Yeah, but you're forgetting the selection bias of the media who generally whole heartily believe in anthropocentric global warming. They are far less likely to put a farmer on that says that climate change might be happening but he doesn't believe humans are the cause.

Neither given the implication that Tea Party members would somehow be in favor of intrusive government action in other areas, which they are not in general.

Doubly so if the allusion was towards TSA 'enhanced' stuff, support of which would seem to be nigh incompatible with Tea Party philosophy.

And I can buy any gun I can afford and not have to pass any background check or hear about how my gun is too "deadly" and has too many "assault features"? The same as I can buy a 1000HP super car if I have the money, right?

So, if we treat guns like we treat cars yes you might have to register (to carry in public places as car registration isn't required merely to own) have a license (also to carry in public places as you don't need a license to drive on private property) and perhaps insurance (again, only required to carry in public as I don't have to insure my car sitting in the drive way). I can also buy a .50 heavy machine gun on a cash and carry basis along with whatever else I can afford.

Somehow I doubt very much that's the direction you want this analogy to go, no?

I'm saying one cannot call for equal rights and gender blind policies and then immediately turn around and call for unequal rights and gender based policies. It is either one or the other as they are mutually exclusive. It's the same really with 'affirmative action' or anything else which seeks to determine policy based race, sex, creed, sexual preference or anything related. Either you want a world in which those things do not matter as much as the character of the person or you don't. Either everyone competes and is treated equally regardless of those factors or they are not.

One can argue all they want that child birth is harder on women and that they therefore should get more time off, but if they do then they never ever get to argue again for 'equal rights' or 'gender blind policies'. Further, when that logic is accepted don't be shocked when someone comes along and says that they should be able to refuse to hire women, because they're women, because they'll end up costing them more money and harming productivity.

Ah, so you're from the camp that defines equal in whatever what you want. So, women should get the same pay as a man for the same job (they should), they should have the same chance for a promotion as an equally qualified man (they should). Oh, they should get the same time off as a man? No, they get more because they're women.

Your logic could also be easily used to justify lower pay for women (they tend to get pregnant and leave you in a lurch), fewer promotions (same reason) and probably other things I haven't thought of.

You cannot argue for equal rights between the genders and then turn around and say that a clearly unequal policy is equal because it "tends to fall on gender lines". Policies are either racially and gender blind or they are not. I'm not saying whether I'm for or against women getting more time off. What I am saying is that you cannot simply construct some backwards logic to say that this is 'equal' in the manner in which it is unequal and therefore not discrimination.

The policy at hand is clearly discriminatory and blatantly unequal. Whether that is a bad thing or not I leave as a separate question but by supporting the policy you support discrimination and unequal policies and there is no way around that.

And when those who provide, create and actually work refuse to give those who are lazy and do nothing the fruits of their efforts what then?

There's a word for those who work solely for the benefit of others with little to no practical choice but to do so. Slaves.

The thing is the Dems wanted to increase spending and raise taxes on "the rich" with no real cuts and no real decrease in spending. The point above is still valid. With government sucking up more and more money all the time there is absolutely no reason or way to justify giving them even more to piss away.

Cut spending. Real honest cuts. Only after cuts are passed and in effect should any increases in revenue be discussed.

Why should anyone owe you a job? Why does the world owe you anything at all? Why should these things be anyone's problem but yours?

Police are training constantly? Really? Are you sure about that? Given anecdotal 'evidence' says that police actually don't practice or train anywhere near as much as you might think, which google searches backup, I'm not sure you can say they train constantly. On the other hand most CCW people tend to go to the range at least once a month if not more frequently than that.

No, of course not and I didn't say they were. :P

Only paranoid people only "assault rifles"? Huh.

It mainly doesn't count because you're attempting to compare and equate a group who makes a life of breaking the law and semi-indiscriminate violence to a group that is generally more law abiding than the general public and frequently more so than the police and with lower incidents of violence.

Your point about crossfire is true, but unless you can point up a case where it's happened with concealed carriers I'm not sure it is a valid comparison. In the cases where CCWs have had to defend themselves there aren't any that I'm aware of where innocents have been hit.

What online stores and wal-marts have you been going to? LoL.

When you can't even find bricks of .22LR I'd say there's a bit of a shortage.

Did you link the wrong thing or are you, to be kind, misreading incredibly badly? That's an article from Canada. Known as one of the anti-rights, gun control, people's utopias. There is effectively no concealed carry. There gun laws out the ass. Canada is frequently pointed out as "the way it should be!"

Yet, you put in a link to a gang shooting with 25 victims, two dead. While trying to say that Concealed Carriers shoot up innocent bystanders. Way to go.

You seem to think this is just the way laws that companies want works. Look at gun control. Those who are against it have to keep fighting it over and over and over and over and over again. Whereas the bad guys, those who want to take away rights, only have to win once. Well, until they decide they want more then they only have to win that part once.

Bad laws rarely die unless those pushing them finally give up.