Riots in PA if Bush wins the State? (this thread is now entirely about gun control)
 

"Supporter: I'm just worried there's going to be riots afterwards.

Liz Edwards: Uh.....well...not if we win."


http://www.drudgereport.com/dncee.htm

They've sunk pretty low...."vote for our guy, or we'll burn your city to the ground and loot you!"

On the plus side in many states you can shoot looters.

I'm starting to think Bush is going to loose do to voter fraud, the election will be that close, but at least we won't be causing large scale damage. Bush has already had a good number of campign HQ's 'attacked', it will only get worse.

Peace and tolerance my ass.

It's amazing that "Uh.....well....not if we win" can be turned into "vote for our guy, or we'll burn your city to the ground and loot you".

But "There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." (Cheney) isn't a blatant attempt to create disinformation to fan the flames of fear, considering the only connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda was nothing more than a rebuked attempt at establishing a relationship, as initiated by Al Qaeda.

This is insane. Look at what she said, and how she said it! She's thinking the whole riot thing is pretty stupid too. Nowhere does she say "vote for us or there will be riots!"

Get real folks.

She could have said "don't worry, there will not be riots". She didn't, she said "not if we win".

She could have said a lot of things. But she didn't. And she CERTAINLY didn't say anything even CLOSE to what you stated.

As is, what she has done is provide a promise (which may very well be beyond her capability to uphold) that, if Kerry/Edwards does indeed win, there will be no riots.

Maybe you're disappointed because Bush/Cheney aren't promising no riots if they win?

Or maybe you just like to take comments of your opposition entirely and completely out of context in order to meet your agenda.

she implied that if Kerry loses, there WILL be riots.

The Bush\Cheney supporters probably want a riot so they can try out their brand new assault weapons.

"Hey Joe! Come look at this AK-47 I just bought at the local flea-market!"

"Wow that's awesome Ned! What do you kill with it?"

"Squirrles."

"Squirrles... alright! I'll bet those furry little bastards didn't even know what hit 'em!"

"Nope! And if Bush doesn't win Pennsylvania next week, I'm gonna run out in to street and shoot random democrats!"

"Whew, that brings a tear to my eye. By exorcising your second amendment rights, you are being a true patriot!"

"Yeah, well... I try my best. Oh yeah did you see the twelve story tall flag pole I put in front of my house and the ten Bush\Cheney bumper stickers that I covered my car in?"

:D

Geez talk about spin... nothing to see here.

Didn't cheney say that we'd be attacked by terrorists if kerry won?

Um. No.

She implied that she guaranteed no riots if Kerry won. Clearly she cannot guarantee anything if Kerry loses as she and Kerry will have no power. She did not even say that there was a lower likelyhood of riots if Kerry won, which would have been an actual comparison to either a Kerry or Bush presidency.

And that marks the end of my part in this ridiculous discussion.

Drudge Report isn't really a legit news source.

Remember that if you try to loot a place with Bush/Cheney stickers.... ;)

"Perhaps it's just the way the light falls
But everything looks like a target to me
And I don't know where the gun is
But I'm certain that it's pointed at me "--Clutch

They have the audio from c-span up...how much more do you need for legitimacy???

Right. What she DIDN'T say was "I hope Democrats wouldn't riot regardless of the outcome", what she DID say is that Democrats wouldn't riot if they won.

Let's look at the "she guaranteed no riots if Kerry won" statement. That would suggest that she wouldn't expect the Republican constituencies to riot, win or lose, but that she would only say the same about the Democratic constituencies if they won.

this is idiotic.
and in addition to the idiocy of the druge report in general, and this article in particular, we get ustwo fantasizing about a bloodbath in the streets.
way to go folks.

Opie and daswig, it's good to have you guys back.

Roits are overrated. That woman doesn't scare me. Luckely the police in my city have great tactics to subside roits.

Thanks.

I've been in several riots. I'm talking city-wide looting situations. They were "hold what you got" scenarios. Strangely enough, the places where I was never got looted, and I didn't even have to open fire. Go figure.

Drudge cites C-span as recording the exchange and provides an audio link to her saying it. I guess C-span just made it up, eh?

This didn't start well and is already heading downwards.

The fact that she said what she said is indesputable, but the comments here are beyond that and getting personal...again.

Maybe we should just close the board and ban political posts until after the election.

...................

I think what Ms. Edwards really meant was that nobody would be all that excited if Kerry won, so there would be no one out in the streets.

I don't see how someone could be so foolish to say that they could stop a riot...Just wait and see if the Red Sox win the World Series, who could control Boston?

seriously, i would not waste my time trying to figure out if there will be demonstrations or not in the streets next week should bush manage somehow to win. just as you had no way of anticipating the debacle in florida last time out, we will all have to wait and see how things shake out. what kind of circus it is this time around.

too often police do not make any rel distinction betwene protest and riot. too often police actions tip things from one into another. i would not take any particular solace in the ability of militarized urban police force to react in a coherent manner to protests, should they occur.

but if i were you, i would worry much more about the political consequences of electoral shenanigans, should they transpire. and i would worry in particular about those consequences if it turns out that bush "wins" another deeply flawed election. those consequences will not be enacted and contained in any given series of street actions. those consequences will drive a far more radical wedge between positions than anything you have seen up to now. no amount of police actions will change that.

which puts me in the curious position of hoping for an election with minimal problems. one that bush looses, of course.

BTW, video of the event and her comments are available at http://www.c-span.org

Click on "RWH: Elizabeth Edwards Town Hall Meeting (10/24/2004)". She makes the comment at 1:24:24-1:24:30 in the tape.

So the whole "Drudge is unreliable" thing doesn't hold water...

I'm not wasting time worrying about if there will be riots. I've already got enough magazines and belts loaded to deal with whatever happens around my neighborhood. :thumbsup:

i assume that you are joking, daswig.

It was just a rediculous comment all together. She has no power over a mass of people on the brink of rioting. An empty promise.

Perhaps its time to recognize "fearmongering" is a tactic used by politicians regardless of party affiliation.

We aren't refuting the exact quotes.

We are calling into question the very liberal interpretation Drudge takes with the quotes.

It borders on insanity.

Unfortunately, that's a forlorn hope. Both the Democrats and Republicans are planning on fighting this out in the courts if it's remotely close. And given the level of voter fraud we've seen so far (for example, the NAACP paying people for bogus voter registrations with crack cocaine, and the Republicans leaving Kerry off some absentee ballots) I can't envision a scenario where this election does NOT end up in the courts.

I'm expecting voter fraud to be widespread on both sides. And I think the election is going to either be a Bush blowout, or else resolved by which side cheats better.

Yea, this one will go down in history either way.

What, about the loaded belts and magazines? Nope, dead serious. I always keep a goodly supply of "ready ammo" Currently, I think I've got a hair over 20K rounds (mostly) belted or in magazines for the various guns floating around the house. I live in a very bad neighborhood, and I'd much rather cut a crowd down than let them harm my wife and child. What's nice is that the law backs me up in this.

I don't anticipate any real problems here. My neighbors all think I'm completely insane(why else would a lawyer live where I do?), and they know that I'm heavily armed (when I moved into the neighborhood and the safe guy delivered the gunsafes, they noticed it since he blocked the street. Plus, I buy my ammo by the palletload, and it takes me a while to move it from the curb where the shippers drop it off into the armory.), so they go out of their way to respect the boundaries I set, so that I don't shoot them when they break the law.

i have no idea where you get the idea that the election will be a "bush blowout"--i assume that is based on no information whatsoever.
it is not reflected in any poll, anywhere, either national or international.

i do however think that much is at stake in this election. and i reiterate the argument that a second shaky bush "win" would be a disaster for all of us. the kind of thing your private arsenal would do nothing to change.

On a completely irrelevant sidenote, if zombies do ever take over a la "dawn of the dead", you will have to give me your address.

Sorry, we're booked solid for the end of the world. :D

S'allright, i doubt i would make it that far in my civic. :D

I base it on my recollection of the events surrounding the 1988 presidential campaign.

Actually, a better parallel would be 1992.

BTW, I don't keep so much "ready ammo" around in case there's going to be trouble. Realistically, I doubt that if there was trouble, I'd need more than 100 rounds ready to go. But I do like going to the range, and sometimes am able to go on very short notice. Since I burn through 10-15K rounds in an average couple of hours at the range, I keep it ready to go so that I don't have to spend valuable range time loading belts, which is a time-consuming process.

a 6 second soundbite isolated by drudge and presented as if it was free-standing, twisted around by conservatives into being either a call for something like riots---which is absurd----or a prognostication--which is also absurd---the effect of which is to let gun fetishists here dream about how nice it would be to mow down people who disagree with them politically on the streets...that is what we have here?

why do i waste my time here again?

10 to 15 THOUSAND rounds in a couple hours? What do you do, point and spray? Do you park a vw bug on the range and just go to town on it?

Second question: How much money do you estimate you toss out in a day like that?

Superbelt, that's what a lot of my toys were designed for. Many of them don't have a provision for semi-automatic fire, they're full auto only. (They're all "papered", btw...) I figure that on a good range day I blow a thousand bucks plus just on ammo (by the palletload, I get surplus 8mm mauser for $.04 a round, but I shoot some other calibers too, which may run as much as $.10 a round). And we do sometimes shoot cars, boats, dishwashers, refrigerators, and sometimes 55 gallon drums of diesel fuel with dynamite strapped to it (we have to get a blasting permit for that, which is a pain in the ass, but "do-able", or we go to certain ranges where they have the permits already.)

Context may be key to honest understanding, but it appears to be frequently forgotten around here.

You do realize that 15K in 2 hrs. = average of 2 rounds per sec. for 2 hrs with no timeout to reload? Thats some quality range time there.

Um, where the hell is that legal?
Are you Colombian?

How OFTEN do you do this, blowing over $1k at a pass?

With my favorite gun, I can go through 600 rounds a minute for long periods of time, INCLUDING time to change barrels every 250 rounds, which takes under 5 seconds. It's ROF is a theoretical 900 rpm. On other guns, I can go through 600 rounds a minute indefinitely, until all of the water in the jacket and reservoir are gone. Another gun of mine that's magazine fed runs 1200 RPM.

It's one thing to go through that kind of ammo on a semi-auto gun that takes a magazine. It's an entirely different thing to do it with a belt-fed weapon that's water-cooled or air-cooled with a quick-change barrel.

daswig, where do you live?
What state, and are you in a city, suburbs or shack in the woods?

No, I'm not Columbian. Machineguns are legal in most of the country, and most of the country allows for issuance of blasting permits. Big cities don't, but they do here.

I dunno how often I go out, there's no set number. I do know that I generally buy palletloads of ammo 3-4 times a year. A palletload generally runs ~100K rounds of rifle ammo, considerably more for pistol ammo. The most ammo I've ever bought at one pop was 5 pallets of 8mm mauser, and that lasted me for a year, but it was a complete and total pain in the ass to move and store from the curb to the armory. I don't have a forklift, just a handtruck, so now I just do it one pallet at a time.

I'm in rural Virginia, within town limits. I have one entire floor of my 4 story house (~5000 sq.ft. total) set aside for guns and stuff, plus a separate building for really heavy stuff that I don't want to run on the staircases.

BTW, I often have people on the Internet say "BS" when I tell them about my shooting habits/toys. Down in the weapons forum, the Dunedan did that, so I took a pic of the first three guns out of the safe, slapped a caption thing on it, and fired it off. Here's the pic:

<img src="http://onfinite.com/libraries/90018/010.jpg" /img>

If you look at the gun on the left, you'll notice that it's a MG-34 fully automatic belt-fed weapon (my favorite toy) that shoots 900 rounds a minute theoretically. Do some research on the gun, and you'll understand that I'm not joking. It's a HUNGRY bitch to feed.

Once again, I'm a former SOT, and ALL of my stuff is legal.

Excellent news. I'm in California.

Yes, because, you know, daswig has a personal vendetta against you... :rolleyes:

You don't have to worry about someone that the law allows to have machine guns hosing you down with lead. You only have to worry about the gang bangers with their illegal machine guns making you an innocent bystander.

Cool. I've done a fair bit of business with SOTs (my left-coast counterparts) in California. I may not live by you, but odds are pretty good that somebody like me does. :thumbsup:

Excellent, I will contact you when the moment of revolution is at hand!

And to think I've been to lazy to get the .223 I was going to buy to teach my wife how to shoot, of course in the long run that might be a bad thing :lol:

To hell with riots, if Bush wins, we will be at more wars, spreading more havoc, killing more people. You would end up wishing for a riot instead.

And with Kerry we will put our heads back in the sand and fight a bigger war in the future to clean up the mess.

And we wouldn't have that with Kerry? i thought Kerry was a hawk, making big grumbling noises about Iran and North Korea because they have or are close to having nukes. You mean that ain't true???

Not necessarially, but at least his focus is on the right countries, ones who have or are pursuing WMD programs.

Bush was focused on Iraq and Syria, who have none.

Sorry, I'm planning on sitting out the revolution, unless it comes within my house's fields of fire looking like it wants to harm me and mine.

I'm very easy to live with as a neighbor. You do your thing, I'll do mine. But if you set foot on my land, you'd better have a damned good reason to be there, or you will be arrested (or worse, if the situation warrants it).

/never got into that whole "Dial 911 and die!" thing.

On a side note I am looking for a good starter weapon for my wife, I'll PM ya. I own no firearms and my thing was bows, but currently I'm am defenseless if you don't count my rapier wit.

LOL..... Now that is funny. In '88 noone believed Dukakis would win.Even when he was close Willie Blair and the tank picture didn't even make it close. And you want to compare this to that one. OK.

Plus in '88 the Dems knew that Bush would have to raise taxes and that there would be some form of economic turmoil. I campaigned in '88 and I know many many Dems. in Ohio that said they'd rather lose in '88 and win in '92 because they knew the economy was on a downturn.

As for the post..... sounded like a loaded question and I don't think Cheney or Bush would have answered much differently THEMSELVES let alone their wives. In fact given what Cheney HAS said in the past he would have promised riots if Bush didn't win (America will be attacked if Kerry is elected). To make this to be anymore than a loaded question and a no win answer situation that was a setup to try to scare and sway voters to Bush is total desperation.

But I will say after reading some righty's posts we may as well all just fucking buy guns and have a civil war right now. Some of you sound like you want to just start killing people who don't believe the way you do, so much for freedom and respecting differences, huh?

There's a considerable difference between saying "If we lose, our foreign enemies will attack us again" and saying "If we lose, our american supporters will riot". A terrorist attack is NOT a riot under any definition I've ever heard.

Once Kerry takes office, what makes you think you'll be able to buy guns? Remember this? <img src="http://keepandbeararms.com/images/Kerry004.jpg" img>

Those who have them will have them, and those who don't will not. Hey, that's OK with me, considering just how underarmed the Liberals are. Ever hear of the "Marianas turkey shoot"? Gun nuts against liberals....what kind of odds would a betting person give for such a civil war? Remember one of the gun nut's unofficial mottos: "We burn more ammo by ten AM than most third world countries do all day." Another favorite: "Vote from the rooftops". Another favorite: MOLON LABE!!! :icare:

I'll bet you a dollar most of them have to Google it and will feel it was a bad thing :)

As a side note, Kerry won't touch guns, hell he won't be able to (Republican congress hehe) but he won't do anything to prevent cities from pretending their laws > the bill of rights.

Ustwo, I'd bet, but I think that the Liberals who actually know what it was STILL will think it was a very bad thing. ;)

Republicans are not uniformly pro-gun. Take my own Senator John "Scumbag" Warner (R).

Yea, we have some sheep in wolves clothing out there, but as a rule most are pro gun ownership, and NO republican congress would dream of passing any gun law of substance. Added Kerry has tried SO hard to pretend he is a hunter I don't see him trying to undo that before 2008.

If he is smart he will have learned the Clinton lesson. Clinton was a flaming liberal for the first 2 years and he cost the democrats the house, which they held for 40 years. They can't afford that kind of mistake again or it will be the Republicans there for 40 years.

Gawd, I hope not. My best-case scenario is the house and senate evenly divided, with a third party President.

Either that, or for every new law passed, they have to repeal 2.

The more tied in knots our government is, the better off we are.

Indeed.

We have a whole forum for weapons - why is this thread located in Politics?

Where's a mod when you need them?

It's obvious that the intent of publically fantasizing about murdering ones political enemies is to shock. I'm not shocked, but I wish we could drop the false outrage when someone else uses such language. "Hate filled liberals" indeed.

Righties talk like this and wonder why a majority of the US wants to see some form of gun control.

Please quote the language that is "publicly fantasizing about murdering ones (sic) political enemies". I certainly haven't posted anything that fits that bill, and I don't recall reading any other post that fits such a bill. And in case you didn't realize this (not intended as sarcasm, I'm merely unsure how much attention you pay to this), gun control is indeed a HUGE political issue, one which kept Gore from winning by a clear majority in 2000 according to his people.

Does this sound familiar? It should, you just wrote it....

Yeah, pretty funny. I particularly like "vote from the rooftops." It has such a nice lone nut feel to it.

I didn't mention gun control, but that never stopped you from bringing it up out of the blue before, so why should I be surprised now?

Cthulu, how is that "publicly fantasizing about murdering ones (sic) political enemies", especially when I stated a few posts up that if there was a revolution, I was sitting it out, and only defending my house, wife, and child?

BTW, the slogans I quoted are all slogans that are found on T-shirts floating around, except that the MOLON LABE ones are in the original ancient greek.

My statement stands regardless of the backstory.

I'm not trying to imply that you really are some crazed gun nut, but some of the things that you post can be pretty offensive and overloaded (yes, I know that this is the internet). Maybe we could all use a little more perspective.

I couldn't agree more. Yikes.

Frankly, I think it's a matter of you reading what you want to read, rather than what was actually written. That's OK. I don't think "gleeful fantasy" accurately describes any post I've made here. If there was widespread civil unrest and it ended up affecting me, it would be a huge pain in my ass. I know, I've "been there, done that" before. It sucked then, and it would suck in November, regardless of how relatively well prepared I am.

Heh. Yup, the "majority" of the US wants gun control....which is why the 1994 AW ban/Brady Bill cost the Democrats control of Congress....

Actualy daswig, pan is using a strawman type of argument. I'm sure a majority of Americans want SOME form of gun control. I for one don't want convicted violent felons to be able to legally own a fire arm, by default that is a form of gun control. Its also a far cry from what a liberal would call gun control.

I'd have thought that after Clinton's 1995 SOTU address where he talked about the seats they lost in Congress because of gun control, Dems would have learned...

So you're saying that the "Republican Revolution," which had been a work in progress for politicians and think-tanks for years, was solely because of the Brady Bill and the AWB? Even I think that Newt deserves a little more credit than that.

Hey, don't take my word for it, read what Bill Clinton said in 1995:

That doesn't prove that the Brady bill and the AWB were the ONLY reason for the Republican victories in 1994. I seem to remember relentess noise emitted over a balanced budget, lessening regulation, defunding "big government," rolling back environmental protections, etc. Let's not oversimplify history, please.

So what's your excuse as to why Gore lost Tenn. (his home state) and West Virginia in 2000?

I didn't say that gun control had no affect but I don't think that you can lay the credit at the feet of a SINGLE issue for either the "Republican Revolution" or whatever states Gore lost.

You want to piss off a couple of a million voters in one fell swoop? Gun control is the way to do it. Why do you think Kerry is backpeddling on gun control so furiously with his "dead goose" and "dead pheasant" photo-ops?

Look at the numbers. There are around 100 million gun owners in the US. By law, they're all eligible to vote, since disqualifications for gun ownership are also largely disqualifications for voting. If only 10% of them are against gun control, that's 10 million votes against an anti-gun candidate nation-wide. That kind of handicap is very hard to overcome.

Daswig -

If you're implying that politicians that support gun control are suseptible to public opinion, then the inverse would, by necessity, be true.

So are you worried about the hopes for politicians that do not support gun control like the AWB, based on this reality:
And how does your theory on the downfall of Democrats mesh with this reality:
Clear majorities have consistently prefered stricter gun control.

All from:
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Given the reality of where gun control is and is not popular (It's popular in the urban northeast and California, and the political kiss of death in much of the rest of the country) it's entirely possible that those numbers are correct. Of course, polls are only as accurate as the pollsters and their samples.

BTW, didja notice how a few hundred people that showed up in DC (as reported by NPR) became the "Million Mom March" in 2004 to "Stop the Assault!"? Looks like a LOT of the "Million Moms" done run away...or became "Security Moms" on 9/11.

Clinton said that gun control cost the Democrats seats in Congress. Donna Brazille (sp? I'm talking about the african-american female Gore advisor/pundit) said gun control cost Gore the 2000 election by keeping him from winning his home state, which would have made Florida irrelevant. Why should I take your word over their word?

If dems want to keep pushing gun control on a national basis, that's fine with me. :D

Or not:
And would ya look at that - 68% in West Virginia supported the renewal.

And look at that Military support for the renewal.

ROTFLMAO!!! YOU QUOTED METZENBAUM!!!!!! :lol:

He's quoting a study by the "Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence". :lol:


I'm sure if you quoted Al Wallace in 1964, he'd have said that 85% of all Americans opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, too...


I'm sorry, but you're argument isn't going to get you anywhere if you quote sources as obviously biased as that. :lol:

I can't stop giggling!!! Thanks for making my evening!!!! I'm waiting for you to trot out Bellesiles and Kellermann next!!! :thumbsup:

Maybe you have some other numbers which could demonstrate this to be incorrect instead of simply assigning them as incorrect because you don't like the organization that provided them.

Or maybe that would require concerted effort as opposed to the ease of clicking a smiley face button 100 times.

And if you think you've been effective, I'll try to remember this tactic of yours anytime someone quotes Limbaugh/Drudge/Coulter - blast 'em with the impressive logic of a purple laughing cartoon graphic.

Thread locked. If you can't play nice, you don't get to play at all.