"...voters who can't be controlled, can't be trusted."

Do you believe every flake that is against gun control? I mean really, the above diatribe is ridiculous - as usual you can substitute "right" for "left" and "rural" for "city" and get much the same emotional results.

Gun control does not entail taking guns from law abiding citizens, the whole purpose is to reduce the number of incidents that your school children and other innocents are up against. More guns won't help - the same logic would have every country in the world with as many nuclear bombs as they could pack on their soil.

You just don't get it.

And I'll let you in on a secret - Democrats aren't lefties. For the rest of the world they are considered soft rightists.

John :-#(#

Hot air indeed.

I would have thought that most people want their kids to survive school (and preferably be educated).

There appears to be three ways forward: 1) heavily control guns, as in civilised countries 2) heavily arm schoolkids, the logical conclusion of gun nut's position 3) ban schools

Which is preferable?

I have some old magazines from the late 1960s/early 1970s when they started putting warnings on cigarettes, it's amusing how the cigarette tried to spin that.

Their argument was essentially "Yes, well, what can we say, it's true, we knew cigarettes were bad for you all along and lied about it. However, do you really want the government to be the one reminding you that they are?

You don't have to smoke if you don't wanna. You can be a sissy. But you should smoke if you want to give a big 'f*ck you' to government"

Cigarette advertisers, rather

Gun control is a red herring, a peaceful, civilized society will be peaceful with or without them. A perpetually angry, paranoid, and intrinsically violent society will surely find a way to make do with knives and rocks.

America falls squarely in the latter category. Guns don't make civility the civility comes first.

In a way I can hardly disagree with the Republican position on gun violence which is to simply throw up hands and offer prayers. There are

You're trying to close the barn door loooooooong after the horses have run away.

That is to say "God help us" is probably a logical position and no less or more effective than any other course of action.

You said a mouthful. His posts primarily consist of continual bashing on people from the other side of the isle. He portrays anyone who isn't extreme-right as barely human.

To top it off, he can't tolerate criticism either. So what does he do? Killfiles anyone he consistently disagrees with. Preemptively states in the original post that he's ignoring all replies.

These are hallmarks of someone who is extremely insecure. If you're going to post something controversial, be prepared to defend it diplomatically.

Maybe he's referring to the very small population of true lefties who don't have all that much influence anyway. In that case he's barking up the wrong tree.

The American Right only exists insofar as it has someone to battle with. If it cannot find a legitimate enemy it would invent one. If it couldn't invent one it would fight itself. Without an enemy it literally wouldn't know what to do with its time.

The Right will be jumping at shadows and hunting "leftists" and "progressives" under the bed a thousand years after the last true progressive has left.

Posters who can't be controlled, can't be trusted.

swap left and right and it'll be the same ...

Oh wait... you were talking about Trump?

Still can't tell, because Trump pulls that baby bullshit too.

Well that can never be attributed to Trump as the only clue he has as to what is diplomatic is when his advisors finally get him to read the speeches without ad lib.

Damn... Somebody pegged The Thompson tard right on the money.

Now, now. Let's not be bringing logic into this.

But since you have; remember these are not exclusive. The right wants both

Tim

Brings a famous line to mind:

"That's not right..."

I don't believe it's necessarily so, what's evident to me in the excerpt of the article is what a psychologist would call "delusions of persecution."

"The left hates rural America, red America, gun-owning America, the America that elected Donald Trump"

Kind of self-important, don't you think? For the most part on the coasts "rural America" hardly registers at all, it's only when issues like gun control or immigration come up that it is noticed, because for the most part it otherwise seems non-notable.

That is to say it is only an "assault on the way of life" because that "way of life" is often directly responsible for big _problems_. If rural America were primarily into loving God, country, and owning millions of Beanie Babies instead of millions of guns I doubt anyone would have much of an issue.

ts.

After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996

Australia instituted a gun buy-back program that reduced the number of guns around quite a bit.

They bought and melted down 650,000 guns for some $A350 million.

The US has 15 times more people, and has lot more guns per head that would need to be bought back, so it would be expensive exercise, but cutting down the number of gun massacres and gun suicides is a target worth investing i n.

It certainly helped in Australia.

Promise?

The US is headed towards having a Port Arthur every month or two. There will be no gun buyback because the reasons for ownership are different - the Right has always been hoping for the opportunity to use them in a war against their "domestic enemies."

That's what they stockpiled 'em for - anyone stockpiling large numbers of weapons when their neighbors aren't is planning an attack. Duh.