In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
What's a liberal gun owner to do?
chaoslodge
Member Posts: 790 ✭✭✭✭
My life politically is a conundrum.
I believe in lots of the New Deal social welfare policies. Not all.
I think affirmative action is ridiculous and racist.
I think the drug laws in this country are preposterous. (No drug dealer would ever want decriminalization)
I believe in funding the arts.
I believe the church, synagogue, mosque, what have you, should be as far away from our government and schools as possible.
I believe that the right of a person to arm themselves is inherent and the 2nd Amendment exists to clarify that for the naive, fearful and fascist.
OK, anybody who is still listening,....
I am dismayed by the polarization of the gun control debate. Those of you on the "right" might be surprised to find out how many of us on the "left" are on the same side when it comes to this issue. Why do you consistently lump so many other issues onto this debate? Just because I find George Bush and his ilk to be dispicable does not make me the enemy when it comes to 2nd amendment issues. Indeed I believe gun ownership by citizens is just another check and ballance against potential fascist activity by any party.
I believe in lots of the New Deal social welfare policies. Not all.
I think affirmative action is ridiculous and racist.
I think the drug laws in this country are preposterous. (No drug dealer would ever want decriminalization)
I believe in funding the arts.
I believe the church, synagogue, mosque, what have you, should be as far away from our government and schools as possible.
I believe that the right of a person to arm themselves is inherent and the 2nd Amendment exists to clarify that for the naive, fearful and fascist.
OK, anybody who is still listening,....
I am dismayed by the polarization of the gun control debate. Those of you on the "right" might be surprised to find out how many of us on the "left" are on the same side when it comes to this issue. Why do you consistently lump so many other issues onto this debate? Just because I find George Bush and his ilk to be dispicable does not make me the enemy when it comes to 2nd amendment issues. Indeed I believe gun ownership by citizens is just another check and ballance against potential fascist activity by any party.
Comments
My life politically is a conundrum.
I believe in lots of the New Deal social welfare policies. Not all.
I think affirmative action is ridiculous and racist.
I think the drug laws in this country are preposterous. (No drug dealer would ever want decriminalization)
I believe in funding the arts.
I believe the church, synagogue, mosque, what have you, should be as far away from our government and schools as possible.
I believe that the right of a person to arm themselves is inherent and the 2nd Amendment exists to clarify that for the naive, fearful and fascist.
OK, anybody who is still listening,....
I am dismayed by the polarization of the gun control debate. Those of you on the "right" might be surprised to find out how many of us on the "left" are on the same side when it comes to this issue. Why do you consistently lump so many other issues onto this debate? Just because I find George Bush and his ilk to be dispicable does not make me the enemy when it comes to 2nd amendment issues. Indeed I believe gun ownership by citizens is just another check and ballance against potential fascist activity by any party.
You are right in your view in red above. But to make it through the day without having to stop and closely consider everything we think and do, it is human nature to use "shorthand.". In this case, since our pro-gun side has ample experience that the majority of liberals, and/or Democrats are anti-gun, we naturally are happily surprised when we meet someone like you. Welcome.
PS: A lot of "art" appears to me to be offensive trash. So if anyone wants it funded, let them do it themselves. Don't use my tax money that was taken from me using the implied threat of force.
Thanks for the welcome!
I am very motivated to try and bridge this gap. I appreciate your reply and look forward to many intelligent and productive conversations here.
Cheers
My life politically is a conundrum.
I believe in lots of the New Deal social welfare policies. Not all.
I think affirmative action is ridiculous and racist.
I think the drug laws in this country are preposterous. (No drug dealer would ever want decriminalization)
I believe in funding the arts.
I believe the church, synagogue, mosque, what have you, should be as far away from our government and schools as possible.
I believe that the right of a person to arm themselves is inherent and the 2nd Amendment exists to clarify that for the naive, fearful and fascist.
OK, anybody who is still listening,....
I am dismayed by the polarization of the gun control debate. Those of you on the "right" might be surprised to find out how many of us on the "left" are on the same side when it comes to this issue. Why do you consistently lump so many other issues onto this debate? Just because I find George Bush and his ilk to be dispicable does not make me the enemy when it comes to 2nd amendment issues. Indeed I believe gun ownership by citizens is just another check and ballance against potential fascist activity by any party.
The problem here is that you have aligned yourself with a political party who believes in mob rule. Yeah, that's the name of democracy when you boil it down to its simplest parts.
I'm curious to know just what New Deal policies you find attractive, because I find them all to be retarded, and counterproductive.
The problem with the other party is that it is falling victim to the same crap.
quit the labeling, and respect the Constitution.
and welcome aboard
Thanks for the welcome.
My life politically is a conundrum.
I believe in lots of the New Deal social welfare policies. Not all.
I believe in funding the arts.
I believe the church, synagogue, mosque, what have you, should be as far away from our government and schools as possible.
This makes you a socialist secular-progressive, which has got nothing in common with liberalism.
quote:Originally posted by chaoslodge
I think affirmative action is ridiculous and racist.
I think the drug laws in this country are preposterous. (No drug dealer would ever want decriminalization)
I believe that the right of a person to arm themselves is inherent and the 2nd Amendment exists to clarify that for the naive, fearful and fascist.
Common sense. Follow it a little longer and the other beliefs will change.
quote:Originally posted by chaoslodge
OK, anybody who is still listening,....
I am dismayed by the polarization of the gun control debate. Those of you on the "right" might be surprised to find out how many of us on the "left" are on the same side when it comes to this issue. Why do you consistently lump so many other issues onto this debate? Just because I find George Bush and his ilk to be dispicable despicable does not make me the enemy when it comes to 2nd amendment issues. Indeed I believe gun ownership by citizens is just another check and ballance balance against potential fascist activity by any party.
One: Why do YOU lump so many other issues onto this debate? Just because I am "right wing conservative" doesn't mean I support G.W. or policies of this administration.
Two: I have not personally met anyone on the "left" who'd use common sense when it comes to 2A. It is called brainwashing - when someone needs to follow some sort of doctrine, such as liberal-social-democrat-secular-progressive-whatever, brainwashing doesn't just happen on one issue, most people will believe anything fed to them by the party leadership and ANY step away from those doctrines is considered as betrayal and is punishable.
Three: Why do I consistently lump so many other issues onto this debate?
Simple. Because of "Two:" and because these things go hand-in-hand and simply because supporting 2A isn't the goal of anything that's on the left, has never been historically, will never be in the future. The "left" will never be able to reach their goals with armed citizenry.
Granted that there are sometimes exceptions, you apparently being one, but you must admit that left = liberal = Demokrat.
You then need only look to the "Leaders" consistantly chosen by the Demokrats and their statements about, and lack of support for, 2A over the last several decades to answer your own questions about what gets lumped together here.
Fair enough. And, just because I'm a liberal democrat doen't mean I support Hillary Clinton.
"I have not personally met anyone on the "left" who'd use common sense when it comes to 2A."
Okay, but there are lots of people on the left who do. Jim Webb, for example, Democrat Senator, carries a weapon, even in DC!!
"It is called brainwashing - when someone needs to follow some sort of doctrine, such"
So it is, and it's practiced by the right-wingers too, in equal measure.
"The "left" will never be able to reach their goals with armed citizenry."
Let's hope the right-wing Bushies can't either.
Only if you admit that right = neocon = RepubliNazi.
This attitude is compared to a conservative taking the position that, even in a perfect world, a perfect way to enjoy that world is to continue being able to enjoy the hobby of guns.
I don't know whether that's really your observation, or whether it's something you've been programmed to believe, or simply chosen to believe in order to simplify your thought process. If it's really your observation, then your sample size is too small.
In any case, you're painting with a too broad brush and making a generalization which does not apply to all democrats or to all liberals. We're not all Nancy Pelosi, just as not all Republicans are Larry Craig or Mark Foley. Just because I observe that some right-wingers are sexual deviants, I would be mistaken to assume that all of them are, just as you are mistaken to assume that all liberals are anti-gun opponents of the second amendment.
"It has been my observation"
I don't know whether that's really your observation, or whether it's something you've been programmed to believe, or simply chosen to believe in order to simplify your thought process. If it's really your observation, then your sample size is too small.
In any case, you're painting with a too broad brush and making a generalization which does not apply to all democrats or to all liberals. We're not all Nancy Pelosi, just as not all Republicans are Larry Craig or Mark Foley. Just because I observe that some right-wingers are sexual deviants, I would be mistaken to assume that all of them are, just as you are mistaken to assume that all liberals are anti-gun opponents of the second amendment.
You don't comprehend what you read very well. I did not state that "all liberals" are anti-gun. Go back and read it again. And yes, you can believe that what I do claim is what I have observed. In regards to my "sample size", that sample has been taken over a 50 year period and I assure you it is quite large.
There was one very environmentalist lady I knew who had a unique viewpoint on guns that I really respected. She supported gun ownership because she felt that if more people actually had to hunt for their food then they would have much more respect for the environment and for animals. That actually made a lot of sense to me.
I find that it is the more common Liberal who is anti-gun, such as the Soccer Moms that drive gas-guzzling Chevy Suburbans, yet donate to Greenpeace so that they feel better. I knew one very Liberal lady who believed all guns should be banned and confiscated. I brought up the point that she was married to a sheriff's deputy and had guns in her home. She said that was okay because her husband had "special training". I find that most Liberals (i.e. Democrats) are the biggest elitist hippocrits ever.
Many other labels are just that -- labels, overused unlike common sense.
This I find interesting. Given THIS forum, I think perhaps what you really mean is...you didn't get the answer you agree with viscerally.
The ANSWER is rather simple. Disarmed Citizens are 'subjects'. Plain and simple.
quote:Whether I like the Republicans or not, and I disagree with a lot of issues just the same as Democrats, I feel safer with them in charge when it comes to the Second Amendment. The time will come sooner or later,
Ah, how well the smoke and mirrors work.The Brady Bill was passed by Bob Dole. Republican.
Several other such bills were passed with heavy Republican support.
The REAL reason the Repubs don't push as hard as the Deomcrats on gun control is because THEIR job is to tighten controls on citizens every OTHER way..the Patriot Act, 'Know Your Neighbor'..Ect, Ect.
What bothers ME about it is the citizens that cheer lustily these egregious acts of freedom destroying malice.
What bothers ME about it is the citizens that cheer lustily these egregious acts of freedom destroying malice.
Understanding of freedom requires deep understanding and practical knowledge of the opposite.
quote:I have never been able to understand their hatred for the 2nd. I started a post once here with that question, and got no real answer. I guess
This I find interesting. Given THIS forum, I think perhaps what you really mean is...you didn't get the answer you agree with viscerally.
The ANSWER is rather simple. Disarmed Citizens are 'subjects'. Plain and simple.
quote:Whether I like the Republicans or not, and I disagree with a lot of issues just the same as Democrats, I feel safer with them in charge when it comes to the Second Amendment. The time will come sooner or later,
Ah, how well the smoke and mirrors work.The Brady Bill was passed by Bob Dole. Republican.
Several other such bills were passed with heavy Republican support.
The REAL reason the Repubs don't push as hard as the Deomcrats on gun control is because THEIR job is to tighten controls on citizens every OTHER way..the Patriot Act, 'Know Your Neighbor'..Ect, Ect.
What bothers ME about it is the citizens that cheer lustily these egregious acts of freedom destroying malice.
Yes I got a lot of opinions from good people. I guess what I meant was that there is no answer that makes any coherent sense to anyone that looks at history with any common sense and understanding. Nothing will ever be perfect. I certainly thought it was a mistake to go into Iraq. But I cannot say that things would have been better if Kerry was president. Who knows what would be happening now? You would probably be in the group bashing him now for whatever stupid moves he would have made. So bash away, I don't care as long as you exercise your right to own firearms and do what your conscience allows to help us all keep our rights.
YOUR refusal to look at history..or the inability to understand that history..really doesn't give you the authority to accuse others of that act.
The Jews for the Preservation of Firearms put out a paper a number of years ago..tracing the evolution of gun control in many countries over the last 100 years.
Gun control led to mass murder of civilians by governments..around 200 million poor souls..murdered by their own governments.
Your rejection of the facts doesn't make those facts less true..just you more emotionally driven to proclaim whatever corrupt politician of your choice as being 'above all that'...
quote:Yes I got a lot of opinions from good people. I guess what I meant was that there is no answer that makes any coherent sense to anyone that looks at history with any common sense and understanding
YOUR refusal to look at history..or the inability to understand that history..really doesn't give you the authority to accuse others of that act.
The Jews for the Preservation of Firearms put out a paper a number of years ago..tracing the evolution of gun control in many countries over the last 100 years.
Gun control led to mass murder of civilians by governments..around 200 million poor souls..murdered by their own governments.
Your rejection of the facts doesn't make those facts less true..just you more emotionally driven to proclaim whatever corrupt politician of your choice as being 'above all that'...
Sorry, your response makes no sense to me. I am a student of history. I know that vile rulers have murdered millions after making sure they had little with which to fight back. Do you think Democrats intend to murder us after taking our guns? Do you think Republicans intend to do that? I'm against any person, political party, et el. that wants to deny the 2nd. Amendment rights. One issue. The other s*it will come and go regardless.
As a 'student of history'..you are unable to learn from history.
quote:Do you think Democrats intend to murder us after taking our guns? Do you think Republicans intend to do that? I'm against
As a 'student of history'..you are unable to learn from history.
Somehow I think you have mis-understood me, probably my fault. I did not intend to imply that replies to my post from members here were not correct or meaningful. I was implying that the Democrat Party's apparent stance on the 2nd. Amendment did not make sense to me given that anyone should know what history has taught us. Even when they see that it has cost them elections, they press on. That's why I said there is no coherent reason for their stance. I don't intend to insult anyone on this forum. I don't appreciate being insulted either.
What has escaped us in the past was that whomever is really running the show selects our candidates for each party based upon current public opinion. If you have noticed, we've really had no choice in a federal race for years. It started long before Nixon or Carter, went covert behind Reagan's back and has been in high gear since. POTUS pawns have been in lockstep with the Globalist agenda regardless of party. The people decide POTUS, House and Senate races but the candidates are selected for us!! Pollsters and the MSM assist in the manipulation of opinions and even whom we vote FOR. The shepherds have done a good job!! We need more "wacko's" that can't be bought or manipulated to get back on track!!
TO CHAOSLODGE: I am sorry to have hi-jacked your post. It seemed to get out of hand when somehow HB seemed to think I had pizzed in his oatmeal. It was your nickel and I apologize and hope you did get some advice that helps.
May seem odd...but the thread does not become his private property...just because he started it. Threads wander about...that is their nature.
The divergence came about because YOU posted your dissatisfaction with the replies you got to your question about the Democrats.
You refuse to accept that politicians are capable of setting up the conditions that will lead to wholesale mass murder by some future leader..indeed, that they ARE doing so...by disarming us.
No amount of ducking and dodging on your part can change ANY part of the factual information on this subject. Claiming that our politicians won't murder us in droves changes nothing. The information we have shows that within about a 50 year period after disarming the people , country after country became a killing ground..led by a strong leader and knee-pad politicians.
Just to address the original poster..the Democrats being anti-gun isn't the only reason to despise them..because most Republican politicians are anti-gun.
No..the Democrats embrace every filthy perversion extant..welcoming them with open arms. At least the Republicans still decry those sorts of things. Course..the Democrats push steadily back the traditional borders of perversion..steadily giving the Republicans more room to corrupt family life and morals....
DON'T make it personal.
Keep it objective.
DON'T make it personal.
Odd. Seems many regulars are nothing but personal on here. Just tired of trying to explain the same thing over and over to someone who will not understand. Doesn't matter.
I was talking to Highball TOO.
And anyone else.
I feel you made your point well.
If you feel ANYONE (regular or not) is stepping over the line, bring it to my attention via email. I have been known to delete posts, and lock threads when they get too personal. Even if I happen to agree with the culprit. LOL
fideau,
I was talking to Highball TOO.
And anyone else.
I feel you made your point well.
If you feel ANYONE (regular or not) is stepping over the line, bring it to my attention via email. I have been known to delete posts, and lock threads when they get too personal. Even if I happen to agree with the culprit. LOL
Thanks. I understand and appreciate that.
You're claiming those polesmokin child molesters, Larry Craig, Mark Foley and Ted Haggard are DEMOCRATS?
Before I start in, let me say that I don't think MORE gun control is really a good answer to stop gun crime. Violence in general is a symptom of other problems in society--poverty, the drug war disaster, fatherless children, desperation. By the time a society is taking people's guns away and locking them up for smoking dope, it's failed miserably. So there you go, I'm a bleeding heart.
What I want to ask is: do you really think that more guns and less government makes a society better? I know, I know, Hitler took away all the guns first, but Uncle Sam and Crazy Ivan pumped weaponry into Afghanistan nonstop, and look where it got them: the Taliban took over. That's an oversimplification, but what I'm seeking to point out is that wherever in the world there's little government and lots of guns it's a third-world s***hole. Somalia, big swaths of Colombia, Afghanistan, Iraq, the list goes on. There's no one to collect taxes--big plus. There is no security except the gun at your side--sounds romantic, but not actually a good idea.
I understand that a lot of you view taxation as extortion, and you absolutely have a point. My counterpoint to that is if you don't have the well-regulated extortion of the state, you WILL have unregulated pillaging by private militias. If you chose to defend yourself against such a force, your gun would indeed be pried from your cold, dead hands and pressed into service as a weapon of terror. No tax court, no bankruptcy, just a pine box.
Furthermore, the idea that one can arm himself sufficiently to defend against a modern state is preposterous. If they really wanted to take away all your freedom, they wouldn't need to take away your guns first. First, they'd monitor your phone calls without warrants, and then they'd make sure that everybody in the department of justice agreed with their political agenda. All the while, there'd probably be a war going on under false pretenses to distract everybody.
Where are our guns now and why can't they protect us? Guns are not enough to protect us from tyranny. It takes a populace paying attention to something besides god, guns, and gays.
I was just trying to say hello.
LOL
However, it is good to be engaged with people who are passionate about their beliefs and articulate in the expression and defense of them.
Cheers
First of all, I consider myself a liberal. I also love guns and appreciate them as tools, historical relics, and art objects. However, I'd like to interrogate what seems to be the standard line around here about the political importance of an "armed society."
Before I start in, let me say that I don't think MORE gun control is really a good answer to stop gun crime. Violence in general is a symptom of other problems in society--poverty, the drug war disaster, fatherless children, desperation. By the time a society is taking people's guns away and locking them up for smoking dope, it's failed miserably. So there you go, I'm a bleeding heart.
What I want to ask is: do you really think that more guns and less government makes a society better? I know, I know, Hitler took away all the guns first, but Uncle Sam and Crazy Ivan pumped weaponry into Afghanistan nonstop, and look where it got them: the Taliban took over. That's an oversimplification, but what I'm seeking to point out is that wherever in the world there's little government and lots of guns it's a third-world s***hole. Somalia, big swaths of Colombia, Afghanistan, Iraq, the list goes on. There's no one to collect taxes--big plus. There is no security except the gun at your side--sounds romantic, but not actually a good idea.
I understand that a lot of you view taxation as extortion, and you absolutely have a point. My counterpoint to that is if you don't have the well-regulated extortion of the state, you WILL have unregulated pillaging by private militias. If you chose to defend yourself against such a force, your gun would indeed be pried from your cold, dead hands and pressed into service as a weapon of terror. No tax court, no bankruptcy, just a pine box.
Furthermore, the idea that one can arm himself sufficiently to defend against a modern state is preposterous. If they really wanted to take away all your freedom, they wouldn't need to take away your guns first. First, they'd monitor your phone calls without warrants, and then they'd make sure that everybody in the department of justice agreed with their political agenda. All the while, there'd probably be a war going on under false pretenses to distract everybody.
Where are our guns now and why can't they protect us? Guns are not enough to protect us from tyranny. It takes a populace paying attention to something besides god, guns, and gays.
In red above. You, as most liberal do, forgot to add just plain mean, violent, murderous and evil people. Such people would exist in that form regardless of how you and other liberals try to protray them just as much a victim of "society" as are the actual victims that such heinous people create.
In the liberal viewpoint, there are no "evil people." This is usually true whether talking about Osama Bin Laden or one of the mall/school shooters. No. Instead, in the liberal view, everyone of us, whether the dispenser of violence and death or the receiver of violence and death we are all victims.
BTW, such sickening, twisted, unrealistic and naive attitudes about life make me want to barf.
What a load of pure, unadulterated crap. Of course there are evil people, Osama, Eric Rudolph, Hitler, Mark Foley, etc, etc.
Evil people need to be dealt with, In MY country, the USA, we do that within the laws and the Constitution.
Yes, I DO believe that crime and, to a large extent, evil, is symptomatic of problems in society that act in complex ways on individuals. Call them victims if you want to make me seem ridiculous, but I think it's more ridiculous to suggest that violence has NO cause other than the most proximal, that is, the perpetrator himself. Obviously criminals cause crime, but what causes criminals? If modern sociology is any guide, poverty and desperation have a lot to do with it.
You're right, though, there are evil people out there, but they are the outliers. Their crimes are dramatic, but in a statistical sense they are insignificant. In fact, this is one reason why I'm against more gun control.
The prevalence of guns in our society obviously neither increases nor reduces the number of evil people at large. However, guns do a lot to make their crimes more serious. Rampage killings could not exist in the way that they do without guns. Guns also make the act of killing extremely easy, a fact which helps both cold-blooded killers and impassioned murderers commit their deeds. If guns were to disappear tomorrow, violence in America would be greatly mitigated. You can say that guns will help you protect yourself from these acts of evil, and in certain cases you will be right, but most of the time the difference between evil people and responsible gun owners is that evil people shoot first.
Basically what I'm saying is the existence of evil is a better argument FOR gun control than against it. Despite these facts, I don't think more gun regulation is necessary. I have two reasons for this: the first, which I alluded to in my opening paragraph, is that these acts of evil are insignificant compared to the number of law-abiding people who own and enjoy firearms. Just because drunk driving kills more people each year than heroin, murder, and suicide bombing combined doesn't mean I think we should ban alcohol or cars. The second reason is that a lot of gun crime is committed by people who already possess guns illegally.
I must say that I object to the line of attack in your post, which went something like: "You are a liberal, liberals are soft-headed fools, therefore you are wrong." Instead of defending myself at length against such an attack, I would have liked to debate you about the premises behind a lot of gun rights rhetoric. Namely: is it actually correct to say that guns, in the possession of private individuals, can protect a society against unlawful encroachment by the government? Can they even make a society "more polite"? Come on, I know you have something to say about that and somebody here has to have some facts.
tr fox--
Yes, I DO believe that crime and, to a large extent, evil, is symptomatic of problems in society that act in complex ways on individuals. Call them victims if you want to make me seem ridiculous, but I think it's more ridiculous to suggest that violence has NO cause other than the most proximal, that is, the perpetrator himself. Obviously criminals cause crime, but what causes criminals? If modern sociology is any guide, poverty and desperation have a lot to do with it.Education has alot more to do with it than both. Drug addicts are not necessarily poor due to any reason other than the fact that they blew it all on dope. They are not, however, victims in any sense of the word.
You're right, though, there are evil people out there, but they are the outliers. Their crimes are dramatic, but in a statistical sense they are insignificant. In fact, this is one reason why I'm against more gun control.I would disagree. Evil is very prevalent in our society. It is the fear of retribution or punishment that keeps most evil in check. Search your thoughts, Luke. Tell me you've never been so outraged as to want to do evil (i.e.-harm to others). You, my friend, are far from alone. Unless you purport to have never held these thoughts, in which case, you are.
The prevalence of guns in our society obviously neither increases nor reduces the number of evil people at large. No, but more of them would help to define their actions, or more importantly-narrow them However, guns do a lot to make their crimes more serious. Murder is no more serious with or without a firearms' involvement. In fact, I would suggest precisely the opposite Rampage killings could not exist in the way that they do without guns. Tell that to some tens of thousands of Africans murdered and mutilated by machete's. Guns also make the act of killing extremely easy, a fact which helps both cold-blooded killers and impassioned murderers commit their deeds. Guns do not make killing easy-only more expedient. It is the mind which makes killing easy. If guns were to disappear tomorrow, violence in America would be greatly mitigated.Here is the fallacy of your argument-that which makes it totally incorrect. Violence is brought about far more often without firarms than with. I won't cite statistics, but the facts are easy to discern. More people die and get hurt by objects other than guns. No arguing that fact. So to say that without guns violence would be mitigated is naive at best, ignorant at worst. You can say that guns will help you protect yourself from these acts of evil, and in certain cases you will be right, but most of the time the difference between evil people and responsible gun owners is that evil people shoot first.Only because we, as a society (males in particular), have been gelded into thinking that one must allow evil to take place to prevent it. Rather than being proactive and alert, we slug through life-expecting someone else will take care of trouble when it comes-and reactive when it doesn't
Basically what I'm saying is the existence of evil is a better argument FOR gun control than against it. Despite these facts, I don't think more gun regulation is necessary. I have two reasons for this: the first, which I alluded to in my opening paragraph, is that these acts of evil are insignificant compared to the number of law-abiding people who own and enjoy firearms. Just because drunk driving kills more people each year than heroin, murder, and suicide bombing combined doesn't mean I think we should ban alcohol or cars. The second reason is that a lot of gun crime is committed by people who already possess guns illegally.
I must say that I object to the line of attack in your post, which went something like: "You are a liberal, liberals are soft-headed fools, therefore you are wrong." Instead of defending myself at length against such an attack, I would have liked to debate you about the premises behind a lot of gun rights rhetoric. Namely: is it actually correct to say that guns, in the possession of private individuals, can protect a society against unlawful encroachment by the government? Yes, but only at such a time when the populous feels that government has encroached too far for the ungelded males to finally decide that their life is likely forfeit anyway, so they may as well forfeit that life for the cause of the restoration of liberty as we should know it.Can they even make a society "more polite"? Of course it can. You stipluate that evil-true evil-persons are statistically insignifigant. If they are, then their presence would be eradicated into extinction by those who are not, and armed. Armed is the key, because an armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity Come on, I know you have something to say about that and somebody here has to have some facts.
Your thinking is the problem here, or more accurately, the lack thereof. Not to say that you do not think-this is obviously not the case. It is that the thinking is not controlling the actions, the feelings are. It is the object that is evil and not the person, therefore it most be kept from everyone. You do not trust yourself with that power, and thus, you project that mistrust to everyone else.
I do not subscribe to any new deal policies-they have no use in a self reliant society. Those who cannot take care of themselves will surely be taken care of by the charity of others. Mostly other whose religious undertakings will allow it. Those very same undertakings you would have removed from government, are the very same undertakings government has no business being involved in. It is the liberal mindset that is the venereal disease of our society. It is the bad consequence of doing what makes you feel good. And, like syphillis, will eventually kill us.
tr fox--
Yes, I DO believe that crime and, to a large extent, evil, is symptomatic of problems in society that act in complex ways on individuals. Call them victims if you want to make me seem ridiculous, but I think it's more ridiculous to suggest that violence has NO cause other than the most proximal, that is, the perpetrator himself. Obviously criminals cause crime, but what causes criminals? If modern sociology is any guide, poverty and desperation have a lot to do with it.
You're right, though, there are evil people out there, but they are the outliers. Their crimes are dramatic, but in a statistical sense they are insignificant. In fact, this is one reason why I'm against more gun control.
The prevalence of guns in our society obviously neither increases nor reduces the number of evil people at large. However, guns do a lot to make their crimes more serious. Rampage killings could not exist in the way that they do without guns. Guns also make the act of killing extremely easy, a fact which helps both cold-blooded killers and impassioned murderers commit their deeds. If guns were to disappear tomorrow, violence in America would be greatly mitigated. You can say that guns will help you protect yourself from these acts of evil, and in certain cases you will be right, but most of the time the difference between evil people and responsible gun owners is that evil people shoot first.
Basically what I'm saying is the existence of evil is a better argument FOR gun control than against it. Despite these facts, I don't think more gun regulation is necessary. I have two reasons for this: the first, which I alluded to in my opening paragraph, is that these acts of evil are insignificant compared to the number of law-abiding people who own and enjoy firearms. Just because drunk driving kills more people each year than heroin, murder, and suicide bombing combined doesn't mean I think we should ban alcohol or cars. The second reason is that a lot of gun crime is committed by people who already possess guns illegally.
I must say that I object to the line of attack in your post, which went something like: "You are a liberal, liberals are soft-headed fools, therefore you are wrong." Instead of defending myself at length against such an attack, I would have liked to debate you about the premises behind a lot of gun rights rhetoric. Namely: is it actually correct to say that guns, in the possession of private individuals, can protect a society against unlawful encroachment by the government? Can they even make a society "more polite"? Come on, I know you have something to say about that and somebody here has to have some facts.
Sir, You seem like a nice, reasonable, gentle, thinking person and I like you for that. However, I despise your goofey philosophy regarding life. Specifically crime and criminals.
Both in life and on the internet, I have tired of long-winded, never-ending, data and information overloaded arguments/debates/discussions. So I try my best to not publish nor read such time-wasting documents. If we were trying to decide, for example, on what one, specific action for us to take, action that would either destroy or save the Earth, such long discussions would be of great interest to me. But I am not interested in spending copious time debating the simpler things in life. Such as crime and criminals.
In red above. You seem to think that we should study and debate, basically, whether criminals are caused or do criminals just cause crime. That cannot and need not be answered because there is no "yes or no" answer. Crimes have been and will be committed by the highest, most privileged, richest and most educated people at the way down to those who have nor have ever had even a reasonable chance at anything. So part of the explanation is that even if society was able to start addressing every citizens complete wants and needs, there would still be criminals committing crime.
The other part of the explanation is that society is working hard to eliminate injustices in our country and in the meantime has placed many safety nets for those who don't, or think they don't get a fair chance at what America has to offer. Few people, if they are willing to work even a few hours a week at a job requiring little or no skills, need go hungry or without a home.
Consider all the laws we have in America which govern our lives. In crimes of violence, with few exceptions (if any) you cannot become a criminal unless you try and take or tamper with something that you have no right to. Things such as a women's (or man's) body, their life, their property, or putting them in fear. This concept is quite easy for almost any potential violent criminal to understand even without consulting the law books. When it comes to violence, or the threat of violence leave things alone that don't belong to you or don't deserve your violence.
There. Does that require much effort or mounds of facts, figures, data, etc. to guide someone to help them from becoming a violent criminal?
I hope you will change your naive ways. At present I truly believe that if you and I were innocently walking down the street and someone unprovoked person ran by and hit me in the head with a ballbat, instead of helping me or summoning the police, you would try and start a dialogue with me about just what did I (we and/or society) do to cause that attacker to hit me in the head with a ballbat.
But at the same time, if you yourself were the one hit, I believe your reaction would be to strike back harder than you were hit. At least I hope you would not be a pacisfist sheep.
"In the liberal viewpoint, there are no "evil people."
What a load of pure, unadulterated crap. Of course there are evil people, Osama, Eric Rudolph, Hitler, Mark Foley, etc, etc.
Evil people need to be dealt with, In MY country, the USA, we do that within the laws and the Constitution.
tr fox.
Your reply has been deleted, and you have caused this thread to be locked. You were warned.