Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans? page 225

5861 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

LOL! And hungry. Check this out, it is interesting to look at. http://www.bfro.net/

Oh dear God, there’s so much South Park I can think of.

 
Flag Post

Yes, but it is fun to look at these. Some of them supposedly happened about 10 miles from where I live. I can attest to this since something ate my wife’s flower bed.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Yes, but it is fun to look at these. Some of them supposedly happened about 10 miles from where I live. I can attest to this since something ate my wife’s flower bed.

Sounds like a certain bigfoot is looking for love.

*Insert porno jazz music here *

 
Flag Post

Yes it does. My wife has these flowers that grow everywhere, including cracks in the streets and neighbors yards. I love that Bigfoot.

 
Flag Post

Yep. They have had sightings here in Colorado right near Pikes Peak, and even put up a sign

 
Flag Post

Democrats don’t. If they did then we would already have our gun rights taken away.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Yep. They have had sightings here in Colorado right near Pikes Peak, and even put up a sign

No kidding? They put up a sign? LOL!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Rpoman2009:

Democrats don’t. If they did then we would already have our gun rights taken away.

Democrats don’t what? Please expand on this.

 
Flag Post

He’s answering the question in the OP. He’s saying that Democrats don’t want to take guns away from Americans.

 
Flag Post

Not all of them anyway. some of my friends are Demi’s and they are big time shooters and hunters.

 
Flag Post

Nice to see that you recognise that not every left-leaning person are anti-guns :)

 
Flag Post

Oh I always knew that. They also don’t want restrictions of any kind. However, they aren’t here and the people on this thread seem more than willing to take anything they can from our constitution, as long as it makes them feel good. Where have you been anyway?

 
Flag Post

Hi jhco. I’ve been around, just not as active. These topics have a way of making you repeat yourself over and over again :)
Gun restrictions isn’t such a big issue for me either. I feel my home country (New Zealand) has it right, as do most other Western countries. I guess Americas gun culture is a very important part of its citizens identity.

 
Flag Post

I know what you mean flabby. I sometimes wonder if the opposing side even tries to understand what is being said or if they just want to argue. Some nights I just don’t feel like arguing with them. It’s like telling my dog something and it looking at me as if to say, “What the ___?” :)

Yes, the gun culture has been with us since our beginning as a country. I don’t think citizens are going t give them up anytime soon. I read 67% of the citizenry say no to more regulations. That is a lot of people.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

Nice to see that you recognise that not every left-leaning person are anti-guns :)

Originally posted by jhco50:

Oh I always knew that. They also don’t want restrictions of any kind.

I greatly DOUBT that. MAYBE there are a very FEW “liberals” who might have issues w/ “thinking” as to hold such a position.

However, they aren’t here and the people on this thread seem more than willing to take anything they can from our constitution, as long as it makes them feel good.

Oh, c’mon jake-o…WTF? Why do YOU insist on continuing this idiotic rant about ppl—both domestic and esp. foriegn—wanting to "destroy the Constitution? Such is just more of YOUR “hyperbolic” crap trying to lend “credible support” to YOUR positions.

Yes, guns in America ARE NOT going to be “banned”.
HOWEVER, it is YOU who cannot understand there is a difference betwee REGULATION & BANNING. It is such cognitive failure that is of true danger to the Constitution.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
HOWEVER, it is YOU who cannot understand there is a difference betwee REGULATION & BANNING. It is such cognitive failure that is of true danger to the Constitution.

This is a problem with a lot of the more conservative older generation – the tendency to see everything in black and white. It tends to be the greatest contrast between the two sides of the spectrum, and leads to the greatest challenges in communication.

How do you explain varying conditions and individual merits to someone whose mind does not allow compromise and sees only in absolutes?

 
Flag Post

Vicka, you may think the older generation are set in their ways, but it is the older generation that got the things done that allows the younger generation to enjoy what they have today. We and our ancestors built this country into this strong, energized world that allowed for the colleges, technology, and foundation you used to peruse what you wanted to do with your talents. It was the older generations that give you the freedoms you enjoy. Excuse us for being strong willed, but you might thank us for what we have allowed you to accomplish with your life. With age comes absolute. We have the experiences that gave us the knowledge you will have at our age. At our age we pretty much know what works and doesn’t work, what is valuable for society and what is damaging. This is the basis for my views on different subjects on this forum.

If you will notice, there are really only a few subjects that I offer an argument on. Gun control, politics, abortion, and gays. These are subjects that stick in my craw. These are important subjects that affect society and the quality of life for our society. Through years of living in this world I have seen the good and the bad. I have met the people who hate our country and wish it destroyed, or at the very least changed to what they see as impotent. Those who are dissatisfied with just living their lives and wanting to just create havoc for others. Forgive me if I stand up to these types of people and tell them enough is enough.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Vicka, you may think the older generation are set in their ways, but it is the older generation that got the things done that allows the younger generation to enjoy what they have today.

when they were younger, yeah. Very few tend to keep ‘getting things done’ after they have retired, and those who do, are usually the moderates and the liberals – those who think of others before themselves, and those capable of seeing the big picture. Those whose philosophy puts themselves first, put themselves first much more so after retirement.

However, as I said, it is those whose philosophy only allows them to see black and white as opposed to shades of grey – or even other colors – who are the problem. Those to whom one size fits all, and no solution other than an absolute blanket solution is even worth considering.

 
Flag Post

This is where you are wrong. conservatives are hard hearted. I have helped many who were down and wanted a hand up, or young people who needed guidance in their lives. You are trying to use your black and white to describe people and their contributions by their a political party. Yes, I am hard right, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have compassion. There is a difference between compassion for your fellow man and taking your fellow mans dignity through too much compassion. You cannot give everything to a person without taking that dignity and sometimes those who take that dignity never realize they are doing it.

I know a few that wonder why I have never taken handouts from the government when I had lean times. It is because I have pride. I know that I can do things for myself without those handouts, maintain my dignity if you will. No, I never become rich financially, but I am rich in ways that matter to me. I raised three children who I am extremely proud of. They in turn gave me six grandchildren that I love without question. In these ways I am rich beyond imagination. I fight to maintain a quality of life for these young ones, a quality that gives them the same chances at life I had.

Change for changes sake is not valuable. Changes come slowly with thought of the consequences of those changes. When our founding fathers created our Constitution, they didn’t just throw a bunch of words together and call it good because it represented change. The thought about what the consequences would be to the people. They discussed all of the outcomes of what they were doing. Then they sent the document to the various states who also discussed it before accepting it. There were no shades of gray.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

This is where you are wrong. conservatives are hard hearted.

I wouldn’t go so far as to call them ‘hard hearted’. I stay with my previous statements, that older conservatives past retirement age tend to put themselves first and others second. That does not mean they are hard hearted, although I can see how you would infer that. Some are, same as some liberals are, some moderates are. It does not mean all are.

You are trying to use your black and white to describe people and their contributions by their a political party.

Actually, I was using you as an example of someone who is incapable of seeing in other than black and white. This is evident in your immediate assumption that conservatives = one specific party. It doesn’t, its an ideology. Rather than trying to pidgeonhole people into one specific party’, try looking at right-leaning as a whole, and pick out some common trends. Its outside of your black/white mentality (yours specifically) so I rather doubt you will manage to do it.

I know a few that wonder why I have never taken handouts from the government when I had lean times. It is because I have pride. I know that I can do things for myself without those handouts, maintain my dignity if you will.

Here we have another example of black/white thinking. Not everyone is in the same position you were. Sometimes they need those handouts to make ends meet. Sometimes they can’t live without an extra helping hand at their lowest point. It’s all about individual circumstances and a case by case basis. I know you will never understand how individual circumstances can be different from your own, and that is what Karma was getting at when he said that points of view like yours – no shades of grey possible – are the greatest threat the constitution will ever face.

You always interpret it strictly literally, and never any room for alternative meanings or compromise. It has to be rigid and unbending, in your view. A dead document to create a dead society.

Then they sent the document to the various states who also discussed it before accepting it. There were no shades of gray.

Times change. This isnot he same world our founding fathers lived in. Our country is not the same, other countries are not the same. Our lives are not the same, our technologies and capabilities are not the same as theirs.

Unless you wish to force America back to exactly the same in all aspects as it was the year the constitution was signed, then you have to accept that our laws have to change with the times, and some parts of the dead document, could do with living again. Its all about understanding the differences in different circumstances.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by jhco50:


I know a few that wonder why I have never taken handouts from the government when I had lean times. It is because I have pride. I know that I can do things for myself without those handouts, maintain my dignity if you will.

Here we have another example of black/white thinking. Not everyone is in the same position you were. Sometimes they need those handouts to make ends meet. Sometimes they can’t live without an extra helping hand at their lowest point. It’s all about individual circumstances and a case by case basis.

This is an interesting point you have brought up, and I would probably agree that yes, this is judged on a case by case basis. I’m sure there are some people who are much more prone to taking government handouts than others, which I think is the point that jhco is trying to make.

However, we need to consider that we all live by the basic rule of numbers—we either need a place to stay and food to eat, or we need some amount of money/assistance to make sure we can procure a place to stay and food to eat. If someone has a steady income, of even say $1200 a month, through either themselves or a spouse, they can afford to not take government handouts if they are truly repelled by the idea. But if they made nothing and were looking for a job, I’m sure they would be singing a different tune; living under a bridge and eating out of dumpsters is not that feasible.

There’s also the question of priorities. If someone is making barely enough to make ends meet but are still eligible for government medical insurance, it becomes a question of pride vs. necessity/services. Is someone’s pride more important than a trip to the doctor for laryngitis? Some would say yes, and tough it out. For me, especially with children, in that instance, I would go ahead and take the government handout (of medical insurance) to make sure my kid is well and put my mind at ease that I have headed off any medical problems before they become bigger. I would feel guilty if I didn’t, and see that as putting my pride before someone’s health, especially someone I was responsible for.

 
Flag Post

I realize that each situation is different. 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. A promise was your word and by God, you never broke your word. I still live by that today. 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. These people feel they deserve to be taken care of by society. 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.

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. 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. It is all about them and what they want. 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. Other people can go to hell for all they care, as long as they get what they want. So when you or Karma declare I think in only black and white, I am looking at the whole and seeing the selfishness in the demands I see. I naturally choose conservatism.

Karma is the type of person who needs something to protest…anything. Because of this he chooses the most out there controversies to take sides on. Then he comes on a game forum to peddle his ideals (as he calls them) to the young people. I see this and the brainwashing he does and have opposed him. 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. 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? Exactly, your way or the highway.

 
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?