Posted on 07/28/2012 11:34:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
History is relevant here. After their shellacking in 1994, Democrats determined that 25 of the House seats they lost were directly related to the assault weapons ban. They aren’t going to make that mistake again.
At least, not on gun control.
That was a great response.
Thanks for showing how it’s done.
One can remove automatic rifles entirely from American society. But if you use that filter and examine all shootings over the past thirty years....it comes down to one percent of the killings/shootings (my estimation, not absolute facts), so you ask yourself...what little gun control that might be somewhat agreeable...really has very little to no effect on all those shootings.
So then you are back to point number one. Now, if I removed all druggies, nuts and crazies from society, and used the same base of data....I might actually triple the number of people killed, and I might save a fair number of people. But you just aren’t going to let me put those guys in a state-run facility...are you?
He did say he is for gun control. He also pointed out the obvious, that his is a minority opinion.
Not precisely. He said he didn’t oppose it. He’s being weaselly. He can still claim he is neutral on the issue.
I’d actually have more respect for him if he said he was in favor of it, but he’s trying to have it both ways.
It’s weaselly crap like that that makes me dislike him.
And he is the conservative?
Love your comment.
Communism /socialism are responsible directly and indirectly for the deaths of more people than any other political ideology in history. Why dont we ban them?
“so you are for NO gun control laws what so ever? Anyone can get a gun of any kind in any situation?”
This is the argument of the left and the we know better right. Gun laws and the war on drugs only seem to effect the law abiding by making it harder to own guns and to buy decongestants. Who has to sign for their drugs or guns, not the criminals. We tried prohibition it didn’t work and had to be repealed but everyone wants to do it again and again and again. These type of laws don’t work and never will, it is human nature. You have to teach and lead people to do the right thing. If laws could do everything we could eliminate churches and declare everyone a Christian and then everyone would live right, be sin free and go to heaven. Just think how bad life would be for televangelists, megachurch preachers and the Pope.
This is similar to the immigration issue. IT has been "interpreted" out of existence. The worst possible way to do it.
Apply our laws or repeal them. Don't let moron activists like Reid and Pelosi play their silly games.
I am not a fan of Krauthammer
He's an Atlantic Seaboard elitist. People like him have been the curse of the nation since Plymouth Rock. Why expect different?
Our magnum opus is getting rid of the strings these elitists use to make themselves oligarchs. Find the strings, cut them, burn them. And toast the fingers on the other end -- or send them into perpetual exile.
Oh, another voice for drug legalization. Let 20,000,000 kids burn themselves out, nodding out on street corners and in public parks. Sure.
You post this:
Our magnum opus is getting rid of the strings these elitists use to make themselves oligarchs.
Then you post this to A Strict Constructionist:
Let 20,000,000 kids burn themselves out, nodding out on street corners and in public parks.
Why do some FReepers relish pummeling straw men?
By definition, NO gun control works against criminals.
By definition, criminals can get a gun of any kind in any situation.
By definition, gun control ONLY disarms law-abiding victims.
BY DEFINITION.
If there is any debate, it must be on why nobody in the theater could shoot back.
That's a great description. I prefer to think of them as urban elitists, because what really distinguishes them from real Americans is that their urban existence has insulated them from how the outside world really works.
I'm no fan of Krauthammer on many, many issues but he's a very smart guy who often lays out a very cogent and conservative viewpoint on issues of substance. Even when I disagree with him vehemently I find it hard to dislike him.
Likewise, he wouldn't say the Republicans were wrong, even if they didn't agree with him. Weaselly, yes.
Thank you for bringing up the issue that REALLY matters!
They came to that battle of wits unarmed.
That's a really good point, and one that contemporary writers would find compelling, I think, if so many of them weren't preoccupied with trying to manipulate masses of voters pro bono the Prog Cabal, which many of them -- like Doris Kearns Goodwin, whom I am beginning to think about nominating for a bronze statue as the all-time hallmark Liberal Drooling Idiot, still apparently think of as an urban goodies-delivery cooperative, rather than as a slavery cartel.
I found an example of an excellent urban-elitist rant in Commentary, here:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/why-jews-hate-palin-15323
Before I read the article and chased links to many, many comments on Jewish-themed websites, I had no idea the depth of the aversion to everything we call "American". Former Bush writer David Frum commented (big super-RiNO), as did a website called Jewschool.com, whose comments were largely ethical and not overly prejudiced. The views expressed limn a fair outline of the "Red/Blue" schism in society, and explain the sharp demarc in U.S. voting patterns.
The animus displayed in the Commentary article and scholiae and commentaries appended thereto, reflect one POV that is Jewish, but I think is more widely attributable to "urban East Coast" elites and their control of media and academe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.