Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Net Neutrality, the NSA stuff, Patriot Act...these are all "Big Government" operations, which conservatives (by definition) oppose very strongly. You've got a viewpoint constructed of emotion rather than fact.

Yeah, conservatives opposed the Patriot Act (which expanded the surveillance powers the NSA now enjoys) so strongly they voted for it unanimously and then it was signed by George W Bush, and then again unanimously voted to re-authorize it in 2006. They so strongly support Net Neutrality they managed to get an opposition to it written into the goddamn Republican Party platform.

That latter sentence in your post is super ironic considering the one which preceded it.

considering that the vast majority of democrats ALSO voted in favour of the patriot act in 2001, you cant really take the high road and say they didnt support it, because they most certainly did.

democrats have also supported expansion of the patriot act during obamas term.

both sides of the spectrum's politicians have fully backed crushing the 1st/4th amendments.

both sides of the spectrum's voters are almost unanimously opposed to this crushing...

 easysauce wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Net Neutrality, the NSA stuff, Patriot Act...these are all "Big Government" operations, which conservatives (by definition) oppose very strongly. You've got a viewpoint constructed of emotion rather than fact.

Yeah, conservatives opposed the Patriot Act (which expanded the surveillance powers the NSA now enjoys) so strongly they voted for it unanimously and then it was signed by George W Bush, and then again unanimously voted to re-authorize it in 2006. They so strongly support Net Neutrality they managed to get an opposition to it written into the goddamn Republican Party platform.

That latter sentence in your post is super ironic considering the one which preceded it.

considering that the vast majority of democrats ALSO voted in favour of the patriot act in 2001, you cant really take the high road and say they didnt support it, because they most certainly did.

democrats have also supported expansion of the patriot act during obamas term.

both sides of the spectrum's politicians have fully backed crushing the 1st/4th amendments.

both sides of the spectrum's voters are almost unanimously opposed to this crushing...

I agree both sides did this (or more accurately, one side did it, and the other continued it, not that it matters). But, we're moving the goalposts now, aren't we, and having a different argument? The original premise that Nuggs pushed forward was that conservatives somehow opposed all of this Patriot Act/surveillance stuff. That is laughably untrue and the worst kind of revisionism.

I misread what he said about Net Neutrality, though, he's right about that.

one side did not "do it", democrats mounted no opposition to it, and in fact most of them voted yay on the initial "doing it"

both sides supported starting it, both sides support continuing it and expanding it.

the politicians on both sides are not what I would call, doing things in the best interest of freedom.

*Que braveheart scene*

 Ouze wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Net Neutrality, the NSA stuff, Patriot Act...these are all "Big Government" operations, which conservatives (by definition) oppose very strongly. You've got a viewpoint constructed of emotion rather than fact.

Yeah, conservatives opposed the Patriot Act (which expanded the surveillance powers the NSA now enjoys) so strongly they voted for it unanimously and then it was signed by George W Bush, and then again unanimously voted to re-authorize it in 2006. They so strongly support Net Neutrality they managed to get an opposition to it written into the goddamn Republican Party platform.

That latter sentence in your post is super ironic considering the one which preceded it.

You think that Republican politicians are conservatives? That's adorable.

This two party system we have is forged from diametrically opposed polar opposites. True conservatives (like myself and many others) oppose all big government interventionism.

George W was a more Christian Evangelist than conservative.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?

Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.

And you keep basking in the protection that our gun-centric society affords you. or has japan been turned into a Chinese province yet?

Yeah, all those privately owned handguns are totally what's keeping China from being more expansionist.

Yes, because the desire to have a navy 10 times the size of anybody else on the planet has nothing to do with our ideas on guns and their usefulness.

Great Britain had the largest, most powerful navy for quite a while, and yet they didn't have the same idea of guns. Correlation does not prove causation.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?

Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.

And you keep basking in the protection that our gun-centric society affords you. or has japan been turned into a Chinese province yet?

Yeah, all those privately owned handguns are totally what's keeping China from being more expansionist.

Yes, because the desire to have a navy 10 times the size of anybody else on the planet has nothing to do with our ideas on guns and their usefulness.

Great Britain had the largest, most powerful navy for quite a while, and yet they didn't have the same idea of guns. Correlation does not prove causation.

This is a joke right?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?

Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.

And you keep basking in the protection that our gun-centric society affords you. or has japan been turned into a Chinese province yet?

Yeah, all those privately owned handguns are totally what's keeping China from being more expansionist.

Yes, because the desire to have a navy 10 times the size of anybody else on the planet has nothing to do with our ideas on guns and their usefulness.

Great Britain had the largest, most powerful navy for quite a while, and yet they didn't have the same idea of guns. Correlation does not prove causation.

You're ignorant of history then. Before laws banning firearms were put in place, there were many many firerarms there. You even had full blown rebellions.

No there weren't really.

We've never really gone in for it in the same way as your nation has.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7056245.stm


One suspects land ownership/hunting rights and the lack of actual wilderness with dangerous critters in it have played a significant role in this.


And most of our rebellions haven't really utilised that many guns really. Too expensive for the peasants and the powder was needed more for cannons to crack open castles and the like.

Most of our revolts were with swords, bows etc.

 sebster wrote:
I'm not misunderstanding, I'm pointing out that ballot boxes, activism and effective court systems have provided a strong check on government over a long period of time... while guns haven't. Ever.

The Revolutionary War disagrees with you

 reds8n wrote:
And most of our rebellions haven't really utilised that many guns really. Too expensive for the peasants and the powder was needed more for cannons to crack open castles and the like.

Most of our revolts were with swords, bows etc.

The more recent history of Ireland begs to differ, unless you're concentrating on historical periods when firearms were not readily available

 reds8n wrote:
No there weren't really.

We've never really gone in for it in the same way as your nation has.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7056245.stm


One suspects land ownership/hunting rights and the lack of actual wilderness with dangerous critters in it have played a significant role in this.


And most of our rebellions haven't really utilised that many guns really. Too expensive for the peasants and the powder was needed more for cannons to crack open castles and the like.

Most of our revolts were with swords, bows etc.

Not as much, no. We were busy taking the land from its rightful owner and had greater need. But you were quite equipped. The plethora of British revolvers in the 1850s - 1890s reflects that. Brits even invented an "automatic" revolver. Crazy crazy...

We've always been at the forefront of technological development, after all those dashed natives won't shoot themselves now will they !

 reds8n wrote:
We've always been at the forefront of technological development, after all those dashed natives won't shoot themselves now will they !

Too true. It was the Brits after all who invented the first car to short out when it made a hard right turn....

There isnt much difference between Repubs or Dems now-a-days, which is why I'm Libertarian.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
You think that Republican politicians are conservatives? That's adorable.

This two party system we have is forged from diametrically opposed polar opposites. True conservatives (like myself and many others) oppose all big government interventionism.

Are you making the argument your political movement has elected no national officials in the last, like, 12 years?

 easysauce wrote:
both sides supported starting it, both sides support continuing it and expanding it.

I'm not at all absolving anyone of responsibility, I'm refuting someone else's attempt to do so.

 Ouze wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
You think that Republican politicians are conservatives? That's adorable.

This two party system we have is forged from diametrically opposed polar opposites. True conservatives (like myself and many others) oppose all big government interventionism.

Are you making the argument your political movement has elected no national officials in the last, like, 12 years?

 easysauce wrote:
both sides supported starting it, both sides support continuing it and expanding it.

I'm not at all absolving anyone of responsibility, I'm refuting someone else's attempt to do so.

Why would you assume I am making that argument? That's absurd.

The Patriot Act was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 that I disagreed with then, and disagree with now. I didn't vote for GWB in that election, so I really don't see why you are trying to make me take responsibility for the Patriot Act in any way.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Net Neutrality, the NSA stuff, Patriot Act...these are all "Big Government" operations, which conservatives (by definition) oppose very strongly. You've got a viewpoint constructed of emotion rather than fact.

Yeah, conservatives opposed the Patriot Act (which expanded the surveillance powers the NSA now enjoys) so strongly they voted for it unanimously and then it was signed by George W Bush, and then again unanimously voted to re-authorize it in 2006. They so strongly support Net Neutrality they managed to get an opposition to it written into the goddamn Republican Party platform.

That latter sentence in your post is super ironic considering the one which preceded it.

You think that Republican politicians are conservatives? That's adorable.

This two party system we have is forged from diametrically opposed polar opposites. True conservatives (like myself and many others) oppose all big government interventionism.

George W was a more Christian Evangelist than conservative.

And here I thought there was different levels of conservatives.

Well that settles that:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/02/06/NRA-Mag-Replaces-Maxim-In-Magazine-Top-25?utm_source=contentsharing&utm_medium=linkexchange&utm_term=postion2&utm_content=NRA-Mag-Replaces-Maxim-In-Magazine-Top-25&utm_campaign=foxnews

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The Revolutionary War disagrees with you

Umm, that was a revolution. Quite a different thing to what I posted " provided a strong check on government over a long period of time".

Relapse wrote:
Well that settles that:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/02/06/NRA-Mag-Replaces-Maxim-In-Magazine-Top-25?utm_source=contentsharing&utm_medium=linkexchange&utm_term=postion2&utm_content=NRA-Mag-Replaces-Maxim-In-Magazine-Top-25&utm_campaign=foxnews

I'm not a fan. Rifleman doesn't suck to bad, but its pretty bad. Their gun reviews are like bird poop.

Well Obama finally got some chest hair and is now willing to use executive orders like he should have done from the start.

FDR is my fav president for this reason.

Don't like my political policies and orders? Sue me

Hopefully he implements sweeping legislation in as many areas as he can, my life runs on the tears of so called "constitution lovers" when they have no idea what they are talking about as executive orders are not unconstitutional.

Never mind people treat the damned Constitution like its some fething holy document, even though we have had to amend it so many damn times.

 Frazzled wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Well that settles that:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/02/06/NRA-Mag-Replaces-Maxim-In-Magazine-Top-25?utm_source=contentsharing&utm_medium=linkexchange&utm_term=postion2&utm_content=NRA-Mag-Replaces-Maxim-In-Magazine-Top-25&utm_campaign=foxnews

I'm not a fan. Rifleman doesn't suck to bad, but its pretty bad. Their gun reviews are like bird poop.

I like the Armed Citizen reports. It's not that bad a rag, maybe a bit dated in format. I like Gun World for content/layout. I get my reviews from a number of sources, both online and print.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Well Obama finally got some chest hair and is now willing to use executive orders like he should have done from the start.

FDR is my fav president for this reason.

Don't like my political policies and orders? Sue me

Hopefully he implements sweeping legislation in as many areas as he can, my life runs on the tears of so called "constitution lovers" when they have no idea what they are talking about as executive orders are not unconstitutional.

Never mind people treat the damned Constitution like its some fething holy document, even though we have had to amend it so many damn times.

The ignorance is strong in this one....

Cool you jets marvin I was just taking the piss out of the uber stingy constitutionalists

But I am right that Executive orders are constitutional, people need to really just read up on there law before they get all upset.

But what do I know? Im a crazy person who things we should bring back the Civilian Conservation Corp!

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Cool you jets marvin I was just taking the piss out of the uber stingy constitutionalists

Unless you're a Brit you can't say "taking the piss out" of anything, except clothing at a cleaners. Your flag says DamnYankee.

But I am right that Executive orders are constitutional, people need to really just read up on there law before they get all upset.

It depends on the order. Were the executive orders putting people into camps in WWII constitutional?

But what do I know? Im a crazy person who things we should bring back the Civilian Conservation Corp!

Evidently you also are down with dictatorship, because that Constitution thing just gets in the way. That on those stingy constitutionalists. The ACLU should be put in camps.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

like the Armed Citizen reports. It's not that bad a rag, maybe a bit dated in format. I like Gun World for content/layout. I get my reviews from a number of sources, both online and print.

Gun Tests. Its not perfect, but they don't take advertising. You can tell because they occasionally say a gun is crap after a test.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Cool you jets marvin I was just taking the piss out of the uber stingy constitutionalists

But I am right that Executive orders are constitutional, people need to really just read up on there law before they get all upset.

But what do I know? Im a crazy person who things we should bring back the Civilian Conservation Corp!

You have to be careful there... EO are only constitutional when there's a) explicit authority from constitution or b) authorized by current statutes.

He can't willy billy pull an EO out of his ass and deem it "constitutional" because he says so....

Perfect example is his delay of the PPACA Employer Mandate. The constitution and the actual law grants him no authority to do that. If this ever makes it to the Supreme Court, the court will strike down that EO.

Was throwing people in interment camps unconstitutional? Yes.

Obama isn't throwing people in internment camps


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Cool you jets marvin I was just taking the piss out of the uber stingy constitutionalists

But I am right that Executive orders are constitutional, people need to really just read up on there law before they get all upset.

But what do I know? Im a crazy person who things we should bring back the Civilian Conservation Corp!

You have to be careful there... EO are only constitutional when there's a) explicit authority from constitution or b) authorized by current statutes.

He can't willy billy pull an EO out of his ass and deem it "constitutional" because he says so....

Perfect example is his delay of the PPACA Employer Mandate. The constitution and the actual law grants him no authority to do that. If this ever makes it to the Supreme Court, the court will strike down that EO.

The chance of it ever being taken to court is rare, and history shows unless the constitution explicitly DENIES it rather than simply not mention it in his power nothing will be done.

Read up on the FDR trials, I high recommend it

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And yet after any of these mass shootings, you have the gun owners and NRA trying to point the blame at anything but guns.

I usually blame the shooters, myself. But then, I actually know what I'm talking about.

Sure, the shooters definitely have a share of blame. They made the choice to do what they did after all.

But do you think the Aurora theater shootings would have happened if he had to use a knife? What about Sandy Hook?

I know this was last page, but I did want to point out the aurora shooter had to help police disarm the bombs on his apartment. So, yes, I think if he hadn't had access to guns (and don't forget, one jammed on him and didn't fire a single round), that he still would have killed a lot of people. More, most likely, than he actually did.

He could have filled a van full of gas ran it into the theater lobby and blew it up.

 Frazzled wrote:
He could have filled a van full of gas ran it into the theater lobby and blew it up.

'nother site to check out on reviews:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com


And its free

yea thats a good one.

 Frazzled wrote:
He could have filled a van full of gas ran it into the theater lobby and blew it up.

Gas doesn't go up in an explosion very well.

A van full of diesel would be much more effective if you desired a rapid explosion of fire.

And pressure cookers and bomb take a lot more time to set up then say getting a gun and some ammo.

Why do people not realize that guns are for killing things? I mean really, guns exist as an effiecent way of killing things, admit it, I'm in a gun own family and to even being to treat guns with proper respect you have to recognize that guns are useful only as deadly weapons.

I wish people would stop trying to lump guns in with Alcohol as Alcohol isn't a weapon designed to inflict death on other people.

Diesel doesn't go boom like gasoline does. Throw in some propane tanks, block one of the major exits before hand and there you go.