NationStates Jolt Archive

So, as I stated in the hypocrisy threads, I'm still displeased by the dominants "sides" in the political arena. As a quasi-libertarian, I support liberty over security in most instances. But this one's been really bothering me.

Why do liberals seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with the Patriot act, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of gun control?


Why do conservatives seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with gun control, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of the patriot act?

So, as I stated in the hypocrisy threads, I'm still displeased by the dominants "sides" in the political arena. As a quasi-libertarian, I support liberty over security in most instances. But this one's been really bothering me.

Why do liberals seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with the Patriot act, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of gun control?


Why do conservatives seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with gun control, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of the patriot act?

because gun ownership also may add an aspect of more personal security... and studies have shown in communities where gun ownership is MANDETORY that crime actually dramatically decreases

because gun ownership also may add an aspect of more personal security... and studies have shown in communities where gun ownership is MANDETORY that crime actually dramatically decreases
My gripe is not about guns, it's about the patriot act.

Maybe an omnipresent police state which checks up on what library books you are reading and which can tap you phones or search your home at a whim, makes people feel insecure?

So, as I stated in the hypocrisy threads, I'm still displeased by the dominants "sides" in the political arena. As a quasi-libertarian, I support liberty over security in most instances. But this one's been really bothering me.

Why do liberals seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with the Patriot act, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of gun control?

I'm still up in the air on this one. I, for one, think everybody has the right to own a gun. Hey, it's their funeral.

Why do conservatives seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with gun control, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of the patriot act?

Simple. They're paranoid.

because gun ownership also may add an aspect of more personal security... and studies have shown in communities where gun ownership is MANDETORY that crime actually dramatically decreases
Do they have statistics on accidental deaths from guns in said communities?

So, as I stated in the hypocrisy threads, I'm still displeased by the dominants "sides" in the political arena. As a quasi-libertarian, I support liberty over security in most instances. But this one's been really bothering me.

Why do liberals seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with the Patriot act, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of gun control?


Why do conservatives seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with gun control, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of the patriot act?
That may be an accurate assessment. Good question.
(BTW, i'm anti-patriot act and anti-gun control in case people want to attack me about something they don't know)

Only thing worth securing is liberty. More security means usually less liberty...

Sorry, I just had nothing on your guestion :)

So, as I stated in the hypocrisy threads, I'm still displeased by the dominants "sides" in the political arena. As a quasi-libertarian, I support liberty over security in most instances. But this one's been really bothering me.

Why do liberals seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with the Patriot act, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of gun control?


Why do conservatives seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with gun control, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of the patriot act?

I'll repeat my answer re liberals from the other thread (with one addition).

Regulating guns impose no more on our liberties than regulating automobiles.

Unregulated guns pose a threat to both liberty and security.

I do not believe anything else as inherently dangerous as guns is as unregulated as guns are.

The Patriot Act impinges on fundamental freedoms of speech, privacy, presumption of innocence, due process, etc. Gun control doesn't.

I can go on, but any questions?

I'll repeat my answer re liberals from the other thread (with one addition).

Regulating guns impose no more on our liberties than regulating automobiles.

Unregulated guns pose a threat to both liberty and security.

I do not believe anything else as inherently dangerous as guns is as unregulated as guns are.

The Patriot Act impinges on fundamental freedoms of speech, privacy, presumption of innocence, due process, etc. Gun control doesn't.

I can go on, but any questions?

the right to own a viechel is not indoctrined so clearly in the constitution as is the ownership of guns.. infact gun ownership is a fundamental freemdom.. just as free speech is privacy presumptino of innocence due process etc..

I'll repeat my answer re liberals from the other thread (with one addition).

Regulating guns impose no more on our liberties than regulating automobiles.

[QUOTE=]Unregulated guns pose a threat to both liberty and security.
No, the abuse thereof poses threats to liberty and security, but unregulated guns in themselves do not.

I do not believe anything else as inherently dangerous as guns is as unregulated as guns are.
I'd have to disagree, unregulated government is far more dangerous than unregulated guns.

The Patriot Act impinges on fundamental freedoms of speech, privacy, presumption of innocence, due process, etc. Gun control doesn't.

I can go on, but any questions?
Once again how are the things I highlighted in the other thread not?

Do they have statistics on accidental deaths from guns in said communities?

dosn't that just mean we need smarter guns.. not less people owning them ?
gun technology can today make guns very safe

Do they have statistics on accidental deaths from guns in said communities?
And beyond that, accidental gun deaths are a very very low number. For example in the US the number of accidental gun deaths which occur each year is under 500...if I remember the number correctly. It is most certainly under 1000.

dosn't that just mean we need smarter guns.. not less people owning them ?
gun technology can today make guns very safe
Not necessarily. Every once in a while you hear about someone shooting their kid sneaking into the house late at night because they thought said kid was a burglar.

And beyond that, accidental gun deaths are a very very low number. For example in the US the number of accidental gun deaths which occur each year is under 500...if I remember the number correctly. It is most certainly under 1000.
Okay, but what is the number of accidental deaths in said community when compared to the number of crimes prevented? (Compared to the year previous to the mandatory gun laws being enacted.)

Okay, but what is the number of accidental deaths in said community when compared to the number of crimes prevented? (Compared to the year previous to the mandatory gun laws being enacted.)

i unfortuantly can't say what the number of accidental deaths were.. only that the study showed those results.. but as the other fellow did state.. accidental deaths are far in the minority even to the point of being considered rare. car accidents cause more deaths yearly... why then do we not regulate cars so heavily.... do they do background checks when you get your drivers license ?

the right to own a viechel is not indoctrined so clearly in the constitution as is the ownership of guns.. infact gun ownership is a fundamental freemdom.. just as free speech is privacy presumptino of innocence due process etc..

The individual right to possess or use guns is not protected by the Constitution either. No gun regulation has ever been struck down as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Why is gun ownership a fundamental freedom?

No, the abuse thereof poses threats to liberty and security, but unregulated guns in themselves do not.

Regulations reduce the threat to both liberty and security.

An unregulated gun, in and of itself, may not. But there are these things called humans. The combination of unregulated guns and humans threatens both liberty and security.



I do not believe anything else as inherently dangerous as guns is as unregulated as guns are.
I'd have to disagree, unregulated government is far more dangerous than unregulated guns.

Agreed. But you twisted my statement. I said nothing else is as dangerous and as unregulated. Government in the U.S. is not unregulated.

Once again how are the things I highlighted in the other thread not?

I've explained over there. Name them again and I will explain again.

i unfortuantly can't say what the number of accidental deaths were.. only that the study showed those results.. but as the other fellow did state.. accidental deaths are far in the minority even to the point of being considered rare. car accidents cause more deaths yearly... why then do we not regulate cars so heavily.... do they do background checks when you get your drivers license ?
They don't do background checks, but they should regulate cars more heavily...make everyone take the test every give years or so. As far as the guns go, I just wondered. I'm not especially anti-guns, but making ownership mandatory seems kinda reckless (and doesn't it infringe on an individual's liberty to not own a gun?)

i unfortuantly can't say what the number of accidental deaths were.. only that the study showed those results.. but as the other fellow did state.. accidental deaths are far in the minority even to the point of being considered rare. car accidents cause more deaths yearly... why then do we not regulate cars so heavily.... do they do background checks when you get your drivers license ?

Um, automobiles are heavily regulated. Far more regulated than firearms.

You, as you mention, need a driver's license to operate vehicle legally. You don't need one for firearms.

They do keep track of moving violations and take away driver's licenses. They do not so regulate firearms use.

Automobiles are regulated for safety in their design and use (traffic codes, anyone?)

And there are more, better studies showing increased crime with increased guns than there are the other way around. Bogus statistics are just that--bogus.

Okay, but what is the number of accidental deaths in said community when compared to the number of crimes prevented? (Compared to the year previous to the mandatory gun laws being enacted.)

That's an odd comparison to make since not all crimes would be fatal to the victim.

I don't have the slightest clue how many people died due to accidental deaths but if I were to make an educated guess I would say roughly zero to one. My problem with this is that you call them accidental deaths. That's an odd thing to say itself since pointing a gun at yourself or someone else and pulling the trigger, thinking that it's not loaded, is a rather dumb thing to do. The people in that community obviously went through training to own the guns that they do. Anyone that has been trained in gun safety does not 'accidently' kill someone unless the gun is defective. I mean, I don't know how it is in that community, but up here no gun owner would accidently kill someone or leave their guns out where small children could get at them.

Do they have statistics on accidental deaths from guns in said communities?


Yes they do. Go to the interpol web site to get them.

So, as I stated in the hypocrisy threads, I'm still displeased by the dominants "sides" in the political arena. As a quasi-libertarian, I support liberty over security in most instances. But this one's been really bothering me.

Why do liberals seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with the Patriot act, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of gun control?


Why do conservatives seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with gun control, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of the patriot act?


"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

-- Benjamin Franklin (1759)

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Benjamin Franklin


the liberty to own a gun, absolutly pales in comparison to the right to trial and protection from unlawfull imprisonment, The american forfathers knew this and so should you if you call your self americans.

Oh and over here we don't have mass gun ownership and yes suprisngly enough we have crime quite a fair bit, but less murder

More guns= less petty crime, more homicides

Um, automobiles are heavily regulated. Far more regulated than firearms.

You, as you mention, need a driver's license to operate vehicle legally. You don't need one for firearms.

They do keep track of moving violations and take away driver's licenses. They do not so regulate firearms use.

Automobiles are regulated for safety in their design and use (traffic codes, anyone?)

And there are more, better studies showing increased crime with increased guns than there are the other way around. Bogus statistics are just that--bogus.


Yes but the "real" statistics are almost constantly misleading, most childhood death statistics for major urban areas presented by the anti-gun lobby only work if you include the 21 year old crackhead shot by a rival and all the other gangsters above 18, the legal age for adulthood in America. Without gangmembers the rate drops by about half to seventy five percent.

That's an odd comparison to make since not all crimes would be fatal to the victim.

I don't have the slightest clue how many people died due to accidental deaths but if I were to make an educated guess I would say roughly zero to one. My problem with this is that you call them accidental deaths. That's an odd thing to say itself since pointing a gun at yourself or someone else and pulling the trigger, thinking that it's not loaded, is a rather dumb thing to do. The people in that community obviously went through training to own the guns that they do. Anyone that has been trained in gun safety does not 'accidently' kill someone unless the gun is defective. I mean, I don't know how it is in that community, but up here no gun owner would accidently kill someone or leave their guns out where small children could get at them.

Wow, no gun owner has ever accidently killed anyone?

No gun accidents have ever occurred?

No guns have ever been left where childen could get at them?

Is there light in that cave? Do you have plumbing?

Um, automobiles are heavily regulated. Far more regulated than firearms.

You, as you mention, need a driver's license to operate vehicle legally. You don't need one for firearms.

They do keep track of moving violations and take away driver's licenses. They do not so regulate firearms use.

Automobiles are regulated for safety in their design and use (traffic codes, anyone?)

And there are more, better studies showing increased crime with increased guns than there are the other way around. Bogus statistics are just that--bogus.

how do you know they are bogus statistics.. how do you know the studies you speak of are "better" studies >.> seems a little bias to me..

and cars are more heavily regulated ?? really... so they do criminal checks before you get your lisence... your restricted from buying some types of cars over others (as opposed to hand guns over semi-autos) they dont keep track of your gun history ? really.. thats funny cause if you have a gun history you probably have police reports on your history and that would be keeping track of it would it.. not to mention that most accidents could get your gun lisence revoked as opposed to cars where you have to have agreious errors or mallious intent.

and quite frankly.. your wrong.. to own a firearm.. you have to have a gun lisence.. to BUY a fire arm.. you have to pass an exenstive background check. Obvoiusly you have little knowledge on gun control policies

and yes.. viechels are regulated in their manufacutirng.. but then as long as your car meets all the saftey requirements and EPA requirements your car is allowed to be used.. however not every gun manufacutred which passes saftey requirements are allowed to be distributed (assult rifles)

The individual right to possess or use guns is not protected by the Constitution either.
Regulations reduce the threat to both liberty and security.

The constitution garauntees the right of the regulated and unregulated militias to own arms, we're the unregulated militia. Also gun regulations greatly decrease personal security by requiring trigger locks, etc. you add more time from identifying a threat to being able to deal with it, time most people don't have.

Maybe an omnipresent police state which checks up on what library books you are reading and which can tap you phones or search your home at a whim, makes people feel insecure?Not me! George Bush loves me. He wants only what is best for me.

the liberty to own a gun, absolutly pales in comparison to the right to trial and protection from unlawfull imprisonment, The american forfathers knew this and so should you if you call your self americans.I'm speechless.

That's an odd comparison to make since not all crimes would be fatal to the victim.
Fine, then accidental shootings, whether or not the person shot died.

I don't have the slightest clue how many people died due to accidental deaths but if I were to make an educated guess I would say roughly zero to one. My problem with this is that you call them accidental deaths. That's an odd thing to say itself since pointing a gun at yourself or someone else and pulling the trigger, thinking that it's not loaded, is a rather dumb thing to do.
I wasn't referring to an unloaded gun, I was referring to things such as my example of the gun owner shooting their kid thinking the kid was a burglar. They meant to shoot someone, just not their kid, thus making their kid being shot an accident (as accidents are unintentional).
Furthermore, just because someone goes through training to use a gun does not mean they will apply said training. People go through training to drive, but bad drivers abound. (To continue the car analogy used in other posts.)

Wow, no gun owner has ever accidently killed anyone?

No gun accidents have ever occurred?

No guns have ever been left where childen could get at them?

Is there light in that cave? Do you have plumbing?


In cities with shall-issue laws there are much lower child deat rates than in cities without them, if a child has been trained not to use it improperly then a child will not use it improperly, I.E. accidental discharge. FYI there are very few accidental discharges compared to the number of negligent discharges, accidental is a mechanical issue, negligent is stupidity.

how do you know they are bogus statistics.. how do you know the studies you speak of are "better" studies >.> seems a little bias to me..

and cars are more heavily regulated ?? really... so they do criminal checks before you get your lisence... your restricted from buying some types of cars over others (as opposed to hand guns over semi-autos) they dont keep track of your gun history ? really.. thats funny cause if you have a gun history you probably have police reports on your history and that would be keeping track of it would it.. not to mention that most accidents could get your gun lisence revoked as opposed to cars where you have to have agreious errors or mallious intent.

and quite frankly.. your wrong.. to own a firearm.. you have to have a gun lisence.. to BUY a fire arm.. you have to pass an exenstive background check. Obvoiusly you have little knowledge on gun control policies

and yes.. viechels are regulated in their manufacutirng.. but then as long as your car meets all the saftey requirements and EPA requirements your car is allowed to be used.. however not every gun manufacutred which passes saftey requirements are allowed to be distributed (assult rifles)

You are right about the firearms license. I let my rhetoric get away from. Some jurisdictions require them. I don't believe all do, but I would be happy to be wrong.

If you really think firearms are more regulated than vehicles, your perspective is strangely warped, however. I will try to rein in my rhetoric. You should do the same.

Much of what you are saying is disingenuous. If safety regulations forbid the manufacture of assault rifles, you would then claim they were more regulated than they are now.

Every vehicle must be registered. Every vehicle must be insured. Every vehicle must have a number of safety features to protect the occupants and others. Consumer product safety standards are generally not applied to guns.
The use of vehicles is restricted by extensive traffic codes in every jurisdiction. Driver's licenses are universally required and strictly regulated.

Firearms are inherently designed as weapons. Automobiles play an important role in society and serve a number of beneficial functions. Whatever the merit of gun ownership it is nonsensical to have firearms be less regulated than automobiles.

I'll repeat my answer re liberals from the other thread (with one addition).

Regulating guns impose no more on our liberties than regulating automobiles.

Unregulated guns pose a threat to both liberty and security.

I do not believe anything else as inherently dangerous as guns is as unregulated as guns are.

The Patriot Act impinges on fundamental freedoms of speech, privacy, presumption of innocence, due process, etc. Gun control doesn't.

I can go on, but any questions?

Not really a question, but I will say that words can be as damaging, and sometimes more so than a firearm can be. Shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater can get people hurt or killed. Yes, it's illegal to incite something like that, and it's illegal to murder someone with any weapon. Why go the extra mile, and put laws in place that allow crime rates to go up? DC had a downswing trend on their violent crime before the gun ban went in. Now it's murder capitol of the world. There are too many "coincidences" in the US where less restrictions on gun ownership and lower violent crime rates go hand-in-hand to ignore.

Defense of oneself is just as fundamental as freedom of speech is. Gun control does put limitations on what one can do to defend oneself.

Can't remember who said it, but it's a true statement (paraphrasing), "Most people don't need a gun, but when they do, they need it badly."

There is no proof that waiting periods reduce violent crime committed with a firearm. There is no proof that banning particular types of firearms reduces violent crimes, either. There DOES seem to be a direct correlation with concealed carry and reduced violent crime rates, however.

Your belief that guns are dangerous is an opinion--and that's perfectly fine to have and support--that's what the first amendment is all about. However, you don't have the right to restrict me (or anyone else for that matter) out of your fear, until I have actually proven that I'm not responsible enough to exercise that freedom.

Pre-emptive punishment by placing restrictions on the citizen ahead of time is not living in a free society. There are a few basics: Don't infringe on someone else's life or property. But beyond that, it's all about controlling the populace. I'm not big on being controlled ('tisn't free, don'tcha know).

So, in case anyone missed it, I hate both gun control and the "Patriot" Act. ;)

Not necessarily. Every once in a while you hear about someone shooting their kid sneaking into the house late at night because they thought said kid was a burglar.

That's the stupid human, not the evil gun. :)

The constitution garauntees the right of the regulated and unregulated militias to own arms, we're the unregulated militia. Also gun regulations greatly decrease personal security by requiring trigger locks, etc. you add more time from identifying a threat to being able to deal with it, time most people don't have.

Where does the Constitution guarantee the right of an unregulated militia to own arms? Please quote that for me.

If I were allowed to shoot anyone I wished on sight, that would reduce my response time to any threat. So?

They don't do background checks, but they should regulate cars more heavily...make everyone take the test every give years or so. As far as the guns go, I just wondered. I'm not especially anti-guns, but making ownership mandatory seems kinda reckless (and doesn't it infringe on an individual's liberty to not own a gun?)

Yes, it does infringe on individual liberty. Force of any sort does.

the liberty to own a gun, absolutly pales in comparison to the right to trial and protection from unlawfull imprisonment, The american forfathers knew this and so should you if you call your self americans.

Oh and over here we don't have mass gun ownership and yes suprisngly enough we have crime quite a fair bit, but less murder

More guns= less petty crime, more homicides

Not so. ALL violent crime generally goes down. Including homicides.

Yes but the "real" statistics are almost constantly misleading, most childhood death statistics for major urban areas presented by the anti-gun lobby only work if you include the 21 year old crackhead shot by a rival and all the other gangsters above 18, the legal age for adulthood in America. Without gangmembers the rate drops by about half to seventy five percent.

Actually, the Bradys have included up to 24 year olds as children in their "studies".

That's the stupid human, not the evil gun. :)

Cop out.

"It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary ... If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
--James Madison, Federalist No. 51

But, really, I blame the evil bullets. Let's compromise. All firearms are legal and unregulated. All ammunition, possession of ammunition, and all making of ammunition is illegal. Happy?

That's the stupid human, not the evil gun. :)
I'm aware. So are you going to ban stupidity? :D Or require competence tests as part of a gun ownership license?

Not so. ALL violent crime generally goes down. Including homicides.
i could produce 50 studies and you could produce 50 studies and we could argue that point till our eyes bled.

Besides the real point of your gun ownership is so you can form militia’s and fight against your government if it starts repressing you, which by taking away your civil liberties its pretty much on the road to doing, so meh!

The point of gun’s on mass was to protect other civil liberties.

Not so. ALL violent crime generally goes down. Including homicides.

Not so.

Find non-biased proof to that effect. And John Lott and his cronies are neither credible nor non-biased.

Wow, no gun owner has ever accidently killed anyone?


Of course it's happened. And they're generally punished for their stupidity.


No gun accidents have ever occurred?


Always have, always will. Just like accidents with anything.


No guns have ever been left where childen could get at them?


Yup. They have. And most are punished for their irresponsibility.

I guess the point I'd like to make is that we need to blame the cause, not the tool involved. Increase punishments for murder, homicide, etc. It's not the tool's fault. It's the owner's. Hold them responsible instead. But after they've proven they can't handle it. Otherwise, it's just like the Patriot Act--pre-emptively dismissing a right.

Not so.

Find non-biased proof to that effect. And John Lott and his cronies are neither credible nor non-biased.

I challenge you to find the opposite. Neither one of us will accept the other's sources. That will be a futile attempt. I feel the same about the Brady's as you do about Lott.

Just out of curiosity, what makes you say that Lott is not credible? I pointed out that the Bradys use adults in their stats--I'm just wondering.

the right to own a viechel is not indoctrined so clearly in the constitution as is the ownership of guns.. infact gun ownership is a fundamental freemdom.. just as free speech is privacy presumptino of innocence due process etc..
Yes but if you remember the entire ammendment it says that guns should be regulated in the form of "a well regulated millita" why do conservatives always ignore this? Gun control dosen't have to ban guns it could always just require testing and liscening similar to that involved with cars.

Yes but if you remember the entire ammendment it says that guns should be regulated in the form of "a well regulated millita" why do conservatives always ignore this? Gun control dosen't have to ban guns it could always just require testing and liscening similar to that involved with cars.
This is true. Gun control means exactly that: controlling guns. Not eliminating them entirely. I do wonder that myself why people often equate the two.

It is a fact that guns do not cause crime. However they do facilitate crime making crimes much easier to commit. Therefore keeping guns out of the hands of people who have committed crimes seems like a good idea to me. That is a form of gun control I support, but responsible gun owners should have every right to own a gun.

The patriot act is the most unAmerican piece of legislation our country has ever passed. It is astounding that Americans aren't calling for it's repeal. Why any citizen given liberty would give it up for any reason is a real head scratcher. Owning a gun isn't going to do you any good if you're held in a prison cell with no attorney.

I have a question for all of those people who say that being able to own guns is a fundimental freedom.

Are poeple who live in countries with much heavier weapon restrictions, countries like the U.K, less free than the American people?

Cop out.

"It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary ... If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
--James Madison, Federalist No. 51

But, really, I blame the evil bullets. Let's compromise. All firearms are legal and unregulated. All ammunition, possession of ammunition, and all making of ammunition is illegal. Happy?

Nah. You know I won't be happy until the 20,000+ gun restrictions are off the books. :D Besides, bullets don't aim and blast away themselves, either. It's still the person.

It's not a cop out. This whole country has turned "victim". They start blaming "evil" inanimate objects for the real problem--people. People aren't punished enough for committing actual crimes, but when someone doesn't want to take responsibility for their own inaction, misdeeds, or out-and-out foolishness, they sue. Brilliant. See lawsuits regarding fast food, TV, and hot coffee...

Don't get me wrong, if you hit someone with a car, and cripple them for life, yeah, you should have to toss all your assets over to that actual victim, and spend a VERY large chunk of time in prison. But I want real victims, not irresponsible adults acting like foolish children, or not taking responsibility for their own self-inflicted wounds.

I agree that SOME devices may be necessary, but 20 freaking thousand? No. Creating laws willy-nilly to shore up a poorly designed "patch" (which didn't need to be there in the first place) isn't the way to go. It doesn't work in business, it doesn't work in computers, it doesn't work. So why let the government continue to use faulty methods?

I'm aware. So are you going to ban stupidity? :D Or require competence tests as part of a gun ownership license?

Neither actually. That's the price of freedom--eternal vigilance. That applies on a personal level just as much as anywhere else.

i could produce 50 studies and you could produce 50 studies and we could argue that point till our eyes bled.

Besides the real point of your gun ownership is so you can form militia’s and fight against your government if it starts repressing you, which by taking away your civil liberties its pretty much on the road to doing, so meh!

The point of gun’s on mass was to protect other civil liberties.

You're right.

I'll repeat my answer re liberals from the other thread (with one addition).

Regulating guns impose no more on our liberties than regulating automobiles.

Unregulated guns pose a threat to both liberty and security.

I do not believe anything else as inherently dangerous as guns is as unregulated as guns are.

The Patriot Act impinges on fundamental freedoms of speech, privacy, presumption of innocence, due process, etc. Gun control doesn't.

I can go on, but any questions?
So strict regulation of guns doesn't take away liberties? Thinking like a true nazi aye?

Neither actually. That's the price of freedom--eternal vigilance. That applies on a personal level just as much as anywhere else.
Perhaps. But tell that to the person who was shot and killed due to a gun owner's negligence.

I have a question for all of those people who say that being able to own guns is a fundimental freedom.

Are poeple who live in countries with much heavier weapon restrictions, countries like the U.K, less free than the American people?

Yup. That would be it.

Of course it's happened. And they're generally punished for their stupidity.



Always have, always will. Just like accidents with anything.



Yup. They have. And most are punished for their irresponsibility.

I guess the point I'd like to make is that we need to blame the cause, not the tool involved. Increase punishments for murder, homicide, etc. It's not the tool's fault. It's the owner's. Hold them responsible instead. But after they've proven they can't handle it. Otherwise, it's just like the Patriot Act--pre-emptively dismissing a right.

And I am saying:

(a) unlike the rights protected by the Patriot Act, gun ownership is neither a Constitutional nor a fundamental right

(b) guns are inherently designed as weapons -- they are inherently dangerous -- they should be subject to a proportional amount of regulation compared to other items

(c) punishments for murder, homicide, etc do nothing to stop accidental shootings and negligence

(d) increasing punishments for crime is a red herring. Increased punishments do little to deter or decrease crime. Efforts to prevent crime and to increase the chances of catching criminals are more effective.

(e) how do safety regulations, registration, licensing, etc., re guns significantly impinge your liberties compared to vehicle regulations?

:sniper:

You have to define the term strict.

Automobiles are regulated without consumers being up in arms about their right to choose.

As cat-tribe put it, guns need to be regulated too.

By no means would any gun enforcement be stringent, but there must be some modes of regulation.

Perhaps. But tell that to the person who was shot and killed due to a gun owner's negligence.

Why weren't they looking, or prepared? Did their assailant just teleport in and begin firing? Yes, I realize that this was an extreme, rather silly question.

What criteria did this person use to judge getting within range of someone irresponsible enough to have their finger on the trigger and pointed at them?

Were they trying to sneak back into their house, when they knew full well that dad had a firearm for home defense?

It's not 100% the negligent owner's fault. Just like in a car accident, you didn't have to be there in the first place. Whenever you leave the house, you literally are taking your own life into your own hands. The odds are that you'll make it back alive and unharmed, but the small chance that you will be hurt or killed by outside forces are always there. Being aware of those chances, and taking steps to make the chances smaller yet are the responsibility of any free person.

It's not 100% the negligent owner's fault. Just like in a car accident, you didn't have to be there in the first place. Whenever you leave the house, you literally are taking your own life into your own hands. The odds are that you'll make it back alive and unharmed, but the small chance that you will be hurt or killed by outside forces are always there. Being aware of those chances, and taking steps to make the chances smaller yet are the responsibility of any free person.
True, but the danger of a negligent death would rise in proportion to the number of gun owners, would it not?

Why do conservatives seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with gun control, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of the patriot act?

The name implies that if you don't agree with it you're unpatriotic.
More Conservative propaganda.

And I am saying:

(a) unlike the rights protected by the Patriot Act, gun ownership is neither a Constitutional nor a fundamental right


Right to defend oneself is not specifically enumerated in the constitution, no. But I believe there's something there that says that if it's not in the constitution, the government can't stop it. Hence the issue with state governments regulating guns... :(


(b) guns are inherently designed as weapons -- they are inherently dangerous -- they should be subject to a proportional amount of regulation compared to other items


Knives were initially designed to cut flesh. They are inherently dangerous. So, what's the deal with not regulating chef's knives? I can go to just about any store, set down my $20, and walk out with a tool designed to rend flesh. To purchase a firearm in that fashion, I'd need to find a private seller (not nearly as accessible as a Wal-Mart, nor has as great a selection--and I can't do it across state lines, limiting me further).


(c) punishments for murder, homicide, etc do nothing to stop accidental shootings and negligence


You can NEVER stop negligence. That's part of humanity. And it's VERY difficult to regulate or limit it as well.


(d) increasing punishments for crime is a red herring. Increased punishments do little to deter or decrease crime. Efforts to prevent crime and to increase the chances of catching criminals are more effective.


You're traveling down that road for sacrificing liberty for security. I won't take it.


(e) how do safety regulations, registration, licensing, etc., re guns significantly impinge your liberties compared to vehicle regulations?

You're applying force to me. There's my problem. I don't like registering my vehicle either.

:sniper:

You have to define the term strict.

Automobiles are regulated without consumers being up in arms about their right to choose.

As cat-tribe put it, guns need to be regulated too.

By no means would any gun enforcement be stringent, but there must be some modes of regulation.

Oh, I'm plenty pissed off about having to waste my time in line at an inefficient department, handing over my extorted money for an already gargantuan government, and putting an ugly piece of aluminum on my car.

I challenge you to find the opposite. Neither one of us will accept the other's sources. That will be a futile attempt. I feel the same about the Brady's as you do about Lott.

Just out of curiosity, what makes you say that Lott is not credible? I pointed out that the Bradys use adults in their stats--I'm just wondering.

If you will not accept any sources, why repeat the statistics as if they were true?

Regardless, here are a handful of sources:
Fewer Guns Mean Fewer Gun Homicides (http://www.nber.org/digest/feb01/w7967.html)
The Case For Gun Control (http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html#more)
Gun Control and Crime (http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/gun_control.htm)
More Guns, More Crime (http://www.vpc.org/graphics/ltk4.pdf)

And here is just one website (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/Lott/index.html) (by someone who has criticized both sides) documenting John Lott's lack of credibility.
And here is the Brady Campaign's summary of information (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott) on Mr. Lott.

True, but the danger of a negligent death would rise in proportion to the number of gun owners, would it not?

Now you're talking potentials. If we went that route, anyone thinking of wringing someone else's neck would need to be low-jacked.

We have gas tanks travelling at 65 miles per hour by the millions--much more than the number of guns. Think of the explosions!

If you will not accept any sources, why repeat the statistics as if they were true?


Because you've already stated that you won't accept mine. Fair's fair, right?

But thanks for the links--I'll take a look. :)

So strict regulation of guns doesn't take away liberties? Thinking like a true nazi aye?

Yes, we liberals are all Nazis. :rolleyes:

Where do you live that democracy would end if you didn't own your precious gun?

Or, more to the point, what liberty would you lose if your gun was registered?

Yes, we liberals are all Nazis. :rolleyes:


I'll doubt that one. :)


Where do you live that democracy would end if you didn't own your precious gun?


Just being prepared--cause if any more of this Patriot Act crap keeps coming on....


Or, more to the point, what liberty would you lose if your gun was registered?

The corrupt government would know who to hit first. Tactical disadvantage. Like carrying open instead of concealed.

Right to defend oneself is not specifically enumerated in the constitution, no. But I believe there's something there that says that if it's not in the constitution, the government can't stop it. Hence the issue with state governments regulating guns... :(



Knives were initially designed to cut flesh. They are inherently dangerous. So, what's the deal with not regulating chef's knives? I can go to just about any store, set down my $20, and walk out with a tool designed to rend flesh. To purchase a firearm in that fashion, I'd need to find a private seller (not nearly as accessible as a Wal-Mart, nor has as great a selection--and I can't do it across state lines, limiting me further).



You can NEVER stop negligence. That's part of humanity. And it's VERY difficult to regulate or limit it as well.



You're traveling down that road for sacrificing liberty for security. I won't take it.



You're applying force to me. There's my problem. I don't like registering my vehicle either.

Knifes are a tad less dangerous than guns. Knifes are subject to ordinary consumer safety regulations. And knifes have many more beneficial uses than guns.

The "never sacrifice liberty for security" canard adds nothing to the discussion. Old Ben didn't apply it absolutely. You do not have 100% liberty. That would be anarchy. We suffer some limitations on liberty as part of the social contract. We protect fundamental liberties as much as possible. Many anti-crime provisions restrict liberty not at all. Some may impose minor restrictions in order to get great security.

Most importantly, you have no principled reason why regulating your gun is any greater restriction on your liberty than regulating your vehicle. I rest my case.

I'll doubt that one. :)



Just being prepared--cause if any more of this Patriot Act crap keeps coming on....



The corrupt government would know who to hit first. Tactical disadvantage. Like carrying open instead of concealed.

A tactical disadvantage if you wish to go to war against democratic government? That is the "fundamental liberty" at issue? Pfft.

Knifes are a tad less dangerous than guns. Knifes are subject to ordinary consumer safety regulations. And knifes have many more beneficial uses than guns.


Semantics. Consumer safety regulations? That's going to protect an irresponsible person from cutting themselves? Just because you don't like guns doesn't make them any less beneficial than a knife. I'd say I'd feel more comfortable stopping an assailant with a pistol than any knife out there. I'd consider a knife just as dangerous as a pistol.


The "never sacrifice liberty for security" canard adds nothing to the discussion. Old Ben didn't apply it absolutely. You do not have 100% liberty. That would be anarchy. We suffer some limitations on liberty as part of the social contract. We protect fundamental liberties as much as possible. Many anti-crime provisions restrict liberty not at all. Some may impose minor restrictions in order to get great security.


Yes, we suffer some limitiations--no, that's not right, we suffer an inordinate amount of them. I have a problem with how many there are. Too much there for the government to control the populace.


Most importantly, you have no principled reason why regulating your gun is any greater restriction on your liberty than regulating your vehicle. I rest my case.

Well, yes, I do--like I stated in another post, a corrupt government would target me before you (profiling? I thought the government wasn't supposed to do that.)--and stop trying to do this lawyer style, Cat--you know I hate that. :) (just picking on the 'rest my case' bit)

The principle is this: I have the right to defend myself as I see fit. Gun control laws make that not possible. The founding fathers put that second amendment in for a reason. Many historians interpret the language as an individual right, and meaning all small arms (swords, rifles, etc.). But we've been over this before.

A tactical disadvantage if you wish to go to war against democratic government? That is the "fundamental liberty" at issue? Pfft.

A tactical disadvantage to defend against a corrupt government. There is a difference. Why change my intent? From previous conversations and debates, you already know where I stood.

Liberty > Security

A tactical disadvantage to defend against a corrupt government. There is a difference. Why change my intent? From previous conversations and debates, you already know where I stood.

I changed your intent because you might as well say "gun control puts me at a tactical disadvantage against flying greed dragons."

Guns pose a real, significant hazard.

Your complaint about a mere "tactical disadvantage" in case of a merely hypothetical threat merits little weight.

Semantics. Consumer safety regulations? That's going to protect an irresponsible person from cutting themselves? Just because you don't like guns doesn't make them any less beneficial than a knife. I'd say I'd feel more comfortable stopping an assailant with a pistol than any knife out there. I'd consider a knife just as dangerous as a pistol.

Cutting oneself is a tad less serious than shooting oneself or others.

Knives are used in a variety of household activites everday. Guns have limited uses. If you could have one gun but no knives, would you?

You contradict yourself. You clearly thing a gun is better to stop an assailant but then assert a knife is equally as dangerous as a pistol. You do not honestly believe the latter.


Well, yes, I do--like I stated in another post, a corrupt government would target me before you (profiling? I thought the government wasn't supposed to do that.)--and stop trying to do this lawyer style, Cat--you know I hate that. :) (just picking on the 'rest my case' bit)

The principle is this: I have the right to defend myself as I see fit. Gun control laws make that not possible. The founding fathers put that second amendment in for a reason. Many historians interpret the language as an individual right, and meaning all small arms (swords, rifles, etc.). But we've been over this before.

I am sorry if you do not like an effective response. "I rest my case" is a mere turn of phrase -- and one not actually used by lawyers.

You do not have an absolute right to defend yourself "as [you] see fit." And registering your gun hardly prevents self-defense.

As to the Second Amendment. you are no more right about historians than about the courts. Regardless, we are not talking about your ability to own a manual-loading musket. If it were, I'd be less concerned about basic regulations.

I changed your intent because you might as well say "gun control puts me at a tactical disadvantage against flying greed dragons."

Guns pose a real, significant hazard.

Your complaint about a mere "tactical disadvantage" in case of a merely hypothetical threat merits little weight.

Your firearms as a significant hazard is a hypothetical threat as well, you know.

The inanimate object is no threat until it is utilized by a person. Or left in a VERY hot oven. :D

Your firearms as a significant hazard is a hypothetical threat as well, you know.

The inanimate object is no threat until it is utilized by a person. Or left in a VERY hot oven. :D

You are being deliberately obtuse.

Firearms cause actual avoidable harm daily.

Cutting oneself is a tad less serious than shooting oneself or others.


I'll disagree. I think cutting yourself or others is just as serious as shooting.


Knives are used in a variety of household activites everday. Guns have limited uses. If you could have one gun but no knives, would you?


Of course not--I'd like to have both. :)


You contradict yourself. You clearly thing a gun is better to stop an assailant but then assert a knife is equally as dangerous as a pistol. You do not honestly believe the latter.


I KNEW I didn't word that properly and you'd be all over it. I think the threat of a firearm is more effective against an assailant, however, I think a knife can be as traumatic to flesh as a bullet fired from a gun can be.


I am sorry if you do not like an effective response. "I rest my case" is a mere turn of phrase -- and one not actually used by lawyers.


I know, hence the smilie. It's Hollywood! :)


You do not have an absolute right to defend yourself "as [you] see fit." And registering your gun hardly prevents self-defense.


If I'm defending myself against a corrupt government, um, yeah, it does hamper my defense.


As to the Second Amendment. you are no more right about historians than about the courts. Regardless, we are not talking about your ability to own a manual-loading musket. If it were, I'd be less concerned about basic regulations.

It didn't apply to manually loaded muskets. It applied to all arms. But we can let that one go.

You are being deliberately obtuse.


No, actually I'm comparing apples to apples.


Firearms cause actual avoidable harm daily.

So do knives. So do cars. The regulations on those don't stop deaths from happening each day either. Anything involving human intervention or control can be dangerous. But since certain groups see them as necessary, and providing other uses, cars aren't banned.

Firearms do have uses other than just shooting something. Just bringing one to bear has stopped millions of crimes. Without shooting, without injuring, without anything other than an assailant seeing the firearm and running.

No, actually I'm comparing apples to apples.



So do knives. So do cars. The regulations on those don't stop deaths from happening each day either. Anything involving human intervention or control can be dangerous. But since certain groups see them as necessary, and providing other uses, cars aren't banned.

Firearms do have uses other than just shooting something. Just bringing one to bear has stopped millions of crimes. Without shooting, without injuring, without anything other than an assailant seeing the firearm and running.

1. That you would compare the "danger" posed by knives to firearms shows how disingenuous you are willing to be. I'd love to see some statistics on deaths involving knives versus guns.

2. Some things are more dangerous than others. We have already established that cars are heavily regulated. You have yet to offer a reason why guns should be the exception.

3. You have not provided any evidence for that canard about simply brandishing a firearm stopping millions of crimes. Lott's studies on that have been thoroughly discredit. (He even claimed he lost the data). I doubt you can produce a reliable source.

4. The only liberty you have identified that is infringed by gun regulations is that they put you at a tactical disadvantage in the theoretical possibility of an undemocratic government coming to get you. As we have survived over 230 years of democratic government, this is a rather unlikely scenario at best. On the other hand, guns are used every day in crimes. Guns everday are used in suicides. Guns everday result in accidental shootings. The numbers are real and significant. A minor disability on your potential ability to resist hypothetical tyranny is reasonable to reduce gun crimes, deaths, and injuries.

5. The "liberty" you have identified, regardless of its merit, pales in comparison to freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to due process, the freedom from warrantless searches, etc. Regardless of whether gun controls are meritorious, it is not hypocritical to oppose the Patriot Act and support some gun control.

Yes, we liberals are all Nazis. :rolleyes:

Where do you live that democracy would end if you didn't own your precious gun?

Or, more to the point, what liberty would you lose if your gun was registered?
I think you misread my statement. Nazi germany registered and imposed strict controls on all guns so they would know who had guns at all times. This pretty much meant the citizens had now way to protest or rebel. No one factor would end democracy, but keeping strict controls on guns is one hell of a leap.

And I would like you to point out where I ever said liberals are Nazis. Thanks for putting words in my mouth asshole.

because gun ownership also may add an aspect of more personal security... and studies have shown in communities where gun ownership is MANDETORY that crime actually dramatically decreases
What study are you referring to?

No, actually I'm comparing apples to apples.



So do knives. So do cars. The regulations on those don't stop deaths from happening each day either. Anything involving human intervention or control can be dangerous. But since certain groups see them as necessary, and providing other uses, cars aren't banned.

Firearms do have uses other than just shooting something. Just bringing one to bear has stopped millions of crimes. Without shooting, without injuring, without anything other than an assailant seeing the firearm and running.

Just to make a point here (I do agree with you), I beleive more people are likely to be killed with knives worldwide, there're alot more available to everyone, from children to adults. Wouldn't the telling statistic really be the ratio of assults with knives ending in death as opposed to ending in injury, and the same for firearms?



I think you misread my statement. Nazi germany registered and imposed strict controls on all guns so they would know who had guns at all times. This pretty much meant the citizens had now way to protest or rebel. No one factor would end democracy, but keeping strict controls on guns is one hell of a leap.

If this is so, how do you explain nations that DO impose strict gun control, such as Great Britain yet still manage to maintain a solid democracy? Are you attempting to state that due to the fact that we do not have a right to bear arms in this country, we live in a less democractic state? If so, I think you need to take your head out of your rear end and actually ask yourself what you would REALLY lose by stricter gun control and registration. The answer is, not alot, if anything.

"He who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin

And as far as gun control goes, maybe it is a bit hypocritical, but I just don't believe anyone really needs to have guns. The second amendment is completely outdated, IMHO.

1. That you would compare the "danger" posed by knives to firearms shows how disingenuous you are willing to be. I'd love to see some statistics on deaths involving knives versus guns.


Look Cat, I was comparing the hypothetical of a corrupt government with a hypothetical of being attacked with a firearm. Homicides with a knife are about 1/5th what they are with a firearm. I don't know about accidental deaths. I also don't know accidents in general with knives--I'm pretty sure those are far more in number than accidents with firearms.


2. Some things are more dangerous than others. We have already established that cars are heavily regulated. You have yet to offer a reason why guns should be the exception.


I also don't think those should be regulated either. So stop using them to compare--we're never going to agree about regulation. You want to control others to assume some mental delusion of safety. I don't want a populace controlling individuals just because they are afraid of a chunk of metal. Hold people responsible for their actions (drunk driver kills someone--put them on death row), instead of putting all these hurdles in the way of responsible, intelligent people.


3. You have not provided any evidence for that canard about simply brandishing a firearm stopping millions of crimes. Lott's studies on that have been thoroughly discredit. (He even claimed he lost the data). I doubt you can produce a reliable source.


You won't accept any of my sources, remember? My sources aren't reliable.


4. The only liberty you have identified that is infringed by gun regulations is that they put you at a tactical disadvantage in the theoretical possibility of an undemocratic government coming to get you. As we have survived over 230 years of democratic government, this is a rather unlikely scenario at best.


I seem to recall Lincoln overstepping his bounds in the 1860s. Now, I never agreed with slavery, but Lincoln went about it illegally.


On the other hand, guns are used every day in crimes. Guns everday are used in suicides. Guns everday result in accidental shootings. The numbers are real and significant. A minor disability on your potential ability to resist hypothetical tyranny is reasonable to reduce gun crimes, deaths, and injuries.


You still are blaming a tool. Blame the people. Infringing my freedom to do as I choose is not a minor disability. Your opinions on my life and welfare are not enough reason to try to control me.


5. The "liberty" you have identified, regardless of its merit, pales in comparison to freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to due process, the freedom from warrantless searches, etc. Regardless of whether gun controls are meritorious, it is not hypocritical to oppose the Patriot Act and support some gun control.

Your opinion only. No fact there.

Just to make a point here (I do agree with you), I beleive more people are likely to be killed with knives worldwide, there're alot more available to everyone, from children to adults. Wouldn't the telling statistic really be the ratio of assults with knives ending in death as opposed to ending in injury, and the same for firearms?


It comes down to everyone comparing American gun ownership with the level of murder in the US. We've got a higher murder rate here than anywhere. What people aren't understanding is that the murder rate won't change significantly with more gun restrictions or outright bans.


If this is so, how do you explain nations that DO impose strict gun control, such as Great Britain yet still manage to maintain a solid democracy? Are you attempting to state that due to the fact that we do not have a right to bear arms in this country, we live in a less democractic state? If so, I think you need to take your head out of your rear end and actually ask yourself what you would REALLY lose by stricter gun control and registration. The answer is, not alot, if anything.

I'm saying you have fewer freedoms, not less democracy. You seem to have more laws prohibiting or curtailing societal behavior than the US does. Head's not in the rear. :)

What would I lose with stricter gun control and registration? Time, money, effort. And you can choose to opine that those aren't valuable. They are to me.

The whole point of gun control is control, not saving lives. It's about forcing others to do biddings. I'm just trying to control myself. Those that want gun control want to control others. Freedom and liberty are not about controlling others. If I have a fully automatic weapon, where am I infringing on anyone else's rights? I'm not. I'm scaring people. There is no right to not fear inanimate objects--that's for a person and their psychologist to deal with. Not to legislate away.

It comes down to everyone comparing American gun ownership with the level of murder in the US. We've got a higher murder rate here than anywhere. What people aren't understanding is that the murder rate won't change significantly with more gun restrictions or outright bans.



I'm saying you have fewer freedoms, not less democracy. You seem to have more laws prohibiting or curtailing societal behavior than the US does. Head's not in the rear. :)

What would I lose with stricter gun control and registration? Time, money, effort. And you can choose to opine that those aren't valuable. They are to me.

The whole point of gun control is control, not saving lives. It's about forcing others to do biddings. I'm just trying to control myself. Those that want gun control want to control others. Freedom and liberty are not about controlling others. If I have a fully automatic weapon, where am I infringing on anyone else's rights? I'm not. I'm scaring people. There is no right to not fear inanimate objects--that's for a person and their psychologist to deal with. Not to legislate away.


Of course I don't think that time money and effort aren't valuable :p In all fairness, I think the gun controls enforced on citizens in the UK are TOO strict, whereby even Air Rifles have to be registered.

However, I would put it to you that a pro of enforced gun registration and moderate gun control are not put in place to control the behaviour of responsible people such as yourself, but in an attempt to control the behaviour of those who are irresponsible and have no respect for the power their firearms allow them to wield.

You would probably state that the existing firearms liscences are put in place to ensure that firearms do not end up in the hands of irresponsible persons, but they still do. You would probably also agree with me when I say that firearms liscences are a good idea no? Therefore is it an unreasonable idea to tighten the requirements for persons wishing to own a firearms liscence?

One thing I must strongly disagree with you on though is the posession of fully automatic weapons by civilians. Of course this is speaking from a point where I don't beleive that "protecting oneself from ones own government" is a necessity. To me allowing those kinds of weapons to be possessed at home, by civilians only lets the crackpot that slips through the gaps do more damage when he decides to go postal.

*quick edit*

On the note of freedoms, I would agree and disagree with you, I think that differences in social freedoms between Europe and the US just concern different things. Take stances on drinking age,marijuana, sexuality and the like - Although I don't necessarily agree with them all, they are much more liberal than in the US. Our laws on gun control however are much more draconian.

So, as I stated in the hypocrisy threads, I'm still displeased by the dominants "sides" in the political arena. As a quasi-libertarian, I support liberty over security in most instances. But this one's been really bothering me.

Why do liberals seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with the Patriot act, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of gun control?


Why do conservatives seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with gun control, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of the patriot act?

I support the liberty to secure our own security.

If this is so, how do you explain nations that DO impose strict gun control, such as Great Britain yet still manage to maintain a solid democracy? Are you attempting to state that due to the fact that we do not have a right to bear arms in this country, we live in a less democractic state? If so, I think you need to take your head out of your rear end and actually ask yourself what you would REALLY lose by stricter gun control and registration. The answer is, not alot, if anything.
Taking guns away from the people also takes away their ability to rebel. That gives the government alot of power. If citizens weren't allowed to have guns, the United States would still be a colony of Britain, France would still be under an oppressive king, and pretty much every government in the world would do whatever it wants with no concent of the people. Taking away guns from citizens doesn't take them away from murderers. They are breaking laws anyway, most of them have guns illegally anyway. If you look at Great Britain, their murder rate and crime rate has gone up significantly since they took away guns (same with Australia too).

You can have both in the right circumstances. I see no need to choose.

Of course I don't think that time money and effort aren't valuable :p In all fairness, I think the gun controls enforced on citizens in the UK are TOO strict, whereby even Air Rifles have to be registered.


<shudders>


However, I would put it to you that a pro of enforced gun registration and moderate gun control are not put in place to control the behaviour of responsible people such as yourself, but in an attempt to control the behaviour of those who are irresponsible and have no respect for the power their firearms allow them to wield.


Don't get me wrong, I understand why some want the controls in place--for the very reason you stated. However, I respect freedom first, security second. Not the other way around. This is why I'm for harsher punishments--you kill someone, you're in jail for life or put down. No chances to get out of it. But punishement AFTER the crime. Criminals fear the citizens having guns as opposed to loop-laden laws. The legal system (in the US) as it stands has too many technicalities to let people get out of their responsiblity.


You would probably state that the existing firearms liscences are put in place to ensure that firearms do not end up in the hands of irresponsible persons, but they still do. You would probably also agree with me when I say that firearms liscences are a good idea no? Therefore is it an unreasonable idea to tighten the requirements for persons wishing to own a firearms liscence?


Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree. I don't believe registering weapons in any sense, nor having to "qualify" for them should exist. I think the current laws and hoops keep guns out of law-abiding citizens more than they keep them out of the hands of criminals. But remember, if you screw up with a weapon, you have a very large responsiblity to account for.


One thing I must strongly disagree with you on though is the posession of fully automatic weapons by civilians. Of course this is speaking from a point where I don't beleive that "protecting oneself from ones own government" is a necessity. To me allowing those kinds of weapons to be possessed at home, by civilians only lets the crackpot that slips through the gaps do more damage when he decides to go postal.


And you have the right to believe what you want to believe. I'll never jump on that. The only counter I can make to that is that no one has the right to tell me what I can and cannot do, when I've not harmed anyone else or their property. Just like I can't tell anyone else how to live their life.


*quick edit*
On the note of freedoms, I would agree and disagree with you, I think that differences in social freedoms between Europe and the US just concern different things. Take stances on drinking age,marijuana, sexuality and the like - Although I don't necessarily agree with them all, they are much more liberal than in the US. Our laws on gun control however are much more draconian.

Entirely possible. Not that you need me to, but I'm willing to accept that.

Taking guns away from the people also takes away their ability to rebel. That gives the government alot of power. If citizens weren't allowed to have guns, the United States would still be a colony of Britain, France would still be under an oppressive king, and pretty much every government in the world would do whatever it wants with no concent of the people. Taking away guns from citizens doesn't take them away from murderers. They are breaking laws anyway, most of them have guns illegally anyway. If you look at Great Britain, their murder rate and crime rate has gone up significantly since they took away guns (same with Australia too).

Here's a greater example of the inability to rebel:

Nazi Germany. Gun bans were put in place to "protect" the citizens of a "civilized" nation. I'll be if the citizenry were armed during WWII, you may not have had such a long time of it in Europe. Not everyone supported what Hitler was doing there.

Here's a greater example of the inability to rebel:

Nazi Germany. Gun bans were put in place to "protect" the citizens of a "civilized" nation. I'll be if the citizenry were armed during WWII, you may not have had such a long time of it in Europe. Not everyone supported what Hitler was doing there.
That was my very first point in this thread, but ok whatever thanks i guess...

Don't get me wrong, I understand why some want the controls in place--for the very reason you stated. However, I respect freedom first, security second. Not the other way around. This is why I'm for harsher punishments--you kill someone, you're in jail for life or put down. No chances to get out of it. But punishement AFTER the crime. So then you don't put much stock into preventing crimes from occurring in the first place?

I think you misread my statement. Nazi germany registered and imposed strict controls on all guns so they would know who had guns at all times. This pretty much meant the citizens had now way to protest or rebel. No one factor would end democracy, but keeping strict controls on guns is one hell of a leap.

And I would like you to point out where I ever said liberals are Nazis. Thanks for putting words in my mouth asshole.

Yes, saying I was "thinking like a Nazi" is so very different from calling me a Nazi. :rolleyes:

I notice you failed to respond to the substantive questions of where exactly you live that tyranny would take over if you had to register your gun.

You are right there was no need to put words in your mouth. Your foot has occupied that space quite nicely.

Yes, saying I was "thinking like a Nazi" is so very different from calling me a Nazi. :rolleyes:

I notice you failed to respond to the substantive questions of where exactly you live that tyranny would take over if you had to register your gun.

You are right there was no need to put words in your mouth. Your foot has occupied that space quite nicely.
God what is wrong with you, I never said you were a nazi because you are liberal. I didn't even know if you were liberal or not. I live in the United States where we don't have a tyranny, and if everyone had to register their guns tyranny would be a significant possibility. I did give you a country that became a tyranny partially from registering their guns, but you were too ignorant to read it.

Look Cat, I was comparing the hypothetical of a corrupt government with a hypothetical of being attacked with a firearm. Homicides with a knife are about 1/5th what they are with a firearm. I don't know about accidental deaths. I also don't know accidents in general with knives--I'm pretty sure those are far more in number than accidents with firearms.

<sigh>

Try to stick to reality. The ratio of injuries or deaths from knives compared to the number of knives in circulation is undoubtedly minuscule compared to the ration of injuries or deaths from guns compared to the number of guns. If you find evidence to the contrary, you can raise this silly argument again.

You conveniently skipped the rest of my points on this.

I also don't think those should be regulated either. So stop using them to compare--we're never going to agree about regulation. You want to control others to assume some mental delusion of safety. I don't want a populace controlling individuals just because they are afraid of a chunk of metal. Hold people responsible for their actions (drunk driver kills someone--put them on death row), instead of putting all these hurdles in the way of responsible, intelligent people.

Yes, you appear to like anarchy. Sorry, but that will not fly. You belong to society under a government. If you have principled arguments against regulations offer them, but simply complaining that nothing should be regulated is fairly inane.

Regulations of automobiles produce more than "some mental delusion of safety." Many safety measures can be shown to have saved thousands upon thousands of lives every year.

I have already explained that increasing punishments does little to prevent crime. Nor do punishments undo the harm caused by crime. Replacing safety regulations with criminal punishments will only make problems worse, not better.

You won't accept any of my sources, remember? My sources aren't reliable.

That does not excuse you from offering some proof. If you do not have a reliable source, just say so.

I seem to recall Lincoln overstepping his bounds in the 1860s. Now, I never agreed with slavery, but Lincoln went about it illegally.

If the Emancipation Proclamation is the closest you can come to an example of government tyranny justifying your need for an unregulated firearm, you might as well pack it in.


You still are blaming a tool. Blame the people. Infringing my freedom to do as I choose is not a minor disability. Your opinions on my life and welfare are not enough reason to try to control me.

It is a dangerous tool. We regulate all sorts of dangerous things.

More importantly, I am seeking to regulate the people. You complain any regulation on the tool is wrong because that is regulation of an inanimate object. You then complain that any regulation of people possessing or using the tool is wrong because it infringes freedom. So, how does one regulate anything? You are back to anarchy again.

You do not have an unlimted "freedom to do as [you] choose." You cannot drive on the left-hand side of the road. You cannot dynamite post office boxes. You cannot do lots of things you might choose to do. Tough. That is part of the social contract. It is what keeps us out of the state of nature.

If your life and welfare were the only things endangered you might have a point. But they are not. So you don't.

Your opinion only. No fact there.

Care to offer any opposing opinion or logic?

God what is wrong with you, I never said you were a nazi because you are liberal. I didn't even know if you were liberal or not. I live in the United States where we don't have a tyranny, and if everyone had to register their guns tyranny would be a significant possibility. I did give you a country that became a tyranny partially from registering their guns, but you were too ignorant to read it.

If you wish to retract your statement or apologize, that would be great. I'd easily forgive.

But denying what you said and hurling further insults are not productive.

You said:

So strict regulation of guns doesn't take away liberties? Thinking like a true nazi aye?

I quite understandably do not take kindly to being accused of "[t]hinking like a true [N]azi." Thus, my sarcastic response before.

I have read your assertion that Nazi rule was partially due to gun registration and dismissed it as idiotic. First, the questions you were asked were how gun registration would suddenly lead to tyrrany here in the US. Second, only the most skewed oversimplification of history list gun registration as a significant factor in the rise of the Third Reich.

Perhaps if you'd pause between name-calling -- which I have yet to do in return -- you'd be able to actually argue your point.

If you wish to retract your statement or apologize, that would be great. I'd easily forgive.

But denying what you said and hurling further insults are not productive.

You said:



I quite understandably do not take kindly to being accused of "[t]hinking like a true [N]azi." Thus, my sarcastic response before.

I have read your assertion that Nazi rule was partially due to gun registration and dismissed it as idiotic. First, the questions you were asked were how gun registration would suddenly lead to tyrrany here in the US. Second, only the most skewed oversimplification of history list gun registration as a significant factor in the rise of the Third Reich.

Perhaps if you'd pause between name-calling -- which I have yet to do in return -- you'd be able to actually argue your point.

Where in that quote did I mention anything about liberals. I never even used the word. I'm not going to retract anything. If you keep putting words in my mouth, I am going to call you whatever I please. There would be nothing "sudden" with gun registration, it would be a slow process as the government keeps pushing and the people can't do anything. It is absolutely impossible to predict the future, however, which is why I can't tell you how its going to do it. All I, or anyone for that matter, can do is look at the past. The german citizens were kept from rebeling by the media, propoganda, and as I have said lack of guns. The act of registering all guns and keeping strict controls on them IS what a Nazi would do, therefore if you believe in it you ARE thinking like a Nazi (as far as that subject).

Where in that quote did I mention anything about liberals. I never even used the word. I'm not going to retract anything. If you keep putting words in my mouth, I am going to call you whatever I please. There would be nothing "sudden" with gun registration, it would be a slow process as the government keeps pushing and the people can't do anything. It is absolutely impossible to predict the future, however, which is why I can't tell you how its going to do it. All I, or anyone for that matter, can do is look at the past. The german citizens were kept from rebeling by the media, propoganda, and as I have said lack of guns. The act of registering all guns and keeping strict controls on them IS what a Nazi would do, therefore if you believe in it you ARE thinking like a Nazi (as far as that subject).

I see. You never accused liberals of being Nazis. You just accused me of thinking like a Nazi. Glad that is cleared up. :rolleyes:

The Nazi's believed in lots of things. I am certain there are a least some Nazi policies you agree with. Do you believe in the death penalty? Does that make you a Nazi?

Again, learn to make an actual argument rather than simply call people names and you can join us adults at the big table.

I see. You never accused liberals of being Nazis. You just accused me of thinking like a Nazi. Glad that is cleared up. :rolleyes:

The Nazi's believed in lots of things. I am certain there are a least some Nazi policies you agree with. Do you believe in the death penalty? Does that make you a Nazi?

Again, learn to make an actual argument rather than simply call people names and you can join us adults at the big table.
Yes if I believed in the death penalty, and Nazis believed in the death penalty, I would be thinking like a Nazi (on that issue), though we may have different motives. If you are really that sensitive about people calling you an asshole, then I suppose I am sorry, but it really pisses me off when people put words in my mouth or twist what I say.

I still can't see why you can't see the difference between saying you think like a nazi and calling all liberals nazis, but I suppose thats your concept to overcome.

Liberty, liberty in spite of all terrors, liberty whatever the cost may be.

The only meaningful victory is liberty.

If some more buildings have to get knocked down or if some israelis get shelled, thats just the price we will have to pay to have liberty in the united states.

Freedom isnt free afterall.

Yes if I believed in the death penalty, and Nazis believed in the death penalty, I would be thinking like a Nazi (on that issue), though we may have different motives. If you are really that sensitive about people calling you an asshole, then I suppose I am sorry, but it really pisses me off when people put words in my mouth or twist what I say.

I still can't see why you can't see the difference between saying you think like a nazi and calling all liberals nazis, but I suppose thats your concept to overcome.

That is a pretty half-assed apology. I don't really care if you apologize or not. If you have something intelligent to say, then say it. All this pussy-footing around what you did or did not say and did or did not mean is simply inane and irritating.

Perhaps I don't really give a shit whether you called me a Nazi or all liberals a Nazi. Either way, your comment was ignorant and idiotic and deserved at least my sarcastic response.

The intent was clearly an insult. That you have tried to deny it only reflects badly on you.

I'm not overly "sensitive." That you chose to respond to mild sarcasm by calling me an asshole suggests you are the one that is tad too "senstive." Regardless, calling someone a Nazi, an asshole, and a complete idiot is hardly intelligent debate. All are also contrary to forum rules.

Grow up and get a better vocabulary.

but I suppose thats your concept to overcome.


How, pray tell, does one "overcome" a concept?

That was my very first point in this thread, but ok whatever thanks i guess...

Sorry, my bad.

So then you don't put much stock into preventing crimes from occurring in the first place?

No, I don't. I believe in giving everyone a chance until they've proven they aren't responsible. It's too easy to whittle down the punishments, to practically nothing these days.

But I also believe in much stricter punishements to go with the fewer laws.

<sigh>

Try to stick to reality.


I AM sticking to reality--the Patriot Act exists right now, yes? There's your first step, Cat.


The ratio of injuries or deaths from knives compared to the number of knives in circulation is undoubtedly minuscule compared to the ration of injuries or deaths from guns compared to the number of guns. If you find evidence to the contrary, you can raise this silly argument again.


I told you that around 2000 homicides are committed with knives. That's not minuscule. Not as many as firearms, no. But it's still there.


Yes, you appear to like anarchy. Sorry, but that will not fly. You belong to society under a government. If you have principled arguments against regulations offer them, but simply complaining that nothing should be regulated is fairly inane.


And you wonder why people start to become belligerent toward you. You've done nothing but insult me the whole time, when I have yet to do so to you. I can't believe I defended you on another thread. You're just an antagonistic ass. I believe in fewer laws, yes. That makes me a Libertarian, not an anarchist, but your socialistic world "reality" just won't accept that. No, I don't agree with you, so the passive aggression has to start because you are threatened. Way to be a wuss.


Regulations of automobiles produce more than "some mental delusion of safety." Many safety measures can be shown to have saved thousands upon thousands of lives every year.


And yet more people STILL die from car accidents than by firearms.


I have already explained that increasing punishments does little to prevent crime.


No, you have opined that it does little, when in reality, we haven't actually tried to do this--the punishments have become easier to avoid over the years due to the exhorbitant amount of extra laws that weasel lawyers use to get criminals out of jail.


Nor do punishments undo the harm caused by crime. Replacing safety regulations with criminal punishments will only make problems worse, not better.


They aren't meant to. They're meant to punish. Regulations on the general populace just punish in advance, even though the average citizen hasn't done anything to deserve it.


That does not excuse you from offering some proof. If you do not have a reliable source, just say so.


Dear god. If it's a futile gesture, why the hell am I going to do it? That's far on the illogical side, Cat.


If the Emancipation Proclamation is the closest you can come to an example of government tyranny justifying your need for an unregulated firearm, you might as well pack it in.


The emancipation proclamation didn't happen until years after the civil war started. Nice try.


It is a dangerous tool. We regulate all sorts of dangerous things.


Hammers? Drills? Nail guns? The point is, firearms scare people, and people who have zero intestinal fortitude are going to legislate out of fear.


More importantly, I am seeking to regulate the people. You complain any regulation on the tool is wrong because that is regulation of an inanimate object. You then complain that any regulation of people possessing or using the tool is wrong because it infringes freedom. So, how does one regulate anything? You are back to anarchy again.


Like I said, minarchy.


You do not have an unlimited "freedom to do as [you] choose." You cannot drive on the left-hand side of the road. You cannot dynamite post office boxes. You cannot do lots of things you might choose to do. Tough. That is part of the social contract. It is what keeps us out of the state of nature.


I don't recall signing a social contract. Look, you seem to think that can not is synonymous with may not. If someone wants something badly enough, it will happen. Okay, we'll talk your way. I have a firearm to defend myself, which is my natural right and you will never take it away from me. Tough. Deal with it.


If your life and welfare were the only things endangered you might have a point. But they are not. So you don't.


My life is much more important to me than yours, certainly. My life and welfare will always come first before your "society". That's how our country was formed, where the individual was more important than the mob.


Care to offer any opposing opinion or logic?

Not anymore--you just try to bait me on every post, and I took it this time. I continue to oppose your views, and you resort to passive aggressive attacks. I told you once I hate lawyers--that's why. When they can't win through logic or perseverance, they resort to bashing and erudite, snobbish, I-know-better-than-you emotional rhetoric.

I'm not going to engage you anymore. I should have listened to my instincts before.

I AM sticking to reality--the Patriot Act exists right now, yes? There's your first step, Cat.

I told you that around 2000 homicides are committed with knives. That's not minuscule. Not as many as firearms, no. But it's still there.

And you wonder why people start to become belligerent toward you. You've done nothing but insult me the whole time, when I have yet to do so to you. I can't believe I defended you on another thread. You're just an antagonistic ass. I believe in fewer laws, yes. That makes me a Libertarian, not an anarchist, but your socialistic world "reality" just won't accept that. No, I don't agree with you, so the passive aggression has to start because you are threatened. Way to be a wuss.

And yet more people STILL die from car accidents than by firearms.

No, you have opined that it does little, when in reality, we haven't actually tried to do this--the punishments have become easier to avoid over the years due to the exhorbitant amount of extra laws that weasel lawyers use to get criminals out of jail.

They aren't meant to. They're meant to punish. Regulations on the general populace just punish in advance, even though the average citizen hasn't done anything to deserve it.

Dear god. If it's a futile gesture, why the hell am I going to do it? That's far on the illogical side, Cat.

The emancipation proclamation didn't happen until years after the civil war started. Nice try.

Hammers? Drills? Nail guns? The point is, firearms scare people, and people who have zero intestinal fortitude are going to legislate out of fear.

Like I said, minarchy.

I don't recall signing a social contract. Look, you seem to think that can not is synonymous with may not. If someone wants something badly enough, it will happen. Okay, we'll talk your way. I have a firearm to defend myself, which is my natural right and you will never take it away from me. Tough. Deal with it.

My life is much more important to me than yours, certainly. My life and welfare will always come first before your "society". That's how our country was formed, where the individual was more important than the mob.

Not anymore--you just try to bait me on every post, and I took it this time. I continue to oppose your views, and you resort to passive aggressive attacks. I told you once I hate lawyers--that's why. When they can't win through logic or perseverance, they resort to bashing and erudite, snobbish, I-know-better-than-you emotional rhetoric.

I'm not going to engage you anymore. I should have listened to my instincts before.

Whatever.

I have yet to "wonder why people start to become belligerent toward" me. People do not like having their views questioned. Particularly when they cannot defend them.

Dismissing as silly claims like "knives are as dangerous as gun" is agressive, not passive-aggressive.

If attacking me makes you feel better about being unable to defend your views, so be it.

So, as I stated in the hypocrisy threads, I'm still displeased by the dominants "sides" in the political arena. As a quasi-libertarian, I support liberty over security in most instances. But this one's been really bothering me.

Why do liberals seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with the Patriot act, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of gun control?


Why do conservatives seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with gun control, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of the patriot act?

My simplistic theory is that stereotypically, conservatives just like to blow things up, and liberals can't see blood.

Whatever.

I have yet to "wonder why people start to become belligerent toward" me. People do not like having their views questioned. Particularly when they cannot defend them.

Dismissing as silly claims like "knives are as dangerous as gun" is agressive, not passive-aggressive.

If attacking me makes you feel better about being unable to defend your views, so be it.

You swung first. I wasn't attacking, I was defending myself. Using inflamatory terms throughout your "argument" to try to destabilize your opponent is your preferred method of assault.

I was calm. I was rational. You slung well-placed insults.

You also tried to take any kind of proof I could offer away by stating that you wouldn't believe them. That sounds more like a religious zealot, refusing to see any side but their own, rather than a rational debater. But hey, you're the professional on that--you must know what you're doing.

You swung first. I wasn't attacking, I was defending myself. Using inflamatory terms throughout your "argument" to try to destabilize your opponent is your preferred method of assault.

I was calm. I was rational. You slung well-placed insults.

You also tried to take any kind of proof I could offer away by stating that you wouldn't believe them. That sounds more like a religious zealot, refusing to see any side but their own, rather than a rational debater. But hey, you're the professional on that--you must know what you're doing.

You are under the misimpression that I consider my profession an insult. Here's a clue: I don't. Deal with it.

I use inflammatory terms like "silly" and "illogical" and "inane" when my opponent's arguments are silly, illogical, or inane.

I challenged you to provide objective evidence and stated John Lott was neither objective nor credible. You concluded you could provide no proof under those conditions. Who decided your proof was faulty?

Anyway, you claim to support "minarchy." What laws, if any, would exist under your system? On what basis is such a system justified?

You are under the misimpression that I consider my profession an insult. Here's a clue: I don't. Deal with it.


Actually, it was an allusion to how lawyers actually "win" cases. Not with truth, not with fact, but with barbs and misdirection.


I use inflammatory terms like "silly" and "illogical" and "inane" when my opponent's arguments are silly, illogical, or inane.


And for some reason, I didn't take those shots at your arguments. Yours come down to fear of what someone might do. Mine come down to not interfering with others until they prove they're irresponsible. Yours are the illogical, silly, and inane. Not to mention evil, nefarious, totalitarian, etc.


I challenged you to provide objective evidence and stated John Lott was neither objective nor credible. You concluded you could provide no proof under those conditions. Who decided your proof was faulty?


I concluded that you already had your mind made up, and whatever I put in front of you wouldn't be enough to change your mind. You've got your emotional fear controlling you, not rational thought, and no amount of logic will change that.

Actually, it was an allusion to how lawyers actually "win" cases. Not with truth, not with fact, but with barbs and misdirection.

And for some reason, I didn't take those shots at your arguments. Yours come down to fear of what someone might do. Mine come down to not interfering with others until they prove they're irresponsible. Yours are the illogical, silly, and inane. Not to mention evil, nefarious, totalitarian, etc.

I concluded that you already had your mind made up, and whatever I put in front of you wouldn't be enough to change your mind. You've got your emotional fear controlling you, not rational thought, and no amount of logic will change that.

Again, if it makes you feel better to assume I am an evil socialist with a deep-seeded fear of firearms, so be it.

I don't happen to own a gun at the moment. I have owned firearms. I have been trained in the use of some firearms. I was raised around firearms and with avid hunters in rural America. My current roomate has two guns here in my house.

One need not have an irrational fear of guns to support reasonable regulations of an inherently dangerous weapon.

Perhaps you can find your minarchist paradise in a compound in my former home state or on an island somewhere. The rest of us have to live in the real world. With other people whose actions effect all of us.

The rest of us have to live in the real world. With other people whose actions effect all of us.

Good luck with that. And as those who continue to control the populace keep taking away rights (ala the Patriot Act), just remember, you're the one who wanted guns to be restricted (the 2nd amendment defends the others). If you leave the guns in the hands of the government only, you're going to be subjugated.

That is a pretty half-assed apology. I don't really care if you apologize or not. If you have something intelligent to say, then say it. All this pussy-footing around what you did or did not say and did or did not mean is simply inane and irritating.

Perhaps I don't really give a shit whether you called me a Nazi or all liberals a Nazi. Either way, your comment was ignorant and idiotic and deserved at least my sarcastic response.

The intent was clearly an insult. That you have tried to deny it only reflects badly on you.

I'm not overly "sensitive." That you chose to respond to mild sarcasm by calling me an asshole suggests you are the one that is tad too "senstive." Regardless, calling someone a Nazi, an asshole, and a complete idiot is hardly intelligent debate. All are also contrary to forum rules.

Grow up and get a better vocabulary.

I tried to debate with you, but you ignored it. I told you about nazi germany, but you just kept complaining of insults. During that whole time, all you said was "grow up". You never actually debated anything, rather made a few sarcastic remarks while trying to question my intelligence. I really don't get the vocabulary jab, you didn't use any "big words" in your post. Why would someone fill there post with "big words"? It is simple, they do it to feel above others. A rational person would know that more people can understand normal simple speech and therefore, their message gets spread further.

To answer New Granada, one can easily overcome a concept. If someone sucks at math, but studies really hard and masters it, they overcame a concept. Have you ever heard the song "We Shall Overcome"? Do you know what they were overcoming? Segregation. Do you know what segregation is? A concept. I hope that helps.

So what is it exactly you want to talk about? If you are still on guns, then say something. I believe that the most surefire way for citizens to protect their rights is for them to have the ability to carry guns.

I tried to debate with you, but you ignored it. I told you about nazi germany, but you just kept complaining of insults. During that whole time, all you said was "grow up". You never actually debated anything, rather made a few sarcastic remarks while trying to question my intelligence. I really don't get the vocabulary jab, you didn't use any "big words" in your post. Why would someone fill there post with "big words"? It is simple, they do it to feel above others. A rational person would know that more people can understand normal simple speech and therefore, their message gets spread further.

To answer New Granada, one can easily overcome a concept. If someone sucks at math, but studies really hard and masters it, they overcame a concept. Have you ever heard the song "We Shall Overcome"? Do you know what they were overcoming? Segregation. Do you know what segregation is? A concept. I hope that helps.

So what is it exactly you want to talk about? If you are still on guns, then say something. I believe that the most surefire way for citizens to protect their rights is for them to have the ability to carry guns.

Meh.

I never wanted to debate guns, but can if necessary.

Hey, I recognize I can be an arrogant prick. :D That is what is so loveable about me. ;)

I've responded to the weak-ass Nazi germany argument.

To answer New Granada, one can easily overcome a concept. If someone sucks at math, but studies really hard and masters it, they overcame a concept. Have you ever heard the song "We Shall Overcome"? Do you know what they were overcoming? Segregation. Do you know what segregation is? A concept. I hope that helps.



It isnt the english idiom to say "overcome a concept."

One overcomes obstacles &c.

People didnt overcome the 'concept' of segragation, they overcame the obstacles in the way of abolishing segragation.

Your analogy with math makes no real sense in english, the person in your story *understands* the concept of math, they overcame mental blocks or what have you to come to that understanding.

If you can come up with some reputable citations of 'overcome a concept' used in literature or serious journalism, you'll have a case.

If not, I refer you again to the fact that it is not the english idiom.

Meh.

I never wanted to debate guns, but can if necessary.



Dont debate guns, debate language :)

It's a battle we can win with the OED and Fowlers. :)

It isnt the english idiom to say "overcome a concept."

One overcomes obstacles &c.

People didnt overcome the 'concept' of segragation, they overcame the obstacles in the way of abolishing segragation.

Your analogy with math makes no real sense in english, the person in your story *understands* the concept of math, they overcame mental blocks or what have you to come to that understanding.

If you can come up with some reputable citations of 'overcome a concept' used in literature or serious journalism, you'll have a case.

If not, I refer you again to the fact that it is not the english idiom.
Actually I was going to add a few sources using it, but I deleted them from my post. If it will make you happy I will add them now:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2009950&dopt=Abstract
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:xixHHyoik0gJ:www.mmpindia.org/laticia.PDF+%22overcome+the+concept%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a
http://www.hu.mtu.edu/~candc/archives/v9/9_2_html/9_2_7_Johnson.html
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:fb1y1JhRGisJ:cherry.iac.gatech.edu/refs/oecd/bellini.pdf++%22overcome+the+concept%22+site:.edu&hl=en&client=firefox-a

I am not sure what you exactly would consider a reliable source. If you need more proof, just google it and you will find plenty of sources using it.

Meh.

I never wanted to debate guns, but can if necessary.

Hey, I recognize I can be an arrogant prick. :D That is what is so loveable about me. ;)

I've responded to the weak-ass Nazi germany argument.
Did you ever respond to the fact that since the UK and Australia have banned guns their crime and murder rates have gone up? I'm waiting...

Did you ever respond to the fact that since the UK and Australia have banned guns their crime and murder rates have gone up? I'm waiting...

My response is simple.

A) Prove it

B) Prove a connection

My response is simple.

A) Prove it

B) Prove a connection
Ok

A) http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200101%5CFor20010111e.html
http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/magazine/magazine_home_disarmament.html
http://www.icomm.ca/survival/Australiangunban.html

If you want I can post more sites with more facts and figures, but thats about it. If you are skeptical why don't you have a nice jolly trip to the UK and interview the police. :)

B) Connection to what? I am assuming liberty, so here it goes. If gun control doesn't even work anyway, why take away the liberty of having them? Both the UK and Australia's bans backfired on them, and things are worse then before.

Ok

A) http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200101%5CFor20010111e.html
http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/magazine/magazine_home_disarmament.html
http://www.icomm.ca/survival/Australiangunban.html

If you want I can post more sites with more facts and figures, but thats about it. If you are skeptical why don't you have a nice jolly trip to the UK and interview the police. :)

B) Connection to what? I am assuming liberty, so here it goes. If gun control doesn't even work anyway, why take away the liberty of having them? Both the UK and Australia's bans backfired on them, and things are worse then before.

A) these are terrible sources. Have anything objective and reliable?

Here is better information from more reliable sources:
Row over figures as crime drops 5% (http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,2763,1266679,00.html)
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2004/07/22/crime_englandwales_jul04.pdf
Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf) (see pages 2 & 51)
Crime and Safety, Australia (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/e8ae5488b598839cca25682000131612/669c5a997eaed891ca2568a900139405!OpenDocument)


B) I meant connection between gun limitations and the alleged rise in crime. Crime statistics can go up for a number of reasons. (One of which is demonstrated in the English statistics: crime reporting can go up without crime itself increasing.) Even if crime had increased in Australia and the UK since the gun ban, that would not necessarily be due to the ban on guns. You need to prove causation. As is, crime has actually gone down -- would you concede the gun ban was responsible?

With Liberty comes security. Security does not bring Liberty.

A) these are terrible sources. Have anything objective and reliable?

Here is better information from more reliable sources:
Row over figures as crime drops 5% (http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,2763,1266679,00.html)
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2004/07/22/crime_englandwales_jul04.pdf
Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf) (see pages 2 & 51)
Crime and Safety, Australia (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/e8ae5488b598839cca25682000131612/669c5a997eaed891ca2568a900139405!OpenDocument)


B) I meant connection between gun limitations and the alleged rise in crime. Crime statistics can go up for a number of reasons. (One of which is demonstrated in the English statistics: crime reporting can go up without crime itself increasing.) Even if crime had increased in Australia and the UK since the gun ban, that would not necessarily be due to the ban on guns. You need to prove causation. As is, crime has actually gone down -- would you concede the gun ban was responsible?

Why exactly are my sources horrible? What makes your sources better? Your first two sources had to do with the crime changes in the past year. Since both of the stats are after the ban they are irrelevant. If you want me to bring up some more sources fine. Heres 1.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

And beyond that, accidental gun deaths are a very very low number.When we shoot to kill, we mean it! :sniper:

One of the reasons it's difficult to get reliable gun crime statistics is that municipalities can choose to simply change how crimes are classified and what crime statistics will be kept.

I don't believe it's gun ownership that's our main problem. Doesn't Canada have a higher ratio of gun ownership than we do in the U.S.? Yet their violent crime rates are a tiny fraction of ours.

We're simply a more violent country and there seems to be no end in sight to that trend. We are also fed a steady diet of fear and paranoia by the media and our politicians. Fear and paranoia is what passed the Homeland Security Act in the first place, and it's what will get it extended.

After all, weren't we at code orange terror alert for the months leading up to and until immediately after the last presidential election? Fear is a great motivator.

A) these are terrible sources. Have anything objective and reliable?


See, this is why people end up getting pissed off at you. All you ever do is deny the veracity of sources, and tout your own as being "more reliable" and "objective" when they aren't.

No one is going to be able to prove anything in your eyes because your opinion stops you from seeing anything beyond what you want to see.

See, this is why people end up getting pissed off at you. All you ever do is deny the veracity of sources, and tout your own as being "more reliable" and "objective" when they aren't.

No one is going to be able to prove anything in your eyes because your opinion stops you from seeing anything beyond what you want to see.

Ah, the pot calls the kettle.

I could care less, but it seems some people get pissed at me because the usual arguments they think are so compelling fail to impress me. Tough.

As to the sources, see below.

Why exactly are my sources horrible? What makes your sources better? Your first two sources had to do with the crime changes in the past year. Since both of the stats are after the ban they are irrelevant. If you want me to bring up some more sources fine. Heres 1.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

Let's see.

Arragoth's sources:
gunowners.org -- obviously biased and third-hand info at best
cybernet news service -- again, openly biased
learnenglish.org -- nothing particularly wrong about the source, but it contains only a couple of relevant sentences -- not really reporting
http://www.icomm.ca/survival/Australiangunban.html -- this is merely a post by an NRA member to a survivalist newsgroup -- third or fourth-hand, biased

The Cat-Tribe's sources:
The Guardian -- perhaps a bit biased, but actual reporting of Home Office figures
UK Home Office -- straight from the horse's mouth
Australian Bureau of Statistics -- again, straight from the horse's mouth

While Arragoth's sources claimed to be reporting facts based on the UK Home Office and ABS, my sources were the UK Home Office and ABS. And, the second-, third-, and fourth-hand reports proved inaccurate.

As to the comment about my first 2 sources only looking at 1 year, look at the graphs at the bottom of the second source. My last 3 sources all trace back many years.

Arragoth's new source is better. But, again, the direct evidence appears to contradict this study. At a minimum, the issue is not black and white.

We can all use Google. My issue with sources is not whether I agree or not with what they say. My issue is most just grab the first website that says what they want it to say -- instead of digging for original, reliable, objective source material.

Ah, the pot calls the kettle.

I could care less, but it seems some people get pissed at me because the usual arguments they think are so compelling fail to impress me. Tough.

As to the sources, see below.


I don't think they're looking to impress ya, dude. They just want some respect, which you've always failed to provide, yet expect to be generated toward you. Like I said in another post--you swing first.


My issue is most just grab the first website that says what they want it to say -- instead of digging for original, reliable, objective source material.

All of which are opinions--opinions that you will put your own slant on, and decide they're never good enough.

Um...guys, you're arguing with a "true Believer" here-that's like trying to talk theology with a fundamentalist mullah.
CT isn't a 'Nazi", he's a "Legalist/Statist", that is, a person who believes that Security is more important than Liberty, and that non-officers of the Court are too irresponsible to manage their own affairs, and that Government is the source of all benefit.

The only person he's likely to ever show respect to, is a fellow Lawyer whom shares his views.
Get over it. You're arguing with a Fanatic, you will get nowhere with him.

I don't think they're looking to impress ya, dude. They just want some respect, which you've always failed to provide, yet expect to be generated toward you. Like I said in another post--you swing first.

There is some truth to that. Thank you for reminding me.

I do come on strong. And take an insult to their views personally (often with good reason).

Of course, it is far from true that I always swing first. Arragoth is a prime example.

All of which are opinions--opinions that you will put your own slant on, and decide they're never good enough.

Not everything is a matter of opinion.

For example, we are talking here about crime statistics. Arragoth claimed crime had gone up in the UK and Australian since those countries enacted gun limitations. First there was no evidence. Then there was second-, third- and fourth-hand articles asserting numbers attributed to official sources. But those official sources say otherwise.

There is no slant or opinion involved. Just accuracy and reliability.

On the gun issue, there are many sources funded by the right-wing and gun-lobby. These sources are biased. They are not all necessarily unreliable, but their information must be taken with a grain of salt. Some, such as John Lott, have also proven completely untrustworthy. (I noticed that in the other thread I posted documentation of Mr. Lott's untrustworthiness and no one has even tried to defend him.)

There are biased sources and some unreliable sources on the gun control side as well.

Some sources are better than others. It is a fact. If you fail to understand that, you will never earn my respect. (And I don't care if you don't.)

Um...guys, you're arguing with a "true Believer" here-that's like trying to talk theology with a fundamentalist mullah.
CT isn't a 'Nazi", he's a "Legalist/Statist", that is, a person who believes that Security is more important than Liberty, and that non-officers of the Court are too irresponsible to manage their own affairs, and that Government is the source of all benefit.

The only person he's likely to ever show respect to, is a fellow Lawyer whom shares his views.
Get over it. You're arguing with a Fanatic, you will get nowhere with him.

For our studio audience, that is an ad hominem attack.

And you have not the slightest clue as to my views on most issues.

I have shown respect to many in these Forums, including many libertarians.

I am not a "Statist." I do not favor security over liberty -- although that means little in the abstract. It does appear that some on these Forums are Libertarian nut-jobs without the slightest clue of reality, however. That some confuse anarchy with liberty is their problem, as their rantings will be ignored by the populace. I believe firmly in the liberty of a constitutional republic -- as did John Locke and our Founding Fathers.

Why do conservatives seem to think that it's dreadful to sacrifice liberty for security with gun control, but are wholeheartedly willing to sacrifce liberty for security in the form of the patriot act?
First off, the Patriot Act was never Debated in Congress and was passed as a measure to deal with some of the problem from 9/11 and have "sunset" clauses that are due at the end of this year. There is going to be a Debate this time, and I am not sure it will be passed again, at least in the manner that it now exists...

There have also been two (or 3, but 2 that I am sure of) successful challenges to the Patriot Act that have determined that parts are Unconstitutional; the "self-written" Warrants and the "no tell" clause have both been challenged in Court and will likely make their way to the Supreme Court, at some point, but are now sitting in "limbo" (kinda like my saying some laws may be rendered "toothless" in the "Constitution - UnConstitutional" Thread, funny how that works...) and can not likely be used without being thrown out in any Court (for what will be cited as "precedence") that it is attempted to be used in, until a decision is made by the SCOTUS.

Regards,
Gaar

For our studio audience, that is an ad hominem attack.

And you have not the slightest clue as to my views on most issues.

I have shown respect to many in these Forums, including many libertarians.

I am not a "Statist." I do not favor security over liberty -- although that means little in the abstract. It does appear that some on these Forums are Libertarian nut-jobs without the slightest clue of reality, however. That some confuse anarchy with liberty is their problem, as their rantings will be ignored by the populace. I believe firmly in the liberty of a constitutional republic -- as did John Locke and our Founding Fathers.

:) always happy to help. Thought you might enjoy the feeling of experiencing what you've been doing to these other guys for what, four or five pages now?
Thing is, the tone you've been taking on the whole bundle has been very fanatical, and very Statist. (this is on this thread, and others.)
I have yet to see you concede that someone in the opposite camp even has a valid point-on any level, be it law (your specialty, understandable), sensibility, morality, etc. etc. even when someone posts agreement for differing reasons, you find it necessary to attack them because the reasons are not your reasons (I tested this...conceded your point...)
So...there we go.
Your arguments demonstrate heavy reliance on the belief that the State actually gives a damn, and that the Legal systems' inhabitants are infallible (unless they hold an opposite view.) thus, I deduced (perhaps incorrectly) what I percieved to be your general position and attitude, then cautioned your current 'meat' that they would get nowhere in debating you.

There are biased sources and some unreliable sources on the gun control side as well.

Some sources are better than others. It is a fact. If you fail to understand that, you will never earn my respect. (And I don't care if you don't.)
Interesting that someone basically offer's their own Ad Hominem and then whines when one is used back against him...

I would say that, if you are going to dish it out in these Forums, perhaps you should be able to take it?!?!

I have had to point out many times that you have done just as you accuse others here all the time, and I can continue to show how you continue to do it all the time. So why do you feel some need to complain about it, if you are going to do it yourself?

You are free to question Sources and the information all you like, but not the person presenting the Sources. Attacking "their" character IS an Ad Hominem, whether you choose to see it or not.

Regards,
Gaar

There is some truth to that. Thank you for reminding me.

I do come on strong. And take an insult to their views personally (often with good reason).

Of course, it is far from true that I always swing first. Arragoth is a prime example.


I didn't say you swung first for all--just on mine last time. Now it's my turn to calm the hell down. :) I can understand taking insult to others' views if they apply directly to you (IE taking away your freedom of speech, hampering racial equality, etc.), but only that.


Not everything is a matter of opinion.


You're right. That is indeed the case.


On the gun issue, there are many sources funded by the right-wing and gun-lobby. These sources are biased. They are not all necessarily unreliable, but their information must be taken with a grain of salt. Some, such as John Lott, have also proven completely untrustworthy. (I noticed that in the other thread I posted documentation of Mr. Lott's untrustworthiness and no one has even tried to defend him.)

There are biased sources and some unreliable sources on the gun control side as well.


We definitely agree on the biased and unreliable sources on both sides bit.


Some sources are better than others. It is a fact. If you fail to understand that, you will never earn my respect. (And I don't care if you don't.)

I'm not out to earn your respect, Cat, I'm just trying to not be pelted by the constant disrespect that opinions other than yours seem to evoke from you.

Interesting that someone basically offer's their own Ad Hominem and then whines when one is used back against him...

I would say that, if you are going to dish it out in these Forums, perhaps you should be able to take it?!?!

I have had to point out many times that you have done just as you accuse others here all the time, and I can continue to show how you continue to do it all the time. So why do you feel some need to complain about it, if you are going to do it yourself?

You are free to question Sources and the information all you like, but not the person presenting the Sources. Attacking "their" character IS an Ad Hominem, whether you choose to see it or not.

Regards,
Gaar

You, sir, are living proof that ad hominems may not always be a fallacy.

Go away, little troll. I'm talking to grown-ups.

I'm not out to earn your respect, Cat, I'm just trying to not be pelted by the constant disrespect that opinions other than yours seem to evoke from you.Hmmmm....

Seems like some of the "grown-ups" wouldn't mind if you started acting like one.

Regards,
Gaar

:) always happy to help. Thought you might enjoy the feeling of experiencing what you've been doing to these other guys for what, four or five pages now?
Thing is, the tone you've been taking on the whole bundle has been very fanatical, and very Statist. (this is on this thread, and others.)
I have yet to see you concede that someone in the opposite camp even has a valid point-on any level, be it law (your specialty, understandable), sensibility, morality, etc. etc. even when someone posts agreement for differing reasons, you find it necessary to attack them because the reasons are not your reasons (I tested this...conceded your point...)
So...there we go.
Your arguments demonstrate heavy reliance on the belief that the State actually gives a damn, and that the Legal systems' inhabitants are infallible (unless they hold an opposite view.) thus, I deduced (perhaps incorrectly) what I percieved to be your general position and attitude, then cautioned your current 'meat' that they would get nowhere in debating you.

I didn't say you swung first for all--just on mine last time. Now it's my turn to calm the hell down. :) I can understand taking insult to others' views if they apply directly to you (IE taking away your freedom of speech, hampering racial equality, etc.), but only that.

You're right. That is indeed the case.

We definitely agree on the biased and unreliable sources on both sides bit.

I'm not out to earn your respect, Cat, I'm just trying to not be pelted by the constant disrespect that opinions other than yours seem to evoke from you.

I am an arrogant prick and do need to be reminded from time-to-time to rein in my zealotry.

I am "fanatical" in my view about the Second Amendment. The meaning of the Second Amendment is a legal issue. It has been copiously litigated and the results are uniform over many, many decades. The law of the land is clear and has been for over 60 years. I will not yield.

I do let my temper get away from me when I feel another's arguments are ridiculous. I will try to behave.

Whether I deserve it or not, I will note that my views are routinely insulted on these Forums. I respond to such attacks with the force of words.

My views on gun control may be "Statist." I believe in registration, that some guns should be essentially banned (like assault weapons), safety regulations, etc. I do not support all gun control laws.

Whatever labels you wish to apply to my views matter little -- although I will likely challenge them. I am not ashamed to be a liberal.

I will continue to ridicule the ridiculous, insult the insulting, and oppose views I think are wrong. I will try to be more civil in doing so.

Happy?

(On a side note, I find it ironic that in this thread I was criticized for being a lawyer, while my main opponent in the other thread claimed I was lying about being a member of the bar.)

:) always happy to help. Thought you might enjoy the feeling of experiencing what you've been doing to these other guys for what, four or five pages now?
Thing is, the tone you've been taking on the whole bundle has been very fanatical, and very Statist. (this is on this thread, and others.)
I have yet to see you concede that someone in the opposite camp even has a valid point-on any level, be it law (your specialty, understandable), sensibility, morality, etc. etc. even when someone posts agreement for differing reasons, you find it necessary to attack them because the reasons are not your reasons (I tested this...conceded your point...)
So...there we go.
Your arguments demonstrate heavy reliance on the belief that the State actually gives a damn, and that the Legal systems' inhabitants are infallible (unless they hold an opposite view.) thus, I deduced (perhaps incorrectly) what I percieved to be your general position and attitude, then cautioned your current 'meat' that they would get nowhere in debating you.
I must concur with these points completely, having been someone on the "other side" of a few of these Debates and had them end up in Moderation.

I have posted a compilation of such an example in Moderation, which is currently being reviewed...

It is nice to see that I am not the only one who feels this way.

Thanks for making these points.

Regards,
Gaar

I will continue to ridicule the ridiculous, insult the insulting, and oppose views I think are wrong. I will try to be more civil in doing so.

Happy?

(On a side note, I find it ironic that in this thread I was criticized for being a lawyer, while my main opponent in the other thread claimed I was lying about being a member of the bar.) Only if in doing so you will at least try an make SOME point, instead of just an attack on someone’s character. If you cannot make a point, try not responding...

Otherwise, expect to be treated as you seem to like to treat others.

I would address the last point in your post, but even though you have made it an Issue, I am going to respect your person and not make it a personal thing, I merely react to your posts, so don't be surprised if "confrontational" posts come your way, just know that I will at least address a point in my posts to you...

Regards,
Gaar

I must concur with these points completely, having been someone on the "other side" of a few of these Debates and had them end up in Moderation.

I have posted a compilation of such an example in Moderation, which is currently being reviewed...

It is nice to see that I am not the only one who feels this way.

Thanks for making these points.

Regards,
Gaar

Please Google the phrase "sore loser."

And I highly recommend your Moderation threads to others for comic relief.

Now, go away troll. Don't you have a Mod to bother?

I am an arrogant prick and do need to be reminded from time-to-time to rein in my zealotry.


I think you're just threatened on some level (just like I am about having my safety/freedom infringed). Don't take that as an insult--it's normal behavior in a human.


I am "fanatical" in my view about the Second Amendment. The meaning of the Second Amendment is a legal issue. It has been copiously litigated and the results are uniform over many, many decades. The law of the land is clear and has been for over 60 years. I will not yield.


Okee doke. You are free to feel how you feel.


I do let my temper get away from me when I feel another's arguments are ridiculous. I will try to behave.


I will attempt to do the same.


Whether I deserve it or not, I will note that my views are routinely insulted on these Forums. I respond to such attacks with the force of words.


I get nailed, too--I just try to make my attacks after someone has thrown the first punch. I try. I don't always succeed, though.


My views on gun control may be "Statist." I believe in registration, that some guns should be essentially banned (like assault weapons), safety regulations, etc. I do not support all gun control laws.


As is your right. Just be sure you know what an assault weapon is. I sure don't. :) And I have a modicum of knowledge regarding firearms.


Whatever labels you wish to apply to my views matter little -- although I will likely challenge them. I am not ashamed to be a liberal.


Nothing wrong with being proud of what you are. And you have the right to defend yourself.


I will continue to ridicule the ridiculous, insult the insulting, and oppose views I think are wrong. I will try to be more civil in doing so.


I would suggest holding it in until you are actually attacked first, though, instead of subtlely putting offensive terms/phrases/meanings into your posts--it counts as attacking first, and no one has a moral leg to stand on by attacking first.


Happy?


Wasn't looking for happiness, but I'm a great deal calmer than I was a couple of days ago, regarding you, if that means anything.

Wasn't looking for happiness, but I'm a great deal calmer than I was a couple of days ago, regarding you, if that means anything.

It does. I am glad. And the feeling is mutual.

And, if you want to see annoying, "Gaar" is Exhibit A.

Rational discourse is completely impossible with him.

He is mad because I learned not to take him seriously and tied him into knots.

At one point, he was so flustered and frustrated he posted some of his own arguments and then made fun of them. Ridiculing himself!

(Now prepare for a rant in response to this. Once he is present, he tends to kill a thread unless you either make him go away or ignore him.)

I am an arrogant prick and do need to be reminded from time-to-time to rein in my zealotry.

I am "fanatical" in my view about the Second Amendment. The meaning of the Second Amendment is a legal issue. It has been copiously litigated and the results are uniform over many, many decades. The law of the land is clear and has been for over 60 years. I will not yield.

I do let my temper get away from me when I feel another's arguments are ridiculous. I will try to behave.

Whether I deserve it or not, I will note that my views are routinely insulted on these Forums. I respond to such attacks with the force of words.

My views on gun control may be "Statist." I believe in registration, that some guns should be essentially banned (like assault weapons), safety regulations, etc. I do not support all gun control laws.

Whatever labels you wish to apply to my views matter little -- although I will likely challenge them. I am not ashamed to be a liberal.

I will continue to ridicule the ridiculous, insult the insulting, and oppose views I think are wrong. I will try to be more civil in doing so.

Happy?

(On a side note, I find it ironic that in this thread I was criticized for being a lawyer, while my main opponent in the other thread claimed I was lying about being a member of the bar.)

Well... I have no doubts that you are a Lawyer, sir. As to what I think of Lawyers, that's another discussion for another time and place.

I tend to term the so-called "Liberal" in America as a Statist, rather than a Liberal, as I hold a somewhat...obselecent view of the term, and rather dislike the current corruption of the usage. "Liberal" means "In Favour of Liberty", which the American Left has shown time and time again they, like the extreme right, are not. (This is my Opinion. I am not offended if others disagree.)

I will now apologize if I was offensive, sir.

I apologize.

Your arguments, when you are simply employing sources and not aggressively attacking the other side, are quite good, they are well thought out, and yet, in my opinion, utterly wrong on the Gun issue. This is my opinion, mind, and obviously not the universal.

I, too, can be a bit of a prick. Most people can, most often without meaning to. Especially on the INternet.

I also delight in mocking those who put themselves above the rest of us solely based on their profession/social position. Lawyers are a favoured target for this, along with Politicians, Executives, and Activists. Like badger-baiting, this is probably not the wisest form of entertainment, and no doubt I will be going to hell for making tacky jokes about Priests, Reverends, and other such mighty presences-probably after the Legal Profession has lynched me.

Something Ridiculous from a Judge is still ridiculous, even though he is a Judge, and even if he sits on a high court. Likewise, Politicians are not to be trusted-anyone willing to do all of that for a bit of authority is probably dangerously unbalanced, and not to be trusted further than an infant can throw them.