Republicans Vs. Democrats

[FoFa]

Ideally, I'd want to elect someone I can trust to make a good decision whether or not I agree with it, because I know I'll never have the amount of information they will have, or fully appreciate the political implications, etc.

And that is what I wonder about Iraq. Is there something there they are not telling us that makes it so important? You Bush Bashers may not want to believe that, (and I don't think it is oil) but you have to wonder sometimes.

 

[jsanders]

Look Ken, I'm a bit fed up with you always ducking the question I have absolutely no idea what its like to kill a deer or a human.

To me, killing something with a gun just satisfies some prehistoric lust for blood which is obviously still prevailent in your neck of the woods. Or is it 'redneck' of the woods.

You sit there in a little hide and wait to kill something - its barbaric.

I can only assume that its a very fine step to killing a human.

Americans have a love of only 3 things, money, cars and guns. Its the guns that entice people to kill

Col

Damn Col, your knowledge of America is underwhelming.

 

[KenHigg]

Look Ken, I'm a bit fed up with you always ducking the question I have absolutely no idea what its like to kill a deer or a human.

To me, killing something with a gun just satisfies some prehistoric lust for blood which is obviously still prevailent in your neck of the woods. Or is it 'redneck' of the woods.

You sit there in a little hide and wait to kill something - its barbaric.

I can only assume that its a very fine step to killing a human.

Americans have a love of only 3 things, money, cars and guns. Its the guns that entice people to kill

Col

Look - just because I have no problem killing a deer to have meat on the dinner table does not mean I'd have no problem killing a human. Your logic dumbfounds me. No wonder we were able to drive you back to your pitfull little island country 200 years ago -

 

[Bodisathva]

I think the confusion you experience (and the ire Col experiences, from the looks of it) is wholly cultural in nature. I was raised with guns as tools to be used for daily life. You kill your food (it really is better for you than the chemically laced crap in the store), you shoot the groundhogs eating your garden, you shoot the poisonous snakes that endanger your home and family. And those of us who actually know which is the dangerous end of a firearm are quite capable of making the kill shot instantaneous and painless. I honestly do not look at guns and think about murder, robbery, mayhem, and all of the other newsworthy events. I also don't think I am either alone or in the minority in this opinion, but the ne'er-do-wells are the one's getting all of the attention.

 

[ColinEssex]

And that is what I wonder about Iraq. Is there something there they are not telling us that makes it so important? You Bush Bashers may not want to believe that, (and I don't think it is oil) but you have to wonder sometimes.

With an approval rating of 30%, the lowest for any President it seems "Bush Bashers" are more numerous than not.

Col

 

[FoFa]

Gun control, gay marriage, caring for the less fortunate?

Gun Control - that right there is a reason to vote against the Dem's.
Gay marriage - The problem with this is the word Marriage. Call it something else instead that gives the same rights, what the hell. If it was known from the start as Gay Union, I don't think the fall out would have been near as bad.
Caring for the less fortunate - is something neither really cares about if you go past the retoric. Neither party has shown any real action, and usually proposes a bandaid fix to get the voters to vote their way is all. Each election we hear about the poor, child care, schools, etc. Yet neither party has done squat that amounted to much in the long run. Both have had their chances, especially the Dem's, but neither has has come forward except with lines of BS. So you hear that, Oh the Dem's want to help the poor, blah, blah, blah, but even Clinton just played up to the rich after the elections were over. They know they need the money to get elected, and good propaganda can do the trick. You didn't see Clinton renting out the white house to the "less fortunate" now did you?

 

[FoFa]

But your current Republican leader has allowed a free for all on gun ownership, tell me, would you still believe in un-restricted gun ownership if one of your girls had been caught up in say, Columbine ?

There are so many things wrong with that statement. First, the current admin. has passed nothing pro or con on gun control. So your "your current Republican leader has allowed a free for all" is false. Also we do not have "un-restricted gun ownership" in this country. It is controlled (for good guys). As even in the UK, the "bad guys" can get guns illegally.

 

[ColinEssex]

Look - just because I have no problem killing a deer to have meat on the dinner table does not mean I'd have no problem killing a human. Your logic dumbfounds me. No wonder we were able to drive you back to your pitfull little island country 200 years ago -

Meat on the table? - christ Ken get a grip lad, you don't need to go out to "provide" for the family any more in that way. Its a surprise you don't drag a female home by their hair and beat them with a club.

Nothing wrong with my logic matey the sole use of a gun is to kill, therefore people who have guns must want to kill - its quite simple really.

Maybe in Georgia they haven't even reached the 18th century yet. You need to get out a bit Kenneth, perhaps stray over the border and see the lovely shiny supermarkets and stop acting like a modern day Jed Clampett.

After the British left, what did you do then??? had a bloody civil war and started fighting each other.

Damn Col, your knowledge of America is underwhelming.

who asked you anyway?

Col

 

[FoFa]

Actually, this is more in line with Democrat beliefs. The Democratic party as a whole is not interested in completely removing the right to own a gun, they are interested in restricting the right whenever (they believe) it's necessary in order to increase public safety. The Republicans, on the other hand, tend to oppose any law that restricts gun ownership in any way.

Wrong again. The Dem's have known for a long time they can't win with banning guns, as they lose to many votes. So they take a "less left" approach hoping to win more votes, and waiting until they can strike and completly remove them. Clinton tried this by bypassing the proper methods and using the courts instead. Republicans do not oppose any law that restricts ownership. Do you know in this country who is allowed to own a gun? And both parties had their hand in those laws.

 

[FoFa]

But I presume it made it easier for the two kids concerned to reek such havoc.
I understand it is not the gun that kill it is the persom behind it, but the gun makes it much easier to kill...

Actually, a bomb makes it much easier to kill. And kill more. And bombs are easier to make.

 

[KenHigg]

Meat on the table? - christ Ken get a grip lad, you don't need to go out to "provide" for the family any more in that way. Its a surprise you don't drag a female home by their hair and beat them with a club.

Nothing wrong with my logic matey the sole use of a gun is to kill, therefore people who have guns must want to kill - its quite simple really.

Maybe in Georgia they haven't even reached the 18th century yet. You need to get out a bit Kenneth, perhaps stray over the border and see the lovely shiny supermarkets and stop acting like a modern day Jed Clampett.

After the British left, what did you do then??? had a bloody civil war and started fighting each other.

Col

No wonder your leaders are always chumming up to us - We have guns and aren't affraid to use them to help protect you girlie men... 'oh mr. government man, here take my gun I'm affraid of it - I'll trust you to protect me... while I sip my tea and eat my tarts...'

 

[Matty]

who asked you anyway?

Col

Yeah. Why would you post in this thread with such a snide comment? I think you're the first person to ever do that.

 

[msp]

I think the confusion you experience (and the ire Col experiences, from the looks of it) is wholly cultural in nature. I was raised with guns as tools to be used for daily life. You kill your food (it really is better for you than the chemically laced crap in the store), you shoot the groundhogs eating your garden, you shoot the poisonous snakes that endanger your home and family. And those of us who actually know which is the dangerous end of a firearm are quite capable of making the kill shot instantaneous and painless. I honestly do not look at guns and think about murder, robbery, mayhem, and all of the other newsworthy events. I also don't think I am either alone or in the minority in this opinion, but the ne'er-do-wells are the one's getting all of the attention.

Is that directed at me??? The funny thing is that I can shoot, I have no problem with hunting for food (I cannot as I eat meat).

 

[KenHigg]

Yeah. Why would you post in this thread with such a snide comment? I think you're the first person to ever do that.

Your wrong, Col usually starts it... He's full of snide remarks....

 

[Bodisathva]

No wonder your leaders are always chumming up to us - We have guns and aren't affraid to use them to help protect you girlie men... 'oh mr. government man, here take my gun I'm affraid of it - I'll trust you to protect me... while I sip my tea and eat my tarts...'

ROTFLMAO...now that's funny

nice one Ken...

 

[FoFa]

The Democrats have always placed more faith and emphasis on the people instead of big government and big business.

I have always thought the Repub's always placed more faith on the people, with emphasis on big business so the job market is usually sound. More jobs, more taxes.

 

[Matty]

Your wrong, Col usually starts it... He's full of snide remarks....

Actually my post was referring to Colin. It's still a bit early, so maybe my sarcasm level isn't in full working order yet.

 

[msp]

Actually, a bomb makes it much easier to kill. And kill more. And bombs are easier to make.

FoFA around the world there have been several school shootings, but there have not been many school bombings.
It is possible if those guys dis not have access to guns they could of made a bomb and killed more people or even driven around in cars and killed more, but.. Do you honestly believe that.

 

[ColinEssex]

No wonder your leaders are always chumming up to us - We have guns and aren't affraid to use them to help protect you girlie men... 'oh mr. government man, here take my gun I'm affraid of it - I'll trust you to protect me... while I sip my tea and eat my tarts...'

The British are not afraid (thats one "f" by the way) of guns, we just don't see the need to go round protecting ourselves and satisfying some blood lust by shooting anything that moves, be it, animal or human.

Anyway, doesn't your religion say thou shalt not kill?? or is that yet another commandment you take and adapt it to suit your needs.

Col

 

[FoFa]

To me, killing something with a gun just satisfies some prehistoric lust for blood which is obviously still prevailent in your neck of the woods. Or is it 'redneck' of the woods.

You sit there in a little hide and wait to kill something - its barbaric.

See the problem here is you are boiling down the "hunting experience" to "sitting in a hide and waiting to kill something" I would guess if that was the whole thing, we would not have the amount of hunters we have. So since you have never been hunting, I don't think your are qualified to make a judgement such as "its barbaric". Seems a tad rude to me.