Gun Control and Liberals? Help me here...

[Predicto]

There is a lot of subtle switching going on in these arguments.

If I say "why do you need assault rifles?" - then you say - "not much crime linked to assault rifles - what's the problem? Gun crimes almost always involve handguns."

So I say "ok then, why do you need handguns?" then you say "handguns are convenient for home defense, and you can use them for target shooting and hunting and stuff."

So I say "Well, can't you defend your home (or truck) with a shotgun or rifle that cannot readily be concealed, and still do all the target shooting and hunting you want?" then you say "well, I need to defend America from totalitarianism, and that takes more firepower - like assault weapons."

So I say "but won't the state basically overwhelm you anyway, just like at Ruby Ridge, unless you have something really powerful, like tanks and nukes and stuff?" and you say "Tanks and Nukes? Stop talking crazy!"

I'm tired and I have to get back to work. I guess I lose.

[Predicto]

Try following your own party's mantra, would you??? The Democratic party is in large support of banning all guns. Not impossing wait limits, but banning. I guess your liberal BS sites that you love to quote all the time forgot to tell you that.

You should try reading some of your post if you think this is the most ignorant thing that has been posted here in months. The truth is that many Dems, esp. the Hollywood nut jobs, have stated how they want to leave because everything is so bad here (oh, they aren't getting everything their way, boo-hoo). Almost every Dem in the country has tried to make our countries current state affairs desasters of biblical proportions. If it is so bad, then why don't you all leave??? It isn't about loving this country. Every time you have a chance to defend this country you "love," you run, you ***** and complain, you try to get us to be more like other nations, etc. So, why don't you go to those nations that are so much better than us that you feel we should model after them???

You do realize that this was the reason for the Second Amendment, right? Wow, what a bad analogy using history and reasoning. :doh:

Ahh, now we have a true master at work. Take notes 21KO. He hit all the bases - and even ended with a :doh:

[AlexRS]

Seriously that is what they naysayers said about the revolutionary war. There was no way we were going to beat the British. Guerilla warfare ended that notion. Look at how modern militaries have stacked up against guerilla warfare in the past. Not very well. I would agree that the chance of the populace having to take up arms is very slight, and I hope it's not something I ever see, but the forefathers put the right in the consitution for a reason.

Good point! I was thinking about it in terms of face-to-face conflict, but forgot all about guerilla warfare...

I think you are really onto something here as far as protecting from Government goes. If you look at Government as a bunch of people (not a single entity), then you can be terrorised by some of those people.

Guns may not protect us from US Army, but they can definitely protect us from low-level tyranny by Law Enforcement. :applause:

[Prosperity]

I've seen plenty of rabid libs screeching about how we're become Nazi Germany Redux, Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Killing Fields, the worst of the worst - all rolled into one. They're non stop. They see boogeymen everywhere.

Yet MANY of these same people will also rail endlessly about how no person needs a handgun, people should not be allowed to posess those evil "assault weapons", and all guns need to be registered with that same federal government that they claim is on the verge of rounding up every hippie that doesn't goose step the party line and gas them. All guns are evil, they say.

For the seemingly obssessively paranoid out there, and you know who you are, and there are pleennnty of you, how can you make claims of EVIL government creating future gulags and then want that same government to take away your last line of defense? That same government to have a detailed inventory of every weapon you own? If you see such evil, how will you protect yourself against it?

Why are you even still here? In the US? My God, from the things you write, the evil you see, I would think you couldn't stand it one more day. I'm a registered Republican - (that doesn't mean I think Bush is perfect, so can it) What am I saying? Half the people here don't even read the posts. They see a headline and rush desperately to reply. But even I, a kool-aid swilling, racist, black-hearted sheep bowing at the alter of W (according to many who generalize all Repub's) has a cache that will assist me in the event of a **** hits the fan scenario.

But you gun hating libs don't. What are you gonna do when the Empire you fear comes to subject you? Run to Canada? You know they'll have the highways shut down. Go live in the woods like grizzly man? You'd die without your daily latte and Huffington fix.

But besides the EVIL empire coming to get you, what if some terrorist group pulls off a big one? Power grid? Water supply? Bio or chem weapon? You saw how the fed handled Katrina. According to your own arguments, It wasn't the city or the states fault, it was the fed's. So if we have a SHTF scenario thanks to terrorism, and the general poulation panics, you're defenseless again. Relying on that same gov't that failed New Orleans to protect you from the worst case scenario, because you can't. Because you don't own guns. Because guns are evil, right?

I don't get it.

Unless of course, you really DON'T think Bush is the next Hitler, etc etc and you really just like to rant and rave because it's fun and you enjoy being prone to hysterics. Then it makes sense to me.

Just curious.

What don't you get?

Socialist liberals believe in constructing the world in an image that they like. Guns don't fit in that image.

Not all liberals are socialist though, there are classical liberals that would prefer to let the individual make his own decisions. (like me for example)

[Baculus]

There is a lot of subtle switching going on in these arguments.

If I say "why do you need assault rifles?" - then you say - "not much crime linked to assault rifles - what's the problem? Gun crimes almost always involve handguns."

So I say "ok then, why do you need handguns?" then you say "handguns are convenient for home defense, and you can use them for target shooting and hunting and stuff."

So I say "Well, can't you defend your home (or truck) with a shotgun or rifle that cannot readily be concealed, and still do all the target shooting and hunting you want?" then you say "well, I need to defend America from totalitarianism, and that takes more firepower - like assault weapons."

So I say "but won't the state basically overwhelm you anyway, just like at Ruby Ridge, unless you have something really powerful, like tanks and nukes and stuff?" and you say "Tanks and Nukes? Stop talking crazy!"

I'm tired and I have to get back to work. I guess I lose.

In a way, you do, because you just described firearms in every category that most folks who would be considered "pro-firearm," would be against banning in the first place. You don't seem to understand that many of us are against strict restrictions of many categories of firearms. So, yes, you will get a negative reply to each of your responses, such as "ok then, why do you need handguns?" Just because one is less or more used in crimes than the other does not warrant its banning or outright abolition. You seem to be looking for an answer or pathway that is going to say, "AHA! See, a good reason to ban or heavily regulate them." Sorry, friend, you aren't going to find that here. Basically, to some of us, it is all or nothing to a degree.

Also, I would love to own a tank - I don't know about you guys.

[Baculus]

What's odd to me is to see folks who support marijuana legalization being for stricter firearm regulation. Both sides who are for, and against, use the same arguments in a certain degree when they switch sides.

[Chopper Dave]

Funny, if me, Lib, chom, or Midnight Judges started a thread asking why all conservatives are evil guntoting *******s, I have a feeling the reaction to it wouldn't be as civil.

[The 12th Commandment]

Funny, if me, Lib, chom, or Midnight Judges started a thread asking why all conservatives are evil guntoting *******s, I have a feeling the reaction to it wouldn't be as civil.

Dude, I think you're missing the distinction which I got out these posts. Alot of dems (like me) are guntoting ********s too. Hence the reasoned responses.

[Chopper Dave]

Dude, I think you're missing the distinction which I got out these posts. Alot of dems (like me) are guntoting ********s too. Hence the reasoned responses.

True. Just trying to point out that the reaction on the right from an equivalent thread would probably be a lot different.

[PleaseBlitz]

What's is odd to me is to see folks who support marijuana legalization being for stricter firearm regulation. Both sides who are for, and against, use the same arguments in a certain degree when they switch sides.

Chopper and I rarely agree on anything, but honestly, how do you compare guns and pot? Guns are deadly and legal, pot is fairly harmless, yet illegal.

Im just not seeing the correlation here.

[Spaceman Spiff]

You seem to think liberals don't want guns, I like guns and I am a liberal. I also think that mandatory wait times are a good thing, I don't like the fact that Ackmed Muhammad can go to a local gun shop and buy a .50cal rifle which can take out a target from 2mi away.

Gasp!! is that chomerics making a stereotype about middle easterners!

It's a religion of peace, eh chom?

[Chopper Dave]

Chopper and I rarely agree on anything, but honestly, how do you compare guns and pot? Guns are deadly and legal, pot is fairly harmless, yet illegal.

Im just not seeing the correlation here.

Exactly.

And for the record, I'm against all but the necessary gun control. And my definition of necessary isn't that broad.

[Predicto]

What's is odd to me is to see folks who support marijuana legalization being for stricter firearm regulation. Both sides who are for, and against, use the same arguments in a certain degree when they switch sides.

Why is that odd? I've never had someone threaten to kill me with a doobie.

[Baculus]

Chopper and I rarely agree on anything, but honestly, how do you compare guns and pot? Guns are deadly and legal, pot is fairly harmless, yet illegal.

Are you guys really that unaware? People who support heavier laws on marijuana feel that pot IS dangerous, hence the reasoning for some of the more strict laws. You may feel that it is harmless because you may have a more positive feeling towards marijuana, but there are those who oppose its use or possession feel that it is very dangerous.

Both marijuana use and firearm possession rely upon one important detail: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I am fully capable of smoking a joint and owning a firearm, but both the Right and the Left want to assume we don't have this personal responsibility.

I think my point FLEW right over your guy's heads and you, in fact, proved it. I guess that is why I vote Libertarian, because we see that these issues ARE instrinsically related.

[Predicto]

Are you guys really that unaware? People who support heavier laws on marijuana feel that pot IS dangerous, hence the reasoning for some of the more strict laws. You may feel that it is harmless because you may have a more positive feeling towards marijuana, but there are those who oppose its use or possession feel that it is very dangerous.

Both marijuana use and firearm possession rely upon one important detail: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I am fully capable of smoking a joint and owning a firearm, but both the Right and the Left want to assume we don't have this personal responsibility.

I think my point FLEW right over your guy's heads and you, in fact, proved it. I guess that is why I vote Libertarian, because we see that these issues ARE instrinsically related.

No, there is a very significant distinction and nothing FLEW over our heads.

The distinction is not whether the item may be dangerous, the distinction is whether the item may be dangerous to ME.

You + marijuana = you stoned, me unaffected

you + gun = you armed, me potentially affected in a very negative way

I'll put it another way using your personal responsibility line... if you fail to have personal responsibility with your pot, you will be a stoner and lose your job andmaybe even get cancer. If you fail to have personal responsibility with your gun, I might get a bullet in my ear. That's why I care.

[PokerPacker]

No, there is a very significant distinction and nothing FLEW over our heads.

The distinction is not whether the item may be dangerous, the distinction is whether the item may be dangerous to ME.

You + marijuana = you stoned, me unaffected

you + gun = you armed, me potentially affected in a very negative way

I'll put it another way using your personal responsibility line... if you fail to have personal responsibility with your pot, you will be a stoner and lose your job andmaybe even get cancer. If you fail to have personal responsibility with your gun, I might get a bullet in my ear. That's why I care.

maybe if you had your own gun, you could hit him first

[Spaceman Spiff]

Predicto, if you stop getting all uppity here, you won't have to worry about getting capped

[Predicto]

I'm not asking you to agree with me. I gave up on that long ago.

I am asking you to concede that there is a legitimate and logical basis why one would have a different stand on the legal ownership of marijuana and the legal ownership of handguns. If I can't get that, and I really am wasting my time.

Or my bosses' time

[Baculus]

The distinction is not whether the item may be dangerous, the distinction is whether the item may be dangerous to ME.

You + marijuana = you stoned, me unaffected

you + gun = you armed, me potentially affected in a very negative way

This is every easy to turn - see below.

I'll put it another way using your personal responsibility line... if you fail to have personal responsibility with your pot, you will be a stoner and lose your job andmaybe even get cancer. If you fail to have personal responsibility with your gun, I might get a bullet in my ear. That's why I care.

Actually, someone else may say, "If you fail to have persona responsibility, you may drive stoned and wreck your car into another car." I could also injure myself with my own firearm if I am not careful as well. Firearms aren't just dangerous to others, and because of the fact that they are potentially dangerous, you need even more responsibility with firearms.

One can talk all day about personal responsibility of marijuana, and they, those who want to criminalize it, will find every scenario how it be dangerous. And that is the same tactic used by those who are against the ban of such firearms as so-called "assault" rifles.

EACH requires a good dose of personal responsibility.

[PokerPacker]

i agree, my personal resposibility about drugs tells me not to do them, but that there is no reason that they should be criminalized like this

my personal responsibility also tells me to be carefull with guns, don't mess with them until you're familiar with them and can handle them.

[Predicto]

Actually, someone else may say, "If you fail to have persona responsibility, you may drive stoned and wreck your car into another car." I could also injure myself with my own firearm if I am not careful as well. Firearms aren't just dangerous to others, and because of the fact that they are potentially dangerous, you need even more responsibility with firearms.

One can talk all day about personal responsibility of marijuana, and they, those who want to criminalize it, will find every scenario how it be dangerous. And that is the same tactic used by those who are against the ban of such firearms as so-called "assault" rifles.

EACH requires a good dose of personal responsibility.

The fact remains that my distinction between marijuana and guns is logical, whether or not you agree with it. Likewise, I did not miss your point, I just did not agree with it - but I did not accuse you of a lack of intellectual honesty.

[rincewind]

This is every easy to turn - see below.

Actually, someone else may say, "If you fail to have persona responsibility, you may drive stoned and wreck your car into another car." I could also injure myself with my own firearm if I am not careful as well. Firearms aren't just dangerous to others, and because of the fact that they are potentially dangerous, you need even more responsibility with firearms.

One can talk all day about personal responsibility of marijuana, and they, those who want to criminalize it, will find every scenario how it be dangerous. And that is the same tactic used by those who are against the ban of such firearms as so-called "assault" rifles.

EACH requires a good dose of personal responsibility.

Yes, but the purpose of marijuana is not to cause harm; the SOLE purpose of guns is to cause harm. And therein lies the inherent difference.

[Baculus]

The fact remains that my distinction between marijuana and guns is logical, whether or not you agree with it.

And I also believe my argument is logical as well, because both the Right and the Left use the same arguments about their "pet" beliefs.

Let me present another angle, one that you may understand, Predicto - this relates to our current situation in Iraq: Pre-emptive action based upon little factual information or data. (Incidentally, I am not trying to hijack this thread, but using an example to demonstrate a point.)

People have been very critical of the Bush administration's reasoning for invading Iraq. One of these reasons was that Saddam had the potential for possessing or creating WMDs. For many of those who have been critical of the war, this is not reason enough: You cannot invade a nation merely based upon potential as opposed to actual action or events, or real hard data. This exactly applies to argument concerning military style rifles. These rifles are being singled out NOT based upon rampant use in this nation or hard, factual information on their common criminal use. No, they are being singled out for their POTENTIAL use by those citizens who may have them. It is the exact same logic used by Bush and his cohorts, and it is the exact same logic I see being applied in this thread.

But, inconsistently, those who are critical of Bush and his administration for these pre-emptive actions are applying the same argument to "assault" rifles.

The argument that I have seen here is that these firearms are potentially dangerous - no matter who may possess them, the history of those who may possess them, or a lack of factual data that presents these firearms as a common threat to the neighbors of those that possess these firearms. And this is the sort of "pre-emptive" logic that never sits well with me or can be potentially used and abused in various areas of daily life, above and beyond the question of private ownership of military style firearms.

Now, I of course concede that there are differences between marijuana and firearms. But, it is my argument that the same attitude applies towards both - that is why individual rights parties such as the Libertarian party has the same attitude towards both "pot and guns."

[Crazyhorse1]

I've seen plenty of rabid libs screeching about how we're become Nazi Germany Redux, Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Killing Fields, the worst of the worst - all rolled into one. They're non stop. They see boogeymen everywhere.

Yet MANY of these same people will also rail endlessly about how no person needs a handgun, people should not be allowed to posess those evil "assault weapons", and all guns need to be registered with that same federal government that they claim is on the verge of rounding up every hippie that doesn't goose step the party line and gas them. All guns are evil, they say.

For the seemingly obssessively paranoid out there, and you know who you are, and there are pleennnty of you, how can you make claims of EVIL government creating future gulags and then want that same government to take away your last line of defense? That same government to have a detailed inventory of every weapon you own? If you see such evil, how will you protect yourself against it?

Why are you even still here? In the US? My God, from the things you write, the evil you see, I would think you couldn't stand it one more day. I'm a registered Republican - (that doesn't mean I think Bush is perfect, so can it) What am I saying? Half the people here don't even read the posts. They see a headline and rush desperately to reply. But even I, a kool-aid swilling, racist, black-hearted sheep bowing at the alter of W (according to many who generalize all Repub's) has a cache that will assist me in the event of a **** hits the fan scenario.

But you gun hating libs don't. What are you gonna do when the Empire you fear comes to subject you? Run to Canada? You know they'll have the highways shut down. Go live in the woods like grizzly man? You'd die without your daily latte and Huffington fix.

But besides the EVIL empire coming to get you, what if some terrorist group pulls off a big one? Power grid? Water supply? Bio or chem weapon? You saw how the fed handled Katrina. According to your own arguments, It wasn't the city or the states fault, it was the fed's. So if we have a SHTF scenario thanks to terrorism, and the general poulation panics, you're defenseless again. Relying on that same gov't that failed New Orleans to protect you from the worst case scenario, because you can't. Because you don't own guns. Because guns are evil, right?

I don't get it.

Unless of course, you really DON'T think Bush is the next Hitler, etc etc and you really just like to rant and rave because it's fun and you enjoy being prone to hysterics. Then it makes sense to me.

Just curious.

I'm an ranting, raving liberal, god knows, and want guns. I'd like a handgun and a rifle for my personal protection and a couple of rifles and various pistols for fun and target practive (I'm bored by hunting, as well as too crippled to walk all day). Unfortunately, I don't trust my teenagers and have promised my wife to do without until they've left the nest.

In short, I agree with you about guns. However, that's about all.

I don't think you can equate liberals with gun haters and conservatives with gun lovers. I haven't seen poll numbers but suspect there's a bit of propaganda going into that perception. It's a fact there are more democratic war veterans in office in Washington than there are republican war veterans.

In the circles in which I travel a "chicken hawk" is a conservative republican by definition. We liberals don't think conservatives are tough. We think they are old, rich, cowardly, and the type of hunters who hunt at pheasant farms.

We also seriously believe that Bush has created a gulag, that he is seriously flawed morally and a habitual liar who has a poor hold on reality and has cause great destruction and death by incompetence, and, yes, evil. I guarantee you that Bush's assault on American rights, as well as life and limb, is the primary concern in liberal America today, against which a concern about guns has no relative weight. I don't recall even discussing gun control since the time of Clinton. However, you have an incorrect idea about a liberal's notion of governmental power.

A liberal sees the federal government not as a centralized force that exerts power over the individual, but rather as a centralized force that enforces the rights of the individual against the arbitrary or unconstitutional violation of the rights of the individual, be the violator organizations, corporations, or state, city, or other governments.

Bush believes in centralized power in his office, and that that power superseeds the rights of the individual. He is neither liberal, nor a conservative. He is a fascist, or tyrant, deliberately attempting to subordinate the rights of the individual. By definition, he is the direct opposite of the liberal, against whom a liberal might deliberately seek impeachment and a removal from office. Giving up guns is not consistent with the liberal objective, at this time.

A conservative should also be opposed to Bush's type of government, especially in relation to fiscal concerns, foreign policy, preservation of culture, honestly in government, accountability, openness in government, etc. It is also incumbent upon conservative to seek impeachment at this time; nor should conservatives give up guns in this time of national crisis.

[hueman]

I've seen plenty of rabid libs screeching about how we're become Nazi Germany Redux, Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Killing Fields, the worst of the worst - all rolled into one. They're non stop. They see boogeymen everywhere.

that's funny, cuz i was going to say that about the gun totin' people that're absolutely terrified that someone's either going to break into their home 6 nights out of 7 (sundays are for mass, after all) or that the gov't needs to be kept in check by owning an armory that's ONLY accessible by said people, and of course, their small children any 4th rate breaking-and-entering hack.

Yet MANY of these same people will also rail endlessly about how no person needs a handgun, people should not be allowed to posess those evil "assault weapons", and all guns need to be registered with that same federal government that they claim is on the verge of rounding up every hippie that doesn't goose step the party line and gas them. All guns are evil, they say.

i honestly can't remember anything recently SUBSTANTIAL (i too have learned the beauty of the shift or caps lock key) to what you are describing. the rabid anti-gun people are not as prominent or as mainstream as they were in the 90's. and liberals aren't scared of the gov't, we're pissed at it. there's a difference. we generally WANT larger gov't--gov't programs, education, healthcare, mass killings, the complete and utter destruction of any moral tradition, etc.

For the seemingly obssessively paranoid out there, and you know who you are, and there are pleennnty of you, how can you make claims of EVIL government creating future gulags and then want that same government to take away your last line of defense? That same government to have a detailed inventory of every weapon you own? If you see such evil, how will you protect yourself against it?

see, this is just a weirdly worded bit. first you ask the obsessively paranoid anti-gun liberals about their pessimistic views on the gov't. THEN you ask how they'd feel once they have no guns. but why the heck would these liberals have guns in the first place? i guess the honest answer from a rabid anti-gun lib whose guns were just stripped from him or her (let's call us liberals "shims" since we libs lack balls) in the middle of the night in an elaborate "de-gunning the de-gunners" mission is this: "i dunno."

Why are you even still here? In the US? My God, from the things you write, the evil you see, I would think you couldn't stand it one more day.

we live here and want to improve it. that and we usually get the big blockbuster movies released here first... except for like harry potter. ****ing brits. but i could be wrong about that.

I'm a registered Republican - (that doesn't mean I think Bush is perfect, so can it)

oh, word?

What am I saying? Half the people here don't even read the posts. They see a headline and rush desperately to reply. But even I, a kool-aid swilling, racist, black-hearted sheep bowing at the alter of W (according to many who generalize all Repub's) has a cache that will assist me in the event of a **** hits the fan scenario.

you also hate the environment, YOU PIECE OF CRAP!

But you gun hating libs don't. What are you gonna do when the Empire you fear comes to subject you? Run to Canada? You know they'll have the highways shut down. Go live in the woods like grizzly man? You'd die without your daily latte and Huffington fix.

what the heck is a huffington? you really think they'd bother killing the libs that're just trying to get to canada, when the more obvious gun toting jackasses--excuse me, targets--like yourself are more up on their list: PTKBTPARTTUWTPEA (people to kill because they present a real threat to us with their penis enlarging artillery).

But besides the EVIL empire coming to get you, what if some terrorist group pulls off a big one? Power grid? Water supply? Bio or chem weapon? You saw how the fed handled Katrina. According to your own arguments, It wasn't the city or the states fault, it was the fed's. So if we have a SHTF scenario thanks to terrorism, and the general poulation panics, you're defenseless again. Relying on that same gov't that failed New Orleans to protect you from the worst case scenario, because you can't. Because you don't own guns. Because guns are evil, right?

what if, schmat if. as long as i'm not black, i think the gov't will help me... which is a completely different situation than what happened in NO.

I don't get it.

Unless of course, you really DON'T think Bush is the next Hitler, etc etc and you really just like to rant and rave because it's fun and you enjoy being prone to hysterics. Then it makes sense to me.

Just curious.

no, he's definitely not the next hitler. not smart enough. but his propaganda is ranking up there.