Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The Gun Control divide


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Gun Control divide Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
[Poll]

The Gun Control divide


I despise you and your poll.
  19% (5)
I need a weapon so I can defend my family from others and tyranny.
  15% (4)
I need a weapon so I can defend my family from tyranny.
  0% (0)
I need a weapon so I can defend my family from others.
  0% (0)
I don't need a good reason for owning a gun. It's my right.
  26% (7)
Weapon access causes harm, individual rights wins because Constitution
  3% (1)
Weapon access causes societal harm which trumps individual rights
  26% (7)
Access to weapons does not cause societal harm
  7% (2)


Total Votes : 26
(last vote on : 6/19/2016 9:25:06 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Gun Control divide - 6/14/2016 1:10:27 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		It's "too," genius.

Next time try a logic argument instead of a school yard taunt.

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: The Gun Control divide - 6/14/2016 1:12:52 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

It's "too," genius.

Next time try a logic argument instead of a school yard taunt.

And...you are directly providing counter information where to refute my statements? Oh...I see, you're projecting. And I am a genius, my mother had me tested.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: The Gun Control divide - 6/14/2016 1:14:18 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Well, in the meantime, past the school yard childishness, here's the point:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

The Gun control debate is usually about ends and what it misses are the differing fundamental assumptions that people operate from. This poll is aimed at effectively gaining an idea of the popularity of a few of these various presuppositions. I don't have a specific agenda here, and you may not wish to play along but it might be worth giving it a go.

A) Do you effectively believe that free access to weapons is a societal problem which causes harm? If no, then choose option 8 in the poll. Otherwise proceed to the next question.

B) Does the individual's right to a weapon trump the harm which the free access of weapons provides? If no, then choose option 7 in the poll. Otherwise proceed to the next question.

C) Does your right to a weapon trump societal harm primarily because of the Constitution or for your own reasons? If the Constitution, then choose option 6 in the poll. Otherwise proceed.

D) Do you need a justification for having a gun? Or is it your right and all other considerations are irrelevant? If you don't need a justification for owning a gun and it's your right regardless of what else is happening in society, choose option 5.

E) Does your right to a gun trump societal harm because you need to defend yourself against your fellow citizens or against the government or both? If citizens choose option 4, if the government, choose option 3, if both, choose option 2.

If you despise this poll and the person who made it, choose option 1... but only after choosing one of the other options first.

See, this is not the debate. It's not guns or no guns -- it's what guns, and under what circumstances.

This is the debate:



Anything else is simply parroting the modern NRA nonsense, in its present day capacity as shill for the gun manufacturers.

And it's unnecessary, because the "no restrictions ever" gun-tokers are pretty gullible and will buy whatever special gun/ammo you come up with and tell them is potentially threatened.




(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: The Gun Control divide - 6/14/2016 1:16:56 PM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bossman777

Does no one remember the mass shootings in France a couple months ago? Where having any gun is totally illegal? Where the bad guys still managed to get them and use them to kill some 89 people at a music concert? I mean, why on Earth would anyone think that banning them would work to stop such incidents?

That's a ridiculous argument.

Should we ban all knives just because some idiot can kill with them?
Let's go the whole hog and ban all cutlery because any one of them is able to kill.
Heck, let's also ban all kinds of ceramics and pottery because someone can smash it and use a fragment as a weapon to stab someone.
While we're at it, let's also ban anything sharp, breakable, or portable so they can't be used as weapons.
Ban all vehicles so nobody can get run over - including motorised wheelchairs.

Like many in the US, you seem to think that owning guns is not possible in Europe and the UK.
That's not so. We can own guns just as much as you do.
Many also follow and participate in gun sports.
Guns aren't banned here.
However, our laws are such that you need a reason (beyond self-defense) to have one.
We also don't allow guns that have no use beyond the purpose for which we deem to need one.
There is no use for, or any justification for, a normal person to need to own tank-busters, semi-automatic rifles, grenade launchers, or anything else beyond a simple shotgun or simple single-action rifle to keep wildlife at bay.
Our laws also don't allow people to carry in public or have the ammo near the weapon.
And most of us here trust our police and government and don't have the fear of needing protection against the government, the police, or other citizens.

But like any country in the world, you'll have people smuggling illegal weapons, drugs and all sorts of banned things for their own ends.
Let's face it, the US isn't exactly a good example of controlling banned items is it.
Most first-world countries are on a par when comes to most things.
There are two things in which the US seem to excel at: guns deaths and an affinity with gun ownership like nobody else.
There's the difference.

Banning anything won't stop criminals doing what they do.
But... banning stuff which is designed to kill people and making it far less available certainly does help to reduce deaths.


ETA: I can't answer the poll - there is no option for my choice; it's too limited and biased.


< Message edited by freedomdwarf1 -- 6/14/2016 1:29:20 PM >

_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to bossman777)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: The Gun Control divide - 6/14/2016 1:23:15 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline
quote:

Nonsense. I responded specifically to what you wrote.

No you did not.
quote:

And when caught out, you attacked me instead.

Sometimes (meaning usually) you make it just too damned easy, which is usually the case with people who aspire online to a greater intellect than they have in reality.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: The Gun Control divide - 6/14/2016 1:32:36 PM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
I wish I could have chosen more than one answer in this little survey. Ultimately, I chose: "I don't need a reason. It's my right." There's a bit of an explanation that needs to go, here:

I was going to chose: " ... to defend myself and others from tyranny" and that's valid, but it's so much more basic than that. A free man has the right to keep himself free. He has a right and an obligation to provide for his family. I'm not talking about hunting, here (I don't hunt). I'm talking about providing for them by keeping them safe.

There is a direct correlation between being able to express yourself, freely and being able to defend yourself, freely. A lot of people don't get that. Quite frankly, if it weren't for the use of weapons, Africans might still be slaves, in this country.

The civil war aside, let's please remember that some of the earliest gun control laws in this country were to keep arms out of slaves' hands. That's fact. Those laws were, then, changed during our horrific "Jim Crow" era. Africans were no longer slaves, but southerners were doing everything thing they could to find every nook and cranny in the federal regulations to continue life as it had been.

Why were they doing this? It's simple: Free men, with the ability to defend themselves were a danger to the southerners because those free men wouldn't have had to tolerate the bullshit that the plantation owner mentality was throwing down.

When the CRA was signed and the segregationist bullshit was finally put to grass, the KKK (and others) suddenly became a lot less ballsy in their attacks because law-abiding, FREE, African Americans suddenly had the true ability to defend themselves.

Let's bring it to today, now: I believe this government is on the very verge of tyranny. Taxation without representation is rampant. Freedom of religion is an anachronistic fantasy. Thought crimes are firmly ensconced.

So, why is there a large portion of people that are so ginned up on gun control. That's easy, too. For the most part, they are cradle-to-grave-government leeches, in that that's what they want the government to do for them. How will the government accomplish that? Well, a start is if you re-visit these words:

"Free men, with the ability to defend themselves were a danger to the southerners Federal Government because those free men wouldn't have had to tolerate the bullshit that the plantation owner We're-not-public-servants-we're-your-overlords mentality was throwing down.

This country absolutely is engaged in a civil war where totalitarian asswipes are attempting to un-do everything (good and bad) that's been done.

That's not the America for which I fought and my son died.



Michael

< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 6/14/2016 1:35:20 PM >

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: The Gun Control divide - 6/14/2016 1:42:04 PM   
WinsomeDefiance


Posts: 6719
Joined: 8/7/2007
Status: offline 		I think your poll is too narrow.

I need a weapon, because deer and small game won't just lie down and be dead - and I like to eat.
I need a weapon because there are seldom more than three days worth of food stuffs available in stores during any given day and I'm not guaranteed packaged food during a natural or other form of disaster...meaning I'm gonna have to provide another way.

I need a weapon, because trying to obtain one AFTER a natural or other form of disaster is too late and I still suck with a bow and arrow and I'm sure as hell not up to the task of chasing the animals down.

I also need to know how the weapon (gun, bow, slingshot) etc works and be proficient enough with it to make owning one of any use. Which means having and using it enough in advance of any potential need.

I do not believe any property I own is worth killing, dying or going to jail for. It is why I have insurance. So I don't own a gun for home defends. I do have several staffs, knives and mace which I can do damage with, but given the opportunity- I'd slip into flight mode before fight mode, as experience has taught me.

For me, a gun is a tool. Just like my brain. I make it my business to learn what foods are edible for foraging within 10 miles of me at most any given time. I am growing my own food as well. Things that I think are fun and worth doing.

I never even knew, for most of my life, that there was so much controversy surrounding guns.

My father retired from the Air Force, there was always a shot gun and rifle in the home. In Everyone's home that I knew.
Hunting wasn't just a sport, it was a lesson in learning to provide and respecting life and the cost of pulling that trigger.

I believe that gun control based off fear - just like the war on drugs - will simply make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain At a reasonable price what people who are willing to break the law will be able to obtain easily with a simple phone call.

Kay has years of documentation of chronic pain from degenerative diseases. She should be able to get pain pills to ease her suffering and allow her to function daily. Because of over-enforcing of narcotics; doctors no longer want to risk their practice by subscribing narcotics. I could make a phone call and pay out the ass, and have narcotics delivered to the home. Except, I don't break the law. I don't do things I know will put my personal liberties at risk. Which is why I own a gun and take personal responsibility for how it is used, stored, kept locked and out of reach of anyone not me.

I didn't see those options available on your post, otherwise I'd have participated and been less verbose.



(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: The Gun Control divide - 6/14/2016 1:53:39 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline
quote:

This country absolutely is engaged in a civil war

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
gasp gasp wheeze
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: The Gun Control divide - 6/14/2016 2:13:39 PM   
Awareness


Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
This country absolutely is engaged in a civil war where totalitarian asswipes are attempting to un-do everything (good and bad) that's been done.

That's not the America for which I fought and my son died.
I'll address the substance of your post in just a moment but I just wanted to interject at this point and say that I'm very sorry for your loss and I'd like to thank you both for your service. One of the finest traditions I've come to appreciate in the USA is the civilian appreciation for the risk and sacrifice of the military - irrespective of whether or not we agree with America's foreign policy, the appreciation for the military men and women who bleed for this country is a noble tradition well worth preserving.

_____________________________

Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: The Gun Control divide - 6/14/2016 2:16:47 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline
quote:

That's not the America for which I fought and my son died.

Actually it is.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: The Gun Control divide - 6/14/2016 2:43:24 PM   
pleasnpetrichor


Posts: 72
Joined: 1/13/2016
Status: offline 		I guess I'm torn between options 7 and 6.

I believe that guns are creepy, disgusting, and cause harm to society. I wish they could be wiped out.

Maybe it's my American showing, but I've never worked out exactly what the 2nd Amendment does mean. I've never decided for myself whether it's simply guaranteeing rights to the militia or to individuals as well, and exactly what those rights are. Incidentally, I might say the same about many political issues (for example, abortion). I can normally see multiple points of view on these issues, and not knowing which is absolutely correct I'm reluctant to give an opinion. Perhaps I would be better equipped to argue a point if I did considerable research first and had time to let things percolate and settle in my mind. I'm normally crap at debate that involves weighing relative values and determining which is better or more important, and I'm absolutely abysmal at extemporizing. I'm a little better when the questions involve points of logic instead of values. That's not to say I'm particularly skilled at or knowledgeable about logic either, but insisting on one true way does come more easily when it's a question of logic versus principle.

I believe the rule of law should hold sway except in clear cases of good and evil. To me, this is a borderline case.

I see problems with bypassing the Constitution "for the good of society" (assuming the Constitution really did guarantee the individual right to own guns). In other words, I believe that bypassing the Constitution would also cause societal harm and I feel ill equipped to compare that societal harm to the societal harm done by guns and render a decision. At least not without doing a good deal of research on the subject first.

_____________________________

aka gungadin09
aka metamorfosis

(in reply to Awareness)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: The Gun Control divide - 6/14/2016 2:44:48 PM   
Awareness


Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


I'm talking about providing for them by keeping them safe.
I understand that, I just think that the definition of "keeping them safe" is a lot more complex than simply owning a gun.

quote:


There is a direct correlation between being able to express yourself, freely and being able to defend yourself, freely. A lot of people don't get that. Quite frankly, if it weren't for the use of weapons, Africans might still be slaves, in this country.
Carl Von Clausewitz once said that "War is the continuation of politics by other means" - yes, weapons are an inevitable part of a nation's political struggle. However the advantage of democracy is that weapons don't have to be a part of internal politics. The societies we build provide safety through the institutions we create because those institutions work for the collective good. Nobody builds their own houses any more (except the Amish) because we have experts who do that. Nobody is their own doctor any more because we have specialists whose ability far exceeds our own. Why is it that we have to be our own protector? We have institutions - laws, judges, the legal system, law enforcement - whose entire purpose is to keep our society from descending into anarchy yet the gun lobby posits that Americans have to protect themselves with firearms?


quote:


The civil war aside, let's please remember that some of the earliest gun control laws in this country were to keep arms out of slaves' hands. That's fact. Those laws were, then, changed during our horrific "Jim Crow" era. Africans were no longer slaves, but southerners were doing everything thing they could to find every nook and cranny in the federal regulations to continue life as it had been.

Why were they doing this? It's simple: Free men, with the ability to defend themselves were a danger to the southerners because those free men wouldn't have had to tolerate the bullshit that the plantation owner mentality was throwing down.
Freedom is a political status. What kept people slaves was the inescapable reality that no place existed which would allow them any other status. Once the North became a haven for free slaves, that reality ended. And the South was doomed from that point on.

quote:


Let's bring it to today, now: I believe this government is on the very verge of tyranny. Taxation without representation is rampant.
The "Taxation without representation" rhetoric from the progenitors of the American Revolution was 100% bullshit. The colonies paid less tax and had similar rights to English citizens. Taxation is a reality for every government and representation is available to American citizens but they overwhelmingly DO NOT USE IT! How many people actually vote?

quote:

Freedom of religion is an anachronistic fantasy. Thought crimes are firmly ensconced.
I agree. Religious groups and white men are under widespread attacks from leftist social justice warriors who have created a victim-hood pyramid which is used to manipulate society. However I strongly believe people are sick to death of it which is why (ironically) Trump has so much support. Voting for Trump is spitting in the eye of the regressive left and the feminist nutbags.

quote:

So, why is there a large portion of people that are so ginned up on gun control.
Because gun availability kills people. If guns made people safe, you'd be the safest fucking nation on Earth, but you're not - not by a long shot.

quote:

That's easy, too. For the most part, they are cradle-to-grave-government leeches, in that that's what they want the government to do for them.


Michael in my previous country, I worked for the government and know more than a bit about these "government leeches". So I'll be candid - they don't exist.

Oh sure, you get your occasional generationally dependent welfare cases but in our experience, 95+% of the unemployed had jobs within 12 months. Of the total welfare bill, more than 90% was for old-age pensions. Around 6% was for single parents and around 3% for the unemployed.

Your country gives more welfare to corporations and rich people than it does to your idea of "government leeches". It's not single mothers, the unemployed and illegal immigrants which are sucking the country dry, it's corporations like Apple which avoid taxes while leeching off the infrastructure of the United States who are the real problem. Your concern is completely misplaced. Corporations monitor you, lie to you and control your government... and you're worried about poor people?

Yes, the left are a bunch of Orwellian thought control maniacs, but aside from that, I don't think things are as bad as you think.

_____________________________

Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: The Gun Control divide - 6/14/2016 2:49:02 PM   
Awareness


Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pleasnpetrichor
I see problems with bypassing the Constitution "for the good of society" (assuming the Constitution really did guarantee the individual right to own guns). In other words, I believe that bypassing the Constitution would also cause societal harm and I feel ill equipped to compare that societal harm to the societal harm done by guns and render a decision. At least not without doing a good deal of research on the subject first.
I'll just mention a couple of things:

It's called "an amendment".

The bill of rights is a series of amendments to the constitution. The very existence of amendments says to me that the Constitution is not supposed to be set in stone but must be updated and maintained by a responsible society.

I'll leave you with this: The second amendment doesn't stop anyone from owning a machine gun. The government won't let people own nukes because they're weapons of mass destruction.

How big does a weapon have to be before the government is entitled to restrict its use?


_____________________________

Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.

(in reply to pleasnpetrichor)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: The Gun Control divide - 6/14/2016 3:08:16 PM   
pleasnpetrichor


Posts: 72
Joined: 1/13/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
I'll just mention a couple of things:

It's called "an amendment".

The bill of rights is a series of amendments to the constitution. The very existence of amendments says to me that the Constitution is not supposed to be set in stone but must be updated and maintained by a responsible society.


I would be all for an amendment, Awareness. Perhaps I mistook you.

quote:

I'll leave you with this: The second amendment doesn't stop anyone from owning a machine gun. The government won't let people own nukes because they're weapons of mass destruction.

How big does a weapon have to be before the government is entitled to restrict its use?


I'm sorry. I don't know. I could think about it and try to answer later if you like, but I've pondered the question for years and haven't reached a clear conclusion. The same is true for most political questions, which is why I don't mess around in politics much.

I appreciate the poll. I had wanted to participate in the other discussion but it was a bit over my head.

Thank you for responding.


_____________________________

aka gungadin09
aka metamorfosis

(in reply to Awareness)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: The Gun Control divide - 6/14/2016 4:55:42 PM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

Carl Von Clausewitz once said that "War is the continuation of politics by other means" - yes, weapons are an inevitable part of a nation's political struggle. However the advantage of democracy is that weapons don't have to be a part of internal politics. The societies we build provide safety through the institutions we create because those institutions work for the collective good. Nobody builds their own houses any more (except the Amish) because we have experts who do that. Nobody is their own doctor any more because we have specialists whose ability far exceeds our own. Why is it that we have to be our own protector? We have institutions - laws, judges, the legal system, law enforcement - whose entire purpose is to keep our society from descending into anarchy yet the gun lobby posits that Americans have to protect themselves with firearms?



First off: I don't grant your premise (in red) that our institutions work for the collective good. In fact, in a few cases, they work to the detriment of a large portion of the populace.

Then, there's the issue of looking to the government to "take care of us". Fuck that. They've done a lousy job of it for the last 40 years or so. It's time for a new direction.

Why do we have to be our own protectors? Because not everyone in the country has a cop, secret service agent, or soldier to stand guard over them. law enforcement's job has never been crime prevention . That's what people have tried to turn it into, but a cop's job has always been after the fact (chase, investigate, arrest). Also, I might say: I don't want attempts at crime prevention by the government. That's another form of servitude.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
Freedom is a political status. What kept people slaves was the inescapable reality that no place existed which would allow them any other status. Once the North became a haven for free slaves, that reality ended. And the South was doomed from that point on.



I don't know if we can even continue this conversation if you REALLY believe that freedom is granted us by politicians. It's an inherent human right (I removed the religion for you).

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. You don't have to read further than Article 1 to see:

quote:


All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.


Please notice: BORN free ... Not "granted freedom by ..." or "endowed with freedom by our collective governments". ALL human beings are BORN FREE. Even the fucked-up U.N. recognizes that (of course, I think they're just talkin' shit to assuage peoples' fears but ...)

If you want to continue, you'll need to at least acknowledge that fact for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
The "Taxation without representation" rhetoric from the progenitors of the American Revolution was 100% bullshit. The colonies paid less tax and had similar rights to English citizens. Taxation is a reality for every government and representation is available to American citizens but they overwhelmingly DO NOT USE IT! How many people actually vote?



Actually, taxation without representation goes on, today. If you live in NJ and work in NYC (or Philthadelphia), the city takes a portion of your paycheck and you don't get to vote about it because you don't live there.

Also, I don't buy your colonialist view of the American colonists not being taxed at a greater rate than the British. History doesn't support that.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
I agree. Religious groups and white men are under widespread attacks from leftist social justice warriors who have created a victim-hood pyramid which is used to manipulate society. However I strongly believe people are sick to death of it which is why (ironically) Trump has so much support. Voting for Trump is spitting in the eye of the regressive left and the feminist nutbags.



Just a little more example of how our institutions are NOT "working for the collective good".



quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
Because gun availability kills people. If guns made people safe, you'd be the safest fucking nation on Earth, but you're not - not by a long shot.



You're right, of course. The Boston Marathon bombing, the federal building in OKC, the 9/11 attacks ... all gun availability issues./sarcasm Take away guns and the scumbags will find other ways.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

Michael in my previous country, I worked for the government and know more than a bit about these "government leeches". So I'll be candid - they don't exist.
Oh sure, you get your occasional generationally dependent welfare cases but in our experience, 95+% of the unemployed had jobs within 12 months. Of the total welfare bill, more than 90% was for old-age pensions. Around 6% was for single parents and around 3% for the unemployed.

Your country gives more welfare to corporations and rich people than it does to your idea of "government leeches". It's not single mothers, the unemployed and illegal immigrants which are sucking the country dry, it's corporations like Apple which avoid taxes while leeching off the infrastructure of the United States who are the real problem. Your concern is completely misplaced. Corporations monitor you, lie to you and control your government... and you're worried about poor people?

Yes, the left are a bunch of Orwellian thought control maniacs, but aside from that, I don't think things are as bad as you think.



I've never been to your previous country (although I used to want to go), but I would posit that you're comparing apples to used car tires. I have seen, with my own eyes, people in this country whose "family business" has become living on the dole. Three and four generations of people, enslaved by the welfare/plantation system. Of course, some are allowed to come out of the fields and work "in massa's big house", but they're slaves, none the less.

Our country does have some fucked-up attitudes, vis-a-vis corporate welfare, but, wasn't this thread about gun control?

Lest I forget: I thank you for your kind words about myself and my son. I don't agree with a lot of this country's foreign policy, either, but I could not have been more proud, the first time I saw him in his dress blues.



Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to Awareness)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: The Gun Control divide - 6/14/2016 5:27:48 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


I'm talking about providing for them by keeping them safe.
I understand that, I just think that the definition of "keeping them safe" is a lot more complex than simply owning a gun.

quote:


There is a direct correlation between being able to express yourself, freely and being able to defend yourself, freely. A lot of people don't get that. Quite frankly, if it weren't for the use of weapons, Africans might still be slaves, in this country.
Carl Von Clausewitz once said that "War is the continuation of politics by other means" - yes, weapons are an inevitable part of a nation's political struggle. However the advantage of democracy is that weapons don't have to be a part of internal politics. The societies we build provide safety through the institutions we create because those institutions work for the collective good. Nobody builds their own houses any more (except the Amish) because we have experts who do that. Nobody is their own doctor any more because we have specialists whose ability far exceeds our own. Why is it that we have to be our own protector? We have institutions - laws, judges, the legal system, law enforcement - whose entire purpose is to keep our society from descending into anarchy yet the gun lobby posits that Americans have to protect themselves with firearms?


quote:


The civil war aside, let's please remember that some of the earliest gun control laws in this country were to keep arms out of slaves' hands. That's fact. Those laws were, then, changed during our horrific "Jim Crow" era. Africans were no longer slaves, but southerners were doing everything thing they could to find every nook and cranny in the federal regulations to continue life as it had been.

Why were they doing this? It's simple: Free men, with the ability to defend themselves were a danger to the southerners because those free men wouldn't have had to tolerate the bullshit that the plantation owner mentality was throwing down.
Freedom is a political status. What kept people slaves was the inescapable reality that no place existed which would allow them any other status. Once the North became a haven for free slaves, that reality ended. And the South was doomed from that point on.

quote:


Let's bring it to today, now: I believe this government is on the very verge of tyranny. Taxation without representation is rampant.
The "Taxation without representation" rhetoric from the progenitors of the American Revolution was 100% bullshit. The colonies paid less tax and had similar rights to English citizens. Taxation is a reality for every government and representation is available to American citizens but they overwhelmingly DO NOT USE IT! How many people actually vote?

quote:

Freedom of religion is an anachronistic fantasy. Thought crimes are firmly ensconced.
I agree. Religious groups and white men are under widespread attacks from leftist social justice warriors who have created a victim-hood pyramid which is used to manipulate society. However I strongly believe people are sick to death of it which is why (ironically) Trump has so much support. Voting for Trump is spitting in the eye of the regressive left and the feminist nutbags.

quote:

So, why is there a large portion of people that are so ginned up on gun control.
Because gun availability kills people. If guns made people safe, you'd be the safest fucking nation on Earth, but you're not - not by a long shot.

quote:

That's easy, too. For the most part, they are cradle-to-grave-government leeches, in that that's what they want the government to do for them.


Michael in my previous country, I worked for the government and know more than a bit about these "government leeches". So I'll be candid - they don't exist.

Oh sure, you get your occasional generationally dependent welfare cases but in our experience, 95+% of the unemployed had jobs within 12 months. Of the total welfare bill, more than 90% was for old-age pensions. Around 6% was for single parents and around 3% for the unemployed.

Your country gives more welfare to corporations and rich people than it does to your idea of "government leeches". It's not single mothers, the unemployed and illegal immigrants which are sucking the country dry, it's corporations like Apple which avoid taxes while leeching off the infrastructure of the United States who are the real problem. Your concern is completely misplaced. Corporations monitor you, lie to you and control your government... and you're worried about poor people?

Yes, the left are a bunch of Orwellian thought control maniacs, but aside from that, I don't think things are as bad as you think.

We do have to be our own protector since the Supreme Court determined the police have no responsibility for doing so and/or as in my case if I call the Sheriff they can't get here for at least a half hour on a good night and probably an hour is more likely.

(in reply to Awareness)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: The Gun Control divide - 6/14/2016 5:34:45 PM   
LadyJSirF


Posts: 3
Joined: 6/26/2015
Status: offline 		Not much has been said about a person who is intent on causing harm will do so. Oklahoma City wasn't an automatic weapon. Neither was eeither attack on the world Trade center. Did i miss the ak47 or ar15 at the Boston marathon? My point is that the violence is a human condition. If he didn't have access to guns, he could just have easily caused mass casualties in Plus with I.E.D.s. disarming a population only makes that population susceptible to tyranny. The second ammendment was written when each state still had its own sovereignty and needed the ability to raise a militia. Thanks to the work of the good folks like Lincoln and F.D.R. the populace now accepts that the federal government is our protector. That was never the intention of those who wrote the second ammendment. The use the phrase " protect against tyranny both foreign and domestic" and "we the people" it never said we are your federal fathers. Do what we say and just trust us. It's all good.

too many people have never left the borders of the U.S and want to use the rest of the world, as they think it is, to justify opinions they cannot support logicly. I beleve we should test for mental Iillness and other rare and outlying conditions to restrict ownership, but in a country of over 475 million people .00000001% of our population shouldn't be used as a reason to change laws that affect all of us.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: The Gun Control divide - 6/14/2016 6:17:46 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Yeah. That's why it's wrong to ban nuclear weapons -- let anyone who wants one have one. They'll just do harm another way anyway, right?


(in reply to LadyJSirF)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: The Gun Control divide - 6/14/2016 8:20:50 PM   
LadyJSirF


Posts: 3
Joined: 6/26/2015
Status: offline 		Tired of all the absurd parallels people try to paint. A fire arm isn't a nuke. My point is you can't take the rights of a populace away because evil people find ways to do evil. How do you think north Korea became the way it did. The government convinced the people they needed no guns to protect themselves because the government run army would do it for them. They gave away the ability to defend their freedom and the current regime took over without too much fuss. What rights would you need to loose before you wish you were armed? This isn't a call to put automatic weapons into vending machines, but we need to look to history and see what has Ben done with under the guise of gun saftey. And all those "no gun" European countries still allow for shotguns and rifles for hunting and sporting purposes. Thier laws limit the availability of pistols that can be hidden and full auto machine and sub - machine guns.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: The Gun Control divide - 6/14/2016 9:07:45 PM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bossman777

Does no one remember the mass shootings in France a couple months ago? Where having any gun is totally illegal? Where the bad guys still managed to get them and use them to kill some 89 people at a music concert? I mean, why on Earth would anyone think that banning them would work to stop such incidents?


Good thing to know that in the US, arguably the most individually heavily armed society, no mass killings have occurred in elementary schools, or middle schools, or high schools, or universities, or movie theaters, or work places, or at any public events.

In any case, no one can actually 'stop such incidents,' by any method. It's about reducing the odds.

But if you have the stats about more deaths from public shootings in France than in the US, we're all ears.

(in reply to bossman777)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Gun Control divide Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125