Nancy shoots blanks out of gate

[Andreus]

ok here is the other side of the story from the gun control people in canada...

and i am telling you the truth, Kulindahr...

neither side is presenting what I would call an acceptable level of gun deaths....

so i dont really think that the gun controll issue in america is primarily a self defence issue

here... take a look and tell me what you think after reading both sides of the arguement.

I think Pelosi's position is rather dead on.

source... coalition for gun control

...

Arming For Self Protection Does not Work

​

The easiest response to suggestions that Canadian civilians need guns to protect themselves is to look south to the US to see where arming for self protection leads. While rates of violence in the US are comparable to countries such as Canada, Australia and Great Britain, rates of lethal violence are much higher. For example, murders without guns in the US are about 40% higher (1.4 times the rate) than in Canada while murders WITH handguns are 1500% higher (15 times the rate).
The gun lobby in Canada and the US frequently cites "research" to prove that more guns make us safer. The following are specific responses:

John Lott, More Guns Less Crime, University of Chicago​

University of Chicago Professor John Lott's "More Guns Less Crime", claims that allowing civilians to carry concealed weapons reduces crime. This conclusion runs counter to the bulk of refereed research which shows a direct relationship, among developed countries, between the rate of gun ownership and firearm death. In fact, Lott's study has been widely critiqued by academics, such as Dr. Daniel Webster from the John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, who cited several methodological and factual flaws, and errors in the statistical models used in the analysis.

Lott's advice following the Jonesboro, Arkansas shootings where an 11 and 13 year old killed 4 school children and their teacher is also revealing: "Allowing teachers and other law-abiding adults to carry concealed handguns in schools would not only make it easier to stop shootings in progress. It would also help deter shootings from ever occurring." Few criminologists or crime prevention experts in Canada or the US would share this view. Gary Mauser, Professor, Business Administration, Simon Fraser University
Mauser's earlier work on arming for self-protection was funded by the NRA and has been critiqued by many academics. In one often cited study, Mauser argued that firearms are used between 62,500 and 80,000 times per year for self-defence. This is based on a 1995 telephone survey of 1,505 Canadians, in which 2.1% (32) of respondents claimed that they or a member of their household had used a gun for self-protection (either against a person or an animal) over the last five years. Of those, 12.9 % (5) claimed they or a member of their household had used a gun to protect themselves against a person within the last 5 years. Mauser extrapolates this to the Canadian population.
Dr. David Hemenway, Professor, Harvard University in an affidavit to the Alberta Court of Appeal, notes that Mausers study contains "incorrect assertions and misleading statements." The study fails to distinguish perception from reality - grabbing a gun in response to a bump in the night does not mean that anyone has actually been defended themselves against a threat. " It is not appropriate to extrapolate the results of a simple, self-reported study or a RARE event, particularly when there is the possibility of positive social desirability response, or personal presentation bias. The results will be wild over estimates." He compares Mauser's methodology to a 1995 survey by NBC which asked 1500 Americans "Have you personally ever been in contact with aliens from another planet or not?". Extrapolating the results (0.6%) to the entire US population would suggest that 1.2 million Americans have been in actual contact with aliens.

​

​

​

​

​

 

[Andreus]

but automatic weapins how r those ever 4 self defense doesnt that seem like overkill? and in ur other post below about suicide i bet those guys were not killing themselves with an m16.

very true

and that statistic came from a pro gun website.

I think it is beyond the scope of what the founding fathers envisioned in the second ammendment and there are many many americans that feel the same way.

I am aware that Kulindahr disagrees with me

he may be the better person to let answer that question.

 

[NickCole]

I see that compromise coming also and I hope Bush's record of walking across the aisle when he was Governor and had to work a Dem State legislature will hold true.

I've always loved this particular BushRepublican talking point about Bush and how people repeat it without knowing anything about Texas politics when Bob Bullock was around.

Bush never "worked with" Democrats the way that talking point is intended to suggest. And his tenure as President proves he isn't suited to doing so -- hell, he doesn't even work well with Republicans unless they fall in line the way he wants.

As Governor he "walked across the aisle" to "work with" Bob Bullock because in Texas politics there was no other choice. Bullock owned Texas politics. Some said he owned Texas. Bullock happened to be a Democrat but he was not an ideologue. And Bush followed him like a puppy. Bullock was one of his mentors (in style, not policy).

But I love it when someone says "Bush worked with Dems when he was Governor." We all know, by watching him the past six years, that Bush's nature does not allow him to "work with" an opponent. I love seeing how propaganda can convince people of something their own eyes and ears know isn't true.

 

[NW007]

Well, I see that partisanship is still alive and well on JUB. You all have to admit that Pelosi's move did notch her down a bit out of the starting gate. The more important decision will be who she chooses to chair the Intelligence committee.

 

[chance1]

Jack Murtha isn't the most articulate person who sits in Congress. His interview with the undercover FBI agent back then and his recent interview with Matthews are certainly proof of that. It comes down to a matter of who you believe. The fact remains that he did not accept the 50 thousand dollar bribe as six others did and he was not charged with breaking the law. The people in his home district must believe he told the truth because they keep sending him back to represent them year after year. Given his distinguished military and Congressional career, I choose to believe his explanation of what transpired.

Here is the portion of the Chris Matthews Hardball interview with Jack Murtha dealing with the Abscam tape:

Not sure this transcript helps your case Smelter.

For sure he was not convicted of anything but it's pretty clear to me what was going on.

PS - I think Chris was playing Softball not Hardball with Rep Murtha

 

[chance1]

Well, I see that partisanship is still alive and well on JUB. You all have to admit that Pelosi's move did notch her down a bit out of the starting gate. The more important decision will be who she chooses to chair the Intelligence committee.

That is the conventional wisdom - read any newspaper, blog, political talking head, etc.

All true except on JUB, the new version of The Twilight Zone

 

[Andreus]

Thus spake the gay republican.

i wonder if you just come here now to insult us, chance.

RR... i am rather focused on the ways and means committee and Rangel. That seems to be far more important IMO. what are your views on him and his recent comments? as a conservative, what do you think Pelosi should do about his committee chairmanship?

 

[chance1]

Thus spake the gay republican.

i wonder if you just come here now to insult us, chance.

RR... i am rather focused on the ways and means committee and Rangel. That seems to be far more important IMO. what are your views on him and his recent comments? as a conservative, what do you think Pelosi should do about his committee chairmanship?

such bad manners Andreus

and full of incorrect info

insult u? cause the Murtha transcript reads like a guy who was soliciting a bribe?

cause every publication and tv station said Pelosi had a bad day - and u won't acknowledge it?

I think it's insulting to suggest otherwise - to stonewall

 

[chance1]

This is a political forum and the topic is political and partisan, so you really shouldn't be surprised. And no, "you all have to admit" isn't a valid argument to advance your assertions, and it is no more convincing than any of the other Republicans' lamentations and false arguments.

It's a pity that Republicans don't see that the rough and tumble of the election for Majority Leader was healthy, that a choice in candidates is a good thing, because that is what our two-party democracy is all about. If the right wingers aren't comfortable with democracy, perhaps they should take their Stalinist asses to Iran or Russia, and soon, while it's still voluntary.

Not sure what Repubs see - cause I think everyone sees things different but . . . .

betting on the wrong horse is not the sign of a good democracy

just a bad choice

 

[Andreus]

chance

its just a differing opinion

i think we all need to take a breath, me included, and change our tone in dealing with each other.

My brother was on earlier and he was reading this forum and he gave me two observations....

one... he was annoyed that people were being rude to me

two... he was embarassed that I was beiing rude to other people

that isn't what i want to project OR what i want someone to feel when they read my posts, especially a relative of mine.

So... lets have this discussion, but lets go at it from the perspective that we all have valid opinions and they are all equal even if they are different from our own.

I see that you feel that Pelosi is not as powerfull as she could be due to her recent choices. Do you see that we democrats don't mind our leaders not having absolute power over our party?

 

[chance1]

chance

its just a differing opinion

i think we all need to take a breath, me included, and change our tone in dealing with each other.

My brother was on earlier and he was reading this forum and he gave me two observations....

one... he was annoyed that people were being rude to me

two... he was embarassed that I was beiing rude to other people

that isn't what i want to project OR what i want someone to feel when they read my posts, especially a relative of mine.

So... lets have this discussion, but lets go at it from the perspective that we all have valid opinions and they are all equal even if they are different from our own.

I see that you feel that Pelosi is not as powerfull as she could be due to her recent choices. Do you see that we democrats don't mind our leaders not having absolute power over our party?

good one

hear you

I agree with u

my real opinon is that the pelosi thing is NOT a huge deal - I did state that 1-2x - not a big deal at all. just thought it was a weak start for her and my read is she kinda blew it

getting the sense she is not that popular with the troops - and that there is a high level of difference between/among tribes in the dems - which is a good thing

and I think Pelosi does not truly represent the majority

I don't disrespect her at all - just don't agree with her

glad u wrote this

 

[Andreus]

i have a few buddies in the service and she was never popular with them, so i sure do agree there. I'm not sure that really affects her power base.

I do think its just a perspective issue here.I don't equate inter party activity with real power in the house... I think it really is a difference in what we are accustomed to versus what is to come.

I see that you are saying she is weakened but i disagree because she hasnt been tested in real house business as of yet. I do think that if she wanted her man in the spot she would have gotten it.

finally... a point i dont think you ae catching here...

even if you are right,( and i think you are really underestimating the liberal democrats in your asessment ) , but .....her opinions don't have to be representative of the majority opinions... the reality is that she represents the majority party. that is an absolute fact.

 

[Kulindahr]

but automatic weapins how r those ever 4 self defense doesnt that seem like overkill? and in ur other post below about suicide i bet those guys were not killing themselves with an m16.

I think it is beyond the scope of what the founding fathers envisioned in the second ammendment and there are many many americans that feel the same way.

I am aware that Kulindahr disagrees with me

he may be the better person to let answer that question.

I answered this and the post disappeared, which is beyond lame into the realm of censorship, since it was on-topic (due to Pelosi's antagonism to the right to keep and bear arms) and a reply to this invitation to post what I did.
Given the number of actual off-topic posts, including some by Alfie which are nothing more than attacks on people he doesn't like, having this one disappear makes a mockery of any real discussion. Once again someone's ideas of political correctness triumph over open communication, leaving us with a circus, not a forum.

As a quick summary, without offering any substantive information which might offend someone's sensibilities, the question is worthwhile, and there is good reason to believe that Pelosi couldn't even begin to answer the question.

 

[Andreus]

I dont think theres any censorship at work, buddy

there are too many mods and admins with too many differing political views... they would all have to agree on one first, and i don't think they care enough, or want to waste their time with, figuring out a party line, so to speak.

as to the gun control issue and pelosi's stance...

remember who she represents, who her constituencies are, what party she belongs to, and her rise to power.

none of them are accidental. I think her position is sincere and in line with what her supporters expect of her.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you don't think there's censorship, do you think I should re-write the post as best I can, so SweatyBoy will have an answer? BTW, was there something else you meant by that, or just whether fully automatics were of any value in self defense?

I'm almost certain Pelosi will let anti-Second Amendment bills come to the floor. I'll be interested in seeing if they actually have any testimony on the matter from people who know. Too many of the Democrats there are so anti-gun I have no doubt they fit right into A Nation of Cowards {by. Jeffrey R. Snyder (Fall 1993)}, who cringe at the mere thought of violence. I don't know where she falls on that spectrum -- or Murtha, or Hoyer, for that matter.

 

[Andreus]

i think she will let it happen, but it will happen later not sooner.

The vote will be to restrict gun access and the president will most certainly veto it. I dont think either side will waste the time with it until they are positioning for the presidential elections.

maybe the end of 2008 we may see it

 

[NW007]

This is a political forum and the topic is political and partisan, so you really shouldn't be surprised. And no, "you all have to admit" isn't a valid argument to advance your assertions, and it is no more convincing than any of the other Republicans' lamentations and false arguments.

It's a pity that Republicans don't see that the rough and tumble of the election for Majority Leader was healthy, that a choice in candidates is a good thing, because that is what our two-party democracy is all about. If the right wingers aren't comfortable with democracy, perhaps they should take their Stalinist asses to Iran or Russia, and soon, while it's still voluntary.

Alfie: I am not surprised by the partisanship in the least. I was hoping you could enjoy a moment of satire . I wasn't advancing any assertions, just commenting on what many Dem and Rep congressional people have been talking about not to mention many political analysts from both political viewpoints.

I was quite serious though about the importance of who she picks for the next intelligence committee chair. That will say a great deal about her pledge to upgrade the ethical and moral characteristics of the leaders

 

[Kulindahr]

To pick someone for the intelligence chair, doesn't she first have to find someone with intelligence? This is D.C. we're talking about, after all!

​

 

[Zeremonie]

If you don't think there's censorship, do you think I should re-write the post as best I can, so SweatyBoy will have an answer? BTW, was there something else you meant by that, or just whether fully automatics were of any value in self defense?

For the record, since you've mentioned this in this thread, when posts are deleted from a thread mods can see the trail of posts that used to be visible to all.

No post of yours has been deleted from this thread. I don't know what happened with the reply your wrote to Sweatyboy. Sorry.

 

[Kulindahr]

Okay... I'll attribute it to the electrical problems we had from the storm, and attempt a rewrite!

Thanks for checking!