Area gun sales, fears rising

[Prep-for-Dep]

okimar wrote:

<quoted text>Dead on BRILLIANT......

Thank you.

[Where Is My America]

Armed Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>
You know what? For the first time, I actually agree with some of what you have said here. The Republican Party HAS gotten away from its Conservative roots, and it has cost them the last two elections. However, calling Republican spending "reckless" is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black. In fact, it is a f-ing joke, right?? By the end of this election cycle, the current Idiot-In-Chief will have spent more than every president before him COMBINED, to the point where the debt of the US will equal the debt of the rest of the entire world. And to keep spending like he is will not be able to be maintained. No country is guaranteed perpetual existense, even this one. In fact, the US is still a relatively young country compared to some. Even ancient Rome existed for a few thousand years before they fell. But they did fall. At the rate we are going, we won't last even a fraction of that.

100 % correct !

[Dr-Sniper]

Calm Liberal wrote:

<quoted text>Here is how it is different. Obama taking away everyone's guns COULD happen, but it is unlikely in the extreme. Rush Limbaugh killing 300 children COULD happen, but again, it is unlikely in the extreme.

"Someone" going on a shooting spree? It is not only likely, but as past events have shown, it is almost a certainty. THAT is how it is diffrent. Your argument is like saying that speed limits are not needed just because someone might cause a car crash by speeding.

His argument is exactly like saying that. He would be correct. Speeding doesn't cause accidents. Recklessness does. So in reality, there could be no speed limits, but speeding in a reckless manner is a different story.
Look at the Autobahn. There is no speed limit. However, reckless actions, including reckless speed will warrant a citation.

[Dr-Sniper]

nope wrote:

<quoted text>they are made up by inadequate goobers and passed on by their idiot offsping.

I disagree. He was correct in his assertion.
Political correctness spurs your rebuttal.

[Dr-Sniper]

yet wrote:

<quoted text>you support local yokels deciding that they won't respect federal law.

When Federal Law is unconstitutional, it is expected that States will refuse to abide them.

[nope]

Dr-Sniper wrote:

<quoted text>
I disagree. He was correct in his assertion.
Political correctness spurs your rebuttal.

it is a racist stereotype kept alive by ignorance and repetition. The myth of political correctness is your deflection from that reality.

[Dr-Sniper]

nope wrote:

<quoted text>it is a racist stereotype kept alive by ignorance and repetition. The myth of political correctness is your deflection from that reality.

Prove it!
The repetition of stereotypes and propaganda is from the socialists.
You insist gun control is the answer despite statistics to the contrary. Fact!
You insist it's guns that lead to violent crime despite statistics to the contrary. Fact!
You insist presenting facts is racist, despite statistics backing the facts!
I've seen the FBI statistics on violent crime and gun crime presented with links to them posted by several posters. Yet you and the other socialists on here avoid them like the plague, and simply reply that its racism, without any statistics or sources to back your position, if you reply or respond at all.
It seems that facts and statistics are the socialists' Achilles Heel.

[what]

Dr-Sniper wrote:

<quoted text>

socialists? Quit talking stupid.

[Marauder]

Calm Liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
As long as you don't use it to commit a crime, I could care less whether or not you carry a gun.

Good...and as long as you don't advocate to infringe on the individual rights others...then we're fine.

[Marauder]

Calm Liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
I'll thank you to leave the Republica Party leadership out of this.

I don't need your thanks, I don't leave anyone out. I have used that term for a very long time because it covers all the "control freaks" no matter what their affiliation. They come in all creeds, colors and anything else you can think of.

[eternal cynic]

Calm Liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, Soc, there is some difference. Using racially charged language to create fear of or to ridicule black people is one thing. For example, when Fox News personalities refer to the White House under Obama as the "hizz-ous", or when a snickering Rush Limbaugh plays a song called "Barack the Magic Negro". Or when white politicians and pundits complain that "blacks" vote for Obama simply because he is black, in other words, that they can't think for themselves, and are therefore a political threat. These are instances of whites trying to demonize blacks.
I didn't see any of that sort of fearmongering in the Obama ad. I didn't hear Obama try to ridicule white people. In fact, he didnt discuss whites at all. I saw an intelligent, reasonable person, appealing to a group with which he has a shared cultural background and history. He points out (correctly) that political power for black Americans did not, and does not, come as easily as it has for white Americans.
So the narrative that "blacks are the real racists" or "blacks are just as racist as whites" or whatever, is not supported by the Obama ad.
When Obama discusses race, which, by the way, he does very rarely, he always discusses it in a reasonable, intelligent way.
Now, show me a clip of Obama playing a song called "Rush the Magic Honky" or something similarly offensive, and I will re-think my position.

I do watch Fox, I’ve never heard the term “hizz-ous” used. Rush Limbaugh is a twit. He’s proof of nothing other than some of the talking heads are indeed crazy. Add Chris Mathews to that as well, the lefts version of Limbaugh.

Many blacks did in fact vote for him simply because Obama is black. They weren’t complaining, they were pointing out fact. Voting for someone because of race is just as racist as voting against someone because of race.

Obama did more than his fair share of fear mongering over economics, health care and a variety of other issues. Funny though, first day of 2013 the middle class saw a tax increase. Exactly what Obama warned about in his attack ads against Romney.

[Armed Veteran]

Spocko wrote:

<quoted text>
Jealous aren't ya!? CA is doing juz fine -- keep drinking that Virginia hooch ...:-/

YOu must have gone to the Obama Accounting Academy.

[eternal cynic]

Calm Liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
Well done, cynic. You have posted two vague quotes from a book Obama wrote 17 years ago. Do you have any more recent examples of his "racism". Say, from the past 10 years or so?
Also, the subject was whether or not conservatives ever accuse others of "racism". I posted several recent examples of right wingers doing exactly that. Your post, in which you try to prove Obama is a racist (by using 17 year old quotes from a book he wrote), just supports my point. Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Spend the entire 10 minutes watching.

[Armed Veteran]

yet wrote:

<quoted text>
you support local yokels deciding that they won't respect federal law.

Yep...especially when that federal law is BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[eternal cynic]

Calm Liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
No, the following is the "very definition of racism":
a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Can you point out to me where Obama stated that the black race is superior to any other race?

Interesting, you took that from Merriam-Webster but left out the second definition. Is it inconvenient to you?

racial prejudice or discrimination

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rac...

[eternal cynic]

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>
Apparently! Last time I checked there was no White College Football National Championship, Miss White America, White Entertainment Television...

Imagine the outrage if it were to happen.

[eternal cynic]

Armed Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep...especially when that federal law is BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

There’s no point responding to the fool in New Mexico. I’ve stopped reading anything it posts.

[Christopher Keller]

Spocko wrote:

<quoted text>
Over the last 40 years, Conservatism went from a political movement that believed in the Constitution, smaller government, less big brother, and sound fiscal responsibility……to the party of Authoritarian Government dominated by the religious right, the wealthy elite, and fascist corporatists. Few disagree that Barry Goldwater would be utterly disgusted at what modern day Conservatism advocates; less individual freedoms, more big brother, selective adherence to the Constitution, and the kind of reckless spending that would make most democrats blush. And it would appear that more and more true conservatives agree whole-heartedly with Mr. Goldwater. This has left the Republican Party, which owes much of its' success over the last 30 years to its' Conservative base, in a very tough spot, if not completely screwed, as is demonstrated by the all-out civil war that has erupted within the Republican Party during the early stages of the 2008 Presidential Election. Conservatism, having morphed from Goldwater's philosophies into a movement who's agenda panders to religious zealots and the wealthy elite, has completely alienated and angered everyone from traditional conservatives, to Reagan Democrats, to moderate republicans alike, all of whom have watched their beliefs, needs, and priorities take a back seat to the views of far right extremists.

Spocko, the interesting thing about this is whether the Republican party can actually examine itself and rid itself of these radical elements. If it does not do so, it will decline permanently. The Republicans have at most eight years to make up their minds on this issue. If they do not by 2020, their appeal to the public will be finished for all intents and purposes, with no hope for recovery in our lifetime.

[Calm Liberal]

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>
Apparently! Last time I checked there was no White College Football National Championship, Miss White America, White Entertainment Television...
You agree the police acted stupidly? The professor did what the police officer asked when he asked? He stopped and provided ID immediately upon request? I don't care if the guy was as white as Casper or Powder, if he ignores the commands of the police officer, which is illegal btw, bad things are going to happen.
As far as the Trump statement, being a smart ass doesn't suit you.

Gee, I thought you right wingers were all about "standing up to the government" and "protecting freedom". Now you claim that if you are legally in your own home, and you are guilty of no crime, it's still ok for the police to push you around. Gates was arrested AFTER he had identified himself to the cops, and AFTER the cops knew that the house was his. So tell me, what right did the cops have to give Gates any "commands". I think Professor Gates was well within his rights to tell the cops to get off his property. You know, that "private property" that you right wing heroes are so fanatical about. Bottom line: Gates was arrested for having the unmitigated gall to "talk back".

So please, Prep, don't ever tell me that you believe in "standing up to the government" or that you hold "private property" sacred. In the Gates situation, you had a chance to support the private property owner, or the governments'(police)interferen ce with the owner's right to be left alone on his private property. Whose side did you come down on?

[Calm Liberal]

eternal cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting, you took that from Merriam-Webster but left out the second definition. Is it inconvenient to you?
racial prejudice or discrimination
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rac...

No, it's not inconvenient at all. Obama asked black voters to support him. How does that make you, or any other white people, victims of "prejudice or discrimination"?