Well then we need to ban those too. 
Once is chance, twice is happenstance, a dozen upsets – all in favor of the same political party, in races where electronic voting machines were used – is cause for suspicion…
(Yeah, I know, tin-foil-hat territory. All I know is I wouldn’t trust any electronic voting machine in the 2004 race further than I can throw Karl Rove…)
Well, yes, but the cause could still be superior GoTV programs. Of course, as I might have noted Republicans also habitually run illegal Keep in the Vote programs as well (luckily for them, their base is far less susceptible to these sorts of tactics, though I guess you could pass notes around the country club telling people to make sure they bring in a copy of their tax returns to vote), but these rarely involve the need to rig the machines. Of course, as long as we have partisan BoEs, no election is really safe.
Well, that’s a matter of opinion. I wouldn’t call those “mainstream” positions.
Well, I’ll admit it if I’m wrong. I’ll have to do some research, though. It’s likely that some of the ammunition that is being labeled as “armor-piercing” is just standard deer hunting ammo, and my news source focused on that. Kinda like the misapplication of the term “assault weapon” to semi-automatic rifles with cosmetic changes.
I’ll get back to you on this.
ROTFL!
Please READ the amendment!
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
(emphasis mine)
Just because judges in one district come out in force saying that “the people” = “only the militia” = the national Guard doesn’t make it true.
Well, actually it’s “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.”
But the interpretation of this is another discussion, and one we’ve all had before.
True. Although if you ask me, the difference in wording is enormous.
Kerry believes in the first part of the amendment, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the secutiry of a free State”, as well as the second part.
“WELL-REGULATED”. The phrase is in the Constitution, in the second amendment no less. All branches of the government, Congress, Executive and Judicial, are commanded in the Constitution to well-regulate the militas, even as they allow the militias to exist as a necessity. Now, why do the pro-gun people tend to miss that part? We “well-regulate” the military; who not militias?
Well, they proposed the legislation on PBAs, and brought it to a vote. It didn’t pass because Democrats voted against it. You seem to be claiming that Republicans are disinterested in outlawing PBAs because Democrats vote to keep them. Not sure of the logic.
Because the exception under discussion would have made the law meaningless. As I mentioned.
And here we take the final step into pure fantasy. You are making things up, and attributing them to me.
And exactly where the hell did I deny that I was discussing whether or not Kerry was in the mainstream?
I find things go more smoothly if we stick to points people are actually making, instead of making up stuff. I can’t debate the voices in anyone else’s head.
Regards,
Shodan
Part of our problem is defining “mainstream”. Presumably, this must be somewhere around the “center”. Which is very problemactical, and seems to vary on a state by state basis, with many surprises.
Republicans in such states as Oregon, Arizona, and Michigan have undergone a profound, dare I say revolutionary, disorientation in their political stance, having moved en masse just to the right of Trotsky. Previously staid, dull, and wholly committed to Coolidge’s maxim “The business of America is business”, in a matter of a few short years have found themselves fervently devoted to the politics of Ralph Nader.
Whodathunkit? Now, of course, there are a few scattered naysayers, claiming that this is nothing more than a cynical ploy by Republicans to undermine Kerry by underhanded means. Given the proven record of Republicans for honesty, simplicity, and idealism, we can dismiss this scurrilous notion out of hand. Republicans resorting to such thunderous hypocrisy? Why, the very idea! This is, after all, the party of Bush, the very paragon of candor and straightforwardness!
As well, we are given to understand that Mr. Kerry is a “flip-flopper”. (This may, of course, mean nothing more than a marked preference for rubber shower-clog shoes…) At one and the same time, he is on both sides of every issue, and invariably “liberal”. This is a profound shift in the accepted paradigm of thesis-antithesis in American politics. There is now, it seems, a “conservative” side to any given issue, a “liberal” side, and another “liberal” side as well! Kerry is invariably liberal, of course, but sometimes he is liberal, and other times, he is liberal.
(I keep telling you people, a voice murmuring politely in the wilderness: Cognitive Dissonance is the number one threat to our Republic! But no one will listen…)
Why does everybody keep talking about gun policy as an example of Kerry being “out of the mainstream”? All Kerry’s campaign website says about gun policy is this (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/communities/):
Seems pretty “mainstream” to me. In fact, “bland” would be a better word.
Well, as an owner of 4 guns, I guess I can consider myself pro-gun. I, and several fellow gunners I know, didn’t really have a problem with the above laws. The NRA has really been taken over in the past decade, and it is the NRA, not your average gun owner, that has gone out of the mainstream. I think Kerry is wise to show himself as a hunter and gunowner.
They kind of gloss over it in the article, but things were very volitile after the death of Wellstone (D-MN)I’d take any satistics taken during that time with a grain of salt.