Political Megathread

[Eric D]

Any gun in the hands of a human has the ability to kill. Why limit what gun it can be?

For arguments sake, I don’t lump RPGs or nukes into the equation. A nuke in the hands of a depressed individual or someone with psychological problems could be very bad for countless people.

But, an automatic weapon in the hands of such a person is no bigger threat than a single shot rifle. This is considering a far less limited society in which anyone in the crowd could have an automatic weapon themselves.

When criminals can have automatic weapons, the only deterrent a law abiding citizens will have is equal firepower.

As I said before, limiting the type of gun is every bit of a grey area as limiting the guns themselves.

However, I personally disapprove of automatics in the hands of civilians, because of their ability to kill en masse. I disapprove of them for the same reason you wouldn't want RPGs or nukes... because it just takes one asshole having a bad day to do way too much damage.

Let's say some douchebag goes crazy, and decides he wants to kill himself, but take out as many people as possible on his way out. With an automatic gun in a busy enough place, he could do a hell of a lot more damage with a machine gun than a 22. Even if everyone else was hypothetically armed with machineguns, the reaction time it would take for them to turn around and kill him would probably not be enough time for him to kill numerous innocent people. With say a rifle or a handgun, he would have a much more difficult time killing lots of people before he got killed. This is what I base my justification on.

I just can't think of a legitimate reason to own a fully automatic weapon, or at least one that is significant enough to be worth the risk of killing large groups of innocent people. If you are using hunting, you would simply gib your deer into fragments. I don't see what would be wrong with a semi-automatic rifle or single shot shotgun in this case.

If you think a country where everyone walks around with automatic weapons would be safe, go look at Somalia or other war torn nations where kids were walking on the streets with AK-47's. Giving people this much power would be enough to corrupt the weaker individuals of society into preying upon others

Or look at Switzerland. Hell, they gun down each other right and left for no reason with their government provided automatic weapons…

…o wait, they have hardly any gun crime.

One legitimate reason for ownership of automatic weapons is to go to shooting meets where a junk car is parked by a sand pile and everyone gets to shoot thousands of holes in it. It is a heck of a lot of fun, especially with truck mounted 50 cal machine guns.

[Eric D]

I'll second that! And to add to that I personally don't see a reason to own a handgun. There is only one animal you hunt with a handgun. I understand they are fun to plunk around with but I still see no reason for owning one.

*yes I own guns and am an avid hunter.

Is personal defense not a good enough reason for you? When someone breaks into your house and tries to rape your wife, are you going to want to dig in a gun case for a big rifle, or reach into a dresser drawer and pull out a 38 to drop them?

[fuzzysnuggleduck]

I'll second that! And to add to that I personally don't see a reason to own a handgun. There is only one animal you hunt with a handgun. I understand they are fun to plunk around with but I still see no reason for owning one.

*yes I own guns and am an avid hunter.

Is personal defense not a good enough reason for you? When someone breaks into your house and tries to rape your wife, are you going to want to dig in a gun case for a big rifle, or reach into a dresser drawer and pull out a 38 to drop them?

Since this has never happened to me, I can't say for sure, but I have a feeling I'd much prefer to use our 10" Western blade in between our mattresses to gut any fucker trying to rape my wife in my own home.

[mr tibbs]

I'll second that! And to add to that I personally don't see a reason to own a handgun. There is only one animal you hunt with a handgun. I understand they are fun to plunk around with but I still see no reason for owning one.

*yes I own guns and am an avid hunter.

Is personal defense not a good enough reason for you? When someone breaks into your house and tries to rape your wife, are you going to want to dig in a gun case for a big rifle, or reach into a dresser drawer and pull out a 38 to drop them?

Howzabout moving to a safer neighborhood and not having to worry about it?? I have lived in the land of Zion my whole life and have never had to worry about anything like that.

[Eric D]

I'll second that! And to add to that I personally don't see a reason to own a handgun. There is only one animal you hunt with a handgun. I understand they are fun to plunk around with but I still see no reason for owning one.

*yes I own guns and am an avid hunter.

Is personal defense not a good enough reason for you? When someone breaks into your house and tries to rape your wife, are you going to want to dig in a gun case for a big rifle, or reach into a dresser drawer and pull out a 38 to drop them?

Howzabout moving to a safer neighborhood and not having to worry about it?? I have lived in the land of Zion my whole life and have never had to worry about anything like that.

My neighborhood is safe. However, I prefer to be a prepared individual, and don’t wish to be caught with my pants down should this issue ever arise in my life.

I don’t think it is fair of you to make a blanket statement that if you are concerned about gun crime you should move away. There are countless people living in the inner city who don’t have the means to move, but still deserve the basic human right to protect themselves, their loved ones and family. All it takes is one firearm in the hands of a trained individual.

And as for knives, they are of little use. If someone breaks into your home with a gun and you have a knife, you get to leave the scene in a body bag. Element of surprise may work, but are you willing to gamble your life on that?

[mr tibbs]

Is personal defense not a good enough reason for you? When someone breaks into your house and tries to rape your wife, are you going to want to dig in a gun case for a big rifle, or reach into a dresser drawer and pull out a 38 to drop them?

Howzabout moving to a safer neighborhood and not having to worry about it?? I have lived in the land of Zion my whole life and have never had to worry about anything like that.

My neighborhood is safe. However, I prefer to be a prepared individual, and don’t wish to be caught with my pants down should this issue ever arise in my life.

I don’t think it is fair of you to make a blanket statement that if you are concerned about gun crime you should move away. There are countless people living in the inner city who don’t have the means to move, but still deserve the basic human right to protect themselves, their loved ones and family. All it takes is one firearm in the hands of a trained individual.

And as for knives, they are of little use. If someone breaks into your home with a gun and you have a knife, you get to leave the scene in a body bag. Element of surprise may work, but are you willing to gamble your life on that?

OK, I really didn't mean that about moving away. I don't know what the answer is for people who can't move, but I still don't believe in hand guns.

[stipud]

Or look at Switzerland. Hell, they gun down each other right and left for no reason with their government provided automatic weapons…

…o wait, they have hardly any gun crime.

One legitimate reason for ownership of automatic weapons is to go to shooting meets where a junk car is parked by a sand pile and everyone gets to shoot thousands of holes in it. It is a heck of a lot of fun, especially with truck mounted 50 cal machine guns.

Switzerland is not America. The same policies that work there would probably not work over here. Simply put, their poverty is lower, the average standard of living is higher, and people have less reason to resort to crime in order to make ends meet.

Also, I said I don't think CITIZENS should have automatic weapons. It is a misconception that Swiss get automatics, however, there is mandatory military service for Swiss males, and they are required by law to have their weapons with them at home. There is a HUGE difference between the military having these weapons at home than civilians.

Also, ammunition is strictly controlled, and placed in a sealed container. If the seal on this container is broken, you go straight to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

Simply put, this is an entirely different world than the current gun debate.

[dedlyjedly]

There are countless people living in the inner city who don’t have the means to move, but still deserve the basic human right to protect themselves, their loved ones and family. All it takes is one firearm in the hands of a trained individual.

Am I missing something here, or are these people "without the means to move" largely the same group of "poor parents" that you proposed we "execute" in lieu of providing them government aid on page 3 of this discussion?

http://phoenixphorum.com/post39050.html#39050

So who gets to decide which individuals get to excercise their right to protect themselves, their loved ones and family and which individuals we wipe of the face of the earth? Charlton Heston!?

[bdubs767]

Am I missing something here, or are these people "without the means to move" largely the same group of "poor parents" that you proposed we "execute" in lieu of providing them government aid on page 3 of this discussion?

thank you jed

[bdubs767]

also anyone who only watches the new on tv needs to spend some more time diving into these topics we discuss. I can not stress the importance of reading up on these topics, if you dont your onyl scratching the surface. And I dont buy the whole I dont have time thing, because I still did it this summer when i was working 50 to 60 hours a wk and bar hoping/partying every night.

[bdubs767]

Here is a three part video worth watching. It's fairly straight forward factual information about the Neoconservative movement, where it began and what it's currently up to.

They show interviews with many libs, cons and neocons and don't attempt to pass their own judgement on the issues nearly as much as many other movies. They provide some detailed information and let the viewer decide, which is ultimately the most important thing to do.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4838285177

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5328041876

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0319789254

I'm not suggesting watching this video will or should change anyones views. I am suggesting you watch it.

A MUST WATCH....only thing I have ever seen thats explains how to world came to where it is now.

SIMPLY A MUST WATCH

[Mastiff]

[Eric D]

There are countless people living in the inner city who don’t have the means to move, but still deserve the basic human right to protect themselves, their loved ones and family. All it takes is one firearm in the hands of a trained individual.

Am I missing something here, or are these people "without the means to move" largely the same group of "poor parents" that you proposed we "execute" in lieu of providing them government aid on page 3 of this discussion?

http://phoenixphorum.com/post39050.html#39050

So who gets to decide which individuals get to excercise their right to protect themselves, their loved ones and family and which individuals we wipe of the face of the earth? Charlton Heston!?

Some are, some are not. So what is your point?

[Eric D]

Or look at Switzerland. Hell, they gun down each other right and left for no reason with their government provided automatic weapons…

…o wait, they have hardly any gun crime.

One legitimate reason for ownership of automatic weapons is to go to shooting meets where a junk car is parked by a sand pile and everyone gets to shoot thousands of holes in it. It is a heck of a lot of fun, especially with truck mounted 50 cal machine guns.

Switzerland is not America. The same policies that work there would probably not work over here. Simply put, their poverty is lower, the average standard of living is higher, and people have less reason to resort to crime in order to make ends meet.

Also, I said I don't think CITIZENS should have automatic weapons. It is a misconception that Swiss get automatics, however, there is mandatory military service for Swiss males, and they are required by law to have their weapons with them at home. There is a HUGE difference between the military having these weapons at home than civilians.

Also, ammunition is strictly controlled, and placed in a sealed container. If the seal on this container is broken, you go straight to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

Simply put, this is an entirely different world than the current gun debate.

If the government went as far as to hand out guns to all law abiding citizens in America, gun crime would go down by record numbers never seen before in history.

[Eric D]

Here is a three part video worth watching. It's fairly straight forward factual information about the Neoconservative movement, where it began and what it's currently up to.

They show interviews with many libs, cons and neocons and don't attempt to pass their own judgement on the issues nearly as much as many other movies. They provide some detailed information and let the viewer decide, which is ultimately the most important thing to do.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4838285177

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5328041876

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0319789254

I'm not suggesting watching this video will or should change anyones views. I am suggesting you watch it.

A MUST WATCH....only thing I have ever seen thats explains how to world came to where it is now.

SIMPLY A MUST WATCH

I made an effort and watched the first movie mentioned. It was very challenging for me to get through it all. The vast quantity of loosely connected ramblings discouraged me from finding any value in it at all.

And I don’t care if you don’t buy into the “don’t have time” thing. Even with my lack of time I stay out ahead of you on knowing what is going on, so I would guess I am out ahead of the average person, and in reality plenty informed to make educated voting decisions.

For this reason I am doing the only logical thing anyone can do. I will be voting for a write in candidate, Errin.

[bdubs767]

Even with my lack of time I stay out ahead of you on knowing what is going on

that I highly doubt. Only thing I do now is keep up on politics and sports. My time with car audio has been cut more than in half due to this. I actually have been studying the core fo the problems too, not just the the surface material reported ont he news. I will admitt though you def have me beat in gun control, you knwo that topic in and out.

As for the movie I'm not sure how you see that as beign loosely connected...they connect every single person to the next. But hey each to their own.

[Eric D]

Even with my lack of time I stay out ahead of you on knowing what is going on

that I highly doubt. Only thing I do now is keep up on politics and sports. My time with car audio has been cut more than in half due to this. I actually have been studying the core fo the problems too, not just the the surface material reported ont he news. I will admitt though you def have me beat in gun control, you knwo that topic in and out.

As for the movie I'm not sure how you see that as beign loosely connected...they connect every single person to the next. But hey each to their own.

You tend to look at politics emotionally, not logically.

A whole lifetime spent looking at politics emotionally will gain you less insight than just one day spent looking at it logically.

Here are a few quotes from you…

Hillary is out to lunch and simply since gaining to lead has been even more of a stuck up bitch.

Why the hell would they attack us for shits and giggles. Rudy is a fucktard

Those are pretty emotional statements about candidates you have never met in person.

Try looking at each topic logically, and draw a solid conclusion. Base your voting on these conclusions over the issues, not the person or personalities running for office.

Do you remember back when you were tore into by everyone over minimum wage? You were all for raising minimum wage, yet you could not realize raising it helps no one and hurts many. You have to get a full understanding of each topic before you can proceed, something you have not shown any evidence of doing.

[bdubs767]

Even with my lack of time I stay out ahead of you on knowing what is going on

that I highly doubt. Only thing I do now is keep up on politics and sports. My time with car audio has been cut more than in half due to this. I actually have been studying the core fo the problems too, not just the the surface material reported ont he news. I will admitt though you def have me beat in gun control, you knwo that topic in and out.

As for the movie I'm not sure how you see that as beign loosely connected...they connect every single person to the next. But hey each to their own.

You tend to look at politics emotionally, not logically.

A whole lifetime spent looking at politics emotionally will gain you less insight than just one day spent looking at it logically.

Here are a few quotes from you…

Hillary is out to lunch and simply since gaining to lead has been even more of a stuck up bitch.

Why the hell would they attack us for shits and giggles. Rudy is a fucktard

Those are pretty emotional statements about candidates you have never met in person.

Try looking at each topic logically, and draw a solid conclusion. Base your voting on these conclusions over the issues, not the person or personalities running for office.

Do you remember back when you were tore into by everyone over minimum wage? You were all for raising minimum wage, yet you could not realize raising it helps no one and hurts many. You have to get a full understanding of each topic before you can proceed, something you have not shown any evidence of doing.

those are out right statements...trust me I do more research on topics then you could imagine. Basically this is what my entire semester has been, right now I have to right up an summary of the child health care bill for the dean, Ill post it here when I'm done with it. When I post here w/ my conclusion about topics yes they do have emotion/morals involved with in them as they are my final thoughts. Like I said I can understand the sound points for any topic from conservative perspective or a liberal perspective, and I look at the topics with logic and get to point on most topics where I'm dead set in the center. What usually sways me to the liberal side of things in my sense of morals, so yes when I do come to my final conclusion their is emotions put into the equation. yet do not assume their is no logic to my desicions. To be honest on most things I am starting to become a Milton Friedman lover, I will confess, which would make you proud.

This is much like yourself also, you know that emotion plays into factors of how you vote. You have very strong emotions about redistribution of wealth and guns. You do look at the facotrs logically like myself, but then factor in how you feel about them, which is emotion.


As for the post about Hillary I came to that conclusion wathcing her on TV logically. Have you watched her at all since gainning the lead? As for Rudy, I have heard him on TV time and time again playing the 9/11 card, and then he comes to that irrational conclusion we had nothing to do with 9/11, yes it does anger me when he uses it to spread a false thought process...just listen to the crowd cheering him there, sad its almost like blind faith.

[bdubs767]

Doc,

also go get the book the unheavenly city read chapter 10. You'll enjoy it a lot, as it talks about how to get rid of the poor class that only takes and has nothing to give to society. Radical thoughts which logically make sense, but not the extreme you went to about executing them, which is immature and absurd, sound like Hitler blaming the Jews for the problems on Germany prior to WWII. I dont mean to attack you their either, but saying we should execute a group of people is appalling to me and I hope everyone else.

[Eric D]

I would not say emotion drives my vote, or my stance on guns and wealth.

Less taxes means more money in my pocket, and I have never heard anyone in my life who would prefer to have less money (not to say no one like this exists though). If more money makes me happy, then yes happy is an emotion, but I am not after the money for the happiness, I am after it to lower my debt. And, lowering my debt does not bring happiness, only eliminating debt brings me happiness.

As for guns, and it pretty obvious to even the most irrational thinkers, my odds of survival will be higher if I have a gun of my own when attacked by someone with a gun, vs not having one. I cannot deflect bullets with my teeth or something like you would see in the movies. A gun is just as much a deterrent as it is a weapon.

Neither of my positions here are emotional, nor do they have any moral ramifications what-so-ever.

[Eric D]

It may be appalling for you when I mention executing anyone, but don’t look at things just on the surface.

For one thing I presented an alternative solution (deportation).

Human nature is to eliminate threats. If you are attacked, you will likely defend yourself no matter who you are. We are effectively being attacked in this country by those who milk off the system. They are just attacking us indirectly. Either way if they bring the country down far enough, we run the risk of chaos which will ultimately lead to the death of countless people on both sides.

So we need to eliminate the threat. Since social programs have proven a failure, and no one will offer up any realistic and affordable solution, I present one which appalls you, but would indeed solve the problem. I am sure other solutions exist. Mine, however quick and dirty would work.

[bdubs767]

I would not say emotion drives my vote, or my stance on guns and wealth.

Less taxes means more money in my pocket, and I have never heard anyone in my life who would prefer to have less money (not to say no one like this exists though). If more money makes me happy, then yes happy is an emotion, but I am not after the money for the happiness, I am after it to lower my debt. And, lowering my debt does not bring happiness, only eliminating debt brings me happiness.

As for guns, and it pretty obvious to even the most irrational thinkers, my odds of survival will be higher if I have a gun of my own when attacked by someone with a gun, vs not having one. I cannot deflect bullets with my teeth or something like you would see in the movies. A gun is just as much a deterrent as it is a weapon.

Neither of my positions here are emotional, nor do they have any moral ramifications what-so-ever.

Im not going to argue emotion but everything has moral ramifications....

For wealth if you don't spread it out the economy of scales will increase and "poor" people will die.

For guns, I hope you know the topic well enough to know moraly why and why not you should be for guns.

Everything comes down to everyones personal cost and benefit analyzes, it's as simple as that, and everyone has the chance to voice their conclusion from that equation (well not always but we try our best to allow this). Then allowed to vote on it, and the people who agree the most win. Those two things is what makes this such a great nation.

[Eric D]

For wealth if you don't spread it out the economy of scales will increase and "poor" people will die.

Yes, now this statement has moral ramifications. It is called stealing, and to some people stealing is morally wrong. Spreading the wealth is stealing from one person to give to another.

For guns, I hope you know the topic well enough to know moraly why and why not you should be for guns.

If someone comes at me with a gun in an attempt to take my life, and I present a gun of my own which causes the attacker to think twice and back off, neither of us fire, and neither of us are hurt. I see no moral problem with causing an attacker to not attack you, and not even having to use force.

If I break into a home with a gun and kill the occupants then take their belongings, clearly there are moral issues. However, the moral issues are with me, and have nothing to do with the gun itself. You have to get away from the mindset that guns kill and realize people are the ones who pull the trigger. A gun is just a piece of metal and wood until a human uses it for the wrong reasons.

[Mastiff]

[bdubs767]

For wealth if you don't spread it out the economy of scales will increase and "poor" people will die.

Yes, now this statement has moral ramifications. It is called stealing, and to some people stealing is morally wrong. Spreading the wealth is stealing from one person to give to another.

For guns, I hope you know the topic well enough to know moraly why and why not you should be for guns.

If someone comes at me with a gun in an attempt to take my life, and I present a gun of my own which causes the attacker to think twice and back off, neither of us fire, and neither of us are hurt. I see no moral problem with causing an attacker to not attack you, and not even having to use force.

If I break into a home with a gun and kill the occupants then take their belongings, clearly there are moral issues. However, the moral issues are with me, and have nothing to do with the gun itself. You have to get away from the mindset that guns kill and realize people are the ones who pull the trigger. A gun is just a piece of metal and wood until a human uses it for the wrong reasons.

Also letting people die because they do not have the means to get the basic nessasities is a moral problem. So theres two surface moral problems we have found.

For guns, come on moraly you know theres more issues then that. Yes people kill not guns, but guns make it easier. For instance VT, which I was there last weekend and the students there are still jittery abotu that situation. If that kid wasn't able to get guns all were bought legally, no way 30 plus people would have died.