Question for gun grabbing liberals

"I'm stating that their is a disconnect between those who live in areas where gun violence is a non-issue and urban areas where it's endemic. Kinda like white southerners disconnect on why African Americans are very offended by the confederate flag."
 
Mottleydude said:
No it's not a strawman argument. A strawman argument consists of two parts, that is, #1 where an issue is mischarcterized (made a strawman) and #2 so it can easily be knocked down.
Neither was done here. This was sarcasm.
Click to expand...
Sarcasm is often used to "knock down" an argument through ridicule. The argument being knocked down, however, was mischaracterized so as to be easily knocked down (ridiculed). Hence, strawman.
 
Good Luck said:
I strongly suggest you do some basic research before you go around claiming that "most" gang bangers, etc. are obtaining their weapons legally. That is absolutely false. You want to control crime in high crime areas, get the state governments to pass laws which keep violent criminals off the streets better. Limiting the ability of honest citizens to legally obtain and own weapons has done nothing in the past to curb crime, and there is no reason to think that will change with more strict gun control laws. In short, no, I do NOT agree that crime rates are a reason to enact gun control which restricts ownership by law abiding citizens.

As far as importance of issues, I say again that is up to the individual. You have you hierarchy and I have mine. Limitations on constitutional rights are at the top of my list. That includes 2nd amendment rights and it includes 4th amendment protections against warrantless searches or wiretaps. And it includes 14th amendment protections of all living humans.

Economic issues are important, but like I said before, economies fluctuate, and both parties have policies which help and policies which hurt the economy in the short run and in the long run. I try to support policies from a Hyppocratic approach - do no harm. That's why I liked Bill Clinton on the economy. Other than his mis-timed tax increase, he pretty much let the economy run without trying to tweak it all the time.

But over all issues I would rather risk a bad economy than risk our constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Then don't be surprized if you need your gun to put food on the table.
 
Mottleydude said:
Then don't be surprized if you need your gun to put food on the table.
Click to expand...
I already use my gun to put food on the table. I also grow about 50% of the vegetables we eat. (Would be more but we both like vegetables that do not do well in NW Montana.)

I grew up that way. Hunting (including a bit of poaching once in a while) and a vegetable garden on squatted land was the difference between lean years and malnutrition. It was not pleasant, but did not prevent happy times either. We were more free then than we are now in spite of our poverty.

The more the federal government tried to fix things (crime, poverty, national security), the more excuses they find to limit our freedom and rights. Which is why I place freedom and human rights above other issues. I spent 40 years under the oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, and am not going to stop just because I retired. I refuse to trade freedom for security of any type.

Ben Franklin had a good saying about that.
 
Good Luck said:
I already use my gun to put food on the table. I also grow about 50% of the vegetables we eat. (Would be more but we both like vegetables that do not do well in NW Montana.)

I grew up that way. Hunting (including a bit of poaching once in a while) and a vegetable garden on squatted land was the difference between lean years and malnutrition. It was not pleasant, but did not prevent happy times either. We were more free then than we are now in spite of our poverty.

The more the federal government tried to fix things (crime, poverty, national security), the more excuses they find to limit our freedom and rights. Which is why I place freedom and human rights above other issues. I spent 40 years under the oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, and am not going to stop just because I retired. I refuse to trade freedom for security of any type.

Ben Franklin had a good saying about that.
Click to expand...


So do I. The three biggest lies in the world are;

The checks in the mail.

I love you honey.

and

I'm from the federal government and I'm here to help you. ;-)
 
uscitizen said:
Using your gun to put food on the table has a differnet meaning in the city vs country.
Click to expand...
Lots of rats in the city. Bet they taste better than gopher, and can be easily found year round. Gopher and squirrel are seasonal. More rats in the city than squirrels in the country, too. Ever seen a NYC wharf rat? Would make for a sizable meal.
 
I raise my own meat. Well beef, I trade beef for pork. Chicken? I might starve before i would pluck another one.
 
uscitizen said:
I raise my own meat. Well beef, I trade beef for pork. Chicken? I might starve before i would pluck another one.
Click to expand...
I've considered raising a beef, but we vastly prefer venison in most cases. A decent grass-fed beef steak grilled over a charcoal BBQ a few times a month in warmer weather is all the beef we desire. Ditto pork, except we eat it only once or twice a month year round. We do have a few chickens for eggs and meat. I don't mind plucking them. No different than plucking any other bird.
 
uscitizen said:
I do not care for venison. Elk now is nice.
Click to expand...
I should have said wild meat, not just venison.

My wife and I each get a deer tag, I get an elk tag, and we both get upland bird stamps. We fill the freezer with game, make a bunch of summer sausage and jerky, and give or trade a bunch away. That's how we get both our pork and grass fed beef. Friend that raises range cattle loves my recipe for elk sausage.

My personal favorite is white tail venison, but I do prefer elk over mule deer. Mulies are a bit too gamy on average, unless you get a youngster.

All of it is way better than that feed lot crap they label as "beef" in the grocery stores.
 
Good Luck said:
I've considered raising a beef, but we vastly prefer venison in most cases. A decent grass-fed beef steak grilled over a charcoal BBQ a few times a month in warmer weather is all the beef we desire. Ditto pork, except we eat it only once or twice a month year round. We do have a few chickens for eggs and meat. I don't mind plucking them. No different than plucking any other bird.
Click to expand...

When I was over seas the only meat I missed was good ole grain feed beef. You could get pork, fish, poultry of similiar or better quality then here (particularly fish) but good beef was hard to come by. In Asia you pretty much have to find beef imported from Australia, which aint as good as Iowa corn fed but better than the local shoe leather.
 
Mottleydude said:
Exactly. I marvel at this disconnect.
Click to expand...
You can call me disconnected all you want. It is a typical reaction when one cannot dispute the facts piled against their argument. The reality is gun control laws do not curb crime, and therefore the claim that more gun control is needed because of high crime rates is where the real disconnect is taking place.

The fact is gun control laws do not curb gun crime. Therefore gun control laws which limit 2nd amendment rights are poor laws, and there is no justification for placing a limit on an enumerated constitutional right. A law which states a license firearms dealer cannot knowingly sell a firearm to a convicted violent criminal is fine because the right of the individual who has been convicted has been removed or limited through due process of law. As long as the enforcement of the law does not prevent a citizen from purchasing the firearm they want, then the law is good because it focuses only on those who have gone through due process. But when the laws start telling us which firearms are allowed to ctizens because criminals "may" use them in a crime, that is when the law goes too far. No right may be removed from a citizen except through due process. That is the guarantee of the 14th Amendment.

It is no different in principle than the current FISA controversy, where constitutional protections are being violated with the justification of national defense concerns. The government can always come up with some excuse or another why our freedoms need to bee curbed.

As long as we accept their lame justifications, we are heading the wrong direction. There is NO justification for curbing constitutional freedoms beyond the common sense limitation that one person's freedom cannot unduly interfere with another person's rights.

That is true for justifying wire taps, and justifying gun control. In fact, there is more valid justification for violating privacy of communication protections in that wire taps are more likely to produce definable results in protecting us from terrorist activities than gun control can show in results of curbed gun crime. But curbing terrorist activity is not enough justification for curbing constitutional protections against warrantless searches. And curbing gun violence is not justification for curbing the 2nd amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top