Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans? page 151

5864 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

you liberals

Do we really have to go over this again?

always talking about how legalizing things will remove the organized crime behind it (IE: Dealers, mobs, gangs, etc.). Well what about guns? Doesn’t the same logic apply to them?

It certainly might remove the amount of illegal guns being bought/sold, depending on how well that is being covered, but you are making a bad analogy. The “crime” behind drugs is the sale of it. The crime behind guns is the actual usage of it against others. A whole different category.

Actually…it still wouldn’t be hard at all to acquire a gun…especially where I live.

That’s because everything’s legal now and cleaning up the mess is a lot harder than it already being in the banned status.

I really really really really beg to differ. And I would like some sources here.

The problem is we can’t really compare. There are too many factors involved.

Check out Mexico where ownership of guns is almost non-existant. Drugs are also illegal, but the cartels are in open war with the government of Mexico. They are getting their guns from all over the world. They are also getting guns from their own government from theft to soldiers changing sides of the war on drugs.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

you liberals

Do we really have to go over this again?

Yes….and again, and again. This is not the first, nor will it be the last, time that word is thrown out as a pejorative in a petty, elementary school way.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

you liberals

Do we really have to go over this again?

always talking about how legalizing things will remove the organized crime behind it (IE: Dealers, mobs, gangs, etc.). Well what about guns? Doesn’t the same logic apply to them?

It certainly might remove the amount of illegal guns being bought/sold, depending on how well that is being covered, but you are making a bad analogy. The “crime” behind drugs is the sale of it. The crime behind guns is the actual usage of it against others. A whole different category.

Actually…it still wouldn’t be hard at all to acquire a gun…especially where I live.

That’s because everything’s legal now and cleaning up the mess is a lot harder than it already being in the banned status.

I really really really really beg to differ. And I would like some sources here.

The problem is we can’t really compare. There are too many factors involved.

Check out Mexico where ownership of guns is almost non-existant. Drugs are also illegal, but the cartels are in open war with the government of Mexico. They are getting their guns from all over the world. They are also getting guns from their own government from theft to soldiers changing sides of the war on drugs.

And mainly from just over the border. They traffic drugs to the US and bring guns back to mexico. If guns would get restricted or properly traced around the world this would stop (I would suggest a system in which you need to register each gun you own and show every so many years that you still own it (either by brining it to the local police office or if you have many of them just hire a single person to come and check)).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

you liberals

Do we really have to go over this again?

always talking about how legalizing things will remove the organized crime behind it (IE: Dealers, mobs, gangs, etc.). Well what about guns? Doesn’t the same logic apply to them?

It certainly might remove the amount of illegal guns being bought/sold, depending on how well that is being covered, but you are making a bad analogy. The “crime” behind drugs is the sale of it. The crime behind guns is the actual usage of it against others. A whole different category.

Actually…it still wouldn’t be hard at all to acquire a gun…especially where I live.

That’s because everything’s legal now and cleaning up the mess is a lot harder than it already being in the banned status.

I really really really really beg to differ. And I would like some sources here.

The problem is we can’t really compare. There are too many factors involved.

1. Well…you ARE a liberal aren’t you? It’s not my fault that calling you what you are makes you grind your teeth in anguish. Jesus.
2. Yes. Just ignore the fact that guns can be sold too. Just ignore that entirely.
3. Everything is not legal now. You and I both know that to be true. And you and I both know that, regardless of the legality of guns, criminals will still get their hands on them. Hell, they do it all the time…with automatics.
4. Perhaps.

Originally posted by Geenf11:

^x2
Dude, having a gun on you will not make you invincible to bullets. A bullet hole is still a bullet hole. EDIT: Ninja’s

Lol. Lemme ask you this:
How would you rather fight someone who has a gun:
A) With a gun
B) Without a gun

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

you liberals

Do we really have to go over this again?

Yes….and again, and again. This is not the first, nor will it be the last, time that word is thrown out as a pejorative in a petty, elementary school way.

You dirty liberal…

Now tell me…how mad are you right now?

Feel free to call me a money grubbing conservative all you want…I just think it’s funny how everybody on this forum gets so angry when I call them what they are…hmmm…it may have something to do with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States#.22Liberal.22_as_a_derogatory_epithet

 
Flag Post

That’s right Thijser, we in the United States should do away with our rights to please those in Mexico. Of course you are ignoring the fact that the guns that have been passing from the US have been walked over the boarder by our BATFE. BTW, the artillery the are getting, and the machine guns are not coming from the US. Just guessing, but I bet they are coming from the UK.

 
Flag Post

Which is why I would suggest an agency that keeps track of all weapons world wide (with hand guns and other small weapons getting delegated to national governments). I think that as almost all weapons are currently being manufactured in large/well developed nations this can be done quite effectively. (People love to forget that the US has a mayor weapon industry that does a lot of export including things that civilians aren’t allowed to own in the US like artillery machine guns tanks and aircrafts).

 
Flag Post

What you are suggesting is for Americans to do away with our Constitution and Bill of Rights and it just isn’t going to happen. Your suggestion is exactly what the United Nations is suggesting and Obama will completely sign on to if he is reelected. Hillary has already shown our present administration’s support. It would be the beginning of a civil war in our country.

 
Flag Post

Well…you ARE a liberal aren’t you? It’s not my fault that calling you what you are makes you grind your teeth in anguish. Jesus.

What makes me grind my teeth in anguish is your almost deliberate ignorance and opposition to “liberals” just because they are liberals.

Yes. Just ignore the fact that guns can be sold too. Just ignore that entirely.

I know you’re trolling, but this is just dumb. Legalising guns will remove dealers that sell guns, just like legalising drugs will remove dealers that sell drugs. But the issue we have with drug dealers is that they can potentially sell dangerous drugs. The worst a gun dealer can do is sell you a non-functioning gun. I’d like bad drugs off the market, but guns off the market regardless of their quality. Bad analogy.

And you and I both know that, regardless of the legality of guns, criminals will still get their hands on them. Hell, they do it all the time…with automatics.

I don’t think you understood what I said. With our guns being banned for a very long time, it is much easier to control the amount of guns. With your guns currently freely available, banning them would lead to hoarding and illegal selling all over the place.

How would you rather fight someone who has a gun:
A) With a gun
B) Without a gun

Loaded question.

It give examples of firearms being used for self-defense.

That doesn’t really add information. I know of this, and I don’t necessarily disagree.

 
Flag Post
So, again, why? This is an infringement. I’m asking, because if these type of infringements are allowed and accepted by the people, I can’t see why they would complain about others. It clearly says “no infringements”, but if the majority agrees there can be, this will allow for a whole lot more.

I don’t know why – I don’t support it, just as I don’t support limits on campaign contributions which are another infringement on free speech. You mention public support for these infringements. The public support for campaign contributions is generally pretty high, whereas gun control is generally pretty divided.

 
Flag Post

The campaigns one is an interesting issue I’d like to discuss another time.

What I mean with “the majority agrees” is that if they think it’s okay prisoners lose their rights, they agree infringements are allowed, and the second amendment becomes meaningless.

 
Flag Post

You people keep coming up with how bad the US is with crime and telling us we would do better with banning guns, even though we have our 2nd Amendment. The UK hasn’t got the same protections as us, but like to brag about how their crime is low and they don’t have guns in civilian hands. I beg to differ. A short search reveals some of you don’t even know about your own country, yet have all of this advice for Americans.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2656875.stm

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/BritainToyGunsWSJE.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdomhttp://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

Johnny, let’s not forget Germany.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/03/oliver-weiss/german-gun-laws/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/11/germany-school-shooting-laws

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/germany

Of course our country has it’s stupidity too. It seems politicians are ignorant of what they legislate.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/08/roy-hill/dumb-gun-laws/

How about what they say about Mexico and their laws?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/09/robert-farago/are-mexicos-gun-control-laws-fueling-lawlessness/

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Well…you ARE a liberal aren’t you? It’s not my fault that calling you what you are makes you grind your teeth in anguish. Jesus.

What makes me grind my teeth in anguish is your almost deliberate ignorance and opposition to “liberals” just because they are liberals.

Yes. Just ignore the fact that guns can be sold too. Just ignore that entirely.

I know you’re trolling, but this is just dumb. Legalising guns will remove dealers that sell guns, just like legalising drugs will remove dealers that sell drugs. But the issue we have with drug dealers is that they can potentially sell dangerous drugs. The worst a gun dealer can do is sell you a non-functioning gun. I’d like bad drugs off the market, but guns off the market regardless of their quality. Bad analogy.

And you and I both know that, regardless of the legality of guns, criminals will still get their hands on them. Hell, they do it all the time…with automatics.

I don’t think you understood what I said. With our guns being banned for a very long time, it is much easier to control the amount of guns. With your guns currently freely available, banning them would lead to hoarding and illegal selling all over the place.

How would you rather fight someone who has a gun:
A) With a gun
B) Without a gun

Loaded question.

It give examples of firearms being used for self-defense.

That doesn’t really add information. I know of this, and I don’t necessarily disagree.

1. Really? I was just calling you what you are…which is a liberal…
2. I’m not really seeing your point here. Please elaborate.
3. Perhaps, but there’s really no way of proving/disproving this.
4. Loaded question for a loaded statement.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by scoopolard:

Haha you liberals are always talking about how legalizing things will remove the organized crime behind it (IE: Dealers, mobs, gangs, etc.). Well what about guns? Doesn’t the same logic apply to them?

Prostitution and drugs, the things that come to mind are quite different to guns in important ways. And at least in the case of Prostitution just legalizing is not enough though its a great step in being able to handle the crime behind it.
But indeed if guns becoming totally legal to buy and own for anyone, without controlling who buys what, then yes the crime behind it will be removed but not the crimes with guns.

1. Actually…it still wouldn’t be hard at all to acquire a gun…especially where I live.
2. I really really really really beg to differ. And I would like some sources here. And, on a different note…have u ever even fired a gun before?

1. We have already been through this several times. As dark pointed out where you live now there are already massive amounts of guns in circulation. both legally and illegally. You have a massive black market for guns because your supply comes directly from the legal owners.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/more/facts.html
340.000 guns stolen in average every year.

2.a. source see above. If it´s not the source you want, be more specific.
2.b. Yes i have fired guns before. In Germany we had a year of compulsory military service which i had to serve. I also was a member of a “Sport and Schützen Verein”. A sports and shooting club, the shooting part of the club focused more on dressing up in traditional clothing, drinking and doing parades, than actually shooting guns. I did get to shoot some guns there but did not really have enough interest in the gun shooting to invest time and money into it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:


What I mean with “the majority agrees” is that if they think it’s okay prisoners lose their rights, they agree infringements are allowed, and the second amendment becomes meaningless.

I’d agree with that, although I would submit that simply because the majority wants something to happen doesn’t make it right.

But yes, there are some minor examples of infringements of the Bill of Rights with the rationale seeming to be the safety of the public good. Clearly someone could potentially be more dangerous with a firearm. Since that person has been shone to be willing to commit a serious crime, they are more likely to use a firearm to harm another person than someone who has not been convicted (in most cases). It seems like its the same rationale that shouting Fire in a theater isn’t protected free speech either.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:


Johnny, let’s not forget Germany.

Why do i get the feeling that you have a very bad memory. You might want to look up the statements i made and actually comparing them to your links before claiming i don´t know about my country?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by scoopolard:

You dirty liberal…

Now tell me…how mad are you right now?

Feel free to call me a money grubbing conservative all you want…I just think it’s funny how everybody on this forum gets so angry when I call them what they are…hmmm…it may have something to do with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States#.22Liberal.22_as_a_derogatory_epithet

I’m not mad at you scoop, and I wouldn’t call you an (expletive) conservative because I don’t think that’s a bad thing—I think both parties probably have something to offer. Predominantly, I’m disappointed that you take a perceived party affiliation and make it into a bad word, as it’s really kind of childish and immature. It detracts from the actual subject we’re trying to discuss by dissolving it down to basic “name calling”.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

You know, maybe these liberals are right. Lets call them happy happy, joy joy guild.

There is no “these liberals”. There is you, and people who disagree with you. That is a name you’ve made up in lieu of having to actually think or have a deeper, thought provoking discussion.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:
Originally posted by jhco50:


Johnny, let’s not forget Germany.

Why do i get the feeling that you have a very bad memory. You might want to look up the statements i made and actually comparing them to your links before claiming i don´t know about my country?

My bad then. Still those are good links to read.

 
Flag Post

To be fair about the whole “using ‘liberal’ as a derogatory term” issue, I’ve seen quite a few people using “conservative” as an insult too. It’s not something that is unique for republicans talking about democrats, it goes both ways.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:

It’s not something that is unique for republicans talking about democrats, it goes both ways.

It certainly does, and I think the practice is pointless. I’ve tried to be very clear about that, and not lower myself into the straight “mud slinging” mindset. We are here to discuss issues, not call each other names, or label each other. I don’t know why that is so hard for some people to understand.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:

To be fair about the whole “using ‘liberal’ as a derogatory term” issue, I’ve seen quite a few people using “conservative” as an insult too. It’s not something that is unique for republicans talking about democrats, it goes both ways.

I would agree with this. But I still don’t think I anybody that cries out in anguish upon being called a conservative. Liberals, however, have essentially started to use a different to describe themselves because of the stigma behind their own label (hell, even Keith Olbermann wouldn’t use the word)…the word is “progressive” by the way.

 
Flag Post

Let’s just say it as it is.
Ignorant vs Open-Minded.

There, I said it.
Someone had to.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by NaturalReject:

It’s not something that is unique for republicans talking about democrats, it goes both ways.

It certainly does, and I think the practice is pointless. I’ve tried to be very clear about that, and not lower myself into the straight “mud slinging” mindset. We are here to discuss issues, not call each other names, or label each other. I don’t know why that is so hard for some people to understand.

The practice CERTAINLY IS POINTLESS.
BUT, perhaps that IS the point.
It well could be the same form of misdirection as in prestidigitation. Bring focus to one area while in another area,,the important aspects are allowed (forced?) to be subjugated….often to the point of nonexistence. If someone can focus attention on a lot of silly “name-calling” rather than actually assessing//addressing the issue (problem?) and WORKING towards a solution….then, they are taking control of the intercourse rather than allow common sense be the rule.

This is often done in order to “delay” (stall for time?) any realistic//rational resolution,,,, because one facet of the discussion actually has NOTHING to offer,,,,other than hackneyed pap gathered from some nefariously dubious sources. This facet has such a “need” to feel they possess an “empowerment” in the discussion that they are willing (likely?) to sacrifice credibility in a desperate (pathetic?) attempt to find a modicum of satisfaction that their (precious?) ideology might have any import at all.

Such “pointless” bickering can also be utilized much the same way some of the martial arts do. If one wants to “throw” someone where they want them, it is much, MUCH easier accomplished if one can get the opponent to be moving there to begin with. By using “bickering” as a tool to begin having one’s opponent going THAT direction instead of “staying-the-course” of maintaining a rational discussion,,,,the bickerer is—in effect—beginning to “control” the merit of the discussion. This is really NOT much different than what some concepts of trolling are.

This is Serious Discussion forum. We live in serious times. We need for ppl to be seriously, diligently searching for syntheses that can bring about prosperity, harmony, tolerance, acceptance, mature thinking, a rational approach to social living….GLOBALLY.

In the forum guidelines, Zshadow asks us,,,his GUESTS to heed this:
Golden rule: Address the argument civilly, don’t attack the person.
This can (should?) be extended to the “greater-person” via their gender, religious thinking, political ideology, etc. as a WHOLE. Stick to the part currently being discussed and “attack” it.
While there certainly will be a lot of differing concepts of what “civilly” means….we should keep in mind what Twilight offers in her post above. Other than that,,, it can easily go “downhill” and become nothing more than a “pissing-contest”.

It’s one thing to say: This post of yours appears to me to be hypocritical when compared to XXXXX post. It’s quite another to say: YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE. If ya want to rebut//comment on a post,,,it is important to have some form of antecedent (quote, etc.) if ya’re going to address it…we can’t read your mind & don’t have much interest in “going back” in hopes we can find the relevant point.

In a former SD guideline, Matt had this to say:
This forum is for more open, in-depth discussion. There could be opinions that you may find inappropriate or offensive here. If you don’t think you can discuss controversial topics without getting angry or upset, hold back and don’t post yet.

“This is a safe place for people, but not for ideas. Expect what you say to be challenged, but do not go after the individual people.”
the immortal words of some dudes and dudettes that Phoenix knows.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Draconavin:

Let’s just say it as it is.
Ignorant vs Open-Minded.

There, I said it.
Someone had to.

LOL….yup, it pretty much can be stated just that simply….if it need be.
Yet, as we all know …. there are a whole lot of “shades-of-gray” in between the two.

Of interest:
Ignorance: lack of knowledge, information, or education; narrow minded.
Open-minded: Receptive to new and different ideas or the opinions of others. See Synonyms at broad-minded.

NOW, who would ya want to spend any amount of time w/ shipwrecked on a tropical isle?
Something I have noticed is: Ignorance and arrogance seem to be very good “buddies”. I think it might be a form of “dressing up” a weak point so it MIGHT be taken more seriously.

Something like: ""If I could speak all the languages of earth and of angels, but didn’t love others {and have good knowledge of them}, I would only be a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal."" Some ppl actually believe that such “bells-&-whistles” can add “support” to their points. Even sadder is that far too many ppl will fall for it.