Is there any doubt that Dick Cheney is an opportunistic piece of shit?

[LAGC]

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, a stalwart Second Amendment rights activist and notorious hunter, appeared to open the door to some form of future gun-control legislation in a recent interview with NBC News.

In the wake of the tragedy in Tucson, Ariz., NBC's Jamie Gangel asked Cheney how he felt about a new push aimed at firearm restrictions, which have run the gamut from a bill prohibiting them near legislators to an effort to ban high-capacity magazines. Cheney, a longtime friend of the National Rifle Association, perhaps surprisingly seemed at least somewhat receptive to the latter.

"I'd certainly be willing to listen to ideas. I have always been a gun advocate, obviously had a strong voting record on behalf of the Second Amendment. That's just what I believe, and whether or not there's some measure there in terms of limiting the size of the magazine that you can buy to go with semi-automatic weapons -- we've had that in place before," the former vice president said, referring to the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. "Maybe it's appropriate to reestablish that kind of thing, but I think you do have to be careful, obviously."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/19/dick-cheney-gun-control-magazines_n_811057.html">Dick Cheney: 'Maybe It's Appropriate' To Limit Gun Magazine Size (VIDEO)

What I want to know is, who stands with that war criminal on this issue? High-capacity magazine bans? Are you serious? Like that stopped the Virginia Tech shooter, the nutjobs will just bring more mags!

[mrbscott19]

1. gotta start somewhere

.

[LAGC]

2. And where does it end? (n/t)

[HubertHeaver]

4. It ends with single-shot manual reload. Just a slight modernization

of the firearms that existed when the constitution was written.

:sarcasm:

[LAGC]

5. self-delete

(wrong spot)

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. Cheney's a douchebag for sure, but I am alright with debating

high capacity mags.

[LAGC]

6. I guess what gets me though...

Is that if we know it won't do anything to prevent mass shootings, what good does it do besides inconvenience recreational target shooters who don't want to change magazines as often? Seems like just another feel-good measure that accomplishes little but offends many.

[DrDan]

9. perhaps not prevent totally, but might limit mass shootings

wouldn't that be a good thing? Wouldn't a lives being saved be worth a bit of inconvenience in having to change magazines? It isn't all about gun enthusiasts, after all. The safety of others should be a consideration.

[benEzra]

30. How? The two worst mass shootings in U.S. history used nonextended magazines,

and plenty of mass shootings much worse than Tucson have been carried out with guns holding 7 rounds or less. The common denominator is usually slow, methodical shooting and lots of reloading, e.g. Virginia Tech, Luby's, and the post office shooting. Capacity is much less important to an aggressor who can plan ahead than it is to everyone else.

This debate isn't about mildly inconveniencing mass shooters; it's about leveraging a five-sigma tragedy to outlaw standard factory magazines for the most popular civilian pistols and rifles in the United States, something the pro-bans contingent has wanted for a long, long time.

[DrDan]

32. I guess the Boston Globe is also confused about the debate

"It’s not a coincidence that terrified witnesses were not able to wrestle him to the ground until he had to stop to reload."

[benEzra]

36. They are, but not why you think.

Were he not using the extended magazine, he would likely have thought about reloading in his pre-attack planning, like all the prior mass shooters who used non-extended magazines and killed far more people; the Virginia Tech shooter reloaded no less than twelve times and murdered 33 people, and the Luby's shooter IIRC murdered 23, also with ordinary flush-fits.

Again, for those who think pre-planned reloading with ordinary flush-fit magazines is rocket science:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJXNPo5krvw

The extended magazine likely gave the murderer a false sense of confidence. I'm not sure, but I suspect he would have had less trouble reloading with nonextendeds, as well; extendeds for pistols are notoriously awkward to reload and prone to jams, which is why most shooters purchase them for use in carbines, not pistols.

There's also the teeny question of how to take a quarter-billion highly valued possessions out of the hands of ~40 million potential voters without provoking a political backlash. Remember that merely raising prices on some such magazines in 1994 (with absolutely no infringement on purchase, possession, or availability) caused an immense backlash then, and far more people own them now.

[DrDan]

38. reality is that he did have problems when changing magazines

and when changing magazines is when he was stopped. Reality.

Spin it all you like - that is reality.

Also - at least one current thought with regard to extended magazines does NOT include confiscation - just does not permit resale.

(Highly valued . . . . kind of like the lives lost and the injuries from shells 11-32 - never mind, I understand the price of gun ownership - don't agree with it, but understand it.)

[LAGC]

43. You're still assuming he'd have had a problem swapping out a smaller regular-capacity magazine.

Chances are he'd have speed-loaded that sucker without a hitch, then we may have seen bullets 33 through 80 go through people as well.

We can "what if" till the moon turns blue.

[DrDan]

44. what we don't have to "what if" is that he was stopped when changing magazines.

Reality. Fact.

[cleanhippie]

68. So, Dan, are you saying that THIS single incedent proves the point?

Or are you willfully ignoring that in most other shootings, regular magazines were used yet more people got shot.

I guess I cannot understand why you seem to be ignoring the reality of the situation and fixating on a single, anecdotal case as evidence that proves your point.

[DrDan]

72. it proves to me, and many others, that it is past time to look

at current laws, and update them appropriately.

[cleanhippie]

79. A SINGLE incident is all that is required for you then?

Do you apply that rationale to most things?

[DrDan]

82. makes sense to me to apply it here

[cleanhippie]

83. Does it?

Does it make sense to BAN cell phones because people text/talk while driving?

Does it make sense to ban bathtubs since more people drown in them than are shot by CCW permit holders each year?

Does it make sense to react emotionally to an isolated incident when said incident is in reality, a very, very infrequent event?

No, it does not. Just as your argument makes no sense either.

[DrDan]

91. funny - I don't seem to be alone in this thinking - lots of good company

[LAGC]

94. What if a majority said they wanted to ban more Muslims from entering the country?

After all, the atrocity of 9-11 was committed by devoted Muslims.

Would a few more extremist terrorist attacks by Muslims make such a general ban on Muslim immigration right? Even if its popular?

[DrDan]

97. just because there are a lot of folks supporting stronger gun legislation does

not mean it is a bad idea

[cleanhippie]

95. Yeah, argmentum ad populum is a fallacy too.

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

[DrDan]

96. yep - you can see it in action on the many threads here

[cleanhippie]

100. For sure, many times in your own posts.

[friendly_iconoclast]

103. So, would you be OK with Wyoming banning same-sex marriage...

...if the majority of voters there want it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4713288

Ian David (1000+ posts) Thu Jan-27-11 08:41 PM
Original message
(Wyoming) Senate passes anti-same-sex marriage amendment
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 08:52 PM by Ian David
Source: Tribune

CHEYENNE -- The Wyoming Senate voted today in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages from outside the state of Wyoming.

The vote was 20-10, the minimum two-thirds majority needed for constitutional amendments.

As it goes to the House, Senate Joint Resolution 5 also contains language to allow a future Legislature to recognize civil unions.

If the bill passes in the House, the amendment will be placed on the November 2012 general election ballot.

[DrDan]

104. did I say that? If so, please share where I did - otherwise I

would appreciate you not tryin to put words in my mouth.

[benEzra]

45. You're not talking about banning extended magazines, you're talking about banning STANDARD magazines

for the most popular pistols and rifles, which is why this would be so controversial. Over-20-round magazines are rarely used in pistols, but 11-20 rounders are used in the *majority* of full-sized pistols. It would be like outlawing the purchase or transfer of any car with a gas tank larger than that of the original Model T, i.e. most privately owned cars. And such a ban would ultimately be confiscatory; what happens to those quarter-billion magazines in private hands when the firearm is passed down to a family member? Even the original 1994 law didn't ban transfer, sale, or purchase; all of the current proposals would, AFAIK.

And the point you continue to miss is that if a shooter starts with a small magazine and plans to reload, your alleged benefit vanishes, as shown by the majority of mass shootings.

[DrDan]

47. and the part you choose to miss is that the Tucson shooter was stopped

when changing magazines. He obvously planned to do so - he was carrying another. Yet he was stopped in the process of changing them.

[benEzra]

54. He planned his tactics as if he would never run out. The VT and Luby's shooters,

who used short magazines, didn't. The Tucson shooter probably wouldn't have either, had he not had the extended magazine. His spare mags were reportedly in his *pocket*, for crying out loud. If that doesn't say "didn't seriously think about reloading", I'm not sure what does.

A magazine ban would save no lives. A new ban *would*, however, resurrect the "Dems'll take yer guns" meme with a vengeance, for decades to come. For every time in the future that a gun owner has to look over their shoulder at the shooting range before letting their spouse/daughter/friend shoot their gun, Dems lose. For every time in the future that responsible gun owners get accosted for possession of standard magazines and have to prove they are preban (with the burden of proof on the owner), Dems lose. For every future dynamic warrant executed on a lawful gun owner over reports of contraband factory-standard magazines, Dems lose. Again, this isn't a ban on rare extended magazines; this is a ban on most normal magazines.

Not that such an outcome would matter to the repubs who run the Brady Campaign, as long as they get their way. But they are very, very good at getting Dems to throw away political capital on proposals that do nothing but harass or criminalize the lawful and responsible. You are quite literally threatening forty million people---many of whom are very highly motivated voters---with future felonies. If the Third Way'ers manage to ram this through (perhaps with the tacit approval of repubs who want Dems to fall on their swords again, just as Gingrich orchestrated in 1994), it will be a disaster.

[PavePusher]

51. Sorry, but one data point is not a trend.

If you can provide evidence that there is a trend in high-casualty shootings using extended capacity magazines, then you have a talking point. Until then, all is vapor in the wind.

[DrDan]

53. not in the minds of those contemplating legislation

[benEzra]

55. Just like the Patriot Act.

Laws based on ignorance, fear, and MSM-generated panic have a rather poor track record.

[PavePusher]

60. So, legislation based on "terra, terra, terra" is O.K. when it's your pet ox? n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. Nothing new about that with Prohis. Some explicitly support a blacklist

based only on the government's say-so

[RSillsbee]

7. How do you respond to the fact

that a "ban" on the manufacture or importation of magazines holding more than 10 rounds was part of the AWB ( yes that AWB the one that lost us the house in 1994)and that in 2004 the ban was allowed to lapse because it couldn't be shown to have any effect on crime?

[DrDan]

8. it would have stopped the Tucson shooter in many minds

[LAGC]

10. You can't count on incompetent idiots dropping their magazine when they stop to reload.

Any decent shooter can swap a mag out in under a second flat, without missing a beat. Hence the 33 victims at Virginia Tech WITHOUT high-capacity magazines.

[DrDan]

11. but it did help in Tucson - fact

[LAGC]

12. Isn't the goal to prevent future tragedies though?

Are we really looking at the principle fault here, with regard to high-capacity magazines?

Whose to say he would have dropped a regular magazine? Could be that such a large magazine was more cumbersome, and the fact that he had it and bumbled with it actually saved lives rather than caused more deaths. We will never know.

[DrDan]

15. one thing we do know - he did not have any problems with the first 30

(or 31 or whatever the number is) in terms of any shooter-error. He had that many shots available to him with no additional efforts.

[pipoman]

19. He didn't?

I heard early on that the spring in his magazine broke causing him to change the mag before it was empty. Is this not true?

[DrDan]

21. ok - then we need legislation calling for broken springs in ALL magazines

c'mon - we know he was stopped as he attempted to change magazines.

[pipoman]

22. That is one of the fragilities of those long mags, IIRC

My position on this is to allow a magazine with the capacity the manufacturer intended for the particular model, rather than some arbitrary number which would be like taking back a fart. There are millions of magazines out there most (at least a hell of a high percentage) exceed 10 rounds. If the new rule was that the cartridges can't extend beyond the grip of the pistol, this would maybe pass without too much opposition.

[DrDan]

23. sounds reasonable - at least a start

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. And what would the end be, in your own words? Please be specific.

[DrDan]

75. a step toward a safer environment

[friendly_iconoclast]

101. We could also do that by eliminating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

But do the ends justify the means advocated?

[RSillsbee]

39. I occasionally carry a CZ 2075

The standard factory magazine for that is 8 rounds (.40 S&W) I generally carry a 75B standard factory magazine (12 rounds) as a spare.

So, now I'm illegal because you want to ban any magazine that extends beyond the grip?

letmethinkaboutthat.. NO

[DrDan]

46. oh good Lord - the legislation is in the discussion phase

details need to be worked out. Some proposed legislation suggests magazines currently in the possession of gun owners remain legal but cannot be sold.

[RSillsbee]

48. So if I want to will my guns to my kids

I can't? Back door ban, no go

Here's a "detail" for you to "work out" Gun owners are going to fight you tooth and nail every step of the way on this.

Bank on it

[DrDan]

49. I have no doubt - I recognize the obsession with guns

and that it transcends the rights surrounding the safety of others.

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. And what "rights surrounding the safety of others" would those be?

Are these "rights" encoded into law? Mentioned in any USSC decision? Please be specific.

[DrDan]

71. "Right to LIFE . . . . " - you know, our unalienable rights

[PavePusher]

76. As long as my pistol stays in it's holster, you are not at risk.

If I draw it without apparent need, then you have a cause for concern and complaint.

We don't stop people from driving cars cars unless they actually drive recklessly, even though you are at far greater risk from legally driven cars than legally carried and used guns.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled baseless hyterical hand-wringing...

[DrDan]

77. give the tired insults a break

I am not the one who needs a gun to get through life.

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. ...or given away, or bequeathed to heirs. It bans *all* transfers, not just sales

I'm sure that omission on your part was entirely accidental....

[DrDan]

73. I have only read sales - I am sure you are more versed in the various

wordings being bantered about.

[friendly_iconoclast]

87. The Library of Congress has the text of any bill introduced in Congress

(emphasis added)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:h308:

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OR POSSESSION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) Definition- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:

‘(30) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’--

‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

‘(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.’....



(b) Prohibitions- Section 922 of such title is amended by inserting after subsection (u) the following:

‘(v)(1)(A)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

‘(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.


(c) Penalties- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(v) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.’.

A ban by attrition, in other words. This will also affect numbers of hunting rifles, as discussed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=366058

[DrDan]

92. thank you - I don't see any issue there

[friendly_iconoclast]

102. Ah, but do enough voters agree with you so that it might become law?

There's the rub....

[pipoman]

89. You're right...

a 10 round max on all handguns is much more reasonable...



:sarcasm:

[RSillsbee]

93. How about we scrap the whole idea

as it will have zero effect on crime

[lepus]

58. I heard a bit different.

What I understand was that his second magazine malfunctioned and he was wrestled to the ground while walking away and trying to load his third magazine.

Extended magazines are usually problem children till they are broken in. I rarely have problems with standard magazines but the extended capacity ones tend to jam a lot due to excessive spring tension. Lubrication and use usually solves this problem.

I have bought and used the extended mags on a few of my firearms. No more. They are usually more hassle than they are worth. Straight out of the packaging, they have a strong chance of jamming the first time they are used. I am assuming that this is what happened.

The only saving grace to the Tuscon shooting IMHO was that the shooter was using extended magazines. Because he thought that the extended mags would accomplish his goals, he failed to practice with the weapon and verify it's proper operation with those magazines.

A Glock 19 standard magazine holds 15 rounds and is far less prone to jamming or malfunctioning than an extended mag. One reload and he would have effectively matched the capacity of the 33 round mag. A reload with a standard magazine, with practice, can be done in under a second with little chance of a malfunction.

If he had been carrying standard magazines and had practiced changing out magazines for an hour or so, the Tucson shooting could have been much much worse.

My prayers for those wounded and killed in the incident.

[cleanhippie]

70. Wow, you really ARE just ignoring everything you don;t want to hear, aren't you?

[Callisto32]

14. "in many minds."

What about in reality?

[DrDan]

16. equivalent

[Callisto32]

24. HAHAHAHA.

Next you will tell me there is no objective reality.

[DrDan]

27. so you are suggesting that the higher capacity magazine had nothing,

absolutely nothing to do with the number of rounds fired.

amazing . . . simply amazing.

[Callisto32]

31. What I am saying is that getting 32 rounds off with 2 or 3 mags is no more difficult.

I am also saying that a magazine capacity ban would do nothing, given the number of magazines out there. You cannot confiscate already existing magazines without doing incredible harm to the freedoms of the people that have them, and other forms of prohibition have proven over and over that people will get the things they want, a person intent on using a large magazine to perpetrate a violent crime will have no qualms about breaking a law to get the magazine.

Also, you still haven't explained how reality and the perception of "many minds" are equivalent. Now that I have explained my position, I expect the same from you.

[DrDan]

33. of course it is - the fact is he was stopped when he had to change magazines

There are proposals that do not suggest confiscation - only that the ones currently owned cannot be resold by individuals.

So not being able to own 32-round magazines would constitute "incredible harm". Interesting. Of course those shot (and/or killed) with rounds 11-32 - what about their freedoms. Oh yeah - I forgot - they are price of gun ownership.

Reality was that the shooter was stopped when having to change magazines.
"Many minds" believe the shooter was stopped when having to change magazines.

[Callisto32]

99. No, breaking into peoples houses to see if they have such magazines and confiscating them

does incredible harm to liberties.

I said "you cannot CONFISCATE..." Try actually reading what I said next time, instead of misrepresenting my position.

You still have not said how the belief of many minds and reality are equivalent. By that thinking, the Earth used to be flat, and Sol revolved around it.

[RSillsbee]

18. The tucson shooter wasn't shooting in many minds

He was shooting in Tuscon on the same planet where having to change magazines didn't even slow Cho or hennard down

[DrDan]

20. it did slow him down , though - didn't it

[Callisto32]

25. What slowed him down seems to be fumbling with the exact same *big ol' mag(tm)* you want to ban.

See, I can play the coulda game too!

[DrDan]

26. so if he fumbled with a "small ol' mag(tm)*", perhaps fewer would have died

or have been wounded

[one-eyed fat man]

34. why do you overlook your own words?

perhaps

"if he fumbled with a "small ol' mag(tm)*", perhaps fewer would have died..."

It is possible the large magazine may have given him an advantage. It is also possible had it not malfunctioned they might not have been able grab it. Any speculation about what if... is just that, speculation.

There was no indication that while the last magazine ban was in effect that it had any affect on crime at all, none.

If a ban is enacted, sooner or later some lunatic will commit an act of lunacy. It's what lunatics do. They prove repeatedly that you can't outsmart crazy. There will be more TV talking heads clucking about how someone so obviously loco slipped through the system. There will be a half dozen bozos telling Larry King how they knew the shooter's second cousin in kindergarten and as soon as they heard they news they knew who did it. There will be more calls to ban more stuff. (It's easier and cheaper than identifying and treating the mentally ill.)

In the meantime a jilted boyfriend uses a buck's worth of Amoco regular and two matches to kill 87 people. Arson is a lot easier, but don't see any call for banning gas cans that hold more than a quart. No mass murderer killed more people until McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal Building. No one with a gun has come anywhere close.

[DrDan]

35. what is not speculation is that he was stopped when changing magazines

No matter how gun "enthusiasts" want to spin that - it reamains reality.

Of course if the law were passed to limit the size of magazines, these gun violence crimes would continue. It is the nature of gun violence. Unfortunately, all deaths are not attributed to "lunatics" and "crazy" and "loco". Why not deal with both mental illness and gun access in general - we can multi-task, you know.

[RSillsbee]

40. So, what will you do when the crimes continue?

make magazines even smaller?

[DrDan]

41. people continue to run stop signs, speed, cheat on taxes

doesn't negate the need for laws

We will do what we have always done - continue to chip away at the problem.

[LAGC]

42. Yeah, but gun laws primarily target the law-abiding.

The criminals just don't give a shit.

[one-eyed fat man]

50. This is the problem.

Gun laws are the only ones designed specifically to take guns away from people who don't misuse them.

Precisely as if you tried to control drunk driving by taking the keys away from sober people.

[DrDan]

52. sho said anything about taking away guns

[one-eyed fat man]

57. Gimme a break....

How many times do the writings, public statements, organizational charters of various gun control spokesmen for the past 70 years need to be dredged up yet again?

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."

The goal is and has always been the complete elimination of private firearms ownership. Every thing else is merely a step along the way.

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

Anything short of a total ban is simply a step along the way. The proponents of gun control, the charters of their organizations, their writings and statements have made that clear from the beginning. Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar or a dupe.

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, `This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get all handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal." Pete Shields, Handgun Control Incorporated, 1976-The New Yorker

Deceit and deception are rationalized. The whole assault weapons idea was based on deception. The support for gun control had waned among the public to where a national handgun ban wasn't going to happen. The various gun control groups shrill and strident propaganda over "Saturday Night Specials" was no longer getting any traction. Josh Sugarmann's solution was to shift focus to another area of gun control and so he coined the term "assault weapon" to refer to civilian semi-automatic firearms the outwardly resembled their military full auto counterparts. Part of the strategy was to rely on public's confusion over what exactly was being banned. He was quite up front and wrote at the time that deceit was a crucial part of the program.

"Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

At the time Sugarmann was communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, he later founded the Violence Policy Center (VPC). The part to remember is he, among others, articulated the goal is to eventually ban all guns. They do not expect to do it all at once, but piecemeal one type of firearm at a time. the terms "Saturday Night Special" or "Assault Weapon" are not designed for technical accuracy as much as emotional impact and "catchiness."

If you are going to be honest, "...sho(sic)said anything about taking away guns"...yet.

"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer

I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum

They have been telling us for decades what they want. You are saying we should not take them at their word and just pick up the soap?

[DrDan]

59. have I suggested it?

[one-eyed fat man]

62. You are beating the drum.

You saying you ain't with the band?

[DrDan]

63. there may be multiple bands - I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth

[beevul]

85. Denounce them then. N/T

[one-eyed fat man]

28. In many minds

there would be no violence if women ruled the earth. All violence stems from a paternalistic society founded on eating red meat 2500 years ago.

(I am not kidding, she posts here a lot)

But the speculation that the shitheads that decided to commit mass murders would have just stayed home if only 10 round magazines were available is pointless, witless and unfounded.

You may as well argue if his mother hadn't been drunk that bastard wouldn't be here.

[DrDan]

29. "would have stayed home . . . " - and exactly who suggested that

[cleanhippie]

69. But not necessarily in reality....so why the push?

[DrDan]

78. ahhh - but it was reality - now wasn't it

[cleanhippie]

80. Perhaps, in a SINGLE case, but it is the exception, not the rule.

Therefore, no it is NOT reality.

[DrDan]

81. tell the injured and the relatives of the dead that "it is NOT reality"

[cleanhippie]

84. Perfect example of being unable to rationally support your argument: appeal to emotion.

You talk about reality, but methinks you really have no idea what it is.

[PavePusher]

88. Perhaps you should consider the words of John Green...

http://www.wikio.com/video/father-year-murder-victim-tucson-freedoms-4917911

...before you attempt to dance in the blood of his daughter and the other victims.

He has paid a far dearer price for our freedoms and his words bear vastly more moral weight than your vile attempt to win support by hypocritically celebrating the death of innocent victims of a deranged individual.

Ponder his words.

[DrDan]

98. "vile"??? Why the vitriol? Do you really have that hard a time in allowing others

their own points of view?

I feel nothing but sympathy for him. I cannot imagine what he is going through.

That said - he is allowed his opinion. I am allowed mine. 35 gun deaths a day is too much for a civilized society - regardless of the needs of the gun owners.

on edit - what I find funny (in a hypocritical way) is that you criticize me, but then go on to use the words of the Father to further support your position.

[PavePusher]

105. I am saying that you do not get to use this mans tradgedy to push

political games that are in opposition to his stated views, unless you get his permission first. Otherwise your attempt is dishonest and, yes, vile.

Good luck with that.

[DrDan]

106. self delete

[Callisto32]

13. Was there ever any doubt?

In fact, I think I may adopt that as my unofficial definition of "politician."

[pipoman]

17. I think this is cheney egging on

the liberals to commit political suicide. It is like the roadrunner intentionally running by the coyote to egg him into trying another tactic which the roadrunner knows will backfire on the coyote.

[benEzra]

37. Just like Gingrich did in 1994. (n/t)

[beevul]

86. Yep. Please Ben...

Please post an Op explaining that to everyone. It seems people forget.

[DonP]

56. I'm kind of stunned at the people that all of a sudden think Cheney has a point

Amazing what gun control people will do and who they will suddenly embrace when they say something that they agree with about guns.

All of a sudden we have people saying that Cheney may have a point and that we should listen to Meghan McCain.

These same people have spent the last 10 years pissing all over Cheney and posted that Meghan McCain is a fundamental dumbass. But as long as they say something that can be used for gun control, they may be OK for the moment. They also rage at gun owners because Ted Nugent is on the board of the NRA and guilt by association is always fair game. As long as it only goes one way.

I guess gun control do make strange bedfellows too.

[slackmaster]

74. Good choice of cartoon frame. Here's another applicable one.

[Atypical Liberal]

61. He's just a piece of shit.

all the way around.

[Francis Marion]

90. Elitist Republican Fudd

Limiting HIS magazine capacity would limit the number of hunting buddies he shoots.

Cheney should have one bullet at one time, just like Barney Fife.

It's not about hunting, Elmer.