Is the left engaging in salami tactics? And what should we do about it?

[Rukentuts]

Except they don't agree, as pointed out by the facts. "HURR DURR EUROPE GOT NO GUN GOT NO CRIME" is a misconception. If you look at the facts, they show that violent crime and homicide rates have RISEN with the introduction of gun control, whereas they have decreased every time gun rights are expanded.

Once again, Australia disagrees with you. But whose reality to determine facts? Who made it qualified?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Why is there such an overwhelming obsession with focusing on the division between "left" and "right" in the US? Isn't it common sense that you're doing nothing but creating a schism, purely for the purpose of political bashing?

Because the extreme left and the extreme right turn to blind fear and hatred for fear that the other side is "ruining" the country, meanwhile the other 90% of the population tends to disown even our own side's political nuts, resorting to more reasonable views of politics like common sense, logic, and a viewpoint of the world based in fact and reality rather than and irrational fear. Swazi is a prime example of a right wing nut that even most conservatives tend to shy away from.

[Kalyyn]

If you hear someone out and then basically think what that someone wants you to think despite it's inherent lack of logic of reason, then yes, that's accurate.

While I can't agree on basically anything with Swazi, he *almost* has a point here. It's not a "liberal" thing (more of a "people" thing) but this is an issue with many discussions. Young people overwhelmingly have this problem, and since young people are more likely to be liberals, I think that's where the idea that this is a liberal problem came from.

Basically, people (or the vast majority of) subconsciously believe that understanding your opponent's views is the same thing as agreeing with him. When asked "why does person X disagree with you?" your first instinct is "because he's an idiot!"

You've done that. You've probably done it several times today. So have I. I'd bet every asset I own that not a single person on this forum isn't guilty of this. But you can't just accept that. The trick is to watch yourself for when you do it, and correct it when it happens. Don't be content with just dismissing people as irrational idiots. Every action by every person has a reason that, at least to them, seems logical. That reason is the key to everything. If you figure out that reason, you can beat them. Or better yet, you can win them over to your side.

A beautiful and horrifying example of this behavior came shortly after 9/11. I don't remember any of the names involved, so this should be treated as purely anecdotal. But focus more on the point I'm making, not the specifics of the event. A political analyst was invited on to a talk show to discuss the war on terror. During the talk, he said something along the lines of "We need to try to understand why the arabs attacked us." He was then promptly booed off the stage. You see, people didn't want to understand the terrorists. This analyst had the wisdom to see that understanding them was the first step to defeating them. Unfortunately, people's first instinct is to equate "understanding" with "agreeing".

You'll easily find a thousand examples of this right here on MMO-C every day. Just look for it, and you'll see this behavior everywhere. And people who share your views are the ones you need to watch most closely. You won't notice them doing it at first because you agree with what they're saying, but almost all of them will be guilty of it.

[starlord]

yes liberals wanted people to shoot kids so we can make laws to not shoot kids... so we wont shoot kids?

its quite machiavellian really. no you see liberals true goal is to get rid of guns so we can force people to eat broccoli, abort babies, and give all their money to minorities, obviously.

[Nakura Chambers]

I always find this argument amusing. Let's give you the point and assume you do need to protect yourself from the people you vote into office. Do you really believe that if your government wants to kill you, with all the technology they have at their disposal, they'll send a guy with a gun?

To quote a debate I had with my liberal friend:

Liberal

if you really think an AR-15 is gunna protect you from this country's military, youre insane. nukes, drones, that new F-35 that looks so pretty, heat-seeking missiles.... yeah, an assault rifle is really gunna protect you... you advocate for a bigger and bigger military, and then you say you want a gun to protect you should that military be used against you... there is no logic in that

Me

I do not believe the military will entirely side with the government. Most soldiers and veterans tend to be right-wing. I seriously doubt the government would start using nukes or F-35s or even drones in America. If they did that, especially in densely populated areas, they would only cause more people to despise and take up arms against the government. Additionally, with my AR-15, I can fight a war of attrition, using guerrilla warfare to eventually wear-down the government until either:

1. The people (and Congress?) become so discontent with the war that it the government is required to make concessions.
2. States become discontent with the federal government's war on the insurgency and secede.
3. The revolutionaries overthrow the government after retaking Washington, DC.
4. The leaders of the regime are assassinated and are replaced with leaders who are sympathetic to the revolutionaries; either through seizing power during the power vacuum or through the natural line of succession.
5. Pro-revolutionary military officers depose the president (and his supporters) in a coup d'état.

Liberal

the majority of german soldiers were not nazis. they are trained to followed orders, not take a side. if the military would take your side, why do you need a gun? the military has a gun, and they would take your side, right? the last time some revolutionaries tried to overthrow the government, the government used EVERYTHING in their power to stop them from leaving. they burned down houses all over the south to weaken morale. if you think the government wont use their weapons to stop you, youre wrong.

Me

There were many assassination attempts upon Hitler by military officers. Wars aren't fought like they used to be, hence why we cannot win in Afghanistan, Iraq or even Vietnam. If there were a revolution against a big government, I don't think it would be a "North v. South" style war, it would likely be a guerrilla war with no borders. People would be taking up arms across the board, whether they live in New York City or rural Nebraska. The people would have to defend themselves from the government and members of the military who, like you suggested, continued to take orders from the regime. The people would be the primary fighting force, the military forces that sided with the people would only supplement them.

Liberal

this is still a country divided. look at the countries who wanted to secede from the union... the south. that is where the divide is in this country. its still geographic. it will still be a north south war. you are in the mind set of "how can anyone disagree with me? people everywhere would certainly rise up if this government got any bigger!" but when you look at it, 53% of this country voted for big government...

Me

CNN reports that only 43% of Americans (41% of Missourians), including those who voted for Barack Obama, want a bigger government.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president

While support for the revolution may be lessened in blue states, many of the blue states have significant conservative populations. In addition, do you think every liberal, socialist and communist would simply sit by and do nothing if the government became overwhelming tyrannical? Some may side with the government, some may remain neutral, but even you have at least some respect for civil liberties, human rights and democracy.

[Durenek]

Gun control has always resulted in higher violent crime (including homicide) rates and gun rights have always resulted in lower violent crime (including homicide) rates.

I don't see how this makes any sort of sense. You're saying that having unrestricted access to deadly weapons is somehow going to reduce crime? I mean, it hasn't exactly worked out so well for you guys up to now has it? Every other industrialized country has gun control laws and per-capita none have more violent, gun related crimes than the USA.

Regarding your point about rifles however, what I cannot grasp is why a person would actually need one. Potential for crimes aside, what is your average Joe gonna do with a semi-automatic weapon? You've already established it's not for hunting, so why do you need a rifle when a handgun would suffice just as well? Or is this just American largesse at play?

[slackjawsix]

Except they don't agree, as pointed out by the facts. "HURR DURR EUROPE GOT NO GUN GOT NO CRIME" is a misconception. If you look at the facts, they show that violent crime and homicide rates have RISEN with the introduction of gun control, whereas they have decreased every time gun rights are expanded.

as ive heard less deaths from shootings but more mass shootings have happened since higher gun control

all i ask for from gun control is limits on they types of weapons the 2nd amendment was made during a time of guns that took awhile to reload 1 shot, it is possible to get automatic assault weapons as a civilian now which is not the original intention or needed for self defense

[Nakura Chambers]

yes liberals wanted people to shoot kids so we can make laws to not shoot kids... so we wont shoot kids?

Murder is illegal. Nice strawman though.

[Wells]

To quote a debate I had with my liberal friend:

Oh god you got another thing to spam.

[Grizzly Willy]

To quote a debate I had with my liberal friend:

Liberal


Me


Liberal


Me


Liberal


Me

Wait, aren't you a liberal? Your signature says you're a democratic socialist.

[Talzar]

More than that though, you should also work to eliminate poverty, improve our education system, and improve mental healthcare. These are the real causes of crime, not whether or not the people have freedom.

Oh please. Before Sandy Hook increased healthcare was going to destroy the country but now we need it. Anything to take the spotlight of guns, right?

[Magpai]

Love the 100% ad hominem attacks based on Rush Limbaugh. The people specifically referring to rational thought in their attacks are especially amusing, but no doubt the irony is lost on them.

[Rukentuts]

Who the fuck actually deems one of their friends as 'liberal friend'?

[Wells]

Wait, aren't you a liberal? Your signature says you're a democratic socialist.

I think that means he goes to a lot of tupperware parties or something.

[Nakura Chambers]

Then provide these facts.

I have several times now, but go ahead and read it again if you'd like. I provide sources for all of the statistics I reference:
I am posting this to discuss and inform people on the fundamental human right to bear arms. There are quite a few lies and uninformed statements that some unsavory individuals have been throwing around as of late and as a citizen of this great country, it is my duty (as well as your duty) to fight this propaganda. Always remember that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" and that "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Lets start by looking at the empirical data, shall we? Gun control advocates like to go make bigoted and misinformed statements, alleging that Europeans "have no guns and thus they have no crime." While it is true that some European countries do have lower violent crime rates than the United States, all of the evidence shows that guns have absolutely nothing to do with that. In fact, the data shows that violent crime, including homicide, has been drastically on the rise since the implementation of gun control. For instance, the United Kingdom is known for it's draconian and anti-freedom gun control laws. The first of these laws in recent times was the Gun Control Act of 1968, which introduced strict restrictions on gun ownership and required firearms be registered. This law has been a complete and utter disaster and not only are the people less free, but violent crime rates (including homicide) have skyrocketed and continue to skyrocket. The homicide rate rose 52% since the law was enacted and it continues to rise. In 1997 the British government completely banned handguns, after forcing all owners to register their guns with the 1968 law, this again resulted in violent crime (including homicide) rates skyrocketing and continue to rise. In fact, after the 1997 handgun ban, homicide rates have risen by 15% since the law was enacted. In fact, the countries in Europe that have the lowest crime rates are the ones that have the most gun owners and/or least strict gun laws, such as the Czech Republic, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.

Gun control isn't just a failure in other countries, it's a failure in America as well. In the United States, every time gun control has been implemented, it has failed miserably, made us less free, and empowered criminals. Take for instance the handgun bans in Chicago and the District of Columbia, which have been struck down as unconstitutional. Handguns were completely banned in the District of Columbia in 1976, this resulted in violent crime (including homicide) rates skyrocketing. In the District of Columbia, homicide rates rose by 73% since the law was enacted.. Chicago banned handguns in 1981, this resulted in violent crime (including homicide) rates skyrocketing. In Chicago, homicide rates rose by 40% since the law was enacted.

Now lets look at the fundamental human right to concealed carry, shall we? Currently every state except Illinois and the District of Columbia have concealed carry and both of those states are currently in the process of allowing concealed carry, seeing as how not allowing concealed carry violates the United States Constitution (and Illinois Constitution). Concealed carry has been hailed as a massive success, not only for those who love freedom, but also for lowering violent crime (including homicide) rates. Concealed carry has drastically lowered homicide rates everywhere that it has been implemented. Every study conducted shows that the right to concealed carry has saved many lives and has taken virtually zero. In fact, concealed carry has even begun to spread to other countries, such as Canada, the Czech Republic and Israel.

Lets look at what gun control advocates mean when they talk about "big scary assault weapons;" the first thing that pops into your head is probably that they are talking about fully automatic rifles, however, this is not the case. These so-called "assault weapons" that gun control advocates always talk about banning are nothing more than so-called "assault" modifications to guns, such as bayonets and pistol grips. It doesn't cover fully automatic firearms at all, which were previously banned under the Hughes Amendment. All of the evidence shows that fully automatic weapons are used in virtually no crimes. Statistics show that prior to the Hughes Amendment there was not a single instance of a fully automatic gun being used in the commission of a crime. It wasn't until AFTER fully automatic weapons were banned that a crime was committed with one, and in that incident, nobody was killed (other than the two bank robbers). The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004 and absolutely nothing bad happened like gun control advocates claimed.

Gun control advocates try to mistakenly say that Barack Obama "supports gun rights" and/or that he "isn't anti-gun rights," even though all of the evidence shows that he is perhaps our most anti-gun rights president in American history. Gun control advocates only claim that he is "pro-gun rights," because they want to trick ignorant people into thinking he isn't a horrible person who hates guns and freedom. Throughout Obama's political career, he has made various anti-gun rights statements and support anti-gun rights bills. Barack Obama said that he supports banning semi-automatic guns and increase firearm restrictions. He also said that he supported banning handguns and concealed carry. Obama voted in favor of holding firearm manufacturers responsible for murders. Obama also said he would renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and immediately upon being re-elected, he had his congressional Democrat friends introduce a bill to renew it. Obama also said he believes people living in "inner cities" shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Obama cosponsored a bill that only allowed citizens to buy one gun a month. Obama also said he supports requiring guns be registered and licensed. Obama said that he believes that local gun bans do not violate the Second Amendment. Obama also said that he would consider supporting a ban on buying ammunition online. This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of all of the anti-gun rights statements Obama has made and the anti-gun rights bills he has supported.

Gun control advocates try to claim that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does not refer to an individual right, but instead refers to the right of individual states to form militias (such as National Guards). This claim is completely false and has been disproved many times. First off the rights of the states to form militias is already protected under Article I of the United States Constitution. The Second Amendment is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As you can see, the Second Amendment does allow for the creation of a military force, which makes sense, since you need a national military to defend your country. However, the Founding Fathers separated the right to form a militia from the right of the people to bear arms. Note the grammatical separation and note how it says the right of the people, as opposed to the "right of the militia."

Every legal reference in history to the right to keep and bear arms has referred to it as an individual right. The first recorded use of the 'right to keep and bear arms' comes from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which referred explicitly to an individual right. Fourty-four of the fifty states protect the right to keep in their state constitutions and this right refers to an individual right in all fourty-four of them. The right to keep and bear arms has always referred to an individual right in other countries constitutions as well. Islamic law also calls for governments to respect for the individual right of the people to bear arms, though this right is not generally respected by Muslim countries in practice. The Second Amendment does not create any new rights, it only protects a pre-existing natural right that all sapient beings have. This has been proven time and time again by the Founding Fathers, the United States Supreme Court, John Locke and countless classical liberal philosophers.

Now lets look at United States case law and legal precedent for the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms in general. As previously mentioned, the first recorded legal usage of the right to keep and bear arms comes from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Prior to the formation of the United States, the Thirteen Colonies also had a long-standing history of having a right to bear arms, which included the right to self-defense. Prior to the United States Constitution being formed, states that had declared their independence from Great Britain had protected the right to bear arms in their state constitutions and it included the right to self-defense. For instance, the 1776 Constitution of Pennsylvania states that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state." When the United States Constitution was being drafted and ratified, the Founding Fathers stated explicitly that the right to bear arms was a right of the people, not a "right of the militia" as some gun control advocates claim. In fact, many of the Founding Fathers wanted to require every free citizen to own a gun, viewing it as a civic duty. I will provide a list of these quotes from the Founding Fathers towards the end of this post.

Interpretation of the Second Amendment has always been that of recognizing it as an individual right. In fact, it was most commonly interpreted as a right that cannot under any circumstances be restricted or limited. Even foreigners held this view, including William Blackstone, who wrote about it in his Commentaries on the Laws of England. The Second Amendment uses the term "shall not be infringed," which not only states that the right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing natural right, but also that it shall not be infringed upon. In fact, the only real criticism levied against the Second Amendment, was by those who thought it didn't provide enough protection to the right to bear arms. St. George Tucker and William Rawle, two lawyers and abolitionists (and in the case of Tucker, a Virginia Supreme Court justice) were among those who criticized the Second Amendment for not protecting the rights of gun owners enough. Tucker and Rawle argued that the Second Amendment needed to have provisions in order to help the poor be able to exercise their right to bear arms; they viewed this as difficult under the current laws, seeing as how many poor people couldn't afford firearms. Joseph Story, an early federal Supreme Court justice wrote in his work, Commentaries on the Constitution, that: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." Story also wrote that the right to bear arms is a natural right. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that all restrictions placed on the federal government also apply to state and local governments. One of the main reasons this amendment was added to the Constitution was because former slave states would often times refuse to allow freed slaves to bear arms, which violated their rights as protected under the Second Amendment.

It wasn't until the late 20th and early 19th century that socialists and so-called "progressives" tried to re-interpret the Second Amendment to mean a collective right to form state militias. Dred Scott v. Sandford ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right, however it also ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to slaves. United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois and Miller v. Texas ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right, however, it also ruled that the First and Second Amendments only limit the federal government. United States v. Miller ruled that that: "These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," which is to say that the people consist of the militia. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez ruled that the Second Amendment (and the Bill of Rights in general) was an individual right that also applied to non-citizen aliens. United States v. Lopez ruled that the so-called "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990" violated the Second Amendment and was unconstitutional. United States v. Emerson, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago reaffirmed that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right that applies to state and local governments, as well as the federal government. Moore v. Madigan ruled that the ban on concealed carry in Illinois violated the Second Amendment and was thus unconstitutional, requiring Illinois to adopt concealed carry.

Lets also take a look at what the Founding Fathers had to say about the Second Amendment and right to bear arms:
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." -Thomas Jefferson

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." -Thomas Jefferson

"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;" -Thomas Jefferson

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

"To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character." -Alexander Hamilton

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -John Adams

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. " -Noah Webster

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -Tenche Coxe

"[The new government] shall be too firmly fixed in the saddle to be overthrown by anything but a general insurrection." -William Symmes

"[A standing army] if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" -Theodore Sedwick

"[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it." -Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." -Patrick Henry

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?" -Patrick Henry

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..." -George Mason

"[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." -Zacharia Johnson

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." -Virginia delegation to the constitutional convention

"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." -Albert Gallatin

"[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded." -Roger Sherman

As you can clearly see, gun control is not only a failure, but it also takes away our freedom and is unconstitutional. What can we do to lower violent crime rates then? That is a good question and the answer to the question doesn't include gun control. I believe we should primarily focus on the causes of violent crime, as opposed to focusing on the symptoms. We need to overhaul our public education system and work to eliminate poverty. As for guns, we should protect the right of the people to bear arms, including the right to concealed carry. We should also bring back firearms classes in public schools, these classes would teach our young people about gun safety and responsibility.


Sources
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
https://supreme.justia.com/us/92/542/case.html
https://supreme.justia.com/us/116/252/case.html
https://supreme.justia.com/us/307/174/case.html
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
https://supreme.justia.com/us/60/393/case.html
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../535/case.html
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.americanbar.org/content/d...thcheckdam.pdf
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stori...ives-takes-few
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb0110.pdf
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Bara...un_Control.htm
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...-95307939.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/c...icle-1.1121161
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americ...132050819.html
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

[Rukentuts]

Love the 100% ad hominem attacks based on Rush Limbaugh. The people specifically referring to rational thought in their attacks are especially amusing, but no doubt the irony is lost on them.

Okay, then how's this one. He thinks the more sex a woman has, the more birth control pills she needs.

Call him intelligent now. Do it.

[Orbitus]

Almost everyone leans a certain direction, even if just a little bit.

Do you value freedom and the Constitution? Then you're probably a conservative.

Do you value big government and the welfare state? Then you're probably a liberal.

Wow can someone just ban this idiot already? You do realize the people that use welfare and create the big government are the republicans right? Almost all of your posts come with huge bias. You might as well say people that are liberal can't post in the thread because you try to make up facts on the spot like Fox News does. Theres a reason people make fun of Fox, they shouldn't even be considered news when they produce false information or leave out information so it caters to their listeners.

[Durenek]

How does one become less free?

[Wells]

Swazi I don't want your spam, I want links. To data.

Provide specific citations for your claim that crime always goes up with gun control.

[Deleted]

come the revolution.......