Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[The Willow Sword]

Having an AR in your home i think is warranted, just in case the sh!t really hits the fan and you need to utilize something effective. As for general home defense, a pump action shotgun is just fine. IF this country ever had to defend itself from an invader it would behoove us to have something like an AR. The Point is being responsable and not obsessing over it. Keeping a weapon like an AR under tight lock and key and only utilizing it if you are in dire emergency.(of course there is practice at your local firing range).

I dont think that Obama/Biden is going to relinquish the 2nd amendment and take all our Arms away. This will never happen, it just wont. But regulating things can be a good idea especially if you have some nutjob who has a criminal history and an overstated sense of paranoia. and yes yes yes people are going to get guns no matter what. but we DO have to have some sort of regulations. People need to be made accountable under the eyes of the law the consequences of their actions and certain gun regulations make for that to happen. Because some dumb hick who has priors for domestic abuse or DUI gets all p!ssed because he cant own an AR 14 or some other weapon and makes the excuse that his "constitutional rights" are in violation. hey man its the price you pay for being a low life. so if you own a weapon illegally and you get caught then you have to answer for it.

Peace,TWS

[Vash]

They also counted slaves as 1/3 of a person. That was then. This is now.

How do you equate slavery with weapons retention?

[KC Elbows]

Ronald Reagan and John F Kennedy. 1980, 1984 and 1960 respectively.

See how easy it is to answer questions in a debate, maybe NJM and B-Rad could try it one day.

You weren't old enough to vote in any of the elections you just mentioned. The question was which ones did YOU elect.

[KC Elbows]

It's not just the taxes, it's all the regulations they have to deal with. If you watched the Olympics, it's not too hard to figure out the Communist Chinese obviously do not have near the environmental laws we do. Their air makes Southern California's look great! It's also quite pathetic companies in the United States of America find it cheaper to do business in A COMMUNIST COUNTRY rather than in their own country.

And yes, many jobs are lost to China. I work in the high-tech industry. We invented the term 'outsourcing'. So I think I know a thing or two on the subject.

Outsourcing is different than companies moving outright to there, which they won't be doing even with more taxes, because China still has some risks companies aren't so willing to subject themselves to.

Additionally, the US economy would have to fall quite a bit to make it worth while not to outsource some jobs, and cutting or raising taxes will not change that fact. Nonetheless, some products are not so easy to make outside of the first world, and the liability issues of doing business in China are certainly important.

Additionally, if corporate welfare is not an issue, welfare on the whole isn't. I'm certain you don't believe that.

[SimonM]

Assault Rifles and Home Defense:

Let's look at the qualities of the AR and compare it to the needs of home defense counterbalanced to risk to bystanders:

1) Penetration of shots: Assault rifles propel projectiles forcefully. The bullets are shaped to penetrate. That means they don't lodge and bounce around inside a body or bounce off of a wooden beam in the frame of your house. They punch through.

2) Range of fire: Assault rifles tend to be very long range weapons, especially compared to handguns and shotguns. They can effectively hit people from much ****her away than the opposite side of the living room... in fact that is what they were designed for.

3) Rate of fire: What differentiates bolt-action rifles from assault rifles is that an assault rifle can potentially fire much quicker than bolt action weapons.

So you have a weapon that can potentially spray bullets a considerable distance with rapidity and these bullets can potentially penetrate narrow walls, windows, etc. and keep on going. In most ordinary home-defense scenarios more control is better. Go with a hand gun or, better yet, a bladed or thrusting melee weapon (or even better a baseball bat). After all self defense is based on the precept of minimum necessary force. In a worst case scenario, a home invasion by a group of violent armed assailants, you are probably screwed just as much with an assault rifle as with any "lesser" weapon. You just might take another one or two people down with you. So really it's not significantly enhancing your safety to have military grade weapons.

What's more, with more controlled weapons the chance that you, the defending party, will injure an innocent bystander are reduced. Low caliber hand guns with a low muzzle velocity and bullets that are more likely to stay in the body of the target than punch through are just less dangerous to the kids next door.

[SimonM]

How do you equate slavery with weapons retention?

His point was that the culture of the founding fathers was different from your modern culture.

[1bad65]

As the second ammendment speaks to what is allowed and the third instead speaks to a disallowed activity they are not a good comparisson.

Read the Bill of Rights one day.

Notice how it when it says 'shall not' its ALWAYS in reference to the State/Government and NEVER in reference to the people. Anyone who tries to say the Constitution is about limits as to what the people can do has truly bastardized that great document.

[1bad65]

You weren't old enough to vote in any of the elections you just mentioned. The question was which ones did YOU elect.

No true conservative has been elected since I could vote. I have done my part by voting, the last 2 I voted for were Alan Keyes and Ron Paul.

[Lucas]

Its all in the name. Assault Rifle.

I cant remember the last time I or anyone I know actually needed an assault rifle to defend their home.

If you do, your either into organized crime and have gotten yourself where you deserve, or you are fighting the police force and deserve to be shot.

If you need more or faster bullets, get two pistols.

I do have a few friends that own assault rifles, and I've had a lot of fun shooting them out in the canyons at targets, old cars, and other random things. But I'll stand by my reasoning that we dont need them in the general populace.

Well, until the zombie apocolypse gets there, then we should hand em out like candy.

[1bad65]

In reference to China, I say again that is truly a disgrace that companies find it easier and cheaper to deal with a Communist country than the US. That's just pathetic.

You're correct in that none will completely move 100% of their operations over there right now, but we have lost thousands of jobs to China. And if the taxes and regulations keep making it harder, US businesses will find a way to survive. Will that mean moving to China? Or the Caribbean? Or Europe? Who knows, but if they cannot survive here, they will have 2 choices- Leave or Go Bankrupt.

Why not just make it easier for them to do business here in the first place?

[Lucas]

In reference to China, I say again that is truly a disgrace that companies find it easier and cheaper to deal with a Communist country than the US. That's just pathetic.

You're correct in that none will completely move 100% of their operations over there right now, but we have lost thousands of jobs to China. And if the taxes and regulations keep making it harder, US businesses will find a way to survive. Will that mean moving to China? Or the Caribbean? Or Europe? Who knows, but if they cannot survive here, they will have 2 choices- Leave or Go Bankrupt.

Why not just make it easier for them to do business here in the first place?

word.

it sure is a pickle though...

[SimonM]

Read the Bill of Rights one day.

Notice how it when it says 'shall not' its ALWAYS in reference to the State/Government and NEVER in reference to the people. Anyone who tries to say the Constitution is about limits as to what the people can do has truly bastardized that great document.

I was reading your bill of rights when I made reference to that.

The fact that the second refers to what is allowed to the public while the third sets limits on government behaviour actually strengthens my argument - that comparing the second and third ammendments is invalid.

As I said in my previous post the restrictions on speech that are not seen as violations of the first ammendment are a better comparrison to gun control law.

[NJM]

Don't worry guys.

John McCain says you can't invade countries in the 21st century.

That **** is actually impossible now.

Nobody can do it.

It hasn't been done in the 21st century.

[Lucas]

lol.

that was a good one.

[Vash]

His point was that the culture of the founding fathers was different from your modern culture.

That shows what sleep deprivation does for you.

Thanks for pointing that out.