APP - can we disarm the police

Watermark said:
Maybe I'm not even really all that much of a gun control advocate. But when someone put "the right to bear arms" up there with freedom of speech without even blinking (or usually even above it). it definitely pisses me off to no end.
Click to expand...

The thing I don't get is that it arbitrarily stops at guns. Why can't I have the right to weapons grade plutonium?
 
LadyT said:
The thing I don't get is that it arbitrarily stops at guns. Why can't I have the right to weapons grade plutonium?
Click to expand...

img.functions.php


You can do whatever you want, so long as big brother says so.
 
LadyT said:
The thing I don't get is that it arbitrarily stops at guns. Why can't I have the right to weapons grade plutonium?
Click to expand...

Here's what I don't get: until last year, the only state that practically prohibited it's citizens to own guns was the Washington DC .....and after 30 years those laws were overturned. If you're a law abiding citizen and homeowner/resident, you can own a gun. And fulfilling certain guidelines, you can also carry a gun in public concealed on your person. Each state has it's rules and regulations as to background checks, etc., but essentially that's the deal. Hell, in most cases it's easier to own a rifle.

So why all the panic by the NRA and gun owners?

AS I SEE IT (i.e., humble opinion), the panic is based on a total distrust of our gov't and fellow citizens. Period. More so, the gunners (my short hand extremely liberal gun law advocates) don't feel safe unless they can walk around strapped 24/7 and have access to the latest near or exact military issue personal firearm. And they want as little as possible gov't knowledge as to what and how many weapons they own. So in effect, the gunners want to turn back the clock to the frontier days, when any schmuck with the cash could strap on a gun. Or better yet, let's go back to the turn of the century, were industrial city dwellers could do the equivalent.

Problem is....been there, done that...hence all the current regulation. Gunners like to overlook all the recorded shoot outs and deaths, which seemed to happen to folks strapped 24/7. They also seem to forget that in the event of a shootout, it's highly possible that arriving police will NOT be able to discern the good guys from the bad guys (in real life, they don't wear different colored hats), which could have some REAL nasty results. So you have to ask yourself, who profits from the TOTAL liberlization of our current gun laws? Hint: manufacturers, sellers of weapons.

And as a side bar, since the majority of gunners and the NRA are conservatives with an allegeric reaction to all things liberal, isn't it ironic that they want to have more liberal gun laws?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by LadyT: contents banned
Click to expand...

You were warned


Taichiliberal said:
Here's what I don't get: until last year, the only state that practically prohibited it's citizens to own guns was the Washington DC .....and after 30 years those laws were overturned. If you're a law abiding citizen and homeowner/resident, you can own a gun. And fulfilling certain guidelines, you can also carry a gun in public concealed on your person. Each state has it's rules and regulations as to background checks, etc., but essentially that's the deal. Hell, in most cases it's easier to own a rifle.

So why all the panic by the NRA and gun owners?

AS I SEE IT (i.e., humble opinion), the panic is based on a total distrust of our gov't and fellow citizens. Period. More so, the gunners (my short hand extremely liberal gun law advocates) don't feel safe unless they can walk around strapped 24/7 and have access to the latest near or exact military issue personal firearm. And they want as little as possible gov't knowledge as to what and how many weapons they own. So in effect, the gunners want to turn back the clock to the frontier days, when any schmuck with the cash could strap on a gun. Or better yet, let's go back to the turn of the century, were industrial city dwellers could do the equivalent.

Problem is....been there, done that...hence all the current regulation. Gunners like to overlook all the recorded shoot outs and deaths, which seemed to happen to folks strapped 24/7. They also seem to forget that in the event of a shootout, it's highly possible that arriving police will be able to discern the good guys from the bad guys (in real life, they don't wear different colored hats), which could have some REAL nasty results. So you have to ask yourself, who profits from the TOTAL liberlization of our current gun laws? Hint: manufacturers, sellers of weapons.

And as a side bar, since the majority of gunners and the NRA are conservatives with an allegeric reaction to all things liberal, isn't it ironic that they want to have more liberal gun laws?
Click to expand...
 
Threedee said:
Could someone post London's violent crime rate vs New York's? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Yes, because it is logical to compare what mostly amounts to low-level thuggery instead of the trivial crime of murder. Murder is, bizarrely, much lower in the UK, and I have no idea why that is. Also, the murder rate in europes most murder prone city is as high as some state averages. No idea why that is. Bizarre.

I guess a rash of brutal murders is just the price we pay for a slightly lower burglary rate.
 
Watermark said:
Yes, because it is logical to compare what mostly amounts to low-level thuggery instead of the trivial crime of murder. Murder is, bizarrely, much lower in the UK, and I have no idea why that is. Also, the murder rate in europes most murder prone city is as high as some state averages. No idea why that is. Bizarre.

I guess a rash of brutal murders is just the price we pay for a slightly lower burglary rate.
Click to expand...

Its not slight.
 
Watermark said:
Well I'd totally trade a quarter as many burglaries (wild figure I'm pulling out of my ass) for five or six times as many brutal murders. Gotta get your priorities straight somewhere.

Conservatives = pure evil
Click to expand...

The fact that you are arguing for utility (i.e. fascism) over principle is why you are wrong and Liberals = pure undiluted evil
 
Watermark said:
Yes, utility, like saving lives. Pure evil, that preventing people from being brutally murdered thing is.
Click to expand...

Yes, utilitarianism is a philosophy with little value in a free society. After all, wasn't downtown Moscow a perfectly safe place to park your car when the Soviets were running the show?
 
Threedee said:
Yes, utilitarianism is a philosophy with little value in a free society. After all, wasn't downtown Moscow a perfectly safe place to park your car when the Soviets were running the show?
Click to expand...

Yes, but then again who in their right mind would have wanted to steal a Lada anyway?
 
charver said:
Yes, but then again who in their right mind would have wanted to steal a Lada anyway?
Click to expand...

The fact that the trunk would have been loaded up with crates of vodka might have made it tempting. The car could be abandoned, but the memories of vodka-induced drunken orgies would live on in the minds of all would be car jackers.
 
Threedee said:
Yes, utilitarianism is a philosophy with little value in a free society. After all, wasn't downtown Moscow a perfectly safe place to park your car when the Soviets were running the show?
Click to expand...

1. I don't know what the soviet crime rate was, and I doubt there were accurate statistics published on it.

2. Utilitarianism has no value in a free society? If freedom had no use, there'd be no reason to have any of it. Clearly you don't value freedom very much.

I'm not even a utilitarian. I wasn't born in the frikkin' 19th century.
 
Watermark said:
1. I don't know what the soviet crime rate was, and I doubt there were accurate statistics published on it.

2. Utilitarianism has no value in a free society? If freedom had no use, there'd be no reason to have any of it. Clearly you don't value freedom very much.

I'm not even a utilitarian. I wasn't born in the frikkin' 19th century.
Click to expand...

You sure act like it. Utilitarianism undercuts freedom by stating that, society could be more efficient/safe/moral/etc. if we simply infringed upon this or that existing freedom. We are not talking about usefulness, we are talking about a worldview that simply seeks to arrange society in such a way that maximum utility is gained at the expense of whatever the governing principles may be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top