moosetracker

I don't know Beavah, keep talking this way and I am going to continue to be convinced you are in favor of sensible responsible "gun control", or what I have recently heard termed "gun safety" as they think that term may keep the natives from being spooked.. The official recommendations come out Tuesday, but it seems everyone is pretty sure what is in them.. From what I see, I also don't see anything that should cause such an uproar from the NRA supporters.. But, of course the NRA will protest loudly and make wild claims because it is helping drive up the purchasing of guns, ammo, and NRA membership.. It is all just commercialism for profit..

Exactly, Beavah - the thought of people who think they are going to now play the cops & robbers game of their youth with loaded weapons in a crowded public place is a scary thought. People advocating this have watched too much TV or played too many "shoot 'em up" video games themselves. If someone pulls a gun at the Mall and starts shooting, and you pull your gun and shoot back, then expect when the police come, you will be hauled off with the original shooter. That is if either of you live, because your fate may be to be killed by the police if not the shooter, or another "citizen" also trying to play the good guy. Anyway if you live through it, the police will examine the bullets from all the dead & wounded, and if any happen to be bullets from your gun, expect to serve time for the wounded and life for those you murdered.. Don't expect the defense of "I was the good guy, I was trying to shoot at the bad guy, but missed.. Ooops." to help you much.

Good points Beavah.. Except I am not sure so much if the (I reckon it falls on urban/suburban/rural lines in the sense that the more yeh are exposed to different sorts of people the less likely yeh are to harbor those views). I have lived in small to mid-sized cities, close enough to Boston to consider it Boston, and in the rural areas of NH.. I agree with you on the small to mid-sized cities, people are intermingling pleasantly enough with the exception of one or two strays.. But, if you get into the inner cities, there would be more mistrust (at least when I lived there.) The gangs didnt help with intermingling.. Perhaps this generation is different, one can only hope. Here in the country, especially in NH where there are not many blacks or immigrants, I really dont know. I would like to think it is not here. My husband had one story of a store clerk who showed prejudice against a customer who had just walked out by her statements, other than that, though there are few black or immigrants in NH, the few social gatherings where they have been present, I have never felt any racial tension, they seemed as welcomed as everyone else. Grant it, just my observations.. But I always thought of prejudice as something that had to be taught from generation to generation. Luckily with each passing generation it seems less, or it eases up on one group to come down on another. But, it continues in other ways for people who must feel superior to someone. Besides prejudice for blacks the American culture has moved from prejudice for Irish to Italians to Catholic to Chinese to Japanese to Mexican/Latino to Muslims etc. etc. etc. But in order for prejudice to work the group you want to be prejudice against, kind of has to be around for you to stomp on in order to make you feel superior. Mind you I am not saying they are not in your neighborhood because they are not welcome in your neighborhood, but in the group for some reason is just naturally rare in the area.

I see CalicoPenn & even Packsaddle have done a good job restating my position on the issue. Thanks guys.. I have really nothing to add since they defended it well.. The only thing I have to add is the personal attack on my diction/spelling by JoeBob in some misguided notion I am a college professor.. And I guess I must be an English professor at that.. Well I had already stated I am not, a college professor but I will restate it again.. To put the whole rumor to bed, I am a IT professional, it is well known that the better programmers are those with the worst spelling, and we are use to writing in cryptic form as program language is not straight English writing.. So thanks JoeBob for the compliment..

Oh no.. I can assure you all the youth coming out of college predominantly voting democratic is not by my hand. You are right I meant cite. Never stated I was the best speller. So does that mean you (like Brewmeister and vol_scouter) are of the belief that the Republican party is still the popular political party from the north, fighting for the civil rights of the blacks, rather then being the fact that the deep red states of today are a very close mirror image of the southern states who became the confederacy during the civil war?

Yeah.. "Taking personal responsibility" is a softer messaging to meaning the same thing as youre on your own. Your messaging does not always come out of the mouths of your politicians. I can site you many people who do state this about your party though. Right now it is being stated a lot about the Republican house inaction to the Sandy Relief Aid. Hopefully it will pass tomorrow, but many Republicans are grumbling and threatening they wont vote for it without spending cut offsets, others are threatening to lower the amount from 60 billion to I believe 9 billion. "Pro-life" is still regulating a womens rights to choose for her own body, even to the point of allowing the women to die. Gun control being every man, women and child should strap a gun to their hip for protection from everyone else who is carrying a gun. Perhaps you can change "Self-Deportation" to "Encourage you to go home", is the same policy. Try looking to reduce the deficit with a scalpel rather than a hatchet. Try looking for ways to cut in places that do not take pleasure in hurting the poor and middle class. Start listening to the people and not all your financial backers.. Try pulling the tons of waste out of the military spending budget, before hacking the programs to the poor. People are not opposed to reducing the deficit, they are opposed to how the Republicans want to cut the deficit. Cant just try to wrap your policies up with fancy messaging..

I doubt it will go to one party rule. It will just be the question of if the Republicans come out of the quagmire to find a message that is acceptable to current society, or if one of the libertine parties will find a way to rise up to take it's place and the Republicans will take a seat in history with the Whigs. A lot of the "entitlement" programs Republicans want to kill and Democrats now support originated out of Republican ideas. Republicans message did not use to be "Your on your own". It is just the programs they were for use to be ones the could foresee a fiscally smart outcome (like universal health care once initiated is suppose to stop the rising expense of health care.) Democratic programs were from the heart with little concern of costs, Republican programs were from the mind.. The new Republican messaging of "Your on your own" is from neither the heart or the mind. Like most things in history, civil rights is accredited to the President we had when it was created, especially if he campaigned and championed the cause. JFK was a Democratic president who championed the cause. The rest of the country was just in turmoil individually over if you supported it or not regardless of party affiliations. As Beavah stated, the southern Democrats felt betrayed, the Northern Democrats supported JFK and civil war over the issue was fought WITHIN the political party over it.. Republicans were free to side with conscious or constituents, probably also dividing mostly north pro/south against any way they were minor players in the battle. So no ALL Democrats were not on the wrong side of history in the civil rights movement. The southern Democrats lost the fight, moved into the Republican party, and changed that party due to their views, which then had Northern Republicans move out to the Democratic party. When the dust cleared, Democratic party had moved north, Republican party had moved south, and the people held the same viewpoints they always did, the majority of Southerners being still against civil rights for blacks and minorities, they were now just Republicans not Democrats. In the end JFK was the Democratic president who fought for civil rights, and the majority of the people who fought alongside him were predominantly from the northern part of the country. Currently the Democratic party is solid in the northern part of the country. Therefore the Democrats win the credit in the history books for the civil rights movement and to this day are known to champion the rights of minorities.

Us an the majority of black voters who are solidly Democrat due to history (even before Obama), sleep fine without doctoring history. But, if you want to tell yourself the Democrats are still the main party controlling the South and the Republicans are the Northern party, because absoulutely nothing happened to change things. You go right ahead. Take a look at how the courting and winning of the teaparty to the Republican party is causing the mass exodus, of moderate Republicans (like Beavah) from your party. First the welcome as Republicans saw it as an increase in membership, then as they started changing the Republican policies and values the inner turmoil of the moderates against the teaparty group, that is still going on and will go on for a while. Meanwhile, some are leaving the party lines, and waiting to see who will win the fight. If the teaparty group does, they wont be back and more will leave as they give up the fight. If the moderates do, some of the moderate Republicans will be back, but who knows where the teapartiers will go. Settle in or try to form a third party, or just return to not voting for either party. Right now their is a civil war within your party until the group can decide on a common theme.. This is what happened in the 60's & 70's to both the Democratic party and Republican party. It was not an overnight thing, but civil war within the parties.. I suspect what vol_scouter reports of the Democrats fighting the civil rights, was the old Democratics wrestling to regain control of the old Democratic party and keep things as they had been. They lost the battle, but when they went into the Republican party, they didn't just increase their membership as the Republicans hoped, but brought their baggage, which changed the Republican party in a way that Northerners then didn't feel comfortable and left it for the Democratic party. As they became more predominate in the Democratic party, their viewpoints also changed the Democratic parties values and policies. It took a long time and several alterations of both parties to be where we are today. Teaparty, is causing the Republicans to still evolve and change. I am sure something soon will come along to put a kink in where Democrats are now today, perhaps as moderate Republicans convert to Democrat as the move from the teaparty their values & concerns will have the Democratic party start to evovole and change soon. But, you keep telling yourself that you are the party that supports the civil rights of the blacks and other minorities.. The blacks and latinos and other minorities just are not buying your interpretation of your party history.. I just don't know why..

No, it is simply the migration of the Republican party from being the party that represented the north, to being the party that represented the south. And the Democratic party from being the party that championed the ideas of the South to being the one that represented Northern ideas. No closet Republican or closet Democrat in the bunch. As the ideas of the parties shifted, the people shifted parties to attach themselves to what represented their ideas the best. It is a very simple concept.

Again, when the Democratic party suppressed the vote of blacks was pre-JFK when the Democratic party was the party of the south and of the KKK. Now the party of the South is the Republicans. It's the party who champion suppressing the blacks, Latios, certain non-christian religious groups and anyone else who is "different". Take a look at who was in the audiences of this years National Conventions. The Democratic party was so diverse it almost look like a costume ball, while the republicans had to scope out and zoom in on the one or two blacks at their convention. I get alot of what you say Beavah, but I hope rural doesn't die. I like rural, and would hate the whole country to be one great big concrete slap. My only hope is that the young who are predomantly voting Democrate, blacks, hispanics etc. Do start moving out this way. I know I did partly because I wasn't rich and if I wanted to own a home, it was cheaper in the country. Of course that was pre-gas prices zooming upwards. Anyway, making the rural area more diverse is a much better future scenario for me, then making the whole country one huge concrete slap of city. With voter suppression/voter fraud in the Democratic camp, at least for photo id there are two camps. One who just don't like it and one who doesn't like the way Republicans attempted to make it very difficult for the urban poor to comply, but is fine if the urban poor was allowed easier ways to comply. I belong to the camp of it is fine, if the plan was rolled out fairly. But, your of the Republican poll watchers who were taught to intimidate, then sent around the country. No word for it except for voter suppression. Your voter registry purges, attempts especially turning up the heat to purge the books weeks before the election, so there wouldn't be accurate checking done, or a voter had a short time to prove citizenship if challenged. Voter Suppression. Shortening days for voting, reducing polling machines in urban areas and lenthening the ballot to rediculous lenthens.. All voter suppression.. You know I could go on for pages because I have in the past. Beavah - This election they did get some good examples of voter fraud, all from the Republican party. Strange the Republicans do not want to turn a spotlight on them though. But busing a bunch of blacks into Maine to vote fraudulently Democratic was not something the Democrats did. If you are going to create fraud you do it in a swing state, not one solidl blue or solidly red.. The crime of the blacks this election was simply they came out to vote in a larger percentage then any other group, including hispanics who were I think the second highest percentage. Hispanics simply got the spotlight for their voting turnout because they are now a larger percentage of the minority groups. A nation who is becoming a majority of the minorities. I am fine with our country becoming that.

True it is not where you live or your accent. It is your deeds that call you out. Republicans had enough deeds that were racist. The biggest one of the bunch was one of their surrogates a former Governor from NH John Sununu.. He had the biggest, foulest mouth of them all and I was always embarrassed that they labeled him a former Governor of ours, rather than a post he had in the Bush WH (chief of staff) which he lost due to spending the taxpayer money on personal family vacations. Not Southern, no Southern accent, but defiantly put out there by the Romney campaign to spew alot of racist comments. Then theres the head of the GOP party for the state of Maine who stated : In some parts of rural Maine, there were dozens, dozens of black people who came in and voted on Election Day, he said. Everybody has a right to vote, but nobody in (these) towns knows anyone whos black. How did that happen? I dont know. Were going to find out. And the very scary black Panther sighting was in Philadelphia PA.. Really, who said they have the right to vote? Voter suppression was also not only in the Southern states, they were in the swing states many of which weren't southern. Although this wasn't totally aimed at blacks, but really the poor it is just that many blacks are caught in that net.

I didn't say that it was all race either, I said the disagreement of the two parties are accentuated due to his race. That the disagreements would be there as they have always been for decades, but it is accentuated due to the race card. Some people just believe the muslim, birther garbage that have floated around the internet for the past 4 years, without realizing it was basically a twist to black prejudice. They are against him for this with no knowledge it is totally bunk and hogwash, but if someone had hit them with a similar negative smear campaign truthfully stating his disqualifying trait is the color of his skin, they would have been able to discredit it for the garbage it was. But, I have no illusion that had our president been Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden and she passed her health care plan and was faced with a deficit due to 2 wars on a credit card there still would be issues about how to fix the problem between the two parties.. Just I don't think it would be as intense. By the way, Biden I think just won a notch toward our next potential President in 2016 with these fiscal negotiations, especially if Hillary doesn't run. The guy did good negotiating with McConnel then getting the vote in the Senate for it. So, even if the House kills it, it is a nice feather in his cap.

You may talk for YOU and your opinion. You do not talk for everyone against Obama. The birtherism, muslim, "not one of us", "Lazy" all bells and whistle against "race" because they know that can't come out and say the "N" word. It does not stop alot of people who are not in the political office from using the "N" word in comments they make on the internet. The death threats increased on him more then any other president before he every took the oath of office. Before he even started policy changes. Again many of these threats will also use the "N" word. Just as I can not say all Northerners are free of bigotry, you can not say that all Republican anamosity toward the president is free of bigotry, that absolutely none of the anger over his veiwpoints are by non-bigotted people who soully object to his policy and would to the same level his soul was not enshrined in a white middle-to-old man body.

Oh, I think your right. The anger and fighting was more direct contact back then. Deaths more often, especially deaths of blacks when the law didn't bother to even look for the murder(s). But, I think it was more "mob" anger, and not organized enough to try to secede from the union, but trying to keep "change" from happening. All the mass murders of today are of angry or disturbed people. Unless I missed a few, I haven't heard any of these recent mass murders or sniper shootings are from people trying to argue a political viewpoint, but more of the person having their own personal demands. There are other small side murders of homosexuals that could be argued to be that, but they are usually done in normal crimial fashion where the murderer is not grandstanding or loudly taking credit for the crime. Still there is a deep political divide these days, that I would say is deeper then the time of the 60's because it is more organized. Unfortunately as in the time of the civil war and the 1960's, I still feel it has to do with black against white. With us having a black president. No proof. Just a gut feeling that the friction is higher because of it. If Hillary Clinton had won the primary and the election in 2008 and had pushed through the health care bill she was campaigning on (which ended up being the one more like what Obama passed rather then the one he promoted). And had it been her as President that got the huge deficit due to the Bush Tax cuts & Bush Wars. Well I am sure the Republicans would still put the blame on the Democrats, but it wouldn't be so polarized.. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps the female element would have caused the same divide, but I don't think so. I also doubt that the increase in threats against the President wouldn't have escalated to the need for the increased protection we have around Obama, had it been Hillary, even if she had very similar veiwpoints.

The bussing thing is what I remember because it effected me personally. But, I know it wasn't even a threat until my high school days which was in the 70's. I lived in upstate NY. For about 3 years as school let out, there was talk that in the Fall we would get divided and be bussed. It would get delayed another year, and I got to go to my school that I could walk to. I don't know how my mother felt about it, it either matched my feelings or she didn't say much on the subject. But, it wasn't a big issue due to going to school with blacks. I don't even know it we (friends & I) even thought about it as a black/white issue. We didn't really care if they bused people in, expand our school & bus in. We just prayed we got the luck of the draw and got to stay in our own school. A little bit socio/economic I guess, not impressed with their schools, they were old and dirty, ours was about 6 years old so much nicer. Then it was just a matter of convience.. The problem of being on a street corner in time for a bus, the inability to stay for after school activities because you had to take the bus home. I am sure there was more racial issues with others though. Just because the North is less racial, it does not mean it does not have any predjudicial people. That would be impossible to claim. NY city had it's predjudicial people against black, but it also had it's neighborhood gangs. In the gang there could be a mix of races (or not). But they were very against the other neighborhood gangs. So the prejudice may or may not be racial, but where you live and their prejudice could kill.. I think that was part of it's failure in the busing department. It was not just a black/white/brown/red/poka-dotted issue. It was a neighborhood gang issue (sometimes with racial dividing lines). We would have been unhappy in our upperstate NY city to be bused, but I really don't think it would have been much more then a lot of grumbling, some name calling,some fist fights and some groups that would never be friends with "others". But, our downtown area was the poorest section of the city, and my friends & I would spend Saturday afternoons walking around there with no fear at all. If we spent all our money and had no bus fare, and couldn't get a mother to come get us, we even hiked on home from this area thru some crappy sections.

Sorry Packsaddle - I was about 5 years old when JFK was shot, and not very thrilled with political news at the time. I do know that there was alot of anger during that period, and the south was big on blocking and protesting the opposite side of the arguement.. It was still pretty North .vs. south on the issue. But, with JFK the Democratic (southern party), president pushing the civil rights agenda I saw it more of the south feeling totally betrayed by one of their own party members. From what I read of history they were sort of in disarray, so not very organized about how to protest except in angry mobs. But, I could be wrong, perhaps by the 60's they had picked themselves up enough to organize. Did the South vote or petition for secession? Were the parties so polarized? When JFK did a turn-face, I would think you had some Democrats voting against their Democratic President, some Republicans voting with him and some of each party not sure whether to vote with him or against him. But, you most certainly could be right Packsaddle. It seemed that up North here we had our own fights about civil rights. Not as bad though, I really don't remember much kickback until they wanted to bus kids all over the place in the early 70's to acheive more equally mixed ratios. There were others, but it was more of a grumble, shuffling feet to modify, and your occasion person who really resisted. Again, I wasn't too big in watching the political news until High school during Watergate and that was slightly so I at least could talk about the current news.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Well I think we are as close as we have ever been since the civil war for a new civil war. I don't put much stock in the succession petitions given they are signed by people in and our of the state in question and even with that only are signed by a fraction of what is in that state.. But we are very polarized. Still we don't have any militia, just a group of unorganized people with guns, half who are responsible and reasonable, and half who are paranoid, angry, and trigger happy.

OK then Beavah is making sound reasons for gun-control in this thread, but for some reason is of the opinion that it is not pro gun-control, because gun control is the same as elimination of all guns.. Therefore, I don't know what he thinks is the in-between of total freedom to buy whatever gun and ammo ever manufatured to total elimination of gun.. So Beavah what do you call the arguement that you have been making where : It might be reasonable to believe that appropriate restrictions would reduce da risk of stressed or disturbed individuals usin' certain kinds of guns in crimes of opportunity. and reckon it's also worth bein' thoughtful about some kinds of things that are more along da lines of law enforcement or military stuff. Da closer gear gets to higher-capacity semi-auto and intended use gets to firing at humans, da stricter da requirements should be for training and recurrent certification. To me those arguements is gun control, because I don't buy into the slippery slope theroy that if you pass legislation to make it harder for individuals to buy riskier weapons like candy, or make it harder for others to steal your guns etc.. All this is a form of gun control. But, I will accept you don't.. So, what do you call it?

Well Beavah may be pro-gun control, but would support you with your abortion beliefs. Back then murder was fine if it was considered your "property" you were killing off, a slave, or a wife that wasn't minding you or was promiscuous, even if the wife was with child. Hey even your children were the property of the man, so slap them around and kill them off.. What the heck. Oh, yeah I guess back then the abortion would have been fine if the husband/father wanted the baby killed off, but not ok for the wife.. So I see your point. In this day and age the right is given to the female.. The audacity!!

It just is a question of How prepared is good enough. Is a root cellar for the family and preparing an emergancy plan and emergancy kit good enough? Or do you need to build an plastic bubble over your entire house with an emergancy supply room to feed an army for 5 years? I don't have a tornado plan at all, a tornado did hit NH about 5 years back, but it is so rare with all the mountains valleys and trees. I think the last one to hit our county was in the 1980's I didn't even live here then. I don't have plans for earthquakes, being on granite the state hasn't suffered from them. We did have a rumble last year though I didn't even feel anything, but I heard something, some people felt something, others heard not felt nothing. We have had ground flooding, not from any river or stream as I am not near one, or from heavy rains even, as I live on the upper part of a large hill, but my well water will never dry up for the amount of underground water in the area.. Still this meant a sump pump in the basement, not building my house on stilts and putting in windows that could withstand the pressure of surging ocean waves crashing into it. There is protection and then there is paranoia overkill.

POLICE (at least at SWAT level) and MILITARY have good reason to have them. They are highly trained to prevent loss of life of the innocent and know where and when to use them effectively and where and when not to. Average citizens do not need them. I can't believe all shopkeepers in LA had the same style of gun. Sorry.. Perhaps you had one or two with this style, but not all. Aim a gun of any type and people in a riot situation they will pay heed, because with riots your fighting people who mostly have the force of numbers, but most of their numbers are unarmed with nothing but fists bricks, bats some knives, possibly a few guns. Still the multitude without guns will backup taking the few in their midst they have guns with them in the tide of retreat. They flow like water, they are like stampeding cattle and take the path of least resistance.

perdidochas - I never gave indication it was only for hunting, but as I stated it is the question of what is reasonable for defense and what is over-the-top for defense unless you are a criminal and expect an army of drug cartel to ambush you. The only use for it is in offense in a massacre, or in just trying to look macho with all your cool weaponry until your nephew or neighbor steals it from you kills you and takes out half of his schoolmates with it. Calico - great arguments about limitation on everything else. We are regulated in everything simply because a few can not regulate themselves for their own good, or have figured out how to make a take advantage of others through taking advantage of a small crack and abusing it. When you see serious abuse happening we try to fill the cracks which are difficult due to lobbyist and corrupt politicians that take bribes to keep the abuse regardless of the destruction it causes to the people and the nation.

Your shaving hairs to pick up and pull apart the word "looks" like it was the most important word of the statement. Certain guns have really no use except for kill LOTS and LOTS of killing in a very short span of time like seconds. That is not what is needed in hunting, because even if you come to a flock of geese or herd of hundreds of deer, most of the animals will flee on the first shot, with you might get 2 or 3 if real quick & accurate with a assault rifle, but most will be long gone before you aim and shoot off 10 rounds, secondly you may have a limit on how many you can kill in a season.. For protection, unless you are a spy or real bad guy in the movies, how many armed bad guys do you typically get breaking down your door shooting at yout. If a 10 round clip isn't good enough, then you should change professions. If you plan on comming into my school or movie theater with your 30 round semi-auto for your personal protection, you have a mental health problem and should have your guns taken away from you. A limit of 10 rounds in a clip does not mean they are less deadlier, it means if you want to go on a shooting spree, your massacre is somewhat limited then if you had a 30 round clip or a 100 round drum. It is not stopping your killing spree, it is trying to limit it. But if you like, we can just mandate back to guns used in American Revolution, where you have to stop and load for each shot and get rid of the 10 clip and six shooter and all other weapons that allow more then one shot to be fired before reloading.

a citizen is someone who is not actively on duty for military or Police. Basic use: As someone once stated, if you need more the a 10 round clip to mow down a deer, it is time for you to find a new hobby..

Could be either a semi-automatic or automatic weapon. Military style weapons that are ridiculous for your hunting expidition and basic defense. Not made for citizen use.