bugman

yup, you are probably right, and as for not knowing what biblical law is neither would his voters who agree with him. Thank goodness for the constitution!

Michaelmike5556

don't be a fool huckabee doesnt in the slightest way support the fair tax he pulled that out of his cornhole when he was slipping in the polls . dont get me wrong i love the idea of a Fairtax althrough i think it should be modifyed .... just think that if we want to get rid of useless taxes getting rid of the most regressive tax in the US the Property tax should also be in the bill . but any how it looks like he is out of the race for the most part so looks like Mcain and Obama . probby go with Mcain but i could live with barrack also

cpltony

<LOL>

Tracym

I'm with you - not appalled by either of them.

BritGuyTN

Neither am I, although I really don't like obamas plans for nasty taxes or assualt weapons ban...

Tracym

Not fond of the taxes bit, that's for sure.

I don't personally want an assault weapon, so I suppose I won't have a complete fit - although I would be against the ban on principle I think.

Better than "Billary" anyway.

elfman

but do you think other people should have them?

Thydney

Of course, everyone needs one.

snowbunny

The defining question on controlling weapons is this:

* should your neighbour be allowed to arm himself with a nuclear bomb? Nerve gas? Anthrax toxins?

If not, then you support a limit on the right to keep arms.

Tracym

I don't know - I'm not that entirely horrified by the idea.

They can kill me with a 22 if they have a mind to. If you restrict one thing... then what is next?

elfman

this is what I don't get about the pro-gun argument: the attitude is often that since no single measure or combination of measures can ever eliminate gun crime 100% we shouldn't bother to do anything. It's like saying that since wearing a seat belt won't save your life in every conceivable type of car accident, you shouldn't bother to wear one at all.

Tracym

I haven't heard of a lot of crimes committed by assault weapons - seems it's generally normal 'ol guns anyone could have. Unless you can get rid of all guns (which would be impossible here imo), I don't think you can get rid of gun crime.

You can cause practically as much rouble with a can of deodarant and a box of matches as you could an assault weapon (as far as destruction goes). Or weedkiller and sugar. Or.....

If people want to cause destruction, they will find a way. It's the person's motivation that matters, not the object they use to do it imo.

And while I'm not a big gun enthusiast, I do think it's a right we have here.

fatbrit

But there are already controls on arms. Despite the fact you could happily "bear" a stinger missile, government wouldn't be happy if you kept one under the bed. The questions is already how far you should control them, not whether they should be controlled or not.

lapin_windstar

No, sorry, that's just not true - no-one would ever do a driveby or has a Virginia Tech incident (OK, they're actually very rare) with a can of deodorant. There's a large section of violent crime that's opportunist or lazy, and easy access to guns facilitates that.

WHether that's something that outweighs the benefits of legally owning weapons is a different discussion.

BritGuyTN

the assault weapon ban applies to the capacity of pistol magazines and rifle magazines. its very expensive to buy a fully automatic weapon anyway (literally 10's of thousands of dollars)

it takes 1 bullet to kill someone, what the point of banning a 15 round magazine and keeping a 10 round one?