Then I'd wager you're not quite as liberal as you think you are; there may be hope for you yet, young Padawan.. :hihi: Fair enough..
no evidence it isn't either. I know it's a blow that your hero was dealing with Alzheimer's throughout his presidency, it will be ok.
How bout this for a starter... One of the willing participants is on Medicaid, and isn't killed but is severely brain damaged in the duel. His lifetime of treatment will cost society millions of dollars. So the economic case against it is there. The moral case is certainly there. The civilized world case against it is there. Seems duels are a no-go.
the participants would have to sign something before the duel that states if they are injured they can either take a tap to the melon, or they will have to pay for their own medical expenses.
Who exactly is promoting not allowing private ownership of guns? Be specific. I don't hear any of that. The right doesn't support it, the moderates don't support it, and most of the liberals don't either. I hear people wanting to keep them off universities and out of churches and schools. I hear people wanting them less available to kooks and criminals. I hear people wanting to keep selling thoisands to the Mexican drug cartels. Who advocates removing guns from private ownership?
Progress is getting something done besides rhetoric. With two unbending sides, no progress can be made to address the handful of issues that could be agreed on, like keeping them away from kooks and handing out federal firearms licenses out like candy. Pay attention, Everybody agrees there are too many armed criminals, kooks, and children. Nobody agrees on measures to reduce this. This should be good . . . Well, you are a dumbass political scientist. How can you be so stupid as to believe a bunch of bullchit like that. It's provably wrong. You are taking this on faith, how idiotic. One again, you live in a Boolean black and white world where there are never more than two outcomes, each mutually exclusive. A child can understand that a given change can produce four results: 1. Benefits martin 2. Benefits red 3. Benefits neither 4. Benefits both Extremists insist that nothing can work except that which benefits them and also reduce benefits for the opposing view. Pragmatic moderates believe that changes that benefit both should be agreed upon and changes that benefit neither should be dismissed. Thus progress is made and the number of problems reduced. Further progress can be made by each opposing side to relent something small in return for something big. Compromise.
I said that in the context of what I am agreeable to. It was not my intent to malign your fellow liberals. Now, respond to Swerved's post (#44) or consider your ass kicked.
Well you stood up and defended them when I had been addressing my criticism to them and you also stated that you were a member. Show me where I said that. You made it up. I'm in favor of gun ownership and responsibility, just not the NRA. No, . . . you don't. You don't know much about me at all, if that's what you think, Ace. The laws that they are exploiting allow then to purchase an unlimited number of weapons a day. Legitimate private owners, whether collectors, hunters, plinkers, home defenders or whatever do not buy hundreds of assault rifles a day. But NRA pressure leads to no changes of these laws that would prevent thousands of criminals from getting guns and not hurt the average citizen one damn bit. Let me get this straight, Scooter. You are actually advocating gun registration?
