|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 04/26/2005 : 17:44:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And I think that's untrue. If you're only arguing which party is closer to the "whackjobs," then it's still the republicans, as every anarchist group that seeks to overthrow the government I have ever read about has always been fiercely anti-gun control. It isn't the democrats who pander to an organization that loudly proclaims that the only way they'd give up their firearms is if someone were to pry them from their "cold, dead hands." Or do you believe the threating of outright war to be a centrist viewpoint?
Again with the straw-man. Come on HH.
There are extremeists on both sides of this issue. The democrat party stance is closer to the extremeists on the left than the republican party stance is to the extremists on the right.
Most Americans favor private gun ownership. I have never heard a republican politician actually advocate anything like the "cold, dead hands" gibberish. But I have heard dems saying that they'd like to be rid of all guns.
quote:
There are countries with a total ban on guns and they seem to be better off for it and quite civilized by comparison.
Unsupported assertions aren't going to fly here now either. Find some crime statistics for countries with a total ban on guns and compare them to US statistics, % per capita of homicide would be a good one to use as a reference.
Let me give you an example of going from gun ownership to outlawing gun ownership.
http://www.ssaa.org.au/ilasep98.html
quote:
There are also countries that are flooded with weapons, and I highly doubt most Americans would want to visit one of those any time soon.
You are confusing "flooded with weapons" with lack of capable law enforcement and laws that protect human rights.
But the US definitely counts as a country "flooded" with firearms. We own millions of the things. The appeal to emotion isn't going to work. Most Americans already live in a country flooded with guns.
More on crime stats....
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
The whole thing is an interesting read, but let me quote some of the highlights.
quote:
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2003, 449,150 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.
Incidents involving a firearm represented 7% of the 4.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault.
quote:
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%
During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.
Wow, 2% of guns used in crimes came from gun shows! And 2% of gun crimes invloved assault weapons!
I know that data is based on a survey, but it's probably reasonably accurate. I can't find the FBI data that I read some time ago, but it was consistent with this very low % for assault weapons used in gun crimes.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2005 : 19:19:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Dave, I'm chuckling 'cause I'm still not sure what you mean. It's me....don't worry about it. I'll keep thinking about it.
Well, I could probably find some more examples of how national political parties do harm to a representative democracy, if you think it'll help.
By the way, I've got a question for you: when you caucused for Edwards, did you decide on your own to go to that "big room with lots and lots of other Democrats," or were you picked to go by other people? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2005 : 20:25:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Most Americans favor private gun ownership. I have never heard a republican politician actually advocate anything like the "cold, dead hands" gibberish. But I have heard dems saying that they'd like to be rid of all guns.
I don't understand how you can admit that both sides have extremists but then state that the democrats are moreso.
Look, as far as I see it, the majority or democrats are for private gun ownership as well, it's just that they advocate certain safety laws which the republicans would like to abolish. That's the way I'm looking at it. Most Americans favor private gun ownership. Ok, but most Americans also favor responsible gun ownership, do they not? The question has never been guns or no guns, but rather laws regulating guns or no laws regulating guns. Were the republicans for or against such gun safety laws as gunlocks? Does that make them more or less extreme than the democrats?
And why are there any assault rifles sold at all? I really would like to hear why there is any percentage of crimes associated with those weapons that is considered acceptible. I mean why not outlaw the paramilitary stuff? Just asking.
And sorry if you think I'm attacking straw-men. I really have no desire to ban guns, but I do think there should be certain gun legislation in place that limits their sale, caliber, rate of fire, etc. The common "slippery slope" argument always offered by republicans is that such laws will inevitably lead to a "ban on guns." To me that's the real fallacy.
You do make a good point about private sales though. That's a point I had not considered. And sorry for comparing you to Rush. That was heat of the moment.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/26/2005 20:30:39 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2005 : 21:42:06 [Permalink]
|
Hijack? What hijack?
<looks around>
Ohh.... you mean this thread wasn't about gun control? hehe
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2005 : 22:12:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Psssssst... Can we take the gun-control hijack somewhere else, please?
 Sorry, Dave. I never intended to paticipate in a hijaking, it just sort of happened. Brings back bad memories of the Great Thread Derailment of May, 1997. Lost a lot of good posters that night. Wasn't pretty.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 05:25:43 [Permalink]
|
Dave, I think I do understand what you mean. My immediate response is: well...yeah. That's how a democracy works. As I said to Dude, a representative can't be all things to all people. If a representative isn't representing her constituency, she can and usually is voted out.
The Concerned Women for America and other right wing fundie groups, whose views are in the minority of even Republicans, IMO, are essentially running the FCC now. They're avid letter-writers and phoners, expressing their phobia about Janet Jackson's breast, etc. I disagree with them and I hate that this faction is running the show, so to speak. But that's democracy. The Democrats could organize an opposition force and use the same tactics, but they haven't, far as I know. So we lose. (although given that Republican bullies control all 3 branches of government right now, we might lose anyway.)
No one chose me to caucus. Caucusing is open to *everybody* who's a registered voter, though I believe I signed something claiming to be a Democrat. I found my precinct in a room with lots of precincts. Some precincts had 20 or more people show, some had one or two.
We chatted about which candidate we came to support and why. Some folks were unsure about which candidate they preferred; some changed candidates after the discussion. We voted and used basic math to determine how many delegates for each candidate we wished to send (ie 3 Dean, 3 Kerry, 1 Edwards).
Did this delegation represent my precinct? How would we possibly know, unless we polled each person in the precinct? It represented the people who cared enough to give up their Saturday morning and make their voices heard.
My precinct sent one Edwards candidate to the next level. This process was to be repeated at different levels until Washington State had its final count of delegates for each candidate (to be sent to the convention). By that time, the momentum is usually for one candidate and at least on TV, the party tries to look unified behind that candidate.
Most people were OK with Kerry being the choice, at the time, because they didn't see the Swift Boat Vets attack coming. I saw it coming but couldn't convince enough people. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 06:48:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
2a) Waiting periods and background checks are exempted in gun shows. Only a state mandated limit on number of weapons purchased is enforced. NRA suggests instant background checks of FOI databases.
Where do you guys GET this shit? That is, atleast for FL, an outright falsehood. I can't imagine that it is different in other states. No legit vendor just ignores the laws regulating the sale of guns just because they are at a gun show.
Some states have stepped up to fill the void that Federal legislation leaves. FL is one of those states.
We get this "shit" from the evidence available to us. Some small agrarian states do not have such safeguards. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 06:53:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
2a) Waiting periods and background checks are exempted in gun shows. Only a state mandated limit on number of weapons purchased is enforced. NRA suggests instant background checks of FOI databases.
Where do you guys GET this shit? That is, atleast for FL, an outright falsehood. I can't imagine that it is different in other states. No legit vendor just ignores the laws regulating the sale of guns just because they are at a gun show.
Some states have stepped up to fill the void that Federal legislation leaves. FL is one of those states.
We get this "shit" from the evidence available to us. Some small agrarian states do not have such safeguards.
I know that in Oklahoma-- at least back in the late 90's-- that buying a gun at a gun show still requires a waiting period. As I understand it, the same goes for Maryland... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 09:22:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Dave, I think I do understand what you mean. My immediate response is: well...yeah. That's how a democracy works. As I said to Dude, a representative can't be all things to all people. If a representative isn't representing her constituency, she can and usually is voted out.
I'm not asking for representatives to be all things to all people, I'm asking for representatives to consider the needs of their constituents above all other considerations, including their party.quote:
No one chose me to caucus... Did this delegation represent my precinct? How would we possibly know, unless we polled each person in the precinct?
You know precisely that you did not represent your precinct. You know that, at best, you and the rest of the people who showed up represented only a small percentage of activist Democrats. Certainly nobody elected you to caucus, and so you had (and have) absolutely no basis upon which to think that you represented anyone but yourself.
Can an proper and functional representative democratic republic - as envisioned in the Constitution - be built on such foundations?
Or is it the case that the Democratic Party (and the Republicans) deny people choices? Obviously, the caususes and primaries said "no, you can't run for President" to Edwards, based upon a substantial minority of the citizens. If you think that "majority rule" is what democracy is about, then the Democratic Party isn't giving that to you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 09:48:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
2a) Waiting periods and background checks are exempted in gun shows. Only a state mandated limit on number of weapons purchased is enforced. NRA suggests instant background checks of FOI databases.
Where do you guys GET this shit? That is, atleast for FL, an outright falsehood. I can't imagine that it is different in other states. No legit vendor just ignores the laws regulating the sale of guns just because they are at a gun show.
Some states have stepped up to fill the void that Federal legislation leaves. FL is one of those states.
We get this "shit" from the evidence available to us. Some small agrarian states do not have such safeguards.
I know that in Oklahoma-- at least back in the late 90's-- that buying a gun at a gun show still requires a waiting period. As I understand it, the same goes for Maryland...
Missouri does not. Neither does Texas. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 11:19:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The Concerned Women for America and other right wing fundie groups, whose views are in the minority of even Republicans, IMO, are essentially running the FCC now. They're avid letter-writers and phoners, expressing their phobia about Janet Jackson's breast, etc. I disagree with them and I hate that this faction is running the show, so to speak. But that's democracy.
That's not democracy! That is a FAILURE of democracy. When a small minority can impose it's will on the majority... you sure as shit don't have functioning democracy.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 18:46:36 [Permalink]
|
Dude, Dave, it's the way democracy works. It's how life works. Politicans owe the non-voters, do nothingers, and whiners *nothing*.
And you *are* asking politicians to be all things to all people. They can't vote along party lines, though they are elected by the party and a MAJORITY of the party agrees with the MAJORITY of the party line. They can't vote their conscience, because then they're not representing their constituents. Asking them to poll all constituents on every vote is a "straw man".
What, precisely, would you like them to do?
The majority of the Democratic delegates chose John Kerry, so he became our nominee. Sounds like "majority rules" to me. Nobody elected *me* to anything, just as nobody elected *you* to vote, Dave. It's the same thing. We *did* choose our delegates, however, by voting.
Dude, the only reason the Concerned Women for America are imposing their will on the rest of us is because we're not doing anything about it. If equal numbers of the rest of us phoned the FCC, they might not make the rulings they make.
You're blaming the system, which is admittedly imperfect, rather than the people in the system who can't be bothered to make their voices heard.
I think politicians should vote a combination of all three: their conscience, the general beliefs of the party, and what they hear from their constituents. If no politican voted their conscience, we wouldn't have passed something as profound as the Civil Rights Act. Because you can be damned sure those Southern reps had pressure from their constituents *not* to pass it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 20:09:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Dude, Dave, it's the way democracy works. It's how life works. Politicans owe the non-voters, do nothingers, and whiners *nothing*.
So what do they owe to the people who voted for their opposition?quote:
And you *are* asking politicians to be all things to all people. They can't vote along party lines, though they are elected by the party and a MAJORITY of the party agrees with the MAJORITY of the party line.
And the party represents a minority of the constituents.quote:
They can't vote their conscience, because then they're not representing their constituents.
No, they just need to put the needs of the constituents ahead of their own conscience.quote:
Asking them to poll all constituents on every vote is a "straw man".
The straw man is that anyone here suggested (besides you, that is) that the way to properly represent one's constituents is to poll them on every vote. That would simply be "mob rule" with a middle-man, which is not what the Framers intended representatives to be.quote:
What, precisely, would you like them to do?
Know their constituents, and vote as their representative.quote:
The majority of the Democratic delegates chose John Kerry, so he became our nominee. Sounds like "majority rules" to me.
The "majority of the Democratic delegates" is the minority of Democrats.quote:
Nobody elected *me* to anything, just as nobody elected *you* to vote, Dave. It's the same thing.
Hardly. I'm given a Constitutional right to vote. Where in the Constitution does it outline your right to appoint a Presidential nominee, and tell other candidates that they won't be elected?quote:
We *did* choose our delegates, however, by voting.
Great way to attempt to turn anarchy into Democracy, it seems to me.
quote:
I think politicians should vote a combination of all three: their conscience, the general beliefs of the party, and what they hear from their constituents.
And I'm saying that the middle part - the "general beliefs of the party" - are coming to the forefront so often these days that the other two have been largely forgotten.quote:
If no politican voted their conscience, we wouldn't have passed something as profound as the Civil Rights Act. Because you can be damned sure those Southern reps had pressure from their constituents *not* to pass it.
Which is why two entire delegations left the Democratic National Convention over Civil Rights, right? The Democrats used to be the "party of the South." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2005 : 20:53:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And you *are* asking politicians to be all things to all people. They can't vote along party lines, though they are elected by the party and a MAJORITY of the party agrees with the MAJORITY of the party line. They can't vote their conscience, because then they're not representing their constituents. Asking them to poll all constituents on every vote is a "straw man".
No, you have created a nice straw man though. I don't recall ever suggesting any such thing. My statement was that they should make effort to be aware of issues that concern their constituency, and be responsible enough in their elected office to carry out their duties to ALL the people they represent.
This in no way suggests or implies that they should be polling to see how they should vote on every vote, that you keep comming back to this is starting to confuse me.
quote:
You're blaming the system, which is admittedly imperfect, rather than the people in the system who can't be bothered to make their voices heard.
Well, I hope you are never elected to any office. I know you'd not get my vote if that is really your stance on this.
If you don't understand that elected officials represent every person in their district or state, regardless of party or voting status, then you seriously need to re-educate yourself.
If you think it is OK for an elected official to only listen to the people that voted for them... then you are a part of a major problem in this country.
You can say "that's just life" all you want, but it doesn't make it right. That type of thinking is antithetical to democracy.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
