Hereno

No but seriously, if you're actually worried about the lolectoral process, this is what you should be angry about.

Who gives a !@#$ if gun deaths go down if all the other murder weapons see increases? And who gives a !@#$ about what you think?Nevertheless, let's answer that statement. What a stupid response to me pointing out the lack of logic in your argument. If your goal is making society better, that is generally done with an overall decrease in the murder rate; not an increase in the murder rate but a lower use of guns to kill people.

Is there anything in that article about how the voting machines are so easily hackable that sperm could rig it?

Who gives a !@#$ if gun deaths go down if all the other murder weapons see increases?

http://iget2work.com/unemploymentclock.html Want to go add 50,000-130,000 to this? Let's call that 62,750,000 because it goes up over time. Taking the highest number that you came up with out of your ass, 130,000 is .2% of that. An amount that falls well within the margin of error (margin of error of only 2% which would be unheard of... would be +/- 1,255,000).

Why on earth would the US government spend millions of dollars to fix a problem that isn't a problem at all?

I mean, if we legalized cannibalism and fed the homeless into a meat grinder we could create jobs and lower unemployment but somehow I feel like the jobs aspect isn't what anybody gives a !@#$ about here or in the gun control debate.

Maybe our government should pay for that, too? http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Okay, this was funny. (I'm out of likes for today)

I'm all about being anti-government and pro-bearing arms, but somewhere between the "items are more valuable than people" and transphobia you've lost me entirely. Who knows, the guy breaking into my house could be a hitman from a cartel trying to kill me for supporting the requirement of IDs to vote. Doubtful, but could be. Items are more valuable than people. So, would you save a blind man from walking into a street or save a blood truck that crashed? The blood truck will save more people, but it's an item. The blood in the truck is only valuable because it can save human lives. If you can only think of objects being more important than people in situations where the large value of the object is derived from its ability to assist in sustaining human life, that's pretty much proving my point in and of itself. Killing someone who is trying to destroy a truck full of blood headed for a hospital is one thing. It is another entirely to suggest lethal force be used to defend a television. You would be better off sticking to the point that home invaders often use or threaten to use lethal force, as pretty much everyone sans Gandhi is content with defending yourself. The point gets interesting when we talk about, say, the moral grey area in which a person might kill someone for trying to burn down a library or destroy irreplaceable artifacts that could be of great use to us in one way or another. Of course, I'm not in favor of the "gun control" being suggested in this thread, either. I just thought you made a really weak counter-argument.

I'm all about being anti-government and pro-bearing arms, but somewhere between the "items are more valuable than people" and transphobia you've lost me entirely.

If you want to institute a poll tax, you're going to have to amend the Constitution first. End of story. I understand your pathological hatred of Democrats (they are, after all, Socialist Nazi Muslim New World Order agents who want to take your guns, your money and your jobs and give them to black illegal immigrants with their Obamaphones), but the US Constitution trumps your opinion. Not a poll tax. If Obama sees the 2nd Amendment not specificately say that all guns are allowed, then requiring an ID that costs money isn't a poll tax. Pick one. Can't have it both ways. This is like the weirdest false dichotomy ever.

Guns are much more lethal in trained hands than in untrained hands. If someone is going to go on a shooting spree, you want it to be someone without any firearms training; not some ex-marine sharpshooter.

I think asking "why shouldn't this be illegal?" is a dumb position to go down. Things are legal by default; until a government makes a law saying that something is illegal and then enforcing that law on the population.

Pretty much. The problem is that the difference between Red and Blue states is a lot like the difference between Coke and Pepsi. One might taste a bit better, but at the end of the day, they're both still rotting your teeth out.

Being important doesn't mean you're awesome; it means you're important. I agree, but the whole way the US government was originally set up was to keep one state from being more important than another. I know things have changed since the 1800s, but that was the purpose of senators and representatives. The purpose of senators was to represent each state equally in the legislature. The purpose of representatives was to represent the US population in the legislature. The purpose of the legislature is to further the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the vulnerable. None of this refutes the fact that Texas is more important than a lot of other states for various other reasons. Next.

Being important doesn't mean you're awesome; it means you're important.

Texas has over 8% of the US population in it and is the second biggest state by pop. in the union (and growing faster than any other state). It isn't really important compared to which other states?

Why?