Guns

[fredyellowone]

Was wondering how long until Iraq got brought up. That's the next arrogant Canadian move after LOL HEALTH CARE.

They are both real arguments, that's true. Arrogant arguments? I don't know. If pointing out the truth in an attempt to change things is arrogant, then yes.

 

[Zenith]

One man goes to GTP Opinions Forum.

Armed with knowledge? Not really.

With facts? No.

With logical and relevant arguments? Not a chance.

He comes to this forum with... the truth.

 

[Swagger897]

Maybe whole UN is currupt too? Because they refused to applaud the States for creating false moving trucks in Irak on some pictograms? "Hey look, a truck in Irak, I'm sure they have destruction weapons! We got to fight them! They support Al Qaeda!"



And why do you think there is that much poverty in the United States?

Why do I think or why do I know? Why do I know that our healthcare system is broken? Why do I know that our welfare system is broken? Why do I know that our education system is broken? Why do I know our Immigration system is broken? Why do I know our security administration is broken?

Because the Big Whigs in Washington have said so. You think all words that come out of our presidents mouth is false all the time? Well they're not. When it's been over 10 years since a disapproval rating this bad has been in existence, you know your country has gone to ****. There is nothing more than i want to do than eliminate EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN in Washington at the moment. They say they need their own separate health care system apart from Obamacare because with out the proper care there will be a brain drain in Washington. Well lets think about that real quickly... In order to lose brains, you must first have brains? Yeah, pretty sure that's how it works... And wait, in order for a citizen to buy something, he must first make money? Yup, that's how that works as well..

Our government is so damn corrupt, it looks like an ashtray from an 80 year old smoker who's never emptied it. It is full of butts, dirt, and hazardous materials doing no good for us now...

So, I will answer my question assigned by you, because there are people who want to work, there are people who work, there are people who dont want to work, and there are people that cant work. Look at that third one, its even underlined for you. These people, whom live in the United States in either the 48, or Hawaii or Alaska, pay property taxes, and taxes on utilities, and food. They do not however pay income. Where do you think we get a majority of our tax dollars from? From income taxes. So, these larger than life people as i described earlier, feel as if they don't need to work, that they can support themselves, and themselves only. And you know what, that's fine by me. But, what isn't, is when you have welfare, food stamps, and gov't paid child care, when you don't want to work... That is what gets at me. Avoid to help any of us actually make a country run, bitch at politicians who try nothing but to actually help you when an angry mob of women descend upon them, and then say no because of issues almost 200 years old.

What America needs, surprisingly, is Bill Clinton back in office for a second term. He is so far the only president that we were in a budget surplus, trade surplus, and no other president has had positive income levels since the beginning of WWII. With Bill Clinton's Workfare, you had to give something through means of basic New Deal policies but modernized to new areas of care. I would gladly pay taxes to see people without jobs who can legally work, off of the welfare systems and food stamps, and give it to someone named Bill Clinton... Sexual issues or not, what is more important? The dealings similar to Frances President, or a nation in default? I will trust a nation in numbers, not faces nor trends nor popular belief..

Now this being a Democratic president post in a Gun forum, i see some backlash true liberals and conservatives would give me. But I ask one thing. To look at what is going on in the Capitol. We have a Dem in exec, and repubs in the legislative.. Did you honestly think that two years would last more than four? It is not any of the politicians fault for being there. It is the people of America who should carry the blame, as they elected the current fools we have.. It should be shame of Americans for not taking actions into their own hands. Americans can draft their own bills, bring them to congress and have them read aloud. Americans can vote who they want in office, to get these bill passed and put in order. But in a nation divided, we will never see that. We see presidents run for elections, being asked current trends, where that is not the issues we need discussed. We need to solve the issues before they come. We need to take out the corruption in the forms of business procedures and our legislative branch. Fairness does not exist in politics but common sense damn well does. If my generation cant make sense of the idiots mistakes of my previous, we are all doomed..

 

[fredyellowone]

One man goes to GTP Opinions Forum.

Armed with knowledge? Not really.

With facts? No.

With logical and relevant arguments? Not a chance.

He comes to this forum with... the truth.

Coming from you, that's quite funny.

Edit : @Swagger897 For once, a constructive and interesting post. I thank you for that. English may not be my main language, but I will try to answer it anyway.

 

[Swagger897]

Coming from you, that's quite funny.

Edit : @Swagger897 for once, a constructive and interesting post. English may not be my main language, but I will try to answer it anyway.

Thanks..

 

[Zenith]

Coming from you, that's quite funny.

I can't say I'm surprised to find out that you haven't read any of the thread. If you did read the thread, you would know that every single argument you have raised has already been discussed. Furthermore, if you did read the thread, you would know that I contribute quite regularly and not in the form of smileys.

Protip: Facts > Smiley's.

I find that most of the ignorant people who visit this thread don't last long. As for you, there's only a certain number of smileys that you can use before people here notice that your arguments are completely devoid of reasoning or supporting data. You might be able to guess that the number is zero. Your arguments have been trash since you showed up in this thread.

 

[Beeker1972]

Guns are bad! They fly around shooting innocent helpless people!! Oh no! Progressives if they don't like it they ban it, because they know better than you do! What happened when the USA, England, and France forced Germany to sign Treaty of Versailles and created the Weimarer Republik in 1919? In the Treaty of Versailles there were strict gun control measures that the people of Germany could not arm themselves. The end result was the senseless killing of millions by the hands of the Nationalist Socialist Party of Germany.

 

[Joel]

They are both real arguments, that's true. Arrogant arguments? I don't know. If pointing out the truth in an attempt to change things is arrogant, then yes.

The point is it's just trite. Every discussion involving US politics among Canadians just goes back to Iraq, health care, Texas, and this idea that the US is the wild west and Canada is perfect. I've lived here my whole life and it's just exhausting.

 

[Swagger897]

Guns are bad! They fly around shooting innocent helpless people!! Oh no! Progressives if they don't like it they ban it, because they know better than you do! What happened when the USA, England, and France forced Germany to sign Treaty of Versailles and created the Weimarer Republik in 1919? In the Treaty of Versailles there were strict gun control measures that the people of Germany could not arm themselves. The end result was the senseless killing of millions by the hands of the Nationalist Socialist Party of Germany.

Russians killed more by the way....

And leave...

 

[LeMansAid]

Freedom = better. Always.

Both Imari and I responded to this with components that included out and out hyperbole, the slightly ludicrous, and a serious question: "With no line to be drawn?". Then Imari added:

Guns are generally fine. Atomic weapons are generally not. Somewhere in between there's a line to be drawn where a reasonable person says "you're not going to do anything sensible with that much firepower, this is only going to end badly". I strongly suspect that the upper end of handheld weapons is getting pretty close to that line.

But after all that has passed, with comments from Azuremen, LMS, and FK himself..... no-one has decided to actually address the question. It's all skipping around, a wink and a laugh here, a mind-stretch there, to show how so many things could conceivably have technically a legitimate and legal use. But still no answer on if there is a line or not. That word misdirection just keeps coming to mind. Oh, and BobK and Exorcet also stopped by to contribute some solid attempts at caveat finding and challenging of dictionary definitions respectively.

So what will it be? An answer to the question, or some more skipping, hopping, sidestepping and feinting?

 

[fredyellowone]

First of all, I have to say that I understand quite a lot of the frustrations you're feeling right now. A lot of the issues you're talking about are also affecting me, even if I'm not living in the same Country. Here, in Quebec, we also have our share of problems with the healthcare system, with the immigration - and particulary reasonable accomodations and the charter of values -; endemic unemployment, pension funds that are going to hell, and etc. And like in the United States, the rich are becoming even more so, while the poor are starving a little more. But we are Lucky anyway, because even if we are plagued with numerous problems right now, they are far from being to your extend. There are a lot of reasons for that. And one of them is intricately related to our social tissue. To our social programs. And to the fact that here, rich are giving a lot more. Imposition levels are way lower, so that rich people are really participating to the effort.

Of course, some people out there don't want to work. That's true. But how many of them? How many people not doing anything right now would gladly work if they could? More than you can imagine. I can put here some numbers, as an example. Not coming from the States, as I don't know that particular case, but from Quebec - the province - and Ontario as they are almost the same.

In Quebec, statistics by the ministry of Employment and Social Solidarity shows that of all the people that should be working right now, but aren't; 92% of them could not even if they wanted to. (mental issues, bad health, various problems, temporary situations and etc.) We are then left with a mere 8% of them who just do not want to work at all. A mere 8% of thieves.

That number is low. And I doubt that pushing those people to work would help. The job would not be well done as they don't want to work in the first place; and anyway such a small pool of people would not help the State reaching a better economy, would they be working or not.

Now, back to the United States... The problem of poverty in your Country is not recent at all. Of course, you had some real prosperous times like with the aftermath of the World War II and the huge loans to help Europe. And even when Clinton was president, as the economy was in a better state worldwide and that China and India had yet to reach their full potential. But that was the past, that wave is striking to an end; and those prosperous times been short anyway, and only a few did benefit from them.

To understand why there is so much unsolved problems in the States, so much poverty, so much inequality, we have to look at the foundation of it. The very roots. At this point, two things. The North was founded - or bought actually - by religious radicalists from England who felt that the English reformation was not though enough on the catholics. They found in The United States a promised land where they would be able to rule the way they wanted, far from the eyes of Henri VIII. As for the South, England sold charters to very wealthy people, unable to make money anymore on the old continent as the economy was rather bad; and/or because of their religious beliefs. And those two groups collided together, mixed together - I know it's more complicated than that - and they became the foundation of your Country. One part starving for liberties - not for everyone but for them, a very individual conception of liberty - and one part very wealthy people sitting on gold, slavers, and merchants.

Think about it. I'm not saying you guys are all like that right now. I am not! And as an intermede I would like to say that I've been to the States numerous times and that I always enjoyed it. For the most part you guys are great, and your Country is too.

What I'm saying is those foundations are really important to understand why there is so much inequities in the United States. It's all related to those two groups. To a very flawed radical conception of what liberty is and should be, to that subconscious idea coming from the protestantism that to be a good man, to be saved; that you must be a wealthy man... and all that subordinated to two different class of people. The rich, and the poor. The poor, of course, being left to choose their own fate, to become something better. But they just can't. They've been raised on the wrong side. And they won't quit that side, because there is no help.

The first US constitution was written with a great hope of a better future. That document was very modern for those times, and it was even the inspiration for the most universal Charter : the Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen. Locke and Toqueville all over the place. Read it anew if you like. You will find words like "Us", "We", "We, the people" all over the place. But down the road, the spirit of that document was forgotten. The two groups I talked earlier, now one group; the people of the United States of America, living by those individualist concepts of liberty, forgot the difference between capitalism (which is a good thing) and savage capitalism (which is as worse as any other radical theory.) In the first case, it's only an economical theory. While in the second case, it's a political doctrine based on inequality, on exploiting poor people, even taking the place of democracy as the dominant political ideology.

So, now, the question is... what to do with all that?

Maybe it's time to rethink what should be the role of the rich people in your society. Maybe it's time to care about greenhouse gaz and global warming, more than waging wars in distant States. Maybe it's time - without the dumb excuses of socialism - to help starving people.

Why not?

Anyway, how many Ferraris, Royces and castles one has to own before being happy?

 

[fredyellowone]

The point is it's just trite. Every discussion involving US politics among Canadians just goes back to Iraq, health care, Texas, and this idea that the US is the wild west and Canada is perfect. I've lived here my whole life and it's just exhausting.

I'm in a good position to say that It's not true. Canada is far from being perfect. And generally speaking, United States are doing a lot better than we do in departments of immigration, identity, innovation and to a certain degree, economy.

 

[Danoff]

What America needs, surprisingly, is Bill Clinton back in office for a second term. He is so far the only president that we were in a budget surplus, trade surplus, and no other president has had positive income levels since the beginning of WWII.

...as is what happens when you preside over a bubble economy. You seem to have not been paying attention for the last... decade.

 

[Exorcet]

"With no line to be drawn?".

I thought I said a clear no.

There were no caveats. I oppose guns being given out for free, some people can't handle them. The same goes for anything really. So my only concern with publicly available nuclear weapons would be regulations determining how they are handled and issued.

 

[Danoff]

Both Imari and I responded to this with components that included out and out hyperbole, the slightly ludicrous, and a serious question: "With no line to be drawn?". Then Imari added:



But after all that has passed, with comments from Azuremen, LMS, and FK himself..... no-one has decided to actually address the question. It's all skipping around, a wink and a laugh here, a mind-stretch there, to show how so many things could conceivably have technically a legitimate and legal use. But still no answer on if there is a line or not. That word misdirection just keeps coming to mind. Oh, and BobK and Exorcet also stopped by to contribute some solid attempts at caveat finding and challenging of dictionary definitions respectively.

So what will it be? An answer to the question, or some more skipping, hopping, sidestepping and feinting?

I thought I tackled this head on. Atomic weapons cannot feasibly be used for self defense (or any other purpose) without violating the rights of the innocent (many innocents). So no, I don't think people should have them. If you want an atomic weapon, you need at least the ability to use it without violating the rights of the innocent.

Next question.

 

[Swagger897]

...as is what happens when you preside over a bubble economy. You seem to have not been paying attention for the last... decade.

artificially adjusted rates or not for housing our taxes, the numbers still show. I dont give a damn whether it is public opinion or not, because numbers prove facts. And the fact is, it worked.. for a while

 

[Danoff]

artificially adjusted rates or not for housing our taxes, the numbers still show. I dont give a damn whether it is public opinion or not, because numbers prove facts. And the fact is, it worked.. for a while

The fact is Clinton didn't do much of anything while in office. He presided over a bubble economy - a bubble he should have popped while in office btw. The bubble means more revenue for the same tax rates, and more revenue means a magically balanced budget (projected into the future of course). Suddenly the bubble bursts, and without any change in policy, the budget looks terrible.

Clinton's presence did not somehow magically balance the budget. You're pining for a bubble time period that was unsustainable and should never have been allowed to continue as long as it did. We're still suffering from lack of foresight during that bubble.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

The fact is Clinton didn't do much of anything while in office. He presided over a bubble economy - a bubble he should have popped while in office btw. The bubble means more revenue for the same tax rates, and more revenue means a magically balanced budget (projected into the future of course). Suddenly the bubble bursts, and without any change in policy, the budget looks terrible.

Clinton's presence did not somehow magically balance the budget. You're pining for a bubble time period that was unsustainable and should never have been allowed to continue as long as it did. We're still suffering from lack of foresight during that bubble.

While Clinton was in a very good position, Bush made some very bad decisions when it came to money management. He could have popped the bubble and then healed the economy, but instead cut taxes and then started two pointless wars, costing America trillions of dollars, all of which contributed to their debt. And if we're talking about balancing the budget, it should be noted that Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling 200 percent, starting the American tradition of massive government debt and lack of fiscal responsibility.

EDIT: When I enter this subforum, it never ends well. What am I doing!?

 

[Danoff]

While Clinton was in a very good position, Bush made some very bad decisions when it came to money management.

I can't name a recent president who hasn't. But really it's the federal reserve who takes the blame.

He could have popped the bubble and then healed the economy, but instead cut taxes and then started two pointless wars, costing America trillions of dollars, all of which contributed to their debt.

"Pointless" is debatable. "Expensive" would not be. But remember, Obama hasn't stopped those wars, and instead has presided over a "let's throw cash at the economy by the truckload" strategy that makes War look downright efficient at benefiting the economy. The big financial theory is that if we pump money into the economy by providing jobs and buying goods from struggling companies, somehow that will make everything better. The military does that better than most - not that I agree with the philosophy.

And if we're talking about balancing the budget, it should be noted that Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling 200 percent, starting the American tradition of massive government debt and lack of fiscal responsibility.

...it should be noted that Ronald Reagan did that to make sure the the USSR didn't get their way. And it worked. I'd rather win a war with money than with lives - and that war would have cost a LOT of lives.

 

[Zenith]

Snip

Not a bad post. Here's the America thread if you want to discuss your feelings on America. In response to your actual post, you seem to have an inconsistent understanding of liberty and human rights, here's the Human Rights thread if you want to discuss that.

 

[fredyellowone]

In response to your actual post, you seem to have an inconsistent understanding of liberty and human rights...

I should change job then. Because oddly enough, I got a master's degree in politic science. That's what I do for a living.

That being said, notice that I will not answer you anymore. Since I started to post here - with my rather unfair rant post, I have to agree - all I got from you was name calling, insults (That I'm ignorant, that all my posts are trash, that I can't figure out what are liberties and human rights, that I'm unable to read) + a lot of direct attacks like : "Maybe I should put this in terms you understand...", that I'm the one being scared because I don't agree with loose control on guns", and etc. And funny enough, all that coming at me without even talking to you personally or answering your posts.

 

[Zenith]

I should change job then. Because oddly enough, I got a master's degree in politic science. That's what I do for a living.

Good for you. I'm the ghost of Ernest Hemingway for all it matters and for all that can be proven in this case.

That being said, notice that I will not answer you anymore. Since I started to post here - with my rather unfair rant post, I have to agree - all I got from you was name calling, insults (That I'm ignorant, that all my posts are trash, that I can't figure out what are liberties and human rights, that I'm unable to read) + a lot of direct attacks like : "Maybe I should put this in terms you understand...", that I'm the one being scared because I don't agree with loose control on guns", and etc. And funny enough, all that coming at me without even talking to you personally or answering your posts.

You do you. I certainly won't be mourning the loss of a favorite discussion partner. Mine don't flood the forum with smileys.

This is a forum, if you want to speak to a single person and only that person, try Private Messages. If you don't like somebody, the ignore button is right there.

Now are you finished so we can get this thread back on topic?

 

[Azuremen]

I should change job then. Because oddly enough, I got a master's degree in politic science. That's what I do for a living.

I'm skeptical of this, given how you sound like an undergrad that just took Sociology 101.

Given how much you've played stereotype cards while we've all abstained from going down the Quebec/French-Canadian stereotypes, and then giving a very basic rehash of US "history" and following up with a typical "the rich don't need all that stuff" sentiment.

 

[fredyellowone]

While we've all abstained from going down the Quebec/French-Canadian stereotypes...

One did, actually. And It's fair enough, the way I started with my rant post.

Giving a very basic rehash of US "history"

My "rehash" was fairly accurate. The point was not to write an essay on the subject, nor to write a complete novel about all the United States paradigms, but rather to explain the historical foundations of poverty and inequalities in the United States in a concise fashion.

Following up with a typical "the rich don't need all that stuff" sentiment.

That typical sentiment is still a very important question, even now at the beginning of the XXIe Century. In the History, countless people asked themselves that very same question, about the place and effort of wealthy people in societies. People like Kant, Weber, Marx, Hobbes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Demosthenes, Phillip II of Macedon, Platon, John Rawls, and etc. And I'm sure as many people will do it in the future.

I'm skeptical of this, given how you sound like an undergrad that just took Sociology 101.

As for that, It's your own opinion, and I don't care. However it's true that the language barrier may sometimes hit me right in the face, especially when I'm trying to write particular sentences or difficult concepts. If I had more time, I would gladly get some more English classes. I'm sure I will in the future.

 

[FoolKiller]

Both Imari and I responded to this with components that included out and out hyperbole, the slightly ludicrous, and a serious question: "With no line to be drawn?". Then Imari added:



But after all that has passed, with comments from Azuremen, LMS, and FK himself..... no-one has decided to actually address the question. It's all skipping around, a wink and a laugh here, a mind-stretch there, to show how so many things could conceivably have technically a legitimate and legal use. But still no answer on if there is a line or not. That word misdirection just keeps coming to mind. Oh, and BobK and Exorcet also stopped by to contribute some solid attempts at caveat finding and challenging of dictionary definitions respectively.

So what will it be? An answer to the question, or some more skipping, hopping, sidestepping and feinting?

Um, I did answer the question.

It's almost as if you've never seen me in the Opinions Forum.

Bring your flamethrower out. I've seen one used before. That was pretty cool. I trust that you are a sane, peaceful individual with no desire to misuse your flamethrower, so I won't treat you as if I suspect you of being a criminal.

This is a serious and fact-based answer. I know people who own a flamethrower. It does not bother me.

Nice try with the hyperbole. Projectile weapon vs WMD. Arguably different. But...

See, here I pointed out the vast difference in the variables being used, but went onto give a very serious, similar answer.

Assuming you can access it, have the proper containment to not pollute or damage other people or their property, and don't kill yourself in the process, sure.

Serious answer.

And if you use it to turn a DeLorean into a time machine...even better.

A joke, because adding levity to a debate prevents people getting the wrong impression. Plus, awesome movie reference.

I also trust that you are a sane, peaceful individual with no desire to misuse your plutonium, so I won't treat you as if I suspect you of being a criminal.

And back to serious answer.

Then I went on to explain that my meaning of freedom went beyond simply being free to own something. The DC vs Heller case, quoted by Danoff, may have used self-defense as the new legal precedence, but I feel it goes farther than just self-defense from law breakers, as the 2nd Amendment specifically calls bearing arms "necessary to maintain a free State." To me, that means threats foreign and domestic. And domestic threats come in more forms than just criminals. Well, I guess we could consider government acts to restrict freedom as criminal, but you know what I mean.


After that, @Imari and I even had a back and forth on the issue and idea. I gab a clear answer and we both stated our points on the subject. @Danoff stated that he clearly did draw a line.

Did you maybe skip a page? All this took place on Page 83 in the default posts per page.


EDIT:

I should change job then. Because oddly enough, I got a master's degree in politic science. That's what I do for a living.

And I work for the government (provable as my job is public record). I write contracts and analyze relevant policy to make sure they are all within regulation. Your point?

Your expertise is no better than mine.

 

[fredyellowone]

EDIT: And I work for the government. I write contracts and analyze policy to make sure they are all within regulation. Your point? Your expertise is no better than mine.

I never said that my expertise was better than you, or anyone for that matter. However, I think I pretty much know the meaning of the fundamental rights. And I was pointing that to another forum user.

 

[FoolKiller]

I never said that my expertise was better than you, or anyone for that matter. However, I think I pretty much know the meaning of the fundamental rights. And I was pointing that to another forum user.

But we disagree on what things we consider fundamental rights. Like I feel it is a fundamental right to defend yourself and your property by any means necessary. You don't.

 

[fredyellowone]

Fair enough. We disagree on things we consider fundamental rights. It's a highely debatable subject and hopefully so. Still, even if our beliefs are different on that subject, I'm still sure you know what are the fundamental rights, to whom and what they may apply, and the controversies.

It's not about being ignorant, or all I have been called; but different.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's not about being ignorant, or all I have been called; but different.

The ignorancee rom my POV, is regarding your lack of knowledge on guns. It's an issue I often see when dealing with people who have not had guns most of their lives. They have no real-life experience and only know what they were told by their society and sensationalist media. It is easy to see how that occurs when you have news filled with people making false claims about what a gun can do in order to bolster support for their cause.

As for your views on America; you should visit the America thread. You may find that many of us do distinguish capitalism from cronyism. But the same issues of corrupt government you bring up only makes me stronger in my defense of gun rights, because the government's power grabs don't stop at economy and finance.

 

[Beeker1972]

I think the Japanese killed more than the Russians, and the Nazis combined during WW2 ... After WW2 Mao made all three of those groups look like amateurs in killing innocent people.

Russians killed more by the way....

And leave...