Azalin

I've always considered Mussolini's Italy to be a leftist regime, but one that imposes the rule of law through excessive, oppressive means - something I've always viewed, possibly incorrectly, as being "right wing". My wife's family lives in Madrid, and her mother talks of the days when Franco was in power. They considered his government to be right wing, and consider themselves to be leftists for supporting the more libertarian philosophy.

Not surprisingly, I disagree. Just because a news or opinion outlet has a political bent to it doesn't make it unethical, it just makes it biased. You think all journalism isn't biased to one extent or another? And I would find it interesting to hear your definition of exactly what "the right" in America is, because you very obviously believe in limiting constitutional liberties as you see fit, while enforcing those policies through a heavy-handed centralized authority. How is that not right-wing philosophy in the same vein as Mussolini's Fascists?

They're links to decidedly right-leaning sources, and he makes no bones about that. If you think that's worth ridicule, then you're too juvenile to waste time with.

B-Man posts links to articles relevant to the discussion. He keeps any follow-up opinion short & to the point. Why is that worthy of ridicule?

Well, if that ever happens I know a few around here that will never be criminals.

Boooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Oh, I understand. In fact, during medieval times, some people believed that excessive exposure to moonlight while sleeping caused insanity, and called it "lunacy". But I still think your 'lunar' ticks play on words was worth a 'boo' - the better puns always evoke reactions like that.

Booooooo!

I couldn't stand that song. I still have disdain for baby polar bears because of it. That ad campaign ran for a long time, too. "You're soaking in it." "What?! Dishwashing liquid???" "Relax, it's Palmolive!" That really wasn't much sillier than the Ajax White Knight that would ride through the countryside, nailing people's launrdy as it dried on the clothesline with his lance, bleaching it in a sudden burst of white light.

Me too. And not the reformulated crap, either. The Pepsi generation was part of an ad campaign they had back in those days: Join the Pepsi Generation! As a young boomer myself (if indeed any of us are actually young), I grew up a true child of mass media, so I was bombarded with this kind of %$^# very heavily in my formative years.

If I remember correctly, that was the Pepsi generation.

It seems to me that this is simply his usual tactic of starting from an extreme position before working down to a compromise. That's pretty much been his MO from the start, and people keep falling for it.

Okay, that one made me laugh.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/01/caged-gorilla-statue-called-racially-insensitive-will-return-to-texas-park.html

Now that's what I call obfuscating with facts and details.

I know, right?

I'll tell you that you don't seem to know when you're being mocked for being a petty, pompous blowhard, as well as for your apparent inability to grasp simple concepts like constitutional rights. You think you're the only one here who is sick over the murder of innocent high school students, so you launch on a holier-than-thou rant that does nothing but alienate anyone who you might have won over with a more level-headed approach. So please, continue to express yourself, Grant. I know I won't be the only one being thoroughly entertained as you rage your way into apoplexy.

It's apparently a gift. Knock yourself out. You have freedom of expression. There are people that will use their firearms to defend your right to do so, if need be.

I'm more of a libertarian than a conservative, but I'm glad to respond. I think it's a dumb thing to say, and I'd like to think that was possibly a throwaway line or that the original context couches it differently. Whatever the intention, I think (or hope so anyway) that everybody here understands that due process is paramount. And yes, had prior presidents said such a thing, I'd be angered by it just as easily. Right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter who says it.

You get points for spelling and punctuation, but come on - that's some pretty weak hyperbole there.

If you've read through this thread, then you've seen just about everything imaginable in the way of suggestions on how to stop these incidents of gun violence, as well as all the arguments supporting gun ownership. Your takeaway is that we need to do something, that something needs to change, and that we can't keep doing nothing. In our country, owning firearms is a constitutionally guaranteed right. You can't just make people start having to get a license for something the constitution clearly states is a right that can't be infringed upon. You may as well try requiring a license for free speech. The problem that requires solving is how to keep these weapons out of the hands of disturbed, mentally ill, or otherwise violent people while protecting the rights of the citizenry.

I forgot all about that. %$@#ing idiots.

My Mother The Car

And if we ever were to completely stop the manufacture and sale of these weapons, how would we then stop them from being smuggled into the country? The Chinese alone have a massive knock-off industry , let alone all the the other countries from around the world with their own firearm manufacturers. There are an awful lot of these military grade semiautomatic weapons besides just the ARs in production around the world, and I think it's unrealistic to think we can stop them from making their way into places like Chicago by doing nothing more than extending the range of an already existent ban on their ownership.

Are you really going to use universal background checks and registration in an effort to reduce gun crime in Chicago, a place where the vast majority of crimes committed using firearms involve stolen and black market weapons?