The GOP Plan » Forum Post by Mumblefratz

I suppose it's possible that many folks that respond this way are libertarians but in my opinion that in itself is pretty weak. You can delude yourself into believing that what you’re doing is using your vote to protest the inadequacies of both parties but that’s all you’re really doing is deluding *yourself*.

Voting libertarian on the right or green on the left is in reality abdicating your vote and essentially throwing it down the toilet or perhaps even worse if by draining votes from the side most compatible with your position you actually cause the side furthest from your position to win.

I don't vote Libertarian. I would (and have) voted Democrat first. But you do have the main point of it, people claim to not be Republican but still vote that way not as a support for the party, but as a vote against the Democrats. Besides, in my case my presidential vote is entirely irrelevant. Illinois has gone blue in every election Reagan wasn't involved in, despite the southern 2/3rds of the state being extremely red.

Our current system doesn't allow for viable third parties at the presidential level. Independants and third parties have a chance at Congress, but as you point out a real alternative to the Republican party will only split the vote and cause Democratic wins. At best a viable third alternative would make every election end in the House, where the established party system would elect one of their own.

Not too many liberals see things that way.

Perhaps. But I want my guns just in case the nut case conservatives really do take over and we end up with a big brother scenario. You must admit that Bush really did bring us far closer to that than we've ever been before.

But I do have some concern about people walking around with concealed weapons and do favor requiring folks to have a compelling reason to do so. I mean what are you going to do, shoot someone because they cut you off in traffic? There's thousands of cases of road rage every day. Who's to say some cowboy's not going to pull a gun in a totally inappropriate situation.

Guns in your home, that stay in *your* home are the right of every American. Guns walking about on the street and attending political protests are a much different matter.

I just don't see why the whole gun control debate has to be soooo black and white. There are LOADS of wonderful NON-LETHAL self-defense gadgets out there, and LOADS of different kinds of guns. It may have been true 70 years ago that someone needed a shotgun to keep dangerous intruders from killing them, but times have changed.

From Illinois code, a tazer is considered the same as a shotgun. It's not shown, but purchasing restrictions and permit requirements are the same way.

(1) "Armed with a dangerous weapon". A person is considered armed with a dangerous weapon for purposes of this Article, when he or she carries on or about his or her person or is otherwise armed with a Category I, Category II, or Category III weapon.

(2) A Category I weapon is a handgun, sawed‑off shotgun, sawed‑off rifle, any other firearm small enough to be concealed upon the person, semiautomatic firearm, or machine gun. A Category II weapon is any other rifle, shotgun, spring gun, other firearm, stun gun or taser as defined in paragraph (a) of Section 24‑1 of this Code, knife with a blade of at least 3 inches in length, dagger, dirk, switchblade knife, stiletto, axe, hatchet, or other deadly or dangerous weapon or instrument of like character. As used in this subsection (b) "semiautomatic firearm" means a repeating firearm that utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round and that requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.

(3) A Category III weapon is a bludgeon, black‑jack, slungshot, sand‑bag, sand‑club, metal knuckles, billy, or other dangerous weapon of like character.

Perhaps. But I want my guns just in case the nut case conservatives really do take over and we end up with a big brother scenario. You must admit that Bush really did bring us far closer to that than we've ever been before.

Perhaps, but Obama doesn't seem too eager to repeal those changes as long as he doesn't have to take the blame for passing them, does he?

However what I do find interesting is that even the most rabid right wing supporters cannot claim that the portrayal of the republican position is inaccurate.

If opposing government control is their position, then good. However, I can bet you have never taken the time to read the GOP's alternative plans.

All in all I'm fine with the right to bear arms. I'm also OK with a law abiding citizen carrying a licensed firearm, after all that's perfectly sanctioned by law. I do think that there is something a bit strange and something that is perhaps compensating for other inadequacies if someone won't leave their house without a firearm.

Inadequejcies....LOL. Only a liberal will say something like that.

In case you haven't noticed, the world is a dangerous place. I won't allow myself or my family to become a victim.

Perhaps. But I want my guns just in case the nut case conservatives really do take over and we end up with a big brother scenario. You must admit that Bush really did bring us far closer to that than we've ever been before.

If you are worried about a "big brother scenario", then you better look at the party in charge. Conservatives want small government, not the beast Obama and democrats are creating.

Oh dear..... not THIS again....... would someone PLEASE, just this once, actually DEFINE what "small government" actually is?! I understand the principal of lassiez-fiatre and all that stuff, but I have yet to hear a coherent answer on how to actually put it into practice.....

I agree with scoutdog. Bush got America even closer with wiretapping; in his term he advocated small government, and america got the biggest expansion of goverment in its history.

Atleast Democrats say that they are for some bigger form of goverment. And I don't see why more goverment is NECESSARILY bad.

Yep, Republicans are against big government... Well, as long as they are not the ones in the government that is. Then they feel free to disregard that "goddamned peice of paper" known as the Constitution and do whatever they please.

I said what I said because although I felt what you said *wasn't* overly personal or hateful, I did want to indicate to others that there is some line over which I'm unwilling to suffer someone that only wishes to be a pain in the ass.

Wow, that's a first, I never had to preemptively apologize for something I might do. Isn't this preemption kind of stuff part of the reason why you guys were so mad at Bush?

If I do step out of line and misbehave in the future, I hope I'll be given leniency because I've totally forgotten how to even interact with the American left these days. Left wing thinkers have become increasingly hostile, secretive, and unwilling to listen to any belief different from their own, except of course, radical Islam. I wouldn't even survive the registration process at a left wing site, before being immediately banned.

In case you haven't noticed, the world is a dangerous place. I won't allow myself or my family to become a victim.

I don't think we disagree all that much on this point, I merely said it seemed a little strange to need to be armed at all times. Particularly someone that has studied any noticeable amount of karate. I've found that karate instills both a certain calmness and confidence that would tend to make carrying a firearm not such a necessity.

However I don't know your neighborhood or your situation so perhaps your attitude is well founded. I don't know. The question is, are you sufficiently mature to distinguish between a truly life threatening situation and something that would usually result in the mere exchange of a few heated words? Because the sudden appearance of a gun will definitely turn the latter into the former. Are you sure this is not what you're looking for?

In general I make it a practice of trying to avoid pissing off folks sufficiently to give them cause to pull a gun on me but I can't guarantee that I might not turn to the right when they were expecting me to turn to the left. If such a situation caused someone to pull a gun on me then they better damn well kill me because if they don't then I will most certainly find and kill them at a time and place of my choosing. In other words if someone pulls a gun then they've already committed to using it, so be real certain when pulling it.

And assuming that you are mature and responsible enough to truly distinguish between the two situations are you really that certain that the other guy, who may also be prophylactically carrying a gun, has the same level of maturity and responsibility? And are you willing to bet your, or his, or both your lives that the answer is yes?

Like I said I have no issue whatsoever with guns in the home, because I can't "accidently" enter your home without ill intent. But people walking around do occasionally get into what would otherwise be harmless but heated exchanges and the presence of a gun itself can be what turns a harmless situation into a life threatening situation.

Caveat Emptor.

Wow, that's a first, I never had to preemptively apologize for something I might do. Isn't this preemption kind of stuff part of the reason why you guys were so mad at Bush?

I said you did not need to appologize. You're reading far too much into it. Not everything is adversarial.

If you are worried about a "big brother scenario", then you better look at the party in charge. Conservatives want small government, not the beast Obama and democrats are creating.

IIRC it was Bush that instituted the Patriot Act and the Real ID Act both of which have serious "big brother" ramifications. At least Obama repealed (or stopped from going into effect, whatever) the Real ID Act. However I'm not particularly encouraged by his apparent willingness to continue the Patriot Act.

I can bet you have never taken the time to read the GOP's alternative plans.

If the GOP has realistic alternative plans then I would be willing to at least look at them. As far as I can tell all they are doing is trying to water down everything they can so in the end they can vote against it. In other words pure obstructionism. But I could have perhaps missed something, if so please provide a link.

lifekatana

reply 34

Atleast Democrats say that they are for some bigger form of goverment. And I don't see why more goverment is NECESSARILY bad.

More taxes, interference in business, beauacracy... Also, I personally don't want to pay extra taxes just to support a dept-ridden corrupt state. Let people decide their business, and I'd think getting government red tape out of business would cause an increase in wealth.

Ummmm we tyried that hare for about eight years, and look where it got us. Massive deficit (and it's not really Obama's: he's only been in office for ten months or so), huge recession, and a boat-load of crazy populists on both sides of the isle. Same thing happened with Reagan.

And Obama's massive, pork-ridden stimulus has done nothing to increase said deficit?

Sure, Obama's 48% stimulus/42% tax-cut bill increased the deficit, but you do have to spend money to make money: the increased economic activity should boost tax revenue and increase government income assuming that Barry actually does something to make use of it.....

I don't think we disagree all that much on this point, I merely said it seemed a little strange to need to be armed at all times. Particularly someone that has studied any noticeable amount of karate. I've found that karate instills both a certain calmness and confidence that would tend to make carrying a firearm not such a necessity.

You are correct about the "calmness and confidence", but it really doesn't apply to real world scenarios. You seem to have the impression that carrying a concealed weapon is about jumping at the first chance to shoot, and that is completely incorrect.

The only time you can draw and/or fire a weapon is if you are in fear for your or someone elses life, or to stop a forcible felony from happening.

Now say you are in a bank, and two guys walk in armed.

I don't care if the bank gets robbed, the FDIC will return the money in 24 hours. However, what if one of these model citizens decides to take everyone in the back and start executing witnesses. Martial arts won't help you in that scenario. Do you become another victim, or do you fight back?

Sure, Obama's 48% stimulus/42% tax-cut bill increased the deficit, but you do have to spend money to make money: the increased economic activity should boost tax revenue and increase government income assuming that Barry actually does something to make use of it.....

That doesn't apply to government. Government wastes money, not the other way around. The U.S. is seeing the lowest in tax revenue in ages, and Odumbo wants to increase taxes.

But that's what you get for electing a community organizer.

And I don't see why more goverment is NECESSARILY bad.

Wow, just wow.

Oh dear..... not THIS again....... would someone PLEASE, just this once, actually DEFINE what "small government" actually is?! I understand the principal of lassiez-fiatre and all that stuff, but I have yet to hear a coherent answer on how to actually put it into practice.....

Small government would start with the ridding the system of the majority of social programs designed to "give free stuff" to people. Welfare and the like. It would also abolish the federal education system, and put the states in charge of it.

*sigh* This forum is in dire need of education on all sides. While everyone else will be debating a party line I will try to take a somewhat more neutral stance based on experience to the goal of encouraging others to produce fruit instead of the typical blind emotionally charged childish political fighting.

Gentlemen I understand public disarmament seems an attractive idea for the good of the state but let me impart my own personal experience in DC, a state with very strict gun control. First despite what the textbook says DC does not translate to Distric of Coloumbia, it means Dodge City. I shouldn't have to explain what sort of obvious activity criminals with illegal firearms do there to earn the name Dodge City. Major densely populated areas that chiefly rely on public transportation over conventional automobiles all bear the problem of a higher per capita on citizens with illegal weapons than normal American society. It is far easier for law enforcement to find probable cause to search for illegal/concealed weapons if the subject in question is in a moving vehicle versus on foot.

Anyone in the know about DC life is well aware of the unprecedented rise in violence since the economic quagmire began. The citizens have demanded the restoration of gun rights and public opinion has taken a very negative view of the current administration. To counter this the state has evoked Orwellian practices over reinstating tradtional gun ownership ordinances in hopes of controlling the rising tidal crime rate. These actions include buffing police logistical presence to the point where a police officer survailence or private security occupies every street corner. The modern buzz term for this is troop surge. Among others are Blue zones where mandatory ID checks and questioning at blockades to pacify all exit and entry. When inquired, such legislation is in fact found legal in a court of law according to DC. Mandatory volunteer house searches were very controversial. A cop would show up at your door requesting to search your home. If you refuse it would not be searched but instead be subject of police scrutiny leading to other consequences later. Fear can be such an effective motivator when demanding compliance. All this occured through cumulative ineffective Orwellian policies. Each policy adding another level deeper than the last one as it never delivered the desired results.

Your average victim is robbed at gunpoint via threat, in DC your average victim is murdered then robbed afterward, usually no threat given. Criminals routinely hack off street signs in attempt to increase police response time and put potentially lucrative ignorant victims in vulnerable areas. Use of homemade silencers are rapant due to the city's directional microphones that listen for gunshots depending on regional area.

I could go on and on but this should be more than enough.

Gentlemen I understand public disarmament seems an attractive idea for the good of the state but let me impart my own personal experience in DC, a state with very strict gun control. First despite what the textbook says DC does not translate to Distric of Coloumbia, it means Dodge City. I shouldn't have to explain what sort of obvious activity criminals with illegal firearms do there to earn the name Dodge City. Major densely populated areas that chiefly rely on public transportation over conventional automobiles all bear the problem of a higher per capita on citizens with illegal weapons than normal American society. It is far easier for law enforcement to find probable cause to search for illegal/concealed weapons if the subject in question is in a moving vehicle versus on foot.

Anyone in the know about DC life is well aware of the unprecedented rise in violence since the economic quagmire began. The citizens have demanded the restoration of gun rights and public opinion has taken a very negative view of the current administration. To counter this the state has evoked Orwellian practices over reinstating tradtional gun ownership ordinances in hopes of controlling the rising tidal crime rate. These actions include buffing police logistical presence to the point where a police officer survailence or private security occupies every street corner. The modern buzz term for this is troop surge. Among others are Blue zones where mandatory ID checks and questioning at blockades to pacify all exit and entry. When inquired, such legislation is in fact found legal in a court of law according to DC. Mandatory volunteer house searches were very controversial. A cop would show up at your door requesting to search your home. If you refuse it would not be searched but instead be subject of police scrutiny leading to other consequences later. Fear can be such an effective motivator when demanding compliance. All this occured through cumulative ineffective Orwellian policies. Each policy adding another level deeper than the last one as it never delivered the desired results.

Your average victim is robbed at gunpoint via threat, in DC your average victim is murdered then robbed afterward, usually no threat given. Criminals routinely hack off street signs in attempt to increase police response time and put potentially lucrative ignorant victims in vulnerable areas. Use of homemade silencers are rapant due to the city's directional microphones that listen for gunshots depending on regional area.

I could go on and on but this should be more than enough.

That's an excellent example of why the black-and-white approach needs to go out the window. While violence is a problem, people still tend to ignore the sheer number of non-gun self-defense mechainisms. IMHO, we need to make guns less accessible, yes, but we also need to make tasers, mace, and other security deivces more accessible.

Small government would start with the ridding the system of the majority of social programs designed to "give free stuff" to people. Welfare and the like. It would also abolish the federal education system, and put the states in charge of it.

Do you have any idea what that would do to this country? Besides, assuming that you were correct and any government, anywhere will inevitibly devolve into the Krimzon Gaurd, wouldn't you need complete anarchy to even stand a chance?

Wow, just wow.

Whoopee, another non-answer. Why not tell us why government is "necessarily" bad?

That doesn't apply to government. Government wastes money, not the other way around.

Yet again, I ask where's the PROOF.

The U.S. is seeing the lowest in tax revenue in ages, and Odumbo wants to increase taxes.

This is actually an excellent point. Of course, it supports the exact opposite of your position, but who cares?

Ever hear of the Laffer Curve?

That scale-less graph that appears to be completely hand-drawn?