At 1/12/13 10:51 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
It REALLY needs to be fucking explained? How about the Bill of Rights? The fact that they aren't breaking into your house and arresting you over the anti-government things you're saying on this site for instance? Geez...
History has proven multiple times, that a government with too much power, ends in very bad situations for it's citizens. Always.
This governments powers are still limited, though they have been scarily broadened over the last few decades. However this PARTICULAR issue has been completed radicalized and caused over reactions like few things I've ever seen. The government considers re-instating a law it already had to limit, or eliminate the sale of assault weapons, and all of a sudden everybody is screaming that they're coming for ALL guns. It's ridiculous and completely not the same thing.
Again, our government is heading down that road as is. And I guess if the mass public doesn't see it (even though it's blatantly obvious), than they're going about it the right way.
If it's so obvious, please provide concrete, irrefutable examples. Something tells me I'll be able to either shoot down every one, or it will be somewhat mullified when looked at for what it is vs. what the partisan media says it is.
Bullshit. Our last president, and the current one, are kidnapping people from their homes and throwing them in prisons without trial.
You know history is more then just two presidencies right? Also, since this was a DOMESTIC issue, I thought we were focusing on such policy really.
To pretend Barack Obama is somehow different than a Hitler or Stalin just because he's an American leader, is ridiculous.
No, what's ridiculous is pretending he is. Reduction to Hitler is one of the most disgusting fallacies there is. If you don't see that, you really should just leave this board because your IQ isn't high enough to play here. My God that kind of ignorance pisses me off.
Imprisoning people without a trial sounds pretty fucking Nazi to me.
Bad deal sure, but remember that death camp thing? We're not doing that. Nor is it government policy to do this to a group simply because they're a member of that group.
Propping up industry with government money is very Mussolini.
Eh, the industry was expected to pay the government back and they did. So those were LOANS which were REPAYED.
And drone striking civilians without a declaration of war seems pretty damn 1930s Japanese.
They had drones in the 30's? Shit, how the fuck did we beat those guys then?
You aren't familiar with the whole "slippery slope" and potential for abuse, are you?
I am familiar with the "slippery slope"! It's a logical fallacy that should be avoided in actual debate and intelligent argumentation. Fallacy is fail.
No it just made the people think it was okay.
How can you say "no" and then basically agree with EXACTLY what I said? Stop being contrarian just to be contrarian.
Much like when Hitler talked about disarming the public would make for a safer Germany, or putting Jews in Ghettos would make Germany prosperous. You can make people swallow anytihng when they're afraid, poor or hungry
This is not the same thing at all. Because the public isn't being disarmed, nor are citizens being put in ghettos. The terrorism issue is an issue of whether are not all criminals should be equal under the law (especially non-citizen criminals). It's apples to oranges again with you.
The assault weapons one?
Exactly, and the reason he got away with what he got away with, is because the German people were broken, and placed their trust in government and Hitler himself. Which as we can see here, and in other points in history, is a bad idea.
Good thing that's not what's happening in America now. Now what's happening is basically laziness.
No, I think it is, which is why I'm disgusted at our President using it as an excuse for raising taxes.
Huh? When did that happen?
Just as I think it's disgusting for the left to use it as a soapbox to get their agenda passed.
That's politics. But in this particular case, there is some merit to the idea of responding to a gun crime by saying "hey, maybe it should be that much harder to get a crime. Might maybe help some". There IS some logic here.
Well, all I know is, when the Germans and Russians and Chinese started requiring registration and tracking of gun owners (under the pretense of national safety), it lead to confiscation, and we all know how that turned out.
We're not those countries, slippery slope again. Logical fallacies are fail.
Yes it does.
No, it doesn't. Insisting it does doesn't change facts. I increasingly think there's no merit to anything you've said, it's just logical fallacies and paranoia.
Good. Then you're one of the few who are focusing on the actual problem. Unfortunately, the government, and their media arm, seem to be overlooking it.
You realize the media is actually owned by corporations with an agenda right? Not really the government? Let's keep the blame where it belongs. But the reason they won't focus on it is it's not an easy band-aid issue that would drive more money into their coffers as a side effect (like tougher gun regulation could).
There is no downside to a responsible, safe gun owner.
But there is downside to the ones who can legally get guns (the mother in Newtown) who allows access to the weapons (shooter son). The unsafe can get guns as well as the safe, and I think it's at least worth looking into trying to keep the weapons out of the wrong hands, even though the better and bigger fix here is to focus on the mental health aspect.
No and no.
You can't just deny facts dude. Even if they disagree with you.
What we should do, is allow people to defend themselves if they choose to.
If they choose to? That's it? No rules? No regulations? Again, you didn't address my point, and then stepped into another tricky cow flop of a sentence. Also, more armed people doesn't always lead to better outcomes.
Except the President. Don't know if you know this, but his opinion and ideas are kind of a big deal.
Only if Congress listens. Actually, up to now this President has been EXTREMELY gun friendly. Look at his record. You're friends at the NRA have been lying to you.
Oh, common ground. Look at that.
Except the President
I believe the last I heard was he was only considering trying a ban through executive order, not that he was going to. But considering most of the sources are the same that have blatantly LIED about his stance on guns to drive sales, I'm not sure I can even trust that.
Adam Lanza wasn't licensed or trained. Didn't stop him. Licensing and training are irrelevant points, as those laws are already in effect.
They ARE relevant. A licensed and legal owner HAD the guns, and then Lanza being her son was able to OBTAIN them to a bad end. Same thing happened at Columbine and just about any school shooting. Legal owners who aren't responsible IS a problem.
Good. Please go away. Your baseless arguments are irritating me.
Did you just read my mind? I think you did...
Oh? Do you know how and WHY guns were invented? I do. Hint: Intended to be a better way to kill.
Then those people are stupid.
Not really no. Isn't your whole assertion that we need people with guns to defend against people with guns? How then can it be stupid to be suspicious of someone with a bunch of guns?
As I've stated before...
Ah, ah. You're going anecdotal again, that is not real evidence.
That sure is shit has been the road you've gone down with me.