joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
All I have to do is convince enough people and it becomes law. A poll tax has nothing to do with this discussion.
Taxing a right makes it a privilege and not a right. If you support taxing the right to bear arms then surely the same holds true for all other rights, thus you support a poll tax.
Do you have a right to breath?
Do you have a right to eat food? Drink Water?
A 'right' and a 'privilege' are the same thing. Its how each are defined that might make them different. If I have a right to a firearm, that means I can do.....ANYTHING....and you can not take it away. If this was true, explain how ex-cons in many situations can not legally obtain a firearm? If its a 'right', then they should be entitled to one. If its a 'privilege', then they can not obtain one. It comes down to how we define words in legal code.
You can try attaching a tax to a poll and see how far you get. An that would be different from placing a tax on a firearm. One is abstract and one is real. Much easier to tax things that exist in reality than concepts.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
blah blah blah
The reason more and more gun laws are going into effect is that more and more US Citizens are getting tired of the gun nut bullshit train. As you pour more and more distrust towards US Citizens; they will hold more and more distrust towards you. Difference is: There is more of us then you. So if you dont want those gun laws updated and created. Then its up to you to start restoring trust. Which you can not do!
How interesting that you view the firearm debate with an "us versus them" mentality. You appear to believe the anti-rights advocates are the majority but every poll I've seen shows a majority supporting firearm rights.
How I view the firearm debate is much more than just a plain football match. That you have not been following my understanding on these boards is due to your ignorance. My understanding of things is much more complex involving many more actors than the two that you think exist. The second part of your argument ignores objective observation in the past few years. As each new string of deadly mass shootings take place, more people tend to slip over to the 'side' that says "regulate/ban". In each instance in which people have killed others with firearms and claim some silly defense in court; more people slip towards the 'regulate/ban'. I will give you an example...
On this forum exists a thread involving a firearm owner. One night someone was banging on his door to his condo. This awoke him and his girlfriend. The man was shouting to "open up the door". He sounded quite angry and belligerent. So the couple contacted the police whom stated they would send some immediately. The guy decided to get his gun, load it and stay on the 2nd floor. So far, I have no problem here. If the intruder actually entered and the man shot them, I'd STILL have no trouble with it. But how this man died was not due to entering the house.
No, the man with the gun went down stairs, and out the backdoor. He circled around to the front to engage the intruder. The intruder stumbled towards the man with the gun. The man stated he shouted out warnings to stop. Then he fired and killed the man.
The intruder turned out to be an elderly man suffering from Alzheimer's Disease. He was suffering one of his episodes. He walked out of his house, got turned around in confusion. Both condos look nearly alike from the front. So its not hard to see why in all the confusion the man made a simple mistake. But its the guy with the gun that made the mistake.
His mistake was tactical in nature. Why leave a secure position? Why leave the 2nd floor where one has an elevation advantage? To go outside, in the dark, without a flashlight to engage the possible hostile intruder? He had no idea if that was a diversion, or if more were nearby to ambush him. Likewise, he could afford a gun and mot a flashlight? He could afford bullets but not batteries?
I asked the gun nuts on here, which one would do something this fucking stupid? Not a single one supported this guy. This guy killed an old man. Someone's father. Someone's grandfather. All because 'moron with a gun' needed to prove himself a man or some other bullshit. Those people I suspect are even less in-favor of people with firearms now.
So, would you have confronted the individual? Or stayed put?
Its stuff like this, that undermine good people with firearms. An people that behave in a belligerent, aggressive, 'wife-beating' attitude towards society. Its people that suffer from 'poor anger management skills' that motivate US Citizens to find more restrictive firearm laws. Do these people have a right to ask their government for more restrictive laws as they concern firearms?
Yes, they do.
This goes deeper than that. Many gun nuts distrust the government. Yes, the founding fathers stated to always hold some distrust towards the government. Yet, gun nuts hold a paranoid schizophrenic view towards government. And other US citizens. Yet, demand, unconditional trust from the government and other US Citizens. Remember that the whole of the US Government is composed of US Citizens as well. Why should all these US Citizens give trust to a group of individuals that do not trust them?
You do not have a right that forces me to trust you.
You want me to trust you, the gun nut? Then give me reasons. Anything that is threatening, stupid or hostile, are not going to help you build trust. Even though that is what you think are the best ways to build trust. I would think on a BDSM site, that people would understand the concept of trust in a way vanillas do not. Trust is hard to earn and easy to burn through. Once it is gone, its very hard to rebuild.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ifmaz
More and more I am convinced you are an authoritarian in disguise.
Yes, your simpleton understanding of reality is what it is. You need to define me as 'enemy' rather than 'US Citizen'. Easier to attack a demon than a friend, eh? You have a right to your opinion, I have a right to mind.
We both want less firearms falling into the hands of law breakers, criminals, and terrorists. I feel your viewpoints have to many holes. Your not well informed of my thoughts, so assume a huge amount of knowledge based upon very little information.
Are you scared I might have a better outlook, if I was given time to explain it in its entirety? That I answer your questions fairly and honestly? Help you understand that the 'zero sum' view does not help this nation out in the long run?
|
RE: Vetting and guns. - .gif){kind=avatar}
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread