[AWB]Dems prep ground for 2014 Electoral Defeat

[Felch]

Or no, wait, even better idea. Instead of making America better, let's just keep lowering ourselves to our opponent's level. That's better than reforming a corrupt system, or trying to actually improve how things are done.

[Felch]

The politicians have no moral basis to complain. The voting public OTOH, especially the independents and floating voters...

Dinner is neither independent nor floating. He's lockstep in with whatever MSNBC and the Democratic Party wants.

[kentonio]

Or no, wait, even better idea. Instead of making America better, let's just keep lowering ourselves to our opponent's level. That's better than reforming a corrupt system, or trying to actually improve how things are done.

Please don't be naive. When you have two sides of near equal size, then always taking the moral high ground regardless of the consequences is willfully foolish. Say the Democrats never gerrymandered. How exactly would they have the votes to ban the practice if the Republicans were free to gerrymander their way to endless majorities? Instead they do what they must to keep the field vaguely even, and then 'people' like you stop their efforts to prevent the problem with this ridiculous 'they both do it, so they can't complain' nonsense. Ridiculous.

[Felch]

Instead they do what they must to keep the field vaguely even,

You mean rig elections?

and then 'people' like you

I don't know why you have quotes around the word people. Are you implying that I'm not human?

stop their efforts to prevent the problem with this ridiculous 'they both do it, so they can't complain' nonsense. Ridiculous.

What efforts? The Democratic Party has not taken any stand whatsoever against gerrymandering. I'm not stopping their efforts, I'm pointing out that both sides are wrong.

[kentonio]

You mean rig elections?

Basically yes. If the alternative is to allow your opponent to take over completely or to do nothing as you support.

I don't know why you have quotes around the word people. Are you implying that I'm not human?

You have your moments.

What efforts? The Democratic Party has not taken any stand whatsoever against gerrymandering. I'm not stopping their efforts, I'm pointing out that both sides are wrong.

Oh really? Which party took it all the way to the Supreme Court?

[Felch]

Which party took it all the way to the Supreme Court?

The Democratic Party has not taken a stand against gerrymandering. They sued when it hurt them, but they happily carve up safe districts whenever they can get away with it. But you're okay with rigging elections, so obviously you're not interested in truth or decency.

[kentonio]

Sure, it's much healthier to sit on your hands, refusing to listen when one party even raises the subject. What exactly have you done about it, other than to sit and tell yourself how morally righteous you are?

[Felch]

I voted no on Question 5. Not a whole lot else I can do when the elections in my state are being rigged. Unless you're saying that I should grab my rifle and start killing lawmakers.

[kentonio]

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_...n_science/?tml

Ah, I think I understand now. Guns are so safe that under no circumstances must anyone research just how safe they are..

[Robert]

You can't compare guns/weapons with alcohol, cars, etc. if it's about killing / destructing lives.

A weapon's main purpose is to kill or to harm. A side purpose is to scare away. But intimidation and aggression are the purpose of a weapon.
How terrible it may be, any killing done by alcohol/cars/etc. is still a side effect of the product, and not the main purpose.

If we ban alcohol and cars, then that would destroy more then it would save. People enjoy alcohol and people need cars to get somewhere.
If we ban weapons, then the only result will be that less people will be killed/harmed.

[regexcellent]

You can't compare guns/weapons with alcohol, cars, etc. if it's about killing / destructing lives.

Yes you can, no it's not.

A weapon's main purpose is to kill or to harm.

I don't own either of my guns to kill or harm, although self defense is a legitimate reason to own a gun.

A side purpose is to scare away. But intimidation and aggression are the purpose of a weapon.

No.

How terrible it may be, any killing done by alcohol/cars/etc. is still a side effect of the product, and not the main purpose.

Just as accidental death is a side effect (and an unusual one at that) with the vast majority of gun owners, who are law-abiding citizens.

If we ban alcohol and cars, then that would destroy more then it would save. People enjoy alcohol and people need cars to get somewhere.

People enjoy guns and need to protect themselves.

If we ban weapons, then the only result will be that less people will be killed/harmed.

That is emphatically false. Banning guns won't stop any criminals who want them from getting them. What is it with Europeans and thinking that laws magically solve our problems?

[kentonio]

I don't own either of my guns to kill or harm, although self defense is a legitimate reason to own a gun.

If I buy a hand grenade for an ornament or paperweight, that does not change the hand grenades primary purpose as a method of killing people.

That is emphatically false. Banning guns won't stop any criminals who want them from getting them. What is it with Europeans and thinking that laws magically solve our problems?

Because we have those laws and we don't have many of your problems?

[Hauldren Collider]

Yes, you have different and worse problems.

[regexcellent]

If I buy a hand grenade for an ornament or paperweight, that does not change the hand grenades primary purpose as a method of killing people.

My guns are explicitly for the purpose of target shooting (and I suppose I could go hunting with the shotgun), not killing people. Their primary purpose is clearly not killing people. The primary purpose of any rimfire rifle is pretty obviously not killing people since they're not that good at it.

Because we have those laws and we don't have many of your problems?

Also emphatically false. Moreover, there isn't a causal relationship between you not having rights and having less gun crime.

[kentonio]

Yes, you have different and worse problems.

Sure we have problems. We have far too high an assault rate for one thing, due to our drinking culture, and robbery rates are also too high. What we have a very low rate of however is people getting shot to death. I prefer our version.

Also emphatically false. Moreover, there isn't a causal relationship between you not having rights and having less gun crime.

Really? That's funny because the last time someone shot up a school in the UK we banned guns. Since then no-one has shot up any schools in the UK. Funny coincidence huh? I wonder how many mass shootings Australia have had since they brought in their new gun laws?