Originally Posted By Donny Here's Newts view on Obama Gun measure <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57566058/gingrich-republicans-clearly-have-to-change/" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34...-change/</a>
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<P.S. Tell the owner to ban me.>> So basically, you are telling Doobie, Rebekah, and Dave to kiss off, and you will continue to violate their policies and the law because it suits you to do so. That's pretty crappy.
Originally Posted By Donny 3. COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: Do not post material this is protected by copyright - such as completed articles copied from other sources - unless you are the copyright holder or have the author's permission. Fair use allows posting of small excerpts. All the articles I post from allow permission. whoooooo haaaaaaaa
Originally Posted By tiggertoo They generally allow permission to post a link, not lift an entire article. The reason: they have advertisers that sponsor and pay for the content on THAT site. If you lift the article, they don't get hits on the webpage, thus the website becomes less trafficked, and thus the ad-space is less valuable. They call that capitalism. It's proper decorum to give a snippet of the article, and link to the website. It's also proper, as the OP, to give your perception of the content in the first or subsequent post. If you follow that template, you'll have no problem. Whoooo haaaaaaa!
Originally Posted By Donny You just don't want facts stopping your liberal delusional. Just be honest
Originally Posted By tiggertoo Listen, kid. I was Republican until just a few years ago until yahoos like you hijacked the party. You aren't conservative, you are a confederate. You also give our church a VERY bad name.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Today's Republicans are clearly delusional. They have lost two presidential elections now to a clearly liberal candidate. How on earth do they feel that the answer is to be even MORE conservative? I could understand it if they had lost to a moderate Democrat like Bill Clinton and felt that they needed to differentiate themselves to give voters a choice. But they lost to OBAMA!! The Tea Party has totally destroyed the Republican party.
Originally Posted By barboy ///If someone is elected to the House from a district that strongly supports Second Amendment rights, don't they owe it to the people who elected them to represent their point of view, even if they are a Democrat?/// Why 'yes', the Constitution---more or less--- obligates him to cast votes congruent with his constituents' wishes. But here's the kicker: sometimes there is something more important than following Constitutional duty. Sometimes there is a much higher calling than following our basic charter. Prohibiting the manufacturing, distribution or transfering of human killing machines(assault rifles) should be legislator's and executive's job #1....... with or without the base's support. In the big picture preservation of human life and dignity should trump political loyalty and Constitutional obligation, ALWAYS.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo Read 'Race and Reunion' by David Blight. It's about the post-Civil War reconstruction era. The current Republican agenda is almost a carbon copy of political mantra of confederates during the period. For example: state's rights, anti-taxation, small federal government, race relations (not just African American), pro-gun lobby, etc. I could continue. The Republican party is MUCH more radical than during the Reagan or G.H.W. Bush administrations. If you follow the current tenor of the party, you are more confederate than conservative.
Originally Posted By barboy What it boils down to is this: Not all laws should be(or should have been) followed. Some laws have been so disgusting that they should be flat out disobeyed in flamboyant fashion if anyone had a shred of human decency.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I've neveer owned a gun and never will. But would the laws do any good? There are already so many assault-style rifles out there that those wanting one will always be able to get one. Plus, semi-automatic handguns are just as dangerous as assault-type rifles. Both will fire just as quickly and can be fitted with high-capacity magazines. Plus, it is a whole lot easier to conceal a handgun than a rifle. Would the proposed ban really accomplish anything?
Originally Posted By barboy ///You aren't conservative, you are a confederate./// I'm wondering if you are using 'confederate' incorrectly here??? I'll have to check into that word a bit deeper but it looks like you're off on this one. But then again you might surprise me and be right on target.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<Why 'yes', the Constitution---more or less--- obligates him to cast votes congruent with his constituents' wishes.>> Actually, Constitutional scholars note that there are two models of congressional representation---steward or echo. Echo, or direct representation, claims to be the direct mouthpiece of the majority electorate. The other claims that, because the electorate doesn't have the sensitive and in depth knowledge he has, the people elected him to make responsible choices on their behalf (not necessarily reflect the opinions of the majority that elected him). The latter tends to be the one most adhered to. That is because it is very hard to cut the nuance of exactly what the majority wants. Plurality maybe, but not majority.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Plus, semi-automatic handguns are just as dangerous/// I'm thinking potentially even more dangerous than rifles since they can be easier to tote, hide and do far reaching damage in close range. Get rid of those too, I say.
