortable in office so, when they get rolled in a primary, get all butthurt and refuse to support the candidate who defeated them and have Rove playing cuddle games with them to soothe their fragile egos.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 09:08 AM (rXEoZ)
But then we'd have people complaining that the GOP bigwigs were forcing candidates down our throats.
The real world is always more difficult to deal with than the online one.
I agree with your idea, though. If you can't pass a simple competence test, we don't want you using up one of our slots. The opportunity cost is too high.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 09:09 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 12:56 PM (0SmH0)
Yep. People who went for a lib dem because an R mouthed off on something that had no chance of ever being translated into law are too stupid to be allowed to vote anyway. May they get exactly what they voted for.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 09:10 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 09:10 AM (Cnqmv)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:10 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 09:11 AM (tBnjP)
Tester just won re-election in 2012 in the state.
Baucus has won his races with close to 60% in the past.
Montana has changed a lot in the last decade, it's not your father's Montana anymore. It's a purple state, that is trending blue.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 09:11 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children, of course) at January 19, 2013 01:07 PM (Cnqmv)
Don't look at me. I offered to give my fancy edumacation a test run by helping Akin dodge those questions before the primary was even over. (I predicted he'd win the primary solely due to name recognition and District 2 voters who vote heavily in the primaries.)
They never responded to my letters. On the flipside he was clearly going to self-destruct even if he had Carl Rove advising him. So bullet dodged. (Although watching that self destruct reminded me why I keep an arms length distance between me and politics.)
Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 09:11 AM (GaqMa)
Did ya catch Guiliani on FNC saying that nobody needs a "military-style assault rifle"?
Those northeatern Rs are just what we need. He's pro-choice as well, no?
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 09:11 AM (OQpzc)
consistently have found more reasoned, intelligent positions and discussions on this blog concerning Republican and Conservative issues than I have ever heard from the entire Republican establishment.
===
and we have boobies!!
Posted by: USS Diversity at January 19, 2013 09:12 AM (MPjT8)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:12 AM (piMMO)
111 - Niedermeyer-
this is what flames me about the libs and members of our own side who say this kind of stupidity. Someone's opinion of need has exactly jack shit to do with my desire. All this talk of needs bullshit is right out of Marx's playbook- "From each according to his ability, to each according to his NEED." Again, Richard Pipe's Concise History of the Russian Revolution. Morons should read it if they aren't very well versed on the particulars of communism and propoganda. When guys like Guiliani go on Fox and spout this clap trap, it gives the libs fodder for their fight. See? Even New York City's finest mayor says you don't need a big, black scary gun!
This is infuriating.
Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 09:13 AM (0SmH0)
There is no way that any outsider non-political personage not in the revolving-door beltway food chain could possibly add to the viability of a campaign. Leave it to the professionals like me, and Prince Reject.
Posted by: Karl Rover at January 19, 2013 09:14 AM (Cnqmv)
I don't understand what's upsetting you.
Posted by: Lisa Murkowski at January 19, 2013 09:14 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 01:11 PM (tBnjP)
Rudy, Fat Boy and Client 9: All former federal prosecutors used to being bullies and not particularly conservative. Rudy did a good job of cleaning up the fucking mess that NYC had become under that hapless dickhole Dinkens; but there's no fucking way I'd want him in a national role.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 09:14 AM (rXEoZ)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 09:15 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:15 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 01:14 PM (rXEoZ)
___________________
And the purity tests begin for 2016.....
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 09:16 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:17 AM (piMMO)
109...The Democrats used to be a more conservative party, but were never the more conservative party compared to the GOP.
Nixon had the support of the Unions...and gave us the EPA, and massive welfare spending.
Gerald Ford was basically Nixon without the hair.
Reagan was the beginning of the transformation to a more conservative GOP.
But he was also the only president to give Amnesty to millions of illegals.
The fact the Democrats have become defacto Communists and the GOP has become their enablers is sure and certain proof that the GOP needs to be dissolved and replaced with a true alternative to what the Democrats and GOP offer today.
The Commies tried for half a century to be a 'third party' here.
They failed.
That's why they took over the Dem party...from within.
That's what Conservatives need to do with the GOP.
It would take at least a half century for a new "true alternative" conservative party to establish itself to the point of winning national elections.
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 09:18 AM (fH4X9)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:18 AM (piMMO)
@Hrothgar's sock.
Actually we later found out that the campaign was basically staffed by his family, with 0 political advisors. I've now also realized I need to spend more time investigating campaigns during the primaries.
Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 09:18 AM (GaqMa)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 09:18 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 01:14 PM (rXEoZ)
All lawyers? Go figure.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 09:19 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 09:19 AM (tBnjP)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:20 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 09:20 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 09:20 AM (HDgX3)
I have no idea what this means, but I like it.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 09:21 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 09:21 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:22 AM (piMMO)
The Commies tried for half a century to be a 'third party' here.
They failed.
That's why they took over the Dem party...from within.
That's what Conservatives need to do with the GOP.
It would take at least a half century for a new "true alternative" conservative party to establish itself to the point of winning national elections.
Wheatie- I agree with your sentiments. Problem is we don't have 50 years. I wonder, realisitically, how long we can continue to kick this can down the road till it all implodes?
Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 09:22 AM (0SmH0)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 09:22 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 09:23 AM (tBnjP)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon.
http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 01:21 PM (l86i3)
_______________
If that ever were to happen, existing owners would be exempted from the law. You know this.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 09:23 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:20 PM (piMMO)
I can't decide if I want to make a joke about Gowdy's looks clouding your judgment on that one...so just make up your own.
Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 09:23 AM (GaqMa)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 09:24 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at January 19, 2013 09:24 AM (IlZPo)
Posted by: CAC at January 19, 2013 09:24 AM (aYKjq)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:24 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 09:24 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 09:26 AM (tBnjP)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:26 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at January 19, 2013 01:24 PM (IlZPo)
__________________
Between 1994 and 2004 did the 2nd Amendment not exist? I'm not arguing for an assault weapon ban. I am saying that if it did happen, I wouldn't exactly lose much sleep over it. And I know the argument in favor of allowing AR-15s. Politically though, I don't think this is smart for the GOP or gun rights in general. Your average Joe 6 Pack probably thinks the same way as Rudy, why the fuck does anyone need one of those things?
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 09:26 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: CAC at January 19, 2013 01:24 PM (aYKjq)
I'm not sure the dark matter talk was coherent...but sure...whatever 
.
Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 09:26 AM (GaqMa)
To give him credit, he did also say that he believes there are Constitutional issues with the EOs.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:24 PM (piMMO)
_________
That's my purity test. He gets an A+.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 09:27 AM (HDgX3)
I do not find him particularly handsome. I think it's his hair.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:26 PM (piMMO)
Fine Fine, I must be confusing you with another 'ette gushing over him.
You all look the same in my head 
.
Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 09:27 AM (GaqMa)
Posted by: L, elle at January 19, 2013 09:27 AM (0PiQ4)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 09:28 AM (tBnjP)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 09:29 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:29 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:20 PM (HDgX3)
You should give them your daughter to rape so they don't do any damage to your front door. After all, protecting her might just get blood stains on your carpet. Can't have that.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 09:30 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: sexypig at January 19, 2013 09:30 AM (dZQh7)
Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 09:32 AM (0SmH0)
145...If you think Conservatives can take over the GOP in less than 50 years, good luck with that.
The transformation began with Reagan.
So I would say, that it is still under way.
The sentiments that fueled Ross Perot's third party run, still exist...and errupted again with the Tea Party.
But Perot's third party efforts resulted in Clinton winning. Twice.
Which, unfortunately is what will happen again...if we go third party.
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 09:32 AM (fH4X9)
Less than 10 years. The rest of the world is starting to wise up to how hollowed out the USA is.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 09:32 AM (3QaxX)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:33 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 01:28 PM (tBnjP)
__________
And I am marking you as someone who is incapable of critical thinking.
You know who told me repeatedly who the fuck needs an AR-15? You know who has no problem requiring people to register guns and/or get a gun license? My wife. I always look to her for the "common man" view of things. She's apolitical generally. She only votes Republican because she knows it will make me happy. And to her and her friends the idea of an AR-15 is fucking insane, even though they have no problems with the right to own guns in general. You may not agree with it. You may think it's unconstitutional. That's all fine and good. But politically speaking, it's hurting both the GOP and gun rights in general since now gun rights = right to own an AR-15.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 09:34 AM (HDgX3)
I'm almost embarrassed making these points because it's too far away to even think about.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 09:34 AM (rXEoZ)
and the left has lurched far, far more 'red' in the historic sense of that color.
Which is to say "le Internationale."
If freedom is to survive in any form we either stay GOP and let the RiNO NE gang fuck us forever, or divorce.
Chris Christie gives three fucks about free markets, or freedom vs free shit and "muslim equality"
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 09:35 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 01:30 PM (OQpzc)
______________
WTF??
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 09:35 AM (HDgX3)
will not take Senate
you can say you read it here first and that you knew me back when
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 19, 2013 09:36 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 09:36 AM (tBnjP)
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 09:36 AM (rXEoZ)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:37 AM (piMMO)
Can you ask your wife is I am allowed to own a High perfromance PT Cruiser that takes 93 octane?
Also can I ask your wife how free the market will be allowed to be?
Can she have about a twenty minute block open so I can explain to her that Ben Ghazi is not a gay Jewish hair dresser?
If I am to lose my liberty for your wife's preference cascade I am dying to meet her.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 09:37 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:37 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 09:37 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:34 PM (HDgX3)
You know what else the common man often doesn't think is necessary, statutes that protect against lawfare especially in regards to the 1st amendment.
Not working out that great if we gave up on those now would it?
Posted by: tsrblke at January 19, 2013 09:37 AM (GaqMa)
That makes 'wives' uncomfortable.
Divorce is necessary, and Mr Moo moo my wife is the one who hinted she wanted me to build her her AR-15 Carbine.
No offense.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 09:38 AM (LRFds)
We keep the house, at best tie the senate.
This all is of course silly we are assuming there will be a 2014, let alone a 2016 for elections, the US as rendered, or free speech.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 09:39 AM (LRFds)
Do you even know what an AR-15 is? I think you have been bent by the media. Go to the blaze and watch the hot chick, Miss Hupp, shoot the weapons.
We can't give up anything, nothing, 0, zilch, cause once we do, it's the fisrt domino. If you can't see that, god help you.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon.
http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 01:37 PM (l86i3)
_________________
For the 77th time, I don't care one way or another. I am saying ****POLITICALLY**** this is a losing issue. Can you really not understand the concept?
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 09:40 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 09:40 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 09:40 AM (0SmH0)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:37 PM (piMMO)
that's fine. I saved my comment for future review. We'll see if I'm right next fall. BTW...
http://minx.cc/?post=316050
#214
you're all forgetting something
in 2008, the media's mission was to elect the first sort-of black president
in 2012, the narrative must be completed with Fuckstick's re-election
so it doesn't matter who gets the Rep nom. Obama will be re-elected
you can say you read it here first and that you knew me back when
Posted by: Jones at May 11, 2011 07:51 PM (cUNcx)
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 19, 2013 09:41 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: Guido at January 19, 2013 09:41 AM (XLuH2)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:41 AM (piMMO)
I am also pretty certain that everyone magically getting a trillion dollars is a pretty POPULAR political concept.
Divorced from reality and economic sanity but popular naytheless.
Your wife does not get to strip away my right to speak as I see fit through law.
She can however not invite me over to dinner for saying your notion is daft.
"freedom" try it the fuck out.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 09:43 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:44 AM (piMMO)
174...If freedom is to survive in any form we either stay GOP and let the RiNO NE gang fuck us forever, or divorce.
Yeah, the 'RINO NE gang' is not just in the NE any more...they've migrated into other states, too.
Like the Bush Dynasty.
The GOP was sent a message in 2006...when people stayed home in droves, and let the Dems take over.
They were given a reprieve in 2010, and put on probation.
They seem to have forgotten that.
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 09:44 AM (fH4X9)
they are unthinking Nazis trying to alter our national culture through the raw use of unaccountable force.
The proper response is "fuck you" and with vouchers that would have bite.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 09:45 AM (LRFds)
So let's see, I guess that takes the socons out of your GOP, too. Akin and Mourdock were socons, and Akin staffed his campaign with his family and clearly had only himself as a priority. That didn't work out so well. Then there are the RINOs, but they hate the country and want to see it become Communist, so they won't join with you. The libertarian wing of the GOP will all vote for Rand Paul. Many fiscal conservatives like Paul Ryan.
My question is who exactly are you going to get for your new party?
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 09:47 AM (6TB1Z)
Mr. Cow.
So your wife is an idiot, and therefore, I should give up my right to protect my family in case of a riot?
Give up your ability if you want. Don't you dare think of taking away mine.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 09:47 AM (OQpzc)
I laughed too....you get one with the Stage one injector it is at least as peppy as the '83 Mustangs were....
wife loved it....point being I am thrilled that thanks to the miracle of Media inc, Barky choom, and the internet my lifestyle now exists at the whim of Mrs. moo moo and we yet still claim to be 'free'
heh though as a fan of real muscle cars "high performance pt cruiser" is sorta like "Turbo Yugo"
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 09:48 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Buck Bradley at January 19, 2013 01:43 PM (PDRXW)
I refuse to use his name.
But yeah...King Clusterfuck is a child molestor.
He's drowning our kids in Debt.
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 09:48 AM (fH4X9)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:49 AM (piMMO)
That's a fine looking albatross there, it should be hung around the Democrat's necks.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 09:50 AM (3QaxX)
Tell me about it. On the plus side, Warner will run for pres in '16. He might just win, too. There, doesn't that make you feel better.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 09:50 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 09:50 AM (0SmH0)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:50 AM (piMMO)
ask the folks in Algeria or OUR GODDAMNED GOVT AGENTS in Libya how that worked out for them when relying on our military to get it done....
yeah go ahead moo moo lay down
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 09:50 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 01:47 PM (6TB1Z)
Can you point me at the last fiscal conservative win? Seems the Rs had control for a while with Bush as president. How, exactly, did they lead the way in controlling spending?
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 09:50 AM (OQpzc)
We have compromised and acquiesced our way from a conservative party to a moderate one and the left has become even more entrenched as a result.
We cannot continue to die the death of 1000 cuts.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 01:41 PM (piMMO)
______________
I agree in general. Specifically to "assault rifles" (and I know it's not a universal definition by let's for the sake of argument say it means an AR15) this is not a fight that's worth having. I know I am in the minority here with these views.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 09:51 AM (HDgX3)
there is a fetish culture in cars that goes for "cheap max utilitarian tech" a properly cared for and tweaked Yugo was in theory a helluva rally car.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 09:52 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:52 AM (piMMO)
Scott Walker
John Kasich
Bob McDonnell
Bobby Jindal
Nikki Haley
Mitch Daniels
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 09:52 AM (6TB1Z)
We need to stop using it!!!!!
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 09:54 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 09:54 AM (tBnjP)
So your wife is an idiot, and therefore, I should give up my right to protect my family in case of a riot?
Give up your ability if you want. Don't you dare think of taking away mine.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 01:47 PM (OQpzc)
_______________
It's this type of hyperbole that is hurting the cause. You sound like a fool if you think not having access to an AR15 means you can't protect your family.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 09:54 AM (HDgX3)
But just to be clear, I'm not defending the GOP Congress during the Bush years. I loathed most of the leadership for the last 25-odd years. Nonetheless, I am aware of the electoral realities. Should we push the boundary to get more conservative folks in office? Absolutely. Should we do it while telling the electorate to f*** off? Yes, if you like the government we have now.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 09:54 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 09:54 AM (0SmH0)
at a bare minimum they wanted only 1/4 what Pelosi uses as baseline at their worst....
we are in some weird mix of letting the good be killed by "must be perfect" and "this is good enough" when it is not but still better than D
The last gen to have a truly strong America is dying and being replaced by kids brainwashed that there are free lunches and I owe them my house.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 09:54 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: RWC at January 19, 2013 09:55 AM (sqp6o)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:55 AM (piMMO)
Any restriction or ban on ANY practical weapon is an abridgement of a Constitutionally affirmed right.
Don't be going into the weeds with the nuclear cannon, etc, either. Those are strawmen.
Since it is so stated in our Constitution, that right cannot be withheld.
What I own will remain mine--end of discussion.
Posted by: irongrampa at January 19, 2013 09:56 AM (SAMxH)
Barack obama supported a party in Kenya's elections...his buddy's supporters necklaced Christians/...
any questions on Obama's morals?
sorry stud "no'
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 09:56 AM (LRFds)
Scott Walker
John Kasich
Bob McDonnell
Bobby Jindal
Nikki Haley
Mitch Daniels
Oh, and I forgot Chris Christie.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 09:56 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Guido at January 19, 2013 09:57 AM (XLuH2)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 09:57 AM (piMMO)
I need an AR-15 just like Rosa Parks needed to ride in the front of the bus instead of the back.
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 09:57 AM (jTKU5)
Calling them strawmen doesn't help answer the question when it is asked by the media, and it will be asked, and should be asked. This is the abortion thing all over again. I've been looking for a good answer, and haven't really seen one yet. How do you justify restricting the one and not the other? Serious question.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 09:58 AM (6TB1Z)
214 I object to the continuous use of the Color red to designate our side. RED is the color of COMMUNIST DEMOCRATS!!!!!
We need to stop using it!!!!!
Agreed.
I hate it too.
The DNCmedia established this "red state" bullshit, back in 2000 when Bush won.
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 09:58 AM (fH4X9)
Posted by: Trainer on his wife's iPad at January 19, 2013 09:58 AM (0FfS/)
Posted by: Guido at January 19, 2013 09:58 AM (XLuH2)
Banning items based on irrationality and hysteria is a pretty slippery slope. Nothing good ever comes of it, and the law of unintended consequences applies as well.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 09:59 AM (3QaxX)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Ampersands Anonymous at January 19, 2013 09:59 AM (mbxHg)
Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 09:59 AM (0SmH0)
You may not like lots of his positions and what he did with Obama after the storm (I know I don't), but you can't deny that he made a hell of a lot of progress in cleaning up the NJ budget and tax system. I count that part of him as a conservative win.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 09:59 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 10:00 AM (tBnjP)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 10:00 AM (piMMO)
the real purpose of the 2d amendment probably gives Mr Moo moo vapors and makes Mrs moo moo go catatonic.
The founders would shit on us as a whole.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 10:00 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Ampersands Anonymous at January 19, 2013 10:01 AM (mbxHg)
Whoa, where does the 2nd Amendment use or define "practical"? Practical doesn't enter into it.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 10:01 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 01:58 PM (fH4X9)
I remember that and rolling my eyes and not being surprised.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 10:02 AM (rXEoZ)
Any restriction or ban on ANY practical weapon is an abridgement of a Constitutionally affirmed right.
Don't be going into the weeds with the nuclear cannon, etc, either. Those are strawmen.
Since it is so stated in our Constitution, that right cannot be withheld.
What I own will remain mine--end of discussion.
Posted by: irongrampa at January 19, 2013 01:56 PM (SAMxH)
_________________
The nuclear argument is idiotic since it's not a gun. However, fully auto machine guns were banned. And the republic survived somehow as did the right of people to own other guns. Are you suggesting we bring those back too? If an AR15 is practical and legal, why shouldn't an M16 be as well? A right is a right after all.
This is why the left has such an easy time painting conservatives as extremists. Standing back and loooking at it from a distance, freaking out that you can't protect your family because you can't own an AR15 is just laughable.
And there are restrictions on constitutional rights. There are libel laws that directly go against the 1st Amendment.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:02 AM (HDgX3)
You guys are going to hell with that "need" thing if you let it become a standard.
You "need" 400 horsepower, 300 horsepower, 200 horsepower?
You need 4,000 square feet, 3,000 square feet, 2,000 square feet?
You need a 51 inch TV?
You need a free-standing single-family home?
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 10:02 AM (jTKU5)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 10:02 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:54 PM (HDgX3)
If you've ever worked on Cars, (hotrods) you know that for the longest time, the 327/350 Chevy engine was the most ubiquitous engine you could find. You could get any part for it that you wanted, and usually far cheaper than for any other motor.
Ford had something similar with the 351 Cleveland, but the easiest engine to build was always the Chevy small block 327/350.
AR15s are like that in the Gun world. Exact same situation. They build anything and everything for an AR15, and you can get replacement parts easily because they are so popular. The Same is true for the Russian designed AK-47, but many Americans have a fondness for American guns.
A lot of people desire an AR15 because it *IS* so popular. It is a very good general purpose gun, with relatively inexpensive ammo. Figure it out.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 10:03 AM (bb5+k)
Perhaps the left will enjoy it when we point out to the 3d world and our poor that they are lying their asses off on "organic foods uber alles" which is at least as stupid as "tardasil"?
The real costs of Ethanol and say "fuck you greedy farmers"
The donks having Free Shit Army's vote is because we don't fight for it at all.
Donk Policy is what keeps the poor poor, and their pap on their luxury preferences they get to cry over unrebutted does bear REAL cost.
We need to get in the trenches and figure out if the working poor are smart enough to be worth saving and help them up towards the middle harder and more PARTISANLY.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 10:03 AM (LRFds)
And you get to make that call why?
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 10:03 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: OregonMuse at January 19, 2013 10:04 AM (mHjlJ)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 10:04 AM (tBnjP)
If you can cite a better "all around" weapon for riot defense situations that people DON'T want to ban, there's millions of eager buyers out there waiting for your wisdom.
50+ people were murdered during the Rodney King riots.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 10:04 AM (3QaxX)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 10:04 AM (piMMO)
Likely they would beat us hard.
They were not pussies.
I can easily imagine George Washington settling for the scraps of representation England may have offered to keep us at home had he known we would be such pussies.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 10:05 AM (LRFds)
And what is the constitutional underpinning behind your banning of my right to a B-52?
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 10:05 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:02 PM (piMMO)
Exactly; I'm quite fine with him staying where he is because it's no sweat of my ass. If he cleans up that shithole, good for him; if not, so fucking what.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 10:05 AM (rXEoZ)
You guys are going to hell with that "need" thing if you let it become a standard.
You "need" 400 horsepower, 300 horsepower, 200 horsepower?
You need 4,000 square feet, 3,000 square feet, 2,000 square feet?
You need a 51 inch TV?
You need a free-standing single-family home?
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 02:02 PM (jTKU5)
_____________________
So your argument is whatever you WANT you should be able to get simply for wanting it? No restrictions whatsoever. Want = able to get without govt interference.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:06 AM (HDgX3)
Tell that to the Korean store owners in LA during the Rodney King riots of 1993.
Posted by: OregonMuse at January 19, 2013 10:06 AM (mHjlJ)
Posted by: sexypig at January 19, 2013 10:06 AM (dZQh7)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse
I would have disagreed with you up until 2012. I'm sorry to say that he's now out of my consideration.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 10:07 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 10:07 AM (0SmH0)
A law-abiding American Citizen should be able to have all the weaponry modern technology can make except WMD.
_______
WHOA!!
Are you restricting my right to protect my family by not allowing me a WMD? Fucking commie!!
Seriously, why not a WMD? If you think the 2nd amendment is absolute, why shouldn't WMDs be allowed?
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:08 AM (HDgX3)
You can own a B-52....theoretically...well you could modify a boeing Airframe to be a bomber, and drop any non explosive warhead you wanted on any property you could that would not cause fire, destroy another's property etc etc....
now quick why do you get to own a Car?
I can kill thirty people on a whim in a car.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 10:08 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: sexypig at January 19, 2013 10:08 AM (dZQh7)
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 01:54 PM (6TB1Z)
I'm all in favor of telling the Electorate to Fuck off. If they are too stupid to understand that they voted for economic collapse followed by massive death and destruction, telling them to "fuck off" is the very least I can do.
This is not about opinions, this is about math and reality. If idiots think that their "lady part" issues are worth sentencing the rest of us to death and destruction, then I hope they are first against the wall, come the revolution.
I regard it as now too late to save this nation from economic collapse. We very badly needed to execute a U-Turn, and thanks to the fucking stupid electorate, we stepped on the accelerator instead. Screw them! I hope they die in the coming fire.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 10:08 AM (bb5+k)
So your argument is whatever you WANT you should be able to get simply for wanting it?
__ _ ________ _________
What is it about "shall not be infringed" that bothers you?
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 10:09 AM (jTKU5)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 10:09 AM (tBnjP)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:04 PM (tBnjP)
Because it's against the law. And it has been so for decades. And someohow you've managed to survive.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:09 AM (HDgX3)
Okay, let's be more precise and consider a nuclear-armed B-52. Again, what is the constitutional argument that allows you to deny it to me but not an AR?
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 10:09 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 10:09 AM (piMMO)
I agree; Christie is doing the Lord's work fighting the fat-assed teachers' unions and maybe what he's doing there can serve as a model for how bloated and corrupt public employee interest groups can be fought, but other than that, pffft, that's pretty much all he's good for.
Posted by: OregonMuse at January 19, 2013 10:10 AM (mHjlJ)
251...50+ people were murdered during the Rodney King riots.
Yep, PurpAv.
And lest we forget...they were "angry about a video".
Youtube didn't exist back then, but the media kept replaying that video footage of the police beating Rodney King...and voila!...riots broke out.
Barky brought the concept back, when he kept using that phrase..."angry about a video"...over and over.
So I say, let's use it.
We need those high-capacity weapons, for when a crowd gets..."angry about a video"...and attacks your home.
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 10:10 AM (fH4X9)
So your argument is whatever you WANT you should be able to get simply for wanting it?
__ _ ________ _________
What is it about"shall not be infringed" that bothers you?
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 02:09 PM (jTKU5)
__________
So anything goes? Any weapon can be owned by citizens. No restrictions.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:10 AM (HDgX3)
Another coup by the media. I really despise the media. Especially that asshole Bob Schieffer.
Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 01:54 PM (0SmH0)
They did it in 1992 because Bill Clinton was such a blatant Communist cock sucker that it was just too obvious. Had they labeled him with Red, it would probably have cost him the election.
No, it was intentional misdirection propaganda to cover up the fact that Democrats are in their hearts Red Communist bastards.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 10:10 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 10:11 AM (tBnjP)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 10:12 AM (piMMO)
they want the power to inflict their preference cascades.
The AR-15 is no better a rifle in the 5.56 carbine self-loading class than the Ruger mini-14 arguably....
Ban the M-16(lie but still)
Ban it it is evil and black!
Okay ban the mini-14 too!
great so i go and buy say a CETME in .308 with a 10 shot mag....
more power than an AR
BAN IT!
You give them the ARs they will move on to the next 'evil" just like smoking marches ever on and they are trying with organic food hysteria....
They want total control of your life from birth(if you get lucky) to dead body disposal soon unless i miss my guess....
just how long it takes for Mrs. moo moo to make up her mind.
I want freedom
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 10:12 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Truman North at January 19, 2013 10:12 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:09 PM (piMMO)
Is he still a retard on economics?
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 10:12 AM (rXEoZ)
Troll.
I'm asking the same question. Am I also a troll because you can't answer it coherently? "I make an exception" is Obama talk, not Constitutionalism.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 10:13 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 10:13 AM (tBnjP)
Stupid? You mean the voters in IN and MO, for example? OK.
Voters so stupid they would choose a loathsome (and loathed) incumbent who supports the policies degrading the country and its institutions and freedoms and putting everyone at the brink of financial disaster? Or do something similar in choosing a pathetic hack former congressman over a successful state-wide official, again with the choice of endorsing the country's decline and degradation or at least trying something a bit different?
Not a revelation, but still astonishing (and devastating to the country's prospects) that any significant number of voters in 2012 could be affected, much less actually swayed, by a few bizarre comments from candidates when their opponents were pathetic/unpopular and the stakes were what they were.
Yes, the current political class is despicable, small, clueless, or worse. But the voters make them possible. I'm sick of the idiocy of focusing on the "politicians" - it's your neighbors, co-workers, family members, softball team mates, barbers, even shooting range acquaintances that have degraded the country the way it is. Every moronic NPR listener, every greedy unionized firefighter or teacher, every small business or corporate person who is oblivious to everything outside their daily world and is fine with stealing from others via the tax system or guvamint, every lazy or clueless adherent to "climate change" cultism and gaia worship at the expense of human prosperity and freedom, every lawyer doing wills and trusts or real estate or criminal law who thinks things are working normally and is unaware of the farce that has become the SCOTUS and "constitutional law" in general, every one of these people are the stupid ones.
Akin and Mourdock are a million times more intelligent than the idiotic voters who chose degradation and destruction because their delicate sensibilities and intellectual limits couldn't put supreme national interest and isolated bizarre comments (of no possible consequence to public policy on any subject, ever) in proper perspective.
In fact, while picking the most devastating bit of evidence of national degradation is difficult, especially since 2008, it is at least arguable that the idiotic voting behavior or MO and IN voters in 2012, given the obvious stakes, is in the top five. Inertia, prior prosperity, and its unique place atop the world's fiat monetary system will keep the US from "burning" indefinitely (sorry, LIB'ers). But the MO and IN Senate outcomes are fairly dispositive evidence that the unseriousness of the electorate is complete, and beyond hope.
Posted by: non-purist at January 19, 2013 10:13 AM (afQnV)
Current arms law does mention nuclear weapons(very briefly), and refers you to the DOE for further guidance. Its not something AFT deals with.
Private companies manufacture our nuclear weapons, so clearly there's some mechanism for private ownership because they're private property until delivered.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 10:13 AM (3QaxX)
Troll.
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:11 PM (tBnjP)
_________
Why do you make this exception? What is it about WMDs that make them except from teh 2nd amendment? I've asked you 3 times and you keep evading.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:14 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 10:14 AM (piMMO)
Ownership of specific weapons devolves into a matter of simple practicality determined by the specific owner.
No more complicated than that.
Posted by: irongrampa at January 19, 2013 10:16 AM (SAMxH)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:10 PM (HDgX3)
____ ____ ____ ___ ___ ___ ___
So you don't think the Constitution means what it says.
Got it.
Quite a few citizens own tanks, for example. And you are worried about a fairly light caliber rifle that shoots one bullet each time you pull the trigger?
You want to change that, amend the Constitution.
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 10:16 AM (jTKU5)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at January 19, 2013 10:16 AM (azHfB)
I hate it too.
The DNCmedia established this "red state" bullshit, back in 2000 when Bush won.
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 01:58 PM (fH4X9)
Not true. They did it in 1992 to cover up the fact that Bill Clinton was protesting American involvement in Vietnam while he was a student in London, and that he had traveled to Russia during the Vietnam War, and that he had roamed the countryside behind the Iron curtain and met with known communists and Soviet Agents all while studying abroad on a student deferment.
Clinton was a Communist Red motherfucker and the evidence which had come out confirmed it. Coloring him "Blue" was an intentional bit of mis-direction because to have colored him "Red" would make what he was all too obvious.
I am Absolutely certain the Communist media did this in 1992, because I threw a hell of a fit over it when I first noticed it. Regan's states were colored "Blue" in the Election coverage broadcast. The media has kept us "Red" as an intentional bit of misdirection, and we should stop tolerating it!!!!!!!
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 10:16 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 02:13 PM (3QaxX)
_______
Private companies also make M16 which are explicitly unlawful to own by citizens. I'm not sure what your point is. The final product is illegal. The final product - a WMD - is illegal as well.
The absolutists here say NOTHING should be illegal. I want to know if that means I should have the right to walk into a Cabelas and walk out with a nuclear warhead. Why or why not?
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:16 AM (HDgX3)
269...Something about the 2012 election seems to have set
BOR back on the right path. He's a blowhard, but at least he's not
swinging left now.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 02:09 PM (piMMO)
---------------
I think he wanted Barky to get re-elected, NDH.
He gets more eyeballs now...and thus, more money.
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 10:16 AM (fH4X9)
Great comment; we always get the government we deserve, no matter how much it might piss me off.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 10:17 AM (rXEoZ)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 10:17 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 10:17 AM (tBnjP)
Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 10:17 AM (0SmH0)
Property rights, liability, and sensible utility.
I know I know outmoded fucking concepts to be certain but I am not the one arguing at wanting to ban an Ar-15 because 'evil" when i can use a single shot .45-70 and a brace of revolvers to exert mayhem if that is sole measure.
If YOU want to compare an AR-15 to a Thermonuclear detonation have at thee elseways fuck off and acknowledge that the US fleet was served by private armed ships as privateers and private artillery ownership was once not simply legal but encouraged.
I'd say the founders would be in awe of ARs and would probably use social pressure rather than ARRRGGGGGGHHHHHH ELEVENTY! LAW LAW LAW hysteria to control the progress of manpack weapons there stud.
Anyone of you ever find any evidence the founders had an opinion on "why does the average farmer NEED a Pennsylvania or Kentucky rifle?'
Me neither, and I am pretty certain repeating arms were extant in the twilight of Jefferson and Adams.
You cannot have a car because of the Exxon valdez Motherfucker!
Is not fucking very convincing is it?
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 10:17 AM (LRFds)
I predict house goes to the commie democrats in '14, Senate goes 60 to dems, so Barry can ram socialist crap thru in his last 2 years just as he did in the first 2 years.
Glad I no longer own a business, why bother when we've already see the madness between 2009-2011, who in their right minds is going to start, expand jobs, the Federal reserve is in a trap, they cannot ever raise rates, so they will just keep printing money to make up the difference in lessening tax revenues, and growth is slowing even more and more now. Slashing of spending will happen, and when it does it will not be gradual, it will be abrupt.
Posted by: johnc_ex-dem at January 19, 2013 10:17 AM (3Kxux)
It has to be registered prior to 1986.
You have to pay a healthy transfer tax.
You will be investigated.
I don't need one but if I wanted one, I am sure I could find one. I might have to pay a ridiculous sum.
Posted by: sTevo at January 19, 2013 10:18 AM (VMcEw)
Posted by: NWConservative at January 19, 2013 10:18 AM (yUn2v)
I am ready to arguments to the contrary.
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:17 PM (tBnjP)
____________
LOL. So anyone that suggests 2A should have limits is a commie, freedom hating troll. Unless of course the limits are the ones you impose.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:18 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: sTevo at January 19, 2013 10:19 AM (VMcEw)
don't use sense it makes Mrs. Moo moo cry....
Moo moo's argument is as retarded as banning cars because the Challenger blew up.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 10:19 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: BurtTC at January 19, 2013 10:20 AM (BeSEI)
Posted by: Y-not at January 19, 2013 10:20 AM (5H6zj)
I remember that and rolling my eyes and not being surprised.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 19, 2013 02:02 PM (rXEoZ)
Everybody should have objected to that, made a big deal out of it, and NOT SHUT UP ABOUT IT!!!!!
That we tolerate them saddling us with Communist Red, is indicative to them that we will tolerate a lot of their other bullshit propaganda.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 10:20 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: NWConservative at January 19, 2013 02:18 PM (yUn2v)
________________
I wouldn't call our state fiscally conservative. It's not batshit liberal crazy, but it's not exactly Idaho either. Property tax is insane, sales tax is pushing 10%, gas tax is one of the highest in the country. We have no income tax which is nice, but all the other taxes make up for it.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:21 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 10:21 AM (0SmH0)
They're not exempt. There's private and university labs all over the country working on various biological and chemical agents that could be construed as WMD under the UN protocols.
As a practical matter, there's not one whit of difference between infections disease research and WMD, its only a matter of intent. Similarly, many nerve and other chemical agents evolved out of commercial pesticide research, or were common industrial chemicals applied as weapons -- again intent.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 10:21 AM (3QaxX)
288...Not true. They did it in 1992 to cover up the fact that Bill Clinton was... [-snip-]
....a Communist Red motherfucker
Yeah...I seem to remember seeing that a few times back then.
Pissed me off at the time, too.
But with the advent of the internet explosion...those maps became 'established' even more.
I hate it.
How do we change it?
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 10:22 AM (fH4X9)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 10:22 AM (tBnjP)
more evidence you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
If your dick is so small or you have need for work for a full auto go buy the goddamned NAF stamp or get a class III dealer's license voila you legally own an M-16.
My uncle has six stamped weapons that are legal automatics.
Jesus fucking Christ we're gonna lose the bill of rights to people who can't be bothered to do fifteen minutes legal research.
http://www.historicarmsclass3.com/Qualified_Purchasers.html
Lord help me you neo-luddites are fucking idiots.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 10:23 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 10:23 AM (piMMO)
don't use sense it makes Mrs. Moo moo cry....
Moo moo's argument is as retarded as banning cars because the Challenger blew up.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:19 PM (LRFds)
____________________
You guys will never get it.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:24 AM (HDgX3)
I am ready to arguments to the contrary.
I don't need to argue to the contrary, you need to justify why you get to infringe my Consitutional rights because you've decided something is more powerful than I need.
Who needs something like that? Sound familiar?
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 10:24 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Secret Squirrel's Ballz Und Sheft at January 19, 2013 10:24 AM (0SmH0)
And what is the constitutional underpinning behind your banning of my right to a B-52?
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:05 PM (6TB1Z)
What indeed? American Citizens owned Armed Frigates in 1787. Armed with Cannon. Individuals had their own horse drawn cannon. It was not considered remarkable for Citizens to own field pieces if they wanted.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 10:24 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: sexypig at January 19, 2013 02:08 PM (dZQh7)
Incrementalism. How does it work? Just look at the current state of the family, personal responsibility, border control etc... First they came for the automatics...
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 10:25 AM (OQpzc)
What we are saying is that the Constitutional right to bear arms has been infringed on enough.
Ownership by individuals of an AR-15 is not something for citizens to worry about.
Now, about those tanks that citizens own....a tank with no cannon is much more dangerous than an AR-15.
Hell, a truck, a grader or other large machinery can take more lives than an AR-15.
So, life-taking capability must not really be the focus here.
Why do you want to outlaw a rifle, Mr. Moo Moo?
And do you also want to confiscate the millions of copies already out there? amongst the populace?
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 10:25 AM (jTKU5)
http://www.historicarmsclass3.com/Qualified_Purchasers.html
Lord help me you neo-luddites are fucking idiots.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:23 PM (LRFds)
_________________
Did the bill of rights disappear 1994-2004? You sound like a lunatic.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:26 AM (HDgX3)
_____________________So your argument is whatever you WANT you should be able to get simply for wanting it? No restrictions whatsoever. Want = able to get without govt interference.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:06 PM (HDgX3)
I would suggest than any body which presumes to do the regulating ought to be the individual states. The Second Amendment more or less implies that such is off limits to the Federal.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 10:26 AM (bb5+k)
No you do not fucking get it.
You are slip sliding to a fucking totalitarian oligarchy bit by bit because "ity is easier" your wife frankly and I am certain you love her is fucking idiot on firearms, their reason for being in the founding, and the legitimate basis for argument on bans/restrictions/ seizure.
You want to ensure a fucking shooting war in this nation indulge her true impulse and seize 'em all.
The AR-15 is no more or less lethal than any other weapon, and if morons and not our kind are stupid enough to let Mocha Jesus use fear and hysteria to push law abiding Americans to finally say ENOUGH! it is on her head.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 10:26 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:24 PM (HDgX3)
You are probalby right. I will never get why you would give up my rights for a little electabiliy.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 10:27 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 10:28 AM (tBnjP)
Proof positive of ... something
Posted by: Obama's retirement planner at January 19, 2013 10:28 AM (e8kgV)
---
As part of the Patriot Act, I would say partially, yes.
Posted by: sTevo at January 19, 2013 10:28 AM (VMcEw)
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 02:26 PM (bb5+k)
Yes. Mr. Moo Moo wants his state to outlaw whatever, I'm fine with that. There are plenty of states left.
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 10:29 AM (jTKU5)
Posted by: NWConservative at January 19, 2013 10:29 AM (yUn2v)
You want to ensure a fucking shooting war in this nation indulge her true impulse and seize 'em all.
The AR-15 is no more or less lethal than any other weapon, and if morons and not our kind are stupid enough to let Mocha Jesus use fear and hysteria to push law abiding Americans to finally say ENOUGH! it is on her head.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:26 PM (LRFds)
_____________
You are unhinged. Truly.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:30 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:08 PM (HDgX3)
Don't know if you like Science Fiction, but in the book "Lucifer's Hammer" that is exactly what they use to save themselves from an army of bad guys. I think that if the Individual States want to allow people to have howitzers, tanks, etc. that ought to be up to the Individual States.
I would suppose the same reasoning ought to apply to other such devices.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 10:30 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Fox2! at January 19, 2013 10:30 AM (1Qpmy)
PA-if I understand your argument, you are against limits on any potentially lethal technology, only on those who might use them. Is that correct?
I just think people should abide by it as a matter of agreement, not law.
Otherwise, the citizenry should have the weaponry their technology can produce.
Well, that at least is an intellectually consistent argument. I disagree with your position, but so far, I can't fault it from a strictly constructionist pov.
there are attorneys who focus on the every day issues of owning guns: inheritance, transfers,
I'd like to hear his arguments about limits on weapons. Again, if you came in late, I'm against gun bans, but if we want to avoid another Akin, we need to be better prepared for these questions, because we will get them. I'm sorry to say the response here so far has not been convincing.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 10:30 AM (6TB1Z)
I cannot wait for him to be out of work.
Posted by: tcn at January 19, 2013 10:31 AM (ZOUmX)
You want to ensure a fucking shooting war in this nation indulge her true impulse and seize 'em all.
The AR-15 is no more or less lethal than any other weapon, and if morons and not our kind are stupid enough to let Mocha Jesus use fear and hysteria to push law abiding Americans to finally say ENOUGH! it is on her head.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:26 PM (LRFds)
__________________
It's insane talk like this that weakens your argument. People hear this type of talk and think "what a fucking nutcase". You're doing more harm than good to your cause.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:31 AM (HDgX3)
great nice idea....
I really hate Obama's lies...I guess we'll pass a law saying Sven gets to regulate speech then....so long as I don'tm overabuse it it is all good right?
hey come to think of it why do YOU need ANY 4th amendment protections?
I never owned a goddamned AR-15 until you fuckheads decided they are somehow Magic fucking evil.
You will allow them to destroy ALL liberty economic choice in this nation because "he speaks well and it sounds 'nicer'....
allow Muslims to be imported en mass to start up car-b-qs lest we be 'racist'....
I look forward to our "gentle reminder" we are earning from fate because stupid people will be most harmed and will suffer wondering "how did this happen?"
and the answer dear moo moo is bullshit bargaining like yours based on nothing more than pussy's instincts based on NO FUCKING FACT
Number of murders by stanped legal machine guns last year "between zero and ten"
yeah there you fucking have it....
the "evil of assault rifles"
evil is in men's hearts and actions not technology's marginal increases in efficiency.
I loathe your kind of weak assed "defender of liberty" as much if not perhaps more than the guarded Tyrant like obama and holder because I know to watch thr guarded tyrant like a hawk so I learn his heart but you you their fucking enablers.
you often call me "friend"
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 10:32 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 10:32 AM (tBnjP)
I would suppose the same reasoning ought to apply to other such devices.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 02:30 PM (bb5+k)
________
Fair enough. I disagree, but I see your point. But let's not pretend - like so many here do - that banning private ownership of tanks means you can't protect your family.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:33 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Guido at January 19, 2013 10:33 AM (XLuH2)
Okay, let's be more precise and consider a nuclear-armed B-52. Again, what is the constitutional argument that allows you to deny it to me but not an AR?
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:09 PM (6TB1Z)
Well,, if you want to get picky, it's not an "arm." (Meaning a weapon intended to be carried by a person.) The Early United States did not regulate individuals ownership of cannons, or armed ships, (in fact they encouraged it in some cases) but what they were specifying in the 2nd amendment was "Arms." (Meaning Weapons carried in the "arms", as the term has long been understood to mean.)
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 10:33 AM (bb5+k)
The AR-15 is legal to own.
I'm still waiting to hear why this simple rifle called an AR-15 should be outlawed by the federal government nationwide.
I'm also waiting to hear how the millions of copies already legally purchased will be affected by such outlawing.
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 10:33 AM (jTKU5)
They seem NOT to have been a problem.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 10:34 AM (3QaxX)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:32 PM (tBnjP)
_______________
A working cannon? No. And I don't think it means we are all headed to the gulags if I can't own a cannon.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:34 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: RWC at January 19, 2013 10:34 AM (sqp6o)
Posted by: Soona at January 19, 2013 10:34 AM (QdUQL)
* Repealing ObamaCare
* Passing a budget
* Reforming Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and welfare
* Reforming the tax code
* Building the Keystone Pipeline
* Passing energy legislation
I can think of more, but the point is that they presented and passed a number of conservative bills that were either voted down or stalled by the Senate.
Posted by: 80sBaby at January 19, 2013 10:34 AM (YjDyJ)
You will allow them to destroy ALL liberty economic choice in this nation because "he speaks well and it sounds 'nicer'....
allow Muslims to be imported en mass to start up car-b-qs lest we be 'racist'....
I look forward to our "gentle reminder" we are earning from fate because stupid people will be most harmed and will suffer wondering "how did this happen?"
and the answer dear moo moo is bullshit bargaining like yours based on nothing more than pussy's instincts based on NO FUCKING FACT
yeah there you fucking have it....
the "evil of assault rifles"
evil is in men's hearts and actions not technology's marginal increases in efficiency.
I loathe your kind of weak assed "defender of liberty" as much if not perhaps more than the guarded Tyrant like obama and holder because I know to watch thr guarded tyrant like a hawk so I learn his heart but you you their fucking enablers.
you often call me "friend"
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:32 PM (LRFds)
______________
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:35 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 10:35 AM (tBnjP)
Interesting. So as so often happens, it comes down to the definition of the word. This is something to build on.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 10:35 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Soona at January 19, 2013 02:34 PM (QdUQL)
____________
You guys really don't see how talk like this is making you out to sound like deranged lunatics?
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:36 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: soothsayer at January 19, 2013 10:36 AM (GcwH1)
Posted by: Y-not at January 19, 2013 10:36 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: RWC at January 19, 2013 10:36 AM (sqp6o)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:35 PM (tBnjP)
________
Yes because freedom is the right to be able to blow up my neighbor's house from 1000 feet away. And if I don't have a cannot in my backyard, how will I ever protect my family?
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:37 AM (HDgX3)
10/22s are next.
I am barely kidding.
The media will point out the shooter in Europe use .22lr and you can have a 100 rounds of .22 nobody needs 100 rds to shoot a squirrel.
THAT is the problem.
I have harmed fewer people with my rifles than criminals have killed with ballbats. we are slowly becoming England's pussy technocracy where we will begin regulating the acceptable length of butcher's knives lest they be used to 'do evil'
oh no assures Moo moo I'd never let it go that far....
yeah sure you wouldn't sport, sure you wouldn't.
Our bill of rights has been reduced to a slightly musty hopeful on some fucking retarded version of American Idol with the Nightly News and Obama editing the sound during her vocals.
Fuck the gungrabbers.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 10:37 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: NWConservative at January 19, 2013 10:37 AM (yUn2v)
Private ownership of tanks, artillery pieces, etc and ammunition for them IS NOT BANNED currently.
Where the fuck are you getting your information?!? Someone is lying to you.
I can't recall the last time a legally owned private tank or cannon was used in a crime. Help me out.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 10:37 AM (3QaxX)
No, but their ownership is heavily regulated, and for some classes, nigh impossible. I believe this qualifies as "infringement", which the 2A forbids.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 10:38 AM (6TB1Z)
In fact, while picking the most devastating bit of evidence of national degradation is difficult, especially since 2008, it is at least arguable that the idiotic voting behavior or MO and IN voters in 2012, given the obvious stakes, is in the top five. Inertia, prior prosperity, and its unique place atop the world's fiat monetary systemwill keep the US from "burning"indefinitely (sorry, LIB'ers). But the MO and IN Senate outcomes are fairly dispositive evidence that the unseriousness of the electorate is complete, and beyond hope.
Posted by: non-purist at January 19, 2013 02:13 PM (afQnV)
I agree. Voters should have just ignored those stupid statements by both of those guys. They should have looked at the bigger picture. They didn't, and now it's time for everybody to suffer, even the people who didn't cause these problems.
Thanks idiot voters!!!! I'm going to really enjoy my future of economic and social misery!
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 10:39 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 10:39 AM (piMMO)
I know you don't. The notion that the price of freedom is the bearing of things you yourself might find odious I grasp it escapes you. Your lack of understanding the point is precisely why you are unqualified to be the national gun buyer and preference quality control officer.
Have a day
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 10:39 AM (LRFds)
Where the fuck are you getting your information?!? Someone is lying to you.
I can't recall the last time a legally owned private tank or cannon was used in a crime. Help me out.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 02:37 PM (3QaxX)
__________
OK. I want to buy a tank. Who do I call?
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:39 AM (HDgX3)
Cool. I want an MLRS because my neighbor is a real tool.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 10:40 AM (6TB1Z)
He's just evading now because he can't answer why an AR-15 should be banned nationwide, and he can't answer how he will get them all away from those who already own them.
Fuck him. I am not impressed by the argument that I sound like a lunatic for asking these questions.
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 10:41 AM (jTKU5)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 10:41 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:38 PM (6TB1Z)
__________________
OH MY GOD!! We've been living under tyranny for the past 30 years. Nooooooooooo!
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:41 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Soona at January 19, 2013 10:42 AM (QdUQL)
Posted by: RWC at January 19, 2013 10:42 AM (sqp6o)
Fuck him. I am not impressed by the argument that I sound like a lunatic for asking these questions.
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 02:41 PM (jTKU5)
________
You aren't a lunatic for asking this question. You are a lunatic for implying that if an Ar15 ban happened, you wouldn't give it up without a fight.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:42 AM (HDgX3)
they simply do not give a shit.
Point out they are not full auto.
so what?
point out that the mag ban is not effective
so what?
We MUST DO SOMETHING!
Yeah about that...this is hardly the first school massacre let alone mass murder using firearms in the King's reign....Chicago is a goddamned bloodbath daily.....
why is Ogabe ONLY now getting around to doing this after being safely reelected?
Are those kids magic kids that make them more valuable than black youth in Chicago?
He is "more flexible" and we have self-described 'GOP voters' getting their panties moist to aid him in testing his "flexibility"
"Good luck"
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 10:43 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: CAC at January 19, 2013 10:43 AM (NbhlJ)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 10:43 AM (tBnjP)
If there is going to be any enforceable rule of law at all, the government must possess the ability to arrest and detain any citizen, even well armed citizens. Otherwise there cannot be civil society, Constitution or not. So that in my mind justifies some justifiable limit on the Second Amendment to ban things like tanks and WMDs, which would enable ordinary citizens to become militarily competitive with a proper government enforcing the rule of law.
I think there is a justifiably gray area in between the two extremes of "pea shooters" and "nuclear bombs", but it does eliminate the stupid rhetorical gimmick of "hey, why can't private citizens own nukes, you gun nuts???"
Posted by: chemjeff at January 19, 2013 10:43 AM (BBWjt)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 10:44 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:39 PM (HDgX3)
_ ____ ____ _ _
You call any one of the thousands of people who own, trade and sell them. They are all over the country. My Dad has a book full of them, and the owners and their locations are named in the book. There are clubs of people that own them all over the country.
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 10:44 AM (jTKU5)
You can legally own claymore mines.
Expensive habit but it can be done.
Again your point?
A nefarious person can use the cleaning aisle at Kroger to kill the whole store....
I know we need suds control.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 10:44 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: soothsayer at January 19, 2013 10:44 AM (8dspl)
The absolutists here say NOTHING should be illegal. I want to know if that means I should have the right to walk into a Cabelas and walk out with a nuclear warhead. Why or why not?
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:16 PM (HDgX3)
Owning an M16 is not illegal. I know several people who own them. It is just a pain in the neck to get the Federal Firearms license necessary to do so.
I have personally fired several different types of machine guns (all legally owned by private citizens) and it was a great bit of fun. One of the most interesting was a .45 caliber paratrooper gun (with serial numbered matching silencer) from World War II. It fired rather slow, and with the silencer on it, the loudest thing you could hear was the large heavy bolt clacking back and forth, but it was still fun to shoot.
Honestly, I could easily fire any semi-automatic weapon at a faster rate than this old .45 caliber Paratrooper sub-machine gun could fire.
But to re-iterate, if you didn't know it, it *IS* legal for private citizens to own fully automatic machine guns. Get on you tube and type in machine guns and I bet you'll find hundreds of clips of people having fun with them.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 10:45 AM (bb5+k)
OH NO OH NO the mere ownership of a military like device caused him to take over town!
Whatever asshole go vote democrat
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 10:46 AM (LRFds)
The company Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) said to have measured a fish called "murasoi" amount of radioactive cesium equal to 254,000 becquerels per kilogram, or 2540 times the limit of 100 becquerels / kg set for seafood by the government.
Fish, close rockfish was caught in the bay near the central Fukukshima Daiichi , victim, March 11, 2011, a massive tsunami that devastated four of the six reactors, dispersing in the nature of large quantities of radioactive substances.
Posted by: Robert Oppenheimer at January 19, 2013 10:46 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: chemjeff at January 19, 2013 02:43 PM (BBWjt)
__________
I didn't bring up nukes. One of the "gun nuts" did saying he would allow any weapon to be owned EXCEPT WMDs. I just asked why stop at WMDs?
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:46 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 10:46 AM (tBnjP)
Still waiting to hear why the gun should be banned.
Still waiting to hear how you confiscate all of them after the banning.
I don't own one, Moo, so I won't be barricading the house over the question.
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 10:47 AM (jTKU5)
Posted by: RWC at January 19, 2013 10:47 AM (sqp6o)
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 02:46 PM (LRFds)
_________
And Republicans wonder why they keep losing elections......
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:47 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: NWConservative at January 19, 2013 10:47 AM (yUn2v)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:42 PM (HDgX3)
Didn't say right. I said ability you lying tool.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 10:47 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 10:47 AM (piMMO)
Do we have phased plasma rifles yet?
Why do you need anything above a 15-watt? These 40-watt rangers are excessively powerful.
Plus, they're all black.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at January 19, 2013 10:48 AM (yiIja)
I'm curious to see who the repubs run against Begich. And I don't underestimate the stupidity of people. I have a feeling Begich will get a second term if the repubs don't get their shit together up here.
Posted by: Bosk at January 19, 2013 10:48 AM (QkFee)
they know they can count on part of us and perhaps the majority to be tyrrany's enablers.
Yup you're dead on and I am not the gun nut I appear in this thread but the arguments the 'just the tip' apologists are using are not based on reason, results, or critical thinking they are based on "arbogate liberty Barry you will just use the tip won't you?'
No sorry.
I don't own ANY "machine guns" nor would I I don't feel my potential life merits the extra tax....
I would not deny anyone the right to legally own them however.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 10:48 AM (LRFds)
Excellent. Again, progress is being made. Now, isn't there an inherent conflict between this ability to enforce the law, and your ability to resist tyranny by using your own weapons against an overweening government, an argument we hear a lot these days? How do we resolve this dilemma?
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 10:48 AM (6TB1Z)
You can. Its just an ordinary Class III "destructive device".
It'll get interesting when rail guns start to appear...since they don't "expel" the "projectile" using "explosives" or "propellants".
Under current law, a fully automatic rail gun has no more restriction placed on it than a Splatmaster paint ball gun.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 10:49 AM (3QaxX)
Your formula also secures the government's ability to impose tyranny without fear of failure.
Best to err on the side of freedom, I say.
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:46 PM (tBnjP)
____________________
So every home should have a howitzer and B52, just in case.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:49 AM (HDgX3)
I hate it.
How do we change it?
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 02:22 PM (fH4X9)
By refusing to use it, by objecting to it every time we encounter it. In fact, it gives us an opportunity to remind everyone that "Red" is the color of the Communists, and therefore ought to be applied to the American Version of the communists e.g. the "Democrats!"
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 10:49 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 10:49 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Clemenza at January 19, 2013 10:49 AM (x59Gv)
He wants it banned when much more dangerous things arent, and can't answer why.
I think the discussion is over.
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 10:50 AM (jTKU5)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 10:50 AM (l86i3)
yeah most especially if God forbid he ever left the barn door's unlocked....
this is the silliest of self-indulgence on the part of soi-called 'Republicans" or lovers of "liberty" to set themselves up as "I am smart enough to make the judgement call for ALL all at once!"
I would not own a claymore around the house my rodents are not that big, I can build an IED if need be I have made and used napalm as a cleaning agent to remove gum from asphalt....
OH NO OH NO! Sven is EVIL!
Yeah I guess so....
thank god no American kids ever experimented with recreational use of say nail polish remover, or potato guns....
who the fuck are we becoming?
My dad used dynamite to clear tree stumps...
"moderate" "lovers of freedom" make me sick
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 10:51 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Clemenza at January 19, 2013 10:51 AM (x59Gv)
383
this thread is a perfect example of why Republicans in office ignore their own base more and more each day
Posted by: soothsayer at January 19, 2013 02:44 PM (8dspl)
------
Eh? Which part?
And, it sounds like you think that ignoring us...is a good thing.
They ignore their base at their own peril.
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 10:51 AM (fH4X9)
Posted by: NWConservative at January 19, 2013 02:47 PM (yUn2v)
__________________
I can't disagree with this.
But let's say tomorrow Obama decided he wants to go full blown totalitarian. Do you think having an AR15 vs. not having one would make much of a difference? Let's be realistic here. No matter what arsenal of weapons you have in your home, you're not going to win a fight against the US military. Which is why this argument is so foolish with regards to assault weapon bans.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:51 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 10:52 AM (3QaxX)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at January 19, 2013 10:53 AM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: Clemenza at January 19, 2013 10:53 AM (x59Gv)
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 02:51 PM (fH4X9)
If only. Dbags like boner and King keep getting elected.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 10:54 AM (OQpzc)
In asymmetric war you never fight to win. You fight to make it too costly for the other side to persist.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 10:54 AM (3QaxX)
Posted by: Honey Boo Boo at January 19, 2013 10:54 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: NWConservative at January 19, 2013 10:54 AM (yUn2v)
quite and of course because the tyrannical left refuses to accept we WILL OWn guns and we will fight against tyranny so let it the fuck go....
we will have a hell of a fight on it and they will be unregulated for longer than they should because if there is one lesson that is integral to the American experiment it is never trust power totally.
That does not make me paranoid it makes me a free citizen.
Paranoid is not trusting your mayor and trying to have a private militia because of zoning laws.....not fearing a govt that micromanages toilet capacity, and light bulbs.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 10:54 AM (LRFds)
The burden, obviously, is on those who would fashion acceptable limits on constitutionally-granted rights (and recall the entire purpose of the constitution, aside from organizational details, is to limit the state's purview).
Those who, because they aren't very bright, or very American, or able to withstand social pressures from family or the clueless masses or pop culture, want to throw logic and the constitution and history to the wind, are not commies (just as Bambi and his ilk are not commies - the pernicious and failed commie thing actually has - fake - intellectual under-pinnings that are a dozen levels above their intellectual pay grade - you don't have to have actually listened to lectures in Russian at Leningrad State U. in a hall adorned with red banners proclaiming all the idiotic slogans of the Bolshevik revolution, or read Marx's pre-Manifesto essays in German, to have SOME intellectual grasp of the idiocy of that preposterous ideology ..... but to suggest that the president or any of the current political class, esp. on "the left", have the slightest idea about what Marxism or communism were is absurd).
I don't really want to get into a mud fight with other commenters, but our friend here who keeps hopping around from premise to premise and line or argument to line of argument sort of telegraphed how serious his perspective was when he mentioned how "easy it was for us to be painted as extremists" (approx. quote). Uh huh. Cretins who believe in environmental lysenkoism, and think that race should be the organizing principle of law and society, and that stuffing surviving aborted kids in closets to die is OK, and that 1% of the populace should both create all the wealth and take all the risks AND pay all the taxes, and that unemployment insurance creates jobs, of course have no trouble painting as "extremists" people who correctly observe that semi-automatic rifles are not a significant factor in any crime or other social ill. I get it.
Ironically, it looks like the last surviving pocket of rational and American (historically speaking, in the best sense) political behavior centers around firearms and the 2A. The "beliefs" of the gun grabbers are just as idiotic as their beliefs that now prevail on racism as a substitute for rule of law, global friendliness towards fascism and genocide, economics, and other issues - but for a variety of reasons they will not prevail here.
But meanwhile, reserve a little pity for those so unfortunate as to be saddled with friends, spouses, or family who hold these idiotic beliefs (really just bigotry and ignorance inspiring authoritarian impulses, more than beliefs), and lack the will, dignity, or responsibility to nuke them (educate them) and instead beclown themselves pleading with their political allies to agree to absurd actions so as not to be painted as "extremists".
Posted by: non-purist at January 19, 2013 10:54 AM (afQnV)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 10:55 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:54 PM (HDgX3)
You would be wrong. I'd like to see the army defunded. All of it.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 10:56 AM (OQpzc)
The military is a vital and necessary role defined in the Constitution.
Glean the founder's thoughts and fears on military power.
I am ex-infantry, and if the military is ever a force of tyranny and there is any chance to resist I will fight it.
That is my duty by my oath.
If you cannot grasp the duality do me the favor of not expecting me to defer liberty's guardian status to you.
Thanks
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 10:56 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 02:54 PM (3QaxX)
__________________________
When the military has f16s, patriot missiles, drones, etc an Ar15 isn't going to matter one way or another. The argumnet is let me own the AR15 so I can stop govt tyranny. I'm saying if the govt wants to become tyrannical, 1000 Ar15s in your possession won't do shit to stop it from happening.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:56 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 10:57 AM (tBnjP)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:33 PM (HDgX3)
The ability to protect your family is an ancillary purpose to the Second Amendment. The Primary purpose is to Protect your community and your state from a Tyrannical Federal Government. Read the Federalist papers, and the Anti-Federalist papers for more insight on what they intended when they created the Second Amendment.
To Reiterate, the Federalist papers imply that people need guns to protect their families, but the Second Amendment out and out states that keeping the people armed is "necessary to the security of a Free State."
The Fed-Gov has ALWAYS been the primary target of the Second Amendment.
Remember, all the amendments were created because of the concern that the Newly Created Fed-Gov was too powerful, and that many founders wanted specific rights spelled out.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 10:57 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 10:57 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 02:54 PM (3QaxX)
Just blow the bridges and let the cities starve. Should take about a month. Just in time delivery is a boon and a curse for the filthy, evil cities.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 10:57 AM (OQpzc)
I'm slowly getting there.
Giggles won't use it to defend our interests, we are training terrorists that kill our diplomats diminishing our perceived power, and a populace that cannot endure our losses in Iraq and 'ghani without going emo is not going to bear the retaliatory costs of the use of a strategic WMD once we get hit.
It is largely now wasted money thanks to the media.
I will be actively cheering for the media to get killed overseas by their pets the terrorists now.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 10:58 AM (LRFds)
________
So you love the military. But you need an AR15 to fight the military, just in case. Got it.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 10:58 AM (HDgX3)
Ah, so you're a Jeffersonian.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 10:59 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 10:59 AM (piMMO)
Murdock (whom I know personally from years ago and is a nice man) beat Lugar, who has border-line dementia but always has that goofy Howdy Doody grin on his face. This was done with the support of the Tea Party, who wanted some fiscal responsibility.
In the GENERAL election, however, the democrats ran Joe Donnelly, a jolly Notre Dame graduate who made a big deal of his Irish heritage and moderate position.
Murdock, unfortunately, could not manage to smile through most of the campaign and projected a rather dour personna. I am certain that the Catholic vote mostly went to Donnelly, and this was probably why Murdock went all-in on the abortion issue during the debate. (You will notice Mike Pence worked awfully hard at NOT putting his foot in his mouth and stuck to local economic issues.)
Maybe we should have run Lugar and then gotten him to retire and hold a special election. I do think he would have beaten Donnelly. We had some Lugar supporters who refused to vote for Murdock. So now what we are stuck with is that people think the Tea Party doesn't know what it's doing.
Posted by: Miss Marple at January 19, 2013 11:00 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 11:00 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon.
http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 02:57 PM (l86i3)
____________
Sorry I ever said you were a lunatic. I was obviously wrong.
And with that refreshing breath of crazy, I am off to enjoy a beautiful sunny winter day in the Inland Pacific Northwest.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 11:00 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 11:01 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 02:59 PM (6TB1Z)
I always thought I was a Jacksonian.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 11:02 AM (OQpzc)
An armed citizenry has a chance to secure its freedom, and unarmed one has none.
Folks here don't think they can duke it out with the 101st in a fair fight. That's not what this is all about. Your mind is so enmeshed in wrong ideas you can't see any possibilities except the ones visible through small holes.
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 02:57 PM (tBnjP)
___________
You've watched Red Dawn a few too many times.
And for the record I have said numerous times I don't want to ban any guns. I am saying - AGAIN - the AR15 is a political loser for the Republican Party. It's a stupid hill to die on. OK, I'm really out now. Good day all.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 11:02 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 11:02 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:54 PM (HDgX3)
-------------------------------------------------
You're really reaching now. Having said that, I do believe our military is being slowly but surely taken over by leftist minions and is becoming no longer the military that will defend our principles. Homeland security forces, anyone?
I want to have the means to defend myself against them. That means having modern, up to date arms. The more lethal, the better. Having these arms gives us the ability to access the weapons the would make our fight more even.
Once again, the 2d Amendment isn't there for home protection, hunting, or sport shooting. It's there to protect us from tyranny. And tyranny has got it's foot in the door of our country now.
Posted by: Soona at January 19, 2013 11:03 AM (Z/SJ5)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:34 PM (HDgX3)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are plenty of people who own cannons. Every Year they have Cannon Shoot contests at Ft. Sill for various groups who bring in their own privately owned cannons. Many of them are Civil War re-enactors, some are US Horse Cavalry re-enactors, and so on. Ft. Sill Army Soldiers often competes with them using their own Military Half-Section re-enactors.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 11:03 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: RWC at January 19, 2013 11:04 AM (sqp6o)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 11:04 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 11:05 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at January 19, 2013 11:05 AM (Y5I9o)
"And for the record I have said numerous times I don't want to ban any guns. I am saying - AGAIN - the AR15 is a political loser for the Republican Party. It's a stupid hill to die on."
Finally, there's his answer. Ban it because it's a political loser.
Which is wrong also. The NRA is polling higher than Obama right now. Obama did his EOs because he knows congress won't pass any gun bans.
You are wrong on all counts, Moo. Work to ban it in your state if it scares you.
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 11:06 AM (jTKU5)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 11:06 AM (piMMO)
Oh now Obama was misunderstod all thos times in his past that he speaks of enforced redistribution being moral, or wanting guns banned, or his buddy Bill Ayers says he wants to murder 25,000,000 capitalists.....
I take people at their word, were I to threaten Obama Ace would ban me, report me to the Secret Service and I would be dealt with.
None of you would be too bothered, and I would bear social costs all my life.
I would be held responsible for my rhetoric as it were, the thing is that not only am I leery of such cost I am intelligent enough to know that harming Obama would be stupid and hurt America deeply no matter how irksome I consider him or dangerous his reign because it would poison reachable people and undermine the fabric of the collective whole's ability to ever find common ground.
Undo his works?
Until the end of time, but political violence is stupid and not something to be bug chased.
The right holds most of its bad actors in check.
An actual domestic terrorist like bill Ayers has the case spoiled by the FBI on purpose in some eyes, his father shepherds him back into society, he speaks of killing megadeaths of opponents never renouncing his hyperbole AND he engages in oversight of school curricula now.
The left promotes its bad actors as far as it can.
The difference is killing us.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 11:07 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 02:39 PM (HDgX3)
How much money have you got to spend? You can get em, but they cost a lot to purchase and move. A lot of people get old Soviet stuff. I bet you can buy one from Afghanistan all day long.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 11:07 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Guido at January 19, 2013 11:07 AM (XLuH2)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 03:04 PM (l86i3)
And when the Jeffersonians fuck things up, we are pissed we have to take action. So, we reluctantly take the rifle from over the fireplace and take the most direct, non-pc action needed to end the threat.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 11:08 AM (OQpzc)
OK, can't resist.
No wonder the GOP loses elections.
Meaning, "gun control" has cost the GOP elections? Sheesh, news to me. Which races? What were the 2A-related exit poll numbers showing why the GOP candidate lost?
And sorry to say it, but someone with such a comprehensive ignorance of constitutional law and jurisprudence, and firearms, and BATFE regs, and apparently even politics, might consider studying up before beclowning themselves "arguing" about something like "gun control". Not that such ignorance and bigotry are rare - on the contrary (obviously). But dude, it's pretty sad when you sound like the clueless idiots who give us fiscal insanity, lawlessness, global incompetence, and statesmen like Maxine Waters, Joe Biden, Obama, and Nancy Pelosi.
Posted by: non-purist at January 19, 2013 11:08 AM (afQnV)
Raleigh, N.C. — At least two people were injured Saturday afternoon in an apparent accidental shooting at the gun show being held at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds.
Emergency crews responded to the scene shortly after 1 p.m., and two people were loaded into ambulances.
A witness told WRAL that a gun went off after being checked by an official at a safety check-in location, hitting a man in the hand and a woman in the side.
Hope no morons were there....the HQ kind.
http://tinyurl.com/aypz6z5
Posted by: Tami[/i] at January 19, 2013 11:08 AM (X6akg)
Correct the "good answer" is to tell the gunowners who are already angry at "go along at any price I am sure he'll be nice to us soon!" Republicans to cave on the one issue that does cross party lines and is in the bill of rights and polls better than obama....
"yeah'
The GOP caves on guns I quit not because I am a gun nut but because at that point why have one?
If they can't stand on THIS there is NOTHING of principle worth saving anymore.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 11:08 AM (LRFds)
440 Stossel on FNC now. The topic of the show is 'Texas vs California'
Should be a good one!
Yeah, it's a good one, NDH.
I watched a preview of a new Documentary called...'Detropia'.
No way I'm going to pay $4.99 to order it OnDemand.
But the gist of it seemed to be....blame the fall of Detroit, on "They".
There were people saying..."They shipped our jobs away".
And..."They are bulldozing down our vacant buildings".
Wtf?
Detroit is a perfect example of what Democrats in power, will do to a city.
And they're trying to blame it on....someone else.
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 11:09 AM (fH4X9)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 11:09 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: phoenixgirl so done with the GOP at January 19, 2013 11:09 AM (uxUIu)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 11:11 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: soothsayer at January 19, 2013 02:44 PM (8dspl)
To be fair, we are just the most vocal and outraged members of the base. Others feel the same way we do, but perhaps don't feel the need to express so much passion on the subject.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 11:11 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 11:11 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 11:11 AM (OQpzc)
You know who told me repeatedly who the fuck needs an AR-15? You know who has no problem requiring people to register guns and/or get a gun license? My wife. I always look to her for the "common man" view of things. She's apolitical generally. She only votes Republican because she knows it will make me happy. And to her and her friends the idea of an AR-15 is fucking insane, even though they have no problems with the right to own guns in general. You may not agree with it. You may think it's unconstitutional. That's all fine and good. But politically speaking, it's hurting both the GOP and gun rights in general since now gun rights = right to own an AR-15.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 19, 2013 01:34 PM (HDgX3)
Sounds like you had better uninstall wife 1.0 and upgrade to girlfriend 2.0.
Oh yeah, grow some nads, too.
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at January 19, 2013 11:12 AM (673KB)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 11:12 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 11:12 AM (piMMO)
It's being coy or pretending it made a point.
I'll tell you who to call.
http://www.jeepcity.co.uk/id2.html
don't want to import it from England?
http://www.military-vehicles.us/military-tanks-for-sale.shtml
You can get T-90s all the way to M-1s
It is hard to get NATO tanks but you can get a T-72 for depending on generation 75,000 to 450,000....
Buyer beware and they are high cost to maintain in readiness.....
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 11:12 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:11 PM (piMMO)
Jan. 26th here in Austin. The commies in the local .gov made noises about banning gun shows, but AG Abbot told them he'd step in them.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 11:13 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 11:14 AM (piMMO)
I'm a Jeffersonian at heart for my personal life I accept the need for some Hamiltonian ideals on commerce but yeah.
If we can't trust our politicians to use the military well then only have it when needed.
I think we're finally there.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 11:14 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Hanoverfist at January 19, 2013 11:15 AM (P608G)
Posted by: L, elle at January 19, 2013 11:16 AM (0PiQ4)
Hey, CAC...
Any chance you could start using a different color on your maps, for the conservative states?
Instead of Red?
I vote for...green.
Heh, that would give the liberals heartburn.
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 11:16 AM (fH4X9)
To the cob-loggers: Can we revisit this thread after we've all had time for reflection, and see if we can improve the arguments. Otherwise, I fear another Akin moment.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 11:16 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 11:17 AM (piMMO)
NYC starts starving within a few days if the trucks stop rolling.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 11:17 AM (3QaxX)
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at January 19, 2013 03:12 PM (673KB)
-------------------------------------------------
The moo-troll and his wife are probably curled up in their footy 'jamas watching re-runs of the Kardashians. She's telling him what to type.
Moo-troll: Yes, dear......
Posted by: Soona at January 19, 2013 11:17 AM (Z/SJ5)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 11:18 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 11:18 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Bashir's smirking french model GF badly in need of a face waxing at January 19, 2013 11:18 AM (ROv35)
Obama said in his weekly radio address that strong public support is required to pass gun legislation.
He's laying the groundwork to explain his coming failure to get anything passed.
This is your chance, Mr. Moo Moo, your president needs you.
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 11:19 AM (jTKU5)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 03:12 PM (l86i3)
That would be great. Can you imagine all the cursing coming from the engineering spaces? I bet he'd keep it running, though.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 11:19 AM (OQpzc)
Well, let's see. In 2010, the GOP put out there a prospective Senate candidate who said that instead of health insurance reforms, patients should bring their doctor a chicken as barter payment. Another one warned of the danger of evil scientists having already created hybrid mutant mice with human brains, and ran television commercials saying "I'm not a witch".
In 2012, we had one GOP Senate candidate spouting insane nonsense about magic rape sperm detectors. And another one saying on camera that rape pregnancies are "God's will".
With such a brilliant track record as that in picking Senate candidates, what could POSSIBLY go wrong for the GOP in 2014?
The reality is that these nutballs not only are guaranteed to lose their own races, but they drag down the party in other races where there is media spillover. And frankly, the media spillover extends all over the goddamn country thanks to the media.
I don't blame the media. If I were them, with their unconcealed political allegiances, I'd do the same thing, gleefully. But maybe we should stop giving them fodder, eh?
Posted by: torquewrench at January 19, 2013 11:19 AM (gqT4g)
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 11:19 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 11:19 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Danny Glover at January 19, 2013 11:19 AM (SzAZ7)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 11:19 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at January 19, 2013 11:20 AM (hX3GP)
You are 9 meals away from NOLA.
That is why I laugh heartily at anyone thinking the military is insurmountable, and why I argue for private ownership of the Barrett by the way.
2 trucks per 25 miles with missing engine pressure on all axises and suddenly you have a logistics crisis.
This land is built for insurgent war.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 11:20 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 19, 2013 11:21 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 03:08 PM (LRFds)
Yes. People like Moo Moo think the Constitution isn't needed.
It's all about the politics of the moment.
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 11:21 AM (jTKU5)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 11:22 AM (piMMO)
There are literally thousands of trucks inbound to the city from all points EVERY SINGLE DAY during those hours.
NYC is one huge "single point of failure" scenario waiting to happen.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 11:23 AM (3QaxX)
Posted by: Buck Bradley at January 19, 2013 03:20 PM (PDRXW)
My new favorite is...King Zero Dark Squirty.
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 11:23 AM (fH4X9)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:19 PM (piMMO)
-------------------------------------------------
Linko no worko.
Posted by: Soona at January 19, 2013 11:24 AM (Z/SJ5)
Posted by: Buck Bradley at January 19, 2013 11:24 AM (PDRXW)
Posted by: Y-not at January 19, 2013 11:25 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Burn the Witch (getting rid of painfully stupid sock) at January 19, 2013 11:25 AM (ROv35)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 11:26 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Bashir's smirking french model GF badly in need of a face waxing at January 19, 2013 03:18 PM (ROv35)
The Left knows if it gets the citizens disarmed then thugs with full autos will be enough to oppress the masses. When that happens they can win with just arming the union thugs. Works everywhere else in the world.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 11:26 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 11:26 AM (jTKU5)
That would be great. Can you imagine all the cursing coming from the engineering spaces? I bet he'd keep it running, though.
Yup. There'd needs be a rocking chair and a Ship's Kitteh.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at January 19, 2013 11:27 AM (yiIja)
1) Alaska--Begich has just been keeping that seat warm.
2) South Dakota - Mike Rounds will squash Johnson, who hasn't even announced whether he is running or not.
3) West Virginia-- Capito will be fine in the primaries and squash in the General. Not worried.
4) Louisiana - just need a semi-credible candidate for Landrieu who is on life support.
5) North Carolina -- ditto for Hagan.
6) Arkansas -- this should be an easy pick-up but Pryor is an anomaly. No one even bothered to challenge him in '08 and he got 80%.
7) Massachusetts (special) -- all depends on Brown. This moves up the list if he runs, which I think is 50-50 right now.
Montana -- I disagree with CAC on this. Baucus is safe, and Montana is slowly turning purple, unfortunately. 9) Minnesota -- Franken is safe, unfortunately. T-Paw already said he's not running. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/268571-republicans-look-to-oust-franken
Every other Dem state is a pipe dream. No excuse not to pick up 6 here though.
Posted by: Waingro at January 19, 2013 11:28 AM (+k7pf)
As a practical matter, military bases are some of the most disarmed places in the country.
I was tasked with "guarding" the Heli flight line one night at Ft Dix back in the 70's. I wasn't given any ammo for my M-16. I would have had to use it as a club if anything happened.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 11:28 AM (3QaxX)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 11:28 AM (tBnjP)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 19, 2013 11:28 AM (uhAkr)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at January 19, 2013 11:29 AM (jucos)
Posted by: no good deed at January 19, 2013 11:29 AM (mjR67)
Posted by: Buck Bradley at January 19, 2013 11:30 AM (PDRXW)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 11:30 AM (piMMO)
Wisconsin alone had 8th largest standing Army in the world, more than Germany and France combined - no fatalities.
In Nov and Dec of '12 more than 5 million guns purchased in the US.
I million + more than it would take to arm The Chinese AND Indian standing armies.
67 million guns bought in the US since '09.
These numbers dwarf the capability of any portion of the US Army wholly loyal to SCOAMF.
Posted by: moronic at January 19, 2013 11:30 AM (aZ6ew)
511 Moo Moo is enjoying his fair-trade latte as he gets his starfish waxed.
+100
Extra points...for using 'starfish'.
Heh.
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 11:31 AM (fH4X9)
The interesting thing is that there are several topics such as this (abortion, gun control, and entitlements) that the Republican candidates will probably screw up during their campaigns. And that is before the MFM distorts their answers/responses/positions and paints "red" targets on their backs. Everyone of these topics is a guaranteed winner for the Dems unless the Repubs have a coordinated response that represents an honest Constitutionally based positon that can be understood by the few FSA types that have IQ's above room temperature and represent solid positions that also satisfy the conservative base (probably not perfectly).
The Repubs also need to craft valid understandable focused attacks on the principles, corruption, and competence of every Dem candidate for any public office and be prepared to unfailingly trot them out when answering any question put to them in public.
I ain't holdin' my breath, bro'.
Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children of course) at January 19, 2013 11:31 AM (Cnqmv)
Hee hee.
This is big. Lady Gaga will perform at Obama's Immaculation.
I hope she wears the gun bra.
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 11:31 AM (jTKU5)
Posted by: torquewrench at January 19, 2013 03:19 PM (gqT4g)
Yeah, Yeah, we've covered that. Both of those guys should have known better to say such stupid things, but they didn't. I *DO* blame the media. If it weren't for Decade after Decade of Liberal propaganda pushed onto the populace and disguised as news and entertainment, the public would probably have just ignored stupid stuff like that.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 11:31 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: eman at January 19, 2013 11:32 AM (tBnjP)
Posted by: Burn the Witch (getting rid of painfully stupid sock) at January 19, 2013 11:32 AM (ROv35)
I'd think the well regulated bit applies here.
You have to buy the B52, the airbase, the nukes, the bunkers for the nukes, the PALs for the nukes, the Air Force security troops, etc., etc. And when National Command Authority decides it's time to nuke someone away you go.
If I'm already doomed somehow sign me up to ride one out ala Slim Pickens. Probably need duck tape even using the fap hand though.
Posted by: DaveA at January 19, 2013 11:32 AM (wE+gM)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 11:33 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 03:19 PM (6TB1Z)
Anyone with enough money could not be prevented from getting and using that. Take IRAN for example. Any Sane United States would have blown the dog-shit out of them back in 1979, let alone tolerate their development of a Nuclear weapon and Ballistic missiles.
They are building them anyway.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 11:34 AM (bb5+k)
OT- Did everyone see the Obama voter beat a Phila woman and throw her on subway tracks?
Not feeling real PC right now.
Daily acts of inhumanity no longer move Americans. "Sucks to be you" seems to suffice.
Posted by: CJ at January 19, 2013 11:34 AM (9G+G5)
I was tasked with "guarding" the Heli flight line one night at Ft Dix back in the 70's. I wasn't given any ammo for my M-16. I would have had to use it as a club if anything happened.
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 19, 2013 03:28 PM (3QaxX)
-------------------------------------------------------
My very first guard post when I was new in the military was a bunker farm. They gave me a fully loaded M14 plus four magazines.
Figured they didn't want ANYONE coming over the fence.
Posted by: Soona at January 19, 2013 11:34 AM (Z/SJ5)
Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB (for the Children of course) at January 19, 2013 11:34 AM (Cnqmv)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 11:35 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:33 PM (piMMO)
Maybe she'll enter in that giant egg and they can abort her.
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 19, 2013 11:35 AM (jTKU5)
Posted by: Burn the Witch (getting rid of painfully stupid sock) at January 19, 2013 11:35 AM (ROv35)
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 03:20 PM (LRFds)
You're actually right about that. It's so spread out that trucking is a real necessity to supply food and other materials to the cities. Easy enough to disrupt, because you can't guard all of the roads all of the time.
Hadn't much thought about it till you just mentioned it.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 11:37 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 19, 2013 03:35 PM (piMMO)
I can't tell the race of the victim. The guy seemed motivated by something.
Posted by: CJ at January 19, 2013 11:38 AM (9G+G5)
Unbelievably, there is no new thread up!
I really enjoyed yesterday's Best Whole Album thread. Got exposed to some new music and discovered that a few of my more obscure releases were moderately popular.
Another good thread might be Best Concerts. If we can remember them, that is. And we don't count the ones that resulted in arrests or waking up in the drunk tank.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at January 19, 2013 11:39 AM (yiIja)
Posted by: Burn the Witch (getting rid of painfully stupid sock) at January 19, 2013 11:39 AM (ROv35)
Hadn't much thought about it till you just mentioned it.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 03:37 PM (bb5+k)
Even easier. All the bridges on all the roads simultaneously.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 11:40 AM (OQpzc)
"I was tasked with "guarding" the Heli flight line one night at Ft Dix back in the 70's."
I wonder if you were there when Obama mentor Bill Ayers tried to set that nail bomb off at the base dance...
Posted by: CJ at January 19, 2013 11:40 AM (9G+G5)
The last pic I saw of Lady Gag-me...she had packed on a lot of weight.
Maybe they picked her as a part of Mooch's anti-obesity policy, as an example of "the tragedy of obesity".
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 11:40 AM (fH4X9)
Posted by: Mr. Feverhead at January 19, 2013 11:44 AM (SzAZ7)
Hey...guys...
I'm sure all of you mean...'hypothetically'...when you mention stuff about blowing bridges.
Right?
*nervously looks from side to side*
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 11:44 AM (fH4X9)
Hadn't much thought about it till you just mentioned it.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 03:37 PM (bb5+k)
-------------------------------------------------------
Being of the mind, perhaps from my Cav days, I've thought about it many times.
Not only lines of disruption but avenues of escape. And don't think this government hasn't thought of those possiblities also.
Posted by: Soona at January 19, 2013 11:45 AM (Z/SJ5)
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 11:46 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: waldo at January 19, 2013 11:46 AM (H96hE)
Just calling something stupid is stupid. This was a reasonable thread, with real discussion about an important issue for a change. Sorry you couldn't join it.
Anyone with enough money could not be prevented from getting and using that. Take IRAN for example.
But we're talking about US law and the Consitution here. That has nothing to do with Iran, or what a rich person could do. They could do what you say. I cite every James Bond movie as evidence. That doesn't mean it's okay under our system of law.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 11:47 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 03:44 PM (fH4X9)
Of course. My greatest fear is the benevolent government would fail to guard all the bridges. I have faith though. They'd value those at a level equal to a US ambassador.
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 11:48 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: Not Ready to Unsock at January 19, 2013 11:49 AM (1FLBb)
I'd think the well regulated bit applies here.
You have to buy the B52, the airbase, the nukes, the bunkers for the nukes, the PALs for the nukes, the Air Force security troops, etc., etc. And when National Command Authority decides it's time to nuke someone away you go.
If I'm already doomed somehow sign me up to ride one out ala Slim Pickens. Probably need duck tape even using the fap hand though.
But that's an argument about logistics, not legality. If you go the "well-regulated" route, then every Dem politician will say that's what he's doing.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 11:49 AM (6TB1Z)
My point exactly. Thanks.
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 11:50 AM (6TB1Z)
546...The only thing I fear is some Iranian doomsday cultist with a gene splicer.
Gene splicer?
I've been worried about those vials of 'Ebola-Pox' missing from a Russian lab, ever since I heard about them.
Yeah, some dickhead scientist thought it would be cool to cross Ebola with Smallpox.
Like this is something that the world was in need of.
Posted by: wheatie at January 19, 2013 11:52 AM (fH4X9)
Posted by: Mr. Feverhead at January 19, 2013 11:53 AM (SzAZ7)
You're absolutely right. There's no room for interpretation or legal mischief with airtight criteria like "The boundary of my second amendment protected rights is somewhere between me shooting a man attacking me in my home and me shooting every living person in the city. "
Posted by: pep at January 19, 2013 11:53 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Burn the Witch (getting rid of painfully stupid sock) at January 19, 2013 11:54 AM (ROv35)
an honest Constitutionally based positon that can be understood by the few FSA types that have IQ's above room temperature and represent solid positions that also satisfy the conservative base
Not sure what this discussion was about, but THIS simple approach is how Republicans will win. We lose when we succeed in in appealing to one of the two of those groups, but not both.
Posted by: CJ at January 19, 2013 11:55 AM (9G+G5)
Posted by: Invictus at January 19, 2013 03:46 PM (OQpzc)
Curtis LeMay wanted to do exactly that. As a matter of fact, he overflew the Entire Soviet Union and radar mapped every potential bomb target for future reference. The Soviet Scientists who were working on the Russian Atomic bomb were convinced that someday they would see American Bombers coming over the hill to wipe them out, but it never happened.
Why didn't we do it? Because we were fucking stupid! That's why!! The details of what the American Air Force was doing, and what Curtis LeMay had been planning for years, are available in a book called "Dark Sun, The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb." I think Curtis Le May came very close to, if he did not in fact succeed in, committing treason. Some of the stuff he did is an obvious defiance of the Chain of Command, and he was undertaking for himself prerogatives which properly lay with the Executive.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 19, 2013 11:55 AM (bb5+k)
We talk about the government going apeshit on our rights, I'm also worried about the many jihadi sleeper cells waiting for the first sign of public uprising. Haven't noticed too many of those cells being busted lately.
Perhaps OWS, but, hey, the stupid............
Posted by: Soona at January 19, 2013 11:57 AM (Z/SJ5)
I'm going to the shop.
I'll be on later.
Moo Moo nothing to personal. It is a hot topic it is liberty after all and your arguments are not convincing to at least 25-40% of America.
That is the amount in theory that can spoil an Amendment but you will keep nibbling at the apple.
The American military will need to grow to 5 times the current size minimum to be able to maintain the current logistics net.
That issue was the basis for Sherman's lament on the smallness of the US forces that had him eventually furloughed for breakdown.
If you force me into a corner fighting tyranny I will break your power grid, stop your food supply, and use propaganda to try to steal your munitions.
Your liberals' use of the "mighty US military' that they hate as the billy club to argue for disarming is a rather freudian admission all its own.
and as Forrest Gump says, "Al Gore is even fucking dumber than me."
Posted by: sven10077 at January 19, 2013 11:58 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Mr. Feverhead at January 19, 2013 12:07 PM (SzAZ7)
That's well regulated for a B52. For an AR it's does he have pants on at the POS and isn't mumbling imakillallofemsunzabitches
Posted by: DaveA at January 19, 2013 12:16 PM (wE+gM)
HAS kept.
We've no idea where this beyond the looking glass will go. The Cold War nuke standoff went 40+? years and wobble several times with 2+bit players. Practically every damn financial instrument on the planet is now bubbled up nonsense. Anything even looks like an exit and pop goes the weasel.
Posted by: DaveA at January 19, 2013 12:20 PM (wE+gM)
Posted by: The Political Hat at January 19, 2013 12:30 PM (Vk2pI)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at January 19, 2013 12:33 PM (CjTV9)
LETS TALK ABOUT RAPE BABY!
LETS TALK ABOUT MAGIC VAGINA POWERS!
LETS TALK ABOUT ALL THE LEGI-TI-MATE WAYS THAT WOMAN CAN SHUT IT DOWN.
LETS TALK ABOUT RAPE SOME MORE!
AND MENTION GOD AT THE SAME TIME!
GO GO GO!
Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at January 19, 2013 12:35 PM (+OTLF)
Posted by: Ummberto Echo at January 19, 2013 12:39 PM (3X3ZR)
"I am going to push for legislation that would mandate castrations and excision of erectile tissue prior to release from incarceration for all convicted rapists. If they don't want to lose their junk then they can stay in prison where there junk will do no harm.
Why castration and erectile tissue removal? If they can't get it up and they can't nut, they can't make rape babies. Any fucking questions?"
Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at January 19, 2013 12:40 PM (+OTLF)
Posted by: OldSarg at January 19, 2013 12:49 PM (AH2tK)
Posted by: Aslan's Girl at January 19, 2013 01:04 PM (KL49F)
Posted by: Aslan's Girl at January 19, 2013 05:04 PM (KL49F)
They outnumber us.
We need more than voter ID laws now. We need to reeducate the youth before they reach voting age. Take the schools back.
Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at January 19, 2013 01:07 PM (+OTLF)
Posted by: jeremiah God Damn Barack Obama the Mother Fucking SCoaMF wright at January 19, 2013 01:08 PM (+OTLF)
Posted by: Scoob at January 19, 2013 02:02 PM (bCONy)
"The Dem-party used to be the more conservative of the two parties."
Did you really type that or am I drunk-blog-reading again? SRSLY.
On what bizarro planet has the party that spawned the KKK, woodrow wilson, hoover and fdr (who is in fact in HELL), jfk, lbj, jimmuh the peanut, billy jeff, and obysmal EVER FUCKING BEEN ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE SUN WITH THE WORD
CONSERVATIVE???????
FYI I am from the party of Coolidge and Reagan, in that order.
Posted by: Blacksmith8 at January 19, 2013 02:55 PM (Yzu6e)
Posted by: Joe in MI at January 19, 2013 04:14 PM (3R8wQ)
"The seat vacated by Jay Rockefeller in West Virginia is now Capito's to lose"
Ha ha. He. haaha. Bwaaaahahahhhahahahahahahhhhaaaaahhhhahahahahahaha.
Ha. Snort.
WV is Democrat territory. Upper East Side/Philly South side level Democrat. To even think otherwise is just plain ign'ant. Or wishful.
Posted by: Jess1 at January 19, 2013 04:48 PM (lbiWb)
Posted by: Rex the Wonder God at January 19, 2013 06:13 PM (21TJo)
Posted by: Rex the Wonder God at January 19, 2013 06:18 PM (21TJo)
Posted by: Waingro at January 19, 2013 06:20 PM (+k7pf)
Posted by: Cackfinger at January 19, 2013 11:58 PM (CCHli)
Posted by: Cackfinger at January 20, 2013 12:03 AM (CCHli)
Posted by: Cackfinger at January 20, 2013 12:11 AM (CCHli)
Posted by: Cackfinger at January 20, 2013 12:14 AM (CCHli)
Posted by: rodguy911 at January 20, 2013 06:10 AM (V92DT)
Posted by: Conan at January 20, 2013 06:58 AM (KXf0F)
Posted by: Cackfinger at January 20, 2013 01:51 PM (CCHli)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2837 seconds, 716 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at January 19, 2013 08:02 AM (n8LUb)