Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Another day, another "small" mass shobooting


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Another day, another "small" mass shobooting Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Another day, another "small" mass shobooting - 11/22/2017 12:20:12 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

I'm a bit curious as to why the notion of a gun being useful for self defence has any bearing on the latest spree killing in the first place: a pistol and a concealed carry permit or keeping a shotgun in the house are pretty different to the not-really-assault rifles and sub machine guns that are favoured by nutcases out to slaughter a few people for no good reason, unless you're deliberately blurring the lines to suggest that it's impossible to legislate against the latter without also banning the former, which is a pretty blatant strawman argument.

Name one, just one recent mass shooting in the U S with a sub machine gun.
Valentine's day doesn't count.

Fred Cowan.
And if they don't use machine pistols, are you admitting that AR-15s and Fauxlashnikovs are the whole problem?

No , I am admitting that evil people are the problem.

You still don't understand that we have more murders with clubs(like hammers) than long guns.

< Message edited by BamaD -- 11/22/2017 12:26:33 PM >


_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 241
RE: Another day, another "small" mass shooting - 11/22/2017 12:27:36 PM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
I would welcome Republican initiatives to strengthen and enforce laws but they NEVER address the issues... they just let the murder and mayhem continue to please the NRA.


despite having it explained in the forums in general, and to you in particular, this a prime example of a leftie who cannot rightly articulate what the right believes (or does) and as a consequence, says absolutely stupid things.

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 242
RE: Another day, another "small" mass shobooting - 11/22/2017 12:33:07 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
I'm a bit curious as to why the notion of a gun being useful for self defence has any bearing on the latest spree killing in the first place: a pistol and a concealed carry permit or keeping a shotgun in the house are pretty different to the not-really-assault rifles and sub machine guns that are favoured by nutcases out to slaughter a few people for no good reason, unless you're deliberately blurring the lines to suggest that it's impossible to legislate against the latter without also banning the former, which is a pretty blatant strawman argument.


It's not in response to the latest shootings. But, most firearm murders are committed with a handgun.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

For the 5 years in that report:
    70.45% of all firearm murders victims were shot with "handguns."
    3.7% were shot with a "rifle."
    4.01% were shot with a "shotgun."
    1.19% were shot with an "other firearm"
    20.64% were shot with an unreported firearm type.


I don't know if an "assault weapon" would qualify as a "rifle," or an "other" according to the stats, but if all the unreported types, rifles and "other" guns were added up, they'd still not account for half of all murder victims shot by handguns.

So, if one really wants to have a chance at reducing the number of murder victims at the hand of firearms, why wouldn't handguns be next on the list, if not really first?

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 243
RE: Another day, another "small" mass shooting - 11/22/2017 12:50:20 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
Doesn't really matter who isn't enforcing the laws, that's another discussion. The point is they are not enforcing the laws we have, how is passing more going to help anything?

No, no, no. Those were not good laws. That's why they weren't enforced. These laws, though, these will be fully enforced.
[/sarcasm]

DesideriScuri
If a law is not working then would it not behoove us to find out why and fix them? Would you not agree that laws governing gun ownership are important and should be consistent throughout the US? I agree the laws are not being enforced and as in my state it is the state governments themselves that refuse to enforce them. It is foolish to say enforce the laws we have when people and governments are not following them. We need laws and if they are not working we need to make changes.... but when obvious changes are proposed special interests come out in opposition. I am speaking of the Republican party and the NRA. Don't complain laws are not being enforced when the party you support blocks all attempts to make needed sensible changes. I would welcome Republican initiatives to strengthen and enforce laws but they NEVER address the issues... they just let the murder and mayhem continue to please the NRA.
Butch


I'm not a Republican. Please try to keep up.

https://mic.com/articles/23929/10-surprising-facts-about-the-nra-that-you-never-hear#.vuyarfx7Q

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/nra-supported-background-gun-check-john-cornyn-121035 (from 2 years ago)

The NRA supports the ban on bump stocks.

I'm not sure what you consider "sensible" changes, but what you consider sensible may not be what others consider sensible.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 244
RE: Another day, another "small" mass shooting - 11/22/2017 1:36:05 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
Then why not answer as a non- Republican rather then deflect the question with nonsense ?

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 245
RE: Another day, another "small" mass shooting - 11/22/2017 1:41:51 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
Lol as others have told me in response.... I’m not a lefty... try and keep up.

And why not address the thrust of my post. Despite what you may think I really would like to know your reasoning for not making changes to laws that are obviously not working.

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 246
RE: Another day, another "small" mass shooting - 11/22/2017 1:46:49 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
Doesn't really matter who isn't enforcing the laws, that's another discussion. The point is they are not enforcing the laws we have, how is passing more going to help anything?

No, no, no. Those were not good laws. That's why they weren't enforced. These laws, though, these will be fully enforced.
[/sarcasm]

DesideriScuri
If a law is not working then would it not behoove us to find out why and fix them? Would you not agree that laws governing gun ownership are important and should be consistent throughout the US? I agree the laws are not being enforced and as in my state it is the state governments themselves that refuse to enforce them. It is foolish to say enforce the laws we have when people and governments are not following them. We need laws and if they are not working we need to make changes.... but when obvious changes are proposed special interests come out in opposition. I am speaking of the Republican party and the NRA. Don't complain laws are not being enforced when the party you support blocks all attempts to make needed sensible changes. I would welcome Republican initiatives to strengthen and enforce laws but they NEVER address the issues... they just let the murder and mayhem continue to please the NRA.
Butch


I'm not a Republican. Please try to keep up.

https://mic.com/articles/23929/10-surprising-facts-about-the-nra-that-you-never-hear#.vuyarfx7Q

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/nra-supported-background-gun-check-john-cornyn-121035 (from 2 years ago)

The NRA supports the ban on bump stocks.

I'm not sure what you consider "sensible" changes, but what you consider sensible may not be what others consider sensible.


Sensible changes, as I have gathered, are
A Ban all semi automatics, from the lefts point of view this does not violate
the 2nd because it doesn't ban all firearms.
B Require periodic mental evals of all gun owners. The prohibition against other things like the poll tax
do not apply because the several thousand you have to spend doesn't go to
the government it is just a reasonable expense to prove that you can own a gun.
(this would not affect me personally as I am retired military and can see a doctor free, but it would mean that only
the rich could own guns) Since this would reduce the number of legally owned firearms it would be good.
C No concealed or open carry, this still would not violate the 2nd as some people would still own guns.
D potential owners would have to provide a good reason to own it
(self defense would prove paranoia, see B)
More later.



_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 247
RE: Another day, another "small" mass shooting - 11/22/2017 1:59:25 PM   
MasterDrakk


Posts: 321
Status: offline
as is usual, you dont gather much.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 248
RE: Another day, another "small" mass shooting - 11/22/2017 3:30:31 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Lol as others have told me in response.... I’m not a lefty... try and keep up.

And why not address the thrust of my post. Despite what you may think I really would like to know your reasoning for not making changes to laws that are obviously not working.

Butch

He wants changes to the law, just not the same ones you want.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 249
RE: Another day, another "small" mass shobooting - 11/22/2017 3:58:45 PM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
I'm a bit curious as to why the notion of a gun being useful for self defence has any bearing on the latest spree killing in the first place: a pistol and a concealed carry permit or keeping a shotgun in the house are pretty different to the not-really-assault rifles and sub machine guns that are favoured by nutcases out to slaughter a few people for no good reason, unless you're deliberately blurring the lines to suggest that it's impossible to legislate against the latter without also banning the former, which is a pretty blatant strawman argument.


It's not in response to the latest shootings. But, most firearm murders are committed with a handgun.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

For the 5 years in that report:
    70.45% of all firearm murders victims were shot with "handguns."
    3.7% were shot with a "rifle."
    4.01% were shot with a "shotgun."
    1.19% were shot with an "other firearm"
    20.64% were shot with an unreported firearm type.


I don't know if an "assault weapon" would qualify as a "rifle," or an "other" according to the stats, but if all the unreported types, rifles and "other" guns were added up, they'd still not account for half of all murder victims shot by handguns.

So, if one really wants to have a chance at reducing the number of murder victims at the hand of firearms, why wouldn't handguns be next on the list, if not really first?

I thought we were talking about spree killings rather than one off murders.

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 250
RE: Another day, another "small" mass shobooting - 11/22/2017 4:06:20 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
I'm a bit curious as to why the notion of a gun being useful for self defence has any bearing on the latest spree killing in the first place: a pistol and a concealed carry permit or keeping a shotgun in the house are pretty different to the not-really-assault rifles and sub machine guns that are favoured by nutcases out to slaughter a few people for no good reason, unless you're deliberately blurring the lines to suggest that it's impossible to legislate against the latter without also banning the former, which is a pretty blatant strawman argument.


It's not in response to the latest shootings. But, most firearm murders are committed with a handgun.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

For the 5 years in that report:
    70.45% of all firearm murders victims were shot with "handguns."
    3.7% were shot with a "rifle."
    4.01% were shot with a "shotgun."
    1.19% were shot with an "other firearm"
    20.64% were shot with an unreported firearm type.


I don't know if an "assault weapon" would qualify as a "rifle," or an "other" according to the stats, but if all the unreported types, rifles and "other" guns were added up, they'd still not account for half of all murder victims shot by handguns.

So, if one really wants to have a chance at reducing the number of murder victims at the hand of firearms, why wouldn't handguns be next on the list, if not really first?

I thought we were talking about spree killings rather than one off murders.

The majority of "spree" shooting would be prevented simply by fixing NICS.
This would also eliminate the copy cats. That isn't doing nothing.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 251
RE: Another day, another "small" mass shooting - 11/22/2017 4:48:50 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
Doesn't really matter who isn't enforcing the laws, that's another discussion. The point is they are not enforcing the laws we have, how is passing more going to help anything?

No, no, no. Those were not good laws. That's why they weren't enforced. These laws, though, these will be fully enforced.
[/sarcasm]

DesideriScuri
If a law is not working then would it not behoove us to find out why and fix them? Would you not agree that laws governing gun ownership are important and should be consistent throughout the US? I agree the laws are not being enforced and as in my state it is the state governments themselves that refuse to enforce them. It is foolish to say enforce the laws we have when people and governments are not following them. We need laws and if they are not working we need to make changes.... but when obvious changes are proposed special interests come out in opposition. I am speaking of the Republican party and the NRA. Don't complain laws are not being enforced when the party you support blocks all attempts to make needed sensible changes. I would welcome Republican initiatives to strengthen and enforce laws but they NEVER address the issues... they just let the murder and mayhem continue to please the NRA.
Butch


I'm not a Republican. Please try to keep up.

https://mic.com/articles/23929/10-surprising-facts-about-the-nra-that-you-never-hear#.vuyarfx7Q

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/nra-supported-background-gun-check-john-cornyn-121035 (from 2 years ago)

The NRA supports the ban on bump stocks.

I'm not sure what you consider "sensible" changes, but what you consider sensible may not be what others consider sensible.


Sensible changes, as I have gathered, are
A Ban all semi automatics, from the lefts point of view this does not violate
the 2nd because it doesn't ban all firearms.
B Require periodic mental evals of all gun owners. The prohibition against other things like the poll tax
do not apply because the several thousand you have to spend doesn't go to
the government it is just a reasonable expense to prove that you can own a gun.
(this would not affect me personally as I am retired military and can see a doctor free, but it would mean that only
the rich could own guns) Since this would reduce the number of legally owned firearms it would be good.
C No concealed or open carry, this still would not violate the 2nd as some people would still own guns.
D potential owners would have to provide a good reason to own it
(self defense would prove paranoia, see B)
More later.




Our representatives that we voted for should set down with their congressional colleagues and come up with solutions, perhaps some compromise solutions to repair existing law. That would be a start that would at least help. From their future changes will reflect, without special interests interference, the wishes of the electorate.

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 252
RE: Another day, another "small" mass shooting - 11/22/2017 5:09:12 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
Doesn't really matter who isn't enforcing the laws, that's another discussion. The point is they are not enforcing the laws we have, how is passing more going to help anything?

No, no, no. Those were not good laws. That's why they weren't enforced. These laws, though, these will be fully enforced.
[/sarcasm]

DesideriScuri
If a law is not working then would it not behoove us to find out why and fix them? Would you not agree that laws governing gun ownership are important and should be consistent throughout the US? I agree the laws are not being enforced and as in my state it is the state governments themselves that refuse to enforce them. It is foolish to say enforce the laws we have when people and governments are not following them. We need laws and if they are not working we need to make changes.... but when obvious changes are proposed special interests come out in opposition. I am speaking of the Republican party and the NRA. Don't complain laws are not being enforced when the party you support blocks all attempts to make needed sensible changes. I would welcome Republican initiatives to strengthen and enforce laws but they NEVER address the issues... they just let the murder and mayhem continue to please the NRA.
Butch


I'm not a Republican. Please try to keep up.

https://mic.com/articles/23929/10-surprising-facts-about-the-nra-that-you-never-hear#.vuyarfx7Q

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/nra-supported-background-gun-check-john-cornyn-121035 (from 2 years ago)

The NRA supports the ban on bump stocks.

I'm not sure what you consider "sensible" changes, but what you consider sensible may not be what others consider sensible.


Sensible changes, as I have gathered, are
A Ban all semi automatics, from the lefts point of view this does not violate
the 2nd because it doesn't ban all firearms.
B Require periodic mental evals of all gun owners. The prohibition against other things like the poll tax
do not apply because the several thousand you have to spend doesn't go to
the government it is just a reasonable expense to prove that you can own a gun.
(this would not affect me personally as I am retired military and can see a doctor free, but it would mean that only
the rich could own guns) Since this would reduce the number of legally owned firearms it would be good.
C No concealed or open carry, this still would not violate the 2nd as some people would still own guns.
D potential owners would have to provide a good reason to own it
(self defense would prove paranoia, see B)
More later.




Our representatives that we voted for should set down with their congressional colleagues and come up with solutions, perhaps some compromise solutions to repair existing law. That would be a start that would at least help. From their future changes will reflect, without special interests interference, the wishes of the electorate.

Butch

You keep repeating that we won't listen to the changes you want but you won't tell
us what they are. They need to enforce the laws we have and fix NICS. We
don't need to abandon the 2nd.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 253
RE: Another day, another "small" mass shooting - 11/22/2017 8:35:33 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

You keep repeating that we won't listen to the changes you want but you won't tell
us what they are. They need to enforce the laws we have and fix NICS


Bama... what we have now is obviously not working.. You are the one when others make suggestions for change say... "the laws we have are not enforced so why would new ones be enforced". On many occasions I have said what changes I would like to be made.... please tell me what changes would you like to be made? Just saying enforce the laws we have will not work...why... because it is not working now... there has to be changes.

If we were elected officials with the power to make change... and truly cared about the thousands of unnecessary gun deaths over the last few years...we would ask each other what can be done. Then we would discuss and debate and if necessary compromise in order to come up with a plan we could support and would survive party change in Congress.

What is happening in politics for the last 20 years or so is one party gaining power and passing legislation without the input of the opposition party. The result are laws that will not last the test of time... they will only last until the next power shift in Congress. I will guarantee you if conservatives do not compromise on gun control they will pay the price in the future.

Now is the time when conservatives have the power... listen to their electorate and set down with Democrats and come up with common sense changes that both parties can get behind. Neither party will be completely happy with the necessary compromises but the laws that would emerge could be supported by both ruling parties and therefore would be enforced.

These compromises have nothing to do with revoking the 2nd amendment but would just regulate it which the Congress has the obligation and power to do.

Butch


< Message edited by kdsub -- 11/22/2017 8:48:08 PM >


_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 254
RE: Another day, another "small" mass shooting - 11/22/2017 9:18:23 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

You keep repeating that we won't listen to the changes you want but you won't tell
us what they are. They need to enforce the laws we have and fix NICS


Bama... what we have now is obviously not working.. You are the one when others make suggestions for change say... "the laws we have are not enforced so why would new ones be enforced". On many occasions I have said what changes I would like to be made.... please tell me what changes would you like to be made? Just saying enforce the laws we have will not work...why... because it is not working now... there has to be changes.

If we were elected officials with the power to make change... and truly cared about the thousands of unnecessary gun deaths over the last few years...we would ask each other what can be done. Then we would discuss and debate and if necessary compromise in order to come up with a plan we could support and would survive party change in Congress.

What is happening in politics for the last 20 years or so is one party gaining power and passing legislation without the input of the opposition party. The result are laws that will not last the test of time... they will only last until the next power shift in Congress. I will guarantee you if conservatives do not compromise on gun control they will pay the price in the future.

Now is the time when conservatives have the power... listen to their electorate and set down with Democrats and come up with common sense changes that both parties can get behind. Neither party will be completely happy with the necessary compromises but the laws that would emerge could be supported by both ruling parties and therefore would be enforced.

These compromises have nothing to do with revoking the 2nd amendment but would just regulate it which the Congress has the obligation and power to do.

Butch


Wrong. It isn't that current law doesn't work, it is that current law isn't enforced. Not that enforcement does no good it is that enforcement doesn't happen . Look at Ca the cops had,by current law. 5 times when they were obligated
to put an end to the situation. Every year several hundred thousand sales are stopped by NICS, but since
that attempt is a felony why are about 150 of them prosecuted ?
Wrong it isn't that the background checks aren't used it is that when the database was
set up they didn't make entry of information mandatory. Make entries mandatory would make a tremendous
difference. So would prosecuting illegal attempts to buy guns. And the laid back approach the Cops in Ca show happens too often.
Making laws that penalize the legitimate owner won't help any of those problems.
My sarcastic post earlier held 4 things that you have come out for. They range from
unconstitutional to unworkable.

I included the excuses used to pretend they weren't unconstitutional.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 255
RE: Another day, another "small" mass shooting - 11/22/2017 9:30:25 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
Bama we have no problem enforcing laws for the licencing of vehicles... the paying of taxes... criminal laws like rape murder or assault. Why... because these laws are supported by our government and deemed valid and necessary. There HAS TO BE A REASON why our gun laws are not being enforced today. It is not because of Democrats alone... not when Republican state governments are ignoring the laws. If we expect gun laws to be enforced we must make the necessary changes in the laws that people will support.

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 256
RE: Another day, another "small" mass shooting - 11/23/2017 5:22:57 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
posted this earlier, worth sharing again. its almost specifically written for you:

quote:

After every mass shooting we see the same reaction. The Left instantly demands we must ‘do something’ to stop gun violence, attacks the NRA, accuses gun advocates of being responsible for murder and generally exposes their consistent, yet passionate, ignorance on the entire subject. No matter how many times we correct them on their glaring mistakes and wrong information, they continue repeating it with ever more outrage and indignation.

But it goes much deeper than just political opposition. For a full understanding of the pro-gun argument I would recommend reading Dana Loesch’s Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America and Charles C. W. Cooke’s The Conservatarian Manifesto: Libertarians, Conservatives, and the Fight for the Right’s Future. Ben Shapiro is also an excellent advocate and so are many other conservative and libertarian voices. Guns have never been of particular interest to me personally and I am not equipped to argue the nuances of the topic.

Interestingly, this does not disable me from effectively countering the Left’s many arguments surrounding guns as the primary issue of rights and American freedom trump whatever reasoning they attempt to provide. But the experts in the field, as mentioned above, should be referenced whenever possible.

The Right’s argument is pretty simple. The Constitution recognizes the natural, understood right of a person to own a firearm. It does not grant a right or give permission, nor does the government. The 2nd Amendment simply states what the founders understood to be an obvious truth. It really doesn’t matter what guns are used for or the emotional opposition to them, it is a right plain and simple.

And while I am not an expert on guns, having never used one, nor a particular advocate, I have no personal interest in owning one, I do have direct experience in the mindset of the anti-gun advocate. I used to be one. Here is a breakdown of what I believe explains the irrationally passionate opposition to guns by the Left based on my own experience and battling liberals on the issue for years.

Reliance on Government

The Right and the Left react to law differently. The Right generally view laws as useful tools in organizing society, but are easily manipulated through proper channels when necessary. The Left views law as a moral guidebook detailing what is right and what is wrong and generally defer to the law as an ultimate authority. When a mass shooting happens the Right is mostly interested in motivation and methodology. The Left demands to know why the government allowed it occur in the first place.

You can see this in how both sides respond on social media and how the media itself reports on the event. The Right demands facts, information and details of the person who committed the crime while the Left wails on about our general culture of violence, the NRA and gun owners with blood on their hands. It is typically baffling to the average person on the Right how one can view an isolated madman with a gun killing people as representative of the millions of peaceful gun owners across the country and demand to hold them accountable.

However, the Left associates advocacy of gun ownership with responsibility for gun violence. They firmly believe that the NRA manipulates or bullies Congress into shutting down vital gun protection laws. Naturally, if the NRA is invested in preventing people from being protected from gun violence, they must want gun violence. The more moderate opposition will argue negligence while the more vocal on the Left accuse the NRA of being a terrorist organization responsible for mass shootings.

None of this makes sense until you realize the core of their concern is the belief that the government is responsible for the absolute safety of the citizenry. To the Left, this translates as a demand that the government intervene to prevent any harm in any situation from befalling any citizen. This is why they are such advocates for centralized, government controlled regulatory agencies. To the Left, the gun problem is simple. If the government simply did a better job at preventing guns from being freely handed out to the population like candy, we wouldn’t have mass shootings or gun violence.

The Left seems incapable of understanding that legality is meaningless to the illegally inclined. Which brings us to the emotion associated with this obsession: safety.

Feelings of Safety

If I were to notice a trend of violence in my area, robberies, shootings, etc., I would likely do several things. I would attempt to reasonably avoid dangerous areas or situations in the trend and be more aware of my surroundings if required to be in close proximity to them. If I felt threatened or afraid I would arm myself with some form of self-defense. My options could include pepper spray to owning and carrying a gun. I would educate myself on self-defense. This does not guarantee my safety, but it would certainly provide me with ease of mind and give me a better chance at surviving an attack.

The Left, however, does not think in these terms. Liberals tend to believe their personal emotions are the direct consequence of other’s actions and behaviors. People cause them to be afraid. Therefore the responsibility falls to the outside world to make them feel safe. Guns make liberals feel afraid and so they believe you should not be allowed to carry one.

In larger terms this explains the utter obsession with ‘gun control.’ Liberals always demand, with a great sense of righteous outrage, that we need ‘common sense gun control’ and we need it now. They often declare ‘Enough is enough!’ and place the blame squarely on the Right for standing in the way. The Right understands that ‘gun control’ is a meaningless phrase that translates into gun restriction for responsible gun owners while doing absolutely nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining whatever they want.

To the Right, if we restrict gun ownership even more than we already do it will simply empower the violent to prey on the ever-more helpless population bound by government regulation and civic duty to obey the law. To the Left, however, ‘gun control’ translates into ‘the government is doing something to make me safe.’

The Left relies on the government to protect them and therefore they believe, with absolute conviction, that only the government can stop gun violence.

Ignorance About Guns

The Left is profoundly ignorant on the nature of guns or gun ownership. From the absurd mis-reading of the 2nd Amendment to arguments over ‘who needs this or that gun’ the Left routinely shows it has no idea what it is talking about. Liberals believe you can walk into the grocery store and walk out with a machine gun and a bag of chips and soda. They love to make the argument ‘it is easier to get a gun than to…’ and then go on to cite provably false examples.

They seem unaware of current gun regulation or legal standards and simply do not respond when we point out that everything they demand be put in place already is. They cannot tell the difference between types of guns, preferring to simply refer to them all as ‘assault weapons’ and they repeat provably false statistics claiming more guns equal more violence.

Furthermore they genuinely cannot fathom why any individual needs or would want a firearm. To the Left, rights are dependent on need. If the Left determines the general population no longer ‘needs’ something, they see no reason to maintain a right to it. They genuinely believe the government ‘allows’ the citizenry to own guns.

Therefore their reasoning forces them to view gun advocates as violence advocates since they can see no other purpose for guns.

Anti-American Culture

The Left has positioned itself as the opposition party to American culture. Progressively we have seen them portray everything from the founding to the flag, the anthem, monuments, patriotic heroes and so on as racist, terroristic, hateful and outdated. Guns represent a period before the progressive enlightenment when people shot each other in the streets and racists were marching waving rifles in the air. Guns paint a picture of violence, authoritarianism, conquest and oppression in the mind of the Left.

The Left is fond of making the argument that at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, we only had muskets and therefore the amendment serves no current purpose. In their quest to erase absolutely everything associated with traditional America, guns are their greatest prize. If they can destroy the right to own guns, they have successfully destroyed the nation of evil they have fought so long.

The Left tends to associate gun ownership and advocacy with middle Americans which they consider to be uneducated, bigoted and unimportant. This is the same population that honors the flag, stands in genuine respect for the anthem and openly expresses love for their country. The Left has a particular interest in attacking this specific population and their values.

Liberals whine that other ‘modern’ countries ban guns or heavily restrict them. Their messaging is straightforward. They want America to be Europe because they believe America as she is, is embarrassing. If only we could be as sophisticated and less savage, the world would embrace us.

Finally, they enjoy invoking the stereotype of the ultra-macho persona of the American gun owner. In their quest to destroy masculinity and all concepts of masculine heroics in our culture, gun ownership is a top priority. They like to imagine men own guns to compensate for male inadequacy and there is nothing liberals love more than to shame male insecurity.

Revenge on the Right

And this brings me to the primary reason why the Left hates guns. People often ask me why Leftist Jews oppose Evangelical Christian support of Israel. Every Republican leader for decades has been passionately pro-Israel and yet most American Jews vote Democrat. Why? The reason is liberals associate support for Israel with Christianity and Republicanism. The Left is so blinded by hatred for the Right they cannot allow themselves to stand on common ground with them on any issue.

The same is true about guns. The Right cares about protecting the 2nd Amendment so the Left is determined to tear it all down. I often see liberals reference the 2nd Amendment as a ‘Republican’ issue, for example. In their minds it is no different than the Republican opposition to same-sex marriage, government-paid contraception or anti-abortion messaging.

Unfortunately the Left and the Right are arguing two separate issues. While the Right is interested in defending a core right from the progressive tendency to destroy the house to kill a spider, the Left is fixated on their emotions and illusion of safety. It does not matter how many statistics we debunk, how much reasoning we provide, how strongly we advocate for rights or how many of their lies we openly correct, the Left believes we shouldn’t own guns.

It is the responsibility of the Republican party to prevent the Democratic party from hastily imposing ‘gun control’ measures onto the population in response to the emotional outcry immediately after a terrorist attack or shooting. We must remain level headed and fact-driven and continue repeating the absolute truth that the right to own guns is simply not up for debate. The Left has already made too much progress in restricting that right. We cannot allow their irrational hatred of America to destroy it any further.


https://medium.com/@chadfelixg/why-the-left-hates-guns-7ece86605e7

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 257
RE: Another day, another "small" mass shooting - 11/23/2017 5:32:08 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

posted this earlier, worth sharing again. its almost specifically written for you:



From your cite:

"While the Right is interested in defending a core right from the progressive tendency to destroy the house to kill a spider, the Left is fixated on their emotions and illusion of safety."

God, what a dismally partisan, pisspoor, brainless and utterly useless way of framing the debate.

Oh well, maybe the next mass-killing will move things on a millimetre further.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 258
RE: Another day, another "small" mass shooting - 11/23/2017 5:35:02 AM   
DaddySatyr


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Oh well, maybe the next mass-killing will move things on a millimetre further.


That's great! Hope for a tragedy to advance a political agenda.

Unfortunately, typical leftist attitude.

Bless your heart.





_____________________________

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 PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 259
RE: Another day, another "small" mass shooting - 11/23/2017 5:44:14 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
From your cite:

"While the Right is interested in defending a core right from the progressive tendency to destroy the house to kill a spider, the Left is fixated on their emotions and illusion of safety."

God, what a dismally partisan, pisspoor, brainless and utterly useless way of framing the debate.


right, except for that its often more or less true, and the author is or at least was a leftie as concerns gun control. sooooo....

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Oh well, maybe the next mass-killing will move things on a millimetre further.


given that every time theres a mass killing, the pro second amendment people point out how for the most part, the shooters broke already existing law, or that new laws cannot be made without compromising the liberty of law abiding people---unless we're talking about the left becoming more accepting of people's rights and their (the left) living in the real world, theres no movement to be had really.




< Message edited by bounty44 -- 11/23/2017 5:46:26 AM >

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 260
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Another day, another "small" mass shobooting Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   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