GOD I wish this where true.

Too many people get behind the wheel and really have no idea what the **** they are doing.

You know, now that I think about it, if all we're going to say is that gun owners must pass a written/computerized test and show competency at a range (the equivalent to the "onerous" requirements Jon'C seems to portray driver's licensing as) it might be a way to get the left to oppose gun control. They are always telling us that passing tests and having to have ID disenfranchise the poor and minorities, after all.

You know, the way you neatly segregate all political viewpoints into "right" and "left" is frightening.

It's for simplification but it isn't really debatable whether the American left is for or against gun control in general.

Actually if you're not for gun control on some level then you're a deeply troubled person. It doesn't really have anything to do with right or left. The left has a tendency to be more for restrictive gun laws, though.

No, Gun Control != any kind of laws pertaining to gun ownership and it should never be referred to in that manner.

Black's defines "gun control law" as "a statute or ordinance that regulates the sale, possession, or use of firearms." Do you have a definition you prefer?

I know what they "definition" of the term is. I'm saying it should not be used in that manner. This is basically an example of crafting a definition of a term to force agreement.

"Do you support Gun Control?"

"Hell no!"

"Well, you must support some type of regulation of gun sales."

"Well, of course I do."

"Well, then you do support gun control."

":confused:"

Who the hell asks "Do you support gun control?" And if someone did ask the question, why wouldn't you answer "Yes, but only certain kinds"?

Non-citizens don't deserve the right to protect their property or their families.

I don't know what the statutes say about resident aliens but if you say so.

edit - oops, here you go. Assuming it's relatively accurate.

Because, as I've made clear, I don't concede to that definition.

dot

i think what wookie is getting at is that no one ever asks if you support "gun control" and literally means ANY kind of gun control. it is almost always a loaded question and is almost always asked in order to get an "ah-ha! i got ya!" moment. i am sure wookie does not endorse putting a gun in the hands of every mass murderer and child under four years old, he just does not agree with what is typically being referred to when someone asks about "gun control"

although i could be completely wrong.

But this is, quite frankly, stupid. Anyone who asks "Do you support gun control?" and won't accept a "yes, but only" answer is stupid, and anyone who's afraid of being put to such a question is also stupid.

I suspect the real problem here is this: Wookie feels the need to redefine "gun control" so that he can oppose it wholeheartedly and thus maintain his ideological purity.

I believe I splained it adequately. If you don't understand that the type of tactics I splained are used to advance agendas then whatever. It's like this:

Do you believe our health care system should be reformed?

Of course I do.

Well then you must support Health Care Reform.

What, no!

So you want more people to die instead of reforming the system?

Just a little outsider input, but when I think about it; Not once in the last 13 years have I heard someone say "man, I wish guns were legal."



Umm, how are those different whatsoever?

No, dammit, I'm a Libertarian. Why do people keep calling me a Republican? Just because I voted for them the past 8 times...

And if the second person in the conversation isn't a moron, it's like this:

"Do you believe our health care system should be reformed?"

"Yes, but I don't think the most recent attempt at health care reform is the way to do it."

"Oh. Then what do you suggest?"

They're different because healthcare reform is an important and necessary step to secure the future of the United States by protecting basic workers from economic volatility.

Healthcare Reform, on the other hand, is one of Fox News' cultivated trigger phrases designed to turn their viewers into quibbling knee-jerk reactionary pseudoconservatives who are incapable of separating reality from fiction.

Some guns are legal there though aren't they, while automatics and a range of other types of firearms are banned, and obtaining a license for a legal gun is difficult.

Do you believe there is an important social problem that should be corrected?

Of course I do. Actually I don't, but it's important for my agenda that I don't appear callous.

Well then, you must support some sort of solution to the problem.

What, no! Fixing the problem will leave me at a personal disadvantage. Honestly, I'm opposed to any solution, so I'll brand anybody trying to fix it "socialist" or "fascist." Maybe I'll even call them "socialist" and "fascist" simultaneously, just to see if anybody's paying attention.

So you want more people to die instead of reforming the system?

Heh. Got mine, **** you.

Haha, Jon'C can make anything about Fox News!

Health Care Reform would be Obamacare for anyone following current events.

Really, none of this is complicated, nor does it require any degree. It is a well known debate tactic to trick people into conceding your points.

Yes but the phrases "healthcare should be reformed" and "healthcare reform" denote pretty much the same thing.

Sure but I didn't say healthcare reform. I said [Obamacare]. Current events shall give you the context.

The same thing will likely be going on soon with Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Students of history may recall that the American right wing has been using this exact strategy literally since the United States was founded. An excellent example is seen in supporters of segregation/disenfranchisement (i.e. saying "racism is bad," while simultaneously making libelous arguments associating civil rights movements and communism, and claiming that anti-racism laws are unconstitutional while the states' constitutional infringements are.)

Fox News is the latest evolution of American conservative rhetoric. That's why it always comes back to Fox News, Wookie06: because the American right has nothing else. You have no substance. You have no other talents and no other tricks. Fox News rhetoric is the entirety of the modern American conservative. That's why the republican party is a ****ing joke, and why nobody takes pseudoconservatives like you seriously. None of you have a damn clue what you're talking about. Least of all some hick with veterans' benefits.

To start with you didn't, and the phrase "healthcare reform" could refer to literally hundreds of reforms in various places. You could at least refer to some sort of bill or whatever.

Oh no, a nuanced and ethnically-charged issue where the only practical solution will be a compromise unsatisfactory to everybody involved?

I BET THE REPUBLICANS VOTE AGAINST IT.

And just like with the prior two examples, rather than neutralize this "debate tactic" by saying "I'm in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, but not of this type," you'll play right into it, claiming to be opposed to comprehensive immigration reform because that's what a good conservative is supposed to do.

Remember how this tactic is only a problem for stupid people? Yeah.

****ing compromises. This is why all the great empires were dictatorships.

Also. Good REPUBLICAN. Not good CONSERVATIVE, damnit.

You could always just stop throwing labels at everything.

I'm trying to describe Wookie's thought process here, and I haven't seen any evidence that he thinks there's a difference.

See, it's all a big, beautiful ballet.

Poor people have really stupid, tedious jobs that literally anybody could do without any training or education whatsoever. Most working class Americans are aware of this, and that's why illegal immigration terrifies them. So you get xenophobic, racist, anti-immigration propaganda from Newscorp (owned by an Australian immigrant who refused to apply for citizenship until forced to by congress,) which whips the working class into a frenzy with promises that THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WILL FIX IT ALL, even though they ran the country for 20 of the past 30 years and never gave a **** about it.

Then you have rich people, the guys who actually run the republican party and Newscorp, who don't care about the problem. At best it's boring and irrelevant to them, and at worst they recognize how immigration reform is a type of labor market protectionism and oppose it on ideological grounds. Either way, they don't care. They'll vote against it, they'll oppose it in private, because it's not worth their time or effort. They just don't care who's getting paid to scrub their toilets, as long as it gets done. Because the poor aren't important.

This is also why American conservatives oppose healthcare reform, romanticize 'trickle down economics,' oppose financial reform, inflate the wage gap, opposed the civil rights movement, opposed the Reconstruction, and are universally responsible for the most egregious examples of corruption in American politics (e.g. the cabinets of Buchanan, Nixon and Reagan.)

Accurate commentary. Is it better in Canada?

I wish. It's just different.

Take the Republicans' corruption and ignorant rhetoric, and combine it with the Democrats' fiscal diarrhea and overwhelming NIMBY-ism, and you get the Liberal Party of Canada.

And the media has a hard-on for them. For years, the Liberal Party handed out a lot of illegal contracts and kickbacks to the media companies. So every news broadcaster other than the CBC is embarrassingly slanted toward the Liberal party. It's hard to really put it in perspective for a non-Canadian, but I'll try.

There was a former Prime Minister, a Liberal, named Pierre Trudeau. An evil little douche. there's a famous photo of him smoking a cigar and laughing with Fidel Castro. He's also the only Prime Minister who ever declared martial law, he's the reason breakfast cereal costs $12 a box (because he made French an official language,) he offended the Queen and there's pretty good evidence he embezzled a lot of money from the government. Albertans hate him especially, and after he retired he literally could not enter Alberta because he and his entire family would have been butchered if they did. Needless to say, he's a hero of the Liberal party and the people who vote for them.
After he died, the Albertan branch of one of our major media companies (CanWest/Global) aired a week-long tribute.

Some more highlights:
- In the last election, the Liberal party tried to form a coalition with the NDP to shut out the plurally-elected Conservatives. Of course, the news companies were shocked at how stupid Canadians didn't realize how AWESOME it was for the Liberals to decide who gets to pass legislation instead of voters.
- Back when the Conservative Party was just forming, some Canadians were worried about Christian right influences in the Conservative platform. At the same time, the Liberal leadership was under criminal investigation for bribery. Guess which story got more screen time?
- Recently there was a fight for the leadership of the Liberal party. Apparently, both candidates were roommates at the same prestigious boarding school! According to the news corporations, this scathing rebuttal of our supposedly-democratic system is a "charming coincidence."

Just ****ing embarrassing.

(Fascist =/= Right wing extremist)

(It's entirely possible to be fascist communist/socialist.)

....No, it is literally impossible to be simultaneously fascist and communist or socialist.

I had no idea you were one of the morons railing on the coalition and waving a CCCP flag.