|
||||||
 |
Recent Posts | Search by username | |
Contact Us | |
Login | |
Register |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| Moderated by: 24HourNut | Page:   1 2 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ccrdragon Guardian1000© Member  Copper Nut
|
  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Okay - couldn't get online last night, let's answer some of the questions.... let me preface this with the thought that I am really not trying to attack here, I am trying to have a discourse... 1. is it the rifle that committed the massacre or the person? you know where I am going with this... I do not believe that we should give up even 1 inch on this subject, because when we do, they (oh, he used that word!) will come back and take another inch, and so on. I am also against gun registration because that just gives them a convenient way to find the 'bad' gun totin' folks. 2. you and mill seem to have cleared this one up quite nicely 3. my view on this is easy - I would never counsel a woman to have an abortion because I believe that life is sacred and should be respected as such, but I also believe that it is a woman's decision and men need to but the hell out of the argument (does that clear it up for you?) 4 and 5. The rich do not pay a lot of taxes today - not because the tax tables say they shouldn't but because there are lots of loopholes and ways for them to hide the money so that it doesn't look (at tax time at least) that they have so much money. Is Obama going to close these loopholes or simply increase the values in the tax tables (that are totally meaningless). on the business side, if you increase the tax burden or impose penalties on these companies to make them bring the jobs back into the US (or if you succeed in getting those jobs back), you will simply increase the price of the goods and services that the companies produce (thereby negating any tax advantages that you are offering to people who don't qualify as super rich). 6. marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. I am not against civil unions for same-sex couples, but i am very much against marriage. 7. see my response to 4 and 5 above 8. having an advisor doesn't mean that it will accomplish anything because there is no guarantee that the advisor will carry any weight in the decision making process 9. ok here are my views - having socialized medicine in this country would destroy the system. having more government control in any area of my life (which they would require if they were to subsidize my healtcare) just pisses me off more (does that answer your request???) 10. it doesn't make it any harder at all - it makes it harder to legally own the gun but it does absolutely NOTHING about illegal guns 11. I dodged nothing - the muslims have the same protections under the law as the non-muslims - we don't need any more regulations saying that we shouldn't be unsupportive of anybody based on race creed religion what ever the hype of the day is.. 12. wrong! working hand-in-hand with our allies is one thing, but hand-in-hand with everybody is absolutely unacceptable to me 13. great and wonderful examples (except for Versailles - a surrender treaty does not count as a negotiation) with only one common problem - all of the people that we were dealing with in those were rational human beings... by definition a terrorist is not rational and cannot be reasoned with, so try again 14. no further need for comment 15. guess we'll have to wait and see on this one as to my last point, talk about dodging the question!!! you did not answer this question, you tried to throw it back in my face, so please go back and re-read it and then discuss your relationship with the concept of personal responsibility... thanks!!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Saint Forum-Blogger© Pioneer100© Member  Polymath
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ccrdragon wrote:Okay - couldn't get online last night, let's answer some of the questions.... let me preface this with the thought that I am really not trying to attack here, I am trying to have a discourse... The person with the rifle. Seriously, I can't understand why ANYONE except a military soldier would need an "Assault Rifle!" And yes, Brian, there is a legal definition already that involves rate of fire, number of shots in the clip, etc. you know where I am going with this... I do not believe that we should give up even 1 inch on this subject, because when we do, they (oh, he used that word!) will come back and take another inch, and so on. I am also against gun registration because that just gives them a convenient way to find the 'bad' gun totin' folks. Then you support the ownership of Uzi machineguns by civilians, and fully automatic AK-47's, and Bren machine pistols. How crazy is that? Can't you understand that MASS PEOPLE KILLING WEAPONS are insane for the general public?!!!! 3. my view on this is easy - I would never counsel a woman to have an abortion because I believe that life is sacred and should be respected as such, but I also believe that it is a woman's decision and men need to but the hell out of the argument (does that clear it up for you?) You're pro-Choice? Let me put it this way, how will you feel when the world's population reaches 17 billion and the choice to HAVE a child is taken away by the government? If you don't want to lose that choice, why would you try to take away a woman's choice? 4 and 5. The rich do not pay a lot of taxes today - My point exactly. 6. marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. I am not against civil unions for same-sex couples, but i am very much against marriage. Because of the religious overtones. This is the future. There were people that said, "If man had been meant to fly, God would have given him wings." I have a feeling that the overpopulated future will be NOTHING like you think it will be, but if it bothers you, fine... don't call it "marriage" but don't discriminate against them. 8. having an advisor doesn't mean that it will accomplish anything because there is no guarantee that the advisor will carry any weight in the decision making process A pessimistic view. You may be right in a very negative-thinking way, but at least it's a step. How canit be worse than NOT having an advisor?!! This is what all Obama supporters have been saying, let's at least TRY something new! 9. ok here are my views - having socialized medicine in this country would destroy the system. It didn't destroy the post office, or the fire departments, or the police stations, or the schools... 10. it doesn't make it any harder at all - it makes it harder to legally own the gun but it does absolutely NOTHING about illegal guns Sure it does, anything that makes it harder to get a gun, makes it harder to get one illegally by default. 11. I dodged nothing - the muslims have the same protections under the law as the non-muslims - we don't need any more regulations saying that we shouldn't be unsupportive of anybody based on race creed religion what ever the hype of the day is.. You're right the one regulation we have, the US Constitution is enough. I just thought you had muslim-o-phobia like Foxglovepress. 12. wrong! working hand-in-hand with our allies is one thing, but hand-in-hand with everybody is absolutely unacceptable to me So your against a United Mankind Government? What if that is the future of mankind? 13. great and wonderful examples (except for Versailles - a surrender treaty does not count as a negotiation) with only one common problem - all of the people that we were dealing with in those were rational human beings... by definition a terrorist is not rational and cannot be reasoned with, so try again Maybe you can't reason with fanatics, but you can pull the rug out from under them by making friends with their moderate allies and the people of their country. There are probably still a few old Viet Cong running around, just as fanatical as extremist Muslims, but without any support they are powerless. as to my last point, talk about dodging the question!!! you did not answer this question, you tried to throw it back in my face, so please go back and re-read it and then discuss your relationship with the concept of personal responsibility... I didn't dodge it, I ignored it. There is no loss of personal responsibility as far as I'm concerned, it a made up fantasy and fear in your mind. So it's a moot point to discuss it. As a matter of fact, I see the Obama presidency as a RETURN to personal responsibility. Being responsible for an illegal war and getting out. Being responsible for an economic disaster and fixing it. Being a responsible country in the world and gaining our Allies trust again. Being responsible for a total failure foreign policy and reaching out alienated countries like Russia. (Bush has pushed them to the breaking point!) I could go on, but we are just coming off the MOST IRRESPONSIBLE PERIOD IN AMERICAN HISTORY so I think you se my point. thanks!! No problem. 
 A^2 + B^2 = C^2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Saint Forum-Blogger© Pioneer100© Member Polymath
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Oh I almost forgot...gun registration makes it possible for the police to solve murders. You aren't for helping murderers, are you?
A^2 + B^2 = C^2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Millennium Original500© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nothing wrong with gun registration....hardly anybody disagrees with that.. It's the criminals that don't obey the laws, that we disagree with...More and more laws that criminals ignore, just tie the hands of law abiding citizens... More laws that are not enforced are nothing but bull shit, and rhetoric that sounds good to the dimwits that are clueless and keep wanting more useless laws...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Millennium Original500© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I see the Obama presidency as a RETURN to personal responsibility. This is going to be a fun time with the liberals....I can't wait. I have yet to see any resemblance to personal responsibility from the Democrat hard left..in fact, they revel in being just as irresponsible as they can be... It's going to be a riot pointing out these "pie in the sky" fanatics 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sirlamre Pioneer100© Member Official Forum Troublemaker
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Millennium wrote: Nothing wrong with gun registration....hardly anybody disagrees with that.. You know, I haven't heard ONE serious proposal about guns that intends to STOP homeowners from owning guns (yes, there's a few crackpots out there that the "right" likes to lump in with -everyone- who thinks guns need some controls) I fully support the idea that if I want a gun, I have to WAIT for it and PROVE that I should have it--- because I have nothing to hide and no reason not to wait for one. And, I'd fully support my being LIABLE for what happened to that gun in my house -- if it got stolen or a child shot themselves or someone else, because I had it standing right behind the front door, loaded.... . and I had some BS mentality that my kids and EVERY other person who came near the gun were some sort of PERFECT human beings... People (for the most part) are NOT safe with guns, unless they are stored safely out of the reach of children and angry adults. I realise that millions of people own guns without anything happening-- BUT -- most of those people don't leave the gun standing fully loaded right beside the front door or behind the bedroom door. and if I'm going to have to go unlock the gun, get the bullets out, load the thing, and THEN be ready to shoot the famous intruder with it--- == it isn't worth it. Plus, if it ever got stolen and was used in a crime, I'd be GLAD if the registration of the gun assisted police in figuring out who killed someone, because they were able to assemble the evidence from both the robbery of my house and the killing elsewhere, and end up being able to catch the killer. Contrary to what the NRA attempts to imply, more than 80% of crimes committed in the US are committed using weapons stolen from homes, NOT fully automatic rifles that are smuggled across the border in Mafia driven trucks in the dark of the moon. If you more seriously control who owns guns, how they are expected to maintain and safely store those guns, the result will be that fewer people will own a gun and have no idea where it is or if it's been stolen. To me, guns is a little like the housing crisis in a way--- we allow people to have guns who should NOT own houses either, becuase of their ability to be responsible mature citizens. Most guns aren't stolen from upper class homes in rich neighborhoods--- They're stolen from trailers in drug infested trailerparks and places like that. Face it -- there IS a whole category of citizens who are no more responsible to own a gun than they are to be trusted to make mortgage payments for 30 years. That isn't describing the upper middle class family all of whom were smart enough to GRADUATE from high school and not drop out instead.
Turn thou unto God and say: O my Sovereign Lord! I am but a vassal of Thine, and Thou art, in truth, the King of kings. I have lifted my suppliant hands unto the heaven of Thy grace and Thy bounties. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sirlamre wrote: Millennium wrote:Nothing wrong with gun registration....hardly anybody disagrees with that.. You don't have to prove you should have a gun. Owning a gun isn't a privilege the government grants you. Background checks are about the records proving you shouldn't own a gun. In the absence of such evidence, you get your gun. I don't know how quickly the background check works, but I think the only waiting period one should have to go through is the time it takes the background check to be done. If you pass the background check, there's no reason you shouldn't get your gun right away. If you just found out about a string of robberies in your neighborhood, you might not want to wait three days to get your gun.
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sirlamre Pioneer100© Member Official Forum Troublemaker
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian wrote: sirlamre wrote:Millennium wrote:Nothing wrong with gun registration....hardly anybody disagrees with that.. Yeah, I wouldn't want to wait TWO MONTHS... But it should take longer than 40 minutes standing at KMart too... the background check should be a little deeper than THAT... For instance, the VATech guy should never have gotten one --- the way the judge was given the latitude to decide that he wasn't a threat should never have happened. I realise that the judge DID decide not to check the box --- but I think that should have been a psychiatrist, NOT a lawyer making that call -- I think there was some qualified evidence showing that several MH specialists conversant with him and his mental state would NOT have decided to allow him to buy a gun... I think the records should be tighter than that-- Sorry, that may rule some folks out --- but some folks aren't allowed to do other things as well. I feel safer knowing that not just ANYONE can enter my child's daycare either.. I get tired of the whining from some people every time any particular reason for denying gun ownership is given. There are NRA nutjobs out there who think that ANYONE, felon or OTHERWISE should own guns. They annoy me. Not everyone should own a gun. As I said once before, if you've been convicted of domestic abuse involving a weapon like a knife, your household should NOT be allowed to have a gun in it. If that's a big percentage of low-income broken families, so be it. Tough. I'd rather see that than read about ANOTHER child from a trailerpark who shot themselves with Dad's gun, or who was part of the whole family the drunken bastard murdered with the gun he bought at KMart to "defend himself with".. Last edited on 09:30 pm by sirlamre Turn thou unto God and say: O my Sovereign Lord! I am but a vassal of Thine, and Thou art, in truth, the King of kings. I have lifted my suppliant hands unto the heaven of Thy grace and Thy bounties. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Millennium Original500© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Not everyone should own a gun Not everybody should drive a car either, and I don't see you waging a campaign on that. According to the latest stats I could find, Auto collision ending in death 44,700, Gun assaults ending in death 11,600. Fact: You're 4 times MORE likely to die and a car accident... Fact: Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. Fact: More children will die in a car, drown in a pool, or choke on food than they will by firearms. Fact: Accidental gun deaths among children have declined by over 50 % in 25 years, even though the population (and the gun stock) has continued to increase Fact: Despite the low number of gun accidents among children, most of these fatalities are not truly "accidents." They are misnamed quite often when they are suicides.. But it's a lot easier for fanatics to scream about the guns and gun control, because "they" have to have cars and the other things, they just don't think you should own a gun.. Any death by a gun is a shame, as is any death by drowning, vehicle accidents or choking......but let's not go overboard. If that's a big percentage of low-income broken families, so be it. Tough. What the hell...you hate the poor now?.......  You do realize that law abiding citizens pretty much obey the gun laws...But we REALLY need MORE gun laws so the criminals that don't obey them now, can disobey even more...  Last edited on 10:42 pm by Millennium |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sirlamre Pioneer100© Member Official Forum Troublemaker
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian wrote: Owning a gun isn't a privilege the government grants you. Actually, it is. Not that the government has that right as things stand -- as it is, it's just what you say - proof that you _can't_ have the gun. But the fact is that the Legislatures of the States can amend the Constitution anytime the several thousand people we elect to State governments agree to. It's not even a Federal thing - a lot of Constitutional amendments were proposed by States and their legislatures and governors, not Congressmen. And the reason they were asked to propose those Amendments was because the voters at the time wanted them to. That being said, I don't think the gun permissions are going away anytime soon. But society and it's individuals is slowly degrading in morality and responsibility. I could easily see that in 50 or 100 years, a much much larger percentage of citizens might WANT their crazy-ass drunken neighbors NOT to have guns. Right now, I think most all of us can name at least a few psychotic insane angry neighbors that we'd be happier if they didn't own a gun. One arrogant drunk wife-beating bastard I know here has ALREADY fired his "self-defense rifle" through at least two neighbors windows in addition to mine. Unfortunately, he was a close friend of our now Federally jailed Sheriff, so the deputies never found any "evidence" that it was him. Oddly enough, they never brought any of the crime scene ballistics people who could have proven that the shots came from his porch.
Turn thou unto God and say: O my Sovereign Lord! I am but a vassal of Thine, and Thou art, in truth, the King of kings. I have lifted my suppliant hands unto the heaven of Thy grace and Thy bounties. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sirlamre wrote: Brian wrote:Owning a gun isn't a privilege the government grants you. Amendments have started out at the state level, but to get into the federal constitution, they have to go before Congress to be ratified by two thirds of both bodies. After that point, they go to the states to be ratified. The states can only vote independent of Congress on state constitutions. And state constitutions can't violate the federal constitution. (Otherwise, there'd still be segregation and/or slavery in South Carolina.) sirlamre wrote:
Obviously there are people who shouldn't own guns. There are limits on every constitutional freedom. That doesn't mean the freedom itself doesn't exist, though. To give you an idea just how much of a right (rather than a privilege) it is, consider this: I know someone who's legally blind who wants to own a gun. As things stand now, there's nothing the government can do or say to prevent this, unless they find something in his background in terms of past crimes. Now that's broad, wouldn't you say?
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saint wrote:You're pro-Choice? Let me put it this way, how will you feel when the world's population reaches 17 billion and the choice to HAVE a child is taken away by the government? If you don't want to lose that choice, why would you try to take away a woman's choice? Hi, Saint. Forcing someone to have an abortion is taking away their freedom to have a baby if they want one, but prohibiting abortion does not force women to have children. A woman who doesn't want children has at least three options: 1) Tubal ligation 2) Sterilization of her partner 3) Abstinence (I'm not including contraception, since contraception isn't 100% effective.) Any three of these methods (properly tested by a physician to make sure they were successfully implemented, in the case of the first two) guarantees a woman does not get pregnant, but can still have sex. By outlawing abortion, the government wouldn't be taking away your freedom not to have children. They would simply be taking away one method to achieve that goal. On the other hand, if the government tells you you can't have biological offspring, that really is limiting your freedom.
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sirlamre Pioneer100© Member Official Forum Troublemaker
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian --- Yes, I did realise that Congress must do the first "pass by 2/3" But the States have effectively got an "veto" over it, which is where it's far more up to the larger body of the People than anything the Fed normally can get away with by having two Houses and a President decide they want to inflict something on 300 million of us. Point taken, though... And on the gun thing, yes -- it's NOT about only allowing select people to own a gun -- yes, it IS about stopping a few, and only for criminal behaviour.. My thought is that the list of what constitutes the sort of criminal behaviour that warrants a "no gun for you" rule is too narrow -- it should NOT be limited only to those people who've been successfully convicted of a very major crime. Too many people who get misdemeanors on their record should ALSO not have a gun -- based on what that misdemeanor was --- I'm absolutely VIOLENTLY opposed to guns being in homes where ANYONE has been charged with domestic abuse involving a weapon with clear intent to harm (eg, a broken bottle or knife, not just the can of pretzels that was sitting nearby). I'm talking about in the case of the guy who has REPEATEDLY had the police called because he's gone waving a knife at his wife, kids, and neighbors. THAT guy should not be allowed to have a gun, convicted or not, because he has CLEARLY shown that he's willing to threaten people with violence using some object or other. He would most certainly pull a gun on someone in a moment of anger. AND -- that goes for ANYONE in that household, "head of household" or not-- the idea is that if they are THERE all the time, then "no gun" for them to potentially get and use on someone. And, if someone is EVER found to be storing a gun unsafely, if a child discharges a gun and the police know about it -- NO GUNS... perhaps until gun safety courses are completed by ALL adults in that house. It's unfair to others perhaps --- but it's safer for a LOT of children.
Turn thou unto God and say: O my Sovereign Lord! I am but a vassal of Thine, and Thou art, in truth, the King of kings. I have lifted my suppliant hands unto the heaven of Thy grace and Thy bounties. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ccrdragon Guardian1000© Member Copper Nut
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| hey Saint | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
