Kucinich is mad...

[jimmyjamsslo]

After learning that he had crafted legislation to deprive citizens of their handguns, I've decided that he must be unaware of history, or has disregard for the constitution, and perhaps for reality itself. I have stated elsewhere in these forums that I am still confused about the gun issue. However, I understand that if that initiative were to go through, that criminals would hide or stash their guns, leaving the innocent unarmed. I have never lived in a big city, but this will probably alienate a lot of Kucinich followers. Personally, I hate guns and think that they are one of the worst inventions ever, but people in cities and in rural areas definitely need these weapons to protect themselves and their families from depraved individuals. Also, Kucinich should reacquaint himself with the genocidal regimes of history, and realize that disarming the populace has usually preceded grave atrocities against the citizenry of those countries.

here is a myspace profile of someone who formerly supported Kucinich. Now they are in the Ron Paul camp:
http://www.myspace.com/denniskucinich2008

Plus he has advocated creating another bureaucracy, "the department of peace', just what we need, another useless bureau to siphon our tax dollars.

Now, I will no longer mention Kucinich as a possible contender.

Ron Paul, all the way!!

[CurtisLow]

Oh well... I saw this coming. You blew it Kucinich ! Ban handguns ha!

[angrydragon]

Well all the democrats, including Rudy, McCain, Romney voted for or want more gun-control.

[angelatc]

Kucinich has always been a gun grabber. He introduced gun control legislation the day after the VT shootings.

I think he's got wonderful Utopian ideas, but not practical.

[angrydragon]

I find it odd that the most gun-control advocate on the republican side (Rudy) is leading.

[jd603]

Gun ownership is one of our single most important rights we need to protect, that and a free Internet so people can expose government plots against the people outside of the mainstream media.

This is why Tony Blair was forced out the door, and why he is now declaring a war on the independent media. You can be certain Bush's administration will try for the same.

The Internet and guns are their two biggest enemies right now for them.

It's probably their only fear in passage of this immigration bill and continuation of their "super-highway" and North American Union.

[CJLauderdale4]

Gun registration and confiscation is the first step down the hill of tyranny. Just any Jew who was in Warsaw in 1939...

[jd603]

As for Rudy leading, I can't see how that is possible, I question the validity of any of these polls. Rudy is a cross-dresser, pro-choice, for an unpopular war and he defends bush's policies and supports gun control, RFID and the immigration bill.

The public is supposed to believe the majority of republic voters support such a candidate? Boggles the mind doesn't it?

[LibertyEagle]

I can't fathom how Rudy's numbers are so high. The only thing I can think of is he is appealing to the people who are still so scared and buy Rudy's tough guy image from 9-11. If they would only take 10 minutes to research this guy, they would be appalled.

[SeanEdwards]

I can't fathom how Rudy's numbers are so high.

Sean Hannity told the sheeple that Rudy was a leading contender. Then all the polling organizations got their marching orders and started manufacturing consent through their bogus polls that ask questions like, "who do you prefer for the nomination? Rudy, Thomson, or Hillary? Then the media shills start trumpeting the false polling results so that Joe Q. Public figures, "well, since everyone else likes Rudy, I guess he's probably OK".

False choices, false assertions, and loud repeated lying are the keys to political success in twenty-first century America. At least that's the dominant paradigm so far.

[Seer]

The reason Rudy is so high is because he scares everyone shitless. He plays the "only I can save you from the terrists" card perfectly. There were a bunch of interviews after the NH debate, and one of the pro-Rudy voters said they liked him because only he made them feel safe.

It also doesn't help that people know so little about Rudy's abortion and gun rights positions. Less than half of polled Republican primary voters could identify him as being pro-choice.

What would be great is an anti-Rudy group to swift boat the guy. He has so many skeletons it's absurd.

[Shmuel Spade]

Moonbeam, like most "liberals", has always been a gun prohibitionist to one extent or another. And I love guns, I think they're one of the greatest inventions to come out in the history of humanity. Prior to the invention of the gun all people were at the mercy of anyone who had some skill with a sword. Men by physical strength could dominate women, the old survived at the mercy of the young, the infirm or feeble had to latch on to the strong for protection. The gun was the great equalizer. Society then armed was a polite society.

"God made man and woman; Smith & Wesson made them equal"

[peruvianRP]

okok I love ron paul but I dont like the idea of have everybody have guns. think about it if i'm drinking in a bar and someone starts a fight..what should I do shoot him and say I was protecting myself?

someone please give me an explanation.

[angrydragon]

If you don't want a gun, you don't have to have one. Even if they made laws requiring everyone to have a gun (like that one city, I can't remember now), I doubt they'll enforce it, just gives the bad guys less of a reason to harm us.

[peruvianRP]

If you don't want a gun, you don't have to have one. Even if they made laws requiring everyone to have a gun (like that one city, I can't remember now), I doubt they'll enforce it, just gives the bad guys less of a reason to harm us.

uhhmm Ok let me see. Japan's has a very tough gun control. I heard the other day that were less than 10 gun related deaths in Japan. Now, I know Japanese people are crazy and they do kill mostly themselves. I think i like this idea. If someone goes crazy then they should kill themselves no others.

I dont know but letting everybody own guns seems like a stupid idea to me specially with so many irresponsible fathers leaving guns unlocked.

I can see toddlers taking guns to school for show and tell.

I see your point guys of "self defense" but I don't think it will work. Any country as an example? so I can do some research?

[jd603]

You start to respect guns much more when you see how important they become when your government becomes out-of-control. We aren't too far off from that point, the United States is coming close to being disolved into the North American Union. The only thing the current regime is scared of is our guns, that and the free flow of information via the internet.

I ignored Lou Dobbs on CNN when he mentioned the North American Union, then I became interested in Ron Paul, then I found more info on it. Scary, Bush (and several neocons/elite) are literally selling out our country and making policy changes that 99% of the people do NOT want. Our government is really out of control. I thought the democrats being elected into congress would balance things out, they've done nothing.

This is what has drawn me into politics, although when you go outside and look around everything looks the same, there are agendas and laws being put in place that will change everything, and not in the people's best interest.

So after digging into this, there's nobody else I can support besides Ron Paul, unfortunately every politician who has taken positions similar to his has been murdered he's the only hope we've got.

You may think I'm crazy, that will change when they take your land to build the NAFTA superhighway over it.

[Misesian]

At least Kucinich is upfront and honest about these positions he has, which is something I can at least respect. The other socialist democrats will pander which leaves the sheeple saying "Well she doesn't want to outright ban all guns".

The very fundamental aspect of gun rights lies in our rights to private property. Gun ownership, is just that, ownership. It is our own, our private property, just like the fruits of our labor.

Government has no rights to private property whether it is guns, land, structures, money (even though I guess this is property of the Fed as Jesus said, so exchange your pieces of paper for GOLD so this argument holds true ;)), etc.

This is why property rights is paramount for a free society. Life, liberty, property. That sums up it all up. The problem is we only have Ron Paul who prescribes to this philosophy of unalienable rights.

[mikelovesgod]

I honestly believe Rudy is not leading in the actual Reps right now. I think Mitt Romney is leading. Rudy will never win a republican nomination for another 20 years when the country becomes more and more socialist.

[Harald]

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics) (Hardcover)
by John R. Lott Jr. (Author)

(163 customer reviews)
163 Reviews
5 star: (116)
4 star: (14)
3 star: (3)
2 star: (9)
1 star: (21)

See all 163 customer reviews...


Availability: Available from these sellers.

55 used & new available from $1.49

[X_805]

uhhmm Ok let me see. Japan's has a very tough gun control. I heard the other day that were less than 10 gun related deaths in Japan.

If I remember correctly, Japan had less gun crime in the first place.

[angrydragon]

Stories of where gun saves lives (even by kids) usually go unreported.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLG0GMgZAYA

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott17.html

The point of the 2nd amendment though was to protect us from the tyranny of government.

[vertesc]

YES guns are dangerous. Yes that is an issue that must be dealt with. But let us also recognize the value of an armed populace.

An armed populace is, as Jefferson put it, the people's "last defense against tyranny". If they ever try and send all the Muslims to Gitmo, those people will have a way to fight back and resist injustice. If they ever try and send YOU to a rendition camp, you can fight for your own freedom. If the government chooses to exercise force on the population, the population is not helpless.

Remember:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.... when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

How on earth could a population "throw off" a despotic government if it is not armed?

It is too bad that guns can also present a danger to children etc. But better to deal with an issue of education and safety than one of despotism.

[beerista]

Gun registration and confiscation is the first step down the hill of tyranny. Just any Jew who was in Warsaw in 1939...

Have you seen the movie made about this event? "Uprising (http://imdb.com/title/tt0250798/)" is the most pro-self defense against tyranny non-documentary movies I've ever seen. Really inspiring story of resistance. And quite well done.

Along the same lines, check out Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (http://www.jpfo.org/). They are a no compromise kind of group, and I think in light of the above movie, one can understand why.

Over a long time, tyranny has been more the rule than the exception and disarming the populace is pretty much always the first step. I hate to bandy about statistics that I can't remember the reference for, but I have read that 100 million people were killed in the last century... by their own governments. I'm inclined to believe this as I'm no historian and I can account for about 30 million just off the top of my head. If you like, I'll try to locate the reference.

I think it bears mentioning that huge, horrible evils may in fact be the last thing on government officials' minds when they disarm their populations. They may do it for the best of reasons with nothing but goodness and love in their hearts. But a disarmed populace is the result nonetheless. And that does nothing but increase the temptation that must be endured by a later, less well inclined leader. Sure, maybe I trust Kucinich (I don't) with my protection once I'm disarmed and trust him not to take advantage of my helplessness. But who comes next?

[Nash]

uhhmm Ok let me see. Japan's has a very tough gun control. I heard the other day that were less than 10 gun related deaths in Japan. Now, I know Japanese people are crazy and they do kill mostly themselves. I think i like this idea. If someone goes crazy then they should kill themselves no others.

I dont know but letting everybody own guns seems like a stupid idea to me specially with so many irresponsible fathers leaving guns unlocked.

I can see toddlers taking guns to school for show and tell.

I see your point guys of "self defense" but I don't think it will work. Any country as an example? so I can do some research?

Switzerland basically mandates a gun in every household. Their homicide rate is as low as Canada's which has very strict gun control. The fact that Switzerland has guns all over the place but low death rates by guns proves to me that guns don't necessarily equal violence.

Note also that when you read statistics the term "homicide" is cited when one person kills another. This doesn't clarify whether it was murder or self-defense or a cop killing someone with a gun. The US has a high gun homocide rate, but that stat includes self-defense and police shootings.

There are a number of reasons why gun control is a bad idea, at least in the United States. As cited the primary reason is an armed population is also a free population. That's what the second amendment is for. But there are other less idealistic reasons. The notion that you can actually effectively enforce gun laws in this country is almost impossible without cops searching every household and confiscating them. I don't think anyone wants to live in a society like that.

Note also that in your example Japan is an island with a highly enforced border. The US border is wide open. If guns weren't legal to sell here you can be sure they would be imported from Latin America just like the drugs are.

The short of it: In the United States people who want guns are going to get their hands on them. If you outlaw them then people who obey the law are not going to be able to defend themselves against people who don't care about obeying the law. Also, it's totally unrealistic to think that law enforcement is going to protect you from criminals with guns. They might prosecute the criminal, but only after he's violated you or your family with a gun that he obtained illegally.

For better or for worse, guns are here to stay in this country, unless of course we choose to live in a police state. If we do that we're throwing the other 9 amendments of the bill of rights out the window along with the 2nd.

[denvervoipguru]

Well all the democrats, including Rudy, McCain, Romney voted for or want more gun-control.

Well put.

[beerista]

Plus he has advocated creating another bureaucracy, "the department of peace"...

And does anyone want to guess what the "MiniPax" will concern itself with?
I miss the good old days when they just acted out Orwell plots but took department names from Nazi Germany (Dept of Homeland Security). Now that they're actually taking the names of departments straight from Orwell, I'm a little insulted. It's as if they think no one's paying any attention. Or just don't care.

[Gee]

Switzerland has fully automatic weapons in 14% of homes :D I don't like guns much myself, but thats impressive given their level of crime and overall civility (Switzerland is non-intervention at work). The mark of a civil society should not be the absense of weapons, but the proper use of them.


Note also that when you read statistics the term "homicide" is cited when one person kills another. This doesn't clarify whether it was murder or self-defense or a cop killing someone with a gun. The US has a high gun homocide rate, but that stat includes self-defense and police shootings.
Gun violence statistics also often include suicide using a firearm, which is actually the largest cause of gun-related deaths.


But there are other less idealistic reasons. The notion that you can actually effectively enforce gun laws in this country is almost impossible without cops searching every household and confiscating them. I don't think anyone wants to live in a society like that.
There are 200 million guns in the US, give or take. The idea that enough of them could be confiscated so that criminals couldn't get ahold of them is... laughable. Even if 95%, or 190 million, guns were confiscated, that would still leave plenty left over for murderers and killers. Plus we'd have to fight a "War on Guns" which might be just as violent and costly as the war on drugs. Yay. :rolleyes:

[enan]

Department of Peace. I love rhetoric.

Ministry of Peace, anyone? Now, come on. Orwell already used that name. Find another one.

But in all honesty, education is the key to a civil society of any kind. People are no longer educated about drugs, sex, or alcohol adequately - hence the reason why there is such a large problem with them. People are also no longer educated about guns - hence why there is such a widespread fear of them. Education is the key, but big government folks have buried it - on both sides of the aisle.