StrangeSox

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:50 PM) Again, I'd rather have a gun and not need it, than to need one and not have it. [snip] Tell me how innocent people are going to die because of me or my guns. If you can't do that, stop telling me what I get to own and don't get to own. I don't need your advice. the thought process is that your easy ability to "have a gun and not need it," even if you will never, ever use your guns to harm a person and they never fall into 'the wrong hands' (which you can never know with 100% certainty) is that it means it's a lot easier for anyone to get a gun. That includes people who get them specifically to cause harm or people who are negligent or people who are perfectly normal law-abiding citizens but have a terrible lapse in judgement, an accident or some traumatic event. If we're going to have hundreds of millions of guns legally floating around this country, innocent people are going to die. That's the price we have to pay for liberal gun laws. You can be fine with that trade-off--we all make these choices everyday i.e. we allow millions of cars (heavy machinery) to be operated by basically anyone 16-dead who can pass an incredibly easy test. We allow alcohol, even though we know some will abuse it, some will drive drunk. But that's the thought process behind the desire for gun control, and you need to think beyond a single individual level.

the constitution literally establishes the government and "the United States," and you swear to obey the orders of the President.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:39 PM) You're full of juvenile arguments. I get a kick out of that. This is about patriotism. I'm not here for the government or for the president. I signed up to defend America because I felt it was my absolute duty. If you think that's statist, then whatever. I don't really give a s*** what someone thinks who also thinks its bigoted to not want a gay son. might want to check that oath you swore when you joined the government's armed forces and agreed to serve under the Commander-In-Chief.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:35 PM) Read my above answer to Balta. it fits your gun-world view. not really

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:28 PM) Nice that you are so certain of things. Why have you not won the lottery yet? You should be an actuary since you can predict these things with such clarity. I'm certain that you did not use your gun, did not brandish your gun and that you and your family lived unharmed. I'm reasonably certain that one guy with a handgun isn't going to take down 7+ guys, and I'm 99.9% certain that had you decided to challenge that group, things would have ended up much worse than they did.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:28 PM) I never understand this argument. So if I'm being attacked by 10 men who intend to hurt me, it makes sense to take away the one hope I have because its doubtful I have the skill and expertise to take out all ten? What's the alternative? That I simply have no weapon and am overran and slaughtered immediately. I don't know. Seems like a weak attack point. Maybe I can't get them all and will die anyway but the alternative isn't much better. See, that's why you need to think beyond your one incredibly-unlikely-never-going-to-happen-full-frontal-gang-assault situation and to what your ability to legally and easily get weapons x, y and z means. It means there's a lot more of them out there, that the likelihood of them "falling into the wrong hands" increases, that the likelihood of an otherwise perfectly normal "law abiding citizen" making bad decisions or having an emotional issue with a gun increases, that the need to defend yourself from other people with guns increases.

but you weren't in a situation where you needed it and if 7+ armed guys were trying to get into your house, having an extra 7 bullets between reloads wouldn't actually matter.

I get a kick out of a guy in the military talking about "statists"

the easier it is to get legal guns, the easier it is to get illegal guns.

that time where your guns made no difference, were never used and they never knew you had them? do you really think you would have rambo'd down 7+ of them?

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 09:23 AM) Can you name one law that criminals follow? Isn't that why we call them criminals? most of them?

Careful, Balta, he's not going to negotiate with you now!

I would not be opposed to carrying a gun if I were backpacking in bear country.

well, at least it turned out to be a hell of a game

cheap, but smart

bad no-call there

Beyonce is an attractive woman.

There's still several possibilities that aren't "Iran attacks Israel." That's a leap you made and what lead to a lot of the confusion here.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 05:10 PM) Yeah I guess that part doesnt make sense to me. Why would the US all of a sudden get majorly involved in Syria unless Iran was involved? I just assumed that we were all talking about further escalation. Not that Israel and the US would wake up tomorrow and decide they wanted to kill Syria for the fun of it. For the same reasons we got involved in Libya or France got involved in Mali?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 04:45 PM) I said "even liberals". I never said the majority, I never put a figure on it. I just said "even liberals" meaning that there would "even be some liberals" who would support it. Why? A majority of Jews vote democrat. They are almost always going to be okay with protecting Israel against Iran. your statement was ambiguous but if that's what you meant okay.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 04:45 PM) You would fit right in with 1930's isolationists. According to Y2hh, most people in Germany werent Nazi's so we shouldnt have gotten involved, because we didnt want to hurt the innocent Germans. nah edit: I mean I could support the opposition to Germany while still deploring the Dresden bombing or the idea of decimating the German people.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 04:01 PM) lol You have over 50% support to attack Iran just over building nuclear weapons. Imagine if the question was: "Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran if there is evidence that Iran has attacked Israel?" Im guessing you are somewhere at 70-80% which is almost unimaginably high. (edit) To conclude, the numbers already support my position that the majority are fine attacking Iran, let alone if Iran does something aggressive. Well, you said "liberals" originally, not "majority of the people."

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 04:16 PM) Isolationism has worked so well in the past. Its never resulted in the US having to expend more money and man power than if the US had just gotten involved to start. Oh irony, now it is the "liberals" who are the isolationists and it is the "conservatives" who are not. I just dont understand how anyone who claims to be a liberal, can also want isolationism. Those are mutually exclusive. If you truly care about the plight of people, then you would want someone to interfere on behalf of the weak. Regardless of the cost to yourself. This is like welfare or universal health care, which are generally considered a liberal policies. yo, Iran is full of people I've got no beef with

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 04:11 PM) Thats because you're an Obama fan and anti-Israel. http://freebeacon.com/iran-state-tv-praise...agel-selection/ lol free beacon

hard to compare the general attitudes in 1990-1991 to 2013 what with us still winding down the two longest wars in our history right next door to Iran. edit: you're still going to have majority support but there's a sizable number of people that don't want war with Iran: http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm