I liketorespond that you can and shold yell "fire" in a cowded movie theater..... if there is a fire. Not doing so would endanger the lives of all those people. And suppose someone took away my ABILITY to yell "fire". They would all burn whil I sat silently by.

That is awesome. Well done.

Where in the constitution, or supporting writings, does it say arms are permitted for self defense? If you include the concept of defending your liberty against a tyrannical government, I guess I agree, but many people just think it is to stop buglars. The type of weapons that will be deemed "reasonable' will differ significantly based upon this question. A 6 bullet .38 revolver may be effective for stopping burglary, but it would be relatively useless in trying to replace a corrupt government, which our declaration of independence claims to be a right, nay, a duty of free men from time to time.

How long until we get bimbos claiming he raped them? It is the textbook way to crush black men who step off the plantation.

But Akin was an idiot. You really can't support anyone who lives in such an echo chamber that he would believe what he said.

Count me in! I will take an internally consistent and well reasoned party over a conglomeration of hypocritical planks any day. Small government! Nuf said

Continue to take these moral stances, sure. But as planks in the platform they spell doom, not because they are unpoular, but becasue they do not align with the cohesive small government message that is really important. The future of the republican party is not "conservative:, it is "libertarian". Once we shrink the government, other institutions, like churches, will regain importance. Then you can fight the cultural battles where they belong...in the hearts and souls of reasoning individuals.

I don't get it. How does 277,000 pale when compared to 4,000? Is that sarcasm?

Guns are dangerous, its a fact. However, it is an irrelevant fact. We must allow people to remain armed if we hope to maintain our liberty and keep tyranny at bay. Does that mean some people might get hurt? Sadly yes. Any nation that would sacrifice essential liberty for security deserves niether and shall, in the end, lose both.

I think that psychotropic drugs have been allowed and encouraged becaus the near certain effect is seemingly random mass murders. Who would want this??? Maybe someone who needs evidence that freedom is dangerous and that free people must be disarmed "for their own good". Someone or a class of someones who seek to become tyrants.

If it isn't a crime to hate, how can it be a crime to talk about it? The left goes on and on about protecting the right to love whoever you want...well what about hating them. Are we selectively banning emotions now? One more question...Is it the rude language or the meaning? More specifically, would it be a crie to walk up to a gay person and say, "Pardon me sir, I hate you because you do things that I believe to be immoral"?