Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Maybe, not all liberals are idiots?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Maybe, not all liberals are idiots?

    I general believe that all "liberals" are idiots. At least they don't seem to understand logic.

    I am currently having the "gun control" people control conversation with one. Any positive input to help me show her that being anti-liberty (anti-gun) is that anti-thesis of personal choice, would be helpful.
    Thank you.

    I will give a layout of how the conversation is growing.

    I am only going to focus on the right part of the conversation so as to keep any personal information personal.

    (her)
    I tend towards liberal - I believe strongly in human rights and the freedom to pursue whatever makes you happy, so long as it does not infringe on those same rights for others. Anything goes between consensual adults. I have an aunt that once told me there was no right, no wrong... only consequences. If you're willing to accept those consequences, then do as you will.

    (me)
    I am a constitutionalist politically.

    I personally believe in personal freedom and so long as you don't harm anyone there should be no issues. I find that most 'liberals' are anti-gun and pro-socialism (which is the anti-these of liberty).


    (her)
    As to the gun control issue... I do enjoy shooting and am apparently good at it, though I don't own a gun myself. I have cops in my family, and my best friend's (who taught me to shoot) family is largely in border control. So I've heard a lot of about this, with some unexpected opinions on all sides.

    Guns are a complicated issue, one I'm still trying to decide about. Ultimately, I do believe in personal responsibility, and in having a government strong enough to enforce fair penalties, including rehabilitation/reeducation when possible.

    I don't think background checks and waiting periods are a problem - I have to go through similar inspection just to fill out certain prescription medications. They do weed out some obviously potentially dangerous people. Some of the shootings in the news lately were by those who bought it legally despite having a record.

    I do understand the concern that a supposed database full of the gun owners' information would be a violation of privacy, though at this time no such database exists even if it would help law enforcement tremendously to have it.

    The question seems to boil down to whether the privacy rights of the majority of gun-owners, who are responsible and law-abiding, outweigh the worth of the lives of the victims of the minority.

    I think about what kind of society I want to live in. Can we always be all for ourselves, or at there some compromises we can make while still retaining the parts of our freedoms that matter most to us? I don't want to take away people's guns.

    I don't know how necessary some of the more powerful varieties of guns are for hunting and basic self defense, and like any powerful weapon, societies choose to make pacts not to own/make them for the good for all humanity.

    Keeping track of the guns that are legally-obtained would free up resources towards finding and intercepting illegal weapons. A lot of time is wasted trying to track down even a legal gun, since the only record that exists must be in paper, with the shop that sold it. A very unreliable and slow method of gaining information.

    This is probably a lot, so I'll stop here. Obviously, I like to think about this sort of thing.

    (me)
    Background checks are a violation of rights.
    The government has no business knowing what I do or do not own, and that is not limited to guns.

    You have no right to police protection, as the courts have ruled time and time again.

    By the intent of the second amendment there are no such things as illegal weapons.
    Felons owning weapons was not an issue until AFTER Lincoln.
    Guns in school was not an issue until the 90's. I have a friend who would bring his gun to school every day in elementary school and there were never any school shootings. One guy knew would leave it in the back corner of the classroom and another had to leave it in the principal's office.

    What "more powerful varieties" of guns are you talking about? Are you thinking a 155mm or a 105mm artillery piece?


    (her)
    As for what I had meant, I suppose I was thinking of assault rifles, large ammo clips. Like I said, still learning.

    I do say that I walk with a lean to the left, but I tend to be in all things practical. We may have in mind an ideal world we want to work towards, but we must still manage with the one we have at this place in time.

    If you want to continue this topic, then how would you suggest reducing gun crime?


    (me)
    First off, ammo clips for AR15's are only 10 rounds. It is interesting that the AR15/M16 is not clip fed and in fact that whole platform uses a low power cartridge. And "assault rifles" are a pain in the ass to own because they require a federal tax stamp to buy and sell.

    The other thing is that there is no such thing as "gun crime." Crime is crime. A gun is just a tool like an automobile, a hammer, a saw, a knife, etc.

    Besides choosing to or not to own those sorts of things are part of human rights and personal freedom. So, how can you claim to support personal freedom and then turn around and say, "well I don't like you doing that," even when doing "that" is harming no one? Could you explain that to me?

    If you don't know much about the topic then how can you have your OWN opinion? When you claim to do "all things practical" the anti-liberty measures you support are anything BUT practical. I should know I have first hand knowledge of part of the issue and I have talked to gun store owners to learn about the other part. Hell I even had the paperwork in my hands at one point to become a firearms retailer. Just THAT paper work alone is not practical to file.

    The other note, is that theft is illegal, murder is illegal, rape is illegal, etc. By making guns hard/illegal to own only law abiding citizens will obey them in the first place. Criminals will ignore the laws and prey upon the law abiding people who have been disarmed by "the government."

    (end as of now)


    Is there anything I could present differently? Something I should point out later?
    I may be able to sway this one, any help I can get would be great.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Davis County, Utah
    Posts
    528

    Re: Maybe, not all liberals are idiots?

    I don't see this convo heading down the "The 2A should be taken out completely" road, so that's good.

    I get a feeling that at some point, though, she may use the "The framers of the Constitution could not have envisioned full-auto weapons" schtick. Advise you counter with "So the 1A only covers movable type, ink, and paper?"

    Other than that, so far so good. Keep a light hand with this one.

    You may not be able to win her over completely, but you might give her things to honestly think about.

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    <snip>

    (her)
    I tend towards liberal - I believe strongly in human rights and the freedom to pursue whatever makes you happy, so long as it does not infringe on those same rights for others. Anything goes between consensual adults. I have an aunt that once told me there was no right, no wrong... only consequences. If you're willing to accept those consequences, then do as you will.
    (me)
    I am a constitutionalist politically.

    I personally believe in personal freedom and so long as you don't harm anyone there should be no issues. I find that most 'liberals' are anti-gun and pro-socialism (which is the anti-these of liberty).

    <snip>
    She is a idiot if a gun is the exception to her rule. You, on the other hand, have accepted her premise that guns can be an legitimate exception to your core foundational principal.

    Pray allow me to provide guidance.
    (her)
    I tend towards liberal - I believe strongly in human rights and the freedom to pursue whatever makes you happy, so long as it does not infringe on those same rights for others. Anything goes between consensual adults. I have an aunt that once told me there was no right, no wrong... only consequences. If you're willing to accept those consequences, then do as you will.

    (me)
    Really? What business is it of yours to use government to interferre in my life and with my property when I have not interferred OR infringed upon yours or another citizen's freedom to pursue whatever makes you happy?
    No, she is anti-liberty, anti-citizen, and very confused. Typical liberal traits. She is not worth the time of day regarding this topic, any friendship aside. End the discussion and work to restore liberty via the ballot box by supporting candidates that work to restore liberty. If you can get her to vote to restore liberty then the conversation would have been very short.

    (her)
    I tend towards liberal - I believe strongly in human rights and the freedom to pursue whatever makes you happy, so long as it does not infringe on those same rights for others. Anything goes between consensual adults. I have an aunt that once told me there was no right, no wrong... only consequences. If you're willing to accept those consequences, then do as you will.
    (me)
    Great!! Who are you voting for?.
    (her)
    Rand Paul.
    (me)
    Great!! You wanna go get some coffee?
    See. very simple. Anyone who "leans left" is not prone to accept liberty and all that that implies.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    As soon as I read "I go shooting", "I own a gun" you know the rest is "but....gun laws to disallow YOU from owning the gun of your choice is OK"

    "how would you suggest lowering gun crime" ... indicating that she has ZERO knowledge of how to do this but for stealing everyone's guns
    And its CRIME, not just "gun crime"

    Stupid liberal who the gov't will shoot in the head with ease.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Continued...

    (her)
    I'll reitterate - I'm still deciding. I don't have any final judgement/opinion, just ideas I'm mulling over. It's actually nice to hear from someone firmly in the pro-rights side, since I hear from a lot of anti-gun friends. You bring up valid points that I don't disagree with.

    Statistics are tricky game, but there are good points in favor of both sides. The nation's homicide rate is 65% less than it was in 1973, according to the Bureau of Justice. However, states that allow concealed guns have fewer mass shootings, and fewer victims from such. Gun ownership does not correlate in other countries with their murder rate.

    It is true that accepting liberty for all means allowing some risks in exchange for that freedom. Safety is a wary business to lose your freedom over.

    If we take the focus away from guns, and consider crime and homicide as a whole, then by what other means do we have of reducing both more effectively? Impoving primary education, social services for children and families, and comprehensive mental heath care for everyone are good for prevention in the long-term. In the short term, is it a matter of making the police more effective?

    {note}
    She said pro-rights not pro-gun.... Interesting....
    (me)
    The police have no legitimate powers other than to investigate a crime AFTER it has been committed.

    What points have I brought up that you don't agree with and why?

    By taking away guns you're taking away the tools often used by those who wish to defend themselves. There is nothing a rapist likes more than an unarmed victim.

    I have never once brought up statistics or murder rates. BUT you must look at MURDER rates per capita if you wish to use them at all. Also keep in mind that each country uses different record keeping methods. England/Britain only record crimes that have been solved as crimes that have happened. While in America we record crimes solved or unsolved.

    The only way to "make the police more effective" is to declare martial law and deprive everyone of all of their rights.


    Now I am waiting. She might "see the light" yet.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    (her)
    I'll reiterate - I'm still deciding. <snip>
    {note}
    She said pro-rights not pro-gun.... Interesting....
    (me)
    <snip>
    Now I am waiting. She might "see the light" yet.
    A liberal who has been exposed all of her life to "liberty for me and not for thee" retains some doubt. It seems that she may yet be compelled to come to accept that liberty is hard work.

    Though, my initial assessment remains unchanged, she is a lost cause unless she votes for liberty.

    I guess we all have our hobbies and it appears that yours is "proselytizing liberty" to the infidels. A hearty +1 to you Sir.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  7. #7
    Regular Member x1wildone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Eagle, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    55
    There are so many things wrong in her first statement.
    This will be a long haul for you, unless you have a personal reason to continue your conversation with her I would consider it a lost cause.
    Second amendment issues should not even be a topic until she understands the difference of right and wrong, and then the concept of what the true consequences may be.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by x1wildone View Post
    There are so many things wrong in her first statement.
    This will be a long haul for you, unless you have a personal reason to continue your conversation with her I would consider it a lost cause.
    Second amendment issues should not even be a topic until she understands the difference of right and wrong, and then the concept of what the true consequences may be.
    I am about to use it as rope for her to hang her ideas with.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  9. #9
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    A liberal who has been exposed all of her life to "liberty for me and not for thee" retains some doubt. It seems that she may yet be compelled to come to accept that liberty is hard work.

    Though, my initial assessment remains unchanged, she is a lost cause unless she votes for liberty.

    I guess we all have our hobbies and it appears that yours is "proselytizing liberty" to the infidels. A hearty +1 to you Sir.
    Thanks for the +1. Was it for the effort or for how I am addressing this issue?

    I hope this conversation I am having gives those who read this forum more tools to use in the war to defend liberty.
    It can also be used to educate people as to how stupid the liberals really are.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  10. #10
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Consenting adults and dueling

    (her)
    I was just busy yesterday. But I kept thinking about it. It definitely shows I need more research.

    I need to be at my computer for this, but I know there is strong evidence for gun control reducing crime. Let's do a hypothetical, out of curiousity.

    If it were proven that a certain level of gun control, say the background checks and database, made a signifigant impact on crime, then would your stance change? I'm wondering how much is a question of principles versus practicality.

    As I see it, there must be a solution that can achieve the desired result: less crime, fewer murders. If not gun control, then what? Putting guns into the hands of every citizen feels like we're stepping back into the days of honor duels. I just can't shake the feeling that there is a better way.

    Guns can't be treated the same as every other pursuit of happiness and life, because by their very nature they do pose great and serious risk to the rights of others. There must be some compromise.

    Smoking isn't permitted in public spaces or businesses, though it is the right of every person to smoke if they like. A compromise is made to reduce the potential impact on others.

    I don't like needless nannying. I can do whatever the hell I want to myself. But if my activity poses a potential danger to others, some guidelines to minimize that are needed.

    We don't live in a completely free world. We are a society working together, maintaining a balance between personal freedom and safety for all.


    (me)
    A gun being carried harms no one. A cigarette being smoked has second hand smoke which can do/does harm to others.

    When there was a pro-gun rally at the state capital there were 2-3000 people there of which most were armed. The police had no problems from our group. The groups that they have had the most violence and problems have been with the groups that are anti-gun. I believe there was something like 2-5 officers there to 'police' the event.

    What is wrong with having everyone armed?

    So, you never answered my original question though. What is it you do not agree with me on, and why?

    The whole 'guns are dangerous' argument is a straw man argument. Horses are dangerous. Dogs are dangerous, so are cars, bicycles, cars, police, and having uneducated people casting votes.

    How could you EVER prove that unconstitutional background checks reduced crime?

    "Gun control" is the nanny state there to take away your freedom. Without guns how will you be free?
    Without guns, how will you defend yourself?
    "Gun control" is simply saying that a 100 pound woman has the right to fight off a 200+ pound rapist/attacker with her bare hands. Why would anyone want that?

    What is the crime rate, per capita, in states like Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont. What about Maryland, New York, and Michigan?

    As for background checks, you yourself said it.

    " I believe strongly in human rights and the freedom to pursue whatever makes you happy, so long as it does not infringe on those same rights for others. Anything goes between consensual adults. I have an aunt that once told me there was no right, no wrong... only consequences. If you're willing to accept those consequences, then do as you will. "

    So, by your own logic, honor duels would be acceptable.
    Background check destroy the rights of others. So they go against your own stated belief system.

    Also, without principles, you would have total tyranny. You've seen the results of unprincipled behavior from our elected officials.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  11. #11
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    first off i ask that you please use the term of GUN INFRINGEMENT, since that is what it is.

    but the main thing i want to say is that the true anti people are the progressives. think about it if you were truly liberal you would be for the rights of all people. liberty and freedom for all. but that is why they came up with the term libertarian.

    progressives want to control things. weather they are Democrats or Republicans
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    I did say I would post this conversation.

    (her)
    A cigarette carried does nothing, either. The use of it, smoking, can harm if used irresponsibly near other people. Guns, in irresponsible hands, can take lives. There is a level of intensity there that must be respected.

    It's true, I believe in consequences. Two people can choose to duel between themselves. But if one dies, the victor must accept the consequences of his choice of resolution conflict.

    When you commit a crime, you do lose some of the rights of being a citizen. Sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. The consequence of committing a crime using a gun should be to lose the right to purchase a gun again. Sure, there are illegal methods, but it is illogical to say we shouldn't both making it difficult for them in what ways we can.

    We do not allow unlicensed people to drive cars, because cars have the potential for great damage and danger to other people. We have a way of verifying that the person has a licence. Car-related crimes include revoking that licence. Even dogs legally require licencing, as well as shots to reduce their potential danger to others. Their consequences do not include rehabilitation.

    Background checks exist not to annoy people or spy on their concerns, but as an added measure to prevent those who have proven themselves to be untrustworthy to repeat their offence.

    There are principles, and there's logic. Taking offense to background checks on the basis that they are not included in our constitution - a system of governance designed to be flexible and grow with the times - seems more like an emotional response than a reasoned one.

    No one in this conversation is suggesting that the world be gun-free. As a woman, I do understand the importance of having a means of protecting yourself against a stronger opponent. Guns have tons of practical uses, plus they can be fun!

    How to background checks destroy the rights of a person?


    (myself)
    As for cars and licenses. The courts have ruled that no license is required UNLESS you're engaged in commercial transport. So, another false argument.

    Keeping and bearing arms in a natural right. It was enumerated in the constitution because our founding fathers knew that governments would attempt to destroy it. Hence the part stating "Shall not be infringed."

    Background checks infringe on a person's unalienable right to self-defense. Yes, property is an extension of one's self because one would have to have exchanged part of one's life to acquire any property, besides, winding up dead would be a consequence of attempting to steal property from another.

    Background checks rely on information that the government keeps on citizens, since the government has no authority to keep a file on a citizen the whole premise is based on an unconstitutional activity. Also the background check assumes that you are guilty until you prove your innocents. The prohibited conditions for owning a gun also include domestic violence, which takes almost no evidence to convict someone of and of those convicted it is normally the man. When women are more often guilty of domestic violence than men are.

    AS for losing rights as a result of committing a crime, the loss can only be temporary because the rights exist outside of the government. The only way the rights can be stripped permanently is through the death penalty. As for losing rights, Arizona had a law that once you were done serving prison time for a felony, you were to be given a double barrel shotgun and a mule. Guess what, the people recognized that you had two very fundamental rights , the right to travel by modern conveyance and the right to keep and bear arms. Once your served your time you were free, plain and simple.

    The background checks are de facto gun prohibition for anyone the government does not want armed. The government simply makes one harmless activity into a felony and now anyone who has done that is now a felon. That activity could be sexual intercourse with someone of the same gender you are.

    As for dueling, it was mutually consenting adults. There would have to be a mutual understanding the death would/could result for either or both of them. Like mixed martial arts fighting, boxing, football, etc. Why should the victor be held for damages when the loser lost? Holding the victor liable for damages for winning violates your own stated belief system. Why would a gun change your rules?

    So, why do you WANT to live in a lawless society anyhow?
    Pointing out that something is unconstitutional is a logical, not an emotional response.
    Wanting to destroy the constitution means that you want a lawless society. The constitution is the law of the land after all one that the government is supposed to follow. Unless there are no laws that the government is supposed to follow anymore.

    You keep dodging my repeated and still unanswered question.
    What have I said that you do not agree with and why?
    Please show me what I have said that is factual incorrect. I have only been dealing with facts and logic on my side of the argument.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783
    All librals are idiots and progressives are evil. nuf said.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by wethepeople View Post
    All librals are idiots and progressives are evil. nuf said.
    I believe that this liberal is proving to be too stupid. Progressives, some are too stupid to know better and the rest are evil.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  15. #15
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Latest information

    (me)

    http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.2/gun-facts-6-2-screen.pdf

    Here, I hope this helps.


    (her)

    You seem to expect me to have a thesis all well-researched, notated, and peer-reviewed, at the ready. I'm more of a work in constant progress. There are issues of higher priority to me than gun rights, so I haven't spent a lot of time on this.

    I like learning from these exchanges, but while you accuse me of not answering you directly (though I felt I had), you failed to answer my first: How would you suggest reducing crime in general, if you object to "gun-related?"

    We could go back and forth about this awhile, and likely not alter one another's basic stances very much (and considering the questions and statements you keep giving, you don't seem to have grasped mine), but ultimately, I'd rather look at solutions. I suggested a few, but you didn't respond to those.

    It sounds like you consider the police better had figuring out the crime after it's happened, rather than at preventing it. So what prevents crime? More guns doesn't do it.

    The PDF you linked to mentioned some statistics on the UK, since they are our grand experiment in gun control at a national level. It only goes up to 2000. Here's whats been going on since: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rn-Europe.html Gun control laws alone don't do it. They did a damn intensive job of making guns tightly controlled, but it wasn't until it was combined with changes in police and government policies on indirect things that the rate finally stating dropping. Things like minimum wage, public safety, internet access, better forensic technology, and tougher jail times.

    That said, they have a steadily rising prison population that they are going to have to deal with. There's no quick solution. Guns! are not the answer. No guns! is not the answer. Somewhere in between, with a lot of other, much more effective, measures, can be the only way to move forward.


    (me)

    http://www.examiner.com/article/open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-kennesaw

    The criminals admit that an armed citizen PREVENTED a crime. So yes, more armed citizens DO prevent crime. Besides, when seconds count police are still minutes away. As for police preventing crimes... Well the police are the criminals often times.

    Gun control is not about guns. It's about disarming the people systematically. Hell it was one of the BIG reasons we fought a revolution in the first place.

    The UK only reports SOLVED CRIMES as crimes that have happened. So I would not count on the data released from there.

    Guns are tools, even without guns there are still going to be violent murders and killings. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...llege/2069347/

    Besides, more people get killed each year with hammers. For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...an-With-Rifles

    So, let's call gun control what it really is, victim disarmament.
    It means that you support disarming victims. It does make it easier for the criminals to do what they do. Why are you so for creating unarmed victims? Why do you want the government to have all the power? Why do you hate freedom? Why do you want to destroy civilization?

    Some one else summed it up much better than I could.

    "The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret) Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat— it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 05-21-2013 at 06:06 PM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  16. #16
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    She's finally gotten back to me after that last one.

    (her)
    I can see the point about citizens being able to defend themselves, thus why I'm not for banning guns. I still don't see the connection between background checks to prevent past offenders from buying a gun suddenly meaning no one has a gun at all.

    Sure, a felon could get a gun by other means, but that doesn't mean we need to make it easy for them.

    If you've served time, its public record. Checking for that doesn't infringe on anyone's privacy.


    (me)
    If you're not free to defend yourself and you are still a known danger to the public, then why should you be released in the first place?

    Background checks are not about public safety, they are about control.

    Too many people drive while drunk/under the influence. Great let's have a background check for cars.

    Then you should need a back ground check for plumbing, hammers, shovels, knives, etc. Where would it end?

    You have the unalienable/inalienable right to defend yourself, that can only be deprived while in government custody. If your rights can be permanently deprived at the whim of the government, then it is no right at all and everyone can be deprived.

    Newspapers lead people to support more murder every year than gun ownership ever could, yet I see no background checks required to publish a newspaper, a blog, a tweet, to post in forums, or even to have public gathering to exchange/promote ideas/ideals.

    An idea is much more dangerous than a gun could ever be. Slanderers can still publish but someone who was convicted of any felony and some misdemeanors can never own a gun again (legally)? I see a great hypocrisy in that claimed belief.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  17. #17
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    FREEMAN, you forgot one of the best reasons against registration. registration always precedes gun confiscation. we have seen the examples from the Nazis to the Russians, to Australia, to Canada.

    whenever there has been registration, they have confiscated citizens guns
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    FREEMAN, you forgot one of the best reasons against registration. registration always precedes gun confiscation. we have seen the examples from the Nazis to the Russians, to Australia, to Canada.

    whenever there has been registration, they have confiscated citizens guns
    Thanks for catching my deficiency on that. What her comments are now, will, just, show that they don't even know what words mean. She thinks that forcing you to have a license to own (a) gun(s) would not be an infringement on your right to defend yourself. And no, I am not making any of the stuff of that she is saying, I am using a simple copy and paste, editing out only personal information.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  19. #19
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Tries real hard to claim we don't have the right to travel either....

    (her)
    A gun control law is in no way connected to the fate of other potential dangers. You can't take the fact that dogs must stay leashed in public spaces as premise for why a certain rating of windshield glass is required by law. Both are concerns of public safety, but they are separate matters.

    An idea can carry worldwide, cause terrible wars, and great progressive movements. They have the potential for both evil and tremendous good. We come naturally equipped with our own self-defense: our minds, to be trained and taught to razor-sharpness, or left soft and easily manipulated. The mind should never be controlled, nor ideas.

    Guns cannot be compared to ideas. An idea is how we use that gun, and the ideologies behind our government are part of that process.

    I wanted to study the 2nd amendment some more, and found this as the latest Supreme Court ruling:

    [ In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment. ]

    The part here that says "this right is not unlimited" is key. No one has the right to any and every weapon. They have the natural right to defend themselves, and may have weapons to do so with, but no where are guns specifically mentioned.

    [ In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Court stated in dicta that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and thus were not a violation of the Second Amendment:
    The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. ]

    Herein states that the Bill of Rights is subject to "certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case."

    Guns are one of the most dangerous things a regular person can own. They require little or no skill to use, but can injure, maim or kill from a distance without any chance for the victims to defend themselves. Their potential for disaster is far greater than a vehicle, which are more expensive, not as transportable as guns, cannot be reused so many times, and require more knowledge to use. Being able to drive does require a license, and driving violations, including driving under the influence, most certainly can cause a permanent ban on a person's ability to get an driver's licence again.

    As part of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court held that "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" were upheld. In the 1st and 5th Circuits of appeals, it was again upheld that prohibitions could be placed against "those whose possession poses a particular danger to the public" including juveniles and felons. The 7th Circuit (United States v. Skoien) nailed down the right of judges to enact lifetime bans on gun ownership to convicted felons and repeat violators of gun laws.

    This is how the law currently stands. Your ability to protect yourself is not infringed by requiring licenses for gun ownership, nor background checks to purchase one. You want to bring up the image of a little woman fighting off the big guy, but what's stopping her for owning a gun? Her crime spree a few years back? Then she can use (depending on the state she's in) pepper spray, a taser, a black-powder rifle or revolver (if the element of surprise isn't a factor), or a knife. Hell, she could openly walk around looking like a badass with a compound crossbow if she wants, which should deter most random attackers.

    I don't want to overfill this, and it's late. The 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee guns for everybody, it only makes clear that the government can NEVER deny anyone the ability to defend themselves. The particular mode of doing so can be regulated, in so far as it allows reasonable alternatives so as not to strip the individual of that ability.

    Becoming a felon is going to make life tough, and this is only one of many ways that mistake will follow them for the rest of their lives. I support rehabilitation programs and basic human rights to a healthy environment even in prisons, and I certainly don't believe that they deserve whatever they get afterwards. Punishments should fit the crime, and ideally, the goal should be to reintegrate them back into productive society whenever possible, but not fully, as in instances where it may endanger the public.


    (myself)
    Well, we have not met yet and so the **** might not be called for yet.

    Besides a court just ruled that felons can own guns too. http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/...es_statut.html

    The vary nature of a license means that something is not a right. So yes, requiring a license would infringe on my right.

    The 2nd Amendment was so we would use our arms (modern weapons) to defend ourselves not only from the low level criminal but from those who presume to run our government.

    Most states, including this one, only protect the carrying of a gun/firearm. Knifes are restricted and crossbows are restricted.

    As for automobiles. The courts have ruled it is a right and thus no license can be legally required. "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

    "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

    "...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.

    Strike three on the travel thing.

    As for background checks, please, cite that law that requires them in the first place to purchase a firearm, even from a dealer. Good luck, there is none.

    Please cite the constitutional authority for requiring a background check. There is none.

    So, the judge ruled that concealed carry can be regulated, not the purchasing and owning of firearms.

    The Heller case was only addressing actions with in Washington DC. So, that ruling has no legal force outside of DC. You see, DC is not a state, it's a federal territory. The rules are different there.

    You have no idea what the difference between a right and privilege are do you? Nor do you seem to understand what infringe means. Also, I had never once brought up privacy in the case against background checks except the extent that the government has no business keeping track of what I own.
    //
    Oh yeah, to address your windshields and dogs issue.

    If I let a dog run loose the dog can cause damage all on it's own. A gun cannot.
    A dog can kill someone on it's own. A gun cannot.
    A gun, is an object that cannot move or think on it's own. A dog is a living creature who will do what it wants to do.

    Windshields are standardized. Ammo for gun has a standardization.
    Windshields are not nearly as safety regulated as firearms and ammo.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man;1942888.
    SNIP Windshields are not nearly as safety regulated as firearms and ammo.
    No, no. Windshields are really just a conspiracy to kill bugs. Firearms are really just a conspiracy to bug liberals.

    So, both guns and windshields have a nexus in bugs.

    The conspiracy connection arises from which species of bugs are involved--surveillance bugs.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-26-2013 at 02:15 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    No, no. Windshields are really just a conspiracy to kill bugs. Firearms are really just a conspiracy to bug liberals.

    So, both guns and windshields have a nexus in bugs.

    The conspiracy connection arises from which species of bugs are involved--surveillance bugs.
    I think that you've got part of that backwards. The creation of the modern liberal was to bug gun owners.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  22. #22
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    FREEDOM, one of the biggest things that strike me in the conversation, is she leaves out a lot of the majority opinion. in which the ones that won the vote sided on the side of "citizens have the right to firearms"

    another thing, even though , minor in the argument. is the statement that a "firearm is most dangerous thing a person can own". not only is that a ridiculous thing to say, it is not even near accurate. there are thousands of thing far more dangerous then a firearm. a car for instance, how many people have had a friend or family member killed or maimed by cars. how many kids are drowned in pools every year. how many lawn mowers accidents happen?. if you use the analogy she uses, a book is far more dangerous then any guns, and killed million of people

    i have a feeling, if this person is really a liberal, you are going to run into emotional argument soon, and/or name calling
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  23. #23
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    I didn't read the next days' conversations but in the first couple of back-and-forths she seemed pretty open minded and friendly to me... Definitely misguided (assault rifles and high capacity mags - LOL - clearly taken directly from a liberal news article), but not quite "gone."

    Probably what I would have done is taken this "I believe strongly in human rights and the freedom to pursue whatever makes you happy, so long as it does not infringe on those same rights for others." and stuck with it. Ask her why this is. What is the basis for this belief. Because it is the root of this belief on which gun rights are founded. Once she realizes that, she must give up her support of human rights and freedom to pursue happiness, or conceed that gun rights are equally valid.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 05-27-2013 at 11:46 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    ...
    another thing, even though , minor in the argument. is the statement that a "firearm is most dangerous thing a person can own". not only is that a ridiculous thing to say, it is not even near accurate. there are thousands of thing far more dangerous then a firearm. a car for instance, how many people have had a friend or family member killed or maimed by cars. how many kids are drowned in pools every year. how many lawn mowers accidents happen?. if you use the analogy she uses, a book is far more dangerous then any guns, and killed million of people
    ...
    Oh man, yes. As soon as you said that I just had a rush of things run through my mind that are far more dangerous - and cheaper and easier to obtain. Certain drugs came to mind immediately. Just my personal wild estimation - a common problem drug like meth is probably no more than 3 phone calls away from (nearly) anyone in the US at any given time. Edit: well, anyone my age at least. I'm confident I could have any street drug in my hands in less than 12 hours, and I don't have any history with the stuff. POINT IS, it is insanely available. I'd be curious to know her position on additional drug regulation, she's already spoken of it as if it was reasonable but I don't think that's typical of a liberal-leaning mind.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 05-27-2013 at 11:58 AM.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I think that you've got part of that backwards. The creation of the modern liberal was to bug gun owners.
    LOL!!!

    Its probably a hive thing. The coordination of a buncha bugs.

    Reminds me of a joke. How can you tell an Amish horse? Amish horses have a buggy behind.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-27-2013 at 12:29 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •