Political rant thread

[Huzer]

Noticing the comments in the Firearms thread, I figured I'd toss this "100% unmoderated" for all things that grind your gears politically. And for all you that are easily offended, stay away.

I'm on board with the comments regarding the CO gun laws. Over the top and ridiculous. I can't imagine that it will go unchallenged and eventually struck down as unconstitutional. Hopefully, in full.

[erod550]

I'm staying the f out of this one.

[tsx_guy]

me too!

[kingtut]

Disclaimer: It's no surprise how I feel, or what my beliefs are. There are certainly some- perhaps many, on this forum who disagree with me. That's fine. Even one or two, whom I respect (aside from political disagreements). As Huzer said, don't read or respond with emotional whining. Grow a pair and have fun people, tee hee.

Great thread idea! You know I want a piece of this cake-

Erod, give me a break-- you're *thee* first person (a thorn in my side, if you will) to jump on every thing I say; politically speaking. Then, the moment a thread pops up where you can embrace your leftist tendencies, you run away. At least backup your normal cocky attitude, or fess up and tell us you (for once) if you disagree (or don't) with your blessed Democratic Camp.

This is bs. You got everyone and their mom going to the Capitol, sending emails, speaking out against this tyranny. But oh no...no, no. These kook-representatives could care less. They have the majority and they're taking every marching order given, by our "savior", Mr. Obama- don't think that this isn't in his plan. Making decisions "for us" that have nothing to do with public safety. If I want to kill someone (or many) I certainly don't need a 30rd magazine, a background check, an assault rifle, a semi-auto handgun, or a doctor's note (sarcasm) to do it.

Down with Obama. Down with this progressive ideology that's taking over this wonderful country of ours-- taking aim at [pun intended] killing everything that's good about America.

Stupid prius driving-European loving-weed smoking-deficit spending-illegal immigrating-utopia wanna-be living-global warming-oil fearing-no good poop eaters.

[SecondGenPAt]

This is simply the kind of material that you will never find on any other forum, and I love and miss you fellers terribly because of it.

P.S. Tut, I have in my possession, a sticker that reads, "Prius Repellant" and with it is attached an arrow that allows you to point to an exhaust gas directing pipe. Let me know if you would find something of that sort useful.

[erod550]

Ok fine you win. But first a few clarifications. Also, I can't guarantee that this won't turn into a rambling mess so be forewarned.

A) I'm not a Democrat just because I disagree with a few Republican talking points that get tossed around or because I voted for Obama (the 2nd time, not the 1st time).

I do not agree 100% with the Democratic party. I believe in personal freedom on a level they do not.

C) I don't jump in on every political rant on this board. I have responded to like 3 or 4 things of yours (tut) in the grind your gears thread and half of them were Tebow related and had nothing whatsoever to do with politics.

So, with that out of the way, just because I voted for Obama doesn't mean I agree 100% with his policies. I also don't think he's anywhere near as bad as a lot of the pro-gun people say he is. Everyone seems to think their 2nd amendment rights are being infringed upon when nothing in the 2nd amendment specifies exactly what arms you have the right to bear. Just like you can't own a tank or an RPG, there are limits as to what is considered safe for the public to be allowed to own. This is where the disagreement comes in as to where that line should be drawn (not counting the people who are convinced that Obama is trying to take all of their guns away and repeal the 2nd amendment which is completely baseless so I don't pay any attention to those people).

The people who really bug me are the people who post stuff on Facebook like a picture of Obama with a rifle and a caption that says he's trying to get this off the Internet but we're going to spread around and not let him. First of all, why would he care if a picture of him with a bolt-action rifle was on the Internet. He's not trying to take away bolt-action rifles. Also people who are saying that Obama is trying to take away people's right to protect themselves. This is also ridiculous since there is no current legislation that is going to take away your right to own a handgun or shotgun or rifle. My dad owns several guns and is all up in arms about the new gun control laws, but he won't be affected in any way by them as none of the guns he owns could ever be considered assault weapons or be modified to become assault weapons. He is a recreational shooter and wants to be able defend his house and family and I have no problem with that. Both he and my mom have concealed carry permits and my mom is packing a PPK at all times.

I've grown up around guns and I like guns. I don't own any myself but that's just because I generally have other toys I'd rather spend my money on like my car rather than any aversion to owning one. I also don't have a problem with making guns like ARs illegal because while yea I'm sure they're fun to shoot they're also capable of some pretty large scale destruction as we've seen. Now don't take that as me saying that everyone that owns an AR is a risk for a mass shooting. I don't think that at all. But they have been used for that purpose and I think that fewer of them being out there could potentially reduce the number of future shootings. Will we ever be able to stop people from killing other people? No of course not and no one thinks that we can. The goal is to reduce, not eliminate, since elimination is of course impossible.

The other point that comes up a lot in this debate is that anyone can kill people with anything else, and if they can't get a hold of an assault weapon they'll just use something else. One of my FB friends even linked an article where a guy went on a stabbing spree in China with a knife saying, "see, you don't need a gun for mass destruction." But none of the 20-some people he stabbed died, so it actually proved the opposite point that while yes, people will still try to hurt other people, if they are less likely to have access to a more deadly tool to do it with, some lives might be spared.

And to the point of the government thinking they know what's best for us, I'm with you on that that it is bullshit and I want to be able to make my own choices. The laws being passed in New York to try to keep people from drinking soda or eating fast food make me sick. I know exactly what's in soda and that it's bad for me but it's my decision on what goes into my body. If I want to eat fast food and drink a giant soda then that's my right to do so. I have the same opinion when it comes to weed though, even though I don't smoke, which I'm sure we disagree on. But again, it's an issue of agreeing on the fundamental principle, but disagreeing on where we draw the line. Same goes for the gun debate. I'm sure you can agree that we don't need to sell rocket launchers to just anyone that wants to buy one. So we agree on the extremes, it's just the middle ground where we don't have the exact same views. I personally don't think anyone needs a weapon capable of firing off 30+ rounds a minute for self-defense. But honestly I don't care one way or the other which way the current gun laws go because they won't affect me personally. If I owned an assault weapon that I really liked and was responsible with and had spent a lot of money customizing and there was a threat of it being taken away I would be upset about it too.

And as for your last sentence, I definitely don't fit into all of that since I drive the complete opposite of a Prius (gas guzzling V8 with no cats) and while I do believe that global warming is real and not a hoax I'm not personally doing anything to combat it and I'd be the last person to try to make everyone drive hybrids or only buy cars that get 40mpg.

The main reason I didn't want to get into an in-depth debate though is because almost all hot topics devolve into personal attacks pretty quickly and I don't want to get into that. That's why I stay out of arguments on Facebook nowadays too. So hopefully we can all be civil and still treat each other with respect even if we disagree on some things. We can understand where each other is coming from without having to attack each other for having different views. We all have something in common after all or we wouldn't be here. I'm also sorry if I have come across as cocky in my posts because I have never meant to demean anyone for their views and just because I feel differently about something and make that known doesn't mean I'm trying to insult the person with an opposing viewpoint.

Also, fun fact. I'm not as leftist as you might think, at least not overall. I took a survey a while back and this is where I ended up on the political spectrum.



Culturally, yes, I am further left. I believe that people should be able to marry whoever the #### they want to marry (related to that whole government staying the #### out of my personal business thing I mentioned earlier), and that yes, we should be allowed to smoke weed if we want to. Fiscally I'm closer to the center. Militarily I'm more left also in that I think just like I think the government should stay out of my business, I think it should stay out of other countries' business as well for the most part. Not completely isolationist, but not global police either. Here's a link to the quiz if anyone wants to take it. Could be fun to compare results.

http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html

[Brigdh]

A political gun discussion? How can we go wrong?

I'm picking this one small bit out, but I don't think I've removed the context much:

I also don't have a problem with making guns like ARs illegal because while yea I'm sure they're fun to shoot they're also capable of some pretty large scale destruction as we've seen.

By destruction, I assume you mean deaths?

If you can't eliminate deaths, as you mention elsewhere in your post, then would you agree it would be logical to find what would have the greatest reduction in deaths? Assuming you could pass one law that reduced deaths from one type of violent implement by 50%, what would you pick?

This is actually a well known problem in engineering, so much so that there is a guideline for solving this problem called Amdahl's Law. Put simply, you should concentrate your effort on the biggest variable you can optimize, as it will have the largest effect.

So, by Amdahl's Law, we should pick the type of crime that causes the most deaths. How do we know what violent implement causes the most deaths? As it would happen, the FBI keeps statistics on just that sort of thing.

Looking at the data from 2011 (I couldn't easily find 2012), roughly 20% more deaths occur from blunt objects when compared to firearms (including accidental discharges, if I'm reading the statistics right). Roughly 100% more deaths occur from unarmed attacks than from firearms.

So, from an engineering perspective, firearm related deaths do not contribute to the total death count as much as other factors, so it is illogical to me to focus efforts on firearms. I'm doing a basic cost/benefit analysis here.

Which makes me wonder, why? Why not ban baseball bats (first blunt object that comes to mind)? It would seem to have a greater impact, there are other sports, and no one really needs to own a baseball bat. However, I think you will agree, that just sounds crazy, even though its basically all the same arguments used against certain types of firearms. So I'm left to conclude that the firearms ban is not logical, and anyone arguing that it is either is deluded, or actively lying.

Since the argument for banning something (in this case, firearms) is emotional, not logical, I cannot support it. I'm offended by people who drive SUVs when a normal sized car would suffice (just driving themselves to work, etc), but in my view, that is not a valid reason for banning SUVs since feeling offense is clearly an emotion.

[Justin]

(popping popcorn, sits back, feet up to watch the show)

[mOOsE]

I don't vote based on party, I vote based on ideals, agenda, concerns, etc. However, I don't think anyone should be taking freedoms for granted, or away. While many people have looked to "Military" style weapons as a target for gun legislation, let's not forget that the "Assault Weapon" label is a product of the uninformed and inaccurate. Similar to the above mentioned SUV argument, we all need to remember that personal beliefs have no place in RESTRICTING another persons rights in this country. We are all human (most of us), have emotion and other things that impact our views and judgement. But when it comes to law, this nation was formed in a very unique way and originally designed to be objective and provide freedoms to it's people that others would only dream of. The sad reality though, is those freedoms will always come with a price. So the question becomes, do we work for ways to accommodate those freedoms, without infringing on others, or do we sacrifice freedoms for a sense of security, no matter if it is false or unfounded.

[erod550]

we all need to remember that personal beliefs have no place in RESTRICTING another persons rights in this country.

I'm assuming you are pro-gay marriage then? Because a lot of conservative people I know would agree with this statement if you're talking about guns, but if you change it to be talking about letting gay people get married they would be all "whoa whoa whoa, hang on a minute."

Anyway, back to the gun discussion.

Looking at the data from 2011 (I couldn't easily find 2012), roughly 20% more deaths occur from blunt objects when compared to firearms (including accidental discharges, if I'm reading the statistics right). Roughly 100% more deaths occur from unarmed attacks than from firearms.

First of all this just isn't true. According to the FBI's data on murder victims, in 2011, 8,583 people were killed by firearms. 496 were killed by blunt objects. 728 were killed by unarmed attacks. This does not include accidental deaths. These are homicides.

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

To address another point in Brigdh's post, I don't believe that we need to only focus on one thing that causes deaths and ignore everything else like you are suggesting. Why is the largest cause of death the only important one? Do we care less about the deaths of those people that were in a lesser bracket, saying yea they died but wait look how many people died in car accidents so those people are irrelevant? We should be looking at ways to reduce all deaths, not just picking one and focusing on it alone. And I know pro-gun people feel like they're being singled out because that's what's prominent in the news right now, but there are also committees out there that look at ways to make cars safer to reduce traffic accident deaths. There are studies going on all over the place to try to make our country safer as a whole, not just relating to guns. As another anaolgy, when looking at getting government spending under control, do you only look at the place where we spend the most money or do you look at all possible places of improvement and try to reduce it as a whole?

Again, don't misconstrue this as me saying that all guns should be banned. I do not feel that way at all. But give me a cost-benefit analysis of being able to own a military style weapon like an AR-15. What are the positives? You like them? You think it's fun to shoot them? Ok what are the negatives? In the wrong hands they are much more capable of killing a large amount of people very quickly than other weapons. Do the positives of "they're fun and I feel like Rambo when I shoot them" (totally not meant to be an insult or anything. I can only imagine that one does feel like Rambo when firing one) outweigh the negatives? Just like I'm sure it would be fun to own a rocket launcher and I could certainly be responsible with one and only shoot it way out in the woods where no one was in danger and blowing shit up would be freakin awesome. But I also understand that me being able to be responsible with it doesn't outweigh the dangers of allowing Joe Public to own one and trusting that he/she won't misuse it.

A political commentator made an interesting statement that we could allow military style weapons but only allow them at shooting ranges. I'm assuming that would mean they'd be illegal for personal possession, but you could go to a shooting range and rent one and still get to have fun shooting it without being able to take it home. Would that be a compromise you'd be willing to make so that you could still enjoy them while still restricting access to them by crazy people who might use them inappropriately?

[mOOsE]

I'm assuming you are pro-gay marriage then? Because a lot of conservative people I know would agree with this statement if you're talking about guns, but if you change it to be talking about letting gay people get married they would be all "whoa whoa whoa, hang on a minute."

This has to do with religion, which IMO, has no place with law. Church and State should be separate. If a person doesn't feel ok with Gay marriage, then it has nothing to do with politics, or at least, they should realize it has nothing to do with it.

Again, don't misconstrue this as me saying that all guns should be banned. I do not feel that way at all. But give me a cost-benefit analysis of being able to own a military style weapon like an AR-15. What are the positives? You like them? You think it's fun to shoot them? Ok what are the negatives? In the wrong hands they are much more capable of killing a large amount of people very quickly than other weapons. Do the positives of "they're fun and I feel like Rambo when I shoot them" (totally not meant to be an insult or anything. I can only imagine that one does feel like Rambo when firing one) outweigh the negatives? Just like I'm sure it would be fun to own a rocket launcher and I could certainly be responsible with one and only shoot it way out in the woods where no one was in danger and blowing shit up would be freakin awesome. But I also understand that me being able to be responsible with it doesn't outweigh the dangers of allowing Joe Public to own one and trusting that he/she won't misuse it.

A political commentator made an interesting statement that we could allow military style weapons but only allow them at shooting ranges. I'm assuming that would mean they'd be illegal for personal possession, but you could go to a shooting range and rent one and still get to have fun shooting it without being able to take it home. Would that be a compromise you'd be willing to make so that you could still enjoy them while still restricting access to them by crazy people who might use them inappropriately?

That's just it, I don't have to. That's the beauty of this country. And to say that it doesn't outweigh is silly, given the extremely small percentage of deaths related to a military style weapon, or any rifle period. If it was truly about safety, handguns would be the target.

Also, the AR15 platform is not military. It is not an Assault Weapon, as defined by a military assault weapon, which bears the fully automatic capability. So yes, you can actually go to some ranges, and or events, rent a true Military weapon or Assault rifle and shoot it. But the AR platform that is being discussed, is simply a semi-automatic rifle that has the same appearance. If someone doesn't understand that, then they shouldn't give input or be allowed to produce legislation that impacts the ownership of them. Because they are less than 1% of all gun deaths. There have also been more mass shootings that didn't involve them.

[Justin]

That's just it, I don't have to. That's the beauty of this country. And to say that it doesn't outweigh is silly, given the extremely small percentage of deaths related to a military style weapon, or any rifle period. If it was truly about safety, handguns would be the target....Because they are less than 1% of all gun deaths. There have also been more mass shootings that didn't involve them.

This. Totally agree. Focusing on "assault weapons is idiotic. While I don't see a need for people to have them beyond recreation, I also don't see the point of banning them or their components since the data doesn't point to them contributing significantly to the overall crime rates. If we're going to focus on firearms, handguns contribute much more significantly. Frankly, if we're going to talk about public safety, we should also talk about auto wrecks, as those cause about twice the number of fatalities that firearms do.

I do disagree with the assertion that we should ban baseball bats, screwdrivers, etc before guns. Guns have one function: to kill things. They're really good at it. A confrontation that involves a firearm is significantly more likely to be lethal than one that involves a knife, crowbar etc. They're also responsible for a whole bunch of accidental deaths, increase the lethality and frequency suicide attempts, etc. As a result, guns do deserve some special attention.

[geo2maz]

European-weed smoking-deficit spending-illegal immigrating-utopia wanna-be living-global warming-oil fearing[/I]-no good poop eaters.

ouch!

don't read or respond with emotional whining.

oops

[kingtut]

:40d073cf: ouch!


oops

Ha ha. Please note...

There are certainly some- perhaps many, on this forum who disagree with me. That's fine. Even one or two, whom I respect (aside from political disagreements).

[Huzer]

Also, fun fact. I'm not as leftist as you might think, at least not overall. I took a survey a while back and this is where I ended up on the political spectrum.

I just took the quiz as well, and ended up a "You are a center-right moderate social libertarian.
Right: 2.77, Libertarian: 1.09 ".





Where do I join the Center-Right Moderate Social Libertarian party? Sounds like the choice for me.