Liberals versus conservatives

Originally posted by mwm1331
First lets set the ground rules.
1 if you insult someones person (I.E. you are an idiot as opposed to That is an idiotic argument) you will automatically be recognised as having lost this discussion. If you insult someone its because you have run out of points of evidence for your position as far as I'm concerned.
2 No generalsations. Point out specific laws, news stories, events, etc.
3 theroies must be baked up by actual events, or be provable by events. No reptilians, Aliens of any Flavor, Time Travel etc.

Should we call these the Colonel clauses?

Even though I consider myself a socialist with a more liberal viewpoint

I believe in the 2nd amendment and private ownership of firearms. I believe it is a good defense from a government which might infringe on individual rights. And plus, lets say someone is breaking into your house with a gun.. your better off with your gun than calling the cops.. you may even be dead before the cops ever arrive.

So for self defense.. heck ya. guns own.

Generally speaking, most liberals do not want to take away all of the guns. Many don't see the point in owning an uzi, sks, or a tech-9. Assault rifles and automatic weapons should never really be needed in your day to day. However, the biggest problem that I see with gun ownership is irresponsibility, but it should be easier to educate than to take away. Then again, most people just don't care.

Hey if you want an UZI, AK-47 or some other gun.. go ahead keep it but don't cause trouble. That is the problem, they cannot trust everyone so they impose all these laws to prevent people from owning such weapons.

[edit on 18-6-2004 by RedOctober90]

You know, when a civilian can have more firepower than the police, I think something's wrong. It's ok to have guns, but I think assault weapons should be outlawed. Just the other day I was watching a show where some guy had a quad 50 cal turrent....and was firing it. Sorry, but no one needs that.

Originally posted by Flinx
You know, when a civilian can have more firepower than the police, I think something's wrong. It's ok to have guns, but I think assault weapons should be outlawed. Just the other day I was watching a show where some guy had a quad 50 cal turrent....and was firing it. Sorry, but no one needs that.

in theory i would agree with you however...what your idea of what people should and shouldnt have is different from someone elses and THIS is the problem.

while i agree some things like a grenade launcher probably shouldnt be in the hands of john Q public there are those who feel lesser fire arms should also be kept away from citizens and there are even those who think people shouldnt have guns at all and should be outright banned.

this is why i am against any form of outlawing of fire arms. i think you have a good point but the problem is people take that idea too far, or what i would cinsider too far and thats why we have the problems we have. and these people use previous bans to make their case and guess what? other people believe their crap and join their causes.

i believe the biggest problem we face at this moment is a right being challenged and threatened by people who are basically forcing their own opinion onto others, wanting everyone else to live their way of life. sad but true. the freedom here is the freedom to choose to have or not have a fire arm, not whether we should have fire arms or not. i commend people who believe they dont need a firearm but anyone who believes this idea should be forced on the rest of us takes OUR right to choose away from us is wrong IMO. thats what all these freedoms are, the right to choose for ourselves.

now i dont own a firearm by choice, however i do like firearms and i support everyone right to choose for thmeselves what they feel is best for them or their family.

as a parallel drinking is legal and while its not a right lets discuss it for a minute. i dont like drinking to be honest. i ocassionaly do it but in general i dont like it and i dont think people should drink. however i dont feel it is my place to take anothers persons option to drink away from them simply because i dont like drinking or alcohol. we as humans have something called free will, the ability to think and decide for ourselves and act upon those decisions in our own best interest. i find it offensive to me that someone feels that because their opinion on any given subject is superior to someone elses that everyone should live their alives according to THEIR standards rather than their own. this pertains to rights within the bill of rights and the contitution as well as those not contained therein.


again i agree with your idea but in practice, it DOES partially take away our right to choose for ourselves. it also gives those who would love nothing more than to destroy the second amendment a foothold and it is THOSE people i have a problem with. i wish we could all agree certain weapons shouldnt be allowed and left it at that but the sad reality is some dont leave it at that, they view that as just a stepping stone.

I agree that banning something just makes it more "popular" in a sense, but I just don't feel that someone should have military grade weapons. I'm not sure what they would use them for. I imagine they could be weapons collectors (I'm one myself), but do they plan to defend themselves with a bazooka? I just want to avoid incidents like that LA bank robbery and shootout. And Waco...

To be honest, my problem with people who horde assault weapons is that many of them have this militia mindset. "The government's going to come after me and I've got to be ready for them." Please, if the government's going to come for you, there's nothing you'll be able to do about it. I also don't like the idea of a bunch of extremist armies roving the countryside. Maybe I've watched the Postman and Mad Max too much...

But ownership is a freedom afforded by the consitution and people should be able to arm themselves, within reason. I don't think the writers of the consitution exactly envisioned the sheer destructive power of 21st century weapons.

I beleive that the 2nd ammendmant was originaly was written with the premise of being able to hunt for your own food as well as protect yourself . We all have the right to survive , the means by wich we choose to do in modern day is debateable .

Certainly we should be able to defend ourselves . Certainly we should be able to be hunters . Certainly we should expose our children to the "Safe And Proper Use and Handling of Firearms"so they realize that guns don't kill people , people kill people .

Rifles to hunt with.....fine . Pistols to shoot intruders with......fine . Assault weapons in the military ......fine .

Assault weapons are based on hostile intentions (defensive or assault)IMO , and have no place in the sporting world (tenderized that venison for ya honey) , or the personal right to defend ones self .

I think rifles , shotguns , and pistols that can be used for both sporting and defence purposes are all that are forefathers had to choose from at the time . With the advent of modern gun technology , and the likelyhood of non sporting , non defensive gun use has been propogated by greed primarily in the drug business .

Just my oppinion , and I support a persons right to bear arms for sporting and defensive purposes , I just question the need for the military quality of the the guns that are readily available today .

I think we need to look back to the time when this ammendment was drafted , and think about what was available at the time in reference of fire arms .

Just a thought .

people kill people . Automatic weapons just do it faster . I would prefer my game meat non-tenderized . [edit] and I do agree with your right to carry a firearm on your person in the original spirit of the 2nd ammendment . [edit]

[edit on 19-6-2004 by oddtodd]

Originally posted by OXmanK
Generally speaking, most liberals do not want to take away all of the guns. Many don't see the point in owning an uzi, sks, or a tech-9. Assault rifles and automatic weapons should never really be needed in your day to day. However, the biggest problem that I see with gun ownership is irresponsibility, but it should be easier to educate than to take away. Then again, most people just don't care.

Sorry I took so long to say the same thing....

Originally posted by RedOctober90
Hey if you want an UZI, AK-47 or some other gun.. go ahead keep it but don't cause trouble. That is the problem, they cannot trust everyone so they impose all these laws to prevent people from owning such weapons.

[edit on 18-6-2004 by RedOctober90]

do civilians really need those kinda weapons? when was the last time we were invaded? that was 192 years ago.

But ownership is a freedom afforded by the consitution and people should be able to arm themselves, within reason. I don't think the writers of the consitution exactly envisioned the sheer destructive power of 21st century weapons.

I agree : " within reason" good points in your posting ....

I find it interesting how many here have been convinced by the liberal politicians that the average Joe-6-pack is too stupid and irresponsible to own anything othe than a pistol or a squirrel rifle.

The 2nd amendment says your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That means that the government has no authority to tell you what you can and cannot have. Were you to read the words of the Founding Fathers, you'd see that this is so that the citizen can take back his country from arbitrary rule or tyranny. You gonna do that with a revolver? No, you'd need to be a little more equal to what the government will have. Would I want an Uzi or a Tech-9? No. To me they are useless. Should you have something more like an M-16 or an AK? Well, certainly. A quad .50? Might be a little impractical, figuring how the citizen will have to fight, but hey, if the guy has a plan of action and the money to support that kind of equipment, he has the right.

Just to let you all know, I have been watching some "assault weapons" (a media created term that has no tactical meaning), pistols and shotguns in my house for years, and none of them have left by themselves and killed any kids or wives. They are very safe. As safe as the owner. The owner is supposed to be a responsible, rugged individual, as the Founders expected the nation to be. Toughen up, take personal responsibility, buy a proper weapon and fulfill your right that Lincoln said was your obligation!

I heard a joke that I think would be appropriate here. I can't remember EXACTLY how it went, So here goes.

A retired Army Sgt. was being interviewed by a female reporter about a firearms course he was teaching. The course was intended to give young people knowledge of firearms and how to use them safely. As well as give the old man something to do in his retirement. The reporter lambasted the old man saying,"but your equipping them to be KILLERS!" The old Sgt. quickly replied, "Well, your equipped to be a prostitute, does that mean you are one?"

Thank you and good night folks. I'll be here all week. Try the veal and tip your waitress. [ rimshot ]

So while many conservatives and liberals (at least those who have spoken on this thread) here agree that the second ammendment does give people the right to bear arms, there seems to be a point of contention as to what arms the founding fathers envisioned. Consider this, at the time of the American revolution and the crafting of the bill of rights, The citizen Militias were equipped with the same type of rifles as the military, there was no "force gap" between the two, execpt possibly for cannon or artillery" Therefore one could argue that the founding fathers, by NOT stating what types of arms the citizens were entitled to expresly meant for the citizens to have access to the same weaponry as the military.
Discuss

HMMMMMm , interesting points . I am going to do a bit more research with your last post in mind wmw . I don't want people to have access to Uzi's , but a cannon would be cool .

Seriously though , Ammendments are changes /additions to adress modern situations that were not an issue a couple hundred years ago , and here we have another "modern" situation arrising from the technological advancement of weaponry .

I will research this more and get back with some kind of documentation to back myself up as far as the distinction between defensive /offensive weaponry.

I still believe you should be able to load your pistol / strap it on / and take your family out for a protected weekend of camping , or even a stroll down Main st. USA , and I don't like being told what to do by anyone myself .

The rules are written as you state them , but new ammendments have arisen from someone saying "hey , what about this situation......" and then adapting the premise to these modern situations . This one needs a bit of sorting out in our modern society , and people do tend to try to keep up with the Jonses with respect to " I want a better one of those..."

Will get back to ya tomorrow . -odd

Well interstingly enough untill the early 1900s this is how the second ammendment was interperted by the courts. The "right to bear arms" was considered to mean military arms I.E. rifles not pistols. It wasnt untill the 1920-30 I believe where the current Non-military interpertation was put forth. I will try to find and post some links soon.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Well interstingly enough untill the early 1900s this is how the second ammendment was interperted by the courts. The "right to bear arms" was considered to mean military arms I.E. rifles not pistols. It wasnt untill the 1920-30 I believe where the current Non-military interpertation was put forth. I will try to find and post some links soon.

I've come to the same conclusion . Just spent alot of time reading oppinions on the 2nd Ammendment , and yes , military arms for the militia was the major premise behind the Ammendment . The government infact wanted the public tho have rifles of a higher quality if the need to defend ourselves became needed . The "squirel guns" and pistols TC pointed out above were unreliable , and usless in the advent of armed conflict .

I believe the non-military interpretation may have come about with the advent of world wars , and the seperation of a local militia from a "modern army" that was to provide a collective defence for the general population .

This is also when all the need for advancements in firepower became obvious for the sake of "getting the job done" faster , more efficiently , and of course in our favor .

I believe our minor disagreement stems from the seperation of local militias, who are no longer called upon en masse to provide for our safety, from the modern military .

I know guns don't walk out and kill people on their own , and read that Sweeden has an amzing amount of war grade weapons in the modern household . Children are taught about safety , marksmanship , and responsibility from a very young age , and this issue has never been raised there .

The modern day criminal is most influential in my belief , but I am swayed by the responsible gun owners that have posted here . The irresponsible criminal element is my major problem , and will dwell on that as well as appreciate your feedback for future discussion .

Also mwm ,I liked your signature and found some other good Mark Twain quotes I thought you would like that relate to this discussion , they are not ment for anything more than humurous observations :

" Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform."


" He had discovered a great law of human action, without knowing it - namely, that in order to make a man or a boy covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to obtain."

"The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them ."

Until next time....odd