The biggest disconnect between left and right in my opinion is the lefts lack of understanding religion. Where do most of the right get their beliefs? Religion! It's our core. Why do we support the second amendment? We believe we have a God given right to defend ourselves. Why do you support the second amendment Juan?
Anti-gun does not = automatic Leftist.
- Thread starter Love&Hate12
- Start date
JuanCarlos
New member
Actually, I could. In fact, of everybody who has announced an intention to run, only Ron Paul looks interesting to me. I don't agree with him on everything, obviously...but he's probably the best fit for my political views. Go figure.
Unless, of course, you're asking if I could trust that he actually believed in limited government. To that I say I tend to be a bit cynical.
Do you have the Teacher's Edition where "arms" and "bear" are more clearly defined? Heck, where "infringe" is defined? Keep in mind I'm on your side...but if your argument goes no further than the text of the amendment then you're doomed to failure; because the text of the amendment doesn't actually say nearly as much as you're suggesting.
For example: I see nothing there allowing for high-capacity magazines. An AR-15 with a 10-round magazine is an "arm" that you could "bear."
JuanCarlos
New member
Because I believe people have a natural right to defend themselves, whether given by God or not. That, and I figured the guys that drafted up the Constitution wouldn't have put that second amendment in there if it wasn't important...the right to bear arms would still have been covered by the ninth/tenth, no?
Also, I do believe in God. But I also believe that the Constitution specifically prohibits me from enforcing any portion of my beliefs on others. I wouldn't want to live under somebody else's religion (say, Iran or Saudi Arabia) so why would I try to impose my views on others here? Hence the reason that despite my religion I generally end up socially falling very far to the left.
There's a reason I'm always depressed after election day.
But I'll be darned if I'm going to change any part of my views just to fit some platter either party is offering.
EDIT: @Sharp Phil - Of the bullet-points in the first post there, I'd say I believe strongly in only one...the whole "American Imperialism" one. Ironic, considering I'm a tool of our American imperialists. I believe weakly (and only in small part) with two others. Things like tobacco lawsuits, but only in relation to intentional misrepresentation by such companies as to the risks of their products (if you started smoking in the last decade or few I have no sympathy for ya). Welfare programs, to an extent, but for pragmatic rather than egalitarian reasons. To an extent (and to less of an extent that what the Democratic party often wants) welfare programs can be cheaper than police and prisons....both in monetary terms and in regards to negative externalities. The other three points I actively disagree with.
Love&Hate12
New member
"There's another word for a pro-gun leftist -- "hypocrite." You cannot subscribe to an ideology of government control and infringement of natural rights on the one hand, yet advocate the free ownership of firearms for self-protection and resistance to the very tyranny you advocate. It's a paradox."
All Leftism advocates infringement?
Hmm, seems to me that the Right is equally as guilty with it's Fascism, Monarchy's, Aristocracy types, Military Junta's and others associated with plain "Right Wing Politics".
The point of that statement is to explain just how wide both Left and Right are.
Both Libertarianism and Fascism fall in the Right, just on different levels. You advocate Conservatism and Libertarianism, not the entire bulk of Rightism, I'd suggest putting your attack on certain portions of Leftism that you dislike, rather than just the entire chunk of the spectrum. There is a whole lot to understand than just the American two party system and the details of those.
All Leftism advocates infringement?
Hmm, seems to me that the Right is equally as guilty with it's Fascism, Monarchy's, Aristocracy types, Military Junta's and others associated with plain "Right Wing Politics".
The point of that statement is to explain just how wide both Left and Right are.
Both Libertarianism and Fascism fall in the Right, just on different levels. You advocate Conservatism and Libertarianism, not the entire bulk of Rightism, I'd suggest putting your attack on certain portions of Leftism that you dislike, rather than just the entire chunk of the spectrum. There is a whole lot to understand than just the American two party system and the details of those.
Ok what's wrong with socialized medicine? Many people can't afford meds. that they really need. Think most people right out of school college and/or high school can't afford insurance. These companies do need a kick in the butt every now and then and most people do need help.
When I started working full time in 1999 I was making $7 an hour. Then you have to figure in insurance which made what I brought home after taxes about $150.
As for gun control there needs to be some form of it. I don't think that every person in this country has the mind set to handle that much responsibility, but I tend to think you need to have a license to be able to have kids too. We all know there are some people out there that should never be parents. Gun control I think is generally good but gun banning isn't. I think it should come down to if you want a full auto, ok no problem but you're gonna have to take some classes on safety and training uses. The military trains their guys why shouldn't we be trained as well.
The law makers don't think too well about what they're saying. For example we had hi-cap mags banned right, well guess what I guess I need to buy 2x as many duh. What did it solve? Honestly though why do you need a full auto weapon? I don't see a problem with banning those types of items they are senseless, if you need a full auto for protection then you can't shoot for crap. In urban areas these weapons open up a whole degree of safety issuses, they're over kill. Hi-cap mags are nice for the range but really are they needed? Come on 1911s have done with out them for years. I'm happy with a 10rd clip I don't need 5 more shots and as for multiple attackers, what did you do to have 10 people go after you? If you have 2 or 3 guys on you 10rds are plenty but as most ccw manuals state the first thing you should do is walk away if possible.
Oh before I forget 90% of all home invasions have less than 2 intruders. So don't use the if they come in your home. Most home invasions with more than 2 guys are from the person being invaded into something they shouldn't be into. Basically just cause you own or carry a gun doesn't give you the right to pop off to people then hide behind your piece.
I'm not saying I am for banned because I'm not but I can see the point they are trying to make. If you'll take yourself out of the equation and think of some of the people that you here call stupid, would you want to be near them if they had a full auto? or your family for that matter.
When I started working full time in 1999 I was making $7 an hour. Then you have to figure in insurance which made what I brought home after taxes about $150.
As for gun control there needs to be some form of it. I don't think that every person in this country has the mind set to handle that much responsibility, but I tend to think you need to have a license to be able to have kids too. We all know there are some people out there that should never be parents. Gun control I think is generally good but gun banning isn't. I think it should come down to if you want a full auto, ok no problem but you're gonna have to take some classes on safety and training uses. The military trains their guys why shouldn't we be trained as well.
The law makers don't think too well about what they're saying. For example we had hi-cap mags banned right, well guess what I guess I need to buy 2x as many duh. What did it solve? Honestly though why do you need a full auto weapon? I don't see a problem with banning those types of items they are senseless, if you need a full auto for protection then you can't shoot for crap. In urban areas these weapons open up a whole degree of safety issuses, they're over kill. Hi-cap mags are nice for the range but really are they needed? Come on 1911s have done with out them for years. I'm happy with a 10rd clip I don't need 5 more shots and as for multiple attackers, what did you do to have 10 people go after you? If you have 2 or 3 guys on you 10rds are plenty but as most ccw manuals state the first thing you should do is walk away if possible.
Oh before I forget 90% of all home invasions have less than 2 intruders. So don't use the if they come in your home. Most home invasions with more than 2 guys are from the person being invaded into something they shouldn't be into. Basically just cause you own or carry a gun doesn't give you the right to pop off to people then hide behind your piece.
I'm not saying I am for banned because I'm not but I can see the point they are trying to make. If you'll take yourself out of the equation and think of some of the people that you here call stupid, would you want to be near them if they had a full auto? or your family for that matter.
JuanCarlos
New member
stranger04, I could start replying to some of your views on gun control point by point, but that's probably outside the scope of this thread. Suffice it to say my views on firearms call for more liberal (which is to say less restrictive) policies.
The gist of my rational argument against most of the gun control measures you seem to (to some degree) favor is this: any restrictions to be placed must be judged based on the actual benefit to be gained, as well as actual harm caused. For almost all gun control measures proposed, the actual net benefit/harm is incredibly small (regardless of direction). In a case where the difference to be made is negligible, I fall on the side of individual rights every time.
And that's before I get into any ideological arguments in favor of unrestricted firearms rights.
The gist of my rational argument against most of the gun control measures you seem to (to some degree) favor is this: any restrictions to be placed must be judged based on the actual benefit to be gained, as well as actual harm caused. For almost all gun control measures proposed, the actual net benefit/harm is incredibly small (regardless of direction). In a case where the difference to be made is negligible, I fall on the side of individual rights every time.
And that's before I get into any ideological arguments in favor of unrestricted firearms rights.
well I generally look at guns like cars. There is a point to which some for the safety of others need not have. I not for banning I am for training. You had to learn to drive a car and people need to learn how to shoot certain guns.
DO you have a problem with training?
Yes they did for a while ban hi cap mags you had to buy pre ban.
DO you have a problem with training?
Yes they did for a while ban hi cap mags you had to buy pre ban.
mikejonestkd
New member
Stranger,
>>>Hi-cap mags are nice for the range but really are they needed? <<<
why do you need a car that goes over 55mph? isn't 55 fast enough?
threads like this tend to go downhill pretty fast.....and it is already on a slippery slope IMO...
>>>Hi-cap mags are nice for the range but really are they needed? <<<
why do you need a car that goes over 55mph? isn't 55 fast enough?
threads like this tend to go downhill pretty fast.....and it is already on a slippery slope IMO...
Actually because of the fact of bill hopping I quit voting. I think that thats a real crime.
Let me ask you this though, when you go into a gun shop see the guy next to you want the biggest semi auto and then flips it and aims down the slide, do you think for one second he has the maturity to own a fully automatic weapon. I work in a gun shop I see plenty of people all the time that don't deserve the right to own a weapon, not until they take some classes on safety and use.
I don't have a problem with fast cars but there again look at Popper. He just gave your politicians another reason for a gun ban.
Let me ask you this though, when you go into a gun shop see the guy next to you want the biggest semi auto and then flips it and aims down the slide, do you think for one second he has the maturity to own a fully automatic weapon. I work in a gun shop I see plenty of people all the time that don't deserve the right to own a weapon, not until they take some classes on safety and use.
I don't have a problem with fast cars but there again look at Popper. He just gave your politicians another reason for a gun ban.
JuanCarlos
New member
And when I step into the voting both to vote for a politician that is pro-gun, am I willing to take the risk that they'll also support a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman? Or support allowing "intelligent design" to be taught as science in our schools?
It goes both ways, no?
I suppose you could argue that I should vote my guns over anything else...but that's probably largely because it's convenient for you, given that you agree with much more of the platform of the guy you're asking me to vote for.
Yeah, I'd say arguing about gun control (especially specific gun control measures) is outside the scope of this thread.
Ironically, I also think that if there's one issue you're less likely to have a rational, logical debate on in this forum than gay marriage...it's gun control.
So why even post in the thread if you're not going to read it and discuss the topic as opposed to simply complaining about having to hear someone else's opinion? If you come here for firearms-related discussion only then stay in the firearms-related only threads; no one made you click, no one made you read past the first post, no one made you reply. It was your choice.
The same people whining the same off subject ideals every time...one could easily say the same things about all the right-leaners here whining about not getting their machine guns and ten commandments in the classroom. They're unhappy about things other than guns and contiually force it in our faces.
Considering the topic at hand was the laws regarding sexual preference then it was prefectly reasonable for the gay members of this forum to point out their preference. It gives insight to one's opinion and position. It's like someone complaining about Al Sharpton and then pointing out "by the way, I am black and do not feel he represents my race in a positive fashion". Like rem you chose to enter the thread, you chose to read the posts, you chose to reply to them.
wtf dude, beliving in private firearms ownership and universal health care or gay rights is NOT conflicted or paradox-ridden
I love my guns and the people I meet when shooting but if I had a choice ban hi caps and full autos for example and then more children get medical care, I'm sorry but I think a 5yr old kid being healthy is more important.
I maybe wrong saying that but it's the way I think. ( I was using that as an example before people ask me where I got that from)
I maybe wrong saying that but it's the way I think. ( I was using that as an example before people ask me where I got that from)
JuanCarlos
New member
Oh, you know what I bet would be fun? Doing a moral relativism thread here.
Too bad it wouldn't be legal or political...
I see where you're coming from. If giving up my hi-cap magazines would allow gays to get married and allow us to have a rational policy regarding foreign military intervention...well, it might take an entire heartbeat for me to make that decision, it might not.
Especially if the "ban" had a grandfather clause...because we all know what happens then.
And it would locked pretty quickly. I was disappointed that your other thread was locked because it hadn't broken any rules, fell into the scope of the forum topics and the only person that had brought up religion was largely ignored.
The way I see it if worst comes to worst all my guns can be lost in a tragic boating accident on Lake Michigan.
But healthcare for a child or a better foreign policy is not so easy to get away with.