It must be nice to see every thing in such black and whitey terms. Anyone that disgrees with you is a clueless buffoon, you seem to keep implying.

I understand the historical context of the 2nd amendment, and don’t contend that it justifies all guns today. But so what? I fail to see how that is the crux of the argument. Is it really your contention that with all the different ways we have to maim and kill and endanger ourselves and each other, that we need to just outlaw guns. And that that’ll solve the problem of gun violence?

There is no defensible reason for the general populace to have access to guns.

What is the defensible reason for outlawing guns? The general populace is denied access to cocaine. How’s that working out? 8 balls in scarce supply, are they?

What’s misguided is the idea that denying access to guns will cure the problem of gun violence. Comparing the situation in Europe to the US is apples and oranges. Fact: the number of legal gun owners in the US that have been involved in gun crimes (excluding suicide, which is a stupid thing to be a crime) is dwarfed 3 fold by the number that have defended themselves by gun against violent criminals. And I don’t know about you, but I travel a lot w/ job, and my wife is considered hot by most standards, so I sleep a lot better knowing she has a gat in the nightstand drawer. In your america I suppose she’d just scream the dude away.

Responsible gun ownership saves lives, and is an effective deterrent. Even if that weren’t the case, I repeat, so what? There are dozens of dangerous but legal things you can do.

The 2nd amendment made sense in 1791, but it doesn’t now. It’ s just a crutch for gun nuts and those that think the government are out to "get them

."

Black and whiteyness, 98% erroneous, and hyperbolic. Most gun owners

a) Love to shoot. It’s a lot of fun
b) Want to have more than a 3 wood or a butcher knife if they have to investigate breaking glass downstairs
c) Sure as hell don’t think the gov is out to get them. That last one is an egregiously ridiculous caricature.

Let’s get those juices flowin, …

on Carter.

Mediocre and underachieving is the perfect way to describe his presidency.

Not many presidents have rallied the country to war under false pretenses. He was the only post ww2 president to see the stock market decline on his watch. He is up there with Hoover for being asleep at the switch while a huge economic crisis was created.

Screwing up war/peace decisions and being asleep at the switch during the one of the most disastrous economic disasters in our nations history is a unique combination.

I just have problems seeing many other presidents being actually worse for the country. I think in 50 years, Bush will rank with the Buchanens and Pierces and Hardings of the nation.

Carter’s book on Israel/Pakistan when his advisors at the time came out and said more than 50% of it was lies. He’s not a good spokesman. He’s a country bumpkin idiot who stands on his soapbox like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson

parenting, growing up in crime-ridden neighborhoods, lots of things play a part. These things are complex, not just caused by people being lazy.

you may not know Hannity or Beck, but you have the same know it all arrogance of those two.

You said no liberal ever gave you an answer to any of your questions. One example you gave was the economy. I gave you two answers. Continue the policies that were in place and working under the Clinton admin., or cut the huge spending in defense and the wars and raise taxes. The second needs to be done now to make up for 8 years of Bush flushing the economy down the shitter.

As for your question about dems and the military. If you make a stupid comment like the one you made you will not get a straight answer. If you want to have an adult conversation, that’s fine.

Wilson handled WWI pretty well. He kept us out of war as long as he could and then once in the war helped end it asap (which I know was already on its way to happening anyway). FDR also handled WWII the way he should have. Again, doing everything he could to keep us out of war ‘til Pearl Harbor happened. Now were both situations handled perfectly, of course not. However to say that the Democratic party has never been good at doing anything involving the military is just stupid. Just because they don’t go in a blow shit up and ask questions later doesn’t mean they don’t know how to handle the military.

t ball hit the nail on the head with the war in Iraq. I disagreed with the dems for going along with it then and still do now. It’s not the first time I’ve said the dems were being spineless and letting the republican smear campaign dictate what would happen.

If you’re little attempt at humor at the end of your post is any sign of what it’s like to discuss an issue with you it’s no wonder no one will give you a straight answer. You think you know everything and anyone that doesn’t share your views is stupid.

Instead of troll baiting posts like this Pretty good summary of events. Not that drawing the Liberal Left offsides is a feat. They are so very sensitive… you should actually try to add something to the conversation.

So as t ball suggest below in this thread. Let’s hear some of the answers to your own questions as to what you would do to fix what you see is going on.

That would be a mature response, but one a Democrat will never give without qualifying it with some sort of excuse.

The hypocrisy boggles the mind.

Is there anyone that disagrees with you politically that isn’t an idiot?