DC is Now the One Lone Area of the Country ....

[NCRAVEN]

Bull.

Yes, both have their nut jobs but just because they happen to be on the extreme sides of left or right does not mean they're representative of either group.

So Eco-Terrorists are representing the left in this country?

Fringe folks represent the fringe and nothing more.

Some people just don't understand the concept of individualism.

Just because some people share some views, doesn't mean they share every view. No one walks, talks, thinks, acts or looks exactly like me, we are all different.

I'd like to know what "the right" or "the left" is anyway. Where are these meetings and what do they talk about there?

[HoustonRaven]

Galen and Trap mastered that concept.

The two of them would go in circles because some yahoo would do something and it would be characterized that the entire left / right was somehow culpable.

It's a horrible fallacy but one that's used quite often, particularly in the opinion based media outlets (FNC, MSNBC et all).

"If an individual in group A believes something, than all of A must believe the same".

[Sirdowski]

It's impossible to rationalize an extreme world view without being able to put everyone and everything into a box.

[JAB1985]

so on the gun control issue, you wouldnt define yourselves as conservative?

[HoustonRaven]

so on the gun control issue, you wouldnt define yourselves as conservative?

No. More guns, less control, etc is a very liberal position (small "L").

But the position itself, if you're looking for a tidy box to put it in, is more Libertarian than anything.

[JAB1985]

No. More guns, less control, etc is a very liberal position (small "L").

But the position itself, if you're looking for a tidy box to put it in, is more Libertarian than anything.

so gun control is the old view and more guns, less regulation is the new "liberal" view. I dont think so, im not sure how you can say that gun control is a traditional value.

regulating vs not is a conservative vs liberal with the "new view" being to regulate more. Thats not a tidy little box, thats the basis of the argument.

[HoustonRaven]

so gun control is the old view and more guns, less regulation is the new "liberal" view. I dont think so, im not sure how you can say that gun control is a traditional value.

regulating vs not is a conservative vs liberal with the "new view" being to regulate more. Thats not a tidy little box, thats the basis of the argument.

You're completely not getting it and you're not understanding the terms that are being defined here.

Maybe that's on me. Given the discussion up till now, I assumed you've taken a Poli Sci class or two. Not a slam on you, JAB, but you're not grasping the terms or are misapplying them.

First, you claimed that the conspiracy theory offered by Wicked was "representative" of the right. The term "representative" means a generality amongst the group, in your case "the right". This is fallacious on many levels, the most obvious being the fallacy I listed: "If member of group A believes something, all of group A believe it".

Second, you're not understanding the nuance of the terms I am using. When I say less regulation, more guns, etc is liberal, I qualified it as small "L" thinking. Meaning, I am using the dictionary definition of liberal, not the political classification of Liberal (although, since you like to be overly technical, less gun control falls under Classical Liberalism in terms of political theory). Texas, for example is liberal with it's gun laws. Maryland, by contrast, is more conservative in their approach. Again, not the political classifications but the dictionary definitions.

Dictionary definitions rarely line up with their political, theoretical counterparts.

[HoustonRaven]

Not a fan of wiki, but this page does a good job at explaining Classical Liberalism. Simply put, today's Conservative / Libertarian is practicing Classical Liberalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

[JAB1985]

First, you claimed that the conspiracy theory offered by Wicked was "representative" of the right. The term "representative" means a generality amongst the group, in your case "the right". This is fallacious on many levels, the most obvious being the fallacy I listed: "If member of group A believes something, all of group A believe it".

if youre going to say the Right is not generally known for their "liberal" views on gun laws, than were going to just disagree. Saying the right media/politicians/NRA has portrayed Obama as anti-guns, is nothing more than factual. Look at any of the last elections. generalizing the group may not be 100% accurate to all of its constituents, but thats the case whenever stating Conservative or Liberal, Right or Left. Its a blanket generalization of the norm. This guys action of forming a conspiracy is not the representation i was speaking of, but his view on gun laws and in combination that Obama is anti-gun, certainly is from the majority of Conservatives I have followed. Being Anit-guns tends to be a Liberal generalization. liberal gun laws and painting Obama as anti-guns are both things that Ive debated against on this very site. Saying those two things dont represent your beliefs because this guy is nuts about how far hes taking it, doesnt mean the basic opinions dont match, which is why i still distinguished him as an "extremist" and not just a normal representative. The views are the same but the action is different. Thats not saying im calling anybody that believes the basic argument a nut job, but anyone that takes that action. You dont agree that at the end of the day hes just a guy trying to protect his 2nd amendment right, although in a different way? that action is outside the norm, but as far as his political views its hard to say it doesnt fit the company line, so to speak. In other words hes representing, but hes not a good representative.

Second, you're not understanding the nuance of the terms I am using. When I say less regulation, more guns, etc is liberal, I qualified it as small "L" thinking. Meaning, I am using the dictionary definition of liberal, not the political classification of Liberal (although, since you like to be overly technical, less gun control falls under Classical Liberalism in terms of political theory). Texas, for example is liberal with it's gun laws. Maryland, by contrast, is more conservative in their approach. Again, not the political classifications but the dictionary definitions.

This is fine, and i understood what your were saying but its just contrary to the point I was trying to make. Conservative vs conservative and Liberal vs liberal. I may not have capitalized properly from time to time, which would get confusing. my apologies.

[darb72]

Jonboy said that teachers should have the option to have a firearm in school.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...-guns/1781663/

I'm okay with that too. Having armed policemen at the school would also be a huge help.

As for the idea of flagging multiple ammo purchases, that is an idea I'm all for. I'm not an avid hunter by any stretch of the imagination but you don't need to buy 3,000 rounds of ammo to go hunting. Ordering that much ammo should've raised a few eyebrows, yet the gunman had bullets delivered to his doorstep without so much as a visit from the police.

[NCRAVEN]

if youre going to say the Right is not generally known for their "liberal" views on gun laws, than were going to just disagree. Saying the right media/politicians/NRA has portrayed Obama as anti-guns, is nothing more than factual.

I'm not going to get caught up in the minutia of the argument of putting people in boxes and reducing peoples views in to "sides".

But if you don't think Obama is anti-gun (or at the very least, restricting what guns we own), I have to ask, have you paid attention to the news lately?

[JAB1985]

I'm not going to get caught up in the minutia of the argument of putting people in boxes and reducing peoples views in to "sides".

But if you don't think Obama is anti-gun (or at the very least, restricting what guns we own), I have to ask, have you paid attention to the news lately?

In his own words...

Calling it a complex problem that demands many approaches, Obama also said a strategy must address school safety, mental illness, and "a culture that too often often glorifies guns and violence."

Once a plan is developed, Obama said, "I will do everything in my power as president to advance these efforts."

Obama also told petitioners he believes in the Second Amendment's individual right to own firearms, and "the fact is most gun owners in America are responsible." The president said he believes that, in the wake of the Newtown shooting, many of those owners are willing to support "common sense" legislation that keeps guns away from people who should not have them.

sounds like the focus in his mind is on the person not the weapon. Not saying everyone in his cabinet has the same views but im not seeing where hes said anything publicly about wanting to ban guns. If he has, id say its only because of this incident, which has changed some NRA members opinions, which clearly wouldnt have before the incident.

[HoustonRaven]

Not sure what news outlets you're watching JAB.

He's calling for a ban on so called assault weapons and a ban on high capacity magazines.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...196_story.html

[wickedsolo]

If Obama wants to change a culture glorifying violence and guns...maybe he should go after Hollywood.

[NCRAVEN]

In his own words...



sounds like the focus in his mind is on the person not the weapon. Not saying everyone in his cabinet has the same views but im not seeing where hes said anything publicly about wanting to ban guns. If he has, id say its only because of this incident, which has changed some NRA members opinions, which clearly wouldnt have before the incident.

Oh sweet innocent naive JAB. He has a long history of being anti-gun.


Obama Calls for Permanent Assault Weapons Ban to Combat Inner-City Violence

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:

Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices

Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005

Just Google Obama anti-gun histroy, you'll find a lot. Just make sure you double check it as "the right" has probably put a few misleading things out there.

[NCRAVEN]

If Obama wants to change a culture glorifying violence and guns...maybe he should go after Hollywood.

Been saying that for years. Never happen thought since "the left" gets so much money from them.

[JAB1985]

Not sure what news outlets you're watching JAB.

He's calling for a ban on so called assault weapons and a ban on high capacity magazines.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...196_story.html

Ive read that and watched the video and nowhere does he say, "we need to ban guns". the only thing i see as far as an actual ban on assault rifles is stated by "white house officials, as almost certain". I think the title of the article is misleading. Usually when Obama "urges congress" theres video or atleast a direct quote actually supporting such a thing.

I dont like the last paragraph though, Conn rep dismissing armed officers in schools before its even fully discussed.

[NCRAVEN]

Ive read that and watched the video and nowhere does he say, "we need to ban guns". the only thing i see as far as an actual ban on assault rifles is stated by "white house officials, as almost certain". I think the title of the article is misleading. Usually when Obama "urges congress" theres video or atleast a direct quote actually supporting such a thing.

I dont like the last paragraph though, Conn rep dismissing armed officers in schools before its even fully discussed.

From before the Conn incident.

Obama Calls for Renewal of Assault Weapons Ban

[JAB1985]

Oh sweet innocent naive JAB. He has a long history of being anti-gun.

Just Google Obama anti-gun histroy, you'll find a lot. Just make sure you double check it as "the right" has probably put a few misleading things out there.

Ive googled it a good bit. Hes opposed concealed weapons on a few occasions (which i highly disagree with) but isnt limiting ownership. also opposed armor piercing rounds, which i think is obviously a concern for law enforcement. As far as actual gun ownership, i dont see a history of limiting gun ownership.

[JAB1985]

From before the Conn incident.

Obama Calls for Renewal of Assault Weapons Ban

I stand corrected. he does say "Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.” which to me points to the gun not being the issue and focusing on the real cause of violence.