Fact

when "a majority... united by a common interest or a passion cannot be constrained from oppressing the minority, what remedy can be found...?" Madison to Jefferson
 
Socrtease said:
when "a majority... united by a common interest or a passion cannot be constrained from oppressing the minority, what remedy can be found...?" Madison to Jefferson
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying....or what Madison was saying is that a minority should always get their way? Will of the people be damned?

No wonder Dolly Madison makes shit like Ding Dongs, Twinkies and Yodels....they were just mimicking James' policies.
 
Steelplate said:
So, what you're saying....or what Madison was saying is that a minority should always get their way? Will of the people be damned?

No wonder Dolly Madison makes shit like Ding Dongs, Twinkies and Yodels....they were just mimicking James' policies.
Click to expand...

That is hardly what he is saying.

Can anyone show any real difference the previous "assault rifle" ban made? Can anyone show a positive effect of that ban?
 
WinterBorn said:
That is hardly what he is saying.

Can anyone show any real difference the previous "assault rifle" ban made? Can anyone show a positive effect of that ban?
Click to expand...

Personally? I don't want to ban any weapon. However, I support the expanded background check legislation that Senators Toomey and Manchin worked up.
 
christiefan915 said:
How about when the 4% force their agenda on the other 96%?

I thought you were the guy who railed against the tyranny of the minority.
Click to expand...

I have asked several times for any positive effect of the previous ban, and no one seems willing to give any. What I keep hearing is basically "We don't care of it works or not, the people want the ban!".


My biggest problem with the ban is the amount of misinformation that has been spread concerning "assault rifles".

How many of those in favor of the ban think that these assault rifles are fully automatic rifles (machine guns) that have already been severely restricted since the 1930s?

How many know that the previous ban had no effect on the crime rates?

How many know that the definitions of the previous bans were based on mostly cosmetic issues that have nothing to do with how the rifles will be used?

The majority who want this are so uneducated as to what the bans actually mean as to be pitiful. But they are perfectly willing to see private property confiscated.
 
Steelplate said:
Personally? I don't want to ban any weapon. However, I support the expanded background check legislation that Senators Toomey and Manchin worked up.
Click to expand...

Expanded background checks are a completely different animal. I have no real problem with background checks. I had them run on the purchases of almost all my guns.

The only issue I have is that the background check legislation is a knee-jerk reaction to the shootings we have had. And those shootings would not have been effected by these new background checks.
 
christiefan915 said:
How about when the 4% force their agenda on the other 96%?

I thought you were the guy who railed against the tyranny of the minority.
Click to expand...

This is also just about what the neocons were saying about gay marriage not so long ago. No one is forcing any agenda on you. The 4% is fighting against an agenda that will effect them.
 
WinterBorn said:
Expanded background checks are a completely different animal. I have no real problem with background checks. I had them run on the purchases of almost all my guns.

The only issue I have is that the background check legislation is a knee-jerk reaction to the shootings we have had. And those shootings would not have been effected by these new background checks.
Click to expand...

In a sense you are correct. But that knee jerk reaction is due to another, more sinister problem. Inner city violence and crime gangs. For many of us, it's very much an issue of "out of sight/out of mind". Most of us don't see it, it doesn't affect us and we ignore it.

So when a high profile/ high publicity tragedy takes place like Sandy Hook and Aurora.... the blowback is huge, because not only do you have the victims and their families of that particular incident....you also have the people that see death every day, who normally don't get heard.

That's my theory anyway.
 
Steelplate said:
In a sense you are correct. But that knee jerk reaction is due to another, more sinister problem. Inner city violence and crime gangs. For many of us, it's very much an issue of "out of sight/out of mind". Most of us don't see it, it doesn't affect us and we ignore it.

So when a high profile/ high publicity tragedy takes place like Sandy Hook and Aurora.... the blowback is huge, because not only do you have the victims and their families of that particular incident....you also have the people that see death every day, who normally don't get heard.

That's my theory anyway.
Click to expand...

If that were the case it would make more sense. But I doubt that this is the reason.
 
Steelplate said:
Why do you doubt it?
Click to expand...

First of all, there was no reduction in gang violence when the last ban was in force.

Second of all, the supply of fully automatic weapons to inner city gangs is not going to be effected by the ban.

Third of all, I still don't think the voices of the inner city victims are being heard.
 
WinterBorn said:
First of all, there was no reduction in gang violence when the last ban was in force.

Second of all, the supply of fully automatic weapons to inner city gangs is not going to be effected by the ban.

Third of all, I still don't think the voices of the inner city victims are being heard.
Click to expand...

Now wait....I wasn't saying that...I was merely expressing my thoughts as to reason for "knee jerk" reactions in situations like Sandy Hook.

And I agree with you about the inner city victims....but what's the solution? What would be best is for businesses to invest in those parts of the country and reduce the poverty and desperation...which leads to a desire for escape...so drugs, alcohol and addiction leads to dealers, gangs and violence. But, no one wants to do that.

So, other than to temporarily suspend posse comitatus and have our military go in and REALLY get illegal weapons out of the hands of criminals...I don't know what the answer is...NOTE: I am not even remotely suggesting that...so all you conservatives... back off.

So...what other solutions are really available? You either raise them up out of their situation, or you go hard core and physically remove the guns.

Of course, I am expecting some other alternatives mentioned. Have at it folks, I'd like to hear your input.
 
WinterBorn said:
That is hardly what he is saying.

Can anyone show any real difference the previous "assault rifle" ban made? Can anyone show a positive effect of that ban?
Click to expand...


Was it detrimental? No. Did murders increase? No. Your opposition to gun control and education, is in semantics.

SmarterthanYou said:
what are the 4% forcing on the 96%?? to leave them the hell alone??
Click to expand...

"Mob rule" is the term the right uses when they don't get their way. When they do get their way it's called "The people speak."
 
Howey said:
Was it detrimental? No. Did murders increase? No. Your opposition to gun control and education, is in semantics.
Click to expand...

So we restrict what people (even if its only 4%) want and already possess, but if crime doesn't increase and its not detrimental, you think it is all well and good? Bigger bureacracy and expense for no reason, but as long as crime doesn't increase it is a good gun law?

Violent crime rates have been dropping for a few decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top