Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Republican

5 (6%)

Democrat

8 (9.5%)

Libertarian

11 (13.1%)

Undecided/Independent

38 (45.2%)

Other (Anarchist, Communist, Green, ect.)

22 (26.2%)

Total Members Voted: 84

[DeathsDisciple]

Um, a bit off topic with the thermonuclear device in your pocket.

@Bauglir
By "regulation" do you mean "You can't have a gun." or "You can have a fully automatic AK-47, but we have to do a through background check."

[Dsarker]

I devil's advocate EVERYTHING!

But seriously. It's the most logical and efficient solution. Whether it is the moral or ethical solution, well, that's something else.

[DeathsDisciple]

I don't have a party because I am not American.

Does that mean I am EVIL?

@Neonivek
No.

@Dsarker
I (hope) that we understand your point. We should be able to carry the guns we want.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember: I want all Political views.
And...
Soon I won't be able to answer/comment on every post. The point of this thread is to have friendly debates about politics.
So Debate with one another!

[Dsarker]

Well, from my serious point, yes, we should be able to carry weapons. Whether weapons should be valued as they are...

[Fenrir]

Would guarantee no crime. Actually, better idea. Permanently wire a thermonuclear device to everyone which is set to go off if they are threatened.

Your plan is horrible—giving everyone a thermonuclear device would be Socialism, and I’ll have none of that.

[DeathsDisciple]

Please, enough with the Handheld Nuke Device.
Be serious.





Please.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gun Control, Gun Control, any more thoughts on Gun Control? I'm only trying to get this topic rolling.

[Strife26]

I tend towards being a member of the disaffected political culture, and tend to be right leaning independent, slightly left domestically and slightly right on foreign affairs.



I'm very much on the side of the NRA on my gun control. The NRA is pretty extreme a lot of the time, however, I'm very much of the opinion that 2nd Amendment rights are the sort that are *not* easy to get back once they're eroded. Quite frankly, between the crazy pro-gun types and the crazy-anti-gun-lobbies, the pro-gunner are much less harmful.

Ideally, I'd like a system where everything up to single fire variants of assault rifles are pretty accessible, but with a full system of registration and background checks. Additionally, the rules pertaining the high grade weapon tax stamps should be much easier to get (it's not easy to get a tax stamp for a full auto lower AR15 receiver).
 

[Criptfeind]

Proof?
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=john_donohue
And...
http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/moreguns.htm

You do realize that the first one you linked too is a article detailing how the second one is wrong right?

[mainiac]

I'm very much on the side of the NRA on my gun control. The NRA is pretty extreme a lot of the time, however, I'm very much of the opinion that 2nd Amendment rights are the sort that are *not* easy to get back once they're eroded. Quite frankly, between the crazy pro-gun types and the crazy-anti-gun-lobbies, the pro-gunner are much less harmful.

This is an interesting notion to me.  Why would gun rights be harder to get back then say... labor rights?  With labor rights, there is a clear, lobby that opposes them. 
A lobby that furthermore is going to be well funded by definition.

Also, what defines a crazy anti gun lobby?  How can someone be crazy in wanting to regulate something?

[Criptfeind]

Shift batman's focus just a little bit and BAM crazy anti gunman. But yeah, I also forgot to answer the OP's question.

I am not liking the democrats right now, but I recognize under our system I am pretty much with them or with the republicans, so I vote for them.

[Strife26]

To some extent, it's because every time you take away gun rights, you're reducing the gun righter's group. Mostly, I think that it's a matter of slippery slope. Make no mistake, the anti-gun lobby is just as extreme as the pro-gun one, and they'd almost certainly keep trying to chip away at gun rights.

With labor, there's always that group there. When conditions get bad enough for the laborer, the exact same thing that made Unions powerful once will happen again. With gun ownership, it'd be a much more ticklish subject.

I've explained that crappily, let me go dig up an essay written by someone who is better at explaining it than me.







There is a wealth of accurate information that shows that gun ownership decreases crime.

There is a wealth of accurate information that shows that gun ownership increases crime.

There are several studies showing that most pro-gun studies are bullshit.

There is undeniable evidence that anti-gun lobbies astro-turf to an unreasonable extent.

It's certainly true that the NRA eats babies.

The Bradley campaign are a bunch of pinko-commies.

The 2nd Amendment is an individual right, just like the rights in the other first 10 amendments.

The NRA promotes lower back injures by wishing everyone carried a M2 HMG with them at all times.

There isn't a good chance that America will be invaded anytime soon, nor that an armed uprising of the people would be needed.

Your mom needs an armed uprising.

[Criptfeind]

I got to say, out of all of that, I really only care about the second amendment piece, which leads me to think the system we have right now is close enough to right.

[Bauglir]

@Bauglir
By "regulation" do you mean "You can't have a gun." or "You can have a fully automatic AK-47, but we have to do a through background check."

The latter. Not because I think guns deter crime significantly (people have a sense of their own invulnerability, and I'd wager the number of people who think of themselves as Grammaton Clerics with a gun is enough to prevent a deterrence policy from working effectively), but because I don't think trying to get rid of them deters it either. It's more a cultural thing, and giving gun ownership the allure of rebellion isn't going to help. I figure that the people who are going to do terrible things with automatic weapons will figure out how to get them, by and large. Might as well let the rest of us who occasionally want to detonate a pumpkin with a rocket launcher have a good Halloween.

Typically, the things I do agree with Libertarians on are all about what individuals are allowed to do, but you don't often see drug legalization (and regulation and publicly funded rehabilitation and so on and so forth) and gun control brought up in a sane manner and as an important issue, even moreso than other divisive topics in my experience. And I'm wildly at variance with Libertarian positions on economics (particularly taxation and public services) and corporate regulation, and foreign policy tends to be a crap shoot as well.

Spoiler: Volatile Addendum We Might Not Want To Get Derailed Onto (click to show/hide)

Not to mention the number of Libertarians who seem to be pro-life. Whether it's right nor not, that seems like a fundamentally paradoxical position. I've now doomed the thread, and I apologize.

[Criptfeind]

I really don't see the paradox there, but really only depends on how you look at it.

[mainiac]

With labor, there's always that group there. When conditions get bad enough for the laborer, the exact same thing that made Unions powerful once will happen again. With gun ownership, it'd be a much more ticklish subject.

On the other hand...
With self defense advocates, there's always that group there. When conditions get bad enough for the self defense advocates, the exact same thing that made unions powerful once will happen again.

To some extent, it's because every time you take away gun rights, you're reducing the gun righter's group. Mostly, I think that it's a matter of slippery slope. Make no mistake, the anti-gun lobby is just as extreme as the pro-gun one, and they'd almost certainly keep trying to chip away at gun rights.

How is that extreme though?  I might oppose anti-abortion groups for example but I don't think they are extreme when they try to use the democratic process to achieve their ends.  That's democracy... if you win and don't break any rules, you get your way.