• #11
    The reality of what he suggests nearly exists already in this country. Conservatives should recognize it when they hear it as they cite it as an example of the collapse of our country on a near daily basis. What he's suggesting is already taking place in Chicago. A well armed self-regulating population already exists within the inner city. That's the end result of gun proliferation. We have it now. It's just ignored or at worst used as an excuse to continue arming more.
  • #15
    @TRex84 A self regulating population of citizens is much like a self regulating coal industry. That is to say, it doesn't exist and chaos and destruction are certain to ensue.
  • #25
    The problem with what you say is that Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in this country so the law abiding citizens are defenseless and the criminals are armed. Allow the lae abiding people to be armed as well as the criminals and you may see a bit of a different outcome.
  • #26
    @TRex84 Blue Inner Cities are the way they are due to the failed policies of those who run said cities, corruption, lax law enforcement, etc. If the proliferation of guns were the problem, then you would expect to see the Blue Inner Cities be Oases of Safety and Adherence to Laws, and the rest of the country awash in violence and mayhem. But it seems to be the other way around, doesn't it?

    It's not the guns. It's catch and release policies, lack of enforcement of gun laws, incompetence, a desire by politicians to not be seen as 'cracking down' on the very people responsible for the drug dealing and violence for fear of being branded 'racists', and yes, a PLAN by politicians to use the gun violence and carnage they tolerate and promote in Blue Inner Cities as a the ''Boogie Man" with which to scare SOME easily-influenced and stampede-prone Hysterical-Americans into enacting more limitations on gun ownership and eventually disarm all Americans. There's a method to the madness of the SOBs.
  • R Load more replies

  • #19
    Theoretically your assertion is a popular one, but in reality a constant change of leadership only causes confusion. The idea is for the citizenry to threaten actual revolt if that establishment doesn't clean up its act.

    The leadership of Singapore has basically remained the same for the past seventy years with little corruption, so it can be done, but not without difficulty in such a large nation as our own.

    Like Singapore we need a strong and incorruptible leader at the top. Whether that is the president or not, doesn't really matter. What matters is that the leader has the power behind the throne to force everyone to obey his wishes.

    Currently that leader, whoever that may be, has shown that he is completely corruptible and therein lies our problem. However, looking at the president as that leader is a mistake, since presidents are merely the chief spokesmen for the power behind him and everything else. At least in Singapore we know that the real power is Mr. Lee. In the United States it really is anyone's guess, except for those people fortunate enough to work within that very small circle of power.
  • #27
    @Ryunkin's a metaphor for change :) and I know it's not feasible for the long run, however, any change that would knock some sense into our politicians is good with me and if that meant re-electing no one, so be it...I would truly say, though, getting money out of politics is and should be our main focus for change.
  • #29
    @hankf68 This may sound counter-intuitive, but since thinking that way has become popular of late, I'll offer this suggestion without fear of ridicule. Getting rid of money in politics is impossible at the moment, because all you would do is transfer the funds for elections from private hands to so-called public funds which would still be controlled by people with agendas.

    I believe the answer lies in eliminating modern technology from the process of running for office and force the people to rely on the type-written page for their information about candidates. This will narrow the pool of voters to only those who are serious about politics.

    Of course, our beloved legal system will concoct multitude reasons for why this is unconstitutional so, as usual, I do not believe that a solution to the problem will be found.

    Such is the conundrum of living in the United States. We have a yahoo citizenry who complains incessantly about our problems, yet is unwilling or too cowardly to make logical moves to solve them.

    I have often spoken out against the Constitution because it has simply become an instrument of division and failure, much like the Bible has been used, to carry out personal agendas. Our legal system as well, no longer makes sense because it is only being used to assert those personal agendas and create division.

    So you see that this single issue has many layers to the problem that cannot be solved in isolation. If the powers that be fix the legal system and make work once again, if it ever really has, and they may solve the money issue in elections by returning to flyers and newspaper articles. Good luck with that.
  • #45
    @Ryunkin how about we ram a law through which states that if one wants to run for public office, then he has to finance his own campaign out of his own pocket with no donations from anybody. if he can't afford to do so, then he should jsut stay at home and get a job.
  • #71
    sadly we must elect the best of two evils.It has been that way for a long time.To not vote gives the worst a win.
  • R Load more replies

  • #309
    Please provide us an example where the Daily Show was incorrect, misleading, or lied about the facts or substance of any news story. Show us the time they cut the mic of someone saying something they disagreed with. Show us the time they instructed the viewers to boycott something..

    There is an virtually endless supply of Fox News lies:

    It's sad that a comedy show has more journalistic integrity than the propaganda you choose to call 'news'.
  • #2
    Just another political hack like everyone else in Washington. You've done your public service, now hit the private sector and find a real job. Quit screwing over the people.
  • #136
    His comment is well taken. When people were armed they were more civil. If you were apt to be challenged to a duel you were a little more careful in your behavior. And he is right, there were very few shootouts in the old west.
  • #174
    I approve whole-heartedly.
    I am not sure how many there were...maybe a lot. Records were not kept much back then really. HOWEVER...with everyone on a 'level playing field' knowing full well they could be shot...the ones that probably deserved it it, and the ones who didn't learned their lesson fast!
    Basics...were predominantly the 'rule' of thumb. The ten commandments really perhaps with some additions. Life was rough and no time for stupidity or insanity. Just make sure all was 'okay' and then mind your own business.
    EVERYONE...knew the 'rules' of how to handle a gun...and even children soon learned what a gun could do. I am sure their knowledge of life and death and its reality grew some pretty solid citizens.
    LIFE WAS ROUGH..hence not many lived very long. Too much disease that was untreated and misunderstood. But I think it had its own special VALUE that we have lost along the way.
    Santorum doesn't speak terribly well...a downfall of his I think. However I do believe he tries to be a good man that would NOT be 'bought!'
    As for me...I will be backing tea party candidates this time around.
  • #134
    The "wild west" was wild due to animal attacks and raids of warring native american nations. Not from rampant crime.
    The much publicized OK Corral shootout is so famous specifically because it was so unusual, but it is comstantly (fraudulently) used as an example of what the time period was like.
    It blows my mind that much further when gun control advocates ask if we would really want another OK Corral when it is suggested that mass shootings could be stopped by armed citizens. My response is YES!
    Why? What happened at the OK Corral?
    Well, a handful of criminals were killed and a handfull of police were injured in a shootout which was itself very rare at the time (though it bears mentioning that the shootout was caused by gun control). No innocent bystanders were harmed, only active combatants. Does that really seem worse than cho chaining the exits shut and executing 30 unarmed people?
    But tye fact that everyone carried guns is only part of the reason the west was so tame in regards to crime when compared to today. For a breakdown of why crime was so rare, read Democracy in America by Alexis De tocqueville.
    The book is a criticism of our system, but the author had to ackmowledge the strengths. The author was a french aristocrat who opposed to the fact that France was becoming a democracy, so he came to the us to get an idea of what France had in its future. One thing he found was that the US had MUCH less crime tham france in spite of the fact that it only had a fraction of France's number of law enforcement. The reason, he found, was that the people actively took ownership of their community and did not tolerate laws being broken. They viewed those laws as THEIR laws, not the governments rules. When someone broke the laws, the police had no shortage of citizens offering to help them bring the person in. When something needed done in the community (such as building a library), they didnt petition the government to do it, they banded together andmdid it themselves.
    Compare that to today where people no longer trust law enforcement, despise the overbearing laws, cannot exercise rights or do anything in their personal lives (let alone community) without first wading through a massive bureaucracy and asking the government for permission. Where state and local governments have little authority and have largely been eclipsed by a bloated, unresponsive federal government. Where governmentmhas become a top down system where people feel a disconnect between themselvea and the legislative process. Where laws that ARE passed are amended on the fly by the president. where the laws habe become so overbearing that absolutely ANYONE can be charged with a crime...
    It is no wonder why we have the crime issues we do. Restoring peoples autonomy and independence is the first step to correcting this, and the most basic step in doing so is restoring and then preserving a persons right to defend themselves and to carry the tools to do so.
  • #207
    Except that the "fact" that "everyone carried guns" is completely false. Few citizens were armed-their guns were at home.
  • #265
    @Unfit2serve historical documents suggest otherwise.
    In fact, some states had laws on the books requiring people to carry guns to certain events and locations.
    But whatever...
  • #104
    The Wild West firearm plan would kill the multi-billion dollar a year private prison industry hence the reason that will never be allowed!
  • #70
    "You know, everybody romanticizes the OK Corral and all of the things that happened. But gun crimes were not very prevalent back then. Why? Because people carry guns."
    The OK Corral was an ambush.
    Still, much as I hate agreeing with any republican candidate for office, I've said for years --- Everyone not legally PROHIBITED from carrying should be REQUIRED to.
  • #113
    Would YOU pull a gun in a crowd where EVERYONE else was armed? Neither would anyone else, excluding real psychos.
    Now, exactly which part of the constitution does my proposal violate?
  • #202
    Gun crimes weren't prevalent because, despite the fantasy movies and dime novels, few citizens carried their weapons aroung in the "Wild West". Were talking about a 35-40 year period of American history that has been totally mischaracterized and romanticized.
  • #205
    I acknowledged your point. I really don't know that much about the old west.
    I stand by my statement that everyone not legally prohibited from carrying should be required to. The studies I've looked at show a direct correlate between gun restriction and gun violence - not the inverse correlation the gun control lobby wants to put forth.
    Why? Because people ate more likely to use a gun when they "know" they won't have one pointed at them.
  • #210
    Forcing folks to walk around with a gun to be "safe" clearly is ignoring the root cause of the problem....if indeed there is a real "danger" issue that needs to be addressed. If you are conceding that violence and brutality is to be expected from everyone, in a society without guns, the biggest and strongest would be in charge of everything. They're not anymore......we evolved. If you arm everyone, then the equation just shifts to the fastest to the trigger, or the most firepower, or the most aggrssive will be placed in a position of power and authority. A completely armed society means only those willing to kill gain any advantage, and less than 5% will kill with impunity. I'm a gun owner, but I wasn't (or never would be) foolish enough to buy a gun to "increase my safety factor".

    Arming everyone does not create a natural equilibrium......if that were the case, disarming everyone would create the same equilibrium. The truth is, arming everyone just accelerates and creates a war of escalation.
  • R Load more replies

  • #44
    The idea that gun crime goes down with more legal gun owners is absolutely correct.. there is no denying that fact.
  • #43
    In Catron County, NM it is a requirement for citizens to own guns. If you do not possess one, they will issue one to you at the county courthouse. Catron County has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation.
  • #73
    From what I can gather the new law (if there even was an old law) recommends that each citizen of Catron County own a gun as long as your not a felon and 19.

    Trying to search that during lunch became frustrating as their is lots of misinformation out there.

    Thanks for informing of a possible place to retire too. Sounds like my kinda town.
  • #203
    A county with 3000 people, who compared to real America, rarely even see or interact with each other.........does not remotely represent American society.
  • #219
    I forgot to add I spent a great 6 weeks in Reserve NM, about 30 miles from Catron County seat. Beautiful country, my youngest grew up in Reserve. I remember taking him and his mom on a long day trip to Albequerque, to see the Arnold movie "Total Recall" as it had just come out, so that is dating me....I remember that after 6 weeks living away from big city folks in that type environment, in Reserve, where there are more elk than people........I actually felt a little claustrophobic going back to the Bay Area. We aren't built to live in crowded cities, on top of each other, all running as fast as we can in a rat race.......
  • #31
    Anyone who wants to should throw their hat in the ring.

    Let the voters decide.

    And BTW, does anyone have reliable data regarding how many people went armed in those days?
  • #120

    Thank you.

    That doesn't offer too much support for Santorum's thesis.

    "homicide rates in the West were extraordinarily high by today’s standards and by the standards of the rest of the United States and the Western world in the nineteenth century,"
  • #7
    I like Santorum. He gave Mitt Romney a good fight, but thanks to Newt and the establishment, he couldn't beat the machine. Too much corruption in the establishment... the elites will probably push the other Bush onto the voters and if he doesn't work, they will support the loser in Jersey. I plan to vote for Rand in the primary.
  • #16
    If you have corruption at the core of your political party, choosing Moe Howard as your candidate is definitely not the solution.
  • #28

    Like Democrats don't have corruption embedded into their rotten core.
    You can hang your dudley do right spurs at the door after you climb down off that donkey you're riding.
  • #166
    Santorum struck me as a good man, but I didn't think he was a very strong candidate. Not that the Republicans had any strong candidates.
    (roll eyes)
  • #167
    @daclark1911 I agree...both parties have corruption. It seems people on the right are much more likely to point out corruption in both parties. I guess when you're not a principled person, only agenda really matters.
  • #170
    @galt45 well...considering Romney outspent him 10 to 1, and the fact that the establishment, fox news, and drudge backed Romney, along with fox news...I would say Santorum did very well for a guy that most people didn't know- he did much better than anyone expected. He is a good, principled man. :)
  • R Load more replies

  • #24
    And her next thought is "Now where did I put that $6 billion dollars from my last job? If better take my Geritol and take my really old person's nap."
  • R Load more replies

  • #253
    If you have an interest in history that hasn't had the liberal make-over, and you have a strong stomach, you might want to check out 'Deadwood' or 'Hell on Wheels.' I doubt Santorum has seen either of them.
  • #173
    There was actually more "gun control" (though I doubt that particular term was used) in the so-called Wild West than in the East Coast cities of the late 1800s. The shootout at the OK Corral happened because the Clanton-McLaury gang refused to turn in their guns to Marshal Virgil Earp as town law required. At the time, places like Chicago and New York City did NOT have similar requirements to disarm when entering the city.
  • R Load more comments...