The Political Discussion Thread

[shipper hannah]

No, but the argument is exactly the same.

Firearms are misused to hurt people, so they must be regulated to make them safer. Such as making it illegal to open carry pistols. Firearms do save over one million lives a year, which is something far too many people forget. So it is a useful tool.

So, paint must be regulated to make it safe. People shouldn't be allowed to open carry paint cans in public and paint can must be cleaned out before thrown away of all paint.

Paint is made to paint things. Getting high off paint is a by-product of its actual function. When people 'misuse' guns they are using them for what they were really intended: to shoot people.

People don't die from carrying paint cans, that's a poor analogy.

[Gatefan1976]

Because I don't have to. YOU are the one who is claiming that people don't need to, the onus is on YOU to prove that they shouldn't be allowed to, and YOU have to show they don't need to And your arguments are pretty slim. "There is no point" is not an argument. I don't think there is any lawyer worth their salt who would actually argue for legislation based on that.

GG, we are NOT in the religious debate here where you have to prove the existance of a intangable entity as the default position, we are having a debate on a very real thing, and quite frankly I don't care if a lawyer couldn't base thier legislation on my personal arguments on the basis of being thin, it's far better than your position of "the onus is not on me", because in this kind of debate that argument and 50 cents will get you a call to someone who cares.

And personally, I believe that within the next two years this issue will be seen by the Supreme Court. And I believe they will not rule in favor of it, because they tend to strike down these kinds of laws. All you're doing is stirring a hornet's nest.

I'm not doing anything besides trying to have a reasoned debate with you, you have provided evidence that supports your claim that gun ownership saves lives *as a general rule*, and in some cases I have agreed with you (home defence being the main one obviously). Where is the "hornet's nest"?

And really, when you look around, how many people, other than law enforcement, and not including special occasions such as rallies, do you actually see openly carry a firearm in an urban setting everyday?

........And here is my point, you don't. while people as a general rule want the right to own a firearm (something I have not debated with you because the US constitution affords you the right to do so if you wish), have those that have chosen not to (the majority) given up thier right to bear arms, or have they simply come to the conclusion that as far as everyday life is concerned, it's possibly safer for everyone not to do so? What you seem to miss at every turn is that I'm not arguing that you don't have the right to own a gun, merely that carrying one in gerneral life is unnessesary and there should be laws (and are) regulating there possession, use and transportation.

[Rudy Pena]

Not saying that, but when you bring things from very bias sites and stats. Then tell others to make there argurement, when you have no logic or good reason for yours.

[Gatefan1976]

Yes, it is exactly the same. A firearm is an inanimate tool that cannot function without human action. It also saves over one million lives a year. You keep ignoring that fact. You keep ignoring the fact that crimes and fatalities are actually very low in comparison to the 307 million Americans.

I'm not ignoring anything mate, I am trying to show you the difference between design intent and the way they can be used. As to "crimes and fatalities", you sorta shot yourself in the foot (pun intended) by already admitting that *for the most part* people, while they have the right to bear arms *choose* not to. If you want to debate the statistics of a low fatality rate in crimes, I would suggest you start with your own supplied evidence that of the 20,000 odd murders commited each year in the US, 67% are done via firearms, because *in context* that is a pretty damning number.

So ban humans.

If only sometimes

Why should I when you can't be objective yourself and will just dismiss things as cherry picking or whatever excuse you want to? I've already provided you with some very objective proof and you just dismiss it out of hand in favor of your own belief. So I have no interest to do so. Yes I know the standard retort to that ("You're just being lazy"). No, I'm not. I lose interest when the facts of these things are dismissed our of hand. I'm sure you would be too if somebody were doing the same thing to you.

Again, I'm not dissmissing anything, your "objective proof" came from multiple sources and years, ones chosen to spin the original authors intent to be seen in the best possible light. All I asked for was a study which covered all contigencies over one year, thats it. I don't expect you to go hunting for the data, because it probably doesn't exist or if it does is not "public domain". I'm doing my best to be reasonable here, if I "dismiss" something, it's only on the grounds that it is either "spun" or "irrelevent" and when I do agree with you, I make no bones about it, I just agree and say so and why.

Firearms save lives too. Far more lives than they take, at least in America.

I have never argued otherwise.

[SoulReaver]

Probably the same thing that happens to all the coppers in America who shot innocent people (not much, in other words).

bummer

and to think these folks would be alive if those coppers hadn't been armed :/

[Galileo_Galilee]

I'm not ignoring anything mate, I am trying to show you the difference between design intent and the way they can be used. As to "crimes and fatalities", you sorta shot yourself in the foot (pun intended) by already admitting that *for the most part* people, while they have the right to bear arms *choose* not to. If you want to debate the statistics of a low fatality rate in crimes, I would suggest you start with your own supplied evidence that of the 20,000 odd murders commited each year in the US, 67% are done via firearms, because *in context* that is a pretty damning number.

But I really didn't. If you would've looked further you would've seen the resources they used so you can check the full thing yourself, which is what I was truly trying to do. They really do name their sources and are not really bias, that I can see. Especially with Guncite. They are very good at listing their sources so you can check it out for yourself and make your own decisions. That was the biggest thing I was trying to show you.

Again, I'm not dissmissing anything, your "objective proof" came from multiple sources and years, ones chosen to spin the original authors intent to be seen in the best possible light. All I asked for was a study which covered all contigencies over one year, thats it. I don't expect you to go hunting for the data, because it probably doesn't exist or if it does is not "public domain". I'm doing my best to be reasonable here, if I "dismiss" something, it's only on the grounds that it is either "spun" or "irrelevent" and when I do agree with you, I make no bones about it, I just agree and say so and why.

Well, I really did go hunting for data. This is a subject I do other research on my own ebcause it's something I'm interested in, but the problem seems to be that they only do research every few years or so so the only data I can find is several years out of date. I'm sorry. But, in all honesty, I do think the exact same trends that are shown in the data from then will be the same trends as now. And really, the anti-firearm people, such as the Brady Campaign, uses it to their advantage and do get to be misleading about the data to further their own agenda.

However, I would not under any circumstances provide you data from a resource such as the NRA. Those people are pretty out there.

Just because person is pro-firearm does not necessarily mean they can't be objective about their data.

Here's an example of what I mean. I will post to you a sample from their article and bold the actual link they have:

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Militia

The word "militia" has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service. (dictionary.com)

The federal government can use the militia for the following purposes as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Is today's National Guard the militia? It is a part of the well-regulated militia.[1] (As mentioned in GunCite's, The Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment, it was not the intent of the framers to restrict the right to keep arms to only those serving active militia duty.)

For a definition of today's militia as defined, by statute, in the United States Code, click here.

A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control. A "private" militia or army not under government control could be considered illegal and in rebellion, and as a result subject to harsh punishment. (See Macnutt, Karen L., Militias, Women and Guns Magazine, March, 1995.)

Some argue that since the militias are "owned," or under the command of the states, that the states are free to disarm their militia if they so choose, and therefore of course no individual right to keep arms exists. The Militia is not "owned," rather it is controlled, organized, et. cetera, by governments. The federal government as well as the states have no legitimate power to disarm the people from which militias are organized. Unfortunately, few jurists today hold this view. (See Reynolds, Glen Harlan, A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461-511 [1995].)

A brief summary of early U.S. militia history.

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Edit:


I'm sorry I didn't make myself too clear on my intentions.

[Gatefan1976]

But I really didn't. If you would've looked further you would've seen the resources they used so you can check the full thing yourself, which is what I was truly trying to do. They really do name their sources and are not really bias, that I can see. Especially with Guncite. They are very good at listing their sources so you can check it out for yourself and make your own decisions. That was the biggest thing I was trying to show you.

GG
Nothing is totally unbiased, simply because no two people see things the same way. I see that they link sources and such, however, there is nothing to say the source of thier source is unbiased either. In the end it comes down to what you personally believe. If you believe the stats provided by Guncite are objective, then, you do and I'm not gonna even try to change your opinion. As I said, this is a debate, no more, no less. It interests me because I have been threatened with firearms (one pistol, one shotgun and some homemade piece of trash, on 3 seperate occasions), and as a result of those experiences, I AM biased against your position, much the same as because of YOUR experiences you are biased FOR your position.

Well, I really did go hunting for data. This is a subject I do other research on my own ebcause it's something I'm interested in, but the problem seems to be that they only do research every few years or so so the only data I can find is several years out of date. I'm sorry. But, in all honesty, I do think the exact same trends that are shown in the data from then will be the same trends as now. And really, the anti-firearm people, such as the Brady Campaign, uses it to their advantage and do get to be misleading about the data to further their own agenda.

I'm not anti-firearm dude, even after my experiences, I am however all for alot of oversight in this area.

However, I would not under any circumstances provide you data from a resource such as the NRA. Those people are pretty out there.

Chances are, you have in some way or another

Just because person is pro-firearm does not necessarily mean they can't be objective about their data.

Actually, yeah it does. the only way to be objective is to not be invested in the results either way.

Here's an example of what I mean. I will post to you a sample from their article and bold the actual link they have:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Edit:

I'm sorry I didn't make myself too clear on my intentions.

Dude, this is about a militia, public folk who should the need arise be ready to be drafted into the "army" and supply thier own weaponry as needed in defence of thier homes and lands. All these, again, hold no weight in peacetime, nor do they support the idea that people should be able to walk around armed in such conditions. You keep providing links and articles and such, but the majority of them have NOTHING to do with what you and I are discussing, and the few that have, again, I have not disputed with you.

[Galileo_Galilee]

Nothing is totally unbiased, simply because no two people see things the same way. I see that they link sources and such, however, there is nothing to say the source of thier source is unbiased either. In the end it comes down to what you personally believe. If you believe the stats provided by Guncite are objective, then, you do and I'm not gonna even try to change your opinion. As I said, this is a debate, no more, no less. It interests me because I have been threatened with firearms (one pistol, one shotgun and some homemade piece of trash, on 3 seperate occasions), and as a result of those experiences, I AM biased against your position, much the same as because of YOUR experiences you are biased FOR your position.

Then what's the point of asking me for data if they're all biased in some way?

Dude, this is about a militia, public folk who should the need arise be ready to be drafted into the "army" and supply thier own weaponry as needed in defence of thier homes and lands. All these, again, hold no weight in peacetime, nor do they support the idea that people should be able to walk around armed in such conditions. You keep providing links and articles and such, but the majority of them have NOTHING to do with what you and I are discussing, and the few that have, again, I have not disputed with you

Actually, yeah it does. the only way to be objective is to not be invested in the results either way.

I just do not agree.

It was not about being a militia, I was just trying to show you how they linked to their sources.

You can really learn a lot from that website.

I'm sorry that you were once threatened by a real bastard.

[LtColCarter]

I hate to tell you...everyone and everything has a bias. No matter how neutral anyone claims to be. Even the sources are biased based on the position of the author. When I write a paper for my grad school class, I find sources to back up my position. While I'm researching, I find an equal amount of sources to contradict my position. Its human nature to favor things. Yes, biases may change.

[SoulReaver]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/06/ju...ion/?hpt=us_c2 :/

[g.o.d]

vending machines in jails? interesting

[Nolamom]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/06/ju...ion/?hpt=us_c2 :/

Makes me embarrased to be living in Texas.

[Goose]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/06/ju...ion/?hpt=us_c2 :/

Agree with capital punishment or not, every person convicted of a crime should be convicted beyond doubt, ESPECIALLY when it comes to cases like this. I don't know if he's innocent or not, but to deny him the chance to try and prove it is just cruel.

[mad_gater]

vending machines in jails? interesting

why not? they get cable TV and gymnasiums and basketball courts after all...

bring back the chain gangs I say....the government could save a ton of money using them to, say, build the fence we so desperately need along our borders instead of hiring law-abiding people they'd have to pay

[g.o.d]

Makes me embarrased to be living in Texas.

I understand. Prisoners should drink only water, not a pepsi