Gun Show Accident

[netsalt]

No duck and dodge just pragmatic - watch and see.

I thought the rightys said the stimulus didn't work, but our economy flourished with the "supply side" stuff. Oh I get it, if it was done by Ronzo its good if its done by Obama its bad. Good luck tilting at windmills.

[scrogdog]

No duck and dodge just pragmatic - watch and see.

I thought the rightys said the stimulus didn't work, but our economy flourished with the "supply side" stuff. Oh I get it, if it was done by Ronzo its good if its done by Obama its bad. Good luck tilting at windmills.

Exactly the opposite. Democrats pooped on Reagan's supply side economics as the worst economic idea on the planet.

That is, until the hero Obama does it.

I'd suggest a review of recent history and economics 101. Both sides use both supply side and demand side and the examples can be endlessly multiplied throughout history.

But, as usual, don't let facts get in the way or anything.

[netsalt]

Exactly the opposite. Democrats pooped on Reagan's supply side economics as the worst economic idea on the planet.

That is, until the hero Obama does it.

I'd suggest a review of recent history and economics 101. Both sides use both supply side and demand side and the examples can be endlessly multiplied throughout history.

But, as usual, don't let facts get in the way or anything.

So you agree that "supply side" (trickle down) economics is a failure.

[scrogdog]

So you agree that "supply side" (trickle down) economics is a failure.

What I might I agree with is that you apprently don't know much about economics.

Either plan will work. And has. For both sides. On the other hand either plan can fail. And has. For both sides. Valid criticisms will revolve around how the plan is applied and where and what else should be done along with it. Not an over arching confirmation or condemnation of either.

When you see that, you can be pretty much assured of economic clowndom in terms of understanding anything about the subject.

[netsalt]

What I might I agree with is that you apprently don't know much about economics.

Either plan will work. And has. For both sides. On the other hand either plan can fail. And has. For both sides. Valid criticisms will revolve around how the plan is applied and where and what else should be done along with it. Not an over arching confirmation or condemnation of either.

When you see that, you can be pretty much assured of economic clowndom in terms of understanding anything about the subject.

My understanding (or misunderstanding) of economics aside, why is it that in the economic arena there are valid criticisms from both sides but when it comes to guns the my way or the highway argument will suffice?

[scrogdog]

My understanding (or misunderstanding) of economics aside, why is it that in the economic arena there are valid criticisms from both sides but when it comes to guns the my way or the highway argument will suffice?

I have not given an opinion on the gun debate.

I think there probably are valid criticisms from both sides. Moreover, I'd expect that anything that is to be done will be a compromise solution.

Last I looked, America was pretty evenly divided, so that makes sense.

Which likely means nothing at all will be done. Neither party seems interested in any compromise solutions whatsoever.

It is also interesting to note that many of us conservatives didn't care for Bush's second term because he clearly moved to the center on some key issues. Based on Obama's speech, I'd say the reverse will happen in his case. He will move even further towards an extreme rather than moving in a centrist fashion.

Which will simply add even more fuel to do the "do nothing" fire. In my opinion.

[beenthere]

I don't think that is the point. The public realizes there is a problem and wants a solution, it really doesn't matter if the weapons used were legal or illegal. If the NRA and others insist that arming more people is the answer they will lose. If gun owners draw a line in the sand that includes special rights beyond what we give other citizens - right or wrong they will lose. I do not want to win the battle and lose the war.

The public? Who do you think the public is. Legal guns owners are part of the public. So what for nonsense are you trying to spout.

[Super Tech JJ]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Benjamin Franklin

[scrogdog]

I don't remember anyone suggesting a no guns solution.

If owning high powered weapons is a "liberty", why can't I have a flamethrower?

[the dangling wrangler]

If owning high powered weapons is a "liberty", why can't I have a flamethrower?

Maybe you live in a state that that won't allow it, but nothing on the Federal level that I'm aware of. (yet) http://www.atf.gov/





http://www.youtube.com/results?searc....0...0.0...1ac.

[jpsmith1cm]

I don't think that is the point. The public realizes there is a problem and wants a solution, it really doesn't matter if the weapons used were legal or illegal. If the NRA and others insist that arming more people is the answer they will lose. If gun owners draw a line in the sand that includes special rights beyond what we give other citizens - right or wrong they will lose. I do not want to win the battle and lose the war.

What rights are gun owners asking for that we deny anyone else?

HELL, the gubbermint officials are trying to do exactly that by hiding behind their armed guards and telling us that we shouldn't be armed.

[scrogdog]

That kind of freaks me out to be honest, Wrangler. Lol

There has got to be a line drawn here somewhere. Why does a citizen need a flamethrower? Or a grenade?

Where should that line be drawn? I believe that will be a central matter in this debate.

What criteria, then, do we base either side of the argument on?

Surely even gun advocates don't say that I should be allowed to have a fully weaponized AFV?

[beenthere]

Wrangler. Was that a flame thrower. Or just a Texas cigar lighter. LOL