Now before anyone accuses me of trolling, i truly assure you I am not. As someone raised in a republican family, respects the constitution and all of it's amendments, as they are written, there is one thing i really can't understand.
That is, why do most "liberals" and democrats seem to hate firearms and want to violate the second amendment by limiting what you can own?
An example of this, i live in Ohio....we don't have laws banning firearms because they look like a fully automatic rifle carried by our military. I can own a short barreled rifle/shotgun (sbr/sbs) i can own a suppressor (aka can, scilencer etc.) and my magazines can hold 30 rounds. Obviously due to federal laws some of what i mentioned is controlled by the National Firearms Act (NFA) and requires another federal background check, but also requires fingerprinting and a $200 tax stamp.
Look to other states that are heavily democrat controlled such as California and New York and basically everything i mentioned is illegal. Yes i understand that in a Constitutional Republic such as the US a state can set its own laws as long as they do not violate the laws set forth in that countries Constitution.
Before anyone suggests tho that gun control, especially to the point of the two states i mentioned (the strictes in the US) prevents crime and saves lives, i would like to point out that they still have the highest amount of crime per capita in the US.
So i ask, why hate guns so much? Why make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect there lives or there property? Why, make it harder for someone to enjoy a shooting sport such as 3 gun, or classed long range shooting?
Once again not trolling, just hoping to start a friendly convo to help me better understand where the other side of the democrat/republican coin comes from since this is such a big issue here in the country....to the point i can barely find ammo at a decent price.
Quote from: kariann330 on January 11, 2014, 12:46:23 AM
why do most "liberals" and democrats seem to hate firearms...
...hoping to start a friendly convo.
Good luck with that.
I don't "hate" guns. I think there's too many stories of triggerhappy fools who just shoot whoever walks uninvited into their house, whether they're a drunk teen or some old person with dementia, or kids shooting up schools, whatever. The gun violence is extremely high in the U.S., more so than other developed countries, and statistics will tell you that people in poor, urban areas are more supportive of gun control. (because they hear that shizz going off all the time) Urban cities in general, even big cities in Texas, tend to be more liberal than smaller towns in the state. So, yes. I do not think people should just be allowed to buy any gun unregistered, and automatics should never be sold. And I don't hunt or know how to use one anyway so I don't care about them as much as others do, and frankly I don't see why people so passionate about it.
But guns have saved innocent lives too. I'm sure you've heard of the 18 year old mother who killed her would-be attackers when they broke into her home?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1-Kz3vU5DY
Just tell that to the parents of Sandy Hook!!
and you can say it was the person and not the gun all you want.....but the fact is during this same time period of the Sandy Hook shooting there was a man in China that was mentally unstable and went to a school armed with a knife...he injured multiple children around the same age but none died.......now give that man a ak47 or whatever the F*** they're called and tell me the outcome then
hmmmm Sandy Hook!!!!
Please tell me WHY these type guns are needed.....and if its for sport then keep them where you do your "sport"
Quote from: Just Shelly on January 11, 2014, 01:15:41 AM
Just tell that to the parents of Sandy Hook!!
and you can say it was the person and not the gun all you want.....but the fact is during this same time period of the Sandy Hook shooting there was a man in China that was mentally unstable and went to a school armed with a knife...he injured multiple children around the same age but none died.......now give that man a ak47 or whatever the F*** they're called and tell me the outcome then
hmmmm Sandy Hook!!!!
Please tell me WHY these type guns are needed.....and if its for sport then keep them where you do your "sport"
Ok so since you brought that up, a good point btw, ill counter with Columbine, all firearms used were compliant with federal laws at the time, the main difference is people reloaded more often....every 10 rounds with rifles and 5 rounds with shotguns...the AWB did not save any lives at all then and won't change anything today.
To the part of "leave them at the range" the best answer to that is because federal law allows us to use them to protect our homes/lives. A prime example of this, i recently had someone break into my apartment. His exact words were "gimme tha money and any scripts you got and no one gets hurt". My reaction was to act as if i was gonna comply, but once i grabbed and chambered a round in my AR15, that "hard thug" became a crying baby begging me to call the cops and not shoot....not even a round fired, and im safe and he is in jail awaiting trial for breaking and entering and strong arm robbery.
That is why i have them in my home vs at a club.
I don't feel most democrats hate guns. I'm pretty sure both my parents were democrats, I know my mom was, at least until Obama got into office, now she's republican. :D
But we had guns all over the house when we were growing up. I keep all my guns locked in a gun cabinet now and have trigger locks. I don't have them for burglars, using a golf club on these clowns would seem much more satisfying (and I need to practice my drive, my slice is terrible these days). I have my guns for when global warming causes the world to freeze over, I'll need them for protection and hunting for food. ;)
The following video is one of my all time favorites, especially her very last line, she's awesome...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6sEYGcXSmpQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6sEYGcXSmpQ)
Does the US have an abnormally high number of break ins compared to the UK or something then? In the UK most people don't have guns, see the need for guns, a good deal of firearms are prohibited, and you need a license to own anything else stronger than an air rifle producing more than 12 foot pounds of energy. A lot of people think that Americans are crazy due to the amount of guns floating around and the apparent ease you can access them (I don't know how easy it really is, but to us it appears to be).
I don't know anyone who has needed to have a gun in their house to defend themselves, and the only people I do know who have firearm licenses are those who regularly go hunting and are from rich families with a tradition of it, farmers, and the unusual case of a man who has military clearance to have anything he's capable of disarming (at one point he was very close to buying a WWII V2 bomb but someone beat him to it. They live in his garage.) No one has guns for their own protection.
The UK has one of the lowest rates of gun crime, and it seems to us that having less guns floating around, licensed or not, is a good thing. If the weapons simply aren't there then they can't fall into the hands of criminals and cause injury to anyone.
Quote from: kariann330 on January 11, 2014, 12:46:23 AM
Before anyone suggests tho that gun control, especially to the point of the two states i mentioned (the strictes in the US) [California and New York] prevents crime and saves lives, i would like to point out that they still have the highest amount of crime per capita in the US.
^source?
According to http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html, here is top 23 from 2006
Tennessee (1st 0.7% chance)
Nevada
Florida
Louisiana
Alaska
Delaware
Maryland
New Mexico
Michigan
Arkansas
Missouri
Illinois
California
Texas
Arizona
Oklahoma
North Carolina
Georgia
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
New York (23rd 0.43% chance)
I'm from Ohio too, we're 28th, with a 0.35% chance
Safest states:
Maine (50th 0.12% chance)
North Dakota
Vermont
New Hampshire
South Dakota
Utah
Rhode Island
Wyoming (44th 0.24%)
Like I said earlier, I'm also from Ohio, I am more liberal minded. I've got plenty of friends with tons of big guns, and one friend's dad was featured on doomsday preppers. Lol I don't hate guns, but I avoid them like the plague.
I'll try to explain how I see, it. Not trying to argue, just trying to give u a peek inside my head so you can understand.
My friends who love and collect guns are compensating for the fact that they have no control over their lives. The guns makes them feel secure and safe. Many of them do not trust "the government" and feel that if "stuff went down," that they would have their gun and be a hero/survive. I'm not joking or making this up, some even believe in zombie apocolypse, lol.
For me, if "stuff goes down," the way we fight back is with numbers, not with guns. I'd rather help educate someone on the injustices that go on day to day, and help cause change through peace. For me, now is the time to fight, but guns aren't the best tool.
I am an urban farmer. I can't grow my food sustainably and sell it to local businesses who want cheap produce, only to the fancy ones who cater to people will pay for local, organic produce. Why? Because large scale "farms" out west don't pay the migrant workers a fair wage, because large scale "farms" receive tons of dollars in subsidies to grow food using tractors, pesticides, inorganic fertilizers and GMO seed.
To fight that problem, a gun will do me nada. So as a liberal, i guess my reason for not caring about guns is that I don't see them as an answer to any of the "problems" that I see. Is there a concrete problem we face currently that guns can help? If one argues that the people need guns to keep the government in check, well, shouldn't we also have tanks and anti aircraft tools?
To sum up my thinking. Why are we here? My answer: to love each other and learn from each other, and to share with each other the beauty we are surrounded by. We are humans, which as far as I've read/seen is just another type of great ape. Do we want to be like militaristic, infanticide practicing chimps or would we rather be like the bonobos. Do we want to live in a world of limits or one of surpluses. Going back to guns, Ghandi's salt march, how did he fight the british soldiers? With numbers. No voilence, just numbers and he won.
I hope my post doesn't seem argumentative, I do propose some hypothetical questions not meant to be answered, just meant to help you think like a liberal would.
Cheers!
I think the idea of owning a gun to protect myself is a fantasy. If something happened where I needed to defend myself with the weapon, I'm more likely to forget to turn the safety off or shoot myself in the foot or miss or hit an innocent than get the "bad guy".
I've thought about taking classes to get a concealed carry permit to help me understand why some people really need to own guns, but haven't followed through as yet.
Right now, from being a geek my whole life, I know all about people brimming with disproportional self confidence to actual talent. ;) So that save the day reason for weapon ownership, doesn't fly with me cause by an average distribution most people will actually be around an average shot.
I'm a vegetarian for animal compassion reasons and yet I can admit this: I do think hunting is a fine use for a rifle.
Just some of my thoughts.
As a liberal, I don't hate guns. There's a rifle in my house, and I'll probably get a Glock once I start working full time again.
My problem with just having almost free reign of guns is for safety reasons:
I have an undergrad degree in law enforcement, and we learned that many people get killed by their own guns. Quite a bit of people buy a gun for self protection, but don't actually really know how to use it. They might shoot it once or twice, and think they'll be fine when a burgular comes in their home at 3 am when they're fast asleep.
I was a licensed armed security officer down in FL, and every year I had to have so many hours of shooting in down at a range, and every 2 years I'd have to go and take a test at an open range to show that I could shoot in a variety of situations. I think this should be mandatory of all gun owners, whether they're in security or private citizens. A gun isn't a toy, it should be taken more seriously than other purchases. I take time out of my life every 5 years so so to go down to the DMV and get my eyes checked and picture updated in order to keep my driver's license, so it shouldn't be an unreasonable requirement to go and show that you know how to use a gun every few years in order to keep a gun license. (I think people should be licensed to have a gun in all states.)
I also think background checks should be done for all states. While I am aware some of our recent mass shooters would've been able to get guns anyways, background checks just make sense to me. I don't really understand how people can just walk into a gun fair and leave with a gun the same day. The tricky issue here though is third party pur->-bleeped-<-s (I buy a gun from a shop, get a background check done, and then go and sell it to an acquaintance a few years later over my kitchen table), it'd be really hard to regulate background checks without a registry. A registry would be expensive and hard to implement, and would meet a lot of opposition. However, we should still do background checks for the initial purchases at least.
Quote from: lxndr on January 11, 2014, 06:33:12 AM
Does the US have an abnormally high number of break ins compared to the UK or something then? In the UK most people don't have guns, see the need for guns, a good deal of firearms are prohibited, and you need a license to own anything else stronger than an air rifle producing more than 12 foot pounds of energy. A lot of people think that Americans are crazy due to the amount of guns floating around and the apparent ease you can access them (I don't know how easy it really is, but to us it appears to be).
I don't know anyone who has needed to have a gun in their house to defend themselves, and the only people I do know who have firearm licenses are those who regularly go hunting and are from rich families with a tradition of it, farmers, and the unusual case of a man who has military clearance to have anything he's capable of disarming (at one point he was very close to buying a WWII V2 bomb but someone beat him to it. They live in his garage.) No one has guns for their own protection.
The UK has one of the lowest rates of gun crime, and it seems to us that having less guns floating around, licensed or not, is a good thing. If the weapons simply aren't there then they can't fall into the hands of criminals and cause injury to anyone.
A quick google search brings me to this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/
From what I've heard, part of the reason why we love guns so much in USA is because of our history. Guns have played a large role in our lives since the moment the first colonist arrived, they were a huge deal in the Western expansion, they were used by gangsters in the '30s which were seen by heroic by some (and today). While people love guns for reasons like sports, self protection, etc. but there's also the love for a nostalgic reason.
Quote from: lxndr on January 11, 2014, 06:33:12 AM
Does the US have an abnormally high number of break ins compared to the UK or something then? In the UK most people don't have guns, see the need for guns, a good deal of firearms are prohibited, and you need a license to own anything else stronger than an air rifle producing more than 12 foot pounds of energy. A lot of people think that Americans are crazy due to the amount of guns floating around and the apparent ease you can access them (I don't know how easy it really is, but to us it appears to be).
It really depends on the state your in. Here in Ohio i can go to a gun shop, pick out my gun, then fill out a form. That form is then submitted to the FBI either by phone or internet. If my name and social security number isn't in there system, i hand over my money and walk out. In all it takes about 25-30 min. Some states have a 3 day waiting period. Or you can do what I did for my first gun at 18, and buy one from a family member, no background check needed. Finally you can go to a gun show and buy your gun. There isn't a background check done but 9 times out of 10, you will pay an extra $200-$400 for the same gun compared to buying it at a shop.
While I do hate guns, I don't desire to enforce my personal view onto others. The second amendment does provide you your right to arms and that should be respected. However, I don't like guns around me and don't ever want to own one. They freak me out and I've seen the damage it can do. And it's a symbol of violence and conflict which are two things I'm not a fan of. That's just my personal view and hope that clears up why as a liberal I'm not a fan of guns. Nonetheless, I really don't want to violate the second amendment or limit gun ownership. Background checks, on the otherhand, I don't think are a bad idea.
Stats can be very misleading. These states have numerous different factors driving their crime statistics up to including the quality of their recording and reporting of crime statistics.
Well designed studies have shown gun laws restricting gun use of law abiding citizens increases crime and visa versa, pretty intuitive to me though.
I feel there should be strong safety requirements of gun owners and stronger penalties for negligence of misuse. No child should ever get access to a firearm and they still do. They're far more likely to be harmed in a car accident or your neighbor's swimming pool than by a gun accident, but more safety is needed.
It's more of a freedom issue for me, less about stopping criminals, but it can and does stop criminals.
I can see how people don't like the idea of so many guns in so many hands, it doesn't really bother me. My fear is guns in the hands of the wrong few. There's nothing we can do about that it appears except take these people out of society.
A thought that I have had about the USA and guns is that you have so many in circulation that repeal or changing the way people regard them is in practical terms nigh impossible so no real attempt is tried.
I sort of understand the principle behind the 2nd Amendment but wonder if in retrospect the people who lead that Amendment still would in light of the effect it has had on American society.
Just an Australian view where weapons are highly controlled.
I have no problem with guns as long as they shoot nerf darts.
Quote from: Cindy on January 11, 2014, 11:47:33 AM
A thought that I have had about the USA and guns is that you have so many in circulation that repeal or changing the way people regard them is in practical terms nigh impossible so no real attempt is tried.
I sort of understand the principle behind the 2nd Amendment but wonder if in retrospect the people who lead that Amendment still would in light of the effect it has had on American society.
Just an Australian view where weapons are highly controlled.
I believe yes, absolutely.
Crime is a big problem in the U.S. for sure. Australians were shocked when one of their own, Christopher Lane, was shot by three teenagers because they were 'bored'. Americans were equally shocked. What also shocked me was I travel thru the town he was murdered often, I know it well and it's a VERY safe rural town. But it's about 40 miles or so from a large city, the drug gang culture had spread out to this town and these kids became corrupted. We have such a huge problem in our culture today and I would be scared to death if all the guns were to all of a sudden disappear. We would be defenseless and yes, criminals would take advantage. There's no will to stop bad behavior here in the U.S. I don't understand this. I bet many people here in the U.S. aren't even aware of the 'knock-out game' spreading here in the U.S. It's vile and it's vicious. No one in authority wants to address it or lock these thugs away. How can a society ignore things like this and expect a good outcome?
Freedom requires responsibility and good citizenship. I want to remove bad citizens from our midst, not guns. I just wish we had the will to do so.
I've just had a thought.
Kariann, what is you shoot at to use so much ammo and guns?
This is just a question from someone who has never fired a gun. Pure interest.
Kia Ora,
I recently posted a Brazilian youtube prank clip in the humour section, and one commenter pointed out that if this had happened in the US it's quite possible the prankster could have been shot-which is quite a scary thought...
I also remember an American friend whom I worked with in pest management (here in NZ back in the 80s) who told me about the time back in the states when he was sent to do an apartment for cockroaches, he had been given access by the landlord and was told the tenant would not be home, so there he was all kitted out in his gear 'mask' etc , he enters the apartment thinking it was empty, only to be confronted by a guy was a gun pointing at him...He was lucky that the tenant didn't shot first and ask questions later...
When I think of the USA, I think of god and Guns (Guns with the capital "G")..... what a strange mixture...A country of extremes...Where kindness and compassion go hand in hand with paranoia and fear....
Metta Zenda :)
Quote from: Anatta on January 11, 2014, 02:19:55 PM
Kia Ora,
I recently posted a Brazilian youtube prank clip in the humour section, and one commenter pointed out that if this had happened in the US it's quite possible the prankster could have been shot-which is quite a scary thought...
I also remember an American friend whom I worked with in pest management (here in NZ back in the 80s) who told me about the time back in the states when he was sent to do an apartment for cockroaches, he had been given access by the landlord and was told the tenant would not be home, so there he was all kitted out in his gear 'mask' etc , he enters the apartment thinking it was empty, only to be confronted by a guy was a gun pointing at him...He was lucky that the tenant didn't shot first and ask questions later...
When I think of the USA, I think of god and Guns (Guns with the capital "G")..... what a strange mixture...A country of extremes...Where kindness and compassion go hand in hand with paranoia and fear....
Metta Zenda :)
Now that would've been funny! ;D (sorry, couldn't resist ;))
When I think of the USA, I think of average people being free to do amazing things, it's why I love it. I agree, it's a country of extremes, but I like extreme.
Quote from: Nikko on January 11, 2014, 02:28:31 PM
Now that would've been funny! ;D (sorry, couldn't resist ;))
When I think of the USA, I think of average people being free to do amazing things, it's why I love it. I agree, it's a country of extremes, but I like extreme.
Kia Ora Nikko,
I understand that America is 'meant' to be
the land of the brave and the land of the free, and the melting pot of citizens (new and breed) have done amazing things, but how free are its citizens really, when compared to other Western countries ?
What is freedom ? Does it mean having a choice ? Or not having to choose ?
Metta Zenda :)
Quote from: Cindy on January 11, 2014, 12:38:38 PM
I've just had a thought.
Kariann, what is you shoot at to use so much ammo and guns?
This is just a question from someone who has never fired a gun. Pure interest.
It's really a mix of things. Part of my stockpile of ammo is for a SHTF or TEOTWAWKI situation. It's a mix of crap ammo and mid grade ammo, along with some FMJ for continued training with my firearms.
Then comes my other stash. This stash is very high quali ammo that was made with accuracy in mind instead of protection with some mid grade stuff thrown in for training. This stash is for shooting competitions. My favorite of which is 3 gun. 3 gun is basically shooting at targets while at a dead sprint. There are usually 4 stages to each event. One stage is a handgun stage, the second is a shotgun stage, and the third is a rifle stage. The 4th stage, my personal favorite is the gauntlet....running each stage, one to the next until all three firearms have been used and your spotter/time keeper verifies that your handgun is cleared.
QuotePart of my stockpile of ammo is for a SHTF or TEOTWAWKI situation.
SHTF = "Ship Hits The Fan"?
TEOTWAWKI = "That Elephant Over There Walked Across Water Kill It"
Ok, I think I got the first one, no clue on the second. Help?
Quote from: Nikko on January 11, 2014, 11:08:14 PM
SHTF = "Ship Hits The Fan"?
TEOTWAWKI = "That Elephant Over There Walked Across Water Kill It"
Ok, I think I got the first one, no clue on the second. Help?
think R.E.M.
Quote from: Nikko on January 11, 2014, 11:08:14 PM
SHTF = "Ship Hits The Fan"?
TEOTWAWKI = "That Elephant Over There Walked Across Water Kill It"
Ok, I think I got the first one, no clue on the second. Help?
The End Of The World As We Know It.
Best way to describe the difference, is SHTF, the grocery store is out of food and closed, will reopen in 3 weeks to 2 months. Teotwawki, the grocery store is closed and will never open again....events such as nuclear power plant meltdown, solar flare generated EMP, etc. etc. etc.
Basically pepper stuff.
Hi Kariann,
I'm skipping over the other responses to avoid any possible ongoing arguments, as these threads tend to attract.
I don't think the answer is quite 'why don't dems/libs like guns,' but rather, it's more of a demographics correlation, and the comparisons are between urban and rural communities. Each community has different needs and resources, which shape values and priorities. In rural areas, there's more emphasis on independence and self sufficiency, and it's partly because with less population, there's less civic infrastructure to help the people. It's where we get the argument that an armed civilian could be the safer response than a police dept who may not have the power to arrive to a scene in time.
Conversely, a denser population necessitates a greater civic infrastructure- so in the above example, is less necessary to have an armed civilian, since police response would be more immediate. And with greater populations, comes a greater chance of other civilians being victimized, and greater aversion to civilians carrying weapons.
So where do political allegiances come into this? It's another study of demographics. The needs of those in urban areas usually gravitate towards liberal values, and the needs of a rural community trend conservative. And each is valid in their argument, which makes gun control so difficult to properly study and argue for one side, in general terms. But the short answer to your question- it's not that all liberals hate guns. It's just more likely they come from a community where their availability creates a catastrophic problem.
I hope this response makes some sense. Apologies for not being able to link to anything... I'm on my phone, on vacation, browsing Susan's because I can't sleep :p
Quote from: Dee on January 11, 2014, 11:50:12 PM
Hi Kariann,
I'm skipping over the other responses to avoid any possible ongoing arguments, as these threads tend to attract.
I don't think the answer is quite 'why don't dems/libs like guns,' but rather, it's more of a demographics correlation, and the comparisons are between urban and rural communities. Each community has different needs and resources, which shape values and priorities. In rural areas, there's more emphasis on independence and self sufficiency, and it's partly because with less population, there's less civic infrastructure to help the people. It's where we get the argument that an armed civilian could be the safer response than a police dept who may not have the power to arrive to a scene in time.
Conversely, a denser population necessitates a greater civic infrastructure- so in the above example, is less necessary to have an armed civilian, since police response would be more immediate. And with greater populations, comes a greater chance of other civilians being victimized, and greater aversion to civilians carrying weapons.
So where do political allegiances come into this? It's another study of demographics. The needs of those in urban areas usually gravitate towards liberal values, and the needs of a rural community trend conservative. And each is valid in their argument, which makes gun control so difficult to properly study and argue for one side, in general terms. But the short answer to your question- it's not that all liberals hate guns. It's just more likely they come from a community where their availability creates a catastrophic problem.
I hope this response makes some sense. Apologies for not being able to link to anything... I'm on my phone, on vacation, browsing Susan's because I can't sleep :p
Honestly i think that's one of the best answers i have gotten so far...sadly tho even in denser populations police response time is still over 5min....better then the hour it takes the local police department here, but still way too long and would make me wanna protect myself even more then i do now.
I would be fine with everybody being allowed to own all the muskets they want, which was the gun tech available at the time the amendment was written. The writers of that amendment did not envision assault rifles.
And if the point of the amendment was to give citizens a fighting chance against its government, that ship has long since sailed. Even assault rifles won't protect you from what the military has in their arsenal, almost all of which is illegal for private citizens to own. And can you imagine if it was legal for your neighbor to own a tank and/or a battery of grenade launchers? Yikes!
I do not understand the notion of "if everybody had a gun we'd all be safer!" That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard of. When you pull out a gun, you raise the stakes. When you have a gun in the home you put everybody inside at risk. How many times do those guns get in the hands of children with tragic results? More than none.
Gun sales have increased every year for the last 5 years. The biggest increase in gun sales happened after Sandy Hook. Political posturing by the left has only led to increased demand and a booming industry.
I don't think all liberals hate guns. I know many that own and enjoy them. I think the main difference is that my liberal friends will say "I have X gun and that's all you need." But my conservative friends will say "Don't tell me what I need, check out all this cool stuff."
In cal, there was like 19 gun bill restrictions and most of them were vetoed by Brown. But we have a veto proof legislature and they wouldn't push their luck. Some stupid things got passed, but anything significant was vetoed. In CO. They've run out a couple of people for passing stupid gun laws.
I came to guns very late compared to a lot of owners. I didn't grow up with them at all. I never wanted one. I feared them. Until I got dragged to a range. That was a life changing day. Once you shoot a gun it will forever change your perception of them. They demand respect.
The rights issues came to me later. It wasn't something I understood at first. But after I owned and trained with my first gun, it did become something very important to me. After a whole I became more immersed in the gun culture and what made different guns unique, I wanted to learn more. I've built a nice little arsenal and I'm quite proud of how far I've come.
People who don't shoot will never understand how difficult it is to place a shot at 25 yards with a pistol. If you ever have an opportunity, I highly recommend you go shoot a gun. You might hate them, but knowing how to properly handle them is important just in case you ever come across on e .
1. Treat every gun as if it's loaded at all times
2. Always point a gun in a safe direction
3. Always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
4. Know what is behind you target
To be clear here, I consider myself to be very much a liberal. This is primarily due to my intense loathing for neo-classical economics and my intense belief that strong laws - with real teeth are necessary to regulate excesses of business and the wealthy in vitiating the options of their fellow citizens: IE taxing the wealthy to ensure strong public institutions to promote a more just and equitable society. In terms of political philosophy, I believe this makes me a neo-republican (this has nothing to do with the republican party in the US) along the lines of Philip Pettit.
That being said though, I have no problem with firearms as long as I know they are owned and used by responsible and stable citizens who are trained in its use. I own firearms myself. However, Texas (the state I am from) has strict requirements for my concealed carry licenses and requires that you are certified trained in weapon safety as well as use... which is stricter than some other states, but I believe justifiably so.
Now to clear the air... I have no desire to disarm law abiding citizens of the republic. Even those whose political viewpoints borders on frightening to myself. I do however want to ensure they are responsible, law abiding, and fully cognizant of the potential danger inherent to their use, and fully trained in safety precautions. I also want to ensure their weapons are in a secure place, away from children and the children in the home are properly instructed at the potential danger of its misuse. When those requirements are satisfied, I am satisfied.
Besides... in a bit of dark humor considering the earlier discussion of TEOTWAWKI. I'm content in the knowledge my Austinite liberal friends are well armed... it means the wackos in the state legislature serious about secession would never make it out of the capitol alive if they ever succeeded at such a measure. >:-)
Search me, I'm a strong liberal and I own a Mossberg 500. I know quite a bit about firearms of many different types and support the right of anyone without a notable criminal background to purchase one for sport, or just because they like the things. =P
One of the biggest problems with the political climate right now is this whole idea that EVERY liberal or EVERY conservative adheres to every single piece of that party's rhetoric. EVERY conservative is a homophobic, uneducated, gun fanatic. EVERY liberal is a tree hugging, holier than thou, communist. This kind of thinking is perpetuated by both sides of the equation, making any kind of compromise on any issue increasingly more difficult.
Quote from: Jen on January 12, 2014, 01:19:52 AM
I do not understand the notion of "if everybody had a gun we'd all be safer!" That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard of. When you pull out a gun, you raise the stakes. When you have a gun in the home you put everybody inside at risk. How many times do those guns get in the hands of children with tragic results? More than none.
We could site Switzerland here, where every citizen is required by law to join the military at the age of 18, and retains their firearms after leaving service. In effect meaning that every citizen in the country owns, at the very least, an assault rifle and sidearm. They also have THE lowest gun violence rate worldwide.
Quote from: Jen on January 12, 2014, 01:19:52 AM
I would be fine with everybody being allowed to own all the muskets they want, which was the gun tech available at the time the amendment was written. The writers of that amendment did not envision assault rifles.
And if the point of the amendment was to give citizens a fighting chance against its government, that ship has long since sailed. Even assault rifles won't protect you from what the military has in their arsenal, almost all of which is illegal for private citizens to own. And can you imagine if it was legal for your neighbor to own a tank and/or a battery of grenade launchers? Yikes!
I do not understand the notion of "if everybody had a gun we'd all be safer!" That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard of. When you pull out a gun, you raise the stakes. When you have a gun in the home you put everybody inside at risk. How many times do those guns get in the hands of children with tragic results? More than none.
Thing is i don't own an "assault rifle", i own a carbine. While my AR15 does look like an M16A4 that is where the similarities end. An assault rifle is illegal to own under the NFA, and the selector switch has 3 positions on it, safe, fire and auto. A carbine on the other hand is not controlled by the NFA and the switch only has two positions, safe and fire. A carbine is not capable of full auto fire, and contrary to popular beliefs you can not simply shave the firing pin on a carbine to make it fire full auto. Doing so will not only get you 5 years in federal prison for illegally modifying a firearm, but will also render your AR15 useless.
Also just as an fyi, the AR in AR15, dose not mean assault rifle, it means "Armalite Rifle" as the rifle was the 15th rifle that Eugene Stoner created for the company. The parents were later sold to Colt who then modified the platform with an automatic sear then marketed it to the army as the M16A1.
So in the end do i own an assault rifle, nope. Does the second amendment, or any other amendment change just because technology does, nope.
Quote from: kariann330 on January 12, 2014, 11:19:40 AM
Does the second amendment, or any other amendment change just because technology does, nope.
The constitution was written to be adaptable, the amendments themselves were an adjustment of the original document. The authors knew times would change, that is why they made it that way. We should not hold it as gospel or be afraid to change it whenever it makes sense. Otherwise, in time, it is in danger of becoming obsolete. Treating the constitution as immutable dogma weakens it. We need to change it with the changes that happen in the world, and we have been, btw, just slower than i would like sometimes.
Quote from: Jen on January 12, 2014, 11:35:07 AM
The constitution was written to be adaptable, the amendments themselves were an adjustment of the original document. The authors knew times would change, that is why they made it that way. We should not hold it as gospel or be afraid to change it whenever it makes sense. Otherwise, in time, it is in danger of becoming obsolete. Treating the constitution as immutable dogma weakens it. We need to change it with the changes that happen in the world, and we have been, btw, just slower than i would like sometimes.
Ok if that's the case then your 1st amendment freedom of speech should NOT be carried over to the internet because it didn't exist when that amendment was created...but it does as long as the sites server is in the US, such as Susan's. Saying one amendment is outdated by current technology, while another isn't is just about the most asinine thing i have ever herd, no offense.
Ugh I hate politics and arguing :)
Quote from: kariann330 on January 12, 2014, 12:22:47 PM
Ok if that's the case then your 1st amendment freedom of speech should NOT be carried over to the internet because it didn't exist when that amendment was created...but it does as long as the sites server is in the US, such as Susan's. Saying one amendment is outdated by current technology, while another isn't is just about the most asinine thing i have ever herd, no offense.
Way to go Kariann! NICE!
Quote from: Dee on January 11, 2014, 11:50:12 PM
Hi Kariann,
I'm skipping over the other responses to avoid any possible ongoing arguments, as these threads tend to attract.
I don't think the answer is quite 'why don't dems/libs like guns,' but rather, it's more of a demographics correlation, and the comparisons are between urban and rural communities. Each community has different needs and resources, which shape values and priorities. In rural areas, there's more emphasis on independence and self sufficiency, and it's partly because with less population, there's less civic infrastructure to help the people. It's where we get the argument that an armed civilian could be the safer response than a police dept who may not have the power to arrive to a scene in time.
Conversely, a denser population necessitates a greater civic infrastructure- so in the above example, is less necessary to have an armed civilian, since police response would be more immediate. And with greater populations, comes a greater chance of other civilians being victimized, and greater aversion to civilians carrying weapons.
So where do political allegiances come into this? It's another study of demographics. The needs of those in urban areas usually gravitate towards liberal values, and the needs of a rural community trend conservative. And each is valid in their argument, which makes gun control so difficult to properly study and argue for one side, in general terms. But the short answer to your question- it's not that all liberals hate guns. It's just more likely they come from a community where their availability creates a catastrophic problem.
I hope this response makes some sense. Apologies for not being able to link to anything... I'm on my phone, on vacation, browsing Susan's because I can't sleep :p
I think you're on to something with this, but I believe it misses the mark a bit (no pun intended). I think the urban vs rural demographics have a lot to do with simply being conservative vs liberal in one's view. I would soundly disagree that civic structure and support are lacking in rural areas and visa versa, my experience is the opposite. In rural areas, everyone is expected to help, in urban areas there are many sitting around waiting for others to do things for them, they surrender liberty for 'security', but they're neither secure nor free.
I believe the lowest common denominator result flourishes in urban areas, that values decline because they're hard, responsibility takes effort. You're ostracized in rural areas for doing this, the measure of a person in these areas is their character, in rural areas it's their perceived compassion and tolerance of other views. In a way, urban areas tend to corrupt.
This isn't meant to insult, I've felt these forces myself now that I live in urban America.
I will also say the liberal approach doesn't fill the needs of urban people, they cause decay and decline, take Detroit and other major cities who are following Detroit's path. In Detroit, private enterprise is being brought in the rejuvenate the city, not civic structures, they're all gone.
Just my thoughts, please stay civil, I love you all dearly... ::)
Quote from: Jen on January 12, 2014, 11:35:07 AM
The constitution was written to be adaptable, the amendments themselves were an adjustment of the original document. The authors knew times would change, that is why they made it that way. We should not hold it as gospel or be afraid to change it whenever it makes sense. Otherwise, in time, it is in danger of becoming obsolete. Treating the constitution as immutable dogma weakens it. We need to change it with the changes that happen in the world, and we have been, btw, just slower than i would like sometimes.
Certainly, the ability to ratify it is written into the thing. But there is not even a remote political possibility of rewriting the 2nd amendment. There have been thousands of attempts at modifying the constitution. There is not even the will to institute a new AWB. Gun owners are winning the argument.
Personally, I cannot reconcile 11,078 firearm related deaths in one year alone (National Center for Health Statistics, 2010) with the notion that greater gun control in the US is unnecessary. So it's not about hating guns, it's just that I cannot believe increased control and regulation would not help this situation.
I know there are many, many gun owners and enthusiasts who are completely responsible with their firearms. I know that US gun deaths are very likely a reflection of much deeper issues such as cultural violence, generational hopelessness, income/opportunity inequality, and so on. Still, I just cannot fathom how regulation would do anything but help with the dismal number reported above.
First off, disclosure: I'm both a liberal and a Canadian.
In all seriousness, here is my prefered firearms regime:
-no private ownership
-the option to rent firearms from the government for limited terms (several days) for the specific purpose of in-season hunting.
-rental requires specific hunting training and license
-no lethal ammunition--only tranquilizer darts would be legal
-strict criminalization of all other use and possession
I honestly fail to see a flaw in the scheme: hunting stays legal and available, while gun violence is reduced
Quote from: TiffanyT on January 12, 2014, 03:57:09 AM
I came to guns very late compared to a lot of owners. I didn't grow up with them at all. I never wanted one. I feared them. Until I got dragged to a range. That was a life changing day. Once you shoot a gun it will forever change your perception of them. They demand respect.
The only time I ever shot anything stronger than a BB gun was one time in the mid 90s. I went out to the woods with a few people. One of the guys was a Vietnam vet and had a LOT of guns. We did target practice with 9mm's, shotguns, and a couple of M-16's. There was no danger of anything happening since the people that we were with owned the property so no one was going to get hit by a stray bullet or anything like that. These guys were all trained marksmen, so they knew exactly what they were doing. I shot off one of each gun and it didn't make me want anything more to do with guns. I tried it, didn't care for it and I never fired a gun since that day.
They just aren't for me.
Quote from: Tanya W on January 12, 2014, 01:33:43 PM
Personally, I cannot reconcile 11,078 firearm related deaths in one year alone (National Center for Health Statistics, 2010) with the notion that greater gun control in the US is unnecessary. So it's not about hating guns, it's just that I cannot believe increased control and regulation would not help this situation.
I know there are many, many gun owners and enthusiasts who are completely responsible with their firearms. I know that US gun deaths are very likely a reflection of much deeper issues such as cultural violence, generational hopelessness, income/opportunity inequality, and so on. Still, I just cannot fathom how regulation would do anything but help with the dismal number reported above.
I believe, most gun deaths are criminals killing fellow criminals, primarily in the drug trade. I honestly don't want to weaken my constitutional rights to defend myself to keep people who are a detriment to society anyway.
Stay classy America! 8)
Quote from: Gwynne on January 12, 2014, 01:53:19 PM
First off, disclosure: I'm both a liberal and a Canadian.
In all seriousness, here is my prefered firearms regime:
-no private ownership
-the option to rent firearms from the government for limited terms (several days) for the specific purpose of in-season hunting.
-rental requires specific hunting training and license
-no lethal ammunition--only tranquilizer darts would be legal
-strict criminalization of all other use and possession
I honestly fail to see a flaw in the scheme: hunting stays legal and available, while gun violence is reduced
Sounds like a real utopia, but I think I'll pass.
But I'm not sure Canada is a good example, Do you not feel that you're beneficiaries of U.S. power? :eusa_think:
Quote from: Nikko on January 12, 2014, 02:41:42 PM
But I'm not sure Canada is a good example, Do you not feel that you're beneficiaries of U.S. power? :eusa_think:
We are and I see no reason that would change were the US to change it's gun policies.
To the OP's question, here is the way I see it as a socialist:
The Second amendment doesn't mention firearms at all, it mentions arms, which could be anything from slings to rocket launchers. This means that any weapons at all not allowed is a limit on the second amendment, and since this is a limited right, I don't see anything unconstitutional about these limits. Assault weapon bans, or even outright bans on guns should technically be constitutional by the letter of the law at the very least, so long as some arms are still legal.
That being said, I disagree with firearm bans basically always, not because of the constitution but because I generally feel that freedom is best served by things that are regulated and available. I wouldn't be opposed to universal background checks, mandatory safety training or even licenses in order to use a gun (you need one for a car, and it isn't even designed to kill anyone). I don't see the issue as something particular to firearms, I believe basically there should be few limits on what is allowed provided the regulations are tight enough.
The biggest thing that confuses me about the issue though, is why is it so important? What makes a gun special versus any other weapon? Don't misunderstand, I do have a m1911 and I generally feel people have a right to self defense, and since I am technically in VA (Rather than DC or MD) I can use a concealed carry permit and other such things, and I don't oppose them. The thing is owning a gun hasn't changed my life in any appreciable way, I still don't walk around with a gun everywhere, even if there were an outright ban how would it even effect me, and don't say I couldn't rebel against the government, because that isn't going to happen gun or not, I am not the sort to engage in a violent struggle, especially one I would be destined to lose. Perhaps this is some sort of cultural difference between the right and the left, but I can't imagine life being all that different with or without private ownership of firearms.
One thing that's often incorrectly sited. Our citizenry is far more armed than our government. Our military isn't used against U.S. citizens. I'm curious why that happens in so many other countries.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 12, 2014, 01:53:19 PM
First off, disclosure: I'm both a liberal and a Canadian.
In all seriousness, here is my prefered firearms regime:
-no private ownership
-the option to rent firearms from the government for limited terms (several days) for the specific purpose of in-season hunting.
-rental requires specific hunting training and license
-no lethal ammunition--only tranquilizer darts would be legal
-strict criminalization of all other use and possession
I honestly fail to see a flaw in the scheme: hunting stays legal and available, while gun violence is reduced
You do realize any kind of a poisoned dart, large enough to kill a deer before it runs more then the 20 yards as when i use a slug would taint the meat and render it useless right?
Also....Molan Labe!!!!
Quote from: kariann330 on January 12, 2014, 10:48:06 PM
You do realize any kind of a poisoned dart, large enough to kill a deer before it runs more then the 20 yards as when i use a slug would taint the meat and render it useless right?
Also....Molan Labe!!!!
tranquilizer, not poison
you'd have to kill the animal manually with a blade
As for "Molon Labe," getting the guns in circulation out of circulation is certainly the difficulty. I tend to think that, in light of the difficulties of registration schemes, the preferable direction is to ban production of
ammunition and criminalize the possession of reserve stocks. Leave people guns, but deprive them of utility.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 12, 2014, 10:53:59 PM
tranquilizer, not poison
you'd have to kill the animal manually with a blade
As for "Molon Labe," getting the guns in circulation out of circulation is certainly the difficulty. I tend to think that, in light of the difficulties of registration schemes, the preferable direction is to ban production of ammunition and criminalize the possession of reserve stocks. Leave people guns, but deprive them of utility.
And may i ask how you would deal with the county sheriffs and state legislators who have already announced publicly that they will refuse to enforce any such federal law and charge anyone attempting to enforce any such law with a second degree felony?
Yes you can shut down nationwide manufacturers, but what about the hand loaders in those counties and states?
Quote from: kariann330 on January 12, 2014, 12:22:47 PM
Ok if that's the case then your 1st amendment freedom of speech should NOT be carried over to the internet because it didn't exist when that amendment was created...but it does as long as the sites server is in the US, such as Susan's. Saying one amendment is outdated by current technology, while another isn't is just about the most asinine thing i have ever herd, no offense.
That comparison doesn't work at all. The argument isn't that laws from the past shouldn't apply to new technology but that it's intent and usefulness should be analyzed as times change. There are not many people that think the second amendment shouldn't exist. However, just as the freedom of speech is limited, so should the right to bear arms. The intent of that amendment ratified in 1791 is absolutely obsolete and to not not adapt the way of thinking from 222 years ago would be asinine. The writers of that amendment and the ones from the 1689 law it was based on certainly could not envision what the arms of today would be capable of.
Quote from: kariann330 on January 13, 2014, 12:02:30 AM
And may i ask how you would deal with the county sheriffs and state legislators who have already announced publicly that they will refuse to enforce any such federal law and charge anyone attempting to enforce any such law with a second degree felony?
Yes you can shut down nationwide manufacturers, but what about the hand loaders in those counties and states?
Firing the sheriffs for dereliction of duty would seem a natural first step. They're hired to bring the law to life, not to interpret it.
Quote from: skin on January 13, 2014, 12:49:29 AM
That comparison doesn't work at all. The argument isn't that laws from the past shouldn't apply to new technology but that it's intent and usefulness should be analyzed as times change. There are not many people that think the second amendment shouldn't exist. However, just as the freedom of speech is limited, so should the right to bear arms. The intent of that amendment ratified in 1791 is absolutely obsolete and to not not adapt the way of thinking from 222 years ago would be asinine. The writers of that amendment and the ones from the 1689 law it was based on certainly could not envision what the arms of today would be capable of.
Oh, I think they could just fine, you think they didn't know technology would advance? They made no conditions on the second amendment.
The arms citizens were allowed to own and bare in those times were the most advanced available at the time. They didn't restrict them to pea shooters and sling shots.
You think you can make the public safer by making safer guns? How? Watch the video in my first post if you haven't. I listen to intelligent people (especially women ;)) who have actually observed the absurdity of gun restrictions first hand.
Gun technology is primitive these days, they're here to stay. You can never get them away from bad people, it's time to accept that? The question is, do you take them from people who aren't bad and who plan to abide by gun laws? Doing so makes us less safe IMO. Most people understand this.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 13, 2014, 07:57:23 AM
Firing the sheriffs for dereliction of duty would seem a natural first step. They're hired to bring the law to life, not to interpret it.
... and fire Obama for failure to enforce the numerous laws passed by those we elected (congress) to craft them? :D
Quote from: Nikko on January 13, 2014, 08:47:20 AM
... and fire Obama for failure to enforce the numerous laws passed by those we elected (congress) to craft them? :D
That is a bit of a selective attack on the president, I mean, has there been an administration that has ever enforced all the laws congress crafted? Regardless of where people want to throw the blame, congress mandated immigration controls back in the Regan administration that were unenforced, there was the legal mandate for an entry-exit visa system from the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, but Clinton, Bush, and Obama hadn't done anything with it. You could pick almost any issue, and there are tons of congressional mandates that were never acted on.
My point is, the executive branch gets to do what it wants basically outside of the law but local sheriffs don't; that isn't a commentary on what is right, merely an observation on what is. States and localities don't get to violate federal law unless there is lots money to be made (Marijuana taxes anyone?).
Liberal gun owner here.
I don't hate guns, but i do dislike many of their owners. Paranoid vigilantes standing their ground and doomsayers rushing out to buy the very type of gun whose barrel was still smoking after killing 26 people aren't the type of people I feel would be safe owning guns.
Quote from: Hikari on January 13, 2014, 11:05:07 AM
That is a bit of a selective attack on the president, I mean, has there been an administration that has ever enforced all the laws congress crafted? Regardless of where people want to throw the blame, congress mandated immigration controls back in the Regan administration that were unenforced, there was the legal mandate for an entry-exit visa system from the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, but Clinton, Bush, and Obama hadn't done anything with it. You could pick almost any issue, and there are tons of congressional mandates that were never acted on.
My point is, the executive branch gets to do what it wants basically outside of the law but local sheriffs don't; that isn't a commentary on what is right, merely an observation on what is. States and localities don't get to violate federal law unless there is lots money to be made (Marijuana taxes anyone?).
Eeh-gad........ almost spit up my cereal! ;)
Executive orders are reserved for extra-ordinary situations, usually when parts of laws appear to be unconstitutional.
Using them to give waivers to prized constituent groups so that laws don't apply to them is clearly abuse of power. We just had three well respected constitutional law professors testify before congress all saying Obama is abusing his power, he's violating his oath of office. Impeachment they say is the proper remedy if it continues. Jonathan Turley was one of these professors and he's a liberal and Obama supporter.
Quote from: Hideyoshi on January 13, 2014, 01:23:57 PM
Liberal gun owner here.
I don't hate guns, but i do dislike many of their owners. Paranoid vigilantes standing their ground and doomsayers rushing out to buy the very type of gun whose barrel was still smoking after killing 26 people aren't the type of people I feel would be safe owning guns.
I think this happened because opportunistic politicians and media activists immediately began irrationally deaminizing the AR15 before the smoke cleared.
Paranoid vigilantes I can agree with... :)
Quote from: Nikko on January 13, 2014, 02:33:19 PM
I think this happened because opportunistic politicians and media activists immediately began irrationally deaminizing the AR15 before the smoke cleared.
Paranoid vigilantes I can agree with... :)
True that. Talk about banning anything only drives up demand based on future scarcity. 5 years in a row gun sales have increased because of this.
Quote from: Nikko on January 13, 2014, 02:22:43 PM
Eeh-gad........ almost spit up my cereal! ;)
Executive orders are reserved for extra-ordinary situations, usually when parts of laws appear to be unconstitutional.
Using them to give waivers to prized constituent groups so that laws don't apply to them is clearly abuse of power. We just had three well respected constitutional law professors testify before congress all saying Obama is abusing his power, he's violating his oath of office. Impeachment they say is the proper remedy if it continues. Jonathan Turley was one of these professors and he's a liberal and Obama supporter.
It was grossly misreported that impeachment was the topic of discussion. Jonathan Turley wrote an article about his frustration over the obsession of the concept of impeachment instead of focusing on real issues. Here is part of it:
QuoteDuring the hearing, not only did I discount impeachment as an option, but a Democratic member specifically asked the panel about the references to impeachment. No one could remember how it came up but it was clear that no one thought it was a substantial issue — or significant part of the hearing.
It is certainly true that House members have raised impeachment issues previously (just as some Democrats raised impeachment during the Bush Administration). However, it actually came up little in the hearing which was 99 percent focused on the separation of powers and the rise of an uber-presidency under Bush and Obama.
As far as executive orders, they may be intended for extra-ordinary situations, but that hasn't been true since the 1800s. In fact, Obama issued the least amount of executive orders in a President's first term since Benjamin Harrison. And while Bush's first term was a little higher than Obama's, his second term was incredibly low at 118.
Quote from: skin on January 13, 2014, 03:34:14 PM
It was grossly misreported that impeachment was the topic of discussion. Jonathan Turley wrote an article about his frustration over the obsession of the concept of impeachment instead of focusing on real issues. Here is part of it:
As far as executive orders, they may be intended for extra-ordinary situations, but that hasn't been true since the 1800s. In fact, Obama issued the least amount of executive orders in a President's first term since Benjamin Harrison. And while Bush's first term was a little higher than Obama's, his second term was incredibly low at 118.
I watched the hearing. Professor Turley said Obama is abusing his powers and it threatens our democracy. I didn't say the professors called for impeachment. They said it's the remedy if this continues.
I don't know or care how many executive orders any president issues. I specifically stated doing so for political reasons is abuse of power. Passing terrible laws knowing you'll have to exempt your favored constituents is something any fair minded person understands unequivocally is wrong and abusive. They doesn't wait to see which party or leader is doing it or how it affects them.
Quote from: Nikko on January 13, 2014, 04:09:43 PM
I watched the hearing. Professor Turley said Obama is abusing his powers and it threatens our democracy. I didn't say the professors called for impeachment. They said it's the remedy if this continues.
I don't know or care how many executive orders any president issues. I specifically stated doing so for political reasons is abuse of power. Passing terrible laws knowing you'll have to exempt your favored constituents is something any fair minded person understands unequivocally is wrong and abusive. They doesn't wait to see which party or leader is doing it or how it affects them.
The problem is why even mention Obama? All presidents issue executive orders or ignore/change laws on the enforcement end for their own gains and political power, I mean this is just how things work in this country. I am not a fan of the president he is incredibly right wing versus my ideology but, it is hard to single him out for something every administration does. Heck, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, FDR packed the courts, Nixon spied on his rivals, and so on. If you think it is wrong and abusive that is fine, but it has nothing to do with Obama specifically, just like Bush and all the others and I would suspect all those that come after will also abuse their power in this manner.
Regardless despite the rhetoric, it isn't like guns are going anywhere, they make people money, and they have their own lobby. Private ownership of firearms is about as secure as anything is in this day and age, and if even widely supported background checks wouldn't pass after Newtown, CT then what exactly would spurn people into action? I would think that likely nothing would.
Quote from: Hikari on January 13, 2014, 04:44:56 PM
The problem is why even mention Obama? All presidents issue executive orders or ignore/change laws on the enforcement end for their own gains and political power, I mean this is just how things work in this country. I am not a fan of the president he is incredibly right wing versus my ideology but, it is hard to single him out for something every administration does. Heck, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, FDR packed the courts, Nixon spied on his rivals, and so on. If you think it is wrong and abusive that is fine, but it has nothing to do with Obama specifically, just like Bush and all the others and I would suspect all those that come after will also abuse their power in this manner.
Regardless despite the rhetoric, it isn't like guns are going anywhere, they make people money, and they have their own lobby. Private ownership of firearms is about as secure as anything is in this day and age, and if even widely supported background checks wouldn't pass after Newtown, CT then what exactly would spurn people into action? I would think that likely nothing would.
Because I love spectacular irony, why else? :icon_geekdance:
What, you didn't enjoy a little quip at such a 'right-wing' president? And I thought you might enjoy that! ;)
Quote from: Nikko on January 13, 2014, 04:53:55 PM
Because I love spectacular irony, why else? :icon_geekdance:
What, you didn't enjoy a little quip at such a 'right-wing' president? And I thought you might enjoy that! ;)
lol, I do enjoy a jab or two at him; just worried that the man might become more important than the issue, and obscure it. The president has done a great many terrible things, but it really is systemic and I just want to give credit to where it is due. If there is an afterlife, I suspect that there is a particular place in the darkest depths of it reserved for politicians.
Quote from: Hikari on January 13, 2014, 05:05:59 PM
lol, I do enjoy a jab or two at him; just worried that the man might become more important than the issue, and obscure it. The president has done a great many terrible things, but it really is systemic and I just want to give credit to where it is due. If there is an afterlife, I suspect that there is a particular place in the darkest depths of it reserved for politicians.
We can only wish! :D
Quote from: Hikari on January 13, 2014, 04:44:56 PM
Regardless despite the rhetoric, it isn't like guns are going anywhere, they make people money, and they have their own lobby. Private ownership of firearms is about as secure as anything is in this day and age, and if even widely supported background checks wouldn't pass after Newtown, CT then what exactly would spurn people into action? I would think that likely nothing would.
That's a fairly cynical attitude. I suspect that it's an inevitable shift in attitudes that will follow generational lines. Give it twenty years and things will happen naturally. I have very little doubt that the 2nd will be repealed in my lifetime and will come to be viewed as an embarrassing blight on US cultural and legal history.
Rights are good reasons, not legal artifacts.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 13, 2014, 06:35:41 PM
That's a fairly cynical attitude. I suspect that it's an inevitable shift in attitudes that will follow generational lines. Give it twenty years and things will happen naturally. I have very little doubt that the 2nd will be repealed in my lifetime and will come to be viewed as an embarrassing blight on US cultural and legal history.
Right are good reasons, not legal artifacts.
Ya right! And what are the top ten videos that kids between four and 18 are playing these days? They're all shoot the snot out of everything games. I just don't see it happening, but stranger things have happened. ;)
Quote from: Nikko on January 13, 2014, 11:01:48 PM
Ya right! And what are the top ten videos that kids between four and 18 are playing these days? They're all shoot the snot out of everything games. I just don't see it happening, but stranger things have happened. ;)
I suspect most horror movie fans would pass on being gutted by a psychopath.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 13, 2014, 11:04:52 PM
I suspect most horror movie fans would pass on being gutted by a psychopath.
This horror movie fan would agree with that! :D
Are you suggesting bans on knives are next? How are we going to defend ourselves against criminals who didn't give up their guns? :icon_2gun:
Quote from: Nikko on January 13, 2014, 11:26:22 PM
This horror movie fan would agree with that! :D
Are you suggesting bans on knives are next? How are we going to defend ourselves against criminals who didn't give up their guns? :icon_2gun:
:D I'm suggesting that most people draw a hard line between fantasy and reality.
Knives have a practical function which guns do not.
I do have some strong opinions about banning inter-school sports, tho.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 13, 2014, 11:31:27 PM
:D I'm suggesting that most people draw a hard line between fantasy and reality.
Knives have a practical function which guns do not.
I do have some strong opinions about banning inter-school sports, tho.
Ah Jeez...........
Ok, I'll bite, what's wrong with inter-school sports? :icon_poke:
Quote from: Nikko on January 13, 2014, 11:55:08 PM
Ah Jeez...........
Ok, I'll bite, what's wrong with inter-school sports? :icon_poke:
Sports makes people turn gay and sprout pink polka dots.
Gwynne, why do you not like gays who wear pink polka dots? It's 2014 sweetheart.
I thought I might jump in here. I have no idea why the left seems bent on regulating firearms in the US. The best reason is as shallow as demographic majority supports it, if that were to change, the left's position might too.
There is a ridiculous urban/rural disparity present in the Midwest, as a farm owner I'm acutely aware of it. As long as urban and rural groups despise each other there will be pitched inability to reconcile regulations pertaining to gun control.
This is developing into a sniping match and I shall not allow that to continue.
Think before you post please.
Cindy
Quote from: Cindy on January 14, 2014, 01:36:57 AM
This is developing into a sniping match and I shall not allow that to continue.
:eusa_clap:
Quote from: Nikko on January 13, 2014, 11:55:08 PM
Ah Jeez...........
Ok, I'll bite, what's wrong with inter-school sports? :icon_poke:
Partially, I object to school sports because they are antithetical to the core function of public education, which is the development of a productive collaborative (not competitive) ethos.
Mostly, thought, it's a utilitarian argument
(you might have picked up that that's my ethical bent). School sports are ridiculously expensive, cause students to miss significant class time, and distract volunteer coaching teaching staff from core academic responsibilities. Moreover, they serve the fitness needs of a very small fraction of the student body in any given high school. So, I advocate reallocating sports funding for open low-competition intramural sports, calisthenics, and nutrition programs.
I don't dislike sports. I do disagree with publicly-funded schools losing sight of their mission and pretending to be athletic clubs.
NOTA BENE: I have no issue with 100% private schools pursuing sports if they please
Quote from: Gwynne on January 14, 2014, 08:18:01 AM
Partially, I object to school sports because they are antithetical to the core function of public education, which is the development of a productive collaborative (not competitive) ethos.
Mostly, thought, it's a utilitarian argument (you might have picked up that that's my ethical bent). School sports are ridiculously expensive, cause students to miss significant class time, and distract volunteer coaching teaching staff from core academic responsibilities. Moreover, they serve the fitness needs of a very small fraction of the student body in any given high school. So, I advocate reallocating sports funding for open low-competition intramural sports, calisthenics, and nutrition programs.
I don't dislike sports. I do disagree with publicly-funded schools losing sight of their mission and pretending to be athletic clubs.
NOTA BENE: I have no issue with 100% private schools pursuing sports if they please
Utilitarianism wasn't what I was picking up, but now that you mention it, it fits I suppose. When I hear people opposing what various groups desire and suggesting a certain way for all, that seems more like 'central planning' to me. But I suppose they do go a bit hand in hand. That's not meant to offend, just my honest reaction.
One of my majors in college was Economics, Utility theory is a large underpinning of Economics. I believe if left to their own devices, all individuals maximize their utility. Thus, maximizing utility of a society is only achieved for a openly free society expressing its free will.
Interesting though. As they say, the devil is always in the details. ;)
Quote from: Gwynne on January 14, 2014, 08:18:01 AM
Partially, I object to school sports because they are antithetical to the core function of public education, which is the development of a productive collaborative (not competitive) ethos.
One could make the argument, that learning to collaborate in a competitive environment is what team sports actually teach; This is fairly representative of how things are structured in life after school too, groups use their collective strength to compete with other groups. Group cohesion is very important, and while I certainly feel it could be taught better (after all hazing and other such things being used to cement group cohesion isn't working out well in your office environment) I could see the argument that these things are teaching students valuable lessons. Though it has to be mentioned if the lesson is valuable then all should participate, and if it is a limited participation thing, then everyone tax dollars shouldn't subsidize it for the few who do participate in sports.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 14, 2014, 08:18:01 AM
That's a fairly cynical attitude. I suspect that it's an inevitable shift in attitudes that will follow generational lines. Give it twenty years and things will happen naturally. I have very little doubt that the 2nd will be repealed in my lifetime and will come to be viewed as an embarrassing blight on US cultural and legal history.
I would be interested to learn why it is you think that attitudes will change on firearms. Sure I mean over time all attitudes change but you said within your lifetime, and perhaps I am misreading the trend, but in the time I have been alive the pendulum seems to be swinging the other way, after all cities like DC and Chicago have had their gun bans lifted, not made stricter. I am not saying that a gun ban will never happen, and i would gladly give up my firearms if the law said I had to (as I said before my life has not been made better or worse from owning a gun, so I don't have that cultural attachment).
I just cannot imagine what could really catalyze the country as a whole against private firearms ownership and even if it did handguns and assault rifles would go, but I couldn't think anything would dislodge hunting rifles and shotguns. After all even in Europe there is still hunting, and it isn't all archery. I do admit, while I have traveled the country I generally stay in the east coast now, and my work keeps me in a range between MA and SC, so perhaps I am misreading the cultural mood of the nation, but it seems if anything gun "rights" are being expanded, with the vast majority of new "restrictions" just being closing of loopholes that get around background checks and such.
I suppose it all depends on what your mindset is about various things. There are some awful events that do occur as a result of some individuals inability to discern the difference between freedom and license. Here is an example of one man exercising his freedom to protect himself and his family from others who are taking license with his property and possibly even his life. Of course the NRA picked up on his experience and made a video to emphasize a point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Sbf_piIQQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Sbf_piIQQ)
Excellent video. Shocking that criminals go after those they deem defenseless huh?
The following video appeared once your video finished, it's excellent as well... :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=682JLrsUmEM&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=682JLrsUmEM&feature=player_embedded)
Quote from: Gwynne on January 14, 2014, 08:18:01 AM
Partially, I object to school sports because they are antithetical to the core function of public education, which is the development of a productive collaborative (not competitive) ethos.
Mostly, thought, it's a utilitarian argument (you might have picked up that that's my ethical bent). School sports are ridiculously expensive, cause students to miss significant class time, and distract volunteer coaching teaching staff from core academic responsibilities. Moreover, they serve the fitness needs of a very small fraction of the student body in any given high school. So, I advocate reallocating sports funding for open low-competition intramural sports, calisthenics, and nutrition programs.
I don't dislike sports. I do disagree with publicly-funded schools losing sight of their mission and pretending to be athletic clubs.
NOTA BENE: I have no issue with 100% private schools pursuing sports if they please
You do realize that if high school sports were completely ended, several kids would have no chance of ever going to college and getting a higher education. Look at Tim Couch for example, excelled in academics but not enough to be offered a scholarship, his family couldn't afford to send him to college, but because he also excelled at football he was able to get a scholarship. Fast forward 3 months after his graduation and he is in Cleveland playing for the Browns. Three seasons after getting traded he suffered a career ending injury and was able to fall back on his education, that he got because of a program you want to end, and is still able to provide for his family.
If high school sports were ended so many people like him would be in low wage, dead end jobs because they didn't get the education needed to get a better paying job and would possibly even be another person on welfare.
Yes there would still be the chance to join the military like i did, but let's be honest....not everyone likes the idea of being up before the sun rises just to do a bunch of pushups, situps, jumping jacks then go for a 10 mile run.....which my unit did in full deployment gear (minus ammo and rifles because we are not allowed to have them while on base) and a thigh rig holding your POW (personally owned weapon) 7 days a week. Plus the chance of getting shot at really deters people from joining. Then toss in the hype that we supposedly fired at, and even killed innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and that just makes less people wanna join.
Bottom line, high school sports are a great thing.
QuoteBottom line, high school sports are a great thing.
I think so.
I just get angry when people object on my behalf regarding my choices. Sports are in most schools because it's desired. There are some schools that ban them because it's desired. Just move to a school district that meets your needs. I'll never understand what makes a person feel they can decide for me. Wait, I do, it's called egomaniacal urges mixed with a healthy dose of narcissism. But what causes these things? I wish I knew. Born that way?
Quote from: Nikko on January 14, 2014, 01:10:33 PM
I think so.
I just get angry when people object on my behalf regarding my choices. Sports are in most schools because it's desired. There are some schools that ban them because it's desired. Just move to a school district that meets your needs. I'll never understand what makes a person feel they can decide for me. Wait, I do, it's called egomaniacal urges mixed with a healthy dose of narcissism. But what causes these things? I wish I knew. Born that way?
See i feel that exact way when someone says i shouldn't be able to own an AR15, or a 30 round magazine, or any firearm for that fact. Yes i understand not everyone is comfortable around them, which is why they stay locked in a safe....yes i understand that some people just don't like, or enjoy gun sports, which is why i don't talk about them with people that don't. I just wish that in the end i can still end what i want, bought with my hard earned money, and if someone doesn't like it....simply change the channel ya know.....don't like them, don't buy them and so on.
Kia Ora,
The human psyche can be quite fragile at times, and for some people, simple harmless things can 'trigger' an over-the-top 'explosive' reaction-even in people whom it is felt should be able to control their emotions...
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/13/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/
Was the shooter carrying his weapon with him (as protection) because of the other recent shooting at a cinema in the US ...
Sadly paranoia can tip one over the threshold of sane rational thoughts...
Metta Zenda :)
Quote from: Nikko on January 14, 2014, 01:10:33 PM
I think so.
I just get angry when people object on my behalf regarding my choices. Sports are in most schools because it's desired. There are some schools that ban them because it's desired. Just move to a school district that meets your needs. I'll never understand what makes a person feel they can decide for me. Wait, I do, it's called egomaniacal urges mixed with a healthy dose of narcissism. But what causes these things? I wish I knew. Born that way?
Because, ultimately, they believe they are superior and that they know what's best for everyone else. It's the same on every issue from table salt to light bulbs to shower heads to red meat to guns. It doesn't matter what the topic is. This thread could pose the same question on anything and the answer will always be the same. "I don't like it so you can't have it." And when they can't convince you of their rightness, they proceed to take your choices away. They can't convince people to stop eating french fries, so they try to ban trans fats or whatever. They can't ban guns so they try to ban bullets. It's endless in their quest to meddle constantly in other people's affairs.
It's no different to me than being lectured about going to hell because I'm trans or having sex before I'm married or whatever. At least I'm only being judged by God. The left insists on taking my guns away to satisfy their own ego. But I don't run around trying to tell anyone they can't say or do something because I disagree or don't engage in whatever it is. What in the hell gives me the authority to decide that? Nothing. I don't begrudge anyone of their success and I don't judge my hippie Berkeley friends.
And yet, when it's all said and done, I'm constantly harassed for not paying my fair share, or for eating the wrong foods, or for enjoying the wrong books and it never ends. Even my rights are condemned. How can this be? How can people who fight for their rights and demand that "X" is my right, be the same people to seize my right to protect myself? How do you reconcile disarming the citizen at the end of the government rifle? How do you reconcile the condemnation of the police state yet demand all guns be in possession of the state? It all makes my head explode.
I have to admit, there have been some thoughtful and considerate posts over the last 5 pages and while I don't have the time to engage in all the details and obviously I would disagree with a sizable portion of them, I've found this thread to be entertaining and wanted to chime in again. Whatever, I'll probably get it closed down now.
Quote from: Nikko on January 14, 2014, 01:10:33 PM
I think so.
I just get angry when people object on my behalf regarding my choices. Sports are in most schools because it's desired. There are some schools that ban them because it's desired. Just move to a school district that meets your needs. I'll never understand what makes a person feel they can decide for me. Wait, I do, it's called egomaniacal urges mixed with a healthy dose of narcissism. But what causes these things? I wish I knew. Born that way?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't calling me an egomaniac.
Suggesting that choice should be unbound is terrifyingly dangerous.
Participation in society entails a tacit commitment to maximizing overall social utility. Freedom is the privilege to select one's own means of achieving that goal, but that goal entails the establishment of a measured balance of rights, privileges, and prohibitions.
What those are and how strictly they are protected, regulated, and enforced is a matter for continuous discourse, should honour no status quo (i.e. 2nd amendment rights), and should never be decided by any one person, but through the coherent integration of strong arguments.
Honour sacred cows and you'll die hungry. >:-)
QuoteI've found this thread to be entertaining and wanted to chime in again. Whatever, I'll probably get it closed down now.
Oh I doubt that, you make very good points.
I sometimes wish I could just become someone like Mayor Michael Bloomberg for like two minutes just to see what thinking their way is like. I can't do it nor can I comprehend it. Why would I care if someone drinks a soda larger than 16 ounces? People can drink gasoline for all I care, I don't advise it though. ;)
Quote from: Nikko on January 15, 2014, 12:41:37 AM
Oh I doubt that, you make very good points.
I sometimes wish I could just become someone like Mayor Michael Bloomberg for like two minutes just to see what thinking their way is like. I can't do it nor can I comprehend it. Why would I care if someone drinks a soda larger than 16 ounces? People can drink gasoline for all I care, I don't advise it though. ;)
Society is social engineering by definition. It's just a question of whether we prefer to take agency or depend of dumb luck. I'll trust the reason of scholars over the benevolence of gangsters almost any day.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 15, 2014, 12:49:24 AM
Society is social engineering by definition. It's just a question of whether we prefer to take agency or depend of dumb luck. I'll trust the reason of scholars over the benevolence of gangsters almost any day.
Okay then, good luck with that. ;)
Moderation
Healthy discussion is healthy, nothing wrong with that at all. I think this thread has been great, opinions have been discussed and debated.
I also don't agree with many of the opinions but if everyone shared mine I'd be bored ->-bleeped-<-less.
Don't worry about expressing yourself as long as you are inside ToS, which basically means respect for opinion not agreement.
Cindy
This from Canada:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/03XEUPfD0qM (http://www.youtube.com/embed/03XEUPfD0qM)
I gotta say i have really been enjoying this thread, and im also kinda shocked that it has lasted this long without getting locked lol.
Quote from: kariann330 on January 15, 2014, 11:07:36 AM
I gotta say i have really been enjoying this thread, and im also kinda shocked that it has lasted this long without getting locked lol.
There's no reason why anyone should be so willfully opposed to any subject that they would intentionally camp on a thread for the sole purpose of getting it locked like what happened to the "Prepper" thread. If we are all adults, there's no reason we can't be civil to one another and if not then we should recuse ourselves and move on.
I keep seeing a lot of "they" in reference to liberals.
While it seems like the majority of gun control advocates are liberals, there are also conservatives as well who'd like to see more regulation.
I work at a very political (Republican conservative firm) where the majority of the conservative partners think guns should be tightly regulated or out-right illegal. They also live in rural areas. It may seem a little strange, because they outwise seem to follow the conservative platform of being anti-tax, anti-LGBT, anti-Big Government, anti-Obama. . . .
Maybe I missed a few posts or something but I thought it was cleared up earlier that not all gun control or anti-gun advocates were all liberals, but it seems like that was forgotten.
Quote from: LearnedHand on January 15, 2014, 11:50:53 AM
I keep seeing a lot of "they" in reference to liberals.
While it seems like the majority of gun control advocates are liberals, there are also conservatives as well who'd like to see more regulation.
I work at a very political (Republican conservative firm) where the majority of the conservative partners think guns should be tightly regulated or out-right illegal. They also live in rural areas. It may seem a little strange, because they outwise seem to follow the conservative platform of being anti-tax, anti-LGBT, anti-Big Government, anti-Obama. . . .
Maybe I missed a few posts or something but I thought it was cleared up earlier that not all gun control or anti-gun advocates were all liberals, but it seems like that was forgotten.
Nope not forgotten about or overlooked....hence the saying "A guns only enemies are POLITICIANS and rust" but when you look to the media, or online groups such as One Million Moms For Gun Control, or even the Facebook groups supporting banning guns or for increased gun control.....most of them are very democrat, liberal democrat, or very rarely socialist connected groups.
Now look to Facebook pages like Cold Dead Hands, I Still Hate Obama, Gun Girls, Patriot Nation and Tea Party Patriots, all on the Molan Labe ( Latin for come get them) and the anti gun control side of the coin, they are all very republican and conservative aligned pages. Yes I Still Hate..... may have been started by two democrats but they all have the feeling that the party "left them" due to talks of banning, confiscating and so on.
I guess it's true tho that the media only reports what it wants to....kinda reminds me of a picture i saw recently. One picture taken head on at an anti gun rally makes a group of gun supporters (all open carrying) look like a crowd of bullies....same picture from a different angle shows that they were all posing in front of a flag for a group picture....yet the media only showed one side of that picture.....ill let yall guess which one.
When it comes to firearms ownership it's pretty clear that plenty of liberals own them just as conservatives do so liberals shouldn't be vilified over the gun issues. It's clearly become more the nemesis of the liberal politicians and policy makers who are in diametric opposition to everything conservative and visa versa, which only serves to create more division between the two parties, and is a good reason why the whole lot of them should be fired. This is equally as much akin as the usual black "leaders" who claim to speak for all black people which is clearly not so and they then become a catalyst for more division between blacks and white as they roil the crowds and create more controversy and thus more division.
Real thoughtful discerning adults don't behave like that and those who do just lower themselves to the mob mentality where there is no civility or reason.
QuoteI keep seeing a lot of "they" in reference to liberals.
There are tendencies of groups but very few absolutes for sure. Point well taken.
........................
Regarding gun control, I saw a good report on John Stossel's program last night. It demonstrated how hard it is to get a gun permit in New York City. He went thru huge amounts of paper work and effort, plus a fee of $400 (nonrefundable).
Despite the fact he's a public figure and was able to give the city proof of death threats made against him for his libertarian views, the city rejected his application for a gun permit citing he didn't provided adequate proof of need for one. Clearly, this is unconstitutional and it's abusive of citizens. In the end, it makes them criminals because if your life is being threatened, you're going to have to break the law and get a gun anyway.
Many gun regulations are backdoor methods of outright bans. That's what too many people don't understand.
Quote from: Nikko on January 15, 2014, 01:16:32 PM
Many gun regulations are backdoor methods of outright bans. That's what too many people don't understand.
Strategic legislation is a tactic used on both sides.
Quote from: Nikko on January 15, 2014, 01:16:32 PM
Many gun regulations are backdoor methods of outright bans. That's what too many people don't understand.
Are we talking about regulations such as mandatory background checks or waiting periods, or ones that prevent civilians from buying/selling certain types of guns (like the military grade ones)?
I don't really see how something like requiring all sales to have a criminal check run, or preventing these quick sales at gun shows without a waiting period (which is required in some states) is a backdoor method to being an outright ban.
I can see how other regulations could lead to an outright ban following a slippery slope analysis.
Quote from: LearnedHand on January 15, 2014, 06:00:12 PM
I can see how other regulations could lead to an outright ban following a slippery slope analysis.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mathwarehouse.com%2Falgebra%2Flinear_equation%2Fimages%2Fslope_given_2points%2Fslope-of-a-line-graph.gif&hash=b30c673fc37e9d1d81fb8c67933b3ee4a0de2861)
I have no problem with people wanting to protect themselves. I can own a gun but I choose not to. Gun control doesn't deal with the underlying issues of crime, joblessness, and lack of opportunity. When people do not have these, they resort to crime. Couple that with anger and hopelessness they feel then you have a volatile mix.
Regarding the mass shootings such as Sandy Hook, in every case the perpetrator(s) were on anti-psychotic drugs. The vast majority of these medicines have horrible side effects which include suicidal thoughts, confusion, and that the people may be hearing voices.THIS is the point NOT brought by the media. They won't because big pharma controls medicine today. The bigger crime is that normal behavior is being pathologized and these dangerous drugs are prescribed for children.
Quote from: gennee on January 15, 2014, 08:25:00 PM
I have no problem with people wanting to protect themselves. I can own a gun but I choose not to. Gun control doesn't deal with the underlying issues of crime, joblessness, and lack of opportunity. When people do not have these, they resort to crime. Couple that with anger and hopelessness they feel then you have a volatile mix.
Regarding the mass shootings such as Sandy Hook, in every case the perpetrator(s) were on anti-psychotic drugs. The vast majority of these medicines have horrible side effects which include suicidal thoughts, confusion, and that the people may be hearing voices.THIS is the point NOT brought by the media. They won't because big pharma controls medicine today. The bigger crime is that normal behavior is being pathologized and these dangerous drugs are prescribed for children.
A big amen to this comment! The media has abrogated it's responsibility as the fourth estate as have most members of congress who are in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry.
Kia Ora,
Not really related but close enough "Guns are involved"....
When the hunter becomes the hunted and fears for his life...The irony of it all...
http://gazette.com/texas-rhino-hunt-auction-winner-fears-for-safety/article/feed/79586
Metta Zenda :)
Some people enjoy the hunt, they use the meat or give to those who do. The game is managed and levels are maintained to ensure against extinction. In the US hunting is a big business which brings massive income into state coffers through the fish and game departments. Game levels are judiciously regulated and interestingly enough because of that the deer and elk herds are much larger in CONUS than they were 100 years ago due to game management policies.
Unfortunately there is a segment of society that has elevated these animals placing them on a par with human beings to the extent that certain organizations are willing to infringe on the rights and vilify those who eat meat and enjoy hunting. I understand that some of it is religiously driven, those folks have the right to believe as they wish without trying to shove their convictions down other's throats through personal attacks, threats and intimidation.
Just to note that since hunting has been mentioned, I note that it is over regulated. In the state of Virginia handicapped hunters can use crossbows but, fully ambulatory hunters must use archery equipment for bow hunting. Also the hunting seasons allow deer to absolutely over populate and eat all of the plants in even suburban gardens.
I think we need some regulations on hunting, but they need to be based on keeping the environment working right, since humans by and large removed the predators we need to replace them. Also why I could see the logic in getting rid of handguns and assault rifles I couldn't see the logic of banning hunting weapons.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 15, 2014, 05:34:06 PM
Strategic legislation is a tactic used on both sides.
Legislation is often not enforced tactically either. This video is yet additional proof in my view, that there are politicians that want more gun related deaths so they can gain support for gun bans. The Fast & Furious case of flooding 'assault' rifles into Mexico so they'd find their way back into the U.S. and drive up gun murders is another bit of proof IMO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tRidnXwLf8&feature=player_detailpage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tRidnXwLf8&feature=player_detailpage)
I just have to chime in on this. Liberals do NOT hate guns. They hate the senseless murder of innocents. Period. I know lots of liberals who have guns. I don't, but will get one some day and even get my CCW permit.
I think they (me included) get frustrated when the NRA and their supporters want to talk about everything EXCEPT gun control. We do NOT have unhindered right to bear arms. Citizens are not allowed bombs, RPGs, machine guns or nukes so there IS A LINE to be drawn somewhere. Closing the gun show loophole would have been a good first step.
Oh, and liberals do NOT want more gun related deaths and the Fast and Furious program (started by Bush) was not an attempt to flood the US market with illegal guns to jack up gun deaths. See, it's this kind of rhetoric that makes progress to solving the issue difficult.
Jane
Quote from: JaneNicole2013 on January 16, 2014, 05:39:33 PM
I just have to chime in on this. Liberals do NOT hate guns. They hate the senseless murder of innocents. Period. I know lots of liberals who have guns. I don't, but will get one some day and even get my CCW permit.
I think they (me included) get frustrated when the NRA and their supporters want to talk about everything EXCEPT gun control. We do NOT have unhindered right to bear arms. Citizens are not allowed bombs, RPGs, machine guns or nukes so there IS A LINE to be drawn somewhere. Closing the gun show loophole would have been a good first step.
Oh, and liberals do NOT want more gun related deaths and the Fast and Furious program (started by Bush) was not an attempt to flood the US market with illegal guns to jack up gun deaths. See, it's this kind of rhetoric that makes progress to solving the issue difficult.
Jane
Rhetoric? F&F was Obama's program, even ABC couldn't tolerate Obama's lie about Bush starting it...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/president-obama-falsely-claims-fast-and-furious-program-begun-under-the-previous-administration/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/president-obama-falsely-claims-fast-and-furious-program-begun-under-the-previous-administration/)
They didn't track the guns, they dumped them into Mexico, essentially into the hands of drug cartels. This administration has covered this scandal up with lies and denials, they haven't stated it's purpose, so I choose to fill in the blanks, probably correctly so.
NRA's main mission is gun safety and protection of our constitution. They're ok in my book. ;)
The epitome of hypocrisy by the producer of some of the biggest gun violence films ever!
Harvey Weinstein making film with Meryl Streep to make NRA 'wish they weren't alive'
Jan. 16, 2014, 2:22 PM EST
By Greg Gilman
TheWrap
Harvey Weinstein promised that an upcoming film starring Meryl Streep will make the National Rifle Association "wish they weren't alive" during an interview with Howard Stern earlier this week, and now it has a title.
A Weinstein Co. spokeswoman told TheWrap on Thursday that the film will be called "The Senator's Wife."
"I don't think we need guns in this country," Weinstein told Stern on Wednesday. "I think the NRA is a disaster area."
"I shouldn't say this, but I'll tell it to you, Howard," Weinstein added. "I'm going to make a movie with Meryl Streep, and we're going to take this head-on. And they're going to wish they weren't alive after I'm done with them."
Weinstein described the film as a "big movie like a 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'" which he hopes will make audiences think: "Gun stocks — I don't want to be involved in that stuff. It's going to be like crash and burn."
I think Hollywood is a disaster area, he's one to talk huh?
I'm sure we can both toss around "facts" back and forth (because I have some to counter your claims) but we won't get anywhere. Just know liberals don't want to take your guns away, as long as you prove yourself to be a responsible gun owner. We see a lot about gun rights, but very little about gun responsibility.
Quote from: JaneNicole2013 on January 16, 2014, 05:39:33 PM
I just have to chime in on this. Liberals do NOT hate guns. They hate the senseless murder of innocents. Period. I know lots of liberals who have guns. I don't, but will get one some day and even get my CCW permit.
I think they (me included) get frustrated when the NRA and their supporters want to talk about everything EXCEPT gun control. We do NOT have unhindered right to bear arms. Citizens are not allowed bombs, RPGs, machine guns or nukes so there IS A LINE to be drawn somewhere. Closing the gun show loophole would have been a good first step.
Oh, and liberals do NOT want more gun related deaths and the Fast and Furious program (started by Bush) was not an attempt to flood the US market with illegal guns to jack up gun deaths. See, it's this kind of rhetoric that makes progress to solving the issue difficult.
Jane
Can not own machine guns? Wrong, i have a family member who owns an M132 minigun....and it is fully functional. A friend owns a SAW gun, and another family member owns a functional M16A4. All made possible by a class 3 tax stamp.
Can not own bombs? Wrong class 8 tax stamp allows you to own explosives from hand held size, such as grenades and flashbangs, up to and including plastic explosives such as Comp B and it's more powerful cousin C4.
Yes some states, such as California and New York have laws blocking the federal NFA registration of a firearm making it illegal to own them, but here in Ohio, you can get up to a class 8 tax stamp letting a person own from a fully automatic firearm, to a pound of C4 at a time.
All guns in this video are privately owned, all are fully automatic, all are machine guns ranging from uzis and Glock 18's to miniguns and SAW guns....even water cooled guns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_4OJkGP8bw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Well it sounds like the right to bear arms is alive and well in the United States :).
Back to the OP's original question: "That is, why do most "liberals" and democrats seem to hate firearms and want to violate the second amendment by limiting what you can own?"
Answer: Most liberal and democrats do NOT hate firearms. Many liberals and democrats have guns (and while I don't have one currently, I consider myself a future gun owner) and enjoy guns. As for "violating" the second amendment, almost every amendment has reasonable limitations, the second amendment should be no exception. It's finding common ground about those limitations that is the problem and unfortunately there are many mistruths being spread on both side. For example, your original assumption that liberals hate guns. Where did you get that idea? Most liberals I know are okay with gun ownership--RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. We see a lot about gun rights, but very little about gun responsibility.
And speaking of mistruths, I have heard some doozies out there--just don't buy into all the hype out there. A good 90% of it or more is not true.
And that's all I'm saying on this. I don't come to this site to argue politics but I got sucked in. My bad :).
Im independent and i dislike both sides of the aisle.
But this:
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html
Thats why im against guns.
Quote from: Emo on January 16, 2014, 11:03:08 PM
Im independent and i dislike both sides of the aisle.
But this:
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html
Thats why im against guns.
I spent the first half of my life in th UK and the second half in Japan. Guns are not available in either country so I'm not really in a position to comment on this topic.
I will say that in the countries I have lived, I have never touched a gun, nor even seen one.
Also, nobody I know has ever shot anyone, not has anyone I know ever been shot.
I am very happy that that is the case.
Quote from: JaneNicole2013 on January 16, 2014, 05:39:33 PM
I just have to chime in on this. Liberals do NOT hate guns. They hate the senseless murder of innocents. Period. I know lots of liberals who have guns. I don't, but will get one some day and even get my CCW permit.
I think they (me included) get frustrated when the NRA and their supporters want to talk about everything EXCEPT gun control. We do NOT have unhindered right to bear arms. Citizens are not allowed bombs, RPGs, machine guns or nukes so there IS A LINE to be drawn somewhere. Closing the gun show loophole would have been a good first step.
Oh, and liberals do NOT want more gun related deaths and the Fast and Furious program (started by Bush) was not an attempt to flood the US market with illegal guns to jack up gun deaths. See, it's this kind of rhetoric that makes progress to solving the issue difficult.
Jane
Is this meant to imply that anyone else doesn't?
Also, there is no such thing as a gun show loophole. That is magic word candy. Just like the word assault rifle. Also, the willful ignorance regarding F&F is painful.
Quote from: JaneNicole2013 on January 16, 2014, 09:23:03 PM
I'm sure we can both toss around "facts" back and forth (because I have some to counter your claims) but we won't get anywhere. Just know liberals don't want to take your guns away, as long as you prove yourself to be a responsible gun owner. We see a lot about gun rights, but very little about gun responsibility.
The NRA has done more to promote responsible gun ownership than any other body on the planet. Yet you dislike them. Regarding liberals seizing gun rights:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it." - Dianne Feinstein
Whether every liberal supports regressive gun legislation or not is irrelevant if the politicians they elect are committed to pursuing it.
Why doesnt the NRA support closing loopholes?
If they care about gun safety so much, why dont they try harder to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mental patients?
Moderation.
So far this has been a healthy thread and I know emotions can ride high but let us keep it at a healthy robust discussion but not get carried away.
Thank You
Cindy
OMG explosives as well!!!!
It was an honest question...
Quote from: Emo on January 16, 2014, 11:50:39 PM
It was an honest question...
I wasn't questioning you or anyone in particular, just a general comment.
Hugs Hon
Quote from: Emo on January 16, 2014, 11:43:10 PM
Why doesnt the NRA support closing loopholes?
If they care about gun safety so much, why dont they try harder to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mental patients?
It is not a "loophole" as you keep calling it. What happens at gun shows are 100% LEGAL private sales. Just as you coming to my property, or compound as i affectionately call my heavily wooded 16.5 acres, sitting down at my kitchen table and purchasing a gun i don't use anymore....say my 2nd generation Taurus PT92 SS and then going out behind my trailer and tossing 17 rounds down my personal range before you take your new purchase home.
A loophole, is illegally bypassing a law for ones personal benefits....such as driving 5 over the speed limit.
Quote from: Emo on January 16, 2014, 11:03:08 PM
Im independent and i dislike both sides of the aisle.
But this:
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html
Thats why im against guns.
This is not a very good reason to be against guns.
1. Your map consists of total reported crimes, not anything specifically related to guns.
2. Reported crimes are largely, well, reported in the US and other industrialized nations. They are much less reported in third world nations which lack an adequate police force to even report crimes to.
3. The US has a very large population. 313 million. The population of Russia is less than half of that, and of course many crimes in Russia go unreported anyway.
4. In the US, everything from breaking a window to smoking a joint is considered a crime. You map does not contain any of the relevant data.
However, we can peruse the FBI's crime database to give us some more accurate information.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
It can be remarkably informative. There is a massive amount of data to sift through and I would encourage anyone who is interested in the topic to investigate. The data is listed by year from 2007 - 2011. There are some interesting things. For example:
2011
Total firearm related deaths: 8,583
Death by Hand gun: 6,220
Rifle: 323
Shotgun: 356
Other: 97
Not stated: 1,587
And while, I will admit that 8,583 is too high, it is also over 2000 less than in 2007 when gun sales actually skyrocketed and have continued. The other notable thing, is that murder committed by rifle is a 323, yet every time anything happens, that is exactly the firearm that politicians race out to ban and blame. But in comparison, more people, 496, were actually clubbed to detach while 728 were beat to death with bare hands or feet!
So the horrors of the human condition wage on. It is easy to demagogue a scary looking rifle and lay all of societies atrocities at it's feet, it's quite another to accept that humans actually are pretty relentless in finding ways to kill each other. Go watch "The Act of Killing" sometime. Or read history and find out what happens to people after they've been disarmed by their governments. Even the result of gun bans in a place like Australia, which had a rather low level of gun crimes or ownership to begin with, have not had any significant impact on crime. But, you know, I'm finished with my TLDR post of the evening.
Quote from: kariann330 on January 16, 2014, 11:57:18 PM
It is not a "loophole" as you keep calling it. What happens at gun shows are 100% LEGAL private sales. Just as you coming to my property, or compound as i affectionately call my heavily wooded 16.5 acres, sitting down at my kitchen table and purchasing a gun i don't use anymore....say my 2nd generation Taurus PT92 SS and then going out behind my trailer and tossing 17 rounds down my personal range before you take your new purchase home.
A loophole, is illegally bypassing a law for ones personal benefits....such as driving 5 over the speed limit.
Loopholes are legal.
Thats why its called a loophole. You cant go to jail for exploiting a loophole which is why they need closing.
At this point, anyone can buy guns at a gunshow with out background checks. The issue isnt legality. Its morality and safety.
Morality because people dont seem to care who they sell the gun to as long as they get the money, and safety because it gets in the wrong hands.
We can limit the wrong kinds of people getting these guns if we just involve background checks so we can identify who is stable enough or qualified enough to carry a weapon.
We carry a license for a car. Why not one for a gun?
Quote from: TiffanyT on January 17, 2014, 12:02:20 AM
This is not a very good reason to be against guns.
1. Your map consists of total reported crimes, not anything specifically related to guns.
2. Reported crimes are largely, well, reported in the US and other industrialized nations. They are much less reported in third world nations which lack an adequate police force to even report crimes to.
3. The US has a very large population. 313 million. The population of Russia is less than half of that, and of course many crimes in Russia go unreported anyway.
4. In the US, everything from breaking a window to smoking a joint is considered a crime. You map does not contain any of the relevant data.
However, we can peruse the FBI's crime database to give us some more accurate information.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
It can be remarkably informative. There is a massive amount of data to sift through and I would encourage anyone who is interested in the topic to investigate. The data is listed by year from 2007 - 2011. There are some interesting things. For example:
2011
Total firearm related deaths: 8,583
Death by Hand gun: 6,220
Rifle: 323
Shotgun: 356
Other: 97
Not stated: 1,587
And while, I will admit that 8,583 is too high, it is also over 2000 less than in 2007 when gun sales actually skyrocketed and have continued. The other notable thing, is that murder committed by rifle is a 323, yet every time anything happens, that is exactly the firearm that politicians race out to ban and blame. But in comparison, more people, 496, were actually clubbed to detach while 728 were beat to death with bare hands or feet!
So the horrors of the human condition wage on. It is easy to demagogue a scary looking rifle and lay all of societies atrocities at it's feet, it's quite another to accept that humans actually are pretty relentless in finding ways to kill each other. Go watch "The Act of Killing" sometime. Or read history and find out what happens to people after they've been disarmed by their governments. Even the result of gun bans in a place like Australia, which had a rather low level of gun crimes or ownership to begin with, have not had any significant impact on crime. But, you know, I'm finished with my TLDR post of the evening.
Now for the "guns kill people" side, it would be amazing if someone would post a graphic showing how small the amount of gun related deaths are in the US compared to things such as auto accidents, drug overdoses, disease or even accidents. A lot of people would be shocked to see that gun deaths, will be at the BOTTOM of that list even if you included 100% legal self defense (castle law or stand your ground) related deaths.
@kariann
Try that statistic again for murders.
You cant end death but you can limit the cause of it.
Quote from: Emo on January 17, 2014, 12:07:06 AM
Loopholes are legal.
Thats why its called a loophole. You cant go to jail for exploiting a loophole which is why they need closing.
At this point, anyone can buy guns at a gunshow with out background checks. The issue isnt legality. Its morality and safety.
Morality because people dont seem to care who they sell the gun to as long as they get the money, and safety because it gets in the wrong hands.
We can limit the wrong kinds of people getting these guns if we just involve background checks so we can identify who is stable enough or qualified enough to carry a weapon.
We carry a license for a car. Why not one for a gun?
Ok you do know that unless a person has been involuntarily committed by a COURT OF LAW that a person can still buy a gunin the US. The only thing a 4473 asks if if you take certain types of medications, or if you abuse illegal substances (good luck buying a gun or getting a job Colorado lol) if you say no then your all good. Attaching any kind of medical record to a background check, even on the federal level....would violate so many privacy laws that anyone who passes that law would instantly be imprisoned.
Quote from: Emo on January 16, 2014, 11:43:10 PM
Why doesnt the NRA support closing loopholes?
If they care about gun safety so much, why dont they try harder to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mental patients?
Because there is no loophole. Every new gun purchased is processed through a NICS check. Every licensed dealer must perform this and further laws are subject to whatever state, county and city has established. It's a remarkably complicated process.
The difference is if I wanted to sell a gun. I can sell it to whoever I want. Private sales are not regulated other than if you sell you guns to somebody you know is likely to commit a crime, then you become a "straw pur->-bleeped-<-". Effectively, this is the crux of the F&F case. Dealers were reporting that they did not want to sell to a pur->-bleeped-<- and BATF forced them to anyway. Regardless, in a state like CA, all firearm transactions must be processed through NICS and be transferred though an FFL. It's also a very self regulated industry. Gun show promoters will not tolerant any such BS at their events because they do not want to get shut down either.
In other words, closing the "gun show loophole" has nothing to do with gun shows, it has to do with private transfers of guns, which already draws a considerable amount of attention by the BATF, who may or may not also be encouraging such activity.
And for the record, if you were to transfer a fully automatic firearm (which are not cheap) you must submit a full set of fingerprints, clear a transfer tax, be certified by local authorities and obtain approval from BATF. And only automatic guns produced before 1986 are allowed.
And I lied about my TLDR limit for the night but the mods are threatening to shut this down and I need to get it in before it's too late!!!
Quote from: Emo on January 17, 2014, 12:15:47 AM
@kariann
Try that statistic again for murders.
You cant end death but you can limit the cause of it.
That is what i meant by "gun deaths".....murders, self defense related killings, accidental discharges and suicides....all would be greatly shadowed even if you just compared them to deaths from car accidents let alone diseases
Then what do you propose we do? Cuz i dont see us regulating ourselves.
A law exists to protect our rights from anyone willing to take them.
That includes life.
The overall message i keep getting is that people value their guns and their access to them more than they value life. And this is wrong to me.
There is no moral code saying you have the right to own something that is dangerous and can so easily kill someone. Every moral code says you have the right to life.
You may not be one to kill or murder someone, but there are too many out there who are.
Quote from: TiffanyT on January 17, 2014, 12:20:54 AM
.
And I lied about my TLDR limit for the night but the mods are threatening to shut this down and I need to get it in before it's too late!!!
No I'm not, just trying to keep the peace with my unlicensed qwerty keyboard :laugh:
Quote from: kariann330 on January 17, 2014, 12:22:24 AM
That is what i meant by "gun deaths".....murders, self defense related killings, accidental discharges and suicides....all would be greatly shadowed even if you just compared them to deaths from car accidents let alone diseases
Im talking intentional killings. Not accidents.
Accidents will always exist. We're human. But murder is intentionally taking the right of another to live.
Whats the stat that says more people are murdered using a car than a gun?
Quote from: Emo on January 17, 2014, 12:26:46 AM
Then what do you propose we do? Cuz i dont see us regulating ourselves.
A law exists to protect our rights from anyone willing to take them.
That includes life.
The overall message i keep getting is that people value their guns and their access to them more than they value life. And this is wrong to me.
There is no moral code saying you have the right to own something that is dangerous and can so easily kill someone. Every moral code says you have the right to life.
You may not be one to kill or murder someone, but there are too many out there who are.
Question: just as there are people who abuse firearms and use them o commit crimes, there are just as many people who abuse the internet and water and harm other people and the environment....does that mean because of several bad apples we should shut down the internet once and for all, or make using water for personal consumption illegal? I know your answer will be "No" so i ask, why do the same with firearms and law abiding citizens too?
@kariann
Because the internet and water cant kill people as easily as a gun.
Quote from: Emo on January 17, 2014, 12:35:04 AM
@kariann
Because the internet and water cant kill people as easily as a gun.
Water at a high enough pressure can cut 1/2 inch steel....skin and bone will be no problem....and while the internet can't kill you yes, but it can destroy your life....wreck your credit, empty your checking and savings, open new accounts in your name then use them to fund terrorists and land you in good ole Gitmo for life, render you homeless and before you know it your wishing you were dead or living under a rock. In hindsight i would rather live next to someone who has 20 guns and enough ammo to start world war 3 then have a hacker/identity theif running loose destroying peoples lives from there smartphone, personal computer, or even the local library running illicit programs off a flashdrive.
Same goes for alcohol, cigarettes and sodas over 16 ounces.
Whose going to take the time to get enough water and the right equipment to kill someone if a gun is so much easier to access?
My point is, life is more important than property.
How would you feel living next to someone who is plotting to commit the next mass murder at a mall or school?
Comfortable just isnt the right word.
Quote from: Emo on January 17, 2014, 01:47:13 AM
Whose going to take the time to get enough water and the right equipment to kill someone if a gun is so much easier to access?
My point is, life is more important than property.
How would you feel living next to someone who is plotting to commit the next mass murder at a mall or school?
Comfortable just isnt the right word.
I think 70 people were murdered by drowning and 80 by chocking. I've posted the stats but I can't recite them of the top of my head.
Many neighbors do not suspect a thing. ie: "They were always so quiet." More evidence also points to people not coming forward about a dangerous neighbor out of PC reasons or fear of being judged.
Life is important. The greatest equalizer in life is a firearm. Human history is filled with Might Makes Right examples , but a 90 lbs girl can defend herself with a gun. I don't want to hurt anyone, but I do not want to be a victim. Especially one of the 200+ trans women murdered last year. Rape is not tolerable either. Hoping nothing bad will happen is an unrealistic strategy.
Quote from: Emo on January 17, 2014, 12:30:26 AM
Im talking intentional killings. Not accidents.
Accidents will always exist. We're human. But murder is intentionally taking the right of another to live.
Whats the stat that says more people are murdered using a car than a gun?
I think the conversation centers around the causes of unnecessary deaths perpetrated by others in the US and not about the tools that they used to accomplish it. Doctors and drivers kill more people per capita in the US each year making firearms related deaths minuscule. Most of the firearms shooting death figures deal with suicides. You will note also that the doctor and driver related deaths are always blamed on the individual and not the tool used to bring about death. I've posted some statistics to back this up which relegates the entire gun control issue as nothing more than a knee jerk reaction by ill informed citizens who are being manipulated by those who would willingly do away with the 2nd amendment which is the backbone and assurance that the other amendments remain intact. Once the 2nd amendment is gone the others will be stripped away with impunity, one does not have to be or even want to be a firearms owner to understand this, it's an historically proven fact.
http://seggleston.com/1/wp-content/custom/ds_index.php (http://seggleston.com/1/wp-content/custom/ds_index.php)
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/07/30/doctors-death-part-one.aspx (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/07/30/doctors-death-part-one.aspx)
But whats the point of owning these guns?
They cant get you to work. And there have been too many accidental shootings as well.
I can understand the protection aspect but if the other person is unarmed, why would it be appropriate to arm yourself?
Why is it necessary to threaten someone with death if they step too close or look remotely suspicious?
Quote from: Emo on January 17, 2014, 09:40:20 AM
But whats the point of owning these guns?
They cant get you to work. And there have been too many accidental shootings as well.
I can understand the protection aspect but if the other person is unarmed, why would it be appropriate to arm yourself?
Why is it necessary to threaten someone with death if they step too close or look remotely suspicious?
If anyone wanted to take the time, just about any conclusions could be extrapolated from those questions and carried over to another subject like why would anyone want to own a motorcycle and risk their lives and the lives of others when the traffic is so dense on the roads and highways? Why would you text while walking? Perhaps texting devices and cell phones with texting features should be outlawed so that pedestrians don't get run over by drivers accidentally while enjoying their freedom to drive a car. The answer is because we don't live in a Nanny state where Big Brother has control over every aspect of our our lives and our freedoms and we don't intend to let people mindlessly take us to that place either.
In all the debates about guns/2nd A, I always wonder the same thing..... How did gun violence become the issue it is today? I was born in 1970. I grew up in a time when pretty much every town had a Rod & Gun club, archery, basic firearms safety, and responsibility were common for young kids to learn about. The same weapons were avalible(Very common) as far as the types demonized today. Semi auto, high capacity handguns, rifles, & shotguns. In fact, up until 1986 select fire weapons(fully auto rifles,machineguns, ect.) where legal to buy at your local gun shop!
Back then gun violence was unheard of! With the exception of some "pimp", "gangster", or "drug dealer" shooting a rival scumbag, we never had any GUN VIOLENCE. No child or adult(crazy or sane) would ever consider walking into a school. workplace, bar, movie theater, ect and start shooting. It just didn't happen!
The first time I recall a workplace shooting, was the postal worker that killed several of his coworkers. Remember? That's where the term "going postal" came from. As far as school shootings, Colombine was the first.
So what happened? The weapons where there! The same problems people had where there! What changed that people felt it was OK to gun down your coworkers, fellow students, teachers, police officers because you where upset?
???
Quote from: DanicaCarin on January 17, 2014, 10:49:54 AM
So what happened? The weapons where there! The same problems people had where there! What changed that people felt it was OK to gun down your coworkers, fellow students, teachers, police officers because you where upset?
???
One person mentioned the huge influence of brain altering psychotropic drug use in this country for antidepressants and behavioral modifiers. Another was the suggestive influence of an onslaught of violent films and video games which may be anesthetizing the moral compass in some thus making the act of shooting someone a breeze. Then there are permissive parents who don't pay attention to what their kids are doing as in the case of the psychologist parents of the two Columbine perpetrators. Finally there are those who refuse to exercise common sense and lock away firearms when there are kids living at home. The mother of the Sandy Hook shooter knew that her child was mentally impaired but bought him guns and ammunition in spite of it. So we can assume that the answer to that is moral and societal decay coupled with parental failure is a big part of the problem. The implements themselves are inanimate objects and have little to do with the root of the problem.
Quote from: TiffanyT on January 16, 2014, 11:31:35 PM
The NRA has done more to promote responsible gun ownership than any other body on the planet. Yet you dislike them. Regarding liberals seizing gun rights:
I'm going to call this statement out as precisely the problem with this debate. The suggestion that rights are something that can be "seized" implies that they are essential, inherent, and immutable. But they aren't.
Rights are a social conventions determined through discourse and realized through legislation and it's implementation. They are not "god given" and they aren't not fixed! Rights are and should always be open for negotiation and discourse.
Society dies when rights stop evolving.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 17, 2014, 11:41:40 AM
I'm going to call this statement out as precisely the problem with this debate. The suggestion that rights are something that can be "seized" implies that they are essential, inherent, and immutable. But they aren't.
Rights are a social conventions determined through discourse and realized through legislation and it's implementation. They are not "god given" and they aren't not fixed! Rights are and should always be open for negotiation and discourse.
Society dies when rights stop evolving.
Well spoken.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 17, 2014, 11:41:40 AM
I'm going to call this statement out as precisely the problem with this debate. The suggestion that rights are something that can be "seized" implies that they are essential, inherent, and immutable. But they aren't.
Rights are a social conventions determined through discourse and realized through legislation and it's implementation. They are not "god given" and they aren't not fixed! Rights are and should always be open for negotiation and discourse.
Society dies when rights stop evolving.
I'm sorry but that's not true according to those who wrote the Declaration of Independence and those who framed the US Constitution later, what you are espousing are the views of the leftists who insist that these documents are not set in stone and refer to them as "Living Documents" that change and morph with the times so that eventually the entire system can be deconstructed and that is what we are in diametric opposition to.
Quote from: Shantel on January 17, 2014, 12:08:15 PM
I'm sorry but that's not true according to those who wrote the Declaration of Independence and those who framed the US Constitution later, what you are espousing are the views of the leftists who insist that these documents are not set in stone and refer to them as "Living Documents" that change and morph with the times so that eventually the entire system can be deconstructed and that is what we are in diametric opposition to.
So if you're not a "leftist", you must believe we should still be playing by the same rules that were established in the late 1700's!?
Women shouldn't own property, slavery is still cool, and only property owners should be able to cast a vote? No effing way.
And I'm hardly a "leftist".
Quote from: Jill F on January 17, 2014, 12:24:35 PM
So if you're not a "leftist", you must believe we should still be playing by the same rules that were established in the late 1700's!?
Women shouldn't own property, slavery is still cool, and only property owners should be able to cast a vote? No effing way.
And I'm hardly a "leftist".
I think those things have already been addressed by amendments underwritten by a majority, that will not be the case with the 2nd amendment.
Quote from: Shantel on January 17, 2014, 12:47:57 PM
I think those things have already been addressed by amendments underwritten by a majority, that will not be the case with the 2nd amendment.
OMG, it IS a "living document"!
So here's what's up with where I stand on the second amendment- I think I should be able to arm myself. I would like that option and not have to worry about having my weapon(s) seized. I would also not want to be denied that freedom because I saw a psychiatrist for antidepressants and HRT once upon a time. I WAS also once an NRA member...
That being said, the second amendment was written so long ago, that the context in which it was conceived no longer applies. The country and world have evolved and progressed, yet the second amendment remains the same. I think it made perfect sense at the time to have your single-shot musket and your local ad-hoc militia ready to go in case the army wasn't around to defend you and your families.
Now it is vague at best. So what arms exactly do I have the right to bear? It seems that as worded, I can have all the automatic weapons, grenade launchers, surface-to-air missiles and suitcase nukes I want. Sound reasonable? And best of all, as long as my militia is well-regulated I can still have one without issue.
Why is it that one person's "freedom fighter" is another one's "terrorist"?
/rant
Quote from: Jill F on January 17, 2014, 01:29:46 PM
OMG, it IS a "living document"!
So here's what's up with where I stand on the second amendment- I think I should be able to arm myself. I would like that option and not have to worry about having my weapon(s) seized. I would also not want to be denied that freedom because I saw a psychiatrist for antidepressants and HRT once upon a time. I WAS also once an NRA member...
That being said, the second amendment was written so long ago, that the context in which it was conceived no longer applies. The country and world have evolved and progressed, yet the second amendment remains the same. I think it made perfect sense at the time to have your single-shot musket and your local ad-hoc militia ready to go in case the army wasn't around to defend you and your families.
Now it is vague at best. So what arms exactly do I have the right to bear? It seems that as worded, I can have all the automatic weapons, grenade launchers, surface-to-air missiles and suitcase nukes I want. Sound reasonable? And best of all, as long as my militia is well-regulated I can still have one without issue.
Why is it that one person's "freedom fighter" is another one's "terrorist"?
/rant
There is some common sense involved with freedom which is not license. Freedom brings with it responsibilities but there are those who take license with those freedoms therefore we have thousands of laws on the books already intended to enforce controls over gun violence, illegal ownership and criminal activity using guns. The only problem is that the government refuses to do just that thus abrogating their responsibility to uphold the law and blame those law abiding citizens for the government's failures.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 17, 2014, 11:41:40 AM
I'm going to call this statement out as precisely the problem with this debate. The suggestion that rights are something that can be "seized" implies that they are essential, inherent, and immutable. But they aren't.
Rights are a social conventions determined through discourse and realized through legislation and it's implementation. They are not "god given" and they aren't not fixed! Rights are and should always be open for negotiation and discourse.
Society dies when rights stop evolving.
Well, during the Age of Enlightenment, later during the American Revolution, and after the Second World War, the nations of world declared that there were rights to which every human was entitled, as a consequence of their humanity. The document the nations of the world created was called the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
In the 1700's, Locke, de Vattel, and others formulated the rational basis for the principles of Natural Law. Natural law exists in the vacuum of positive law. Jefferson, et al, explained in the Declaration of Independence that there existed "unalienable rights" that no just government would ever abuse.
Human rights are inviolable. Civil rights, on the the other hand, are subject to the whim of legislation and whatever political majority can be mustered.
Quote from: Jill F on January 17, 2014, 12:24:35 PM
So if you're not a "leftist", you must believe we should still be playing by the same rules that were established in the late 1700's!?
Women shouldn't own property, slavery is still cool, and only property owners should be able to cast a vote? No effing way.
And I'm hardly a "leftist".
The Framers of the Constitution provided multiple ways to for the fundamental law of the land to be revised. So the intent was not to lock the document in 18th century mores, but rather to allow for growth,
provided a supermajority supported the changes. The principles of the Declaration and the Constitution were considered to be "enduring."
In fact, during the Revolutionary period, women owned property, had the right to vote in some states, and slavery was frowned upon. Civil rights have been expanded during the subsequent 226 years. That, I agree, is a good thing. It harkens back to the original intent of the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation (the first constitution of the United States), and the Constitution of 1787.
Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia explains, "The Constitution does not change in its meaning. What it approved back in 1789, or 1791 if talking about the Bill of Rights, it approves of now. What it forbad then, it forbids now." Thus, the concept of a "living document," open to temporal interpretation, is nothing less that an invitation for anarchy. When the Framers of the Constitution, and the authors of the Bill of Rights, and those who ratified these documents and subsequent amendments, protected certain rights, they meant to do so in perpetuity, or until a supermajority re-defined those rights.
Quote from: Jamie D on January 17, 2014, 02:57:15 PM
Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia explains, "The Constitution does not change in its meaning. What it approved back in 1789, or 1791 if talking about the Bill of Rights, it approves of now. What it forbad then, it forbids now." Thus, the concept of a "living document," open to temporal interpretation, is nothing less that an invitation for anarchy. When the Framers of the Constitution, and the authors of the Bill of Rights, and those who ratified these documents and subsequent amendments, protected certain rights, they meant to do so in perpetuity, or until a supermajority re-defined those rights.
I beg to differ. I believe the Founding Fathers WANTED us to change and alter the meaning of the Constitution to suit the times.
"...the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." -- John Adams
Edmund Randolph, who helped write the Constitution, wrote that the framers should, "...insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events."
Thomas Jefferson echoed this sentiment when he said, "... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times."
Also, when speaking of the president, the Constitution uses only masculine pronouns. A strict Constitutionalist would then have to conclude that only men can be president. Since they could not fathom a woman being president, does that mean we need a Constitutional amendment to allow it? Not at all.
The Constitution is a social contract between US and the government--it is NOT a social contract between the Founding Fathers and the government. WE THE PEOPLE have the right to implement the Constitution as we see fit--and it doesn't always require a Constitutional Amendment.
Oh, and for future reference, if you're trying to convince liberals of your side in a constitutional argument, you may not want to quote Scalia. He doesn't carry much weight among liberals.
Just when I thought I was out, they suck me back in. LOL.
Jane
QuoteThe Constitution is a social contract between US and the government--it is NOT a social contract between the Founding Fathers and the government. WE THE PEOPLE have the right to implement the Constitution as we see fit--and it doesn't always require a Constitutional Amendment.
There's no doubt about that. The constitution is just a document and can be rendered irrelevant at any given moment with no amendment whatsoever. It only has meaning as long as a majority of the people says it does and has the courage to uphold and enforce it. I get the sense most people don't understand this.
I also believe the day we throw out our constitution, it'll be the deadliest day of our history and freedom as we know it will be lost for centuries. Don't scoff, who stops China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea, et. al., if the U.S. falls? Britain? France? Surely not Switzerland. ::)
Quote
Oh, and for future reference, if you're trying to convince liberals of your side in a constitutional argument, you may not want to quote Scalia. He doesn't carry much weight among liberals.
Sounds kind of closed minded. Keep an open mind and the source will be less relevant.
Quote from: Jamie D on January 17, 2014, 02:57:15 PM
Well, during the Age of Enlightenment, later during the American Revolution, and after the Second World War, the nations of world declared that there were rights to which every human was entitled, as a consequence of their humanity. The document the nations of the world created was called the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
In the 1700's, Locke, de Vattel, and others formulated the rational basis for the principles of Natural Law. Natural law exists in the vacuum of positive law. Jefferson, et al, explained in the Declaration of Independence that there existed "unalienable rights" that no just government would ever abuse.
Human rights are inviolable. Civil rights, on the the other hand, are subject to the whim of legislation and whatever political majority can be mustered.
Yes, I'm familiar with the Lockean and Jeffersonian concept of rights. I'm also familiar with a broad consensus in contemporary rights scholarship that the notion is an anachronism (albeit one with nostalgic rhetorical value). The ubiquitous position in contemporary scholarship is that "rights are reasons." Most of the rights in UDHR are (at least for the foreseeable future) almost immune to argument (due process), while others (mostly 2nd generation rights) are the subject of ongoing discourse (dare I mention the "right to vacations with pay"?).
My personal view is that civil rights (including constitutional rights) are the legislative mechanisms that realize human rights, which are reasoned consensus claims.
Quote from: Nikko on January 17, 2014, 06:06:10 PM
There's no doubt about that. The constitution is just a document and can be rendered irrelevant at any given moment with no amendment whatsoever. It only has meaning as long as a majority of the people says it does and has the courage to uphold and enforce it. I get the sense most people don't understand this.
I also believe the day we throw out our constitution, it'll be the deadliest day of our history and freedom as we know it will be lost for centuries. Don't scoff, who stops China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea, et. al., if the U.S. falls? Britain? France? Surely not Switzerland. ::)
Sounds kind of closed minded. Keep an open mind and the source will be less relevant.
1) No one is talking about throwing out the Constitution. Liberals love and cherish that document as much as conservatives do. The points we are arguing are as old as society itself.
2) I am not closed minded, but Scalia is "way out there" in my book and in the book of many others. I'm sure you'd feel the same way if I quoted Ginsburg or Krugman. Now, if you were to quote Judge Roberts instead, I'd listen.
I was hearing the story yesterday of the 5 year old girl in Omaha who was killed while eating breakfast because a couple of guys several blocks away decided it would be cool to shoot off a bunch of shots. One stray bullet in the wrong place can end someones life, just like one wrong turn can end someones life. I am still not really buying how I need a license to drive a car (not to mention additional licenses for vehicles over 26Klbs, and another for trailers over 10klbs, and special endorsements for airbrakes, hazmat, etc) but I just walked right into the gun store and with just a short call to the state police walked out of the store with a handgun, no safety class, no license, no registration, just say you aren't crazy on a form and have the cops prove you aren't a felon.
I am all in favor of freedom, but more and more I wonder if we as a culture are even close to responsible enough to exercise freedom when it comes to firearms (or for that matter cars, seems way too easy to get a license for one of those too!). To me it just isn't regulated enough, heck the government mandates how much sleep I am required to get, randomly drug tests me, and requires a certificate of health just to let me operate things not designed to kill anyone; seems like if it wasn't for the questionable but popular interpretation of the second amendment we could get real regulation on firearms, like we have on just about everything else.
That isn't at all saying we need to ban anything, I don't understand that mentality at all, we regulate cars, plenty of them out there. There is tons of government and industry regulation inside of each and every phone, but the FCC hasn't banned phones yet. This is not about banning anything, I don't get why groups like the NRA seem to ignore that.
Quote from: Hikari on January 17, 2014, 08:54:34 PM
I was hearing the story yesterday of the 5 year old girl in Omaha who was killed while eating breakfast because a couple of guys several blocks away decided it would be cool to shoot off a bunch of shots. One stray bullet in the wrong place can end someones life, just like one wrong turn can end someones life. I am still not really buying how I need a license to drive a car (not to mention additional licenses for vehicles over 26Klbs, and another for trailers over 10klbs, and special endorsements for airbrakes, hazmat, etc) but I just walked right into the gun store and with just a short call to the state police walked out of the store with a handgun, no safety class, no license, no registration, just say you aren't crazy on a form and have the cops prove you aren't a felon.
I am all in favor of freedom, but more and more I wonder if we as a culture are even close to responsible enough to exercise freedom when it comes to firearms (or for that matter cars, seems way too easy to get a license for one of those too!). To me it just isn't regulated enough, heck the government mandates how much sleep I am required to get, randomly drug tests me, and requires a certificate of health just to let me operate things not designed to kill anyone; seems like if it wasn't for the questionable but popular interpretation of the second amendment we could get real regulation on firearms, like we have on just about everything else.
That isn't at all saying we need to ban anything, I don't understand that mentality at all, we regulate cars, plenty of them out there. There is tons of government and industry regulation inside of each and every phone, but the FCC hasn't banned phones yet. This is not about banning anything, I don't get why groups like the NRA seem to ignore that.
You present a valid middle of the road argument Hikari I think we are dealing with extremes on both ends and because of that NRA feels that if you give an inch the other extreme will take a mile. It's as much a knee jerk thing as those who would seek an outright ban and seek to rescind the 2nd amendment completely.
If i may suggest an angle here,
If Diane Feinstine got her way and completely confiscated every firearm in the county....what some of you view as "utopia" I have to ask what do you think will happen to the rest of the amendments? What about all of the freedoms we enjoy as Americans?
Simple answer if one falls, the rest will fall too....Hitler already proved this true when he also confiscated every firearm.
Quote from: kariann330 on January 17, 2014, 10:33:08 PM
If i may suggest an angle here,
If Diane Feinstine got her way and completely confiscated every firearm in the county....what some of you view as "utopia" I have to ask what do you think will happen to the rest of the amendments? What about all of the freedoms we enjoy as Americans?
Simple answer if one falls, the rest will fall too....Hitler already proved this true when he also confiscated every firearm.
Yeah, this is where I check out of this discussion. Diane Feinstein does not want to "confiscated every firearm in the county." She even admitted to owning a gun in the past to protect her family.
And did you really play the "Hitler" card? That's just wrong.
Let me answer your original question: Why does it seem like most liberals hate guns (or something to that effect)?
Answer: It seems like most liberals hate guns because groups like the NRA and other right-wing groups want to consolidate their base and protect their interests by artificially creating an evil enemy: liberals who want to come take your guns and trample the Constitution. IT JUST IS NOT TRUE!
Quote from: Gwynne on January 17, 2014, 11:41:40 AM
I'm going to call this statement out as precisely the problem with this debate. The suggestion that rights are something that can be "seized" implies that they are essential, inherent, and immutable. But they aren't.
Rights are a social conventions determined through discourse and realized through legislation and it's implementation. They are not "god given" and they aren't not fixed! Rights are and should always be open for negotiation and discourse.
Society dies when rights stop evolving.
My rights are endowed to me by my creator and no person or group of persons can deny me of them. This is not open for negotiation. End of conversation.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 17, 2014, 07:53:04 PM
Yes, I'm familiar with the Lockean and Jeffersonian concept of rights. I'm also familiar with a broad consensus in contemporary rights scholarship that the notion is an anachronism (albeit one with nostalgic rhetorical value). The ubiquitous position in contemporary scholarship is that "rights are reasons." Most of the rights in UDHR are (at least for the foreseeable future) almost immune to argument (due process), while others (mostly 2nd generation rights) are the subject of ongoing discourse (dare I mention the "right to vacations with pay"?).
My personal view is that civil rights (including constitutional rights) are the legislative mechanisms that realize human rights, which are reasoned consensus claims.
We must remember a couple of important points in American history concerning the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution of 1787. Though there were some people involved in the framing of both documents, they were a half-generation and a war removed from one another. Experience played a greater role in the Constitution.
The American Declaration proposed a new paradigm - one in which governmental powers are derived from the governed. And the concept of natural rights were fundamental to its founding. And they remain the underpinning of the American judicial system; far from anachronistic.
In the Virginia Declaration of Rights (May-June 1776), the formulation stated:
"...all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights.... [these include] the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursing and obtaining happiness and safety." Furthermore, they retained
"... certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity." It was quite clear these rights were not considered transitory, and the Declaration of Rights is still part of the Virginia Constitution.
During the ratification debates for the proposed Constitution of 1787, the Federalists argued that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, because the Federal Government had no power to impinge on Natural Rights. As it happened, the First Congress drafted a Bill of Rights to ensure some of these concepts remained inviolable. The Second Amendment sprang from the inalienable right of self-defense, providing a means to do so.
Quote from: JaneNicole2013 on January 17, 2014, 08:49:58 PM
1) No one is talking about throwing out the Constitution. Liberals love and cherish that document as much as conservatives do. The points we are arguing are as old as society itself.
2) I am not closed minded, but Scalia is "way out there" in my book and in the book of many others. I'm sure you'd feel the same way if I quoted Ginsburg or Krugman. Now, if you were to quote Judge Roberts instead, I'd listen.
Scalia is an "originalist." He believes that the words in the Constitution and its Amendments had a contemporary meaning when ratified, and that meaning remains in effect until repealed or modified. He looks at the original intent. Thus, when one varies from the originalist interpretation, one is, in effect, changing the law. That is how you throw out a constitution without changing it.
Scalia has reminded his colleagues that when the Framers of the Bill of Rights wrote, "Congress shall pass no law ..." they meant NO LAW!
Krugman? The economist?
Quote from: TiffanyT on January 17, 2014, 11:17:00 PM
My rights are endowed to me by my creator and no person or group of persons can deny me of them. This is not open for negotiation. End of conversation.
So, the "Rights" people have in other countries vary because of what then? You can feel you have rights given to you by some divine force, but the rights that the government talks about are very much things it made, codified in law, and subject to restrictions. Also, if you think no person can deny you of your rights, take a vacation to Saudi Arabia, and see if they got that memo from god on that, because I am pretty sure they view rights there differently than it is viewed here.
The rights that a government defines, have nothing to do with the rights a religion defines, there may be overlap, but they are not one in the same at all.
It appears that the thread title, "Question about the left wing" has been answered fully here which clearly implies that closed minds and emotional knee-jerk reactions to social events is the order of the day in determining what rights are valid and which ones are not. It's rather sad to realize that seemingly intelligent people would prefer government nanny state oversight over every aspect of their lives rather than continue to enjoy self determination in a free will society. I can't count how many conversations I've had with former com-block citizens who are dismayed at how Americans are walking into a system with eyes wide shut that they themselves are finally free from.
Quote from: Shantel on January 18, 2014, 09:55:06 AM
It appears that the thread title, "Question about the left wing" has been answered fully here which clearly implies that closed minds and emotional knee-jerk reactions to social events is the order of the day in determining what rights are valid and which ones are not. It's rather sad to realize that seemingly intelligent people would prefer government nanny state oversight over every aspect of their lives rather than continue to enjoy self determination in a free will society. I can't count how many conversations I've had with former com-block citizens who are dismayed at how Americans are walking into a system with eyes wide shut that they themselves are finally free from.
That's how I felt during the Bush years :).
The great thing about our country is that every four years we have an organized (ok, semi-organized) coup where the people can vote in a new leader/party, or keep the current one in power--and every two years we get to pick someone new to represent us. No, the system is not perfect and yes, it has flaws, but still, it's the greatest country on this planet and I'm sure it'll stay that way for a very, very, very long time.
Now on that note, can we put a fork in this and move on? I know this girl is going to stay away from political threads from now on. I get enough of this on Facebook.
Jane.
QuoteSo, the [God given] "Rights" people have in other countries vary because of what then?
Most countries oppress their people's God given rights.
I'll never forget Ron Paul's farewell speech to congress where he lamented how easy the importance of freedom becomes lost to the citizens. I understand it, but often stunned how easily others convince themselves of its unimportance. It's everything.
Quote from: Nikko on January 18, 2014, 11:43:24 AM
Most countries oppress their people's God given rights.
Kia Ora Nikko,
Just out of interest, what do you mean by the above statement ?
Metta Zenda :)
Quote from: Nikko on January 18, 2014, 11:43:24 AM
Most countries oppress their people's God given rights.
First as an atheist, the idea that rights are somehow being granted by divinity rather than being humans creations is mildly offensive, as god didn't give me anything. Secondly, as someone who was raised Christian and read the bible extensively, I don't recall Jesus or anyone else enumerating specific rights that humans have.
Associating rights with god seems to be a very dangerous thing. It is up to us, human beings to define and to protect our rights, because if god isn't protecting women in Pakistan then rights from him are pretty meaningless and only people in that country are going to be able to define and protect the rights of women there. Likewise the "right" to arms comes com the constitution which was according to those who wrote and amended not written by god but by politicians and the future of that amendment is threatened by interpretation by the courts and legislation.
Quote from: Anatta on January 18, 2014, 01:48:54 PM
Kia Ora Nikko,
Just out of interest, what do you mean by the above statement ?
Metta Zenda :)
Hey Anatta.
I mean that our rights can only be oppressed by others, they can't be given to us or even taken away by others. We always have them, they can only be trampled on.
Quote from: Nikko on January 18, 2014, 02:12:31 PM
Hey Anatta.
I mean that our rights can only be oppressed by others, they can't be given to us or even taken away by others. We always have them, they can only be trampled on.
Kia Ora Nikko,
Thanks but just to clarify the other points.....
So is your statement meant to
include the American people in (
"Most countries oppress" )? and the "
God given" part was just an
off the cuff additive which was not meant to insinuate some form of divine intervention ...Is this correct?
Metta Zenda :)
I'm agnostic regarding religion, but I'm very spiritual. My view of inalienable rights is 'just because'. I have no doctrine, manifesto, creed, or religion obviously. The notion another human can make me or anyone else subservient makes my trigger finger jittery. :icon_2gun:
Quote from: Nikko on January 18, 2014, 02:48:35 PM
I'm agnostic regarding religion, but I'm very spiritual. My view of inalienable rights is 'just because'. I have no doctrine, manifesto, creed, or religion obviously. The notion another human can make me or anyone else subservient makes my trigger finger jittery. :icon_2gun:
Kia Ora Nikko,
Thanks for clearing this up...
Metta Zenda :)
Quote from: Hikari on January 18, 2014, 09:08:43 AM
So, the "Rights" people have in other countries vary because of what then? You can feel you have rights given to you by some divine force, but the rights that the government talks about are very much things it made, codified in law, and subject to restrictions. Also, if you think no person can deny you of your rights, take a vacation to Saudi Arabia, and see if they got that memo from god on that, because I am pretty sure they view rights there differently than it is viewed here.
The rights that a government defines, have nothing to do with the rights a religion defines, there may be overlap, but they are not one in the same at all.
Yes, they do. They are natural rights. Natures law. The citizens are being oppressed. It is that simple.
Quote from: Hikari on January 18, 2014, 09:08:43 AM
So, the "Rights" people have in other countries vary because of what then? You can feel you have rights given to you by some divine force, but the rights that the government talks about are very much things it made, codified in law, and subject to restrictions. Also, if you think no person can deny you of your rights, take a vacation to Saudi Arabia, and see if they got that memo from god on that, because I am pretty sure they view rights there differently than it is viewed here.
The rights that a government defines, have nothing to do with the rights a religion defines, there may be overlap, but they are not one in the same at all.
Human, or natural rights, are derived from our own humanity, or as Jefferson noted,
the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God. These rights are innate and immutable.
Any right that is bestowed by a government or society is not a Natural right, but rather, as legal right - and those are subject to change.
Quote from: Jamie D on January 18, 2014, 03:10:03 PM
Human, or natural rights, are derived from our own humanity, or as Jefferson noted, the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God. These rights are innate and immutable.
Any right that is bestowed by a government or society is not a Natural right, but rather, as legal right - and those are subject to change.
So these so called "Natural rights" have no divinity, physics, legal, or social system to define or enforce them? Then they don't exist, as anything other than as an abstract concept of someone trying to define the rights humans ought to have based on their experience, context, and ideas. If I can't feel it, touch it, or demonstrate it's existence through a scientific method then I certainly don't believe in it's existence. There would be nothing stopping me from making the argument that humans have the "Natural right" to live in a world without weapons, it wouldn't make it true, and Jefferson might be a noted and celebrated thinker, but so was Marx and I don't take what either of them say as some sort of law that should define my life.
I also don't see how the second amendment at all could be considered to be some sort of "Natural Right", because it doesn't mention self defense at all, it mentions the security of a free state. If the second amendment means that people have an
individual right having nothing to do with militia service to own
firearms (And the Court in DC v Heller says it does) then the Amendment needs to be amended to include that, because that is simply not what it says. As it stands now despite this rhetoric about natural rights, all it takes is the court to reverse it's decision to drastically change the state of gun ownership in this country.
From the messages written here, despite the variance of opinions I think it is really starting to boil down to which you care more about, community or individuals. There seems to be a very high degree of feeling amount the staunchest pro-gun people that individual freedom needs to be paramount, and despite personally supporting private firearms ownership (with licenses and safety training) I find that support for individual freedom with such veracity to be very difficult to understand.
QuoteFrom the messages written here, despite the variance of opinions I think it is really starting to boil down to which you care more about, community or individuals. There seems to be a very high degree of feeling amount the staunchest pro-gun people that individual freedom needs to be paramount, and despite personally supporting private firearms ownership (with licenses and safety training) I find that support for individual freedom with such veracity to be very difficult to understand.
I'm curious why you see it as either/or. I may care more about my individual rights AND my community than you do of your rights and your community. My community is strong and we trust each other tremendously, we're like family almost. I'd protect their kids with my life if need be. I don't get this it's either A or it's B.
Can you explain that?
I think individual liberty and community go hand in hand. I believe strengthening one strengthens the other. If a person doesn't think my child has rights, you think I'd let them care for my kids for even five seconds? Not a chance!
Quote from: Hikari on January 18, 2014, 05:06:24 PM
From the messages written here, despite the variance of opinions I think it is really starting to boil down to which you care more about, community or individuals. There seems to be a very high degree of feeling amount the staunchest pro-gun people that individual freedom needs to be paramount, and despite personally supporting private firearms ownership (with licenses and safety training) I find that support for individual freedom with such veracity to be very difficult to understand.
If you had been my neighbor next door who was selling some expensive items on Craigslist and was being robbed as Auntie Shan stepped in behind them with her .45 auto and cell phone and spread eagled them both face down on the lawn, then you would have understood perfectly well. Still it took the police six minutes to show up, if these individuals would have harmed or killed her they would have been long gone and the cops would be taking a report as her body lay there cooling off. I acted freely as her advocate and upheld her right to self defense, whether I used a gun or a baseball bat or even my machete is irrelevant.
QuoteAuntie Shan stepped in behind them with her .45 auto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0Hw3i-DS9ss (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0Hw3i-DS9ss)
Quote from: Nikko on January 18, 2014, 05:41:00 PM
I'm curious why you see it as either/or. I may care more about my individual rights AND my community than you do of your rights and your community. My community is strong and we trust each other tremendously, we're like family almost. I'd protect their kids with my life if need be. I don't get this it's either A or it's B.
Can you explain that?
to clarify I mean community as a group, not specifically the local community, more like society as a whole we all love (or hate) our neighboors.
It isn't an either or, it is like a priority. I hear lots of talk of especially on the conservative sides of things about Individual rights. Like it is more important for individuals to have the right to own things, whereas people who focus more on the community might go so far as to start making distinctions between personal property and private property. Community focused people seem to be willing to curtail the rights of individuals in order to allow the greater good, whereas individually focused people tend to say they are allowed to do things that burden the community for the sake of freedom (i.e. the ownership of personal automobiles, they get to go where they want when they want, but society has a massive burden to keep building the infrastructure to keep it going).
So it isn't that one chooses one over the other, I would fall into the community focused category more than most Americans because I do view private ownership of houses, cars, land, etc with suspicion and would nationalize most corporations if I could, but that doesn't mean I don't care at all about individual rights, after all I have been very active in pushing the freedom of people to marry who they choose, regardless if this is "disruptive" to society or not. I believe people should be free from this constant surveillance, despite the idea that it could harm society if it didn't stop terrorists, etc.
So what I am saying is, if one focuses on community or one focuses on individuals it isn't saying that one doesn't care about the other, rather the lens by which it is viewed changes, as I am sure many of the individual focused people will say lowering taxes helps everyone therefore by lowering their own taxes, everyone benefits, whereas community focused people might think that increasing taxes and giving everyone a share would be best for the community because while they individually might be hurt or helped, they are looking out for the greater good. So both approaches are in fact attempting to do the right thing for everyone, but the way of going about it is very different.
QuoteCommunity focused people seem to be willing to curtail the rights of individuals in order to allow the greater good
Oh no, not the greater good!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BFqHyCoypfM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BFqHyCoypfM)
Quote from: Hikari on January 18, 2014, 05:06:24 PM
So these so called "Natural rights" have no divinity, physics, legal, or social system to define or enforce them? Then they don't exist, as anything other than as an abstract concept of someone trying to define the rights humans ought to have based on their experience, context, and ideas. If I can't feel it, touch it, or demonstrate it's existence through a scientific method then I certainly don't believe in it's existence. There would be nothing stopping me from making the argument that humans have the "Natural right" to live in a world without weapons, it wouldn't make it true, and Jefferson might be a noted and celebrated thinker, but so was Marx and I don't take what either of them say as some sort of law that should define my life.
I also don't see how the second amendment at all could be considered to be some sort of "Natural Right", because it doesn't mention self defense at all, it mentions the security of a free state. If the second amendment means that people have an individual right having nothing to do with militia service to own firearms (And the Court in DC v Heller says it does) then the Amendment needs to be amended to include that, because that is simply not what it says. As it stands now despite this rhetoric about natural rights, all it takes is the court to reverse it's decision to drastically change the state of gun ownership in this country.
From the messages written here, despite the variance of opinions I think it is really starting to boil down to which you care more about, community or individuals. There seems to be a very high degree of feeling amount the staunchest pro-gun people that individual freedom needs to be paramount, and despite personally supporting private firearms ownership (with licenses and safety training) I find that support for individual freedom with such veracity to be very difficult to understand.
The concept of rights arising from Nature is not new. It dates back to at least ancient Greece. Some of these concepts are fundamental, and are the basis for moral and ethical judgements. For instance, were are familiar with the "right to life." That is why murder is morally condemned. You have the right to your own body - no one can justly own you. You have the right of self-defense. You have the right to the sweat of your brow and to own property. This explains why theft is wrong. These are just a few examples.
At the time the American Bill of Rights (1791) was drafted, the concepts of Natural Rights were well-understood among the intelligentsia of Western culture, and particularly embraced in France and America.
One major criticism of the concept of natural rights is that, if rights are inherent in the person, than they cannot be forfeited. Without principled forfeiture, the state cannot justify imprisonment let alone execution.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 18, 2014, 11:21:47 PM
One major criticism of the concept of natural rights is that, if rights are inherent in the person, than they cannot be forfeited. Without principled forfeiture, the state cannot justify imprisonment let alone execution.
Quite true, but society is no longer a state of nature; therefore, it is up to the individual if they wish to partake in society, and if so, to agree to societal rules (aka positive law).
There is an old political adage that "Every time a law is passed, a liberty is lost."
I greatly admire the genius of James Madison, shown here:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
I was just reading through thread catching up, not really interested but doing what Sue pays me for (fat chance :laugh:) and had a thought. Isn't it wonderful that we can in fact debate these things and discuss and argue?
If you are homosexual in many countries you are disenfranchised at the best, tortured and killed in others. If you are transgender, goddess help you. Debating political views, and stating opposition to established rules is a gulag or worse.
We need to keep that perspective.
Sorry just a thought that crossed my mind, keep arguing and discussing, but throw a thought out for those who would be persecuted and killed for doing exactly the same.
And the ones who do are greater than any of us here.
May they rest in peace.
Cindy
Thank you Cindy.
From the perspective of someone who believes in the principles of natural law, I suggest we all have the right to be ourselves, and a right of free association, and if we are not impinging on the rights of others, pretty much the right to do what we please in life.
Gay, straight, black, yellow, white, male, female, masculine, feminine, androgynous ... what ever - we own ourselves and our personalities. Live and let live.
I will say though, last time I was in Australia and spoke poorly about Australian Rules Football, I was locked in the dunny for a week! Cruel and unusual punishment?
Quote from: Jamie D on January 19, 2014, 02:25:59 AM
Thank you Cindy.
From the perspective of someone who believes in the principles of natural law, I suggest we all have the right to be ourselves, and a right of free association, and if we are not impinging on the rights of others, pretty much the right to do what we please in life.
Gay, straight, black, yellow, white, male, female, masculine, feminine, androgynous ... what ever - we own ourselves and our personalities. Live and let live.
I will say though, last time I was in Australia and spoke poorly about Australian Rules Football, I was locked in the dunny for a week! Cruel and unusual punishment?
I have to say I watch NFL I can't stand Aussie rules footy :laugh:
You deserve your punishment for even contemplating watching, it was probably more interesting as well!!
Quote from: Cindy on January 19, 2014, 02:43:17 AM
I have to say I watch NFL I can't stand Aussie rules footy :laugh:
You deserve your punishment for even contemplating watching, it was probably more interesting as well!!
She really does! Last week we were chatting back and forth as we both watched the Seahawks trounce the Saints, Cindy is our girl!
Quote from: Gwynne on January 18, 2014, 11:21:47 PM
One major criticism of the concept of natural rights is that, if rights are inherent in the person, than they cannot be forfeited. Without principled forfeiture, the state cannot justify imprisonment let alone execution.
This is why I said before, your rights can only be oppressed. They can't be given nor can they be taken away. If one wishes harm to other innocents, then I believe their rights should be oppressed (suppressed, depressed, enchained,... pick your poison).
I think this is a very important but easily glossed over point. When you accept that human rights are transferable or don't exist at all, then horrible injustices such as slavery (which every human race has endured in history) become something to rationalize.
I don't believe this concept (or law) can be proven any more than we can prove the foundations of mathematics, it's just an axiom we accept as true which builds the foundations of that we're building. You can only determine axioms to be either useful or meaningless. The idea of proving them true or false is not possible, and it's pointless.
I think building a society with the axiom or law that individual laws don't exist is dangerous. I think the hot spots of the world today and history prove this out.
Quote from: Nikko on January 19, 2014, 11:12:00 AM
This is why I said before, your rights can only be oppressed. They can't be given nor can they be taken away. If one wishes harm to other innocents, then I believe their rights should be oppressed (suppressed, depressed, enchained,... pick your poison).
Do you believe, then, that incarcerating a murderer convicted by an impartial due process is the state oppressing their rights?
Quote from: Gwynne on January 19, 2014, 11:17:41 AM
Do you believe, then, that incarcerating a murderer convicted by an impartial due process is the state oppressing their rights?
Yes.
But like I suggested before, don't get too hung up on my choice of verb. If 'suppressing' makes everyone feel more warm and fuzzy, then I say let's go with that.
I support suppressing rights even when a crime isn't committed. I feel if someone is showing strong signs of mental illness and reasonable people feel they're a danger to themselves and others, then committing them to a psych hospital for treatment is proper.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 19, 2014, 11:17:41 AM
Do you believe, then, that incarcerating a murderer convicted by an impartial due process is the state oppressing their rights?
When a person commits murder they have arbitrarily abdicated their rights by having taken license. Rights come with responsibility and in a society where responsibility seems to no longer be important we often see license taken over other people's rights.
Quote from: Shantel on January 19, 2014, 11:25:39 AM
When a person commits murder they have arbitrarily abdicated their rights by having taken license. Rights come with responsibility and in a society where responsibility seems to no longer be important we often see license taken over other people's rights.
I agree wholeheartedly! The logical problem is that, if we conceive rights as innate rather than constructed, they cannot be abdicated (oppressed), even with rational cause!
Quote from: Gwynne on January 19, 2014, 11:31:33 AM
I agree wholeheartedly! The logical problem is that, if we conceive rights as innate rather than constructed, they cannot be abdicated (oppressed), even with rational cause!
There's a fine line there though that doesn't give anyone or group of people license to withhold the rights of others who conduct themselves responsibly just because they don't agree with their particular right, you can extrapolate that even further if that was the case and say that the majority who disagrees with transganderism altogether can make it illegal and imprison everyone with GID issues.
That's where reasoned discourse comes in. Society needs to establish justified (and justifiable) structures and constraints for rights forfeiture. Due process, learned judicial oversight over the legislature, and academic discourse all have a hand in ensuring that forfeiture doesn't become manipulated by populist sentiment.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 19, 2014, 11:31:33 AM
I agree wholeheartedly! The logical problem is that, if we conceive rights as innate rather than constructed, they cannot be abdicated (oppressed), even with rational cause!
Sure they can. And it should be difficult to do so.
You're actually making a point regarding why I feel innate rights are so critical. It makes the notion of suppressing them hard to fathom, as it should be. I think otherwise, it becomes way too easy as so many other societies have demonstrated. I don't need to list them obviously.
'Abdicate'... I like it Shantel, make it so!
I don't want to go around in circles, but if rights are inviolable, then presumably, the state ought never violate them.
Epistemologically, there's no grounding for claiming rights as a literal "thing." Rights have to ontos that we can point to. The best we can get to is accepting them as convenient axioms and extrapolating from there. Which is what I've been arguing all along! Rights are coherent arguments determined by humans through productive discourse.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 19, 2014, 02:15:13 PM
I don't want to go around in circles, but if rights are inviolable, then presumably, the state ought never violate them.
Epistemologically, there's no grounding for claiming rights as a literal "thing." Rights have to ontos that we can point to. The best we can get to is accepting them as convenient axioms and extrapolating from there. Which is what I've been arguing all along! Rights are coherent arguments determined by humans through productive discourse.
It was William Buckley who once said he'd rather be governed by the first 500 names in any phone book than the faculty of Harvard. If we do allow humans any say what my natural rights are, I absolutely positively vote for the first 500 names of the phone book in my home town of 'CantFindItOnaMap' Oklahoma over any other group,
including especially Harvard.
Quote from: Nikko on January 19, 2014, 02:25:31 PM
It was William Buckley who once said he'd rather be governed by the first 500 names in any phone book than the faculty of Harvard. If we do allow humans any say what my natural rights are, I absolutely positively vote for the first 500 names of the phone book in my home town of 'CantFindItOnaMap' Oklahoma over any other group, including especially Harvard.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I've always found variations on that model quite appealing.
A de jure non-partisan legislative counsel determined by random lot, with mandatory service and strict sequestering, a la jury duty.
This is a well thought out reasoned argument for the right to own and possess firearms. I especially like toward the end, her pointing out what was missing in other country's constitutions prior to their tyrannical downfalls.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20RoAfflGCM&feature=player_embedded (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20RoAfflGCM&feature=player_embedded)
Written by a high school junior and posted today in the Everett, Washington Herald. Smart kid, he had good points!
Liberals' debate lacking in logic
I was watching Piers Morgan debate gun control on his show with Ben Shapiro and many other guests and it was shameful to watch him resort to name-calling and emotionalism. Personally, I think a debate about anything should be done so logically, but it appears that he was more concerned with whose side the crowd was on. I wish him best of luck in his endeavor to come across as more high and mighty by labeling anyone who disagrees with you an idiot, or an intolerant bigot.
This heated debate across America should not be such a difficult issue to resolve. The philosophy is not hard to grasp: realizing that law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns would tremendously disenfranchise criminals, in the same way the fear of being spanked by my dad as a child erased my incentive to misbehave. Ironically, gun free zones serve to encourage deranged murders to commit atrocities because they know that they won't face armed resistance in those areas.
Morgan and others should realize that making gun ownership illegal will most certainly not stop gun violence or even gun ownership. It is illegal in the U.S. for a civilian to manufacture or possess cocaine, methamphetamine or heroin. Surely, no one living in the U.S. manufactures or possesses said substances. Item: over 10,000 cocaine arrests were made in 2010 and half that amount for methamphetamine. My point is that making gun ownership illegal will not stop gun violence. Criminals are defined by their unwillingness to follow the law.
Jacob Thompson
11th grade
Lake Stevens
Ahhhh... people like Jacob give me some hope! ;) :)
Quote from: Nikko on January 24, 2014, 01:18:06 PM
This is a well thought out reasoned argument for the right to own and possess firearms. I especially like toward the end, her pointing out what was missing in other country's constitutions prior to their tyrannical downfalls.
SNIP
"By definition, gun control only disarms the law-abiding."
Wonderful video.
There is something you guys are missing.
If guns are not allowed to be used or owned, no one will sell them legally.
Its kind of obvious if someone is using a gun so it would make it easier to find the one breaking the law.
You need to account for all of the guns in existence, and those that would be acquired in the black market.
There are guns buried all over Australia.
Quote from: Oh The Humanity! on January 24, 2014, 10:05:48 PM
You need to account for all of the guns in existence, and those that would be acquired in the black market.
There are guns buried all over Australia.
One of the Aussie girls on a different site had chatted with me about this and acknowledged that she owned a British .303 Enfield in mint condition and a few thousand rounds of ammunition in storage. When the former Soviet Union collapsed the forbidden privately owned arms came out and a few scores were settled before things settled down. Here in America the idea of arms control or even confiscation is ludicrous because there are millions in private ownership that are unaccounted for and will never be found.
Quote from: Emo on January 24, 2014, 09:37:49 PM
There is something you guys are missing.
If guns are not allowed to be used or owned, no one will sell them legally.
Its kind of obvious if someone is using a gun so it would make it easier to find the one breaking the law.
I'm not missing the first point. You're correct, the government would make me a law breaker because I will always have a gun, I think most people will. The government is very good at making good people law breakers. I forgot who said this and I'll have to paraphrase... 'government's greatest tyranny is the creation of numerous obscure laws which make all citizens law breakers, then the government can go after citizens based on their own discretion and desires.' Wow, I took a lot of liberties with that one, maybe I'll have to claim it as my own. ;)
Regarding the second point, making drugs illegal hasn't made finding the law breakers particularly effective or efficient, I'm not sure how it would in the case of guns. And the penalties are poorly enforced fairly or rationally.
Sometimes i get annoyed with your generic arguments.
Guns are not the same as other rights. You were not born with a gun in your hand. You were born with a mouth to speak, ears to hear, and eyes to see.
We did not come into this world to shoot a bullet.
Quote from: Emo on January 25, 2014, 11:19:41 AM
Sometimes i get annoyed with your generic arguments.
Guns are not the same as other rights. You were not born with a gun in your hand. You were born with a mouth to speak, ears to hear, and eyes to see.
We did not come into this world to shoot a bullet.
Were you born with a spoon in your hand so that you could feed yourself? Pretty shallow logic Emo!
Quote from: Shantel on January 25, 2014, 11:21:31 AM
Were you born with a spoon in your hand so that you could feed yourself? Pretty shallow logic Emo!
You dont need a spoon to feed yourself. Ever heard of a sandwich? Lol
Also its not shallow. Its simple.
Quote from: Emo on January 25, 2014, 11:19:41 AM
Sometimes i get annoyed with your generic arguments.
Guns are not the same as other rights. You were not born with a gun in your hand. You were born with a mouth to speak, ears to hear, and eyes to see.
We did not come into this world to shoot a bullet.
I have to agree while I generally support gun ownership with some caveats I find the idea that people somehow have a right to guns to be ludicrous. Perhaps there ought to be some right to self defense but that doesn't = guns. There could be a discussion about what is necessary for self defends but instead we get knee jerk reactions about the right to own a particular piece of technology.
I am also highly suspect of the people saying that if firearms were licsenced or banned that they wouldn't comply. I don't recall seeing any population go into full on revolt from firearms restrictions. After all while there may be illegal guns in austraillia they aren't being turned on the government to take back the rights to have them, and despite cultural differences I doubt there would be anything beyond a few isolated instances of the government having to fight I compliant citizens.
I could be wrong but for all the vitriol and rage over the Brady bill I don't recall any sort of armed resistance to it. I see lots of talk about things like this but by and large states pass restrictions that might have political ramifications but it doesn't cause civil disobedience in large swaths of the population.
Quote from: Hikari on January 25, 2014, 11:35:04 AM
I could be wrong but for all the vitriol and rage over the Brady bill I don't recall any sort of armed resistance to it. I see lots of talk about things like this but by and large states pass restrictions that might have political ramifications but it doesn't cause civil disobedience in large swaths of the population.
True and as long as there is plenty of entertainment and benefits available for the masses nothing will happen. I'll be stockpiling some beer and cheetos for the Superbowl myself. ;D
Quote from: Emo on January 25, 2014, 11:19:41 AM
Sometimes i get annoyed with your generic arguments.
Guns are not the same as other rights. You were not born with a gun in your hand. You were born with a mouth to speak, ears to hear, and eyes to see.
We did not come into this world to shoot a bullet.
That's okay, you have the right to get annoyed by my 'generic' yet excellent arguments. ;)
I'm curious what bothered you and how you feel it's wrong though...
Quote from: Hikari on January 25, 2014, 11:35:04 AM
I don't recall seeing any population go into full on revolt from firearms restrictions.
Not as a direct result but as an indirect extension of first having that right taken away followed by the loss of other freedoms and an extended period of government oppression, revolution eventually follows.
As a kid in the late 1950's I followed the Cuban Revolution intently, citizens were fed up with their oppressive government regime and banded together under the leadership of Fidel Castro in the Sierra Maestra mountains and took on the army of Fulgencio Batista the despotic ruler of the island nation, they were armed with sporting rifles and shotguns that had long been banned by the repressive regime, some brought in on boats by tourist supporters. However most of the rebels didn't know that they would fall under yet another oppressive regime later.
Then Nicolae Ceaușescu was a Romanian Communist politician. He was General Secretary of the Romanian Communist Party from 1965 to 1989, and as such was the country's last Communist leader and was also the country's head of state. I watched on TV as he and his wife Elena were tommy gunned and turned into swiss cheese by a citizen force who had enough of their oppression, they got their guns from sympathetic army supporters.
In both cases the initial loss of freedom began with a government gun control program and someone with a mindset like Michael Bloomberg who thinks he knows what's best for everyone, then he takes your 16 oz soft drinks and it never stops there.
In the 20th century, there were roughly 120 million people murdered under totalitarian regimes. The U.S. has approximately 15,000 gun deaths per year (many of these are violent criminals BTW). It would take the U.S. 8,000 years to reach 120 million gun deaths (did I mention most are criminals?).
Something else, I bet these regimes reported low crime rates. Just a hunch.
Quote from: Nikko on January 25, 2014, 02:50:55 PM
That's okay, you have the right to get annoyed by my 'generic' yet excellent arguments. ;)
I'm curious what bothered you and how you feel it's wrong though...
I dont like violence. Unless its the olympics, what else would you use guns for?
Quote from: Emo on January 25, 2014, 06:05:13 PM
I dont like violence. Unless its the olympics, what else would you use guns for?
I hear ya, I don't like violence either! Or the Olympics. ;)
I believe the right to guns was in the beginning so that no one could oppress the people of our nation as the founding fathers were oppressed. So that free men would always be able to revolt should the government become the monster.
@Shantel the downfall of Communism in Chechoslovakia and it's rise in. Cuba were complex events shaped by lots of political, social, and economic events. The fact is neither was even close to a direct response to arms control, I mean no one was shouting in the revolution in Prauge that "we want freedom to own firearms".
To me that would be like picking out a random trait a country has and just linking something to it like "Eisenhower building highways set the stage for Al Gore to lose the electition in 2000" maybe highways did indeed have something to do with the 2000 election. It no one in Florida was going on about Bushs highway policy.
And Cuba well, I support the current government to the extent that the laws of the United States allows, so my position there is probably viewed with instant mistrust, but I maintain the revolution was a good thing.
Quote from: LordKAT on January 25, 2014, 08:41:05 PM
I believe the right to guns was in the beginning so that no one could oppress the people of our nation as the founding fathers were oppressed. So that free men would always be able to revolt should the government become the monster.
Yes it's the truth as it was intended when they wrote it LordKat and the thoughts and intentions of mankind's heart hasn't changed one iota from that of the earliest man.
Quote from: Hikari on January 25, 2014, 09:15:14 PM
@Shantel the downfall of Communism in Chechoslovakia and it's rise in. Cuba were complex events shaped by lots of political, social, and economic events. The fact is neither was even close to a direct response to arms control, I mean no one was shouting in the revolution in Prauge that "we want freedom to own firearms".
To me that would be like picking out a random trait a country has and just linking something to it like "Eisenhower building highways set the stage for Al Gore to lose the electition in 2000" maybe highways did indeed have something to do with the 2000 election. It no one in Florida was going on about Bushs highway policy.
And Cuba well, I support the current government to the extent that the laws of the United States allows, so my position there is probably viewed with instant mistrust, but I maintain the revolution was a good thing.
I pointed out that the individual ownership of firearms was initiated well in advance of each of those countries having been taken control over by despotic dictators without which it never could have happened, that's the bottom line and it's what always happens before a nation quickly loses it's remaining constitutional freedoms, the private ownership of firearms is the only thing that puts the spine in a constitution. This is where the rubber meets the road on freedoms period. You don't think the will of the people would be sufficient in and of itself without something intimidating to leverage government do you? You aren't going to tell me that those self aggrandizing politicians are there in DC to do nice things for you and me I hope.
Quote from: Hikari on January 25, 2014, 09:15:14 PM
@Shantel the downfall of Communism in Chechoslovakia and it's rise in. Cuba were complex events shaped by lots of political, social, and economic events. The fact is neither was even close to a direct response to arms control, I mean no one was shouting in the revolution in Prauge that "we want freedom to own firearms".
To me that would be like picking out a random trait a country has and just linking something to it like "Eisenhower building highways set the stage for Al Gore to lose the electition in 2000" maybe highways did indeed have something to do with the 2000 election. It no one in Florida was going on about Bushs highway policy.
And Cuba well, I support the current government to the extent that the laws of the United States allows, so my position there is probably viewed with instant mistrust, but I maintain the revolution was a good thing.
I don't think anyone argued arms control was the cause but rather a tactic, an obvious one IMO.
Regarding Cuba, I see no need to argue that point. It did remind me of my old friend I had in S. Florida who's parents had fled the tyranny of that evil regime. I can't imagine having family lined up and shot by the government, being forced to flee with nothing to a foreign country. It was Jose who introduced me to the ideas and novels of Ayn Rand. I'll never forget how stunned he was I didn't know what 'Atlas Shrugged' was about. I just don't know how anyone can support a system that could do things like this to a fellow human being, but that really is the challenge all free thinking people face. Has been for all of time I think.
Thought this is relevant and fits into the conversation nicely here.
Saul David Alinsky was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his book, Rules for Radicals. He was born January 30, 1909 in Chicago, Il., and died June 12, 1972. He was educated at the University of Chicago, was married to Irene, and wrote the books: Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals. Called "the father of the community-organizing model", he reportedly inspired both Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. So, let's take a look at what it takes to create a social state according to Saul Alinsky. There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.
1. Healthcare: Control healthcare and you control the people.
2. Poverty: Increase the poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3. Debt: Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes and this will produce more poverty.
4. Gun Control: Remove the ability for people to defend themselves from the government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5. Welfare: Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)
6. Education: Take control of what people read and listen to take control of what children learn in school.
7. Religion: Remove the belief in God from the government and schools.
8. Class Warfare: Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.
Does this sound familiar?
I once wore a uniform and we stacked the corpses of those following this ideology up like cordwood, so is it any wonder that others here like myself would be in diametric opposition to what seems to be happening right here in the US and elsewhere in western societies?
It all does. Thanks for sharing.
Just a bit of trivia... I'm pretty sure Alinsky dedicated this book to satan?
Eh, whether he did or not, it fits.
The world is a better place with Alinsky gone, but his poison remains...
Quote from: Shantel on January 26, 2014, 01:47:00 PM
Thought this is relevant and fits into the conversation nicely here.
Saul David Alinsky was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his book, Rules for Radicals. He was born January 30, 1909 in Chicago, Il., and died June 12, 1972. He was educated at the University of Chicago, was married to Irene, and wrote the books: Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals. Called "the father of the community-organizing model", he reportedly inspired both Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. So, let's take a look at what it takes to create a social state according to Saul Alinsky. There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.
1. Healthcare: Control healthcare and you control the people.
2. Poverty: Increase the poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3. Debt: Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes and this will produce more poverty.
4. Gun Control: Remove the ability for people to defend themselves from the government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5. Welfare: Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)
6. Education: Take control of what people read and listen to take control of what children learn in school.
7. Religion: Remove the belief in God from the government and schools.
8. Class Warfare: Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.
Does this sound familiar?
I once wore a uniform and we stacked the corpses of those following this ideology up like cordwood, so is it any wonder that others here like myself would be in diametric opposition to what seems to be happening right here in the US and elsewhere in western societies?
Latch onto whatever dead men's words you want, as a former member of the Communist Party of the USA; I can see that you don't really understand the goals of the far left at all. Worse still, you mention Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, who are not even at all in the same league as Chairman Webb and even he is a revisionist if there ever was one; there are reasons why I am a
former Party member.
You act like gun control is some part of this conspiracy orchestrated by this vast sinister network of leftwing agents to bring about world domination, but that simply isn't the case. Almost any time someone starts to say anything is a vast conspiracy, and that nothing is what it seems, they seem to be wrong. Even people I consider radical and dangerous like Rand Paul, I can recognize aren't trying to create some global plutocracy by changing taxes, many times things are exactly what they seem to be, Rand Paul thinks his tax policy would work out to the better benefit of the people, and so does Barack Obama, and the CPUSA isn't really even interesting in total nationalization of the economy because they see markets as useful tools. The truth is, things are alot more chaotic than any conspiracy would ever allow for.
Has it ever occurred to you, that when people of differing political persuasions want things like licenses or background checks, that they
aren't lying, and that not everything is some slippery slope? I want reforms that are reasonable regulations on an aspect of American life that has resisted regulation for no reason that I can see that is justifiable, that doesn't make me somehow secretly working for the total banning of guns. Now
I do support Nationalization of heavy industry, employee owned government invested private enterprises (kinda like Yugoslavia), heavy progressive tax structures, government owned banks, still tariffs, and full employment for anyone who wants a job. None of those things have anything to do with me wanting reasonable background checks, safety classes or licensing for firearms, there is just no connection between the two aside from a general preference of an orderly community.
Hikari, if the Left would exclude me from their grand plans, I wouldn't care what they were about whatsoever. What I'm about is giving people their right to self determination.
I do know what the Left is all about. You can tell me to not trust my lying eyes all you want, I know what they're about. Unfortunately, it's you that doesn't know what they're all about. This ideology has never worked and it never will.
EOS
Quote from: Nikko on January 26, 2014, 03:08:43 PM
Hikari, if the Left would exclude me from their grand plans, I wouldn't care what they were about whatsoever. What I'm about is giving people their right to self determination.
I do know what the Left is all about. You can tell me to not trust my lying eyes all you want, I know what they're about. Unfortunately, it's you that doesn't know what they're all about. This ideology has never worked and it never will.
EOS
Righto Nikko! And here are Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" which look very familiar when held up to the light and compared to the political machinations and arguing points of the party of the left. The highlighted ones are used right here and in similar threads quite often.
The rules
"Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."
"Never go outside the expertise of your people."
"Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy."
"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.""Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.""A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
"Keep the pressure on. Never let up.""The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."
"If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.""The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
Just saw this, look forward to seeing this movie. The filmmaker may be in prison for dare making '2016: Obama's America', but I'm hopeful this is still on track...
http://player.vimeo.com/video/84333052?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0 (http://player.vimeo.com/video/84333052?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0)
My biggest problem with banning the possession of something (guns, drugs, whatever) is that it inevitably becomes a justification for preemptively searching people and invading privacy. Cops start having to look at everyone as a potential secret criminal instead of looking at them by default as an innocent citizen who's rights they need to protect.
It doesn't matter what you have. What matters is what you do with it. Using a gun to defend yourself from a murderer or a rapist shouldn't be illegal. Using one to hold up a convenience store on the other hand...
Quote from: Nikko on January 26, 2014, 04:54:59 PM
Just saw this, look forward to seeing this movie. The filmmaker may be in prison for dare making '2016: Obama's America', but I'm hopeful this is still on track...
http://player.vimeo.com/video/84333052?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0 (http://player.vimeo.com/video/84333052?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0)
I have no respect for D'Sousa
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/dinesh-dsouza-indictment-dartmouth-outed-gay-classmates
Quote from: Gwynne on January 26, 2014, 05:01:15 PM
I have no respect for D'Sousa
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/dinesh-dsouza-indictment-dartmouth-outed-gay-classmates
I would do a good deal of fact checking any of Mother Jone's articles before I put much faith in them. Truth clearly isn't in their mission statement.
Quote from: Nikko on January 26, 2014, 05:11:33 PM
I would do a good deal of fact checking any of Mother Jone's articles before I put much faith in them. Truth clearly isn't in their mission statement.
That's just the most recent article on this. This is a story with plenty of corroboration.
D'Sousa is a homophobe, crackpot, and jerk.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 26, 2014, 05:26:47 PM
That's just the most recent article on this. This is a story with plenty of corroboration.
D'Sousa is a homophobe, crackpot, and jerk.
Uh-huh!
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.""If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.""Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
Honestly, after reading through this thread, all I can say about the "left/right" paradigm is this:
I hate both sides and think they both suck in equal measures. It doesn't accomplish anything but keeping the populace fighting with themselves while the rich get richer on both sides of the aisle.
Quote from: Shantel on January 26, 2014, 05:31:02 PM
Uh-huh!
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
"If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive."
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
I don't think I'm being unfair, but if you'd prefer, I'm happy to leave jerk as an exercise for the reader. I'd say his track-record leaves the other two more or less self-evident.
Quote from: Laura Squirrel on January 26, 2014, 05:39:08 PM
Honestly, after reading through this thread, all I can say about the "left/right" paradigm is this:
I hate both sides and think they both suck in equal measures. It doesn't accomplish anything but keeping the populace fighting with themselves while the rich get richer on both sides of the aisle.
The left/right paradigm is a ridiculous over-simplification. There is nothing inherently conservative or liberal about gun control.
Quote from: Shantel on January 26, 2014, 05:31:02 PM
Uh-huh!
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
"If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive."
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
You could use these same quotes referencing common conversation from the right on Obama, or Clinton, or many others. If D'Sousa's actions can be forgiven or even ignored due to the political forces for or against him, then the truth just doesn't matter that much.
@everyone
I think I am done in this thread, if people want to see things are vast conspiracies, throw out any evidence that is contrary to this, and refuse to take anyone at face value then there isn't any real point in discussion as it only serves as a validation mechanism for a viewpoint that was already held. I will still fight for background checks, mandatory safety training, and licensing for firearms because
I believe it the right thing to do, if people are going to assume this makes me a part of some vast left wing conspiracy to ban firearms (even though I am a gun owner myself) then they are only hearing what they want to hear.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 26, 2014, 05:42:25 PM
The left/right paradigm is a ridiculous over-simplification. There is nothing inherently conservative or liberal about gun control.
I'm not talking about a single issue. I'm talking about the whole thing. No matter if it is gun control, abortion, gay marriage, the war on drugs, etc,etc,etc....It's just people bitching at each other all day long and nothing gets resolved.
All these arguments highlight the basic point that most people actually hate the concept of freedom. You need to have responsibility when it comes to certain freedoms.
Does this mean that I think that everyone should be allowed to own an AK-47?
No.
Does this mean that I believe that a guy should be able to marry a goat?
No.
Does this mean that I believe that you should be allowed to buy cocaine legally?
Of course not.
Quote from: Laura Squirrel on January 26, 2014, 05:39:08 PM
Honestly, after reading through this thread, all I can say about the "left/right" paradigm is this:
I hate both sides and think they both suck in equal measures. It doesn't accomplish anything but keeping the populace fighting with themselves while the rich get richer on both sides of the aisle.
That's part of the plan, create a polemic populace, get them worked up over issues that ought not fall under government purview and feed the envy of those that have by the have nots and you have effectively divided a nation that is supposedly indivisible and which is doomed to fall as a result. Some would say, "Oh Shantel you're just such a conspiracy theorist", sorry but we have reached the point when theory becomes clearly evident and is moving to fact.
Quote from: Laura Squirrel on January 26, 2014, 05:39:08 PM
I hate both sides and think they both suck in equal measures. It doesn't accomplish anything but keeping the populace fighting with themselves while the rich get richer on both sides of the aisle.
Yyyyyyyep.
Quote from: Laura Squirrel on January 26, 2014, 05:51:46 PM
I'm not talking about a single issue. I'm talking about the whole thing. No matter if it is gun control, abortion, gay marriage, the war on drugs, etc,etc,etc....It's just people bitching at each other all day long and nothing gets resolved.
Oh, I agree with you.
Quote from: Laura Squirrel on January 26, 2014, 05:51:46 PM
I'm not talking about a single issue. I'm talking about the whole thing. No matter if it is gun control, abortion, gay marriage, the war on drugs, etc,etc,etc....It's just people bitching at each other all day long and nothing gets resolved.
All these arguments highlight the basic point that most people actually hate the concept of freedom. You need to have responsibility when it comes to certain freedoms.
Does this mean that I think that everyone should be allowed to own an AK-47?
No.
Does this mean that I believe that a guy should be able to marry a goat?
No.
Does this mean that I believe that you should be allowed to buy cocaine legally?
Of course not.
Kia Ora LS,
It was legal once before So why not now ? ::)
Metta Zenda :)
Quote from: Anatta on January 26, 2014, 06:37:29 PM
Kia Ora LS,
It was legal once before So why not now ? ::)
I support legalizing all illicit narcotics.
Quote from: Anatta on January 26, 2014, 06:37:29 PM
Kia Ora LS,
It was legal once before So why not now ? ::)
Metta Zenda :)
Yes, it was legal in the past and it was a very bad idea.
Should marijuana be legal?
Yes. I'm a non-smoker so I don't even have a stake in it. BUT having went through a childhood and adolescence seeing more than my fair share of drunken violence, I would rather see a stoned populace as opposed to a drunken one. Yeah, you could say both of them are bad ideas but most people that are stoned while driving drive slower instead of faster. Plus, the only fight that you would see between two people that were stoned would be for that last piece of pizza and there wouldn't even be any raised voices, nor any fists flying.
Quote from: Shantel on January 26, 2014, 01:47:00 PM
Thought this is relevant and fits into the conversation nicely here.
Saul David Alinsky was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his book, Rules for Radicals. He was born January 30, 1909 in Chicago, Il., and died June 12, 1972. He was educated at the University of Chicago, was married to Irene, and wrote the books: Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals. Called "the father of the community-organizing model", he reportedly inspired both Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. So, let's take a look at what it takes to create a social state according to Saul Alinsky. There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.
1. Healthcare: Control healthcare and you control the people.
2. Poverty: Increase the poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3. Debt: Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes and this will produce more poverty.
4. Gun Control: Remove the ability for people to defend themselves from the government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5. Welfare: Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)
6. Education: Take control of what people read and listen to take control of what children learn in school.
7. Religion: Remove the belief in God from the government and schools.
8. Class Warfare: Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.
Does this sound familiar?
I once wore a uniform and we stacked the corpses of those following this ideology up like cordwood, so is it any wonder that others here like myself would be in diametric opposition to what seems to be happening right here in the US and elsewhere in western societies?
This is too much conspiracy theoretics for me to believe.
I cant go along with a theory that our government is keeping us down when we are the ones who control it.
Quote from: Laura Squirrel on January 26, 2014, 09:34:54 PM
Yes, it was legal in the past and it was a very bad idea.
Should marijuana be legal?
Yes. I'm a non-smoker so I don't even have a stake in it. BUT having went through a childhood and adolescence seeing more than my fair share of drunken violence, I would rather see a stoned populace as opposed to a drunken one. Yeah, you could say both of them are bad ideas but most people that are stoned while driving drive slower instead of faster. Plus, the only fight that you would see between two people that were stoned would be for that last piece of pizza and there wouldn't even be any raised voices, nor any fists flying.
I actually like how the debate and law changes are occurring regarding marijuana, it's being done at the state level as it should be.
I suspect Colorado will experience bad consequences for legalizing a mind altering drug, one that tends to make people lazy unmotivated couch potatoes, time will tell. ;D
QuoteI cant go along with a theory that our government is keeping us down when we are the ones who control it.
I have issues with this. When was the last time an individual really had much say at all. Many are shot down even at local government unless they have money. Since 28 people have more money than 3.25 million, that leaves very little room for poorer people to have a voice.
Quote from: LordKAT on January 27, 2014, 04:24:16 AM
I have issues with this. When was the last time an individual really had much say at all. Many are shot down even at local government unless they have money. Since 28 people have more money than 3.25 million, that leaves very little room for poorer people to have a voice.
I will say though, when our government runs as
intended, the poorer people have a much greater voice via voting for their representatives in our federal government and on down. And we're about to listen to a State of the Union speech in which it's expected the POTUS will announce how he plans to ignore OUR chosen representatives in congress. Which is odd since he's been doing this for five years. So... yep.
Quote from: LordKAT on January 27, 2014, 04:24:16 AM
I have issues with this. When was the last time an individual really had much say at all. Many are shot down even at local government unless they have money. Since 28 people have more money than 3.25 million, that leaves very little room for poorer people to have a voice.
Our voice is the elections.
Sure people vote for the same person over and over, but not everybody's interests are the same. Someone from new york will not want or need the same rep as someone in nowhere, kansas. All these people are elected by us. Personally i dont like any of them. I voted for the curent president because he was the lesser of the 2 evils to me. Didnt help that romney kept switching up what he was going to do as president. But thats another argument for another time.
The point is i am independent for a reason. I dont trust either side. But it is not possible to please everyone, especially in a country like this so how can we really judge them for trying to win a race?
If one of us poor people put enough hard work and dedication, we could do well in an election. Its a matter of will and time.
Quote from: Emo on January 27, 2014, 08:08:13 AM
Our voice is the elections.
Sure people vote for the same person over and over, but not everybody's interests are the same. Someone from new york will not want or need the same rep as someone in nowhere, kansas. All these people are elected by us. Personally i dont like any of them. I voted for the curent president because he was the lesser of the 2 evils to me. Didnt help that romney kept switching up what he was going to do as president. But thats another argument for another time.
The point is i am independent for a reason. I dont trust either side. But it is not possible to please everyone, especially in a country like this so how can we really judge them for trying to win a race?
If one of us poor people put enough hard work and dedication, we could do well in an election. Its a matter of will and time.
Our political systems would work far better without the parties. If I could change one thing, it would be their disestablishment.
Nebraska, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories have it right. No parties, no party whips. Add in no campaign financing and we're ready to roll.
I've talked about this often before--this notion that we control our government. I think powerful people control it and we're given a comforting illusion of control at best. It might seem odd when I start talking about evangalizing in this video about politics. The way people encourage involvement in politics is a kind of religion for me. It's something we need in order to feel okay with the status quo, dropping our votes in a box like it means something when we're largely powerless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkgPgVcmiFc
As I said, I'm against any laws against possession of some substance. I would love to see a constitutional ruling but I know it won't happen--something like possession alone is insufficient; crimes require an action, i.e. misuse of a substance. I realize it can be scary and there are risks involved, like a criminal possessing a gun. But I feel the need to weigh that against other things. One is that it's VERY hard to enforce these laws without an incredibly intrusive government and the risk of government abuse is really high. Both scenarios are scary but the latter is much more terrifying for me.
This is not just a principle for me. It's what seems most practical. If a person cannot be trusted with a gun then keep them locked away. It's the only way that works because if they're willing to commit a crime with a gun, they will get their hands on one. Gun control is a placebo. It makes us feel safer. I don't own guns or illegal drugs but I don't want to tolerate the invasion of my privacy just for that placebo.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 27, 2014, 08:12:31 AM
Our political systems would work far better without the parties. If I could change one thing, it would be their disestablishment.
Nebraska, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories have it right. No parties, no party whips. Add in no campaign financing and we're ready to roll.
That sure sounds like a good plan to me! It's a travesty foisted off on the American people that the usual suspects continually get re-elected primarily on the basis of name recognition and they think they are doing their job by bringing home the bacon to their state constituency when in reality they are driving up the national debt and then are so morbidly inept that they can't agree on a budget for half a decade let alone anything else. Time for a real change, no rhetoric or BS this time, let's fire the lot of them and start over.
Parties are a natural result of the political process. The U.S. has a winner-take-all process which will always result in two primary parties. Even if one failed, something else would soon take its place. It would actually take a total revamp of our system to make it receptive to multiple parties. There are countries who allocate some political power proportionately based on who got however many votes. Those countries have more than just two primary parties because a small party can still have some impact.
Quote from: dalebert on January 27, 2014, 09:33:52 AM
Parties are a natural result of the political process. The U.S. has a winner-take-all process which will always result in two primary parties. Even if one failed, something else would soon take its place. It would actually take a total revamp of our system to make it receptive to multiple parties. There are countries who allocate some political power proportionately based on who got however many votes. Those countries have more than just two primary parties because a small party can still have some impact.
The Electoral College trumping the popular vote is a turn off too!
The problem with politics today is that structurally the Republican Party has allowed the extremists in their party to gain control in their party. The extremists in the Republican Party want a strict enforcement of what they believe are Victorian Age Christian Morality both publically and privately for every individual in the United States, even though in Victorian Times this morality was mostly public while many powerful individuals and their friends, in the privacy of their society, through this moral code out the window. These extremists in the Republican Party are antiscience and would declare that the earth is flat, if it got them elected to office.
The other problem with the extreme wing of the Republican Party is that they only care about power for the most extreme individuals, so that the Parties policy goals are constantly shifting to the right of what ever position the Republicans in office already hold. The Republican Party has the same frame of mind as the extremists in the French Revolution of 1789 when the French Extremists eliminated first the Royalists and then set about eliminating the Revolutionists who were not extreme enough.
The Media and all the rest of the country should just tell these extremists to shut up, don't give them air time unless they pay for it, and refuse to vote them into public office. Modern society cannot function when people declare that the science its technology is based upon is just an opinion.
Yes, over the centuries, as our means of making scientific observations, cataloguing these ideas, and organizing these ideas, and making hypothesis, and deriving laws of nature from this data, there are many changes to the scientifically based paradigms of a societies intellectual understandings of the Universe, but for any society to function and create new technology, these cannot be viewed as any one individual's opinion, so that they are constantly argued about. Examples of these changes today are the String Theory, and how we view the nature of gravity and how modern technology is allowing us to explore the very depths of the Universe and the very microcosms of nature. We are even able to extract DNA from 400,000 year old humanoid bones and are coming up with some very startling clues about the relationships of the many strains of Huminoids interrelated and what physical characteristics these individuals had.
The my way or the highway, that these extremist Right Wing Republicans have needs to be rejected for what it is. So far the Media instead of rejecting them is claiming that all other parties are just as extreme when they refuse to give into these extremist demands. Even moderate compromises are being labeled as being uncooperative. When the fact is that the extremists want total capitulation by their competition no matter what party they are in. It is not just enough for the non extremists to accept and act upon the extremists demands, then they reject it. The extremists just expect their competition to resign from their elected offices so that the extremists of the day can take over. This will not solve anything, because then the extremists will just argue amongst themselves because they really don't have any core set of beliefs.
Because of this the Transgender community and everyone of the individuals that alines themselves with us, has to stand up and fight for our rights. We have the right to become who we are, and have just as much right, to be excentric and outlandish within our community, and to be as plain and simple also. Just because we are uncomfortable about others in our communities self expressions, we have to realize that they may be uncomfortable with us, that doesn't mean that we should not respect each other's rights to their individuality. I realize that each day I am becoming more comfortable with my expression of my individuality, and each day I am becoming more and more comfortable about expressing my femininity, even though I am still at a very conservative stage, in my mind, but perhaps not so conservative in the minds of others.
The fact is that really, Pride Day, should be everyday, and not just come one day a year. Those of us who can, need to jump into the political fray, and see that when it comes to politics every day is abnormal, which we can see if we dig deep enough into the politics of each period in United States history.
As a former Democrat up until the 1970's I am constrained to say that I can no longer relate to that party under any circumstances as it has moved so far to the left since the days of Roosevelt's "New Deal" which was hailed by Republicans even back then as a leftist program even though it was prudent for the times. I will agree that the Republican party has indeed been hijacked by two nefarious factions, one being the "Religious Right" and the other being the "Neocons," and if those congress members weren't like all politicians and leaned whichever way the political winds were blowing like reeds in a swamp, and had a little backbone that wouldn't have happened. Same is true for the Democratic congress which is rife with Marxist leaning activists that are calling the shots.
Quote from: Nikko on January 26, 2014, 10:56:43 PM
I actually like how the debate and law changes are occurring regarding marijuana, it's being done at the state level as it should be.
I suspect Colorado will experience bad consequences for legalizing a mind altering drug, one that tends to make people lazy unmotivated couch potatoes, time will tell. ;D
Well, it comes down to willpower and personal responsibility. I've known people that smoked until they were comatose and that was all they did. I knew people that smoked a bit here and there and just lived their lives normally. I've known people that did the same with alcohol.
Quote from: Laura Squirrel on January 27, 2014, 12:56:37 PM
Well, it comes down to willpower and personal responsibility. I've known people that smoked until they were comatose and that was all they did. I knew people that smoked a bit here and there and just lived their lives normally. I've known people that did the same with alcohol.
No doubt. I've done both 'drugs' but always did so within reason, but it's certainly my view alcohol is far less damaging. I'm not necessarily against legalization of marijuana, I just like the idea of allowing states who are desirous to experiment and help prove an unknown as either worthwhile or not. I would hope we all can learn this is a good thing and move many more things out of the Federal government's domain as it was intended by the nation's founders.
Quote from: Nikko on January 27, 2014, 01:11:08 PM
But it's certainly my view alcohol is far less damaging.
Really?
I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion.
Not looking for a "fight", I'm genuinely intrigued by this.
Quote from: Laura Squirrel on January 27, 2014, 01:21:32 PM
Really?
I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion.
Not looking for a "fight", I'm genuinely intrigued by this.
Perhaps she should have added, "As long as your liver holds up and you do it at home and stay out of the car?"
Quote from: Shantel on January 27, 2014, 01:24:33 PM
Perhaps she should have added, "As long as your liver holds up and you do it at home and stay out of the car?"
:D
Couple things though, it's irrelevant what damage these drugs do to the users, just the affect it has on others. So, have you not ever driven high? I would rather be drunk than high. ;)
Quote from: Nikko on January 27, 2014, 01:39:55 PM
:D
Couple things though, it's irrelevant what damage these drugs do to the users, just the affect it has on others. So, have you not ever driven high? I would rather be drunk than high. ;)
I don't have any experience with marijuana other than hyperventilating once when I tried a joint while all the a-holes laughed at my misery, so it doesn't appeal to me. One thing that concerns me living here in Washington State is how many dorks high on weed are going to cause auto accidents and kill some innocent folks, and how will the authorities deal with that? I did notice that 99% of those wanting legalization of "Medical Marijuana" were suspiciously retros from the 60's, odd isn't it?!
Quote from: Nikko on January 27, 2014, 01:39:55 PM
:D
Couple things though, it's irrelevant what damage these drugs do to the users, just the affect it has on others. So, have you not ever driven high? I would rather be drunk than high. ;)
You ever been a kid that had no choice but to ride along with their drunk as hell dad while they flew down country roads at 90 MPH wondering if you were going to make it home alive?
Have you ever watched countless family holiday gatherings be destroyed because of a few drunken comments that led to fistfights between family members that resulted in crying children and screaming spouses?
I doubt that you have. Otherwise, you would know where I was coming from in this argument.
You know what I've seen when people were stoned?
Silly conversations and munching on junk food while listening to the stereo or watching TV.
I know which situation I would rather be in the middle of.
Quote from: Shantel on January 27, 2014, 01:46:58 PM
I don't have any experience with marijuana other than hyperventilating once when I tried a joint while all the a-holes laughed at my misery, so it doesn't appeal to me. One thing that concerns me living here in Washington State is how many dorks high on weed are going to cause auto accidents and kill some innocent folks, and how will the authorities deal with that? I did notice that 99% of those wanting legalization of "Medical Marijuana" were suspiciously retros from the 60's, odd isn't it?!
Seems to me you are allowing a single, solitary experience color the entire thing. Unless you have been involved with it for a number of years, you don't really have a solid basis to go on.
Not being argumentative, just telling the truth.
But, to be fair, I never would have touched any intoxicants at all if it hadn't been for the GID. But better to put a bottle of whiskey to your lips or a joint in your mouth, rather than blasting your brains all over the bedroom wall with a 20 gauge shotgun.
Quote from: Emo on January 27, 2014, 08:08:13 AM
Our voice is the elections.
Sure people vote for the same person over and over, but not everybody's interests are the same. Someone from new york will not want or need the same rep as someone in nowhere, kansas. All these people are elected by us. Personally i dont like any of them. I voted for the curent president because he was the lesser of the 2 evils to me. Didnt help that romney kept switching up what he was going to do as president. But thats another argument for another time.
The point is i am independent for a reason. I dont trust either side. But it is not possible to please everyone, especially in a country like this so how can we really judge them for trying to win a race?
If one of us poor people put enough hard work and dedication, we could do well in an election. Its a matter of will and time.
It isn't a voice or choice when I can pick rich thing 1 or rich thing 2, not a single simple working person like most of us. I have to choose from the rich elite and not a someone who actually represents anything like where I come from. As long as that happens, money will continue to funnel into the hands of people who already have money. The 'American dream' of being able to be whatever you want no matter where you started is no longer true.
Quote from: Laura Squirrel on January 27, 2014, 01:53:37 PM
Seems to me you are allowing a single, solitary experience color the entire thing. Unless you have been involved with it for a number of years, you don't really have a solid basis to go on. Didn't like it, if I did I would have been a pot head rather than a bleeping alcoholic. case closed!
Not being argumentative, just telling the truth. heheh we know Ms Squirrel!
But, to be fair, I never would have touched any intoxicants at all if it hadn't been for the GID. But better to put a bottle of whiskey to your lips or a joint in your mouth, rather than blasting your brains all over the bedroom wall with a 20 gauge shotgun. I tried that after a fifth of vodka, kinda stupid and fortunately my .45 auto has two safeties, the one in the heel of the grip wouldn't disengage when I had the barrel in my mouth otherwise I wouldn't be here to harass you Ms. Squirrel
:D ;D :laugh:
Quote from: LordKAT on January 27, 2014, 02:04:42 PM
It isn't a voice or choice when I can pick rich thing 1 or rich thing 2, not a single simple working person like most of us. I have to choose from the rich elite and not a someone who actually represents anything like where I come from. As long as that happens, money will continue to funnel into the hands of people who already have money. The 'American dream' of being able to be whatever you want no matter where you started is no longer true.
I recently heard that about 65 people now control half of the world's wealth, while a big percentage make around $2 a day.
Quote from: Shantel on January 27, 2014, 02:09:59 PM
I recently heard that about 65 people now control half of the world's wealth, while a big percentage make around $2 a day.
I'm pretty sure my bank manager thinks he's one of them.
Quote from: Laura Squirrel on January 27, 2014, 01:50:28 PM
You ever been a kid that had no choice but to ride along with their drunk as hell dad while they flew down country roads at 90 MPH wondering if you were going to make it home alive?
Have you ever watched countless family holiday gatherings be destroyed because of a few drunken comments that led to fistfights between family members that resulted in crying children and screaming spouses?
I doubt that you have. Otherwise, you would know where I was coming from in this argument.
You know what I've seen when people were stoned?
Silly conversations and munching on junk food while listening to the stereo or watching TV.
I know which situation I would rather be in the middle of.
Yes. My father was an alcoholic and he purchased enough for the road everywhere we went. He was a WWII vet and it was difficult for him to adjust, I'm pretty forgiving about it all. And the cigarette smoke! Me and my brothers would crack the back windows and breath as close to the opening as possible.
I went to sleep every night to yelling and screaming, there were many times my father made physical threats (death was mentioned at times) against all of us during his fights with mom (her issues were worse IMO :o), but I think that would've occurred regardless, I'm sure alcohol didn't help in many cases, but it wasn't the root cause.
QuoteDidn't like it, if I did I would have been a pot head rather than a bleeping alcoholic. case closed!
Fair enough.
Quoteheheh we know, Ms Squirrel!
It's Miss and NOT Ms. I HATE Ms. It sounds like a sound a bug would make as it flies past your ear. :D
QuoteI tried that after a fifth of vodka, kinda stupid and fortunately my .45 auto has two safeties, the one in the heel of the grip wouldn't disengage when I had the barrel in my mouth otherwise I wouldn't be here to harass you Ms. Squirrel
Wow......
I never got that far. I had a plan but never put it into action. I wanted to, but I didn't want to screw my mom up for the rest of her life since she would have probably been the first one home and had to deal with the aftermath.
I wrote a suicide note last year when I was going through the panic attacks. I threw it out a few days later but I rewrote it the next week. I still have it on file, just in case. There is a 99.9% chance that I won't need it but if something gets screwed up again, I would rather have it around so people know why I did it and what my final wishes would be.
May be a strange idea, but I decided to do it anyway.
Quote from: Nikko on January 27, 2014, 02:23:59 PM
Yes. My father was an alcoholic and he purchased enough for the road everywhere we went. He was a WWII vet and it was difficult for him to adjust, I'm pretty forgiving about it all. And the cigarette smoke! Me and my brothers would crack the back windows and breath as close to the opening as possible.
I went to sleep every night to yelling and screaming, there were many times my father made physical threats (death was mentioned at times) against all of us during his fights with mom (her issues were worse IMO :o), but I think that would've occurred regardless, I'm sure alcohol didn't help in many cases, but it wasn't the root cause.
Ah, I see. It sounds like we came from different generations (Or did your parents have children later in life?)
My parents were born in the late 50s, early 60s.
As far as the stuff with my dad went, the SOLE reason any crazy stuff happened was because of alcohol. He was fine if he was sober (or stoned on weed) but if he drank, he had this whole Jekyll and Hyde thing that would occur. Unfortunately, he's gotten much worse as the years have went on. If he makes it through his 60s, I will be shocked.
That's the sad truth of it all. I already had one uncle that passed away in his 60s due to alcohol abuse.
Quote from: Laura Squirrel on January 27, 2014, 02:32:29 PM
Ah, I see. It sounds like we came from different generations (Or did your parents have children later in life?)
My parents were born in the late 50s, early 60s.
As far as the stuff with my dad went, the SOLE reason any crazy stuff happened was because of alcohol. He was fine if he was sober (or stoned on weed) but if he drank, he had this whole Jekyll and Hyde thing that would occur. Unfortunately, he's gotten much worse as the years have went on. If he makes it through his 60s, I will be shocked.
That's the sad truth of it all. I already had one uncle that passed away in his 60s due to alcohol abuse.
My parents were born in 20's and 30's, my dad was in his upper 30's when I was born ('63).
The reason I don't blame the alcohol is, if not that, it would've been something else. That's why I'm not big on making these things illegal, it won't stop it and I don't think making these people criminals is a good thing, probably would make home life even worse.
Quote from: Nikko on January 27, 2014, 02:40:30 PM
My parents were born in 20's and 30's, my dad was in his upper 30's when I was born ('63).
The reason I don't blame the alcohol is, if not that, it would've been something else. That's why I'm not big on making these things illegal, it won't stop it and I don't think making these people criminals is a good thing, probably would make home life even worse.
Oh, see.
Yeah, I was born in the late 70s, so yeah that is a pretty big generational difference.
Quote from: Shantel on January 27, 2014, 02:09:59 PM
I recently heard that about 65 people now control half of the world's wealth, while a big percentage make around $2 a day.
Kind of interesting to note where people make $2 a day, most are places that redistribute the 'wealth'.
The wonderful fact is, wealth can't be redistributed, just destroyed. I say wonderful because, the day this is understood (and it's not that hard), then the horrible failed ideologies that ruin so many lives may die forever. I know, it's unlikely, but I can dream. ;)
Rich people have simply created a great deal of value for the rest of us. From high tech to medical life saving breakthroughs and treatments, the rich do some pretty good things. Their creating value doesn't take anything from anybody, it creates opportunity for the rest of us to create wealth. Thus, societies that attempt to redistribute end up with nothing.
Reminds me of Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, he never learns it's never going to happen... ;)
Quote from: Nikko on January 27, 2014, 03:56:07 PM
Reminds me of Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, he never learns it's never going to happen... ;)
Charlie Brown may never kick that football, but there is one character that will nail the home run every single time.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstream1.gifsoup.com%2Fview6%2F4876071%2Fportia-home-run-o.gif&hash=7cb988079b7b066db7fc0bb7252074a542c2b695)
I keep waiting for the beaver to wise up and walk her...
Quote from: Laura Squirrel on January 27, 2014, 02:28:11 PM
Fair enough.
It's Miss and NOT Ms. I HATE Ms. It sounds like a sound a bug would make as it flies past your ear. :D
Yes
Miss Squirrel! Say, are you sure you really aren't that porcupine incognito dear? :D
Quote from: Laura Squirrel on January 27, 2014, 02:28:11 PM
Wow......
I never got that far. I had a plan but never put it into action. I wanted to, but I didn't want to screw my mom up for the rest of her life since she would have probably been the first one home and had to deal with the aftermath.
Just as well because it's really messy, selfish, because it hurts a lot of innocent family members and is a dead end and makes no sense at all.
Quote from: Nikko on January 27, 2014, 03:56:07 PM
Kind of interesting to note where people make $2 a day, most are places that redistribute the 'wealth'.
The wonderful fact is, wealth can't be redistributed, just destroyed. I say wonderful because, the day this is understood (and it's not that hard), then the horrible failed ideologies that ruin so many lives may die forever. I know, it's unlikely, but I can dream. ;)
Rich people have simply created a great deal of value for the rest of us. From high tech to medical life saving breakthroughs and treatments, the rich do some pretty good things. Their creating value doesn't take anything from anybody, it creates opportunity for the rest of us to create wealth. Thus, societies that attempt to redistribute end up with nothing.
Reminds me of Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, he never learns it's never going to happen... ;)
Well yeah, and the fact that the wealth is so astronomically lopsided and mostly held by those 65 or so people, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for the the malcontents who get by but aren't really wealthy to rail against some entrepreneurial success for making a few hundred thousand or a few millions creating opportunities and products or services for the citizens.
Quote from: Shantel on January 27, 2014, 05:08:56 PM
Yes Miss Squirrel! Say, are you sure you really aren't that porcupine incognito dear? :D
Nope. I am who I say I am.......in the fanfics. :D :D That's where the name and the avatar come from.
Quote from: ShantelJust as well because it's really messy, selfish, because it hurts a lot of innocent family members and is a dead end and makes no sense at all.
I know. But a year or so ago, I was in a very bad spot because I was really, really depressed. I had finally beat the worst parts of the GID. BUT these screwed up panic attacks came out of nowhere, I dealt with them for over a year and no one could find out why they were happening. I was losing any quality of life and I was very worried about losing my independence because I was scared to be alone. I was ready to throw in the towel and be done with everything. The only thing that has kept those attacks away is the combo of a couple of meds that I am on now. I may be on them for the rest of my life. I don't know. But I do know that I never want to go back to that spot ever again. It was absolute hell.
Quote from: Nikko on January 27, 2014, 04:26:29 PM
I keep waiting for the beaver to wise up and walk her...
Nah, Bingo is too dim and too arrogant to think of that. :D
Quote from: dalebert on January 27, 2014, 09:33:52 AM
Parties are a natural result of the political process. The U.S. has a winner-take-all process which will always result in two primary parties. Even if one failed, something else would soon take its place. It would actually take a total revamp of our system to make it receptive to multiple parties. There are countries who allocate some political power proportionately based on who got however many votes. Those countries have more than just two primary parties because a small party can still have some impact.
At the presidential level, ending the party system would take a tremendous amount of work. At the district level (and in Canada, at the riding level), it's much easier to work.
In a de jure non-partisan state, would like-minded people work together, informally? Of course! But without the organizational machine of a party, representatives would have to be far more responsive to the interests of their local constituents. Also, without party-funded political advertising, candidates would have to build visibility through more direct engagement.
Banning attack ads would be a very positive step. Campaigning should focus on your positives, not your opponents' negatives.
Quote from: Gwynne on January 27, 2014, 05:50:55 PM
Banning attack ads would be a very positive step. Campaigning should focus on your positives, not your opponents' negatives.
Yeah, but we've got that pesky Bill of Rights and 1st amendment crap. ;)
Quote from: dalebert on January 27, 2014, 06:20:34 PM
Yeah, but we've got that pesky Bill of Rights and 1st amendment crap. ;)
I'm not convinced that first amendment rights ought to apply here.
I'd consider it akin to hate speech as a special exception and comparably verboten.
Quote from: dalebert on January 27, 2014, 06:20:34 PM
Yeah, but we've got that pesky Bill of Rights and 1st amendment crap. ;)
I get Gwynne, but you're right dalebert and where would it stop? Too bad civility is so lacking in American culture! Some of it is so childish and immature! I got rid of my landline phone number that I've had for 40 years because I refuse to go through another political season with that thing ringing incessantly, both parties driving me crazy, it's going to be mega ugly!
The primary purpose of the first amendment is to protect unpopular/controversial speech. "Hate speech" is just way too vague of a thing to ban and it terrifies me to think who gets to decide what speech qualifies. Making exceptions, especially vague ones, is basically just revoking the 1st amendment because then there is some government organization that gets to decide what qualifies as "hate speech" which means the government is right back to deciding what speech is allowed or not.
Quote from: dalebert on January 28, 2014, 09:12:31 PM
The primary purpose of the first amendment is to protect unpopular/controversial speech. "Hate speech" is just way too vague of a thing to ban and it terrifies me to think who gets to decide what speech qualifies. Making exceptions, especially vague ones, is basically just revoking the 1st amendment because then there is some government organization that gets to decide what qualifies as "hate speech" which means the government is right back to deciding what speech is allowed or not.
Right on, right on!
Plus, hasn't everyone learned... "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me"?
Too many in government (largely dems) find free speech and the right to bear arms meaningless, essentially tolerable only when they decide when and where you'll exercise these 'unassailable' rights, but they're mandating unaffordable worthless 'health insurance'. This current crop is a bunch of absolute fools.
A friend emailed to explain why he can't afford to visit as planned. It's multiple factors but this was an interesting excerpt.
"...when the Affordability Care Act came into effect during the beginning of the year my health insurance rate (I was getting insurance through my employer) soared and I had to cancel my plan." (emphasis mine)
Oh, the irony. Whatever politicians call something usually has little relation to what it actually does. Notice I said "politicians" and didn't specify a party. I don't see much difference between the parties in that respect.
I understand people need health care. I want everyone to get it. Providing resources that people need has been an ongoing problem that the human race has been working at solving throughout history. We've gotten better at it, certainly, though mostly through technological advancement and the broadening of our scientific knowledge.
The belief that the government can somehow provide resources just by passing laws boggles my mind. That just seems like a fantasy world that I would love to live in as much as I'd love to live in a world where D&D spells existed (okay, maybe not. That could be pretty scary!) It's like believing the government can feed people by passing a law that food must appear on people's tables every night.
Quote from: dalebert on January 28, 2014, 09:12:31 PM
The primary purpose of the first amendment is to protect unpopular/controversial speech. "Hate speech" is just way too vague of a thing to ban and it terrifies me to think who gets to decide what speech qualifies. Making exceptions, especially vague ones, is basically just revoking the 1st amendment because then there is some government organization that gets to decide what qualifies as "hate speech" which means the government is right back to deciding what speech is allowed or not.
Hate speech regulation need not be vague. I would argue that declarations of hatred constitute "fighting words" (albeit indirect) and, as such, should not be protected.
Tolerate hateful speech? Don't complain when the fascists mobilize. :-\
I don't tolerate hate speech.
I just know these laws won't be applied fairly. Just look at Obama's executive orders and HHS's rules on obamacare, they're applying this law differently for their constituents (unions, etc.) AND TO THEMSELVES! I believe only a free people can prevent fascism. The day you put it in the hands of a few partisans, pack your bags and prepare to flee.
Ironic that controlling speech and restricting arms of the people is the first thing tyrants do AND just happen to be amendments ONE and TWO of our constitution.
Chicago grass roots reaction to the State of the Union.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/01/30/wow-poor-black-men-chicago-respond-obamas-state-union-address (http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/01/30/wow-poor-black-men-chicago-respond-obamas-state-union-address)
Quote from: Shantel on January 30, 2014, 10:21:27 AM
Chicago grass roots reaction to the State of the Union.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/01/30/wow-poor-black-men-chicago-respond-obamas-state-union-address (http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/01/30/wow-poor-black-men-chicago-respond-obamas-state-union-address)
WOW is right.
I'd say they summarized the current state of our country and its ills about as well as one can.
_________________
Things are about to get much worse... this year...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuA2_P-m4Sk&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuA2_P-m4Sk&feature=player_embedded)
It is not a left-wing / right-wing issue.
There is an organization called Democrats for the Second Amendment.
And Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was in favor of arming the peasants with rifles. You don't get much more left-wing than Lenin, now do you?
Quote from: HenryHall on February 03, 2014, 05:09:11 PM
It is not a left-wing / right-wing issue.
There is an organization called Democrats for the Second Amendment.
And Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was in favor of arming the peasants with rifles. You don't get much more left-wing than Lenin, now do you?
Peasants is the key word, my money is on the probability that they were not very literate folks and knew little of Lenin's agenda and became easily persuaded followers with the promise of a redistribution of wealth. In the SE Asia the Viet Cong forces were composed primarily of peasants who had no idea of the difference between Communism or Democracy but were promised a redistribution of land and wealth, peasants are always useful tools just like low information voters are.
If i may suggest a thought, a person once said that "the second amendment does not apply to citizens, only those in a state malitia so you should not be able to own any guns....period". Well my question is what is there to say that a person isn't part of a state malitia? Look at Ohio laws for example, "Any able bodied resident of the state of Ohio is considered part of the states malitia". Im able bodied, of sound mind (legally speaking), and a resident of the state. Should i still be covered by the Second Amendment?
Also just for fun......"Preacher lady is all no alcohol, Obama is all no guns, while im over here drunk as hell shootin sh*t" Earl Dibbles JR.
St George Tucker, writing in Blackstone's Commentaries, 1803, noted that in the United Stated there were no conditions placed on gun ownership: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...".
William Rawle (1825), a noted early American legal scholar, restated the original intent and understanding of the 2nd Amendment:
No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
The US Supreme Court agreed with this in the 2007 Heller case, Justice Scalia writing for the Court:
The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on February 10, 2014, 01:17:19 AM
St George Tucker, writing in Blackstone's Commentaries, 1803, noted that in the United Stated there were no conditions placed on gun ownership: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...".
William Rawle (1825), a noted early American legal scholar, restated the original intent and understanding of the 2nd Amendment:
No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
The US Supreme Court agreed with this in the 2007 Heller case, Justice Scalia writing for the Court:
The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree.
That being said i gotta ask...how the hell are the laws of California, New York, NJ and Cook County still constitutional?
Quote from: HenryHall on February 03, 2014, 05:09:11 PM
It is not a left-wing / right-wing issue.
There is an organization called Democrats for the Second Amendment.
And Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was in favor of arming the peasants with rifles. You don't get much more left-wing than Lenin, now do you?
In the nascent Soviet Union, weapons were seized as early as March 1918, in areas controlled by the Reds.
http://guner.ru/razre->-bleeped-<-elnaya-sistema-v-rossii/
"Petrograd Extraordinary Commission March 21, 1918 published an announcement on the Prohibition of individuals without proper authorization of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies to store weapons, ammunition and explosives. Within three days from the date of publication of this announcement, all individuals were required to obtain permission to store their weapons or hand it over to regional councils and government agencies, after the statutory three-day period the person did not comply with these requirements were seen as raiders and brought to justice Revolutionary Tribunal."
Quote from: kariann330 on February 10, 2014, 01:25:57 AM
That being said i gotta ask...how the hell are the laws of California, New York, NJ and Cook County still constitutional?
Short answer, in my opinion, they are not, and I do not comply with them.
Scalia was quoting approvingly from an earlier Georgia Supreme Court decision. Scalia explained:
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people"— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as "the people"
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on February 10, 2014, 01:29:26 AM
In the nascent Soviet Union, weapons were seized as early as March 1918, in areas controlled by the Reds.
http://guner.ru/razre->-bleeped-<-elnaya-sistema-v-rossii/
"Petrograd Extraordinary Commission March 21, 1918 published an announcement on the Prohibition of individuals without proper authorization of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies to store weapons, ammunition and explosives. Within three days from the date of publication of this announcement, all individuals were required to obtain permission to store their weapons or hand it over to regional councils and government agencies, after the statutory three-day period the person did not comply with these requirements were seen as raiders and brought to justice Revolutionary Tribunal."
My goodness, then it must have been a super duper safe place to live between 1918 and 1991! ;D
Quote from: Nikko on February 10, 2014, 12:13:02 PM
My goodness, then it must have been a super duper safe place to live between 1918 and 1991! ;D
"Arming the peasants" was solely for the purpose of overthrowing the existing imperial government, and their European allies, during the Bolshevik revolution. After that, an armed populace became dangerous.
American and Canadian troops were very active in eastern Siberia from 1918 to 1919. The last Americans evacuated Vladivostok in April 1920.
Quote from: Nikko on February 10, 2014, 12:13:02 PM
My goodness, then it must have been a super duper safe place to live between 1918 and 1991! ;D
:D ;D :laugh: :icon_peace:
Political BS aside.
I'd much rather keep my weapons. Never know when some lunatic is going to try to hurt me for being trans and I'm not willing to wait minutes for the police when seconds count.
In my point of view, all gun control does is give a monopoly on the vessels of violence to the criminal and political class.
No thanks.
-AM
Quote from: Androgynous_Machine on February 10, 2014, 04:03:35 PM
Political BS aside.
I'd much rather keep my weapons. Never know when some lunatic is going to try to hurt me for being trans and I'm not willing to wait minutes for the police when seconds count.
In my point of view, all gun control does is give a monopoly on the vessels of violence to the criminal and political class.
No thanks.
-AM
I have pelican cases for all of my guns....let some politician, like Finstein, get a bill passed confiscating firearms....ill bury ALL of mine and only unearth them after the police leave. If they ask about the fresh dirt my dog died last night.
Quote from: kariann330 on February 10, 2014, 11:09:51 PM
I have pelican cases for all of my guns....let some politician, like Finstein, get a bill passed confiscating firearms....ill bury ALL of mine and only unearth them after the police leave. If they ask about the fresh dirt my dog died last night.
The rate transwomen are raped, sexually assaulted, beaten, and murdered I'm a firm believer that a 9mm Glock or Beretta should be prescribed alongside HRT. What's real fun? On of the largest groups of perpetrators of these crimes against transwomen are the police themselves.
Knowing that and some people think I should fork over my guns to make some dopey liberal happy. No thanks.
-AM
Let me just start by saying I am neither left or right, more libertarian I guess??? I lean right on the constitution, personal responsibilities physical responsibility and so on and lean left on social issues such as gay marriage, bathroom freedom according to presentation and so on. I believe in live and let live and take care of your own self and business and love who you want along with be who you want to be. I may even be Apolitical. ???
I love firearms, target shooting, antique, modern and love black powder revolvers such as the Colts and Remingtons used during the Civil war. Not to mention that I don't have to wait 10-15 minutes for a cop to swoop in and save me from an intruder in my own home. As for hate speech though, freedom of being able to speak openly what's on your mind will offend. Other's have offended me and I'm sure I have offended other's. Also a crime is a crime and I have never understood the concept of a "hate" crime, all should be punishable without indiscretion.
But on the other hand.... The ex-police chief that killed the guy in front of his wife in the movie theatre, Just WOW. Wouldn't expect that one wouldja? Even the Mafia wouldn't kill someone in front of their family. I am a firm believer in Conceal and carry but in the same token when taking the courses, psyche evaluations would be a good idea. What made the ex cop, someone that carried a weapon openly for so many years and fully knows the consequences of using one snap over someone texting during a movie? Drugs? probably not. Dementia? Since he was an elderly gentleman very possible. Maybe when we reach a certain age we need to take hands on tests and psyche evals yearly bi yearly or quarterly to renew a conceal and carry license. I also advocate for doing the same after a certain age with driver's licenses. No offense to the elderly but with all the miles under my butt I have seen some pretty horrendous accidents caused by elderly folks that refuse to give up driving. Me, the minute that I can't keep speed, or plan my maneuvers far enough in advance I don't want to drive anymore. Too many innocent people out there. Same with conceal and carry, the very minute that I want to pull a gun out of anger or just feel angry enough to use it, I don't want one anymore.
I can see the left's point but putting a band aid on a severed artery doesn't work. You can't take firearms from responsible people that just want to protect themselves. I would rather pack heat in my purse than a cellphone because if anything it will scare someone with mal intent away from doing something to me, trans or not. Besides I might not even be able to dial 911 before crap gets splattered. But with a toss of the coin I realize that I can't start mowing down people that may laugh at or call me names too. But there are people that have no business owning or carrying a firearm, like the ex-police chief in which a psyche evaluation with a yearly or bi yearly renewal might have caught.
Quote from: Androgynous_Machine on February 11, 2014, 06:50:01 AM
The rate transwomen are raped, sexually assaulted, beaten, and murdered I'm a firm believer that a 9mm Glock or Beretta should be prescribed alongside HRT. What's real fun? On of the largest groups of perpetrators of these crimes against transwomen are the police themselves.
Knowing that and some people think I should fork over my guns to make some dopey liberal happy. No thanks.
-AM
Personally i say forget the 9mm. While a Glock is nice nothing will scare someone more then being on the loud end of a Kimber 1911 in 45ACP. If someone isn't scared by that Cadillac sized bore....then they deserve the double tap.
Quote from: kariann330 on February 11, 2014, 12:08:44 PM
Personally i say forget the 9mm. While a Glock is nice nothing will scare someone more then being on the loud end of a Kimber 1911 in 45ACP. If someone isn't scared by that Cadillac sized bore....then they deserve the double tap.
I personally like my Glock 22 .40 cal. I must have put over a thousand rounds through it.
I don't want to hurt anyone but it'll be a cold day in hell before I let someone hurt me.
-AM
Jess wrote: Let me just start by saying I am neither left or right, more libertarian I guess??? I lean right on the constitution, personal responsibilities physical responsibility and so on and lean left on social issues such as gay marriage, bathroom freedom according to presentation and so on. I believe in live and let live and take care of your own self and business and love who you want along with be who you want to be. I may even be Apolitical.
Same sex marriage, bathroom issues, etc, are not "left" issues. They are about civil liberties and natural rights. I identify politically as a "Republitarian" (to use a Larry Elder term).
I am comfortable with my views and personal philosophies regarding natural and human rights. I think they transcend the left-center-right classification.
I also thoroughly reject the left/right false dichotomy. I think it's as ridiculous as the false gender dichotomy. There are people who have plenty to gain by getting us to pick sides and fight each other.
Quote from: dalebert on February 11, 2014, 04:42:19 PM
There are people who have plenty to gain by getting us to pick sides and fight each other.
Indeed. It's a shame that humanity will never get its collective crap together and figure this out. Too many of them are easily manipulated on so many levels.
QuoteI believe in live and let live and take care of your own self and business and love who you want along with be who you want to be. I may even be Apolitical.
Quote
I am comfortable with my views and personal philosophies regarding natural and human rights. I think they transcend the left-center-right classification.
I relate well with each of these.
Our country is divided and at everyone's throat because some sides are trying to force unwanted things on other sides. Just stop already. I sometimes wish I could just find an island somewhere and just be free of it. A good supply of coconuts would be good though and a big stash of fine wine, otherwise I'm good.
Quote from: kariann330 on February 10, 2014, 01:03:33 AM
If i may suggest a thought, a person once said that "the second amendment does not apply to citizens, only those in a state malitia so you should not be able to own any guns....period". Well my question is what is there to say that a person isn't part of a state malitia? Look at Ohio laws for example, "Any able bodied resident of the state of Ohio is considered part of the states malitia". Im able bodied, of sound mind (legally speaking), and a resident of the state. Should i still be covered by the Second Amendment?
Also just for fun......"Preacher lady is all no alcohol, Obama is all no guns, while im over here drunk as hell shootin sh*t" Earl Dibbles JR.
During the Revolutionary War there was the Loyalist Militia which was sponsored by the British Crown and in opposition, the Patriot Militia which was made up of able bodied men and boys armed with their own weapons.
"The tide began to turn for the Americans in the fall of 1780, when in October a Patriot militia defeated a Loyalist militia at the Battle of Kings Mountain, near present-day Blacksburg, South Carolina."
The following is the simplest explanation of the thinking behind the 2nd Amendment and as even recent world history indicates, it is most timely!
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/114396-126-minute-explanation-second-amendment-concise-effective-gets/ (http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/114396-126-minute-explanation-second-amendment-concise-effective-gets/)
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on February 11, 2014, 03:27:01 PM
Jess wrote: Let me just start by saying I am neither left or right, more libertarian I guess??? I lean right on the constitution, personal responsibilities physical responsibility and so on and lean left on social issues such as gay marriage, bathroom freedom according to presentation and so on. I believe in live and let live and take care of your own self and business and love who you want along with be who you want to be. I may even be Apolitical.
Same sex marriage, bathroom issues, etc, are not "left" issues. They are about civil liberties and natural rights. I identify politically as a "Republitarian" (to use a Larry Elder term).
I am comfortable with my views and personal philosophies regarding natural and human rights. I think they transcend the left-center-right classification.
You're quite right Jamie. I agree 100% about human rights and civil liberties but unfortunately our "powers that be" have swooped in to claim these particular arguments and more or less try and force us to choose sides. Personally in hopes of not starting a bad argument I see really no difference between the two parties except their rallying points and what groups they try to appease by making promises they don't keep until they are in fear of losing votes and thus their power.
Quote from: Jess42 on February 12, 2014, 12:59:04 PM
You're quite right Jamie. I agree 100% about human rights and civil liberties but unfortunately our "powers that be" have swooped in to claim these particular arguments and more or less try and force us to choose sides.
Hehe.. exactly. :P
Great video Shantel. I've always read it this way and have always felt those saying only militia's can have weapons was idiotic.
Some minor trivia, Teller had a cameo appearance in Atlas Shrugged Part II and he spoke. ;)
Quote from: kariann330 on February 11, 2014, 12:08:44 PM
Personally i say forget the 9mm. While a Glock is nice nothing will scare someone more then being on the loud end of a Kimber 1911 in 45ACP. If someone isn't scared by that Cadillac sized bore....then they deserve the double tap.
Really? My Kimber is a total safe queen. My USP 9 compact is my preferred option and what I practice with. I have a 229 on hold though so we'll see what happens when that gets into the rotation. My baby is my m9 which is hands down my fave to shoot. I just learned about the compact version which is must own if it makes it into Cali.
Quote from: kariann330 on February 10, 2014, 01:03:33 AM
If i may suggest a thought, a person once said that "the second amendment does not apply to citizens, only those in a state malitia so you should not be able to own any guns....period". Well my question is what is there to say that a person isn't part of a state malitia? Look at Ohio laws for example, "Any able bodied resident of the state of Ohio is considered part of the states malitia". Im able bodied, of sound mind (legally speaking), and a resident of the state. Should i still be covered by the Second Amendment?
That is the State Militia. Second amendment is Federal law. The militia of the United States (i.e. Federal Law) is defined in
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classeshttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
Quote(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Every time I see a debate regarding the meaning of the constitution I suspect one side is trying to give up their rights. Doesn't make it so I know, but it is usually my experience regarding these debates.
Ayn Rand said if there were degrees of evil that it was hard to say who were the most contemptible... the brutes who assume the right to force the mind of others, or the moral degenerate who grants them the right to force their mind.
Personally, I say the latter.
Here's an interesting tutorial about the importance of and reason for the 3rd Amendment entitled "Gun Control For Dummies."
http://www.youtube.com/embed/F584p5kJL-U?rel=0 (http://www.youtube.com/embed/F584p5kJL-U?rel=0)
I'm liberal and I don't mind firearms but I do think there needs to be restrictions.
Quote from: Mr Hockey on February 21, 2014, 11:43:06 AM
I'm liberal and I don't mind firearms but I do think there needs to be restrictions.
In a free society restrictions if any have to be self imposed otherwise a governing body will invariably overreach and extend restrictions to everything, eventually restricting Mr. Hockey and Shantel from becoming who they prefer to be, suppressing their freedom and keep them remaining birth issue, as-is models of humanity.
Quote from: Shantel on February 21, 2014, 12:16:30 PM
In a free society restrictions if any have to be self imposed otherwise a governing body will invariably overreach and extend restrictions to everything, eventually restricting Mr. Hockey and Shantel from becoming who they prefer to be, suppressing their freedom and keep them remaining birth issue, as-is models of humanity.
Shan, that strikes me as a slippery slope argument. :-\
Quote from: G:W:Y:N:N:E on February 21, 2014, 04:02:19 PM
Shan, that strikes me as a slippery slope argument. :-\
In any event I don't intend to engage in dialog about it with anyone here as there's no point in creating any drama with liberals and progressives as my thoughts, beliefs, heart and soul is in diametric opposition to that mindset and I'll not waste my life's energy on it.
I feel that the lack of issuing a licence for people to own a gun, like a driver's licence and gun registration only protects criminals. The government is not our enemy, the lawless and the criminals in our society provide the threat. When the police find unregistered guns in the hands of an unlicensed gun owner then the authorities could take the guns away. If a person commits a crime with a weapon licenced to them then they could readily be apprehended. There is not any sized block of any group in the United States which would allow the government to take registered guns away from any licenced individual. You could not get the police, the National Guard, the Military, the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Tobacco and Fire Arms, that would be willing to take licenced guns from individuals licenced to carry fire arms. Licencing could be free and so could registration. The right of gun ownership is not any more important than any other civil right of residents and citizens of the United States. Not every civil right that citizens have was recorded in the US Constitution and its Amendments. Many of the writers of the Constitution did not include a Bill of Rights because they feared that the rights not protected specifically in the Constitution would be endangered. The Bill of Rights was only added to the Constitution because some of the original states stated that they would not vote for the Constitution unless they were added.
Thus the National Rife Association is really only protecting criminals and the gun lobby in their resistance to have any laws passed that would protect the residence and citizens of the United States from the misuse of fire arms.
Everyone knows that every citizen in the United States who does not have a criminal record and is of sound mind and body has the right to own guns. Registration of gun owners and of guns would not result in any citizen who has the right to own a gun from owning one. But with the right to own a gun comes the responsibility to see that that weapon is never used in a crime or is sold to an individual who does not have the right to own one. Any elected, hired, or appointed governmental official would loose their jobs if they ever attempted to take guns away from law abiding and mentally sound individuals.
The right of every individual in the United States not to be a victim of gun violence is just as important as the right to own a gun. If you have to have official identification to vote than you can also be required to have to have a licence to carry a fire arm. You have to have a registered title to own real estate and vehicles, than your guns should also be registered in the same way your car and house is. After all you have the right to own real estate and vehicles and businesses. Guns are no different.
This is just my opinion. And yes, when I was 13 in the scouts I was trained to use a 22 rife by an NRA approved individuals, one of which was second in command of our local National Guard Unit. The others were at scout camps. I even had a card issued by the NRA that I had received training. This was in the 1960s. I am not against guns, I just never had any use for one, especially since I moved from rural Americas to the urban populated area. I never felt that owning a gun would make me safer. Until I moved to New Mexico and saw the bars on the windows of my neighbors the doors of my home were never locked any where I lived. Ammunition was always too expensive for me and I never had a good place to practice shooting a gun. I never took any pleasure from hunting.
This is just my point of view and I bare no ill will against others who think differently. Also, very rarely have I lived in places that the majority of people would consider safe. The ability to take another's life does not make me feel safe, nor does the thought that a gun that I owned could be used to take mine.
Think about it registering the title of your house, real estate, motor vehicles, business licences with county and state governments protects your legal right to this property in a court of law. If you depend upon the government to protect your rights to your property, patients, copy rights, etc., why can't you depend upon the government to protect your right to own fire arms.
To the point of any elected official would loose there jobs. Diane Feinstine has tried already but she still has a job. She was even willing to try again recently...proof and i quote "If I knew I could get enough votes for the bill to pass, it would be hand them all over Mr. and Mrs. America" because of politicians like her, i am proud to say i am a Life Member of the NRA, and am even more proud of having Pelican cases for all of my guns. I will bury them before i hand them over.
Quote from: TiffanyT on February 13, 2014, 02:57:11 AM
Really? My Kimber is a total safe queen. My USP 9 compact is my preferred option and what I practice with. I have a 229 on hold though so we'll see what happens when that gets into the rotation. My baby is my m9 which is hands down my fave to shoot. I just learned about the compact version which is must own if it makes it into Cali.
Really, my Crimson Carry goes with me every time i leave the house. Heck im actually tempted to get my Class 3 tax stamp so i can convert my Saiga 12 to an SBS and keep it stashed next to my couch lol.
Quote from: michelle on February 21, 2014, 11:42:52 PM
I feel that the lack of issuing a licence for people to own a gun, like a driver's licence and gun registration only protects criminals. The government is not our enemy, the lawless and the criminals in our society provide the threat. When the police find unregistered guns in the hands of an unlicensed gun owner then the authorities could take the guns away. If a person commits a crime with a weapon licenced to them then they could readily be apprehended. There is not any sized block of any group in the United States which would allow the government to take registered guns away from any licenced individual. You could not get the police, the National Guard, the Military, the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Tobacco and Fire Arms, that would be willing to take licenced guns from individuals licenced to carry fire arms. Licencing could be free and so could registration. The right of gun ownership is not any more important than any other civil right of residents and citizens of the United States. Not every civil right that citizens have was recorded in the US Constitution and its Amendments. Many of the writers of the Constitution did not include a Bill of Rights because they feared that the rights not protected specifically in the Constitution would be endangered. The Bill of Rights was only added to the Constitution because some of the original states stated that they would not vote for the Constitution unless they were added.
Thus the National Rife Association is really only protecting criminals and the gun lobby in their resistance to have any laws passed that would protect the residence and citizens of the United States from the misuse of fire arms.
Everyone knows that every citizen in the United States who does not have a criminal record and is of sound mind and body has the right to own guns. Registration of gun owners and of guns would not result in any citizen who has the right to own a gun from owning one. But with the right to own a gun comes the responsibility to see that that weapon is never used in a crime or is sold to an individual who does not have the right to own one. Any elected, hired, or appointed governmental official would loose their jobs if they ever attempted to take guns away from law abiding and mentally sound individuals.
The right of every individual in the United States not to be a victim of gun violence is just as important as the right to own a gun. If you have to have official identification to vote than you can also be required to have to have a licence to carry a fire arm. You have to have a registered title to own real estate and vehicles, than your guns should also be registered in the same way your car and house is. After all you have the right to own real estate and vehicles and businesses. Guns are no different.
This is just my opinion. And yes, when I was 13 in the scouts I was trained to use a 22 rife by an NRA approved individuals, one of which was second in command of our local National Guard Unit. The others were at scout camps. I even had a card issued by the NRA that I had received training. This was in the 1960s. I am not against guns, I just never had any use for one, especially since I moved from rural Americas to the urban populated area. I never felt that owning a gun would make me safer. Until I moved to New Mexico and saw the bars on the windows of my neighbors the doors of my home were never locked any where I lived. Ammunition was always too expensive for me and I never had a good place to practice shooting a gun. I never took any pleasure from hunting.
This is just my point of view and I bare no ill will against others who think differently. Also, very rarely have I lived in places that the majority of people would consider safe. The ability to take another's life does not make me feel safe, nor does the thought that a gun that I owned could be used to take mine.
Think about it registering the title of your house, real estate, motor vehicles, business licences with county and state governments protects your legal right to this property in a court of law. If you depend upon the government to protect your rights to your property, patients, copy rights, etc., why can't you depend upon the government to protect your right to own fire arms.
"Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana
In response to laws recently enacted in Connecticut as a knee jerk reaction to the school shootings, some liberal legislators may be looking for a new line of work eventually as their constituency is obviously unhappy and non-compliant which will spell trouble at the polls later on.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/17649-connecticut-gun-owners-ignore-registration-deadline (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/17649-connecticut-gun-owners-ignore-registration-deadline)
According to the article...
"If a gun owner fails to register a firearm that now falls under the vastly broadened definition of an "assault" weapon, his crime, if convicted, is punishable by a prison term of one to five years and a fine of up to $5,000. Plus he would not be able to own a firearm ever after."
Maybe they want them to fail to comply? Isn't that what corrupt governments do, create laws they intend for you to break? Thugs.
Quote from: Nikko on February 23, 2014, 09:36:25 PM
According to the article...
"If a gun owner fails to register a firearm that now falls under the vastly broadened definition of an "assault" weapon, his crime, if convicted, is punishable by a prison term of one to five years and a fine of up to $5,000. Plus he would not be able to own a firearm ever after."
Maybe they want them to fail to comply? Isn't that what corrupt governments do, create laws they intend for you to break? Thugs.
There are so many state and federal laws on the books that people aren't even aware that they are not in compliance with that it is a joke. However they are useful for any governmental entity that wants to apply them to a specific individual to harass or punish him/her.
Notice that the drug war ramped up dramatically during Nixon's term right around when hippies were protesting the war. Can't attack them for undesirable speech? First amendment being a pesky impediment? Damn. How do we shut them up?
Quote from: dalebert on February 23, 2014, 10:12:56 PM
Notice that the drug war ramped up dramatically during Nixon's term right around when hippies were protesting the war. Can't attack them for undesirable speech? First amendment being a pesky impediment? Damn. How do we shut them up?
Yes good example of how it works!
Warning if you have blood pressure problems, this will drive it through the roof. Maybe the social service would consider paying for a tubal ligation and a head exam for this sweetheart! >:-)
http://www.youtube.com/embed/RBqjZ0KZCa0?showinfo=0&rel=0&hd=0
One of my history professors pointed out that the right to bear arms was never meant to be used in the context used today. It specifically meant the right to pick up arms and use them inside your right to form a militia. It as well as many other rights stated were in direct response to the british rule and the tactics we used in the revolution. Designed so that the American populace had the right to take up arms, form a militia and overthrow a gov't that is no longer servicing it's populace and/or has grown oppressive.
Freedom of religion, right to free speech, not having to give quarter, freedom of assembly, etc. all are rights written in response to british rule, and so is the freedom to bear arm.
That said, it's meaning has evolved over the ages to mean in todays society the right to own a gun.
But that was far from it's intent. For the colonist of that time, owning a gun was never in question. It was not something you needed to guarantee or permit, it just was. It was an everyday tool like a hammer. Needed often times to catch ones dinner in many areas, protection from "savages" and criminals. To them putting a clause to ensure you could own a gun was as trivial as putting a clause in to own a hammer. It was written to protect our right as citizens to bear those arms (which meant all weapons one might use) as part of a militia in protection of our rights and liberties.
It is only since firearms began to require permits in order to own and our universally seen right to own a gun started to come into question, that interpretation of that right shifted to the right to own guns.
Quote from: Shantel on February 28, 2014, 12:02:46 PM
Warning if you have blood pressure problems, this will drive it through the roof. Maybe the social service would consider paying for a tubal ligation and a head exam for this sweetheart! >:-)
http://www.youtube.com/embed/RBqjZ0KZCa0?showinfo=0&rel=0&hd=0
Good lord!!
15 kids??!!
My first thought was: "How the hell is she so skinny after having this many babies?"
As far as "someone needing to be held accountable"....ummmm how about YOU (the woman in the video) for not keeping your damn legs shut?
Sheesh!!!
People like this (and no, I am not implying anything to do with race) need to either be sterilized or look into some serious commitment into alternative sexual techniques.
Seriously.
Well, dems have found someone to pay, it's us. Well, me for sure, can't speak for others.
Why does she still have her kids? And why are her tubes not tied?
And her fifteen will each very soon produce another fifteen we have to pay for. This is not compassion, it's cruel. In an odd way, she has a point, she's not the only one responsible for this. Certain politicians who need a permanent underclass are equally as responsible.
Quote from: Nikko on February 28, 2014, 04:55:21 PM
In an odd way, she has a point, she's not the only one responsible for this. Certain politicians who need a permanent underclass are equally as responsible.
Yeah, you may have a point on your head, BUT, no one required her to have that many kids. Politicians do a lot for screwing things up in this country but in this case, it is entirely her fault.
I saw something on this topic today and thought I'd share it.
A satirical comparison between gun legislation in America and Australia (who implemented gun-control nearly two decades ago)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE&list=PLOKWcH1zBl2kfnCwyyZWk5MW28lgaNa7L
Quote from: Laura Squirrel on February 28, 2014, 05:08:20 PM
Yeah, you may have a point on your head, BUT, no one required her to have that many kids. Politicians do a lot for screwing things up in this country but in this case, it is entirely her fault.
True enough, but she wouldn't have had 15 kids if the state wasn't giving her cash each month for each one. So, I blame the enablers too. This woman, the sperm donors, and the state I say are all guilty, guilty, guilty. >:(
Quote from: Nikko on February 28, 2014, 05:22:45 PM
True enough, but she wouldn't have had 15 kids if the state wasn't giving her cash each month for each one. So, I blame the enablers too. This woman, the sperm donors, and the state I say are all guilty, guilty, guilty. >:(
I see where you are going with this but I still place all of the blame on the woman. If I were a GG, there is no way in hell I would spit out children like some sort of ovarian assembly line just so I could get money from the state. That would be abusing a system that is there for people that truly need it. Not losers that scam it by doing things like this.
Yes, a financial incentive to keep impoverished women with clown car hoo-hahs in check would be best instead of rewarding that behavior with more handouts, but once a child is born, I don't think kicking it to the curb and punishing it for the parent's poor choices is the answer. If you can afford every one of them, I think it's fine to have as many kids as you want.
Sorry, I would rather just subsidize tubal ligations in cases like that.
Hey, wasn't this thread s'posed to be about guns?
Quote from: Jill F on February 28, 2014, 05:46:53 PM
Hey, wasn't this thread s'posed to be about guns?
*Shoots you with a super-soaker full of Mountain Dew*
Quote from: Laura Squirrel on February 28, 2014, 06:30:26 PM
*Shoots you with a super-soaker full of Mountain Dew*
Lady, step away from the carbs and put your hands where I can see 'em!
Carbs kill more people than guns. Just sayin'...
Quote from: Jill F on February 28, 2014, 09:08:37 PM
Lady, step away from the carbs and put your hands where I can see 'em!
Carbs kill more people than guns. Just sayin'...
Well, that is why I used the Dew as a weapon. Do you think that I would actually DRINK that stuff? :icon_blah: I drink water about 70% of the time. I DID have a 20 oz bottle of Pepsi today with the P-Zone that I ordered from Pizza Hut, but I only order from them every few months and I usually do without the soda. Today was a rare exception.
Some states limit welfare to 2 kids, more kids does not get you any more benefits.
My response as a gun collector is.
Would you rather have this like the UK:
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagehost.vendio.com%2Fa%2F35058002%2Faview%2FSugimoto_7421_kitchen_knife_001.jpg&hash=8ac89fde18d5e7eecef00dac27f3f7280e15aeea)
against this or many this's: Entering your home
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcbsnewyork.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F06%2Fhome-invasion2.jpg%3Fw%3D420%26amp%3Bh%3D316%255Bimg%255D%253Cbr%2520%2F%253E%253Cbr%2520%2F%253E-%253Cbr%2520%2F%253E%255Bimg%255Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fautreys.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F08%2Fottowa-flash-rob.jpg&hash=5255268a5993affb0311af9445da4860730208dd)
Or would you rather defend your life, family, property, and living with this?:
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hk94.com%2Fhk%2Fuploadgal%2F1293309845%2Fgallery_181_23380.jpg&hash=02aaab277eced1f96dac7f9b48797f806e1aea5e)
I own many of option two...
Meh...I don't own any guns and I don't need to. I have many items around that I could use for self defense. All you need is the will and the ability to summon an absolutely psychotic level of rage at a moment's notice. That would be a piece of cake in a self defense situation. I spent enough years cowering in my youth that I am all "cowered out" at this point.
I thought this story might be of interest to the readers of this thread:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-debate-reignites-with-rumoured-ban-of-classic-green-rifle-1.2554372
Quote from: G:W:Y:N:N:E on March 01, 2014, 03:59:21 PM
I thought this story might be of interest to the readers of this thread:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-debate-reignites-with-rumoured-ban-of-classic-green-rifle-1.2554372
Fully automatic rifles aka machine guns have been banned for private ownership in most US states for many years and it's illegal to modify a semi-automatic to render it full-auto.
Men with knives kill 33 at Chinese train station. What's that the anti-gun folks tell us? Only mass casualties are possible with 'assault' weapons? But guns did stop these killers though, as would a conceal and carry law like we have in my state. Lock and load ladies! :)
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_TRAIN_STATION_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-03-01-12-32-39 (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_TRAIN_STATION_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-03-01-12-32-39)
This whole discussion does nothing to solve the problem of the misuse of guns in our society. Nothing stops the drive by shootings in our communities. Nothing stops people who are afraid from shooting unarmed people who inspire this fear. The right to own guns gives no one the right to kill someone because of imaginary fear. No one has ever conquered their fear by killing anyone. We also have the right to life. We have the right to not be killed by a fearful neighbor. Getting a gun and returning fire only spreads the unnecessary and senseless killing. The right to own a gun means the responsibility to use it responsibly. When a neighbor is in need and comes to our door, we have the responsibility to help them, not for us to take their lives because we panic. This tells me that owning a gun does not make many people feel safe, it only allows them to panic and kill someone senselessly, then they have to live with the guilt of their actions for the rest of their lives.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
- Robert Heinlein
I am willing to bet there are hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who wish they were armed right now, in the face of evil leftist aggression.
Quote from: Jamie D on March 01, 2014, 11:07:01 PM
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
- Robert Heinlein
I am willing to bet there are hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who wish they were armed right now, in the face of evil leftist aggression.
Well said indeed! ;)
Yes, very good point.
Quote from: Natallie553 on March 01, 2014, 09:05:25 AM
My response as a gun collector is.
Would you rather have this like the UK:
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagehost.vendio.com%2Fa%2F35058002%2Faview%2FSugimoto_7421_kitchen_knife_001.jpg&hash=8ac89fde18d5e7eecef00dac27f3f7280e15aeea)
against this or many this's: Entering your home
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcbsnewyork.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F06%2Fhome-invasion2.jpg%3Fw%3D420%26amp%3Bh%3D316%255Bimg%255D%253Cbr%2520%2F%253E%253Cbr%2520%2F%253E-%253Cbr%2520%2F%253E%255Bimg%255Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fautreys.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F08%2Fottowa-flash-rob.jpg&hash=5255268a5993affb0311af9445da4860730208dd)
Or would you rather defend your life, family, property, and living with this?:
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hk94.com%2Fhk%2Fuploadgal%2F1293309845%2Fgallery_181_23380.jpg&hash=02aaab277eced1f96dac7f9b48797f806e1aea5e)
I own many of option two...
Have you watched that video? Unless that woman had a gun strapped to her side in her own home, there is no way having guns would have stopped that attack. The man just barged in and started punching her. If you keep your guns locked up in the bedroom or somewhere safe, they wouldn't do ANYTHING to help you in the identical situation that woman went through.
Quote from: Nikko on March 01, 2014, 07:05:04 PM
Men with knives kill 33 at Chinese train station. What's that the anti-gun folks tell us? Only mass casualties are possible with 'assault' weapons? But guns did stop these killers though, as would a conceal and carry law like we have in my state. Lock and load ladies! :)
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_TRAIN_STATION_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-03-01-12-32-39 (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_TRAIN_STATION_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-03-01-12-32-39)
Not ONE person with any sense would say "Only mass casualties are possible with assault weapons."
Imagine if each of those men had assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines. EVERYBODY in that train station would be dead. OH RIGHT, I forgot, the only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. It would be okay if those men had those rifles only if the innocent people in the train station also had rifles, because then they could shoot the bad guys, and of course not harm any bystanders.
Quote from: Jamie D on March 01, 2014, 11:07:01 PM
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
- Robert Heinlein
I am willing to bet there are hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who wish they were armed right now, in the face of evil leftist aggression.
Because Japan is so much more violent than the US. It's a bloodbath there, I tell ya.
I don't need no stinkin' gun. I just need one of these:
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.musiciansfriend.com%2Fderivates%2F18%2F001%2F571%2F650%2FDV016_Jpg_Large_H73772.001_black.jpg&hash=cb0ba3a1b48baed2a6057f61f2a17ea61707ba27)
You smack someone in the head with that and it WILL hurt. No permit required.
Or you could shoot spit balls at them...
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-5ujrQX3neI0%2FT02ErvCJ9NI%2FAAAAAAAABUs%2F15TEr-dimko%2Fs400%2Fpeashooter.jpg&hash=6dd57ca287c3bbe2115256db9f16870ae24bcda9)
Quote from: Nikko on March 02, 2014, 12:22:33 PM
Or you could shoot spit balls at them...
Ummm, no.
You smack someone in the face with a piece of metal and tell me that wouldn't hurt?
Not to mention the fact that I wouldn't stop at one hit. I would beat the hell out of them. Then out comes the butcher knife. I have many implements of self defense and I know how to use them effectively. I never fear for my safety.
Anyone find it funny that we have to spend at least 3 months with a shrink to get pills but to get a gun all it takes at most is a background check? Those pills cannot hurt anyone else other than ourselves but guns can so maybe we should make people who want to own guns talk with a shrink a few times to make sure they're fit to own a gun. It would also help if every gun was registered to a name with maybe a ballistics report but we have a lot of guns that aren't even registered to anyone out there or registered to people who have been dead for years. The only time a ballistics report is tied to a gun if when a murder happens or the owner wants a concealed carry permit. There is nothing wrong with guns but there is something wrong with the system that manages them. We need to spend less time on clip size and what types of guns and more on a system to keep track of the guns and make sure their owners are fit.
Quote from: ToxicFox on March 02, 2014, 12:27:52 PM
Anyone find it funny that we have to spend at least 3 months with a shrink to get pills but to get a gun all it takes at most is a background check? Those pills cannot hurt anyone else other than ourselves but guns can so maybe we should make people who want to own guns talk with a shrink a few times to make sure they're fit to own a gun. It would also help if every gun was registered to a name with maybe a ballistics report but we have a lot of guns that aren't even registered to anyone out there or registered to people who have been dead for years. The only time a ballistics report is tied to a gun if when a murder happens or the owner wants a concealed carry permit. There is nothing wrong with guns but there is something wrong with the system that manages them. We need to spend less time on clip size and what types of guns and more on a system to keep track of the guns and make sure their owners are fit.
I would hate to see people in fear of their lives, say from ex-husbands or boyfriends, etc., have to wait three months to get a gun to protect themselves. BTW, what other constitutional right requires a three month waiting period? Just curious.
Quote from: ToxicFox on March 02, 2014, 12:27:52 PM
Anyone find it funny that we have to spend at least 3 months with a shrink to get pills but to get a gun all it takes at most is a background check? Those pills cannot hurt anyone else other than ourselves but guns can so maybe we should make people who want to own guns talk with a shrink a few times to make sure they're fit to own a gun.
I know. It's pretty crazy, isn't it?
I remember I was in Rural King one time. I was there with my mom and she was looking for some lights or something for a house that she was working on. I decided to walk over to the gun case to browse and ask a few questions just to see what would happen. They had a short barrel shotgun in there for around $500, I think. I asked the guy:"Okay, if I wanted to purchase this gun, what is the procedure? Is there a 5 day waiting period, background check, etc?" He says, "Nope. As long as you have the money to pay for it, you can walk out with it that day". Then he says "and here's any ammo that you need" and shows me a box of ammunition for that particular gun. I just smiled, nodded and said: "Okay, I will let you know" and I walked away. Of course, I don't need a gun and there is no way in hell I would ever buy one. I've never liked guns. But I just thought that it was insane that I could actually walk in with a wad of cash and then go home with a weapon that is capable of blowing a huge hole in someone.
Quote from: ToxicFox on March 02, 2014, 12:27:52 PM
Anyone find it funny that we have to spend at least 3 months with a shrink to get pills but to get a gun all it takes at most is a background check? Those pills cannot hurt anyone else other than ourselves but guns can so maybe we should make people who want to own guns talk with a shrink a few times to make sure they're fit to own a gun. It would also help if every gun was registered to a name with maybe a ballistics report but we have a lot of guns that aren't even registered to anyone out there or registered to people who have been dead for years. The only time a ballistics report is tied to a gun if when a murder happens or the owner wants a concealed carry permit. There is nothing wrong with guns but there is something wrong with the system that manages them. We need to spend less time on clip size and what types of guns and more on a system to keep track of the guns and make sure their owners are fit.
Yeah, let's do the same with cars, there's too many morons on the roads killing people who shouldn't be driving, lets clap every doctor in prison who is responsible for a patient death too, because these two things far exceed the carnage done by gun owners. I think while we're at it we might have some legislation against eating utensils, my 700lb neighbor had a gastric bypass and then proceeded to eat herself to death anyway. While we're at it lets just give up free will and let Big Brother do everything for us after all we're all incapable of making any good choices on our own.
BTW, just how dumb does a person have to be to believe these psychopaths in government care one wit about others' health or saving money?
Look at all the massive waste and fraud of taxpayer's money in this government. It's disgusting. The gall of politicians and the stupidity of some Americans is just mind boggling.
Quote from: Shantel on March 02, 2014, 12:48:19 PM
Yeah, let's do the same with cars, there's too many morons on the roads killing people who shouldn't be driving, lets clap every doctor in prison who is responsible for a patient death too, because these two things far exceed the carnage done by gun owners. I think while we're at it we might have some legislation against eating utensils, my 700lb neighbor had a gastric bypass and then proceeded to eat herself to death anyway. While we're at it lets just give up free will and let Big Brother do everything for us after all we're all incapable of making any good choices on our own.
Sorry, I can't agree with that. I am sure this is dripping with sarcasm, but I find it just a tad annoying that anytime someone brings up any kind of regulations on firearms, these arguments pop up.
Besides, it just leads to the argument of "Well, a populace needs to protect itself from its would-be oppressors" and then you could point to the current situation in the Ukraine as an example. Okay, if the people of this country rose up against the government, do you honestly think they would win? I doubt it. If they really wanted to take out any opposition, a barrage of well-placed airstrikes would do the trick. Then once you destroy critical elements of the infrastructure, you could just sit back and watch as large swaths of the populace turn on one another and kill each other, loot, riot, etc.
Think it couldn't happen?
Quote from: Laura Squirrel on March 02, 2014, 01:02:32 PM
Sorry, I can't agree with that. I am sure this is dripping with sarcasm, but I find it just a tad annoying that anytime someone brings up any kind of regulations on firearms, these arguments pop up.
Besides, it just leads to the argument of "Well, a populace needs to protect itself from its would-be oppressors" and then you could point to the current situation in the Ukraine as an example. Okay, if the people of this country rose up against the government, do you honestly think they would win? I doubt it. If they really wanted to take out any opposition, a barrage of well-placed airstrikes would do the trick. Then once you destroy critical elements of the infrastructure, you could just sit back and watch as large swaths of the populace turn on one another and kill each other, loot, riot, etc.
Think it couldn't happen?
I got just the opposite reaction from what happened in Ukraine. The people did win, they got rid of the Putin puppet. If the citizens did have arms, they may never have found themselves in this situation to begin with and I don't think Putin would dare begin rolling troops into Ukraine aside from the pro-Russian sections.
Quote from: Jamie D on March 01, 2014, 11:07:01 PM
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
- Robert Heinlein
I am willing to bet there are hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who wish they were armed right now, in the face of evil leftist aggression.
Are you calling Putin a leftist? ???
Quote from: ToxicFox on March 02, 2014, 12:27:52 PM
Anyone find it funny that we have to spend at least 3 months with a shrink to get pills but to get a gun all it takes at most is a background check? Those pills cannot hurt anyone else other than ourselves but guns can
Yeah. But, you're talking about a society that shows people getting their heads blown off on TV as a matter of course, but if you see a nipple all hell breaks loose. So, clearly, any pills that might increase the size of your nipples is obviously much more problematic than guns.
Where are people getting the three month counselor requirement? I don't believe my doctor ever inquired about counseling.
Respect, and not guns, create a polite society. Respect does not come from the barrel of a gun, death, fear, vengeance, and misery come from the barrel of a gun. In a society that is not based upon the respect for the life of every person in that society, guns create chaos, destruction, and death. Protecting yourself with a gun does not give anyone the right to kill every individual that you fear. We don't change politics in the United States with the bullet, we change it with the ballot. When you are denied your ballot, you go to the courts.
Our government is not our enemy, our government is the guarantor of our liberty and freedoms. When our legislatures have been destroyed in the past, the people in the state just elected a new one. When our elected governors have been shot, we have elected a new one. Protecting and exercising our right to vote protects us from our government. Guns will never protect us from our government, private militias are dangerous.
Quote from: michelle on March 02, 2014, 04:27:42 PM
Our government is not our enemy, our government is the guarantor of our liberty and freedoms. When our legislatures have been destroyed in the past, the people in the state just elected a new one. When our elected governors have been shot, we have elected a new one. Protecting and exercising our right to vote protects us from our government. Guns will never protect us from our government, private militias are dangerous.
The challenge in contemporary democracies is that the period of governance has not been adjusted to better reflect the speed of change and public opinion. Long periods of governance without the threat of imminent displacement will prompt politicians of all stripes to become arrogant and overreach.
In Canada, the functioning of democracy could be greatly enhanced by replacing federal elections where all 335 seats are up for grabs simultaneously with an endless staggering of by-elections.
In the US, no change would bring about more positive change than eliminating the presidency.
Quote from: michelle on March 02, 2014, 04:27:42 PM
Respect, and not guns, create a polite society.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FaRAeCgX3Vhc%2Fhqdefault.jpg&hash=b41bb3ef167190f3b0de9759a1ac539f0775feeb)
Quote from: G:W:Y:N:N:E on March 02, 2014, 04:43:03 PM
The challenge in contemporary democracies is that the period of governance has not been adjusted to better reflect the speed of change and public opinion. Long periods of governance without the threat of imminent displacement will prompt politicians of all stripes to become arrogant and overreach.
In Canada, the functioning of democracy could be greatly enhanced by replacing federal elections where all 335 seats are up for grabs simultaneously with an endless staggering of by-elections.
In the US, no change would bring about more positive change than eliminating the presidency.
You're absolutely right, the Presidency is subject to term limits, congressmen and women should be subject to term limits as well, rather than entrenching themselves and making life-long careers as legislators because they become jaded and protect their own interests rather than the interests of their constituency, their biggest concern is being continually re-elected so they can live lavishly on the taxpayer's dime.
Quote from: Shantel on March 02, 2014, 04:52:54 PM
You're absolutely right, the Presidency is subject to term limits, congressmen and women should be subject to term limits as well, rather than entrenching themselves and making life-long careers as legislators because they become jaded and protect their own interests rather than the interests of their constituency, their biggest concern is being continually re-elected so they can live lavishly on the taxpayer's dime.
I've always thought that the 22nd was brilliant and been disappointed we don't have similar legislation up here.
Quote from: G:W:Y:N:N:E on March 02, 2014, 05:13:23 PM
I've always thought that the 22nd was brilliant and been disappointed we don't have similar legislation up here.
We need a similar one for congress so that they look to the business of governing the nation and perhaps those who serve won't be so driven to plunder the treasury with pork barrel legislation in order to garner more votes from constituents for their reelection.
John Dingell just retired from congress after 60 years or so. Spent his entire adult life there. Way too long. I think eight years or so is long enough for all positions in government. Something needs to be done about family dynasties as well, no more Kennedys, Clintons, or Bushes.
Quote from: Nikko on March 02, 2014, 05:56:55 PM
John Dingell just retired from congress after 60 years or so. Spent his entire adult life there. Way too long. I think eight years or so is long enough for all positions in government. Something needs to be done about family dynasties as well, no more Kennedys, Clintons, or Bushes.
+1
Let's take it a step further: nominal pay for politicians, no formal party affiliations, and no third-party campaign financing
Quote from: G:W:Y:N:N:E on March 02, 2014, 06:12:04 PM
+1
Let's take it a step further: nominal pay for politicians, no formal party affiliations, and no third-party campaign financing
I like your thinking Gwynne! Originally congress was made up of those who took time off from their occupations and performed their duties on a voluntary basis, now all we have is basically paid mercenaries.
Quote from: Hideyoshi on March 02, 2014, 11:44:58 AM
Have you watched that video? Unless that woman had a gun strapped to her side in her own home, there is no way having guns would have stopped that attack. The man just barged in and started punching her. If you keep your guns locked up in the bedroom or somewhere safe, they wouldn't do ANYTHING to help you in the identical situation that woman went through.
I used a random photo for my description not a video. But since you brought up speed and time into this debate then I will say use the nearest tools on hand to defend yourself with until you can reach a self defense weapon. I am unsure how this lady had her defenses set up in her own home but I will give you insite of my own. Because I deal with gangbangers, murders,crooks, and child rapists on a daily basis I feel as though I have a pretty good idea on what I NEED to insure the safety of my family. The criminal mind relies on speed and surprise and most criminals reflect that. In my home Ihave several barriers in place for a forced entry. One a alert system outside consisting of active cameras and roaming dogs that bark and gcrawl at anything on our property. Two I have two more dogs that bark and grawl at anything in the house unless directed not to. Three I have a firearm in every room of my home safely stored in a cabinet, drawer, or simply under a folded sheet. I leave tools around the house in case I need to defend the lives of my loved ones and I will not hesitate to stop any threat that enters this one. This house hold does not rely on physical barriers for safety. Instead we rely on training and knowledge.
So do some research your self of how brutal some home invasions are and how common it is for large groups to enter your home at once. Then look at yourself and say "sure I could defend with my hands only" then I want you to find a soldier and ask his/her opinion as well or even a police officer. Good luck :)
Quote from: Shantel on March 02, 2014, 08:21:53 PM
I like your thinking Gwynne! Originally congress was made up of those who took time off from their occupations and performed their duties on a voluntary basis, now all we have is basically paid mercenaries.
Professional politician should be an oxymoron. :-\
Quote from: G:W:Y:N:N:E on March 02, 2014, 10:13:45 PM
Professional politician should be an oxymoron. :-\
Well, an interesting anagram of 'Professional Politician' is 'Serial pontifical poison'.
Rather fitting, lol.
Quote from: Natallie553 on March 02, 2014, 09:42:47 PM
I used a random photo for my description not a video. But since you brought up speed and time into this debate then I will say use the nearest tools on hand to defend yourself with until you can reach a self defense weapon. I am unsure how this lady had her defenses set up in her own home but I will give you insite of my own. Because I deal with gangbangers, murders,crooks, and child rapists on a daily basis I feel as though I have a pretty good idea on what I NEED to insure the safety of my family. The criminal mind relies on speed and surprise and most criminals reflect that. In my home Ihave several barriers in place for a forced entry. One a alert system outside consisting of active cameras and roaming dogs that bark and gcrawl at anything on our property. Two I have two more dogs that bark and grawl at anything in the house unless directed not to. Three I have a firearm in every room of my home safely stored in a cabinet, drawer, or simply under a folded sheet. I leave tools around the house in case I need to defend the lives of my loved ones and I will not hesitate to stop any threat that enters this one. This house hold does not rely on physical barriers for safety. Instead we rely on training and knowledge.
So do some research your self of how brutal some home invasions are and how common it is for large groups to enter your home at once. Then look at yourself and say "sure I could defend with my hands only" then I want you to find a soldier and ask his/her opinion as well or even a police officer. Good luck :)
We experience a home invasion about seven or eight years ago. Thankfully my wife and kids had just left the home to run some errands. It turns out these two thugs were serial rapists and killers as well as burglars. One of them is still at large, the other is on death row.
But speaking of speed, my wife (now ex) would've had time to get a gun from a safe place. The first door they tried to break thru was bolt locked, they had to go to a window and break thru that. There are predators out there that will stop at nothing. They're not near as uncommon as most people think.
Another question about the Left Wing why the disparity while so self-righteous?
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagizer.imageshack.us%2Fv2%2Fxq90%2F691%2Fzqd3.jpg&hash=29c4ca5643e71eeb2f0e7b64dae2a3a14c7d611d) (https://imageshack.com/i/j7zqd3j)
Quote from: Shantel on March 03, 2014, 11:13:27 AM
Another question about the Left Wing why the disparity while so self-righteous?
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagizer.imageshack.us%2Fv2%2Fxq90%2F691%2Fzqd3.jpg&hash=29c4ca5643e71eeb2f0e7b64dae2a3a14c7d611d) (https://imageshack.com/i/j7zqd3j)
Careful, facts are dangerous things for many people. ;D
Quote from: michelle on March 02, 2014, 04:27:42 PM
Respect, and not guns, create a polite society. Respect does not come from the barrel of a gun, death, fear, vengeance, and misery come from the barrel of a gun. In a society that is not based upon the respect for the life of every person in that society, guns create chaos, destruction, and death. Protecting yourself with a gun does not give anyone the right to kill every individual that you fear. We don't change politics in the United States with the bullet, we change it with the ballot. When you are denied your ballot, you go to the courts.
Our government is not our enemy, our government is the guarantor of our liberty and freedoms. When our legislatures have been destroyed in the past, the people in the state just elected a new one. When our elected governors have been shot, we have elected a new one. Protecting and exercising our right to vote protects us from our government. Guns will never protect us from our government, private militias are dangerous.
You may want to relocate if you aren't happy, here's why:
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
Quote from: Shantel on March 03, 2014, 11:13:27 AM
Another question about the Left Wing why the disparity while so self-righteous?
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagizer.imageshack.us%2Fv2%2Fxq90%2F691%2Fzqd3.jpg&hash=29c4ca5643e71eeb2f0e7b64dae2a3a14c7d611d) (https://imageshack.com/i/j7zqd3j)
To be fair, the parties were realigned much later in American history and during those amendments listed, the Republicans were considered the more liberal party.
The ideologies of the democratic party back then doesn't match that of the democratic party today, and the same goes for the republican party. I've heard a lot of history professors summarize it as says they were basically flipped, but I tend to think that is an overly simplistic way of looking at it.
Then why did the President Bush of the United States send State National Guard troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. How does this law apply to President Roosevelt nationalizing the States National Guard Units and sending over seas to fight in World War II? President Wilson also nationalized the National Guard and sent them over to fight in World War I. Presidents Harry Truman and Eisenhower sent the states National Guards over to fight in the Korean War.
Just what does the Dick Act of 1902 have to do with anything? The Dick Act of 1902 has not been used by the courts to invalidate the existing gun control laws. The United States Congress passed the Dick Act of 1902 and the United States Congress and the President can repeal this law since it is not a part of our Constitution it does not require and states voting to invalid it. Any law can be repealed by Congress and the President of the United States.
Ex post facto only applies to criminalizing activities after the fact. Repealing the Dick Act of 1902 would not criminalize any previous activities. And from the fact that since World War I the President of the United States has had the power to Nationalize every States' National Guard and send them over seas to fight in both declared and undeclared wars is seems that a good part of the Dick Act of 1902 is dead.
Respect, and not, guns create a polite society. Ownership of a gun, does not give anyone the right to kill anyone, just because they are afraid. The right to own a gun, means you the responsibility to see that it is used legally, and also the responsibility that it is not used to kill anyone senselessly.
And yes privately run militias are dangerous to a democracy.
Quote from: Shantel on March 03, 2014, 11:13:27 AM
Another question about the Left Wing why the disparity while so self-righteous?
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagizer.imageshack.us%2Fv2%2Fxq90%2F691%2Fzqd3.jpg&hash=29c4ca5643e71eeb2f0e7b64dae2a3a14c7d611d) (https://imageshack.com/i/j7zqd3j)
To expand on what Colleen said, the Republicans were the Left Wing at the time of those votes, so there is absolutely no disparity if you are addressing the "left wing." In fact, in the era of Teddy Roosevelt, the Progressive Party split off from the Republican party. It wasn't until the New Deal that the Democratic Party became more liberal than the Republican Party. Beyond that, your picture is wrong anyway - the 15th amendment did not have 100% Republican support, though the 0% democratic support is correct.
The Democratic Party stopped being the party of segregation in the 1960s and 1970s when it became the party of equal rights and opened itself up to membership of all ethnic groups. The Segregationalist Democrats quit the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party creating great divisions within the Republican Party and many of the conflicts that are dividing that party today.
Equating the voting record of the political parties for the passing of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the passing of Obama Care is utterly ridiculous. It is broadening the rights protected by these Amendments that gives members of every single citizen of the United States their civil rights except for Native Americans who were put in a special category, and they had to have their civil rights granted to them under separate legislation and also these Amendments only guaranteed women their civil rights after the they were given the right to vote by the 19th Amendment.
It is these Amendments to the Constitution that will guarantee the civil rights of the GLBTQ community once the courts accept the fact it is illegal to discriminate against anyone for whom they are.
The Affordable Care Act is protecting the peoples rights to health by limiting and regulating the control insurance companies have over our health care because we pay for our healthcare through private insurance companies. Medicare and Medicaid coverage is even provided through private insurance companies. In the state of Florida's Managed Medicaid Program all of the individuals on Medicaid have to chose from a private insurance company plan. This year it is being applied to all of the Medicaid recipients in Florida. Someday the Affordable Care Act may be used to insure that all members of the GLBTQ community have the rights to have their healthcare needs covered.
I am on Medicare through Florida Welcare which is a privately run health insurance company.
The Federal government is not controlling all health insurance in the United States. The Federal Government only sets the standards of healthcare and the minimum coverage for all health insurance coverage.
The left does not lay claim to self righteousness, the right does. The left lays claim to diversity, and there is not any unified system of thought on the left.
Take it from an old lefty when I say that the left of the 20th Century is dead today, for the most part, however the right of the 19th century is a live and well. When it comes to government control of property hardly anyone on the left believes in it today, because it is pointless in the world dominated by world wide public stock companies which have sold their stock on the world market. This stock is held by individuals and maybe even some countries around the world. The Chinese Communist party has evolved into the old traditional Chinese bureaucracy, and politburo is just a committee that has replaced the Emperor of China, who thought the wealth of China belonged to him or her. This communist party does not have as much power as it thinks it has. Think of all of the crappy products the government run companies have exported around the world. The communist parties of Cuba and North Korea are a joke. So what's left for the left: equal rights for all, climate change, healthcare for all, women's rights to make their own healthcare decisions, environmental protection, the earth revolves around the sun, the theory of evolution, the end of a patrilinical domination, the United States is the government of the people and not the government of the corporations or businesses. Why isn't the right for all of these?
Not true.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act passed the House with 80% of the GOP vote, compared with support from only 61% of Democrats. In the Senate, 82% of Republicans voted for it; only 69% of Democrats did. When the Voting Rights Act passed one year later, Republicans again outpaced the Democrats.
BTW, the 20th century may be officially in the history books, but it's alive and well in Russia and Ukraine today.
Quote from: skin on March 03, 2014, 11:50:27 PM
To expand on what Colleen said, the Republicans were the Left Wing at the time of those votes, so there is absolutely no disparity if you are addressing the "left wing." In fact, in the era of Teddy Roosevelt, the Progressive Party split off from the Republican party. It wasn't until the New Deal that the Democratic Party became more liberal than the Republican Party. Beyond that, your picture is wrong anyway - the 15th amendment did not have 100% Republican support, though the 0% democratic support is correct.
Yeah, I pm'ed Nikko and said some leftie would spin it, you're all so predictable! :D :laugh:
Quote from: Shantel on March 03, 2014, 11:13:27 AM
Another question about the Left Wing why the disparity while so self-righteous?
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagizer.imageshack.us%2Fv2%2Fxq90%2F691%2Fzqd3.jpg&hash=29c4ca5643e71eeb2f0e7b64dae2a3a14c7d611d) (https://imageshack.com/i/j7zqd3j)
Disingenuous. It is well known that the parties switched ideologies.
I'm at work on my phone or I'd give you a few links explaining that, but really you just need to look at the people making the votes, not the semantics.
Conservatives voted against slavery abolition
Conservatives voted against interracial marriage
Conservatives voted against desegregation
Conservatives vote against voting rights
Conservatives vote against gay marriage
Conservatives vote against anti discrimination laws
I've said it before and I'll be GLAD to repeat it
Any transgendered person who votes conservative is beyond mistaken. It's one of the deepest forms of cognitive dissonance of which I know.
Quote from: Hideyoshi on March 04, 2014, 12:32:23 PM
Disingenuous. It is well known that the parties switched ideologies.
Oh please, save it! The liberal disinformation machine has been turning out tripe for years knowing that if it's repeated often enough it becomes believable. I'm not a Republican but an independent fiscal conservative and responsible social advocate, I've been around a long time and watched this building over the years until the day is close at hand where we shall see a societal meltdown created intentionally by those who would use disinformation to create division, this will signify the demise of a once great country that no-one, not even the armies of the world can save.
QuoteAny transgendered person who votes conservative is beyond mistaken. It's one of the deepest forms of cognitive dissonance of which I know.
I pay my own way, I can't afford to vote liberal.
Quote from: michelle on March 02, 2014, 04:27:42 PM
Respect, and not guns, create a polite society. Respect does not come from the barrel of a gun, death, fear, vengeance, and misery come from the barrel of a gun. In a society that is not based upon the respect for the life of every person in that society, guns create chaos, destruction, and death. Protecting yourself with a gun does not give anyone the right to kill every individual that you fear. We don't change politics in the United States with the bullet, we change it with the ballot. When you are denied your ballot, you go to the courts.
Uh-huh, tell that to these folks!
http://www.youtube.com/embed/9RABZq5IoaQ?feature=player_embedded
Quote from: Shantel on March 04, 2014, 01:27:45 PM
Uh-huh, tell that to these folks!
http://www.youtube.com/embed/9RABZq5IoaQ?feature=player_embedded
I guess you and I aren't alone is suffering extreme cognitive dissonance. :D
Ya know, when people start speaking this way, that somehow we're not 'right' as they determine it, I feel I'm about to be told "yor kind aint welcome 'round here".
(No offense Hideyoshi ;) )
Quote from: Nikko on March 04, 2014, 01:05:14 PM
I pay my own way, I can't afford to vote liberal.
Which implies that I somehow don't pay my own way?
Or that my mom doesn't? Or my fiance doesn't?
Do I not pay my own way because I got healthcare through the ACA? I got subsidies, yes. I guess I don't pay my own way if I get public assistance to help pay for healthcare. Just like how you don't pay your own way when you drive on roads paid for with tax dollars, eat food and take drugs regulated by the FDA, and store your money in banks backed by the FDIC. You don't pay your own way as much as you'd like to believe, because you have this entire ->-bleeped-<-ing society around you that supports your every facet of life.
So you can't afford to vote liberal... must be a strange job you have to be on the streets if a liberal is in office.
You can't afford to vote liberal, but you can afford to vote for someone who votes against your rights, and wholeheartedly rejects your identity. If not yours specifically, they vote against the rights and opportunities of people who are in the same social position as yourself (LGBT)
If you're on ACA subsidies, then I'm helping pay your way. It's not my desire to do so.
I pay for my share of the roads, etc. I'll pay more into SS than I'll ever get back, etc. I pay Medicaid and unemployment insurance that I've never and never will use. No, I pay much more than just my way thru life.
Quote from: Nikko on March 04, 2014, 02:25:34 PM
If you're on ACA subsidies, then I'm helping pay your way. It's not my desire to do so.
I pay for my share of the roads, etc. I'll pay more into SS than I'll ever get back, etc. I pay Medicaid and unemployment insurance that I've never and never will use. No, I pay much more than just my way thru life.
Because you're part of a society. If you don't like it, try the Congo, where there's no government or taxes and everybody's so free to do whatever they want.
edit: I read your post again. You seem rather confident in your financial security. Wouldn't it be ironic (I don't wish this upon you) if you lost your job because of an unforeseen accident or illness, and then required public aid or would die? Would you refuse public assistance at that point to remain consistent in your ideology?
Quote from: Shantel on March 04, 2014, 10:54:24 AM
Yeah, I pm'ed Nikko and said some leftie would spin it, you're all so predictable! :D :laugh:
That's not spin, it's a well-established truth. But if you continue on insisting that the Republican Party was always a conservative party, I would love to hear you try and spin the actions of the party in the late 19th/early 20th century as anything but liberal :laugh:
Quote from: Hideyoshi on March 04, 2014, 02:37:56 PM
Because you're part of a society. If you don't like it, try the Congo, where there's no government or taxes and everybody's so free to do whatever they want.
edit: I read your post again. You seem rather confident in your financial security. Wouldn't it be ironic (I don't wish this upon you) if you lost your job because of an unforeseen accident or illness, and then required public aid or would die? Would you refuse public assistance at that point to remain consistent in your ideology?
Are you sick or disabled? If so, I'm not talking about you.
Really? I'm part of a society? Ya know, I'm aware and THAT is the reason I pull my weight. I believe a healthy society requires responsible adults pulling their weight.
Something else, having so many people on the public dole puts the truly needy like the true disabled at risk. So I think I'm doing a pretty good job of being a good citizen.
You're jumping to a lot of faulty conclusions.
Quote from: skin on March 04, 2014, 03:08:23 PM
That's not spin, it's a well-established truth. But if you continue on insisting that the Republican Party was always a conservative party, I would love to hear you try and spin the actions of the party in the late 19th/early 20th century as anything but liberal :laugh:
See my previous post regarding republican versus democrat vote percentages of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. This is just simple fact and you've been sold nonsense. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not you're own facts.
BTW, the movement to end slavery was a religious movement. It was Christian principles that brought about the republican party and brought about an end to slavery, not current day liberalism. That didn't exist back then.
Classical liberalism has more commonality to today's conservatism or perhaps today's libertarianism.
Quote from: Nikko on March 04, 2014, 03:17:35 PM
Are you sick or disabled? If so, I'm not talking about you.
Really? I'm part of a society? Ya know, I'm aware and THAT is the reason I pull my weight. I believe a healthy society requires responsible adults pulling their weight.
Something else, having so many people on the public dole puts the truly needy like the true disabled at risk. So I think I'm doing a pretty good job of being a good citizen.
You're jumping to a lot of faulty conclusions.
I never said you weren't a good citizen.
I have ulcerative colitis which is maintained on a drug which, without insurance, costs $1500 a bottle. Without that medication, I would be bound to a toilet, anemic, and unable to work and contribute to society.
What faulty conclusion did I jump to again?
Quote from: Nikko on March 04, 2014, 03:25:46 PM
See my previous post regarding republican versus democrat vote percentages of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. This is just simple fact and you've been sold nonsense. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not you're own facts.
At the time the Democratic party had two separate ideologies, similar to how there are Republicans and Tea Partiers under one party today. Back then it was the northern Democrats and the Dixiecrats. Congress at the time was made up of almost entirely Dixiecrats representing the former Confederate states, very few Republicans were in the south. Now if you look at just the northern states, 93% of Democrats voted aye compared to 85% of Republicans in the House, and it was 98% and 84% in the senate.
Quick statistics lesson: if you compare just two variables, before you declare there is an obvious relationship, it is wise to add a third control variable. In this case, the control variable is region. If the relationship between the dependent variable (party) and independent variable (% voting yea) changes with the addition of the control variable (it did), then the original relationship between the dependent variable and independent variable you analyzed is considered spurious.
Quote from: skin on March 04, 2014, 03:54:27 PM
At the time the Democratic party had two separate ideologies, similar to how there are Republicans and Tea Partiers under one party today. Back then it was the northern Democrats and the Dixiecrats. Congress at the time was made up of almost entirely Dixiecrats representing the former Confederate states, very few Republicans were in the south. Now if you look at just the northern states, 93% of Democrats voted aye compared to 85% of Republicans in the House, and it was 98% and 84% in the senate.
Quick statistics lesson: if you compare just two variables, before you declare there is an obvious relationship, it is wise to add a third control variable. In this case, the control variable is region. If the relationship between the dependent variable (party) and independent variable (% voting yea) changes with the addition of the control variable (it did), then the original relationship between the dependent variable and independent variable you analyzed is considered spurious.
OMG, are you serious??
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Read the following linked article all the way thru and be sure to listen to the Malcolm X audio, I think he likely nailed it.
http://www.black-and-right.com/2010/03/19/the-dixiecrat-myth/ (http://www.black-and-right.com/2010/03/19/the-dixiecrat-myth/)
Yea, I will stick with objective numbers rather than a subjective post on an extremely right-wing blog.
Again, I go back to, which one of the current day parties do you think would be against the civil rights movement, or against abolishing slavery? Based on the blatantly racist, homophobic, and hyper-religiousness of the current day GOP and conservatives, is the answer not obvious?
Quote from: Hideyoshi on March 04, 2014, 05:07:25 PM
Again, I go back to, which one of the current day parties do you think would be against the civil rights movement, or against abolishing slavery? Based on the blatantly racist, homophobic, and hyper-religiousness of the current day GOP and conservatives, is the answer not obvious?
Not at all, you may live in a bubble of sorts. My view is the democrats are far more likely to violate civil rights. Look how they shoved obamacare down people's throats and force them to comply or else, they're laughing at people's pain this is causing.
Besides being racist, they're misogynistic. The routinely called notable black conservatives Uncle Toms or worse. I believe the horrible state of the black community was caused by democrat design. They call conservative women sluts, idiots, and whores. That's all documented, just look outside your bubble.
Please.
Quote from: Nikko on March 04, 2014, 05:22:23 PM
Not at all, you may live in a bubble of sorts. My view is the democrats are far more likely to violate civil rights. Look how they shoved obamacare down people's throats and force them to comply or else, they're laughing at people's pain this is causing.
Besides being racist, they're misogynistic. The routinely called notable black conservatives Uncle Toms or worse. They call conservative women sluts, idiots, and whores. That's all documented, just look outside your bubble.
Please.
If you disagree with Obamacare you are a racist, if you vote Republican than obviously you are a homophobe. If you are an observant Jew or a Christian, then you are an Islamophobe. The verbal bullying diatribe goes on and on and is the leftist modus oprandi designed to beat down and cause others cave in to half truths presented as reality and other progressive tripe. If you refuse to comply with and balk at the current Marxist plan for the government to redistribute your wealth then you are just another greedy Capitalist. Welcome to the new Amerika comrade!
Quote from: Nikko on March 04, 2014, 05:22:23 PM
Besides being racist, they're misogynistic. The routinely called notable black conservatives Uncle Toms or worse. I believe the horrible state of the black community was caused by democrat design. They call conservative women sluts, idiots, and whores. That's all documented, just look outside your bubble.
Yes, that is why 55% of women, 93% of African-Americans, 71% of Latinos, and 73% of Asian-Americans voted Republican in 2012. Oops, those are actually the amounts that voted for Obama.
Yes, you can find incidents of liberals being terrible people. When a group is so big there are going to be knuckleheads. I'm from Wisconsin, where the majority leader just got ousted as a result of multiple cases of sexual harassment during one trip, but that doesn't mean I'm going to call all Wisconsin Republicans misogynistic.
You can keep linking to all the subjective facts you want, but numbers have no agenda. Come November, I fully expect the number of women voting democrat going higher than 55% in the majority of races. And while I don't think Texas will turn blue, I think Republicans are going to poop themselves when they see how close it will be, largely due to the female demographic.
Sorry folks, this is getting out of hand.
Call it a draw.
TOPIC LOCKED.