The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

Yes, because making people into victims solves so many problems. I wonder what my dad would do if he had to go out on his farm without his gun? Especially when the wild dogs are around that don't fear humans. The police can't be everywhere, so it doesn't really help to make it harder for people to protect themselves.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36346[/ATTACH]

No "gun regulation" proponent I have EVER dealt with has a problem with FARMERS having GUNS on thier FARMS. they get "itchy" when the FARMER wants to bring his SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON to TOWN.

[Col.Foley]

No "gun regulation" proponent I have EVER dealt with has a problem with FARMERS having GUNS on thier FARMS. they get "itchy" when the FARMER wants to bring his SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON to TOWN.

Why would they? I think the farmer would find it very hard to be armed when they have all guns taken from them and all guns banned to where they will not buy one. No one would say 'lets go after the farmers and get their guns' instead they say 'lets get rid of all guns'.

[jelgate]

No "gun regulation" proponent I have EVER dealt with has a problem with FARMERS having GUNS on thier FARMS. they get "itchy" when the FARMER wants to bring his SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON to TOWN.

But else will people know my name if I can't spell it with letters?

[lordofseas]

Why would they? I think the farmer would find it very hard to be armed when they have all guns taken from them and all guns banned to where they will not buy one. No one would say 'lets go after the farmers and get their guns' instead they say 'lets get rid of all guns'.

No one says get rid of all guns. People say, "Get rid of the weapons designed for a Marine, not a farmer."

[Col.Foley]

No one says get rid of all guns. People say, "Get rid of the weapons designed for a Marine, not a farmer."

Actually people do say get rid of all guns.

[Gatefan1976]

Why would they? I think the farmer would find it very hard to be armed when they have all guns taken from them and all guns banned to where they will not buy one. No one would say 'lets go after the farmers and get their guns' instead they say 'lets get rid of all guns'.

Yes they do, and its just as stupid as people saying allow all guns.
As LoS said, get rid of the military grade weapons.

[Seastallion]

No one says get rid of all guns. People say, "Get rid of the weapons designed for a Marine, not a farmer."

My dad lives on a farm (He's a retired Navy Chief), and he has 2 AR-15's, along with several other guns. He always at least takes his revolver with him anytime he goes out on his tractor. He keeps the AR-15's for protection against both, the wild dogs, and intruders. He lives way out in the country, on the edge of a National Forest. The cops aren't going to be there to help him if someone (or something) messes with him. The shooter in CT today, apparently had two handguns and one AR-15 rifle.

My dad doesn't generally take his guns into town with him, but you'd have a real fight on your hands if you tried to take his guns or those of his neighbors either. They all live out in the country, and they can't depend on the cops. Even people that live in the city can't necessarily depend on the cops. One could make the argument that if there had been an armed guard at the school, the shooting might have been prevented, but it is hard to say. It would depend on the chain of events, that can't be entirely predicted. Maybe if there had been a couple of armed guards, the outcome would be more likely different. One to back up the other, just in case.

[Col.Foley]

Yes they do, and its just as stupid as people saying allow all guns.
As LoS said, get rid of the military grade weapons.

I think by and large market forces should do that and not Government regulations. Most people i know just can't afford to go out and buy an Abrams tank.

[lordofseas]

Actually people do say get rid of all guns.

Well, they're morons. People should have the right to carry a firearm, so long as they are trained. And that training includes a test to see if you are psychologically stable enough to carry a firearm. And I doubt the Second Amendment will be repealed.

My dad lives on a farm (He's a retired Navy Chief), and he has 2 AR-15's, along with several other guns. He always at least takes his revolver with him anytime he goes out on his tractor. He keeps the AR-15's for protection against both, the wild dogs, and intruders. He lives way out in the country, on the edge of a National Forest. The cops aren't going to be there to help him if someone (or something) messes with him. The shooter in CT today, apparently had two handguns and one AR-15 rifle.

My dad doesn't generally take his guns into town with him, but you'd have a real fight on your hands if you tried to take his guns or those of his neighbors either. They all live out in the country, and they can't depend on the cops. Even people that live in the city can't necessarily depend on the cops. One could make the argument that if there had been an armed guard at the school, the shooting might have been prevented, but it is hard to say. It would depend on the chain of events, that can't be entirely predicted. Maybe if there had been a couple of armed guards, the outcome would be more likely different. One to back up the other, just in case.

What is this, a horror movie? He has training, great. So he should be allowed to carry, if he wants, a firearm to protect himself. I have absolutely no qualms with that. But ask yourself, does he really need a semi-automatic weapon? Much less the civilian equivalent to the M16? Seriously? Is America that lawless that people need weapons that are used in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect themselves?

[lordofseas]

I think by and large market forces should do that and not Government regulations. Most people i know just can't afford to go out and buy an Abrams tank.

And if someone was able to afford one, they should be allowed to buy it? This is the problem. I like capitalism. It's great. But when you place Capitalism at a higher value than the lives of others, that's morally repugnant.

[Col.Foley]

And if someone was able to afford one, they should be allowed to buy it? This is the problem. I like capitalism. It's great. But when you place Capitalism at a higher value than the lives of others, that's morally repugnant.

Fascinating premise. And sure they should be allowed to buy it. But then to actually need to harm someone else one then needs a combination of ammo, which is very very expensive, and jet fuel...which is very very expensive...to...well do anything. A tank, by itself, does nothing. They are costly beasts that need a huge willpower and a lot of logistics to actually utilize. They would make the perfect lawn ornament I think.

[SoulReaver]

I think by and large market forces should do that and not Government regulations

cool, business tycoons could buy nukes :|


more reasonable measures would be things like metal detectors, and as already mentioned, training & psychiatric evals to weed out the rotten candidates

heavier weapons (automatics etc.) should also necessitate a licence. just like driving a car

You have to admit, you're being a little wishy-washy here. So you would be fine with on scene death by cop if the crime is bad enough? But not the death penalty after a trial to determine guilt? Sounds like your saying you'd be fine with Judge Dredd crime scene executions.

where the hell did I ever even insinuate this?
if someone really has to be executed (ie. if people want blood) then the judiciary alone should decide this, not the executive. capital punishment is bad enough, let alone summary execution. if anything, 'Judge Dredd' - suppression of the separation of powers, generally speaking - is much more in line with neoconservative doctrine

Death Penalty (like abortions) should be rare, but they ARE a valid punishment, so long as the proper steps have been taken. Granted, DNA testing has helped to make such trials more accurate, but there are cases where DNA testing would be irrelevant, since guilt is a completely forgone conclusion. The guy that shot up the theater in Colorado would be a good example. Yes, he still needs a trial, but I think he'd be a candidate for the death penalty. His odds of ever getting out of prison are VERY minimal.

and all this DNA-related stuff can also be falsified, what is it that prevents a copper from simply altering the evidence & replacing it with someone else's DNA? (or do the forensics keep the evidence locked up where even the coppers don't have access?)

cases like the Colorado shooter are an Exceptional Exception. add dictators & war criminals to the list and it's still negligible

as I said if he were sentenced to be executed I wouldn't go out of my way to annul this. as a judge I wouldn't sign his death warrant, but I doubt I'd grant a pardon (eg. as a governor) if a court slapped the death sentence on him

I dunno... scientist seem to think they know what 'life' is. That is pretty secular.

depending on how life is defined, that is also pretty preposterous (and lol-worthy)

http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/life.htm

yup, it depends on the definition
they're basically talking about biological life (this at least can be defined even if opinions may differ so there's nothing preposterous about that), not Life

there are also several problems with the definition they seek to impose (some of it almost cries 'Texas Marksman') but ultimately it's their point of view

I'm not too particular about the public or private thing. Although Metal Detectors would be pretty expensive. I think they'd be fine for inner city schools, but I don't think it is very practical for schools in small towns and such.

I'd be quite particular about this, but as for metal detectors...haven't these things been around for a while? I reckon their cost should've decreased significantly since then. or at least they would, once mass-produced

[lordofseas]

Fascinating premise. And sure they should be allowed to buy it. But then to actually need to harm someone else one then needs a combination of ammo, which is very very expensive, and jet fuel...which is very very expensive...to...well do anything. A tank, by itself, does nothing. They are costly beasts that need a huge willpower and a lot of logistics to actually utilize. They would make the perfect lawn ornament I think.

So, if a man such as Donald Trump suffered a lapse of reasonable judgement, bought a tank and all the supplies, and went through the streets of New York blowing up the businesses of his competitors, that would be just fine, because he's rich, and therefore he should be allowed to do stuff like that.

[Col.Foley]

cool, business tycoons could buy nukes :|


more reasonable measures would be things like metal detectors, and as already mentioned, training & psychiatric evals to weed out the rotten candidates

heavier weapons (automatics etc.) should also necessitate a licence. just like driving a car

Well I can see liscencing as a requirement for any type of fire arm. The second amendment part of me cringes from that sort of stuff, but I do see the practical neccessity for it.

And again nukes are very expensive things. But no, I do not think anyone should be able to buy nukes, that is where I draw the line. Well any WMD actually.

[Seastallion]

What is this, a horror movie? He has training, great. So he should be allowed to carry, if he wants, a firearm to protect himself. I have absolutely no qualms with that. But ask yourself, does he really need a semi-automatic weapon? Much less the civilian equivalent to the M16? Seriously? Is America that lawless that people need weapons that are used in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect themselves?

I don't think a handgun would do much against a bear, and I don't think a single shot hunting rifle would do much against an entire pack of wild dogs, which unlike wolves, are NOT afraid of humans. In addition, the 2nd Amendment didn't just guarantee guns for personal protection, it was also just in case people had to fight against their own government. Jefferson himself felt that a revolution every now and then was necessary. He didn't include the 2nd Amendment just for hunting rifles, he included it so that a well armed citizenry could retake their government if necessary. This is a basic tenant of the American heritage. Many are concerned today that another civil war might be on the horizon, mainly over the continued powers that the Federal gov't keeps taking on. Such as being able to detain people indefinitely without cause, as was passed in the 2012 NDAA bill, and signed by Obama, that is currently under judicial scrutiny, as it should be.