Limbaugh: Loughner Has 'Full Support' Of Dem Party

[vonnie6200]

I'm just saying that going to the illegal immigrant non-English speakers direction.. just...

Yah, I'm dropping it. Try to really examine your prejudices though.



Not an immigrant slam or prejudice - but an illegal problem - there is , like it or not, a huge contingent of illegals in this country that do not care about our laws - they are a much bigger problem than too many people are willing to acknowledge

And I am not anti immigrant - my next door neighbor is Hispanic, with a green card and I am going to his birthday party later tonight - I couldn't have a better neighbor - and he feels the same way I do about the illegal issues, they make his life harder.

[Loopdilou]

Jan 15, 2011 18:42:33 GMT -5 Thinking-long-term said:

Jan 15, 2011 18:32:35 GMT -5 Loopdilou said:

Unlike what all of you are saying? Those aren't Conservative talking points at ALL. Nope. Not at all.

Just because I say something liberal, doesn't mean I haven't thought about this and it NEVER calls for being dismissed just because you disagree. Be polite.

DAMNIT PEOPLE! STOP SUCKING ME IN!!! *vacuum sound*

It's not just me that disagrees with your views on the Second Amendment but 200 plus years of Judicial review including a recent landmark ruling by the highest court in the land as well.

I can still disagree with 200 years of judicial review, you know, I have that right. And it's still rude of you to be dismissive of my opinions because you believe they are regurgitated liberal talking points.

[Loopdilou]

The breaking of one law does not constitute not caring.

I smoke weed, but that doesn't mean I don't care about our laws.

[formerexpat]

Madison may have been the "father" of the Constitution, but frankly I could care less about what was proposed compared to what is actually written. I've read the 2nd Amendant backwards and forwards and up and down, and I still believe that the right of the individual is a subordinate clause to the well regulated militia.

[/size]

The Constitution was written by a scribe. I'm more concerned with the intent of the founders & interpretation at the time rather than what could simply be a misplaced comma in the final version of the document that is misinterpreted or read too much into over 220 years later.

If it were misinterpreted in the late 1700's or early 1800's, then I'm sure more strict gun laws would have been in place as early as the 1800's. The fact that they were not tells me that the framers believed in individual rights over government involvement.

I wish more people believed in personal responsibility over having the government "protect" us from every conceivable event.

[Thinking-long-term]

Jan 15, 2011 18:47:16 GMT -5 Loopdilou said:

Jan 15, 2011 18:42:33 GMT -5 Thinking-long-term said:

It's not just me that disagrees with your views on the Second Amendment but 200 plus years of Judicial review including a recent landmark ruling by the highest court in the land as well.

I can still disagree with 200 years of judicial review, you know, I have that right. And it's still rude of you to be dismissive of my opinions because you believe they are regurgitated liberal talking points.

Never my intent to be rude I assure you but I call em like I sees em.

[vonnie6200]

I can still disagree with 200 years of judicial review, you know, I have that right. And it's still rude of you to be dismissive of my opinions because you believe they are regurgitated liberal talking points.

You have all the right in the world to disagree - but I think many of us a bit more to the right feel that we are constantly bashed and dismissed because of our opinions and we do not want to just sit down and take it anymore.

Ideally we would have a robust debate - we don't like being dissed, trashed etc. either

[Loopdilou]

Believe it or not, I don't want the government to protect us from every conceivable event. If they did we'd all probably live in bubbles. That doesn't really make sense, does it?

I merely argue for common sense and a fundamental mind shift. I will argue for your right to bear arms for the rest of my life - as long as I feel you have gone through reasonable instruction, are consistently re-licensed, etc. Treat it like a car. Yes, guns will still be gotten a hold of illegally, yadda yadda. So are prescription drugs and I think we can all agree that regulating drugs is a good idea (I think they should be legal, just regulated... wow.. kinda like GUNS!).

The only thing I will argue against is their necessity and the wisdom of bearing them. Not the legality

[vonnie6200]

I wish more people believed in personal responsibility over having the government "protect" us from every conceivable event.


I love you - this has been my personal motto since I was 9 or 10.

[Loopdilou]

Jan 15, 2011 18:51:29 GMT -5 Thinking-long-term said:

Jan 15, 2011 18:47:16 GMT -5 Loopdilou said:

I can still disagree with 200 years of judicial review, you know, I have that right. And it's still rude of you to be dismissive of my opinions because you believe they are regurgitated liberal talking points.

Never my intent to be rude I assure you but I call em like I sees em.

"I call em like I sees em".. hmm.. so what you could have said, in response, was, "I disagree, because...."

Calling them "regurgitated" talking points is rude and you knew it when you said it.

[formerexpat]

I merely argue for common sense and a fundamental mind shift. I will argue for your right to bear arms for the rest of my life - as long as I feel you have gone through reasonable instruction, are consistently re-licensed, etc. Treat it like a car. Yes, guns will still be gotten a hold of illegally, yadda yadda. So are prescription drugs and I think we can all agree that regulating drugs is a good idea (I think they should be legal, just regulated... wow.. kinda like GUNS!).

And as it should be, each state can put regulations in place as it sees fit. In Maryland, for example, you must take a gun safety course. You also can't be a drunk, use drugs [you couldn't own here ] or suffer from mental disorders.

This matter is not an issue that the federal government has the right to govern.

[chiver78]

Jan 15, 2011 19:04:33 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

And as it should be, each state can put regulations in place as it sees fit. In Maryland, for example, you must take a gun safety course. You also can't be a drunk, use drugs [you couldn't own here ] or suffer from mental disorders.

This matter is not an issue that the federal government has the right to govern.

note: I have bolded the quoted word that raised my question.

please correct me if I am wrong, but it has always been my understanding that where regulations were concerned, the federal government set the rules and guidelines for things - drinking age, voting age, etc - and the states were free to set guidelines that were stricter than the federal rules, should they see fit, but that they could not ever be more lenient than the federal rules. so if a state chooses not to put regulations into place, that would mean there would not be any regulations to purchase weapons in that state. is that what you mean to say in your comment?

[formerexpat]

please correct me if I am wrong, but it has always been my understanding that where regulations were concerned, the federal government set the rules and guidelines for things - drinking age, voting age, etc - and the states were free to set guidelines that were stricter than the federal rules, should they see fit, but that they could not ever be more lenient than the federal rules. so if a state chooses not to put regulations into place, that would mean there would not be any regulations to purchase weapons in that state. is that what you mean to say in your comment?

[/size]

Not really. The federal government, in 1984, circumvented the states rights by putting together an act that would decrease state funding for those consuming in public or purchasing alcohol if under 21. Some states still have no or less restrictions on private consumption.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act_of_1984

Some states allow 17 year olds who will be 18 before the next election to vote in primaries. Others do not. A couple states are looking to reduce the age all together.

Yes - that's precisely what I mean by my comment. I trust the citizens of each respective state to collectively govern their state in their best interests. If a state as a whole decides it is best to put certain laws or restrictions in place then that is their prerogative. And for those that disagree with those restrictions or laws, they are free to move to another state.

You'll see migration take place that correlates to the most persons true beliefs [are we seeing a migration out of CA, IL and NY now, for example?].

If a law is Federal, a person cannot escape it. Kind of like taxes. Americans are the only citizen who cannot escape taxation from their home country, not even if they earn their money elsewhere in the world. Kind of draconian, no?

[chiver78]

thanks for the clarification. now that you've pointed it out, I do remember something about the state funding and alcohol age restrictions. my state's pretty Puritan about alcohol, so it never was an issue here (which is why I've long since forgotten about it).

to your point, though - where I disagree with your opinion on this is that if the states are handling the regulations on gun sales, it just seems as though it would be a delay, rather than a roadblock, to someone obtaining a weapon that shouldn't have access to one. by this, I mean a violent criminal or mentally ill person. of course, there's always going to be ways to get weapons, but we're talking about legal routes. I'm going to go back to my earlier question - if you are a law-abiding citizen, what difference does it make? why do you need that weapon NOW? can't it wait for whatever background checks are necessary?

[burnsattornincan]

You'll see migration take place that correlates to the most persons true beliefs [are we seeing a migration out of CA, IL and NY now, for example?].

If a law is Federal, a person cannot escape it. Kind of like taxes. Americans are the only citizen who cannot escape taxation from their home country, not even if they earn their money elsewhere in the world. Kind of draconian, no?

The migration theme is extremely satisfying for me to witness. People fed up with strangling liberal policies that benefit no one except non-producers and manipulators such as special interests, unions and government. Well I guess they are all non-producers. A beautiful thing.

The 10 year imposition of US taxes on ex-pats was something I learned only recently. It is quite an astonishing concept to fathom. I have tried to come up with a solid reason for this measure but all I can think of is perhaps they consider birthright benefits such as primary education and infrastructure to be taxable beyond the life of US residency however were not all these things paid for by their taxes in the first place? Someone help me out here.

[Thinking-long-term]

Jan 15, 2011 18:48:52 GMT -5 Loopdilou said:

The breaking of one law does not constitute not caring.

I smoke weed, but that doesn't mean I don't care about our laws.

"Smoking Weed" is not a victimless crime you have no idea of what you are contributing to.
You fuel the violence which you rail against.

[formerexpat]

I mean a violent criminal or mentally ill person. of course, there's always going to be ways to get weapons, but we're talking about legal routes.

[/size]

And here you may have inadvertently highlighted the entire issue and stupidity with gun laws and regulations. If one really wants them, they can get them illegally. The only thing you do is ensure that those who want to obtain weapons via illegal measures are absolutely 100% certain that the law abiding citizens that they will largely target are unarmed and unable to protect themselves against the force that the criminal wishes to inflict.

There are laws that you can't drink if you're under 21, smoke pot, do cocaine [among other drugs], drive without car insurance, obtain & use prescription drugs without following specific routes, among others. It was once against the law to drink alcohol all together too.

Which of these have been successfully prevented by our federal government?

I've been to parties where there was coke and other hard drugs. I've smoked pot in the past. The fact that coke was illegal was not the deciding factor on why I passed when asked if I wanted to do lines.

www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.1/gun-facts-5.1-screen.pdf

This suggests 80% of inmates that committed crimes with a gun were not legally able to purchase a gun.

[formerexpat]

"Smoking Weed" is not a victimless crime you have no idea of what you are contributing to.
You fuel the violence which you rail against.

[/size]

Not if it's home grown. Maybe she uses it for medicinal purposes? Isn't she married to Dark? She must have issues then

[chiver78]

inadvertently highlighted? no. there are people that will circumvent laws, no matter what the laws are for. that's just how it is, and that will never change. I just don't believe that everyone that isn't supposed to have access to a weapon would go and illegally procure one. not every criminal has the means to do so. I don't believe that stricter laws for access would deprive a law-abiding citizen of their access to a weapon, should they want one. I am trying to see things from the opposite opinion, but I just can't. I think we may have to just agree to disagree. that's what's great about this country - we can do that.

[formerexpat]

I just don't believe that everyone that isn't supposed to have access to a weapon would go and illegally procure one. not every criminal has the means to do so.

[/size]

So the person committing armed robbery is just looking for a way to pay off the gun since he didn't have the means to illegally gain possession of the gun in the first place?

Clearly, we should find a way for them to get easier access to money to pay for that gun legally. Raise minimum wage?

[formerexpat]

The migration theme is extremely satisfying for me to witness. People fed up with strangling liberal policies that benefit no one except non-producers and manipulators such as special interests, unions and government. Well I guess they are all non-producers. A beautiful thing.

[/size]

It's a wonderful thing. It promotes free market, government balance and the people being in control of the government THAT SERVES THEM. Even when state governments get out of hand, a person has the ability to move to a state where the laws are more friendly.

Maryland tried to incorporate a millionaires tax as a money making scheme by a government that can't manage it's finances properly. A lot of these millionaires tend to have other residences and simply changed their state of domicile to avoid these burdensome taxes.

If restrictive laws are in place at a Federal level, you are a prisoner and lack control of your own life. Kind of like the US citizen and Social Security. We are forced, by birth, to contribute to this ponzi scheme with no ability to control the outcome of this albatross of a program.

And yes, I too was familiar with the double taxation by the United States. While the US worker is still fortunate to be one of the most desired in the world and therefore countries are willing to tax equalize the person that works for them in another country, this will not be the case for much longer.

If the US does not fix this in the tax code, it will put the American worker at a severe disadvantage in the international job market within the next generation.