Republican vs Democrat

[74Hunter]

Let's address these:

1. I too have researched and written about gun laws in the United States. If you've bothered to look at the links I posted in the other thread you'll notice that in the last few years gun laws have changed as the result of both the judiciary and the legislature. Therefore, your thesis, however well researched it was, is outdated. Do you have a copy of your thesis? I'd love to read it. Mine wasn't so much a thesis; it was just a 15 page essay. I'll try to boot up my old computer and get a copy of it if you will provide me with your thesis.

Much like you, I have replaced my PC (twice), and moved twice since I wrote that paper. If I still have it, I'm not sure where it is. As for your statement that my research could be dated, you could be correct. However your statement that gun laws have become less restrictive may be theoretically correct in certain instances, but according to personal experience, is unfounded. I have a permit to legally carry a concealed weapon in NE, which theoretically is less restrictive. In reality, all a property owner has to do is put up a "no weapons" sign, and I can't legally carry my gun, not to mention the different and confusing local gun ordinances. So, in essence, the only place I feel safe legally having a concealed weapon is in my own home. Get the difference between a theory and real world practice?

 

2. Real world? Coddled student? Hmmm. Sounds like someone is unfamiliar with my life story.

Isn't it fun to make uneducated assumptions about the person that you are talking to?

 

3. I'm very impressed that you have actually purchased guns. I'm so blessed that I can finally talk with someone who knows what it's like to purchase guns because I've never actually met one as I've been sequestered away in my academic ivory tower . . . wait . . . I've actually purchased guns too. Shocking stuff. I've purchased 6 guns in the last 8 years (2 handguns and 4 rifles). So, yes, I too know something about "real world" gun purchases.

So I guess you are familiar with:

1) having to get a permit to purchase

2) go purchase handgun

3) go to the Omaha Police Department to register (possibly un-Constitutional) handgun before taking posession

4) going back to the store where purchased to provide proof of registration

5) finally being able to take posession

 

Not exactly very user friendly.

 

Also, I purchased a new shotgun a few years back, all I had to do was show my ID and fill out some paperwork. When I purchased a rifle last fall, thankfully I had my handgun purchase permit which, according to the sales associate (what would he know) made it much easier and less time consuming to finish with the transaction, which consisted of more paper work than I filled out previously. But then again, real life experiences are all BS.

 

4. "Lies, damn lies, and statistics." Really? Saying that gun rights are more secure today than they were 10 years ago based on Supreme Court decisions and the expiration of firearms restrictions is a damn lie? Interesting. Whereas, you are saying the equivalent of "TRUST ME. I KNOW. I LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD AND PURCHASE GUNS." But go ahead . . . I'm sure your shadowy and unsubstantiated opinion is more impressive than actual research.

Obviously, you have no idea what that quote means. It means that you can manipulate facts or statistics to support your argument. If we really wanted to discuss it, I'm sure I could provide one law that is more restrictive for every one that you feel is less restrictive. As for your ascertation that gun laws are less restrictive (I think you mentioned the Brady Bill experation) the only thing I could find using a quick google search was that the manditory waiting period expired in favor of a background check through the NCIS (FBI), not the whole bill itself (could be wrong). Again, theory and legal-ease can only go so far, but when you exercise it in the real world, experiences tell you something else.

My handgun purchases were different. All I had to do was get the handgun purchase permit from my county sheriff's office and go purchase the handgun. There were no waiting periods or registrations required. One of the benefits of not living in Omaha I suppose.

 

Actually, your quote just means that statistics are unreliable because they can be manipulated. It's not directly applicable to facts other than statistics. The Brady Bill (and DC v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, etc.) can be found linked in this post: link. The Brady Bill was the so called Assault Weapons Ban that banned certain military style rifles based on arbitrary features such as prominent pistol grips, bayonet lugs, etc. It's gone now, and good riddance.

 

Even the NRA admits that the gun rights movement has had significant victories in the last few years. Will there be threats in the future? Undoubtedly. However, the individual right to keep and bear arms is as secure now as it has been at any time in decades.

 

Please, look for your thesis if possible. I'd be very interested in what you have to say.

Since you have derailed this thread into a firearms debate, I answered you in the other thread.

[carlfense]

Good god guys, can't we all just post some funny pictures?

[UGAHusker]

Really guys, its a freaking joke. Geeze....

Yeah. Just a freaking joke . . . that happens to be very offensive to women.

 

Hey carl, as much as I tend to take your side in the little debate going on, I do find it a little amusing that you are talking about offensive/possibly sexist material, yet you quote "Unforgivable 2" (which, although not as offensive as some of the others, is still QUITE offensive to women) in your status update. Not trying to attack, just making an observation.

[carlfense]

Really guys, its a freaking joke. Geeze....

Yeah. Just a freaking joke . . . that happens to be very offensive to women.

 

Hey carl, as much as I tend to take your side in the little debate going on, I do find it a little amusing that you are talking about offensive/possibly sexist material, yet you quote "Unforgivable 2" (which, although not as offensive as some of the others, is still QUITE offensive to women) in your status update. Not trying to attack, just making an observation.

Here's where I see the difference: Unforgivable was an ad libbing video project by a (Stanford? I heard that somewhere.) student that does not directly insult anyone. The point could be made that it does the opposite. I take the video as making fun of the whole thug culture.

 

The picture collage posted here is real world people who should be judged on far more important things than their looks.

 

Maybe I'm seeing more difference than there actually is. Dunno.

[UGAHusker]

Really guys, its a freaking joke. Geeze....

Yeah. Just a freaking joke . . . that happens to be very offensive to women.

 

Hey carl, as much as I tend to take your side in the little debate going on, I do find it a little amusing that you are talking about offensive/possibly sexist material, yet you quote "Unforgivable 2" (which, although not as offensive as some of the others, is still QUITE offensive to women) in your status update. Not trying to attack, just making an observation.

Here's where I see the difference: Unforgivable was an ad libbing video project by a (Stanford? I heard that somewhere.) student that does not directly insult anyone. The point could be made that it does the opposite. I take the video as making fun of the whole thug culture.

 

The picture collage posted here is real world people who should be judged on far more important things than their looks.

 

Maybe I'm seeing more difference than there actually is. Dunno.

 

I see what you're saying. Funny, I heard he went to Harvard. Something tells me he probably went to Metro Tech.

[carlfense]

Really guys, its a freaking joke. Geeze....

Yeah. Just a freaking joke . . . that happens to be very offensive to women.

 

Hey carl, as much as I tend to take your side in the little debate going on, I do find it a little amusing that you are talking about offensive/possibly sexist material, yet you quote "Unforgivable 2" (which, although not as offensive as some of the others, is still QUITE offensive to women) in your status update. Not trying to attack, just making an observation.

Here's where I see the difference: Unforgivable was an ad libbing video project by a (Stanford? I heard that somewhere.) student that does not directly insult anyone. The point could be made that it does the opposite. I take the video as making fun of the whole thug culture.

 

The picture collage posted here is real world people who should be judged on far more important things than their looks.

 

Maybe I'm seeing more difference than there actually is. Dunno.

 

I see what you're saying. Funny, I heard he went to Harvard. Something tells me he probably went to Metro Tech.

You're right . . . it was Harvard that I was thinking of and not Stanford.

[HUSKER 37]

 

 

I realize I cannot speak for all Lesbians trapped in men's bodies, but as scary as some of those pictures of the Repubs and Demos are, It takes way more than that to offend me.

 

And I'm strangely hankerin' fer mass quantities of Beer for some subliminal reason.

[carlfense]

 

 

I realize I cannot speak for all Lesbians trapped in men's bodies, but as scary as some of those pictures of the Repubs and Demos are, It takes way more than that to offend me.

 

And I'm strangely hankerin' fer mass quantities of Beer for some subliminal reason.

 

It doesn't help that that is particularly delicious looking beer.

[HUSKER 37]

 

 

I realize I cannot speak for all Lesbians trapped in men's bodies, but as scary as some of those pictures of the Repubs and Demos are, It takes way more than that to offend me.

 

And I'm strangely hankerin' fer mass quantities of Beer for some subliminal reason.

 

It doesn't help that that is particularly delicious looking beer.

 

 

And That Dude holding all those mugs..Must have some gnarly looking fingers.

[General Blackshirt]

So, why exactly is that picture offensive to some women? It's obviously a joke, and I really don't think anyone with a brain could believe that Republicans are superior to Democrats because of this picture. As already mentioned, there's plenty of swamp donkey Republicans and hottie Democrats out there.

 

So in a picture that we can probably all agree is just a joke, why would people get offended? "Oh no, Carrie Prejean is more attractive than Rosie O'Donnell, Republicans are jerks and I'm offended!!!"

 

?

[M I K E]

So, why exactly is that picture offensive to some women? It's obviously a joke, and I really don't think anyone with a brain could believe that Republicans are superior to Democrats because of this picture. As already mentioned, there's plenty of swamp donkey Republicans and hottie Democrats out there.

 

So in a picture that we can probably all agree is just a joke, why would people get offended? "Oh no, Carrie Prejean is more attractive than Rosie O'Donnell, Republicans are jerks and I'm offended!!!"

 

?

 

Everything should be allowed to be made fun of. A lot of things people do or say will offend at least one person somewhere. Jokes are often meant to be a little offensive because it makes them more funny. It's more taboo and adds shock value.

 

BTW, we all know the original picture with female politicians isn't realistic anyway. Women should be barefoot and pregnant while making us sandwiches in the kitchen.

[killer cacti]

SC's Republican candidate for governor:

[Chef K]

So, why exactly is that picture offensive to some women? It's obviously a joke, and I really don't think anyone with a brain could believe that Republicans are superior to Democrats because of this picture. As already mentioned, there's plenty of swamp donkey Republicans and hottie Democrats out there.

 

So in a picture that we can probably all agree is just a joke, why would people get offended? "Oh no, Carrie Prejean is more attractive than Rosie O'Donnell, Republicans are jerks and I'm offended!!!"

 

?

 

Everything should be allowed to be made fun of. A lot of things people do or say will offend at least one person somewhere. Jokes are often meant to be a little offensive because it makes them more funny. It's more taboo and adds shock value.

 

BTW, we all know the original picture with female politicians isn't realistic anyway. Women should be barefoot and pregnant while making us sandwiches in the kitchen.

Uh no, they should be in heels and lingerie while making us sandwiches. Just sayin'......

[74Hunter]

So, why exactly is that picture offensive to some women? It's obviously a joke, and I really don't think anyone with a brain could believe that Republicans are superior to Democrats because of this picture. As already mentioned, there's plenty of swamp donkey Republicans and hottie Democrats out there.

 

So in a picture that we can probably all agree is just a joke, why would people get offended? "Oh no, Carrie Prejean is more attractive than Rosie O'Donnell, Republicans are jerks and I'm offended!!!"

 

?

 

Everything should be allowed to be made fun of. A lot of things people do or say will offend at least one person somewhere. Jokes are often meant to be a little offensive because it makes them more funny. It's more taboo and adds shock value.

 

BTW, we all know the original picture with female politicians isn't realistic anyway. Women should be barefoot and pregnant while making us sandwiches in the kitchen.

Uh no, they should be in heels and lingerie while making us sandwiches. Just sayin'......

+1 for you, Sir.

[knapplc]

+1 for you, Sir.

 

Why do people say +1 but don't give the poster a +1? I see that a lot and I'm just curious. Are you really saying, "Yeah, that?"