As to the NRA, they are extreme, but if you believe in constitutional freedoms, you must also believe in the Second Amendment. (Subject to interpretation for sure.) I wouldn't criticize anyone for thinking that the NRA is too far out there, though.
Could you please expand on this "the NRA is extreme" viewpoint?
Over the last couple of days I had the "pleasure" to argue with a few McCain/Palin supporters at the Extralife forums, including my four strikes against Palin (drilling enthusiast, gun supporter, creationist, global warming denier) and how she is unfit for office for those four reasons. They start to argue that she is correct on her positions in those issues. So I give them hard evidence such as the EIA report on ANWR drilling or the IPCC report on global warming and they still try to argue back with complete horseshit such as this crap "we are scientists and don't believe in global warming" petition, where their where it is questionable who those scientists are or if they even qualify, for example they count MDs, Engineers and Chemists.
And if pro drilling is about supply it makes even less sense to drill. Yeah, we need to spend money and time to access this reservoir so that we can put off switching to alternate, renewable energy sources just a little bit longer, although we could spend the same time and money to make this change happen quicker. Good plan!
We've had this discussion before Steve. When alternate energy sources are in place, the demand for and the price of oil will go down. However, this is not part of the discussion since the sole purpose and solely advertised reason to drill for the oil is to solve the energy crisis. The drilling enthusiasts only want to access the oil to burn it, not to make it into plastic.
I'm not a member of the NRA, but you are definitely confusing causation with correlation. I live in a state with NO gun laws, yet we have one of the (if not the) lowest gun violence rates in the country.
It just boggles my mind that folks are saying that Obama is more qualified than she is before they have even heard her speak. It's either blind politics or sexism. As an independent, it concerns me.
It's neither blind politics nor is it sexism. She was a mayor of a small town, and then she was governor of an isolated state. That's the focus, not her sex or her politics. If McCain had picked someone like Kay Bailey Hutchison or Elizabeth Dole, there wouldn't be those objections. I submit that it's blind politics to be so supportive of her and so dismissive Obama when we know so much about Obama and so little about her.
You like to say you're a moderate. However, I've never heard you say anything even slightly critical of McCain or any Republican. On the other hand, you tear into Obama on a regular basis. Some moderate.
I live in a state with NO gun laws, yet we have one of the (if not the) lowest gun violence rates in the country.
Maybe if we're very, very good, we'll get to go to Vermont when we die. Until then, it's probably beyond the reach of mere mortals to dare to dream of treading upon its fabled streets of gold.
You like to say you're a moderate. However, I've never heard you say anything even slightly critical of McCain or any Republican. On the other hand, you tear into Obama on a regular basis. Some moderate.
I absolutely do not tear into Obama on a regular basis. I'm critical of both. If that wasn't clear, let's make that clear now.
Maybe if we're very, very good, we'll get to go to Vermont when we die. Until then, it's probably beyond the reach of mere mortals to dare to dream of treading upon its fabled streets of gold.
I've decided to refrain from any ad hominem attacks. It has no place in a debate. Et tu, Joe? I won't lose any sleep either way, but for the record, I've decided it's time to take the high road.
This election, I'm faced with a choice between a candidate who is a war-hawk, and a candidate with almost no foreign policy experience. Obama's reaction to the Georgia situation didn't ease my mind. It's a depressing choice at best. Currently, I view foreign policy matters as being much more important than domestic matters. I really wish the Democrats had fielded a candidate with more experience in that department. Biden may have experience, but he's not running to be top dog. And since I've been against the Iraq war from day one, McCain isn't terribly appealing.
Please remember, Mr. 99, that Steve has told us that he has suffered brain damage that affects his ability to read and write. We cannot expect him to understand what he has read. We certainly cannot expect him to remember what he has read.
"The -- the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."
"The -- the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."
How do laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Criminals, by definition, are a class of people who break the law.
@kilarney: No I am not. I did not blame the NRA for the high gun crime rate. What I said is that the NRA or political figures under the influence of them or other pro-gun lobbies such as gun manufacturers are not going to do anything to do about a high gun violence rate or crime rate in general as long as they can still contain it. The reason for this is simple: Gun lobbyists profit of high crime rates because it scares people. Scared people seek protection which equals in higher sales of guns.
@HMTKSteve: Do you actual think that illegal sale and trade of automatic or semi-automatic weapons will be as high as when it is legal? And don't bring bullshit like "if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". If that was a reason for somebody to carry a gun, every country with stricter gun laws would have a higher crime rate than the U.S., but the reality is the other way around. The U.K. is one of the countries with the strictest gun laws on the planet. Not even policemen on the street can carry guns but the U.S. gun death rate per capita is 20 times the one of the U.K.
How about that other deadly weapon; The Car. Better get all of those cars off the road before they kill someone... No, we don't do that, we have automobile safety courses designed to instruct people on the safe use of those vehicles. Kind of like how we have firearm safety courses?
How about that other deadly weapon;The Car. Better get all of those cars off the road before they kill someone... No, we don't do that, we have automobile safety courses designed to instruct people on the safe use of those vehicles. Kind of like how we have firearm safety courses?
You know, we seem to license Car ownership, make sure the car is running right and give people basic lessons and tests to make sure they know what they are doing. What is wrong with licensing guns and making sure people know how to use them. We also provide licenses for different types of cars and prohibit certain vehicles from being used. If you want to regulate guns as we do cars, I'm 100% for it. This is a step that the NRA is against.
Goddamnit Steve. We have had this discussion before. A Car has a useful and save every day purpose. A gun does not. And in addition to that, to be able to legally drive a car you have to go through various training and tests to ensure you will use the car safely and responsibly. Gun ownership in the U.S. does not. They are only recommended, not required and not enforced before you can legally obtain a gun.
How about that other deadly weapon;The Car. Better get all of those cars off the road before they kill someone... No, we don't do that, we have automobile safety courses designed to instruct people on the safe use of those vehicles. Kind of like how we have firearm safety courses?
You know, we seem to license Car ownership, make sure the car is running right and give people basic lessons and tests to make sure they know what they are doing. What is wrong with licensing guns and making sure people know how to use them. We also provide licenses for different types of cars and prohibit certain vehicles from being used. If you want to regulate guns as we do cars, I'm 100% for it. This is a step that the NRA is against.
I fully support the idea of someone having to earn a license to carry certain classes of firearms. I do not support gun registration (I don't want a government database of who owns what weapons).
I fully support the idea of someone having to earn a license to carry certain classes of firearms. I do not support gun registration (I don't want a government database of who owns what weapons).
Well then don't use a Car metaphor. Because we regulate cars a ton more then guns.
42% of people I believe (can't find great data on this) own guns, why the hell are you so paranoid about the government knowing you have a gun or not, your gun is not going to save you. They are not going to round up the people who own guns.
I fully support the idea of someone having to earn a license to carry certain classes of firearms. I do not support gun registration (I don't want a government database of who owns what weapons).
Why not with your great car comparison. It's pretty easy to find out what car you own, you know, they call them license plates.
The driver license analogy also falls apart very quickly:
1. You do not have to be a licensed driver to own a car. 2. You do not need to register your vehicle if it will not be used on public roads. 3. People steal cars all the time and use them to commit crimes.
Why do I not want the government to know that I own a gun (or guns)? Because it is none of their business.
1. You do not have to be a licensed driver to own a car. 2. You do not need to register your vehicle if it will not be used on public roads. 3. People steal cars all the time and use them to commit crimes.
Yes, but that car has to be registered. You are only thinking of licensing the driver and not about all the regulation that occurs with the actual car.
Goddamnit Steve.We have had this discussion before. A Car has a useful and save every day purpose. A gun does not. And in addition to that, to be able to legally drive a car you have to go through various training and tests to ensure you will use the car safely and responsibly. Gun ownership in the U.S. does not. They are only recommended, not required and not enforced before you can legally obtain a gun.
Let's stop the discussion here.
I seem to remember that I completely obliterated your position in that thread. Why not reread it again...
I do not support gun registration (I don't want a government database of who owns what weapons).
How is this a bad idea? If Billy-Jim owns seventeen AK-47's with undercarriage grenade launchers and a .50 cal machine gun mounted to the roof of his military-grade humvee for 'Hunting', I sure as shit want the government to know.
I do not support gun registration (I don't want a government database of who owns what weapons).
How is this a bad idea? If Billy-Jim owns seventeen AK-47's with undercarriage grenade launchers and a .50 cal machine gun mounted to the roof of his military-grade humvee for 'Hunting', I sure as shit want the government to know.
You want the government to know.
Under a system based on automobile licensing Bill-Jim (what's with the overt anti-redneck reference) would only have to register that vehicle if he was going to use it on the public roads.
The more I think about it the better Cremlian's idea sounds. Licensing would only be required if you wanted to carry the firearm in public (just like with cars) and you could own any firearm you wanted on your own private property (just like with cars). Registration of said firearms would only be required if you intended to use that firearm outside of your private property (just like cars). I'm not seeing any negatives here.
I seem to remember that I completely obliterated your position in that thread. Why not reread it again...
Oo
What I recall (and just reread in the thread) is that I said that while it is impossible to revoke the right to bear arms in the U.S. people should need to be trained and get something akin to a driver's license for a gun. Practically the point that Cremlian and Steve made. I'd hardly call that obliteration. I also recall that would be willing to arm 20,000 teenagers and that Scott thinks guns can do something else than injure and kill.
I do not support gun registration (I don't want a government database of who owns what weapons).
How is this a bad idea? If Billy-Jim owns seventeen AK-47's with undercarriage grenade launchers and a .50 cal machine gun mounted to the roof of his military-grade humvee for 'Hunting', I sure as shit want the government to know.
Youwant the government to know.
Under a system based on automobile licensing Bill-Jim (what's with the overt anti-redneck reference) would only have to register that vehicle if he was going to use it on the public roads.
The more I think about it the better Cremlian's idea sounds. Licensing would only be required if you wanted to carry the firearm in public (just like with cars) and you could own any firearm you wanted on your own private property (just like with cars). Registration of said firearms would only be required if you intended to use that firearm outside of your private property (just like cars). I'm not seeing any negatives here.
The gun owner may not have any bad intentions. They may just want to take whatever surplus ballistics they have and blow stuff up on their own private range. I would be okay with that, but you're overlooking the fact that people who are not the actual purchaser and owner of the gun can get their hands on them. If someone has their own arsenal, and their kid or relative gets their hands on them, or if they are stolen, it would be helpful if the government (federal, state, local whatever) could know who has what kinds of weapons. I'm not against gun ownership if someone wants to, but I'll be damned if I'll support someone else's right to own guns to endanger the public> What reason is there to keep it some sort of secret anyhow?
Comments
Being pro-drilling is not just about price, it's also about supply,
And if pro drilling is about supply it makes even less sense to drill. Yeah, we need to spend money and time to access this reservoir so that we can put off switching to alternate, renewable energy sources just a little bit longer, although we could spend the same time and money to make this change happen quicker. Good plan!
You like to say you're a moderate. However, I've never heard you say anything even slightly critical of McCain or any Republican. On the other hand, you tear into Obama on a regular basis. Some moderate. Maybe if we're very, very good, we'll get to go to Vermont when we die. Until then, it's probably beyond the reach of mere mortals to dare to dream of treading upon its fabled streets of gold.
This election, I'm faced with a choice between a candidate who is a war-hawk, and a candidate with almost no foreign policy experience. Obama's reaction to the Georgia situation didn't ease my mind. It's a depressing choice at best. Currently, I view foreign policy matters as being much more important than domestic matters. I really wish the Democrats had fielded a candidate with more experience in that department. Biden may have experience, but he's not running to be top dog. And since I've been against the Iraq war from day one, McCain isn't terribly appealing.
@HMTKSteve: Do you actual think that illegal sale and trade of automatic or semi-automatic weapons will be as high as when it is legal?
And don't bring bullshit like "if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". If that was a reason for somebody to carry a gun, every country with stricter gun laws would have a higher crime rate than the U.S., but the reality is the other way around. The U.K. is one of the countries with the strictest gun laws on the planet. Not even policemen on the street can carry guns but the U.S. gun death rate per capita is 20 times the one of the U.K.
A Car has a useful and save every day purpose. A gun does not. And in addition to that, to be able to legally drive a car you have to go through various training and tests to ensure you will use the car safely and responsibly. Gun ownership in the U.S. does not. They are only recommended, not required and not enforced before you can legally obtain a gun.
Let's stop the discussion here.
42% of people I believe (can't find great data on this) own guns, why the hell are you so paranoid about the government knowing you have a gun or not, your gun is not going to save you. They are not going to round up the people who own guns.
1. You do not have to be a licensed driver to own a car.
2. You do not need to register your vehicle if it will not be used on public roads.
3. People steal cars all the time and use them to commit crimes.
Why do I not want the government to know that I own a gun (or guns)? Because it is none of their business.
Under a system based on automobile licensing Bill-Jim (what's with the overt anti-redneck reference) would only have to register that vehicle if he was going to use it on the public roads.
The more I think about it the better Cremlian's idea sounds. Licensing would only be required if you wanted to carry the firearm in public (just like with cars) and you could own any firearm you wanted on your own private property (just like with cars). Registration of said firearms would only be required if you intended to use that firearm outside of your private property (just like cars). I'm not seeing any negatives here.
What I recall (and just reread in the thread) is that I said that while it is impossible to revoke the right to bear arms in the U.S. people should need to be trained and get something akin to a driver's license for a gun. Practically the point that Cremlian and Steve made. I'd hardly call that obliteration.
I also recall that would be willing to arm 20,000 teenagers and that Scott thinks guns can do something else than injure and kill.