The shooters have all been Democrats!!!

reply to post by technical difficulties

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so why didn't you post any OP? I can just as easily post this as a response to your evidence:

Yeah lets talk about evidence start with the evidence showing all gun owners are "mass murders".

I will be waiting.

reply to post by neo96


The opposition is light years behind america when it comes to cutting edge technology. We also have an awfully big surplus of hardware that is collecting dust.

For example USA spent $711 billion for the fiscal year 2012 and the second biggest spender was china with $143 billion. Russia spent $72 billion. UK and France spent $62 billion each.

When we have a $17 trillion debt obligation then it should be apparent we are OVER-SPENDING in this regard.

The welfare complex is much more necessary than the military industrial complex imo!

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by technical difficulties


Hear that? It's the sound of an airplane passing over your head. Perhaps reading the thread might help. or perhaps not.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

The opposition is light years behind america when it comes to cutting edge technology

No they aren't the majority of weapon systems are decades old

We also have an awfully big surplus of hardware that is collecting dust.

Most people don't have cars or cell phones or computers as old as what most of the military has

For example USA spent $711 billion for the fiscal year 2012 and the second biggest spender was china with $143 billion. Russia spent $72 billion. UK and France spent $62 billion

So what?

When those countries outsource their national security to us they can afford to spend less.

When we have a $17 trillion debt obligation then it should be apparent we are OVER-SPENDING in this regard.

Over 2,2 tillion dollars of current federal spending is on social programs not including defense bother to even read those numbers from unfunded liabilities?

That is the total amount owed to those social programs.

Without defense no one dropping bombs on peoples heads there is nothing else.

The welfare complex is much more necessary than the military industrial complex imo!

So tax the rich so the poor can go out and buy more corporate products is "necessary" the majority of the entire federal spending goes to corporatism ie social programs.

Read it or don't
online.wsj.com...

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so why didn't you post any OP? I can just as easily post this as a response to your evidence:

Yeah lets talk about evidence start with the evidence showing all gun owners are "mass murders".

I will be waiting.

Irrelevant seeing as that isn't the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is the claim that all of the shooters have been Democrats. Don't try to deflect, it only makes the credibility of this claim even more questionable.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

Hear that? It's the sound of an airplane passing over your head. Perhaps reading the thread might help. or perhaps not.

So what you're saying is you have no evidence then becuase if you did, then you would've posted it in the OP. You could've even posted it in your reply, and yet you chose not to. The credibility of this claim is now even more questionable.

reply to post by technical difficulties


Irrelevant nope after all the left/Democrats/liberal so love to go around telling the right how liberal this country is and if that was true then that would make those shooters what now?

Left.

Who posts in a thread and wants evidence from the crowd that never produced any evidence whatsoever of someone saying that "constitution was just a GD piece of paper" just some article that said he said it.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
If we can't rely on the government, we can't rely on anything.

This made my day. Thanks for the laugh.

How do you feel about religion? Because that's what government appears to be for you.

I don't think the political affiliation of the shooters has anything to do with their actions. And I don't think this is a political rabbit hole you really want to go down.

Violence is a human trait and an idealist in a civilized society will always try to find a way to eliminate the issues they find vulgar through the use of tools that allow society to be civilized, which ironically enough, is physical and mental violence.

Originally posted by Timing
I don't think the political affiliation of the shooters has anything to do with their actions. And I don't think this is a political rabbit hole you really want to go down.

Violence is a human trait and an idealist in a civilized society will always try to find a way to eliminate the issues they find vulgar through the use of tools that allow society to be civilized, which ironically enough, is physical and mental violence.

To speculate whether Nidal Hasan was a Democrat or a Republican....and he was a Democrat registered to vote in Virginia, just for the heck of it..............ah.....what was I going to say?

Well, anyway, the Roger Hedgecock email that listed these mass killers as progressive liberals of the Democrat party also said : The email assigns a Democrat tag to Adam Lanza, the Newtown, Conn., shooter, because, it says, Connecticut has almost twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans. That is true (815,713 to 449,648, according to the latest state records) and it is also true that President Barack Obama carried Connecticut in the past two presidential elections.

Dylan Klebold, 17, and Eric Harris, 18, the Columbine killers, were not old enough to vote, and Hedgecock acknowledges that. But claims that their parents were Democrats and progressive liberals. Both youth admired Timothy McVeigh, according to published reports.


Oh, yeah.....now I remember what I was going to say. Liberal Socialism is commonly referred to as a mental disorder....and all these assassins definitely had mental disorders.

Hmmmm......that pretty well sums it up.....

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


In some ways I don't disagree on military spending - its how and on what its spent on that matters. The current administration is just continuing the waste - remember the "scapel" and "fine tooth comb" promise - they don't but I do.

Same goes for entitlement spending and the bank breaking healthcare fiasco nicknamed Obamacare.

On defense of America the one sure bet is it is very hard to foresee a foreign enemy invading with the second amendment intact and unmolested - this actually is the primary defense, one not paid with government funding.

Most of our possible soveriegn nation ememies such as Iran are 30-40 years behind in battlefield technology and most anything in numbers would overwhelm them, F-16's, A-10's, M-1 tanks so on and so forth - maintaining current and past inventory for countries like that would be cost effective and prudent. Most of this is in mothballs and storage its paid for and only needs maintaining along with proper transport by naval and air assets.

The naval destroyors with electro-magnetic gun cappability are good buys if role is put back to original destroyer role instead of jack of all trades as it is now. Let Aegis ships do missle defense and specialized roles such as CVG escort.

I say save the high-techery for countries like Russia and China in numbers needed for the job. Use smart weaponry where it is needed and useful.

Finally pull troops out of Europe, Asia and other places that we have been economically supporting with their presence and basing.

Originally posted by neo96

No they aren't the majority of weapon systems are decades old

Yes we have old systems but they are still very functional. There is no need for constant upgrading of systems. And how many b-2 bombers, f-117 attack, f-22 raptors, how many aircraft carriers do we need when the opposition has virtually none? We also have drones!

We also have an awfully big surplus of hardware that is collecting dust.

Most people don't have cars or cell phones or computers as old as what most of the military has

you gotta be kidding me or something. And what is wrong with old? ak-47 and m-16 rifles prove some things can last many decades. The warthog attack planes, su-25 attack, grad missiles, even bazookas serve their purpose and are very old indeed.

For example USA spent $711 billion for the fiscal year 2012 and the second biggest spender was china with $143 billion. Russia spent $72 billion. UK and France spent $62 billion

So what?

When those countries outsource their national security to us they can afford to spend less.

You mean they don't have to spend so much on research and development costs which are front heavy? The b-2 stealth bomber cost billions each.

When we have a $17 trillion debt obligation then it should be apparent we are OVER-SPENDING in this regard.

Over 2,2 tillion dollars of current federal spending is on social programs not including defense bother to even read those numbers from unfunded liabilities?

That is the total amount owed to those social programs.

If we didn't spend so much on military hardware and foreign bases, had democrats itching for wars, etc...we would not have so many unfounded social liabilities. When you combine this with the outsourcing and automation craziness of the last 3 decades that restricts tax collection to a minimum and pays out much more to the jobless, then obviously this happens.

Maybe you are not capable of critical thought? Not my problem.

reply to post by Phoenix


I'd say it's advantageous to say that our battlefield enemies are decades behind us in military technology....and I'd add that it wouldn't be a bad idea to put them all centuries behind us in military technology.

Losing a war is only something socialists are good at doing.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Of all the wars America has been involved in for the twentieth century, I can think of only three that were started under a Republican President.

That'd be the invasion of Granada and Panama by Reagan....and 9/11 under Bush. What in the heck was that Granada thing about? I mean, that wasn't really a war, was it? Oh, well........

Carter gave away the Panama Canal, which preclude the necessity for invading Panama. Democrat Presidents were in office for World Wars One, Two, the Koran War and Vietnam. In fact, part of the reason JFK was assassinated was because he threatened to pull the troops out of Vietnam, as Eisenhower advised.

And now Obama has progressed the Mideast Wars deeper into Africa......

Whoops....I forgot Operation Desert Storm while George Bush was in office.

So, I can only think of four wars that America became involved in while a Republican was in the White House.

There might be more. I'd have to do some more research...

reply to post by technical difficulties


Kind of hard to prove those negatives, guess you'll have to actually find and post some links contrary to the OP's opinion.

However nothing really counters the absolute hypocracy of trying to take away constitutional rights of others for what amounts to a personal fear and does nothing to address any problems brought forth.

Originally posted by Phoenix
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

Kind of hard to prove those negatives, guess you'll have to actually find and post some links contrary to the OP's opinion.

However nothing really counters the absolute hypocracy of trying to take away constitutional rights of others for what amounts to a personal fear and does nothing to address any problems brought forth.

Burden of Proof lies on the individual making the claim.

Anyways, I re-read the thread. Instead of this simply being a baseless claim, it was just trying to make a point about the anti-gun crowd's hypocrisy and inability to back up their claims with actual evidence, which easily could've been made as a post to the threads the OP is referring to. Kind of a pointless thread.

Originally posted by Phoenix
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

Kind of hard to prove those negatives, guess you'll have to actually find and post some links contrary to the OP's opinion.

However nothing really counters the absolute hypocracy of trying to take away constitutional rights of others for what amounts to a personal fear and does nothing to address any problems brought forth.

I don't care if the shooters were '___' fed Manchurian Candidates.......nobody is taking our Second Amendment away.

The more crazy killers there are out there.....here that Al Bundy....no, wait...that was Ted Bundy....

The more crazy killers are out there of whatever political, religious, social affiliation, the more we Americans need to defend our families and ourselves.

If someone is trying to kill me, I don't ask to see their voter's registration card. That is just not as important as being able to draw and shoot as fast and accurate as Raylan Givens.

So, whether or not a criminal bothered to vote......and how do all these insane people get even close to an electronic voting machine......matters not a whit to me. I'm more concerned if these whackos are wearing Kevlar and it is more imperative to go for a head shot than body mass.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Yes we have old systems but they are still very functional. There is no need for constant upgrading of systems. And how many b-2 bombers, f-117 attack, f-22 raptors, how many aircraft carriers do we need when the opposition has virtually none? We also have drones!

Actually older systems cost more to maintain.

B-2s aren't made any more,neither are F-117s and the F-22 was cancelled. Aircraft carriers last over 50 years with somerecently being retired.

you gotta be kidding me or something. And what is wrong with old? ak-47 and m-16 rifles prove some things can last many decades

60 year old design for crying out loud

The warthog attack planes

Isn't made any more just maintained

bazookas serve their purpose and are very old indeed.

"bazookas" have not been used in decades might want to get current

You mean they don't have to spend so much on research and development costs which are front heavy? The b-2 stealth bomber cost billions each.

So how much should an aircraft with a low RCS cost?

enlighten me.

If we didn't spend so much on military hardware and foreign bases, had democrats itching for wars, etc...we would not have so many unfounded social liabilities.

Wrong simple fact those companies employ middle class people who get fired end up on social programs, But those companies also employ other people via the materials they buy and use to build those systems.

But by all means gut defense put people out of work that no only puts them out of work but many others.

When you combine this with the outsourcing and automation craziness of the last 3 decades that restricts tax collection to a minimum and pays out much more to the jobless, then obviously this happens.

Outsourcing eh?

The military already outsources because of the fiscal restraints already in place cut the more people get fired and end right up on social programs.

But back to the topic about guns is the same thing gun control laws put Amerkian manufactures out of work where people who make a living off those guns and accessories, and ammunition all supply the federal government that create thousands of jobs, employ millions of people.

When their jobs go bye bye where do those people end up?

On social programs take a good hard look at this topic especially gun control front row seat of why social programs are "needed".

You know I've been around quite awhile both here on earth and at ATS and the one thing that gets my blood up is hypocracy and those who think they can have some rights chosen over others - its not MacDonalds where you have a menu to choose from - it really pisses me off to imagine there are those so shallow and short-sighted and politically motivated that they'd chance their favorite right whatever it may be by supporting the denial of rights they don't agree with today as tomorrow it will certainly be the rights you cherish that will go down with the second amendment.

What disconnect does it take to not realize this?

Your freedom of speech, right to assemble, right to seek redress and all your cell phones, healthcare, wellfare and all the other benefits you now enjoy will be at a whim of the government and your compliance to its wishes.

Is that what you people desire? seriously?

The second goes and yours is not far behind.

The shooters have all been male...so lets just ban guns for men.

This is the OPs logic, right?