Question for gun grabbing liberals

We should take away Mottley's rights. He's not putting them to any good use, and he chooses to own a gun and maintain his life (inference to his tance on abortion) while wanting to deny others those same rights.

With regard to Mottley's liberty, :gives:
 
indisputable said:
"Total crime in the Commonwealth has declined by 2.9% between 2004 and 2005, with violent crime increasing by 4.75 and property crime decreasing by 4.3%. The category of violent crime is composed of murder (up 4.8%), rape (down 3.8%), robbery (up 4.9%) and aggravated assault (up
5.3%). The category of property crime is composed of burglary (down 1.4%), larceny (down 3.6%) and motor vehicle theft (down 12.3%)."

http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/msp/...eporting_unit/mass_crime_report_2004_2005.pdf
Click to expand...

Wow. The violent crime rates are going up faster than unemployment and inflation. Yep, restricting the citizens ability to defend themselves has worked out just great.
 
uscitizen said:
OHH wow Mass must have a horrible crime problem then ?

My choice of home defense weapon is a shotgun anyway. Might not have time to put on my glasses. First 3 loads are #2 shot and the last 2 are Slugs.
Click to expand...
Now THAT is a strawman argument.

The statistics do not show, nor is there the claim that diminished gun rights will RESULT in higher crime levels. Rather, it is the opposite that is true. High crime levels prompts lazy, dunder-headed politicos to pass gun control laws. There has been proof positive for decades they do not work, but it is a political short cut; something to point at when asked what they are doing about crime while ignoring the real causes of increasing violent crime because they are too complicated to address in short term fixes (short term fixes are necessarily in the world of politics), and many of the real fixes would not be politically popular.

Thus, the factors that are actually driving up violent crime levels will continue to drive up violent crime, resulting in MORE gun control (quick "fix") laws being passed. As a result, those areas with highest violent crime also end up with the toughest gun control laws.

But the POINT is gun control laws do NOT accomplish what they are designed for, and as such are an unnecessary infringement on a constitutionally guaranteed right.
 
Good Luck said:
Strawman? Why is anything people like you disagree with "strawman"? Do you know what a strawman argument is?

You demonstrate the reasonable limits of freedom - swinging a fist, religion, etc, ALL of which end when they interfere with the basic rights of others. I fully agree with that basic, common sense definition of the practical limit of personal freedoms.

Now: Show me where my POSSESSION (and associated reasonable, legal use) of a weapon directly or even indirectly interferes with anyone else's rights.

THAT is where the "disconnect" lies, and it is on the side of those who support gun control laws and the banning of certain types of weapons. You claim that a freedom has reasonable limits, but you cannot show where your limits are, in actuality, protecting the rights of others by limiting the rights of gun owners.
Click to expand...

No. I'm sorry. The disconnect is with gun advocates who fail to see the need, in certain areas for gun control. In rural Ohio, where gun control opponents abound, what need is there for gun control? NONE!

But in urban DC or South Chicago or East St. Louis....and I've spent time in all three areas, there is most definately a practical need for gun control with hood punks and gang bangers running terrorizing communities.

Are many of the gun control efforts misguided? Oh hell yes. I'm not arguing that. 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.
 
Good Luck said:
Go take a look at the gun control laws in DC over the past two decades, and then tell me that gun control laws have NOT been progressing toward more and more limits, while adding continually to the list of guns that are absolutely banned. There is a reason 2nd Amendment advocates feel their constitutional rights are being threatened. Because the continual increase in regulations and laws are heading one direction: the full proscription of private ownership of guns. You cannot deny there are factions out there who have that exact goal in mind. They have already been successful with automatic weapons, are partially successful with so-called "assault weapons" with designs to progress to a full ban, have plans for a full and complete ban on handguns except for law enforcement. But since you agree with those plans, you see no reason to call it an issue.

You can "not give a fuck" about the 2nd amendment. That's understandable when you obviously support the violation of the 2nd amendment. But then hypocritically complain about violations of civil liberties. If you don't care about one constitutional protection, why do you care about the other?

There are many issues when it comes to how our government interacts with the manner our society functions. Some people put different issues at the top of their list of issues which determines who they choose to vote for. NONE of those issues is any less valid than the other issues. If you don't give a shit about 2nd amendment rights, then don't base you vote on who believes what about gun control.

But to debase and insult those who DO care about 2nd Amendment rights is to stand right along side the assholes who call anti-war protesters unpatriotic. You, like many others of your type, have taken on the mantle of superiority, and anyone who disagrees with you do so out of ignorance.

Sorry, but it does not take ignorance to disagree with totalitarians.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ dude, have you lived in DC??? I have. If there's one place in this country in desperate need of gun control this would be it. That's what I'm talking about in regards to the disconnect. Hell I wouldn't walk down the streets in many DC neighborhoods even with a gun!!! Not my pearly white ass, no way!
 
Good Luck said:
Now THAT is a strawman argument.

The statistics do not show, nor is there the claim that diminished gun rights will RESULT in higher crime levels. Rather, it is the opposite that is true. High crime levels prompts lazy, dunder-headed politicos to pass gun control laws. There has been proof positive for decades they do not work, but it is a political short cut; something to point at when asked what they are doing about crime while ignoring the real causes of increasing violent crime because they are too complicated to address in short term fixes (short term fixes are necessarily in the world of politics), and many of the real fixes would not be politically popular.

Thus, the factors that are actually driving up violent crime levels will continue to drive up violent crime, resulting in MORE gun control (quick "fix") laws being passed. As a result, those areas with highest violent crime also end up with the toughest gun control laws.

But the POINT is gun control laws do NOT accomplish what they are designed for, and as such are an unnecessary infringement on a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Click to expand...


Ahhh that's not a Strawman....it's sarcasm.
 
Mottleydude said:
Jesus Christ dude, have you lived in DC??? I have. If there's one place in this country in desperate need of gun control this would be it. That's what I'm talking about in regards to the disconnect. Hell I wouldn't walk down the streets in many DC neighborhoods even with a gun!!! Not my pearly white ass, no way!
Click to expand...
Yes, I was stationed in DC for 8 years.

But YOU are the one still disconnected from reality. The people you are complaining about running around with weapons are the ones who are completely unaffected by gun control laws. They are fucking CRIMINALS. They are running around shooting the crap out of each other and anyone who gets in their way and you think they'll pay attention to a law saying they cannot carry a gun?

Try taking a good, hard look at the data. The gun control laws in DC were already the most strict in the entire nation PRIOR to Heller, yet DC also STILL has the highest murder rates. From the beginning, each gun control law enacted in the area had ZERO effect on the level of gun crime. The same is true in all those areas with strict gun control laws. DC, Chicago, Boston, etc. have had strict gun control laws in place for 5+ decades, yet up through the 80s violent crime rates continued to grow unabated. It was not until some stricter laws governing criminals during the 90s, many of which were designed to keep violent criminals in jail longer, that violent crime rates started to decline slightly. The answer is simple: control criminal better, crime will be controlled better. Control guns, and only those who follow the law will be affected.

You can look up crime statistics and their relationship to gun control laws yourself. There are hundreds of sources where raw data can be found. Sites both in favor of and against gun control have their analyses, but I suggest you do it yourself, thereby avoiding the bias of both arguments. For anyone who is honest instead of chasing a declared agenda spoon fed to them, the analysis points to only one conclusion: Gun control laws DO NOT WORK TO CONTROL CRIME!!!! Any claims that they do work to control crime are either a sign of sheer unadulterated ignorance, or deliberate flat lies.
 
Indeed he did...

indisputable said:
Former D.C. mayor Marion Barry (D) once reportedly said, "Outside of the killing, we have one of the lowest crime rates in the country."
Click to expand...

as he tried to whine his way out of a FBI sting, charging him with corruption and attempting to purchase illegal drugs...what a guy the Mayor is, so up-standing and all!:rolleyes:
 
Good Luck said:
Yes, I was stationed in DC for 8 years.

But YOU are the one still disconnected from reality. The people you are complaining about running around with weapons are the ones who are completely unaffected by gun control laws. They are fucking CRIMINALS. They are running around shooting the crap out of each other and anyone who gets in their way and you think they'll pay attention to a law saying they cannot carry a gun?

Try taking a good, hard look at the data. The gun control laws in DC were already the most strict in the entire nation PRIOR to Heller, yet DC also STILL has the highest murder rates. From the beginning, each gun control law enacted in the area had ZERO effect on the level of gun crime. The same is true in all those areas with strict gun control laws. DC, Chicago, Boston, etc. have had strict gun control laws in place for 5+ decades, yet up through the 80s violent crime rates continued to grow unabated. It was not until some stricter laws governing criminals during the 90s, many of which were designed to keep violent criminals in jail longer, that violent crime rates started to decline slightly. The answer is simple: control criminal better, crime will be controlled better. Control guns, and only those who follow the law will be affected.

You can look up crime statistics and their relationship to gun control laws yourself. There are hundreds of sources where raw data can be found. Sites both in favor of and against gun control have their analyses, but I suggest you do it yourself, thereby avoiding the bias of both arguments. For anyone who is honest instead of chasing a declared agenda spoon fed to them, the analysis points to only one conclusion: Gun control laws DO NOT WORK TO CONTROL CRIME!!!! Any claims that they do work to control crime are either a sign of sheer unadulterated ignorance, or deliberate flat lies.
Click to expand...

Well now your starting to talk some sense. I won't argue that Heller doesn't go to far and as I've stated before many gun control programs are misguided. But you do agree with me that the situation in many urban areas are bad enough that some form of gun control is probably advisable. I also don't agree with your characterization of those who are causing the problems. Though they may be "criminals" many, if not most, are purchasing their guns legally.

The point I'm making is two fold. #1, it's not the most pressing and important political issue at the moment (though it is an important issue) and #2 It's not an issue that can be resolved by political polarization as this only invites manipulation of the public by politicians and solves nothing for as you see, the issue is before SCOTUS and I doubt that they can make things better though they can certainly make it worse. If ever there was an issue that calls for bipartisanship, this is it!
 
Good Luck said:
It is sarcasm aimed at an argument which is not being presented. (ie: strict gun control yields high crime) Therefore: strawman.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mottleydude said:
Well now your starting to talk some sense. I won't argue that Heller doesn't go to far and as I've stated before many gun control programs are misguided. But you do agree with me that the situation in many urban areas are bad enough that some form of gun control is probably advisable. I also don't agree with your characterization of those who are causing the problems. Though they may be "criminals" many, if not most, are purchasing their guns legally.

The point I'm making is two fold. #1, it's not the most pressing and important political issue at the moment (though it is an important issue) and #2 It's not an issue that can be resolved by political polarization as this only invites manipulation of the public by politicians and solves nothing for as you see, the issue is before SCOTUS and I doubt that they can make things better though they can certainly make it worse. If ever there was an issue that calls for bipartisanship, this is it!
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top