Originally Posted By Dabob2 Maybe it's because I remember the Lott book ("More Guns, Less Crime") from when it came out, but when he said what he did in post 15, to me it was like "Oh, okay. That's what he's referring to. Snarkily, but at least he's got a source." Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that was his reference. On the Specter thing it was just a baseless accusation he couldn't back up with anything.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo >>>Whatever. I've seen Deliverance.<<< ROFL!!! Run! I hear banjo music!
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo The point is, even if completely outlawed private ownership of guns, crime wouldn't drop, in fact I say it would increase.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip That why I think we need to outlaw bullets. Pretty soon you get to the point where all you can do is throw your gun at someone. Whether you are a gang-banger with an illegal gun or Dick Cheney with a legal one; neither can do much damage without bullets.
Originally Posted By DAR The criminal element will find new ways to wreak havoc. Wait until there's cross bow drive-by's. Which leads to a bigger issue. If mankind were to have the same skin color, eye color, hair color, eat the same food, have the same number in each family, like the same movies, tv shows, sports teams, music, art, drive the same car, use the same toliet paper, we would still find a way divide and try to kill each other. Today's happy thought comes to courtesy of DAR.
Originally Posted By gadzuux By the way ... I doubt if the original poster is still tracking his own thead, but for all of his crowing about how democrats "lost the debate" about loaded guns in public parks, he ignores the reality of how this legislation came about. Not surprisingly, it turned out to be yet another example of underhanded political trickery on the part of the republican party. This amendment was tacked on to the much more popular credit card reform bill. If dems wanted to vote for increased regulation of credit card issuers, they also had to vote in favor of allowing concealed loaded guns in parks. This is what constitutes "victory" for republicans. So congratulations again to DB for winning the "debate" - and once again republicans find themselves cheering for their own party's duplicitous, sneaky and disreputable actions. The rest of us have a sense of decency and integrity that prevents us from seeing this as a positive.
Originally Posted By DAR I hate to get into the old DAR mode of saying the other guys do it too, but when Bush was President didn't the Democrats try to push through their minimum wage proposal attached to one of the War spending bills? Or maybe I'm getting that mixed up with something else.
Originally Posted By gadzuux It's not unheard of to attach riders to unrelated bills. But then you have to look at "motive" - in your example the democrats were attempting to increase the real wages of the "working poor". Republicans are kowtowing to the gun lobby. And this is my overarching objection to republican politics - it's ALWAYS on the wrong side of sensability. Whether it's opposing health care for children, opposing regulations on banks and financial institutions, endorsing torture, championing corporations over individuals, or allowing guns in public spaces, they consistently take the wrong position. And if that's not bad enough, they then boast about it as if they've actually accomplished something that serves the public's best interests. It would be comical if the issues weren't so important.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Whether it's opposing health care for children>> Hey if they're going raise the beer tax to pay for health care, junior can fend for himself.
Originally Posted By markymouse I don't know all the backstory, but I don't think this was a Republican plot as much as gadz's theory. I can't imagine that a party that controls neither house has the power to push through something against the ruling party's wishes. I think the Republicans pushed for this, and the Democrats, who might not be for it, definitely did not want to be seen as against it. And lets not ignore that a lot of Democrats were probably for this. New York's new senator has a 100% rating from the NRA, after all. I think the Democrats have taken such a huge lead in Washington because they've been able to co-opt so much of the center and center-right. You win 59 or 60 seats in the Senate partly by convincing northeasterns that the Republican party is out of touch with their values. But mostly you do it by aligning your values with those of Southern and Western voters. And that means guns.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder A young cowboy named Billy Joe grew restless on the farm A boy filled with wonderlust who really meant no harm He changed his clothes and shined his boots And combed his dark hair down And his mother cried as he walked out [Chorus] Don't take your guns to town son Leave your guns at home Bill Don't take your guns to town He laughed and kissed his mom And said your Billy Joe's a man I can shoot as quick and straight as anybody can But I wouldn't shoot without a cause I'd gun nobody down But she cried again as he rode away [Chorus] Don't take your guns to town son Leave your guns at home Bill Don't take your guns to town He sang a song as on he rode His guns hung at his hips He rode into a cattle town A smile upon his lips He stopped and walked into a bar And laid his money down But his mother's words echoed again [Chorus] Don't take your guns to town son Leave your guns at home Bill Don't take your guns to town He drank his first strong liquor then to calm his shaking hand And tried to tell himself he had become a man A dusty cowpoke at his side began to laugh him down And he heard again his mothers words
