These things just write themselves, huh?

crickets

A hahhahahhahah

Omaha gonna take ur guns. Vote for Romney to savez dem.

A hahhahahhahah

Who's gonna be the useful Rube this time. Looks like law and order gop voters.

Idiots

After watching this debate I've decided to vote for Obama. He's evil... but lazy. Romney's evil and can get things done.

Edit hahahah, who am I kidding? I'm voting for Baal the god of murder.

I'm gonna vote for rooftops with nice angles. We're gonna need them. Ha

When asked specifically if he would ban AK-47s, Obama said he would like to keep weapons made for soldiers out of citizen's hands.

Romney said he would not support new legislation to ban AK-47s

If you had any doubts as to the degree of which we are totally and completely ****ed, regardless of which of these mouse turds wins, please turn on the debates. You are seeing a visual representation of the results of complacency. Also, if you have a "Obama" or "Romney" sticker on your car, there is a 100% chance you are an *******.

The partisans are going to come after me, but Romney had a pretty weak debate overall. Made some good points for sure. But he absolutely failed to take the initiative on a great many points, and played defense on points he should have been attacking the President on. Almost every recognized poll aggregator has Obama eeking out a narrow win. Romney needed to land another heavy blow (and go look at the debate post in Politics, I very much recognized the overwhelming Romney victory as it was happening) and he not only failed to do that, but I think the initiative was wrested from him.

Long replies are kinda obnoxious so please excuse 'n I promise not to do it again ;-)
But I think the clowns in this debate warrant some excerpts from Doug Casey’s excellent piece: “The Ascendence Of Sociopaths In US Governance"

"The US government, in particular, is being overrun by the wrong kind of person. It's a trend that's been in motion for many years but has now reached a point of no return. In other words, a type of moral rot has become so prevalent that it's institutional in nature. There is not going to be, therefore, any serious change in the direction in which the US is headed until a genuine crisis topples the existing order. Until then, the trend will accelerate.
The reason is that a certain class of people – sociopaths – are now fully in control of major American institutions. Their beliefs and attitudes are insinuated throughout the economic, political, intellectual and psychological/spiritual fabric of the US."

……” The US is already in a truly major depression and on the edge of financial chaos and a currency meltdown. The sociopaths in government will react by redoubling the pace toward a police state domestically and starting a major war abroad. To me, this is completely predictable. It's what sociopaths do.
There are seven characteristics I can think of that define a sociopath, although I'm sure the list could be extended.
1. Sociopaths completely lack a conscience or any capacity for real regret about hurting people. Although they pretend the opposite.
2. Sociopaths put their own desires and wants on a totally different level from those of other people. Their wants are incommensurate. They truly believe their ends justify their means. Although they pretend the opposite.
3. Sociopaths consider themselves superior to everyone else, because they aren't burdened by the emotions and ethics others have – they're above all that. They're arrogant. Although they pretend the opposite.
4. Sociopaths never accept the slightest responsibility for anything that goes wrong, even though they're responsible for almost everything that goes wrong. You'll never hear a sincere apology from them.
5. Sociopaths have a lopsided notion of property rights. What's theirs is theirs, and what's yours is theirs too. They therefore defend currency inflation and taxation as good things.
6. Sociopaths usually pick the wrong target to attack. If they lose their wallet, they kick the dog. If 16 Saudis fly planes into buildings, they attack Afghanistan.
7. Sociopaths traffic in disturbing news, they love to pass on destructive rumors and they'll falsify information to damage others.
The fact that they're chronic, extremely convincing and even enthusiastic liars, who often believe their own lies, means they aren't easy to spot, because normal people naturally assume another person is telling the truth. They rarely have handlebar mustaches or chortle like Snidely Whiplash. Instead, they cultivate a social veneer or a mask of sanity that diverts suspicion. You can rely on them to be "politically correct" in public. How could a congressman or senator who avidly supports charities possibly be a bad guy? They're expert at using facades to disguise reality, and they feel no guilt about it.
Political elites are primarily, and sometimes exclusively, composed of sociopaths. It's not just that they aren't normal human beings. They're barely even human, a separate subspecies, differentiated by their psychological qualities. A normal human can mate with them spiritually and psychologically about as fruitfully as a modern human could mate physically with a Neanderthal; it can be done, but the results won't be good.
It's a serious problem when a society becomes highly politicized, as is now the case in the US and Europe. In normal times, a sociopath stays under the radar. Perhaps he'll commit a common crime when he thinks he can get away with it, but social mores keep him reined in. However, once the government changes its emphasis from protecting citizens from force to initiating force with laws and taxes, those social mores break down. Peer pressure, social approbation and moral opprobrium, the forces that keep a healthy society orderly, are replaced by regulations enforced by cops and funded by taxes. Sociopaths sense this, start coming out of the woodwork and are drawn to the State and its bureaucracies and regulatory agencies, where they can get licensed and paid to do what they've always wanted to do.”

Tonight I decided to go Hooter's and watch the UFC fights. It was better than watching the boobs fight on TV.

Drkshapiro +1

These two are not sociopaths.

They're both psychotic.

Looks like Wis/Min summarized most succinctly the candidates' approach to guns.

Oh yes fersure we should listen to what politicians say and ignore what they have done

I'm voting for lamp posts and rope.

Quote:

When asked specifically if he would ban AK-47s, Obama said he would like to keep weapons made for soldiers out of citizen's hands.

In other words, he wants ensure that the citizens cannot defend themselves against a government run amok.

Quote:

Romney said he would not support new legislation to ban AK-47s

Unless of course the NRA is OK with it, as they were with Bill that he signed in Massachusetts.

-Uwe-

PS: I don't care if they ban AK-47s. Only commies use those. But keep your hands off my G3 and my ARs!

Oh, wait:

Ok then Vote Obozo who just stated he was going to ban assault rifles. Thats a much better choice suckaz

You don't have a choice.

I heard Romney say two things:

Automatic weapons are already illegal in the U.S.
No new gun laws.

I heard Obama say one thing:

We need to re-introduce the assault weapons ban.

And you can actually see his signature on the "compromise" bill he signed in Massachusetts.

Who are you going to believe, Romney or your lying eyes?

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Obama and Romney are the wolves. We are the sheep.

Your choice is to either bow down to your masters here, or WITHDRAW CONSENT, as vocally as you can.

Question to the board:

Clearly the 2nd Amendment speaks to the citizenry retaining the ability to take back the government from any tyrannical occupation. The founding fathers did not differentiate between hunting, self defense, etc when the constitution was written, ie they didn't ban cannons (the equivalent to heavy arms of the day). I agree with them.

My question is: what if any is an appropriate level of arms/gun control? The debate is trivial anyway because assault weapons would not enable the citizenry to win a war against tanks, planes and other heavy arms. Should heavy explosives be legal? Should we be able to purchase or build large bombs, nukes, etc?

Quote:

The debate is trivial anyway because assault weapons would not enable the citizenry to win a war against tanks, planes and other heavy arms.

I just want to point out that this is obviously an incorrect assumption, if you know anything about history. I think your other questions are valid, however.