Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Guns, Guns Guns

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by pokermind   » Tue Dec 25, 2012 11:11 am

pokermind
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4002
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:58 am
Location: Jerome, Idaho, USA

In the Mel Gibson Movie Patriot was a line from one of the Founding Fathers, "Why should I trade one Tyrant 2,000 miles away for 2,000 tyrants living one mile away? A representative body can take liberty away as well as a king." A mindset shared by both the left and the right even today, and why we have a Supreme Court to ride herd on both the Legislative and Executive parts of government in the United States. Generally the Majority can take care of itself, it is our various minorities that need the protection of our liberties. The ultimate protection is of course armed rebellion, that's at two wins and one loss in US history, our revolution, and Texas' revolution were wins, the Confederate States of America was a loss, y'all. :ugeek:

Oh I know there were other minor rebellions soon crushed, Shay's rebellion, and the Mormon rebellion spring to mind.

Image

Poker
CPO Poker Mind Image and, Mangy Fur the Smart Alick Spacecat.

"Better to be hung for a hexapuma than a housecat," Com. Pang Yau-pau, ART.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Daryl   » Tue Dec 25, 2012 9:30 pm

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3225
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

Many thanks to thinkstoomuch and pokermind, two of the more astute commenters here. You did illustrate my point well; you say tyrrany of the majority, we say legitimate majority rule. In most long established democracies if we don't like the current government's policies then we complain loudly and wait until the next election. I agree that the situation of having a government suddenly change the rules & become a dictatorship (as in Egypt recently) would suck, but then when you lose the ballot box you commence action. Before that to arm yourself would be seen to be treason. As too why I said radical right wing groups there are two reasons for that: most left wing radicals would be too inept and unworldly to leave their coffee houses and get violent, and secondly I've noticed that the far right is more vehement about matters. We are having a debate about gay marriage here, and I have no problem with it as long as it's not compulsory, but the hard right is livid even though it can have no negative effect on them.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by thinkstoomuch   » Tue Dec 25, 2012 11:13 pm

thinkstoomuch
Admiral

Posts: 2727
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:05 pm
Location: United States of America

Once again demonstrating that you function only by buzz word not actually looking up references.

T2M

PS I Have a LOT more faith in the US left than most. If the right got the upper hand they would, again demonstrate that the legacy has not been lost. Funny thing is I would support them.

Edit: Which is strongly supported by the fact that only 43% of Americans support an assault gun ban. Read that in a BBC story by Mardell. Think all of them are religious, gay bashing gun wingnuts. Hmmm.

Daryl wrote:Many thanks to thinkstoomuch and pokermind, two of the more astute commenters here. You did illustrate my point well; you say tyrrany of the majority, we say legitimate majority rule. In most long established democracies if we don't like the current government's policies then we complain loudly and wait until the next election. I agree that the situation of having a government suddenly change the rules & become a dictatorship (as in Egypt recently) would suck, but then when you lose the ballot box you commence action. Before that to arm yourself would be seen to be treason. As too why I said radical right wing groups there are two reasons for that: most left wing radicals would be too inept and unworldly to leave their coffee houses and get violent, and secondly I've noticed that the far right is more vehement about matters. We are having a debate about gay marriage here, and I have no problem with it as long as it's not compulsory, but the hard right is livid even though it can have no negative effect on them.
-----------------------
Q: “How can something be worth more than it costs? Isn’t everything ‘worth’ what it costs?”
A: “No. That’s just the price. ...
Christopher Anvil from Top Line in "War Games"
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by pokermind   » Tue Dec 25, 2012 11:27 pm

pokermind
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4002
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:58 am
Location: Jerome, Idaho, USA

Daryl,

The bill of rights in the Constitution of the United states is to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. The majority can vote as they see fit, but when laws infringe on our guaranteed rights the courts step in, not always successfully, ask the Cherokee who won an injunction against the Indian Removal Act, but had President Andrew Jackson order the trail of tears anyway. Some Cherokee even nearly 200 years later sill refuse a $20.00 bill as change or payment due to continued loathing Andrew Jackson who's image is on it.

The thing with Gay Marriage is the term is both religious and Secular. I would replace it with civil unions in the language of the law, and all consenting Adult unions would be legal. Reserve the old term Mariage for the various religions to determine, if your religion allows gay marriage OK, if not OK. But you have the right to form a family group under civil law, but no right to force a religious group to preform the ceremony, or condone such unions.

Now that that camel's nose is under the tent what about polygamous (one husband many wives fairly common) and polyandrous (one wife several husbands rare but existing) marriage, and civil unions, both currently illegal, but condoned by some religions? Note that the consenting adult precludes child marriage, or civil unions, hum, is this fair? God! I'm glad I'm not dictator to make such decisions.

Mange, <I'm glad you're not dictator too, you fat blowhard!> :D

Poker & Mange

PS Just saw T2M's post that both left and right here agree on supporting the Constitution's bill of rights, both are in the minority from time to time ;)

Daryl wrote:Many thanks to thinkstoomuch and pokermind, two of the more astute commenters here. You did illustrate my point well; you say tyrrany of the majority, we say legitimate majority rule. In most long established democracies if we don't like the current government's policies then we complain loudly and wait until the next election. I agree that the situation of having a government suddenly change the rules & become a dictatorship (as in Egypt recently) would suck, but then when you lose the ballot box you commence action. Before that to arm yourself would be seen to be treason. As too why I said radical right wing groups there are two reasons for that: most left wing radicals would be too inept and unworldly to leave their coffee houses and get violent, and secondly I've noticed that the far right is more vehement about matters. We are having a debate about gay marriage here, and I have no problem with it as long as it's not compulsory, but the hard right is livid even though it can have no negative effect on them.
CPO Poker Mind Image and, Mangy Fur the Smart Alick Spacecat.

"Better to be hung for a hexapuma than a housecat," Com. Pang Yau-pau, ART.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Daryl   » Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:24 am

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3225
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

I love a grown up discussion. Good point about buzzwords in that politically I'm generally left (support gay marriage, many socialist welfare programs, income redistribution to a point, etc) but am right wing when it comes to personal and family security.
I don't think that the 57% of Americans that don't want an assault weapon ban are all right wing religious people, but I do think that statistic supports my contention that citizens of the USA on average think differently to the rest of the developed world. Certainly the US has a higher percentage of openly religious people, and what you call a leftish president would be quite right politically elsewhere. I have associated with Americans both socially and professionally for many years and seen their embarrassment when they express a religious sentiment or want to say grace at mixed gatherings and others look askance.
Regarding marriage I (and many others) believe that the term consenting adults is the only limiter. I don't agree that any religious group has sole custody of the term and should be offended by others using it. Neither should any religious group be forced to perform it if they don't want to. Most of our marriages are civil anyway, and many of the religious ones are only due to brides wanting the stone church trappings (first and last visit ever). Our tax and welfare authorities automatically assume that two adults living together are a partnership, until you tell them elsewise.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by JimHacker   » Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:36 am

JimHacker
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 298
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:12 pm
Location: UK

Daryl wrote:I love a grown up discussion. Good point about buzzwords in that politically I'm generally left (support gay marriage, many socialist welfare programs, income redistribution to a point, etc) but am right wing when it comes to personal and family security.
I don't think that the 57% of Americans that don't want an assault weapon ban are all right wing religious people, but I do think that statistic supports my contention that citizens of the USA on average think differently to the rest of the developed world. Certainly the US has a higher percentage of openly religious people, and what you call a leftish president would be quite right politically elsewhere. I have associated with Americans both socially and professionally for many years and seen their embarrassment when they express a religious sentiment or want to say grace at mixed gatherings and others look askance.
Regarding marriage I (and many others) believe that the term consenting adults is the only limiter. I don't agree that any religious group has sole custody of the term and should be offended by others using it. Neither should any religious group be forced to perform it if they don't want to. Most of our marriages are civil anyway, and many of the religious ones are only due to brides wanting the stone church trappings (first and last visit ever). Our tax and welfare authorities automatically assume that two adults living together are a partnership, until you tell them elsewise.


Having derailed a thread about politics into a conversation exclusively about guns it looks like the guns thread is being derailed into a discussion about politics (and not merely the politics of guns). Given this politics forum is moderator-lite I guess we should attempt to moderate ourselves insofar as possible. I'm therefore reposting your post, and my response to it in the 'four more years' thread. Let's see if we can keep this thread on track.
Last edited by JimHacker on Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-------------------------------
Happiness is not having what you want
Nor is happiness wanting what you have
Happiness is believing that tomorrow you shall have
what you want today

..//^ ^\\
(/(_•_)\)
.._/''*''\_
.(,,,)^(,,,)
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Tenshinai   » Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:07 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

First of all, I don´t mind gun proliferation per se.
Reckless proliferation is however another thing.

Because, guns ARE dangerous in a way that few other things are.
For the same reason that you need a drivers license to drive a 1 ton car with up to several hundred horsepowers, there needs to be some limits on availability.

When you can buy a gun more easily than you can buy a beer, then something is VERY wrong.
If you can buy a gun without even having to prove your age or identity, it´s like asking for trouble.


For those of you shouting about how private gun ownership keeps the government honest? Rubbish. US government couldn´t care less that it´s people has a bunch of handguns.

At the same time, the nation that started the wave of overthrowing dictatures in N.Africa and Middle east, was the country with the LOWEST private gun density in the world.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

He has some serious problems in that. Automatics somehow always becomes "machineguns", which is just rubbish.

He states that "So then we’ve got England, where they reacted swiftly after a mass shooting, banned and confiscated guns, and their violent crime has since skyrocketed.".
This is complete rubbish. Violent crime has been declining slowly but steadily since 2001 according to any statistics i can find, with gun related crimes dropping faster.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... land-wales

His quip about Norway is outright offensive! He actually calls an extremeist TERRORIST ATTACK a "school shooting".
He just lost any kind of respect i had for him.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Donnachaidh   » Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:39 pm

Donnachaidh
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1007
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:11 pm

It's hard to take anything you say seriously when your facts are wrong.

I've had to prove my age (and identity and have a background check) every time I've bought a gun or even ammunition even when the person selling said gun and/or ammunition has known me for years. I have to prove my age maybe half the time when purchasing alcoholic drinks (beer, liquor, etc...) and I'm not even 30.

Tenshinai wrote:When you can buy a gun more easily than you can buy a beer, then something is VERY wrong.
If you can buy a gun without even having to prove your age or identity, it´s like asking for trouble.
_____________________________________________________
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Tenshinai   » Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:48 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

Donnachaidh wrote:It's hard to take anything you say seriously when your facts are wrong.

I've had to prove my age (and identity and have a background check) every time I've bought a gun or even ammunition even when the person selling said gun and/or ammunition has known me for years. I have to prove my age maybe half the time when purchasing alcoholic drinks (beer, liquor, etc...) and I'm not even 30.

Tenshinai wrote:When you can buy a gun more easily than you can buy a beer, then something is VERY wrong.
If you can buy a gun without even having to prove your age or identity, it´s like asking for trouble.


That example was in fact taken from a US news report noting that in state X(which i missed which one it was unfortunately), you had to be 21 to get a beer, but 18 to buy a gun. Except it was not actually required to even show an ID for such a purchase. Buyers needed to fill in a short onepage form, without any checks for validity.
And it was the gun shop owner that did the talking in the report. Somehow i doubt that he would say he was doing something he wasn´t allowed to.

A quick check says my facts turn out to be just fine and proper. Standard legal drinking age in USA is 21 with a few exceptions, and multiple states allow gun purchases from less. So the only uncertain is which state(s) are lax in exact requirements about the age restriction.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by RandomGraysuit   » Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:05 pm

RandomGraysuit
Captain of the List

Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:03 pm

Take a smoking hot jailbait-worthy 17 year old to a frat house.

See how easy it is for her to walk out with half a dozen beers on the basis of, "She's hot, sure!"

See how easy it is for her to get half a dozen guns using the same methods.

My sisters' repeated experiences say that one is much, much easier than the other.
Top

Return to Politics