Jump to content
Redd Dawg

Gun Violence

Recommended Posts

 

Being from Hawaii (not many had them there) and a Democrat I was exactly the same way. However, being a free spirit....a surfer...and an adrenaline junkie....when someone said they were taboo...I decided to see what the fuss/fear was all about.

 

I can remember being in the gun store for the first time (so naive). The clerk said, "Do you want to hold it?". I replied, "Oh no...I don't want to shoot anybody." He laughed as it was completely unloaded. He went over the safety rules and assured me I would NOT die just holding it.

 

Fast forward to today, I realized that my fear was simply that....inexperience. Needless to say, I was shunned by my democrat anti-gun friends and tried to find a place in the Republican party. Pretty tough for someone who supports gay rights and pro-choice. Naturally, I landed square in the Libertarian party (pretty much here to stay).

 

2nd Amendment drama aside, it is really fun to take out to do some target shooting. Ever shot a bow an arrow? It is kind of the same except the power factor is multiplied greatly.

 

I actually encourage those that fear it to try it (if only once). If you come back as say, its not for me. Your freedom...your choice. There are some military vets that don't even believe in gun ownership so.....that tells you it isn't an experience thing...but a personal preference.

Last I checked, libertarians are for laissez faire capitalism, also known as eating your children. Good luck with your amoral philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last I checked, libertarians are for laissez faire capitalism, also known as eating your children. Good luck with your amoral philosophy.

 

We're also laissez faire with respect to social aspects as well. Consistency in liberty. I think the Republicans should leave same sex couples to pursue happiness the way they see fit. How's that sound to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We're also laissez faire with respect to social aspects as well. Consistency in liberty. I think the Republicans should leave same sex couples to pursue happiness the way they see fit. How's that sound to you?

I get that libertarians side with liberals on social issues. I consider it irrelevant, since the same folks they would liberate from the morality of little pigs, they would make slaves - in their paltry understanding of economics - to bigger pigs.

 

A "free" slave? What's that? I can blow my boy friend, but I can't afford lube for him to nail me in my unwrelentingly hungry keister?

 

Might as well dance with fat girls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that libertarians side with liberals on social issues. I consider it irrelevant, since the same folks they would liberate from the morality of little pigs, they would make slaves - in their paltry understanding of economics - to bigger pigs.

 

A "free" slave? What's that? I can blow my boy friend, but I can't afford lube for him to nail me in my unwrelentingly hungry keister?

 

Might as well dance with fat girls.

 

What you don't understand is that we don't seek to serve those that abuse a moral society. We just can't be hypocritical about the concept of liberty. I'll give you an example. Let's say a few stories go around about how a few doctors performed brutal abortions. Horrific and the main stream media presented that to the world. Let's say there is an outcry and a rule/regulation must be made to restrict the freedom and liberties of doctors or women who seek to harm an unborn child.

 

I say NO to that. I say a woman's right is still hers to choose and that as ugly as a handful of people are in our society, you can not take the freedoms away from the rest who are not irresponsible or evil.

 

There are rich pigs out there. However, there are a few hard working individuals that have obtained success and are great philanthropists. Not all rich people are out to make slaves of the working class.

 

You can't stereotype everyone based on a few bad apples. Since we are on that topic, same goes for gun liberties. Not everyone that owns a gun is a murderer hell bent on shooting as many people as they can. That's insane to apply blanket stereotypes. It lead's to prejudice which I though a liberal think tank would be against. Yes/No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What you don't understand is that we don't seek to serve those that abuse a moral society. We just can't be hypocritical about the concept of liberty. I'll give you an example. Let's say a few stories go around about how a few doctors performed brutal abortions. Horrific and the main stream media presented that to the world. Let's say there is an outcry and a rule/regulation must be made to restrict the freedom and liberties of doctors or women who seek to harm an unborn child.

 

I say NO to that. I say a woman's right is still hers to choose and that as ugly as a handful of people are in our society, you can not take the freedoms away from the rest who are not irresponsible or evil.

 

There are rich pigs out there. However, there are a few hard working individuals that have obtained success and are great philanthropists. Not all rich people are out to make slaves of the working class.

 

You can't stereotype everyone based on a few bad apples. Since we are on that topic, same goes for gun liberties. Not everyone that owns a gun is a murderer hell bent on shooting as many people as they can. That's insane to apply blanket stereotypes. It lead's to prejudice which I though a liberal think tank would be against. Yes/No?

 

You fail to distinguish between a human being and a consortium - a corporation. Where libertarianism fails is in that inability.

 

PEOPLE have rights. Desks don't. Corporations don't. Reasonable regulations on corporations are not an abuse of liberty - they are essential to its preservation. In those times of least regulation on capitalism, liberty has been least evident in the land.

 

Also, human kind's primary survival mechanism and primary success strategy is now, and has from teh dawn of time always been, collectivisim. Any theory or philosophy that turns up its nose at mankind's primary survival mechanism in not fit for human consumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You fail to distinguish between a human being and a consortium - a corporation. Where libertarianism fails is in that inability.

 

PEOPLE have rights. Desks don't. Corporations don't. Reasonable regulations on corporations are not an abuse of liberty - they are essential to its preservation. In those times of least regulation on capitalism, liberty has been least evident in the land.

 

Also, human kind's primary survival mechanism and primary success strategy is now, and has from teh dawn of time always been, collectivisim. Any theory or philosophy that turns up its nose at mankind's primary survival mechanism in not fit for human consumption.

 

So you favor collectivism over individualism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So you favor collectivism over individualism?

 

Not that you asked me, but if you don't mind I'll chime in....

 

People working together will always be more successful then individuals working toward their own ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So you favor collectivism over individualism?

 

I am an individual within a collective. I favor reality.

 

The reality is, the more people in your apartment, the more rules. Your place, run around naked. Wash dish when there are no more clean.

 

Get a room mate, your behavior changes. You're still an individual, but now have to consider the collective - you AND your room mate.

 

Move the whole extended fam in because times are hard? NOW you have a bathroom schedule - gotta be that way. You are STILL an individual. But you are more constrained than ever, because of the collective.

 

Your rent has gone down. You feel great about helping the fam. But there ARE things you give up.

 

 

 

So you favor collectivism over individualism?

 

 

 

I am an individual WITHIN a collective. Only a fool would deny EITHER condition. "favoring" one is nothing but a preference - has zip to do with conditions on the ground.

 

Conditions on the ground are as follws: You don EXIST, except as a function of the collective. You are NOTHING without a society to be that thing in.

 

If there were no society, there would be no NOTION of property rights. Who would you be keeping out? Against whom would you enforce those rights? Your HUMAN rights come form your creator. Your PROPERTY rights originate in society, and vary from country to country.

 

This libertarian fantasy that you have property rights as a function of being human is just that - fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The root failure of libertarianism traces to its incompetence to distinguish between human rights (crerator-granted) and property rights (fashioned by consensus).



 

 

 

 

Oh my. LOL!

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The root failure of libertarianism traces to its incompetence to distinguish between human rights (crerator-granted) and property rights (fashioned by consensus).

 

 

:lol:

Boy, all this reading about "LIBERTY" reminds me of a fundie that's just found God. I don't like being preached at by Christian's, let alone the Holy Liberty crowd, trying to promote selfishness as a virtue.

 

I never paid much attention to libertarians until Ron Paul got a piece of the action. I completely agree with him on foreign policy, but when he starts talking about economics, it makes me want to pick up a fork and stab someone in the eye.

Edited by anukulardecider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am an individual within a collective. I favor reality.

 

The reality is, the more people in your apartment, the more rules. Your place, run around naked. Wash dish when there are no more clean.

 

Get a room mate, your behavior changes. You're still an individual, but now have to consider the collective - you AND your room mate.

 

Move the whole extended fam in because times are hard? NOW you have a bathroom schedule - gotta be that way. You are STILL an individual. But you are more constrained than ever, because of the collective.

 

Your rent has gone down. You feel great about helping the fam. But there ARE things you give up.

 

 

 

 

 

I am an individual WITHIN a collective. Only a fool would deny EITHER condition. "favoring" one is nothing but a preference - has zip to do with conditions on the ground.

 

Conditions on the ground are as follws: You don EXIST, except as a function of the collective. You are NOTHING without a society to be that thing in.

 

If there were no society, there would be no NOTION of property rights. Who would you be keeping out? Against whom would you enforce those rights? Your HUMAN rights come form your creator. Your PROPERTY rights originate in society, and vary from country to country.

 

This libertarian fantasy that you have property rights as a function of being human is just that - fantasy.

 

You make some good points about society. Without society and a government, you have anarchy. It isn't that you don't have property rights. You have property rights that you have to continuously defend against those that would take it away from you. That is why our founders created the republic. A society which wasn't anarchy. However, to ensure that the government's rule (whether an individual or collective) did not overstep its bounds....the type of government put in place is what we have as defined by the constitution. Additionally, an individual's rights are protected specifically by the Bill of Rights.

 

When you are born as a human, you start off with rights to yourself....your body. I can't take that from you. I can't cut off your limb. Our government can't dictate what tattoos I put on my body nor can they determine how women decide to handle their pregnancy. So no matter what our collective decides, your right to yourself (your individual body...which is your property) does exist, as a human. That is not a fantasy.

 

 

The root failure of libertarianism traces to its incompetence to distinguish between human rights (crerator-granted) and property rights (fashioned by consensus).

 

 

:lol:

 

 

 

Would you agree that if a consensus fashioned an opinion that determined that you wouldn't be able to drive a fossil fuel powered vehicle (one that you own) because of new environmental laws....you would have to give up your car....and then start walking to work....or riding a bike.

 

You would be ok with that?

 

Let's take it even further. Let's say it was decided that "thuggish" clothing (by the collective) resulting in more gang related activity, so they decided the collective would now start wearing uniform clothing like private schools? Would you support that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You make some good points about society. Without society and a government, you have anarchy. It isn't that you don't have property rights. You have property rights that you have to continuously defend against those that would take it away from you. That is why our founders created the republic. A society which wasn't anarchy. However, to ensure that the government's rule (whether an individual or collective) did not overstep its bounds....the type of government put in place is what we have as defined by the constitution. Additionally, an individual's rights are protected specifically by the Bill of Rights.

 

When you are born as a human, you start off with rights to yourself....your body. I can't take that from you. I can't cut off your limb. Our government can't dictate what tattoos I put on my body nor can they determine how women decide to handle their pregnancy. So no matter what our collective decides, your right to yourself (your individual body...which is your property) does exist, as a human. That is not a fantasy.

 

 

 

 

 

Would you agree that if a consensus fashioned an opinion that determined that you wouldn't be able to drive a fossil fuel powered vehicle (one that you own) because of new environmental laws....you would have to give up your car....and then start walking to work....or riding a bike.

 

You would be ok with that?

 

Let's take it even further. Let's say it was decided that "thuggish" clothing (by the collective) resulting in more gang related activity, so they decided the collective would now start wearing uniform clothing like private schools? Would you support that?

 

That to which I accede and that which I support are different things. There are mechanisms for changing laws that one disagrees with. That I am at the mercy of the collective, and subject to the collective's laws, is certainly not something that I am so immersed in fantasy as to disagree with.

 

In my personal home, I have laid down rules. They are my rules, and those who wish to abide there must follow them.

 

The collective, likewise, lays down rules - albeit by a more cumbersome (and, it is hoped, more democratic) methodology. And Yes, I am cool with new emmissions standards being implemented, although I staunchly support the current practice of grandfathering in old vehicles.

 

That said, at a certain point I am going to agree that you don't get to car-fart on everyone, just because you drive an old beater in disrepair. I might quibble about where the line is, but do I believe in the line? You bet.

 

We're all in this together. Ask any denizen of L.A. whether your old beater affects his life.

 

 

Oh, I forgot to address the clothing question.

 

 

 

That question is ENTIRELY theoretical, and highly unlikely to ever be an issue. The trajectory is toward more liberty of self expression rather than less. That said, I actively favor a strict dress code in schools, and I would vote AGAINST a dress code elsewhere.

 

Except walmart. Make people wear suits to walmart, I say.

 

 

Would you agree that if a consensus fashioned an opinion that determined that you wouldn't be able to drive a fossil fuel powered vehicle (one that you own) because of new environmental laws....you would have to give up your car....and then start walking to work....or riding a bike.

 

You would be ok with that?

 

 

 

Okay, I apologize - I answered a question you did not ask, and failed to answer the one you did.

 

If this happened, and algore won, I would consider participating in rebellion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That question is ENTIRELY theoretical, and highly unlikely to ever be an issue. The trajectory is toward more liberty of self expression rather than less. That said, I actively favor a strict dress code in schools, and I would vote AGAINST a dress code elsewhere.

 

Except walmart. Make people wear suits to walmart, I say.

 

Okay...that Walmart bit did make me laugh. :D

 

Thank you for playing the theoritical game....it's fun. So humor me a bit more. You would vote against a dress code elsewhere. However, if the collective decided too bad. No self-expression buddy.

 

Would you rebel....or say....society's rules. I have to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Okay...that Walmart bit did make me laugh. :D

 

Thank you for playing the theoritical game....it's fun. So humor me a bit more. You would vote against a dress code elsewhere. However, if the collective decided too bad. No self-expression buddy.

 

Would you rebel....or say....society's rules. I have to play.

 

Over panties, I would never rebel.

 

Over pastries - you bet. Don't fuck with my pastries. :ninja:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Over panties, I would never rebel.

 

Over pastries - you bet. Don't fuck with my pastries. :ninja:

Ok....at least you are consistent. :) We will make sure to pass panties-required uniforms and ban all pastries just for you. :D I kid.

Edited by MrUSPatriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I edited my earlier answer in response to your car question.

 

I DO have a concern about the algore scumbag aspect of our collective. Defending the necessity and propriety of our collective should not be construed as defending every asinine direction in which sundry snakes and scumbags would like to drag it for their profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, all this reading about "LIBERTY" reminds me of a fundie that's just found God. I don't like being preached at by Christian's, let alone the Holy Liberty crowd, trying to promote selfishness as a virtue.

 

I never paid much attention to libertarians until Ron Paul got a piece of the action. I completely agree with him on foreign policy, but when he starts talking about economics, it makes me want to pick up a fork and stab someone in the eye.

 

My distinction forces no one to believe anything in order to follow the logic. You can be an atheist or an agnostic or a baptist and, independently of that philosophy, agree or disagree that there is a distinction between human rights and property rights.

 

I SEE GB! HEY, BABY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm, not so much. Ban all guns and melt them down? Take them from the police too? I think this idea would represent the far left and, as someone mentioned, never pass congress regardless of who's in office. So, that may be you ropinion, it's far from any remote reality.

 

So, back to reality? What is to be done? First we should really study what is going on and what we are really trying to solve. What is the real problem? Is it guns or is it violence? As many on here have stated, there are lots of guns in many low violence countries. What makes our country different and what drives our violence rates?

 

The right will tell us that more people die of pools/carwrecks/artery disease/xxxxxxwhateverxxxx than die from assault guns every year. How do we reasonably respond to those discussion points? Are they correct?

 

How do we respond when the right says that none of the proposed measures of the president would have stopped the school shootings? Are they correct?

 

So, what do we really want to do? Do we want to reduce violence? Reduce deaths? or do we just want to reduce guns and hope the underlying cause of violence disappears with the tools of the trade?

 

This is hard stuff and deserves an honest discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Send the army in with there AK15's and mossman shotguns and take them!

I think Mossman is a redneck cartoon on Fox..he lives in the swamp...eats crawdads raw and is a Repub political consultant....like....half Karl Rove, half Cookie Monster.

 

There is no "Mossman" shotgun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we respond when the right says that none of the proposed measures of the president would have stopped the school shootings? Are they correct?

Yes, on several levels. This guy was a manchurian candidate AND a fall guy. Do some googling - he was not alone. And before you roll your eyes at the "conspiracy theorist," I have a few words and phrases to toss out: JFK and the Magic Bullet; The sinking of the Maine, and the Gulf of Tonkin.

So, what do we really want to do? Do we want to reduce violence? Reduce deaths? or do we just want to reduce guns and hope the underlying cause of violence disappears with the tools of the trade?

A valid question. We have to get rid of BOTH of the main political parties. That's the bad news. Good news is, they are utterly interdependent, so you really only need to do away with either to kill the other.

 

If the left started walking its talk around social issues, we'd vote for socialists and the dems would fail. I pray each night for Roe to be overturned. It would utterly destroy the republican party, if it ever happened. And by the way - abortion on demand would STILL be legal in 50 states the next day. Worst cawse, a few women would have to take a bus and get a motel six for the procedure - well worth it to see the republican party get their bluff called, and lose a MASSIVE bloc of voters, no matter HOW they played their hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A valid question. We have to get rid of BOTH of the main political parties. That's the bad news. Good news is, they are utterly interdependent, so you really only need to do away with either to kill the other.

 

If the left started walking its talk around social issues, we'd vote for socialists and the dems would fail. I pray each night for Roe to be overturned. It would utterly destroy the republican party, if it ever happened. And by the way - abortion on demand would STILL be legal in 50 states the next day. Worst cawse, a few women would have to take a bus and get a motel six for the procedure - well worth it to see the republican party get their bluff called, and lose a MASSIVE bloc of voters, no matter HOW they played their hand.

 

You think getting rid of our political parties is the best way to deal with violence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You think getting rid of our political parties is the best way to deal with violence?

Getting rid of our PARTY (not parties) is the the only possible way I see to increase social justice - the only lasting way to reduce social violence.

 

I mean, let's not be coy. The "two" parties work both sides against each other (each answering to the same paymasters) toward the same ultimate end. I interrupted my niece when she was playing with her My Little Ponies, and even she knew that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting rid of our PARTY (not parties) is the the only possible way I see to increase social justice - the only lasting way to reduce social violence.

 

I mean, let's not be coy. The "two" parties work both sides against each other (each answering to the same paymasters) toward the same ultimate end. I interrupted my niece when she was playing with her My Little Ponies, and even she knew that much.

 

 

OK, so you've broadened the discussion to addressing a much larger issue. The two major parties are in bed toegether. There's really not a nickles worth of difference between them as both are just tyring to retain their seat which means not addressing the big issues.

 

All the politicans are not getting put out of office anytime soon though. So, how do you reduce gun violence in a more near future? Like, what can we realistically do in the next year or so to reduce violence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All the politicans are not getting put out of office anytime soon though. So, how do you reduce gun violence in a more near future? Like, what can we realistically do in the next year or so to reduce violence?

 

Through legislation? Nothing.

 

If we are going to do awareness of anything, I wouldn't want government or media trying to "brainwash me".

 

 

I would want our government at the very least encouraging parents to spend more time with their kids. Teach them what is right, what is wrong, and regardless of the video games, the TV/movie violence, that good people take care of one another...and don't hurt them.

 

So yeah.....

244px-Uncle_Sam_(pointing_finger).jpg

 

YOU....(parents) need to work at reducing violence. Put down your mobile devices, take your heads out of your butt and reach out to your children. Make sure they are keeping a good head on their shoulders. If they are troubled, reach out to them. Love them.

Edited by MrUSPatriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...