vote Bush

So wait, you just said that you yourself first supported the war, then changed your mind once you saw that there was no threat, without admitting any great lapse in judgment on your part, yet you’re castigating Kerry for allegedly doing the exact same thing? What Kerry said, not just now but on the same day as the original vote you’re referring to, was that he was authorizing Bush to act only if there were a threat and only if all other avenues had been exhausted.

When one has ideas about how something should be done, and then one encounters facts that clearly disprove those ideas, it is irrational and dangerous not to change those ideas. Bush’s presidency is based on ideology, not reality. Whenever reality contradicts Bush’s ideology, Bush’s reaction is to deny reality. His administration doesn’t analyze facts in making its decisions, it ignores them. It believes that government is empowered to create its own reality, which is why it keeps lying so transparently. That’s why Bush can’t admit that he’s made any mistakes - because his administration doesn’t think it has.

For that reason, the Bush administration is extremely vindictive. It doesn’t allow its own members to present dissenting opinions or even so much as ask for an open discussion about the party line. Christine Whitman, former head of the EPA under Bush, said that when she asked at meetings about what facts were available to support the administration’s case, she was regarded as disloyal. Paul O’Neill, Bush’s former Secretary of the Treasury, has spoken at length about how the Bush administration doesn’t really try to read into issues, doesn’t seek out contrary opinions, and actively tries to squelch such opinions in its own ranks. O’Neill supported tax cuts, but because he supported moderate tax cuts for the middle class, and not gigantic, unfunded tax cuts for the rich, he was marginalized in the Bush administration in favour of tax-cut ideologues who just kept hammering on the party line without troubling themselves with having to build a case. When Bush’s counter-terrorism head Richard Clarke warned about the danger posed by Osama bin Laden, and told the administration that Iraq posed no threat, he was told to go and make up a case for an invasion of Iraq anyway, because the administration was so fixated on Iraq that it refused to listen to reality. The administration exacted revenge on Ambassador Joe Wilson for exposing the fraudulent “Niger uranium” claim by leaking his wife’s identity as a CIA agent. This is not “leadership,” this is the government believing that it is infallible and refusing to listen to anyone who says otherwise. Not only is such an attitude extremely harmful to the country’s political and economic interests, it is extremely anti-democratic.

Only <i>recently</i> (as in a few months ago) has the Bush administration admitted that there aren’t any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that the initial excuse to go to war with Iraq was a lie. That is sticking through with the initial decision through thick and thin, alright, but can one really admire a government for doing that?

What about the decision to give tax cuts to the richest 1% of the United States? The economy is now in a decline, with over a million job losses. It has rebounded somewhat recently (hence Bush’s “Jobs are up by by so and so percent”), but the economy is obviously taking a hit from both this and the war in Iraq, made evident by the notable increase in prices of health insurance and college tuition. Bush refuses to admit openly that the number of jobs has decreased. Can one really admire a government for doing that?

And what about the Patriot Act, which is an obvious invasion of privacy, when terrorists would have been, in fact, not a threat, had Bush simply been briefed on Bin Laden’s case, instead of going on vacation? What good is the Patriot Act now? Nothing, yet it is not overthrown by the administration, as new ways of exploiting it come up every day. Can one admire a government for doing that?

Another thing: As unpopular as Bush’s decisions are in America, they are even less popular in most of the rest of the world. So while you might argue his popularity here doesn’t matter, his popularity elsewhere most certainly matters since other governments will be less inclined to help when their people are so against Bush. For that reason alone, Kerry would be more able to get allies to help in the current struggle in Iraq.

<More incoherrent ranting about stuff>

As usual, SK eviscerates my opinion. Curse you, Sephiroth Katana, for being better informed than I. Good points though.
I don’t follow politics very well, because I don’t have the patience for filtering out the massive propoganda coming from both sides into a clear, well-defined statement of ideals. One reason I’m voting for Bush is because republicans aren’t too fond of gun control, and neither am I. Democrats aren’t pushing gun control right now because all those who voted in favor of the Brady Bill when it was passed years ago are now out of office, so they’re avoiding it for their own safety. If there’s a Democratic congress, however, a Democratic president won’t hesitate to sign it if the congress passes it. This would make my concealed carry permit void, and after all the class time and money I spent to carry it, that would piss me off. Not to mention that I’d be undefended if another incident like that guy shooting up the Luby’s in Killeen happened. I don’t like that idea, especially with a baby on the way.

Instead, Aldred, you have to worry about the fact that the assault weapons ban wasn’t renewed so in fact you are LESS safe :P. Gun control doesn’t mean gun prohibition. It means finding ways to be responsible about gun ownership and use which I believe has nothing to do with your permit to own a gun.

If the assault weapons ban goes into place, the gun I carry will eventually be illegal, regardless that I’m licensed to carry it. I carry a Glock 19 .9mm with a 19-round clip. The assault weapons ban treats any handgun with a capacity of over 10 rounds as an assault weapon. While I would be ‘grandfathered’ and legal if the ban was passed again, after my license expired, I would not be able to renew it. And if something happened, forcing my to use my weapon during that time, I would likely get prison time for it, even if I was well within my rights and my license still good, simply because I used an ‘assualt weapon’. And regardless of the weapon that I used, even if it wasn’t classified as an assault weapon, if I had to use it, the BATF would confiscate it and I likely wouldn’t get it back. The only way around this would be to buy another gun and go through the licensing process again, which is a lot of time and money (I’m far from rich).

It is my firm belief that the weapons ban hurts more people than it helps. People who plan on going on a shooting spree WILL get something to use for it, ban or no. You can buy 30, 50, 70 round pre-ban clips out of magazines, again making your weapon an assault weapon. Semi-automatic weapons can be purchased legally and easily have the sear filed down to make them fully-automatic.

The only way gun control would really work is if ALL the guns were somehow magically taken away, to where there weren’t any local weapons ANYWHERE. But even this would not help average citizens; muggers and other lawbreaking slime could still wield knives, clubs, and whatever else.

It’s in the constitution that people have the right to arm themselves:

“A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
— Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Gun-control lobbyists will say that this amendment refers only to a ‘militia’ being allowed to keep and bear arms, but it clearly says ‘the people’. And still, what is a militia, but a army of ‘the people’?

I guess your opinion on gun control will boil down to your own personal feelings, but I enjoy my right and feel others should be able to, as well. You cannot protect the everyday citizen by overly regulating or disarming them.

You can still have a normal gun nonetheless. While that gun you have isn’t the worse there is, I’m personally not fond of Uzis, M-16 equivalents and AK 47s being available to just about anyone who wants one.

I find it disturbing that a man who wants to become a police officer supports less gun control for assault weapons. I’m still kinda groggy right now so forgive me if this doesn’t make sense, but just because some people have ways of circumventing safeguards, does not make all safeguards pointless.

Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran’s top security decision-making body will love you for that.

Iran prefers Bush over Kerry

You think it’s disurbing that a wannabe cop thinks our constitutional rights should be upheld, you mean? Sorry, I’m not a robot, and neither are most of the other cops in Texas. I may be alone on this message board in my opinions, but I’m not the only cadet who thinks this way. Or cop, for that matter.
Gun control is not a safeguard; it’s a regulation. Teaching proper firearm rules, running background checks, and keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons are safeguards.
Gun control is maddening for law-abiding citizens who want an effective weapon at a reasonable price, since gun prices skyrocketed when the act went into effect.
I think it’s disturbing that people in our government find it so important to disarm everyone.

The government doesn’t want to disarm everyone. The government agreed with police organizations about the risks of not having a ban on assault weapons. There’s a difference between useful and responsible gun ownership and excessively violent equipment. Last I checked, most police officers didn’t like the idea of having to deal with extremely well armed fellons. Recall that lovely bank robbery in LA about 10 years ago.

Way to totally misinterpret what I say. I in no way favored disarming everyone, or not upholding the constitution. I was also not trying to infer that you should think the same way your organization does. I found it suprising that someone who is likely to be shot at in the future, favors private citizens having more powerful weapons.
There are no practical benefits towards having an assault weapon for a private citizen. If you want to carry a gun with a 19 round clip for some reason, the solution is to have the definition of an assault weapon changed, not to make them all available.
And fine, just because a REGULATION can be circumvented, does not make all REGULATIONS pointless.

I’m passionate about this stuff, so don’t think I’m actively attacking your opinion, Clothhat (or you, for that matter).
I don’t mind the idea of private citizens having effective firarms, to a degree. No, I don’t think anyone needs a Barret Light Fifty, or an M60, and so on, since you would feasibly never need those weapons, ever. However, since criminals regularly are well-armed, I think others should be able to legally pack similarly effective weapons.

Sinistral, if the bank robbery you’re referring to was the one in L.A. where those guys dressed in Level IIII body armor traded gunfire with the cops for several hours until they were shot down, you should know that one of the robbers was using an HK93 in .223, the other using an AK-47. Both weapons had been purchased legally (legal under the gun control act) and had been illegally modified to full-auto. Had the police not been restricted by the gun control act (said act also made it illegal for anyone in California, including cops, to use ammo effective against Level IIII body armor), those bank robbers would have been brought down much sooner. Note that gun control hurt, not helped, that situation.

So you are saying because some people get the weapons and becoem more dangerous, everyone should ahve those weapons? With that sort of reasoning, every country should have nuclear weapons and there should be no bans. Since some countries do have them. Everyone having powerful weapons doesn’t create any more security or make everyone safer. It just creates more chances for people to fight it out. Also, like you said, no one really needs that kind of a weapon so it really shouldn’t affect much.

Police have access to the weapons to get past the armor and if they dont’, the military does. They could get support if it got really bad. Also, weapons powerful to penetrate that kind of armor usually aren’t used since they will mess-up a lot more than just the person and have a higher chance of injuring an innocent passer-by. Time isn’t as big of an issue as minimizing deaths or injuries and property damage. Also, like you said, those guys got the weapons legally, so it is possible to get assault weapons under the law, not impossible.

If they can pass the regular background checks and so on, yes.
Police, unfortunately, clean up more crimes than they are able to prevent. This is something that most people know anyway, and is quickly reinforced at the academy. In the end, the citizen’s chances of surviving a violent encounter are higher if they are armed than if they wait for the police, unless you’re super-rich with lots of protection or are just living in a city small enough to insure quick response time from local law enforcement. This, of course, is assuming that you are able to access a phone in a time of emergency.

That’s a bit of a leap. Nobody’s gonna hold up a store or shoot up a McDonald’s with a nuke, man.

In the aforementioned incident, the police didn’t have the weapons (due to the CA gun control laws), and they didn’t get military support. The first robber was taken out by a cop who happened to be in his own truck, in which he carried a Remington Bolt-Action .300 Winchester Magnum hunting rifle, which was powerful enough to penetrate the body armor. The second robber bled to death after two officers shot his legs out from under him from under a squad car (he wasn’t wearing lower-leg armor).
You’re correct that higher-velocity ammo isn’t the usual load because of the hazard to bystanders, but the laws made it illegal for the ammo to even be kept in reserve for this very kind of incident.
By the way, those guys caused hundreds of thousands in property damage, since they spent a few hours shooting through cars, and killed a few civilians too.

Correct. Since Sinistral brought this incident up, I used it as a paradigm to show how gun control did absolutely NO good to the officers involved, simultaneously making things easier on the criminals.

Gun control for civilians isn’t the same as gun control for law enforcement, which I would say should’ve been allowed to carry the appropriate equiment under those circumstances. Yes, that’s retarded.

As for holding up a McD’s with a nuke, you don’t hold up a McD’s with an M16 either. As you said, it may be more helpful for the person involved in the incident to have the gun to protect him or herself than to just wait around. However, that doesn’t mean they need an automatic assault rifle to do it. There’s a difference between prohibition and regulation.

The dos and don’ts of the act are mostly set in stone, but each state is left to its own devices on how to enforce secondary regulations that come with it, which is what worked against the police in that incident. I agree though; again, no private citizen REALLY needs an machine gun. It’s the secondary effects of the law that make it not worthwhile, in my opinion.

You completely missed my point with the nukes. What I’m saying is that we don’t want every country to have nukes since it makes things more dangerous. Nukes on the world scale are similar to powerful weapons on the local level. I’m not trying to sugegst that someone would hold up a McDonald’s with a nuke. I’m saying that certain weapons in the hands of normal civilians is comparable to WMDs in the hands of certain countries.

Also, I didn’t say that the police ahd those weapons or that the military was there, I said that they had ACCESS to it.

No offense man, but that’s nuts. All the M-16s in the world don’t compare to one nuke, IMO. Nothing’s changing my mind there. Besides, the point at hand is how some personal defense weapons are threatened by gun control. I’m not getting into a nuke debate here, let’s not go there.

I know you didn’t say the military was there. You said that the police could get military support, which they obviously weren’t able to do, since none ever intervened. The police didn’t have access to the armor-piercing ammunition they needed, since it was against the law even for cops to use under the gun control laws.

I still don’t think you understand Infonick’s point. What he’s trying to say is that <i>if everyone has dangerous weapons, it doesn’t make the world safer</i>. If every country had access to nuclear weapons, it wouldn’t make the world safer. If ever civlians had access to automatics, it wouldn’t make the nation safer.