Ammo For Sale

« « Your civic doodie | Home | Badnarik: I will debate or be arrested » »

Fun Game

Tonight is the town-hall style presidential debate, which will not be town hall style at all. The candidates know the questions in advance and if someone strays from their question, their mic will be cut. So, if you were there and could ask any question of either or both candidates, what would it be? One of mine is:

So, the drug war costs billions and billions and billions of dollars. Many innocent, peaceable citizens have been needlessly killed by a police force that has been essentially militarized. People are not secure in their homes because of no knock warrants and search warrants issued based on the frequently false testimony of criminals. Property is taken and lives are destroyed over a few minuscule amounts of drugs. Is it worth that price to confiscate an infinitesimally small fraction of a percent of the drug supply in this country?

Another would be:

You both support the assault weapons ban. Given that the ban was an essentially meaningless gesture that had no impact on crime, didn’t ban assault weapons, and merely banned rifles that looked like assault weapons, are you both just disingenuous or do both of you really have no idea what the ban did?

Yeah, it’s Friday. I don’t expect many responses as blog traffic tends to die here on Friday through Sunday.

12 Responses to “Fun Game”

  1. Justin Says:

    The debates are a farce to begin with. We (my coworkers and myself)had a long talk this morning about the spoonfed bullshit fed to us (lemmings) via the scripted and tested blurbs. I wonder why nader or any other independ. candidates havent filed a lawsuit or pitched a fit over being excluded from the debates?

  2. countertop Says:

    Justin –
    who would they sue and what would they claim???

    Last time I checked, the networks were free to broadcast who or what they wanted.

    The debates themselves are put on by a non profit corporation, and are not run in any way, by the government.

    While it might not seem fair to exclude 3rd party candidates, I just don’t see the argument that they have A RIGHT to be included.

  3. mAss Backwards Says:

    Senator kerry, earlier this year you voted in favor of an amendment proposed by Senator Kennedy which would have banned the production, sale, and possession of all centerfire hunting ammunition, based on the fact that these rounds can penetrate a police officers light-duty body armor.

    Do you support such a ban, which would have the effect of outlawing hunting with rifles?

    Or was your vote merely a continuation of your record of blindly vote for every piece of anti-2A, gun control legislation to roll down the pike?

    (insert chirping crickets here)

  4. Andrew Says:

    I like the way you put the “benefit” of the drug war — all that, and you only get a tiny amount of the drug supply — I hadn’t quite framed it in those terms, but that’s a damned good point.

  5. cube Says:

    countertop ,
    you are kidding me right!?!?!?
    “The debates themselves are put on by a non profit corporation, and are not run in any way, by the government. ”

    they anser to the FEC.” including regulations of the Federal Election Commission that require that debate sponsors extend invitations to debate based on the application of “pre-established, objective” criteria.”

    they limit access for third parties

    “The CPD’s third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations’ most recent publicly reported results at the time of the determination.”

  6. cube Says:

    check into whey they were formed, why, and by who.

    “While it might not seem fair to exclude 3rd party candidates, I just don’t see the argument that
    they have A RIGHT to be included.”

    I would argue that thrid parties don’t have the right i would argue that the two main parties are conspiring to keep thrid parties out of the debate.

  7. cube Says:

    have fun and remember everything you learned you leanred in a goverment funded school


  8. lobbygow Says:

    By many measures the U.S. has the highest per capita consumption in the world. Our consumption rate is currently 5 to 7 times greater than China’s.

    Since China appears to be rapidly evolving to a consumer society and since many developing nations are increasing their participation in a global marketplace, price and wage levelling would seem inevitable.

    How will you make the ride down enjoyable for Americans?

    Or do you think we should kick all of their asses to Kingdome Come and hold on to what we’ve got?

  9. countertop Says:


    As I stated – they are a non profit private corporation. They aren’t a government entity (though I don’t know if they accept government money or how much). Their relationship to the FEC is no different than any other private entity or individuals – ie: their election related activites must conform to existing regulations (development of rules for inclusion and application of those rules as well as regulations on advertising and political statements). They in no way “anser to the FEC” (SIC) in a master servant relationship as you allude.

    That they limit access to third parties is irrelevant, as long as that limitation is consistent with their previously published candidate selection rules.

    I agree with you that the two main parties are keeping them out, though I wouldn’t use the word conspire (its a loaded legal term).

    The solution isn’t to sue for access but rather to use market pressure to change the process. If people really demanded it, third parties would have access. Sadly, they don’t and they don’t.

    If Bush was smart, he would have followed Reagans lead in the 1980 New Hampshire primary debate and allow lots of third parties in.

    See this great story on that debate:

    Short of that though, I don’t see it happening. And no, I am not kidding you.

  10. Jay Says:

    Wishful thinking.

    If your AWB question were ever asked, Kerry would just question the facts in your question.

    “The National Center to Ban Stuff says that AW crime is down 486% since the AWB.”

    Without follow-ups and the opportunity for you to present the true facts and debunk the phony ones, the question is too easily evaded.

  11. cube Says:


    I agree sueing is not the answer, though not every third party canidate is a billionarie and can spend money getting people pressure him into the debates.

    we do agree on my main point of this:

    “I agree with you that the two main parties are keeping them [thrid parties] out, though I wouldn’t use the word conspire (its a loaded legal term).”

    And i would also like to point out this.

    “(9.) The debates were hijacked from the truly independent League of Women Voters in 1986.”

    from on of the links i cited above, you obvisoulsy did not read you homework son.

    The VERY debate you cited was not under the present debate commsion. The PDC was formed in 1986, partly in response to what happened in 80 (though i have not read you link yet) i bet.

    So since the PDC was formed we have only thrid party (one mulit billionare) in the debates, who got 18 percent of the vote in that election.

    I do not think they should allow just anyone in the debates,but if u manage to get on one ballet in one state, i think you should be in the debates.

    And Conspire, seems like a good word to me.

  12. robert Says:

    For Bush: How is it, that you possess a handgun in the District of Colombia that was recently imported for Iraq? Could you explain how this was done without you breaking any federal or district firearm laws?

    For Kerry: You recently received a shotgun as a gift during a campaign stop outside your state of residence. Where is the shotgun now? Have you been cleared through NICS to possess it? Do you intend store it in the state you received it or have you illegally carried it into your state of residence?

    For Both: Are either of you subject to Federal or State Firearm laws, and will you surrender yourself and the weapons if you have broken any firearm law, federal, state, or local to the appropritate Law Enforcement agency?

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges