I don't think its right to compare the United States to countries that are incomparable in power and wealth though. Like, drug cartels are not really a thing here. The mafia isn't that prevalent.
Why should we be compared with a country like El Salvador or Honduras when we're more fairly comparable to the UK, France, Russia, Australia, Japan, etc
USA in 2016 (FRIENDLY ZONE ONLY)
Re: USA in 2016 (FRIENDLY ZONE ONLY)
I can agree with that, I was mainly suggesting what differences could be seen from the different charts. Marcos lives in South America so I'm sure he knows a good bit about how their governments are.
I'm generally in favor of making it more difficult to obtain assault type weapons. I think handguns are fine for defense and the average citizen doesn't need to walk around with an AR-15.
I'm generally in favor of making it more difficult to obtain assault type weapons. I think handguns are fine for defense and the average citizen doesn't need to walk around with an AR-15.
anguyen92 wrote:Oh well. Deal with it.
Re: USA in 2016 (FRIENDLY ZONE ONLY)
That's one thing that is almost irrefutable. Fine. You want your constitutional rights to have a handgun for the defense of the home, have at it.
But you cannot convince me that the constitution grants someone the right to own a fucking machine gun. That's not what it says, there's no need to own one when a handgun is sufficient for defense, handguns are cheaper, smaller, more accessible, less dangerous, etc. Simply no reason why anything other than that is necessary.
But you cannot convince me that the constitution grants someone the right to own a fucking machine gun. That's not what it says, there's no need to own one when a handgun is sufficient for defense, handguns are cheaper, smaller, more accessible, less dangerous, etc. Simply no reason why anything other than that is necessary.
Re: USA in 2016 (FRIENDLY ZONE ONLY)
The constitution was written 250 years ago.. I think it needs an upgrade
Re: USA in 2016 (FRIENDLY ZONE ONLY)
I'm not sure about that. The people that wrote the constitution were some of the smartest people that walked the earth.
What needs to happen is that people need to stop construing the constitution as "Oh it doesn't say I can't do this... so its probably allowed"
This is what the 2nd Amendment states:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Now you're asking, "why did these smart people add this provision?" Well, the original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to help our military. Back then, we did not fund our own military... therefore, we needed them to have weapons in order to defend us. So we gave people the right to keep muskets in their home so that, if they were ever called/drafted by the military, some people would already own a gun and wouldn't need to be supplied one.
However, now we spend around 600 BILLION dollars per year to fund our military. So this necessity has become obsolete.
The constitution doesn't say "you may own a machine gun/assault rifle/semi-automatic gun and carry it around in public." So people need to stop construing it that way. The purpose of the amendment was to have a well-regulated military because it was not funded. Now that it IS funded, the purpose of the amendment is obsolete.
What needs to happen is that people need to stop construing the constitution as "Oh it doesn't say I can't do this... so its probably allowed"
This is what the 2nd Amendment states:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Now you're asking, "why did these smart people add this provision?" Well, the original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to help our military. Back then, we did not fund our own military... therefore, we needed them to have weapons in order to defend us. So we gave people the right to keep muskets in their home so that, if they were ever called/drafted by the military, some people would already own a gun and wouldn't need to be supplied one.
However, now we spend around 600 BILLION dollars per year to fund our military. So this necessity has become obsolete.
The constitution doesn't say "you may own a machine gun/assault rifle/semi-automatic gun and carry it around in public." So people need to stop construing it that way. The purpose of the amendment was to have a well-regulated military because it was not funded. Now that it IS funded, the purpose of the amendment is obsolete.
Re: USA in 2016 (FRIENDLY ZONE ONLY)
Let's start from the top.
Why do people commit so many homicides? People have lost respect for the sanctity of life. Instead of talking things out in a rational way, we want to shout people down or turn to violence, whether physical or using some type of weapon. The same "side" that wants more gun control is perfectly fine aborting thousands of babies each day. "Oh but you don't think a woman has the right to choose!" She did choose...to have sex...most likely unprotected...and got pregnant...so we should kill that baby now? I won't get more in depth with that issue because it's a more complex issue for another day.
On another front, our society has gotten dumber. I place a large part of the blame on the "media." People swear by their "news" sources. Newsflash: the Daily Show and once upon a time, the Colbert Report, are not news programs. It's like this throughout the political spectrum. People swear that Fox News or CNN or some other channel or web site is speaking the truth. The media spins stories to fit their agenda. Fox does it. MSNBC does it. The Young Turks do it. Everybody does it. And what does society do? Eats it up like its the truth. People are lazy and have no interest in seeking information out themselves. Statistics are skewed to fit an agenda in some cases. Or if you use statistics in your argument, people will argue they're not true. It's infuriating sometimes. Look at what happens when a terrorist attacks happen. You have Orlando. What was the narrative after that? Gun control. You have Dallas. What was the narrative after that? Gun control. You have Nice, France. What will the narrative be after that? Truck control? It isn't the matter of weapon, it's the idealogy. There are sick people and groups. We must be vigilant.
With regards to guns, people throw around terms and interchange terms that aren't exactly true. For instance, an automatic weapon is a weapon in which a single pull of the trigger fires multiple rounds. This would be the machine gun used by the military. A semi-automatic weapon is a weapon in which a single pull of the trigger fires a single round. This would be the handgun used by people. Check this out; an AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It looks like an assault weapon but it isn't. The AR doesn't stand for "assault rifle." But, people in society are too dumb to look it up. They just repeat talking points they hear from their news source. To use another example, just because it looks like an iPod doesn't mean it's actually an iPod. People just assume it's true.
Banning weapons will not curtail criminal activity. Look at these gun free zones in various places. This creates a soft target for somebody wishing to do something. I'm not for open-carry but concealed carry. Imagine you're in a public gathering and somebody decides to open fire on the crowd. Now, if you're in a gun free zone and everybody who obeys the law follows it, nobody has any means to defend themselves. You're sitting ducks. Had this been a concealed carry place, one or two shots and the threat is neutralized.
I know somebody mentioned the black market. This is where your police force comes into play. When they discover illegal weapons, they confiscate them and destroy them. Banning weapons will not prevent a criminal from obtaining said weapons. They will find a way. That's why they are criminals; because they don't follow the laws. Next time you're out driving, if you're speeding, you're a criminal. Just because it has a posted speed limit doesn't mean everybody will follow it. In the same case, just because there is a sign that says "Gun Free Zone" doesn't mean people will follow it, since they're criminals.
Now, does that mean law-abiding citizens should have their weapons taken? No. Because what will happen if a criminal decides they want to break into someone's house? If that person has no means to defend themselves, it will get ugly. You as a citizen have the right to protect your property and your family. All the locks and preventive measures won't stop a criminal from breaking in. After all, they're criminals. Moving forward, I've heard the argument that only cops should have guns. Um, no. Not all cops are bad but there are some bad apples out there.
Going back to entertainment and media, it's hypocritical for celebrities that make money off of movies highlighting the use of guns yet call for a ban on guns. Matt Damon for instance is the star of the Bourne movies. Were guns in that movie? Yes. Did Mr. Damon call for a gun ban? Yes. See how that doesn't compute? It's the same as Leonardo DiCaprio talking about global warming but using a private jet to fly thousands of miles to talk about global warming. Jamie Foxx wants to talk about gun control. But how much money has he made off movies with guns in them?
Back to weapons, look at when the American Revolution took place and what went on during that time. Besides having a militia, what's to stop a tyrannical government from banning & confiscating weapons? Everybody likes to invoke Hitler into an argument. Didn't Hitler ban guns? He also banned any political party besides his own but that's another story. But, what would happen if the government turned the army onto the citizens? With a gun ban, the citizens, or rebels as they'd be labeled, have no means of defending themselves or fighting back.
But as I said from the start, it goes back to respecting each other and the right to live. Don't try and box me in either because I have a mixtur of conservative/libertarian/liberal views. I think we have some idiots in elected office but that goes back to a dumbed down society. I can't believe we've chosen the two most hated candidates from the two main parties but that too goes back to a dumbed down society.
We can get into a whole debate about various topics. I was a member of a message board and got too involved with it. Discussing politics and issues on a daily basis didn't help my stress level and it ate at me. So I won't be on this part of the site every day. Just make sure you do your own research and don't always read about one side of an issue. Not everything is 2-sided like the media would have you believe.
Why do people commit so many homicides? People have lost respect for the sanctity of life. Instead of talking things out in a rational way, we want to shout people down or turn to violence, whether physical or using some type of weapon. The same "side" that wants more gun control is perfectly fine aborting thousands of babies each day. "Oh but you don't think a woman has the right to choose!" She did choose...to have sex...most likely unprotected...and got pregnant...so we should kill that baby now? I won't get more in depth with that issue because it's a more complex issue for another day.
On another front, our society has gotten dumber. I place a large part of the blame on the "media." People swear by their "news" sources. Newsflash: the Daily Show and once upon a time, the Colbert Report, are not news programs. It's like this throughout the political spectrum. People swear that Fox News or CNN or some other channel or web site is speaking the truth. The media spins stories to fit their agenda. Fox does it. MSNBC does it. The Young Turks do it. Everybody does it. And what does society do? Eats it up like its the truth. People are lazy and have no interest in seeking information out themselves. Statistics are skewed to fit an agenda in some cases. Or if you use statistics in your argument, people will argue they're not true. It's infuriating sometimes. Look at what happens when a terrorist attacks happen. You have Orlando. What was the narrative after that? Gun control. You have Dallas. What was the narrative after that? Gun control. You have Nice, France. What will the narrative be after that? Truck control? It isn't the matter of weapon, it's the idealogy. There are sick people and groups. We must be vigilant.
With regards to guns, people throw around terms and interchange terms that aren't exactly true. For instance, an automatic weapon is a weapon in which a single pull of the trigger fires multiple rounds. This would be the machine gun used by the military. A semi-automatic weapon is a weapon in which a single pull of the trigger fires a single round. This would be the handgun used by people. Check this out; an AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It looks like an assault weapon but it isn't. The AR doesn't stand for "assault rifle." But, people in society are too dumb to look it up. They just repeat talking points they hear from their news source. To use another example, just because it looks like an iPod doesn't mean it's actually an iPod. People just assume it's true.
Banning weapons will not curtail criminal activity. Look at these gun free zones in various places. This creates a soft target for somebody wishing to do something. I'm not for open-carry but concealed carry. Imagine you're in a public gathering and somebody decides to open fire on the crowd. Now, if you're in a gun free zone and everybody who obeys the law follows it, nobody has any means to defend themselves. You're sitting ducks. Had this been a concealed carry place, one or two shots and the threat is neutralized.
I know somebody mentioned the black market. This is where your police force comes into play. When they discover illegal weapons, they confiscate them and destroy them. Banning weapons will not prevent a criminal from obtaining said weapons. They will find a way. That's why they are criminals; because they don't follow the laws. Next time you're out driving, if you're speeding, you're a criminal. Just because it has a posted speed limit doesn't mean everybody will follow it. In the same case, just because there is a sign that says "Gun Free Zone" doesn't mean people will follow it, since they're criminals.
Now, does that mean law-abiding citizens should have their weapons taken? No. Because what will happen if a criminal decides they want to break into someone's house? If that person has no means to defend themselves, it will get ugly. You as a citizen have the right to protect your property and your family. All the locks and preventive measures won't stop a criminal from breaking in. After all, they're criminals. Moving forward, I've heard the argument that only cops should have guns. Um, no. Not all cops are bad but there are some bad apples out there.
Going back to entertainment and media, it's hypocritical for celebrities that make money off of movies highlighting the use of guns yet call for a ban on guns. Matt Damon for instance is the star of the Bourne movies. Were guns in that movie? Yes. Did Mr. Damon call for a gun ban? Yes. See how that doesn't compute? It's the same as Leonardo DiCaprio talking about global warming but using a private jet to fly thousands of miles to talk about global warming. Jamie Foxx wants to talk about gun control. But how much money has he made off movies with guns in them?
Back to weapons, look at when the American Revolution took place and what went on during that time. Besides having a militia, what's to stop a tyrannical government from banning & confiscating weapons? Everybody likes to invoke Hitler into an argument. Didn't Hitler ban guns? He also banned any political party besides his own but that's another story. But, what would happen if the government turned the army onto the citizens? With a gun ban, the citizens, or rebels as they'd be labeled, have no means of defending themselves or fighting back.
But as I said from the start, it goes back to respecting each other and the right to live. Don't try and box me in either because I have a mixtur of conservative/libertarian/liberal views. I think we have some idiots in elected office but that goes back to a dumbed down society. I can't believe we've chosen the two most hated candidates from the two main parties but that too goes back to a dumbed down society.
We can get into a whole debate about various topics. I was a member of a message board and got too involved with it. Discussing politics and issues on a daily basis didn't help my stress level and it ate at me. So I won't be on this part of the site every day. Just make sure you do your own research and don't always read about one side of an issue. Not everything is 2-sided like the media would have you believe.
-
anguyen92
- Expert Comma Negotiator
- Posts: 10376
- Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:31 pm
- Location: California
Re: USA in 2016 (FRIENDLY ZONE ONLY)
This sentence reminds me of the whole premise of that Live Earth concerts back in 2007. Here's a statement regarding the environmental impact that I found from, yes, Wikipedia about it.luke62 wrote: It's the same as Leonardo DiCaprio talking about global warming but using a private jet to fly thousands of miles to talk about global warming.
It's funny how they want to promote the awareness of "climate change" through a medium like holding concerts in stadiums which seems to contradict what they want to promote.Bands including The Who, Muse and Arctic Monkeys dubbed Live Earth "Private Jets for Climate Change." The event's total carbon footprint, including the artists' and spectators' travel and energy consumption, was probably at least 74,500 tonnes, according to John Buckley of CarbonFootPrint.com - more than 3,000 times the average Briton's annual footprint. Performers flew at least 222,623.63 miles (about 358,278 kilometres) — the equivalent of nearly nine times round the planet — to take part in the event, and this figure does not include transport of technicians, dancers and support staff. An estimate reported that 100,000 planted trees are required to offset total carbon emissions produced during the entire event, as well as a key sponsor for the event being Chevrolet, promoting a new hybrid four-wheel drive
Concert-goers at the event’s London leg had left thousands of plastic cups on the floor of Wembley Stadium, although organisers had urged audience members to use the recycling bins provided, the BBC reported.
As for the whole media wanting to really push their agenda whenever x event happens, it reminds me of a song from Switchfoot called Selling The News, which discusses the whole fabrication of people presenting the news in the way they want to regardless if it is 100% true or not.
My Trip to Orlando and Raleigh to see AB Posts
Re: USA in 2016 (FRIENDLY ZONE ONLY)
Luke, I agree with your point that society is, let's call it less well educated and informed these days, but I can't put that blame on the media. The media, like reality TV, twitter, McDonald's, etc, exists the way it does because that's how our society wants it. I'm not saying you or I as individuals want it that way (I never watch TV/internet news) but society on the whole does. If there were no money in it, it wouldn't exist in its current form. If there were more money in a better form, that would exist instead. Society doesn't demand or even recognize what's best, so we are stuck with what we have. And it's not like I can be all holier-than-thou about this. I won't eat at McDonalds or watch Fox News, but I'm not really providing any better opportunities for society either. I'm trying to teach my kids better ways, but we're a droplet in the ocean.
This ridiculous society we find ourselves in is simply a product of human nature and it's preference for greed and laziness and immediate gratification. It would take a fundamental frame shift in the mind set of humanity to fix any of the problems in the world, and it will take an incredible leader to effect that. Unfortunately, we have two caricatures of leadership running for president in the U.S., and I don't see any other countries making great strides either.
This ridiculous society we find ourselves in is simply a product of human nature and it's preference for greed and laziness and immediate gratification. It would take a fundamental frame shift in the mind set of humanity to fix any of the problems in the world, and it will take an incredible leader to effect that. Unfortunately, we have two caricatures of leadership running for president in the U.S., and I don't see any other countries making great strides either.
Another photobucket casualty... 
As your courage crashes down before your eyes, don't lay down and die
Re: USA in 2016 (FRIENDLY ZONE ONLY)
Anguyen92, it's comical. These celebrities have armed security, fly in private jets around the world, build walls around their mansions, go to award shows that use massive amounts of electricity....but want to lecture me on guns, "climate change," or immigration.
Gbruin, I agree with you on the notion that society does want the immediate gratification. It's like everything has become "instant." Food, shipping, conversations, etc. It's a shame but at least showing your kids that there is a different way to do things.
I think there are a lot of people that get into politics to make a difference. Then they get in office and see how tough things are. To even get elected, you have to have money. In our local state senate race a few months back, there were 3 candidates. Who won? The guy with the most money. He literally bought the election with the ads, paper mailers, etc. It's the same in the national scale. The candidate with the most money wins essentially. I remember when Obama won in '08. Shortly before the election, he ran a 30-minute ad across multiple networks. That costs a lot of money! Factor in the outside money coming in as people have claimed Clinton has received, it's not exactly democracy in action.
I wish we could limit our Congressional leaders on the terms they can serve. The writers of the Constitution didn't expect that somebody could hold office for decades like some have. I also wish they could put a mandatory retirement age on our Supreme Court justices.
We have an equal representation via the Senate and a population-based representation with the House. But I like the way some other countries do it with representatives of the different parties. In our nation, if you don't fit into the 2 main ones, your chance at being heard is low. It's a shame.
So when you look at it, regardless of which major party is in control, the common man's voice won't be heard. You have lobbyists getting their way by "buying off" members of Congress. These jokers don't work a great deal either because they're always campaigning or "in recess." So, nothing gets done. That's a big reason why I favor limited federal government. What might be good for somebody in Florida might not make a difference to somebody in Oregon, so why pass something for all 50 states?
Gbruin, I agree with you on the notion that society does want the immediate gratification. It's like everything has become "instant." Food, shipping, conversations, etc. It's a shame but at least showing your kids that there is a different way to do things.
I think there are a lot of people that get into politics to make a difference. Then they get in office and see how tough things are. To even get elected, you have to have money. In our local state senate race a few months back, there were 3 candidates. Who won? The guy with the most money. He literally bought the election with the ads, paper mailers, etc. It's the same in the national scale. The candidate with the most money wins essentially. I remember when Obama won in '08. Shortly before the election, he ran a 30-minute ad across multiple networks. That costs a lot of money! Factor in the outside money coming in as people have claimed Clinton has received, it's not exactly democracy in action.
I wish we could limit our Congressional leaders on the terms they can serve. The writers of the Constitution didn't expect that somebody could hold office for decades like some have. I also wish they could put a mandatory retirement age on our Supreme Court justices.
We have an equal representation via the Senate and a population-based representation with the House. But I like the way some other countries do it with representatives of the different parties. In our nation, if you don't fit into the 2 main ones, your chance at being heard is low. It's a shame.
So when you look at it, regardless of which major party is in control, the common man's voice won't be heard. You have lobbyists getting their way by "buying off" members of Congress. These jokers don't work a great deal either because they're always campaigning or "in recess." So, nothing gets done. That's a big reason why I favor limited federal government. What might be good for somebody in Florida might not make a difference to somebody in Oregon, so why pass something for all 50 states?
Re: USA in 2016 (FRIENDLY ZONE ONLY)
Right with you on the dysfunctionality of our government. I agree that term limits would be a huge improvement for our government, as would limiting the perks and lifelong benefits for elected officials. It would create government officials who did the job for the good of the public and less for the good and comfort of themselves, and it would free them of the need to spend their political careers raising money (to win their next election) and keep them from becoming beholden to their donors. I feel like lobbyists are the biggest poison to our government.
The current extreme and growing division between the two parties has made it almost impossible to reach any compromise on issues. The intensity with which each side defends its own agenda looks like trench warfare in France in 1917. Instead on finding a reasonable middle ground for compromise, the division has created a no man's land where anyone from either side gets slaughtered. As a result, each sides simply tries to advance and win its own agenda rather than meeting the other side half way. This attitude has trickled down to much of the population who dogmatically identifies him or herself with one side or the other and fosters further division. I wish people would stop labeling everyone and every issue as conservative or liberal. I don't believe that one side has all the right answers and the other is entirely wrong, but that's how our country is acting these days, and anyone that tries to take a moderate stance in the middle finds himself without representation in our government - or an acceptable presidential candidate.
The current extreme and growing division between the two parties has made it almost impossible to reach any compromise on issues. The intensity with which each side defends its own agenda looks like trench warfare in France in 1917. Instead on finding a reasonable middle ground for compromise, the division has created a no man's land where anyone from either side gets slaughtered. As a result, each sides simply tries to advance and win its own agenda rather than meeting the other side half way. This attitude has trickled down to much of the population who dogmatically identifies him or herself with one side or the other and fosters further division. I wish people would stop labeling everyone and every issue as conservative or liberal. I don't believe that one side has all the right answers and the other is entirely wrong, but that's how our country is acting these days, and anyone that tries to take a moderate stance in the middle finds himself without representation in our government - or an acceptable presidential candidate.
Another photobucket casualty...
As your courage crashes down before your eyes, don't lay down and die
Re: USA in 2016 (FRIENDLY ZONE ONLY)
I'll stop reading here since this has nothing to do with gun control and makes me kinda too pissed to keep the conversation civil. I hope your other points made more sense than this one.luke62 wrote: The same "side" that wants more gun control is perfectly fine aborting thousands of babies each day. "Oh but you don't think a woman has the right to choose!" She did choose...to have sex...most likely unprotected...and got pregnant...so we should kill that baby now?
Re: USA in 2016 (FRIENDLY ZONE ONLY)
It's pointing out the hypocrisy involved from people who want to ban guns also support killing of babies, i.e. Hillary Clinton. Just like the other points I made about celebrities who call for gun control but are okay with promoting films with guns, i.e. Matt Damon. Just like the other points I made about celebrities who lecture people on "climate change" but are okay with flying around on private jets, i.e. Leo DiCaprio. Just like the other points I made about celebrities who lecture people on immigration but are okay with building walls around their homes, i.e. Mark Zuckerberg or George Clooney.Lotha wrote:I'll stop reading here since this has nothing to do with gun control and makes me kinda too pissed to keep the conversation civil. I hope your other points made more sense than this one.luke62 wrote: The same "side" that wants more gun control is perfectly fine aborting thousands of babies each day. "Oh but you don't think a woman has the right to choose!" She did choose...to have sex...most likely unprotected...and got pregnant...so we should kill that baby now?
Ban people from having guns to defend their homes or family...but by all means, lets shove a rod into the skull of a baby to end its life.
Re: USA in 2016 (FRIENDLY ZONE ONLY)
I'm not going to go into your tl;dr, but i read the whole thing. Goodness man these opinions are just not supported at all by just about anything. I'll leave it at that.luke62 wrote:Let's start from the top.
Why do people commit so many homicides? People have lost respect for the sanctity of life. Instead of talking things out in a rational way, we want to shout people down or turn to violence, whether physical or using some type of weapon. The same "side" that wants more gun control is perfectly fine aborting thousands of babies each day. "Oh but you don't think a woman has the right to choose!" She did choose...to have sex...most likely unprotected...and got pregnant...so we should kill that baby now? I won't get more in depth with that issue because it's a more complex issue for another day.
On another front, our society has gotten dumber. I place a large part of the blame on the "media." People swear by their "news" sources. Newsflash: the Daily Show and once upon a time, the Colbert Report, are not news programs. It's like this throughout the political spectrum. People swear that Fox News or CNN or some other channel or web site is speaking the truth. The media spins stories to fit their agenda. Fox does it. MSNBC does it. The Young Turks do it. Everybody does it. And what does society do? Eats it up like its the truth. People are lazy and have no interest in seeking information out themselves. Statistics are skewed to fit an agenda in some cases. Or if you use statistics in your argument, people will argue they're not true. It's infuriating sometimes. Look at what happens when a terrorist attacks happen. You have Orlando. What was the narrative after that? Gun control. You have Dallas. What was the narrative after that? Gun control. You have Nice, France. What will the narrative be after that? Truck control? It isn't the matter of weapon, it's the idealogy. There are sick people and groups. We must be vigilant.
With regards to guns, people throw around terms and interchange terms that aren't exactly true. For instance, an automatic weapon is a weapon in which a single pull of the trigger fires multiple rounds. This would be the machine gun used by the military. A semi-automatic weapon is a weapon in which a single pull of the trigger fires a single round. This would be the handgun used by people. Check this out; an AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It looks like an assault weapon but it isn't. The AR doesn't stand for "assault rifle." But, people in society are too dumb to look it up. They just repeat talking points they hear from their news source. To use another example, just because it looks like an iPod doesn't mean it's actually an iPod. People just assume it's true.
Banning weapons will not curtail criminal activity. Look at these gun free zones in various places. This creates a soft target for somebody wishing to do something. I'm not for open-carry but concealed carry. Imagine you're in a public gathering and somebody decides to open fire on the crowd. Now, if you're in a gun free zone and everybody who obeys the law follows it, nobody has any means to defend themselves. You're sitting ducks. Had this been a concealed carry place, one or two shots and the threat is neutralized.
I know somebody mentioned the black market. This is where your police force comes into play. When they discover illegal weapons, they confiscate them and destroy them. Banning weapons will not prevent a criminal from obtaining said weapons. They will find a way. That's why they are criminals; because they don't follow the laws. Next time you're out driving, if you're speeding, you're a criminal. Just because it has a posted speed limit doesn't mean everybody will follow it. In the same case, just because there is a sign that says "Gun Free Zone" doesn't mean people will follow it, since they're criminals.
Now, does that mean law-abiding citizens should have their weapons taken? No. Because what will happen if a criminal decides they want to break into someone's house? If that person has no means to defend themselves, it will get ugly. You as a citizen have the right to protect your property and your family. All the locks and preventive measures won't stop a criminal from breaking in. After all, they're criminals. Moving forward, I've heard the argument that only cops should have guns. Um, no. Not all cops are bad but there are some bad apples out there.
Going back to entertainment and media, it's hypocritical for celebrities that make money off of movies highlighting the use of guns yet call for a ban on guns. Matt Damon for instance is the star of the Bourne movies. Were guns in that movie? Yes. Did Mr. Damon call for a gun ban? Yes. See how that doesn't compute? It's the same as Leonardo DiCaprio talking about global warming but using a private jet to fly thousands of miles to talk about global warming. Jamie Foxx wants to talk about gun control. But how much money has he made off movies with guns in them?
Back to weapons, look at when the American Revolution took place and what went on during that time. Besides having a militia, what's to stop a tyrannical government from banning & confiscating weapons? Everybody likes to invoke Hitler into an argument. Didn't Hitler ban guns? He also banned any political party besides his own but that's another story. But, what would happen if the government turned the army onto the citizens? With a gun ban, the citizens, or rebels as they'd be labeled, have no means of defending themselves or fighting back.
But as I said from the start, it goes back to respecting each other and the right to live. Don't try and box me in either because I have a mixtur of conservative/libertarian/liberal views. I think we have some idiots in elected office but that goes back to a dumbed down society. I can't believe we've chosen the two most hated candidates from the two main parties but that too goes back to a dumbed down society.
We can get into a whole debate about various topics. I was a member of a message board and got too involved with it. Discussing politics and issues on a daily basis didn't help my stress level and it ate at me. So I won't be on this part of the site every day. Just make sure you do your own research and don't always read about one side of an issue. Not everything is 2-sided like the media would have you believe.
Your opinion on women's rights is medieval. Your opinion on guns, while seemingly sensible, is easily refuted (as this whole thread has been dedicated to)
Did Hitler ban guns? Yes. He was the horrible incarnation of satan. But did he ban guns? Sure he did. Since we're talking about "banning guns", why don't you pull up civilian homicides with a fire arm rates in Germany following that 1938 ban and tell me if you think it worked or not to reduce homicide? Oh... is that not your point? Your point was that any body who bans guns turns into Adolf Hitler? Shit... I guess we're screwed then... because Australia and England both have Adolf Hitlers in charge! Run for your lives!
Re: USA in 2016 (FRIENDLY ZONE ONLY)
Skull of a baby? Skull??? Baby???
Please, don't go into discussing abortions until you learn some basic biology. And stop painting every situation black and white only.
I'm sure if Matt Damon stopped promoting movies with guns, there'd be less gun homicides (not). And I'm sure if Leo didn't fly his private jet, everyone else would stop (not). And I'm sure Zuckerberg and Clooney have walls around their properties to keep IMMIGRANTS out (ever heard of burglars, paparazzi etc?). They can and should speak out about things because more people hear them speaking out than they can hear you or me. But that's about as much as they can do and I don't expect even that. Change comes from you.
Please, don't go into discussing abortions until you learn some basic biology. And stop painting every situation black and white only.
I'm sure if Matt Damon stopped promoting movies with guns, there'd be less gun homicides (not). And I'm sure if Leo didn't fly his private jet, everyone else would stop (not). And I'm sure Zuckerberg and Clooney have walls around their properties to keep IMMIGRANTS out (ever heard of burglars, paparazzi etc?). They can and should speak out about things because more people hear them speaking out than they can hear you or me. But that's about as much as they can do and I don't expect even that. Change comes from you.
Re: USA in 2016 (FRIENDLY ZONE ONLY)
You realize that he is an actor. And the people who represents in a motion picture does not necessarily represent his ideals in real life, yes?luke62 wrote:It's pointing out the hypocrisy involved from people who want to ban guns also support killing of babies, i.e. Hillary Clinton. Just like the other points I made about celebrities who call for gun control but are okay with promoting films with guns, i.e. Matt Damon. Just like the other points I made about celebrities who lecture people on "climate change" but are okay with flying around on private jets, i.e. Leo DiCaprio. Just like the other points I made about celebrities who lecture people on immigration but are okay with building walls around their homes, i.e. Mark Zuckerberg or George Clooney.Lotha wrote:I'll stop reading here since this has nothing to do with gun control and makes me kinda too pissed to keep the conversation civil. I hope your other points made more sense than this one.luke62 wrote: The same "side" that wants more gun control is perfectly fine aborting thousands of babies each day. "Oh but you don't think a woman has the right to choose!" She did choose...to have sex...most likely unprotected...and got pregnant...so we should kill that baby now?
Ban people from having guns to defend their homes or family...but by all means, lets shove a rod into the skull of a baby to end its life.
Believe it or not, Leonardo DiCaprio is not some racist, slave-owning, former crooked billionaire-earning, dream-diving liberal who survived the Titanic.
If someone is a fantastic actor and that is what their calling is, that same person is not precluded from making political views. If I had to represent a pro-gun guy in court who just committed homicide, I wouldn't say "fuck you. I'm gonna represent you so I can get you the death penalty." I'm going to do my job.
Re: USA in 2016 (FRIENDLY ZONE ONLY)
Ah the typical response. Insult intelligence, distort opinions, resort to name calling. Such "open-minded" folks.
-
Timotheus
- Little Belgian Waffle
- Posts: 16842
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:52 am
- Location: Belgium シ
- Contact:
Re: USA in 2016 (FRIENDLY ZONE ONLY)
You were the one who used hypocrisy as an argument. Hypocrisy is everywhere. It's on your end of the very same abortus argument you used as well if you generalize a little (which you are doing by bringing up all these celebrities) and remove all grey area.
You also used the Hitler argument, which is such an obvious fallacy (reductio ad hitlerum).
I don't think anybody name-called you. As far as I can tell everybody is trying to be as respectful as possible on an online message board.
You also used the Hitler argument, which is such an obvious fallacy (reductio ad hitlerum).
I don't think anybody name-called you. As far as I can tell everybody is trying to be as respectful as possible on an online message board.
anguyen92 wrote:Oh well. Deal with it.
Re: USA in 2016 (FRIENDLY ZONE ONLY)
I consider myself quite open-minded, actually. I'm still searching in my quotes to where I name-called you. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't find it.luke62 wrote:Ah the typical response. Insult intelligence, distort opinions, resort to name calling. Such "open-minded" folks.
edit: Don't worry about looking. Its not there.
Re: USA in 2016 (FRIENDLY ZONE ONLY)
If you find the response typical, maybe you should consider being more open-minded yourself.