No. of Recommendations: 37
http://boards.fool.com/josh-thank-god-for-the-right-to-defen...

(It's a PA board post, be forewarned!)

God didn't give you any rights; the constitution did.

BZZZT, wrong answer! The Constitution gives us no rights. Rather, the Constitution states which pre-existing rights we have which the government recognizes and won't infringe upon. For instance, in the Second Amendment it states:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say, "We have created this right to keep and bear arms via this document which shall not be infringed." It clearly refers to a pre-existing right, one we'd have with or without the Constitution.

From whence to these rights come? God, our Creator, the birth of Western Civilization, what you believe is between you and your idea of creation. But what is important is that these are inherent rights we have as people, not rights that the government has given to us. That's an important distinction, because what the government gives the government can take away. But they have no power to legitimiately take away these rights (life, liberty, keep and bear arms, etc.) because they do not grant them to us, we possess them inherently. All they can do is deny us rights, and only if we give them the power to do so.

Our Founding Fathers didn't grant us these rights, they drafted a document that recognized them and tells the government they can't violate these pre-existing rights. In order to understand this you have to understand that there is a power greater than government... we all know libs are incapable of such a concept so they're incapable of understanding this entire debate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 53
From whence to these rights come? God, our Creator, the birth of Western Civilization, what you believe is between you and your idea of creation.

What in the world does that mean? What kind of legal standard is that?

There are no constitutional rights? There are only God-given rights? Are you serious??

No constitutional rights. Okay, then. God didn't quite get around to recognizing that slavery was a bad idea in the US until after the Civil War constitutional amendments, and then He *really* lost it in the 20th century by suddenly allowing women to vote and the federal government to tax income. Was it God who said Man shalt not tool up if he be a felon? No, that's a man-made law.

The Constitution, and our laws, are man-made. Man makes mistakes, and he evolves, and he learns (in fits and starts), and his system of government and his laws evolve as well. It is our responsibility to define those laws and yes, those rights, not throw up our hands and say "God says so" in lieu of rational argument and common sense.

Invoking God tells us nothing about what rights and privileges obtain in a civilized, thinking, rational society. Particularly in a world where there is so much disagreement over whether there is a God and what He requires of man.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
What in the world does that mean? What kind of legal standard is that?

There are no constitutional rights? There are only God-given rights? Are you serious??

No constitutional rights. Okay, then. God didn't quite get around to recognizing that slavery was a bad idea in the US until after the Civil War constitutional amendments, and then He *really* lost it in the 20th century by suddenly allowing women to vote and the federal government to tax income. Was it God who said Man shalt not tool up if he be a felon? No, that's a man-made law.

The Constitution, and our laws, are man-made. Man makes mistakes, and he evolves, and he learns (in fits and starts), and his system of government and his laws evolve as well. It is our responsibility to define those laws and yes, those rights, not throw up our hands and say "God says so" in lieu of rational argument and common sense.

Invoking God tells us nothing about what rights and privileges obtain in a civilized, thinking, rational society. Particularly in a world where there is so much disagreement over whether there is a God and what He requires of man.


The subject line said you wouldn't get it...

ferjen

...who gets it...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 22
Invoking God tells us nothing about what rights and privileges obtain in a civilized, thinking, rational society. Particularly in a world where there is so much disagreement over whether there is a God and what He requires of man.

You are right that invoking God doesn't tell us what "unalienable" rights we have. That is obtained through reason. Either you believe that we have natural rights, or you don't. I certainly do, even though I don't believe in God. Just like any other animal, we have a right to defend ourselves against the aggression of others. We have a right to life and the freedom to pursue it as we wish as long as we don't infringe on the rights of others. Rights = freedom. The liberal conception of "rights" equals the "right" to enslave others by taking the product of their efforts and by defining what they *must* do.

We have rights whether there is a government or not to protect them. The purpose of government is *supposed* to be to protect our rights. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This talks about the purpose and limits of government in more detail, although the chance of you reading it is nil.

http://boards.fool.com/the-purpose-and-limits-of-government-...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6

There are no constitutional rights? There are only God-given rights? Are you serious??


Unfortunately, very serious.

"God-given rights" means there is no such thing as civil or constitutional rights. It fits perfectly with the conservative agenda.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 38
The liberal conception of "rights" equals the "right" to enslave others by taking the product of their efforts and by defining what they *must* do.

Nonsense. The OP suggests the right to bear arms comes from God himself, not the Constitution. You aver that you don't even believe in God, yet the right to bear arms comes from natural law.

Where have I asserted that I have a right to enslave others in order to take the product of their efforts by defining what they must do? What the heck are you talking about?

You folks have no intellectual honesty in what you post in this thread. Your post and the OP's cannot be reconciled (does the right to bear arms come from God or not, folks? Get your stories straight!), and yet the herd that follows this board rec's both posts because ... ayuk yuk yuk! ... they both stick it to imaginary "lib" positions.

And you are right, I surely do not look to the Cato Institute to illuminate the historical antecedents of our Constitution or to explain the concept of natural law as understood by our Framers.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
The liberal conception of "rights" equals the "right" to enslave others by taking the product of their efforts and by defining what they *must* do.

Nonsense. The OP suggests the right to bear arms comes from God himself, not the Constitution. You aver that you don't even believe in God, yet the right to bear arms comes from natural law.


Yes, natural law. Consider the laws of physics. Does it matter whether they came from God or not? They are what they are.

Some people believe that God created the laws of physics. Maybe, but they exist independent of anyone saying that they are laws of physics. Likewise, natural rights exist without a government saying whether they exist or not.

And you can't deny that liberals believe that rights are whatever the majority says they are. If the majority says that you have the right to force others to give you their property, then that is a "right." If you have a "right" to health care, then you have a "right" to force others to provide it for you. Now THAT is nonsense.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The OP suggests the right to bear arms comes from God himself, not the Constitution.

The OP suggested no such thing.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 46
The OP suggests the right to bear arms comes from God himself, not the Constitution.

Catherine Coy wrote:

The OP suggested no such thing.

The OP wrote:

From whence to these rights come? God, our Creator.

You're right. The OP didn't suggest it. The OP said it straight out.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oooh, sykesix, what a coup!!! You must be DELIRIOUS!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
"God-given rights" means there is no such thing as civil or constitutional rights. It fits perfectly with the conservative agenda.

And because nobody can prove doodley-squat about god, this means people who evoke god can make up their own rules and claim a divine right.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Some people believe that God created the laws of physics. Maybe, but they exist independent of anyone saying that they are laws of physics. Likewise, natural rights exist without a government saying whether they exist or not.


Laws of physics can be observed, quantified, and readily duplicated. What you are saying is that you "believe" that you have these rights, but equating this "belief" to a natural scientific law is intellectual dishonesty at best and ignorant stupidity at worst.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"We have a right to life and the freedom to pursue it as we wish as long as we don't infringe on the rights of others. Rights = freedom."

Except you don't think we have the right to decide to live in a safer environment. You want to force everyone to live in a minefield.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The original Constitution recognized the legitimacy of slavery. Was slavery, the ability of one person to buy, sell, and dispose of a human being, another of your pre-existing rights? If so, what happened to it?

It was also ok for women to be denied the right to vote? Where was that right when the Constitution was ratified? Where did that right come from?

The Constitution can be amended. Anything in the Constitution can be changed, given sufficient support. The states can call a Constitutional Convention and the whole thing can be scrapped, if support existed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
Um:"Except you don't think we have the right to decide to live in a safer environment. You want to force everyone to live in a minefield."


OK...so we outlaw all 'bad speech'. That would be a safer environment. Only news like Pravda......telling us how good everything is. Never report on crime, because, well, in a socialist paradise, crime doesn't happen. Never report on anything outside the country, other than evil enemies to justify government policy.

Never report on unemployment. That's 'bad news', and blame everything on lazy workers, evil capitalists , etc.

Heck, you don't need a first amendment right either.

ANd no, you don't have a right to force others to give up theirs.

Please tell me where this 'right' of yours to dictate what rights will be taken from others is

Let's see...in Switzerland everyone house has a gun. Isn't that a minefeld? and they are ASSAULT WEAPONS. State of the art fully automatic weapons!

HOw about Israel? They ride around on buses and guard corners.....with fully automatic weapons.

Let's see....my town....... you don't have to worry about being gunned down on the street...except maybe by a criminal let out of jail after 27th conviction of armed robbery and assault......after 3 weeks...because he grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, huh?


In the last 3 killings, the folks were MENTAL CASES.

Why aren't you investigating the high power mental drugs they were given? Ones that often cause suicide cases and worse? Why aren't you sending off mental cases to institutions or making sure they are taking their meds?

Put mildly, the last 3 killing sprees were drug induced mental cases that were not controlled by the do gooder libs.

Why aren't you working on that?

That will go a lot further to solve the problem.

Instead you go after the law abiding folks.


t.








t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The original Constitution recognized the legitimacy of slavery. Was slavery, the ability of one person to buy, sell, and dispose of a human being, another of your pre-existing rights? If so, what happened to it?
It was also ok for women to be denied the right to vote? Where was that right when the Constitution was ratified? Where did that right come from?
The Constitution can be amended. Anything in the Constitution can be changed, given sufficient support. The states can call a Constitutional Convention and the whole thing can be scrapped, if support existed.


Your argument holds water on the first two points but not the third. Even I, scared silly by guns, would buy one if any movement is made to strip citizens of the right to bear arms.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Nonsense. The OP suggests the right to bear arms comes from God himself, not the Constitution. You aver that you don't even believe in God, yet the right to bear arms comes from natural law.

I did? Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote (especially the part you quoted in your previous post). I certainly left open the "natural law" interpretation even if I didn't specifically list that as an option (in fact I could have, an oversight but I didn't say it was an all-inclusive list, quite the contrary!)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
CC:"Your argument holds water on the first two points but not the third. Even I, scared silly by guns, would buy one if any movement is made to strip citizens of the right to bear arms. "

Maybe you should wander on down to your local gun range, sign up for a gun safety course, get your CHL, and get over your fear of handguns.

The only handgun to fear is one pointed at you by a criminal....or one invading your home after cutting your phone line......

and those, unfortunately, are the ones whom the lib do gooders play 'catch and release' with until they actually kill someone..and you should fear them.

On the other hand, if you get over your gun phobia, maybe you'd even think of self defense.

The police have no 'obligation' to show up at your door when you dial 9-1-1. You can't sue them if they show up in 15 minutes....13 minutes after you are gunned down by someone with an illegal gun, who likely legally can't own it...... but will anyway regardless of the laws since he/she is already a criminal.



t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The OP wrote:

From whence to these rights come? God, our Creator.


Actually I'm pretty sure I wrote:

From whence to these rights come? God, our Creator, the birth of Western Civilization, what you believe is between you and your idea of creation.

So the options are:

1. God
2. our Creator (not necessarily "God")
3. The birth of Western Civilization
4. Another option you may believe in (such as Natural Law)

The more I think of it the more I wish I had listed Natural Law in there (frankly that's my preferred option) but the point is you still misquoted me by clipping out the segment where I gave the other options and implied that two options referred to the same thing (which they may or may not).

The point still stands that the right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing right, not one created by the Constitution. Therefore it's illegitimate to infringe on that right even if the Constitution is amended (not that I expect it to be). It stands above the Constitution, just like the right to life, the right to free expression, etc.

Any ideology that requires the government to grant rights is NOT compatible with freedom for it gives the government too much power to take away inherent rights (or never grant them in the first place). Classic liberals (like our Founding Fathers) understood this, the modern breed (like the PA liberals) cannot understand it, or if they do they're outright hostile to it. In either case that makes them enemies to liberty at best.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
The police have no 'obligation' to show up at your door when you dial 9-1-1. You can't sue them if they show up in 15 minutes....13 minutes after you are gunned down by someone with an illegal gun, who likely legally can't own it...... but will anyway regardless of the laws since he/she is already a criminal.

This is what the brain-dead libruls fail to understand. If guns are banned, only criminals will have guns. Oh, they're talking about assault weapons, but if assault weapons are banned, only criminals will have assault weapons. This is a proven F-A-C-T.

Once again, power-hungry libruls put the em-PHA-sis on the wrong syl-LA-ble. They refuse to investigate rampant psychotropic drug prescribing, how welfare destroys families and what the statistics truly tell us.

Idiots.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2

There are no constitutional rights? There are only God-given rights? Are you serious??
-----
Unfortunately, very serious.

"God-given rights" means there is no such thing as civil or constitutional rights. It fits perfectly with the conservative agenda.





It tells us our rights are subject to change depending on the latest revelation of the week from whatever religion that happens to be currently in power. It is a pro-theocracy platform.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"God-given rights" means there is no such thing as civil or constitutional rights. It fits perfectly with the conservative agenda.

And because nobody can prove doodley-squat about god, this means people who evoke god can make up their own rules and claim a divine right.




Exactly. They want the church in charge of government.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Why does it not hold water? Are you unfamiliar with Article V of the Constitution? Here's the text of Article V, for your convenience. I've bolded the relevant bit. In the unlikely event that support were to exist for scrapping the whole thing, what is there to prevent it? The 2nd Amendment could be repealed. The whole thing could be repealed. Unlikely, of course, but certainly not impossible.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
From whence to these rights come? God, our Creator, the birth of Western Civilization, what you believe is between you and your idea of creation. But what is important is that these are inherent rights we have as people, not rights that the government has given to us. That's an important distinction, because what the government gives the government can take away. But they have no power to legitimiately take away these rights (life, liberty, keep and bear arms, etc.) because they do not grant them to us, we possess them inherently. All they can do is deny us rights, and only if we give them the power to do so.

That depends on whether you subscribe to the Hobbesian school of thought (social contract theory, the state of nature, and the fact that without government you are, in fact, guaranteed absolutely NOTHING at all).

In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

(Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter 8).

Essentially, he believes that without a government that specifically enumerates these rights, you don't have them because the bigger guy will simply take them from you at his convenience. Only social contract permits the protection of your so-called "rights."

The contrasting theory, of course, is John Locke, who doesn't have such an obvious quote in his work but is roughly outlined here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

He essentially espoused the opposite of the state of nature, and proposed that man, due to his ability to reason, existed as a tabula rasa, or blank slate.

His theory is one that strongly influenced the writers of the Declaration and the Constitution, and is worth looking into (also a huge proponent of separation of church and state).

However, I find that most individuals who most strongly adhere to social conservatism more closely align with Hobbes' theories and look to religion to curb the baser tendencies of man, and most socially liberal people tend towards Locke's philosophies.

That you are espousing the pre-existence of these liberties outside the social contract of government is interesting to me.

After all, many, many other societies, both historically and even today, do not acknowledge these rights for all people, and are operating under those assumptions right now.

If what you say is true, and the natural state of humanity is to have such freedoms, how does this come about?

GSF
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The 2nd Amendment could be repealed. The whole thing could be repealed. Unlikely, of course, but certainly not impossible.

Meanwhile...

NRA: 100,000 new members after Sandy Hook shooting

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/nra-100k-new-members-a...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I was pretty sure you were wrong; I was positive you wouldn't admit it.

Have a nice day.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Invoking God tells us nothing about what rights and privileges obtain in a civilized, thinking, rational society. Particularly in a world where there is so much disagreement over whether there is a God and what He requires of man.

True, but it's the ultimate argument from authority.

And discussion ender. You can't have a rational discussion with someone who sincerely believes they're right because God is on their side and not yours.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That you are espousing the pre-existence of these liberties outside the social contract of government is interesting to me.

After all, many, many other societies, both historically and even today, do not acknowledge these rights for all people, and are operating under those assumptions right now.

If what you say is true, and the natural state of humanity is to have such freedoms, how does this come about?


They are violating the rights of their people. It shouldn't be surprising that governments deprive their citizens of rights illegitimately, that's the default situation throughout history. That doesn't mean it is correct or even desireable, however. We should strive to do better, and often have (moreso than anyone else arguably).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
NRA: 100,000 new members after Sandy Hook shooting

That's an ok start. We need more. Lots more. There are 25 million Americans who consider themselves part of the NRA but aren't actually on the membership rolls.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Particularly in a world where there is so much disagreement over whether there is a God and what He requires of man.

There is "so much disagreement" only on the Fool's Atheist Board and other atheist sites. You guys are waaaay out of the mainstream.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=religion+in+america+graph&...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The point still stands that the right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing right, not one created by the Constitution. Therefore it's illegitimate to infringe on that right even if the Constitution is amended (not that I expect it to be). It stands above the Constitution, just like the right to life, the right to free expression, etc.

Abortion is legal, so that's a limitation on the "right to life" as you can't force all pregnant women to carry to term. Killing someone in self defense is another limitation on the right to life (of the aggressor). The right to free expression is not without limitation, as one can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater or freely libel or slander someone.

Similarly, the right to bear arms is not without limitation. Does it include just firearms, or knives and nukes? Is a right to self-defense subsumed within the right to bear arms? Can government limit access to certain types of weapons by certain people in certain situations? Of course it can, and it does, and it should.

When you assert that the right to bear arms is paramount, and above the reach of the law, I wonder what system of government you are actually advocating for.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 26
They are violating the rights of their people. It shouldn't be surprising that governments deprive their citizens of rights illegitimately, that's the default situation throughout history. That doesn't mean it is correct or even desireable, however. We should strive to do better, and often have (moreso than anyone else arguably).

________________

By the what I see as more than slightly skewed reasoning the person you are debating with would seem to be saying that Jews did not have the right to life in Germany during the late 30 and early 40s

Rights transcend government, but a decent government protects rights, while a terrible one violates them and a merely bad one does not understand what they actually are.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Can government limit access to certain types of weapons by certain people in certain situations? Of course it can, and it does, and it should.

Better be careful with those "shoulds" or you'll should all over yourself.

The practical reality is that when guns are banned, only criminals will have guns. That's a F-A-C-T.

This evening on CNN, Anderson Cooper will explore why Chicago, which has the strictest (or one of the strictest) gun control laws in America, is overrun with guns, mainly in the hands of criminals.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The practical reality is that when guns are banned, only criminals will have guns. That's a F-A-C-T.

___________________________________

This is just thrown out there as interesting (at least to me) but still nascent data review for me. Puerto Rico, gun control, murder interesting stats and some interesting stuff there.

From again very early look, it seems to have an insane murder rate and above average gun control, plus it not being contiguous to location selling guns makes it a more interesting place to look at.

Again, this was just at a very very brief look, but for those of you who enjoy this type of my that's interesting research I though I would mention it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
My statement isn't based on data, but does anyone believe that laws are going to prevent criminals from obtaining guns? After all, they're criminals because laws mean little to nothing to them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"There is "so much disagreement" only on the Fool's Atheist Board and other atheist sites. You guys are waaaay out of the mainstream." - catherine

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=religion+in+america+graph&...

--------------------------------


And they will change their minds soon enough after their "soul" pops out of their body. There have been many atheist NDE's and almost uniformly change their minds when they come back.

"For years Dr. Eben Alexander III had dismissed near-death revelations of God and heaven as explainable by the hard wiring of the human brain. He was, after all, a neurosurgeon with sophisticated medical training.

But then in 2008 Alexander contracted bacterial meningitis. The deadly infection sent him into a deep coma. During that time, he now says, he was living intensely in his mind. He was reborn into a primitive mucky Jell-O-like substance and then guided by "a beautiful girl with high cheekbones and deep blue eyes" on the wings of a butterfly to an "immense void" that is both "pitch black" and "brimming with light" coming from an "orb" that interprets for an all-loving God.

Alexander, 58, was so changed by the experience that he felt compelled to write a book, "Proof of Heaven," which recounts his experience. He knew full well that he was gambling his professional reputation by writing it, but his hope is that his expertise will be enough to persuade skeptics, particularly medical skeptics, as he used to be, to open their minds to an afterworld."


http://www.mercurynews.com/entertainment/ci_22210188/intervi...

NDE Analysis of Atheists

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/atheists01.html

Death After Denying the Afterlife
The Near-Death Experiences of Atheists

http://www.near-death.com/atheists.html


Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"This evening on CNN, Anderson Cooper will explore why Chicago, which has the strictest (or one of the strictest) gun control laws in America, is overrun with guns, mainly in the hands of criminals. "


You already know what he is going to say

1) THey go to nearby places and buy them

2) they go to gun shows and buy them



What you won't tell you

1) It is illegal to buy a gun as a felon and the system usually, with 99.999% accuracy, denies a 'buy request' from a felon.

2) It is illegal to POSSESS a handgun if you are a felon, or have been convicted of misdemeanor Domestic Violence in most cases (usually the conviction means you 'voluntarily' surrender your guns till probation is done and that might be 10 years).

3) Criminals never follow the gun laws.

4) Chicago openly supports criminals and illegals. Supports drug gangs because it can't be bothered to fight them. Doesn't have money in the budget for gang control because the money is spent on the welfare weenies and queenies.

Chicago has probably a 1/2 million to million illegals...who, golly gee, have no interest in 'following the law'. It probably has ten tons of cocaine smuggled in each month and 500 tons of pot.

I'd bet it has some of the worst outpatient care for mental cases in the USA, too.


IF you want to stop the 'gun violence' in Chicago, you've got to be serious about 'gang control'. They aren't.

Aurora, the second largest city in IL, went after the gangs 15 years and continues to this day with major gang intervention programs. They send gang perps up the river..... it had ZERO murders last year. Chicago had over 500

Night and day.

What works vs what doesn't.


But, Anderson cooper will tell you you need another law on top of the 20,000 existing gun laws to solve the problem

Wrong.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And discussion ender. You can't have a rational discussion with someone who sincerely believes they're right because God is on their side and not yours
***


Why can't you have a rational discussion with such a person?

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Better be careful with those "shoulds" or you'll should all over yourself.

What a useful contribution.

The practical reality is that when guns are banned, only criminals will have guns. That's a F-A-C-T.

The post to which you responded did not discuss or propose outright bans on all guns.

This evening on CNN, Anderson Cooper will explore why Chicago, which has the strictest (or one of the strictest) gun control laws in America, is overrun with guns, mainly in the hands of criminals.

It is Chicago's legislative choice to restrict gun ownership. That this policy is so easily defeated by profit-seekers in nearby jurisdictions selling guns they know can wind up in Chicago merely illustrates the challenge of regulating gun ownership effectively.

We can shrug and move on as each massacre occurs, tossing off any concern by resorting to bumper sticker thinking, or we can get serious about figuring out how to adopt effective regulation nationwide.

Other countries have done it. Maybe we just don't care enough about each other to bother here.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Better be careful with those "shoulds" or you'll should all over yourself.

What a useful contribution.

Other countries have done it.
------------------------
Talk about useful contributions. The famous, "other countries have done it" contribution. Liberals are famous for that one, except when they don't like what other countries have done, like a territorial tax system, then it becomes "we've always done it this way". The most lazy argument evah!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
This evening on CNN, Anderson Cooper will explore why Chicago, which has the strictest (or one of the strictest) gun control laws in America, is overrun with guns, mainly in the hands of criminals.

It's possible (likely I'd say) that he'll conclude that it is the "lax" gun laws in surrounding areas that are flooding the streets of Chicago with guns.

Of course if he does I wonder if he'd ask the obvious next question... why aren't those other areas as dangerous as Chicago? After all, if the guns are coming from these other areas then these other areas have just as much access (moreso in fact!) as the denizens of Chicago, so why are the streets of Chicago running red with blood while those other areas are not?

One could also ask the same question of Detroit and the suburbs (which have the SAME gun laws as it happens).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And they will change their minds soon enough after their "soul" pops out of their body.

Too late!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is just thrown out there as interesting (at least to me) but still nascent data review for me. Puerto Rico, gun control, murder interesting stats and some interesting stuff there.

From again very early look, it seems to have an insane murder rate and above average gun control, plus it not being contiguous to location selling guns makes it a more interesting place to look at.


Take a look at Jamaica's stats/draconian gun laws if you want an eye-opener.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Talk about useful contributions. The famous, "other countries have done it" contribution. Liberals are famous for that one, except when they don't like what other countries have done, like a territorial tax system, then it becomes "we've always done it this way". The most lazy argument evah!

Oh no, I can think of many lazier arguments.

For instance, 20 kids were killed because God isn't allowed in schools.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oh no, I can think of many lazier arguments.

For instance, 20 kids were killed because God isn't allowed in schools.
----------------------------------------------------
I don't recall that argument being used here though, at least i didn't see it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't recall that argument being used here though, at least i didn't see it.

The subject is gun rights and regulations.

I don't recall posting about territorial tax issues or what liberals always say or do. It was you who detoured into those topics, perhaps for want of anything to contribute to the thread's subject matter?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And discussion ender. You can't have a rational discussion with someone who sincerely believes they're right because God is on their side and not yours
***
Why can't you have a rational discussion with such a person?


Because a belief one's position is right because it's God's position isn't rational. It's faith.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't recall posting about territorial tax issues or what liberals always say or do. It was you who detoured into those topics, perhaps for want of anything to contribute to the thread's subject matter?
---------------------------------------------------------
I used territorial tax issues as an example of when liberals use the "that's the way we've always done it" excuse as opposed to the "other countries do it" excuse, it's the trick they use to have it both ways. I brought up territorial tax issues to save time from you posting that liberals never say "that's the way we've always done it" when debating, because they do, same for when Social Security reform was debated. I don't like to waste time when debating and i thought i'd shut you up before you got started with your preening. Now back to your knee jerk lets control the guns while Sandy Hook is fresh in everyones mind because we can only win an argument using emotion.....thread.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"For instance, 20 kids were killed because God isn't allowed in schools. "

Any godthingie so powerless and so in need of a constant 24 hour a day groveling and reminders to grovel to it.....

isn't worthy of any human praise....but scorn as a pitiful ancient man made creation of essentially zero power.

You mean not one of the kids cried out 'god save me'......and was still slaughtered? hmmmm.....

This godthingie can save a 'wretch' in the middle of a hurricane...but can't save a kid in a building?

that's the stupidity of modern religion. And 'belief'....



t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Because a belief one's position is right because it's God's position isn't rational. It's faith.
-----------------------------------------------------
So's the position that the government will run things better than the private sector. Only it's worse than faith because all the real world examples would lead you to the opposite conclusion.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
For instance, 20 kids were killed because God isn't allowed in schools.

Oh, for cryin' out loud. What is allowed in schools are impressionable young people on psychotropic drugs. Have you checked out yet how often psychotropic drugs are involved in mass murders?

Didn't think so.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't recall posting about territorial tax issues or what liberals always say or do. It was you who detoured into those topics, perhaps for want of anything to contribute to the thread's subject matter?

Listening to libruls pontificate is a brain-scrambling experience. They make little to no sense at all.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I don't recall posting about territorial tax issues or what liberals always say or do. It was you who detoured into those topics, perhaps for want of anything to contribute to the thread's subject matter?
---------------------------------------------------------
I used territorial tax issues as an example of when liberals use the "that's the way we've always done it" excuse as opposed to the "other countries do it" excuse, it's the trick they use to have it both ways. I brought up territorial tax issues to save time from you posting that liberals never say "that's the way we've always done it" when debating, because they do, same for when Social Security reform was debated. I don't like to waste time when debating and i thought i'd shut you up before you got started with your preening. Now back to your knee jerk lets control the guns while Sandy Hook is fresh in everyones mind because we can only win an argument using emotion.....thread.

_______________________________________________________

I'm throwing a 15rec penalty for explaining in the face of knowing someone will never be able to grasp the obvious.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I don't like to waste time when debating and i thought i'd shut you up before you got started with your preening. Now back to your knee jerk lets control the guns while Sandy Hook is fresh in everyones mind because we can only win an argument using emotion.....

You've made no attempt to engage me in debate at all or to address this issue at all in this thread. I don't recall having any type of offensive exchange with you until the one you just posted.

It was apparently enough to tee you off that I came into this Board and questioned something you apparently can't be bothered to discuss, let alone defend, which was the OP's assertion that the right to bear arms stems from some source greater, and more authoritative, than our laws and the Constitution. He suggested, if I understood him correctly, that our government does not have authority to limit that right, even via Constitutional amendment. I found that assertion disturbing enough to show up and post in this thread, because I believe in the rule of law, not government-by-hothead.

Your response poses a similar concern, in that it makes me wonder how discussion about reasonable gun regulation can ever be had with one group (which I don't think represents the majority of gun owners) essentially losing their ever-lovin' minds over this.

It suggests there are far fewer responsible gun-owning Americans than I thought. Not good.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Because a belief one's position is right because it's God's position isn't rational. It's faith
****

How do you know it's just faith?


Leaders like President Ahmadenijad feel that God is on his side, and not America's. Obama proposed talks with such a fellow. My President is too bright, I believe to engage in meaningless discussions with someone who thinks God is on his side and not ours.

Also, I think judgemental Americans should not insult people in other regions who may well believe, and actually do believe that God is on their side. It's part of the reason "they hate us" and we shouldnt' be so "black and white".

But then we'll have Felix out there with his t-shirt that reads "these colors don't run" telling people in other lands that they are irrational based on their religious beliefs.

Ugly Americans. No wonder.

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Your response poses a similar concern, in that it makes me wonder how discussion about reasonable gun regulation can ever be had with one group (which I don't think represents the majority of gun owners) essentially losing their ever-lovin' minds over this.

I anticipate that any attempt by the government to repeal the 2nd Amendment would result in civil war. Libruls may as well forget even trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment and replacing it with some type of "regulation."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I anticipate that any attempt by the government to repeal the 2nd Amendment would result in civil war.

Three-fourths of the states must agree in order to, as you put it, "repeal" the Second Amendment. The government cannot just wake up one morning and do so. Civil war, really? Who's using emotion in this debate again?

Libruls may as well forget even trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment and replacing it with some type of "regulation."

No repeal is required. The Supreme Court in Heller recognized room for reasonable governmental regulation of Second Amendment rights. Legal challenges to the 1994 assault weapons ban failed. They would fail again if assault weapons are banned once more.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Why can't you have a rational discussion with such a person?

JediG


You are kidding?

When God is on their side, how can anyone else hold a different opinion? Obviously, their position is evil and there can be no discussion or compromise.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You are kidding? When God is on their side, how can anyone else hold a different opinion? Obviously, their position is evil and there can be no discussion or compromise.

God's will is a formidable opponent, but most Christians recognize that not everyone believes as they do, so they can hardly rely on numbers. If they could, Owebama probably would not have been re-elected.

As others have shown, however, cogent arguments can be made for liberty without invoking God.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
When God is on their side, how can anyone else hold a different opinion? Obviously, their position is evil and there can be no discussion or compromise.
***

yes President Bush, we are the arbiters of what is good and evil.

JediG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
As others have shown, however, cogent arguments can be made for liberty without invoking God.

When I previous stated that compromise was needed, the response (which I don't believe was from you) was basically "I didn't understand. How could I expect someone to compromise with evil."

but most Christians recognize that not everyone believes as they do,\

but it doesn't stop them trying to enforce their faith on others.

Clearly at least 1 in 3 women don't agree with outlawing abortion.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Clearly at least 1 in 3 women don't agree with outlawing abortion.

Let's not talk about the other two. Uh huh. Clearly.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
They want the church in charge of government. - FMNH

---------------

That's a lie!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sooz welcome to Bizzaro world. If you find anyone willing to have a reasoned argument here let me know. But I ain't holing my breath. Many have tried. In this space it doesn't matter how correct you are. It only matters how right you are.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Sooz welcome to Bizzaro world. If you find anyone willing to have a reasoned argument here let me know. But I ain't holing my breath. Many have tried. In this space it doesn't matter how correct you are. It only matters how right you are." - jakalant
--------------------------------------


Reminds me of a cartoon I saw online awhile ago. In the cartoon a wife was calling her husband to dinner but he replied to his wife, "just a minute! Someone said something wrong on the internet!" as he was feverishly replying....<grin>



Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What's the point of debating a lib? They'll never change their mind about any librul ideology.

I used to think abortion was fine and capital punishment was terrible. Now I think just the opposite. So, see, I can change my mind. A librul can't.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Clearly at least 1 in 3 women don't agree with outlawing abortion.

Let's not talk about the other two. Uh huh. Clearly.


1 in 3 have had to take action demonstrating their opinion.

It doesn't say anything about the others.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
He suggested, if I understood him correctly, that our government does not have authority to limit that right, even via Constitutional amendment.

I suggested that? Hmmm, I thought I stated it in no uncertain terms. Just to be clear, our government does NOT have the authority to take away our right to keep and bear arms suitable to the defense of ourselves or our communities via even a Constitutional amendment. The people are sovereign, we have inalienable rights, that is one of them. Any attempt by the government to infringe upon these rights will be resisted by any means necessary. Thankfully SCOTUS is very likely to take any such infringements and tear them up in 0bama's smug, smarmy face.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The Supreme Court in Heller recognized room for reasonable governmental regulation of Second Amendment rights.

They also said that those weapons in common use are protected by the Second Amendment. Millions of semi-automatic firearms are owned and used by civilians. Sounds like common use to me. Feel free to argue before SCOTUS that millions constitutes abnormal use. Didn't help D.C. to make that argument, nor Chicago.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Issue
•What rights are protected by the Second Amendment?


Holding and Rule (Scalia)
•The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. This prohibition would fail constitutional muster under any standard of scrutiny. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is therefore unconstitutional.


The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time.

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The scope of the Heller decision seems to suggest "common use" for self-defense, not use for other purposes such as target practice. It might be tough to argue that rifles, while certainly being owned by millions of folks and some of those folks use it solely for self-defense and/or for target practice, fall primarily for self-defense under the commone use. That's where I think the gun control lawyers might argue that semi-auto rifles don't apply under the "common use" and therefore could be more strictly regulated. I hope they fail on that effort of course.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Let's see...in Switzerland everyone house has a gun. Isn't that a minefeld? and they are ASSAULT WEAPONS. State of the art fully automatic weapons!

They are "assault rifles". That term actually has a coherent technical definition based on significant features that affect capability.

Unlike "assault weapon", which is usually defined as having three or more out of a list of features most of which have nothing to do with capability - and such definitions usually are accompanied by a list of weapons (specific manufacturer/make/model) that are "assault weapons" in spite of not having three of the features, and a second list of weapons that are not "assault weapons" even though they have three or more of the features.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The 2nd Amendment could be repealed. The whole thing could be repealed. Unlikely, of course, but certainly not impossible.

In the ratification debates for the US Constitution, the two major sides were:

The anti-Federalists: the Constitution gives too much power to the central government, but we might be willing to tolerate it if there's a Bill of Rights attached.

The Federalists: the Constitution does NOT give too much power to the central government, and in particular it does not give that government any power to violate the rights that you clowns are demanding be protected in a Bill of Rights. But we can go along with this utterly pointless Bill of Rights if that's what it takes to get the Constitution ratified.

The legislative history of the Constitution says that in the absence of the 2nd Amendment, the national government has no authority or power to restrict private possession of weapons.

In fact, it definitely has the power and arguably has an obligation to encourage private possession of weapons, and to require state/local governments to provide training in their safe use and storage.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Thankfully SCOTUS is very likely to take any such infringements and tear them up in 0bama's smug, smarmy face. - ZColocion

-------------------

likely? Recall the recent SCOTUS decision that the second amendment meant an individual right to keep and bear. It was 5-4. Obama is just one appointment away from reversing that decision.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
God's will is a formidable opponent, but most Christians recognize that not everyone believes as they do

So why are so many of them shocked that people who don't believe that abortion is killing a child aren't upset about the number of children killed in abortions?

(If you don't believe that abortion is killing an child, then you believe the number of children killed in abortions is approximately zero.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
God's will is a formidable opponent, but most Christians recognize that not everyone believes as they do.

So why are so many of them shocked that people who don't believe that abortion is killing a child aren't upset about the number of children killed in abortions? (If you don't believe that abortion is killing an child, then you believe the number of children killed in abortions is approximately zero.)

Good point. Personally, I'm not so much shocked but dismayed that anyone would think that killing a partially formed human isn't, if not murder, then certainly not desirable--especially when so many people are seeking to adopt infants.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
(If you don't believe that abortion is killing an child, then you believe the number of children killed in abortions is approximately zero.)
_________________________________

Is anyone arguing that ?

Heck if non-Muslims aren't really humans then killing non-Muslims is not killing. No one was murdered on 9/11/01 that's a relief.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Should we acknowledge that the U.S. Constitution is filled with “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions,” and “extricat[e] ourselves from constitutional bondage” by cashiering the document?

“As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken,” argues Louis Michael Seidman, tasked with teaching constitutional law at the Georgetown University Law Center . And the Constitution, he asserts, is largely to blame.

The Constitution, he writes, was adopted by a “group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation . . . and thought it was fine to own slaves.” The Framers acted illegally in drafting the Constitution because they exceeded their power. Moreover, “[n]o sooner was the Constitution in place than our leaders began ignoring it.” And ignoring it is often a good thing: FDR did it for example, and so did the Supreme Court when it banned school segregation.



Read more: http://joemiller.us/2013/01/american-tories-attacking-the-fo...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Rights transcend government, but a decent government protects rights, while a terrible one violates them and a merely bad one does not understand what they actually are.


What about my right to live in a safe community free of the fear of deranged nut jobs running loose with handguns and assault rifles?

Forget even the deranged nutjobs, what about my right to live in a community where only trained professionals enforce the laws and where I do not have to worry about getting caught in the crossfire of every paranoid Rambo wannabee?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Should we acknowledge that the U.S. Constitution is filled with “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions,” and “extricat[e] ourselves from constitutional bondage” by cashiering the document?

Freedom is so 223 years ago. ;-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
What about my right to live in a safe community free of the fear of deranged nut jobs running loose with handguns and assault rifles?

Forget even the deranged nutjobs, what about my right to live in a community where only trained professionals enforce the laws and where I do not have to worry about getting caught in the crossfire of every paranoid Rambo wannabee?


I'd say your views are the deranged ones and perhaps a country that is willing to infringe upon the rights of their citizens to keep and bear arms would be more to your liking. There are dozens and dozens to choose from. Hey, what can I say, freedom just isn't for everyone eh!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 22
" What about my right to live in a safe community free of the fear of deranged nut jobs running loose with handguns and assault rifles? "

SOmehow, I missed your 'imagined' right to live in a safe community free from folks owning guns.

I also missed the part where you are entitled to live in a neighborhood with only 'good' neighbors, never letting a criminal live within 20 miles of your location, and maybe even making sure that everyone is 'above average' in intelligence and achievement. right? why should your kids have to go to schools with folks with IQs lower than 100. It's your 'right' to a good enducation for your 'above average kids' and they shouldn't be forced to play with, being in the same classroom, or associate with kids that don't 'look like them'. their rights, of course......

and surely you don't want 'immigrants' in your neighborhood with maybe different values. You have a 'right' to a secure, non-crime neighborhood. Heck, anyone who has been convicted of anything has to move. Especially a DUI. Get a DUI and you'd have to move out of the 'safe neighborhood' because, well, you'd likely mow down some family sooner or later, or run down your kid on his bike.

Drug conviction.? Oh, we want to live in safe neighborhoods 'free' of drugs. Anyone caught with an illegal drug would have to move out of the nieghborhood. Our kids have a 'right' to a drug free environment. We'll simply banish all caught drug users out of the community. That's defending our 'right' to a drug free neighborhood, right?

ANd before you know it, we'll go after the people with different religions, those who have large families , those who own barking dogs......

Don't we have a right to live in a neighborhood free of nuisance barking dogs! OUtlaw dogs...especially ones that bite small kids and KILL them at times!...... got to get those killer dogs off the streets...outlaw them. Make their owners take a mental test!.....make sure they are 'fit' to own a dog and take a 100 hour dog ownership test. Then pay a $250/yr per dog registration fee and have the police come and inspect the home and yard to be sure the dog is 'secure' at all times!

We have that 'right' , no?


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What about my right to live in a safe community free of the fear of deranged nut jobs running loose with handguns and assault rifles?

Forget even the deranged nutjobs, what about my right to live in a community where only trained professionals enforce the laws and where I do not have to worry about getting caught in the crossfire of every paranoid Rambo wannabee?


I'd say your views are the deranged ones and perhaps a country that is willing to infringe upon the rights of their citizens to keep and bear arms would be more to your liking. There are dozens and dozens to choose from. Hey, what can I say, freedom just isn't for everyone eh!


Actually we have 2 locales in the US that bans carrying firearms for personal protection outside the home or place of business.

New York City-which has a bonus you are protected from sodas larger than 16 ounces & trans fats in restaurants. Sorry I don't remember if the salt ban was enacted. Murder rate 6.4
&
District of Columbia Murder rate 21.9

US murder rate 4.7

Murder rates courstey of Wikipedia.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Forget even the deranged nutjobs, what about my right to live in a community where only trained professionals enforce the laws ...?

If you can get rid of the criminals, fine by me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
What about my right to live in a safe community free of the fear of deranged nut jobs running loose with handguns and assault rifles?

Forget even the deranged nutjobs, what about my right to live in a community where only trained professionals enforce the laws and where I do not have to worry about getting caught in the crossfire of every paranoid Rambo wannabee?

Beridian


It is so obvious that you are a liberal. You have delusions that deranged nut jobs run around loose with handguns and assault rifles because there are no laws to stop them, as if deranged nut jobs would ever be concerned about being law-abiding citizens.

While we are at it, we should make drugs illegal so that addicts stop using them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
SOmehow, I missed your 'imagined' right to live in a safe community free from folks owning guns.

They could always just buy up 500 acres of land, put their house in the middle, put up a fence and they can live as gun-free as they want to in their own little self-imposed gun-free zone.

But on my property? Yeah, I'm going to have guns. Lots of them. Loaded and ready to go at a moment's notice. I may trust my neighbors (those I know) but I don't trust the people traipsing through, everyone my neighbors know, all the workers in the area, etc. And no, my neighbors don't have the right nor the power to disarm me to make themselves feel better. That ain't freedom.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I used to think abortion was fine and capital punishment was terrible. Now I think just the opposite. So, see, I can change my mind. A librul can't.



I've changed my mind on abortion over the years. I voted for Bush Sr in the hopes that he would stack the Court to overturn Roe. Over the next few years, though, I saw the error of my ways and voted for Clinton in '92.


I'm OK with capital punishment in theory, but the reality of crooked cops and prosecutors and the system slanted against minorities has convinced me that it is not workable. People get all worked up about a mass murderer like Ted Bundy, and rightfully so, but there are too many cases of innocent people being convicted to let emotion dictate policy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
beridan:"Forget even the deranged nutjobs, what about my right to live in a community where only trained professionals enforce the laws ...?"


Those 'trained professionals' don't even have an 'obligation' to show up at your door when you plead for help.

And if your phone line is cut, or the cellphone service is down - like in a hurricane aftermath......

and the criminals are out looting, raping, pillaging, and worse....and killing...

and you're all alone in your house in the dark...and the gang of 3 or 4 thugs kicks in your door.....

yeah....you really want to be in that position.....especially when one of them is at the back door and two are coming through the front door....and your wife is screaming and the kids are screaming 'daddy, do something'......


------


In many places...the police will show up 45 minutes later...... to find you dead or beaten up.....your wife raped.....

or try calling them in the middle of a snow storm up north....zero visibility...but that doesn't always stop the perps.....




Unless you live in a nice gated community like Barack Obama does in the Chicago hood.......you have no guarantee that the police will show up ever when you need them. None. Zip.



t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In many places...the police will show up 45 minutes later...... to find you dead or beaten up.....your wife raped.....

Why weren't libruls shocked and mortified by this story? Because they think evil like this doesn't happen, or the "trained professionals" will intervene in a timely way.

Dr. William Petit Takes the Stand, Tells of His Family's Slaughter

http://abcnews.go.com/US/dr-william-petit-testifies-trial-fa...

In dramatic testimony, a prominent Connecticut doctor described how he was beaten in his sleep and woke up face-to-face with two men who sexually assaulted, tortured and killed his wife and two daughters in a brutal home invasion.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I have a friend whose elderly parents--both of them--were murdered as they slept by a drug crazed neighbor who is now serving a life sentence. The husband was able to momentarily escape, but he had nothing with which to defend himself and his wife. The cops showed up AFTER they were bludgeoned to death.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What about my right to live in a safe community free of the fear of deranged nut jobs running loose with handguns and assault rifle

Move to DC or Chicago, both gun-free zones.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
yeah....you really want to be in that position.....especially when one of them is at the back door and two are coming through the front door....and your wife is screaming and the kids are screaming 'daddy, do something'......

We all know what a liberal like him would do in that situation.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"What about my right to live in a safe community free of the fear of deranged nut jobs running loose with handguns and assault rifle

Move to DC or Chicago, both gun-free zones. "


And New York City, too!




t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 22
telegraph, Colovion,

I think Beridian is on to something here. Since we're in the world of make-believe rights, I demand that Beridian work to fulfill my right to be free of liberal nonsense. And let me be the first to demand (first in time, first in right), that no other rights may be considered until my rights are fulfilled. I like this liberal way of thinking; give me what I want first, and then we can discuss what you want. That is, as long as I'm first.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"We all know what a liberal like him would do in that situation. "


Yes, he or she would explain to them that there are some people that are vicious criminals, but that his/her friends have decided should be out on the streets getting 'out patient counseling' , and that when the people break in, they should all make sure they don not 'diss' those people breaking in, and maybe they won't hurt us. Maybe. (even though they are screaming about raping the women, killing the men, demanding at least $20,000 in jewelry and cash or you're dead meat'.....)....

The lib would likely tell his wife and kids to scream even louder....at least until they had been shot at least once...



Yes, he/she would figure they had a 10% chance of talking the criminals out of a life of crime.


Try that on the naked crazed drugged out home invasion perp in Miami who took on the family pit bull, tried to strangle it, attacked the home owner..... and make it 3 crazy people doing it....


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I demand that Beridian work to fulfill my right to be free of liberal nonsense.

I demand that Beridian work to fulfill my right to be free of responsibility.

Beridian, what's your address? I'm going to forward all my bills to you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
yeah....you really want to be in that position.....especially when one of them is at the back door and two are coming through the front door....and your wife is screaming and the kids are screaming 'daddy, do something'......

We all know what a liberal like him would do in that situation.
__________________________

A Henny Youngman impersonation?

Take my wife, please
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Let's see...in Switzerland everyone house has a gun. Isn't that a minefeld? and they are ASSAULT WEAPONS. State of the art fully automatic weapons!

They are "assault rifles". That term actually has a coherent technical definition based on significant features that affect capability.


I was mistaken; the Swiss do NOT routinely have assault rifles in their home.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
LOL!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
(If you don't believe that abortion is killing an child, then you believe the number of children killed in abortions is approximately zero.)
_________________________________

Is anyone arguing that ?


Anybody who doesn't believe that abortion is killing a child is inherently arguing that.

And expecting them to be appalled at all the children being killed in abortions, simply shows that you either (a) are not listening to them at all or (b) are incapable of reason.

Neither is likely to get them to listen to you.

Heck if non-Muslims aren't really humans then killing non-Muslims is not killing. No one was murdered on 9/11/01 that's a relief.

Hey, I am not faulting those who think that abortion kills children for being upset about the children being killed. I am faulting them for assuming that everyone agrees with them on this definitional issue - including those who explicitly and loudly disagree with them on it.

(And yes, there's a crowd on the other side committing the same error. And the same is true of most other controversies.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I was mistaken; the Swiss do NOT routinely have assault rifles in their home.

Automatic assault weapons are only in the homes of men in the Swiss militia.

First about the Swiss army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland
The Military of Switzerland perform the roles of Switzerland's militia and regular army. Under the country's militia system, professional soldiers constitute about 5 percent of military personnel; the rest are male citizen conscripts 19 to 34 (in some cases up to 50) years old.

The reform "Army XXI" was adopted by popular vote in 2003. It replaced the previous model "Army 95", reducing manpower from 400,000 to about 200,000 personnel,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers).
Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, military police, medical and postal personnel) at home.


Thus I would expect about 200,000 full automatic assault weapons in a country of 8 million.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"I was mistaken; the Swiss do NOT routinely have assault rifles in their home. "

No..you were mistaken on your mistake.

The Swiss have FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons. Those are classified as 'assault rifles' by everyone. No question.

However, the libs seem to think that 'scary looking guns'......are 'assault rifles'. Even though they cannot be fully automatic by US law.

And of course, libs think that anything that holds more than one shot is an 'assault rifle'.

heck, rifles and guns that hold more than one shot go back 150 years or more. Even further really since you had 'double barrel shotguns'....300 years ago.





t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What about my right to not be subjected to liberals trying to run my life?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
It is so obvious that you are a liberal. You have delusions that deranged nut jobs run around loose with handguns and assault rifles because there are no laws to stop them, as if deranged nut jobs would ever be concerned about being law-abiding citizens.

While we are at it, we should make drugs illegal so that addicts stop using them.


It's not delusional to observe that arming civilians with firearms in densely populated areas is going to produce unintended consequences, especially if they're allowed to carry the firearms outside their homes. (Even from inside the home you can kill a trick-or-treater who is mistaken for a trespasser in your front yard, as a guy in Florida did a few years back.) This is a legitimate concern. You've got no answer for it, so you've gone with the default "you're a lib" response that's been invoked a number of times in this thread when folks have no answer to a valid concern.

"Neener-neener" takes too long to type, apparently.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
SooozFool added to your Favorite Fools list.

I was thinking you were quite a fast learner because you'd done the correct thing in not wasting your time responding to the ____________, but then you did respond.

Then I read your response.


Bravo.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
'Fraid Sooozie-Q doesn't get any bravos today. S/he thinks that banning guns will keep guns out of the hands of criminals, a librul urban legend that has been debunked time and time again.

If banning guns worked, Washington, DC and New York City would be the safest cities in the country. Since 1976, it's been illegal in Washington, DC to own any handguns or to keep any type of gun in your home unlocked and fully assembled. However, Washington, DC is among the most murderous cities in America.

New York City has had severe gun control laws since 1911, yet it also ranks among the most dangerous places in the country. In both cities, violent criminals can easily obtain the most deadly weapons on the streets within minutes.

A national gun ban won't help. With an estimated 220+ million guns now in the US, an unpoliceable 12,000 miles of borders and coastlines, and the world's largest stock of precision machine tools, criminals will always be able to buy, steal or make guns and ammunition.

A competent backyard mechanic can build a rifle or handgun. Even Afghan peasants, using tools considerably inferior to those in the Sears catalog, have built machine guns capable of firing Soviet AK-47 cartridges.

Illegal home production of handguns is already a fact of life; a BATF study found that one-fifth of the guns seized by police in Washington, DC were homemade.

So, you see, you may feel better--feeling being the hallmark of librul thought--saying that banning guns will keep America safe, but all it will do is keep criminals armed because obviously criminals don't care about gun laws. If they did, they wouldn't be criminals but would be law abiding citizens.

Sometimes libruls are so dumb.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
With an estimated 220+ million guns now in the US, an unpoliceable 12,000 miles of borders and coastlines, and the world's largest stock of precision machine tools, criminals will always be able to buy, steal or make guns and ammunition.

In the not distance future, it is going to be possible to print a gun.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In the not [too] distance [sic] future, it is going to be possible to print a gun.

Well, there you go. In that case, we'd better look at all the other components to violence in America--influence of violent media, psychotropic drugs, illegal gun ownership, gun free zones, etc.--to get a handle on why tragedies like Sandy Hook occurred.

A Primer on 3D Printing
http://www.ted.com/talks/lisa_harouni_a_primer_on_3d_printin...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"It is so obvious that you are a liberal."

It is obvious you are a dishonest idealogue.

" You have delusions that deranged nut jobs run around loose with handguns and assault rifles because there are no laws to stop them, as if deranged nut jobs would ever be concerned about being law-abiding citizens."

That is a rather poor mischaracterization of his view. Perhaps you might want to try a better, more honest one.

It would be more credible.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It's not delusional to observe that arming civilians with firearms in densely populated areas is going to produce unintended consequences, especially if they're allowed to carry the firearms outside their homes. (Even from inside the home you can kill a trick-or-treater who is mistaken for a trespasser in your front yard, as a guy in Florida did a few years back.) This is a legitimate concern. You've got no answer for it, so you've gone with the default "you're a lib" response that's been invoked a number of times in this thread when folks have no answer to a valid concern.
_______________________________________

You are basing your position on a person so odd that they did not recognize that there might be kids trick or treating on Halloween, so he shot them?

Would have been better had he attacked the kid with a bat?

What is a legitimate concern that you can come up with one case in a huge country several years ago dealing with someone who is either deranged or so dumb it is nearly unimaginable?

There are so many cases of cars being used for harm, by a huge number of things.

The problem IS, that you are a lib, your master's find something that your master's find something you are not impacted by, call it evil and distract you, like an earring to an infant.

In the meantime, your dependence on the state grows, and your belief that we are all responsible to give according to our abilities so others can take according to their needs, that you miss it is all about the leeches in the middle living off the power of the middle man with guns skimming off every productive being.

You have the audacity to mention unintended consequences, when your Master's sap people of their life's energy and create poverty and rob opportunity? Clueless,
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Would have been better had he attacked the kid with a bat?

Yeah, because he would have had to open the door to at least see who he was swinging the bat at. Also the kid would have at least had some chance of running away or perhaps other people in the area could have helped him. Having the gun in such a situation greatly narrows the possible outcomes.

Nobody is seriously talking about banning all guns. I respect your right to have a gun and to defend your families and your homes. I respect the right of responsible gun ownership. I own a gun.

We have a problem with too many guns falling into the wrong hands. We need reforms to help mitigate this problem. No solution will be perfect or solve the problem 100%, but we can do better. This is the discussion we should be having in this country.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
It is so obvious that you are a liberal. You have delusions that deranged nut jobs run around loose with handguns and assault rifles because there are no laws to stop them, as if deranged nut jobs would ever be concerned about being law-abiding citizens.

It is so obvious that you are a conservative. You take what someone says, twist it into something stupid, and then hold it up as some sort of "evidence". Constant duplicity is the conservative mode.

It's not laws against deranged nut jobs...that would be impossible. It's laws against gun proliferation that makes it easy even for nut jobs to get them.

Such laws work in every other civilized country, and yet in those other countries, responsible people can still get guns should they feel the need for some kind of penile enhancement.

It's obvious that American conservatives, and especially gun owners, are simply not responsible people, or they all need really serious enhancement.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
BEridan:""We have a problem with too many guns falling into the wrong hands. We need reforms to help mitigate this problem. No solution will be perfect or solve the problem 100%, but we can do better. This is the discussion we should be having in this country. "


Let's see? "Falling" into the wrong hands?

So Biden wants to make private gun sales legislated out of existence?

You really think that will stop the perp buying a gun on the street? He or she already does that. It's already a crime for a convicted felon to buy or merely posses a gun. What will one more law do other than try to make millions of citizens into 'criminals'?

LEt's see...maybe we should try to stop 'illegal drugs' from 'falling' into the wrong hands and ruining the lives of tens of millions of kids and young adults?

Oh..wait....we don't bother to do that worth a darn!.....you can buy pounds of cocaine and tons of pot in any city in the USA. Heck, in two states it's legal to own it and smoke it to your heart's content.

---

Unfortunately, your 'discussion' does nothing to keep criminals from getting and using guns,

And your 'discussion' does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of mentally 'challenged' (ie, insane or crazy) other people.

In the case of Virginia Tech.....the student's mental records are PROTECTED by GOVERNMENT mandates. The police could not access them, nor could the feds. He passed the background check.

In the case of Newtown, CT....the mother owned the guns, had a CHL, and passed every background check possible. So more rules would have done nothing there.


In the case of Columbine, the guns were legally owned ......and the kids STOLE them. Once again, more laws would have done nothing.


So, in all your discussions, you propose nothing that would have 'prevented' any of those. So there is no reason to discuss giving up rights.

Worse, you silly libs think that one 20 round magazine is horrible, but it takes someone who has practice can swap out a 10 round magazine in about 3 seconds....one.....two...three...reloaded......so that silly argument gets you nowhere either.....and you can buy magazines by the gazillion and folks do usually own several for their guns, so when they go target shooting they don't spend 90% of their time fumbling with individual bullets.

So.....when it comes to having a discussion, it is usually about silly things like 'mandatory gun registration' would have solved none of these...or even more silly, like 'bullet imprinting' or 'bullet registration'........ just to run the price of ammo sky high.


So why don't we start your discussion with 'how can we keep mental cases from going nuts from their psychotropic drugs that are way over prescribed' ? that likely cause more suicides...and folks like the mass murderers to go nutso?

That would be a 100% correlation to the last 4 'mass' shootings. Not anything else you proposed!





t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
jwiest:"It's laws against gun proliferation that makes it easy even for nut jobs to get them."

There's already 300 million weapons in the hands of Americans.

Obama has done more to boost gun sales than any President in history.


Nut jobs......your mental cases...are protected by federal laws. You can't have their 'doctor patient' records. It's not in the system. You can't incarcerate them without their permission and most don't know they are whacko....that's the law, folks.

We got too many folks on psychotropic drugs.....that cause suicide and other thoughts.....we need more study and controls on them.

Most of those 'nut cases' of yours were perfectly sane when they bought their weapons, or 'borrowed' them from legal owners.

With 300 million guns out there, it's likely that within a 1/2 mile radius of anyone in suburbia, there are dozens if not hundreds of weapons present.

What you really need to do is put gun criminals away for a long time. Now we play 'catch and release'. 27th conviction armed robbery gets you 3 weeks in the slammer. If that. Zero tolerance on pleas for second and beyond offenders.

When the cops and feds go after the gangs and perps, the crime rate plummets.

Joliet IL went after the gangs. Second largest city in IL. No murders last year. Meanwhile, the largest city in IL had 500 murders, 90% gang related. too many bleeding heart libs run the place. THey are soft on crime and criminals. It shows.







t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Beridian wrote: We have a problem with too many guns falling into the wrong hands. We need reforms to help mitigate this problem. No solution will be perfect or solve the problem 100%, but we can do better. This is the discussion we should be having in this country.

I think the order of discussion should be:

1. Proliferation and indiscriminate prescribing of psychotropic drugs for every conceivable problem
2. Lack of mental health services
3. Lack of school campaigns to deal with adolescent bullying (all while the media is the biggest bully of all)
4. Refusal to aggressively deal with gangs
5. Examination of promotion of violence by the media

When and only when these issues have been addressed should we consider the possibility of violating the Second Amendment.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There's already 300 million weapons in the hands of Americans.

I hope the number at least doubles...as quickly as possible. It's the only way to keep the government at bay--the knowledge that if the Dumbocrats try to take away our liberties, at least they'll have a fight on their hands.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think the order of discussion should be:

1. Proliferation and indiscriminate prescribing of psychotropic drugs for every conceivable problem
2. Lack of mental health services
3. Lack of school campaigns to deal with adolescent bullying (all while the media is the biggest bully of all)
4. Refusal to aggressively deal with gangs
5. Examination of promotion of violence by the media

When and only when these issues have been addressed should we consider the possibility of violating the Second Amendment.


I am fully in favor of working on all of these issues as well, however not to the exclusion of gun proliferation and guns falling into the wrong hands.

If your wife was diagnosed with cancer and your kid broke their arm, would you postpone getting your kid's arm treated until your wife's cancer was addressed? You seem to be saying we can only work on one issue at a time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
If your wife was diagnosed with cancer and your kid broke their arm, would you postpone getting your kid's arm treated until your wife's cancer was addressed? You seem to be saying we can only work on one issue at a time.
-----------------------------------------------------
Heh, heh. That reminds me of the dem response when Bush wanted to reform Social Security. Dems said Medicare was in much worse shape and we should work on that first (one issue at a time), then later republicans proposed reforming Medicare and democrats said republicans wanted to push granny off a cliff.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You really think that will stop the perp buying a gun on the street? He or she already does that. It's already a crime for a convicted felon to buy or merely posses a gun. What will one more law do other than try to make millions of citizens into 'criminals'?

It may not stop all perps from buying guns on the street but it will stop some of them, and I will gladly settle for any improvement over the status-quo. Where do you think all those guns are coming from that the perps are buying anyway? They originally came from somewhere and presumably were purchased legally at least once. This is the argument against gun proliferation, it is simple math, fewer guns in circulation equals fewer guns available to for perps to purchase on the streets.


LEt's see...maybe we should try to stop 'illegal drugs' from 'falling' into the wrong hands and ruining the lives of tens of millions of kids and young adults?


I am so weary of this silly argument. Our illegal drug laws are far from perfect, so lets work on them to make them better. You seem to espouse giving up the effort. We can do better with drugs and guns, let's work on both problems.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Beridan:"I am fully in favor of working on all of these issues as well, however not to the exclusion of gun proliferation and guns falling into the wrong hands."

You'd be a lot better off addressing drug addiction, the need for druggies to commit crimes by the millions to get their Oxycotin and other mind altering drugs, along with heroin and crack cocaine.

I'd start by executing anyone with a meth lab or in possession with intent to distribute cocaine, meth, heroin, crack, ecstasy, date rape drugs......

Quick trials....and a quick execution. That would cut gun and gang violence by 95% in less than a year.


And no, you are only interested in token legislation, depriving honest folks on the right to own a gun, and putting all sorts of impediments in their way to buy a gun, which will do nothing to keep them out of criminals hands. Remember, it is already a felony for a convicted felon to have a gun. or to even try to buy one.

There were 100 cases last year where felons tried to buy a gun legally. The fed system rejected them. Only nine of the cases were followed up on by the FBI, and the other 91 were just ignored!....your criminals trying to buy guns, and you libs didn't even bother to investigate and put them in jail!.......wow!...

and you want more laws you'll only selectively enforce? why? there are 20,000 gun laws now!

one more won't do anything but hassle innocent citizens.

Why don't you take a gun class and learn about firearms instead of being a gun fearing ninny?

-------



---------



Beridan:"If your wife was diagnosed with cancer and your kid broke their arm, would you postpone getting your kid's arm treated until your wife's cancer was addressed? You seem to be saying we can only work on one issue at a time."

No..since my wife would likely only go once a month for cancer treatment and it could easily be scheduled around getting my kid to the emergency room to take care of the broken arm.

Congress can't even work on one item at a time.

Show me a budget, now 4 years overdue.

Only they have time to pass 100 stupid laws a year designating things like city XX is the purple xyz flower capital of the world and june XX is national hot dog appreciation day and such silliness.

So what 'law' do you think would actually keep guns out of criminals hands? Be specific. Remember, 99% of the time, criminals can have their partner, spouse, ex, boyfriend, or other legally buy a gun, which later gets stolen and the perp has it. that, too, is a crime to buy a gun for someone else...but it doesn't seem to stop the crime element, nor would 'registering' them do anything to stop that, right?

SO give me a good law you would come up with that would not hassle the innocent citizens and actually stop gun crime!...please!....

t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I am fully in favor of working on all of these issues as well, however not to the exclusion of gun proliferation and guns falling into the wrong hands. [...] You seem to be saying we can only work on one issue at a time.

This is exactly why the NRA representative slammed Biden's so called summit on guns. It was a summit on gun control, not anything else.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Beridian wrote: It may not stop all perps from buying guns on the street but it will stop some of them...

It will stop the dumbest of the perps. The smartest perps will still have gund.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Heh, heh. That reminds me of the dem response when Bush wanted to reform Social Security. Dems said Medicare was in much worse shape and we should work on that first (one issue at a time), then later republicans proposed reforming Medicare and democrats said republicans wanted to push granny off a cliff. '
______________

Wellll......


Was granny a Dem?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Obama has done more to boost gun sales than any President in history.

No, hysterical fear of UN or Black Panther takeovers by an incredibly ignorant and stupid populace has done that. Angry white bedwetting males are at the forefront. Blaming it on Obama is just your excuse.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Blaming it on Obama is just your excuse.

It couldn't have anything to do with his Socialist redistributionist policies. Unh unh.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It couldn't have anything to do with his Socialist redistributionist policies. Unh unh.

LOL. Anybody who still uses those terms is living under a rock, in an echo chamber, in a mindset decades old and long discredited. Objectively, Obama is right of center. Maybe you should get out of that Fox bubble...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
It's not delusional to observe that arming civilians with firearms in densely populated areas is going to produce unintended consequences, especially if they're allowed to carry the firearms outside their homes. (Even from inside the home you can kill a trick-or-treater who is mistaken for a trespasser in your front yard, as a guy in Florida did a few years back.) This is a legitimate concern.

It is delusional - or something - to theorize about what "is going to" happen without looking at what DID happen.

And what DID happen, in several states that have loosened restrictions on possessing and carrying homes, fails to match your fears.

In Florida, for example, when they made it easier for people to get concealed-carry permits - literally "to carry the firearms outside their homes" - violence declined.

And in Australia when they disarmed people to discourage violence, violence increased.

You've got no answer for it,

Only in the sense that reality is not a valid counter to vapid theorizing.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
You've got no answer for it,

Only in the sense that reality is not a valid counter to vapid theorizing.


That's what is so annoying about liberals. They don't reject their theories when the evidence contradicts them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
That's what is so annoying about liberals. They don't reject their theories when the evidence contradicts them.

Gotta understand that libruls are masters of cognitive dissonance.

In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel "disequilibrium": frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, etc.The phrase was coined by Leon Festinger in his 1956 book "When Prophecy Fails," which chronicled the followers of a UFO cult as reality clashed with their fervent belief in an impending apocalypse. Festinger subsequently (1957) published a book called "A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance" in which he outlines the theory. Cognitive dissonance is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements. It is the distressing mental state that people feel when they "find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold." A key assumption is that people want their expectations to meet reality, creating a sense of equilibrium. Likewise, another assumption is that a person will avoid situations or information sources that give rise to feelings of uneasiness, or dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance theory explains human behavior by positing that people have a bias to seek consonance between their expectations and reality. According to Festinger, people engage in a process he termed "dissonance reduction," which can be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors. This bias sheds light on otherwise puzzling, irrational, and even destructive behavior.
Source: Wikipedia

It's been said before: Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
That's what is so annoying about liberals. They don't reject their theories when the evidence contradicts them.

_______________________

You are talking about a group that wants socialism, because capitalism is not perfect. And make no mistake that is the essence of their economic theories and desires.

To expect reality to pierce the armor on that tank, is expecting a bit much IMO
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You are talking about a group that wants socialism, because capitalism is not perfect. And make no mistake that is the essence of their economic theories and desires.


"Liberals often denounce free markets as immoral. The reality is exactly the opposite. Free markets, characterized by peaceable, voluntary exchange, with respect for property rights and the rule of law, are more moral than any other system of resource allocation." Walter Wiliams

The parts of capitalism they don't like are:

1. Peacaable VOLUNTARY exchange (Must use government intervention and force, i.e., minimum wage, 0bamacare, etc.)

2. Respect for Property Rights (You didn't build that and the only reason you have wealth and property is that the government made it possible and what if you have too much wealth, it can be confiscated. And we have the right to spread YOUR wealth and resdistribute it in any way we deem necessary if we think you have too much and someone else has too little, i.e., legalized theft of other people's property - not to mention serious abuses with eminent domain as we have seen on the east coast.)

3. Respect for the rule of law (The don't respect the rule of law. They think a President can order a private business to fire a CEO and force it to go into bankruptcy where bond investors who have legal priority under the law to be the first creditors to be paid can be trumped by their political cronies, the unions, who can jump in the front of the line while the legally secured(LOL) bond holders get screwed and are left with nothing.

Liberalism is tyranny cloaked in compassion. A wolf in sheep's clothing.
Liberalism is a severe mental disorder.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The smartest perps will still have guns.

The truly smartest perps will have other people to carry guns for them - trained, equipped, and paid by the taxpayer.

While they work to take away the guns of anyone who might oppose them.
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement