shouldn't liberals be for guns?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Populist3, How do you say George W Bush is the biggest gun control president we've had.  He is for gun control, but he got endoresed by the NRA.

During the illegal annexation of Iraq, he attempted to make private ownership by Iraqi citizens illegal.

[Nym90]

[
Likewise, Republican support of guns and tobacco is largely due to the fact that corporations have a vested interest in selling as many and as much of these as possible.

There is a difference between recognizing the rights of people to make their own choices regarding tobacco, and supporting tobacco, as you call it.

I am a non-smoker who hates smoking. I don't allow it in my house or car. I support laws that make it illegal to smoke in bars and restaurants, and other public places.

But we have breached a serious line in my opinion in going after tobacco companies. Tobacco companies are selling a product that is legal, that people buy of their own free will. I realize it's addictive, but so is caffeine and liquor, for some people. Addictions can be broken if you want to break them. This idea that tobacco companies "duped" people into smoking, thinking it was good for them, is something that hasn't taken place for 50 years.

Anybody who, in the last 40-50 years, continued to smoke because they thought it was good for them, or didn't think it caused them any harm, is a complete retard. Everybody knows smoking is bad. If you choose to smoke, it's your own fault, not that of the tobacco companies.

It's funny that there's been no similar assault on the liquor industry. Maybe it's coming. Or maybe it is a less attractive political target because a majority of people drink, while only a minority smoke.

I think that as long as tobacco is a legal business, it should be treated as such. We can't have tobacco as a legal product, and then treat those who produce it as quasi-criminals. In any case, I strongly disagree with the premise, which has also been tried with guns, that the manufacturers of a product are responsible for what those who buy the product do with it. We need personal responsibility, not to make companies responsible for all our actions, just as some are trying to make McDonald's responsible for the fact that they're fat-azz messes.

I agree that the responsibility should primarily lie with the consumer, as long as there is full and fair information available to the consumer, but regarding tobacco, the companies were still denying until a few years ago that tobacco was even addictive at all.

[A18]

Everyone using tobacco has known full damn well it's addictive.

[??????????]

Everyone using tobacco has known full damn well it's addictive.

Not necessarily true. I do use tobacco though I don't smoke. And I can quit or start using at my own lesuire. I guess for weak willed people its pretty addictive. But if you have a strong will you probably don't have to worry to much about addictions.

[Alcon]

Everyone using tobacco has known full damn well it's addictive.

Not necessarily true. I do use tobacco though I don't smoke. And I can quit or start using at my own lesuire. I guess for weak willed people its pretty addictive. But if you have a strong will you probably don't have to worry to much about addictions.

Yeah, because weak-willed people are completely immune to chemical changes in their mental status?

No one is immune from addiction. Some people just do not get addicted to certain things easily - not because of "will," but because of biology. It's all luck.

[??????????]

Everyone using tobacco has known full damn well it's addictive.

Not necessarily true. I do use tobacco though I don't smoke. And I can quit or start using at my own lesuire. I guess for weak willed people its pretty addictive. But if you have a strong will you probably don't have to worry to much about addictions.

Yeah, because weak-willed people are completely immune to chemical changes in their mental status?

No one is immune from addiction. Some people just do not get addicted to certain things easily - not because of "will," but because of biology. It's all luck.

Addiction is not chemical. Its a issue of a persons strong will and self esteem.

[Alcon]

Everyone using tobacco has known full damn well it's addictive.

Not necessarily true. I do use tobacco though I don't smoke. And I can quit or start using at my own lesuire. I guess for weak willed people its pretty addictive. But if you have a strong will you probably don't have to worry to much about addictions.

Yeah, because weak-willed people are completely immune to chemical changes in their mental status?

No one is immune from addiction. Some people just do not get addicted to certain things easily - not because of "will," but because of biology. It's all luck.

Addiction is not chemical. Its a issue of a persons strong will and self esteem.

It is partially, but it is primarily chemical. Mental procees are part of the chemical aspect. Please do not tell me you actually believe that people are only addicted because they are weak.

[??????????]

Everyone using tobacco has known full damn well it's addictive.

Not necessarily true. I do use tobacco though I don't smoke. And I can quit or start using at my own lesuire. I guess for weak willed people its pretty addictive. But if you have a strong will you probably don't have to worry to much about addictions.

Yeah, because weak-willed people are completely immune to chemical changes in their mental status?

No one is immune from addiction. Some people just do not get addicted to certain things easily - not because of "will," but because of biology. It's all luck.

Addiction is not chemical. Its a issue of a persons strong will and self esteem.

It is partially, but it is primarily chemical. Mental procees are part of the chemical aspect. Please do not tell me you actually believe that people are only addicted because they are weak.

Their may be some people that get chemically addicted (meth, coke, etc). But I believe the majority of people that are hooked on tobacco, alcohol, etc are just weak willed people.

[Alcon]

Everyone using tobacco has known full damn well it's addictive.

Not necessarily true. I do use tobacco though I don't smoke. And I can quit or start using at my own lesuire. I guess for weak willed people its pretty addictive. But if you have a strong will you probably don't have to worry to much about addictions.

Yeah, because weak-willed people are completely immune to chemical changes in their mental status?

No one is immune from addiction. Some people just do not get addicted to certain things easily - not because of "will," but because of biology. It's all luck.

Addiction is not chemical. Its a issue of a persons strong will and self esteem.

It is partially, but it is primarily chemical. Mental procees are part of the chemical aspect. Please do not tell me you actually believe that people are only addicted because they are weak.

Their may be some people that get chemically addicted (meth, coke, etc). But I believe the majority of people that are hooked on tobacco, alcohol, etc are just weak willed people.

Well, there's a great deal of science that would disagree with you, but whatever.

[USERNAME]

Senator Nym:

“I strongly support gun rights….”

No, sir, you do not.

“If a gun has no legitimate hunting, sporting, or self-defense purpose, it shouldn’t be legal in my opinion.”

This sets up the government as the arbiter of who gets to decide what guns, if any, are allowed.  A very dangerous situation.

Strike One!

“I see no problem, however, with reasonable waiting periods and background checks; these will only act as a deterrent against criminals and those who are buying a gun on an impulse, which obviously is a bad situation.”

There are too many cases of individuals who found themselves the victims of stalkers who ended up dead because of waiting periods.  And too many people who found an urgent need for a gun to defend their homes and businesses in a riot situation who were told they would have to wait essentially until the riot was over and their livelihood destroyed before the waiting period would expire.  And the only background check that should be allowed is NICS.

Strike Two!

“I also don't see why guns can't be registered; cars are, and that doesn't seem to cause a huge problem for most people. Of course, the use of new technologies should make such registration for cars and guns alike as easy and painless as possible so as to not terribly inconvenience anyone.”

The entire history of the world on gun registration is, first registration, then confiscation.  And what could make confiscation easier than the registration list?  How’s that for inconvenience?  And the car analogy is odious.  No one is lobbying to confiscate cars.

I have no idea what you could have possibly meant by your opening statement. 

Strike Three!  You’re Out!

[Machiavelli]

The clear Final Solution is to kill them.

[Rob]

The clear Final Solution is to kill them.

Who are you really? I'm curious.