Clinton's sneak attack on our right to arms

Status
Not open for further replies.
Redworm

"How dare you claim to know the thoughts of other people?"

You are correct. I chose my words poorly. What I should have said is 'based on personal observation and close interaction with liberals in a variety of social and professional situations, logic and facts have no impact whatsoever. When they choose a course of action or an agenda, there is no argument that they will not twist nor fact that they will not construe to rationalize their choice.' While I realize that this is not a characteristic entirely unique to liberals, it is in their company that I encounter it most often.
As for the malevolent nature of their intentions, history bears up the fact that any society successfully disarmed becomes oppressed. I cannot read minds, I can only anticipate outcomes based on historical precident. I perhaps spoke in error by stating that liberals do not believe their own hype. I stand by the fact that whether or not they believe their own hype, the outcome will be the same.
 
SOrry for making that sound so confrontational. :o

As for the malevolent nature of their intentions, history bears up the fact that any society successfully disarmed becomes oppressed.
Click to expand...
True, but that still doesn't mean that a different outcome is not possible.

I stand by the fact that whether or not they believe their own hype, the outcome will be the same.
Click to expand...
Good point. But to vilify them because they see a different point of view isn't the way to win the argument.
 
Finally, a little injection of sense. It doesn't matter whether your opponent does what they do out of altruism or evil, if the results are bad, you fight them.


The point some of us have been making though is that demonizing your opponent does nothing for your cause, and has the potential to damage it.

If a neutral party (voter with no opinion on guns) were to read some of spiteful hate rhetoric some of you post he would assume that we're the nutjobs. Our opposition to gun control is for very concrete, logical reasons. Comparing Democrats to Fascists just makes our position look weak and polarizes the issue to the point that someone who might take our side feels so disgusted that they'd rather not side with anyone so distasteful.


As to the "why" of gun control, Jeff Cooper has been using the term "hoplophobe" for many years. What always defeats logic? Fear. People want gun control because they fear them. When the supporters of gun rights talk about Liberals as if they subhuman we do nothing to address that fear and only attach it to ourselves.

The gun debate in the US is not going to be decided by the most ardent supporters on either side. It is going to be decided by the men and women in the middle who swing the vote. Hate and insults are not a compelling arguments. Topics like this do more damage to our cause than they could ever help.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Well aren't you precious. Can't formulate one of my own? How about accuracy: I didn't want to cause smoke to roll from your ears as you tried to grasp what your betters are saying to you. Is that enough of a return ad hom?

Jeez. Have people completely forgotten how to reply civilly? Go take a cold shower and cool off.

Then...

Please provide an example of a legitimate, non-doctored stat or research from an unbiased and/or federal agency that supports any major anti-gun claim on any state or national level. Not your spin, not your perception, the data, please.

Statistics don't lie. How people interpret them is where the lies are. Most stats are pretty simple, until bias is added. You'll usually find that bias on the unsupported side of the issue. You get that, correct?

Try not to put words in my mouth, ok? You aren't up for it. Here, specifically, I did not say nor imply in any way gun-grabber legislation on its own is a primary influence at all. I said stats do not support the anti-gun agenda. They do not. There is no foundation for anti-gunners to claim they are trying to do anything for the betterment of society.

Maybe we aren't either? Maybe it's a null result. Maybe the entire argument is moot. But I don't really remember claiming to care about the welfare of society. I care about the BoR and the individual. Society, for the most part, can take a flying fornication at a rolling pastry. I care about the fact that the "other side" presumes a moral high-ground they do not possess in any way, shape or form.

EDIT: Feh, I guess I could stop and read the posts after replies to me before unloading but, what the heck, I'll just leave it...
 
Statistics don't lie.
Click to expand...
How anyone can understand the process by which statistics are gathered and interpreted yet still believe this is a mystery to me. I'm sure you can google on your own and find an equal number of satistics from unbaised blah blah yada yada yada to support and contradict your argument.

Most stats are pretty simple, until bias is added.
Click to expand...
Any researcher knows that bias is impossible to eliminate.
 
>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.<

Have to argue here. While the classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is not protected, it's an action likely to cause harm to others. The act of owning a gun, is not (in itself) an action likely to do so. Apples and oranges...
 
So your generalization here is that bias is bias and there's no difference? If so then the value of any statistical analysis is...?
Click to expand...
Nope. The 'generalization' is that statistics alone cannot be used to prove a point. Statistical analysis is a tool for pointing a researcher in the right direction, for narrowing down a set of ideas to get as close as possible to the truth. But by themselves statistics are not hard evidence.

Back to the bottom line: no one here has managed to prove that gun grabbers are trying to oppress anyone as opposed to doing what they genuinely think is in the best interest of everyone. We may not agree with their ideas but that does not make them evil. As I said before, claims that liberals are pushing for fascism or socialism have no more merit than claiming that conservatives are pushing for a theocracy or oligarchy.
 
When statistics and research consistently show a lack of results from gun control, or even negative results, and consistently do NOT show negative results from less restrictive laws we can make certain logical assumptions. When one side consistently pollutes the later-stage analysis with bias that is easy to recognize(coloring numbers by including extreme age brackets, other geographical areas, implying other influencing factors outside the area of research, etc) we can analyze that bias for consistency.

When that bias consistently shows a certain agenda and it's obvious, much remarked upon and covers a long period of time we can logically infer that those continuing to use those skewed claims to support their goals are being less than honest. Either that or we have to believe they are either stupid or insane. Trying to claim they are merely well intentioned is just ludicrous.

I suppose there have been a lot of well intentioned idiots in a lot of subjects over the years but I just find that too unlikely and too convenient in regards to this subject.
 
The Clintons vs. Guns

We have had years to soak in the spins from the Clintons concerning gun ownereship. We have also had years of the overbearing ATF and their total disregard of Citizen's rights, recording data that by law is/was supposed to be destroyed, their very often appearance with State and Local Police where they have no jurisdiction and the investigation does not relate to Alcohol, Tobacco, or Firearms.

We should remember the Clintons at the voting booth and send them back to the streets, we should demand that Congress somewhat neuter the ATF and it stay out of private citizen's faces.

That said, I aver that we have too many data bases already in our lives, we who were born and before liberalism showed its leftist face did well without them.
 
Civility

Redworm:
No apology necessary. I chose my words poorly. It is true that villification of ones oponents is a poor tactic and it behooves us all to chose our words more carefully.

Handy:
I agree, outsiders reading many of our openly antagonistic and hostile posts would probably conclude that we are all on the dangerous fringe of society. We must all be careful of the manner in which we exercise our First Amendment Right.

2nd-Amendment:
While I can appreciate your arguments, it is an unfortunate fact that statistics CAN lie and very often do. A poorly constructed study, whether through design or through ignorance, can lead to false conclusions. Often quoted statistics used by the oposition cite the number of children accidentally killed by firearms annually. Those quoting these statistics may be entirely unaware that 'Children' are often defined as through the age of 21, and 'accidental' shootings often include the clearly intentional shootings of gang warfare and other criminal activities. By simply changing the way specific components of any given statistic are defined, the outcome may be easily manipulated to achieve a desired outcome.
 
makarov5

I think you could easily have stopped with 'Governments simply cannot be trusted...' period. This premise is the very reason for the existance of the Second Amendment.;)
 
Whatever. It's another semantical thing. I see the "stats lie" comment and I see it as simplistic. If the data is factually correct(and most of it is, outside of some truly odd stuff like the "43 times more likely" study from Kellerman, was it? That's a whole other can of worms which is STILL indicative they have an agenda that has nothing to do with "safety") then it's correct and the lie comes later and that lie is the point I was driving at... Maybe I took a wrong turn somewhere by assuming we're speaking only of misrepresented factually correct data and ignoring the kind of crap Kellerman, et al, pumped out...
 
Semantics

You are probably correct. I was referring to the types of statistics generally thrown around by those who would see liberty destroyed. I am unfamiliar with the specific study to which you refer. I know only that the left will manipulate statistics or flatly lie to accomplish their ends.
I do not think we are on diferrent sides.
 
Your other post

When statistics and research consistently show a lack of results from gun control, or even negative results, and consistently do NOT show negative results from less restrictive laws we can make certain logical assumptions. When one side consistently pollutes the later-stage analysis with bias that is easy to recognize(coloring numbers by including extreme age brackets, other geographical areas, implying other influencing factors outside the area of research, etc) we can analyze that bias for consistency.

When that bias consistently shows a certain agenda and it's obvious, much remarked upon and covers a long period of time we can logically infer that those continuing to use those skewed claims to support their goals are being less than honest. Either that or we have to believe they are either stupid or insane. Trying to claim they are merely well intentioned is just ludicrous.

Had not read this one prior to my previous two posts. Well said.
 
I believe it was Waitone who offered, "Give 'em nothing", as a method of approach to Kennedy, H. Clinton et al. Might I add re this, something that I once heard from some Irish friends. THE BACK O' ME HAND TO YOU. Kennedy just might understand that phraseology.
 
Handy wrote in response to points I had raised:

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.

----------------

Respecting my suggestion of capitol punishment for CERTAIN ACTS UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES, questions of guilt had already been answered. Additionally, while capitol punishment does not prevent people from acting in any particular way, it would have the benefit of permanently removing from society, people who have acted in particular ways. I still find myself curious re objections from some to capitol punishment, as to why they are opposed to one thing, while perfectly willing to advocate another thing, this last being the trashing of the rights of those who abide by the law.

As to constitutional rights not being absolute, seems that I have heard this before, however note the following. Perjury is, according to the law, a crime, and is actionable thereas. There are also laws against slander. BTW, re that bit about shouting FIRE in that proverbial crowded theatre, something that you did not mention, I submit that the use and application of COMMON SENSE, should not be to much to expect, though it might well be.

As to your observation regarding the possibility of limiting possession of firearms to MUZZLE LOADERS, simply amounting to REGULATION, as opposed to prohibition, practicalities sir, practicilities. While I could certainly shoot you with a muzzle loader, even if you were limited to a 100 year old bolt action rifle, the weapon you used would be a hell of a lot more PRACTICAL than was what I have been limited to, under the guise of "reasonable regulation", as it is sometimes described. I would say sir, that any such REGULATION would most certainly have transended (trashed) the basic right.

Redworm:

Re your comment in post# 100, it strikes me that you have not really responded to points I raised in post # 93, unless I have missed a salient point. If I have, would you please clarify. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Constitutional rights are not actually treated as absolutes.
Click to expand...
And that, my friends, is the problem.

The Founders intended them to be treated as absolutes, not suggestions to follow as long as they don't get in the way of politicians' power and personal agendas or create other inconveniences for the ruling class.
 
Rights are Absolute

The framers of the Constitution did in fact intend for the rights protected by the Bill of Rights to be considered as absolute. They even made a point of stating that in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.

The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.


The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution.

There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.

End the deception.

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/states.html

I couldn't have said it better myself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top