The DREADED Politics Thread: (Political Opinion - Enter at your own Peril)

"If you don't like guns, fine. If you don't like assault weapons, fine. But don't force you agenda on me."


I don't think you are being rational here at all. I am concerned about lives here, so don't turn me into your whipping post either. I'm not trying to FORCE anything, I am expressing concern. Sorry you don't see that.

 

I second that sentiment. I don't own a weapon, but I would feel very uncomfortable if my ability to acquire one was taken away. Hopefully I won't ever NEED one, but I like to keep my options open.

Maybe there should be an intelligence test for getting them.

 

Since we are all throwing out our opinion I will throw out mine as well...I dont think the problem is the weapon, I think its the person who gets their hands on the weapon. However, these nasty incidents (columbine, etc.) are not done by the members of MS13...they are done by people who go off the deep end (for whatever reason). I propose standardized psychological testing for not only the purchase of a weapon but also as part of the process of something we all have to do, perhaps when renewing your drivers license, or filling out tax returns. I know this sounds facsist (and I have no doubt that it will probably never happen) but I think if we find a way to spot homicidal maniacs we could just pull them out of society. *shrug*

 

The thing is... if you get your way, and there is an assault weapons ban, you have forced your opinion on me. "You", as in those of you who voted in a man who has a track record of willfully violating the 2nd Amendment. BHO only got 53% of the vote --not an overhwleming majority of the country, and the 2nd Amendment is a large hot-button topic --to a lot of people (even some who voted Democrat). To me, it probably is the single issue I am most concerned about. And there were at least 700+ people in this state on Friday who thought the same way. Plus several hundred more yesterday. Gun & ammo sales have skyrocketed nationwide since before the election, because we are afraid of what BHO will sign into law.

William, seriously, how much gun violence do we need to keep seeing before something is done about it?

I think all you saw in my post William, was "Cory said I can't have a gun for anything but hunting."

Something should be done about root causes of violence, but taking guns away is NOT the answer. That's trying to solve a symptom, but not going after the root cause. You need to cure the heart, the mind of the killer BEFORE they decide to go postal. If someone wants to commit murder, or especially mass murder, they will do it, regardless of how many guns you take away from the law abiding citizens. And by allowing more people to defend themselves 9well trained, legal citizens), they can and do stop gun violence from geting out of hand. When seconds matter, the police are only a few minutes away. You may be willing to risk your life on the hope that the police will arrive soon, but I'd rather trust myself to solve the problem if it came down to that.

Guns are simply a tool. It's the mind behind them that makes them good or bad. Blaming the gun for killing someone is like blaming this keyboard for any spelling mistakes it makes. So let's ban keyboards and pencils because they cause spelling mistakes, and God forbid --they make people upset by the words that are written. Or they hurt people. Nope, tools are tools. They can be used for good or evil. It's not the tool's fault, it's the mind behind the tool.

You can read all those words by important people all day but how much of what we see now, happened then. Those things were said because of the times, just as I am saying what I say cuz of "Our Times."

But those words by our Founding Fathers are important because they are the ones who made this country the free nation that it is. By limiting government, they gave us freedom. Every law that is passed, every gun ban or restriction, takes away from out freedoms. And I care about those freedoms. I have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Forgive me if I get a little upset when I see people trying to destroy the Constitution and what this country was founded upon.

Cory, I might be taking a bit of a harsh tone against you, but it's not personal. I feel this way about gun rights, and will feel that way against anyone who wants to take my rights away.

I still like you as a person, and still consider you my friend. But this is one issue where I will not sit down, roll over and wet on myself. All you have to do is look at history and see waht happens to couontries that enact massive gun restrictions. It only serves to prop up dictators and tyrants. And I won't sit down and let that happen.

 

Cant believe I missed this...I agree, QHM.


Bill, anti-depressants are just a tool...they dont make people suicidal...people take them because they are suicidal.

And like any other drug, sometimes they dont work, and sometimes they make stuff worse. Throwing away the tool is not the answer. If a consumer educates themselves by reading the pamphlet that comes with the medication, and if the doctor is doing their job and proactively following up on the patient, dangerous side effects can typically be nipped in the bud.

Honestly, that might have been one of the most arrogant things I have ever heard you say.

Anti-depressants saved my life on more than one occasion, and they have also saved the lives of many many other people the world over.


causes of anaphalxis...these medications kill the most people in the US yearly: The most common medications that cause allergic reactions (called allergenic medications) are:

Penicillin
Sulfa antibiotics
Allopurinol
Seizure and anti-arrhythmia medications
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS, such as aspirin and ibuprofen)
Muscle relaxants
Certain post-surgery fluids
Other medications known to cause severe allergic reactions include vaccines, radiocontrast media, antihypertensives, insulin, and blood products.


none of these drugs is an antidepressant...just in case you were wondering.

 

I hate having to be drawn into this discussion, but I think a little objectivity may be needed.

A little background first. I am a card carrying, lifetime member of the NRA (it was a present for my 16th birthday). I have competed as an expert rifle marksman for the NRA Jr. Olympic Team as well as the youth shooting tournaments for the Isaac Walton League. I have been an active hunter since the age of 12 (though I have chosen to limit that activity to small game only). I own 2 handguns (.380 & .22), 1 shotgun (20 gauge), and 3 rifles (.22, .3006, & an antique Winchester Repeater). And while I was unable to serve in the military, I was once a candidate for such, and have long been a supporter of the military, as well as law enforcement, because of my family).

I believe in the right to bear arms, and I practice that right.

And this is where I divert from the majority of people with my background.

I believe that background checks and waiting periods are vital to gun safety. I think NO ONE should possess or operate a firearm without taking a proper gun safety course and passing a test. And I think that anyone who insists that they have the right to own any weapon manufactured in order to maintain their right to bear arms is a fool.

An armed militia is the foundation of the right to bear arms. In a time when the military was almost exclusively unpaid volunteers, this was paramount to the safety of our nation. To say that it is absolutely necessary in a time where we possess a full professional military is out of control. To say that your inability to own a full/semi automatic assault rifle infringes on your rights is the same as saying that your inability to purchase narcotics without a prescription infringes on your rights. Not every ill requires the full measure of a the cure. In other words, leave the morphine in the pharmacy when an aspirin will fix the headache.

That's my position on the issue itself.

As for the fallout from it being brought up... It seems to me that Cory was honestly asking for an answer to what he sees as a real problem that has deeply affected him. Stop, take a deep breath, and stand down from the defensive. No one is trying to pry your toys away (and lets be honest, that's mostly what we're talking about here when it comes to assault rifles - you ever said it yourself), they want to hear your honest thoughts on a better solution than to limit your purchasing selections. All anyone wants to do is go on the defensive about the limiting of gun purchases, but no one will ever give a better alternative. What is a better solution to the problem?

Now, as for the fact that the criminals will get the weapons regardless of the laws, and the laws are only making it hard for law abiding citizens. Columbine, the recent church shootings in Colorado, the mall shooting in Utah, all of the school shootings, Va Tech... All perpetrated with legally purchased weapons. If there were better safeguards on the purchase & ownership of weapons, could all of these have been prevented? You have to qualify for a license to operate a motor vehicle, so why then do you not need one to operate a firearm, which is potentially more dangerous than a motor vehicle?

To look at this another way... Bill, when you went through basic training, did they just hand you the gun and turn you loose? No, you were taught the proper, safe and effective operation and care for that weapon. The military also performs periodic mental health evaluations of their personnel, because they don't want anyone with questionable mental status to handle a firearm. Why then is it too much to ask of the civilian population wishing to own and operate a firearm?

I still have issues with anyone owning an assault rifle, but I am willing to concede that it is a personal belief. I've laid out what I believe would be the most appropriate measures that should be enacted to try and curb the gun deaths in this country. What do you propose would be a better solution to this VERY real problem?

 

WOW! It's amazing to me that people only read one thing in a post and then blow it out of context.



I NEVER SAID THAT YOU SHOULD NOT OWN A GUN!!!


it's the type of gun!
Your point! You posted the article Bill!


Do you want a bazooka too? How about a rocket launcher?

Yeah, you got harsh with me and you also threatened me as well. That's great!

What you said...
"If you believe that, then don't come my way if the zombie apocolypse ever comes down.


Joke or not, I don't find it funny and I take offense that you group me as someone trying to destroy the constitution.
I don't accept that Bill! You are not even trying to understand where I am coming from and since you don't care, I will no longer have a peaceful debate with you about it.

Think what you want Bill but don't you ever call me UnAmerican again. Cuz right now, you don't feel like the friend you say you are.

 

Thank you Zoo for your objectivity...it is always welcome here.


and btw...I agreed with everything you said. I have never been a hunter (too squeamish) but I also support a persons right to own a weapon. On the subject of hunting: humans have destroyed the natural ecosystem by killing of predators, etc., and hunting is now absolutely necessary to keep populations in check. I also believe a person should be able to own a weapon for home defense. But like others have stated, you dont need a bazooka to go pheasant hunting and you dont need a rocket launcher to keep a burglar at bay. Its overkill.

Bill, you have had specialized training that most people havent. You might be trained enough to warrant ownership of such a weapon, but you dont seem to think there should be any constraints on less qualified people getting their hands on them. This argument does not hold water. The more dangerous a tool can be, the more training the wielder must have. Only doctors can write prescriptions, and they must not only make it through years of schooling and training but must go through a system of checks and balances to keep their license. All I have heard from anyone else is that gun owners should be required to pass some sort of standardized training protocol. Period. End of story. I cannot for the life of me see why this offends you enough to insult the integrity and patriotism of the rest of us?

 

The cops are and have been out-gunned for a while. North Hollywood was a prime example. The solution was SWAT. Special WEAPONS and Tactics. The people you call when regular officers of the line aren't sufficiently armed (and nor should they be, for their usual duties). Black market items are a problem, yes, but as Jennifer pointed out, the greatest tragedies have been committed with legally-acquired arms.

Most days, thank the Gods, an officer of the law does not need to draw his sidearm. This is why he shouldn't be carrying around an AR15, because then we've crossed the line into a paramilitary state and are risking oppression.

I'd quote Jennifer's post in total agreement, but I'll just say: ZOO, QFT.

 

The thing is there is no such thing as usual duties. A cop can go from stopping the guy who missed the stop sign to a bank robbery not unlike North hollywood. I say give the cops anyhting and everything. Let them decide when and where to use. ARs (both 10 and 15) are fairly common today. Like I said in messenger I know a cop that not only had to draw his AR but use it. I am all for giving law enforcement all the tools and toys they need. I wouldnt have an issue seeing them carry ARs at all.You would be suprised how often weapons are drawn. The good thing is they are hardly ever used and that is in large part to more effective techniques and training ( I love tazers and ASPs).

 

IB and I talked about what I posted here and came to a middle ground, of sorts, though I'd say I gave more ground from my under-funded and more suburban PD knowledge than he did.

As much as I want to see every officer of the law come home at the end of his shift, I don't want to see an innocent citizen martyred in order for him to do so. That's all I'm trying to say.

And... FYI, my cousin-in-law is a patrol officer in Coatesville, PA. They had some Philly crime spill out there a year or two ago, but they're far from a suburb. The rest of my family and friends are firefighters, though I worked with the officers assigned to duty at my branch of Penn State from time to time--and they were active on-duty officers, not rent-a-cops. I also served coffee to officers from two townships and a borough at the same time, plus one or two others on their way to or from.

 

Any thoughts on President Elect Obama's cabinet choices? The only major dissent I have heard so far are from the fringes of right and left...and fyi, Susan Rice is not related to Condeleeza Rice...their only real connection is that CRice was a professor at Stanford while SRice was an undergrad there...I was curious.

 

Obama introduces National Security Team.


My bad, I should have listed them before asking the question.

 

Here are just a few things that might put my point in perspective:

Assault Weapons are rarely used in assaults.

If you check out the data you will find that 25% more people were killed with blunt objects, 2 times as many were killed with "personal weapons" (hands, fists, feet, etc..) and more than 4 times as many were killed with knives or cutting instruments than with all rifle types combined, let alone the "Assault" variety.

According to the FBI, rifles are used far less than handguns, or even knives As in 2005, there were 442 victims by rifles, vs. 1,914 by knives.

So reagrdless of the weapon used, it is still a mind that makes a decision to commit murder.

I believe that background checks and waiting periods are vital to gun safety. I think NO ONE should possess or operate a firearm without taking a proper gun safety course and passing a test.

Agreed. I'm fine with criminal backgorund checks. I'm fine with a waiting period. What I'm not fine with are arbitrary limits on what type of firearm I can purchase, how large the magazines can be, or what calibers are acceptable. Now I'm not advocating people have bazookas or anything, but if they want a .50 Barrett, let them have it. If they can afford the ammo, good on them.


Now, should there be a legitimate (nonpartisan) requirement to purchase a firearm, similar to a hunter's safety card? I'd be fine with that. Let's say there was a national course, like a NRA basic firearms safety class (or basic military training) that was required in order to purchase a firearm or ammo. I'd be fine with that. It would ensure that the customer had at least received basic, sound training on firearms use, handling and storage prior to purchasing one. Sounds great! Just in the same way that everyone that goes through a military weapons qualification is trained in safe handling, storage, clearing, etc. Sounds perfect --as long as it wasn't used to track who owns what, or how much they purchase, etc, I'd be totally fine with that. As Zoo and Jenny said, with greater ability to cause trouble, licensing and training are a good thing. Like I've said, I'm fine with the current background checks and some sound training and lisencing.

As for the fallout from it being brought up... It seems to me that Cory was honestly asking for an answer to what he sees as a real problem that has deeply affected him. Stop, take a deep breath, and stand down from the defensive. No one is trying to pry your toys away (and lets be honest, that's mostly what we're talking about here when it comes to assault rifles - you ever said it yourself), they want to hear your honest thoughts on a better solution than to limit your purchasing selections. All anyone wants to do is go on the defensive about the limiting of gun purchases, but no one will ever give a better alternative. What is a better solution to the problem?

You're right. I did lose a bit of perspective, starting with Nigel's post and went "guns blazing on the defensive". I called it a "toy" and maybe should have used a bit of discretion in what I called it, but should it honestly matter if I use it as a toy for plinking, or intend to use it for personal defense in an EOTWAWKI situation--if it ever got down to that? It's my money, and I'm not hurting anyone with it.


Going back to Cory's original question/issue:

I know that I have jumped on you before William but that is not what I am doing here Brother. Really. but I need a better answer than "cuz I want to have one." Dude, I am an American too but this issue breaks my heart when we consistently, CONSISTENTLY see incidents in schools, churches, malls and the like being attacked and killed in too many cases. That is important to me.

and

 

Bill, I think you see this thread as your personal pulpit. You dont want to engage in discussion. You want to vomit your beliefs onto the screen, provoking as many people as possible before you log out. I really believe that...and I think its kinda sad.


So...my strategy? Ignore every post you make in here that has anything to do with the second amendment. Thats my right under the first amendment.

 

This is the same argument I have heard countless times. And it still bothers me. If we were all capable of carrying a gun, we would live in Beirut. I will not live in a shoot first society, and that's exactly what a fully armed citizenry will degrade into. That's why our very own Colonial Fathers instituted the Armory System to contain the largest supplies of weapons in the event of a conflict requiring the militia. Personal weapons were kept at home, or used to provide for the family. They did not walk the streets strapped the hilt at all times.

If you have it, you will use it. And you won't use it logically or ethically. Bill, you know as well as I do, that when in duress, or under threat of life, you cannot know what your reaction will be until that moment. Are you willing to subject the people in the community in which you live to the whims of armed fate whenever a conflict arises? I'm not.

You bring up the church shootings, but you glossed over the fact that the person who shot that assailant was a trained professional. You've also brought up the Va. Tech disaster, but you ignore the fact that there were countless other factors which would have prevented that tragedy, because the gun is the first thing that comes to your mind.

Teddy Roosevelt was not a diplomat, and his Big Stick philosophy doesn't really work in a world where you're more like to end up dead, instead of beat down in a fight.

I would love to see the police forces and schools funded well enough that these things would never come to light, but no one seems willing to foot the bill. I would gladly give up more of my income if it meant that the police weren't forced to reduce patrols in the name of budget restrictions, or students weren't stripped of the activities and services to keep them out of harm's way and engaged in society. But I am not willing to allow this country to degrade into a police state/demilitarized zone in the name of "The Right to Bear Arms" without limitation.

Feel free to rail against me all you want, but I have the wisdom of many law enforcement officers to back up my position.

For instance:

3. Can you resist the temptations of a police-like response?

Retired or off-duty in an out-of-state setting, you have no more authority for firearms use than the run-of-the-mill armed non-police citizen. ?The federal law invests you with no police authority in other jurisdictions,? Everett says, ?it just peels back the restrictions on gun possession.?

On patrol in your own area, you may be authorized to use deadly force both in defense of life and as a control measure, Everett explains. For example, you might be able to shoot to ?stop someone from escaping who may reasonably be expected to pose a serious violent threat in the future if he or she is not captured now.? As a citizen out of state, you may not have that legal right. Your standard police training does not necessarily prepare you to make legally defensible ?citizen? shooting decisions.

Just as officers frequently overextend themselves into potentially violent enforcement situations when off-duty in home territory, you risk getting in over your head tactically as a traveler, too, unless you have the discipline to back away and remain uninvolved when you see wrongdoing that?s not life threatening.

?You have to consciously guard against getting sucked into a knee-jerk law enforcement role rather than remaining focused strictly on self-defense. Because of your training and experience, you?re susceptible to being seduced into the use of a weapon that may extend far beyond a

 

I want you to know, I'm honestly trying to be civil. I'm sorry if you feel like I'm vomiting my beliefs all over the thread. That was not my intent. I did my very, level headed best to be fair, and look at the issues that were raised, and give my point of view.

If it was not taken that way, or I came across too harshly, my apologies. I do however have strong opinions, and I'm as entitled to them as you are to yours. I'm sorry we disagree, because I find myself totally agreeing with many of you on a lot of points, and I think you are all great people. I'm just very sorry we don't seem to agree on much outside of Star Wars.

That said, I think it's best for all of us if I just stay out of the political discussions. As the sole vocal pro-gun, right wing type person around here, it definitely appears that my opinions are neither required, nor desired. I think it's sad that you all can freely express your beliefs, but not grant me the ability to state my own, but hey, what can I do?

It's really sad, because I care about this group, the people and the friendships that are there. It makes me wonder if the best thing is for me is to leave the group... entirely, as I'm feeling less welcome here by the day...

 

Using a common definition for Debate

Debate (American English) or debating (British English) is a formal method of interactive and position representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examine the consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examine what is or isn't the case or rhetoric which is technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy as well as some emotional appeal to audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.

If you can't handle honest discussion of the issues, without resorting to attacking people, or falling into rhetoric, then maybe you should step back. I know where my limitations lie, and that's why I rarely involve myself in this thread. My comments in this arena can easily be taken as more than they were intended, and often come across as condescending. I am simply well-versed in presenting my arguments in the print media, and I have a vocabulary that I'm not afraid to use. And yes, I do talk this way when the need arises, but the verbal medium allows for a great deal more comprehension of my meaning, with vocal inflection and facial expression. I have carried on the same conversation in both mediums and gotten completely different responses. It's just the nature of the beast, I'm afraid.

And just for the record... How is it that you consider yourself the only pro-gun member of this group? I can think of at least half a dozen people off the top of my head legally possessing firearms. I think that statement would fall into the rhetoric category. Simply because the other gun owners in this group believe in different levels of control does not mean they are unconstitutional, or un-American. It means that in their estimation, through their life experiences, it makes more sense to them to limit the ownership of guns in this country.

In my experience, I am exceptionally happy that everyone is not allowed to carry weapons. I don't want to think about what could have happened if I had a gun during several altercations. Or what would have happened when a customer came up over a counter to attack me in a store if I had a CCW. I have had my life threatened in very real circumstances, and I am eternally grateful that I was not faced with that choice. I have nothing but respect for the trained and qualified professionals who make those decisions every day in the line of fire. And I'm not talking about the military, because that is a completely different skill set. I'm talking about the men and women who keep our cities safe, often times without once resorting armed violence to resolve the conflicts that arise in our civilian society.

 

I love guns. They are a great tool and can be alot of fun. When Im at work depending on the post I am at I have a gun, either a rifle or shotgun (hopefuly I get pistol certified soon). I know the chances of them being used are not very likely but it still is there. The most likely scenario of me having to use it will be in defense of a life (either Officer or inmate) and if the time comes for it I will not hesitate to use it. I have had the conversation with several of my co-workers and we all agree it will be a dark day, not a moment of pride.

I want my CCW permit by next summer but I hope I never have to use it. I dont want to have to use but I know if I did have to use I would be a capable. There are planty of people out there who have them and really shouldnt because they would either use it to quick or would lock up and more than likely put others in danger. Im a huge proponet of the second amendment with reason.I have shot assualt rifles and they are SOOOOOOOO much fun but do I need to be able to fire in full auto to defend my home or life. Its the same reason I dont think people need race cars or crotch rockets. Yeah they are fun but we dont need them.

 

Jeez Zoo, what I wouldn't do to be able to articulate like that.

Alas, I can't and that seems like a handicap in this thread for sure.

As far as I am concerned Zoo, you aren't condescending, I find You informative as well as some of the examples William sited.

I really don't want you to feel that you have to leave William, truly. I think you can take that as my word. I wouldn't say it if it weren't true. C'mon Man, I have PM'd you a few times now and we always bury the hatchet cuz in the end, it does come down to friends. I think you lost site of that too Man.

I told you a while back William, your comments are welcomed here as far as I am concerned but please try to see both sides and that goes for me as well Dude. You are a passionate guy too William and you do have your right to speak. We, together have a responsibility to try to hold that balance and it's difficult cuz these things divide friends and that ain't acceptable. No bones about it.


This is the process, ameba-like as it is here in our little corner of the universe, this is how it gets worked out and I would prefer that we did.

It does go to show that some things really are more important. Compromise is in my vocabulary.

 

im glad to see its calming down in here. I dont want any fighting or hard feelings over stuff said here.



with that being said if it does start taking a turn to the nasty again i will give this thread a 24 break so we can all go run through the meadows holding hands and picking flowers.

 

Hippy.

 

hey!!




i have good hygiene.

 

I apologize for using that term, Bill. I did the thing I accused you of...making an emotional argument and using rhetoric to prove a point. For that immaturity I apologize. You may feel you did your best to appear level headed, but most of the comments in response to that statement...by your friends...point to another possibility. That this issue is so emotional for you that you perhaps cannot argue it rationally.

You do have the right to your opinions...we all do. But seriously, the way it comes across when you started posting about your weapons is that you are proselytizing your personal interpretation of the 2nd amendment and although I cannot speak for everyone else, I believe that is way too aggressive a stance for this thread. Then your next two comments confuse me...we agree on many things, and then we agree on nothing but SW? This sounds a bit like sour grapes to me.


I am not trying to provoke or embarass you, I am honestly trying to show you how it looks from my perspective.

and that is definitely sour grapes. Nobody has told you to go away. Nobody has ever said you dont have the right to your own opinion or even the right to express it. What has been said (more than once I might add) is that you seem to have an issue separating yourself emotionally from the discussion and that you therefore seem to feel picked on when people argue back.

I like this thread. I like the dialog we all share. I like being able to discuss my world and my thoughts about it with my friends. What I dont like is being accused of being ignorant or unamerican. Thats not what this is about.

And for the record, in the course of the life of this thread I have done my personal best to be open minded with what I read (both in posts and linked articles). I have read every line and every page of every link. In this process there have been cathartic moments for me where I have realized that I might be wrong about something. There have been times where my opinion has been changed. I love that about this thread. And I see some of your posts in it as inciteful, provocative and dangerous to its existence...not because you disagree with the majority...but because of the aggressive way you disagree. Its a bit insulting.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I understand that from your POV you probably do feel picked on. I can assure you I would be saying these same words to anyone else in the group...and I have the past to back me up on that, cuz I have said these words before. And this is where I am going to diverge from all of the previous posts and tell you something very honest. If you want to leave the group because