Happy Gun Appreciation Day! Anti-Gun Control rallies attract 1000's - Polidicks

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39285291]Eh, in my opinion Romney was hardly conservative. Republican, sure, but not conservative.[/QUOTE] he was an avowed social conservative...?

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39285291]Eh, in my opinion Romney was hardly conservative. Republican, sure, but not conservative.[/QUOTE] he certainly pandered to the conservative base very heavily. it's hard to say what any politician truly is ideologically, but you can say who he would pander to and have an idea of what laws he would push for by extension.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39285312]he certainly pandered to the conservative base very heavily. it's hard to say what any politician truly is ideologically, but you can say who he would pander to and have an idea of what laws he would push for by extension.[/QUOTE] The only reason conservatives backed him is because they don't really like Obama. While most republicans actually liked him, for conservatives it was kind of a, "We're stuck with this clown Romney but at least he isn't Obama." As for my opinion, I wouldn't have taken it that far, but that was the general consenus.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39285299][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom[/URL] "restrictions...glorifying terrorism,[83][84] collection or possession of information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[85][86] treason including imagining the death of the monarch,[87] sedition,[87] obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency," that is hardly free speech. and yea, the usa did have japanese concentration camps. the usa is hardly a bastion of freedom in the world, i'm just saying our free speech guarantees are imho much greater than that of the uk.[/QUOTE] america has exceptions to free speech for defamation, indecency/obscenity, i mean fuck look at the PATRIOT act if you want a good look at worrying attacks on civil rights with the justification of international terrorism your free speech 'guarantees' are as worthless as the UK's, because you have free speech zones if you have zones where you have free speech, what does it say about outside the zone? and incidentally, if the second amendment protects against tyranny, why didn't it protect the japanese americans which were literally sent to concentration camps? surely that was a moment where your constitution was tested, and absolutely failed to protect the citizens that needed it most

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39285337]The only reason conservatives backed him is because they don't really like Obama. While most republicans actually liked him, for conservatives it was kind of a, "We're stuck with this clown Romney but at least he isn't Obama." As for my opinion, I wouldn't have taken it that far, but that was the general consenus.[/QUOTE] But in what sense was Romney's economic policy preferable to Obama's in any aspect?

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39285337]The only reason conservatives backed him is because they don't really like Obama. While most republicans actually liked him, for conservatives it was kind of a, "We're stuck with this clown Romney but at least he isn't Obama." As for my opinion, I wouldn't have taken it that far, but that was the general consenus.[/QUOTE] you're missing my point. even if he wasn't outrageously conservative, his base was conservative so he would have been forced to act in a fairly conservative manner to secure support. so if he had been elected, he would have been pretty conservative. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;39285345]america has exceptions to free speech for defamation, indecency/obscenity your free speech 'guarantees' are as worthless as the UK's, because you have free speech zones if you have zones where you have free speech, what does it say about outside the zone? and incidentally, if the second amendment protects against tyranny, why didn't it protect the japanese americans which were literally sent to concentration camps? surely that was a moment where your constitution was tested, and absolutely failed to protect the citizens that needed it most[/QUOTE] we don't have free speech zones i dont know what your source is, but it's wrong. if you are in public you can say what you want as long as it doesn't create an immediate danger to other people. also, we have indecency laws(against topless women, penises etc.), but obscenity is not banned in a public place. insults are not banned in public. defamation/libel is pretty much illegal everywhere because it seeks to harm another person through untrue statements. however satire and parody are incredibly protected, i don't know if it's the same in the uk

Cloak Raider, internment and concentration camps are two entirely different things.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39285358]you're missing my point. even if he wasn't outrageously conservative, his base was conservative so he would have been forced to act in a fairly conservative manner to secure support. so if he had been elected, he would have been pretty conservative. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] we don't have free speech zones i dont know what your source is, but it's wrong. if you are in public you can say what you want as long as it doesn't create an immediate danger to other people. also, we have indecency laws(against topless women, penises etc.), but obscenity is not banned in a public place. insults are not banned in public. defamation/libel is pretty much illegal everywhere because it seeks to harm another person through untrue statements. however satire and parody are incredibly protected, i don't know if it's the same in the uk[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones[/url]

[QUOTE=Megafan;39285348]But in what sense was Romney's economic policy preferable to Obama's in any aspect?[/QUOTE] Not to compare Mitt Romney to Ronald Reagan by any means, but in my opinion Romney believed more in the private sector and lower taxes, less spending, ect. While Obama said he only wants to tax the "rich", payroll taxes, death taxes, ect, are going up for the 2013 year. Obama's big plan was the stimulus package, which in my opinion was a failure. He's expected to shut down coal power plants, which is going to raise the cost of energy. Under Obama food stamps have gone up 44%, and welfare has gone up 11%, ect. ect. I don't really hate people on the left, I would gladly vote democrat if there was one with views I agreed with. Even though I come off as someone whose soul intent is to trash Obama, I'm not here to do that, I just call it how I see it to be honest.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39285399]Cloak Raider, internment and concentration camps are two entirely different things.[/QUOTE] Well both violate the 4th amendment, regardless.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39285409]Not to compare Mitt Romney to Ronald Reagan by any means, but in my opinion Romney believed more in the private sector and lower taxes, less spending, ect. While Obama said he only wants to tax the "rich", payroll taxes, death taxes, ect, are going up for the 2013 year. Obama's big plan was the stimulus package, which in my opinion was a failure. He's expected to shut down coal power plants, which is going to raise the cost of energy. Under Obama food stamps have gone up 44%, and welfare has gone up 11%, ect. ect. I don't really hate people on the left, I would gladly vote democrat if there was one with views I agreed with. Even though I come off as someone whose soul intent is to trash Obama, I'm not here to do that, I just call it how I see it to be honest.[/QUOTE] Romney had higher tax rates than Obama though...?

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39285399]Cloak Raider, internment and concentration camps are two entirely different things.[/QUOTE] sure internment sounds a whole lot nicer but the US basically took a load of citizens who were guilty of having japanese heritage, and put them in camps you cannot possibly see this in any other way other than an enormous black stain on your constitution

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;39285407][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones[/url][/QUOTE] those are for the purpose of protest. i hardly agree with them but they aren't heavily enforced in the first place anyways. people literally protest wherever in many us cities and unless the protest gets too big/obstructive police don't bother with it.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;39285345] if the second amendment protects against tyranny, why didn't it protect the japanese americans which were literally sent to concentration camps? surely that was a moment where your constitution was tested, and absolutely failed to protect the citizens that needed it most[/QUOTE] That was an executive order given by Roosevelt in order to ensure the safety of the West Coast, While highly controversial, it should not be used in you're argument, because the majority of the American populace was against the idea of Japanese culture following Pearl Harbor, the second amendment would have not protected these people or even cause a second thought as to their detainment, if anything these individuals would be seen as domestic terrorists responding to the call or their emperor. Your argument is shaky at best, please provide another.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39285425]Romney had higher tax rates than Obama though...?[/QUOTE] I don't know that to be true. If I remember correctly he wanted to extend the Bush tax cuts.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39285431]those are for the purpose of protest. i hardly agree with them but they aren't heavily enforced in the first place anyways. people literally protest wherever in many us cities and unless the protest gets too big/obstructive police don't bother with it.[/QUOTE] is protest not a form of free speech?

[QUOTE=snapshot32;39285435]That was an executive order given by Roosevelt in order to ensure the safety of the West [/QUOTE] I agree, and not to mention that FDR was notorious for unconstitutional policies.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;39285435]That was an executive order given by Roosevelt in order to ensure the safety of the West Coast, While highly controversial, it should not be used in you're argument, because the majority of the American populace was against the idea of Japanese culture following Pearl Harbor, the second amendment would have not protected these people or even cause a second thought as to their detainment, if anything these individuals would be seen as domestic terrorists responding to the call or their emperor. Your argument is shaky at best, please provide another.[/QUOTE] please don't pull the 'it was for their protection crap' what if they didn't want to go, and your government stripped them of their freedoms and put them in camps. the second amendment didn't do shit for them because tyranny isn't some big boogeyman that appears in a day and is fought off. it's where japanese americans had their constitutional rights denied because of their heritage alone it was the situation where these people absolutely needed the protections of the constitution, and it FAILED to protect them. Absolutely failed. and you have the gall to say that argument is shaky.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;39285430]sure internment sounds a whole lot nicer but the US basically took a load of citizens who were guilty of having japanese heritage, and put them in camps you cannot possibly see this in any other way other than an enormous black stain on your constitution[/QUOTE] I agree, but "concentration camps" carries the connotation that they were extermination camps or death camps, which they were not.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39285436]I don't know that to be true. If I remember correctly he wanted to extend the Bush tax cuts.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.romneytaxplan.com/[/url] [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/10/29/what-exactly-is-mitt-romneys-tax-plan/[/url] the first one just makes me laugh, the second one is a real source.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39285409]Not to compare Mitt Romney to Ronald Reagan by any means, but in my opinion Romney believed more in the private sector and lower taxes, less spending, ect.[/QUOTE] And why is this preferable? [QUOTE=UziXxX;39285409]While Obama said he only wants to tax the "rich", payroll taxes, death taxes, ect, are going up for the 2013 year. Obama's big plan was the stimulus package, which in my opinion was a failure. He's expected to shut down coal power plants, which is going to raise the cost of energy. Under Obama food stamps have gone up 44%, and welfare has gone up 11%, ect. ect.[/QUOTE] Taxation here seems to be considered a bad idea by default, and while you may have considered the stimulus a failure, I'm a bit more interested in what credible economists/experts/etc. have to say about it. I can't report on the absolute success or failure of it, but a letter was signed by 200 economists to Congress endorsing the stimulus package, here: [URL]http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/economy/news/2009/01/27/5490/letter-to-congress-economists-across-the-spectrum-endorse-stimulus-package/[/URL] Other prominent economists such as Paul Krugman said that the stimulus should have been bigger, if anything: [QUOTE=Paul Krugman]"...it’s widely believed that political considerations led to a plan that was weaker and contains more tax cuts than it should have – that Mr. Obama compromised in advance in the hope of gaining broad bipartisan support."[/quote] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/opinion/13krugman.html?_r=2&[/url] Recession is the time when social programs are of the utmost importance, because more people are likely to need them. That's pretty basic.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;39285437]is protest not a form of free speech?[/QUOTE] sure, and you found a great example of a restriction that i believe is wrong. that doesn't change my opinion that our guarantees are still at least a step up from the uk where obscenity and racism are considered hate speech.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;39285464]please don't pull the 'it was for their protection crap' what if they didn't want to go, and your government stripped them of their freedoms and put them in camps. the second amendment didn't do shit for them because tyranny isn't some big boogeyman that appears in a day and is fought off. it's where japanese americans had their constitutional rights denied because of their heritage alone and you have the gall to say that argument is shaky.[/QUOTE] Which the federal government later apologized for and sent them money compensation. (Even though "i'm sorry here's some money" doesn't fix the wrong that was forced upon them by their own government.)

also uzi, food stamps would have gone up under a romney presidency as well. the fact of the matter was that more people were eligible and applying for foodstamps. that has little to do with the administration simply bumping up the food stamp budget and more to do with the fact that we were in a recession and more people qualified for government aid.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39285483]Which the federal government later apologized for and sent them money compensation. (Even though "i'm sorry here's some money" doesn't fix the wrong that was forced upon them by their own government.)[/QUOTE] you don't make up for massive injustice and violation of human rights with some money and an apology. your constitution doesn't say "null and void if the government really [I]really[/I] felt they had to do it, and apologised after."

obama did take away the "work for welfare" program iirc, but that was the only really notable thing he did regarding government entitlements to the poor. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;39285502]you don't make up for massive injustice and violation of human rights with some money and an apology. your constitution doesn't say "null and void if the government really [I]really[/I] felt they had to do it, and apologised after."[/QUOTE] what do you expect? the government apologized and gave reparations. i mean it doesn't excuse the action, but all we can do now is make sure we don't do the same shit again.

[QUOTE=thisispain;39283554]literally the only point to posting this was so that the same people who always post these threads or post in the firearms thread can stroke themselves, call people fascists, mass rate dumbs, then bolt by calling kopimi or sigma or whoever a douche or something like this is worse than the mlp shit we've had on this forum, and that's a high standard to reach[/QUOTE] probably because there hasn't been any good anti gun arguments posted yet, I genuinely want to see them. Every time people try to get factual, people post all these statistics and [i]piles upon piles [/i]of evidence that prove the pro gun arguers right, and they just get ignored by the anti gun arguers. I mean FBI data and official records are suddenly blog-tier sources because it doesn't support their argument.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;39285502]you don't make up for massive injustice and violation of human rights with some money and an apology. your constitution doesn't say "null and void if the government really [I]really[/I] felt they had to do it, and apologised after."[/QUOTE] You're preaching to the choir bro, I'm on your side. I agree. "Here's some money, sorry for taking away your rights based on your race and putting you in a prison even though you didn't do anything wrong".

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;39285464]please don't pull the 'it was for their protection crap' what if they didn't want to go, and your government stripped them of their freedoms and put them in camps. the second amendment didn't do shit for them because tyranny isn't some big boogeyman that appears in a day and is fought off. it's where japanese americans had their constitutional rights denied because of their heritage alone and you have the gall to say that argument is shaky.[/QUOTE] The detainment was in horrible Err as many Japanese Americans fought in the second world war, and I doubt their living conditions were well regulated, however the second amendment would have done nothing to curb their detainment. If anything it would worsen, tyranny was committed that day of order and the American populace failed to recognize it under the guise of propaganda and racial stigma. However, and I can not stress this enough, if the Minority had taken arms and fought back they would have been labeled as Terrorists, if they were to survive the American detainment, they would need to comply peaceably that's how they remained alive, the weaponry allotted by second amendment would not help it would harm.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39285504]obama did take away the "work for welfare" program iirc, but that was the only really notable thing he did regarding government entitlements to the poor. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] what do you expect? the government apologized and gave reparations. i mean it doesn't excuse the action, but all we can do now is make sure we don't do the same shit again.[/QUOTE] what do I expect? if you're going to glorify your constitution, enshrine it in such a manner that it essentially defines your politics, you can at least have the decency to not blatantly and brazenly violate it if it isn't an honest check on the government, then it's just another law that guarantees you nothing. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=snapshot32;39285526]The detainment was in horrible Err as many Japanese Americans fought in the second world war, and I doubt their living conditions were well regulated, however the second amendment would have done nothing to curb their detainment. If anything it would worsen, tyranny was committed that day of order and the American populace failed to recognize it under the guise of propaganda and racial stigma. However, and I can not stress this enough, if the Minority had taken arms and fought back they would have been labeled as Terrorists, if they were to survive the American detainment, they would need to comply peaceably that's how they remained alive, the weaponry allotted by second amendment would not help it would harm.[/QUOTE] so the second amendment is effective as a check against the government only in the case of grand scale fantasy dystopian oppression. an effective law if you have a big mob behind you, otherwise it's worthless? like, when you'd want it to work the MOST?