Gun Control

[Symmetry]

I think history to you is just a bunch of hateful images of a slave with scars on his back, and an angry white racist man, and people protesting interracial marriage, and woman suffering.

You have EVERYTHING backwards. I would love to teach you some history from the correct perspective sometime, rather than your race obsessed, hate dominated, liberal college professor hate America version.

I would love for you to learn about how America ended these things, rather than is responsible for them.

These things are the way the world ALWAYS was. America changed that for the better, not the worse, in that all men are created equal. I already know you expect the express overnight version of equality where you just flip a switch and all the slaves are freed and women can vote and interracial marriage is tolerated, but things take time. Cultures take time to evolve. Women did not vote for a long time because they were not ready to get involved yet. The way of the old world demanded the woman stay home and take care of 9 kids, because they expected 2 of the kids to die before the age of 3. It's not like they had microwaves or automobiles. It's not like they could drive a sick family member to the doctor, they had to stay home the entire time a child was sick. I imagine a single mother might have to dedicate many hours a day just preparing food and getting water, cleaning out the horse stable and fixing a wheel on the wagon There probably was not a lot of time for reading, if they even could read.

You have to have some context. You cannot take today's values and morals and judge the old world by them. That is ass backwards.

Yet in another thread you state ' The British have blood on their hands ' refering to supposed genocide in Ireland 150 years ago. Hypocrisy is not a very admirable trait you know , it sort of weakens your argument and makes you look stupid.

This post is for Juan. Not for you, and certainly not in relation to UK/Ireland 150 years ago.

That has nothing to do with anything. You got busted saying I just made up % when I didn't, and now here you are lying again about the criminals being shot in the back

He didn't get busted- you ended up saying that it must have been something a friend told you at some point.

[Phatscotty]

I think history to you is just a bunch of hateful images of a slave with scars on his back, and an angry white racist man, and people protesting interracial marriage, and woman suffering.

You have EVERYTHING backwards. I would love to teach you some history from the correct perspective sometime, rather than your race obsessed, hate dominated, liberal college professor hate America version.

I would love for you to learn about how America ended these things, rather than is responsible for them.

These things are the way the world ALWAYS was. America changed that for the better, not the worse, in that all men are created equal. I already know you expect the express overnight version of equality where you just flip a switch and all the slaves are freed and women can vote and interracial marriage is tolerated, but things take time. Cultures take time to evolve. Women did not vote for a long time because they were not ready to get involved yet. The way of the old world demanded the woman stay home and take care of 9 kids, because they expected 2 of the kids to die before the age of 3. It's not like they had microwaves or automobiles. It's not like they could drive a sick family member to the doctor, they had to stay home the entire time a child was sick. I imagine a single mother might have to dedicate many hours a day just preparing food and getting water, cleaning out the horse stable and fixing a wheel on the wagon There probably was not a lot of time for reading, if they even could read.

You have to have some context. You cannot take today's values and morals and judge the old world by them. That is ass backwards.

Yet in another thread you state ' The British have blood on their hands ' refering to supposed genocide in Ireland 150 years ago. Hypocrisy is not a very admirable trait you know , it sort of weakens your argument and makes you look stupid.

This post is for Juan. Not for you, and certainly not in relation to UK/Ireland 150 years ago.

That has nothing to do with anything. You got busted saying I just made up % when I didn't, and now here you are lying again about the criminals being shot in the back

He didn't get busted- you ended up saying that it must have been something a friend told you at some point.

that isn't what I said at all, now you are lying too! I said a friend of mine, AND a couple people from here...BOTH mods. But I'm not dragging them into this stupidity over something that you can verify yourself by asking people on your own, or right now if you doubt.

Come to live chat and let's randomly ask strangers.

[Symmetry]

Whatever mate, your increasingly histrionic shenanigans and bizarre demands sort of make the case for why background checks are a good idea.

[Phatscotty]

entertaining argument: assault pressure cookers

[Juan_Bottom]

I think history to you is just a bunch of hateful images of a slave with scars on his back, and an angry white racist man, and people protesting interracial marriage, and woman suffering.

You have EVERYTHING backwards. I would love to teach you some history from the correct perspective sometime, rather than your race obsessed, hate dominated, liberal college professor hate America version.

I would love for you to learn about how America ended these things, rather than is responsible for them.

These things are the way the world ALWAYS was. America changed that for the better, not the worse, in that all men are created equal. I already know you expect the express overnight version of equality where you just flip a switch and all the slaves are freed and women can vote and interracial marriage is tolerated, but things take time. Cultures take time to evolve. Women did not vote for a long time because they were not ready to get involved yet. The way of the old world demanded the woman stay home and take care of 9 kids, because they expected 2 of the kids to die before the age of 3. It's not like they had microwaves or automobiles. It's not like they could drive a sick family member to the doctor, they had to stay home the entire time a child was sick. I imagine a single mother might have to dedicate many hours a day just preparing food and getting water, cleaning out the horse stable and fixing a wheel on the wagon There probably was not a lot of time for reading, if they even could read.

You have to have some context. You cannot take today's values and morals and judge the old world by them. That is ass backwards.

America hasn't ended... what exactly? Just this past election we saw a Republican-Election plan that included re-introducing slavery to American Territory in the form of importing Chinese Workers for a Chinese minimum wage. And slavery is still prevalent in the world. America only ended slavery on our mainland well after it was en vogue in the world. All the other Western Nations had already ascended past slavery. In fact, the fact that the Confederacy owned Slaves was a key propaganda tool used to keep Europe on our side. America was not leading the way to end slavery; we were following everybody else.
And let's not forget one little crystalline truth; Slavery was introduced to America through American Courts, not by Europe. We put slavery where it didn't exist before, without anyone else's help.

America is and always has been self-interested. That's what made it such a huge deal that we sent like 50 "advisers" to help track down Koney 2012. It was the first time we ever did anything like that just to be good. Even when we did do good things in our history, like defeat the Axis in the 40s, it was only after we were forced to participate and was tainted by our extreme racism. That's the problem with your rose-colored bullshit view of history. You can't forget the multitudes of bad stuff just because of one nice result. History is repeating itself, it always repeats itself, because people who should know better are just as selfish and conceited as their great-grand parents.
And I want you to take a look around the world; take a look at how stupid we look. We're not world leaders on the cutting edge of history. We're repressed idiots.
Europe ended Slavery first. We followed suit (after a goddamn Civil War) after it was En Vogue.
Europe ended the "right to bear arms" before we did. We're following suit (after a goddamn Civil War) after it's En Vogue.
Europe Ascended to Socialism. We're descending into Feudal Libertarianism.

As for your whole post, it's intellectually dishonest and stupid. If you see things that are wrong, as you allude, and do nothing to stop them because "people aren't ready to change" then your apathy is a form of consent. You are the problem.
And never forget that the heroes of history are the noble ones who never compromised just because society wasn't ready to ascend. The one delightfully American attitude that we're supposed to share is that we don't touch other people's civil rights. We don't just pass Civil Rights out according to what the people around us are comfortable with.
Well, I don't do that, but so many of you do. I will keep America's promise.
NO FREEDOM UNTIL WE ARE EQUAL.

[Night Strike]

Europe Ascended to Socialism.

Socialism is not an ascension to anything other than governmental indebtedness.

NO FREEDOM UNTIL WE ARE EQUAL.

You don't get equality by distributing wealth according to the government's wishes.

I will keep America's promise.

You don't want any of America's promises: you want Europe's promise of poverty through socialism. America provides freedom, not servanthood to the government.

[thegreekdog]

This one. Wow... there sure were a lot of "Phatscotty is a troll" and "Woodruff is stalking me" posts.

I'm sure PS can find a chart showing a correlation between gun crimes and voting patterns that is better than this.

Here's what I've found. I can do better if you really want.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politi ... orld/4412/

New Orelans - 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people
Detroit - 35.9 (Democratic mayors from about 1962 to 2013)
Newark - 25.4
Miami - 23.7
Washington, D.C. 19
Atlanta - 17.2 (Democratic mayors from 1885 (yes 1885) to 2013
Cleveland - 17.4 (Democratic mayors from 1989 to 2013)
Buffalo - 16.5 (Democratic mayors from 1966 to 2013)
Houston - 12.9 (Democratic mayors from 1921 to 2013)
Chicago - 11.6 (Democratic mayors from 1931 to 2013)
Phoenix - 10.6
Los Angeles - 9.2 (Democratic mayors from 2001 to 2013)
Boston - 6.2 (Democractic mayors from 1910 to 2013)

I tend to think there is a causation link, but there is at least a correlation between high rates of gun violence and Democratic constituents, voters, and politicians. At least that's my take.

Which do you suggest would cause the other?

BMO

Poverty and a lack of quality education cause high rates of crime which cause high rates of gun violence.

Oh, sorry, also - Democratic policies cause poverty and cause the lack of high quality education. Additionally, Democratic-appointed and Democratic-elected judges tend to be pro-American Bar Association and thus pro criminal defendant.

Hope that helps. Would love to hear whether you think there is a correlation between the LEGAL availability of guns in those jurisdictions and gun violence and what proof you can provide (especially since two of those jurisdictions have pretty stiff gun control laws).

The two parties switched in the 1960s.
"Southern Strategy."
As Lyndon B. Johnson said when he signed the voting rights act "We've lost the South for a generation."
It's important to remember this.

Why is it important to remember that?

[Phatscotty]

All I said was that rights are not given to people like wrapped presents under a Christmas tree. Most of the time, people had to give their lives in a fight to earn rights or Freedom, and there are many more who gave their lives in battles that were lost.

Just the way you are looking at it is all wrong. How can you even compare Europe, which had slavery for thousands of years, to America, which had slavery for less than 100 years? That really isn't giving Europe as much credit as you think it is. And another way you are all wrong about looking at it, you think Europe is something America should strive to be like, when it's much more true America has always been what Europe wasn't, and that's a big difference.

Europe also failed first...

[thegreekdog]

If back ground checks prevent one nut job from getting a gun and killing someone that it is worth doing.

(1) There are already background checks.
(2) The nut job who set all of this gun control debate off would not have been stopped with more, additional, better, more expensive background checks. The guy stole the guns.

[Phatscotty]

This one. Wow... there sure were a lot of "Phatscotty is a troll" and "Woodruff is stalking me" posts.

I'm sure PS can find a chart showing a correlation between gun crimes and voting patterns that is better than this.

Here's what I've found. I can do better if you really want.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politi ... orld/4412/

New Orelans - 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people
Detroit - 35.9 (Democratic mayors from about 1962 to 2013)
Newark - 25.4
Miami - 23.7
Washington, D.C. 19
Atlanta - 17.2 (Democratic mayors from 1885 (yes 1885) to 2013
Cleveland - 17.4 (Democratic mayors from 1989 to 2013)
Buffalo - 16.5 (Democratic mayors from 1966 to 2013)
Houston - 12.9 (Democratic mayors from 1921 to 2013)
Chicago - 11.6 (Democratic mayors from 1931 to 2013)
Phoenix - 10.6
Los Angeles - 9.2 (Democratic mayors from 2001 to 2013)
Boston - 6.2 (Democractic mayors from 1910 to 2013)

I tend to think there is a causation link, but there is at least a correlation between high rates of gun violence and Democratic constituents, voters, and politicians. At least that's my take.

Which do you suggest would cause the other?

BMO

Poverty and a lack of quality education cause high rates of crime which cause high rates of gun violence.

Oh, sorry, also - Democratic policies cause poverty and cause the lack of high quality education. Additionally, Democratic-appointed and Democratic-elected judges tend to be pro-American Bar Association and thus pro criminal defendant.

Hope that helps. Would love to hear whether you think there is a correlation between the LEGAL availability of guns in those jurisdictions and gun violence and what proof you can provide (especially since two of those jurisdictions have pretty stiff gun control laws).

The two parties switched in the 1960s.
"Southern Strategy."
As Lyndon B. Johnson said when he signed the voting rights act "We've lost the South for a generation."
It's important to remember this.

Why is it important to remember that?

because it excuses away the Democrat Dynasty of the Slave owner and the KKK

[thegreekdog]

Sorry, let me rephrase. Why is it important to remember that in the context of a gun control debate where members of the Democratic Party have been in control of the mayors' office in the highest gun violence cities in the United States? There is at least a correlation between Democrats and high gun violence in inner cities. Perhaps we should focus on that first.

Also, what in the f*ck is feudal libertarianism? Sounds like an oxymoron from someone who doesn't actually know anything about libertarianism.

[Woodruff]

Where in the Constitution did the states give the federal government the ability to infringe upon the right to bear arms?

Were you ever going to deal with the point that you support the infringment of the Second Amendment, or did you want to just ignore all that because it's not convenient to your argument?

The government doesn't have the authority to remove rights from all people. The only time rights can be denied to individual people is after they have chosen of their own free will to take away the rights of another person. You need to learn the difference.

So what you're telling me is that the government DOES have the right to infringe on the 2nd Amendment, then? Do I have that right?

[Woodruff]

I think history to you is just a bunch of hateful images of a slave with scars on his back, and an angry white racist man, and people protesting interracial marriage, and woman suffering.

You have EVERYTHING backwards. I would love to teach you some history from the correct perspective sometime, rather than your race obsessed, hate dominated, liberal college professor hate America version.

I would love for you to learn about how America ended these things, rather than is responsible for them.

These things are the way the world ALWAYS was. America changed that for the better, not the worse, in that all men are created equal. I already know you expect the express overnight version of equality where you just flip a switch and all the slaves are freed and women can vote and interracial marriage is tolerated, but things take time. Cultures take time to evolve. Women did not vote for a long time because they were not ready to get involved yet. The way of the old world demanded the woman stay home and take care of 9 kids, because they expected 2 of the kids to die before the age of 3. It's not like they had microwaves or automobiles. It's not like they could drive a sick family member to the doctor, they had to stay home the entire time a child was sick. I imagine a single mother might have to dedicate many hours a day just preparing food and getting water, cleaning out the horse stable and fixing a wheel on the wagon There probably was not a lot of time for reading, if they even could read.

You have to have some context. You cannot take today's values and morals and judge the old world by them. That is ass backwards.

Yet in another thread you state ' The British have blood on their hands ' refering to supposed genocide in Ireland 150 years ago. Hypocrisy is not a very admirable trait you know , it sort of weakens your argument and makes you look stupid.

This post is for Juan. Not for you

Do you really have this much difficulty understanding the concept of a public forum? Because seriously, it gives the impression that you're mentally retarded.

[Woodruff]

As for your whole post, it's intellectually dishonest and stupid. If you see things that are wrong, as you allude, and do nothing to stop them because "people aren't ready to change" then your apathy is a form of consent. You are the problem.

This seems to be a consistency with Phatscotty. He did the same thing with the elections, when he wouldn't vote for his supposed preferred Libertarian candidate "because that's a vote for Obama". Actually, I suspect it's just an excuse he likes to use because he thinks it makes him appear more reasonable than he really is. I guess he doesn't realize how easy it is to see through the act.

[Woodruff]

Europe Ascended to Socialism.

Socialism is not an ascension to anything other than governmental indebtedness.

That's really not necessarily true, you realize. I mean, I know you like to believe it, but it doesn't take a lot of critical thinking to recognize that your statement isn't true. Socialism isn't some evil that has to be abolished from the world like McCarthy is on your tail.

NO FREEDOM UNTIL WE ARE EQUAL.

You don't get equality by distributing wealth according to the government's wishes.

Unfortunately, human nature is such that most people won't have much to do with it unless it is enforced.

But aside from that, do you believe that equality is reached through...capitalism? I mean, I'm not sure what your alternative is here.

I will keep America's promise.

You don't want any of America's promises: you want Europe's promise of poverty through socialism. America provides freedom, not servanthood to the government.

Do you have ANY understanding of what is CURRENTLY (RIGHT NOW) happening in the United States of America as far as freedom goes, and it is largely NOT because of any socialism boogieman, but rather thanks to crony capitalism.

[Woodruff]

All I said was that rights are not given to people like wrapped presents under a Christmas tree. Most of the time, people had to give their lives in a fight to earn rights or Freedom, and there are many more who gave their lives in battles that were lost.

And yet, you're perfectly happy to take away people's right to equality. People you like do, in your mind, have rights given to them like wrapped presents under a Christmas tree. Just don't belong to a group you don't like.

Just the way you are looking at it is all wrong. How can you even compare Europe, which had slavery for thousands of years, to America, which had slavery for less than 100 years? That really isn't giving Europe as much credit as you think it is. And another way you are all wrong about looking at it, you think Europe is something America should strive to be like, when it's much more true America has always been what Europe wasn't, and that's a big difference.
Europe also failed first...

I know you like to rewrite history and all, but nothing Juan said about slavery as regards Europe and America was inaccurate. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it true. America had nothing to do with leading the fight against slavery in the world. Nothing.

[Woodruff]

Sorry, let me rephrase. Why is it important to remember that in the context of a gun control debate where members of the Democratic Party have been in control of the mayors' office in the highest gun violence cities in the United States? There is at least a correlation between Democrats and high gun violence in inner cities. Perhaps we should focus on that first.

Did you see my response to that claim?

[Juan_Bottom]

(1)All I said was that rights are not given to people like wrapped presents under a Christmas tree. Most of the time, people had to give their lives in a fight to earn rights or Freedom, and there are many more who gave their lives in battles that were lost.

(2)Just the way you are looking at it is all wrong. How can you even compare Europe, which had slavery for thousands of years, to America, which had slavery for less than 100 years? That really isn't giving Europe as much credit as you think it is. And another way you are all wrong about looking at it, you think Europe is something America should strive to be like, when it's much more true America has always been what Europe wasn't, and that's a big difference.

Europe also failed first...

(1)If we really are a good society, then nobody has to die for us to do the right thing. Seven kids a day die because of the unrestricted Right to Bear Arms.
Rights are wrapped presents under the tree, left there by our forebears. But that's only if we keep the promises of the Constitution. You quoted "all men are created equal..." if that's true, then why did so many African Americans have to die to draw our attention to it? And why are you defending that period of American History? The promise of the New Colossus is that all anyone has to do to earn these rights is to come to America, and accept them. People don't have to die. It's our Apathy that killed them.

(2)It's easy to compare them. It's a global community, it just took longer for news to travel than it does today. If Parisian fashion influenced what clothes American's wore, then it stands to reason that it was a global community. Our society didn't just become a whole new thing with no ancestry just because we separated our government from England's. We shared the same literature and knowledge that Europe had. Our own government was modeled after European ones, was it not? With this same shared knowledge and experience, the Europeans ascended and abolished slavery, all the while we expanded slavery and ruled that no black person born in the United States could be declared a citizen.

If we had ended slavery when our nation was founded, then you would have strong point. But we didn't, because it made life easier for the rich people. The same holds tue for Gun Restrictions, and that's just part of the reason our nation looks like a bunch of backwards idiots. We laughed at them for kneeling to kings, and they're laughing at us for being oil-dependent, religious gun-nuts.

Also, what in the f*ck is feudal libertarianism? Sounds like an oxymoron from someone who doesn't actually know anything about libertarianism.

In American History Libertarianism always descended into feudalism. Take the period of American Western History following the Civil War for example. Today looks pretty similar. Crony Capitalism is the ugly stepchild of libertarianism. Democratic-Social-Libertarianism might look different if that's a thing, but I did just make that up. Anyway, the bigger the territory, the more destructive Libertarianism was.

[Juan_Bottom]

Europe Ascended to Socialism.

Socialism is not an ascension to anything other than governmental indebtedness.

NO FREEDOM UNTIL WE ARE EQUAL.

You don't get equality by distributing wealth according to the government's wishes.

I will keep America's promise.

You don't want any of America's promises: you want Europe's promise of poverty through socialism. America provides freedom, not servanthood to the government.

Ugh.
First off, you don't know what Socialism is. But you are an expert in other areas. If I need to know more about how God can fit all the animals into a boat, I'll come straight away to you.
Second of all, 50% of Americans are either classified as POOR or LOW INCOME. Please tell us more about this freedom, and if you could tie the blame to Obama, that would really please me...
And it was China you were thinking of there at the end.

Why is it important to remember that?

You said that you were looking for a correlation between voting patterns and gun violence. So you have to account for Southern Strategy, is all.

[Nobunaga]

... Seven kids a day die because of the unrestricted Right to Bear Arms.

Misplaced cause and effect. This is like saying the great works of Renoir are the result of the availability of paint in 1912, a pen and ink were the only required prerequisites to the creation of King Lear, etc..

[thegreekdog]

Sorry, let me rephrase. Why is it important to remember that in the context of a gun control debate where members of the Democratic Party have been in control of the mayors' office in the highest gun violence cities in the United States? There is at least a correlation between Democrats and high gun violence in inner cities. Perhaps we should focus on that first.

Did you see my response to that claim?

No. Can you sum up?

[thegreekdog]

... Seven kids a day die because of the unrestricted Right to Bear Arms.

Misplaced cause and effect. This is like saying the great works of Renoir are the result of the availability of paint in 1912, a pen and ink were the only required prerequisites to the creation of King Lear, etc..

It's also not true. In Philadelphia, for example, 80% of people die from guns because of the illegal purchase of guns.

[The Voice]

Tighter gun restrictions probably won't be effective unless they are universal. For example, Illinois has arguably the toughest gun laws, but Chicago has seen a flood of gun violence. You can't just have tough restrictions in one state when people can easily access guns in others. It's not like they have to pass through border/customs inspections to return to Illinois from [Southern state].

I'm not sure I agree with the argument that criminals wreak havoc (whatever that may be) because they know the law-abiding citizens don't have guns. I think they wreak havoc because they're criminals. Yes?

[The Voice]

... Seven kids a day die because of the unrestricted Right to Bear Arms.

Misplaced cause and effect. This is like saying the great works of Renoir are the result of the availability of paint in 1912, a pen and ink were the only required prerequisites to the creation of King Lear, etc..

It's also not true. In Philadelphia, for example, 80% of people die from guns because of the illegal purchase of guns.

Huh? Could you elaborate. What does that mean? What's the other 20%? Surely, not 20% of people in Philly who die from guns because of the legal purchase of guns?

[thegreekdog]

... Seven kids a day die because of the unrestricted Right to Bear Arms.

Misplaced cause and effect. This is like saying the great works of Renoir are the result of the availability of paint in 1912, a pen and ink were the only required prerequisites to the creation of King Lear, etc..

It's also not true. In Philadelphia, for example, 80% of people die from guns because of the illegal purchase of guns.

Huh? Could you elaborate. What does that mean? What's the other 20%? Surely, not 20% of people in Philly who die from guns because of the legal purchase of guns?

It's in another thread on gun violence where I provided a link to an article showing some statistics, but I can't access that site at work (it's blocked).

In any event...

- All gun crimes are illegal, by their very nature as crimes.
- The majority of gun violence in Philadelphia is committed by a person who obtained the gun illegally, usually through a straw person (e.g. Bill's girlfriend, who doesn't have a criminal record, purchases a gun, gives it to Bill, and reports it's stolen).
- Erego, background checks on Bill will not have the desired effect of not allowing him to use a gun since he can get a gun illegally.