You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Clinton's sneak attack on our right to arms
- Thread starter steelheart
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Redworm:
You seem to be saying that the Dem's "good intentions" should give them a break, that because they have such an irrational belief that we know will make our families and us less safe that we should not be concerned.
"Good intentions" will serve only to get decent, law-abiding citizens hurt or killed by thugs if the Dem dream of gun confiscation is realized. Dem "good intentions" can be hazardous to your health.
Leftists, in general, are socialists, and socialists despise individual rights. They're into communitarian rights. The good of the many outweigh the good of the one and all that. They are the antithesis of our Founders.
Our Founders believed that people are basically bad, and therefore they created a Constitution with an elaborate system of checks and balances to keep one part of the government from getting too much power. The ultimate check and balance is the 2nd Amendment. It's the one that allows us to throw off the yoke of tyranny if the government goes too far, and, by the way, allows us to defend ourselves against thugs. I guess you could say the 2nd Amendment defends us from thugs both inside and outside our government.
Leftists, on the other hand, believe that people are basically good, and, like Rodney King, ask why we can't all just get along. In other words, contrary to all the criminal data and their own low opinion of conservatives, they believe that criminals will regulate their own behavior and respond in kind if only the decent and law-abiding will unilaterally disarm. In other words, they live in a fantasyland of irrationality and illogic and should never be trusted with the reins of government. Of course, all of the above assumes that they're just misguided souls. If, on the other hand, they want us disarmed simply to subjugate us, as many other leftist governments have historically done after they came to power, then they are truly evil.
You seem to be saying that the Dem's "good intentions" should give them a break, that because they have such an irrational belief that we know will make our families and us less safe that we should not be concerned.
"Good intentions" will serve only to get decent, law-abiding citizens hurt or killed by thugs if the Dem dream of gun confiscation is realized. Dem "good intentions" can be hazardous to your health.
Leftists, in general, are socialists, and socialists despise individual rights. They're into communitarian rights. The good of the many outweigh the good of the one and all that. They are the antithesis of our Founders.
Our Founders believed that people are basically bad, and therefore they created a Constitution with an elaborate system of checks and balances to keep one part of the government from getting too much power. The ultimate check and balance is the 2nd Amendment. It's the one that allows us to throw off the yoke of tyranny if the government goes too far, and, by the way, allows us to defend ourselves against thugs. I guess you could say the 2nd Amendment defends us from thugs both inside and outside our government.
Leftists, on the other hand, believe that people are basically good, and, like Rodney King, ask why we can't all just get along. In other words, contrary to all the criminal data and their own low opinion of conservatives, they believe that criminals will regulate their own behavior and respond in kind if only the decent and law-abiding will unilaterally disarm. In other words, they live in a fantasyland of irrationality and illogic and should never be trusted with the reins of government. Of course, all of the above assumes that they're just misguided souls. If, on the other hand, they want us disarmed simply to subjugate us, as many other leftist governments have historically done after they came to power, then they are truly evil.
Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You'll pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins.
- Sammy 'The Bull' Gravano, Mafia hit man
invention_45
New member
I agree with you that all ten amendments of the Bill of Rights are equally important. However, The Second Amendment is the underpinning of all the rest of our rights - it is the foundation of the Bill of Rights. It secures all our other rights. Destroy it and the rest will collapse in a heap of rubble.
First of all, it's inconsistent to say they're all equally important and to then say the 2nd is the underpinning, implying it's more important. They are either equally important or they aren't.
Second, the 2nd does seem to refer to a "well-regulated Militia", or at the very least, something well-regulated. Regulation of some sort is built into the 2nd. It's right there in black and white, whether we like it or not. What do you think, the FFs just wanted to throw a 50-cent word in there to look fancy?
The 4th, however, doesn't have any such regulation in it. As such, it should be capable of fully preventing anyone from finding out whether you are harboring a gun, anthrax, a SCUD, or a nuclear weapon. Only it isn't because nobody was minding the store and allowed Prohibition II to destroy it.
The spark plug may be an essential engine part. But that doesn't mean that just because you have them all installed you can ignore whether the piston rings are present. They're both essential parts of a machine designed to work together. Arguing which underpins the other doesn't keep the engine running.
The constitution is the same way. It is an integrated device and if you let any of the parts wear away, the whole thing stops running.
Not at all. I'm just pointing out that these actions do not prove that Hillary and Kennedy and the other Democrats want to rule over us with an iron fist...at least not one iota more than the Republicans.You seem to be saying that the Dem's "good intentions" should give them a break,
I won't let a Democrat take away my gun but I am no more about to let a Republican take away my voice.
steelheart
Moderator
Double tap.
steelheart
Moderator
Invention 45,
I am not interested in haggling with you till hell freezes over (unlike some here), but I would like to point out a couple of things.
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms... To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike how to use them."
George Mason: "I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people... To disarm the people is the beat and most effectual way to enslave them."
Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Add to the words of The Founders the fact that Title 10, United States Code ("Federal Law") identifies the Militia of the United States as "every able bodied male between 17 and 45 years of age."
I'll add this too, although I cannot quote chapter and verse on it. Awhile back, I read in a book authored by Wayne LaPierre that the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment meant "well practiced" - in other words, the members of the militia were to be proficient with their weapons, able to deliver accurate fire upon the enemy when needed (sorry, but I do not have a reference at hand).
Antigun bigots who want to disarm We The People will try to tell you that "The Militia is the National Guard." This is false. The facts are these: The Second Amendment was ratified in 1787. The National Guard was created 130 years later, in 1917. It is obvious to even the most uninitiated observer that The Founders could not possibly have been referring to something that did not exsist and of which they had no knowledge when they used the term "Militia."
I am not interested in haggling with you till hell freezes over (unlike some here), but I would like to point out a couple of things.
The Founders put to rest the "Militia" question long ago, to wit -Second, the 2nd does seem to refer to a "well-regulated Militia", or at the very least, something well-regulated.
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms... To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike how to use them."
George Mason: "I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people... To disarm the people is the beat and most effectual way to enslave them."
Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Add to the words of The Founders the fact that Title 10, United States Code ("Federal Law") identifies the Militia of the United States as "every able bodied male between 17 and 45 years of age."
United States Code
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
SUBTITLE A - GENERAL MILITARY LAW
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
U.S. Code as of: 01/06/03
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
Regulation of some sort is built into the 2nd.
I'll add this too, although I cannot quote chapter and verse on it. Awhile back, I read in a book authored by Wayne LaPierre that the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment meant "well practiced" - in other words, the members of the militia were to be proficient with their weapons, able to deliver accurate fire upon the enemy when needed (sorry, but I do not have a reference at hand).
Antigun bigots who want to disarm We The People will try to tell you that "The Militia is the National Guard." This is false. The facts are these: The Second Amendment was ratified in 1787. The National Guard was created 130 years later, in 1917. It is obvious to even the most uninitiated observer that The Founders could not possibly have been referring to something that did not exsist and of which they had no knowledge when they used the term "Militia."
There's something else that's there in black and white: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Whether the politicians - Democrat or Republican - like it or not, it's right there in black and white. Whether the UN likes it or not, it's there. Whether Sarah Brady likes it or not, it's there in black and white.It's right there in black and white, whether we like it or not.
Last edited:
steelheart
Moderator
Redworm, I'll issue the same challenge to you: Prove to me that the politicians who want to disarm us - Republican, Democrat or otherwise - do not want to do so in order to rule over a powerless people.Now prove it.
If I am so wrong as you insist, proving it should be a piece of cake.
There exists a very simple principal in dealing with marxists like Senator(s) Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy, et al.
Ya give 'em nuthin'
The very fact they ask for something related to "common sense" is by definition contributory to their concept of reality and government. Political discourse in this country has long since passed the stage of arguing over commonly agree to facts. There is very little in common in world view between our marxists legislators and those who oppose them. I gotta agree with Steelheart on this one. Nothing good will come out of Senator Clinton's enthusiasm over a database of guns used in crimes.
Remember their pattern. Initial legislation merely provides a framework. It looks and sounds reasonable. Then in subsequent years when the dust settles "technical corrections" can be made via unrelated legislation which seeks to "clarify" the act's meaning and congress' "intent". Definition will be changed to meet new threats and over time they get just exactly what they wanted while we stand around wondering just exactly was "reasonable" about the endpoint legislation.
You avoid the whole process by "Given 'em nuthin'"
Ya give 'em nuthin'
The very fact they ask for something related to "common sense" is by definition contributory to their concept of reality and government. Political discourse in this country has long since passed the stage of arguing over commonly agree to facts. There is very little in common in world view between our marxists legislators and those who oppose them. I gotta agree with Steelheart on this one. Nothing good will come out of Senator Clinton's enthusiasm over a database of guns used in crimes.
Remember their pattern. Initial legislation merely provides a framework. It looks and sounds reasonable. Then in subsequent years when the dust settles "technical corrections" can be made via unrelated legislation which seeks to "clarify" the act's meaning and congress' "intent". Definition will be changed to meet new threats and over time they get just exactly what they wanted while we stand around wondering just exactly was "reasonable" about the endpoint legislation.
You avoid the whole process by "Given 'em nuthin'"
Now Prove It
"Now prove it. Prove that it's not because they genuinely believe that ridding the nation of guns will make it a safer place. We know that assumption is wrong but no one accusing the democrats has managed to prove that they're out to oppress anyone."
Because they (the liberals) are not entirely stupid and anyone who cares to examine the facts surrounding the exercise of the Second Ammendment can clearly see that the more draconian the gun laws, the greater the rise in crime. Make no mistake, liberals do not genuinely believe that gun control makes anyone safer. They have chosen their agenda and will use any argument necessary, no matter how clearly untrue, to promote said agenda. I have found in my personal and professional dealings with these people (liberals) that this statement applies to ANY agenda they have for themselves. They are masters of rationalization and manipulation of the truth often ignoring the facts altogether. Arguing with a liberal over the merrits of their agenda is akin to a rat discussing with a snake what is best for supper.
"Now prove it. Prove that it's not because they genuinely believe that ridding the nation of guns will make it a safer place. We know that assumption is wrong but no one accusing the democrats has managed to prove that they're out to oppress anyone."
Because they (the liberals) are not entirely stupid and anyone who cares to examine the facts surrounding the exercise of the Second Ammendment can clearly see that the more draconian the gun laws, the greater the rise in crime. Make no mistake, liberals do not genuinely believe that gun control makes anyone safer. They have chosen their agenda and will use any argument necessary, no matter how clearly untrue, to promote said agenda. I have found in my personal and professional dealings with these people (liberals) that this statement applies to ANY agenda they have for themselves. They are masters of rationalization and manipulation of the truth often ignoring the facts altogether. Arguing with a liberal over the merrits of their agenda is akin to a rat discussing with a snake what is best for supper.
Sorry but that's not how burden of proof works. You're the one making the claim that their motives are not pure. They're the ones making the claim that they're doing this for the sake of safety. I'm simply challenging your accusations that have yet to be shown to be based on any concrete evidence. It's not my responsibility to prove what's in the mind of any politician because I'm not the one making these claims; I'm simply asking you to back yours up with something a little stronger than sheer conjecture.Redworm, I'll issue the same challenge to you: Prove to me that the politicians who want to disarm us - Republican, Democrat or otherwise - do not want to do so in order to rule over a powerless people.
If I am so wrong as you insist, proving it should be a piece of cake.
Untrue. There are just as many bull**** statistics that show how gun control reduce crime as there are that show gun control increase it. There are way too many variables for any rational person to really think that just arguing the numbers is going to prove their point. Please; you can cite statistics from the UK, I can cite statistics from Japan. Try a little harder, give me something more than numbers that no one here has even researched on their own.Because they (the liberals) are not entirely stupid and anyone who cares to examine the facts surrounding the exercise of the Second Ammendment can clearly see that the more draconian the gun laws, the greater the rise in crime.
And that is what I'm asking you and steelheart and all the other liberal witchhunters to actually prove. How dare you claim to know the thoughts of other people? Are you some psychic that can magically read the intentions of people despite having never met them? Prove to me, provide me one shred of irrefutable evidence that suggests any of the gun grabbing politicians - even DiFi! - are not doing that they genuinely think is the right thing to do.Make no mistake, liberals do not genuinely believe that gun control makes anyone safer.
Without some kind of proof your accusations are no more based in fact than the crazy ramblings of liberals who claim the Republicans are trying to create a theocracy.
Redworm wrote,makig some interesting points, raising some interesdting questions:Quote
Redworm, I'll issue the same challenge to you: Prove to me that the politicians who want to disarm us - Republican, Democrat or otherwise - do not want to do so in order to rule over a powerless people.
If I am so wrong as you insist, proving it should be a piece of cake.
Sorry but that's not how burden of proof works. You're the one making the claim that their motives are not pure. They're the ones making the claim that they're doing this for the sake of safety. I'm simply challenging your accusations that have yet to be shown to be based on any concrete evidence. It's not my responsibility to prove what's in the mind of any politician because I'm not the one making these claims; I'm simply asking you to back yours up with something a little stronger than sheer conjecture.
Quote:
Because they (the liberals) are not entirely stupid and anyone who cares to examine the facts surrounding the exercise of the Second Ammendment can clearly see that the more draconian the gun laws, the greater the rise in crime.
Untrue. There are just as many bull**** statistics that show how gun control reduce crime as there are that show gun control increase it. There are way too many variables for any rational person to really think that just arguing the numbers is going to prove their point. Please; you can cite statistics from the UK, I can cite statistics from Japan. Try a little harder, give me something more than numbers that no one here has even researched on their own.
Quote:
Make no mistake, liberals do not genuinely believe that gun control makes anyone safer.
And that is what I'm asking you and steelheart and all the other liberal witchhunters to actually prove. How dare you claim to know the thoughts of other people? Are you some psychic that can magically read the intentions of people despite having never met them? Prove to me, provide me one shred of irrefutable evidence that suggests any of the gun grabbing politicians - even DiFi! - are not doing that they genuinely think is the right thing to do.
Without some kind of proof your accusations are no more based in fact than the crazy ramblings of liberals who claim the Republicans are trying to create a theocracy.
-----------------
Re the foregoing, might I pose the following question(s)?
First,do we agreee that the Second Amendment to the U.S. constituition, as well as many state constitutions grant and or recognize the right of individuals to Keep and Bear Arms? If we do, then I can proceed. I will assume agreement, for the sake of discussion.
The anti gunners, be they liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican would seemingly deny the above idea, and or claim that the problems of crime and criminal use of firearms are so great as to transcend basic constitutional rights. Do you agree with that idea? Note, that I am not indulging in any of the statistical games that you decry.
Assuming that you would agree, and without trying to read the minds of others, something that I do not claim any particular skill in doing, would you care to comment on the following? Given the seriousness of the problems of crime and criminal use of arms, the anti gunners, while they would trash the basic civil rights of the law abiding, refuse to legislate adequate penalties on armed criminals, and or those who use arms in a criminal manner. By adequate penalties, I refer to capitol punishment. Why do you think that they, at least seemingly, take this tack, that being to attack the law abiding, rather than criminals?
Redworm, I'll issue the same challenge to you: Prove to me that the politicians who want to disarm us - Republican, Democrat or otherwise - do not want to do so in order to rule over a powerless people.
If I am so wrong as you insist, proving it should be a piece of cake.
Sorry but that's not how burden of proof works. You're the one making the claim that their motives are not pure. They're the ones making the claim that they're doing this for the sake of safety. I'm simply challenging your accusations that have yet to be shown to be based on any concrete evidence. It's not my responsibility to prove what's in the mind of any politician because I'm not the one making these claims; I'm simply asking you to back yours up with something a little stronger than sheer conjecture.
Quote:
Because they (the liberals) are not entirely stupid and anyone who cares to examine the facts surrounding the exercise of the Second Ammendment can clearly see that the more draconian the gun laws, the greater the rise in crime.
Untrue. There are just as many bull**** statistics that show how gun control reduce crime as there are that show gun control increase it. There are way too many variables for any rational person to really think that just arguing the numbers is going to prove their point. Please; you can cite statistics from the UK, I can cite statistics from Japan. Try a little harder, give me something more than numbers that no one here has even researched on their own.
Quote:
Make no mistake, liberals do not genuinely believe that gun control makes anyone safer.
And that is what I'm asking you and steelheart and all the other liberal witchhunters to actually prove. How dare you claim to know the thoughts of other people? Are you some psychic that can magically read the intentions of people despite having never met them? Prove to me, provide me one shred of irrefutable evidence that suggests any of the gun grabbing politicians - even DiFi! - are not doing that they genuinely think is the right thing to do.
Without some kind of proof your accusations are no more based in fact than the crazy ramblings of liberals who claim the Republicans are trying to create a theocracy.
-----------------
Re the foregoing, might I pose the following question(s)?
First,do we agreee that the Second Amendment to the U.S. constituition, as well as many state constitutions grant and or recognize the right of individuals to Keep and Bear Arms? If we do, then I can proceed. I will assume agreement, for the sake of discussion.
The anti gunners, be they liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican would seemingly deny the above idea, and or claim that the problems of crime and criminal use of firearms are so great as to transcend basic constitutional rights. Do you agree with that idea? Note, that I am not indulging in any of the statistical games that you decry.
Assuming that you would agree, and without trying to read the minds of others, something that I do not claim any particular skill in doing, would you care to comment on the following? Given the seriousness of the problems of crime and criminal use of arms, the anti gunners, while they would trash the basic civil rights of the law abiding, refuse to legislate adequate penalties on armed criminals, and or those who use arms in a criminal manner. By adequate penalties, I refer to capitol punishment. Why do you think that they, at least seemingly, take this tack, that being to attack the law abiding, rather than criminals?
Scott Conklin
New member
Redworm, I'd offer reality as a rebuttal. The facts and statistics almost never support the anti-gunners claimed motivations and have not for decades. We know this and they know this and are sufficiently aware of it they have repeadedly fudged numbers, misrepresented facts and outright lied to further their goals. I don't think anyone can seriously argue this is not so. I don't think anyone could claim that anti-gunners are not aware of this.
So, If "safety" were their true goal and facts did not support their current efforts then those efforts would be redirected in some other more effective direction, would they not? IF "safety" and "protectin g the children" were really what they cared about they'd do something to make a difference when shown what they are doing now isn't helping... right?
So, If "safety" were their true goal and facts did not support their current efforts then those efforts would be redirected in some other more effective direction, would they not? IF "safety" and "protectin g the children" were really what they cared about they'd do something to make a difference when shown what they are doing now isn't helping... right?
steelheart
Moderator
You want proof? Go back to square one - look at the facts. Anywhere gun bans have been instituted - whether it is Australia, England, the former Soviet Union, New York City, Washington, DC or Chicago - crime has gone up across the board. Seeing as how I am not as scholarly as he, I will refer you to John Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime for the last word in undeniable proof of this.And that is what I'm asking you and steelheart and all the other liberal witchhunters to actually prove. How dare you claim to know the thoughts of other people? Are you some psychic that can magically read the intentions of people despite having never met them? Prove to me, provide me one shred of irrefutable evidence that suggests any of the gun grabbing politicians - even DiFi! - are not doing that they genuinely think is the right thing to do.
Now: Since the facts prove that gun bans cause crime to increase - making life more dangerous for lawful citizens, not less - and given the fact that Senators and Congressmen are not stupid and know this - there is absolutely no foundation to the claim that politicians want to disarm the citizens of this nation "in the interest of public safety" "for the children" "for our own good" or for any of the other hollow excuses that they attempt to deceive the gullible with.
Given that the gun banning politician's false and contrived justification of "safety" does not hold water in the least, we must look at the other effects that citizen disarmament has on a nation. What other social/political changes will it effect?
It will produce a powerless citizenry and a class of political rulers who "administrate" the masses according to their will, not the will of the people.
The Founders recognized this as fact -
George Mason: "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them..."
Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike how to use them."
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Call me paranoid if you wish, but I choose to trust the wisdom of the The Founders rather than the hollow lies of Democrat/leftist gun banners like Clinton, Kennedy, Schumer, Brady, Kerry and all the rest of their power hungry socialist soulmates.
Roger that, 2A!!Redworm, I'd offer reality as a rebuttal. The facts and statistics almost never support the anti-gunners claimed motivations and have not for decades. We know this and they know this and are sufficiently aware of it they have repeadedly fudged numbers, misrepresented facts and outright lied to further their goals. I don't think anyone can seriously argue this is not so. I don't think anyone could claim that anti-gunners are not aware of this.
So, If "safety" were their true goal and facts did not support their current efforts then those efforts would be redirected in some other more effective direction, would they not? IF "safety" and "protectin g the children" were really what they cared about they'd do something to make a difference when shown what they are doing now isn't helping... right?
Last edited:
Alan,
I see two problems with your thesis:
1) Constitutional rights are not actually treated as absolutes. Freedom of speech does not protect you from perjury or inciting riot in a building, for instance. You know what I'm saying: As long as SOME guns are left to the public, even if they are muzzle loaders, the claim could be made that the public's rights have not been taken away, just subjected to regulation. So you could have considerable gun control without necessarily transcending the basic right.
2) Capital punishment is something that many people, even conservatives, shun because of its absolute nature in the face of imperfect justice. So it is not the obvious solution to a problem involving violent crime, especially since we know that it doesn't seem to do much to prevent the violent crimes that it already covers.
2A, I disagree. Politicians and policy makers will rarely be dislodged by reality. You are giving them enormous credit for their perceptions of reality while slapping them for their morality. I see no more evidence for liberals being brilliant and diabolical than them being foolish and good intentioned.
I see two problems with your thesis:
1) Constitutional rights are not actually treated as absolutes. Freedom of speech does not protect you from perjury or inciting riot in a building, for instance. You know what I'm saying: As long as SOME guns are left to the public, even if they are muzzle loaders, the claim could be made that the public's rights have not been taken away, just subjected to regulation. So you could have considerable gun control without necessarily transcending the basic right.
2) Capital punishment is something that many people, even conservatives, shun because of its absolute nature in the face of imperfect justice. So it is not the obvious solution to a problem involving violent crime, especially since we know that it doesn't seem to do much to prevent the violent crimes that it already covers.
2A, I disagree. Politicians and policy makers will rarely be dislodged by reality. You are giving them enormous credit for their perceptions of reality while slapping them for their morality. I see no more evidence for liberals being brilliant and diabolical than them being foolish and good intentioned.
Scott Conklin
New member
OTOH, Handy, you are presuming these people who, whether we like them or not, have managed to rise to great heights and accomplish a great many things(good or bad) are so completely stupid that they can't see the writing on the wall after decades of getting the same results from the same actions. You are not even merely claiming gross stupidity but complete psychosis as well. Afterall, isn't one definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result?
So they are all stupid and out of their minds? I find it much easier to believe they simply have an agenda(although I'm willing to consider there is a certain streak of insanity that goes along with the ego-driven need to win elections and hold power).
So they are all stupid and out of their minds? I find it much easier to believe they simply have an agenda(although I'm willing to consider there is a certain streak of insanity that goes along with the ego-driven need to win elections and hold power).
2nd,
Statistically speaking the studies on the matter are inconclusive. On the one hand it'd make sense that allowing free access to handguns creates a safer society since criminals never know who's armed and who's not. OTOH refusing to sell Kalishnikovs to criminals and the insane is kind of a hard policy to argue against.
They are willing to interpret the constitution to suit their ends but then again so are the Republicans.
They do have an agenda and that's to gain power. Like it or not gun control is popular with voters despite the fact that it's technically illegal. If it was less popular you wouldn't see very many politicians publicly endorsing it.
That's why it's our job to convert them (the people) one by one.
Statistically speaking the studies on the matter are inconclusive. On the one hand it'd make sense that allowing free access to handguns creates a safer society since criminals never know who's armed and who's not. OTOH refusing to sell Kalishnikovs to criminals and the insane is kind of a hard policy to argue against.
They are willing to interpret the constitution to suit their ends but then again so are the Republicans.
They do have an agenda and that's to gain power. Like it or not gun control is popular with voters despite the fact that it's technically illegal. If it was less popular you wouldn't see very many politicians publicly endorsing it.
That's why it's our job to convert them (the people) one by one.
That still doesn't prove that they're out to oppress anyone anymore than having the President sworn in on a bible proves that there's a theocracy conspiracy going on. Conjecture is not proof.Re the foregoing, might I pose the following question(s)?
First,do we agreee that the Second Amendment to the U.S. constituition, as well as many state constitutions grant and or recognize the right of individuals to Keep and Bear Arms? If we do, then I can proceed. I will assume agreement, for the sake of discussion.
The anti gunners, be they liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican would seemingly deny the above idea, and or claim that the problems of crime and criminal use of firearms are so great as to transcend basic constitutional rights. Do you agree with that idea? Note, that I am not indulging in any of the statistical games that you decry.
Assuming that you would agree, and without trying to read the minds of others, something that I do not claim any particular skill in doing, would you care to comment on the following? Given the seriousness of the problems of crime and criminal use of arms, the anti gunners, while they would trash the basic civil rights of the law abiding, refuse to legislate adequate penalties on armed criminals, and or those who use arms in a criminal manner. By adequate penalties, I refer to capitol punishment. Why do you think that they, at least seemingly, take this tack, that being to attack the law abiding, rather than criminals?
You offer reality as a rebuttal because you can't formulate one yourself. The facts and statistics support anti-gunners just as often as pro-gunners, you just choose to ignore them. Statistics lie. There are too many variables involved in criminology for you or anyone else to ever be able to say that gun control on its' own is the primary influence on crime rates.Redworm, I'd offer reality as a rebuttal. The facts and statistics almost never support the anti-gunners claimed motivations and have not for decades. We know this and they know this and are sufficiently aware of it they have repeadedly fudged numbers, misrepresented facts and outright lied to further their goals. I don't think anyone can seriously argue this is not so. I don't think anyone could claim that anti-gunners are not aware of this.
So, If "safety" were their true goal and facts did not support their current efforts then those efforts would be redirected in some other more effective direction, would they not? IF "safety" and "protectin g the children" were really what they cared about they'd do something to make a difference when shown what they are doing now isn't helping... right?
I would do so had you actually provided any facts. Provide me a statement by a gun grabbing politician that can be interpreted as "We want to control you." Without that or something similar you have no solid evidence. The history of other gun control legislation in other countries has no direct bearing on the actions of our politicians who had nothing to do with those bans you refer to. You are failing to recognize the basic principles of causality.You want proof? Go back to square one - look at the facts.
You still haven't proven that their intentions are malevolent. Their ideas may be misguided but in no way proves that they want to oppress anyone. You claiming that Hillary wants to turn you into a slave has no more merit than if I claimed Bush wants to force me to worship his god. You're not supporting your argument with facts, you're using conjecture in an attempt to illicit an emotional response. That's not how rationality works.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.