The Political Discussion Thread

[Goose]

Free speech is not a necessity for a Democratic society. Some people do have more rights to speak than others do, and more responsibilities.


Two words: responsibility training.

For example, when I was going to high school my high school had a hunter's training course which was mandatory in order to get a hunting's license.

What you're saying is that it's impossible for people to be responsible with a firearm at all, no matter what.

You might as well make the same argument for putting children and all people in jail for they can't be taught what's responsible and what's right to do.

Come on dude.

And why do you get to determine this but not me for myself?

And there are plenty of sites online that teach you how to build firearms and other explosive weapons, aside from things like the Anarchist's Cook book.

Yes, because I said that it's impossible for people to be responsible with firearms... If you go back and read what I said, I said that the owning of firearms should be heavily regulated. Certain people should never be allowed to own firearms, such as convicted criminals (and I hope you agree with me on this). People can be trained to be responsible, yes, but what about those people who aren't trained to be responsible? Should they be allowed to own firearms?

[Galileo_Galilee]

And I will never agree with you at all on that.

And yes, they should.

It's called a RIGHT.

A concept I think is completely alien to you.

Rights mean we have our choices and special defenses against the government.

Giving us a right to bear arms gives us a defense against any government, foreign or domestic, that wishes to invade us and try to take our Republic away.

[Goose]

And I will never agree with you at all on that.

And yes, they should.

It's called a RIGHT.

A concept I think is completely alien to you.

Rights mean we have our choices and special defenses against the government.

Giving us a right to bear arms gives us a defense against any government, foreign or domestic, that wishes to invade us and try to take our Republic away.

Oh, thank you for enlightening me about my ignorance of what rights are. You're totally right, I have no concept of what rights are, because what you say are rights is the only acceptable way of defining what rights are.

[Gatefan1976]

Yes, because I said that it's impossible for people to be responsible with firearms... If you go back and read what I said, I said that the owning of firearms should be heavily regulated. Certain people should never be allowed to own firearms, such as convicted criminals (and I hope you agree with me on this). People can be trained to be responsible, yes, but what about those people who aren't trained to be responsible? Should they be allowed to own firearms?

That, Goose, is the million dollar question!
Unlike say, Martial Arts/ self defence training, a physical weapon can be taken away and be put in the hands of those who have no such training or responsibility, or even when trained, have no desire to exercise such responsibility. Take GG's first example, you get mugged by gangbangers. If you had a gun, you may shoot one or 2 in self defence, but if/when they drop you, instead of being beaten up or what have you, they are more likely to just shoot you, and now they have the gun to threaten/kill others.

[Galileo_Galilee]

Actually they're more than likely to run if you have a firearm, and I have read several stories where they have.

But they wouldn't have run if they didn't have the firearm, so that's still a poor reason to not let a person have a firearm. It can be taken away so you aren't allowed to defend yourself against those who want to rape you.

And actually, rights do have to work one way or they cease being rights and instead become double standards and special privileges. So unless you like those kinds of things, where some people will have more rights than you, you go that route.

I won't and will never support such a thing.

[Goose]

Actually they're more than likely to run if you have a firearm, and I have read several stories where they have.

But they wouldn't have run if they didn't have the firearm, so that's still a poor reason to not let a person have a firearm. It can be taken away so you aren't allowed to defend yourself against those who want to rape you.

And actually, rights do have to work one way or they cease being rights and instead become double standards and special privileges. So unless you like those kinds of things, where some people will have more rights than you, you go that route.

I won't and will never support such a thing.

Source?

[Galileo_Galilee]

http://www.guncite.com/

For starters. There's plenty more where that comes from.

So please, don't go the route of "What's true for me must be true for others and if not must be made to be true".

But then again, beliefs are more important than facts.

[Gatefan1976]

Actually they're more than likely to run if you have a firearm, and I have read several stories where they have.

Sure, that is possible, wouldn't deny it, but that is not always the case though is it mate, and therein lies the problem.

But they wouldn't have run if they didn't have the firearm, so that's still a poor reason to not let a person have a firearm. It can be taken away so you aren't allowed to defend yourself against those who want to rape you.

If being physically attacked is a concern, why not simply learn to defend yourself via self defence training? IF there were no alternative to firearms, then sure, I could see the point (sorta, vaugely), but there IS alternatives. What you are supporting is essentialy escalation as a deterrent, and that does not always work out for the best.

[Goose]

http://www.guncite.com/

Do you have something a little bit less... biased? Say, some kind of police statistics or the like that show that people being allowed to carry guns in public reduces crime?

Actually, I'm not sure why I'm bothering. You've already reduced this conversation to personal attacks, so... bye bye!

[Galileo_Galilee]

They are very objective and do have links to the sources they use.

And no I haven't. You pretty much did when you stated I can't be responsible enough to make my own choices for myself.

[Goose]

They are very objective and do have links to the sources they use.

And no I haven't. You pretty much did when you stated I can't be responsible enough to make my own choices for myself.

And you pretty much did when you said that I don't know what rights are because I disagree with you. But whatever, I'm tired of this crap anyway.

[Galileo_Galilee]

If you think people shouldn't have firearms just because, you don't know what rights are.

Freedom means being able to have a choice of your own, which is something you can't agree to. And you said that you have to determine my choices for me.

So how am I supposed to take that kind of thing?

Rights are not special privileges or double standards. One group of people should not have more rights than any one other group.

[SoulReaver]

Do you have something a little bit less... biased?

Say, some kind of police statistics

I thought you said "unbiased"

Free speech is not a necessity for a Democratic societySome people do have more rights to speak than others do, and more responsibilities.

Rights are not special privileges or double standards. One group of people should not have more rights than any one other group.

???

[Gatefan1976]

If you think people shouldn't have firearms just because, you don't know what rights are.

Not "just because", simply because there is no real reason to have guns "on the streets",and "because I may get mugged" is not a valid reason either because there are alternatives to firearms. Also, just because you possess a right, does not mean you have to exercise said right simply for the sake of doing so either.

Freedom means being able to have a choice of your own, which is something you can't agree to. And you said that you have to determine my choices for me.

Yes, in the US you do have that right/freedom, but again, do you need to exercise it at every turn? Also, if that weapon gets taken away from you (either in an attack or stolen from your house), then "your choice" now has the potential to affect others who did not make that concious choice, in effect you are putting your "rights" above the "rights" of others.

So how am I supposed to take that kind of thing?

That perhaps, just perhaps people don't have an issue with gun ownership per se for those that have a ligitamate reason for owning a firearm (farmers, hunters, target shooters etc), what they may have an issue with is why you need a .44 mag with a concealed carry permit or weapons that amount to "assault capable" to go hunting with?? My father owns a gun (.303 bolt action rifle) which he uses for target practice and hunting, and dispite my innate distate for guns, I see no problem with it because it's only used "as intended".

Rights are not special privileges or double standards. One group of people should not have more rights than any one other group.

True, but no one has said it's an issue of rights either, more like the percieved abuse of said rights.

[mad_gater]

there might be alternatives to guns but none are as effective as a bullet between the eyes of the person committing a crime against you

[Gatefan1976]

there might be alternatives to guns but none are as effective as a bullet between the eyes of the person committing a crime against you

Oh, so now you are judge, jury and executioner?
How does that work with your "Objective moral code" there MG??

[mad_gater]

And I will never agree with you at all on that.

And yes, they should.

It's called a RIGHT.

A concept I think is completely alien to you.

Rights mean we have our choices and special defenses against the government.

Giving us a right to bear arms gives us a defense against any government, foreign or domestic, that wishes to invade us and try to take our Republic away.

got that right

Gun Control:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were cut off from their food supplies and starved to
death or rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938.
From 1939 to 1945, 10 million Jews and others who were unable
to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
From 1975 to 1977, one to two million 'educated' people,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1956 no one in Cambodia could imagine total confiscation and
citizen enslavement in the "foreseeable future", ...
but per capita, more citizens were eventually murdered
by their own government than in any other country in history.

TOTAL number of defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the
20th Century because of gun control: 53 million. And this is a VERY low,
conservative estimate. Professor R.J. Rummel says it's closer to
170 MILLION (see: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM )
ALL the governments which murdered their own people were
COLLECTIVIST governments
(see: http://FreedomKeys.com/collectivism.htm )

"Government power attracts despots and demagogues as surely as
horse manure attracts horseflies." What? You don't see any such
dangerous person on the American horizon right NOW? SO WHAT ?!!!

[mad_gater]

Oh, so now you are judge, jury and executioner?
How does that work with your "Objective moral code" there MG??

\

"when seconds count the police are only minutes away" as they say....if i'm being attacked or robbed I ain't waitin' for the police...I'm gonna either disable them or at least drive them off with my gun and THEN call the police once the threat has been neutralized

[Gatefan1976]

\

"when seconds count the police are only minutes away" as they say....if i'm being attacked or robbed I ain't waitin' for the police...I'm gonna either disable them or at least drive them off with my gun and THEN call the police once the threat has been neutralized

Err, "a bullet between the eyes" is what you said MG, not disable, nor drive off.

[mad_gater]

Err, "a bullet between the eyes" is what you said MG, not disable, nor drive off.

sometimes death is the only way the threat will be neutralized....esp. if the attacker is f-ed up on crack and nothing except a kill shot will have any affect on him