-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/09/us-leads-world-in-economic-loss-from.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/14/231249/...
This on the heels of the financial issues can't be good...
Keep your eyes on the prize. Get rid of the Republicans and everything else will work itself out. Fail to get rid of the republicans and we enter a new dark age, on the other end of which China emerges as the new global hegemon. So either way, it doesn't matter.
Keep your eyes on the prize and don't worry about this carbon fiber on the fringes.
Nobody ever lost an election by promising to lock up more people, or send more people to death row and until that changes America will continue to have one of the highest inmate population and thus one of the highest crime rates and one of the highest murder rates in the free world.
So all you get is Bush giving money to religious right groups who claim that if only more criminals gave their lives to Jesus all would be right with the world. Well, I guess we see how well that's working.
Of course, you'd made comments about the fact that this administration tortures people and commits all sorts of heinous crimes, by a chimpy president who regards the constitution as a "goddamned piece of paper".
It's too bad that too many progressives (myself included) are all too willing to attack Bush for his transgressions against our laws, our constitution and our way of life (we used to be a beacon of liberty and freedom, not anymore), but when the subject of the civil liberty which is the vanguard of all of the other civil liberty, which is the right to self defense, and the right to throw off a tyrannical government, the some of the same progressives are all too willing to regard that portion of the Bill of Rights as a "goddamned piece of paper" just like Bush was all too willing to do to the rest of the constitution.
If the Democratic party where to put up a progressive to liberal candidate that was more pro-individual liberty in terms of the 2nd amendment than the Republican candidate (Senator Mark Warner, Governor Ted Strickland, Senator Mark Begich, etc), then NRA would fall all over themselves to endorse the Democratic candidate. They would love the idea of both parties being more "pro-gun" and take that particular policy choice "off the table".
The Brady Campaign, and the rest of the "gun control" movement have made it impossible for any "pro-gun liberal" to rise to the top of the Democratic ticket. If Obama loses this election, it will be SOLELY due to the gun issue. If Obama was a sponsor of personal protection carry laws as Illinois State Senator, rather than supporting local handgun bans there, and not been pushing for a reinstatement of the "Assault Weapons Ban" (which is a BS misnomer, these are all semi-auto weapons that fire no faster than one pull of the trigger that have been available since the turn of the last century), Obama would have won this election in A LANDSLIDE similar to Reagan against Mondale in 1984. You'd have at least 30-40% of the gun owner voter population that is torturing themselves into voting for McCain even though it's against their economic best interests to do so because they're afraid that Obama will do the same thing Bill Clinton did. I'm smart enough to know that Obama will likely not push the issue, but these voters believe that this is the only civil liberty that is important to stop potential future tyranny, regardless of the other issues.
The 2nd amendment takes certain policy choices off the table when it comes to gun control. Going after law abiding gun owners and the weapons that they own is on the verge of losing us an election for the THIRD TIME. Despite the Republicans screwing up this country, there's a more responsible group that is responsible for making Democratic politicians think that they MUST support gun control on the national level, and that's the Brady Campaign and their associated allies. The last 8 years of Bush was brought to us by an anti-gun movement that sold liberals, progressives and Democrats on a bill of goods which is bullcrap, that "if it saves one more life". Please, you know what'll save one more life? Universal health care, which we would have gotten years ago if it wasn't for the gun control movement in general pounding and pushing on Democrats to support gun control.
You need to support ALL of our civil liberties in order to speak with authority against a tyrannical regime that the Bush crime family has committed against the American people. Any less than that, or spouting the lie that the 2nd amendment is a "collective" right, is the height of hypocrisy. Time for the progressive liberal movement to cut our ties to the gun control movement. Unlike the pro-choice movement, which is based on protecting a civil right, the gun control movement is about annihilating a civil right into nothingness.
To the gun lover below, if you all cared as much or even gave a thought to anything in the constitution other than guns, then we would not have need to be worried about the loss of any of our rights. We could have our guns and the rest of the Bill of rights.
Wrong again.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on CBS "60 Minutes": "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."
Not to mention Obama supported in 1996 a complete ban on semi-automatic weapons (your typical handguns). I also know the reason why he did it: He resided in Chicago, and NO politician can get Mayor Daley and Dick Mell's support without throwing guns and gun owners under the bus. Simply flat out, if you don't support strict gun control, or don't even discuss the issue with the Daley/Mell machine, they will run their own candidate and the Chicago machine will slaughter you in attack ads. He wanted to get into the Legislature, as what to politicians want? Power. That's all there is to it. His stance moderated after he was elected to statewide office (that being as US senator) when he didn't need the Daley/Mell machine, but they still demanded tribute to the gun control cause.
Go figure his opinion changed after Heller about semi-auto handguns, but he still pushes the Assault Weapons ban because of a stupid push poll which confuses the persons being polled with terms like "rapid fire", which implies full auto guns.
Throwing barbs at gun voters, blaming them for voting to protect their specific civil right, is no different than blaming members of NARAL Pro-Choice America for putting their interest in legal and safe abortion ahead of everything else. They're trying to protect a specific civil right that they believe to be very important, regardless of the other issues, and same with "gun voters". You can't forcibly change their opinion, or block their access to the voting booth. What I said before still stands: If Obama were a gun rights supporter and equally or more "pro-gun" than McCain/Palin, McCain/Palin camp might as well have conceded this election today before they were absolutely defeated in November. That's not what happened, and it's the Brady Campaign and the ally's fault that our country is about to enter a new dark age.
And I just don't understand the argument. Crimes with a gun are, well, crimes. Criminals don't follow laws, so I don't understand how restricting lawful citizens access to a gun solves the problem. Criminals break the law, so buying a black market gun isn't something they will sweat.
I'm sorry, but a massive tragedy like Virginia Tech could have been lessened by a teacher with a .45 in their desk drawer. This doesn't make me a gun nut, it just makes sense that one is less likely to go on a shooting rampage if it is more likely that the people you are about to shoot up aren't defenseless. The school had a "no guns on campus" rule. Frankly, that allowed the larger scope of the tragedy. Because lawful people weren't able to defend against a random nutjob.
This is, after all, our national defense policy. And despite all the duck and cover routines, it's worked rather well on the nuclear front.
I just don't get how restricting lawful gun ownership fights crime. If anything, knowing your victims are defenseless just encourages it.
And on a larger note, an armed citizenry is the second amendment as a further check on government power. We created the government and if it doesn't serve us, we reserve the right to dissolve it. It's why it was penned. The English confiscated guns in the build up to our revolution, to eliminate the threat to their power grab.
Why gun control is even an issue on a progressive agenda mystifies me.
It's a losing wedge issue that makes no sense.
And anecdotally, the most polite mingling of strangers is at a gun range. Even asshat bullies behave themselves. Giving criminals an edge on power is just stupid logic.