Support NeoGAF

[JayDubya]

Yeah you're right. Fuck it, let's just give up. Make everything legal; the people who want to do bad shit are going to do it no matter what the law says. Let's start selling rocket-propelled grenades at Wal-Mart, there should be plenty of shelf space left once Palin has passed her first round of federal book-banning legislation.

Hey if this is cool, can I just repeatedly state how Obama likes to eat aborted fetuses and plans to steal everyone's hunting rifle? Just checking.

 

[deadbeef]

Wait, so you're worried about C&B, but you're more worried about the SCOTUS than the POTUS?

Supreme Court judges are appointed for life.

 

[devilhawk]

behold, one of the most meaningless phrases ever coined by conservatives.

Don't be so ignorant. Yes, Bush is using this phrase but only when it is for his gain. The social conservatives only use it when it applies to things like Roe v Wade and gay rights. Ignorant people only understand this problem with relevance to those social conservative issues because that is all the social right even concern themselves with. It is a bipartisan issue.

 

[JayDubya]

SC judges are appointed for life.

And the only ones who can alter their decisions is... the Supreme Court.

 

[devilhawk]

Wait, so you're worried about C&B, but you're more worried about the SCOTUS than the POTUS?

Thanks for the strawman argument all the while putting words in my mouth. I don't disagree the executive branch gained to much power under the current administration.

 

[Jonm1010]

For civilians? Self-defense or hobby shooting. Their needs for self-defense would be better served with a shotgun but that doesn't mean an assault rifle can't be used for it.

.

What about surface to air missles? a rocket launcher? land mines? hand grenades? large quantities of C4? Do you think there is a line that should be drawn in terms of what weapons can be used for self defense legally and without restrictions to access? I am not one of those anti-gun people that think the answer to violence is to just outlaw all guns - I personally own two pistols. however I think there is a valuable conversation to be had as to what the point is we decide self -defense or right to bear arms ends. If you believe it doesn't then one would have to concede that all manner of lethal weapons are worthy of being self defense from the standard 45 to surface to air missiles to chemical weapons or land mines.

If you argue that well automatic weapons have secondary purposes instead of killing well i can think of some silly recreational uses for the other weapons i listed, should we now allow those to be legalized? What if i want to start a national rocket launcher targetting league? Does that now mean i should be able to stroll down to Wal-mart and pick one up?

 

[Barrett2]

They aren't suppose to legislate at all. They aren't members of congress. You know, the whole checks and balances thing?

No offense, but 99% of the time, the people who make this argument don't know anything about the judicial system or what the job of an appellate court judge is. Pray tell, what are some specific examples of judicial activism you disagree with? You do realize that in many instances a judges job at the appellate level is to make new laws, don't you?

 

[CrazedArabMan]

Knives are also used to cut materials and serve food. Scissors are used to cut paper and other similar materials. Do they even use semi-auto/automatic rifles for skeet shooting?

Its called semi-auto shotguns or you can use pump. You could use a gun to start a fire too, there are many creative ways to use a gun for a simple task. Not saying its the first thing on peoples agenda but it can still be used.

 

[JayDubya]

Don't be so ignorant. Yes, Bush is using this phrase but only when it is for his gain. The social conservatives only use it when it applies to things like Roe v Wade and gay rights. Ignorant people only understand this problem with relevance to those social conservative issues because that is all the social right even concern themselves with. It is a bipartisan issue.

Honestly, it's not even a bipartisan issue. Those that criticize the modern era's court for LFTB regularly criticize the Lochner Era, where non-enumerated rights that ones I personally approve of (like freedom of contract) were enforced by the SCotUS.

I just want justices that are literate / non-evil.

 

[Wallach]

Yeah you're right. Fuck it, let's just give up. Make everything legal; the people who want to do bad shit are going to do it no matter what the law says. Let's start rocket-propelled grenades at Wal-Mart, there should be plenty of shelf space left once Palin has passed her first round of federal book-banning legislation.

I think you're missing the point.

There are already laws governing purchase and holding of these guns. To introduce new laws, you literally only affect those who have acquired or would have acquired these guns legally. They have no impact whatsoever on those that already have or in the future will acquire these guns through illegal means. It does nothing to them; new gun laws won't move a single gun off the street.

I hate to use a video game analogy, but it reminds me a lot of the copy protection debates that go on over on Gaming side. You don't stop even one pirate from downloading your game by using something like SecuROM, because they already don't care and have no beef with cracking your game using illegal means. You will, however, turn away legitimate consumers.

Now, the government going after illegal gun sales and more stringent tracking of gun imports into the country may help them lower gun crimes. Transitioning the status of a gun from "illegal" to "so illegal" isn't going to deter would-be criminals from buying guns illegally. When those are the only people you need to stop from possessing said guns, I fail to see where you've improved anyone's safety.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Supreme Court judges are appointed for life.

Yah, that's fine and all, but it's not like GWB hasn't set a precedent for the legal limit of powers accorded to the Exec. I mean, I understand these guys are going to affect the course of the nation for decades once appointed (my main argument to get my sister out to vote ), but GWB has set a precedent and a new upper limit on the powers that can be exercised by the executive branch.

I still don't understand this term "legislate from the bench". Give me an example, please.

 

[typhonsentra]

So... what's happened since this afternoon?

 

[mj1108]

Pretty :lol remix of the Barackroll video and the RNC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TiQCJXpbKg

very well made.

:lol :lol :lol

Made of awesome and win.

 

[Zeliard]

I think you're missing the point.

There are already laws governing purchase and holding of these guns. To introduce new laws, you literally only affect those who have acquired or would have acquired these guns legally. They have no impact whatsoever on those that already have or in the future will acquire these guns through illegal means. It does nothing to them; new gun laws won't move a single gun off the street.

I hate to use a video game analogy, but it reminds me a lot of the copy protection debates that go on over on Gaming side. You don't stop even one pirate from downloading your game by using something like SecuROM, because they already don't care and have no beef with cracking your game using illegal means. You will, however, turn away legitimate consumers.

Now, the government going after illegal gun sales and more stringent tracking of gun imports into the country may help them lower gun crimes. Transitioning the status of a gun from "illegal" to "so illegal" isn't going to deter would-be criminals from buying guns illegally. When those are the only people you need to stop from possessing said guns, I fail to see where you've improved anyone's safety.

You don't think it would reduce the circulation, at the very least?

 

[deadbeef]

Yah, that's fine and all, but it's not like GWB hasn't set a precedent for the legal limit of powers accorded to the Exec. I mean, I understand these guys are going to affect the course of the nation for decades once appointed (my main argument to get my sister out to vote ), but GWB has set a precedent and a new upper limit on the powers that can be exercised by the executive branch.

True, and I'm sure that the next administration will be happy to have those powers, and then extend them some more.

 

[devilhawk]

Honestly, it's not even a bipartisan issue. Those that criticize the modern era's court for LFTB regularly criticize the Lochner Era, where non-enumerated rights that ones I personally approve of (like freedom of contract) were enforced by the SCotUS.

I just want justices that are literate / non-evil.

Fair enough

 

[CharlieDigital]

True, and I'm sure that the next administration will be happy to have those powers, and then extend them some more.

Exactly man. It's like, people ignore the huge power grab under GWB. The SCOTUS is tame by comparison man.

 

[scorcho]

Don't be so ignorant. Yes, Bush is using this phrase but only when it is for his gain. The social conservatives only use it when it applies to things like Roe v Wade and gay rights. Ignorant people only understand this problem with relevance to those social conservative issues because that is all the social right even concern themselves with. It is a bipartisan issue.

it's not ignorance on my side. the phrase has been artfully used by Republicans since the 80s to dismiss Court opinions not favorable to their worldview. it's a catchall term for 'objectionable' behavior, that's it.

 

[deadbeef]

Exactly man. It's like, people ignore the huge power grab under GWB. The SCOTUS is tame by comparison man.

What do you think is going to happen after 8 years of the current administration, followed by a Democratic Congress and President. Mmmmm power nom nom nom

 

[Mumei]

The "undecided" panel on CNN is incredibly painful to watch.

It's not that I don't know that these people exist, but to see them all together is... augh.

 

[Barrett2]

They aren't suppose to legislate at all. They aren't members of congress. You know, the whole checks and balances thing?

Dude, judges' jobs in many circumstances is to make new laws! That's the whole point of the Common Law system. Do you think legislatures sit around all day and write laws dealing with the nitty gritty details of torts, contracts, etc.? They don't! Judges make most of those rules and laws, through the common law system.

Conservatives need to realize that a HUGE part of our society's laws are made by judges! That is why "judicial activism" is such a stupid term, most conservatives use it for any decision they don't like.

 

[Wallach]

You don't think it would reduce the circulation, at the very least?

In what sense? Sure, you would remove means for citizens to purchase those guns, but any stock of those guns that could have been purchased by one of us would then be removed by the government, because they already know where those guns are. It doesn't really affect the volume of illegal guns already in circulation; in reality all it does is ensure that the state of those guns stays in the black market of illegal weapons. Those are the weapons that need to be seized by the government, which would remain unaffected by the new gun laws.

 

[WickedAngel]

You can't use a regular gun/rifle for that?

I'm aware that rednecks love them huntin', I just don't see why an automatic rifle is required.

Stop alternating between automatic rifle and assault rifle. I have argued for the legality of semi-automatic assault rifles, not automatic rifles.

Haven't been following this whole gun debate, but Ive noticed your posts are extremely idiotic. Your best argument is that people may want to use automatic weapons as 'target practise' and that therefore counterbalances all the other negatives for allowing people easy access to these weapons? Give me a fucking break. You may be a gun nut, but try to have some objectivity to see how assinine you sound, trying to compare automatic weapons to everyday objects that have the potential to kill people. 99.99% of people have absolutely no use for such a weapon, and shouldnt be allowed to own one. Theres MUCH more harm that can come out of it than any good, whatever that good may be in your eyes.

I don't agree with civilian ownership of automatic rifles.

What about surface to air missles? a rocket launcher? land mines? hand grenades? large quantities of C4? Do you think there is a line that should be drawn in terms of what weapons can be used for self defense legally and without restrictions to access? I am not one of those anti-gun people that think the answer to violence is to just outlaw all guns - I personally own two pistols. however I think there is a valuable conversation to be had as to what the point is we decide self -defense or right to bear arms ends. If you believe it doesn't then one would have to concede that all manner of lethal weapons are worthy of being self defense from the standard 45 to surface to air missiles to chemical weapons or land mines.

If you argue that well automatic weapons have secondary purposes instead of killing well i can think of some silly recreational uses for the other weapons i listed, should we now allow those to be legalized? What if i want to start a national rocket launcher targetting league? Does that now mean i should be able to stroll down to Wal-mart and pick one up?

I do not want automatic rifles legalized.

I have personally gone out of my way to specifically say that this argument is not about automatic weapons on at least three different occasions. Is it really that difficult to read? Is it honestly so hard to check what you're responding to before you make an idiot of yourself by arguing against a stance that was never taken by the person you're attacking? Some of you are just as stupid as the one-issue voters that you were lambasting earlier; you see a word, look at who said it, and automatically attack without checking the facts or any semblance of rational thought.

 

[scorcho]

What do you think is going to happen after 8 years of the current administration, followed by a Democratic Congress and President. Mmmmm power nom nom nom

unless Congress members decide collectively to take pride in their institution then the power grab of the Bush Administration will be the template for a future Palin - err, McCain or Obama (yes, even Obama) presidency.

 

[CharlieDigital]

What do you think is going to happen after 8 years of the current administration, followed by a Democratic Congress and President. Mmmmm power nom nom nom

When I read this, in my head, I imagined Captain Planet :lol

"With the five powers combined, they summon the Earth's greatest champion!"

Spoiler

Obama!

 

[maximum360]

Biden did awesome on Meet The Press today. David Gregory just reminds me of a younger Brokaw, but without the marbles.

 

[JayDubya]

Fair enough

Actually, that was worded weirdly.

At this time, it's not a bipartisan issue; conservatives are big on strict constructionism / originalism / textualism. Liberal progressives can't wait to use the court to promote a social agenda whether or not the Constitution allows for it because they have no such hang-up with making up de facto amendments out of thin air.

You had laissez faire justices making "judicial activist" decisions along economic rightist lines in the first half of the 20th century, but then some of those same justices were the fly in FDR's ointment for a while, so I don't think I can, in good conscience be too critical of those magnificent bastards.

In either case, the practice is shit. The Supreme Court should not be used as a method to ride roughshod over our system of federalism.

 

[Jonm1010]

Ah, the beloved proliferation argument and yet another person who can't tell the difference between automatic and semi-automatic.

I'll give each of you dolts $100 if you can cite a single instance of where I have argued for the legality of automatic weapons.

I will give it to you that all i looked at of your posts was the last two, so maybe i was arguing a straw man. But you were responding to a poster in that quote I responded to with what was perceived as, a defending of automatic weapons. Since, well, the quote you had quoted was specifically talking about automatic weapons. and you made the argument i quoted you on.

 

[WickedAngel]

I will give it to you that all i looked at of your posts was the last two, so maybe i was arguing a straw man. But you were responding to a poster in that quote I responded to with what was perceived as, a defending of automatic weapons. Since, well, the quote you had quoted was specifically talking about automatic weapons. and you made the argument i quoted you on.

I see why you're confused now. I read "assault weapons" instead of "automatic weapons". There have several instances of people alternating between them and I mixed that up.

I don't support civilian ownership of automatic weapons. Certain users keep going back to that as if someone is arguing in support of them.

 

[The Lamonster]

Is it even a remote possibility that Bob Barr would take Ron Paul for his vice presidential running-mate? Is that even possible?

Spoiler

please

 

[JayDubya]

Assault weapon is not synonymous with automatic weapon.

The term "assault weapon" was defined in this country in a manner that was fairly arbitrary and along stupid, and often cosmetic lines. When the FAWB sunset, it was a happy day.

"Assault weapon" referred to semi-automatics. Not that I care anyway, since "gun control" is bullshit.

 

[devilhawk]

Actually, that was worded weirdly.

At this time, it's not a bipartisan issue; conservatives are big on strict constructionism / originalism / textualism. Liberal progressives can't wait to use the court to promote a social agenda whether or not the Constitution allows for it because they have no such hang-up with making up de facto amendments out of thin air.

You had laissez faire justices making "judicial activist" decisions along economic rightist lines in the first half of the 20th century, but then some of those same justices were the fly in FDR's ointment for a while, so I don't think I can, in good conscience be too critical of those magnificent bastards.

In either case, the practice is shit. The Supreme Court should not be used as a method to ride roughshod over our system of federalism.

I understand what you are saying. Currently people are all "bu bu but but conservatives" without seeing the larger picture. It could easily swift the other way in the future. Sometimes good things are going to come out of it, other times bad shit does.

 

[Guy Legend]

 

[WickedAngel]

Assault weapon is not synonymous with automatic weapon.

The term "assault weapon" was defined in this country in a manner that was fairly arbitrary and along stupid, and often cosmetic lines. When the FAWB sunset, it was a happy day.

"Assault weapon" referred to semi-automatics. Not that Icare anyway, since "gun control" is bullshit.

This is where we always splinter off on the issue but I've always understood your logic on it.

I don't think gun control is wrong. I wouldn't want it to become terribly inconvenient but I don't take issue with mandatory registration and background checks for mental instability/felonies, which is usually what I consider to be "gun control".

 

[The Lamonster]

:lol

very nice


sweet avatar btw

 

[mj1108]

Just thought this line in this article was....funny. We know he says he'll reach across party lines, but this makes it sound like he doesn't have any idea what he wants to do at all.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9324EOO0&show_article=1&cat=0

Campaigning after the convention, McCain has not offered specific solutions to problems, saying instead he will reach out to Democrats to find answers. He said he would have more than one Democrat in his Cabinet.

 

[Gary Whitta]

It's like Brady Bunch 2.0, only with more fascism.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

Pretty :lol remix of the Barackroll video and the RNC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TiQCJXpbKg

very well made.

LOL:lol

 

[Barrett2]

Just thought this line in this article was....funny. We know he says he'll reach across party lines, but this makes it sound like he doesn't have any idea what he wants to do at all.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9324EOO0&show_article=1&cat=0

I sort of feel sorry for McCain. I think he wants to be as independent as possible in his campaign / possible Presidency, but I imagine he is under a lot of pressure from party hacks to conform his message to the hard right. While I really can't stand Palin, I still think McCain is a pretty decent guy.

 

[Zeliard]

I sort of feel sorry for McCain. I think he wants to be as independent as possible in his campaign / possible Presidency, but I imagine he is under a lot of pressure from party hacks to conform his message to the hard right. While I really can't stand Palin, I still think McCain is a pretty decent guy.

That's exactly how I feel. I strongly doubt that McCain believes a lot of what he says since he's been campaigning. I don't really think the guy is capable of telling a lie and keeping a straight face.

 

[Gary Whitta]

That's exactly how I feel. I strongly doubt that McCain believes a lot of what he says since he's been campaigning. I don't really think the guy is capable of telling a lie and keeping a straight face.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

 

[teruterubozu]

I sort of feel sorry for McCain. I think he wants to be as independent as possible in his campaign / possible Presidency, but I imagine he is under a lot of pressure from party hacks to conform his message to the hard right. While I really can't stand Palin, I still think McCain is a pretty decent guy.

He sold his soul to Satan. No need to feel sorry.

 

[Barrett2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

The first two comments for that video are amazing. They embody everything I hate about American politics -- people are dumb as hell. Actually, on second look, the second comment makes a good point.. Damn you feisty liberals with your arguments!

p

rayforthegaycure (13 seconds ago)
McCain is about change, not 0SAMA
McCain was talking about CHANGE in 2001, before 0SAMA EVEN KNEW OPRAH WAS GONNA FINANCE HIM FOR PRESIDENT!



blueguise23 (1 minute ago)
Obama's entire slogan is "CHANGE"...And now pathetic SENILE McCain and his incompetent staff are trying to steal Obama's message, because they don't have a message of their own other than WAR!

John McCain thinks Americans are so dumb that he can "adopt" Obama's message of CHANGE and no one will notice!

 

[qwertybob]

I sort of feel sorry for McCain. I think he wants to be as independent as possible in his campaign / possible Presidency, but I imagine he is under a lot of pressure from party hacks to conform his message to the hard right. While I really can't stand Palin, I still think McCain is a pretty decent guy.

this is the very reason he should not be president, who wants a president who is willing to give up his principles and beliefs ?

 

[CharlieDigital]

this is the very reason he should not be president, who wants a president who is willing to give up his principles and beliefs ?

Seems par for the course for the Evangelical base. Why wouldn't they want someone like him? They can relate to him :lol

 

[CharlieDigital]

That's exactly how I feel. I strongly doubt that McCain believes a lot of what he says since he's been campaigning. I don't really think the guy is capable of telling a lie and keeping a straight face.

That's why he keeps smirking and blinking like crazy.

 

[Barrett2]

this is the very reason he should not be president, who wants a president who is willing to give up his principles and beliefs ?

Bill Clinton ran on a progressive platform, but after having his ass handed to him after two years in office, he modified his positions to essentially be a conservative President.

It is inevitable that people campaign & then govern differently. While I plan on voting for Obama, I also think it is quite delusional to actually think he will accomplish 1/4 of the things he plans on doing. Give McCain a break, he is one of the few non-crooked Republicans remaining, IMO.

Speaking of which, has anybody else here read The Survivor - by John Harris. It is an excellent biography of the Clinton Administration.

 

[Beavertown]

I don't support civilian ownership of automatic weapons.

What's your logic on this? Do you actually believe that a semi-automatic assault rifle is less effective or dangerous than a fully automatic?

Just wondering. I don't really want to get drawn into another argument.

Also, those ATF number were on Wiki and from 1997.

 

[Beavertown]

Where's the indian girl?

 

[Clevinger]

Bill Clinton ran on a progressive platform, but after having his ass handed to him after two years in office, he modified his positions to essentially be a conservative President.

It is inevitable that people campaign & then govern differently. While I plan on voting for Obama, I also think it is quite delusional to actually think he will accomplish 1/4 of the things he plans on doing. Give McCain a break, he is one of the few non-crooked Republicans remaining, IMO.

Nah, I'm not going to give a lying fucktard a break. If after losing the first time for running an honest campaign he could try again (something someone with actual character would do), not sell all his principles for power.