View Full Version : Progressive "Talking Points" About How To Sell Gun Control With Better Words...
If you want to read the opposing teams "playbook" here you go.
http://www.winningprogressive.org/tag/gun-safety
It's the usually iffy facts and word games, in fact most of it is an instructional manual on how to play word games where you don't call a duck a duck but you call a duck whatever is most acceptable to the person you are trying to persuade.
Voodoo_Man
06-02-14, 14:52
[common sense]
Show me where it says driving is a RIGHT in the constitution. Driving is a privilege not a right.
Firearms are a RIGHT in the constitution, not a privilege.
[/common sense]
MountainRaven
06-02-14, 14:52
The violent crime rate has dropped because of, among other things, a reduction in exposure to environmental lead? Wat?
[common sense]
Show me where it says driving is a RIGHT in the constitution. Driving is a privilege not a right.
Firearms are a RIGHT in the constitution, not a privilege.
[/common sense]
There's more to it:
You don't need a driver's license to own a car. You don't need to register a car that isn't being driven on public roads.
Also: It's all arms - not just firearms - that are Constitutionally protected.
SilverBullet432
06-02-14, 14:56
So we go from " gun control " to " gun safety"? Gimme a break!
Eurodriver
06-02-14, 15:06
The violent crime rate has dropped because of, among other things, a reduction in exposure to environmental lead? Wat?
There's more to it:
You don't need a driver's license to own a car. You don't need to register a car that isn't being driven on public roads.
Also: It's all arms - not just firearms - that are Constitutionally protected.
I've seen some pretty objective evidence about this. Crime rates drop exactly 14 years (the time from birth to when young males tend to take up criminal activities) after lead is banned from gasoline and again (although slightly less pronounced) after lead is banned from paint.
Voodoo_Man
06-02-14, 15:09
The violent crime rate has dropped because of, among other things, a reduction in exposure to environmental lead? Wat?
There's more to it:
You don't need a driver's license to own a car. You don't need to register a car that isn't being driven on public roads.
Also: It's all arms - not just firearms - that are Constitutionally protected.
I wasn't going to go into a whole detailed post, skimming the top is enough.
You can find where someone's head is at with just a sentence or two, then figure out if its worth talkin to them.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-02-14, 15:48
I've seen some pretty objective evidence about this. Crime rates drop exactly 14 years (the time from birth to when young males tend to take up criminal activities) after lead is banned from gasoline and again (although slightly less pronounced) after lead is banned from paint.
Really, I'll call BS.
While lead in the air would decrease quickly from auto exhaust, it wouldn't clean up the traces left in the environment.
Even bigger BS on the lead paint correlation. Paint has a very long life cycle so 'removing' lead from paint will have a longer and much slower effect. Interior paint can have 10-20 year, sometimes 50 year interior lifecycles. Removing lead from the paint also just removes it from the top layer, not from the layer that actually contains the lead.
I just glanced thru some of the literature and to find the effect of lead, you have to really parse thru the other variables- ie the amount of lead my be an effect, but it is swamped by other factors. Sure, getting the lead out is a positive.
That said, can you place the rise of other social issues with the removal of lead? How about the near similar rise of ADHD in kids? The increase in peanut butter allergies?
People misuse scientific (not saying you) studies almost as much as they do quotes from the Bible. Every study I see touted by the press as saying "X" almost invariably has problems with A. Not drawing that conclusion as strongly as suggested by the MSM or B. The sample or population is non right (size, composition, controls). And God love Excel, but it has turned everyone into a statistician.
On the whole car thing:
-Do you have to get a background check to buy a car?
-If you beat your wife, can you get a car?
-Is there a waiting period for a car?
-Do they put a speed limiter on a car?
-Can you buy a car if you have a felony?
-If you buy two or more fast cars in a week, do they turn in special paper work on you?
Research that shows arming more people and giving them greater legal leeway to open fire in ‘self-defense’ does not reduce burglary, robbery, or aggravated assault, but it does result in more homicides.Well I'm OK with more homicides. Shoot first wonder if he would have killed or just robbed me later.
One of the better points that anti-gunners use is that of suicide. Data for which I have no citation shows that suicides by gun make up about twice the number of deaths as intentional homicides by gun.
And further, data for which I have no citation also shows that making suicide less "easy" actually does reduce suicides.
If we can agree that life is sacred and should be protected (off topic, but law-abiding peoples' lives have a higher precedence than law-breaking peoples' lives), then there is actually a pretty good argument for banning guns to reduce suicides.
There might be other ways... perhaps a "gun restraining order" like California has proposed? But that's easily abusable for other reasons.
Their point about "arsenals" and "hordes of ammo" is ridiculous - mass shooters only need one or two firearms and maybe a couple boxes of ammo to kill dozens of people. Theoretically, a guy running around with a single AR-10 with a 20 rd mag of 7.62 soft points could kill 20 people. And if you limit people to say, 100 rds / month, dedicated individuals can still accumulate a ridiculous amount of ammo. See the buying panic when you were only allowed 1-2 boxes per person... they brought their family members to each buy ammo too, and hit up stores every day. The guys who planned Columbine did it for a year. And again, you only need a single mag's worth of ammo to inflict considerable destruction, so that's not the answer. And 10 rd mags? Just look at an IPSC/USPSA Production stage... fire a few rounds, reload while moving to the next target of opportunity. It's simply not effective legislation to stop mass shootings while crippling self defense against a single dedicated opponent.
One of the better points that anti-gunners use is that of suicide. Data for which I have no citation shows that suicides by gun make up about twice the number of deaths as intentional homicides by gun.
And further, data for which I have no citation also shows that making suicide less "easy" actually does reduce suicides.
If we can agree that life is sacred and should be protected (off topic, but law-abiding peoples' lives have a higher precedence than law-breaking peoples' lives), then there is actually a pretty good argument for banning guns to reduce suicides.
There might be other ways... perhaps a "gun restraining order" like California has proposed? But that's easily abusable for other reasons.
Using that argument we'd have to ban cars and just about anything else. Everything comes with a risk. And getting rid of one "danger" will expose you to other dangers you wouldn't have been exposed to.
Using that argument we'd have to ban cars and just about anything else. Everything comes with a risk. And getting rid of one "danger" will expose you to other dangers you wouldn't have been exposed to.
Not necessarilly. While other things have risks, cars come with a load of safety devices that will save your life involuntarilly. Furthermore, suicide by car is very low on the list of methods that are considered, and are similarly low on the list of actual types of suicide attempted/completed.
Furthermore, a far higher amount of people own cars and use them on a daily basis than guns. The idea that 1 gun owned in America = 1 individual owns that gun is absurd - while some people do own 1 gun, the majority own 2 or more. Hell, I own something like 7, and I'm probably on the lower end of guns owned on this site. So the actual number of gun owners in this country is probably significantly lower than the number of car owners, and they're used more often.
I'm not saying ban anything with a risk, I'm talking about getting the low hanging fruit first, the best return on investment. And only regarding reducing suicides, guns are that low hanging fruit.
If we can agree that life is sacred and should be protected (off topic, but law-abiding peoples' lives have a higher precedence than law-breaking peoples' lives), then there is actually a pretty good argument for banning guns to reduce suicides.
Going to have to HEAVILY regulate prescription medication (more than it is now) and find some way of restricting pedestrian access to tall buildings and bridges.
Japan, with virtually no guns, still is a world leader when it comes to suicide. Currently in the worlds Top 10.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/02/04/editorials/suicide-rate-in-decline/#.U4zxf3aFsgs
The annual number of suicides in Japan has fallen below the 30,000 level for the first time in 15 years, the National Police Agency announced on Jan. 17. This is good news and praise should go to various efforts made by the central and local government and private-sector organizations.
But compared with other countries, the number of suicides in Japan is still high. Suicide-prevention efforts at all levels should not be slackened. Both the central and local governments should continue to push such measures as the training of personnel who can provide counseling for people who may be feeling suicidal, building suicide-prevention networks, and improvement of counseling and support for those who have attempted suicide as well as the bereaved families of suicide victims.
In 2012, 27,766 people killed themselves — a decrease of 2,885 or 9.4 percent from 2011 and falling to a level below 30,000 for the first time since 1997. From 1978, when the police started taking statistics on suicides, to 1997, the number of suicides was annually between 20,000 and 25,000. It topped 30,000 for the first time in 1998. The number of people who committed suicide rose sharply in March that year when the business year ended for most firms. The year before, significant numbers of small and medium-size enterprises began failing due to a credit crunch. Since then, the number stayed above 30,000 through 2011.
Despite the drop in suicides in 2012, the situation is still serious. The number translates into more than 70 people killing themselves a day or three people taking their lives every hour — much higher than the 0.5 deaths every hour caused by traffic accidents.
The number of suicides in Japan per 100,000 people is two to three times higher than it is in the United States and Britain. Among the eight developed countries, Japan’s suicide rate is the second highest after Russia. The tendency in Japan to regard suicide as a personal problem may have contributed to delaying necessary societal measures. In 2006, suprapartisan Diet members enacted the basic law to cope with questions related to suicide.
Maybe if we advocated guns for illegals we'd be farther ahead of the curve.
Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
It is interesting and instructive as to how the anti gun people use complete bullshit to turn having absolutely the losing hand into what they have. How much further ahead would we be if we were more effective at similarly marketing, but using carefully chosen phrases and sales tactics with the truth? What if we weren't lazy and complacent, but actually had our stuff together and had our minds made up to wipe out their ideology from the face of the Earth just as much as they do to us?
Suppose that. Then WHAT IN THE FLAMING F*** HAVE WE BEEN DICKING AROUND WITH THESE PEOPLE FOR SO LONG INSTEAD OF SQUASHING THEM LIKE TERMITES?!???!?!?!? Seriously, when will someone apply the same Miracle Gro Give-a-F*** fertilizer to our side to wake up, play the game as hard as they do, AND WIN ONCE AND FOR ALL SO WE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP WATCHING THEM????
MountainRaven
06-02-14, 18:07
It is interesting and instructive as to how the anti gun people use complete bullshit to turn having absolutely the losing hand into what they have. How much further ahead would we be if we were more effective at similarly marketing, but using carefully chosen phrases and sales tactics with the truth? What if we weren't lazy and complacent, but actually had our stuff together and had our minds made up to wipe out their ideology from the face of the Earth just as much as they do to us?
Suppose that. Then WHAT IN THE FLAMING F*** HAVE WE BEEN DICKING AROUND WITH THESE PEOPLE FOR SO LONG INSTEAD OF SQUASHING THEM LIKE TERMITES?!???!?!?!? Seriously, when will someone apply the same Miracle Gro Give-a-F*** fertilizer to our side to wake up, play the game as hard as they do, AND WIN ONCE AND FOR ALL SO WE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP WATCHING THEM????
One of the inherent flaws of the ideology of, "All I ask is to be left alone," is that it will inevitably become a victim of crusading ideologies. It's the only reason such a small group of people can keep such an issue at the forefront.
One of the inherent flaws of the ideology of, "All I ask is to be left alone," is that it will inevitably become a victim of crusading ideologies. It's the only reason such a small group of people can keep such an issue at the forefront.
It's not so much an ideology of "All I ask is to be left alone" but more of "Just as I want people to respect my freedoms, I will respect theirs and just as I don't want their views forced on me, I won't force mine on them."
Admittedly it can be a losing game at times. Couple that with a general unwillingness to engage in deception, misrepresentation and other things that run counter to most of our "values" system. It's a lot like your version of events vs. another persons version of events with no other evidence and the other person is willing to completely fabricate their side of the story. At best, you arrive at a stalemate.
We should remember that the 60s radicals got their foot in the door through a campaign of violence, hostage taking, property destruction and complete lies. These are the things they were willing to do to force their version of this country into reality. Most of us are unwilling to engage in any of these acts in order to save our country.
Even something LEGAL like two complete goobers in a fast food joint armed with long rifles gets criticized by all. People who took armed hostages at Cornell University became college professors and were able to make dramatic changes to the system. There are various vicious double standards at play.
Or attorney general for that matter..... :rolleyes:
Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
ForTehNguyen
06-02-14, 19:43
I've seen some pretty objective evidence about this. Crime rates drop exactly 14 years (the time from birth to when young males tend to take up criminal activities) after lead is banned from gasoline and again (although slightly less pronounced) after lead is banned from paint.
actually it might have been abortion after Roe v Wade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChCZi-ruat0
If libs bring up suicide I just say please explain Japan to me :)
Cars ? Simple what kills more people cars or guns ?
Easy to blame things rather than people especially for libs who think criminals should have jobs teaching your kids !
Liberals think drugs can treat everything and think crime is something the victim causes
Going to have to HEAVILY regulate prescription medication (more than it is now) and find some way of restricting pedestrian access to tall buildings and bridges.
Japan, with virtually no guns, still is a world leader when it comes to suicide. Currently in the worlds Top 10.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/02/04/editorials/suicide-rate-in-decline/#.U4zxf3aFsgs
The annual number of suicides in Japan has fallen below the 30,000 level for the first time in 15 years, the National Police Agency announced on Jan. 17. This is good news and praise should go to various efforts made by the central and local government and private-sector organizations.
But compared with other countries, the number of suicides in Japan is still high. Suicide-prevention efforts at all levels should not be slackened. Both the central and local governments should continue to push such measures as the training of personnel who can provide counseling for people who may be feeling suicidal, building suicide-prevention networks, and improvement of counseling and support for those who have attempted suicide as well as the bereaved families of suicide victims.
In 2012, 27,766 people killed themselves — a decrease of 2,885 or 9.4 percent from 2011 and falling to a level below 30,000 for the first time since 1997. From 1978, when the police started taking statistics on suicides, to 1997, the number of suicides was annually between 20,000 and 25,000. It topped 30,000 for the first time in 1998. The number of people who committed suicide rose sharply in March that year when the business year ended for most firms. The year before, significant numbers of small and medium-size enterprises began failing due to a credit crunch. Since then, the number stayed above 30,000 through 2011.
Despite the drop in suicides in 2012, the situation is still serious. The number translates into more than 70 people killing themselves a day or three people taking their lives every hour — much higher than the 0.5 deaths every hour caused by traffic accidents.
The number of suicides in Japan per 100,000 people is two to three times higher than it is in the United States and Britain. Among the eight developed countries, Japan’s suicide rate is the second highest after Russia. The tendency in Japan to regard suicide as a personal problem may have contributed to delaying necessary societal measures. In 2006, suprapartisan Diet members enacted the basic law to cope with questions related to suicide.
Yep. A woman jumped to her death from this structure yesterday.
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2495/4019241178_479c9dfc36_z.jpg?zz=1 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/41385771@N03/4019241178/)
NRG bridge (https://www.flickr.com/photos/41385771@N03/4019241178/) by zweitakt250 (https://www.flickr.com/people/41385771@N03/), on Flickr
One of the inherent flaws of the ideology of, "All I ask is to be left alone," is that it will inevitably become a victim of crusading ideologies. It's the only reason such a small group of people can keep such an issue at the forefront.
Since the theme is correct word choice for effect, instead of "All I ask is to be left alone", it isn't a request. Ask fails to convey that message, future imperative of any verb is the correct choice there. Left alone has too many connotations, but the definition of a progressive is an individual with an ideology that campaigning for change regardless of outcome is favorable, so that's not going to work either.
A free individual asks for nothing in regards to their liberty. Just be aware that use of force or coercion to attempt to deny fundamental rights will be met with overwhelming response.
MountainRaven
06-02-14, 22:00
Since the theme is correct word choice for effect, instead of "All I ask is to be left alone", it isn't a request. Ask fails to convey that message, future imperative of any verb is the correct choice there. Left alone has too many connotations, but the definition of a progressive is an individual with an ideology that campaigning for change regardless of outcome is favorable, so that's not going to work either.
A free individual asks for nothing in regards to their liberty. Just be aware that use of force or coercion to attempt to deny fundamental rights will be met with overwhelming response.
Well, there is always, "Don't tread on me."
Heavy Metal
06-02-14, 22:09
Yep. A woman jumped to her death from this structure yesterday.
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2495/4019241178_479c9dfc36_z.jpg?zz=1 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/41385771@N03/4019241178/)
NRG bridge (https://www.flickr.com/photos/41385771@N03/4019241178/) by zweitakt250 (https://www.flickr.com/people/41385771@N03/), on Flickr
As long as they don't block the northbound lane when I am trying to get to the office.
BrigandTwoFour
06-02-14, 22:14
Not necessarilly. While other things have risks, cars come with a load of safety devices that will save your life involuntarilly. Furthermore, suicide by car is very low on the list of methods that are considered, and are similarly low on the list of actual types of suicide attempted/completed.
Furthermore, a far higher amount of people own cars and use them on a daily basis than guns. The idea that 1 gun owned in America = 1 individual owns that gun is absurd - while some people do own 1 gun, the majority own 2 or more. Hell, I own something like 7, and I'm probably on the lower end of guns owned on this site. So the actual number of gun owners in this country is probably significantly lower than the number of car owners, and they're used more often.
I'm not saying ban anything with a risk, I'm talking about getting the low hanging fruit first, the best return on investment. And only regarding reducing suicides, guns are that low hanging fruit.
They are welcome to try this route. But it's philosophically inconsistent with their ideas of, "keep your laws off my body!"
I've also heard that the Japanese suicide rate is skewed by how the Japanese count suicides. Apparently, if there is a murder/suicide where there are multiple victims before the attacker kills themselves, then all the deaths are ruled as "suicide" as the cause of death.
In any case, this is the same argument that can be applied to any number of subjects in a "free" society. You can pass restrictive laws in the name of keeping people safer, or reducing "trigger" events to prevent people from feeling negative things, but eventually you have to ask yourself if you would really want to live in such a society.
Anyone ever seen the movie Equilibrium? It deals with this subject.
They are welcome to try this route. But it's philosophically inconsistent with their ideas of, "keep your laws off my body!"
I've also heard that the Japanese suicide rate is skewed by how the Japanese count suicides. Apparently, if there is a murder/suicide where there are multiple victims before the attacker kills themselves, then all the deaths are ruled as "suicide" as the cause of death.
In any case, this is the same argument that can be applied to any number of subjects in a "free" society. You can pass restrictive laws in the name of keeping people safer, or reducing "trigger" events to prevent people from feeling negative things, but eventually you have to ask yourself if you would really want to live in such a society.
Anyone ever seen the movie Equilibrium? It deals with this subject.
Awesome movie.
Spoiler, Sean Bean dies.
BoringGuy45
06-02-14, 23:56
That article can be easily defeated without even having to use counterpoints. It's based almost completely on every logical fallacy in the book and can easily be beaten with just straight up common sense:
But mass shootings have held steady or increased over the past two decades, depending on how they are defined and counted. Many of the proposals being considered may help reduce overall gun violence – including suicides that account for over half of gun-related deaths – but progressives should discuss those in terms of “preventing massacres” like the horror in Newtown.
Cum hoc fallacy: Assuming that because two statistics are similar, one must be the cause of the other. Crime has dropped in all areas since the 80s due to more police officers, harsher sentences, better rehab programs etc. However, we have not nationally enacted further gun bans during this time. Mass shootings have not decreased along with other crime stats. Therefore, the lack of gun bans is what is causing these mass shootings. It's a fallacy of presumption. I could throw a knock out in there and mention how a ban on "assault weapons" and "high capacity 'clips'" WAS enacted for 10 years and there was no change in mass shooting statistics, but their argument here is already DOA.
and as we saw yesterday, gun violence is highest in the states with the fewest gun regulations. It’s simple math: the easier your state makes it for anyone to have a gun, the more likely your community will include dangerous people with guns.
This logical fallacy is called, ironically, the Texas sharpshooter fallacy: Cherry picking numbers and finding patterns that seem to fit your already presupposed conclusion. It cleverly leaves out details and leaves questions unanswered: Can they prove a correlation by showing that the states with the strictest gun laws have the lowest gun violence rates? What is their definition of "gun violence"? Does it mean crime committed with a firearm, or does it mean ANY violence with a firearm including suicide, accidents, and justifiable self defense? How much of that gun violence was perpetrated with legally purchased and possessed firearms? How much of that gun violence was perpetrated against law abiding citizens vs. criminal on criminal?
We can’t prevent every mass shooting, but a ban on high-capacity magazines will “make killers stop to reload.
Makes another assumption without being able to show any definitive proof; assumes that most or all "high" capacity magazines are purchased legally. Also assumes that criminals would have absolutely no other means to acquire banned magazines.
It's hard for me to read this stuff because I don't suffer fools. Willful ignorance is probably my greatest pet peeve. I hate that so many people replace good old common sense with "statistics". And that's the trend these days; common sense is openly attacked all the time. Anyone who has Facebook always has that friend who is constantly posting the "10 items of common sense that are actually total bullshit" You can't argue common sense because they have a ton of unexplained numbers and charts they appeal to and use as red herrings
That article can be easily defeated without even having to use counterpoints. It's based almost completely on every logical fallacy in the book and can easily be beaten with just straight up common sense:
And given that simple requirement, it will be successful most of the time.
e.g. - Obama election (twice).
Well, there is always, "Don't tread on me."
Funny how liberals see it as 'only treading on rights you shouldn't have anyway'.
Going to have to HEAVILY regulate prescription medication (more than it is now) and find some way of restricting pedestrian access to tall buildings and bridges.
Japan, with virtually no guns, still is a world leader when it comes to suicide. Currently in the worlds Top 10.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/02/04/editorials/suicide-rate-in-decline/#.U4zxf3aFsgs
The annual number of suicides in Japan has fallen below the 30,000 level for the first time in 15 years, the National Police Agency announced on Jan. 17. This is good news and praise should go to various efforts made by the central and local government and private-sector organizations.
But compared with other countries, the number of suicides in Japan is still high. Suicide-prevention efforts at all levels should not be slackened. Both the central and local governments should continue to push such measures as the training of personnel who can provide counseling for people who may be feeling suicidal, building suicide-prevention networks, and improvement of counseling and support for those who have attempted suicide as well as the bereaved families of suicide victims.
In 2012, 27,766 people killed themselves — a decrease of 2,885 or 9.4 percent from 2011 and falling to a level below 30,000 for the first time since 1997. From 1978, when the police started taking statistics on suicides, to 1997, the number of suicides was annually between 20,000 and 25,000. It topped 30,000 for the first time in 1998. The number of people who committed suicide rose sharply in March that year when the business year ended for most firms. The year before, significant numbers of small and medium-size enterprises began failing due to a credit crunch. Since then, the number stayed above 30,000 through 2011.
Despite the drop in suicides in 2012, the situation is still serious. The number translates into more than 70 people killing themselves a day or three people taking their lives every hour — much higher than the 0.5 deaths every hour caused by traffic accidents.
The number of suicides in Japan per 100,000 people is two to three times higher than it is in the United States and Britain. Among the eight developed countries, Japan’s suicide rate is the second highest after Russia. The tendency in Japan to regard suicide as a personal problem may have contributed to delaying necessary societal measures. In 2006, suprapartisan Diet members enacted the basic law to cope with questions related to suicide.
Getting off topic here but there are perhaps some other reasons why the suicide rates are so high, like they aren't all suicides.
This article (same news site you linked actually, published a day earlier) goes into insurance and police [lack of] investigation:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/02/03/national/media-national/japans-suicide-statistics-dont-tell-the-real-story/#.U4140THD-awU4140THD-aw
I've read in the past that many departments push for found bodies to be determined as suicides in order to keep violent crime stats down (sounds like something out of The Wire, I know). Considering according to the article I linked that autopsies are only done on 10% of time with suspicious deaths (and half that for suicides) it doesn't seem like it'd be too hard to accomplish
God, I HATE "progressives".....in reality LIBTARDS, as "progressive" infers that if you're not in agreement you're "regressive". It's a self-flattering term (yeah, I know the historical significance and background but still....).
If you can stomach it look at those articles and you'll see your enemy. That's right, I said enemy. Not just someone you disagree with, but someone sneaky and snarky who is all about imposing the very type of "theoretical future fascist government" (from one of the libtard posters shown in that link) that they are sooooo concerned about YOU pushing back against.
F*** all of them.
Since the theme is correct word choice for effect, instead of "All I ask is to be left alone", it isn't a request. Ask fails to convey that message, future imperative of any verb is the correct choice there. Left alone has too many connotations, but the definition of a progressive is an individual with an ideology that campaigning for change regardless of outcome is favorable, so that's not going to work either.
A free individual asks for nothing in regards to their liberty. Just be aware that use of force or coercion to attempt to deny fundamental rights will be met with overwhelming response.
That is what they fear the most. Their Utopia can't happen without forced mandatory participation. Some armed guy pushing back saying "No!" doesn't fit in their picture.
Getting off topic here but there are perhaps some other reasons why the suicide rates are so high, like they aren't all suicides.
No, not off topic at all. Suicide is one of the very few, if not the only, compelling argument for gun control.
If you can stomach it look at those articles and you'll see your enemy. That's right, I said enemy. Not just someone you disagree with, but someone sneaky and snarky who is all about imposing the very type of "theoretical future fascist government" (from one of the libtard posters shown in that link) that they are sooooo concerned about YOU pushing back against.
F*** all of them.
You need to understand your enemy in order to beat them. They do not see themselves as communists or facists, they just take a different logical leap than conservatives. They're people and are generally good, just like conservatives are generally good. Both sides have utterly dispicable people who draw an inordinate amount of the limelight to give their side a bad name. I am disgusted by extremely conservative people just about as much as I am disgusted by extremely liberal people. Both have their good and bad points, and both are people.
God, I HATE "progressives".....in reality LIBTARDS, as "progressive" infers that if you're not in agreement you're "regressive". It's a self-flattering term (yeah, I know the historical significance and background but still....).
I'm laughing at this because it's a pet peeve of mine too. It's all about spin. Are you pro-choice? If not, then you must be pro-big-government. Are you pro-life? If not, you must be pro-death! Progressive is the same thing, you must be regressive if you're not a progressive! Yes, there's a false dichotomy, and it's hilarious because once you start thinking about labels, you see it everywhere on both sides of the aisle. The "Tea Party" is such a clever name that I don't even.
We need a label for our firearm position that's not pro-gun, pro-2A, and pro-RKBA. Maybe pro-constitution? Pro-freedom? Calling semi-auto mag-fed rifles "modern sporting rifles" was clever, but far too late and never caught on. The narrative has shifted from calling them "assault weapons" to "assault-style weapons", which is a move in the right direction and is technically accurate (they are styled after assault rifles, after all, and the only differences are a different FCG, a different selector, an auto-sear, and a hole in the receiver).
No, not off topic at all. Suicide is one of the very few, if not the only, compelling argument for gun control.
I think where you'll come up short in that argument is denying a Constitutional right for something someone does to themselves voluntarily and intentionally. Not going to get a lot of sympathy unless it's from the usual crowd of hand-wringers or someone touched directly by suicide. Probably not going to resonate with a vast majority of folks. Hell, you can kill yourself any number of ways if you're dead-set (pun intended) on doing so.
I think where you'll come up short in that argument is denying a Constitutional right for something someone does to themselves voluntarily and intentionally. Not going to get a lot of sympathy unless it's from the usual crowd of hand-wringers or someone touched directly by suicide. Probably not going to resonate with a vast majority of folks. Hell, you can kill yourself any number of ways if you're dead-set (pun intended) on doing so.
I in no way believe that suicide, by itself, is anywhere near enough to push forward any sort of powerful gun legislation. But suicide, in conjunction with evidence that most mass-shooters have mental disorders, even though mass-shootings only make up a small percentage of intentional gun-related homicides, might cause psychological and mental health reports to be included in background checks along with felonies, domestic abuse, and restraining orders when purchasing a firearm. PTSD may become something that denies someone from owning a firearm.
Works well for those who voted for Obama twice.
BoringGuy45
06-03-14, 10:17
And given that simple requirement, it will be successful most of the time.
e.g. - Obama election (twice).
My point exactly. When argued with a person of sound mind who truly wishes to make up his mind through logic and common sense, the arguments made in this article will be defeated every time. However, the vast majority of people will fall back on pre-programmed catch phrases, emotional arguments, and red herrings. Example: There's a someone I know, whose stance on guns makes Obama look like Ted Nugent, who picked an argument with me on guns. Now, HE is the one who went to law school and has all the books on logic on his shelves. I could see why he never made it as a trial lawyer. To make a long argument short (which I cut short because I was about to lose my temper over his idiocy):
Anti-gunner: "Until we ban assault weapons, we're going to keep having these shootings!"
Me: "How do we know that all these weapons are being acquired legally? How would a ban stop someone from getting an assault rifle illegally?"
Anti: "Because that's how they're getting the guns. These gun shops are going down to the inner city and dumping off automatic weapons to the gangbangers!"
Me: "I've sold guns for years. We NEVER did that!"
Anti: "Bullshit you didn't. Even if you didn't personally, I guarantee someone in your store was! They ALL do that. ALL OF THEM!"
Me: "You're making an argument from ignorance and based on speculation with no evidence."
Anti: "Okay then, smart guy: How are they getting these guns then?"
Me: "Black market, same way people get drugs that illegal to buy and possess?"
Anti: "This has ONLY happened since Bush didn't renew the assault weapons ban. We didn't have stuff like this when Clinton was in office!"
Me: "Columbine? North Hollywood?"
Anti: (thinking before replying) "So you're saying that if I don't like someone's face, I should be able to go and buy and assault rifle and blow their brains out??? *yelling at the top of his lungs* THERE'S NO REASON ANYONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO OWN A GUN!!!!!!!"
Then his wife told him to calm down and shut the hell up.
Anyway, that's what we're up against.
Heavy Metal
06-03-14, 11:25
Anti: (thinking before replying) "So you're saying that if I don't like someone's face, I should be able to go and buy and assault rifle and blow their brains out??? *yelling at the top of his lungs* THERE'S NO REASON ANYONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO OWN A GUN!!!!!!!"
No, this kind of person is all the reason we need to own them. That delusional f-uck woud be the first to line up the boxcars and light the ovens.
No, this kind of person is all the reason we need to own them. That delusional f-uck woud be the first to line up the boxcars and light the ovens.
One of the things I have come to learn is people who want to ban guns are very often EXACTLY the kind of people who should never own any weapon. They know what THEY are capable of when they don't get their way and probably would shoot a bunch of people over nothing. And they assume everyone else is just as messed up as they are so they want to ban weapons for their own safety.
As they are not responsible people, they can't actually relate to responsible gun ownership. These are also the same people saying stupid shit like "The police killed my baby, he wasn't doing nothing wrong, he was robbing that store to feed his family."
I in no way believe that suicide, by itself, is anywhere near enough to push forward any sort of powerful gun legislation. But suicide, in conjunction with evidence that most mass-shooters have mental disorders, even though mass-shootings only make up a small percentage of intentional gun-related homicides, might cause psychological and mental health reports to be included in background checks along with felonies, domestic abuse, and restraining orders when purchasing a firearm. PTSD may become something that denies someone from owning a firearm.
As unfortunate as the idea may be, I have predicted this for several years now (mainly since the return of large amounts of our recent vets). It's touted on out-processing as an easy 30% rating (or higher). It's gonna bite these poor guys and gals in the ass some day.
You need to understand your enemy in order to beat them. They do not see themselves as communists or facists, they just take a different logical leap than conservatives. They're people and are generally good, just like conservatives are generally good. Both sides have utterly dispicable people who draw an inordinate amount of the limelight to give their side a bad name. I am disgusted by extremely conservative people just about as much as I am disgusted by extremely liberal people. Both have their good and bad points, and both are people.
I think the main difference is in what is acceptable and what is "necessary". Most conservatives just want to be "left alone". Most liberals need to see their views enforced on EVERYONE. To wit: gun-owners don't think everyone should be forced to buy a gun. Anti-gunners think NO ONE should have a gun. Zealots aside, most religious conservatives don't care if you pray or go to church. Most liberals don't want to see or hear ANYTHING that might reflect faith ("In God We Trust", a prayer before a football game, etc.).
As unfortunate as the idea may be, I have predicted this for several years now (mainly since the return of large amounts of our recent vets). It's touted on out-processing as an easy 30% rating (or higher). It's gonna bite these poor guys and gals in the ass some day.
I can remember a few Vietnam vets being denied their rights along these lines when I was a kid.
The_War_Wagon
06-03-14, 16:13
No matter what their pointy-headed scheme, they'll get some shrieking moonbat to deliver it, who never fails to sound like this. :rolleyes:
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc305/The_War_Wagon/helenlovejoy.jpg
I just say have you ever drank alcohol ? that kills maybe I should take that freedom away from you !
you ever I mean ever once looked at your phone when driving ? again maybe I should take that privilege away from you !
even been to a doctor ? malpractice is huge you are contributing to the deaths is about as good of a argument
I just say have you ever drank alcohol ? that kills maybe I should take that freedom away from you !
Hey, don't laugh......they actually did that once upon a time. Carrie Nation and her do-gooder friends were the quintessential libtards of their day: we don't like alcohol so NO ONE can drink it.
:) hope they make it if they regulate guns they have to regulate all things that kill at least as much so cars drinking doctors all get banned and regulated you know common sense :)
Hey, don't laugh......they actually did that once upon a time. Carrie Nation and her do-gooder friends were the quintessential libtards of their day: we don't like alcohol so NO ONE can drink it.
Hey, don't laugh......they actually did that once upon a time. Carrie Nation and her do-gooder friends were the quintessential libtards of their day: we don't like alcohol so NO ONE can drink it.
Yep, big psycho.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Carrie_Nation.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Nation
Carrie Amelia Moore Nation (first name also spelled Carry; November 25, 1846 – June 9, 1911) was an American woman who was a radical member of the temperance movement, which opposed alcohol before the advent of Prohibition. She is particularly noteworthy for promoting her viewpoint through vandalism. Nation frequently attacked the property of alcohol-serving establishments (most often taverns) with a hatchet.
Nation was a relatively large woman, almost 6 feet (180 cm) tall and weighing 175 pounds (79 kg), with a stern countenance. She described herself as "a bulldog running along at the feet of Jesus, barking at what He doesn't like", and claimed a divine ordination to promote temperance by destroying bars.
Nation gathered several rocks – "smashers", she called them – and proceeded to Dobson's Saloon on June 7. Announcing "Men, I have come to save you from a drunkard's fate", she began to destroy the saloon's stock with her cache of rocks. After she similarly destroyed two other saloons in Kiowa, a tornado hit eastern Kansas, which she took as divine approval of her actions.
Suspicious that President William McKinley was a secret drinker, Nation applauded his 1901 assassination because drinkers "got what they deserved".
Yep, big psycho.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Carrie_Nation.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Nation
Carrie Amelia Moore Nation (first name also spelled Carry; November 25, 1846 – June 9, 1911) was an American woman who was a radical member of the temperance movement, which opposed alcohol before the advent of Prohibition. She is particularly noteworthy for promoting her viewpoint through vandalism. Nation frequently attacked the property of alcohol-serving establishments (most often taverns) with a hatchet.
Nation was a relatively large woman, almost 6 feet (180 cm) tall and weighing 175 pounds (79 kg), with a stern countenance. She described herself as "a bulldog running along at the feet of Jesus, barking at what He doesn't like", and claimed a divine ordination to promote temperance by destroying bars.
Nation gathered several rocks – "smashers", she called them – and proceeded to Dobson's Saloon on June 7. Announcing "Men, I have come to save you from a drunkard's fate", she began to destroy the saloon's stock with her cache of rocks. After she similarly destroyed two other saloons in Kiowa, a tornado hit eastern Kansas, which she took as divine approval of her actions.
Suspicious that President William McKinley was a secret drinker, Nation applauded his 1901 assassination because drinkers "got what they deserved".
Although one can try to tie her to "religious zealotry" she exemplifies a libtard mindset. A "secret drinker"? WTF business is it of hers and her ilk? And I could easily see some extreme libtards (and *some*, albeit fewer, on the Right are guilty of this also) rejoicing in the death of someone who they dislike.
Think about it using Carrie Nation's thought-process (or lack thereof): those "secret" gun-owners died in a raid because you can no longer have this certain type of gun. They deserved it.
MountainRaven
06-03-14, 21:03
Although one can try to tie her to "religious zealotry" she exemplifies a libtard mindset. A "secret drinker"? WTF business is it of hers and her ilk? And I could easily see some extreme libtards (and *some*, albeit fewer, on the Right are guilty of this also) rejoicing in the death of someone who they dislike.
Think about it using Carrie Nation's thought-process (or lack thereof): those "secret" gun-owners died in a raid because you can no longer have this certain type of gun. They deserved it.
Why can't libtards be religious zealots?
Yep, big psycho.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Carrie_Nation.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Nation
Carrie Amelia Moore Nation (first name also spelled Carry; November 25, 1846 – June 9, 1911) was an American woman who was a radical member of the temperance movement, which opposed alcohol before the advent of Prohibition. She is particularly noteworthy for promoting her viewpoint through vandalism. Nation frequently attacked the property of alcohol-serving establishments (most often taverns) with a hatchet.
Nation was a relatively large woman, almost 6 feet (180 cm) tall and weighing 175 pounds (79 kg), with a stern countenance. She described herself as "a bulldog running along at the feet of Jesus, barking at what He doesn't like", and claimed a divine ordination to promote temperance by destroying bars.
Nation gathered several rocks – "smashers", she called them – and proceeded to Dobson's Saloon on June 7. Announcing "Men, I have come to save you from a drunkard's fate", she began to destroy the saloon's stock with her cache of rocks. After she similarly destroyed two other saloons in Kiowa, a tornado hit eastern Kansas, which she took as divine approval of her actions.
Suspicious that President William McKinley was a secret drinker, Nation applauded his 1901 assassination because drinkers "got what they deserved".
Just when you think you've heard it all. Wow must she have been a great relative to visit once every third decade.
And I could easily see some extreme libtards (and *some*, albeit fewer, on the Right are guilty of this also) rejoicing in the death of someone who they dislike.
I think there are quite a few people we could name that almost everyone here would rejoice at the death of, be you conservative, libertarian, or liberal.
The Westboro Baptist Church leader drew that sentiment. A certain Californian Senator definitely would. I bet many here would rejoice at the passing away of the current leadership in this country as well.
I'm not saying people here would go around murdering, but would certainly be happy that some people are no longer wasting good oxygen if it happened by causes beyond their control.
I wouldn't shed a tear for the passing of said Californian Senator, and may even take a drink or two or ten in celebration.
The idea of "I don't like it therefore you can't do it" isn't quite applicable to guns. The reason libs don't like guns (I'm generalizing of course, some do like guns) is because other people make them dangerous for that individual lib. The logic, while flawed, is that it's preferable to have attacker and defender not have guns than to have both with guns. The flaw is, of course, believing that laws will stop law-breakers from breaking the law. But if all guns were somehow magically removed from the country besides mil/le and the borders were perfectly sealed to prevent importation (almost as laughable as removing all guns), there would actually be less deaths. But there might be more violent crime.
I got it! Gun control is sexist! That'll hit them in the gut. Women are physiologically weaker, that's a biological fact based on averages. Individual women can of course be stronger than individual men. But men as a whole spend more time learning how to fight, working out, and actually fighting. Working out for men tends to produce more muscle, partly from biology, partly because society doesn't see women with huge muscles as attractive. In a world without guns, the experienced fighter wins, which almost always favors the attacker who chose place, time, and victim. Combined with a biological strength advantage, it basically means women can't do a whole lot to stop men.
With a gun, the bigger your opponent, the less chance you'll miss!
SeriousStudent
06-03-14, 21:34
Yep, big psycho.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Carrie_Nation.jpg
.......
That woman looks EXACTLY like my former mother-in-law, I shit you not.
And you nailed the big psycho part, too.
Now I know where they got the idea for PAT from SNL days :)
I think there are quite a few people we could name that almost everyone here would rejoice at the death of, be you conservative, libertarian, or liberal.
The Westboro Baptist Church leader drew that sentiment. A certain Californian Senator definitely would. I bet many here would rejoice at the passing away of the current leadership in this country as well.
I'm not saying people here would go around murdering, but would certainly be happy that some people are no longer wasting good oxygen if it happened by causes beyond their control.
I wouldn't shed a tear for the passing of said Californian Senator, and may even take a drink or two or ten in celebration.
Exactly how I feel about the *ahem* "Honorable" *ahem* Eric Holder...
If some misfortune were to befall him I would certaily open and empty a bottle of liqour from my special occasion stash and celebrate.
That woman looks EXACTLY like my former mother-in-law, I shit you not.
And you nailed the big psycho part, too.
No wonder you drink...:jester:
I think there are quite a few people we could name that almost everyone here would rejoice at the death of, be you conservative, libertarian, or liberal.
The Westboro Baptist Church leader drew that sentiment. A certain Californian Senator definitely would. I bet many here would rejoice at the passing away of the current leadership in this country as well.
I'm not saying people here would go around murdering, but would certainly be happy that some people are no longer wasting good oxygen if it happened by causes beyond their control.
I wouldn't shed a tear for the passing of said Californian Senator, and may even take a drink or two or ten in celebration.
Well yeah, there IS all that..... ;)
The idea of "I don't like it therefore you can't do it" isn't quite applicable to guns. The reason libs don't like guns (I'm generalizing of course, some do like guns) is because other people make them dangerous for that individual lib. The logic, while flawed, is that it's preferable to have attacker and defender not have guns than to have both with guns. The flaw is, of course, believing that laws will stop law-breakers from breaking the law. But if all guns were somehow magically removed from the country besides mil/le and the borders were perfectly sealed to prevent importation (almost as laughable as removing all guns), there would actually be less deaths. But there might be more violent crime.
But liberal logic does indeed tend towards "I don't like it so you can't have/do it either". Maybe their initial thought process (I hate using words like that when describing them) might start out as that but the end result, or "solution", is banning stuff. The other side of the coin for libs is "I like it so everyone must do/adhere to it." Think Global warming, er sorry-----Climate Change. No, I won't just buy carbon offsets or live like I'm in the 1800's....no, EVERYONE has to do it too.
Libtard mantra is all or nothing, but only what THEY see as necessary. Of course their smugness in assuming their own righteousness means they know what's best for all of us. Then they elect a government that reflects said beliefs, like what we're currently enduring in D.C.
It's about control with liberals. Like I said earlier, they are the antithesis to the conservative "I just want to be left alone". Oh no no no, YOU are going to be a part of this forced mandatory bright idea one way or another pal.
Crow Hunter
06-04-14, 13:32
Yep, big psycho.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Carrie_Nation.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Nation
Carrie Amelia Moore Nation (first name also spelled Carry; November 25, 1846 – June 9, 1911) was an American woman who was a radical member of the temperance movement, which opposed alcohol before the advent of Prohibition. She is particularly noteworthy for promoting her viewpoint through vandalism. Nation frequently attacked the property of alcohol-serving establishments (most often taverns) with a hatchet.
Nation was a relatively large woman, almost 6 feet (180 cm) tall and weighing 175 pounds (79 kg), with a stern countenance. She described herself as "a bulldog running along at the feet of Jesus, barking at what He doesn't like", and claimed a divine ordination to promote temperance by destroying bars.
Nation gathered several rocks – "smashers", she called them – and proceeded to Dobson's Saloon on June 7. Announcing "Men, I have come to save you from a drunkard's fate", she began to destroy the saloon's stock with her cache of rocks. After she similarly destroyed two other saloons in Kiowa, a tornado hit eastern Kansas, which she took as divine approval of her actions.
Suspicious that President William McKinley was a secret drinker, Nation applauded his 1901 assassination because drinkers "got what they deserved".
Everyone should watch Ken Burns Prohibition.
There were WAY more like her involved. And it literally was "for the children". That was their whole reason for doing it. My wife and I were watching it and she commented to me about how it sounded like the modern gun control movement. Nearly verbatim in some spots.
History repeating itself. Just the names are changed.
It is eerie.
I got into a "discussion" with a liberal co-worker about the Aurora CO theater shooting. He is of the typical anti-gun mindset that only cops and military should have guns. I asked him if he was in that theater at the time would he want a gun to protect himself and his wife? He said yes. So I told him that he was a hypocrite because he wants to exercise the right that he would want to deny to everyone else.
I heard it put this way on the Andrew Wilkow Show. A conservative vegitarian doesn't eat meat. A liberal vegitarian doesn't want YOU to eat meat.
But liberal logic does indeed tend towards "I don't like it so you can't have/do it either". Maybe their initial thought process (I hate using words like that when describing them) might start out as that but the end result, or "solution", is banning stuff. The other side of the coin for libs is "I like it so everyone must do/adhere to it." Think Global warming, er sorry-----Climate Change. No, I won't just buy carbon offsets or live like I'm in the 1800's....no, EVERYONE has to do it too.
Libtard mantra is all or nothing, but only what THEY see as necessary. Of course their smugness in assuming their own righteousness means they know what's best for all of us. Then they elect a government that reflects said beliefs, like what we're currently enduring in D.C.
It's about control with liberals. Like I said earlier, they are the antithesis to the conservative "I just want to be left alone". Oh no no no, YOU are going to be a part of this forced mandatory bright idea one way or another pal.
The problem is the things liberals care about require, as part of what they are, everyone to conform. If just the liberals were trying to stop climate change, it wouldn't be enough. The conservatives are more concerned about individual rights, which don't require other people to do anything by their very nature. Liberals seem to be more about the big picture of society as a whole at the expense of the individual, which requies society to buy off on their idea.
It's not liberal vs conservative, it's on a by-issue basis, although liberal ideas do tend to require everyone more often than conservative ideas. But it's not exclusive to either side.
I heard it put this way on the Andrew Wilkow Show. A conservative vegitarian doesn't eat meat. A liberal vegitarian doesn't want YOU to eat meat.
Unless the issue is about gay rights or abortion, then it becomes "a liberal vegitarian doesn't eat meat, but a conservative vegitarian doesn't want YOU to eat meat."
Why can't libtards be religious zealots?They are, without exception. Liberalism is their religion. It's not evidence based, it doesn't review results and consequences, has its own artificial moral code (grotesquely distorted from a real one), and requires sacrifice (usually of other people's freedom, money, and occasionally lives) and blind following without question. The rejection of reality and rational thought qualifies it solidly as a psychological disorder, and were it not favored by academics, it would be officially diagnosed as such.
You can't use reason on a liberal, it absolutely does not work.
The liberals I know are marked by a great difficulty in differentiating fantasy from reality. They exhibit wildly distorted thinking, misplaced affections, gullibility, infantile attitudes toward the harsh facts of life, reluctance to take responsibility for anything, lack of moral compass in the midst of thinking they have a corner on the most profound moral code, persistence in thinking something is the case even while staring directly at blatant proof to the contrary (cognitive dissonance), and hyper-emotionality.
I see liberalism as a symptom of failing to grow up.
You can't use reason on a liberal, it absolutely does not work.
The liberals I know are marked by a great difficulty in differentiating fantasy from reality. They exhibit wildly distorted thinking, misplaced affections, gullibility, infantile attitudes toward the harsh facts of life, reluctance to take responsibility for anything, lack of moral compass in the midst of thinking they have a corner on the most profound moral code, persistence in thinking something is the case even while staring directly at blatant proof to the contrary (cognitive dissonance), and hyper-emotionality.
I see liberalism as a symptom of failing to grow up.
I actually think that's humans in general and is not held in monopoly by liberals, not by far.
TEOTWAWKI? Conspiracy theories? Conservatives tend to be more religious, and religion can be seen as a giant fantasy that has the moral code to live by to the exclusion of all others.
BoringGuy45
06-04-14, 21:32
I actually think that's humans in general and is not held in monopoly by liberals, not by far.
TEOTWAWKI? Conspiracy theories? Conservatives tend to be more religious, and religion can be seen as a giant fantasy that has the moral code to live by to the exclusion of all others.
The enemy here is statism. Statism is basically a shape shifting evil that takes the form of generally well intentioned, benevolent, or neutral philosophies and claims to be the vanguard protecting those ideals in order to serve itself. The statists always claim that they are the only thing that stands between the people they are protecting and the oppressive evil ones who seek to enslave them. They claim that every restriction and seemingly oppressive act they take against their subjects is ONLY aimed at the enemy and that only those who are legitimately enemies need to be worried.
Liberalism and progressivism are two systems that, generally speaking, are not the same thing and are not bad in and of themselves. Liberalism is simply the belief that people should live and let live and agree to disagree in most conflicts. Progressivism is simply the belief that openness to new ideas is paramount to improving society; in its basic form, it doesn't even demand acceptance of all new ideas, just being openminded enough to understand and consider them. Conservatism is simply the belief that most positive traditions and cultural practices should be preserved. None of these views are mutually exclusive. One can be a liberal conservative; for example, I can say that I believe that homosexuality is wrong and it personally disgusts me, but at the same time say that I don't think that the government should enact any bans or regulation on private homosexual behavior between consenting adults, nor should I be forced to be reeducated into changing my beliefs.
Statism has taken many forms. In the form of theocracy, it claims to be the mouthpiece of God, either suppressing sin as to protect it's subjects from God's wrath, or as God's appointed deputy with all His power to judge and punish sin. In the form of conservatism, it claims to defend tradition against those who seek to destroy it completely. And in its current and most virulent form, it combines progressivism and liberalism and claims to be defending those views from those who want to turn back the clock to the days when people's personal lives were heavily regulated by the state AND when minorities were oppressed.
When statists take power, common sense is the first thing that is attacked. The reason is that common sense requires a person to reasonably deduce information when making decisions, meaning that one has to think and act for themselves. So what do statists do? Start feeding us confusing messages: Telling us everything we know is wrong by showing us what seems like a logical conclusion has been disproved through research and science conducted by the best expert minds. They change the definition of truth from "factual" to "what you need to believe". They argue intentionally using logical fallacies, and doing in such educated and artistic ways that people are seduced into believing them and not even noticing the lack of logic. They speak with such authority using ad hominem and red herrings. This senator opposes the assault weapons ban? Well, remember this guy also also voted for the Iraq War looking for non-existent WMDs AND he had an affair once, so think carefully about the kind of people who you are standing with if you oppose an assault weapons ban. Red herrings all about.
So the issue is not not liberalism vs. conservatism. It's statism vs. freedom.
The enemy here is statism. Statism is basically a shape shifting evil that takes the form of generally well intentioned, benevolent, or neutral philosophies and claims to be the vanguard protecting those ideals in order to serve itself. The statists always claim that they are the only thing that stands between the people they are protecting and the oppressive evil ones who seek to enslave them. They claim that every restriction and seemingly oppressive act they take against their subjects is ONLY aimed at the enemy and that only those who are legitimately enemies need to be worried.
Liberalism and progressivism are two systems that, generally speaking, are not the same thing and are not bad in and of themselves. Liberalism is simply the belief that people should live and let live and agree to disagree in most conflicts. Progressivism is simply the belief that openness to new ideas is paramount to improving society; in its basic form, it doesn't even demand acceptance of all new ideas, just being openminded enough to understand and consider them. Conservatism is simply the belief that most positive traditions and cultural practices should be preserved. None of these views are mutually exclusive. One can be a liberal conservative; for example, I can say that I believe that homosexuality is wrong and it personally disgusts me, but at the same time say that I don't think that the government should enact any bans or regulation on private homosexual behavior between consenting adults, nor should I be forced to be reeducated into changing my beliefs.
Statism has taken many forms. In the form of theocracy, it claims to be the mouthpiece of God, either suppressing sin as to protect it's subjects from God's wrath, or as God's appointed deputy with all His power to judge and punish sin. In the form of conservatism, it claims to defend tradition against those who seek to destroy it completely. And in its current and most virulent form, it combines progressivism and liberalism and claims to be defending those views from those who want to turn back the clock to the days when people's personal lives were heavily regulated by the state AND when minorities were oppressed.
When statists take power, common sense is the first thing that is attacked. The reason is that common sense requires a person to reasonably deduce information when making decisions, meaning that one has to think and act for themselves. So what do statists do? Start feeding us confusing messages: Telling us everything we know is wrong by showing us what seems like a logical conclusion has been disproved through research and science conducted by the best expert minds. They change the definition of truth from "factual" to "what you need to believe". They argue intentionally using logical fallacies, and doing in such educated and artistic ways that people are seduced into believing them and not even noticing the lack of logic. They speak with such authority using ad hominem and red herrings. This senator opposes the assault weapons ban? Well, remember this guy also also voted for the Iraq War looking for non-existent WMDs AND he had an affair once, so think carefully about the kind of people who you are standing with if you oppose an assault weapons ban. Red herrings all about.
So the issue is not not liberalism vs. conservatism. It's statism vs. freedom.
Well said sir!
The problem is the things liberals care about require, as part of what they are, everyone to conform. If just the liberals were trying to stop climate change, it wouldn't be enough. The conservatives are more concerned about individual rights, which don't require other people to do anything by their very nature. Liberals seem to be more about the big picture of society as a whole at the expense of the individual, which requies society to buy off on their idea.
It's not liberal vs conservative, it's on a by-issue basis, although liberal ideas do tend to require everyone more often than conservative ideas. But it's not exclusive to either side.
Even liberals, being Americans with that undercurrent of "rebelliousness" we've had for > 200 years, don't particularly care to be told what to do. Of course when it's THEIR idea it's more palatable and they can convince themselves that it's not THEM who are forced to do it since they like the idea.....someone else faces that dilema. However, even on some issues the libs don't like certain things in harmony with the conservatives: witness the overwhelming bipartisan vote by the House a few weeks back against NSA domestic eavesdropping.
By and large, as long as a streak of "bucking the system" exists in the American fiber the wholesale (lawdy-dawdy everybody) liberal sales pitch will generally come up short in support. Folks here just don't like to be told what to do and what not to do in a nanny-state fashion. It's inherently American (for now anyway).
The enemy here is statism. Statism is basically a shape shifting evil that takes the form of generally well intentioned, benevolent, or neutral philosophies and claims to be the vanguard protecting those ideals in order to serve itself. The statists always claim that they are the only thing that stands between the people they are protecting and the oppressive evil ones who seek to enslave them. They claim that every restriction and seemingly oppressive act they take against their subjects is ONLY aimed at the enemy and that only those who are legitimately enemies need to be worried.
Liberalism and progressivism are two systems that, generally speaking, are not the same thing and are not bad in and of themselves. Liberalism is simply the belief that people should live and let live and agree to disagree in most conflicts. Progressivism is simply the belief that openness to new ideas is paramount to improving society; in its basic form, it doesn't even demand acceptance of all new ideas, just being openminded enough to understand and consider them. Conservatism is simply the belief that most positive traditions and cultural practices should be preserved. None of these views are mutually exclusive. One can be a liberal conservative; for example, I can say that I believe that homosexuality is wrong and it personally disgusts me, but at the same time say that I don't think that the government should enact any bans or regulation on private homosexual behavior between consenting adults, nor should I be forced to be reeducated into changing my beliefs.
Statism has taken many forms. In the form of theocracy, it claims to be the mouthpiece of God, either suppressing sin as to protect it's subjects from God's wrath, or as God's appointed deputy with all His power to judge and punish sin. In the form of conservatism, it claims to defend tradition against those who seek to destroy it completely. And in its current and most virulent form, it combines progressivism and liberalism and claims to be defending those views from those who want to turn back the clock to the days when people's personal lives were heavily regulated by the state AND when minorities were oppressed.
When statists take power, common sense is the first thing that is attacked. The reason is that common sense requires a person to reasonably deduce information when making decisions, meaning that one has to think and act for themselves. So what do statists do? Start feeding us confusing messages: Telling us everything we know is wrong by showing us what seems like a logical conclusion has been disproved through research and science conducted by the best expert minds. They change the definition of truth from "factual" to "what you need to believe". They argue intentionally using logical fallacies, and doing in such educated and artistic ways that people are seduced into believing them and not even noticing the lack of logic. They speak with such authority using ad hominem and red herrings. This senator opposes the assault weapons ban? Well, remember this guy also also voted for the Iraq War looking for non-existent WMDs AND he had an affair once, so think carefully about the kind of people who you are standing with if you oppose an assault weapons ban. Red herrings all about.
So the issue is not not liberalism vs. conservatism. It's statism vs. freedom.
Probably the best thing I've read all year.
Yes we have to remember that "liberal" and "progressive" are hijacked terms and while we are at it so are "conservative" and "libertarian."
Crow Hunter
06-05-14, 07:08
Probably the best thing I've read all year.
Yes we have to remember that "liberal" and "progressive" are hijacked terms and while we are at it so are "conservative" and "libertarian."
I concur.
Excellent. It really should be published.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.