oh my God... did I just gain some respect for Dick Cheney

[tropicsgoddess]

So he had 8 years in power to actually create some kind of change towards gay marriage
and he did what.... jack shit

Sorry he can say whatever the hell he wants now, he has no responsibility anymore, kind of like a sinner recanting on his death bed.
I would put more credit to this if he had actually done something about it in the last EIGHT years.

I guess he didn't want to ruin his rep during those 8 years as the evil son of a bitch we all knew.

[Talon]

Playing devil's advocate here, why would Dick(head) Cheney do anything for gay marriage equality? The hardcore religious right would drown in their own angry froth. As for the gay community, I'd like to think they are not so naive as to blindly cast votes for a tyrant just because he threw them a bone. I'd like to think that kind of crass wedge-issue strategy won't work with Democrats and Liberals.

Simply put, he'd have nothing to gain and a lot to lose.

[Rapscallion]

As for the gay community, I'd like to think they are not so naive as to blindly cast votes for a tyrant just because he threw them a bone.

You'd be surprised how often that works. Just because someone's gay doesn't mean that they share the same political views. They'll vote as with anyone else - support those that are going to benefit them most, or fit with their political ideals.

I'd like to think that kind of crass wedge-issue strategy won't work with Democrats and Liberals.

Are they democrats and liberals because of their sexuality? That's the question you have to ask and find the answer for. I fear that you're going to be disappointed. As I pointed out in one of the many gun threads on here, if the NRA saw a better deal for its members from the democrats instead of the republicans, they'd swap alleigance.

Rapscallion

[smileyeagle1021]

Are they democrats and liberals because of their sexuality? That's the question you have to ask and find the answer for. I fear that you're going to be disappointed. As I pointed out in one of the many gun threads on here, if the NRA saw a better deal for its members from the democrats instead of the republicans, they'd swap alleigance.

oh so true... I right now vote for the liberals because I don't have the privilege of being able to care about anything other than gay rights issues for the time being... I live in a state where I can be fired for being gay... I'd love to be able to worry about a candidate's views on economic policy or immigration policy.
Really though I lean much more libertarian when it comes to everything else, I think the government should stick to doing only what truly is only most efficiently done by government, providing national security, providing police and fire protection, providing a universal education system regardless of whether or not a person can afford it, same with health care, provide transportation infrastructure (roads and transit), and maybe a little bit of short term social safety net. Yes, there should be regulations when it involves public health and safety, but otherwise the government shouldn't be regulating it. I however have to vote for the person who wants to spend government funds on anything and everything and thinks every aspect of our lives should be regulated simply to gain equality... it is a terrible compromise to have to make.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I guess I lean a little more to the liberal side from libertarian if only because I think many republican politicians aren't really against spending either, they just want to spend it differently and in my opinion far more uselessly. Both sides seem to be willing to allow gross inequality by legislating towards their views.

It's really important to remember that both major parties sling a lot of crap. But between gay rights and the 2nd amendment I'll chose gay rights now, right to carry later... legalizing drugs WAY later.

[smileyeagle1021]

It's really important to remember that both major parties sling a lot of crap. But between gay rights and the 2nd amendment I'll chose gay rights now, right to carry later... legalizing drugs WAY later.

I'm kind of the same way. I support every American's right to bear arms (now, I do think that there should be some regulation, such as there's no reason for a civilian to have an RPG or minigun, and perhaps more stringent education required before being licensed, but still open to all)... that said, I don't own a gun nor do I have a desire to, so while I support that right, having it removed will not affect me at all... legalized discrimination though, will affect me.

[BroomJockey]

such as there's no reason for a civilian to have an RPG or minigun,

You might have been kidding, but there are currently 11 miniguns around the US in private hands.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

You might have been kidding, but there are currently 11 miniguns around the US in private hands.

According to my (somewhat lackluster it has to be said) research into automatic weapons in the US, most are owned by organizational or business entities largely for convenience of use and licensing as well as certain profitable pursuits such as renting them at ranges so you can experience shooting something without having to buy one, as well as certain loopholes that make it easier to acquire certain otherwise banned parts that may be needed for repairs such as correct lower receivers, bolt carriers, and the like now banned under the pretense of a complete ban on automatic weapons.

The complete ban on automatic weapons has made pre-ban prices soar to ridiculous levels and as far as I'm concerned is a major blow to collectors and target shooters who wish to own those weapons. I myself will now never be able to own a HK G36 (my dream) because those that do exist in the us are incredibly expensive when they change hands, not that it happens often either.

And I know I'm ranting now, but please bear with me:

I am against any and all restrictions that don't effect crime. All of the legally acquired automatic weapons have never once been used in a crime of any sort (generally, there are exceptions to everything.) therefore I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to own one so I can shoot it at the range or just for the pleasure of having it. I think only those restrictions that actually reduce crime should be kept while those un-necessary laws should be scrapped.

Anti-gun politicians have openly admitted that they are trying to ban all weapons in small steps and are outraged when weapons companies make simple changes to suit the dumb laws they make up. They often make grand and unsubstantiated claims that rely on the general firearm ignorance that people have. Often claiming that the changes made to civilian weapons are merely cosmetic when those changes are in fact quite meaningful. It's important to remember that just because something looks like an assault rifle that doesn't mean that it is an assault rifle. nor does it mean that such a weapon is easily convertible or anything like as dangerous as the fully automatic weapon.

That said I would just like to underline what my ideal carry weapon would be for perspective's sake:

Taurus M9 series 9mm either in a IPSC concealed or SERPA non-concealed holster for personal carry. one to two extra magazines if any. Vehicle: AK74 style semi-auto rifle with receiver rail attachment and a decent quality RD sight (can be acquired at Airsoft/paintball supply centers these days) to facilitate easy target acquisition and fear factor. Two spare magazines.

That's it. I'm not looking for a freakin arsenal. one defensive, one ranged, that's it. Why? Because I think that the more people out there capable of defending themselves, the better. I don't think I'll ever have to use either, but I want to be an example.

Thoughts?

[BroomJockey]

Thoughts?

That you only need an armed populous if you're either expecting invasion or not trusting your government, and no civilian, under any circumstances, should ever need a fully-automatic weapon.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

and no civilian, under any circumstances, should ever need a fully-automatic weapon.

That's where the disparity comes. I don't think civilians do need automatic weapons, but this country is supposed to be founded on rights, not needs. My right to own an automatic weapon legally effects the safety of others to no real extent beyond what a semi-automatic weapon would. Absent some sort of danger there is no foundation for removing rights.

Also, I'd like to point out that CC is about reduction of crime and one's right to defend themselves. It's unreasonable to limit that right by refusing the reasonable use of current technology (semi-automatic pistols in this case).

Maybe I should just start my own thread, like Ruby's 'I'll answer all your questions' thread...

[MadMike]

That you only need an armed populous if you're either expecting invasion or not trusting your government, and no civilian, under any circumstances, should ever need a fully-automatic weapon.

No citizen, under any circumstances, should trust their government either.

[BroomJockey]

No citizen, under any circumstances, should trust their government either.

Thus the eternal divide between Canadians and Americans is writ large in one sentence.

[MadMike]

Thus the eternal divide between Canadians and Americans is writ large in one sentence.

Maybe I was a bit extreme, but I feel that no one should blindly trust their government, or much of anything else, for that matter.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Maybe I was a bit extreme, but I feel that no one should blindly trust their government, or much of anything else, for that matter.

Because blind trust is the exact opposite of logic, and that's just not acceptable.

[Flyndaran]

Because blind trust is the exact opposite of logic, and that's just not acceptable.

I could take that in a religious direction, but I won't
Trust is earned, and I will only trust individual people that have earned it. Governements by their very nature change staff regularly.