U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Shannon Bird
45%↓
40%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 07, 2008 08:30 PM UTC
113 Comments
I LOVE IT! What better way to tally up all the progressive liberal self-congratulations on African-American and female candidates than an African-American woman- with a Ph.D. Rice is a genuis- a classical pianist, speaks several languages, and is competent enough with football to have been considered for NFL commissioner- all of this besides being the world’s most powerful woman. Even Madeline Albright’s famous professor father (who taught them both declared to his daughter that Condi was the best student he had ever experienced. I was on the fence but her inclusion would lend me to vote for McCain
or this one
I hope McCain is SMART enough to take Dr. Rice. I don’t think she will create ANOTHER 49 state landslide like Nixon and Reagan, I think she will only create 40 state landslide.
pick her as his running mate. We need a graduate of the University of Denver as VP.
…she may be just what your ticket needs!
She is not pro-choice. She is against federal funding for abortion. This is a perfectly reasonable position because ultimately as Americans, everyone has the freedom to believe and do what they choose. Personally, I am against abortion, but if someone else wants to have one, they can feel free as long as my money does not pay for it. Any of the democratic choices are pro-choice and will use federal funds for abortion, so it is very silly to say that you would not vote republican because you think that condi is pro-choice. I think she is a very smart woman, much smarter than McCain, and would be an excellent choice for VP.
Posted by: Allison
Oh, by the way, the minute Obama came out for a Federal Law against Concealed Carry, I knew that the odds of a Rice VP nomination went waaaaaaaaay up.
Obama the Gun Grabber. Obama the Enemy of our 2nd Amendment Rights.
Condi: the 2nd Amendment Absolutist.
The number one priority for the vast majority of Americans – average Americans – is who will work to ensure that they have as many guns as they want, whenever they want. This is because Americans know that once everything goes to shit (excuse my French), we’ll all be battling it out in the streets for the basics. The only other option is to vote for someone who will actually work to prevent those problems, but why would anyone want to do that.
You can “prevent problems” by doubling taxes and gutting the military?
Especially those ones that shoot 3000 rounds per minute. Might as well throw in armor piercing bullets. We’ll all need to be able to kill as many people as possible to cut down the competition for the essentials.
I guess we’re both exagerating: “gutting the military” and “doubling taxes.” Don’t worry about the military being gutted. Bush made sure it was spread so thin as it is. Only an idiot would try to gut it. You know, like an idiot that would commit our army to too many things so that it’s spread too thin.
Wow! Now that’s a GUN!
All I know is that Miniguns pump out bullets like crazy, so I went searching for how many RPMs it can dish out. Reminds me of that scene in Predator where they mow down that entire section of the jungle using Miniguns (among other things). Now that’s the type of gun we need to get into the hands of the average citizen.
of any proposal to put a minigun into anyone’s hands. In fact, I’m confident it would be impossible.
Do you know the difference between a full-auto and a semiautomatic rifle? (Not a snarky question – I promise).
How difficult do you imagine it is to have a license to carry a full-auto weapon?
How about Concealed-Carry? What do you think about that?
Can you name any recent issues that have come up in Denver with a CCW holder breaking the law?
but my questions is, do you think the average person should be able to get a minigun. Your stance seems to be that the Constitution gives the right to bear arms and nothing should inhibit that. So, wouldn’t that include miniguns?
I do know the difference between a semi and a full-auto. In fact, it may surprise you to know that I have shot a few guns fairly recently at a shooting range (9mm, 357 magnum).
I imagine it’s pretty difficult to get a license for an automatic, but I want to know if you think it should be easy. Again, do you believe people should have the right to arms unencumbered?
I don’t like Concealed-Carry and don’t really see a reason for it. If someone has a gun, why not show it off. If one of the reasons is protection, it will really make someone think twice about robbing you if they see you have a gun.
I cannot think of (and do not have the time right now to research) any issues with a CCW holder breaking the law (in Denver), but again, why hide it? My concern is more about the kids that blow their head off when they find their parents gun, or the bar fight that turns into a gun fight, or the teenager that takes their parents gun and goes and shoots their classmates.
I agree. Miniguns are a bad idea. I’m pretty happy with the difficulty in obtaining full-auto weapons legally.
There are thousands and thousands of CCW permit-holders in Denver, and I can’t remember a single incident of one of them shooting anyone illegally.
I think it’s important that criminals not know who might or might not be armed.
Again, I don’t know about CCW incidents in Denver, but there have been many bad incidents with guns in general: accidents and intentional. It bothers me.
As for criminals, you don’t think seeing that someone has a gun would discourage them? I’m sure that’s part of the reason people are discouraged to commit crimes around cops. To me, seeing the gun is a preventive measure. Using the gun after the incident is a reactive measure. I’m all about preventive. In fact, that’s one reason I’m a Democrat. I think the Democratic Party stands strongly for prevention: health care, war, contraceptives, infrastructure, etc. It’s much cheaper that way. I digress.
Here’s some info from the NRA’s site:
• More RTC, less crime. Violent crime rates in 2004-2005 were lower than anytime since 1976.1 (Crime victim surveys indicate that violent crime is at a 31-year low.2) Since 1991, 23 states have adopted RTC, the number of privately-owned guns has risen by nearly 70 million,3 and violent crime is down 38%. In 2005 RTC states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country (total violent crime by 22%; murder, 30%; robbery, 46%; and aggravated assault, 12%) and included the seven states with the lowest total violent crime rates, and 11 of the 12 states with the lowest murder rates.4
• RTC and crime trends. Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., John Lott and David Mustard found, “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have Right to Carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly….[W]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.”
It is a biased source. I have no doubt that they pick and choose data and skew it to say what they want. As I said before, I don’t have time at the moment to do research to counter the specific claims you cited (I’ve already spent too much time trying). For the time being, I invite you to visit the following sites and read that information, which shows that higher gun availability leads to higher gun deaths: here and here.
My brother in law is in the FBI, so I talked to him about a CCP, and we talked about whether it was better to have a gun that’s visable or not.
He pointed out that having a visable weapon would draw unwanted and unneeded attention to yourself. Someone could target you just because you have a gun. They would know you’re the only threat.
Part of the deterence is knowing that someone could have a gun, but you don’t know if they do or don’t.
Just my view…hopefully that’s not too soft for you! 🙂
Actually, I can see the validity in your brother’s argument. I don’t completely agree. I just don’t completely disagree either. The thing is, when someone commits a crime, I doubt they are thinking about plain-clothed citizens that may have a gun causing them to rethink their action. If their committing a robbery, for example, their probably not smart enough to think about that. So I don’t really think that it’s a deterrent for a regular citizen to have it concealed. Perhaps it is worse, though, for the person to have it out in the open, because they become a target. Maybe neither is a good. You know what would probably be best… not having a gun at all. In any case, I still think that a cop, in uniform, with an unconcealed gun is a deterrent.
Correcto!
Not so much…
I knew you would like that second one. To be clear, I was referring specifically to not having guns in public places as opposed to guns for hunting. And if it makes you feel any better, I don’t think that the criminals should have guns either. Yes, I know there’s the black market and all that, so I’m not sure how to make that happen, but I am sure that lax gun laws don’t help (not implying that you think we should have lax gun laws, of course).
Correct me if I’m wrong, but handguns are not a standard hunting weapon and are responsible for most gun deaths. Maybe we could just try to get rid of those rather than all guns. I think you’ll like that one too.
I had another idea, though, a serious one and I’d like to know your thoughts. What if people are required to show their gun permit every time they buy ammunition? We know that guns are somewhat easy for criminals to get in back alleys, but then they can just walk into a shop and buy as many bullets as they want after that. I don’t see it being a big inconvenience for law-abiding citizens and at the very least it would make things harder for criminals.
Assuming that’s your real name…I’m quickly becoming a fan of your posts as well as your trade mark sarcasm. Just thought you should know.
On to your posts-while handguns aren’t good for hunting, they are good for defense. Even when you are hunting, it’s still good to have a handgun for quick protection against animals (more four legged then two). Outside of the hunting world, handguns are great for personal defense…while the sound of a loading shot-gun may be enough to make some uninvited guests leave your house, they can be difficult to use in close quarters. So while they may be responsible for most deaths (not saying one way or another, but it would make sense), in a lot of ways they’re the most useful.
As to your more serious point, it would certainly be debatable. Before I get into that, I should say that a fear of mine is that liberals won’t attack gun ownership next, they’d attack ammo (taxes, banning, etc). So while requiring people to show some sort of “hey I’m not a crazy” card to get ammo might be a good idea, would that open the gate to something else later? Would it be another law that criminals could still circumvent?
I should also say that I don’t believe that criminals, the mentally insane, etc. should be able to buy guns. If that counts as gun control, so be it. But I don’t have a problem (in principal) with people legally owning automatic weapons. I think it’s more in line with the second amendment-not because the government “shouldn’t infringe”, (this will probably piss off some libs) but because when the second amendment was written it was possible for the citizen militia to have access to the same level of firepower as the military. If the second amendment is supposed to allow the citizens militia to protect the country against government tyranny, shouldn’t we have (reasonable) access to the same fire power?
How do you like that! 🙂
I am also a gun owner who has a fairly broad view of gun ownership.
Though I am a hunter, I agree that the point of 2nd A was not for hunting or self protection, but to deny the government sole access to coercive force. I take my civil liberties seriously.
Now for the but.
The problem with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is that they are criminals. This is why limits on straw purchases are so critical. Trying to limit the flow of guns on the grey market is critical to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
Pro A2 folks are fond os saying “nut control not gun control” and I agree.
The problem with keeping guns out of the hands of the insane is that the US does not have a public mental healthcare sysem outside of the prison system. It is just “insanity” (which has a specific legal definition) that results in gun deaths, it is metal health problems common throughout the population: depression, bipolar disorder, and substance abuse. Even people who have health insurance often have no or limited mental health coverage. This is a perfect example of how a universal health system would benefit us all.
Currently the US prison system acts as a defacto mental health system. The problem with this is that someone has to hurt someone before they can get treatment. If we had a system that treated people we could monitor both their firearm access and treat their mental condition before someone got hurt. Plus it would be cheaper to treat them medically than to warehouse them.
On the CCW specifically. There was a good article on police shootings in the westword that is worth reading.
http://www.westword.com/2008-0…
The basic premise is that people are subject to racial prejudices n shooting situations, but that police training can minimize it. Great news for the police and the public, until we remember that the only training people need for a concealed carry is $150 1 day course.
The notion of college students with limited training and a somewhat underdeveloped decision making skills being able to carry on campus scares the crap out of me.
Personally I never thought about carrying until I became a lawyer. As a lawyer you often meet with disreputable people (like qwest executives or politicians–just joking) that are under stress and that can make them dangerous.
If someone does use a weapon inappropriately who pays the freight when someone is killed or disabled? social security? medicaid?
The question is more complex than pro or anti.
And interesting post. I always enjoy your thoughts.
I bet that being a lawyer in your kind of situations would warrant you taking a long look at this situation.
However, trained and CCW holder students carrying on campus doesn’t bother me. We’re talking about students who are old enough and responsible enough to serve in the military. Some of them are in police training themselves. If they are responsible enough to know enough to get one, I think we can cut them a little slack
it is insufficient training to correctly identify no shoot situations for people who probably have more time training on Xbox live than at he range.
Law enforcement officers can already carry (and are often required to do so. People in the military are responsible because they are trained to be responsible. Police cadets are responsible because they are trained to be responsible. A CCW is not adequate training.
I support CCW but I want more training.
I still think the ideal situation would be no guns at all, but I won’t kid myself. That won’t happen. Let’s at least make sure that the people who get gun permits know how to use guns responsibly.
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms was not contingent on you being happy with the exact training or conditions.
What formal training did the continental army have?
Does that mean we shouldn’t have laws that say that?
can only have two definitions
1. well regulated–could mean well trained. I think this was the original definition.
2. well regulated–could mean what many modern readers read.
the term regulated must have some meaning.
That CCWP holders should have more training
Maybe I should just shut up and you can do the debating. You are much better at it than I am.
It says that a well regulated militia is necessary to ensure a free state, and as such the right to keep and bear arms can’t be infringed. It sounds to me like the right to have arms is in and of itself the well regulated militia? Or that people having arms is the pretext for a well regulated militia? Which comes first?
This is interesting, I’ve never debate the second amendment with someone who wasn’t a crack head.
And I am not sure
The whole issue is sloppy partially because the 2A is so short, partially because the world has changed so much it is difficult to devine how the intent of the 2A should be translated into a modern context.
At lexington and Concord the battle that set off the revolution. The british army went out to seize weapons stores held by the massachussetts militia. IMO this is one of the reasons for the 2A, but it seems to indicate that it was a group right.
Contrary to popular opinion guns were very uncommon outside of frontier homes. Guns used in 18th century warfare were even less common and often communally owned by the militia. There were no gun laws and so a militia could have what ever they could afford. I think there were actually a few small cannon at lexington. The primary weapon of a well regulated (and funded) militia was identical to the top of the line brown bess used by the best army in the world, the british army.
Translate that directly into the modern world and a militia could have whatever they could afford up to and including a nuclear weapon and we see how ridiculous that construction is. However the concept that the government shouldn’t have a monopoly on force remains valid.
In many countries, all men are required to keep military grade automatic rifles at home as part of their militia/guard duties. Switzerland and Finnland are 2 notably. These countries also have social support networks that keep crime low and treat mental illness–so I am not sure it will work.
Handguns are not a military weapon–they are a personal defense weapon. IMO this makes their relationship to a “well regulated militia” tenuous. As such handguns are not necessary to the militia, in fact a stronger argument can be made that heavy weapons such as mortars and machineguns were intended by the 2A.
On the other hand, there wasn’t much of a police force at the time of the founding of the republic and people were responsible for their own personal security. I am not sure how 2A was intended to apply to personal security matters. Truthfully I don’t think the framers even considered the ramifications 200 years later.
You can tell that I am conflicted. In general I support: expansive rights (including more class III liscences and opposition to the assault weapon ban), more training for people who want to carry, strict laws on straw man purchasing so that guns do not float into the grey market (also in this category are gun show limits and regulation of the secondary market), and backgroud checks on good national databases. I don’t necessarily oppose waiting periods, but I don’t really support them either.
In addition to opposing the assault weapons ban, I oppose liability for gun makers although an argument could be made about certain types of straw purchasers and I would support liability for gun dealers complicit in straw purchasers.
Personally I find myself in a weird place. I am much more comfortable with guns (I probably have a dozen) than most. I have a fairly conservative view of the intent of the 2A, but I recognize how it seems ill at ease with our modern world. Almost everyone recognizes some regulation in necessary, we’ve known that since the rise of organized crime in the 20’s, but to allow “some” regulation forces us to interpret “regulated” from trained to regulation.
I didn’t answer you question because I can’t.
Especially coming from you.
Your comment about the lack of clarity with the 2A reminded me of a family guy episode where the framers drafted the second amendment. One of them asked “do you think that’s clear enough?” The other holds up a trophy with two bear arms attached to it and says “Everyone has the right to ‘bear arms’, what’s so hard about that?”
Hand guns are a military weapon. They’re standard issue.
Other than that, you seem to really have a conservative view of guns, though I still wouldn’t recommend getting a membership to the NRA.
I don’t know the answer either, I just know my view. I want to research it more…dig up some of the Federalist papers and such.
I appreciate your response. It may not have answered any questions but it was very insightful
Do you like that show? How do you feel about the clearly liberal slant?
It’s my favorite t.v. show.
Yes, I don’t agree with the politics. Yes, I wouldn’t let my children watch it. But it’s funny! It rips on everyone pretty equally (“look Lois, it’s the two symbols of the republican party; an elephant and a fat white guy afraid of change”…or Bill Clinton’s real meaning of “NAFTA”), and it’s totally my sense of humor.
I disagree that it’s a decidedly liberal slant, I view it more as libertarian. They sure don’t like the FCC!
The more we talk to each other, the more we find we agree on. I’m scared.
However, I still disagree Family Guy rips on everyone pretty equally. I definitely think it rips on Bush and the right significantly more. You may be right about Seth MacFarlane disliking the FCC, but not to the point he’s a Libertarian. Assuming you would want something to back it up with, I decided to provide you with these links: here and here. Look for Seth MacFarlane’s name. Clearly he’s a Democrat (or liberal if you will) and not a Libertarian.
Hope I didn’t just ruin it for you.
Okay, I’m going to (probably) take a break from posting until this evening, including responding to your response below. Call me a lib! How dare you accurately describe me!
Not really. You didn’t ruin anything for me. Don’t get me wrong, they rip on Bush a lot…but who doesn’t.
Enjoy your break for the night
I kid. I laughed out loud when I read:
So, I hope I haven’t been missing the party. Actually, Haners, I have something to tell you. It’s not going to be easy, but I can’t hide it any longer. I have been cheating on this thread with other threads. During the time I said I was going to take a break, I posted several times. I’m sorry. I swear it won’t happen again. Forgive me?
Okay, I’ll meet you further down at your response to my last big post.
It’s ok, in my egotistical mind, I’ve been telling myself you needed a break from my astounding intellect
Actually, the truth of the matter is that pols is just plain addicting
I understand.
Let’s just not share dirty usernames
but yeah, that wasn’t quite it. But hey, if it makes you feel better, you can pretend that’s the reason.
Pols is addicting. Almost too addicting if you ask me. Are we sure they are not somehow pumping nicotine through the series of internet tubes and out through our computers?
Agreed on the dirty usernames.
The hand gun is more a badge or rank.
Outside of specialty uses (air and vehicle crews who would be otherwise unarmed if they lose their vehicle, Special operations who need low velocity silenced weapons and MP’s who are in essence acting not as a combat soldier, but as police men)
It is considered a secondary weapon at best.
I can agree to that.
Although, I will have to resend my previous comment. Clearly we disagree on more than I thought and having you handle the debate for me will just not work. Alas, I will have debate my position on my own. Here I thought I could actually catch up on other stuff.
like professionally trained and/or licensed?
Its not the construction I think the founders intended, but as I pointed out, the construction I believe was intended leads to some strange outcomes (private militias with tanks).
infringe vb [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
“People” can be a collection of individuals or as an aggregate.
It could have said “a person” and that would have been a clear individual right. As written the text is not clear.
The only addition I want to make is to respond to this:
When it comes to something that can be used to kill another human being, I don’t think we should be so nonchalant as to say “let’s cut them some slack.”
…a car?
More training for drivers too.
I said we should cut certain people some slack
I do still stand by my point, though. Cutting people slack and guns do not go hand-in-hand.
You’re the one that has to respond to my latest novel…so have fun with that.
I wanted to visit the other main page postings before getting to that.
about the mental health care problem.
Can’t say I mind it all that much. Makes more work for you, though. I’m glad you like my posts and I’m especially proud of my sarcasm. It took years of fine tuning to perfect it. It’s really the only good quality I have. Why wouldn’t you think Chris is not my real name? (Damn, he’s on to me.)
Moving on to the post. Sorry this is so long. I’m tired and was rambling. Danny said a lot of really good things (as you said, he has good thoughts) that I agree with. He has a very interesting perspective as a liberal lawyer.
Regarding handguns as protection: it depends on how many lives are being saved from people carrying them versus how many accidental deaths or homicides are being committed because of people’s accessibility to them. (Now I’m going to make another excuse for not doing the research and repeat it’s because I’m tired and need to go to bed. At least it’s a true excuse.) I think it’s hard to quantify the former, but would wager that the benefits don’t outweigh the negatives. With that said, a small piece of my wants to carry a concealed handgun for the same reason that Danny mentioned: there are people at there that are crazy (like Qwest executives and politicians). Seriously, though, there are a ton of whackos and criminals out there that probably are carrying one, but there are also a ton of normal, law-abiding citizens out there that are carrying too and they can turn into a whacko or criminal at the drop of the hat. (Just think… that could be me.) I want to protect myself from those people.
But don’t you see? This is why I believe that, ideally, people would not be able to carry guns at all; they shouldn’t even be accessible. And since they are and since they’re out there, it perpetuates the problem (at least I believe it’s a problem). But as I wrote below, I know that’s not going to happen. It would be like prohibition. It wouldn’t work. Once people have had a taste, there’s no going back and people got a taste when guns were invented. But that all doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be very hard to get guns and that there should be, as Danny wrote, adequate training for gun responsibility. I think that any law that makes it hard to get guns through legal channels, will make it harder for criminals to get guns overall, even if there’s still back alley deals.
That brings me to my next point: showing the permit to buy ammunition. It sounds like you would not be all that against this simple request in principle, but that you’re worried about a slippery slope.
First, I don’t think the slippery slope argument stands up to the fact that this would be a very small request that could have a very large positive impact with regard to safety. I think, for the sake of safety, it’s a chance you should consider. Yes, criminals will still be able to circumvent this (as I believe I said in my last post as well), but it would make things more difficult for them. Anything that makes it more difficult for a criminal to kill is a small price to pay and seeing as it is only flashing a card (the same lack of inconvenience as when buying liquor), it’s a very small price to pay.
Second, I don’t think you have to worry about a slippery slope. Making laws is a compromise and enough lawmakers would not compromise to ban ammunition even if someone proposed that. However, I can’t promise they won’t tax ammunition. If they do it to cigarettes, it would seem to make sense that ammunition would be on someone’s list. But if they do try to tax ammunition, it wouldn’t be because of a permit flashing law. An ammunition tax law seems plausible enough on its own. It wouldn’t need the gun flashing law to open the door. They’re completely separate. Let me put it this way, do you think that being required to show ID for cigarettes opened the door to taxing cigarettes?
Last point just quickly on the citizen’s militia, automatic weapons and the average person having access to the same weapons as the military. Looking at the specific words of the 2nd Amendment, I see nothing about a citizen’s militia to protect against the tyranny of the government. So no, I don’t believe the amendment itself implies that the average citizen should have access to the same fire power as the military. I honestly don’t think we need to either. At this point, I am more concerned about someone on the street having a gun killing me than I am our government committing that kind of tyranny. I would be even more concerned if that person on the street had an automatic.
Whew! Hope this all make sense. My brain and eyes are not at top percent at this late hour.
Thank you for a reasoned debate. I think it’s unrealistic to just “wish” for criminals to not have guns anymore. If you look at San Francisco and Washington D. C., I think that’s a perfect demonstration of gun laws pretty much only affecting law-abiding citizens.
I wouldn’t be opposed to having more or more frequent training for CCW holders. I have one, but it’s a little different situation, and I go shoot often enough anyway that if the CCW side required it it wouldn’t bother me.
On the other hand, we have one anecdotal story from Florida that regular citizens are in danger from CCW holders. I know anything is possible, but it just doesn’t happen very often. In fact, if you can find a local case of this, let me know.
Chris – have you ever gone on a DPD ridealong? It might be enlightening and interesting to you.
I too share your appreciation of sarcasm. Maybe they should have classes about that…but then again, it’s better to refine that on one’s own. And I don’t mind the work, debating here is a great way to keep sharp.
Let me warn you too; today is an A.D.D. day for me. I need some caffeine to help counter the A.D.D. today and I haven’t had any.
On to guns though-
Handguns and protection: Yes, it would be extremely hard to prove how many lives guns save verses how many are lost. It’s easy to say how many people die, but how do you quantify how many lives are saved? If I shoot a robber, would he have killed me or my whole family? If someone tries to mug me and I pull my CCW and they run, how do I know if they would have killed me? What about un-reported cases? If I protect myself with a gun without having to shoot it, would I still report the incident? Some people don’t. So yeah, it’s going to be impossible to measure.
But in my opinion, it’s better to have the tool. More people are killed by accidental poisoning each year then guns, and yet guns are the only tool that’s targeted. So I don’t say that just because a tools causes some harm that the tool isn’t useful and shouldn’t be available for responsible people to use.
I like your point about prohibition, in large part because it takes a lot to recognize that fact. I think we should look at the other points in that light.
As for showing some sort of card to buy ammo. The more I think about it, the more I wonder what it would really do. Or, more accurately, what would you have to do to get one? If you make it too hard, people will find a way around it. Make it too easy and it won’t mean anything, so why do it? Which leads back to the slippery slope concern-I liked your comparison to buying cigs and having an ID, but it’s not the same thing. We don’t train people how to smoke safely, or drink responsibly, all we’re verifying is their age. With this kind of certification we’re talking about, once you establish the fact that you need to have one, all you have to do is change the qualifications of needing one. Or changing the amount that you give out each year. And slowly you choke out the supply by not limiting the supply itself, but by limiting the access to the supply.
Those pesky slopes can slip in many different directions.
As for the 2nd Amendment itself, it says :
Looking at it specifically, and in the light of what the founding fathers were concerned about (Federalist Papers=good read!), we can infer some things. One: there are three things that can limit a “free state”: one’s own government; someone else’s government; and one’s neighbor. So when I read (and you should too!) “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” I interject what could threaten a free state. Now, the government has been nice enough to help protect us from other governments. The police helps protect us against each other, though we are responsible to that to a degree as well-but who protects us from the government? The constitution? The Supreme Court? Congress? All great things, but theoretically they could be done away with. National guard maybe? They are the state’s militia after all. But they could be federalized with far less effort then most people realize.
So the second amendment was drafted. In a time when the regular Joe had access to the same level of fire power as the government. That’s my thought process on that matter.
I agree with LB, I’ve enjoyed our exchange thus far. As a side note (in the interest of ending this helluva long post) I also agree that there should be more training involved with getting the CCWP
get into a confrontation and killed black guy. The white CCW holder had three guns in a backpack.
So, yes, it does happen.
You’re right Haners, this is one lengthy thread. Just think, there’s probably some other group of people out there on a blog discussing the same exact stuff. This seems much less significant when you look at it that way. Sarcasm school would be nice, but I think that your also right in that writing on blogs are lesson enough. However, if sarcasm could be used as a deadly weapon, I would have to insist on training to ensure it is being used responsibly.
Anyway, I’m going to go ahead and do a combined post to respond to both your’s and Laughing Boy’s comments. I’ll try to keep it short, but don’t expect me to live up to that. LB, I’m glad to oblige with a reasoned debate. And thanks to both you and Haners for doing the same. I’ll say it again: it’s refreshing. Haners, I hope you had your caffeine by now, ’cause here we go!
LB we do agree that guns cannot be wished away (perhaps a first), but I think that gun laws overall are good. I’m not going to pretend that they don’t make things harder on law-abiding citizens, but I still think that it will make things harder for criminals too. I don’t want a criminal to be able to walk into a gun shop and buy a gun right then and there, no questions asked. If they have a record and can’t get a permit, then I want them to have to go through the trouble of making the connections necessary to buy a gun through the black market or in an alley or whatever. I don’t imagine that’s very easy for them and many lazy criminals will give up. In short, gun laws do affect criminals. Besides, the fact is, a law abiding citizen can turn into a criminal at any moment. We might as well make it a bit of a challenge for them too so they realize the significance of having a gun. At least I think it’s significant.
Sounds like we all agree on training for CCW holders. Amazing! Maybe we should all write our Congressional Representatives to get them to propose increased training.
As for the Florida case, I can’t say I strongly stand by parsing’s post. Yes, it was a real situation with a CCW holder and I am sure there are more. But for me, as I am sure it is with you, it takes more then one reference to an incident to be convinced. I’ll see if I can find some statistics at some point (at least an incident in Denver).
Haners, you’re right on with the handguns and protection questions. Those cannot be answered. But you know what? I don’t think they ever need to be, because guns will stick around anyway. If they could be answered, it would only lead to more or less laws on guns depending on which side it landed, but it wouldn’t get rid of them. I think there’s enough statistics on guns at is it that we are in no shortage of law proposals and/or people trying to resend laws with regard to guns.
I like your point on poisoning and agree with you partially. An accident is an accident whether it’s with guns, poison, or cars. But the difference, from my perspective, is that poison and cars (for example) are not widely used also as a murder weapon. I think the number of deaths as a result of gun homicides must also be factored in to the argument on the accessibility of guns. I think if you look at it that way, at the very least, you will see why people target guns and not poison or cars.
Okay, back to the card: Maybe you can enlighten me here on the process of getting a gun permit and buying a gun. The way I envision it, the ammo card should only be as difficult as it is to legally get a gun. Essentially, you would be showing your gun permit every time you buy ammo. I don’t know how hard it is to get a gun illegally, but my point is that once a criminal gets a gun illegally, it’s incredibly easy for them to buy the ammunition necessary to make that gun lethal. I figure, why not throw in another step that is simple for the law-abiding gun-owner, but that would make it significantly more difficult for the criminals. Yes, criminals will be able to find a way around it, but criminals can find their way around any law. Does that mean we shouldn’t have them? Overall, laws can be broken, but it’s not always easy to break a law and there’s always a punishment if caught. Why not make it hard for the bad guys?
As for the slippery slope part, since the ammo card is directly linked to the ability to get the gun legally in the first place, there is no slippery slope inherent in the new law I’m proposing. There may be changes in what is required to get a gun (training, waiting periods, etc.), which you may not like, but it would not be because the card opened the door. Admittedly, the only slippery slope that I see in the card is that it could be changed so that it is not directly linked to the requirements for getting a gun. Then that opens the door to all your other slippery slope arguments. But since I don’t agree it should be that way (in other words, they should be linked), I’m not going to argue those slippery slopes.
2nd Amendment: You make good points on this one. I can see how it can be read to say that your neighbor, government or another country can infringe upon a free state. I’ll have to consider reading it that way myself. For me, because of my political science background, I always think of a state as a nation. That’s how all those writers (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) referred to it. So, when I see it in the constitution, I think of it as protecting our rights from another nation. Now maybe that’s wrong or not what the Founding Fathers intended, but that’s how I see it (at the moment). I have read parts of the Federalist Papers, but I have a bad memory and don’t remember much. (I think I own it too. Is that sad?) I do recall liking what I read. The problem is, that was written by three people and cannot realistically speak to what the Founding Fathers were concerned about. All we really have is the Constitution itself. It’s hard to make arguments based on what we infer from the Constitution or what we infer the Founding Fathers intended. I could infer that it wasn’t the intention of the Founding Fathers for guns to be used to murder each other and make an argument on that. I doubt you would infer the same, though, hence the reason we’re all still talking about it. My God, I’m turning into a Constitutionalist!
Lastly you wrote
I’m wondering if this leaves the door open to change the Constitution to reflect the situation today. Somehow I doubt that’s what you meant. I probably shouldn’t infer things.
Lastly, Laughing Boy, I have not gone for a DPD ridealong, but that’s actually very intriguing to me. How would I go about doing that? Is it tough to set up?
It’s con central now.
But I did have a pretzel and a rootbeer. The pretzel was too salty, but since I didn’t have breakfast I ate it anyway…damn! I’m doing it again!
One last ADD point-did you ever realize that the “i before e except after c” rule doesn’t apply to the word “caffeine”? Weird huh?
Alright, here we go.
Yeah, we’re never going to be able to get those numbers, but the hyper-partisans will always throw out the death numbers. Too bad.
I see your point and that makes sense. However, murder occured before guns and even if we could really remove them all, it would still happen. But it is worth noting that someone with a gun could murder more people in a more efficient manner. And since there isn’t much of a chance of getting rid of all guns, that’s why I would like the opportunity to protect myself either in a public or private setting should I be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
As for the process of buying a gun, I’m not a good source. I’ve never needed to buy one, my dad buys them like my wife buys shoes so I’ve survived up to this point by tagging along. Having said that, I think you buy it, they run a check, and then they give you your gun after the waiting period (for handguns only IIRC). So my thoughts as to your idea’s lack of teeth has to do with the fact that it’s only a background check. There’s a lot that doesn’t make it on to those, and as you’ve correctly pointed out anyone can become a criminal at any time. You’re idea would need to be based more on training and a clean record to work. Not to say that’s not a good idea, just saying that if it was based on current criteria it wouldn’t do too much.
I’m glad you liked my point about “free state”. I have to admit that I wasn’t quoting any founding father, I was expressing my take on “free state” based on what I’ve learned. You’re a poli-sci guy? Me too! I’ve just had to take some time off until my wife finishes her school. I too own a copy of the federalist papers, but my attempt to read it from cover to cover isn’t going so well. But to me, it makes sense because those are the three things that could infringe on someone’s rights-if you think about it, that’s the reason why government exsists, right? Roads and schools are secondary to the government’s obligation to protect people’s God-given rights. But the government should get it’s power from the people, so the people must have a way of protecting themselves from the government should the government try to reverse the tables. Come on, it’s “Haners’ Philosphy 101”. 🙂 But seriously, since that clicked in my mind as I was writing it, I appreciate the compliment.
By the way, this cracked me up:
You’re such a lib!
I just let Microsoft Word do the work. That’s pretty lame if you ask me. What’s the point of having the rule if it’s going to be broken? You know, like gun laws. 🙂 (I just had to.)
On the first point, it sounds like we’re in agreement on guns being more efficient in murdering people and that is why they are a target. Right? If so, we can cross that of the list.
As to:
And since there isn’t much of a chance of getting rid of all guns, that’s why I would like the opportunity to protect myself either in a public or private setting should I be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I’ll see that and raise you that not getting rid of guns completely is also why we should have gun laws to make sure that only historically law-abiding citizens get guns in the first place. You will still be able to get a gun for protection, which I can understand. Though I have walked the streets of New York, alone, at night and felt just as safe as on the streets of Denver (or the suburbs for that matter). It’s possible for anyone to be caught in a situation where a gun would be helpful, but I would say it’s not likely. Besides, it’s also possible, though just as unlikely, for the plane you’re flying in do go down, but you don’t carry a parachute with you, do you? You don’t carry antidotes with you for if you get poisoned? Or maybe something closer to home: You don’t where a bullet proof vest all the time, do you? I guess I’m wondering, why just guns?
But here’s the deal: I won’t take away your ability to carry a gun for protection if you allow me to require some reasonable, but effective legal steps before you can get that gun. That’s a fair compromise, right?
As to buying guns: I’m surprised you haven’t bought one yourself. Not in a bad way or anything. Which reminds me, can I ask how old you are? I know you said you were young before, but I was just curious how young. It’s not a big deal if you say no. Back to the issue, it almost sounds like you might be open to a more stringent policy for buying guns. True? I still think the policy as it stands would at least do some good, especially along with the ammo card, but I am all for further steps to ensure the responsibility of the gun buyer.
Poli Sci is great. You must get back into it. When does your wife finish up school? Yeah, reading books like the Federalist Papers cover to cover is quite a challenge. I mean, it’s great information, and can be really interesting, it’s just tough to read/follow. So, yeah… “Haners’ Philosophy 101” is not always that bad. Now, don’t get the wrong idea, I said it’s not always bad. Don’t expect me to come over to the dark side anytime soon.
With that in mind, here’s my counter-offer…you make all the gun laws you want, as long as they’re made to be broken. Deal? I thought so…
Yeah, I haven’t bought a gun yet. Don’t get me wrong, I really really really want to but there are more pressing needs for my money at this point. Eventually I’m going to get a handgun and get my CCP, but that’s probably going to be a while out. That leads into your other questions…I’m really behind in my schooling. Like an idiot, I didn’t complete any schooling before I went on my mission, and I left for that later then most people do (I was almost 21 as opposed to 19). When I got back, I did school almost full time, but then I got engaged and had to get a real job to support us. I took classes here and there, but then my wife started cosmotology (S/P???) school and I decided to stop my schooling until she was done. She finishes this summer and we will have completely paid her school off. Then when she gets a job, I should be able to go back full time. The sad thing is that now I’m 25 (time flies! Holy Crap!!), and I’m still working on my degree-at the time when most people my age and putting down roots in the workforce. So yeah, that’s why I haven’t bought a gun yet. But seriously, if you saw my dad’s collection, you would see why I haven’t felt the pressing need.
How about you? Now you have to tell me your recent life story.
As for the other things you listed, I see what you’re driving at but I don’t agree. Even if you had a parachute in a crashing plane, you still probably won’t get to use it. If you’re purposefully poisoned, you won’t know until it’s too late. But if you’re locked in your school because a gunman chained the doors shut and has a backpack of ammo-I think my chances of surviving that if I have a gun are much better.
But I will agree with you on your counter-offer simply because all laws can be broken. We wouldn’t even have to specifically make them that way. It’s just a matter of getting caught or not. There are just not enough people to enforce the law every time it’s broken. The only thing that can be done is enforcing the law a percentage of the time. People are discouraged from breaking it, because they never know if it will be enforced on them when they try. In any case, I think this can be crossed of the list. Whew.
Okay, jumping to the last point (then I’ll tell you my recent life story). I see your point here and I will admit that a gun is more practical for protection compared to a parachute or antidote, but I still think the chances of the situation described happening are fairly low. And seeing as more guns in a community results in more accidental and homicidal gun deaths statistically (based on what I’ve read), I just don’t know if it’s worth it. Also, you didn’t talk about the bullet proof vest. That would seem just as practical as a gun if you are really so worried about that situation happening to you. I’m sure there are other better examples, I just couldn’t/can’t think of them.
Okay, recent life story. First about yours: What’s the mission you’re talking about? Did I miss that somewhere? I know how you feel about school, but you know what, I don’t think it matters so much to employers when you got your degree as long as you have it. With that said, I can understand feeling behind when compared to other people your age.
See for me, I went to college right after high school, but I transferred schools twice, worked towards two degrees for a year and a half, had jobs throughout college (including full-time for the last half of college, meaning I went to school part-time) and I had one not-so good semester that was mostly a waste. All of that set me back quite a bit. It took me six years to get through college. I got my degree in May of 2006. Since then I’ve kind of been in limbo, while many people my age are going on to start careers. (My age, by the way, will be 26 this coming Sunday.) I have a professional job, but not a career. Also, a band that I was in for many years broke up a couple of months ago. This was bittersweet. I liked what we were doing and think we had a chance at success, but it was moving slowly. Also, I was putting all my extra energy into that and not focusing on a career. I’m still trying to decide what to do next: join another band and not work towards a career, go to law school, get a masters, get a teaching license, work in a Congressional office in DC, join the Air Force or perhaps CIA or FBI if I can get in (yeah, you read that right), or something else. Any advice? Just kidding. Lastly, I live with my girlfriend of over four and a half years. She goes to school and works, both part-time, so she helps with rent and bills. She’s open to moving even if it means transferring schools.
Sorry again for the length. I just have a problem writing anything short.
No worries, sorry if I didn’t communicate that part clearly.
I didn’t talk about vests because I forgot. A.D.D. again. Dang it. But to not leave that out in the cold, I’ll say it-knowing my luck, I’d get shot in the face. Unless I didn’t have a vest. Then I’d get shot in the chest. See, I have “Haners’ luck” so if I had a vest they’d say “too bad, the criminal shot him in the face”. If I didn’t have one, they’d say “if only he had a vest….” I wouldn’t win either way.
As for the mission thing-I’m LDS so I served a two year mission in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Good times…but it set me back even further in school.
If you decide to pursue FBI or CIA let me know…as I said earlier my brother in law is FBI and I have a friend who was CIA (he always told us he was state department…until he retired about five years ago), and I’m sure either would be willing to give you pointers.
Some time we’ll have to talk about how Congress is making it impossible for the FBI to do their job, and whether it’s better to have security or individual rights.
Just be warned-the FBI is a serious gun place!
This is on the second page now, so it may be old news, but I’m going to post anyway.
I knew what you’re saying with your luck with the vest. That’s pretty funny (thought wouldn’t be if it actually happened). If it makes you feel any better, that would probably be my luck too.
Ah yes, LDS, mission. It all makes sense now. I dated an LDS girl once. At the time I was a church-going Christian and I remember saying at the beginning of the relationship that I didn’t want her to try to convert me (and if course vice versa for her). It was a good relationship, but after a few months she wanted to convert me and I knew she did. So we broke up. The weird thing is, it was a mutual break up. I didn’t know those actually existed until then. It was still tough, but mutual nonetheless. It reminds me of that Seinfeld episode.
I will definitely let you know if I want to try to go into the FBI or CIA. I would love get pointers. In fact, I would be interested in getting pointers now if at all possible. Maybe that info would help me decide how likely it would be that I could make it and thus help me make my decision. In any case, thanks so much for offering. As for the FBI, I’m sure it is a gun lovers place. I doubt the CIA or military are much different. I would definitely be in the minority, but I wouldn’t mind the challenge.
Lastly, I’m interested to hear what you have to say about security and individual rights. We will have to talk about that at some point.
My perception is that the CIA isn’t as much of gun lovers as the FBI. That’s what I’ve gathered from my two contacts. The FBI being much more involved in law enforcement has to train to use guns a lot. But while I’m sure that the CIA trains with them, only a small amount of the agency would ever need to think about maybe having to use one…once.
I’ll get in touch with them and see what I can find. E-mail me at Haners@aol.com so I can e-mail you what I find.
Sorry that LDS girl tried to convert you. If it makes you feel better, it probably meant she really cared about you and was thinking “temple marriage”.
Yes, we’ll debate security and individual rights sometime, but not here. Let’s do a diary or something.
Chris, you can call your nearest district station, or if you want, email me at dagny7(at)gmailDOTcom and I’ll send you some information.
So that’s all it takes now to declare yourself to pro-life……opposition to federal funding?
How is that going to go over with the folks in Colo. Spgs. who want to confer civil rights protection on zygotes?
If Rice is pro Roe v. Wade (question of federal funding notwithstanding) and if she’s opposed to gun control legislation, I’ll say this, she a libertarian.
But I don’t think that GOP can handle that.
So she is more liberal than John. So she’s a Lib.
OK, any Lib that can chair the National Security Council and approve interrogation techniques necessary to save lives and get the information we need to stop terrorists, is a Lib that is OK in my book.
Exemplifies the failure of the foreign policy of this administration. She should have stood up for Colin Powell when he was Sec. of State, and she has done little to nothing to repair our image in the world. Her last ditch effort to pursue a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is late, very late and will likely yield no results.
Independents and moderate Dems who would like to vote for a woman won’t go near her because of her role as an architect of the Iraq policy, while the hard-boiled, wing nuts in the GOP will go ballistic once they see where she stands on those all important social issues.
…if Hillary, perchance, is the Dem candidate?
… or if Barack, perchance, is the Pub candidate?
I love it. Boxed into a corner.
If by “Pub” you mean Republican, then I find the probability that Barack with be the Pub candidate to be very small indeed.
Condi is perfect for Repub VP. Nobody can accuse the Obama camp of racism when they quite accurately point out the mountains of concrete evidence showing Condi was a completely incompetent NSA and is a completely under-whelming SOS. Although the right will try to insist, as they always do in such cases, that Dems are just out to get her because she’s an African American who doesn’t toe the Dem party line, they won’t get very far with that.
There’s just too much video available showing her saying incredibly stupid and inaccurate things and too much documentation of her utter inability to hold her own with the big boys in the Bush administration.
Our side’s best hope is to paint McCain as a third Bush term. No better way that to have Condi as his runningmate.
Way back in the election of 2000 let us remember what her (and by corollary Bush’s)thoughts were from a foriegn affairs article that she wrote.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/…
Warning this is an exceptionally long comment. (it is also a very long article from Condi)
Note no mention of terrorism, nuclear proliferation or other transnational threats. Maybe that’s why she ignored al Qaeda. In fairness she did recognize WMD in the hands of “rogue states” as a problem, but not the broader problems of proliferation of nuclear weapons to non “rogue states”–states like Pakistan. She recognizes state supported terrorism as a problem, but to her is is a state based problem. Saudi Arabia supports more terrorism than any other country, but it is not “state” based.
It is clear her focus in 2000 was not al Qaeda, failed states or even rogue states–her focus was Russia and China.
People forget that our foriengn policy was aggressively militarily hostile toward China at the beginning of the Bush administration. People forget the spy plane that was testing air detection and response protocals of China airspace, clipped a MIG and was forced down over China.
So she missed the strategic threats of al Qaeda, ignored Richard Clarke and may be the person in government with the most responsibility for the government’s failure on 9-11.
In addition, its not “cowboy diplomacy” its Condi diplomacy.
Disdain for international norms and our own allies has been one of the greatest failures in Iraq–Even McCain recognized that when he was on his grovelling tour of Europe a few weeks ago.
I was struck by this criticism of the clinton administration.
and this one
I believe the word I am looking for is Irony.
Here’s some more Irony
Does anyone think Kosovo was bad? Even if you do, compared to Iraq?
Back to the Irony
What are we still doing in Iraq?
Condi may be the dumbest smart person on the planet. Her fixation on cold war architecture, despite her mouthings to the contrary, are probably a result of her training, but come on, the soviet union was a hollow force since the SALT treaty. China on the other hand doesn’t need to be a military threat, they own our industrial base.
The “she’s black AND a woman” thinking is tokenism at its worst.
Much worse than irony – irony is too kind a word. It certainly illustrates the giant chasm between being an academic and being able to function as a hands-on manager of a major world power. The evidence is well-documented that Condi failed to respond in a timely and appropriate manner to the intelligence that came her way prior to 9-11. The US has a lot of “re-building” to do under a new (Democratic) administration – re-building our relationships around the world, re-building our severely strained Army, re-building a viable intelligence system, re-building a certain degree of citizen faith and trust in our government, re-building our economy, and BUILDING energy independence. And Condi’s comments on our relationship with China are almost funny — our relationship is fine now, isn’t it, if you don’t mind being partly “owned” by the Chinese?!
Thank you for that great information. I have to agree with your assessment of Rice.
(However, I think G.W. Bush easily beats Rice as the dumbest smart person on the planet. Assuming he’s at all smart.)
Too bad she is not running.
Your judgment is flawed.
Rice doesn’t get enough of the blame for the foriegn policy failures of Bush.
…that she was the one running the meetings discussing how many times you could waterboard someone “legally”?
It’s 3am, There’s a phone ringing in the White House. If your a bad guy, you better hope it isn’t CONDI picking up the line.
but I think if she takes the Republican VP slot, Obama (assuming he wins the nomination) would almost certainly have to choose a woman to take the Democrat VP slot.
but who has adequate foreign policy experience….short of Madeleine Albright. And he’s not going to pick her because (a) she’s constitutionally disqualified because she was born in Czechoslavakia, (b) she’s too old (same age as McCain) and (c) she’s too close to the Clintons for Obama’s comfort.
She is always talking about her foreign policy experience.
Although if the job were actually offered, I bet she’d jump at it.
I’d love to see her rip Condi apart in a debate a la Saturday Night Live.
“This volcano represents you and the lava represents the lies spewing from your mouth…”
Her daughter was married to one of Hillary’s brothers, but I think they’re divorced now.
Boxer’s too far to the left. Feinstein is actually more of a moderate but she’s probably too old. (Isn’t she like John McCain’s age?)
Plus Feinstein’s past as mayor of S.F. would provide the right wingers with lots of fodder if she were the Dem V.P. nominee. (Although she PO’d the gay and lesbian community in the early ’80s by vetoing a municipal domestic partnership ordinance. You would think the right wingers would appreciate her having done that.)
Here’s a suggestion….Nancy Pelosi.
but I don’t see her filling in any gaps for Obama (i.e. national security, coming from a state that Obama needs to win).
facetious.
No way Boxer is VP material. I’m a huge fan of hers but she’s too much of a loose cannon (sort of like Joe Biden). She doesn’t bring anything to the ticket. California is already tied up for the Dems and she is another senator.
Debating her would be like going through a meat grinder though….she’s wicked tough…
I mean, there’s definitely some tension between them, but I don’t know if she would completely be discounted if he wins. Plus I don’t know if I would agree with you that she would jump at the job is it was offered to her. I think it’s about as likely as Obama offering her the slot.
There are lots of instances (Reagan/Bush, Kennedy/LBJ) where two candidates beat the you know what out of each other in the primary and the #2 became the #2.
The question would still remain… does she give Obama what he needs? See above.
Obama would have to be running damage control all the time, trying to keep that ol’ horndog quiet.
It would make Jimmy Carter’s problems with brother Billy pale by comparison.
…peeing outward. That would probably be about the only real reason Obama would consider picking HRC for VP.
As for your reference to “the old horndog,” he’s done a reasonably good job through her campaign to date either being discrete and/or keeping it in his pants.
If the singlemost responsible person for being asleep at the wheel leading up to 9-11 wants to throw her hat into the ring, then welcome.
Just remember next time if you get a memo that says AL QUAEDA DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN THE UNITED STATES take a look.
…is for someone to go get the clip from Oprah where Condi was on insisting that we had found WMDs. Put that up on YouTube and you have her as the poster child for the Bush administration’s unwillingness to face facts.
Skyler – you busy??? Go get it 🙂 (It was about the time they had found those “mobile bioweapon” trucks which later turned out to not be labs.)
Weren’t those the ones Faux News kept broadcasting over and over again?
Condi won’t get the VP nod. WAY too much 9/11, WMD and Bush-ties baggage.
Plus she’d be a lousy campaigner. She has a deer-in-the-headlights look that makes Dan Quayle seem polished by comparison.
No particular state affiliation, an unusual personal life (53, never married) and less-than-firm position on abortion, etc. that will not appeal to conservative religious types already bothered by McCain.
No governing or management experience whatsoever other than as Secretary of State.
The negatives far outweigh the positives, which seem to be rather insultingly and tokenistically based on the fact that she’s an African-American woman.
McCain will likely pick Huckabee: likeable and polished, shores up his religious base, gives him the swing state of Arkansas, shores up the South, McCain likes him. Or else he’ll hold his nose and pick Romney for his cash and similar popularity among the conservatives.
Crist would make a really good VP pick. All those “gay rumors” floating about are loathsome.
Crist has repeatedly said he’s not gay when asked, but I guess people just can’t take him at his word ? Yeah, we get it, he’s single but how many times does he have to say he’s not gay before they get it ?
given the track record of GOP candidates confronted with the gay rumors in past, can you blame Repubs for wanting something more than a candidate’s good word on the question?
If people can’t take you for your word, how can you ever conclusively PROVE you’re not gay ?
Does he have to get “caught” banging a hooker at the next RNC meeting ?
This just in – Elliot Spitzer is not gay.
I agree with your point that it’s usually impossible to disprove a negative.
The problem is that when a family values Republican announces that he’s heterosexual, nobody knows how much stock to put such a pronouncement. It might just be true. It might not be true.
It’s like when any politician of any stripe (Dem, Repub, Lib, Con, neo-con) tells you that he or she is telling you the truth, what do make of that?
BTW, speaking of hookers, it looks like David Vitter (John-La.) may have to appear and testify in court.
pump out a couple of kids in an otherwise sexless marriage. Then start toe tapping in airport men’s room.
The beard has a long tradition in politics and hollywood
I often wonder how many of those type of marriages are out there. Can’t be a lot of fun for any involved.
And 1QD are you suggesting that politicians don’t always tell the truth ? Shame on you.
That’s exactly why McCain won’t pick her. Plus her fingerprints on the Iraq policy.
Apr 8 WASHINGTON (AP) – Condoleezza Rice has plans to head West after her time as secretary of State-not plans to be vice president.
She stressed Tuesday that she has no aspirations to join John McCain as his running mate on the Republican presidential ticket this fall. McCain, an Arizona senator, has wrapped up the GOP presidential nomination.
“Senator McCain is an extraordinary American, a really outstanding leader and obviously a great patriot,” Rice said at a State Department news conference with the foreign ministers of Canada and Mexico. “That said, I am going back to Stanford, back to California, west of the Mississippi. I very much look forward to watching this campaign and voting as a voter.”
Rice served as provost and taught as a professor at Stanford University. She said she’ll be busy with her work at the State Department before returning to the campus.
“You just asked about trying to complete the denuclearization of North Korea,” she told reporters. “I was (also) on the phone with Abu Mazen this morning about his meetings yesterday with Prime Minister Olmert,” she added, referring to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
She said she also spoke with the new Pakistani foreign minister and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon about Darfur and Kosovo.
“This is obviously a very busy agenda, and here I sit with my Mexican and Canadian counterparts on hemispheric issues. So, I have a lot of work to do and then I will happily go back to Stanford.”