At 1/15/13 04:13 AM, aviewaskewed 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...
The Bill of Rights? That doesn't mean shit to the government anymore, clearly, as many amendments are frequently overridden.
This governments powers are still limited, though they have been scarily broadened over the last few decades
There is hardly any limit. In case you haven't noticed, the government currently dictated what we eat, who we can marry, what we can own, dictates what we must buy, and dictates what consenting adults can consume. Fuck that shit. Not to mention the fucking Gestapo you have to deal with everytime you wanna fly somewhere...and thier insane amount of machine guns.
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.
Do you really need examples? There's an entire prison only a few miles away from florida, housing 100's of prisoners with no trial or due process.
The Patriot Act, wiretaps, etc
It's now a legal requirement to give money to large corporations/conglomerates.
We;re bombing every country that looks at us wrong.
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.
It has gotten exponentially worse since the Bush adminstration, and will continue to do so.
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.
OK, what makes him different? What exactly prevents him from becoming a dictator?
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.
It could happen. They have the power.
Eh, the industry was expected to pay the government back and they did. So those were LOANS which were REPAYED.
A) The loans weren't actually repaid (look back to your "actual events vs. media" argument)
B) There should be ZERO link between industry and the government
They had drones in the 30's? Shit, how the fuck did we beat those guys then?
Oh ok. Murdering people is okay, as long as the technology is different. Got it.
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.
Name a time when the government was given an inch, but didn't take a mile
How can you say "no" and then basically agree with EXACTLY what I said? Stop being contrarian just to be contrarian.
We don't agree here, what are you taling about?
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.
It is EXACTLY the same. You're missing the bigger picture here, and that's the problem. You don't see the potential danger. When the government is given power like that, they always abuse it.
The assault weapons one?
It was called that, yes. But the ban was actually based on cosmetic features of guns, much like this proposed one is.
Good thing that's not what's happening in America now. Now what's happening is basically laziness.
Huh? When did that happen?
The quote I posted a little while ago...paraphrase to the point of "It's the worst tragedy in our memories, so we owe it to the country to have some people give a little more..."
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.
I don't know if you noticed, but criminals do not give a flying fuck about what is illegal or not.
We're not those countries, slippery slope again. Logical fallacies are fail.
And what separates us, exactly? We are human, are we not? There is nothing that makes America a special case. We're a human society, with a representative style government, with a select few in the government, going for huge power grabs and changes to the nations way of life. Just like Germany, China, and Russia.
FWIW, you know, the Europeans who said "It could never happen here" were fucking turned into ashes.
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.
Then you're an ignorant fool.
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).
Obama pays GE. GE owns NBC.
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.
I agree. However, the government does not think see it this way. Hence why their trying to force a ban on guns based on cosmetics, instead of focusing on laws that keep guns out of unsafe hands.
You can't just deny facts dude. Even if they disagree with you.
You didn't post any.
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.
There are regulations and rules already. Obviously, as we can see, it doesn't solve the problem. In fact, you could even say regulations like "gun free zones" contribute to the problem.
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.
1) I don't support the NRA
2) The president does not need to listen to Congress, and has already stated he will go around them if he needs too
3) He hasn't done shit about guns one way or another...just like every other issue...until it's politically convenient for him
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.
Joe Biden has said it on camera.
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.
Exactly. And she should not have been allowed to own them.
This is a moot point because the government is talking about restricting guns based on LOOKS, instead of who can get ahold of them
Oh? Do you know how and WHY guns were invented? I do. Hint: Intended to be a better way to kill.
And yet, here we are, in 2013, with millions of guns that have never even been aimed at a human. Isn't that odd. YOu saying they're made to kill. And yet so many of them not being used to kill. Weird.
How then can it be stupid to be suspicious of someone with a bunch of guns?
If I have my own guns, I wouldn't care about the "other guy" with guns. Because I can defend myself