My friend won't stop debating me

[matratzac]

My most recent reply to him:

You say you aren't trying to force your beliefs on anyone. I disagree. You say gun control should be increased and people should have their guns taken away from them. How is this not being hippocritical? You allow abortion throughout the USA and there will be a lot of PISSED people. You allow gay marriage to become a sanction the federal government will allow throughout the USA and there will be a lot of PISSED people. Don't forget, THE STATE IS NOT DECIDING FOR THE PEOPLE. The people in the state are deciding FOR the state...people are able to control the government at local levels, as long as it doesn't become large like our Federal Government. It says "powers shall be regulated to the states" EXACTLY for reasons like this, like abortion, gay marriage, etc because they are such divisive subjects. A one-size-fits-all can't be applied throughout the entire nation specifically because it is just such a HUGE subject with many different people on both sides of the fence. Delegating it to more specific areas will allow the crazy religious zealots like in Iowa to be on the pro-life side, whereas the free-bird hippies and independents in new hampshire can allow abortions to take place. You can't please everyone, but this way atleast 1 ruling does not apply to everyone. I don't want to say this is a cynical approach, but it is the proper one, and it makes sense, and it is realistic. I think gay people should be able to do whatever the hell they want, but you have to admit, if its allowed anywhere and in the whole USA some people will absolutely hate it and disagree with it. And finally - you said everything revolves around money. "If theres one thing that you cannot argue with its that money makes the world go round." But yet.. the economy isnt an important issue. The economy IS the important issue (maybe not to you) but to everyone else in the election (according to every poll given - atleast every one i have ever seen) and it is important because the economy is failing. None of this will matter if the economy tanks, bar none, end of story. Youtube "Ron Paul House of Cards" and watch it and try to tell me you still don't think the economy is important.





Him:
"You allow abortion throughout the USA and there will be a lot of PISSED people. You allow gay marriage to become a sanction the federal government will allow throughout the USA and there will be a lot of PISSED people."

-There were a lot of people pissed when slavery ended also; and when women were given the right to vote. Should we have never done those things? What is the difference? Predijudice is predijuce regardless who the group being discriminated against is. There are a lot of predujiduce people out there and frankly I really dont give a crap if they get pissed. As you said the constitution gives everyone the right to be treated equally, yet people are not treated equally. As someone who believes in the constitution how can you say that it is ok to discriminate against gay people. Also my wanting to take guns has nothing to due with my personal feelings about guns and gun owners. Its true I do not like them but the only reason I say they should be controled is becuase they pose a threat to everyone living within a society. It has nothing to do with my own personal dislike.

"Don't forget, THE STATE IS NOT DECIDING FOR THE PEOPLE. The people in the state are deciding FOR the state...people are able to control the government at local levels, as long as it doesn't become large like our Federal
Government"

-The state and the individual are not the same thing!! There are about 9 MILLION people living in NC. You want those 9 million people to decide for you instead of you deciding yourself. You talk about small gov't but small gov't is a myth. Every gov't is big just in different ways. What matters is figuring how to give individuals the most freedom possible without allowing them to take away the freedoms of others.


And as far as the economy, the truth is that regardless of who is president (even if its your beloved Paul) the economy is always going to go through cycles. It inherent in having a monatary system.

People freak b/c we are going into a recession but again that is the natural cycle of our economy and its not going to avioded. The good news is that with the technology of the internet and everyone knowing everything the second it happens the blows can be softened. I am aware that according to the polls the economy is the biggest issue for most people but that doesnt change the fact that for me it is not. I am not going to base my decisions on what other people think are important. We have the highest standard of living of any country in the world and the average person has more disposable income than any other country in the world and people freak out if they think their taxes might go up by 2%. We live in a very selfish and materialist society which is why people are so concerned about an ecomony which is going to be just fine. Most people do not look at the big picture and are only concerned with what is being presented to them at that second. This is evident in that the economy was not a big issue at all until very recently when the market crashed. Civil liberities will always be of greater concern to me than the economy.


I know it might seem like I am just trying to get the last word in because I keep saying that I am going to be through debating yet I continue to debate but when I am accused of wanting to force my beliefs on others I have to defend myself.

- - - - - - - - - - --

In my reply I know i want to say that america DOESNT have the highest quality of life anymore, which can be attributed to the falling value of the dollar, but i need a source

help me with some other stuff to say

[matratzac]

so i can subscribe

[matratzac]

bump

[yongrel]

"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation." – Thomas B. Reed (1886)

[matratzac]

"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation." – Thomas B. Reed (1886)

he would argue that in this case they HAVE to be cured by legislation because that will be the only way to end the gay discrimination and to give people the freedom to have abortions

[WarningSLO]

-There were a lot of people pissed when slavery ended also; and when women were given the right to vote. Should we have never done those things?

Remind him that these were accomplished with Constitutional Amendments, which Dr. Paul has absolutely no problem with. Unlike federal legislation, a Constitutional Amendment must be agreed upon by a vast majority of the States of the Union.

As far as the economy goes, this recession is just the tip of the iceberg. Dr. Paul is trying to warn us about something far, far worse; something that the typical business cycle has nothing to do with.

[JMann]

I agree with your friend. Prejudice people are prejudice people. Most people that don't like gay people are probably more or less bigots across the board. If they are black they have no use for white people, if white same thing. These are people that can't except people different from them and surely shall parish and burn in hell.

OK the last sentence is simply to point out how stupid that burn in hell statement is in the first place.

[Joe3113]

I don't know where to start????

1. Tell him/her that the business cycle only exists due to the Keynesian system currently in place. When the Federal Reserve prints the money out of thin air it pulls wealth away from the people trying to save. As credit expands the cycle moves to it's peak. That is when you see inflation becoming a problem. A that point the Fed has to decide whether to lower interest rates and continue expanding the money supply, risking hyperinflation, or tighten and cause a lack of supply. Either way there will be a collapse when the market corrects itself. Austrian economics solves those problems.

2. In terms of gun rights, hit him/her with this:

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

- Thomas Jefferson

AND THIS

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”

- Thomas Jefferson

AND

Show him/her the movie "Freedom to Fascism"


3. Tell her Ron Paul has NO PROBLEM WITH GAY MARRIAGE. He wants to get the government out of marriage all together. Geez.....You gotta bone up on your Ron Paul philosophy.

4. Abortion. Tell her than ontogeny is a linear and continuous process. There is absolutely no basis for saying life begins at a certain point somewhere beyond conception.

Despite that, Ron does not want the federal government involved in abortion. He recognizes it is a difficult issue. The more difficult the issue, the more local the level of government that should be involved.

[matratzac]

I agree with your friend. Prejudice people are prejudice people. Most people that don't like gay people are probably more or less bigots across the board. If they are black they have no use for white people, if white same thing. These are people that can't except people different from them and surely shall parish and burn in hell.

OK the last sentence is simply to point out how stupid that burn in hell statement is in the first place.

well that doesnt help me much does it?

the point im trying to get across is that no matter what he thinks about abortion and gay marriage, its a state matter, and will never be a federal issue

[me3]

Who really cares what your friend thinks? I don't.

[matratzac]

Who really cares what your friend thinks? I don't.

yes but i need a good reply or i will end up looking like an idiot

[Fyretrohl]

1 - Abortion - Women's Right To Choose - The ABSOLUTELY have the right to choose and, once that choice is made, live with the consequences. The only place I see where there is question is when their right to choose was removed, as in Rape. So, once they decide to have sex, they have made a choice and are responsible for the consequences. We have know for a long time what the possible outcomes of sex are. So, Pro Choice, at the right time. Shut the legs or similar protective actions, though those come with risks. Otherwise, she made her choice and now has the consequence who has rights as well.

2 - Gay 'Rights' - Ummm...Gays absolutely have the right to marry, same as I do. You see, just because I am straight, does not mean I have the right to marry a man <I am male>. Gays are NO more prejudiced against than I am. They have EXACTLY the same rights I do, so discrimination does not apply. Instead, they are DEMANDING greater rights than I have, which would discriminate against me.

[matratzac]

1 - Abortion - Women's Right To Choose - The ABSOLUTELY have the right to choose and, once that choice is made, live with the consequences. The only place I see where there is question is when their right to choose was removed, as in Rape. So, once they decide to have sex, they have made a choice and are responsible for the consequences. We have know for a long time what the possible outcomes of sex are. So, Pro Choice, at the right time. Shut the legs or similar protective actions, though those come with risks. Otherwise, she made her choice and now has the consequence who has rights as well.

2 - Gay 'Rights' - Ummm...Gays absolutely have the right to marry, same as I do. You see, just because I am straight, does not mean I have the right to marry a man <I am male>. Gays are NO more prejudiced against than I am. They have EXACTLY the same rights I do, so discrimination does not apply. Instead, they are DEMANDING greater rights than I have, which would discriminate against me.

he would argue that im wrong, need sources

[KewlRonduderules]

Him:
"You allow abortion throughout the USA and there will be a lot of PISSED people. You allow gay marriage to become a sanction the federal government will allow throughout the USA and there will be a lot of PISSED people."

-There were a lot of people pissed when slavery ended also; and when women were given the right to vote. Should we have never done those things? What is the difference? Predijudice is predijuce regardless who the group being discriminated against is. There are a lot of predujiduce people out there and frankly I really dont give a crap if they get pissed. As you said the constitution gives everyone the right to be treated equally, yet people are not treated equally. As someone who believes in the constitution how can you say that it is ok to discriminate against gay people. Also my wanting to take guns has nothing to due with my personal feelings about guns and gun owners. Its true I do not like them but the only reason I say they should be controled is becuase they pose a threat to everyone living within a society. It has nothing to do with my own personal dislike.

Everyone should be treated equally in an ideal society but we know that is not the case. But the role of government and the Constitution is to minimize that difference. What would we do if there was no Constitution? As for gay persons, the government has no role in deciding gay marriage- as per Dr. Ron Paul. Remember everyone is treated equally. As for abortion, there is no Constitution role to decide if whether it is legal or illegal. Therefore, should be delegated to the states. Like he says, there are many walks of life in this country and each state is different. Let them decide for themselves.

Guns do kill people and I agree with him to this extent. However, letting the state control your right to possess a gun is dangerous- you are giving up your right to possess arms. There has to be some way in order to mitigate the gun violence that we see nowadays.


"Don't forget, THE STATE IS NOT DECIDING FOR THE PEOPLE. The people in the state are deciding FOR the state...people are able to control the government at local levels, as long as it doesn't become large like our Federal
Government"

-The state and the individual are not the same thing!! There are about 9 MILLION people living in NC. You want those 9 million people to decide for you instead of you deciding yourself. You talk about small gov't but small gov't is a myth. Every gov't is big just in different ways. What matters is figuring how to give individuals the most freedom possible without allowing them to take away the freedoms of others..

So your point is...? Big federal government = less individual freedom. The people in the state are not deciding anything- your friend is correct. The politicians are lying to you and are paying into the hands of the corporate interests. They don't tell you behinds the scenes the types of legislation they promoting- to fill their pockets and the corporate interes pockets. Yes, governments are big and look is what is happening to most western governments, huge deficits, more taxes, more regulation, more corruption, weaking of currency markets. All related to big government spending to promote their corporate backers. It is definitely cause for alarm.



And as far as the economy, the truth is that regardless of who is president (even if its your beloved Paul) the economy is always going to go through cycles. It inherent in having a monatary system.

People freak b/c we are going into a recession but again that is the natural cycle of our economy and its not going to avioded. The good news is that with the technology of the internet and everyone knowing everything the second it happens the blows can be softened. I am aware that according to the polls the economy is the biggest issue for most people but that doesnt change the fact that for me it is not. I am not going to base my decisions on what other people think are important. We have the highest standard of living of any country in the world and the average person has more disposable income than any other country in the world and people freak out if they think their taxes might go up by 2%. We live in a very selfish and materialist society which is why people are so concerned about an ecomony which is going to be just fine. Most people do not look at the big picture and are only concerned with what is being presented to them at that second. This is evident in that the economy was not a big issue at all until very recently when the market crashed. Civil liberities will always be of greater concern to me than the economy.


It is unfortunate that your friend does not educate himself in reference to dynamics that concern the economy. It is only looking at superficial aspects of the economy related to texts books, theories, and what the MSM tries to convey to you.

There is a BIG difference in today's economy as opposed to times in the past. The biggest issues are that more foreigners are investing in this country than any other time in the this country's history- even more so now, given that there are good deals for them to buy US assets- due to the weakening value of the dollar. Secondly, our currency is no longer the BIG powerhouse it use to be - it is no longer the trusted world reserve, especially as it relates to petrodollars. More countries are now diversifying their reserves. This puts spiraling down pressure on the dollar due to less of a demand. Very bad news for us! Now, countries are looking to the Euro to determine the prices of international commodities due to the decrease value of the dollar and increased value of the Euro. You can look at the markets yourself and see this. Adding to this, is the current account deficits our government has- national debt and trade debts. It speaks for itself adding to the pressure of the devalued dollar.

People think that more international investment is good, actually maybe not. I tell you why because we have to pay more for imported goods and bare goods in the long run making things much more expensive for us in here.

I guarantee you we will have high inflation in the next few years making our standard of living much much lower.

To sum up, we are in a deep load of trouble.

[JMann]

1 - Abortion - Women's Right To Choose - The ABSOLUTELY have the right to choose and, once that choice is made, live with the consequences. The only place I see where there is question is when their right to choose was removed, as in Rape. So, once they decide to have sex, they have made a choice and are responsible for the consequences. We have know for a long time what the possible outcomes of sex are. So, Pro Choice, at the right time. Shut the legs or similar protective actions, though those come with risks. Otherwise, she made her choice and now has the consequence who has rights as well.

2 - Gay 'Rights' - Ummm...Gays absolutely have the right to marry, same as I do. You see, just because I am straight, does not mean I have the right to marry a man <I am male>. Gays are NO more prejudiced against than I am. They have EXACTLY the same rights I do, so discrimination does not apply. Instead, they are DEMANDING greater rights than I have, which would discriminate against me.

Your number 2 is about the most ignorant statement on homosexuality that you could possibly make. Is this an argument that your evangelical preacher gave you? What business is it of yours who someone marries and why would you care? You apparently are not interested in individual liberty and personal freedom. You are clearly interested in sticking your nose in other people's lives. Search deep and just figure out that you are a bigot and stop trying to excuse that fact. Just admit it be proud of it and move on. No need to come up with such ignorant statements like, gay people can marry just like me.

[Physics]

If your friend thinks that guns are a threat to our society, then he should move to a place with strict gun control, such as DC. Let's not forget, this is not about gun deaths, this is about VIOLENT CRIME. If you reduce the number of guns on the street, yes, gun deaths go down. Guess what though, VIOLENT CRIME goes UP! Again, this is because you are taking the guns out of the hands of the average citizen who doesn't want to be a criminal. The criminals don't care, they are already breaking the law, so why would they give up their guns? Thus, the only people in a gun-free society who have guns, are the criminals and the government. In other words, Mexico.

When you outlaw guns, by definition, only outlaws will have guns. Thus, only true outlaws will keep their guns, because the ordinary citizen does not want association with that label. GUN CONTROL IS THE ILLUSION OF SAFETY.

[DealzOnWheelz]

As far as gun control is concerned just tell him that 80% of violent crimes committed with guns are illegal unregistered guns so by creating more gun laws you are hurting the people that are obtaining guns legally leaving them t a disadvantage to the criminals who will still have guns


Since drugs have been illegal there are more quantities of drugs in the US than ever before


Prohibition doesn't work but if you want to do it AT LEAST AMMEND THE CONSTITUTION

[matratzac]

the quality of life in the USA is no longer 1st in the world, right?

[KewlRonduderules]

the quality of life in the USA is no longer 1st in the world, right?


Absolutely!

It's been like that for quite a while.

The Scandinavians have it best!

[matratzac]

Absolutely!

It's been like that for quite a while.

The Scandinavians have it best!

link?

[Kregener]

Stop debating him.

And may his chains rest lightly upon his shoulders....

[XelR8r]

"Civil liberities will always be of greater concern to me than the economy."

Uh, no they won't. Soon, not starving will be his greatest concern.

Your friend is a blinded, hardcore Lib. There is no cure, only an end.

[matratzac]

Stop debating him.

And may his chains rest lightly upon his shoulders....

im gonna send him the john stossel ron paul interview and then be done with it

[nbhadja]

Sorry but you're friend is an idiot.

[Ilhaguru]

Tell him to watch on youtube "The Philosophy of Freedom"

As for this. . .


"-There were a lot of people pissed when slavery ended also; and when women were given the right to vote. Should we have never done those things? What is the difference? Predijudice is predijuce regardless who the group being discriminated against is. There are a lot of predujiduce people out there and frankly I really dont give a crap if they get pissed. As you said the constitution gives everyone the right to be treated equally, yet people are not treated equally. As someone who believes in the constitution how can you say that it is ok to discriminate against gay people. Also my wanting to take guns has nothing to due with my personal feelings about guns and gun owners. Its true I do not like them but the only reason I say they should be controled is becuase they pose a threat to everyone living within a society. It has nothing to do with my own personal dislike."

The constitution gives everyone the right to be treated equally BY THE GOVERNMENT! You, as an individual, can think of anyone however you like. You can be a NAZI, a KKK, a homophobe. So long you don't hurt anyone.

Tell him about MAJORITARIANISM and DEMOCRACY vis a vis his personal beliefs. If you don't know what that is, you need to go on wikipedia. Try googling "An Overview of America" and watching the video, too.

[Ilhaguru]

PS: You should watch The Philosophy of Freedom, too. Every Ron Paul supporter should, a few times over to make sure you get the details.

In case you haven't, yet. Maybe do a refresher.

ps: it's how I shut my brother (Dem) up in regards to criticizing Paul and getting a clue about the message.

[idrake]

I am not going to base my decisions on what other people think are important. We have the highest standard of living of any country in the world and the average person has more disposable income than any other country in the world and people freak out if they think their taxes might go up by 2%. We live in a very selfish and materialist society which is why people are so concerned about an ecomony which is going to be just fine. Most people do not look at the big picture and are only concerned with what is being presented to them at that second. This is evident in that the economy was not a big issue at all until very recently when the market crashed. Civil liberities will always be of greater concern to me than the economy.

Your friend sounds like a devout socialist.

Just from reading the quoted segment, it sounds like he believes GOVERNMENT must take from productive individuals to and GIVE to the non-productive though subsidies, corporate bailouts, foreign aid, and welfare programs.

Your friend thinks resisting a 2% tax increase is "selfish" and therefore must not believe in charity, but forced redistribution on wealth.

Youtube "Individualism vs. Collectivism". There is a great, 5 part, stick figure animated series done by a member of this board. If, after watching that, your friend still doesn't understand, then just let it go...he'll never get it.

[matratzac]

PS: You should watch The Philosophy of Freedom, too. Every Ron Paul supporter should, a few times over to make sure you get the details.

In case you haven't, yet. Maybe do a refresher.

ps: it's how I shut my brother (Dem) up in regards to criticizing Paul and getting a clue about the message.

im checking it out now

[Angel]

A few points to address to your friend:

--Concerning State vs. Federal policy making:

Which would you rather have? 50 choices or just 1 choice? If you believe that you have just as much of a voice on the federal level than the state or local level, then you do not understand how government works.

--If civil liberties are more important that the economy, have him google these legislations passed or being passed:

USA Patriot Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

Terrorist Surveillance Act:
http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL33669.pdf

H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
(which has been passed by the house and is in committee with Obama, among others, to be presented to the Senate):
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955&tab=summary

Military Commissions Act of 2006:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

These legislations directly violate every citizen's 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th Amendment to the constitution. The USA Patriot Act has been used against mostly non-terrorist related cases targeting American citizens than anything else since it's inception. The most heinous power is the newly enacted power of the president (thanks to the Military Commissions Act) to deem anyone, including an American citizen, an enemy combatant with no requirement of proof or evidence, denying him legal counsel, habeas corpus, and detaining him indefinitely. He can do this even if he (or she) feels that you have expressed dangerous, radical, extremist views that threaten the government (that is, if HR 1955 passes). For the first time in our history, an American President has been given a power that has been exclusively reserved for dictators.

These are laws passed by both parties, many of which have been supported by every candidate who is currently running, both Democrat and Republican, save for one, Congressman Ron Paul, who stood in opposition of every one of them. Which candidate do you believe will reverse this assault on our freedoms? Can you afford to take a gamble on someone other than Dr. Paul? Still think you live in a free country?

If he still isn't swayed by this, I would suggest smacking him silly until it sinks in. I'm kidding... or am I?

[praxisseizure]

So far I've had marginal success but only after extensive elaboration and examples. Then the light bulb goes off. I'm also a terrible communicator of ideas. I am a great analyzer and editor but terrible constructive debator.

Firstly, money is the most important thing on earth besides water. Money is the cause and effect of almost all modern human interaction. Money is a store of value and value is the exchange rate of time and things. Should it not be protected?

Presenting the scenario of the 20's as analogous to the late 90's or any recent boom for that matter has helped. The situation was massive over-speculation. The result was a boom/bust unique in the 30's in only one respect when we think of how our centralized banking deals with booms.

The dollar was gold at that time, so it's a gold standard problem. Wrong. The dissolving of the gold standard happened as a result of the expansion of credit in the 20's. The direct mechanism was the MONETIZING of credit. When credit and money become ideologically one and the same it's like handing over an easy blank check of credit to the FED (created in 1913) via the government to PRINT MONEY and regulate the supply thereof. Give fractional reserve banking a turbo boost into infinity of 'credit becoming money', which is held collateral to exponentially more credit, which then becomes exponentially more money and you get the idea. It's a pyramid scheme. Gold was the patsy.

Efforts to undo the damage speculators did by expanding the economy so rapidly are closer to the real reason the depression happened. In the 30's they decided to contract the money supply by 1/3 after they expanded it in the 20's. The Gold standard takes the hard rap for the bad policies leading up to the depression. Bad policies during the depression caused the prolonging of it to a decade. Gold was blamed DIRECTLY in the media of that period. Why would anyone with a right mind do this, I really don't know?

The late 70's are another albeit smaller example. Stagflation is the result of loss of control in regulating the supply of money where the economy stagnates regardless of any manipulation of the currency. In contrast to the 30's instead of deflating the economy, they continued to inflate it. It took a few years, but we inflated out of the disaster, hence why it wasn't a second great depression. These cycles have continued up and down since the 70's, each time we inflated our way out. (At this point we've borrowed and taxed as much as possible. We still borrow but not freely, there are limits.)

Now we've come to a point where the dollar, propped up by it's world reserve currency status, has too much downward force to continue inflating our way out of recessions. The dollar wants to devalue, badly, there's just too many of em. Somehow we keep convincing people to hide them in their central banks to prop it up. Speculation also helped, but that's waning in helpfulness as we can currently see. This can't last much longer.

All of this compounding together presents this country with a choice. We've not had a real correction in over 70 years. Correct now and ease it out a bit for a softer landing, or correct later violently. This problem will continue unless dealt with. If you remember your history of the 30's and the mass starvation, unemployment and exploitation thereof you'll pretty much sum up the consequences of a hard crash. If we get ourselves into that situation, good luck feeding your family.

That's the end all be all of it. If you want to leave the fate of yourself and family through the most important commodity (money) to someone in washington, then I cannot sympathize with you if you're in need. If you want to take responsibility and maintain stability in the worth of your belongings not relatively, but absolutely then you'll have to fight to remove the power any human has over the value of things.

This is a fundamental battle not to be taken lightly. It supercedes all squabbles currently in contention. All of the other issues depend on money.

[Highstreet]

"Civil liberities will always be of greater concern to me than the economy."



Tell him if this statement is true, then Paul is the only candidate left who protects them.

All the other ones either voted for the Patriot Act, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, or supported it with their words.

This includes all the Dems....Hillary, Obama (for the reauthorization of it), and Edwards. And now Obama is saying he will most likely vote for the Homegrown Terrorism Act, which is even scarier.

If he doesn't understand why the Patriot Act infringes on his 1st and 4th and other Amendment rights, then have him watch this 4 part explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8

[bcreps85]

Here's one to hit him with, from this quote of his.

"Also my wanting to take guns has nothing to due with my personal feelings about guns and gun owners. Its true I do not like them but the only reason I say they should be controlled is because they pose a threat to everyone living within a society. It has nothing to do with my own personal dislike."

Larry Elder recently wrote an article in which he concluded, "Republicans believe what they see, while Democrats see what they believe". Your friend is living proof. Violent crimes go DOWN when the average citizens have guns(ie, conceal carry is legalized in a state). Most crimes with guns are committed by people who don't LEGALLY OWN THE GUNS. This has been acknowledged by every law enforcement agency in every state that has legalized conceal carry. The simple fact is gun control leaves THE INNOCENT PEOPLE IN HARMS WAY. And your friend wants to preach about civil liberties? Sounds to me more like your friend wants us law abiding citizens to end up dead at the hands of criminals.

Finally, here is a quote from the WWII era. Admiral Yamamoto is reputed to have said, “You cannot invade America. There is a rifle behind every blade of grass.” You know when those rifles came in handy(aside from helping to stop a Japanese invasion during WWII)? The Revolutionary War. You know when they will come in handy again? When Hilldog or Osama comes for our guns, our freedom of speech, and every other right they would like to take away. Both have been very outspoken in their desire to take away guns, limit freedom of speech, limit personal choice, etc etc. So your friend looks out for civil liberties sometimes, but turns the other cheek at other times?

Larry Elder was 100% correct. Being a Democrat is ignoring FACT.

*EDIT* Also, your friend says guns should be controlled because they are a threat to everyone living within a society, right? Well, cars kill more people than guns annually. What is your friend's position on cars, which are clearly a threat to everyone living in a society?

[Guitarzan]

Tell him to learn how to spell first.


After that he should study up on economics.


After that he should ask himself if Obama is putting forth any answers to our problems. Or is Obama's platform purely one of "Dreams can make it happen!"?