Freedom1Man
Regular Member
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.
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.