At 1/20/13 12:34 PM, TheMason wrote: Obama's re-election is only a crushing defeat for the Republicans because they have weak leadership. Obama comes into his second term with less of a mandate than any other president since pre-Civil War. That's how far you have to go back to find a president who won re-election by a popular vote less than they won in the first election.

Absolutely wrong. What's more crushing? Being cleanly defeated by a juggernaut or simply defeated by a battered and wounded person? The juggernaut is supposed to win, or at least put up a major fight. The wounded person, on the other hand, is supposed to be an easy bout.

Sure, Obama's margin was thin, but the fact that he won when all indications would have had him Jimmy Cartering is what makes the win curshing for Republicans. This election was the equivalent of having 100 chances to hit the broad side of a barn from 10 feet away, and they missed all 100 shots.

Face it, the Republicans couldn't take candy from a baby, and that is the textbook definition of a crushing defeat.

At 1/20/13 03:13 PM, LemonCrush wrote: No, I'm asking what is different about his security needs.

Let's just say that there aren't entire nations looking to take my child and hold him for ransom against me.

No one wants to be killed or wants their children to die. Why should he be the only one who can do something about it, cunt?

This has to be the dumbest thing I've heard, and that includes everything you've said before, LemonLifter.

At 1/20/13 03:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/20/13 03:13 PM, LemonCrush wrote: No, I'm asking what is different about his security needs.

Let's just say that there aren't entire nations looking to take my child and hold him for ransom against me.

but there are still people out there who would do it. We have seen it happen in other countries where entire schools get held hostage, and it's not pretty. It's not exclusive to the middle east and Africa either, there have been a few counts in Russia. Even the ones that were politically motivated happened with out high profile political targets present.

At 1/20/13 03:57 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: but there are still people out there who would do it.

Yes, but there isn't an everpresence of it, especially by well funded and well trained folks.

Also, the consequences of a the President's child being abducted are far worse for the nation as compared to the consequences of a lay child being abducted.

At 1/20/13 04:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Yes, but there isn't an everpresence of it, especially by well funded and well trained folks.

Also, the consequences of a the President's child being abducted are far worse for the nation as compared to the consequences of a lay child being abducted.

likelihood has little to do with it. Mass shootings are rare too, so why over react to them when we can leave it to people to empower themselves and be able to stand up to crime if it comes to them? I don't agree with the NRA on everything, like the armed guards on our tax dollar, but in countries where mass shootings, terrorism, and hostage situations are higher risk, they arm their teachers with assault rifles.

At 1/20/13 12:34 PM, TheMason wrote: But on this topic, he's a public policy moron. He is going after an agenda, and does not have the best interest of people in mind.

Doesn't sound like he's the public policy moron here.

Obama's re-election is only a crushing defeat for the Republicans because they have weak leadership. Obama comes into his second term with less of a mandate than any other president since pre-Civil War. That's how far you have to go back to find a president who won re-election by a popular vote less than they won in the first election.

Percentage wise, this does not account for people who don't vote or voting reforms getting rid of fraud etc. Popular vote is a tricky thing, but since 1968 more and more people just simply don't care about government since they feel like they can't do anything so naturally there's less participation and it generally overstates how popular politicians were. The problem here is that you're also including people like Woodrow Wilson or Nixon or Clinton who got a smaller percentage of the vote due to 3rd parties. While you're right his margin of victory was lower than in 2008, in 2012 his margin of victory is still greater than both 2000 and 2004's elections along with most of the elections Post-Civil War up until McKinley. Obama is more popular than Baby Bush was in 2000 or 2004 as well as Wilson in 1912 and 1916, so comparing him to them is a bit off.

At 1/20/13 04:26 PM, Warforger wrote: Doesn't sound like he's the public policy moron here.

No, it just points to the public being morons.

At 1/19/13 12:47 PM, MOSFET wrote: This ad is a misdirection on the issues of gun violence. It doesn't address the public health and safety concerns with gun violence, all it does is make people envious and want to buy a gun for themselves. And since there is a proven correlation between gun ownership and homicides, all it does is increase the level of violence and increase public health risk.

While there is a correlation between gun availability, upon further study time and time again the relationship is proved to be spurious. There is no causal relationship between legal gun ownership and gun crime.

Therefore, the level of violence and public health concerns are not addressed by gun control.

All gun control policy is is public policy masturbation.

There are a number of ways people misuse guns. Good intentioned people who use it to intimidate others if say an argument isn't going their way. What about those Lazy Louies who are negligent with their guns. There are some real bad teachers out there, would you like them to have a gun at their disposal as well?

The problem is we've had concealed carry for 30 years...and in universities. And those things you fear are not observed. Therefore, your argument is irrational in that it is based on emotion rather than facts.

People aren't really split into good guys and bad guys. Seung-Hui Cho and James Holmes weren't bad people before they went on their rampages after legally purchasing their weapons. The young man that killed those kids at Sandy Hook may have been mentally disturbed but he didn't show any indication of what he might do before he took his mom's legally owned guns. What about those Postal workers in the 80s/90s? How do you arm the good guys without arming the bad guys or the good guys that will go bad?

While I do rhetorically refer to these guys as 'bad guys', we do have some common ground here.

I see these shooters as people who are sick and/or victims of something. I understand that this is not a gun or crime issue, but a psychological and sociological issue. Furthermore, in the case of mass killings, there are ways to know that someone is at risk.

To begin with, these individuals tend to be joiners who have been unable to join a desired social group. (Contrary to the popular assumption they are lone wolves.)

They also display a significant degree of narcissism. Given that an increasing number of college freshmen are indicating as narcissists on surveys...this may not be something unique or inherient to this subset of individuals but something generational.

They eventually embrace the image of the loner (as well as the loner group identity), and eventualy seek infamy.

Therefore they opt for a ritual of suicide in which they will join the pantheon of 'lone wolves' who struck back at the society that denied them emotional and social acceptance.

These rituals are meant to be public events in which their victims will become unwilling participants in a ritual that will evelate man to God, and God to man. However, since they are public events...these people will seek to advertise it and document their struggle.

So what is the answer?

We need to start with mental health and strengthening background checks. In the case of Cho at VT and Holmes in Colorado there were signs. Unfortunately, in the case of both HIPPA regulations kept them from being prevented from acquiring guns. Therefore, I think we should expand background checks to include mental health. However, we must be reasonable with this. Someone suffering depression because they are going through a divorce should not have his/her civil rights revokes just because of this diagnosis. However, if there are indications of psycho/sociopathy perhaps the courts could temporarily restrict the person's access to existing firearms (put them in trusteeship) and buying new ones. Then when he is cleared medically...their rights are automatically reinstated.

We also need to look into whether or not non-felony domestic violence convictions should result in a permanent or temporary loss of this civil right.

At 1/20/13 04:26 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 1/20/13 12:34 PM, TheMason wrote: But on this topic, he's a public policy moron. He is going after an agenda, and does not have the best interest of people in mind.

Doesn't sound like he's the public policy moron here.

There's a difference between being a political genius and a public policy moron. The polling indicates that so far he is winning the debate.

However, in that his public policy will not be effective nor does he show any nuance or insight into this issue. Ergo, he is pursuing a public policy that has been shown to be a failure...in trying to save one life he'll more than likely (if he gets what he wants) end up costing many more than one person their life.

Percentage wise, this does not account for people who don't vote or voting reforms getting rid of fraud etc. Popular vote is a tricky thing, but since 1968 more and more people just simply don't care about government since they feel like they can't do anything so naturally there's less participation and it generally overstates how popular politicians were. The problem here is that you're also including people like Woodrow Wilson or Nixon or Clinton who got a smaller percentage of the vote due to 3rd parties. While you're right his margin of victory was lower than in 2008, in 2012 his margin of victory is still greater than both 2000 and 2004's elections along with most of the elections Post-Civil War up until McKinley. Obama is more popular than Baby Bush was in 2000 or 2004 as well as Wilson in 1912 and 1916, so comparing him to them is a bit off.

Not really. There are problems with looking at popularity polls too. He is perceived as just winning his first post-election fight (Americans love a winner), just got re-inaugurated, and there are a few minor crisies going on. Thus there is a rally-around-the-flag effect going on right now. Let's see where he is in 2-3 years.

:)

At 1/20/13 03:38 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Face it, the Republicans couldn't take candy from a baby, and that is the textbook definition of a crushing defeat.

But I'm not convinced that it is because of the genius of the Obama campaign. What if Romney had been able to counter the Bain ads that Obama was putting out early on...instead of fending off the "Not-the-Romney-candidate-of-the-week" that was put up by the religious right?

At 1/20/13 03:13 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/20/13 12:04 AM, Fim wrote: Sooo.. you're asking me what's the difference in the security risk between the most powerful man in the world and ordinary citizens?.. Reeeally? You stupid fuck. I really don't have the time to spell it out to someone as suborn in their opinions as you.

No, I'm asking what is different about his security needs.

Security needs and security risks are synonymous, I already linked you a list of all the assassination attempts that have been made on Obama up till now. Do you want to live in a big white house too? If it's good enough for him why can't you have it ! :fihkjhesiur r k #flawless logic.

No one wants to be killed or wants their children to die. Why should he be the only one who can do something about it, cunt?

True nobody wants the children to die, kinda like how all the Sandy Hook children died. So maybe we should try and do something about the availability of the weapons that killed them. Unless you're suggesting that every child in America should be followed around by armed guards with machine guns. Wouldn't that be a beautiful brave new world.

At 1/20/13 07:39 PM, TheMason wrote: There's a difference between being a political genius and a public policy moron. The polling indicates that so far he is winning the debate.

However, in that his public policy will not be effective nor does he show any nuance or insight into this issue. Ergo, he is pursuing a public policy that has been shown to be a failure...in trying to save one life he'll more than likely (if he gets what he wants) end up costing many more than one person their life.

You said he wasn't considering the public interests at heart, it's quite clear the majority of people want more gun control. Now whether or not that's a good policy is one thing, but its' quite clear he has the public's interests in his proposals.

Not really. There are problems with looking at popularity polls too. He is perceived as just winning his first post-election fight (Americans love a winner), just got re-inaugurated, and there are a few minor crisies going on.

To be fair though you did go back a bit of time, Pre-Civil war? Try Grover Cleveland (3rd party again) and FDR. But like I said that's largely meaningless because well for one 2008 was special, the Republicans were just so unpopular that a bus driver probably could have beat them. Bush had lower approval ratings than Nixon and that wasn't because of a scandal he was just an unpopular President, Nixon just got caught doing what Kennedy started and everyone caught him going to unprecedented corruption.

Thus there is a rally-around-the-flag effect going on right now. Let's see where he is in 2-3 years.

)

Probably downhill from here on out, happened to Eisenhower, Reagan, Johnson and most importantly Clinton.

At 1/19/13 01:34 PM, LemonCrush wrote: No. There is nothing that gives the president the right to protect himself, and other cannot.

You're just being silly and you know it. If there's anything negative on Obama it's right to you and you support it 100%, no matter how much of a strawman or removed from reality the argument is. I'm really not trying to be mean, nor do I think you're dumb. I just think you treat politics as a contact sport, and you say and think what makes you feel good inside. There's no way you actually honestly believe Obama is the second coming of Hitler or Mussolini for example, but you sure hate the guy (and there are even some good reasons to!), so why not say it? It's fun and wildly entertaining, sure. but it is enormously detrimental to the country and that only results in rapid polarization. Stuff like this is why nothing gets done in Congress. People wind up electing the most entertaining candidates, not the ones that can solve problems or put forth ideas that may not be possible to implement at the time, but at least start to get the country talking about it. This is what the NRA is doing has been doing for some time: entertaining their base with bullshit to make them feel good with the goal to avoid a productive dialogue which may be uncomfortable. Stop playing into their hands.

None of his executive orders or proposals entail banning any firearm other than the proposal to reinstate the AWB.

Exactly

You don't understand why he made that call to Congress, do you? The inefficiency of the AWB has bipartisan consensus, you think he doesn't know this? This is what's probably going to happen: the Dems will give up any legislation that regulates magazine capacity and the AWB in exchange for more stringent background checks, a confirmed ATF director, and more cash for enforcing existing law. You should be happy Obama made that proposal - the GOP can say that they defended their constituents against ineffective and draconian laws, and instead enacted reasonable proposals; the Democrats can put on a show and convince everyone that they tried to get "hard" gun control legislation on the books (even though it was a bargaining chip from the start), but still managed to get something after compromising with the GOP. It makes everyone happy. Contrary to popular belief, gun owners do in fact take up a non-negligible amount of the Democratic base.

The government is absolutely allowed to "impede" citizens buying or owning guns via regulation. Every state has them.

Not according to the Bill of Rights, and State laws are not federal laws.

The Bill of Rights does not explicitly state that the government cannot regulate guns and ownership, and State laws still have to be constitutional. You should remember the Supreme Court striking down DC's gun ban in 2009. I think we can all agree that there is a lot of work that could to be done at the state and federal level in terms of ensuring that better records are kept and more effective investigations take place. This is, in fact, regulation, and the burden is on you to demonstrate that this is an unreasonable position and is clearly in violation of the 2nd amendment.

At 1/20/13 08:37 PM, Fim wrote: Security needs and security risks are synonymous, I already linked you a list of all the assassination attempts that have been made on Obama up till now. Do you want to live in a big white house too? If it's good enough for him why can't you have it ! :fihkjhesiur r k #flawless logic.

I get it. He should have bodyguards. So, why should he be allowed to protect himself, but I can't? His life is no more special or different than mine. Are you saying his life is worth protecting, and other's arent;?

True nobody wants the children to die, kinda like how all the Sandy Hook children died. So maybe we should try and do something about the availability of the weapons that killed them. Unless you're suggesting that every child in America should be followed around by armed guards with machine guns. Wouldn't that be a beautiful brave new world.

Actually, just normal cops, which is already a thing that exists, would suffice. Availability of guns means nothing to a lunatic with bloodlust. As you can see, we had no cops at Sandy Hook, and 20 kids are dead. Make a choice: No cops at schools, and dead kids, or cops on school grounds, and no dead kids? Why is this such a hard choice?

At 1/20/13 09:35 PM, LemonCrush wrote: So, why should he be allowed to protect himself, but I can't?

How can't you?

At 1/21/13 12:33 AM, Camarohusky wrote: How can't you?

Depends on what the government decides to do.

At 1/21/13 02:12 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Depends on what the government decides to do.

If the Federal government makes like NY state, and bans everything with higher than 7 round capacity, I'd say my right/ability to protect myself isn't equal to the president's.

At 1/21/13 02:13 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/21/13 02:12 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Depends on what the government decides to do.

If the Federal government makes like NY state, and bans everything with higher than 7 round capacity, I'd say my right/ability to protect myself isn't equal to the president's.

But nobody's doing that?

The deal on the table is - compulsory background checks (good), better leadership in the TA&F department so they can prosecute illegal firearms dealers (good), and an assault weapons ban (good, and also implemented by republicans like Reagan and Bush, and supported by 70% of the NRA).

Why are you exaggerating the extent of what they are doing? These terms are reasonable and have no bearing on your right to protect yourself.

At 1/21/13 10:03 AM, Fim wrote: But nobody's doing that?

And you're certain that it wil stay that way? You know that when it comes to big issues like this, the Feds tend to follow states' lead...

The deal on the table is - compulsory background checks (good), better leadership in the TA&F department so they can prosecute illegal firearms dealers (good), and an assault weapons ban (good, and also implemented by republicans like Reagan and Bush, and supported by 70% of the NRA).

Prosecute illegal firearms dealers? Obama is a fucking illegal firearms dealer! Can we start with him first? And there has already been an assault weapons ban since for DECADES. It's already nearly impossible for civilians to get an actual assault weapon. What the ban is proposing is banning guns that looks scary. Guns with the same caliber, mag capacity, and rate of fire, as the AR-15, such as the M1 Carbine, which actually was made to kill people in WW2, will not be banned, nor will laws change on it in anyway. The government is targeting guns that look dangerous, to satiate ignorant people who wouldn't know an M1 from an M16 if they saw the two side by side. The public is ignorant about guns, so they think that banning a gun that's black metal, will solve the problem. They're going to ban "assault weapons" and everyone will be happy, meanwhile, guns that are mechanically and funcionally the same, will remain untouched

For what it's worth, Kennedy was killed with a bolt action rifle.

Why are you exaggerating the extent of what they are doing? These terms are reasonable and have no bearing on your right to protect yourself.

Yes they do. The government never stops once they get a little bit of power. They push, and push and push, until you're rights are gone. It's not rocket science....it's basic US history.

At 1/21/13 11:38 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Yes they do. The government never stops once they get a little bit of power. They push, and push and push, until you're rights are gone. It's not rocket science....it's basic US history.

Feel absolutely free to argue with me on the facts of the what the government has actually done / is proposing to do.

I am not going to waste any more time with you rebutting assertions of your paranoia.

Like I have said about 50 fucking times, is that the deal on the table makes a lot of sense. The legislation is well over due, and it seems to me like the real crime here is to look at the 30k gun deaths annually, the frequent mass culling of children in schools, and the 900+ gun homicides that have happened since Sandy Hook and to do absolutely nothing about it.

For what it's worth, Kennedy was killed with a bolt action rifle.

It is SO ironic you are using this to back up your point..

At 1/21/13 12:13 PM, Fim wrote: I am not going to waste any more time with you rebutting assertions of your paranoia.

It's not assertions, it's observable fact.

Like I have said about 50 fucking times, is that the deal on the table makes a lot of sense. The legislation is well over due, and it seems to me like the real crime here is to look at the 30k gun deaths annually, the frequent mass culling of children in schools, and the 900+ gun homicides that have happened since Sandy Hook and to do absolutely nothing about it.

Solving the problem of WHY people are murderers would make sense. Hell, even banning guns based on firing capacity, or caliber, would make sense. Proposing a ban on guns based on whether they're made of black metal or not, does not.

It is SO ironic you are using this to back up your point..

No it proves my point. Kennedy was killed with a gun that the government does not define as an "Assault rifle". Therefore "assault rifles" are not the problem. Crazy people are the problem.

OPr you can move your lids out of the most hated country in the world and then guns will not be needed to protect them. I would be much more concerned about what's put into your food and water supply than an Obama ass pump.

At 1/20/13 08:49 PM, Warforger wrote:

You said he wasn't considering the public interests at heart, it's quite clear the majority of people want more gun control. Now whether or not that's a good policy is one thing, but its' quite clear he has the public's interests in his proposals.

The founding fathers set-up our government with the idea of balancing the power of five different parts of a political society: the three branches of the federal government, the states, and the people en masse. They understood that people's passions can be inflamed and therefore the passions of the masses must be tempered with wisdom.

This is why we have a republic instead of a democracy.

What does this have to do with guns? One of the paradoxes of a free society is sometimes the people don't get what they want...but get what they need.

Furthermore, if Obama had any sort of nuance understanding of this issue he could lead the country away from vengance rituals (ie: calls for death penalties if the perp survives or calls for gun control if he dies)...instead of further inflaming ignorant, fear-based public passions in order to satisfy one of the bases of his party.

To be fair though you did go back a bit of time, Pre-Civil war? Try Grover Cleveland (3rd party again) and FDR. But like I said that's largely meaningless because well for one 2008 was special, the Republicans were just so unpopular that a bus driver probably could have beat them. Bush had lower approval ratings than Nixon and that wasn't because of a scandal he was just an unpopular President, Nixon just got caught doing what Kennedy started and everyone caught him going to unprecedented corruption.

* I ignored FDR's third and fourth terms since he is the only president to serve more than two terms.
* Cleveland served two terms...but these were nonconsecutive. He is also the only president to serve two terms nonconsecutively therefore he is a special case like FDR so I treated him as two-one term presidents.

And your reason concerning 2008 does not hold water. In 1980 Carter was unpopular; the economy was crashing and there was a major foreign relations crisis going on with Iran. Carter was deemed to be very inept. So by your logic, Reagan would've decreased in popularity...where in face he had a +8 increase in the popular vote.

Also, this is a trend that is actually very steady. In order to find the next president who won with a shrinking popular vote you have to go back to 1832 with the election of Jackson (I made a mistake attributing the 1840 win to Van Buren). You go back this far and the average spread between first and second term popular vote is +4.8%.

A more valid criticism would be that we've had increased sufferage since then. Adjusting for this according to increases in voting rights:

The black vote: +4.5
The women vote: +5.4
Civil rights: +6.5
18 yo vote: +6.5

Now looking at the modern/post-WWII political landscape this number is +5.8. So this trend is rather stead for such major upheavals as expanding suffrage, civil rights movements, wars popular and unpopular. Furthermore, this is rooted in something solid: election results. Public opinion polls change. At the outset of Vietnam public support was rather pretty high, then with perceived defeat as well as civil unrest at home it became our most unpopular war and doomed the Johnson administration. Public opinion shifted so much that at the end, when we actually began winning our victories (such as the failed Tet Offensive) were viewed as losses.

So no...public opinion polls are a very shakey foundation to build any argument on! But something like election results are a very solid indicator! :)

Probably downhill from here on out, happened to Eisenhower, Reagan, Johnson and most importantly Clinton.

Happens to all second term presidents. Plus he has (or has had since re-election) the following issues to deal with:
* Fiscal cliff
* Gun control/mass killings
* Immigration
* Debt ceiling
* Budget
* Promised spending cuts
* Implementation of ACA/Obamacare

He has a ton of governing to do, and I wonder just how much political capital he has. Doubtful he has enough to get his way on all of these issues. Especially considering his signature domestic policy issue is going into effect.

At 1/21/13 10:03 AM, Fim wrote: The deal on the table is - compulsory background checks (good), better leadership in the TA&F department so they can prosecute illegal firearms dealers (good), and an assault weapons ban (good, and also implemented by republicans like Reagan and Bush, and supported by 70% of the NRA).

Why are you exaggerating the extent of what they are doing? These terms are reasonable and have no bearing on your right to protect yourself.

FIrst of all, I think we need to strengthen our background checks. I would also like to see more states implement laws like Missouri in which only in-state residents or a boardering state can purchase in Mo. May cut down on some of the straw-man sales flowing into NYC.

I'm not sure that just a leadership change at the BATF (not TA&F) will do much. But hey...it won't do much harm over the status quo.

As for the assault rifle ban...it is just public policy masturbation. The 1994 AWB was shown to be highly ineffective. I mean what do they think? Banning a firearm that is, statistically speaking, NOT used in crime...nor is it particularlly lethal and military rounds tend to do the least amount of damage to a body...what do you expect? That's like putting a tenth of a liter of petrol in your car and expecting to tour Europe! It won't get you far.

All the AWB will do is siphon resources away from programs that could make a dent in crime by improving education and economic opportunity in gang ridden urban areas.

At 1/22/13 12:09 PM, TheMason wrote: As for the assault rifle ban...it is just public policy masturbation. The 1994 AWB was shown to be highly ineffective. I mean what do they think? Banning a firearm that is, statistically speaking, NOT used in crime...nor is it particularlly lethal and military rounds tend to do the least amount of damage to a body...what do you expect? That's like putting a tenth of a liter of petrol in your car and expecting to tour Europe! It won't get you far.

Absolutely. It's a facade to create the illusion of safety to make people feel good. That's how Obama rolls. DO nothing, but make it look like you are, or do something that fucks people, but make it look like it's a good thing.

He has no spine or conviction

All the AWB will do is siphon resources away from programs that could make a dent in crime by improving education and economic opportunity in gang ridden urban areas.

Yep

At 1/18/13 08:44 AM, Fim wrote: Difference between the children of the most powerful man in the world, who are in danger of assassination, hostage taking, etc. and ordinary citizens surely? Way to be over simplistic NRA and not address the real issues. I'd hate to live in a world where schools are guarded by mercenaries, sounds more like a 1984 state than the idea of not having any guns at all.

What you said are my thoughts exactly! There is no taking away of firearms either... Now I don't agree with the assault ban and clip ban but it should be a helluva lot harder to get these guns, show you've earned your right to bear arms. Thomas Jefferson himself said the constitution need revaluation every 19 years or you would become a slave to the prior generation. Just look at what "cold war thinking" did to our country people practically brainwashed over the edge paranoid. Just needs to be some moderation...

At 1/18/13 10:10 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:

At 1/18/13 10:00 AM, Fim wrote: Are American audience's that dumb that they buy into this crap?

Ever heard of MSNBC, NBC, ABC, NPR, CNN, Huffington Post, Move On, Media Matters, and Current TV? Yeah...they are.

Fix'd

At 1/23/13 01:53 PM, hateyou1 wrote:

At 1/18/13 10:10 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:

At 1/18/13 10:00 AM, Fim wrote: Are American audience's that dumb that they buy into this crap?

Ever heard of Fox News? Yeah...they are.

Fix'd

What did you do? Looks the same to me.

At 1/23/13 02:14 PM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:

At 1/23/13 01:53 PM, hateyou1 wrote:

At 1/18/13 10:10 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:

At 1/18/13 10:00 AM, Fim wrote: Are American audience's that dumb that they buy into this crap?

Ever heard of Fox News? Yeah...they are.

Fix'd

What did you do? Looks the same to me.

Did you go to the doctors recently? You may be suffering with a mental disorder known as "liberalism". I heard doctors now diagnose for that mental disability.

What you said are my thoughts exactly! There is no taking away of firearms either... Now I don't agree with the assault ban and clip ban but it should be a helluva lot harder to get these guns, show you've earned your right to bear arms.

You seem confused. The right to bear arms is a right, not a privilege you earn.