>> ^soulmonarch:
This video perfectly demonstrates my problem with Ms. Maddow. In her opening on the subject she says, with much scorn:
"Global warming doesn't exist. The media is full of liberals! Someboday wants to take away you guns. And, of course, the refrain of the moment... Obama is a socialist!"
As if reading those statements aloud in a mocking tone of voice will somehow make them either more or less true than they were previously? She provides zero backup for 95% of her disparaging opinions. She also seems to automatically correlate, the word 'socialist' with 'communist'. (This really bothers me.)
And it's not that I don't agree with some of the stuff she says either! Perhaps she really has good reasons for feeling the way she does, but she does a terrible job of communicating her reasoning to others. As it is, I can't tell if she just likes to hear herself talk, or if she really has a point there.


...on the other hand, maybe she's just a blithering idiot. It's so hard to tell these days.


I think you're kind of missing the point. She's making fun of conservatives who confuse "socialist" and "communist" and freely throw them around interchangeably. She has a degree in Public Policy and a Doctorate in Political Science. I'm sure she knows the differences between Socialism and Communism, probably better than you. And they don't just hand out Rhodes Scholarships, ya know - she was the first openly gay Rhodes scholar.

There's no point in disputing the other ideas both you and she pointed out (global warming, gun rights, the liberal media myth) because her audience is smart enough to realize those arguments are ridiculous and legitimizing them with debate is beneath her and her audience, aside from being outside the scope of the topic at hand.

Thanks for linking that its really good. Especially this entry:

43. You

Charges: You think it’s your patriotic duty to spend money you don’t have on crap you don’t need. You think Hillary lost because of sexism, when it’s actually because she’s just a bad liar. You think Iraq is better off now than before we invaded, and don’t understand why they’re so ungrateful. You think Tim Russert was a great journalist. You’re hopping mad about an auto industry bailout that cost a squirt of piss compared to a Wall Street heist of galactic dimensions, due to a housing crash you somehow have blamed on minorities. It took you six years to figure out what a tool Bush is, but you think Obama will make it all better. You deem it hunky dory that we conduct national policy debates via 8-second clips from “The View.” You think God zapped humans into existence a few thousand years ago, although your appendix and wisdom teeth disagree. You like watching vicious assholes insult each other on TV. You support gun rights, because firing one gives you a chubby. You cuddle falsehoods and resent enlightenment. You think the fact that 43% of whites could stomach voting for an incredibly charismatic and eloquent light-skinned black guy who was raised by white people means racism is over. You think progressive taxation is socialism. 1 in 100 of you are in jail, and you think it should be more. You are shallow, inconsiderate, afraid, brand-conscious, sedentary, and totally self-obsessed. You are American.

Exhibit A: You’re more upset by Miley Cyrus’s glamour shots than the fact that you are a grown adult who is upset about Miley Cyrus.

Sentence: Invaded and occupied by Canada; all military units busy overseas without enough fuel to get back.

I got 100%, but the quiz is somewhat obviously written by someone with a conservative axe to grind. That's not surprising, since ISI is an offshoot of the Heritage Foundation.

For example, look at the "wrong" answers to this one:

6) The Bill of Rights explicitly prohibits:
A. prayer in public school
B. discrimination based on race, sex, or religion
C. the ownership of guns by private individuals
D. establishing an official religion for the United States
E. the president from vetoing a line item in a spending bill

Particularly, compare the correct answer, D, to A. It's trying to leave the inference that D does not also mean A, because it wasn't what was explicitly prohibited.

It also brings up gun rights in the explicit context of private individuals, when the wording in the Bill of Rights is unclear. To say it explicitly prohibits private ownership is clearly false -- but saying it explicitly guarantees private ownership would also be false. We have a Supreme Court ruling that clarifies that, but that's very recent, and not part of the Bill of Rights itself.

It also implies that prohibiting B is somehow unconstitutional.

I'm frankly lost as to the point with E, though I vaguely recall a kerfuffle about Clinton trying to get a line-item veto. I suppose this is supposed to be a "fair and balanced" wrong answer, saying "see liberals, we were lying when we said that was unconstitutional!"

*quality because I'm mildly amused by this and slightly concerned at the same time.

Do we remember why those crazy ole loonies we call the "Founding Fathers" included the right to "keep and bear arms" in the Bill of Rights? For fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia. History has shown that taking away the people's arms and making it illegal for people to keep them is one way tyrants eliminate resistance to suppression of political opponents. I used to think that was an irrelevant fear. That we were past that in this country and in this day and age. But if you haven't noticed, our rights are being whittled away at an alarming rate these days. Not to mention the necessity to own a gun for self defense against home intruders and the like.

The people run this country, not the government. What happened after Hurricane Katrina gives me the chills. Criminals were robbing and looting and roaming the streets looking for easy targets. What did the police do? Confiscate guns.

One example of why we can't forget or shrug off our rights.

Call it a phony issue if you'd like, but I sleep better at night knowing there is one rifle and one handgun close by. I'll concede the point that there is no sweeping majority calling for a broad revocation of gun rights, but I don't appreciate any elected officials even hinting at stricter gun control.


P.S. Also, remember what happened on Family Guy because it's funny.



>> ^volumptuous:
The phony gun control debate is the same as the phony abortion debate.
The GOP would like you to believe that those dirty hippy Democrats want forced abortion on all citizens, and will confiscate anything more dangerous than a paper airplane, and it's just all the same bullshit.

Lyrics:

Obama on the left
McCain on the right
We can talk politics all night
And you can vote however you like
You can vote however you like, yeah

Democratic left
Republican right
November 4th we decide
And you can vote however you like
You can vote however you like, yeah

(McCain supporters)
McCain is the man
Fought for us in Vietnam
You know if anyone can
Help our country he can
Taxes droppin low
Dont you know oils gonna flow
Drill it low
I'll show our economy will grow

McCain's the best candidate
With Palin as his running mate
They'll fight for gun rights, pro life,
The conservative right
Our future is bright
Better economy in site
And all the world will feel our military might

(Obama supporters)
But McCain and Bush are real close right
They vote alike and keep it tight
Obama's new, he's younger too
The Middle Class he will help you
He'll bring a change, he's got the brains
McCain and Bush are just the same
You are to blame, Iraq's a shame
Four more years would be insane

Lower your Taxes - you know Obama Won't
PROTECT THE LOWER CLASS - You know McCain won't!
Have enough experience - you know that they don't
STOP GLOBAL WARMING - you know that you won't

I want Obama
FORGET OBAMA
Stick with McCain and you're going to have some drama
We need it
HE'LL BRING IT
He'll be it
YOU'LL SEE IT
We'll do it
GET TO IT
Let's move it
DO IT!

Obama on the left
McCain on the right
We can talk politics all night
And you can vote however you like
You can vote however you like, yeah

Democratic left
Republican right
November 4th we decide
And you can vote however you like, I said
You can vote however you like, yeah

I'm talking big pipe lines, and low gas prices
Below $2.00 that would be nice

But to do it right we gotta start today
Finding renewable ways that are here to stay

I want Obama
FORGET OBAMA,
Stick wit McCain you gone have some drama
MORE WAR IN IRAQ
Iran he will attack
CAN'T BRING OUR TROOPS BACK
We gotta vote Barack!

Obama on the left
McCain on the right
We can talk politics all night
And you can vote however you like, I said
You can vote however you like, yeah

Democratic left
Republican right
November 4th we decide
And you can vote however you like, I said
You can vote however you like, yeah

Yeah, I've thought about that before and I wouldn't call it meaningless. I think if you are talking on a national scale (which is highly fictional), the element of surprise used on Katrina victims would be gone after the first round of confiscations. Also, the amount of force the federal government would have to employ with fully complicit local agencies of all types to perform a nationwide confiscation is a serious deterrant to it ever happening. The risks and problems outweigh any rewards. Once it was known that weapons were being taken, you can bet the general reaction would be much more violent than during Katrina. It would be far easier and more realistic to achieve the same goals by slowly erroding gun rights over time and pushing for legal means to disarm.

Also, I don't see why someone who fears that the government *could* take weapons by force if they wanted to would think it was logical to support bans and unreasonable restrictions. I'm not saying you in particular since you didn't really mention specifics on your position, but it's something I've noticed having this conversation with others. It just seems incongruous to me since this argument of "you couldn't fight back anyway" comes up a lot. To me it is like saying, "I don't think I could stop them from illegally taking my guns if they wanted to, so I'll support laws that make it legal for them to do so." I think if private firearms are going to be taken en masse in this country it will be through slow and calculated legislation "for our own protection," not by force.

In reply to this comment by shuac:
Well, I'm glad for that. And while I'm normally anti-gun and having never once held a gun in all my 40 years, I watched all the footage of the Sheriffs taking people's guns away in sheer horror. The NRA had the chance to litigate this issue afterward only because the worst had not happened.

But imagine for a moment (taking the founding fathers' original intentions of the 2nd amendment and applying them to today's world, something I never thought we'd have to do), that if the time ever comes that we'd need an armed populace for the purpose of defending the Constitution, a job normally done by our elected officials...then the government has proven that all they need to do to prevent that from happening is to merely walk up to that armed populace and literally take their guns away.

It took a hurricane to demonstrate to the powers that be that the 2nd amendment is meaningless. After the "big moment" has passed us by and the population has been disarmed, there will be no court date.

Again, I'm normally anti-NRA so you can imagine my disappointment.

In reply to this comment by Lurch:
>> ^shuac:
Which is worse: 1) making an attempt to legislate a ban/tax on firearms of these kinds which puts it up to be legitimately 'shot down' (hehe) or 2) proclaiming yourself pro-NRA and having your police force take citizens' guns away anyway...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgPR9I4KMNI
Seriously. I'm asking. Which is worse?


Well, the NRA actually took that to court and got all the firearms returned. They're also currently fighting in DC over making sure the government follows through after the ban was overturned. So, in the end, the NRA still prevailed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_re_us/katrina_confiscated_guns
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27087738/

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Obama's stance on the second amendment. Google It, I'm tired of posting his voting record on gun rights.

Well, I did google it, and other than comments from a lot of right-wing blogs, I found zero conclusive evidence that he wants to do anything at all to the 2nd amendment.

From his website:
"Barack Obama is committed to upholding the Second Amendment and promoting policies that will protect wildlife habitat and ensure that hunters and anglers have access to open spaces for generations to come."

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/imsm?source=sem-lb-google-con-sport-search-national&gclid=CKbd3PKGhJYCFQKaFQodC391Eg

Obama's stance on the second amendment. Google It, I'm tired of posting his voting record on gun rights.

I really didn't see this round of running mate picking to be that surprising on either side (in full disclosure - Fuck McCain). Obama chose Biden who addresses Obama's criticisms of being to inexperienced in foreign affairs. McCain chose Palin cause she's a woman (Hillary) and she revved the party base (strongly pro-life, gun rights, blah blah blah). I can only assume that she was chosen to try to revive McCain's campaign.

If the Obama camp treads carefully though, they may be able to spin this to their side. When, given the chance to pick an advisor with which you will approach the nation, with whom do you choose? A lady with 2 yrs. experience or an 11 year member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I really don't see how the McCain camp can spin the Palin pick as being more than Fall pandering. In contrast to Obama's choice as an advisor in his presidency. At least Obama's choice does tell us a little bit about his choice of advice.

I can't upvote this video, even if you're wanting to use it as a vehicle for a conversation about Obama and gun rights.

I've publicly professed my ambivalence about gun rights. My view is simple: law abiding citizens should have the right to possess them, but I don't want anyone to be able to get a gun whenever they want, no questions asked.

I've not really looked into Obama's legislative past on gun laws, but he got beaten up by Democrats during the primary for saying he believes that the 2nd amendment confers an individual right to bear arms (before the SCOTUS decision that made that definitively true).

I don't think he'll make banning guns a cornerstone of his administration. Even if he tried, Democrats in the Senate and House wouldn't support him, and I doubt the Republicans would help much, either.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
^
Always fall back on ad hominem, when faced with a challenging statement.

I'm confused. This clip only contains information about obama and abortion. I find it really odd that you posted up all your gun rights info on this video's comment section. So if we're going to talk debate tactics, I'd say switching to a whole 'nother topic is poor form.


>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
You must by default be pro-abortion to be pro-choise.


I disagree with that statement. Pro-choice, the actual phrase, means supporting the right to choose. Pro-abortion would mean you think abortion is the right choice.

If you support voting for the president, then you already recognize this difference. You do not want people to vote for the candidate you don't like, but you still want them to get a choice to vote for him or not. Just because you support their right to choose who they want to be president does not mean you support who they're going to vote for. In fact you may even be adamantly against one candidate or the other, while still supporting my right to vote for that person.

I learn and teach proper gun safety. Just as any one else needs to learn how to drive a car safely. Yes I agree with common sense gun laws, but like copyright laws, FISA, and Patriot Act (Espionage Act)I do not agree with the amendments of very well written laws that already do their jobs.

He struck down Illinois gun rights, Chicago anti gun laws(supports them), and the right to own a Semi Auto in certain states. When there are bans on Semi Auto, Full Auto pistols, then there is a ban on the majority of handguns by proxy. Pump guns and Revolvers are unwieldy, I'm not talking about the right to defense I'm talking about the right to own and bear weapons that are formidable to the weapons that the good guys have.

They dont want the people to have these weapons because as is said: it impedes the right of them to enforce laws. No, it scares the shit out of authority, which is exactly what is needed. Criminals could care less what gun laws you put out there. Again I agree with common sense laws, but I do not agree with radical expansion of said laws.

On another note: Mcain is bush, Obama is a Fake Idol, Nader is a conspiracy theorist, and Lobbyist are money grubbing ass hats. The choice is? Gotdamn that's a tough choice.


Eisenhower said "Beware the Military Industrial Complex." http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Washington said "Beware of foreign entanglements."
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html
To choggie, many presidents have warned us and yet we still continue to follow the lead lemming.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Obama has voted contrary to his common sense stance on gun control.

That link seemed a bit strange as evidence of your conclusion -- the quote at the top is the general statement of his position: there's a right to bear arms, but there's also reasonable limits we're allowed to place on the right.

The rest of the page is filled with comments/votes on what he considers reasonable -- you might disagree with what he considers reasonable, but he isn't voting contrary to his stated opinion.

As with all politicians This man is a wolf is sheep's clothing.
"americans cling to their guns out of bitterness?" - I dont care if that was a slip up or not, Explain what the hell that means?

He means that people are so used to getting fucked over by government on economic issues, they focus instead on gun rights, and start voting counter to their own economic self-interest on the basis of issues that probably have less impact on their life as a whole than the economic ones.

Here's a video where he explains it himself.

I don't cling to any thing, to me a firearm like an axe (both deadly) is a tool.

This is an argument I've heard over the years, but it's disingenuous to try to equate an axe with a firearm. An axe is usually used to chop wood, which is pretty non-lethal. Sure, it can be a deadly weapon, but that's not it's purpose. Guns on the other hand are designed to kill things -- in other words: a weapon. Sure, there are places you can practice with them without killing things, but that doesn't make it a tool.

I'm picturing Homer Simpson using a 44 Magnum to open his beer...it makes as much sense as that.

To think that a gun is any more dangerous than the person standing next to you in the subway is folly. Because with out the human element steel and cordite are just objects, they cannot act on their own accord.

This is a fair point, to a certain extent. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," is true. Concluding that therefore we should make it as easy for people to kill each other as humanly possible because of it, seems misguided at best.

Despite what's grown into a very long post -- I'm pretty ambivalent about gun rights. I don't think we can get rid of them entirely, so law-abiding people should be able to buy them. I don't want just anyone to be able to get them, at any time, no questions asked, though. I'd like to own my own assault rifle, just in case someone starts a revolution, but even then, I'm not convinced it'd help me much in that situation, either.

Feinstein the liberal fascist? Sorry to keep you waiting, madam...was it longer than the waiting period used against law-abiding gun-owners?

Oh? Do you really need your gun right now?

Americans use guns over 2 million times a year in self-defense, and during most of those incidents not a single shot is fired. I'd be surprised if you've ever heard this fact before this post.

The reasons "why" I or anyone else may or may not own a gun are none of the guvmint's business.

Is this the gun law proposal that you are referring to? Yea she's a real fascist...

Most liberals look for jackboots or other obvious indicators when it comes to fascism. That's why they miss the whole we're-stealing-your-freedom-for-your-own-good health and environmental sneak attacks.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Feinstein the liberal fascist? Sorry to keep you waiting, madam...was it longer than the waiting period used against law-abiding gun-owners?

Oh? Do you really need your gun right now?

Is this the gun law proposal that you are referring to? Yea she's a real fascist...