|
|
|
Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend
99 Posts |
 Posted - 01/04/2017 : 08:29:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by ThorGoLucky
If you own guns for safety, you're doing it wrong.
|
What do you mean by this? |
 |
|
|
Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend
99 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2017 : 08:37:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
| Large changes to the current societal outlook on guns. A sea change not unlike Women's Suffrage or the Civil Rights movement. |
|
That is possible over time. I have seen a lot change in my lifetime. There would need to be a bigger push for this and of course make gun advocates villains of some sort. I bet they can call them racists somehow.
Just an aside here: rights are never given. The Constitution guarantees certain rights, but even those require a constant fight by the people against the government. (For example, the Obama administration has probably done more to nullify Fourth Amendment rights than any other administration, simply by continuing to prosecute cases with warrantless searches from the Bush administration and starting its own. And Trump looks extraordinarily dangerous with regard to First Amendment rights, especially of the press.) If nobody defends a right, it'll likely be void eventually.
|
I get what you are saying. I guess I was using guarantee and given as the same thing. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2017 : 09:50:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
There would need to be a bigger push for this and of course make gun advocates villains of some sort. |
Some of them are doing it on their own. The group Gun Owners of America thinks that the NRA is a bunch of leftie hippies. The guy running GOA thinks there is a "Biblical mandate to arm" oneself; that Obama is a Marxist Muslim atheist (?) who's still somehow going to take all our guns away, and that gun control laws are "pagan."| I bet they can call them racists somehow. |
The GOA head has donated directly to white supremacist groups, so we don't need to call him a racist. He makes it clear through his own actions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend
99 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2017 : 11:17:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
There would need to be a bigger push for this and of course make gun advocates villains of some sort. |
Some of them are doing it on their own. The group Gun Owners of America thinks that the NRA is a bunch of leftie hippies. The guy running GOA thinks there is a "Biblical mandate to arm" oneself; that Obama is a Marxist Muslim atheist (?) who's still somehow going to take all our guns away, and that gun control laws are "pagan."| I bet they can call them racists somehow. |
The GOA head has donated directly to white supremacist groups, so we don't need to call him a racist. He makes it clear through his own actions.
|
But for the 2A to be repealed, they would need to convince many others that most if not all gun owners are racist or have another horrible quality about them. This is how the support for same sex marriage was achieved to a great extent in my opinion. The left has used this tactic on police shootings, the ACA, same sex marriage, Gitmo, etc. Call the other side nasty names, don't listen to any arguments they may have and then shame them into relenting. This works well with college students. This is all jut my opinion though. |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2017 : 14:25:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
Originally posted by ThorGoLucky
If you own guns for safety, you're doing it wrong.
|
What do you mean by this?
|
There are a few hundred cases each year in the US of guns used successfully in self defense. BUT there are far more cases of gun theft, or injury or death of owners or innocent bystanders. To own a gun for hunting, a job, recreation, or hobby is one thing, but to own a gun for safety is stupid.
|
|
|
|
Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend
99 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2017 : 14:56:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by ThorGoLucky
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
Originally posted by ThorGoLucky
If you own guns for safety, you're doing it wrong.
|
What do you mean by this?
|
There are a few hundred cases each year in the US of guns used successfully in self defense. BUT there are far more cases of gun theft, or injury or death of owners or innocent bystanders. To own a gun for hunting, a job, recreation, or hobby is one thing, but to own a gun for safety is stupid.
|
I think it depends on where you live. I don't own a gun because I believe the likelihood of it being misused is more than the likelihood of needing it for self defense in my situation. But I would never want to restrict anyone from owning a gun for any reason as long as it is legal. People can decide for themselves how best to protect themselves and their families. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2017 : 15:04:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
But for the 2A to be repealed, they would need to convince many others that most if not all gun owners are racist or have another horrible quality about them. |
No, we just need to convince a huge majority of Americans that they don't and shouldn't need free access to guns.| This is how the support for same sex marriage was achieved to a great extent in my opinion. |
What? No. Same-sex marriage became socially acceptable because more and more regular people realized they knew LGBT folks, and those people weren't the rapist pederast hedonist monsters that stereotypers had long made them out to be. Once gay people became just other people, there was no reason to deny them the right to live as regular people.| The left has used this tactic on police shootings, the ACA, same sex marriage, Gitmo, etc. Call the other side nasty names, don't listen to any arguments they may have and then shame them into relenting. |
Nobody has "relented" on police shootings. The ACA did not bring "death panels." Obama has completely failed to close GITMO. I really won't understand this position of yours well without more concrete examples. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend
99 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2017 : 10:03:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, we just need to convince a huge majority of Americans that they don't and shouldn't need free access to guns. |
Then you could repeal the 2nd amendment?
| What? No. Same-sex marriage became socially acceptable because more and more regular people realized they knew LGBT folks, and those people weren't the rapist pederast hedonist monsters that stereotypers had long made them out to be. Once gay people became just other people, there was no reason to deny them the right to live as regular people. |
Well, my experience is that even though I see no reason under the constitution that same sex marriage can be banned ( I did not oppose it) I was/am still labeled a bigot, hater, closeted gay, piece of shit etc. because I think same sex marriage is sinful. It still is not only about gaining same sex marriage rights but also to force others to believe their way or be called nasty names.
Nobody has "relented" on police shootings. The ACA did not bring "death panels." Obama has completely failed to close GITMO. I really won't understand this position of yours well without more concrete examples.
|
I opposed the ACA and I was called racist, I oppose open borders and I am called a racist, I defended police that were in the right in police shootings and I was called a Nazi/racist, I had reservations about letting the people at gitmo transferred or let go and I was called a racist/bigot, I am for an ID to vote and I am called racist, I am for cutting federal funding for Planned Parenthood and I am called a racist/misogynist. It seems if you disagree with the lefts ideas they will just call you a racist/bigot/misogynist/deplorable etc. or other nasty names instead of reacting to your reasoning. The right does the same thing they just use different names (commie, hippie, liberal etc.) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2017 : 21:08:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, we just need to convince a huge majority of Americans that they don't and shouldn't need free access to guns. |
Then you could repeal the 2nd amendment? |
Maybe. But by then we'll be living in a Star Trek-style post-scarcity society where everyone's needs are met so there's no point in committing crimes, people will work because they want to, and instead of seeing a doctor when we're sick, we'll just drink some unicorn tears!
| Well, my experience is that even though I see no reason under the constitution that same sex marriage can be banned ( I did not oppose it) I was/am still labeled a bigot, hater, closeted gay, piece of shit etc. because I think same sex marriage is sinful. It still is not only about gaining same sex marriage rights but also to force others to believe their way or be called nasty names. |
Maybe the problem is with the book from which you've gathered your information. It's chock full of racism, misogyny, classism, etc.. If you'd prefer to not be associated with such labels, perhaps it's time to ditch it. It's not even a good source for inter-human morality (for example, the very idea of "sin" isn't about being good to other living people, it's about being rewarded after you die).
| I opposed the ACA and I was called racist, I oppose open borders and I am called a racist, I defended police that were in the right in police shootings and I was called a Nazi/racist, I had reservations about letting the people at gitmo transferred or let go and I was called a racist/bigot, I am for an ID to vote and I am called racist, I am for cutting federal funding for Planned Parenthood and I am called a racist/misogynist. |
Who the hell are you hanging out with?!
| It seems if you disagree with the lefts ideas they will just call you a racist/bigot/misogynist/deplorable etc. or other nasty names instead of reacting to your reasoning. |
You know, the fact that that sort of generalization comes so easily to you when you've been conserving with a leftie who hasn't called you a racist/bigot/etc. might be part of your problem. Just thinking out loud, here.
Anyway, I've heard your reasoning on very few subjects, some of which we agree on. I don't know why you opposed the ACA (for example), but I might call you some names depending upon your reason(s).
If you opposed the ACA because it meant that poor people would get better health care, I'd call you a classist pig.
If you opposed the ACA because it meant that brown people would get better heath care, I'd call you racist.
If you opposed the ACA because it meant that taxes would go up, I'd call you misinformed.
If you opposed the ACA because it was "rammed down our throats," I'd call you a sore loser.
If you opposed the ACA because it included "death panels," I'd call you deluded.
If you opposed the ACA because it wasn't universal public health care, I'd call you a dreamer.
Etc., etc..
If you had a mixture of reasons for opposing the ACA, I might have a mixture of names to call you.
But really, I could see things in the ACA that needed improvement prior to its passage, but that shouldn't call for wholesale opposition to the bill. The idea of "perfection or nothing" is ridiculous. After passage, it could have (and should have) been improved, but the Repubs wouldn't even try.
| The right does the same thing they just use different names (commie, hippie, liberal etc.) |
Ha! Listen to Rush Limbaugh. He's got much harsher names for the left. Much harsher than the names you say you've been called, even. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2017 : 06:53:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
I have heard the argument that requiring a simple license to vote is too burdensome for someone to exercise their right. How is this different for a gun? Or do you approve of ID's for voting. Do you think some of these laws could become too burdensome for some to exercise their right to own a gun?
|
ID for voting is the law in the land I live in. On the other hand, basically everyone has one. And our literacy is as close to 100% as you get in the world.
We consider a 75% voter turn-out so low as to be a failure of democracy.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend
99 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2017 : 11:01:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Maybe. But by then we'll be living in a Star Trek-style post-scarcity society where everyone's needs are met so there's no point in committing crimes, people will work because they want to, and instead of seeing a doctor when we're sick, we'll just drink some unicorn tears! |
Can't wait!
| Maybe the problem is with the book from which you've gathered your information. It's chock full of racism, misogyny, classism, etc.. If you'd prefer to not be associated with such labels, perhaps it's time to ditch it. |
I will take it under advisement.
| It's not even a good source for inter-human morality (for example, the very idea of "sin" isn't about being good to other living people, it's about being rewarded after you die). |
Then why are we commanded by God to do good works even ones God wanted us to do before he made anything (Eph 2:10)? God says that others will know we are followers by our love for others (Jn 13:35). Salvation is a gift from god as well as the works we are to do after salvation. god saves us and gives us good works and we don't do anything, its all gods doing. This is kind of a big subject but this is a start.
| You know, the fact that that sort of generalization comes so easily to you when you've been conserving with a leftie who hasn't called you a racist/bigot/etc. might be part of your problem. Just thinking out loud, here. |
I was not talking about you. Have you read the politicians speeches before the election? Leaders of various groups calling people racists? It was pretty common to hear before the election. Even many news anchors were calling people racists just for voting for Trump.
| Anyway, I've heard your reasoning on very few subjects, some of which we agree on. I don't know why you opposed the ACA (for example), but I might call you some names depending upon your reason(s). |
I mainly opposed the ACA because of the cost and mandatory participation. Why did we have to implement a system that affects everyone when we could have come up with a system that actually got affordable health care to the people that needed it. There are still an estimated 15-30 million without coverage. It is also expensive. I looked through the exchanges and for my family I could not afford the insurance anywhere near the coverage I have with my employer. I was and still am for a system that disconnects the health care as a employer benefit and is something everyone can buy at an affordable cost privately. Have your premiums been cut by at least $2500? We should be able to have a health insurance system that all can afford and can take with them no matter who they work for.
Also, when it was being passed many of the congresspeople did not know what it said. Remember Pelosi, "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it away from the controversy" (paraphrased) statement? That did not make me to confident this was a good idea.
| But really, I could see things in the ACA that needed improvement prior to its passage, but that shouldn't call for wholesale opposition to the bill. The idea of "perfection or nothing" is ridiculous. After passage, it could have (and should have) been improved, but the Repubs wouldn't even try. |
I don't want it perfect because a perfect ACA bill would still require me to purchase health insurance or suffer the penalty of a large and powerful government. Surely this is what the writers of the constitution were thinking.
Why can't we just let the insurance companies come up with policies and let us choose them? I know there are problems with this but I am sure we can find a solution. I am also not 100% opposed to a national healthcare system such as this one proposed http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer My only fear is that the overall quality of care would decrease. I hear mixed feelings about other countries health systems. Don't know what to believe.
Ha! Listen to Rush Limbaugh. He's got much harsher names for the left. Much harsher than the names you say you've been called, even.
|
Like what? I rarely listen to talk shows anymore. Well to a conservative being called a commie or Hippie is pretty offensive. |
|
|
|
Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend
99 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2017 : 11:07:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
I have heard the argument that requiring a simple license to vote is too burdensome for someone to exercise their right. How is this different for a gun? Or do you approve of ID's for voting. Do you think some of these laws could become too burdensome for some to exercise their right to own a gun?
|
ID for voting is the law in the land I live in. On the other hand, basically everyone has one. And our literacy is as close to 100% as you get in the world.
We consider a 75% voter turn-out so low as to be a failure of democracy.
|
Sounds good. I would not consider that a failure of democracy below 75%. In a free society you should have the right not to vote. Some people did not vote for either candidate because they strongly objected to both. Failure of democracy would be dead people voting, people voting more than once, illegals voting, etc. Not enough here to affect the election but all of those did happen. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2017 : 13:28:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
Originally posted by Dave W.
It's not even a good source for inter-human morality (for example, the very idea of "sin" isn't about being good to other living people, it's about being rewarded after you die). |
Then why are we commanded by God to do good works even ones God wanted us to do before he made anything (Eph 2:10)? |
Good works by God's standards, not by man's. Who knows why God wants us to do whatever it is he wants us to do? Mere mortals are not meant to know the mind of God. (See also Ecclesiastes.) Thinking that the "good works" must be something related to other living people is hubris, obviously.
| God says that others will know we are followers by our love for others (Jn 13:35). |
There is a not-insubstantial argument put forth by biblical scholars that when the New Testament mentions "others" or "neighbors," it really only means other Christians. So "love your neighbor" (for example) doesn't mean "love everyone." In that light, John 13:35 is pretty self-absorbed.
More later. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend
99 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2017 : 14:31:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Good works by God's standards, not by man's. Who knows why God wants us to do whatever it is he wants us to do? Mere mortals are not meant to know the mind of God. (See also Ecclesiastes.) Thinking that the "good works" must be something related to other living people is hubris, obviously. |
Not sure what you mean here.
There is a not-insubstantial argument put forth by biblical scholars that when the New Testament mentions "others" or "neighbors," it really only means other Christians. So "love your neighbor" (for example) doesn't mean "love everyone." In that light, John 13:35 is pretty self-absorbed.
More later.
|
In Mk 12:31 Jesus gives us the greatest commands - love yourself and love your neighbor. When Jesus was asked who our neighbor was in Lk 10:29 Jesus tells him the parable of the good Samaritan. Where the Samaritan was the hero. The Samaritan did not even follow god properly as his audience would have thought. Also the neighbor who fell among the robbers was never identified as a follower or not. I don't think that neighbor means Christian brothers only. In the parable it seems to mean whoever you come in contact with.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2017 : 09:10:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
I was not talking about you. Have you read the politicians speeches before the election? Leaders of various groups calling people racists? It was pretty common to hear before the election. Even many news anchors were calling people racists just for voting for Trump. |
And you assumed they were talking about you in particular?
| I mainly opposed the ACA because of the cost and mandatory participation. |
Do you oppose taxation, too?
| Why did we have to implement a system that affects everyone when we could have come up with a system that actually got affordable health care to the people that needed it. |
Could we have done so, with the Congress we had?| There are still an estimated 15-30 million without coverage. |
Mostly because state governors refusing the Medicaid expansion to bridge the gap between the old Medicaid limit and the lowest income covered by the ACA. The silliest part of that refusal is that it represented free money to the states. A state governor who worries about the Federal deficit is abdicating his role.
| It is also expensive. I looked through the exchanges and for my family I could not afford the insurance anywhere near the coverage I have with my employer. |
Probably because you would get no subsidies. Besides, the ACA wasn't designed for people who get insurance through their employers.
| I was and still am for a system that disconnects the health care as a employer benefit and is something everyone can buy at an affordable cost privately. |
Employers negotiate a group rate for insurance. Were we to ban all group insurance rates, every individual would need to negotiate rates on their own, a massively inefficient system. One that would require the dissolution of Medicare, too. I'm sure the AARP and other private groups would love having their negotiated rates thrown away, too.
| Have your premiums been cut by at least $2500? |
No. Should they have been?
I recall a friend grumbling about how his employer-provided insurance rates hadn't dropped due to the ACA. I reminded him that they were lower than they would have been without the ACA.
| We should be able to have a health insurance system that all can afford and can take with them no matter who they work for. |
Germany provides universal healthcare for an 8% income tax, and that includes all sorts of nifty stuff like home nurse visits for expectant mothers, for example.
| Also, when it was being passed many of the congresspeople did not know what it said. Remember Pelosi, "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it away from the controversy" (paraphrased) statement? That did not make me to confident this was a good idea. |
That was all bluster. Annual appropriations bills tend to run more than 1,000 pages each, and there can be 12 of them per year. Nobody has read every page of every bill.
| I don't want it perfect because a perfect ACA bill would still require me to purchase health insurance or suffer the penalty of a large and powerful government. |
Kinda like paying taxes. Or getting a license to drive on public roads?
| Surely this is what the writers of the constitution were thinking. |
No, there was no single thought that all of the founders agreed upon.
| Why can't we just let the insurance companies come up with policies and let us choose them? I know there are problems with this but I am sure we can find a solution. |
The ACA is a solution. It bent over backwards to appease the insurance industry by trying to make sure that the risk pool was as large as possible (the mandated coverage). Without that, there'd have been no point. We wouldn't have gotten the cost reductions or the extended benefits, so we would have been stuck with the status quo.
| I am also not 100% opposed to a national healthcare system such as this one proposed http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer My only fear is that the overall quality of care would decrease. I hear mixed feelings about other countries health systems. Don't know what to believe. |
Look into the stories you hear from other countries more deeply, and pay attention more to averages than outliers. Anyone can find horror stories in any healthcare system.
On average, even after the ACA, our system delivers worse care for more money than any European democracy or Canada. Or Japan.
People want to think America ia exceptional. Exceptionally bad at health care, it seems. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A Slow Gun Ban
