Jump to content

csbrown28

Member
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    Democrat

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    United States
  1. Well said and I agree, education based on evidence is the key...
  2. I hear a lot of claims like this, can you give me an example in regards to schools? Honestly I'm just not aware, I'm not insinuating that your wrong. PDA? Sorry not similar with that acronym... There is clearly a dividing line in any representation of sexuality, relationships or social interaction when it comes to children. Generally it's pretty easy to look at how a hetero person or a couple is presented to children, in say a book or conversation, and decide if it's appropriate for children. The same can be said of homosexual or interracial couples. Generally speaking I don't think children should be shielded from consenting relationships between adults, be it interracial or homosexual. Having said that I expect that any relationship portrayed in schools be of the same "quality" (for lack of a better word) as heterosexual relationships are presented. I would rather a child (of let's say 8 years old) see this in school: Than this:
  3. How eloquent....lol Here's the thing....You don't have to agree....Your agreement isn't necessary. All I would tell you is that you must tolerate it. Speaking for me, I don't get it, I don't understand how a man looks at another man and finds love. It's baffling to me, but I realize I don't have to understand (after all if I did, I would probably be gay, right?). But I understand that I must respect and tolerate others. I feel the same way about religion. I don't agree with it, I think much of religion run antithetical to the goals it claim, but I realize, as much as I despise some of the things that religion does, I must tolerate it. Goth kids, and and people who tattoo large portions of their bodies, rap culture and adult diaper wearers....I don't understand any of this, or in some cases agree with these things. But I must tolerate them. This is America. You have the right to do what you want as long as it doesn't interfere with other peoples rights, freedom and liberty. A guy, and I quote "sticking [his] pecker into another guys pooper shooter" doesn't violate any of my rights. If they offend you or religious sensbilities, tough cookies, you don't have the right not to be offended. -Cheers
  4. Perhaps we agree more then we realize? I'm all for, what I'll call, strict responsibility on gun ownership. As far as people and their rights....It seems to be human nature to be apathetic. I doubt many people realize or even care that their rights are being infringed. The rest of us, who care, can't go it alone. Change won't happen until things get much worse, until our everyday lives are effected that people will wake up. I was on the board of directors of development with over 400 homes. People were encouraged to take part in the process. To have a say where their money went and how the board spent the communities money. The annual meeting would see 30-50 people (well short of 125 necessary for a quorum). The board would do whatever it wanted, even though they weren't supposed to. I was trying to hold the board accountable and tried getting people involved....No one cared. People called me a trouble maker. That is until a bridge at one end of the community had to be closed because of safety issues and people had to drive way out of their way to enter the development at the other end. When the board realized that they had spent the communities money on pet projects and not put some aside for big issues like this one, suddenly, everyone cared and 250 people showed up to our annual meeting. When it was over, I was the only member to keep a seat (because I had tried to take action to prevent these issues for years). Within 2 years everyone forgot and things went back to the way they were, The point is, people want other people to do their business. The problem is, that most of the people willing to do that business are more interested in the power and authority then trying to make better communities (not the kind of people you want making decisions for you). Homeowners don't want to be troubled, not only to get involved, but to take the time to learn the issues. And this is in a community, imagine how little people in Maine care about people in New Mexico. This is why mass media is so dangerous. It is the source of what most people know about their country and the world. It's not controlled by government, but by the wealthy people that own the 6 major companies that own virtually all of the network news that we see (who use their money to influence government). You know what they say, things will have to get worse before they get better....
  5. This isn't a problem with gun ownership, but a culture that thinks that you can point a gun at someone and they will cower in fear. This is a problem with training and I'm not opposed to weeks if not months of training be required to own a gun.... I hope you're being funny, otherwise this statement makes absolutely no sense. First, tyrannical governments want to subvert their population, not kill them. Nuclear weapons are for wiping other countries off the map, not for crowd control. If any nation on earth would nuke it's own people, the level of human outrage with be mind numbing. Nuking your population isn't even an option and it's a silly thing to say. Actually I stated that I wasn't trying to equate guns and cars, your right they aren't the same at all by pointing out that guns and cars have much different design functions, so I agree with you. However the point I was making is that we accept death in society when benefits clearly outweigh costs. I would agree that, given the opportunities to make significant changes in gun laws, that the cost benefit is declining. That's why I'd advocate for laws that make a real difference. Actually Madison, when he wrote that, knew that people feared the Government in control of a fighting force. He knew the people wanted to defend themselves so he wrote a statment that tried to walk a very careful line between self protection and government authority over a fighting force. Having said that, I think I've made it clear that I support, significant, real changes to gun laws based on evidence. I've outlined several ideas for new laws, but you didn't really comment on them. Ahhh...I see you got that.... We don't need state militias since we have our armed forces. When they wrote the Constitution, there was no military. Get rid of our armed forces, and I'll sit down and have a discussion about forming state militias. I think we need a national military, however, that military should have clearly defined goals, not to be used at the whim of each administration. I think ever system within the military (like the Abrahms tank), should have to justify it's existence Does America really need 9000+ tanks? If programs can't be justified, in public (unless there is some real reason for secrecy) funding should be cut and programs ended. We could have used all the money that went to the wars and foreign actions to decrease our dependence on other nations and crushed them fiscally. As far as militias go, I think the purpose of the states, is to protect the rights of it's citizens form a federal government that would abuse it's power.
  6. Yea, while I like Bill Maher, it's ironic that he admits on that very same show, that he owns a gun..... He's right about our other rights, both parties have trampled on the Constitution, but it's not "skeeter in Kentucky with is .22" that will protect our rights, it's millions of owners with everything from .22's to .50 cal's that will, when their tired of having their liberties trampled on, will demand their rights be respected. Their voices will only have weight because when reason fails, force is an option.
  7. One thing I forgot after I lost my response was a discussion in regards to the cost/ benefit of a society that owns firearms. The cost is obvious. From time to time innocent people are killed by others who use a firearm to project force. The benefits are that firearms equalize force projection between two or more parties. Firearms also equalize force projection between the populace and its government. The discussion should stop here if anyone disagrees with my assessment and discuss, but if you agree then let's move on..... Let's think about his.... Before we start throwing out our ideas, we need to decide what it is we wish to accomplish, what our goal/s are, when we discuss what should be done, if anything, in regards to firearms. The goal, plainly stated, should be to eliminate as much harm as possible caused when a person/s uses firearms to harm innocent people. Period. The question is, how can we accomplish that goal? The answer lies in understanding how firearms effect society as a whole, being honest on both sides. Firearms allow people to apply force (both physical and in the form of intimidation) more efficiently then they would be able to without a firearm, both in effort required, result and distance you can be from the person that is the target of harm. The first question is, if the government were to ban firearm ownership, what would result? 1) Would fewer criminals have access to guns and therefore be less likely to harm and or intimidate others? 2) Would potential victims have less ability to defend themselves? I think victims in this scenario are more likely to be impacted by the elimination of guns. Why? To question 1): While eliminating guns will almost certainly reduce the number of guns available to criminals, but the effect would be minimal (as criminals generally don't respect laws) and it doesn't address the criminals desire to victimize others in society. The "drug war" has proven that the government cannot effectively prevent the population from obtaining items that the government deems unfit for general consumption/ ownership. The unintended consequence of the drug war has been that the government has indirectly created one of the most successful criminal enterprises on earth. If guns are made illegal, and the demand for guns remains, then guns become another lucrative business for criminals, and unlike drugs, those that purchase firearms will be more likely to use them to do harm to others. To question 2) How many firearms are used for protection? I can imagine scenario's where abusive husbands, or bullies are stopped because, either the victim or a third party, challenged the aggressor with a firearm. Without the gun, how does a third party project force? A knife, a bat? A phone? Most people lack the confidence knowledge to use a hand held weapon like a bat or a knife so many victims will have to wait for police. Guns are equal parts force and intimidation. Now I realize that not every firearm owner has access to their arms all of the time, or is trained enough to use it, as many people shot are disarmed and shot with their own weapon, but this is a problem of training and cultural expectation, not ownership. The last part has to do with Government. Does the right for a citizen to own firearms affect the way the Government interacts with it's people? Is our government less likely to strip rights away when there is a chance that people will rise up and protect their rights with firearms if necessary? I think the answer is yes. If we willingly (as a populace) give up our right to firearms ownership I believe that balance between the people and the government will swing in favor of the government. Lack of fear from reprisal from the people could result in less effort on the part of those in government to respect our freedoms. For those that try to say that firearms are no match for the government and the resources that the government can deploy I'd say this. If the government is willing to kill or imprison a large portion of it's population then we really have to stop and think about how the people that make up the enforcement of our government would react. Next, anyone who thinks a single person with a high powered rifle cant pose a real and significant threat to people in power, have little understanding of what a well trained individual and his rifle are capable of. So when we consider the realities of firearm ownership in the US, I'd argue that, since firearms cannot realistically be removed from society, bans would primarily affect those that would not use them to do harm. Accidental deaths (children, misuse ect) could be minimized though compulsory training as well as tighter laws calling for accountability. The cost to our personal freedoms will always be in jeopardy from those that feel they can project power in order to intimidate us. The cost of relinquishing our firearms could come at the cost of our personal freedom, be it from individuals within society, or the government itself. Remember when you post numbers of people that have died from firearms, remember that 340,000 Americans died fighting in WWI & II, to prevent foreign governments from projecting their influence on our way of life.
  8. You know it's funny, But the part where I wrote: "I'm surprised MrPatriot didn't pick up on this, but the saying isn't free quote applies here." Somehow got truncated...It was supposed to be: I'm surprised MrPatriot didn't pick up on this, but the saying "Freedom isn't free" applies here. Oh well, looks like you got the drift.
  9. Ok, there is some kind of conspiracy going on here....No idea why it included all of the HTML in my reply....So here it is again. This strikes me as a highly emotional statement. No gun owner feels that liberty and happiness only apply to them. I'm surprised MrPatriot didn't pick up on this, but the saying isn't free quote applies here. People have only two methods to persuade other people, reason and force. Interestingly the firearm can be used to force others and it can defend from others trying to force you. Firearms are a force equalizer. A 100lb woman is, generally speaking, unable to defend herself from a 250lb man, but with a gun suddenly the ability to defend swings in her direction. Even if they both have a gun, if they are both well trained, the balance of force can still said to be equal, or at least closer to equal then it would be otherwise. The same can be said for the potential of government to impose tyrannical force against its population. The gun, in the case of the government, many not equal the government and the people, but it moves the two closer together. Moving on.... Think about motor vehicles. They were involved in the deaths of over 32,000 people in 2011. Many of those people were killed through no fault of their own. Would it be fair to say that only those that use motor vehicles have freedom and liberty? Of course not, we as a society look at the cost vs the benefit and we deem the risk of death acceptable when considering the cost. Now having said that, we also all agree that reasonable precautions should be taken to see that as few lives are lost as possible. We accept certain restrictions such as speed limits, registration and other traffic rules to name a few. I think the time has come to accept that firearms are part of our culture, but conversely to accept that the ownership of firearms is a huge responsibility and along with responsibility come accountability, something I think we a nation don't ask of firearm owners. Now I want to make it clear that I don't equate firearms and vehicles. Vehicles have, as their primary application and design purpose the transportation of goods and services and people, where firearms application and design propose is force projection. Please don't think that banning cars and guns is the same and I would never make that argument as I think it's a silly one to make. You will never, ever be free of individuals trying to take your rights away though force. Conversely, individuals also don't have the ability to grant or protect your rights either. Don't conflate individuals to groups. The government is one group and citizens are the other (some are obviously both). What we want to avoid is the government (or any other group for that matter) from imposing it's authority on individuals. My argument is that sometimes reason isn't enough. What should we do? I think the only way to create laws that will increase accountability and reduce the number of deaths is for there to be a list of accountable owners. I think the list should reside with THE STATES and not with the feds and that clearly defined wording be put in place. What exactly that wording should be is a matter of some debate, but the idea would be to prevent government from abusing it. So, 1) Each gun be registered with the state they reside in. 2) Transfers of guns be done through an external entity (like an FFL) 3) Each owner is responsible for securing their firearms. Failure to do so can result in owners being found negligent and having their ownership privileges suspended or revoked. 4)To own a firearm requires a minimum amount of knowledge that must be demonstrated to the state in which you reside. 5) A small fee be collected to help pay for safety programs, background and mental health checks and any other programs designed to help foster responsible gun ownership. Now this list isn't all inclusive. For each one of these provisions there is a right way to do it and a wrong way.... (Little shorter this time)
  10. <p>Ok one more try...grrrrrrr</p> <p> </p> <blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="anukulardecider" data-cid="2966974" data-time="1358657802"> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>1. There were approximately 8,583 people murdered by firearms in 2011. What about their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or does the right to life and liberty only apply to gun owners?</p> </blockquote> <p> </p> <p>This strikes me as a highly emotional statement. No gun owner feels that liberty and happiness only apply to them. I'm surprised MrPatriot didn't pick up on this, but the saying "freedom isn't <em>free", </em> applies here. People have only two methods to persuade other people, reason and force. Interestingly the firearm can be used to force others and it can defend from others trying to force you. Firearms are a force equalizer. A 100lb woman is, generally speaking, unable to defend herself from a 250lb man, but with a gun suddenly the ability to defend swings in her direction. Even if they both have a gun, if they are both well trained, the balance of force can still said to be equal, or at least closer to equal then it would be otherwise. </p> <p> </p> <p>The same can be said for the potential of government to impose tyrannical force against it's population. The gun, in the case of the government, many not equal the government and the people, but it moves the two closer together.</p> <p> </p> <p>Moving on....</p> <p> </p> <p>Think about motor vehicles. They were involved in the deaths of over 32,000 people in 2011. Many of those people were killed though no fault of their own. Would it be fair to say that only those that use motor vehicles have freedom and liberty? Of course not, we as a society look at the cost vs the benefit and we deem the risk of death acceptable when considering the cost.</p> <p> </p> <p>Now having said that, we also all agree that reasonable precautions should be taken to see that as few lives are lost as possible. We accept certain restrictions such as speed limits, registration and other traffic rules to name a few.</p> <p> </p> <p>I think the time has come to accept that firearms are part of our culture, bu conversely to accept that the ownership of firearms is a huge responsibility and along with responsibility come accountability, something I think we a a nation don't ask of firearm owners.</p> <p> </p> <p>Now I want to make it clear that I don't equate firearms and vehicles. Vehicles have, as their primary application and design purpose the transportation of goods and services and people, where firearms application and design propose is force projection. Please don't think that banning cars and guns is the same and I would never make that argument as I think it's a silly one to make.</p> <p> </p> <blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="anukulardecider" data-cid="2966974" data-time="1358657802"> <p> </p> <p>The definition of liberty is "The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life." </p> </blockquote> <p> </p> <p>You will never, ever be free of individuals trying to take your rights away though force. Conversely, individuals also don't have the ability to grant or protect your rights either. Don't conflate individuals to groups. The government is one group and citizens are the other (some are obviously both). What we want to avoid is the government (or any other group for that matter) from imposing it's authority on individuals. My argument is that sometimes reason isn't enough. </p> <p> </p> <p>What should we do?</p> <p> </p> <p>I think the only way to create laws that will increase accountability and reduce the number of deaths is for there to be a list of accountable owners. I think the list should reside with THE STATES and not with the feds and that clearly defined wording be put in place. What exactly that wording should be is a matter of some debate, but the idea would be to prevent government from abusing it.</p> <p> </p> <p>So,</p> <p> </p> <p>1) Each gun be registered with the state they reside in.</p> <p> </p> <p>2) Transfers of guns be done through an external entity (like an FFL)</p> <p> </p> <p>3) Each owner is responsible for securing their firearms. Failure to do so can result in owners being found negligent and having their ownership privileges suspended or revoked.</p> <p> </p> <p>4)To own a firearm requires a minimum amount of knowledge that must be demonstrated to the state in witch you reside. </p> <p> </p> <p>5) A small fee be collected to help pay for safety programs, background and mental health checks and any other programs designed to help foster responsible gun ownership.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>Now this list isn't all inclusive. For each one of these provisions there is a right way to do it and a wrong way....</p> <p>(Little shorter this time)</p>
  11. Wow, just took like an hour putting a response together for Anuk and I lost it....Dammit I hate that. I'll come back at some point, but I'm a little to pissed right now....
  12. MrUSAPatriot... I think you missed this, I would be interested to get your thoughts. http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/142098-lets-have-an-honest-discussion-about-guns/?p=2964395
  13. Essentially we agree. It's not the laws that are in place, but the content of the laws that matters. I'm all for evidence based thinking rather than emotional thinking. I think we can agree that, when it comes in firearms, check your emotions at the door.

No holds barred chat

You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...