Does anyone really think the world is less safe with Bush gone?

Do people really need access to automatic weapons?

I am all for the right to bare arms, but there is also nothing wrong with common sense gun control.

Don't look now, but he's still there.

Well, unless you're exempting me from the label "right wingers", it looks right... Oh, I see! I shouldn't have assumed you considered hypocrisy to be other than evil. Sorry for the unwarranted assumption.

I read it, and I don't see where it's demonizing anyone. I attempted to point out two things:

• A sloppy conclusion of hypocrisy; many on the right actually claim that your approaches to fix these problems will make us less safe, and our approach will make us more safe. I'm only seeing two ways this can go:
  • We're doubly deceptive; both hypocritical (apparently not evil!) in talking about safety while knowingly undermining it and lying (would that be evil?) by knowing it makes us less safe and claiming otherwise.
  • We're neither hypocritical nor lying here, but actually have a disagreement on what impact policies will have on safety.
  I suggest that this may be intellectual laziness, not malice.
• A false dichotomy; you imply that we must either not care about safety, or take actions for safety's sake alone. This is a false dichotomy, as it's possible that we do value safety, but value something else higher still.

I don't see either of these as an attempt at demonization.

If you would spell better, I wouldn't have just choked on my Dr. Pepper. Somehow I completely missed any reverence to right wingers in your post, but it wouldn't annoy me at all.

As to the reference I assume you meant, I'm not sure what you mean; if you're suggesting using a different label would have made me respond differently, then no; this is about your argument, not about labels; moreover, while I'm not a big fan of the two-party system and the resulting forced 1-d political spectrum, I don't mind that label at all. If you mean that leaving out everything you said about the group you refer to as "right wingers", well I guess I wouldn't have been annoyed, but there wouldn't have been much left to post.

My response was directed at the argument you made and the assumptions underlying it. I'm not annoyed by any of this though; I'm well-adjusted to the fact that around half the people in this country disagree with me (as strongly evidenced by the popular vote every 4 years), and have reason to suspect disagreement from most of "my side" as well. Given the prevalence of poor reasoning among the population at large, if differences of opinion backed by faulty arguments annoyed me, I'd have dropped with a stroke years ago.

Beats me; as I understand it, the charges of communism or socialism are typically not because of what you care about, but because the particular policies pursued tend in a socialistic direction (that of increased government control). I think those are most properly applied to economic issues, and don't use them much anyhow; I most certainly didn't apply them here! Since "my side" is a construct forced by the dividing line between the Republican and Democrat parties, I don't necessarily agree with most of my side, so I hope it's not meant as an accusation against me.

So why are you bringing it up?

This forum has a quote feature, and you might use it to point out any actual instances of "going off on you personally" you see. Without quotes, it's quite hard for me to take this seriously as my points have been against your arguments, not against you. I don't see any personal attack there.

Sorry Benson, I actually would love to chat some more with you. I only had a mement to scan your post. I do like one thing though. We obviously both really believe strongly what we believe. I think the politcal debate in this country has gotten truely toxic. I oppologize for making you mad. I really don't want to just continue the toxicity although I was a bit mad when I wrote my post. But I suppose that's inevitable whether I bring up what I see as the trueth or not.

Long run, we really do need to work on the issues I brought up in a serious way. All we are doing by not working on it is handing control over to those that will simply take it by force, right?

I have no idea how safe we will be as a result of having a Dem in the big house. At the same time, what do we really know about what affect spending a trillion dollars in Iraq had? My thought is that it was a devistating drain on resources we badly need for things that could have made us not only safe but more prosperous.

If you think I'm some sort of berkinstock, VW bus driving dood, your wrong. I own a small business that isn't doin all that well right now. Did liberalism get the economy to where it is today? Not in my way of thinking. Maybe greed? I don't know, is hypocracy evil? I think it's just part of human nature. I think we have a hard time being consistant and honest with ourselves. But hey, let's get together over a beer sometime, OK?

Cheers,
Neil
PS, be back next week, Tuesday?

A couple or three points:

• People do have access to automatic weapons; they're currently legal (NFA Title II) on a federal level and in most states. They must be registered, however, and manufacture of new transferrable machine guns is cut off since 1986, so there's a finite supply of them out there. The result is that they generally cost around 10 times what the gun is worth... There's also the (typically months-long) registration process and a $200 transfer tax.
• There are legitimate reasons to own them. National defense and revolution are the principal reasons for the 2nd amendment, but recreation and self- and home-defense are also reasons. (An automatic weapon (especially select-fire) is no worse and in some ways better than a semi-auto for self- and home-defense.)
• I consider this to be asking the wrong question. Unless you're proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing Congress to place restrictions on some classes of arms, it doesn't even matter if people need it. Congress was given no such authority, and moreover was specifically excluded by the 2nd amendment. An argument can be made that the existence of such powerful arms as we have today was not foreseen, and they would not have protected all arms (indeed, I'm sympathetic, though not committed, to this argument WRT nuclear weapons); but that's an argument for amending the Constitution, not for disregarding it.

from experience i suspect this thread will go one way, down hill...

Do people really need access to automatic weapons?

I am all for the right to bare arms, but there is also nothing wrong with common sense gun control.

Seems like the right question to me, and I do not believe I was proposing any solution, just a problem to be addressed.

I see no legitimate reason to own these weapons.

Which do you think is more sickening/scary?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

DEFINITION: Data for 2003. Number of prisoners held per 100,000 population.

or this?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...apacity-filled

DEFINITION: The percentage of the official prison capacity filled. This is obtained by comparing the number of prisoners in a nation to the official capacity of the nation's prison system. Data for 2003.

http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=9jqtl25z2y

That's about my opinion on that.

Some mentioned the school shooting - I imagine they mean Virginia Tech since that was the biggest one on the news recently... and they try and scare you by saying he "legally" purchased a gun to do it.

A) The guns were not (as the politicians call) an "assault weapon" nor an automatic firearm. They standard, run-of-the-mill handguns. The most common self-defense weapon.
B) He lied on his purchase form to conceal his true identity. If he had told the truth, in that state, it would have actually already been illegal for him to purchase a firearm due to having been put in a mental hospital in his record.
C) The school he shot was.. omg... a GUN FREE ZONE. Yeah... Gun Free. More like - Unarmed Victim Zone if you ask me.

And yes.. I'm a gun-nut. And Yes. I am one of those that went out and, even though I didn't really have the money for it, purchase myself a so-called "assault weapon" earlier this year because I knew, no matter who won this election, my right to own a firearm of my choice was in serious jeopardy.

I can show you news articles of men that killed several police officers inside a police station with nothing but a knife. I can show you reports of 3 women that spent 14-17 hours being raped and sodomized by men with nothing but knives. And these women even made two phone calls to the police. The first call, the cop car just "drove by" the house and nothing seemed wrong so they left. The second call was never sent over the radio.

I know this thread isn't only about guns but the OP included it and I am very touchy on the Gun subject.

The police keep this country safe on the inside - using guns.

The military keeps this country free from the outside - using guns.

We are responsible for making sure this country remains free from our politicians - with guns (if necessary).

The courts have ruled that is not the police force's responsibility to make an individual safe. That responsibility relies on you and you alone.

How hypocritical is it to demand a ban on guns - but when you are in the worst of worst situations - it's the man (or woman) with the guns you call upon to save you.



Meh.

Indeed, the only real issues with bare arms are sunburns or goosebumps depending on the weather. Nothing wrong there :-)