View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently November 22nd, 2014, 7:55 am



Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 What? No gun control thread? 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9940
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: What? No gun control thread?
Blueskies wrote:
Comparing the original revolutionary war or the insurgents in Iraq to Americans fighting against their government is a false comparison. In both cases, it is a group of people repelling a foreign occupation. Americans using guns against their government today would be a civil war, not an insurrection, and the military would be involved on both sides.


I think you are missing the point Blueskies. Whether it be a civil war, an insurrection, etc. the definition is not what is being debated. What IS being debated is just how effective the armed civilians of this nation would be against whatever elements of the armed forces and police would support a tyrannical government in Washington DC. We all know power corrupts. Washington is living proof of that. Give somebody a small amount of power over a group of people for enough time, and that power goes to their head. Now, remove the ability of the people to fight back against that corruption through force of arms, and you give credence to the 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely' statement.

Blueskies, can you tell me an instance where a dictator was able to take power over a well armed populace without force of arms, against their will? Can you show me examples of those instances? You say that disarmament of a population was never used by dictators to enforce their will, and that's absolute horsecrap. That tactic has been used for CENTURIES throughout the world. In Asia it was the denial of peasants to practice martial arts, so they were forced to do it secretly. Many martial arts have been born from that secritive method of practice, among them being the Brazilian art of Capoeria. Disarmament is the foremost method of control used by tyranny throughout human history. Adolf Hitler was elected after Germany enacted a gun ban, but he armed his Brownshirts and supporters while maintaining that certain groups of people could NOT enjoy the protection of those arms. It got how many killed? You can deny that removal of arms had nothing to do with it, but you'd be making a fools argument. Even Gandhi proclaimed that the worst thing the British did during their rule of India was to deny the people the right to arms. If you want to say Gandhi didn't know what he was talking about, go right ahead. Once again, you'd be making a fools argument.

_________________
I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.


March 18th, 2013, 4:06 pm
Profile
Post Re: What? No gun control thread?
Blueskies wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:

What about a government "by the people" acting contrary to the interests of the electorate? We don't have a parliamentary system such as the UK where the prime minister has to keep favor with the general populous.

What if the govt. starts exerting undue control over the populous and there is an uprising? What if the Nation does get more divided (there certainly is a trend) and Texas really does move to succeed? Do we fight it, or allow it? Do we go to war with Texas over it? I know I would honestly leave in a minute if they ever really did decide to leave the US. I would go to Texas because I more agree with their form of politics. It makes more sense to me. I like personal accountably over social entitlements.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely... I think people having guns is a HUGE check against the power that local law enforcement officers have. IMO you'd see a ton more police corruption if citizen's weren't armed.


Texas is one of the most populous states in the country; if they succeeded, I'm sure others would as well, creating a replay of the civil war -- not the kind of "joe sixpack taking on the evil feds" most gun nuts have in mind when they talk about fighting a tyrannical government.

Also, I would say armed citizens has about 0 impact on keeping the police in line. Can you show me a case somewhere of a person shooting a cop on the grounds of self defense and getting off? If you can do that, I'll admit I'm wrong here. A cellphone video recorder is a much more potent weapon against police corruption.



I have another quibble with your scenario...

If the "People" vote to secede, isn't that evidence that they no longer consent to be governed by the Federal govt.? Just because whackos in California don't want Texas to leave, it doesn't mean they can't. Secondly, how would the "World's stage for Democracy" look if they voted to secede and the Federal Govt. didn't let them?

If there is secession, IMO it would be peaceful.


March 18th, 2013, 6:30 pm
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3866
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: What? No gun control thread?
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:

What about a government "by the people" acting contrary to the interests of the electorate? We don't have a parliamentary system such as the UK where the prime minister has to keep favor with the general populous.

What if the govt. starts exerting undue control over the populous and there is an uprising? What if the Nation does get more divided (there certainly is a trend) and Texas really does move to succeed? Do we fight it, or allow it? Do we go to war with Texas over it? I know I would honestly leave in a minute if they ever really did decide to leave the US. I would go to Texas because I more agree with their form of politics. It makes more sense to me. I like personal accountably over social entitlements.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely... I think people having guns is a HUGE check against the power that local law enforcement officers have. IMO you'd see a ton more police corruption if citizen's weren't armed.


Texas is one of the most populous states in the country; if they succeeded, I'm sure others would as well, creating a replay of the civil war -- not the kind of "joe sixpack taking on the evil feds" most gun nuts have in mind when they talk about fighting a tyrannical government.

Also, I would say armed citizens has about 0 impact on keeping the police in line. Can you show me a case somewhere of a person shooting a cop on the grounds of self defense and getting off? If you can do that, I'll admit I'm wrong here. A cellphone video recorder is a much more potent weapon against police corruption.



I have another quibble with your scenario...

If the "People" vote to secede, isn't that evidence that they no longer consent to be governed by the Federal govt.? Just because whackos in California don't want Texas to leave, it doesn't mean they can't. Secondly, how would the "World's stage for Democracy" look if they voted to secede and the Federal Govt. didn't let them?

If there is secession, IMO it would be peaceful.



You might as well ask if there will ever be peace between us and martians. No way the US l ets texas secede without violence. Too much oil. Never gonna happen.

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


March 18th, 2013, 7:07 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: What? No gun control thread?
Hmmm, sounds like a kingdom divided! Now where have I heard that before?

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


March 18th, 2013, 7:15 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3866
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: What? No gun control thread?
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Hmmm, sounds like a kingdom divided! Now where have I heard that before?


Theoretically only. Outside of a redneck populace, there is no immediate threat or danger of Texas going anywhere

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


March 18th, 2013, 7:16 pm
Profile
Post Re: What? No gun control thread?
regularjoe12 wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Blueskies wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:

What about a government "by the people" acting contrary to the interests of the electorate? We don't have a parliamentary system such as the UK where the prime minister has to keep favor with the general populous.

What if the govt. starts exerting undue control over the populous and there is an uprising? What if the Nation does get more divided (there certainly is a trend) and Texas really does move to succeed? Do we fight it, or allow it? Do we go to war with Texas over it? I know I would honestly leave in a minute if they ever really did decide to leave the US. I would go to Texas because I more agree with their form of politics. It makes more sense to me. I like personal accountably over social entitlements.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely... I think people having guns is a HUGE check against the power that local law enforcement officers have. IMO you'd see a ton more police corruption if citizen's weren't armed.


Texas is one of the most populous states in the country; if they succeeded, I'm sure others would as well, creating a replay of the civil war -- not the kind of "joe sixpack taking on the evil feds" most gun nuts have in mind when they talk about fighting a tyrannical government.

Also, I would say armed citizens has about 0 impact on keeping the police in line. Can you show me a case somewhere of a person shooting a cop on the grounds of self defense and getting off? If you can do that, I'll admit I'm wrong here. A cellphone video recorder is a much more potent weapon against police corruption.



I have another quibble with your scenario...

If the "People" vote to secede, isn't that evidence that they no longer consent to be governed by the Federal govt.? Just because whackos in California don't want Texas to leave, it doesn't mean they can't. Secondly, how would the "World's stage for Democracy" look if they voted to secede and the Federal Govt. didn't let them?

If there is secession, IMO it would be peaceful.



You might as well ask if there will ever be peace between us and martians. No way the US l ets texas secede without violence. Too much oil. Never gonna happen.


I argue that there's no way that the Federal Govt. GETS VIOLENT with any secession... It may get tied up in courts for years, but I don't think one bullet would ever be fired from either side.


March 18th, 2013, 7:50 pm
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: What? No gun control thread?
Yeah and we didn't think the government could tell us what to eat, where to buy our smokes at, and what size soda I can buy. It's about control, it always has been and always will be.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


March 19th, 2013, 3:09 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9940
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: What? No gun control thread?
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Yeah and we didn't think the government could tell us what to eat, where to buy our smokes at, and what size soda I can buy. It's about control, it always has been and always will be.


I don't consider the mayor of New York to be a representative of our federal government. I don't even consider him a representative of the human race. He's a representative of someone with money who thinks that because of his wealth he knows more than anybody else and wants to control everyone. With him, it's always been about power. Bloomberg is the definition of panty waste.

_________________
I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.


March 21st, 2013, 3:06 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2742
Post Re: What? No gun control thread?
Quote:
Further, you miss the point entirely about "citizens shooting a cop and getting off"... The point is, cops can't go around like thugs ruling the populous BECAUSE people have guns. If they tried to abuse their authority it would come back to hurt them, and I do believe that private gun ownership stems and curbs that authority. Without private gun ownership I think you'd see police acting more like members of the mafia... Heck, in some instances they already do...


So why is police brutality the worst in inner cities? People there have plenty of guns. Is the police brutality worse in Australia and the UK? I haven't heard of an epidemic of police brutality in those countries, despite the fact that their citizens lack fire arms. Or perhaps I'm mistaken. Look, I have a very low opinion of the police. But I just don't buy the argument that arming the populace is an effective defense against police brutality.

Quote:
And the idea that our government would NEVER do anything against the will of the populace is absolutely ridiculous in the extreme. The original gun control measure of 1994 was NOT supported by the majority of the nation. Prohibition was NOT supported by the majority of the nation. Abortion, removing religious objects from public ground, Obamacare, etc. are all examples of things that our politicians pass AGAINST the will of the majority of the people.


That's why we have a republic, not a democracy. All the issues you cited may not have been supported by exactly 50%+ of the population, but had significant backing from a large minority group. And clearly, if people really wanted to reverse these things, they could. Nothing is set in stone.

Quote:
And for your information Blueskies, the additional Amendments added to the Constitution are not proof that they 'got things wrong' when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. It only shows that they laid the groundwork of our rights, but had to further define them further down the road as the situation called for it.


I don't understand the resistance to admitting that the founders got some things wrong. The world changes. That was part of the founders' brilliance, they recognized that a document created in 1787 wouldn't necessarily be right for people in 2013. They knew they'd be wrong on some things, that's why the amendment system was created in the first place. The amendments weren't just about "defining rights further" -- some of them explicitly changed parts of the original document. Like getting rid of slavery, changing the way senators were elected, legalizing an income tax and so forth.

In fact, the problem with our government today is that we aren't willing to follow the amendment process. If the constitution was strictly adhered to, many of the things the federal government does would require amendments.

Quote:
Blueskies, can you tell me an instance where a dictator was able to take power over a well armed populace without force of arms, against their will?


No. That's exactly my point. This is the gun nut myth. Hitler was democratically elected. Mao was loved by the majority of his people. Etc. Etc. I've met people who live in Venezuela, they loved Chavez. Tyrannical dictators don't swoop in from outer space. The majority of people in a country support them.


March 21st, 2013, 3:50 pm
Profile
Post Re: What? No gun control thread?
Blueskies wrote:
So why is police brutality the worst in inner cities? People there have plenty of guns. Is the police brutality worse in Australia and the UK? I haven't heard of an epidemic of police brutality in those countries, despite the fact that their citizens lack fire arms. Or perhaps I'm mistaken. Look, I have a very low opinion of the police. But I just don't buy the argument that arming the populace is an effective defense against police brutality.


I didn't say "police brutality" I said abuses of power. Meaning, entering without a warrant, etc. These abuses happen more where people can't defend themselves, and that means in the inner city. They don't have the knowledge or the means, so cops take advantage. Just as they would take advantage if they were the only armed group in town.


Blueskies wrote:
I don't understand the resistance to admitting that the founders got some things wrong. The world changes. That was part of the founders' brilliance, they recognized that a document created in 1787 wouldn't necessarily be right for people in 2013. They knew they'd be wrong on some things, that's why the amendment system was created in the first place. The amendments weren't just about "defining rights further" -- some of them explicitly changed parts of the original document. Like getting rid of slavery, changing the way senators were elected, legalizing an income tax and so forth.


It's not that they "got some things right," and "got some things wrong." IMO they got everything right, and society shifted or agreed to new changes.


Blueskies wrote:
No. That's exactly my point. This is the gun nut myth. Hitler was democratically elected. Mao was loved by the majority of his people. Etc. Etc. I've met people who live in Venezuela, they loved Chavez. Tyrannical dictators don't swoop in from outer space. The majority of people in a country support them.


Chavez had a great PR machine that advocates to the paupers and alleges that the's for the poor people. It works for him, just like it works for Barak Obama, though there is strong evidence against both positions that they are against the people they're alleging to be "serving."

Hitler may have been democratically elected, but he abused power and warped the law to become a dictator. He slowly eroded freedoms and rights, and wouldn't have been able to do what he did if there were 6 million armed Jews and 10s of millions more of armed Germans sympathetic to their cause. Those same erosions are happening here, to a much slower degree, but they're still happening. These small "disasters" are used as a way to further restrict our rights and take away our liberties, unjustly, IMO.


March 21st, 2013, 4:09 pm
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: What? No gun control thread?
Sadly, Bloomberg is only representing what we see coming out of Washington. Michelle is telling us what to eat, and having the President install legislation that will Federally enforce what your child eats at school. I am going off of the story out of North Carolina where a child was prevented from eating her lunch from home because it didn't "meet the federal standards."

The Liberal mentality is that we aren't smart enough to do for ourselves, so if we would just give them control they will do it for us, and all will be this perfect utopia.

So can I ask a question: Is Washington going to ground small planes too? With several planes crashing, and people being killed, shouldn't they act in the effort of public safety and make it unlawful for us to fly small planes? Wonder how long it will be before this law comes down the pike?

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


March 22nd, 2013, 1:26 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12202
Post Re: What? No gun control thread?
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Sadly, Bloomberg is only representing what we see coming out of Washington.
While I disagree with Bloomberg's method, I do applaud the effort of trying to raise awareness of a healthier lifestyle. As an aside - Has anyone else noticed how a 'small' pop these days was a large or extra large ~ 20 years ago?
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Michelle is telling us what to eat
Yep, its absolutely horrible that a first lady, or anyone for that matter, would advocate for a healthier lifestyle for anyone, let along children.
WarEr4Christ wrote:
and having the President install legislation that will Federally enforce what your child eats at school.
Citation please. Are you saying POTUS is enacting Executive Orders or somehow bypassing Congress to 'Federally force' what a child eats?
WarEr4Christ wrote:
I am going off of the story out of North Carolina where a child was prevented from eating her lunch from home because it didn't "meet the federal standards."
In the future would it be possible for you to provide links / reference of what you talk about? Many times to state something with no reference and it makes it rather difficult to see what you're trying to say. Also, it might help if you would 'quote' peeps when responding. Just think it might help is all... 8)
That said, apparently it was a misunderstanding / misinterpretation by the 'State Agent / State Inspector' that was on duty that day.
Quote:
The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.
The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.
When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.
The girl’s mother — who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation — said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.
Quote:
But what was so wrong with the lunch the mother provided? Nothing apparently. A spokesowman for the Division of Child Development explained that the mother’s meal should have been okay.

“With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that’s the dairy,” Jani Kozlowski, the fiscal and statutory policy manager for the division, told the Journal. “It sounds like the lunch itself would’ve met all of the standard.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/02 ... hy-enough/

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


March 22nd, 2013, 2:03 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: What? No gun control thread?
Wags, I don't disagree that people in positions of power and notoriety should do something useful with that spot light, but removing personal freedom from the equation shouldn't even be in the discussion. It goes back to control! This isn't just liberals who ar doing this, Bush had his own agendas that were put in place for the good of the American Public, and it's probably subject to interpretation, and perspective, but the last 5 years have been a blatant power grab by Washington. We will have this healthcare, even though just about anyone with 1st grade math can tell you that it will destroy us economically. Rates for healthcare premiums are going up 20% to 100% on an already expensive healthcare system. That's not exactly sustainable.

Having said that, Bloomberg is a buffoon, but he is getting away with all kinds of crap in a predominantly Liberal City, that he probably wouldn't get away with in a town like mine. He has the backing and he's making the call for you and I, which is only a precursor and warning sign for things to come....

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


March 23rd, 2013, 1:50 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9940
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: What? No gun control thread?
TheRealWags wrote:
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Sadly, Bloomberg is only representing what we see coming out of Washington.
While I disagree with Bloomberg's method, I do applaud the effort of trying to raise awareness of a healthier lifestyle. As an aside - Has anyone else noticed how a 'small' pop these days was a large or extra large ~ 20 years ago?
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Michelle is telling us what to eat
Yep, its absolutely horrible that a first lady, or anyone for that matter, would advocate for a healthier lifestyle for anyone, let along children.


Oh, what a load of crap Wags. Bringing awareness to a situation, or advocating for something is a far cry from legislating and controlling. What I give my children for lunch is my business. The only standards to be met should be mine, not hers, not his, not theirs. This is yet ANOTHER step where our lawmakers feel that they know better for everyone else, and they will create laws to justify their control. They shouldn't be telling parents how to feed their kids, raise their kids, punish their kids, etc. How far does it go? Do they eventually decide for us what sports our kids will play? Will they decide which ones become doctors, which ones become athletes? Sound familiar? It should...that's pretty much Communist Russia in a nutshell. And please, don't tell me it could 'never happen', because five years ago I guarantee you nobody would believe a mayor in a city like New York could get away with banning the serving size of a soda.

And furthermore, controlling a childs diet does little for advocating a "healthy lifestyle". Children today aren't overweight due to their diet. It has MUCH more to do with their lack of activity. Kids sit around playing video games rather than going outside and running around like most of us used to. Part of the issue is parental fear. I know that myself, as a parent, am very leery when my kids are playing outside...even right in front of my house. As such, parents feel more comfortable with their children inside the house, where physical activity is very limited. And that limit of activity becomes a lifestyle. The kids will lose interests in playing organized sports. They lose interest in outside activities at school. And as such, they could eat the healthiest, most nutritional meals available....they won't have a healthy "lifestyle".

Children are a product of their environment. Forcing them to eat a healthy lunch isn't going to change one thing for them when you look at the big picture.

_________________
I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.


April 2nd, 2013, 10:50 am
Profile
Post Re: What? No gun control thread?
m2karateman wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Sadly, Bloomberg is only representing what we see coming out of Washington.
While I disagree with Bloomberg's method, I do applaud the effort of trying to raise awareness of a healthier lifestyle. As an aside - Has anyone else noticed how a 'small' pop these days was a large or extra large ~ 20 years ago?
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Michelle is telling us what to eat
Yep, its absolutely horrible that a first lady, or anyone for that matter, would advocate for a healthier lifestyle for anyone, let along children.


Oh, what a load of crap Wags. Bringing awareness to a situation, or advocating for something is a far cry from legislating and controlling. What I give my children for lunch is my business. The only standards to be met should be mine, not hers, not his, not theirs. This is yet ANOTHER step where our lawmakers feel that they know better for everyone else, and they will create laws to justify their control. They shouldn't be telling parents how to feed their kids, raise their kids, punish their kids, etc. How far does it go? Do they eventually decide for us what sports our kids will play? Will they decide which ones become doctors, which ones become athletes? Sound familiar? It should...that's pretty much Communist Russia in a nutshell. And please, don't tell me it could 'never happen', because five years ago I guarantee you nobody would believe a mayor in a city like New York could get away with banning the serving size of a soda.

And furthermore, controlling a childs diet does little for advocating a "healthy lifestyle". Children today aren't overweight due to their diet. It has MUCH more to do with their lack of activity. Kids sit around playing video games rather than going outside and running around like most of us used to. Part of the issue is parental fear. I know that myself, as a parent, am very leery when my kids are playing outside...even right in front of my house. As such, parents feel more comfortable with their children inside the house, where physical activity is very limited. And that limit of activity becomes a lifestyle. The kids will lose interests in playing organized sports. They lose interest in outside activities at school. And as such, they could eat the healthiest, most nutritional meals available....they won't have a healthy "lifestyle".

Children are a product of their environment. Forcing them to eat a healthy lunch isn't going to change one thing for them when you look at the big picture.



I agree M2...

Liberals have forgotten the power of education, and see power only in legislation. Perhaps that's because they prefer an uneducated electorate?


April 2nd, 2013, 11:43 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.