Third presidential debate

[Nai_Calus]

Well, what did you all think?

Obama finally managed to sell me on himself after I already voted for him, rofl. (Absentee, so my ballot already got mailed in this past Saturday)

McCain proved to be hopelessly nervous and fidgety in his reactions to things, some of the views he espoused frankly scared the living bejesus out of me(Mother's health is a' extreme pro-abortion' viewpoint? EXCUSE ME?), and he proved to be massively out of touch - Equality of schools? What county does he fucking live in? I went to two different high schools, one of them a California school in a poor hispanic/african-american community, and one in a rich nearly exclusively white community in North Carolina. The difference between these schools and the opportunities they were able to provide and the teachers and the textbooks and EVERYTHING was MASSIVE. Just... Holy shit, do we live in the same fucking country, McCain?

McCain talked housing, Obama talked jobs. I'm a lot more interested in jobs, thanks, I need one, I'd like to keep my car, the fuck with housing. Obama shares my views on abortion and on Roe v. Wade and instead of dodging the issue and providing some half-response like so many people do brought it out in the open and talked about it in detail, something that I personally was really glad to hear.

So yeah, between McCain's nervous morse-code blinking, clenched forehead, eyebrow acrobatics and goodjobgoodjobgoodjob; his scary as living shit views and his complete failure to be in touch with anything I give a damn about, I'm now even more against him than I was in the first place. I don't want this scary bigoted scaremongerer who's freaking out at a bloody debate in office. And Obama's stances and ideas and the calm, collected image he was able to maintain and present made him come across as someone who, while I'm still not completely won and do still have some reservations, I can at least feel somewhat OK with having as the president. Biden got me to vote for his ticket in the VP debate, and then tonight Obama reinforced that with me.

Though I really wish BOTH of them would have shut the hell up about Joe The Plumber. It was old by the end of the first time it was mentioned.

[Solstis]

McCain did better throughout the majority of the debate, but petered off into "cranky old man" territory by the end. I was impressed, at first, but he wore on me after a while.

Note: I also missed part of the debate to catch the Project Runway finale. Priorities!

[Dangerous55]

Didn't watch.

Phillies beat the Dodgers to go to the World Series. Yes.

[Kamica]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao5V66m5FaA

[The_Gio]

I think Obama did his job. Mccain kept staying on the subject of taxes "nooo, we who have enough to spare shouldnt! we like our money!" and trying to bring out the fact that Obama knew(not knows) people who aren't really the most reputable for a president. I've been pretty neutral up to this point, and just see Obama completely win on all the debates since at least he answers the dam questions instead of trying to bring down the competition, I mean McCain was saying that Obamas messages have been negative? if i recall...McCain was the first one to start talking trash through his ads, all I would see in Obamas ads are what he plans to do and wouldn't even mention McCain, least in the first ads I saw of these guys. Obamas got my support :D

I also found that joe the plumber thing weird, i mean i know its supposed to represent the common small business american, but they gave him a last name and all that too lol

I dont get it why people post here if they didnt even see it tho

[Zantra]

I was watching South Park, and some Adult Swim.

[Kent]

I was watching South Park, and some Adult Swim.
In a general sense, this is basically always better than watching a debate between, say, a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

[Sharkyland]

I was asleep work apparently is killing me. :/

[Omega_Weltall]

Dukakis 08!!! eh once again they are the reason i vote libertarian

[Outrider]

Clearly, Joe the Plumber won the debate.

I thought they both did fairly well, I think that Obama kind of hit this one out of the park. The way McCain's campaign wants him on the attack is clearly not only weighing heavily on him but on voters as well. I think McCain has done a great job for years, but it disappoints me the kinds of things his campaign has attributed to his name. (C'mon, do you really think McCain thinks Obama is a terrorist? His ads all but say it, but McCain is smarter than that. Palin on the other hand...)

[Omega_Weltall]

Palin is hot :)

[Moo2u]

Clearly, Joe the Plumber won the debate.



Vote Joe in 08!

[Kylie]

McCain did a lot better than he did in the other debates... as expected because the setting seemed more comfortable to him, but I think Obama did a consistent job as well. Personally, McCain won it, but putting personal beliefs aside, it might have been a draw. Still undecided. :-P

[BogusKun]

It has been a long long long long long time since I been here... but this is also where I pretty much left off 4 years ago as the supporter for John Kerry and his interests in Space Exploration... I mean in the past Presidents in the United States such as ummm.... John F Kennedy amazed us with his idea on the Space Race... unfortunately these days more money is spent on the war and purchase of oil more than anything else... why?

Consumer-ship... this is a consumer nation and that's all we're built on. Those who live on the foundations of Federalism and understand it's true secrets shall succeed... we're trying to find our Best Friend... in a President. One to help the common man realize this.

Success is not for everyone... and I'm sure everyone here wants to live a worry-free life and challenge and experience other things rather than struggle to pay bills. We all want attention sometime.

What Obama dreams of... is only a dream. It will remain a dream. And with these fantastic online/TV/other media polls going around appraising him and glorifying him as the clear winner of this so called "14% lead over McCain"... is not the reality of the people who true plan to vote for him.

Does it matter that we who are registered to vote... Vote? Does it matter that your vote will only influence the Electoral College, though not always or fully, though it is up to them entirely on the Big Seat in the House... and not you? Because the general population is only driven to cast toward the popular vote.

These famous and rich people who say Vote Obama... don't truely influence the vote for Presidency... but it will reflect something... who the people want.


It's not all about that. haha... and let me tell you suckers why...

Well, according to historical findings... the Federal Government was created to look after the well-being of those who... CREATED IT. Not the Poor or the General People and Society, but those diplomats and politicians who created it... creating the standards in the house. They created laws and the double jeopardy system to help back them up...? Sounds Fishy?

Let me get to the point...

McCain may have lost the popular media polls and whatnots open to ALL PUBLIC...

Read closely... ALL PUBLIC POLLS... there are no restriction. 1 person can cast as many votes, one not registered... someone who is too young to vote... foreigners who are just playing childrens games just to up the percentages for Obama.

I mean I'm not racist or anything but I can say this... there are people out there who WON'T and WILL NOT vote Obama regardless because of who he is on the outside?

I can't tell you who I am voting for... but to think... think about how YOU WILL LIVE YOUR LIFE.

Don't let a President decide your future, you decide your own.

Thanks and good night!

~boguskun ;)

[Outrider]

I'm not entirely following you, but you do understand that most of the polls the media outlets have been referring to are actually privately operated polls. These types of presidential polls are conducted by polling groups who actually call people one by one. It's, uh... it's very unlikely anybody is going to be voting more than once in these situations.

[The_Gio]

What Obama dreams of... is only a dream. It will remain a dream.


only thing i can honestly say of this is, it may be only a dream, but at least its worth a shot. Like he says himself, how can you expect to get different results from doing the same things? im not a rabid Obama supporter, but really...in my opinion, if your voting for McCain, its would seem more like fear of change rather than support

that or your rich...yeah this country was funded by the rich back then, but to me, its the people who they were funding who made things happen. Money doesnt build, people do. Without people, you have no one to pay to do things for you

the only people who listen to celebrities btw are people who cant decide for themselves. To me personally, whenever a celebrity gets involved, its all ruined and turns into a publicity stunt more than what it is...erhm...vote or die...lol thats so stupid. Celebrities should just keep to themselves

[seph_monkey]

this debate was alright i have a hard time listening to McCain cause its always something on Obama with a mixture of what his plan is which i dont have a problem with but didnt seem too necessary cause it seems pretty hard to knock Obama off his game, he always just counters him and says his own plan. which personally makes McCain seem like an ass to me but eh he is competing what do you want him to do.

also i dont know if McCain does think Obama is a terrorist but thats not what they were talking about, they were talking about the stupid people who show up to McCains Rallys and what not that spout out things like that.

Obama's plan may seem like a "Dream" but thats how things change with someone thinking out side the box, plus Americans biggest slogan is "The American Dream" which is how this country was pretty much brought up. so its not too abnormal for something like that to happen in this country.

Man there is NOTHING on tv thats good now a days in my opinion

[Aorre]

I'm watching it on the SNL special now. It's more fun that way.

[Dangerous55]

only thing i can honestly say of this is, it may be only a dream, but at least its worth a shot. Like he says himself, how can you expect to get different results from doing the same things? im not a rabid Obama supporter, but really...in my opinion, if your voting for McCain, its would seem more like fear of change rather than support

that or your rich...yeah this country was funded by the rich back then, but to me, its the people who they were funding who made things happen. Money doesnt build, people do. Without people, you have no one to pay to things for you

the only people who listen to celebrities btw are people who cant decide for themselves. To me personally, whenever a celebrity gets involved, its all ruined and turns into a publicity stunt more than what it is...erhm...vote or die...lol thats so stupid. Celebrities should just keep to themselves



Obama's dream is not a good dream. Worth a shot? If you want this country a socialist country horribly tied down to the UN and other nations(moreso than it already is!), then go for it.

Spread the wealth around? Karl Marx, anyone? They both suck. Vote third party.

[Omega_Weltall]

Spread the wealth around? Karl Marx, anyone? They both suck. Vote third party.



This.

[thematesV2]

I find it funny that everyone is shouting against marx and socialism when the biggest act of the last few weeks has been the bailout, which everyone (non-lawmakers) were shouting against, and they passed it. that bailout bill was also socialist in nature wasn't it? and seriously, correct me if i'm wrong, i do have a slightly foggy memory of high school social studies, as art college removes any serious study of social structures.

anyhow, if thats based in socialist action, why did the govt (lawmakers) pass it if socialism is so bad for us, or perhaps the lawmakers are not looking at our best interest.

perhaps we have become so shut out of worldly views (non-capitalistic democratic) that we see all else as evil. there are tons of countries who may not be as rich, but have a much lower crime and violence rate then we do, and a much better health system than we do who are not specifically democratic.

i'm all for us staying a democracy (or democratic republic), but i'm also all for having some restrictions on who can spend money in what ways. and who can run for political office.

I didn't catch much of the debate, but the first 10 or so minutes I caught were dumb. sure, I can re-late to Joe the Plumber.... in one way, he's a normal person... but the fact that he wan't to buy the company he works for? if he buys the company, and the company is bringing in over 250k in overhead, then yes, I think they can afford to get their taxes raised.

think of it like this.

if joe the plumber is making more than 250k(I know thats not where those taxes are going to, but for example) he has no worries about feeding his kids and buying healthcare. as a real example, my brother has a family of four, a wife and two kids. He has a college degree, and has worked for a major university, spend time in the Air Force, and does quite a bit of independant work with community and visual art organizations. he works very hard and has experience and a great skillset. he cannot afford healthcare for his family and cannot find a permanent job right now.

now where in peoples right mind does it sound fair that these two people in completely different economic scales should pay taxes and or have their taxed raised or lowered based on the same scale?

so if joe the plumber can afford to buy the company he worked for in the economic situation we're in right now, he can afford to pay higher taxes to fund such projects as the war on terror (a joke), and the bailout (another joke.)

[Outrider]

Spread the wealth around? Karl Marx, anyone? They both suck. Vote third party.

What if I chose to vote for the Socialist party?

[thematesV2]

i guess mr joe the plumber has to worry about the same things as my bro, the choice between

a. going into debt by going to the emergency room when pretty sick because with all the added costs it could cost him upwards of $1000 or more after all is said and done, and he doesn't have an extra 1k around to spend, and going into debt could lead to more debt which could spiral....

b. not going to the hospital and possibly ending up with a permanent health condition or permanent damage done to his health/body which could lead to more trips to the hospital.

or the choice between health coverage and affording enough food for his family of four.

my impression is that those are much more important issues than whether or not mr. joe the plumber is able to have some money left over after buying the american dream...

life before luxury. I understand that the gov could solve some of these issues by way of universal health care (i.e. canada, they are not evil socialists or communists last time i checked) or by way of not going into a decade long war every 15 years (canada again)

want to talk about not raising taxes? why don't we not go into a war that will cost us 5-10 billion a month?

nice outrider

I agree.

isn't there an Anarchy Party. (I remember hearing something about them, and always wondered how they even organized for meetings/rallys....)

[Blitzkommando]

Obama does have a dream. And for anyone who pays taxes it's a nightmare. Repealing the Bush tax cuts means a tax increase to everyone, on top of the other increases he promises to make. But, hey, if you think you're not 'patriotic' enough (to borrow a word from Biden) in paying 25% taxes on anything over $32k a year (which by the way would return to 28% after a repeal), then by all means 'hope' for him to win and increase your level of 'patriotism.' Admittedly, he'd need to have massive tax hikes due to his New Deal Part 3 (Part 2 being The Great Society of course).

[Ketchup345]

I have yet to see the debate, but will watch soon and either edit in or post a new reply on my thoughts.

Those saying Obama will make this country socialistic:
[Citation Needed]

I have not seen anything where the government will take control of production under Obama.

And if socialist policies are so bad, why do countries with socialized health care have lower per person costs than the US?
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/healthcare/healthcare_profiles.html

I'm thinking of voting 3rd party down the line, especially since I am in one of the unchallenged states.

[Dangerous55]

What if I chose to vote for the Socialist party?

You just blew my mind. But hey, you could argue that voting for them is better than voting Republican or Democrat...at least you must have realized the Dems and Republicans suck.

Whoever was talking about the bailout as socialism, it is. It shouldn't have passed, who passed it? Dems and Republicans.

Ketchup, if socialized health care is working in those countries, I don't know. But it won't work here. Our country is huge, flooded with people are on/off the books, varying state governments, etc. Did I mention the country is fucking huge? Won't work here.

Socialist policies are bad, the USSR was a self-described socialist state. What a beacon of freedom and compassion that entity was.

I'm not saying Obama is going to control the means of production or outlaw guns or make us full fledged socialist bordering on communism...but one thing leads to another, then to another, then to another, before we know it in 20 years I'll be Comrade Dangerous55(I hope I'm not on here in 20 years).

[Outrider]

Obama does have a dream. And for anyone who pays taxes it's a nightmare. Repealing the Bush tax cuts means a tax increase to everyone, on top of the other increases he promises to make. But, hey, if you think you're not 'patriotic' enough (to borrow a word from Biden) in paying 25% taxes on anything over $32k a year (which by the way would return to 28% after a repeal), then by all means 'hope' for him to win and increase your level of 'patriotism.' Admittedly, he'd need to have massive tax hikes due to his New Deal Part 3 (Part 2 being The Great Society of course).

Yeah, I, uh... I would check over some of that again if I were you. You're using a tad too much hyperbole. Here's a nice collection for checking both candidates: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/fact-check/



Ketchup, if socialized health care is working in those countries, I don't know. But it won't work here. Our country is huge, flooded with people are on/off the books, varying state governments, etc. Did I mention the country is fucking huge? Won't work here.

Socialist policies are bad, the USSR was a self-described socialist state. What a beacon of freedom and compassion that entity was.

I'm not saying Obama is going to control the means of production or outlaw guns or make us full fledged socialist bordering on communism...but one thing leads to another, then to another, then to another, before we know it in 20 years I'll be Comrade Dangerous55(I hope I'm not on here in 20 years).

I think the first thing I should point out is that Russia was never a communist or socialist state. That is what they were referred to and what they referred to themselves, but they never actually achieved that status, mostly due to the fundamental difficulties that come from a massive group of people working completely together in that form of government. At their core, these types of government are "workable utopias," so I would argue that they're pretty much impossible to create in full-scale, real world situations. There's nothing that makes socialism or communism inherently evil. In reality, there's no real example of them that hasn't combined forms of fascism, dictatorships, republics, etc.

The other thing I would say is that while I can't see socialized health care working in the US at any point in the near future, looking ten or fifteen years out I wouldn't be surprised to see us adopt a system similar to many other countries. I'm not quite sure how the size of our nation should affect the plan all that much - are you referring to both geographic size and population size? For both of those, I would refer to the many governmental infrastructures that we have in place that work just fine. I'm not saying that's guaranteed proof, but I think it should prevent out-right dismissal.

[Dangerous55]

I think the first thing I should point out is that Russia was never a communist or socialist state. That is what they were referred to and what they referred to themselves, but they never actually achieved that status, mostly due to the fundamental difficulties that come from a massive group of people working completely together in that form of government. At their core, these types of government are "workable utopias," so I would argue that they're pretty much impossible to create in full-scale, real world situations. There's nothing that makes socialism or communism inherently evil. In reality, there's no real example of them that hasn't combined forms of fascism, dictatorships, republics, etc.

The other thing I would say is that while I can't see socialized health care working in the US at any point in the near future, looking ten or fifteen years out I wouldn't be surprised to see us adopt a system similar to many other countries. I'm not quite sure how the size of our nation should affect the plan all that much - are you referring to both geographic size and population size? For both of those, I would refer to the many governmental infrastructures that we have in place that work just fine. I'm not saying that's guaranteed proof, but I think it should prevent out-right dismissal.


I'm well aware of that. It won't be any different it. Obama supports a big government, gun control, and socialist policies, among other things of this vein. All of which were elements of some of our fantastic dictatorships throughout the 20th Century.

[Leviathan]

What's with "Obama is a socialist" crap.
You sound like my AP Worl History teacher from last year.
I don't know guys, but I did hear someone yell in a McCain rally to "Get that Karl Marx outta here!"
Nothing about Obama. (:

I really liked how on CNN had the chart of men v. women. They varied so often, &sometimes they would agree. McCain looked to be having a tougher time getting a good reception whereas Obama just did hsi thing. He's a wonderful public speaker.

Good debate. I liked this one the best.
Reform+change mentioned: 15 times.
Joe the Plumber mentioned: 25 times.

[Outrider]

I'm well aware of that. It won't be any different it. Obama supports a big government, gun control, and socialist policies, among other things of this vein. All of which were elements of some of our fantastic dictatorships throughout the 20th Century.

Just curious - what do you think of the way Canada runs their government? They certainly have stricter gun laws than us and more "socialist" policies like universal healthcare.

[Dangerous55]

Just curious - what do you think of the way Canada runs their government? They certainly have stricter gun laws than us and more "socialist" policies like universal healthcare.

I'm glad I don't live there. The place is gorgeous and the people are great but I don't like the government.

[Outrider]

I'm glad I don't live there. The place is gorgeous and the people are great but I don't like the government.

Yes, but well, barring the nuttiness going on with the recent election call, it's a pretty stable and successful country, isn't it?

[The_Gio]

I love canada, I think they have the right idea over there. If I wanted to move, itd be there. So why dont I? cuz i still have things to do here in America

I can get freedom, but if you want freedom to shoot things or to commit stupid things that only hurt shit around you, thats not really freedom, thats just wanting the ability to do whatever you want.

i prefer gun control over people shooting everywhere. All it does is kill things: people and animals. I think killing anything with a gun is cowardice. If its for self protection, you should be able to take care of yourself without overpowering with a gun. If you really want it to be "man vs nature" when hunting, try killing the animal with a knife? see how that turns out

I remember hearing this somewhere, without order there would be chaos, and that is true but the problem nowadays, is were getting laws for the wrong things. In example, one thing I really am against is censorship. To me censorship is just lying to the person your trying to protect, protect them from what? from what happens everywhere, everyday?

[Dangerous55]

Yes, but well, barring the nuttiness going on with the recent election call, it's a pretty stable and successful country, isn't it?

Your point? The Soviet Union was stable and successful for awhile.

[McLaughlin]

Just out of curiosity, what's the argument for loose gun control being better than strict gun control?

I don't understand why you're so against giving something new a try. What you've been doing these last eight years clearly hasn't worked. Why so xenophobic?

[Adriano]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tajFPqKoJY

[Dangerous55]

Just out of curiosity, what's the argument for loose gun control being better than strict gun control?

Uh.

The Holocaust?



I don't understand why you're so against giving something new a try.

Seriously? When I say "Vote 3rd party", I don't want to try something new? I do. Just not Obama, he is just your standard politician and I wish people could see through him.



What you've been doing these last eight years clearly hasn't worked. Why so xenophobic?

Xenophobic? How is not supporting Obama xenophobic?

It goes beyond 8 years pal. The US government has gotten waaay too large and waaay to powerful over everyday lives, that didn't happen over the last 8 years only.

[McLaughlin]

I fail to see how loose gun control would have prevented the holocaust.

[Dangerous55]

I fail to see how loose gun control would have prevented the holocaust.

It probably wouldn't have 100%, but it would have made it much, much harder. Would the Holocaust have happened if every victim had a rifle?

You really don't understand why people want loose gun control? I find that hard to believe. You really trust government that much? It is being paranoid, it just being smart. I use my firearms in peaceful ways, never harmed anyone, where does the government get the right to say I can't have certain firearms or features?

http://www.a-human-right.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_monopoly.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/panther_s.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_racist.jpg

Say you were at that mall shooting a few months ago, going to EB. Who would rather have with you? Me or the president of Handgun Control?

[McLaughlin]

The government hasn't shown me I've misplaced my trust yet. Haven't had a problem, and gun violence is almost non-existent here. :/

Again, a new approach might not be a bad thing.

[Leviathan]

My level of familiarity with firearms is:
I am ignorant of how they function.

-.-
Where is the "I don't know anything about guns."
Doesn't mean were all ignorant.

[Aisha379]

Just out of curiosity, what's the argument for loose gun control being better than strict gun control?

Why do you think no one F's with Switzerland?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

(specifically, the opening paragraph and "Gun Crime".

[Dangerous55]

The government hasn't shown me I've misplaced my trust yet. Haven't had a problem, and gun violence is almost non-existent here. :/

Again, a new approach might not be a bad thing.


It doesn't matter if you have had a problem or not. History has shown gun control is not a good thing and that it doesn't work.

Gun control is not a "new approach".

And you never answered my question.



-.-
Where is the "I don't know anything about guns."
Doesn't mean were all ignorant.


That is what ignorant means. Lack of knowledge.

[Leviathan]

Sounds more harsh.
Would be better tol say "I don't know anything"
Just me...

[McLaughlin]

I would argue that the government is supposed to act in the public's best interest, and if the public has shown it can't be responsible with firearms, then I believe the government has the right to restrict access to them.

But like I said, I've only ever dealt with this method, and I haven't had any problems with it, so maybe I'm just not seeing the flip side of the coin.

[Dangerous55]

I would argue that the government is supposed to act in the public's best interest, and if the public has shown it can't be responsible with firearms, then I believe the government has the right to restrict access to them.

But like I said, I've only ever dealt with this method, and I haven't had any problems with it, so maybe I'm just not seeing the flip side of the coin.

The government is not our masters, at least not in this country. They don't have rights to limit them, none of it is about protecting people. It is about power. That picture about how gun control has roots in oppressing blacks isn't BS. It is history, and you know what they say about history. Further, throughout history governments have shown us THEY can't be responsible with firearms(Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc etc etc). I don't mean starting wars, but brutally oppressing the population systematically. It starts with gun control, why should we allow it in my country or your country?

Also, IT DOESN'T WORK. Criminals find the guns anyway, when I walk through Philly if someone robs me I'll bet you that is an illegal gun to begin with. Implement all the gun control you want it will only keep the guns out of the hands of people who obey the law.

What I'm about to say is going to sound mean, but don't take it like that. You seem to have been raised with the idea the government or some authority is going to protect and save you. It can't, even if it wanted too it would be impossible to protect you 24/7.

Read this link for the flip side.

http://www.a-human-right.com/faq.html

[seph_monkey]

the only reason i cant say Canada is great because ive never been there, the only reason im in America is because like many other people, The whole American Dream thing which is true and am living proof of it hahaha and i think america is great. BUT the thing i dont like about it is that the people here are asses.

I think a tighter gun control sounds like a great idea because you should be able to defend your self in other ways then just pulling a trigger, and i think hunting is just dumb. guns in general are just weak. (weak as in the people who use em)
least thats how i see it.


Uh.

The Holocaust?



uh. no

the nazis basically earned, the people they "invaded", trust. thats how they got to live in there homes for some time then told them they were taking them to a safer place. they also had to leave every single thing they had behind except the clothes on there backs. im pretty sure they wouldnt let them take a freakin rifle with them

you should read the book "NIGHT" by Elie Wiesel

also Dangerous 55
if you think every politician will be exacly the same then just dont vote

[Shadowpawn]

Since this topic is about the presidential candidates I think I'll leave this right here: It's about Colin Powell's decision to back Obama.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LbLxja4UHY&feature=user

[Dangerous55]

the only reason i cant say Canada is great because ive never been there, the only reason im in America is because like many other people, The whole American Dream thing which is true and am living proof of it hahaha and i think america is great. BUT the thing i dont like about it is that the people here are asses.

Asses everywhere.


I think a tighter gun control sounds like a great idea because you should be able to defend your self in other ways then just pulling a trigger,


Gun control is not about protection.



and i think hunting is just dumb.
Then you clearly don't know dick about it or why people do it.


guns in general are just weak. (weak as in the people who use em)
least thats how i see it.

Guns are inanimate objects. I use guns, why am I weak?

Do this:
http://a-human-right.com/




uh. no

the nazis basically earned the people the "invaded" trust. thats how they got to live in there homes for some time then told them they were taking them to a safer place. they also had to leave every single thing they had behind except the clothes on there backs. im pretty sure they wouldnt let them take a freakin rifle with them

They didn't just do it to people they invaded. Heres a thought, when the military comes and makes you leave your home with only things you can carry, pretty good time to use that rifle don't you think?

The Jews clung to the belief of German benevolence. Many groups believed fighting back would result in more deaths, that the Germans could kill 30 or 40 thousand but never all of them. They figured they WOULD kill all of them if they fought back. It didn't work out that way.


you should read the book "NIGHT" by Elie Wiesel

I should. I should read everything, and so should you. The Bible, PETA article, Mein Kampf, Ginsberg. Everything.


also Dangerous 55
if you think every politician will be exacly the same then just dont vote

VOTE. THIRD. PARTY. How many times do I have to say it? The politicians who will be "exacly the same" are the men and women with R and D by their name.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfObDFVnfp0

Watch all parts. It is good.

[Ketchup345]

I'll agree with Dangerous55 on the need for guns for citizens. Various prohibition type things don't work: guns, drugs, or alcohol.
Honestly though, I really don't think gun control is going to change much (if at all). Why do I think this? Because of District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290. I don't think this will get overturned anytime soon, especially as long as Roberts is Chief Justice. Remember Roberts was just appointed in 2005 and is pretty young.


Ketchup, if socialized health care is working in those countries, I don't know. But it won't work here. Our country is huge, flooded with people are on/off the books, varying state governments, etc. Did I mention the country is fucking huge? Won't work here.Show me proof that no type of socialized health will work here. A national health care system would fix the many state problem. Hospitals already are required to give some medical treatment, the method of payment is the problem, we could find a system that only applies to legal immigrants and citizens. Large population can be handled with proper planning, coverage, payments, and method of enacting the plan.


I'm not saying Obama is going to control the means of production or outlaw guns or make us full fledged socialist bordering on communism...but one thing leads to another, then to another, then to another, before we know it in 20 years I'll be Comrade Dangerous55(I hope I'm not on here in 20 years).Besides gun control which I pointed out above don't think will change much, what "socialist" policies will he enact and how will they be bad for the country and lead on to other worse things?


Your point? The Soviet Union was stable and successful for awhile.I think comparing Canada to the Soviet Union is quite a poor comparison. Besides a few things being socialized, what makes you think you can directly compare Canada to the Soviet Union? One was involved in a decades long arms race with much of the developed world against it, had no true elections (no choice), and had one major party. The other was on the winning side of that arms race, holds elections with 5 "major" parties participating, and has the current Parliament have less than 50% of the party the Prime Minister is. Canada also doesn't have the trade blocks that the Soviet Union had during the Cold War.

[McLaughlin]

What I'm about to say is going to sound mean, but don't take it like that. You seem to have been raised with the idea the government or some authority is going to protect and save you. It can't, even if it wanted too it would be impossible to protect you 24/7.

Didn't really sound mean.

I wasn't really raised with the notion of "Government is good, government is great. I surrender my will, as of this date," but like I said before; we have stricter gun laws here and we have less gun crimes per capita than the States (I believe).

I understand where you're coming from, but I'm from an area where it appears to work, so I can't relate.

[Dangerous55]

I'll agree with Dangerous55 on the need for guns for citizens. Various prohibition type things don't work: guns, drugs, or alcohol.
Honestly though, I really don't think gun control is going to change much (if at all). Why do I think this? Because of District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290. I don't think this will get overturned anytime soon, especially as long as Roberts is Chief Justice. Remember Roberts was just appointed in 2005 and is pretty young.


They already want to renew the AWB ban of 1994 that did nothing. Obama has a proven record of voting for gun control laws in the Illinois State Senate. If he gets a majority in Congress there is no telling what can happen. Remember, he has 4 years.




Show me proof that no type of socialized health will work here. A national health care system would fix the many state problem. Hospitals already are required to give some medical treatment, the method of payment is the problem, we could find a system that only applies to legal immigrants and citizens. Large population can be handled with proper planning, coverage, payments, and method of enacting the plan.

As you hinted, there already is a form of national health care. If people come to a hospital, they get treated if the reason is things like stabbings, accidents, etc etc. Payment is decided later, that is one of the worst forms of it.
Can a large comprehensive plan work? Maybe, but I doubt it. I can't offer proof and you can't offer proof that it WILL work. All I can cite is the track record of our government. FEMA after Katrina, Social Security, etc etc. Have these things worked? Look at the wait times in these countries. Why Belinda Stronach of Canadian Parliament come here for surgery? There are many instances of Canadians coming here to escape wait times.

I'm kind of a little shakey on this issue. I believe that THIS government we have can't have a working form of nationalized health care. Under a cleaner, smaller, better working government there could be something that leave choice to me and covers certain issues. Sure that is what Obama says he wants, but I don't believe that is the end or, as I said, it will work with this government.


What it boils down to is I can't give this government any more power, it hasn't earned it. When we talk about any of these large plans our government is planning for us I get leery.


Besides gun control which I pointed out above don't think will change much, what "socialist" policies will he enact and how will they be bad for the country and lead on to other worse things?

Massive spending projects, while not socialist only, won't be good for this country.

Obama's Global Poverty bill is silly. Throwing money at poverty won't do anything.

His tax policy, which he said is designed to "spread the wealth around".

How much more stuff do you need? I mean I can find plenty of articles on this stuff if you'd like.

As I have said before, Obama won't take this country to full fledged socialism. It is just a step in that direction, a pretty big one though.





I think comparing Canada to the Soviet Union is quite a poor comparison. Besides a few things being socialized, what makes you think you can directly compare Canada to the Soviet Union? One was involved in a decades long arms race with much of the developed world against it, had no true elections (no choice), and had one major party. The other was on the winning side of that arms race, holds elections with 5 "major" parties participating, and has the current Parliament have less than 50% of the party the Prime Minister is. Canada also doesn't have the trade blocks that the Soviet Union had during the Cold War.

I am not comparing them anymore than they are or once have been stable and successful. He said Canada is stable and successful, I said the USSR was too at one point. I just wouldn't want to live there. I meant that you can't just say because a country is stable and successful that it is an ideal place to live or whatever we are talking about here.


Knight, I understand what you mean. Start using guns as a hobby, or to hunt, or actual self defense, then you'll see what I mean.

[The_Gio]

Knight, I understand what you mean. Start using guns as a hobby, or to hunt, or actual self defense, then you'll see what I mean.

this is the only thing that caught my attention. Like I said in my other post and is just proving me right. So the person attacking you has a gun? and you attack them back with a gun, yeah that really shows them, letting them know you had a gun prepared in case of anything. shoot to kill. thats all I think of guns, anyone on the otherside of that gun will probably die, animal or human and i never heard of anyone shooting cans for a profession, only for practice aim. Practice aim for what? to shoot something. I personally dont think anyone deserves to die. Severely beaten maybe, or jailed for life probably.

I've been mugged and jumped. Yeah it hurt, but im still here and i dont regret anything about not having a gun or a knife. I feel like they should have their ass beaten for assaulting random people. But not put to die. Only reason arguable to me is if someone literally went on a killing spree, then they do deserve to be die since they keep taking other lives, and the only reason i think a massive killing spree is possible is either running alot of people over with a car or with a GUN. You never heard of anyone going crazy cracking peoples necks or punching :D.

[Nitro Vordex]

Shoot to protect, not to kill.

You have every right to shoot someone if they shoot at you. They had just better make sure they get the first hit.

[Dangerous55]

this is the only thing that caught my attention. Like I said in my other post and is just proving me right. So the person attacking you has a gun? and you attack them back with a gun, yeah that really shows them, letting them know you had a gun prepared in case of anything. shoot to kill. thats all I think of guns, anyone on the otherside of that gun will probably die, animal or human and i never heard of anyone shooting cans for a profession, only for practice aim. Practice aim for what? to shoot something. I personally dont think anyone deserves to die. Severely beaten maybe, or jailed for life probably.

I've been mugged, and i dont regret anything about not having a gun or a knife. I feel like they should have their ass beaten for assaulting random people. But not put to die. Only reason arguable to me is if someone literally went on a killing spree, then they do deserve to be die since they keep taking other lives, and the only reason i think a massive killing spree is possible is either running alot of people over with a car or with a GUN. You never heard of anyone going crazy cracking peoples necks or punching :D.


When you have any training with firearms you are taught to shoot to STOP THE THREAT. Not to kill, not to wound, just stop the threat. If the person dies, then they die. They put themselves in that position, not you. Nobody deserves to die, but if they want to try and kill me or my family, then I am going to stop them.

Why do I "practice aim"? Various reasons, it interests me for one. I study history and military history. I have all sorts of examples from every corner of the earth. They allow you to live and study history. You appreciate it more.

For defense from various things. The world is crazy. Criminals will always have guns. I have one life. Why not level the playing field?And again, I'm a student of history.

Hunting. Ever have wild venison? It is delicious and far better for you than processed shit.

You would really rather be shot at Virginia Tech or one of the other massacres rather than have a shot at killing the attacker? I doubt it.

Killing sprees aren't possible without a car or a gun? What about the Oklahoma City Bombing that used household stuff to kill hundreds. What about 9/11? Suicide bombers? What about the Osaka school attack in which the guy only used a kitchen knife?

[The_Gio]

When you have any training with firearms you are taught to shoot to STOP THE THREAT. Not to kill, not to wound, just stop the threat. If the person dies, then they die. They put themselves in that position, not you. Nobody deserves to die, but if they want to try and kill me or my family, then I am going to stop them.

Killing sprees aren't possible without a car or a gun? What about the Oklahoma City Bombing that used household stuff to kill hundreds. What about 9/11? Suicide bombers? What about the Osaka school attack in which the guy only used a kitchen knife?

Not everyone who has a gun, are trained to stop the threat. I do agree with protecting your family, but I mean you should have more than enough adrenaline and strength running through you to use necessary force to bring someone down.

Killing sprees arent possible without a car or a gun, what your talking about are things out of the hands of a single person anyway. If you want to take a shot at a guy running to explode, be my guest, but even if you do shoot him down, he planned to die from the explosion anyway so hes gonna explode dead or alive. Guns dont defuse bombs lol...

ANYWAY...look...i can see your reasoning as to why you state what you state. The last thing i want is causing this post of the presidential debate to devalue to some stupid argument. That happens too much on the posts i reply to and im tired of it lol. So yeah...ill just stop posting now on this now...

[Ketchup345]

They already want to renew the AWB ban of 1994 that did nothing. Obama has a proven record of voting for gun control laws in the Illinois State Senate. If he gets a majority in Congress there is no telling what can happen. Remember, he has 4 years.With the current court, this might be an interesting issue to have brought up.

Also, there are differences in the Democratic party. When it comes to guns, some Democrats, especially from certain parts of the country have a pro-gun record. Example: Jim Webb (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/28/AR2006102800911_pf.html): A rating from NRA (very last line). Mark Warner (http://www.nrapvf.org/elections/State.aspx?State=VA#PRESIDENT/VICE%20PRESIDENT) (D-VA) is running for Senate this year, and also received an A from the NRA. NRA giving endorsements (http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/State.aspx?y=2008&State=WV) to 2/3 WV Democratic candidates with A or better rating. A+ for a Montana incumbent Democrat (http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/State.aspx?y=2008&State=MT). In order to expand their numbers, the Democrats are selecting some more pro-gun people to run in states where the gun issue is bigger than other parts of the country. I don't think the anti-gun Democrats will be able to break 60 (my favorite election predicting site is showing likely 57 Democrats, 2 Independents that usually side with Democrats, and 41 Republicans; so even the total number of Democrats won't break 60 by my bets).


As you hinted, there already is a form of national health care. If people come to a hospital, they get treated if the reason is things like stabbings, accidents, etc etc. Payment is decided later, that is one of the worst forms of it.
Can a large comprehensive plan work? Maybe, but I doubt it. I can't offer proof and you can't offer proof that it WILL work. All I can cite is the track record of our government. FEMA after Katrina, Social Security, etc etc. Have these things worked? Look at the wait times in these countries. Why Belinda Stronach of Canadian Parliament come here for surgery? There are many instances of Canadians coming here to escape wait times.

I'm kind of a little shakey on this issue. I believe that THIS government we have can't have a working form of nationalized health care. Under a cleaner, smaller, better working government there could be something that leave choice to me and covers certain issues. Sure that is what Obama says he wants, but I don't believe that is the end or, as I said, it will work with this government.

What it boils down to is I can't give this government any more power, it hasn't earned it. When we talk about any of these large plans our government is planning for us I get leery.Wait times may be a problem, but we're expecting a lack of doctors and nurses already (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/17/eveningnews/main1726479.shtml). My proof is that we know that some decent sized countries have found a plan that works for them, the US could find something that would have some kind of benefit over the current system. Our requirement to provide health care in emergencies is a good start, but once it is provided, it may be devastating for the sick/injured person and their family. Many bankruptcies are the result of medical bills, and even having insurance at the time resulted in bankruptcy (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895896/).

As for Belinda? It was recommended for her to go to California by her doctors, due to that hospital apparently having the best treatment for that type of surgery. Followups were performed in Toronto. The American procedure was paid for by her. Link (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070914/belinda_Stronach_070914/20070914)



Massive spending projects, while not socialist only, won't be good for this country.

Obama's Global Poverty bill is silly. Throwing money at poverty won't do anything.

His tax policy, which he said is designed to "spread the wealth around".Spending by governments can be argued to improve poor economies (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/keynesianeconomics.asp). Page 73 of Obama's Blueprint for Change appears to me to say that some of the money he proposes for the world's poor will go to enhance their health care and provide education.

As for "spreading the wealth around", I don't quite agree with that, but I do think that there are some people who make way too much money they probably don't deserve and can afford to be taxed. Taxation will be required to bring the debt down (over $10trillion (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1850269,00.html)), and the rich are the ones who can afford to pay a bit more in taxes. Tax rates (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:8JaCkyIklK4J:www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%2520Tax%2520Brackets.pdf+1950s+tax+rate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a) for the highest income earners was much higher in the 1950s-1960s than today. I don't understand why CEOs now make 270 times the amount the average worker does, when in 1989 it was less than 100 times the amount of an average worker.



How much more stuff do you need? I mean I can find plenty of articles on this stuff if you'd like.I'd like some articles, on anything to back up points. I (believe I) tend to back up many of my points with links or case #s. I'd like to see more people (this goes for everybody) do the same, especially in political threads.



I am not comparing them anymore than they are or once have been stable and successful. He said Canada is stable and successful, I said the USSR was too at one point. I just wouldn't want to live there. I meant that you can't just say because a country is stable and successful that it is an ideal place to live or whatever we are talking about here.Sorry, at first few readings it didn't sound like that.

[Dangerous55]

With the current court, this might be an interesting issue to have brought up.

Also, there are differences in the Democratic party. When it comes to guns, some Democrats, especially from certain parts of the country have a pro-gun record. Example: Jim Webb (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/28/AR2006102800911_pf.html): A rating from NRA (very last line). Mark Warner (http://www.nrapvf.org/elections/State.aspx?State=VA#PRESIDENT/VICE%20PRESIDENT) (D-VA) is running for Senate this year, and also received an A from the NRA. NRA giving endorsements (http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/State.aspx?y=2008&State=WV) to 2/3 WV Democratic candidates with A or better rating. A+ for a Montana incumbent Democrat (http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/State.aspx?y=2008&State=MT). In order to expand their numbers, the Democrats are selecting some more pro-gun people to run in states where the gun issue is bigger than other parts of the country. I don't think the anti-gun Democrats will be able to break 60 (my favorite election predicting site is showing likely 57 Democrats, 2 Independents that usually side with Democrats, and 41 Republicans; so even the total number of Democrats won't break 60 by my bets).

Yes, the court. Imagine the Judges Obama would put in.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022

The point isn't if Obama can get the votes or not. I don't want to risk having him in there. I'm not saying McCain is any better. Obama is anti-gun. I don't want him in there even if I knew he couldn't get the votes.

http://gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm




Wait times may be a problem, but we're expecting a lack of doctors and nurses already (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/17/eveningnews/main1726479.shtml). My proof is that we know that some decent sized countries have found a plan that works for them, the US could find something that would have some kind of benefit over the current system. Our requirement to provide health care in emergencies is a good start, but once it is provided, it may be devastating for the sick/injured person and their family. Many bankruptcies are the result of medical bills, and even having insurance at the time resulted in bankruptcy (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895896/).

Does it work for them? How many don't like it? As I said, I don't know if you read it, I don't think this government could come up with anything close to a good plan. It has to be completely re-vamped.


As for Belinda? It was recommended for her to go to California, due to that hospital apparently having the best treatment for that type of surgery. Followups were performed in Toronto. The American procedure was paid for by her. Link (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070914/belinda_Stronach_070914/20070914)

So something must be right with our system. How about Audrey Williams? She had to come to the US after a 2 year wait for a hip replacement that never came.



Spending by governments can be argued to improve poor economies (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/keynesianeconomics.asp). Page 73 of Obama's Blueprint for Change appears to me to say that some of the money he proposes for the world's poor will go to enhance their health care and provide education.

We have no money to spend on this. We are bankrupt. He doesn't say HOW he is going to pay for this.


I'd like some articles, on anything to back up points. I (believe I) tend to back up many of my points with links or case #s. I'd like to see more people (this goes for everybody) do the same, especially in political threads.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDVM7ODUBn8

http://www.military-money-matters.com/barack-obamas-stealth-socialism.html

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-international-socialist-connections/

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/world/europe/07teeth.html?ex=1304654400&en=a066e5f718907b88&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss





Not everyone who has a gun, are trained to stop the threat. I do agree with protecting your family, but I mean you should have more than enough adrenaline and strength running through you to use necessary force to bring someone down.

No, not everyone who has a gun has training. I am not advocating mandating that, people should do it themselves if they can't learn on their own.

Adrenaline? Are you serious? My 25 year old sister who is 5'0 and 95 pounds should rely on adrenaline if attacked by a 300 pound guy?

A-fucking-drenaline? Really? Have you ever seen someone pissed off on PCP.

??? What if they have a gun?




Killing sprees arent possible without a car or a gun, what your talking about are things out of the hands of a single person anyway.

Osaka School Massacre. Look it up. One guy, 8 dead. KITCHEN KNIFE. Killing sprees are possible with anything. Suicide bomber, you just need one guy. Remember the unabomber?


If you want to take a shot at a guy running to explode, be my guest, but even if you do shoot him down, he planned to die from the explosion anyway so hes gonna explode dead or alive. Guns dont defuse bombs lol...

LOL NO SHIT.

That isn't the point. I'm just saying you don't only need a gun or car to kill massive amounts of people.


ANYWAY...look...i can see your reasoning as to why you state what you state. The last thing i want is causing this post of the presidential debate to devalue to some stupid argument. That happens too much on the posts i reply to and im tired of it lol. So yeah...ill just stop posting now on this now...

Gun control isn't a stupid argument. Ever hear of Lexington and Concord? It started when British soldiers marched to enforce gun control.

[The_Gio]

No, not everyone who has a gun has training. I am not advocating mandating that, people should do it themselves if they can't learn on their own.

Adrenaline? Are you serious? My 25 year old sister who is 5'0 and 95 pounds should rely on adrenaline if attacked by a 300 pound guy?

A-fucking-drenaline? Really? Have you ever seen someone pissed off on PCP.

??? What if they have a gun?





Osaka School Massacre. Look it up. One guy, 8 dead. KITCHEN KNIFE. Killing sprees are possible with anything. Suicide bomber, you just need one guy. Remember the unabomber?



LOL NO SHIT.

That isn't the point. I'm just saying you don't only need a gun or car to kill massive amounts of people.



Gun control isn't a stupid argument. Ever hear of Lexington and Concord? It started when British soldiers marched to enforce gun control.


i didnt say gun control is a stupid argument, i think its a good enough reason to shout two different ideas at each other. I just know its going to escalate to something else, and thats going to cause it to become stupid so why not just stop and try to prevent it?

so..your 90 pound sister is going to be carrying a gun everywhere she goes? that sounds like paranoia more than protection. if your not that strong there are other ways to defend yourself, mace? pepper spray? a good clean knee to the jewels? from what ive learned, there are certain parts of the body that do not even need strength, only to be hit, to make the person drop down. I am aware not everyone is aware of this type of knowledge, but i mean come on, im pretty sure every person out there knows that the testicles of a man are a very fragile place and unless a 300 hundred pound women comes at you (which you should be able to outrun anyway) then i dont think you need to worry lol

adrenaline, it increases your speed and strength by more than you can imagine, im not talking super power like outrunning a bullet or lifting up a building but it should be enough to get the job done. Just because the other person has a gun, it doesnt make it alright for you to use one.

and that Osaka School Massacre thing, its a school. Do you really expect a kid to stop someone? If it was in a high school, then thats just a failure for someone to try to stop the situation, which has nothing to do with guns anyway cuz no one even tried.

[Dangerous55]

i didnt say gun control is a stupid argument, i think its a good enough reason to shout two different reason at each other. I just know its going to escalate to something else, and thats going to cause it to become stupid so why not just stop and try to prevent it?

Alright alright.


so..your 90 pound sister is going to be carrying a gun everywhere she goes? that sounds like paranoia more than protection.
Ah the classic paranoia argument. No, not everywhere. But if she wants to, she should. It isn't paranoia. Do you wear a seat belt because you are paranoid?


if your not that strong there are other ways to defend yourself, mace? pepper spray? a good clean knee to the jewels? from what ive learned, there are certain parts of the body that do not even need strength, only to be hit, to make the person drop down. I am aware not everyone is aware of this type of knowledge, but i mean come on, im pretty sure every person out there knows that the testicles of a man are a very fragile place and unless a 300 hundred pound women comes at you (which you should be able to outrun) then i dont think you need to worry lol

Those things are very ineffective. Kick to the balls? Are you fucking kidding me? Get real man. Tell her to run? Give me a fucking break. You use the gun as a last resort. If you can run away, then run! I would do the same thing, but if it comes to it, shoot. The gun is a last resort. Why not have one?


adrenaline, it increases your speed and strength by more than you can imagine, im not talking super power like outrunning a bullet or lifting up a building but it should be enough to get the job done. Just because the other person has a gun, it doesnt make it alright for you to use one.

Adrenaline won't do shit in the scenerio I posted. If a person has a gun and is pointing it at you in a way you feel he may maliciously use it you are fine in shooting them.


and that Osaka School Massacre thing, its a school. Do you really expect a kid to stop someone? If it was in a high school, then thats just a failure for someone to try to stop the situation, which has nothing to do with guns anyway cuz no one even tried.

TEACHERS.

And you skipped over the entire fucking point. Did it involve a car or a gun? Was it a massacre? Yuppers.

[The_Gio]

ok lets get rid of adrenaline, any of my arguments...ok...so your ideas come true, where (im not saying everyone literally, just everyone who you think should have one) everyone has a gun, are you telling me that if any of the teachers in that Osaka School Massacre had a gun, they couldve prevented the whole massacre? lets ignore the fact that there is the risk factor of that guy with a knife turns into the that guy with a gun because the guy with the knife killed the guy with the gun before he could use it. The way I see it is deaths would take place anyway, at that point of the incident two things couldve either happened, the teacher couldve shot him and reduced casualties, or the dangerous man becomes even more dangerous and causes even more casualties. You cant prevent tragedies, only reduce or make worse. Which can be done with the simplicity of stopping to think instead of just shooting a bullet into the air. The only reason I would see teachers not having a gun is cuz, well its a school, even if guns were legal, i dont think a teacher would be carrying a gun around where little curious kids are running around by the hundreds.

guns dont do much to change a situation. If your being assaulted by someone and you shoot them, thats not self defense, because you used a gun, you become the assaulter since you used overwhelming unnecessary force to stop them. Even if you dont shoot to kill, whos going to call the ambulance on the person you just shot? there are numerous ways to die from a gun shot wound: Bleeding, Lead Poisoning, it couldve hit a critical point and i dont think youd want to shoot someone and then call the ambulance for them.

My point is all guns do is cause other people to think its ok to fight with a gun themselves, to "level the playing field". Thats not true, just because someone carries a knife when they walk, doesnt mean everyone does. Me personally, only guns I carry are my fists and thats all i need...if i get hurt, having a gun or any kind of lethal weapon would just make the situation worse.

[Dangerous55]

ok lets get rid of adrenaline, any of my arguments...ok...so your ideas come true, where (im not saying everyone literally, just everyone who you think should have one) everyone has a gun, are you telling me that if any of the teachers in that Osaka School Massacre had a gun, they couldve prevented the whole massacre?
They could have made an effort. But I didn't bring up the issue of Osaka to say teachers should have guns. I brought it up to disprove your theory that you need a car or gun to commit a massacre.



lets ignore the fact that there is the risk factor of that guy with a knife turns into the that guy with a gun because the guy with the knife killed the guy with the gun before he could use it.

Japanese Police carry guns, in the current situation he could kill a police officer and take a gun.



The way I see it is deaths would take place anyway, at that point of the incident two things couldve either happened, the teacher couldve shot him and reduced casualties, or the dangerous man becomes even more dangerous and causes even more casualties. You cant prevent tragedies, only reduce or make worse. Which can be done with the simplicity of stopping to think instead of just shooting a bullet into the air. The only reason I would see teachers not having a gun is cuz, well its a school, even if guns were legal, i dont think a teacher would be carrying a gun around where little curious kids are running around by the hundreds.

Deaths do happen anyway. From many things. What you have to realize is that if someone wants to kill, they kill. Gun laws do not disarm criminals!!!!


guns dont do much to change a situation.
Tell that to the 1.5 million Americans who use them in self defense every year according to The Department of Justice's own National Institute of Justice study titled "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms".

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46085





If your being assaulted by someone and you shoot them, thats not self defense, because you used a gun, you become the assaulter since you used overwhelming unnecessary force to stop them.]
You don't understand the law do you? Because that isn't how it works. You don't become the assaulter unless it is shown you didn't need to shoot. Which doesn't happen much.


Even if you dont shoot to kill, whos going to call the ambulance on the person you just shot?
After the shooting you are trained to call for help. If not trained you should understand you are legally bound to immediately report what happened.

"Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."


there are numerous ways to die from a gun shot wound:
Yes.


Bleeding,
Yes.


Lead Poisoning,

LOL. No.



it couldve hit a critical point and i dont think youd want to shoot someone and then call the ambulance for them.

Why not? That is what you are supposed to do, or at least report to police right away. They will send the ambulance.


My point is all guns do is cause other people to think its ok to fight with a gun themselves, to "level the playing field". Thats not true, just because someone carries a knife when they walk, doesnt mean everyone does. Me personally, only guns I carry are my fists and thats all i need...if i get hurt, having a gun or any kind of lethal weapon would just make the situation worse.


Then you only understand guns from a Hollywood movie perspective. Anyone who gets a permit to carry isn't going out there looking for trouble. They are carrying because they have seen friend or family get mugged, rapped, murdered. They do it because they know what can happen. Yes, guns do level the playing field.

[McLaughlin]

I couldn't find anything about Audrey Williams.

[Dangerous55]

I couldn't find anything about Audrey Williams.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132785,00.html

[BogusKun]

only thing i can honestly say of this is, it may be only a dream, but at least its worth a shot. Like he says himself, how can you expect to get different results from doing the same things? im not a rabid Obama supporter, but really...in my opinion, if your voting for McCain, its would seem more like fear of change rather than support

that or your rich...yeah this country was funded by the rich back then, but to me, its the people who they were funding who made things happen. Money doesnt build, people do. Without people, you have no one to pay to do things for you

the only people who listen to celebrities btw are people who cant decide for themselves. To me personally, whenever a celebrity gets involved, its all ruined and turns into a publicity stunt more than what it is...erhm...vote or die...lol thats so stupid. Celebrities should just keep to themselves

I'm not scared of change... and rich? Well I get by pretty okay. I've been in the military going on 7 years now. All I can say is that I am not allow to publicly support any candidate because of my position, but I can say that there is a lot of dreaming going on.

When that candidate makes President... well... it's only up to those who dream to make it a reality. I am not biased, I am just real.

[seph_monkey]

Asses everywhere.

yeah asses are everywhere but see in America the people that are asses are the ones who hold you back,. i cant explain it too well, but in Guatemala which is were i am part from people are held down because the government is a piece of crap in aspects so it holds people down in a sense. but here in America the government gives you the chance to be something better while the people are the ones talking shit about you for what ever they can think of. so that is why i think the country is great but the people, yeah asses are everywhere, are just asses.
i dunno that is how i see it, i guess the experience changes with race ah hahaha



Gun control is not about protection.

well you kinda gave me the idea because most of your counter points are "people can protect themselves" (not an exact quote)



Then you clearly don't know dick about it or why people do it.

yeah, yeah... i used to live in Guatemala and yeah ive hunted for my own food, without a use of a gun mind you. and in this day an age you can just buy your freakin food you dont need to go out and hunt for the dam thing. so if i clearly have no idea why people use guns for hunting then oh please tell me.

Yeah ive been jumped a hell amount of times, yeah ive been mugged, and yeah you get hurt but life goes on i dont need to kill someone to keep my 5 bucks, plus i can fight so defend my self that way. If everyone had a feakin gun then this country will go down the drain fast, try learning to fight people. There is no real reason for a civilian to have a gun dont give me that hobby crap. what kinda freakin hobby is shooting a gun. dam kids go pick up a freakin book or something. (not relating to dangerous)
man i dont even care about guns, i dont why im arguing about them hahaha



Guns are inanimate objects. I use guns, why am I weak?

HAHA oh yeah


Im kinda lazy to quote now....


nazis werent that stupid, they wouldnt let them near a rifle i can promise you that. they also did not let them take absolutely anything with them. the military tells us a bunch of crap doesnt mean im gonna shoot them for it dam, i mean dam i dont like em and it could be a gewd idea but thats too hasty.


the book was a freakin suggestion you dont have to try and counter point everything crap

the vote thing was also a suggestion.

also i kinda get lazy to people links or videos so can you give me a explanation to watch id appreciate it.

[Dangerous55]

yeah asses are everywhere but see in America the people that are asses are the ones who hold you back,. i cant explain it too well, but in Guatemala which is were i am part from people are held down because the government is a piece of crap in aspects so it holds people down in a sense. but here in America the government gives you the chance to be something better while the people are the ones talking shit about you for what ever they can think of. so that is why i think the country is great but the people, yeah asses are everywhere, are just asses.
i dunno that is how i see it, i guess the experience changes with race ah hahaha

Ok..





well you kinda gave me the idea because most of your counter points are "people can protect themselves" (not an exact quote)

No, I mean the people who want to implement gun control say it is too protect the masses. It isn't, it is about having power over a populace.





yeah, yeah... i used to live in Guatemala and yeah ive hunted for my own food, without a use of a gun mind you. and in this day an age you can just buy your freakin food you dont need to go out and hunt for the dam thing. so if i clearly have no idea why people use guns for hunting then oh please tell me.

1. Lots of food is loaded with steroids and other pollutants.
2. Deer population is outrageous. Without hunting they die of starvation when their populations get too large. Fact. You know what it also brings? More car accidents. More deer equals more of a chance of smacking a deer when driving.
3. Tradition. It is a sport.




Yeah ive been jumped a hell amount of times, yeah ive been mugged, and yeah you get hurt but life goes on i dont need to kill someone to keep my 5 bucks, plus i can fight so defend my self that way. If everyone had a feakin gun then this country will go down the drain fast, try learning to fight people. There is no real reason for a civilian to have a gun dont give me that hobby crap. what kinda freakin hobby is shooting a gun. dam kids go pick up a freakin book or something. (not relating to dangerous)
man i dont even care about guns, i dont why im arguing about them hahaha


You're a simple guy. You don't shoot someone if they are just taking 5 bucks. You shoot when you believe your life is threatened. Life doesn't always "go on". Look at Switzerland, almost every male has a fully automatic rifle in a potent caliber. Is that country "down the drain"? No real reason for a civilian to have a gun? Give me a break. How about the Second Amendment? Study history, there are more reasons for civilians to have guns that governments.

I read books, plenty of them. I also shoot, it is a great hobby. Try it. Millions of people do it, don't throw it out as stupid because you don't know anything about it.

You don't care about guns? Then don't tell me there is no reason I should have one. Get educated.







nazis werent that stupid, they wouldnt let them near a rifle i can promise you that. they also did not let them take absolutely anything with them.

No shit. That is exactly the point. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mussolini...all implemented gun control.

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

[Split]

on a side note, for people who think Obama is a socialist (someone was making such "accusations" in one of the earlier debate threads I think):

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-chicago-socialist,0,4048540.story

read the entire thing

[Dangerous55]

on a side note, for people who think Obama is a socialist (someone was making such "accusations" in one of the earlier debate threads I think):

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-chicago-socialist,0,4048540.story

read the entire thing


Yeah, it has some points. I could post a few articles saying he is socialist, or at least has policies toward socialism.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgc4zm3XrBc

And about Bush nationalizing the banks, it is BS. It IS step toward socialism and neither McCain or Obama would reverse it.

As I said before, Obama won't turn this country into a socialist nation. He sure as hell won't turn it into the country I want(Neither will McCain). Small government out of our lives, low taxes, low spending, real equality, courts that work, etc. Libertarianism.

[Omega_Weltall]

Welcome to the New World Order :D.... i'm a go cry now...