Guns, Guns Guns

smr wrote:Has not Germany quit taking in Muslim refugees. I know they like their women getting raped or felt up in Cologne. They just put out a brochure that's wrong to touch a woman.

For fuck's sake, smr, you american conservatives are currently forced to deal with a presidential candidate who has stated that it is his intention to outlaw Islam in your country, despite the overwhelming majority of muslims not being any more dangerous to you or your country than the average christian.

As for Germany: We have more problems with violence against refugees than we do with violence by refugees.

Newsflash: they want the benefits of your country but the majority of the Muslims do not want to assimilate within the German culture. Have fun dealing with that issue.

What benefits are those, exactly? The 200-something Euros they get per month? The right to live in overcrowded refugee centers? The right to get screamed at by idiots who believe that muslims are only here to mooch off our country? The right to not get shot because you're not extremist enough?

And as for them not wanting to assimilate: Well, yeah. Most of them, according to surveys, want to return to their home country once they can be reasonably sure they won't be murdered there.

What happens when they start demanding Sharia laws and Muslim courts or when they start their bombings of public places?

They have a right to demand such things, given that freedom of speech is a thing we have (However, they do not have a right to get these things, unless they follow procedure and manage to win the necessary elections). If they commit crimes, they will be persecuted by the Police, convicted in a court of law, and if necessary, deported. That's what happens in a normal state.

I know you will defend the nation with your hands because you have banned firearms. The new Muslim freedom fighters of Germany will just kill you with their firearms because they choose to ignore the laws of Germany.

Oh no, what ever will I do!

Oh, I know. Call the police. Because they have firearms and the training to use them.
Or, if I really want to, I can apply for a firearms license, submit to the background checks and training required, buy a gun, and proceed to call the police because I am not an idiot who thinks he needs to take the law into his own hands.

You seem to think that it is easy to acquire illegal firearms around here. It really isn't. In 2014, we had just about 6 million total crimes (with a population of about 80.6 million). Of these 6 million crimes, how many crimes do you think involved crimes against the weapon laws? That's right. 30785. Half of a percent.

In other words, based on all the data available, I have to conclude that our system works. While it is not hard for criminals to do crime, the chance of them having firearms with which to do crime is very low.

And I can only repeat this: We have way more problems with Neonazis than we do with immigrants.

Just look at France...that's you in a few years! I know I am just showing my religious bigotry and intolerance. but just look at where France is headed, Germany is headed down the same road and path.

Wait. So the past 60 years of more or less successful (but definitely peaceful) integration of immigrants into Germany haven't happened? They were all just an illusion?

You're engaging in typical alarmism here. A couple of idiots engaging in terrorism is no reason to perform racial or social profiling against everyone sharing superficial traits with those idiots.


I also note that you haven't commented on the religious right's penchant for inserting religion into areas where religion does not belong. Why is that, I wonder?

Where are these laws enforced and when were they written?

alright, I had a chance to look at this. All these states still have sodomy laws. Let's consider who controlled them since 1990.

Alabama (Alab. Code 13A-6-65.) Recently controlled by repoblicans
Florida (Fld. Stat. 798.02.) (Fld. Stat. 800.02.) republican
Georgia (Ga. Stat. 16-6-18.) (Ga. Stat. 16-6-18.) Only turned republican in the last 10 years
Idaho (I.C. § 18-6605.) (I.C. § 18-6605.)republican
Kansas (Kan. Stat. 21-3505.)republican
Kentucky (KY Rev Stat § 510.100.)split control in 2000 but dem control prior
Louisiana (R.S. 14:89.) republican in 2012 but prior was split or dem controlled
Maryland (Md. Code Ann. § 3-321.) (Md. Code Ann. § 3-322.)Democrat controlled
Massachusetts (MGL Ch. 272, § 34.) (MGL Ch. 272, § 35.)Democrat controlled
Michigan (MCL § 750.158.) (MCL § 750.338.) (MCL § 750.338a.) (MCL § 750.338b.) republican or split
Minnesota (Minn. Stat. 609.293.) (Minn. Stat. 609.34.)Democrat or split
Mississippi (Miss. Code § 97-29-59.)republican in 2012 democrat or split prior to that
North Carolina (G.S. § 14-177.) (G.S. § 14-184.) (G.S. § 14-186.) Republican in 2012 but democrat or split prior to that
Oklahoma (Okla. Stat. § 21-886.) republican from 2010 but democrat or split prior to that
South Carolina (S.C. Code § 16-15-60.) (S.C. Code § 16-15-120.)Republican
Texas (Tx. Code § 21.06.)republican or split since 1992
Utah (Ut. Code 76-5-403.)Republican


Only 7 of these 17 were solidly controlled by conservative republicans since 1990. Most were either split control or democrat controlled. That's hardly proof that its conservatives that are responsible for these laws. Most of which were implemented very early in the nation's history.

Please try again.

Donnachaidh wrote:Which thing would be funny; the laws dictating which sex acts between consenting adults are legal or the ones banning sex toys or the ones banning any same sex relationship? The justification used for almost all of those laws was the Bible.

PeterZ wrote:Sure would be funny if it wasn't mostly progressive wishful thinking.

I do not recall a massive amount of praise either on this board or elsewhere regarding the Bunch takeover. That protest was as justified as other protests carried out by lefties. The Occupy movement is a case in point. Whether they were armed or not is irrelevant. The idiot who got shot was stupidly antagonizing the police in a potentially deadly situation. This situation involved protest away from the public even they were armed with guns.

Compare that to the black lives matter marches in NY explicitly calling for the death of police officers. No guns but marching in force vociferously demanding policemen's deaths. This protest was in public inciting violence but unarmed.

I suggest that armed or not the Bundy protest did less to intimidate or threaten the public. No theoretical protest these, but actual ones that show conservative protesters are more considerate that progressive ones. Considerate and less interested in inciting violence to innocent by standers. Where a death occurred the idiot brought it on himself rather than to innocents around him.

Daryl wrote:PeterZ this Aussie apologises for the words you considered to be insulting, not my intention.

My intention wasn't to insult or to change you, but to inform you and others about how others in the developed world regard the creed of how having guns to change government policy is seen to be patriotic.

I still can't get it though. Not in any way trying to be insulting but I'd like to put up two scenarios for consideration.

If a current militia was to (do a Bundy) go armed in public to forcibly influence government policy in regard to health care/creationism/gun laws; then they would be considerred to be patriotic?
Then for a comparison, if a muslim group decided to call themselves a militia, armed themselves and went armed in public to forcibly influence government policy in regard to religious tolerance/equal time in schools to christians/whastever; then would they be considered to be patriotic?

I would suggest that if a group of muslim Americans turned up armed and took over government buildings there would be an instant antiterrorism response and bloodshed.

Let's review this. The right to bear arms is an individual right granted by the Constitution as affirmed by the District of Columbia v Heller decision. That means whether citizens act as a militia or not has no bearing on their right to be armed.

Any group that uses armed force to influence the public is effectively threatening harm. That is illegal in just about any jurisdiction. If they actually use force that becomes attempted murder since they planned to bring weapons to a public area and planned to use those weapons against people. If any one dies as a result that is first degree murder plain and simple because the individual planned to use deadly force even if the intent was not to kill.

Using weapons to protect one's life, property and sovereignty is allowed by the Constitution. Using weapons to break the laws and deny the Constitutional rights of others is now allowed.

Does that clarify things a bit?

Daryl wrote:PeterZ this Aussie apologises for the words you considered to be insulting, not my intention.

My intention wasn't to insult or to change you, but to inform you and others about how others in the developed world regard the creed of how having guns to change government policy is seen to be patriotic.

I still can't get it though. Not in any way trying to be insulting but I'd like to put up two scenarios for consideration.

If a current militia was to (do a Bundy) go armed in public to forcibly influence government policy in regard to health care/creationism/gun laws; then they would be considerred to be patriotic?
Then for a comparison, if a muslim group decided to call themselves a militia, armed themselves and went armed in public to forcibly influence government policy in regard to religious tolerance/equal time in schools to christians/whastever; then would they be considered to be patriotic?

I would suggest that if a group of muslim Americans turned up armed and took over government buildings there would be an instant antiterrorism response and bloodshed.

You're correct that most of those laws were implemented early in the nation's history but who tried to defended them (here's a hint, look up Lawrence v. Texas)? As I recall it wasn't Liberals.

If you want to ignore those laws then let's talk same-sex marriage. Almost all of the people trying to prevent same-sex marriage were Conservatives. Actually that's not fair, it was old Conservative; the younger ones were and are in favor of it. It's also Conservatives that are refusing to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples despite what the law says and those Conservatives are defended by many other Conservatives despite the fact that those same Conservatives were furious when Liberals were signing marriage licenses when it wasn't explicitly legal. The fact that you don't seem to want to admit is that in the modern day it is Conservatives trying to legislate their religious beliefs.

PeterZ wrote:Where are these laws enforced and when were they written?

alright, I had a chance to look at this. All these states still have sodomy laws. Let's consider who controlled them since 1990.

Alabama (Alab. Code 13A-6-65.) Recently controlled by repoblicans
Florida (Fld. Stat. 798.02.) (Fld. Stat. 800.02.) republican
Georgia (Ga. Stat. 16-6-18.) (Ga. Stat. 16-6-18.) Only turned republican in the last 10 years
Idaho (I.C. § 18-6605.) (I.C. § 18-6605.)republican
Kansas (Kan. Stat. 21-3505.)republican
Kentucky (KY Rev Stat § 510.100.)split control in 2000 but dem control prior
Louisiana (R.S. 14:89.) republican in 2012 but prior was split or dem controlled
Maryland (Md. Code Ann. § 3-321.) (Md. Code Ann. § 3-322.)Democrat controlled
Massachusetts (MGL Ch. 272, § 34.) (MGL Ch. 272, § 35.)Democrat controlled
Michigan (MCL § 750.158.) (MCL § 750.338.) (MCL § 750.338a.) (MCL § 750.338b.) republican or split
Minnesota (Minn. Stat. 609.293.) (Minn. Stat. 609.34.)Democrat or split
Mississippi (Miss. Code § 97-29-59.)republican in 2012 democrat or split prior to that
North Carolina (G.S. § 14-177.) (G.S. § 14-184.) (G.S. § 14-186.) Republican in 2012 but democrat or split prior to that
Oklahoma (Okla. Stat. § 21-886.) republican from 2010 but democrat or split prior to that
South Carolina (S.C. Code § 16-15-60.) (S.C. Code § 16-15-120.)Republican
Texas (Tx. Code § 21.06.)republican or split since 1992
Utah (Ut. Code 76-5-403.)Republican


Only 7 of these 17 were solidly controlled by conservative republicans since 1990. Most were either split control or democrat controlled. That's hardly proof that its conservatives that are responsible for these laws. Most of which were implemented very early in the nation's history.

Please try again.

Donnachaidh wrote:Which thing would be funny; the laws dictating which sex acts between consenting adults are legal or the ones banning sex toys or the ones banning any same sex relationship? The justification used for almost all of those laws was the Bible.

It was a democrat magistrate that refused to sign the North Carolina marriage license, not a Conservative. As for Lawrence, obviously some conservatives are as guilty as that NC democrat magistrate. Describing those most responsible for resisting the removal of sodomy laws as principally conservative is simply false.

I have no issues with same sex unions and view marriage as a contract. I believe that same sex unions would require a different contract than a heterosexual marriage. We can disagree with my position, but asserting that my position and those that hold it have anything against gays is incorrect. This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. It has everything to do with my understanding of what marriages are and the appropriate methods to address issues relating to marriage.

That is true for many conservatives both young and old. Your blanket statements are simply false. Yes, there are bigots who happen to have conservative views. There are bigots that happen to be Democrats and hold progressive views. Asserting that conservatives are predominantly bigoted against gays is simply false. It is if anything indicative of bigotry against conservatives.

Donnachaidh wrote:You're correct that most of those laws were implemented early in the nation's history but who tried to defended them (here's a hint, look up Lawrence v. Texas)? As I recall it wasn't Liberals.

If you want to ignore those laws then let's talk same-sex marriage. Almost all of the people trying to prevent same-sex marriage were Conservatives. Actually that's not fair, it was old Conservative; the younger ones were and are in favor of it. It's also Conservatives that are refusing to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples despite what the law says and those Conservatives are defended by many other Conservatives despite the fact that those same Conservatives were furious when Liberals were signing marriage licenses when it wasn't explicitly legal. The fact that you don't seem to want to admit is that in the modern day it is Conservatives trying to legislate their religious beliefs.

Donnachaidh wrote:Stop stating lies as facts. This has been disproven by numerous studies and no study has ever found a link.

pokermind wrote:Part of the problem is the desensitizing games where players murder people,

you quite conveniently cut off behind the comma, No one thing causes people to break society's alienation.

The fact that kids today are diffrent than those in the past self centered, entitled, with no respect for the rules of society IMHO. Ofcourse many old fogies feel this way and have since the begining of time

Poker

My frustration is not with Conservatives, my frustration is with the hypocrisy of claiming the government is too intrusive then making laws that are more intrusive. The Liberals don't hide that they're going to make laws and spend money, the Conservatives claim they want fewer laws and will spend less money yet they do the same as the Liberals.

When I spoke of refusing to sign marriage licenses I was speaking of Kim Davis, the most well known example.

A minor point, I have consistently spoken of Conservatives vs Liberals, not Democrats vs Republicans. That is because, especially the farther back you go, Democrat does not necessarily mean Liberal nor does Republican necessarily mean Conservative.

PeterZ wrote:It was a democrat magistrate that refused to sign the North Carolina marriage license, not a Conservative. As for Lawrence, obviously some conservatives are as guilty as that NC democrat magistrate. Describing those most responsible for resisting the removal of sodomy laws as principally conservative is simply false.

I have no issues with same sex unions and view marriage as a contract. I believe that same sex unions would require a different contract than a heterosexual marriage. We can disagree with my position, but asserting that my position and those that hold it have anything against gays is incorrect. This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. It has everything to do with my understanding of what marriages are and the appropriate methods to address issues relating to marriage.

That is true for many conservatives both young and old. Your blanket statements are simply false. Yes, there are bigots who happen to have conservative views. There are bigots that happen to be Democrats and hold progressive views. Asserting that conservatives are predominantly bigoted against gays is simply false. It is if anything indicative of bigotry against conservatives.

Donnachaidh wrote:You're correct that most of those laws were implemented early in the nation's history but who tried to defended them (here's a hint, look up Lawrence v. Texas)? As I recall it wasn't Liberals.

If you want to ignore those laws then let's talk same-sex marriage. Almost all of the people trying to prevent same-sex marriage were Conservatives. Actually that's not fair, it was old Conservative; the younger ones were and are in favor of it. It's also Conservatives that are refusing to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples despite what the law says and those Conservatives are defended by many other Conservatives despite the fact that those same Conservatives were furious when Liberals were signing marriage licenses when it wasn't explicitly legal. The fact that you don't seem to want to admit is that in the modern day it is Conservatives trying to legislate their religious beliefs.

Kim Davis is a Democrat. I doubt there are many conservative democrats and so I referred to her by her affiliation and used that to ascribe a belief system as it relates to the matter. Assuming that because she opposed gay marriage that she must be conservative is just wrong.

I agree with you that those that want small government shouldn't seek to use government to address issues. For the most part this is true. There are however, social conservatives that for all practical purposes believe in big government. Santorum and Kasich are cases in point. When these people try to use government to move their goals, they are not small government conservatives. Ascribing the their big government goals to ALL conservatives, even those that do not hold their big government beliefs is conflating issues.

In short you are citing contradictions that do not exist. Conflating different elements of conservatives is as helpful as conflating the motives of the disparate elements of liberals and progressives. Greens do have the same priorities as the Black lives Matter folks and vice versa.

Donnachaidh wrote:My frustration is not with Conservatives, my frustration is with the hypocrisy of claiming the government is too intrusive then making laws that are more intrusive. The Liberals don't hide that they're going to make laws and spend money, the Conservatives claim they want fewer laws and will spend less money yet they do the same as the Liberals.

When I spoke of refusing to sign marriage licenses I was speaking of Kim Davis, the most well known example.

A minor point, I have consistently spoken of Conservatives vs Liberals, not Democrats vs Republicans. That is because, especially the farther back you go, Democrat does not necessarily mean Liberal nor does Republican necessarily mean Conservative.

I didn't conveniently cut off after the comma, I only included the part of your statement that I wanted to object to.


Society and cultures take time to adopt to new technology, the fact is no culture has had much time to adopt to the internet. The thing that's easy to forget is that 20 years ago only about 10% of the US population used the internet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet#Use_and_culture) and that was almost entirely dial-up. Now 87.4% of the US population uses the internet and the vast majority of those users have high speed access (DSL, cable, fiber, etc...).


As far as your statements after the comma go:

Your comments remind me of things I've heard many members of the baby boomer generation say. What did their parents' generation say of them? How did their parents' generation speak of the hippies? How did they speak of the anti-war protesters?

Kids of every generation are different than those of the past. People in every generation have complained that the (contemporary) kids today are self centered, entitle, with no respect for the rules of society, etc... yet societies continue to exist and the younger generation becomes the older generation to say the same things basic things all over again.

The fact is I'm tired of older generations insulting and dismissing younger generations with broad statements that are basically just repeats of what the generation before them said about them without even the most basic attempt to see the world from the younger generation's perspective.

pokermind wrote:

Donnachaidh wrote:Stop stating lies as facts. This has been disproven by numerous studies and no study has ever found a link.

you quite conveniently cut off behind the comma, No one thing causes people to break society's alienation.

The fact that kids today are diffrent than those in the past self centered, entitled, with no respect for the rules of society IMHO. Ofcourse many old fogies feel this way and have since the begining of time

Poker