"Send John Kerry" is an absolutely crushing meme

[Must_B_Free]

Clinton slammed dunked the election tonight. That speech was catchy. What a great one. Send John Kerry.

[Rowdyboy]

1. I thought it was compelling and totally appropriate

Good choice

[RobertSeattle]

2. Send George Bush...

...Back to Crawford

[liberalmuse]

3. That's when the chills started...

The Big Dog did an incredible sell on John Kerry and John Edwards. I hope he gets a choice spot in the new administration.

[xxqqqzme]

4. Btween Carter and

Clinton - jeez how could U not take notice. Bothe speeches were wowsers.

[shanti]

5. welll

i disagree. it sounds too much like ahnold's meme - join arnold.

[Cha]

6. Well, I don't listen to arnie so I wouldn't know about that.

This is fresh to me and it shall remain so.

[shanti]

65. i live here in cali

and was bombarded with the ahnold meme for quite awhile during the last election...it just sounds too much the same, imo. :shrug:

[fob]

70. Huh? I'm in Cali too and never would have put those 2 together

They are opposites, SEND - JOIN.

SEND JOHN KERRY is the grass roots call to support from the ground up, as in we all can't go and this certain person has shown themselves to be an excellent choice to represent us all - SEND JOHN KERRY

Join Ahnold - was a cheesy indoctrination scam. It was like Hey I am the man, if you don't give in to the rhetoric you are a girlie-man loser.

How can you connect those two themes?

[w4rma]

44. There are 49 other states, and we've already got California in the bag.

So does it really matter what Arnold's slogan was, to the rest of us?

[shanti]

66. jeez

can a person give their opionion around here??!

[RetroLounge]

48. I wouldn't know about Ahnuld's meme

nor care...

RL

[neverborn]

7. Loved Clinton's speech except for the AWB

[Sugarbleus]

9. What is AWB?

Average White Band???? I'm not good with these truncated things.

[JohnKleeb]

10. Assault Weapons Ban

a major Clinton intiative that he pushed.

[Pachamama]

12. Brilliant tieing of the "Fight against Terrorism" to Assault Weapons Ban

Yeah, try to have Bu$h and the Repukes explain that one - We are making America safer by - putting AK47's in everyones hands, including Terrorists?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pachamama]

28. Yes I have a clue, yes I know what I'm talking about & Yes I've read AWB

If you bother to "read" my post, I was referring to what the Big Dawg did in his semantics...which were brilliant...

The big Dawg is a brilliant orator....he was making rhetorical comparison ie:

Bush's Policies & Fight on Terrorism: Puts Assault weapons on the streets, Takes extra cops off the streets.

Kerry's/Dem's Policies & Fight on Terrorism: Puts extra cops on the streets, Takes Assault weapons off the streets.

You might not agree on the issue (clearly you are against gun control) but you got to admit, that Clinton's got the rhetoric down, don't ya? I do...brilliant....

PS: Was it really necessary to attack me personally and my intelligence? Not very DU-like....

:eyes:

[neverborn]

31. Clinton's a BRILLIANT politician

Great speech.

[Kire]

42. how about extra cops and extra assault weapons

This way we make sure that as many of our country's bravest die as possible!

[Bhaisahab]

32. why are americans so in love with guns?

why not ban them altogether? ALL guns? out here in India its extremely difficult to procure a license for a gun... even though the law and order situation is not rosy by any stretch of the imagination.
why do people in a strong nation like america feel so insecure without guns?
it makes no sense...

[neverborn]

35. Security against government tyranny?

[Stockholm]

45. Been asking myself that exact question... n/t

[jmowreader]

50. Because people like George Bush are at large

There are some thoroughly insane Republicans and right-wing whackos who would love to kill Democrats if they could.

But because there is the possibility that the Democrat they go up against might have a .45 in the glove box, or a Glock on the nightstand, they demur.

[Bandit]

58. Americans are basically Cowards

You see it on display constantly. They have watched so many violent movies and seen so much violence on the TV News that they have terrified themselves. There is no other logical explanation other than intense fear.

[OpSomBlood]

62. I think that's a pretty weak generalization.

I've been around guns my whole life, and learned at a very early age how to handle them safely and to respect their destructive power.

It is an unfortunate reality that we live in a violent society with various types of predatory criminals. While I honor the hard work of our police forces, I'm simply not willing to wager my life or my family's on their competence and ability to respond to an emergency call. If someone intends to do us harm, it is my responsibility to defend us then and there.

That said, I'm trained to do so and would encourage everyone else to be, too. I wouldn't have a problem with compulsory licensure and firearms training in order to own a gun.

If you live in a "safe" place where violent crime doesn't occur, I'm truly glad for you. But I have personally had to suffer through the tragedy of the loss of a loved one to a completely random act of violence committed in their home by a stranger. I simply won't let it happen to me or mine.

[Bandit]

63. My point is made.. We live in a violent world but only Americans

need to have Assault Weapons on the streets as a way of life. I can't imagine such even being an issue in England or Canada or Japan or virtually any other industrialized nation. Only in America and your post is an example of my main point. Fear is rampant.

[OpSomBlood]

64. If you want "assault weapons" off the street, the 1994 ban is a bad start.

That legislation didn't take a single gun off the streets...it simply stopped the manufacture of new ones that fit a cosmetic specification.

[drdigi420]

59. because outlawing guns does not get rid of guns

it just drives them underground and makes them even more dangerous, and gives the criminal thugs one more monopoly to add to the drugs, gambling, and prostitution rackets


outlawing ANY consentual activity only creates more crime and less respect for the law.


besides, we may need those guns when the stormtroopers come knocking

[OpSomBlood]

19. The AWB doesn't ban AK-47's.

It only applies to semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) weapons that visually resemble their military select-fire counterparts.

All together now:

The Assault Weapons Ban has nothing to do with machine guns.
The Assault Weapons Ban has nothing to do with machine guns.
The Assault Weapons Ban has nothing to do with machine guns.
The Assault Weapons Ban has nothing to do with machine guns.
The Assault Weapons Ban has nothing to do with machine guns.

[Pachamama]

29. See my Post #28 - Same answer to you

:eyes:

[JohnKleeb]

52. I really dont see the use for assault rifles and such.

Yeah, I see the need to protect yourself but there are some weapons you just dont need. Yes, I know the constiution says the right to bear arms but I think the founding fathers would have thought differently if they had seen the arms we have now, like back in the 1780's, they had primative muskets. I dont feel like banning handguns or rifles or shotguns because well if you do need to protect yourself and a handgun does just that and hunting as much as I feel it unneeded by most of society but needed by some in rural areas and rifles and shotguns are best for that. Crime rate has gone down I belive since the Clinton years began. Not to spite ya, but there are some dems who opposed the AWB and others who oppose renewing it, good fine dems some of them are but I really think gun control should be promoted, you are more likely to be killed by a family member with a good than to kill an intruder after all, I am lucky my family doesnt own guns because we'd try to kill each other, we got explosive tempers. I know thats disturbing to say. Well there are more dangerous weapons than AKs that can be bought if AWB is dropped, I say who needs these guns that a soldier uses, candiate Clark I remember said if you want big guns join the military, which is sort of a good point, however gun issues are so complex for me honest, I flat out dont like guns though, even if Ive considered enlisting and I enjoy a FPS, I dont like guns because of my anti war beliefs, knowing also that those things tried to kill my grandfather in Korea and other relatives, he incidently is a rifle owner but my dad says when he goes hunting, he never really shoots anything, the guns intially scared the hell of my dad who considered my mom's family rednecks, this is my mom's dad we're talking here not my dad's dad, its funny he considered them rednecks because my mom's family is relatively new to the country and both of my mom's folks grew up speaking another language than english and my dad's family is German-Irish and here pre civil war. Sorry for the lengthy rant, another reason I simply hate guns is that my uncle killed himself with one, I know its not a good reason for gun control but if safety locks, waiting periods keep people safe which I believe the Clinton policy is a testament to, because as I said the rate went down under Clinton, the crime rate that is.

[Sugarbleus]

23. Alrighty then.. thanks much. ;-)

[OpSomBlood]

13. I'm in the same boat...speech rocked except for the AWB/terrorism part.

If you can find a single terrorist who prefers legal semi-automatic rifles (with waiting period and background check) to black market machine guns, I'd be very surprised.

[neverborn]

16. /nod screw the AWB

[hippiegranny]

17. huh?

so you're FOR assault weapons in the hands of... oh, just any-old-body? seriously? why? to what purpose? who really needs one of these? i mean besides crazy assholes who decide to go postal on a group of innocents or street thugs? i'm not putting you down, i really want to know why you support these tools of rage.

[OpSomBlood]

18. Do you know what an "assault weapon" is?

Seriously, do you think that the Assault Weapons Ban has to do with machine guns? I don't understand how a rifle that fires one shot per trigger pull is a "weapon of rage."

And last time I checked, in this country you don't have to prove to the government that you "need" something in order to own it.

[hippiegranny]

20. if i don't know what it is

you haven't done much to further enlighten me. and you haven't managed to educate me without trying to insult me either. try again.

[OpSomBlood]

21. No insult intended.

Sorry if what I wrote came off as harsh. But the public's interpretation of what the Assault Weapons Ban covers is a problem...by and large, most people think that it keeps machine guns (multiple shots per trigger pull) off the streets...when in fact it only applies to semi-automatic weapons that visually resemble their military counterparts.

Again, I apologize if my previous post seemed condescending. But I'm a Democrat and an owner of what is classified as an "assault weapon" and I really get sore when I get lumped with psychotic clocktower snipers simply because I own a rifle that some politicians deemed too scary ten years ago.

[hippiegranny]

22. thank you

but aren't multiple shot weapons also "assault weapons"?

[OpSomBlood]

24. Yes, and that's a huge reason for the confusion.

Good point.

Shoulder-fired portable machine guns were developed by the Germans in WW2 and given the term "assault rifles." This terminology has stuck ever since...up until 1994 when anti-gun legislators invented the strikingly similar term "assault weapons" to broadly classify nearly every semi-automatic rifle and pistol.

Even today, there is no clear definition of exactly what an "assault weapon" is. In 1994, they tried to use non-mechanical features (like bayonet lugs and folding stocks on rifles) to create this definition. Now, legislators are trying to "strengthen" the AWB by including the location of the ammunition magazine as a criteria.

To this day, people often instantly conjure up images of the Soviet AK-47 as the model for what an "assault weapon" is, due to the fact that historically such a weapon has been classified as an "assault rifle." But the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban does not deal at all with select-fire or fully-automatic weapons, which is traditionally what an "assault rifle" always has been.

[Saltdog]

47. Actually...

Browning first made machine guns for the US military (if we don't include the Gatling gun). First a stand mounted model that required two operators and then a smaller model, which he described as a "sub-machine gun" because it was smaller than his original design.

The sub-machine gun came to be known as a Thomson Automatic, aka "Tommy gun" so preferred by gangsters in the 1920s. In fact, it was the negligent use of sub-machine guns by criminals in the 1920 (Dillinger used to fire into crowds to kill a police officer) that caused Congress to declare fully-automatic weapons (both machine and sub-machine guns) to be unlawful for private ownership.

Defining assault weapons has always been difficult for legislatures, much like obscenity where "they know it when they see it". A statement Clarence Thomas would obviously agree with. There are many variants of the AK-47 rifle, including several that are semi-automatic that will be legal if the AWB ends. These are not legitimate sporting rifles and should not be argued as such.

I think the main point of having such weapons available is so gun owners can feel as though they have a fighting chance against a military government should that government decide to enforce a dictatorship through martial law. While the efficacy of such an approach is debatable, the impact of having such weapons available for mass consumption is not.

I would feel better if purchasers of such equipment were required to be part of a well regulated militia, as opposed to just Billy-Bob (with mental illness and a record) getting an assault weapon for his birthday. Now, maybe DU gun advocates do not share any of the positions of the NRA who are against any kind of background check regarding mental illness and criminal behavior, but there are some pretty strange attitudes toward guns out there.

[OpSomBlood]

51. Billy Bob with mental illness and a record can't buy guns legally.

So I fail to understand how passing laws that only affect sane, law-abiding citizens will somehow keep guns out of Billy Bob's hands. Federal gun bans don't impact the black market one bit...which is where criminals, terrorists and the mentally ill would most likely acquire a fully automatic weapon.

As for the pro-gun DUers, I don't think any of us are against background checks. I'm actually in favor of requiring private gun sales to go through a broker who has access to the Instacheck system. I'd even be willing to entertain the idea of state-issued licenses for gun ownership which includes extensive safety and legal scenario training.

But logically speaking, I just don't see how bans impact criminals. They only seem to impact people like me.

[Saltdog]

67. Well, yes...

First of all, I wrote that he received it as a birthday present, which is possible. Second, the "no mentally ill" clause amounts to people answering a question on a form when they buy a handgun that asks them if they have been treated for mental illness. Even if they have, they only need to answer "no" to bypass that law. Third, gun shows are not required to perform criminal background checks, so criminals are capable of buying guns at gun shows without having to pass a criminal background check. And, as you point out in your own note, private gun sales are not regulated by the criminal background check system, providing yet additional means for the mentally ill and criminal element to procure illegal weapons.

So, the fact of the matter is that criminals and the mentally ill are able to buy and possess firearms with very little in the way to prevent them.

As far as the efficiency of federal bans at removing such firearms from the marketplace (including the black market), since the weapons are illegal, whenever guns of that type are recovered during a criminal investigation, they are confiscated and permanently removed from the market. Enforcing a ban on the sale and importation of such weapons into the US market when coupled with a slow removal of existing weapons through seizures from criminals would slowly reduce the availability of such weapons from the black market.

Furthermore, many of the guns available on the black market come from the theft of weapons from legitimate gun owners who failed to take adequate protection to secure their firearms. If assault weapons are no longer legal for legitimate owners, the potential supply of weapons to the black market would similarly be diminished.

[MrSandman]

72. But not legally...

The only time I purchased a firearm at a gun show, I was subject to NICS.

States are becoming aware of the need to report mental commitments to the NICS.

[lazarus]

25. umm

"...when in fact it only applies to semi-automatic weapons that visually resemble their military counterparts."

Is that what it means when the bill bans all models of Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs? That it's just going for things that "visually resemble" assault weapons?

Also TEC-9, Colt AR-15, etc.

Those aren't sporting rifles by any stretch of the imagination. What do you need an AK-47 for? Or a TEC-9?

Maybe for the following:

The Stockton schoolyard massacre - On January 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy killed 5 small children, and wounded 29 others and 1 teacher at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, using a semi-automatic version of the AK-47 assault rifle imported from China. That weapon had been purchased from a gun dealer in Oregon and was equipped with a 75-round "drum" magazine. Purdy shot 106 rounds in less than 2 minutes.

The San Francisco Pettit & Martin shootings - On July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri killed 8 people and wounded 6 others at the San Francisco law offices of Pettit & Martin and other offices at 101 California Street. Ferri used two TEC-DC9 assault pistols with 50-round magazines. These weapons had been purchased from a pawnshop and a gun show in Nevada.

The CIA headquarters shootings - On January 25, 1993, Pakistani national Mir Aimal Kasi killed 2 CIA employees and wounded 3 others outside the entrance to CIA headquarters in Langley, VA. Kasi used a Chinese-made semi-automatic AK-47 assault rifle equipped with a 30-round magazine, purchased from a Northern Virginia gun store.

The Branch-Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas - On February 28, 1993, while attempting to serve federal search and arrest warrants at the Branch-Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, four ATF special agents were killed and 16 others were wounded with an arsenal of assault weapons. According to a federal affidavit, the cult had accumulated at least the following assault weapons: 123 AR-15s, 44 AK-47s, 2 Barrett .50 calibers, 2 Street Sweepers, an unknown number of MAC-10 and MAC-11s, 20 100-round drum magazines, and 260 large-capacity banana clips. The weapons were bought legally from gun dealers and at gun shows.

Yeah, we need those on the streets.

What Clinton was doing was making a wonderful rhetorical comparison.

Clinton: Assault weapons off the streets, extra cops on the streets.
vs
Bush: Assault weapons on the streets, extra cops off the streets.

If you don't think that's an effective bit of rhetoric, okay, but I do.

[OpSomBlood]

26. The AWB didn't take "assault weapons" off the streets.

It merely stopped their manufacture, and poorly at that.

And again I ask...since when do we have to prove "need" to the government in order to own things we choose? And so you know, 7.62x39mm (AK-47 ammunition) is an excellent deer hunting caliber.

[lazarus]

33. excellent caliber, indeed

And a fully automatic weapon would make hitting the deer much easier. Why not lobby for those?

Again, you're getting bogged down in the fine details of this, and missing the brilliance of the rhetorical device Clinton used.

And why should guns be any different from anything else? We aren't allowed to ingest certain chemicals, or use the products of certain plants. Some forms of speech are, rightfully, restricted (ye olde "fire in a theatre" sort of thing).

But guns are hallowed even beyond free speech and the right to assembly, apparently.

Let's take your question to its logical end: Why would the government stop you from owning any weapon at all? What right does it have? Fully armed tanks; chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons; why should you have to prove that you "need" these items? How about fully automatic guns, SAWs, SAMs, artillery? Why not open the floodgates?

[neverborn]

37. Do I support banning chemicals and plants? NO.

[lazarus]

38. and the rest?

Bioweapons, chem weapons, nukes, fully automatic weapons, artillery?

[neverborn]

39. Can you justify self-defense w/ a nuke?

[ronabop]

41. Can you revolt against the federal government without a nuke?

A free people needs more firepower than the government has, or the government can coerce the people with sheer firepower.

Personally, I don't think private nukes are needed (though they can exist, and can be built, it's just fairly expensive and time consuming).

However, I think a ban on "scary looking" guns is totally idiotic, and does nothing about terrorism or street violence. Under the AWB, a rifle that 'looks" scary, but is exactly the same as a general hunting rifle, is illegal. So people who want to kill with guns have to have less slightly less scary looking methods of death.... uh... yeah. Real bright, that.

Up next: Terrified legislators outlaw "ABC", Assault Box Cutters, that have black handles, or more than three blades.

-Bop

[vision]

61. MAD

That is how the USA justified keeping weapons against the USSR. Mutual Assured Destruction, as a weapon to protect yourself from the government a nuke would certainly be a way to protect yourself.

[OpSomBlood]

49. The AWB doesn't cover fully automatic weapons.

So I fail to understand how a semi-automatic variant of the AK-47 which fires 7.62x39 ammunition is any different from a semi-automatic hunting rifle which fires .308 ammunition (same caliber).

[Saltdog]

68. .308 and 7.62mm aren't the same

They have the same width (caliber) but are not the same ammunition. The .308 is much longer and is a common sniper round.

IMHO, real hunters don't need semi-automatic rifles for hunting, they already maintain a significant advantage over their prey with bolt-action rifles. I don't see why both types aren't banned.

So, to a certain extent, I agree with you that there isn't much difference, though I obviously don't agree with the conclusion you would like me to reach.

[OpSomBlood]

69. 7.62 = .308

The only difference is the thickness of the shell casing. The length of the bullet varies depending on the manufacturer...some .308 is longer, some 7.62 is longer. Most enthusiasts of AK variants fire .308 in their rifles because 7.62x39 is generally difficult to find.

I know of several hunters who use their AK's for deer hunting. .308 is an excellent caliber for that purpose. I don't quite understand why the "scary-looking" factor plays a part in whether a rifle is suitable for hunting.

[Sugarbleus]

8. I thought it was brilliant... where's the bumper stickers???

Surely they've hit the presses already, eh? lol

[Warren DeMontague]

40. Here You Go:

http://www.cafeshops.com/impeachw.12568746

[Sugarbleus]

71. Thank you much...I'll be sending in my order asap...

:D

[Nikki Stone 1]

11. It's a good slogan; short with underlying meaning.

Who wrote Clinton's speech, BTW? It was well, well done. He looked better than he did on 60 Minutes when he was interviewed about his book.

[sleipnir]

15. He's known to write most of his speeches nowadays, but

of course with such a powerful message at stake, who knows how many hands were involved. I'm not sure, it felt like a collaboration, there were classic Clinton moments, but then, there was the "Send John Kerry" bit that was totally scripted from Campaign HQ, I loved it!, but it was totally un-Clinton.

Great speech, I'm glad I saw it! Kerry's got this thing wrapped up in the bag if the Big Dog hits the campaign trail 24-7!

[Lorien]

27. I didn't see any convention coverage

send Kerry where? Can't the other side just add "to Iraq" or where ever?
If this is some kind of new catch phrase, it's a vague one.

[ButterflyBlood]

30. here's a clip

this is supposedly from a different speech he gave at a DNC fundraiser, but it's very similar to what he said tonight:

Now, here's what I know about John Kerry. In the Vietnam era which marked us all, most young men, including the President, the Vice President, and me, most of us should've gone to Vietnam and didn't go.

And John Kerry said, send me.

Then when it was all over and it was time to heal up and normalize relations with Vietnam, if would could get an accounting, a full accounting of all of our POWs and MIAs and we needed somebody who's been there to stand up and take a leadership role, John Kerry said, send me.

And when almost nobody in the Congress was really interested in all of these poor children that were living in horribly violent neighborhoods when I became President, because after all they weren't organized, they didn't have a PAC that didn't give any money, they didn't vote, their parents didn't vote, there was hardly anybody that really cared about what these kids were going through. The person in the Senate who talked to me all the time about it was John Kerry.

When he looked into the eyes of those poor kids growing up on mean street, he said, send me.

When we needed to have an America that was united across racial and gender and sexual orientation and immigrant and non-immigrant lines, and the new Republican majority was trying to cut us up nine ways from Sunday, John Kerry said send me.

When we needed real homeland security, more police, more fire, more protection in our ports and airports, John Kerry said, send me.

[Andromeda]

34. Metaphorically speaking...

Clinton meant send Kerry to the White House. I think it's kinda catchy.

[durutti]

36. God I wish people would quit saying "meme"...

n/t

[Kire]

43. what is a meme?

I think motif fits better.

[bread_and_roses]

46. Oh, me too!

though I am probably just being a crusty old curmudgeon and in a few years will hardly even notice it.

[wtmusic]

53. "Talking point" can go to hell too...

once upon a time we used to talk about "issues" or "facts"

[OpSomBlood]

55. Memes are for sheeple.

I personally don't like the idea of repeating something over and over until someone believes it. It's what the Republicans do.

[mzmolly]

56. I do, it's called fighting fire with fire.

"Send John Kerry" :toast: :hi: ;)

[OpSomBlood]

57. "Send John Kerry" isn't a meme...

"bin Laden was offered to Clinton on a silver platter" is a meme. "John Kerry is a waffler" is a meme. "The American people are safer" is a meme.

I don't know...meme has a negative connotation to me.

[mzmolly]

60. Sure it is...

Meme: A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=meme

[RobinA]

54. I Was Neutral

on "send John Kerry." To me the line of the evening from Clinton was that wisdom and strength are not mutually exclusive, or whatever the exact words were. However, that may be a bit subtle for the average voter these days.