the latest from the right...

[bucfan64 307]

 

My point on buc's comment on having one against a tyranical gov't is just that it wouldn't matter even if they were legal, a minority of people with an m-16 cannot overpower our military. It's pretty bothersome that some think of that so much anyway.

 

QUOTE]

 

I wasn't arguing with you regarding my comments about CHOICE. However, I do not believe that the military would side with a tyrannical govt. unless the govt. could somehow brainwash them into doing so, which I don't expect to happen.

 

And you are right a handful of M-16's will not overpower a corrupt military, but it beats the heck out of having a single shot rifle or a muzzleloader.

 

Everyone is entitled to opinion, likewise everyone is entitled to DISAGREE with that opinion.

 

I don't think that everyone who has an opinion other than mine is wrong, instead, I just don't think that they make good arguments. I have had folks change my mind with a good argument, just not on this subject.

 

 

 

In fact most of the arguments don't make good NONSENSE.

[Hacker 82]

The comment about whether the military would side with a tyrannical government only if brainwashed is curious. You don't have to look to far back in World History to see the supporting tyrannical governments. Pakistan from the 1980' - 2000's comes to mind. Also Argentina of the 1970's. In both cases the military overthrew legitimately elect governments. Saddam Hussein stayed in power by the support of the military. The Communists in Russia stayed in power until they lost the support of the military.

 

Human nature is an interesting thing. People will do things to preserve their own best interest and their lives without brainwashing. Power and privilege are addicting.

 

I would hope that our military would never succumb to this.

[BigBlueAlum 12]

 

My point on buc's comment on having one against a tyranical gov't is just that it wouldn't matter even if they were legal, a minority of people with an m-16 cannot overpower our military. It's pretty bothersome that some think of that so much anyway.

 

QUOTE]

 

I wasn't arguing with you regarding my comments about CHOICE. However, I do not believe that the military would side with a tyrannical govt. unless the govt. could somehow brainwash them into doing so, which I don't expect to happen.

 

And you are right a handful of M-16's will not overpower a corrupt military, but it beats the heck out of having a single shot rifle or a muzzleloader.

 

Everyone is entitled to opinion, likewise everyone is entitled to DISAGREE with that opinion.

 

I don't think that everyone who has an opinion other than mine is wrong, instead, I just don't think that they make good arguments. I have had folks change my mind with a good argument, just not on this subject.

 

 

 

In fact most of the arguments don't make good NONSENSE.

 

You never replied to my post about the Coelacanth... did I change your mind? lol ;)

[bucfan64 307]

Oh, sorry, I forgot all about our discussion. No it didn't change my mind about the evolution thing, but I did look at the Coelacanth as not being one single creature but rather a collection or order of creatures under the title of Coelacanth. Which does force my hand a little, I will study up some more and get back in touch.

 

thanks,

Edited May 15, 2009 by bucfan64

[BigBlueAlum 12]

Oh, sorry, I forgot all about our discussion. No it didn't change my mind about the evolution thing, but I did look at the Coelacanth as not being one single creature but rather a collection of creatures under the title of Coelacanth. Which does force my hand a little, I will study up some more and get back in touch.

 

thanks,

 

I look forward to it.

 

Wow...that really shows how exciting my life is. lol

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

See the problem with you is that no matter what anyone should write, they are wrong if they disagree with you. That type of closed mindedness didn't make this country the great one that it is, but hey

 

 

 

But insisting that noone needs semi auto weapons over and over is somehow not suggesting that your right and I'm wrong? How is it I'm closed minded and you aren't.

I'm right because I'm going by the constitution, not because I'm me, you and your side are wrong because the constitution obviously doesn't agree with you, you're wrong because yall think the constitution and liberties are subject to being trampled on and changed whenever convenient.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

 

I admitted that damage is done with any weapon! So your comments about the sniper were dead on to what I said.

 

Nevertheless, my opinion was that noone needs high powered guns in their everyday life for protection or what not.

 

 

My comments about the military were that they would never turn on their country just as you said, but some how I was wrong.

 

Anyway, the general population couldn't muster enough firepower or weaponry if they wanted to rebel against our government in today's times with laws as they are.

 

 

 

 

Actually you wrote weapons wouldn't amount to much, I pointed out the effect 1 weapon had on a region with millions of people. That said, they weren't "snipers", snipers make shots of 1,000 yards and are skilled beyond words in marksmanship and stalking, these cowards shot people from close range to less than 100 yards, the guy doesn't deserve to be considered a sniper.

 

Your opinion on what someone needs doesn't matter, for the 3rd time "freedom isn't about need", nor is it about what you or liberals think people should or shouldn't have.

Besides I already showed your hypocrisy in pointing out the fact that some criminals use semi auto weapons in crimes while saying that people don't need such firepower in self defense, the 2 ideas simply oppose each other.

 

Actually you wrote this about the military

 

"My point on buc's comment on having one against a tyranical gov't is just that it wouldn't matter even if they were legal, a minority of people with an m-16 cannot overpower our military. It's pretty bothersome that some think of that so much anyway."

 

 

key words, cannot overpower our military.

What's really bothersome is 1 side that thinks so much of the simple fact that law abiding citizens can buy semi auto weapons and intends to trample those people's rights instead of just minding their business. Don't make it an agenda and perhaps gun owners "wouldn't" think so much of it.

 

 

You are wrong about the last comment, the sheer numbers are overwhelming on the side of gun owning citizens, it's not even close.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

The comment about whether the military would side with a tyrannical government only if brainwashed is curious. You don't have to look to far back in World History to see the supporting tyrannical governments. Pakistan from the 1980' - 2000's comes to mind. Also Argentina of the 1970's. In both cases the military overthrew legitimately elect governments. Saddam Hussein stayed in power by the support of the military. The Communists in Russia stayed in power until they lost the support of the military.

 

Human nature is an interesting thing. People will do things to preserve their own best interest and their lives without brainwashing. Power and privilege are addicting.

 

I would hope that our military would never succumb to this.

 

I agree there are examples of government rule through their military, but our military is on a much different level than those, and to this point for the right reasons. Our military being an all volunteer military for a good country makes the difference in a big way in that.

Corrupt military's under dictators are often conscript soldiers and often act because the corrupt government threatens their families or countrymen if they don't comply.

What we do have to fear in this country is the militarized government agency that can be built within the country, an potential example might be the department of homeland security maybe. Or the "civilian defense force" the president has commented on quite a few times.

[bucfan64 307]

Liberals do not understand INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM unless it pertains to something that they desire.

 

Liberals in general to do not have the same philosophy toward govt. as our founding fathers and as John Locke.

 

Locke believed that we were born with GOD given rights, such as life, liberty and property. He believed in the freedom of the individual.

 

Modern Liberals do not believe in individual freedom, they prefer to think in regards to COLLECTIVE freedom. In other words if it isn't in the best interest of the COLLECTIVE then it is not o.k. This is the very thing that our Founding Fathers DID NOT BELIEVE! In fact in many of their writings they warned of such ideology.

 

Liberals also believe that they know what is best for each of us as it is their duty to fill the role of supreme authority. They essentially do not believe in God and the freedom of the individual. But rather that the state plays the role of God and we are the subjects. The better we all work together for the common good, even if it isn't what we desire as an individual, the better the state apparatus runs.

 

Now this does not mean that every liberal alive does not believe in God, rather it means that their philosophy comes from the position that their is no God and therefore the STATE or Govt. should fill the role and take care of the collective. There are many liberals who are Christian and of other faiths, they just have developed this philosophy and basically the whole progressive ideology was rooted in Darwinian Evolution.

 

Some famous folks that are proud PROGRESSIVES/LIBERALS are Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Lenin, Margaret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and several others. In fact George Bush has some Progressive Influences as well.

 

All of the above names have indicated their philosophies in various writings and statements, this is not an opinion of mine, but rather a stated fact.

 

How then can we expect these folks to view the world the same way that we do?

If I cannot find it in me to accept or follow after their philosophy, they probably can't accept mine either.

 

This is why we will never agree, but as long as the wheel keeps squeaking they will have to put the grease on it and likewise for those that are conservatives...........

Edited May 16, 2009 by bucfan64

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

accurate post.

[BigBlueAlum 12]

Liberals do not understand INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM unless it pertains to something that they desire.

 

...

 

Modern Liberals do not believe in individual freedom, they prefer to think in regards to COLLECTIVE freedom. In other words if it isn't in the best interest of the COLLECTIVE then it is not o.k. This is the very thing that our Founding Fathers DID NOT BELIEVE! In fact in many of their writings they warned of such ideology.

 

Liberals also believe that they know what is best for each of us as it is their duty to fill the role of supreme authority. They essentially do not believe in God and the freedom of the individual. But rather that the state plays the role of God and we are the subjects. The better we all work together for the common good, even if it isn't what we desire as an individual, the better the state apparatus runs.

 

 

I obviously do not know as much about political theory as you do, and I certainly do not pretend to. But can't the same be said with the Republicans view on gay marriage?

 

In that case the conservatives want to play the role as the supreme authority, and play the role of God?

 

I am honestly interested in how this issue is justified in a conservatives mind, and I am not being facetious by asking this. I really can't understand how this issue fits into the philosophy of personal freedom and the state not acting as God.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

I obviously do not know as much about political theory as you do, and I certainly do not pretend to. But can't the same be said with the Republicans view on gay marriage?

 

In that case the conservatives want to play the role as the supreme authority, and play the role of God?

 

I am honestly interested in how this issue is justified in a conservatives mind, and I am not being facetious by asking this. I really can't understand how this issue fits into the philosophy of personal freedom and the state not acting as God.

 

I'm not opposed to gays being couples myself, I don't agree it's moral, but there's isn't anything I can do about it, you can't force morals or ethics on someone else, so that's on them in terms of morality, but as for marriage, what is the definition of marriage? I've always believed it was the union between a man and a woman, as defined by God.

Is someone playing the role of God when they say don't murder, or is that a rule of life from God Himself. As an example only, as that's something I'm certain each side agrees with.

The fact of the matter is though many liberal agendas simply aren't moral or in line with the teachings of God, and this is supposed to be a Christian country, whether or not the present administration agrees.

 

That said I guess it's a fair ? to 1st agree what the definition of marriage is and where that definition is from, God or man?

[fieldgeneral 10]

But insisting that noone needs semi auto weapons over and over is somehow not suggesting that your right and I'm wrong? How is it I'm closed minded and you aren't.

I'm right because I'm going by the constitution, not because I'm me, you and your side are wrong because the constitution obviously doesn't agree with you, you're wrong because yall think the constitution and liberties are subject to being trampled on and changed whenever convenient.

 

Opinions aren't right or wrong. Of course you think I'm wrong because it doesn't fit your agenda. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I disagree and why. You have a hard time doing that.

 

I could say that I am right because I'm thinking of the best thing for our society. I never said anything should be trampled. I just think that the high powered weapons could be a little more regulated. To me it's no more than regulating anything else that is considered dangerous. Why are some of those things not in the Constitution? They were not around at that time or probably would be too. I think the constitution is the "law of the land, " but times change. We shouldn't look at changing it, but amending it and for safety purposes. If you feel that gang murders and mass murders are "convenient" go for it, it would be pretty sad.

[fieldgeneral 10]

The fact of the matter is though many liberal agendas simply aren't moral or in line with the teachings of God, and this is supposed to be a Christian country, whether or not the present administration agrees.

QUOTE]

 

I'm assuming you are referring to Obama saying this is no longer just a Christian nation.

 

I agree that our country was founded on christian values. However those people that made up the colonies were of many different belief systems within christianity. The New England colonists were trying to avoid religious persecution from the Church of England.

 

The Indians that were here prior to any christian person were of a different belief system. The slaves that were brought here were of a different belief system. There are numerous belief systems or religions these days inside of our country and we've welcomed them all as we referred to us as a melting pot for years. That being said, we have always been more than just a christian nation. To me, Obama was simply making that known that he recognizes that. It was a brave comment in my opinion because certain groups will jump all over it. But anyway, christian or not, we are a mixed pot. I for one think it's a great thing, that we can learn from one another and experience each culture.

[bluefieldRocks 14]

nobody NEEDS semi-auto/ or fully-auto wepons peroid....they want them. and that's what the difference is.

[fieldgeneral 10]

nobody NEEDS semi-auto/ or fully-auto wepons peroid....they want them. and that's what the difference is.

 

I understand they want them and I understand that it's about the right to have them regardless of what they are. I just feel that we need to put limits on the ease of obtaining the high powered , deadly ones. I don't know if there is any way to truly limit the purchase of them or who buys them. I know banning them is a harsh term around here, but could there be any way of controlling portions?

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

They are already highly controlled due to the availability and price.

 

For example, Rocks one of the guns you listed, the FN P90 runs around 2 grand... IF you can find one. They are about impossible to get, and those guns are not highly sought after compared to many automatic weapons. All of the online stores are out of stock, and gunbroker.com, the Ebay of gun sales, has NONE.

 

Like I said, they are controlled because of this. You have to seriously want one and put in a lot of time to find it, not to mention pay a lot more than 2 grand as its listed because of the availibility is zero.

[bucfan64 307]

I obviously do not know as much about political theory as you do, and I certainly do not pretend to. But can't the same be said with the Republicans view on gay marriage?

 

In that case the conservatives want to play the role as the supreme authority, and play the role of God?

 

I am honestly interested in how this issue is justified in a conservatives mind, and I am not being facetious by asking this. I really can't understand how this issue fits into the philosophy of personal freedom and the state not acting as God.

 

First, I want to clarify that I am not a REPUBLICAN, used to be but not any longer. Second, most Repubs see it just the way that you posed it, they want govt. control over the decision and therefore are doing the same thing that Liberals are doing, asking the fed. govt. to fix the problem or intervene.

 

I believe that the decision regarding Gay Marriage should be left up to the state govt. Not the Fed. Govt. My opinions on homosexuality are determined by what the bible teaches me in regards to the subject. I guess you can figure out were I stand regarding that comment.

 

I believe where this does differ from liberal positions is that marriage has been clearly defined for years and an attempt to CHANGE the definition is what so many are fighting against. They are viewing this as an attempt to re-create something that has long been established and that is not easily done.

[bucfan64 307]

I could say that I am right because I'm thinking of the best thing for our society

 

NO offense, Field General but this type of statement exactly defines what progressives believe. They have a this understanding that individual freedom is not what is most important but COLLECTIVE freedom or in this case "whats best for society."

 

America wasn't founded on "whats best for society," it was founded on Individual Liberty and Freedom.

 

Sir Oliver Wendell Holmes once said "The right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins." I can swing my fist all day long, but, when I hit you in the face, I am violating your rights.

 

Therefore, If I choose to own a gun, as long as I don't violate your rights aka (shoot you, rob you, mug you, etc.) then I have the right to own that gun.

 

I see where you are coming from when you say that people just don't need that kind of weapon, but according to our original principals we are entitled to that right.

 

I personally do not want an AK47 but I do believe that if I wanted one it should be available. However, I do respect regulation, just not too much of it.

 

I suppose that common sense must play a role in this mess somewhere.........

[BigBlueAlum 12]

First, I want to clarify that I am not a REPUBLICAN, used to be but not any longer. Second, most Repubs see it just the way that you posed it, they want govt. control over the decision and therefore are doing the same thing that Liberals are doing, asking the fed. govt. to fix the problem or intervene.

 

I believe that the decision regarding Gay Marriage should be left up to the state govt. Not the Fed. Govt. My opinions on homosexuality are determined by what the bible teaches me in regards to the subject. I guess you can figure out were I stand regarding that comment.

 

I believe where this does differ from liberal positions is that marriage has been clearly defined for years and an attempt to CHANGE the definition is what so many are fighting against. They are viewing this as an attempt to re-create something that has long been established and that is not easily done.

 

 

I knew you were not a Republican, that's why I used conservative. Would you call your self a conservative?

 

I really respect your stance on this issue. I have no problem with people having issue with gay marriage for religious/moral reasons, however I do have a problem when those people think that everyone should be forced to have their same view. If someone thinks it is wrong for a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry a woman...then they shouldn't do it.

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

I knew you were not a Republican, that's why I used conservative. Would you call your self a conservative?

 

Bucfan is a libertarian. I can tell that from his writing since I have become one lately as well.

 

We both believe in a very small goverment and the fundamental belief that you reap what you sew. You are responsible for what you do and the consequences. The only role of Goverment is to protect the people from either other countries or lawbreakers inside the country.

 

Correct me if im wrong BucFan, but I dont think I am.

[fieldgeneral 10]

NO offense, Field General but this type of statement exactly defines what progressives believe. They have a this understanding that individual freedom is not what is most important but COLLECTIVE freedom or in this case "whats best for society."

 

America wasn't founded on "whats best for society," it was founded on Individual Liberty and Freedom.

 

Sir Oliver Wendell Holmes once said "The right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins." I can swing my fist all day long, but, when I hit you in the face, I am violating your rights.

 

Therefore, If I choose to own a gun, as long as I don't violate your rights aka (shoot you, rob you, mug you, etc.) then I have the right to own that gun.

 

I see where you are coming from when you say that people just don't need that kind of weapon, but according to our original principals we are entitled to that right.

 

I personally do not want an AK47 but I do believe that if I wanted one it should be available. However, I do respect regulation, just not too much of it.

 

I suppose that common sense must play a role in this mess somewhere.........

 

 

I was using that in response to another poster's comments. I was just saying I could also say I was "right" for that reason. Truthfully, one is no more right than the other since they are both opinions.

 

I don't know if I just trust and believe in my country to the right things in life to not worry about a tyranical government or what. I just feel that we are way past the foolishness of fighting one another. I'm not saying the civil war was foolishness as both sides had very good points to their cause with the exception of slavery. I just think we came to far to resort back to that sort of thing. I understand the idea of having the freedom to bare arms, I just don't know , short of banning certain types or monitoring the use of some, what we can do to avoid the crimes committed with them.

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

I understand the idea of having the freedom to bare arms, I just don't know , short of banning certain types or monitoring the use of some, what we can do to avoid the crimes committed with them.

 

We would be better off monitoring other things honestly.

 

Like I said earlier, a congressional study showed 1-2% of violent crimes are committed with automatic weapons. In addition, there is another study that shows that the amount of mass murders (over 5 deaths) are more times committed with semi automatic or other types of weapons than AW. So really what would we be doing? Wasting your and my money.

[bucfan64 307]

Bucfan is a libertarian. I can tell that from his writing since I have become one lately as well.

 

We both believe in a very small goverment and the fundamental belief that you reap what you sew. You are responsible for what you do and the consequences. The only role of Goverment is to protect the people from either other countries or lawbreakers inside the country.

 

Correct me if im wrong BucFan, but I dont think I am.

 

BINGO! JACKPOT!

 

I do not however support some Libertarian views, like the ones regarding Marijuana and abortion however.

 

I guess I would be called a Libertarian with issues!

[fieldgeneral 10]

We would be better off monitoring other things honestly.

 

Like I said earlier, a congressional study showed 1-2% of violent crimes are committed with automatic weapons. In addition, there is another study that shows that the amount of mass murders (over 5 deaths) are more times committed with semi automatic or other types of weapons than AW. So really what would we be doing? Wasting your and my money.

 

Money seems to be wasted a lot for years. I'm sure that abstinence programs only prevent a small portion of pregnancies too, but I recall some folks here complaining when Obama wanted to cut funding.