Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans? page 226

5864 posts

Flag Post

Amen to that.

 
Flag Post
This is what has happened to our social programs, people never come off of them once they are on them. Some of these people are able to rise above the social structures of welfare and just refuse to do so.

Funny thing is, the ones who treat the system like this, are usually the most conservative ones. That’s just what I’ve noticed.

Why do some wish to make them legal?

The social taboo has started to wear off, and many of the less harmful ones are now viewed more as a vice than a crime. Many of us feel it’d be much less problematic to remove the criminal element (having many drugs illegal has caused more violent crime than it’s stopped) and it could create jobs and tax revenue.

It is all about them and what they want.

So the “every man for himself” economics that conservatives push really lines up with the philosophy you hate? Neat.

I am looking at the whole and seeing the selfishness in the demands I see. I naturally choose conservatism

It seems to me that choosing your morals out of spite is more telling about your own character than everyone else’s. I understand others pushing you away from something, but come on, hate’s not the answer.

Karma is the type of person who needs something to protest…anything.

Hate to be “that” guy, but this is a debate forum.

There can be no compromises with people who offer none and let’s be honest, what true compromises have really been offered? None that I have seen.

Why don’t you take the first step and offer a compromise if you feel it’s necessary? If you don’t like playing the mind games with the people on here, the only solution I can really offer you is to leave, unless you think you can win them.

 
Flag Post

Vika, you seem to feel I only see in black and white, but this is untrue. I often times see the gray areas, but when a gray area arises you must make a choice and I choose on the side of conservatism. I look at what people call progressiveness and I shun it because it is irresponsible.

If you say you see things in more than black and white, why do you imply the only choices are conservatism and progressiveness?

Life ain’t crisp.

Some of these people are able to rise above the social structures of welfare and just refuse to do so.

Parasites are part of life. I won’t pretend otherwise.

Here’s a more important question: Would you rather kill the parasites or allow people to prosper? The former has consequences on those that could have prospered with “government handouts,” the latter requires some tolerance towards parasites.

Edit: Wait, why are we discussing this in a gun thread?

 
Flag Post

I don’t know Ketsy. It has really gotten off topic.One thing I must add. Certain things I won’t compromise on and gun control is one of them.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I grew up in a time when, if you took on responsibilities it was up to you to man up and take those responsibilities seriously.

This is so vague it’s hard to decipher. Does this somehow translate into someone getting and keeping a job, or supporting their family?

I have no animosity toward someone who needs help and take government handouts to get back on their feet. My problem comes when someone can get on their feet and refuses to do so, happy to take a free ride on others.

Good. Then it sounds like we agree. I don’t like it when people abuse the social system either. I just think it would be cool if everyone who wanted a job could get a job without BS hassles like discrimination, workplace bullying, and all that.

I’d also like to add a qualifier—that job should be able to support them and their family, better than welfare. It’s really hard for any person to justify giving up food stamps, Medicaid, and TANF when they step “down” into something much less lucrative by working 15 hours a week at Burger King. This is not a decent “job”. As one woman whose book I read wrote sagely, “The problem is, for every dollar you make, you give up three in benefits.” We need to somehow fix this to make it the other way around.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I realize that each situation is different.

If you would just show that from time to time, we would not have a problem.

My problem comes when someone can get on their feet and refuses to do so, happy to take a free ride on others.

We cannot apply a blanket solution to stop them without hurting those who really do need the help. The only way we’re going to find the useless layabouts is to evaluate each case on its own merits. There are plenty of thingswe can do to make the system more efficient, but it comes down to evaluating each person’s circumstances separately, and either keeping the status quo, or punishing them for their crime.

Some of these people are able to rise above the social structures of welfare and just refuse to do so.

Not all of them are, either. There is a huge problem in finding ways its even possible for some of these people to come off of it.

Vika, you seem to feel I only see in black and white, but this is untrue. I often times see the gray areas, but when a gray area arises you must make a choice and I choose on the side of conservatism.

This is the problem. you assume there are only two choices. In reality there are always many choices. I think the minimum you can have in any situation is three.

It’s the same thing with all of the other subjects I argue. It is all about them and what makes them feel good about themselves.

No, it really isn’t. With every subject there are pros and cons. There are people who need good results, and there are people who will abuse it. If we took away every system it was possible for people to abuse, we would have nothing at all.

Because of this he chooses the most out there controversies to take sides on.

Well this is a debate forum after all. What else would you expect?

I feel they need to see two sides and make up their own minds. To do this, I must overlook some of the gray areas.

No. there are never just two sides. THAT is true black and white absolutist thinking.

There can be no compromises with people who offer none and let’s be honest, what true compromises have really been offered? None that I have seen. What compromises have you offered?

Well the talk about gun regulation, mandatory qualified training to use firearms, ways of tracking firearms, ways of ensuring there is increased situational awareness… These are all options I personally have talked about, nevermind anybody else.

You refuse to see compromises, and just continue to harp on about how any solution other than completely free and open firearms for everyone, all of the time is somehow magically destroying our constitution.

There’s a lot of wiggle room between no guns and all possible guns all the time. You just refuse to see it. Blinkered, black and white thinking. As you put it yourself:

Your way or the highway.

You always, always assume there are only two options, and two options is all you will ever accept.

 
Flag Post

Things such as making drugs legal. Why do some wish to make them legal? Because they take them and a selfishness arises that over looks the good of all of society.

Well… yeah pretty much. I have no interest in the welfare of a society that needs to forbid me stuff to keep its own shit together. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen, I don’t see why mollifying other peoples general irresponsibility should have any effect on my freedom. As someone who seems to identify with cutting off the slack and standing by the consequences of ones own decisions I am surprised we are not in agreement here Jhco. In fact, I dare say it is hypocritical.

Would you rather rely on sound judgement and good character, or allow the state to forbid everyone from indulging to protect people from their own vices? Because I object to to your presumption of running my affairs and can assure you I am competent enough to do what I want without your unwanted intervention.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by jhco50:

I grew up in a time when, if you took on responsibilities it was up to you to man up and take those responsibilities seriously.

This is so vague it’s hard to decipher. Does this somehow translate into someone getting and keeping a job, or supporting their family?

I have no animosity toward someone who needs help and take government handouts to get back on their feet. My problem comes when someone can get on their feet and refuses to do so, happy to take a free ride on others.

Good. Then it sounds like we agree. I don’t like it when people abuse the social system either. I just think it would be cool if everyone who wanted a job could get a job without BS hassles like discrimination, workplace bullying, and all that.

I’d also like to add a qualifier—that job should be able to support them and their family, better than welfare. It’s really hard for any person to justify giving up food stamps, Medicaid, and TANF when they step “down” into something much less lucrative by working 15 hours a week at Burger King. This is not a decent “job”. As one woman whose book I read wrote sagely, “The problem is, for every dollar you make, you give up three in benefits.” We need to somehow fix this to make it the other way around.

Both Twilight.

Getting jobs was not always so hard to do. This is something that has happened in the last five years or so. When I retired I was not really ready to retire. I didn’t want to retire, but circumstances out of my control demanded it. It was like being put out to pasture. :) This is exactly the reason I fix up houses. It gives me something to do and a steady income eventually.

It is kind of hard to get a job that pays better than welfare. Welfare pays pretty darn good anymore. You would have to get a really good job in fact. Kids aren’t able to get the Burger King jobs like they used to. Educated adults are taking them in order to support their families. I don’t know what to do about benefits. There was a time when employers didn’t supply benefits with your job. Somewhere along the line it became the employers job to take care of the individual. I believe that will go by the wayside before long. First, it is an employers market now and second, Obamacare is creating a situation where employers are starting to drop insurance paid by them and telling people to go get government insurance.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
There can be no compromises with people who offer none and let’s be honest, what true compromises have really been offered? None that I have seen. What compromises have you offered?

Well the talk about gun regulation, mandatory qualified training to use firearms, ways of tracking firearms, ways of ensuring there is increased situational awareness… These are all options I personally have talked about, nevermind anybody else.

You refuse to see compromises, and just continue to harp on about how any solution other than completely free and open firearms for everyone, all of the time is somehow magically destroying our constitution.

There’s a lot of wiggle room between no guns and all possible guns all the time. You just refuse to see it. Blinkered, black and white thinking. As you put it yourself:

Ok, now read what you wrote. Do you see a compromise? I see you saying I should compromise, but I see nothing about you compromising in any way. That is exactly what I am talking about. Also, I believe I stated gun control was not a subject I would compromise on.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Things such as making drugs legal. Why do some wish to make them legal? Because they take them and a selfishness arises that over looks the good of all of society.

Well… yeah pretty much. I have no interest in the welfare of a society that needs to forbid me stuff to keep its own shit together. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen, I don’t see why mollifying other peoples general irresponsibility should have any effect on my freedom. As someone who seems to identify with cutting off the slack and standing by the consequences of ones own decisions I am surprised we are not in agreement here Jhco. In fact, I dare say it is hypocritical.

Would you rather rely on sound judgement and good character, or allow the state to forbid everyone from indulging to protect people from their own vices? Because I object to to your presumption of running my affairs and can assure you I am competent enough to do what I want without your unwanted intervention.

Now you are thinking I’m a hypocrite because I don’t want drugs legalized. They are illegal now by the way. But let’s say we make drugs legal. You are going to maintain that you are hurting no one with your drug use, but are you being honest? Let’s say you need your drugs, but you don’t have any money. What are you going to do? You are going to rob someone to get your fix. Crime will rise and my family will feel the collateral damage from your drug habit. How is that hypocritical. It is actually taking protective measures to shrink crime.

My state has legalizing pot on the ballot this year. First it was to get a foot in the door with legalizing pot for medical use, now they want to make it legal for everyone. See how that works? Well, I will not vote for it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Now you are thinking I’m a hypocrite because I don’t want drugs legalized.

Pretty sure that’s what he said, yes.

They are illegal now by the way.

There are plenty of things that were illegal that eventually became illegal, you know.

But let’s say we make drugs legal. You are going to maintain that you are hurting no one with your drug use, but are you being honest?

Pretty usre he didn’t say something like “my drug use will never harm anyone.”

Let’s say you need your drugs, but you don’t have any money. What are you going to do? You are going to rob someone to get your fix.

… Or you could sell some of your stuff and get it slightly more legally.

Also, drugs don’t have to be legal for this to happen, you know.

Crime will rise and my family will feel the collateral damage from your drug habit.

I see you like making assumtions.

How is that hypocritical. It is actually taking protective measures to shrink crime.

Hyppothetically, what do you think would happen if tobacco (or even alcohol) was illegalized now?

My state has legalizing pot on the ballot this year. First it was to get a foot in the door with legalizing pot for medical use, now they want to make it legal for everyone. See how that works?

See how what works, that the ligalization of cannabis if popular enought to warrant a state ballot?

… Oh, wait, you mean it’s another one of your slippery-slope arguments that aren’t very practical in practice. Yeah, pot getting legalized wont lead to bath salts getting legalized (not directly, at least).

Well, I will not vote for it.
No shit.
Originally posted by jhco50:
Also, I believe I stated gun control was not a subject I would compromise on.

Well there’s your problem, you stopped before you even started.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

It is kind of hard to get a job that pays better than welfare. Welfare pays pretty darn good anymore. You would have to get a really good job in fact.

No, it actually pays shit. In Colorado for example, a family of three making nothing would get about $450 cash aid living on welfare per month. Try living on that. You can’t.

But still, when a family that size needs about 2K to make ends meet and there’s the difference between not working and getting that cash aid and free medical benefits (450/month), versus working full time at fast food and not making benefits (700/month), does it really matter? They’re going down regardless. It’s almost not worth working to lose the health and food benefits, and that’s a problem. It’s not that people on welfare are “rich” or making it, by any means.

It does seem much harder to get any kind of job now, though. I remember as recently as 1992 (I guess by today’s standards that was considered a “booming” economy) that jobs were plentiful here and there.

 
Flag Post

Idiots like these would not commit murder in an America with gun regulation. Jake Evans, 17, tells 911 he shot and killed mother, sister — charged with murder. “I am pretty, I guess, evil … whatever.” Oh, America!

 
Flag Post

Now you are thinking I’m a hypocrite because I don’t want drugs legalized.

One must choose between individual freedoms and consequences, or carpet decisions for the mass. You have made appeals for the former in other subjects, but now lean towards the latter.

They are illegal now by the way. But let’s say we make drugs legal. You are going to maintain that you are hurting no one with your drug use, but are you being honest?

Most are generally illegal. It gets a little dicey depending exactly what and where. Look at California and Marijuana for example. I do maintain I am hurting no one, honestly. More so, I would say with a straight face I am a bloody boon upon society (however small). My drug use deserves laurels, however small.

Let’s say you need your drugs, but you don’t have any money. What are you going to do? You are going to rob someone to get your fix. Crime will rise and my family will feel the collateral damage from your drug habit. How is that hypocritical. It is actually taking protective measures to shrink crime.

Well I would say I never “need” drugs. It is a recreational item, really a toy. I’ve never robbed anyone for any purposes, and certainly wouldn’t start to support fun and games. “Need”, “fix”, and “habit” are all words you use under the assumption that someone is powerfully addicted. Firstly, not all drugs are addictive – so there is a wide gap between drug policy, and addiction. Secondly, not everyone who uses addictive drugs is therefor addicted.

It is hypocritical because you are punishing me and removing my freedoms based upon phantom enemies you believe will wrong you. How is that in any way different then what you have suggested others are doing with their gun legislation? That you are a responsible gun owner who bares no risk to society?

In conclusion, I’d leave a quote from Plato’s The Laws. I’ve been reading it again lately and it seems apropos.
In regards to the Drinking Party, “So this insight into the nature and disposition of man;s soul will rank as one of the most useful aids available to the art which is concerned to foster a good character – the art of statesmenship I take it?” “Certainly.”

-But this is getting pretty derailed. If it pleases anyone, I’ll move to another board so long as you promise to follow Jhco. This one had has it’s fair of tangents, and I really do feel there are some interesting parallels between drug and gun legislation.

 
Flag Post

I would like to see many illegal drugs legallised, I will admit. If they are legal, their purity can be regulated. A lot of the harm that is done, is done when the dealer, anxious to make a bigger profit, ‘cuts’ the drug with something else. Anything from sherbert to baking soda. Even another drug, which has gone ‘past its best’.

Plus I would absolutely love to see many of those I’ve met in a professional setting, to be able to file prescription requests for marijuana, and have them filled. It may be a recreational drug, but it is also a wonderful pain reliever, with far less side effects than alternatives like Tramadol.

Basically, when they are legal, you can legislate and regulate far more tightly than you can when they are illegal.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:


Plus I would absolutely love to see many of those I’ve met in a professional setting, to be able to file prescription requests for marijuana, and have them filled. It may be a recreational drug, but it is also a wonderful pain reliever, with far less side effects than alternatives like Tramadol.

I agree that it seems to have good pain relief functions, but would making medicinal MJ (perhaps on a federal level) where someone needs a prescription suffice? Or do you think it should be legalized for recreational use?

 
Flag Post

An availability through prescription would be sufficient for me. I’m not a huge fan of using painkillers recreationally, because of the chemical imbalances and dependency you can be left with.

I’m not a huge fan of chemical painkillers overall, but they’re one of the best tools we currently have for dealing with chronic pain.

If they were legallised for general use, I would like there to be available a cheap, disposable test so you could tell what ppm ofthe chemical is in your bloodstream, and from that how safe you are to do various tasks, such as drive or operate machinery. Right now, we haven’t done the base research that would need – because of the stigma surrounding the drugs.

 
Flag Post

In my state, we passed legislation allowing for pot to be used for medical purposes. I felt this was ok for those who needed it to help in certain cases. Now, we are told we should pass it to allow recreational use of it. I wonder…if this passes will they want cocaine, or heroin next? I would assume from watching these types of end runs many times the answer would be yes. I really doubt the public will be duped by this taxing and regulation BS the proponents are pushing.

 
Flag Post

Heroin is unlikely to ever be made legal. It causes too many temporary and permanent health and cognition issues. It is much more damaging than ethanol ever was. At best we might see a regulation status of the drug whereby alternatives to street heroin are refined for those poor sods whose continued health relies on continually taking it.

The same purpose for which methadone is currently used.

 
Flag Post

So, let me see if I can connect these arguments. Some want to regulate firearms to the point homeowners don’t have them when they need them. Criminals don’t deserved to be killed just because they are in your house illegally and threatening to you family, and drugs should be legal for recreational use.

Let me put it into a more consolidated sentence. Homeowners should not have guns because the criminal they may shoot could just be a drug addict and need a fix. Somehow that just doesn’t give me any fuzzy feelings of safety.

Maybe instead of regulating firearms, we should regulate drugs. Whoa! Common sense.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Let me put it into a more consolidated sentence. Homeowners should not have guns because the criminal they may shoot could just be a drug addict and need a fix. Somehow that just doesn’t give me any fuzzy feelings of safety.

Pity that was nobody’s argument, isn’t it? Would have been a wonderful rebuttal if anybody was actually arguing for that.

 
Flag Post

Thank You. This is a gun control thread though and it come around to so many other side debates that I just thought they were all connected.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

This is a gun control thread though and it come around to so many other side debates that I just thought they were all connected.

You thought wrong.

 
Flag Post

Most of the side debates discuss similar issues that can be used in analogy. That does not mean they are somehow all connected to gun control, just that they share aspects in common.

I certainly have no idea where you got the truly bizarre position that we should not act in self defense against drug addicts threatening our lives from.

 
Flag Post

You probably haven’t read the whole thread then, which is understandable as it is quite long. All of these excuses for gun control have reared their head some where in the thread.