Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: The ignorance of liberals


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The ignorance of liberals Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/10/2014 8:47:17 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Sorry, Lauren, but your buckets of wallpaper paste bore the shit out of me. I get up in the morning.



Translation: You are writing facts, and all I want are the factoids fed to me by Faux News and right wing rant radio, Gotcha. At least I try to present my arguments, you simply regurgitate all the talking points spread by the Koch Brothers and Faux News. You claim to be a kinky conservative but what I think you are is a member of the GOP base to whom being kinky is to do it with the lights half turned up.



Translation: I can't be bothered to listen to what you think, because I'm in my "pretending to be a host on The View" fantasy right now, and will spend my posts serenely spouting liberal pabulum, and telling people I have never met who they are, and what they think."

Your bit bores the shit out of me, Lauren. Back when the wife and I were working radically different schedules, I might have wasted some time on you, to pass a beastly hot afternoon. I've raised my standards since then.

Have a nice night.


_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/10/2014 8:50:19 PM   
BitYakin


Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

I would also like to hear a great reason for owning an assault weapon.


Also, I believe there is no better deterrent to tyranny than a well-armed civilian population.



This was the answer I was expecting to hear.
Thanks


and your response is quite expected too, you cut out the FACT that he doesn't OWN an assault weapon, and want to go on PRETENDING he does, or even that he advocates that other people SHOULD own assault weapons

a man can DRESS like a woman, a woman can DRESS like a man, but neither doing so changes their gender, the man does not BECOME a woman, the woman does not BECOME a man, they are both still just simply CROSSDRESSERS

dressing a rifle up to LOOK like an assault rifle does NOT make it in fact an assault rifle

(in reply to Marini)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/10/2014 9:00:27 PM   
Marini


Posts: 3629
Joined: 2/14/2010
Status: offline
Let's see I did not say nor imply that Rich has an assault weapon.

I asked him why would anyone want to own an assault weapon.

Do you have a problem with knee-jerk reactions?

_____________________________

As always, To EACH their Own.
"And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. "
Nelson Mandela
Life-long Democrat, not happy at all with Democratic Party.
NOT a Republican/Moderate and free agent

(in reply to BitYakin)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/10/2014 9:03:45 PM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline
You should go to work for Faux News, you would fit right in. As far as Ayn Rand goes, I was discussing her so called economic theories, which boiled down to the rich are all these geniuses who deserve their own little world of the elites, and everyone else mooches off of them..among other thing, of course, is that her nasty little world forgets the fact that many of the well off got there because their families were well off (hello, Paul Ryan) and that many of them get to be executives and such, not because they are geniuses or create new ideas and jobs, but quite frankly, because they are mediocre and boards figure they won't screw up. I didn't say Ayn Rand was a bible thumper, she was probably the most un Christian person you could meet, but the bible thumping losers who pass for conservatives these days worship her economic theories, the bloody dump as dirt stump boobs cheer for the very ideas that have left them economically hanging on by a thread, it is unbelievably self defeating, and worse, the religious right has created the prosperity gospel that basically is Ayn Rand with Jesus thrown into it *lol*.

As far ad the rich creating jobs, that is an utter load of bullshit, and economic data bears that out. Over the past 20 years, in large part because of huge cuts in taxes on the well off and companies, the income and wealth of the upper .5% has exploded to where it is at almost 19th century levels, as a percentage of all income and wealth that top strata controls ridiculous amounts....and guess what during that 20 year period job growth has basically gone to hell, and incomes for the 99% for the most part have shrunk....the whole idea that the rich engage in capital formation is utter bullshit, what the well off do with their wealth does not increase GDP, they use their wealth in investment gains that basically drive almost no job growth or capital formation. Investing in derivatives, hedge funds and so forth nets them huge returns, as does the stock executives get as compensation, but it does almost nothing to drive job growth. What little job growth there is comes from small businesses and start ups, which quite frankly the tax cuts and other bones thrown to the rich don't help all that much, most of that money goes to big corporations and their executives, it goes to financial firms and the like, all of whom destroy jobs more than create them.

And I am tired of the dumbshit wackjob right who somehow claim someone who criticizes the excesses of our current economy as being socialist or promoting communism, that is basically the same shit the asshole conservatives did in the 1950's in the red scare that anyone who dared think differently was red, and it is just as stupid. I hate to tell you but there is more in the world than capitalism and socialism, and pure capitalism as a rule doesn't work, it doesn't even work for capitalists, the economy is a blend of capitalism and socialism, pure capitalism says there is no regulation, which only Faux News nation thinks is a great idea, and more importantly, pure capitalism falls apart because it always end with greed destroying it.
East Germany failed because its economic system was basically a crock of shit, but once upon a time Germany's economy in the 1920's went to shit, and it was capitalist....economies fail when they don't bring economic benefits to all members of society, and they fail when the economic interests of the few are more important than the many. Communism and Socialism fail because the economic system is designed to benefit a relatively small number of party insiders, much the same way that 'pure' capitalism ends up with concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of a relative few (ie monopolies), and both in the end lead to economic collapse because neither is sustainable.

The kind of economic inequality we are seeing in this country cannot go on, the middle class is what made this country so stable, and if we keep going the route of countries like South America, it is going to cause social and economic distress not seen since the Great Depression. For all the lies conservatives try to make about the Great Depression, the reality was that in the depths of it, we came damn close to armed revolt and civil war, the images of everyone pulling together, or that people were rugged and endured, is bullshit, it was a toss up that the US could have ended up in a fascist dictatorship (if Huey Long had lived, very well may have been him), or potentially another kind of revolt. Farmers, generally the most conservative of people, were killing Sheriffs and anyone else trying to foreclose on farms and they were also responsible for the growth of groups like the KKK and Neo Nazi groups and the like, their anger was that great, in Northwest NJ, that was and still is farmland today, a lot of local farmers belonged to the German Bund that had a camp in Andover (that still exists as a town park), and there were others in Northwest NJ as well.......

As far as the Koch Brothers go, they are scumbags and far from being the Patriots they and their even bigger douchebag of an old man claim to be. Basically they are well off, and feel no gratitude for what the US has given them, not to mention that being in the energy business their company benefits a great deal from government largesse, from basically free access to public lands, to all kinds of tax breaks and subsidies that help make their business so profitable, not to mention the US military that protects the sea lanes and sources of oil overseas they sell......but basically, they are petulant children who like the little kid who refuses to share their toys, sees their wealth as earned by them alone, how their great minds and intellect and hard work got them that wealth and that they owe the country nothing, which in my book puts them down as scumbags. Put it this way, I have met a lot of small business men, people who had nothing and built businesses, and somehow they understood what the Koch brothers cannot, that this country gave them the opportunities they had, allowed to them do what they did and that they felt grateful enough to want to return things...and what do the Koch brothers return, do they fight for the common good? No, they promote a political position, that long with people like Grover Norquist and Steve Forbes, is all about themselves, their greed, their lust for money, the rest of the country be damned.


And say what you want about George Soros, but whether you like what he stands for or not, I don't see George Soros fighting for causes that personally benefit himself, the kind of liberal causes he espouses tend to be about others, the Koch Brothers and Trever Norquist care only about one thing, themselves, they are the perfect embodiment of the Ayn Rand ideal. Put it this way, George Soros like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet has argued that the rich pay too little, and unlike the Koch Brothers, all of them put their substantial money towards trying to solve problems, not line their own pockets like the Koch Brothers do. Gates and Buffet and Soros have basically given away all their wealth to non profits trying to help people, whereas the Koch Brothers are basically greed personified, and what little they give to charities tend to be self aggrandizing, things with naming rights and such.



quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

Ayn Rand was 100% pro-abortion and an atheist. Perhaps you are confusing her with Rick Santorum.

Whom do you think creates jobs? The poor? Exactly where does the money come from that funds these companies? People who made money and who have money and who take risks to make even more money.

Why is it that antithetical philosophies in geographically identical areas result in antithetical results -- i.e., West Germany and the East Germany? Could it have been the differences in the economic systems perhaps?

As far as the Earth's being created in 6 days -- that's about the same as saying in the 1970s that the planet was facing and impending ice age and that today global warming is going to kill us all. They're both pseudo-science.

Defense spending made lower? It's already low. But if you'd like to see the "benefits" of low defense spending, I suggest you look the Britain's navy circa the late 1930s and the good that did them; or you could simply look around the world today and see how our LordGodObama is perceived by our enemies (laughable) and friends (contemptible).

The Koch Brothers? Rich, free-market guys who don't want your money or mine, unless we choose to buy their products. George Soros? Who's he? The fact that he is hypocritical, wealth-confiscating, insider-trading cheat doesn't matter since his billions support the left.

No one is going to ban same-sex marriage via the constitution any more than Lister's germ theory is going to banned. That's political talk and prattle, well unless of course the Muslim Brotherhood that Obama so loves takes a greater part in our country in which case there will be no need to ban same-sex marriage since all gays will simply be executed. Instead of easy targets such as opponents of gay marriage, I suggest leftists focus their targets on the shari'a advocates and Muslims who want to execute gays. Just a bit of a difference there and, dressed in your niqab, it will be pretty hard to stop those executions.


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
I'll take the crook any day)


Don't tell me, let me guess - you're an Obama /Reid / Pelosi person

No, I am the lesser of two evils. If choosing between a candidate telling me the rich are job creators and everyone else is a parasite, and someone who at least claims to care about anyone other than the 1%, I'll take the latter. If you ask me to choose between a candidate who understands what science is, versus a candidate who supports the idea that the earth was created in 6 days by God as science, I'll take the first one. It isn't that I am a supporter of Reid/Obama/Pelosi per se, it is that the GOP is putting up the modern day equivalents of Williams Jenning Bryan and Gomer Pyle or worse, disciples of Ayn Rand, so I hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. I never thought I would see the day that someone running for Senate in NJ could actually say things like we ought to ban same sex marriage via the constitution, or hear a serious candidate say that it is okay to cut 15 billion from food stamps but that we should increase defense spending and the size of farm subsidies, too.....if that is the best the GOP can offer me, I'll take the crook, at least with him I can figure the kind of damage he can do, put a GOP senator in with the rednecks, the bible thumpers and the Koch brothers owned ones, and God help us all.




(in reply to subrosaDom)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/10/2014 9:05:08 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
Buh-by.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/10/2014 9:09:07 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

Let's see I did not say nor imply that Rich has an assault weapon.

I asked him why would anyone want to own an assault weapon.

Do you have a problem with knee-jerk reactions?


Yes. Yes he does.

I found no malice in your question, and no sarcasm in your response.


_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to Marini)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/10/2014 9:16:25 PM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
... alcohol was almost unregulated, not unlike guns in many places...


That is completely and blatantly false. There is a licensing system in EVERY state. It is impossible to procure a gun in a LEGAL manner in the United States, without going through some form of a check. ALL licensed dealers are required to run a background check - there goes 40-50% of the sales, and 40-50% of that argument. Even for private sales, you're required to either bring the sale to a licensed dealer (some states), or contact the state authorities with a request to approve the sale. In NO state are you allowed to knowingly sell to a convicted felon, or to a person with a court-ordered psychiatric treatment/commitment history.

The "gun show loophole" argument, which is repeated in the media over and over again, is simply bullshit. Here's one of many articles that explains it:

Washington Times: The Gun-Show Loophole Myth

quote:

...the loose gun laws in many states have led to tragedy, whether it was the crazy Korean kid in Virginia, or the 70% of guns pulled off the streets of NYC that were bought, legally, in a couple of states with notoriously lax laws.


That "crazy Korean kid" obtained his guns illegally. As in, he broke the law. So did Adam Lanza. Please explain how more laws would stop someone who intends on breaking or circumventing them anyway.

quote:

In Georgia you can basically walk into a gun store and fill up your trunk, friends of mine in our corporate office who are gun owners told me basically that it wasn't all that much different than buying a hammer at home depot or an electric drill.


From GeorgiaCarry.org:

Q: What is required to purchase a firearm in the state of Georgia?
A: You will need a valid state-issued ID. Many Federal Firearms Licensees will not transfer long guns to out-of-state residents. This is due to the Federal Firearms Licensee’s requirement to uphold your resident state’s gun laws, and the inherent complexity associated with many states. Federal Firearms Licensee’s are prohibited by federal law from transferring hand guns to out-of-state residents.
Q: Do I have to pass a background check when purchasing a firearm from a Dealer?
A: You will be required to pass a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer. However, if you possess a valid Georgia Weapons License, your Georgia Weapons License will suffice as your background check. You will be required to show your state issued ID and your Georgia Weapons License in order to avoid the background check.


If your friends already have a license, i.e. they have already been background-checked, then yes, they can show their license and purchase another gun. Don't make it sound like ANYONE could walk into a gun shop and buy one. That's a fantasy. In any state.

quote:

The same model IMO should be applied to guns. I think that people have the right to own guns, but there is also a strong case for regulation. You buy a gun and try selling it in the black market and it gets traced back to you, you are dead meat, and none of this "oh, I lost it" or "Oh, it was stolen bullshit"...if you didn't report it missing or stolen, then you are assumed to be liable.


Again, in many states, you ARE legally liable to report your firearm stolen to the police. States with mandatory loss/theft reporting requirements:

Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Rhode Island

Besides legal requirements, there are also civil penalties. As in, if your gun is lost or stolen, and you don't report it, and it's used in a crime, the victim's family can sue the hell out of you.

quote:

Joe Billy Bob fills up his trunk in Georgia then goes up to a city and sells the guns in the black market will think twice, because he won't be able to say Sheeet, I musta lost it or it done got stolen", not going to fly.


He can't say that now, see above.

quote:

the position of the nutjobs at the NRA that guns should be without burdens is ludicrous, to say the least


It would be ludicrous if that was true. NRA Executive VP WayneLaPierre has REPEATEDLY said, in press and TV interviews, that the current system needs to be fixed rather than more laws being added to the already-unenforceable cluster****, and that the government REALLY needs to focus on mental health, which they seem to be completely ignoring at the present time.

"We have a mental health system in this country that has completely and totally collapsed. We have no national database of these lunatics." - LaPierre on NBC's "Meet The Press", shortly after the Navy Yard shooting.

"We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show" - LaPierre to House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, in 1999.

etc, etc.

There's the media bullshit stance that the NRA is a bunch of slavering lunatics, and there are the FACTS.



I rest my case, your post made it for me. I didn't say that states allowed unlicensed gun sales and yes, you need background checks, although did you know that the only reasons more then a few states have background checks was because of federal law (the brady law) that forced them to..and wanna know why? John Hinckley, who shot Reagan, bought a gun in a state without background checks, that would have flagged him as being mentally unstable.


The Korean kid didn't break the law, Virginia's background check system does not and did not require that people who have been seen with mental health issues be flagged in the system.

But more importantly, the list of states you gave with mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns, all have tough gun regulations:
onnecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Rhode Island

Many of those states (I know for certain NJ, NY, DC, Conecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island) have limits on how many guns you can purchase.

However, in places like Georgia, Virginia, Alabama, Florida and other states not on that list, you can walk into a gun store, pass a background check, and then fill up your car with guns..and if you sell them into the black market, and it gets traced back to you, none of those states have mandatory reporting if you lose or have a gun stolen, so the guy who sells guns into the black market after legally purchasing them faces no consequences. You do that in NJ and you are going to be sent to jail, guaranteed, you do that in georgia and you have nothing to fear.

And according to people like Wayne La Pierre, laws like mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns is an abridgement of gun owners rights, as are limits to how much you can purchase at a given time. Put it this way, other than a gun dealer, what reason does someone have to go to a gun store and load up a trunk with guns? You think maybe, just maybe, that very few law abiding gun owners have any such need?

(in reply to Mouth4Mistress)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/10/2014 9:19:33 PM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

I don't know much about guns. I have a hard time imaging the rational reasons for owning an assault weapon, etc. Maybe you could explain it to me.


I would also like to hear a great reason for owning an assault weapon.

In my experience, there are two factors:
1)These guns look cool, and a bunch of men (and women) get their rocks off on looking like a bad ass navy seal or something by owning and shooting them (see one Lanza, Nancy)

2)With those guns, they are going to be able to take on the black helicopters and the government troops who are coming to force them into gay marriages and using unisex toilets (see militias, right wing)

(in reply to Marini)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/10/2014 9:23:05 PM   
Marini


Posts: 3629
Joined: 2/14/2010
Status: offline
I have been around long enough to ignore a lot of comments on here.
I often see this place as a little microcosm of society.

Many really only want to "bash" the other side, or engage in incessant partisan debates, rather than attempt to discuss or hammer out real issues.

The fighting is often a distraction.

I get the same feeling when I watch cable news.
Many in politics rather fight and name call and point fingers, than get down to the real business of trying to solve some serious problems.

I am a gentle and delicate flower, but when I come down here, I put my big girl panties on.
lol

_____________________________

As always, To EACH their Own.
"And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. "
Nelson Mandela
Life-long Democrat, not happy at all with Democratic Party.
NOT a Republican/Moderate and free agent

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/10/2014 9:23:56 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress
That is completely and blatantly false. There is a licensing system in EVERY state. It is impossible to procure a gun in a LEGAL manner in the United States, without going through some form of a check. ALL licensed dealers are required to run a background check - there goes 40-50% of the sales, and 40-50% of that argument. Even for private sales, you're required to either bring the sale to a licensed dealer (some states), or contact the state authorities with a request to approve the sale. In NO state are you allowed to knowingly sell to a convicted felon, or to a person with a court-ordered psychiatric treatment/commitment history.


And is that system uniform across all the states?

Or are some just more strict than others?

And that in itself is one of many of the problems encountered with this issue.

While dealers are not the problem, private sales are. That those can take place, off the radar, away from the beaten path, and STILL be considered legal in some states, should be worrying to anyone following the rules in good faith.

And while you are right, in that people can not knowing sell a firearm to a felon; how many are totally scrupulous? Even 1% of unscrupulous Americans is bad enough. While its fortunate that number is low (hopefully speaking), 'one bad apple can destroy the barrel' sort of mentality here. Demands for tighter security and processes come, as a result of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress
The "gun show loophole" argument, which is repeated in the media over and over again, is simply bullshit. Here's one of many articles that explains it:

Washington Times: The Gun-Show Loophole Myth


'Gun Grabbers'? I find articles like this generally insulting and childish. Displays a real lack for being a professional writer. Be it as a report, editor, or op-piece. The article displays a sweeping number of fears and ignorances while at the same time attacking others for doing the exact same thing. The author had a chance of explaining the issue in a mature and honest manner, but resorted to name calling like a child. That's what I got out of the article. Was I suppose to learn something beyond being insulted?

To fix the problems, educating the public without the political slant is the first order of business. As all sides in this debate live on some fantasies mixed in with the evidence/facts. Explaining the nature of the problems is all together different from the history of how those problems came into the American culture. Deciding how to fix problems, improve systems, while allowing firearm ownership in a legal and safe manner, is a very hard task for this nation to perform successfully. It is entirely possible, if we, the citizens, wanted to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress
quote:


...the loose gun laws in many states have led to tragedy, whether it was the crazy Korean kid in Virginia, or the 70% of guns pulled off the streets of NYC that were bought, legally, in a couple of states with notoriously lax laws.

That "crazy Korean kid" obtained his guns illegally. As in, he broke the law. So did Adam Lanza. Please explain how more laws would stop someone who intends on breaking or circumventing them anyway.


The Korean Kid obtained his arms legally. How he used them was also legal. Wait for the explanation....

Adam Lansa obtain the firearm he used in a legal manner as well. Ready?

In order for something to be...illegal....it has to be...found...illegal. Meaning, one has to be found in a court of law to be guilty of misusing a firearm in order for it to be illegal. Since in our form of government, all suspects are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. While neither should have had the ability to obtain the firearms, that would take two very different sets of laws to prevent (they are different characteristics in both episodes). Adam Lansa's mother, should NEVER, have been allowed a firearm, given the condition her child was in! And she paid a very heavy penalty for that foolish decision.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress
quote:

The same model IMO should be applied to guns. I think that people have the right to own guns, but there is also a strong case for regulation. You buy a gun and try selling it in the black market and it gets traced back to you, you are dead meat, and none of this "oh, I lost it" or "Oh, it was stolen bullshit"...if you didn't report it missing or stolen, then you are assumed to be liable.

Again, in many states, you ARE legally liable to report your firearm stolen to the police. States with mandatory loss/theft reporting requirements:

Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Rhode Island

Besides legal requirements, there are also civil penalties. As in, if your gun is lost or stolen, and you don't report it, and it's used in a crime, the victim's family can sue the hell out of you.


Hats off for answering this part in a factual and informative manner.

I feel it should be a requirement in all the states, not just those listed above. It makes one even more tempted to be unscrupulous when money is tight. This sort of attitude and action, cost legitimate and honest gun owners much in the way of credibility. That this might be adding to the 'gun show loop-hole' viewpoint that was not really addressed in that article you presented.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress
quote:

the position of the nutjobs at the NRA that guns should be without burdens is ludicrous, to say the least


It would be ludicrous if that was true. NRA Executive VP WayneLaPierre has REPEATEDLY said, in press and TV interviews, that the current system needs to be fixed rather than more laws being added to the already-unenforceable cluster****, and that the government REALLY needs to focus on mental health, which they seem to be completely ignoring at the present time.


The NRA really has created more problems than its solved to date. By being the lobbying arm of the Gun Industry, the only people they fool are the same folks that by memberships. In order to 'revamp' the system as Mr. LaPierre states, WOULD BE, adding laws onto the books. Again, this is how our form of government operates. For a law to be updated with new language, requires a new law to be passed that removes the old language and gives the updated language. There are a number of laws that could be updated to help things run more efficient. There are some laws that just don't work, and might be best in removing. And there are some ideas that could improve things, but would requiring adding those into law. As you might understand, both sides of this debate want their views to become 'the law of the land' over anyone else's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress
"We have a mental health system in this country that has completely and totally collapsed. We have no national database of these lunatics." - LaPierre on NBC's "Meet The Press", shortly after the Navy Yard shooting.


Mr. LaPierre, like the grand majority of Americans, really has no understanding of the mental and emotional health of Americans. There is no way to detect suicidal depression except through careful observation by someone trained to handle that sort of diagnosis. Most adults, that have depression, for example, may not even realize the illness is the true reason why life is sucking in their viewpoint(s). So obtaining treatment never comes up. Sadly, only after some moment, the person 'snaps', that most people 'understood' the warning signs. And that's only after the tragedy has taken place. There is no simple test, or pill, or even pray that will fix mental and/or emotional problems. It takes time, under the care of a trained professional, maybe with medication, to help an individual recover from depression.

One question that is often asked of depression suffers is "Do you access to firearms"? They are not asking because they are liberal and want to remove the guns; but to keep the patient safe. Most people that do not have depression, or a direct caregiving understand how depression affects the mind. While there are many ways one could kill themselves, firearms prove (sadly speaking) to be the most efficient manner. If a firearm is used, the person is 90% likely to succeed verse about 9-14% with all other methods.

Ever talk down someone with a loaded firearm, the intense desire to just...end it....and not understanding why they are in this state. It is not easy. While removing them from the gun is a good thing, in the greater picture, its only a tiny part of the full recovery.

Troubling here, is that while mass shooters have taken place by individuals suffering from one or more mental/emotional problems. Many others were not performed by someone with such impairments. Since healthy, normal (normal from a psychological point of view) people do kill each other is common. It would be logically to ask what sort of things are causing people to use firearms in this manner. As has been seen, someone wielding a knife can not cause as much destruction then if they had a firearm in the same time period.

So trying to weigh 'safety of the individual' with 'safety of the community' is not an easy problem to solve. Nor is it simple to understand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress
"We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show" - LaPierre to House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, in 1999.

etc, etc.

There's the media bullshit stance that the NRA is a bunch of slavering lunatics, and there are the FACTS.


Mr. LaPierre once stated that, is true. He doesn't state that in 2014. The stance he had in 1999 is about as different, as the Republican Party's stances on a wide range of issues right now.

There are lunatics on all sides. Making the ability of improving this concept, all the harder. There are lunatics in the NRA just as there are some in the 'Brady against Gun Violence' group. Some are prominent members of both organizations; most are not. That this nation is can not move forward because of the extreme views is a primary problem. That Gun Owners, and Concern Citizens can not get together, fix the problems, and move forward as a whole, is troubling. Those two groups out number the 'Gun Nuts' and 'Gun Controllers' nearly four to one!

Sadly, I think we as a nation will experience many more horrible moments in which firearms are used to maim and kill, before, we as a nation come to terms with things and try to make the nation better.

(in reply to Mouth4Mistress)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/10/2014 9:25:09 PM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

I don't know much about guns. I have a hard time imaging the rational reasons for owning an assault weapon, etc. Maybe you could explain it to me.


I would also like to hear a great reason for owning an assault weapon.



well let's start with the FACT that except specially licensed collectors, no one DOES own an assault rifle...

saying that because something LOOKS like an assault weapon IS an assault weapon is well you know

that would be like saying because someone has dark skin they are in FACT, African American. they could very well be middle eastern or Brazilian or Australian Aboriginals...



http://www.assaultweapon.info/


The poster made a common mistake, what he/she meant were semi automatic weapons that are either civilian versions of military weapons, or weapons made to look like military weapons. The only difference between a military version of a weapon and the civilian one is the military one has full automatic mode as well as semi automatic mode, which in a civilian weapon is illegal other than holders of federal gun licenses (fully automatic mode requires a federal gun license). I think the real question is why does a civilian need a weapon that even in semi automatic mode can fire a hundred rounds a minute or more..or why a civilian needs a gun like that with a large ammunition clip of 30 rounds or more. Friend of mine had a good point, we shouldn't ban assault weapons (or whatever you want to call them), we should regulate them so that legally they cannot fire more than X rounds a minute, and also the clips cannot be changed rapidly or be beyond a certain capacity. Do that, and while shootings can still happen, the shooter will likely be stopped before commiting mass murder like in the Colorado movie theater or the poor kids in Connecticut.

(in reply to BitYakin)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/10/2014 9:31:21 PM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

I would also like to hear a great reason for owning an assault weapon.


Also, I believe there is no better deterrent to tyranny than a well-armed civilian population.



This was the answer I was expecting to hear.
Thanks


and your response is quite expected too, you cut out the FACT that he doesn't OWN an assault weapon, and want to go on PRETENDING he does, or even that he advocates that other people SHOULD own assault weapons

a man can DRESS like a woman, a woman can DRESS like a man, but neither doing so changes their gender, the man does not BECOME a woman, the woman does not BECOME a man, they are both still just simply CROSSDRESSERS

dressing a rifle up to LOOK like an assault rifle does NOT make it in fact an assault rifle

Dressing a rifle up to look like an assault rifle means it is a rifle; but a gun that is a semi automatic version of an AK47 or an AR15 that can shoot a hundred rounds a minute, and can carry large capacity clips and be reloaded quickly is not a dressed up rifle, it is an assault weapon, and those kinds of weapons can be purchased by civilians. The AR15 Adam Lanza used was not a .22 made to look like a military weapon, it was the real deal, a civilian version of a military weapon.

I think assault weapons bans are idiotic because they often go after the way weapon looks. What they should do is ban weapons that can fire rapidly, and also make it so civilian weapons cannot be quickly reloaded and/or have large capacity magazines..the word assault weapon means little, but making it so that we ban guns that can kill a lot of people quickly is another matter.

(in reply to BitYakin)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/10/2014 9:35:35 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini
I have been around long enough to ignore a lot of comments on here.
I often see this place as a little microcosm of society.

Many really only want to "bash" the other side, or engage in incessant partisan debates, rather than attempt to discuss or hammer out real issues.

The fighting is often a distraction.

I get the same feeling when I watch cable news.
Many in politics rather fight and name call and point fingers, than get down to the real business of trying to solve some serious problems.

I am a gentle and delicate flower, but when I come down here, I put my big girl panties on.
lol


Take two potted plants. One is in full bloom the other is just a seed under the soil. Its much easier to destroy the plant, then grow it.

Creating good and effective laws, regulations, and systems, is not easy. The difference between the planet growing, and fashioning laws, is one is biology and the other is politics. That crafting good firearm laws (or other laws for different topics) starts off being 'hard', before adding in all the complications, difficulties, and hurdles to over come. Add in the growing chasm of Americans that take a 'my way or the highway' rather than 'being an adult and handling the issue in a mature, reasonable, and patient manner'.

If Americans whom are conservative and liberal (and hopefully some moderates) can come together, deal with firearms correctly, it would help on a great deal of other subjects. Re-establishing the trust that has been blown to pieces over the years, would aid this nation by leaps and bounds. I can not say what form this firearm law(s) will take. Hopefully one in which all sides feel they got something good without losing something they didn't wish to lose. That each person walks in, knowing ground will have to be given to obtain that which is desired is an important lesson Americans will be forced to relearn, if this nation as a concept is to continue. That keeping emotion at bay, and allowing cooler heads to prevail will bring the most long term stability on this topic is the key. Removing those whom stand to profit financially or politically will be critical to its eventual success.

If any of this was easy, it would not be a problem right now. We'd be arguing over other things....like 'cake or pie'.....

(in reply to Marini)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/10/2014 9:53:06 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

I would also like to hear a great reason for owning an assault weapon.


Also, I believe there is no better deterrent to tyranny than a well-armed civilian population.



This was the answer I was expecting to hear.
Thanks


The main answer is that people haven't been able to own them since 1934.
The fact that you ask the question proves that you are unfamiliar with the subject.
The second answer is prove that my having a large capacity low caliber rifle is harmful. The fact that some people misuse them is no more a justification for banning them than the fact that far more people misuse alcohol justifies going back to prohibition.
Let me repeat what was said earlier if it doesn't have a selector switch (allowing full auto) it isn't an assault weapon.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Marini)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/10/2014 9:55:34 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

I would also like to hear a great reason for owning an assault weapon.


Also, I believe there is no better deterrent to tyranny than a well-armed civilian population.



This was the answer I was expecting to hear.
Thanks


and your response is quite expected too, you cut out the FACT that he doesn't OWN an assault weapon, and want to go on PRETENDING he does, or even that he advocates that other people SHOULD own assault weapons

a man can DRESS like a woman, a woman can DRESS like a man, but neither doing so changes their gender, the man does not BECOME a woman, the woman does not BECOME a man, they are both still just simply CROSSDRESSERS

dressing a rifle up to LOOK like an assault rifle does NOT make it in fact an assault rifle

Dressing a rifle up to look like an assault rifle means it is a rifle; but a gun that is a semi automatic version of an AK47 or an AR15 that can shoot a hundred rounds a minute, and can carry large capacity clips and be reloaded quickly is not a dressed up rifle, it is an assault weapon, and those kinds of weapons can be purchased by civilians. The AR15 Adam Lanza used was not a .22 made to look like a military weapon, it was the real deal, a civilian version of a military weapon.

I think assault weapons bans are idiotic because they often go after the way weapon looks. What they should do is ban weapons that can fire rapidly, and also make it so civilian weapons cannot be quickly reloaded and/or have large capacity magazines..the word assault weapon means little, but making it so that we ban guns that can kill a lot of people quickly is another matter.

Again you display a lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/10/2014 9:59:42 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini
I have been around long enough to ignore a lot of comments on here.
I often see this place as a little microcosm of society.

Many really only want to "bash" the other side, or engage in incessant partisan debates, rather than attempt to discuss or hammer out real issues.

The fighting is often a distraction.

I get the same feeling when I watch cable news.
Many in politics rather fight and name call and point fingers, than get down to the real business of trying to solve some serious problems.

I am a gentle and delicate flower, but when I come down here, I put my big girl panties on.
lol


Take two potted plants. One is in full bloom the other is just a seed under the soil. Its much easier to destroy the plant, then grow it.

Creating good and effective laws, regulations, and systems, is not easy. The difference between the planet growing, and fashioning laws, is one is biology and the other is politics. That crafting good firearm laws (or other laws for different topics) starts off being 'hard', before adding in all the complications, difficulties, and hurdles to over come. Add in the growing chasm of Americans that take a 'my way or the highway' rather than 'being an adult and handling the issue in a mature, reasonable, and patient manner'.

If Americans whom are conservative and liberal (and hopefully some moderates) can come together, deal with firearms correctly, it would help on a great deal of other subjects. Re-establishing the trust that has been blown to pieces over the years, would aid this nation by leaps and bounds. I can not say what form this firearm law(s) will take. Hopefully one in which all sides feel they got something good without losing something they didn't wish to lose. That each person walks in, knowing ground will have to be given to obtain that which is desired is an important lesson Americans will be forced to relearn, if this nation as a concept is to continue. That keeping emotion at bay, and allowing cooler heads to prevail will bring the most long term stability on this topic is the key. Removing those whom stand to profit financially or politically will be critical to its eventual success.

If any of this was easy, it would not be a problem right now. We'd be arguing over other things....like 'cake or pie'.....

There is a simple solution punish misbehavior.
You don't keep everyone from having whiskey because some misuse it you punish the abuse of the item.
You don't restrict everyone's use of a car because some misuse them you punish the misuse.
Don't restrict everyone's use of firearms because some misuse them punish the misuse.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/10/2014 10:20:41 PM   
lovmuffin


Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

......a gun that is a semi automatic version of an AK47 or an AR15 that can shoot a hundred rounds a minute,......

.....a weapon that even in semi automatic mode can fire a hundred rounds a minute or more....


The bullshit gets even stupider. Does anyone really believe that crap ? I would like to see this demonstrated. However close to a minute you can manage to get, loading 3 more 30 round magazines firing a total of 100 rounds, I'd be interested to see how many of those rounds can hit 100 different targets.

The fact is, if someone is intent on committing mass murder with a gun, at a place where everyone is unarmed, it doesn't freakin matter what type of firearm you have. Most any type of weapon outside of the semi automatic class will suffice and create as much or more carnage.

_____________________________

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown

"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/10/2014 10:21:55 PM   
Gauge


Posts: 5689
Joined: 6/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Its sad how it has to be explained to you two that TheHeretics post was dripping with sarcasm, but its entirely fitting (given the thread premise)

Here, I will break it down for you - his point was that he doesn't visit the Drudge website


Yes it is sad that I do not know what passes for sarcasm or genuinely not knowing, perhaps in the future I will read every post that someone has made on these forums in order to detect sarcasm or a sincere question. It might be refreshing for you to know that I do not care if it was dripping with sarcasm, if it was something that he didn't know I was being helpful... not everyone is as emotionally invested in their participation in these forums as you are.


_____________________________

"For there is no folly of the beast of the earth which is not infinitely outdone by the madness of men." Herman Melville - Moby Dick

I'm wearing my chicken suit and humming La Marseillaise.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/10/2014 10:27:27 PM   
Marini


Posts: 3629
Joined: 2/14/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

I don't know much about guns. I have a hard time imaging the rational reasons for owning an assault weapon, etc. Maybe you could explain it to me.


I would also like to hear a great reason for owning an assault weapon.

In my experience, there are two factors:
1)These guns look cool, and a bunch of men (and women) get their rocks off on looking like a bad ass navy seal or something by owning and shooting them (see one Lanza, Nancy)

2)With those guns, they are going to be able to take on the black helicopters and the government troops who are coming to force them into gay marriages and using unisex toilets (see militias, right wing)

Thanks for giving me a chuckle.


< Message edited by Marini -- 7/10/2014 10:29:00 PM >


_____________________________

As always, To EACH their Own.
"And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. "
Nelson Mandela
Life-long Democrat, not happy at all with Democratic Party.
NOT a Republican/Moderate and free agent

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: The ignorance of liberals - 7/10/2014 10:30:35 PM   
lovmuffin


Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

Dressing a rifle up to look like an assault rifle means it is a rifle; but a gun that is a semi automatic version of an AK47 or an AR15 that can shoot a hundred rounds a minute, and can carry large capacity clips and be reloaded quickly is not a dressed up rifle, it is an assault weapon, and those kinds of weapons can be purchased by civilians. The AR15 Adam Lanza used was not a .22 made to look like a military weapon, it was the real deal, a civilian version of a military weapon.

I think assault weapons bans are idiotic because they often go after the way weapon looks. What they should do is ban weapons that can fire rapidly, and also make it so civilian weapons cannot be quickly reloaded and/or have large capacity magazines..the word assault weapon means little, but making it so that we ban guns that can kill a lot of people quickly is another matter.

Again you display a lack of knowledge of the subject matter.


Maybe I should have just said that.


_____________________________

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown

"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The ignorance of liberals Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125