Since liberals don't think honest citizens can be trusted to own firearms, presumably because we are all so violent, how about we just medicate the masses instead in order to reduce the violence?
[/sarcasm]

There was another shooting in Houston today.  Details are scarce which tells me that someone doesn't want us to know anything about the culprit.  I wonder why that could be.

Why medicate when you can indoctrinate in the public school system?

Courts have established that qualified individuals have a constitutional right to vote. The proposal to "wipe the slate clean" every four years and make people re-register is essentially a mass revocation of that right from many who are known factually to be eligible. I don't see how it would ever survive the scrutiny of the courts.

Wiping the rolls clean and requiring reregistration can hardly be considered a "mass revocation".   Sorry, that's really stretching there.   

 

The odds of my home being victim to some sort of armed incursion are laughably small.  And I am not sufficiently stupid to risk my life defending insured property.

It's not the odds, it's the stakes. And it's less about defending insured property than defending your life.  Just a few blocks from my mother's house someone entered the home of an elderly lady and killed her, then took her property. I can list many other stories close to me,  including the young pregnant wife of my coworker, kidnapped, forced to get money from the ATM, then killed and her body dumped over a bridge into a river.  THAT funeral was a heartbreaker. By the way, she was white, they were black, but that doesn't make me hate all blacks or go riot in the streets. It does alert me to the level of hatred from SOME blacks toward whites, but I don't discriminate; I'm equally alert to white threats. My brother was approached alone in a dark parking lot by men (white) who began to flank him with obvious ill intent. He let the breeze blow open his jacket to reveal his pistol, and they stopped, backed off and left.  So you don't even need to USE a gun for it to save you. You don't even need to show it, hell, you don't even need to own one for gun rights to be protecting you. In areas where gun carry is legal your chance of being a victim is greatly reduced.  You're welcome.

I can't tell you the exact odds of my ever needing a gun, but it's simple and easy enough insurance to have. If it ever happens, I am ready, and I will live to enjoy my grandchildren. 

You're wrong, of course. Unless you're a single issue voter, voting is a process of understanding what a candidate's issues and proposals are, and determining whether enough good or potential good outweighs the bad or potential bad (and there is always some bad). You see it happening all over this board vis a vis Trump.

So, for example, you see Conservatives on this board opting to support Trump even though he has previously espoused, and is currently espousing, Liberal positions, including support of gun control. Are they advocating gun control by supporting Trump? How about his Liberal, unfunded tax break? You tell me!

I am a single issue voter with the 2A because that protects all the others.  Yes, Trump has flip flopped in the past on gun control.  However, he is at least saying all the right things. 

Hillary has PROMISED Australian style bans, and confiscations, and promised she will pack the SCOTUS with far left, radical, anti Constitution justices.  Lesser of to weevils.  I know what I will get with Hillary, and that is Oppressive, Communist, Racist, anti American policies like Obama, only worse.  She will take away legally owned firearms so we don't even have that to resist.  Well bring it on!

As a liberal, Asechrest tends to be more thoughtful and fair and balanced. In my experience he is no partisan hack.  Thus my shock at his take on the two statements.

Thanks for that. Hillary called half of Trump supporters irredeemable deplorables. Romney called half the country lazy, stupid, moochers (that it was in context of his campaign tactics is no consolation).

After further consideration I'll retract my statement that Romney's comments were worse and decline to compare them. Instead I'll just say that both statements were stupid and inaccurate, and Clinton's should have just as much political consequence as Romney's, though I don't know that it will.

There wasn't near the racial divisiveness under George W Bush is there is under Obama.  It is purposeful, and pathetic. 

Sounds like you're saying that I can't depend on the courts to sort this out. I'm not a complaintant nor defendant. I'm an observer.

No, you're the target audience.  And the fact that you listened and then posted it here as "racism" shows that they got you.

For all those Donald supporters.  Is there a Rosetta stone or magic decoder ring that would allow us to figure out when the Donald is just using bluster, opinion, sarcasm, or just otherwise joking?  How to we tell what he truly believes?  There have been so many contradictions, deflections and walk-backs that it gets pretty confusing to sort this out.