AaronP's Political Ideology

[Amused]

<<

<< When did I EVER try to look "macho" on these boards (or anywhere for that matter)? Sorry, but my right to keep my family and myself safe is not "macho." It's self preservation. And unless you can prove I'm a danger to society, my "ability" to hurt others is no reason to fear me irrationally, nor is it a reason to limit my rights.

Besides, I think the largest segement of the population to beneft from the right to bear arms are women. How is that "macho?"

Self defense has everything to do with freedom. Whipping out the old "penis extension" argument doesn't wash with thinking people.

>>


No, Amused - you carrying a gun doesn't bug me, because I see no indication you're a danger to society... And I have already agreed with you that to make guns illegal would only restrict the law abiding members of society, and the crooks and criminals would be able to get them with ease...

As for that freedom argument, no one has yet defeated my assertion that ones freedom ends at the point where it encroachs upon the rights of another... >>



The simple act of a law abiding citizen owning, or carrying a gun no more encroaches on your rights then them owning a knife or a crow bar. Your irrational fears are not reason to rob a law abiding citizen of their rights.

We cannot subjugate freedom to appease everyone's fears and desires. Simply being afraid of someone, when they have not directly threatened you, or harmed you is NOT a reason to rob them of their freedom.

Besides that, I respect your thoughts on this, and am glad you agree. However, I fear we would disagree were we to talk about restrictions and registration for law abiding gun owners. (both have proven to be worthless)

 

[Martin]

<<

<< If you can prove that humanity has evolved past the point that individuals no longer need or deserve the right to defend themselves, I'll agree with you. >>



Well said Amused. >>




Very well said indeed. Though I still wonder what it has to do what I said, since I never said people don't need guns. I wonder if you bothered to read what I said, or simply saw my nick and presumed I said no one should have a gun.


I would still like an answer though. What is wrong with denying guns to criminals and irresponsible idiots who can't even handle them safely?

 

[Amused]

<<

<<

<< If you can prove that humanity has evolved past the point that individuals no longer need or deserve the right to defend themselves, I'll agree with you. >>



Well said Amused. >>




Very well said indeed. Though I still wonder what it has to do what I said, since I never said people don't need guns. I wonder if you bothered to read what I said, or simply saw my nick and presumed I said no one should have a gun.


I would still like an answer though. What is wrong with denying guns to criminals and irresponsible idiots who can't even handle them safely? >>



Criminals I agree. "Irresponsible idiot" is subjective. If you want licensing like we have with cars... :::choking back laughter::: ...have you driven on our roads lately?

Mandatory training and licensing will do nothing to keep "idiots" from owning guns any more than it keeps idiots off our roads. All this would do is set a dangerous precedent in requiring a LICENSE and permission to exercise one's Constitutional right. What next, we need licensing to speak? Practice religion?

Sorry, to do that would require a Constitutional amendment. And even then, I wouldn't agree with it.

One more thing. One needs a license to drive a car only on public roads. One does not need a license to own a car, or drive it on private property. For this reason, I have no problem with requiring a license to carry a gun in a public place. But it must be available on demand, without having to prove "need" to a bunch of appointed politicians with an agenda.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Very well said indeed. Though I still wonder what it has to do what I said, since I never said people don't need guns. I wonder if you bothered to read what I said, or simply saw my nick and presumed I said no one should have a gun. >>



Thats your fault for assuming not mine.

Are you mad because I was right or are you mad that you've become that predictable?

BTW, the line that gave your stance away was this one to Russ:

Btw, have you ever heard of repealing and amending laws? Its quite common, laws are not made to last forever.

Is ok Marty, you are just not that deep.




<< I would still like an answer though. What is wrong with denying guns to criminals and irresponsible idiots who can't even handle them safely? >>



And how would you single out these "irrespoinsible idiots and criminals"? Are you going to put them in the cone of silence or lasso them with Wonder Woman's Truth Rope?

Your fatal flaw as it is with many of your political posts is you want ideas implemented without thinking them through or providing a sound action plan as to how they can be carried out.

What are you going to do, have Miss Cleo approach people who want guns and give the government a reading? LOL

 

[busmaster11]

<<

<< Sorry if I misrepresented myself - Of course I don't want to legalize drugs... I just think there's a much greater chance that others can be hurt by a gun owner than a drug addict. >>



I'll have to respectfully disagree here. I think its what you define "hurting" as. I think by far, drugs tear more families and are reasons for more crime than guns could ever hope to be.

Guns can target people in the wrong hands.

Drugs target neighborhoods, families, and children and there is no "Safe" way to use drugs. >>


Respectfully disagree? how dare you!!!!
Good point though... As for gun control, lets just say I'll support the right to carry a handgun, but still don't think we would ever need to own anything more powerful, and that it requires stricter legislation, and close those gun show loopholes...

 

[Texmaster]

<< Respectfully disagree? how dare you!!!! >>



HAHAHA I reserve it for a few people



<< Good point though... As for gun control, lets just say I'll support the right to carry a handgun, but still don't think we would ever need to own anything more powerful, and that it requires stricter legislation, and close those gun show loopholes... >>



I agree to a point as well. I'm not a fan of fully automatic weaponry being owned by Joe Blow. For me right now a tazer will do

 

[busmaster11]

<< The simple act of a law abiding citizen owning, or carrying a gun no more encroaches on your rights then them owning a knife or a crow bar. Your irrational fears are not reason to rob a law abiding citizen of their rights.

We cannot subjugate freedom to appease everyone's fears and desires. Simply being afraid of someone, when they have not directly threatened you, or harmed you is NOT a reason to rob them of their freedom.

Besides that, I respect your thoughts on this, and am glad you agree. However, I fear we would disagree were we to talk about restrictions and registration for law abiding gun owners. (both have proven to be worthless) >>


LOL... you read my mind...
There are inherent properties to guns that are different from knives... A gun can kill instantaneously, and with very little effort or force or messiness - or thought. A knife cannot. In essence, this means that in the hands of an enraged killer, drunkard, or postal officer, a knife can little damage compared to a gun. This is my biggest concern, and it has proven to be true time and time again on the news.

Any one of us can become enraged, and a rare few of us can completely lose it such that we'll grab whatever we find and go nuts... Well, thats my concern - plus this: According to you no regulations or restrictions would prevent guns from getting into the hands of wackos... So do we just say its a free for all, or is there a solution? I really don't know...

 

[busmaster11]

<<

<< Respectfully disagree? how dare you!!!! >>



HAHAHA I reserve it for a few people



<< Good point though... As for gun control, lets just say I'll support the right to carry a handgun, but still don't think we would ever need to own anything more powerful, and that it requires stricter legislation, and close those gun show loopholes... >>



I agree to a point as well. I'm not a fan of fully automatic weaponry being owned by Joe Blow. For me right now a tazer will do >>


HEY!!!! Actually why not??? If people truthfully want a handgun exclusively for self-protection as they say, why not just go for a tazer or some sort of stun weapon? I can only think of two reasons...

1. People want the freedom to chose, specifically to chose a more powerful solution...
2. Tazers won't work in an underwater fight.

 

[Texmaster]

<< HEY!!!! Actually why not??? If people truthfully want a handgun exclusively for self-protection as they say, why not just go for a tazer or some sort of stun weapon? I can only think of two reasons...

1. People want the freedom to chose, specifically to chose a more powerful solution...
2. Tazers won't work in an underwater fight. >>



Well Tazers do have a problem in that you need to be very very close to use them. Only a few tazer guns exist and they can run about 300+ dollars :Q

When I do have a family, I will buy a 12 guage shotgun for home protection for a few reasons:

#1 The pump action is 65-70% effective in running off theives simply from the sound of the pump cocking.
#2 Little kids would not be able to access it as easily as a handgun.
#3 It does a hell of a lot of damage without going through the next room and hitting someone else.

 

[RedFox1]

AaronP for president.

Except for the part about legalizing marijuana, you've got the right idea.

-Russ

 

[Amused]

<<

<< The simple act of a law abiding citizen owning, or carrying a gun no more encroaches on your rights then them owning a knife or a crow bar. Your irrational fears are not reason to rob a law abiding citizen of their rights.

We cannot subjugate freedom to appease everyone's fears and desires. Simply being afraid of someone, when they have not directly threatened you, or harmed you is NOT a reason to rob them of their freedom.

Besides that, I respect your thoughts on this, and am glad you agree. However, I fear we would disagree were we to talk about restrictions and registration for law abiding gun owners. (both have proven to be worthless) >>


LOL... you read my mind...
There are inherent properties to guns that are different from knives... A gun can kill instantaneously, and with very little effort or force or messiness - or thought. A knife cannot. In essence, this means that in the hands of an enraged killer, drunkard, or postal officer, a knife can little damage compared to a gun. This is my biggest concern, and it has proven to be true time and time again on the news.

Any one of us can become enraged, and a rare few of us can completely lose it such that we'll grab whatever we find and go nuts... Well, thats my concern - plus this: According to you no regulations or restrictions would prevent guns from getting into the hands of wackos... So do we just say its a free for all, or is there a solution? I really don't know... >>



Define "wacko."

The only restrictions I support, are those with criminal records, or a history of mental illness.

 

[busmaster11]

<<

<< There are inherent properties to guns that are different from knives... A gun can kill instantaneously, and with very little effort or force or messiness - or thought. A knife cannot. In essence, this means that in the hands of an enraged killer, drunkard, or postal officer, a knife can little damage compared to a gun. This is my biggest concern, and it has proven to be true time and time again on the news.

Any one of us can become enraged, and a rare few of us can completely lose it such that we'll grab whatever we find and go nuts... Well, thats my concern - plus this: According to you no regulations or restrictions would prevent guns from getting into the hands of wackos... So do we just say its a free for all, or is there a solution? I really don't know... >>



Define "wacko."

The only restrictions I support, are those with criminal records, or a history of mental illness. >>


Do you agree with my assertions stated above, as to the inherent nature of guns though? If not, why? If so, don't they bother you as well?

Wacko: fill-in-the-blanks of the demographic information of the last few postal workers, factory workers, teenagers, etc who went on shooting sprees...

 

[Amused]

<<

<<

<< There are inherent properties to guns that are different from knives... A gun can kill instantaneously, and with very little effort or force or messiness - or thought. A knife cannot. In essence, this means that in the hands of an enraged killer, drunkard, or postal officer, a knife can little damage compared to a gun. This is my biggest concern, and it has proven to be true time and time again on the news.

Any one of us can become enraged, and a rare few of us can completely lose it such that we'll grab whatever we find and go nuts... Well, thats my concern - plus this: According to you no regulations or restrictions would prevent guns from getting into the hands of wackos... So do we just say its a free for all, or is there a solution? I really don't know... >>



Define "wacko."

The only restrictions I support, are those with criminal records, or a history of mental illness. >>


Do you agree with my assertions stated above, as to the inherent nature of guns though? If not, why? If so, don't they bother you as well?

Wacko: fill-in-the-blanks of the demographic information of the last few postal workers, factory workers, teenagers, etc who went on shooting sprees... >>



Yes, a gun in the wrong hand IS extremely dangerous. But I also think that the LACK of guns being carried by law abiding individuals is dangerous as well. None of those spree shooters would have got far had they run up against armed victims.

Let's deal with reality again. We've already determined that banning guns wont stop criminals, and most likely wont stop most spree shooters. Therefore it is only prudent that law abiding folks be armed to level the field and ensure their own safety.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Cool. I agree with you 100%.

 

[busmaster11]

<< Yes, a gun in the wrong hand IS extremely dangerous. But I also think that the LACK of guns being carried by law abiding individuals is dangerous as well. None of those spree shooters would have got far had they run up against armed victims.

Let's deal with reality again. We've already determined that banning guns wont stop criminals, and most likely wont stop most spree shooters. Therefore it is only prudent that law abiding folks be armed to level the field and ensure their own safety. >>


So this is all about how public shootouts will be better than one sided massacres, and that citizens taking the law into their own hands, firing weapons in public to "defend" is actually a good thing?

I can see situations where this could be a good thing... But I can also see the right or the possibility of such an event occuring being abused in far more situations than it helps...

 

[drewshin]

i disagree with you on some of the immigration beliefs. i've lived in california all my life, and i can tell you that 95% of the immigrants here are here to stay, their hearts do not belong "to mexico" as you believe. well maybe if by some miracle there was a war between the us and mexico they would return, but almost all enjoy the quality of life here.

most just want to come here and raise a family or are coming to join the rest of their family that might already be here.

i agree with you on immigrants learning english, not for our sake, but for their own sake, just to make their lives easier.
but most of these immigrants barely even know their *own* language well, thanks for a 3rd or 4th grade education. adding into it
their age, if they're already in their 30's it's more difficult for them to learn than say a teenager.
i think you'll also find that a majority of immigrants do want to learn english, just because it benefits them, there are a few that do not.

*****************
also, i believe in gun control, but only for specialty guns/ammunition that have no real purpose except for maybe the military (armor-piercing).

 

[Red Dawn]

In Ca it seems there are more Asian Immigrants than Mexican. The Mexican Immigrants are an important part of our economy because they do all the Agricultural work.

 

[Martin]

<< Criminals I agree. "Irresponsible idiot" is subjective. If you want licensing like we have with cars... :::choking back laughter::: ...have you driven on our roads lately?
>>



choke all you want, but roads are generally safer than they've ever been. While the number of accidents might still be high, as a percentage, it is much better than it was during the 50-60s




<< Your fatal flaw as it is with many of your political posts is you want ideas implemented without thinking them through or providing a sound action plan as to how they can be carried out. >>



Action plan? What you want me to give a detailed report about how such a gun control agency would be structured and how it would operate? Get real.



<< And how would you single out these "irrespoinsible idiots and criminals"? Are you going to put them in the cone of silence or lasso them with Wonder Woman's Truth Rope? >>



Yes, that's EXCATLY how I was planning to do it.

<< What next, we need licensing to speak? Practice religion? >>



Ok, that's the second time. You guys obviously want to turn this into a "you want to abolish free speech and ruin our glorious country, you stupid mofo" type discussion, so I'm outta this thread.

 

[EDoG2K]

While I don't disagree with you on every point, I do disagree on most. I consider myself a liberal. Every one of these political threads makes me sad to see how conservative AT, and perhaps the whole country is.


"Reading this saddest the FVCK out of me. makes me a little glad at the same time that i live in Berkeley/San Francisco,

me too! It's good to keep the freaks all bunched together in one place."


I'm at UC Davis right now, but I was born and raised in Oakland. I like to think of the bay area being normal and everywhere else in the US being 'conservative backwater red-necks.' Oh well, i guess i'm a freak. Do you hardcore christian republicans think you're going to heaven? killing afgan people is okay because they're 'bad.'? Just b/c you believe in god, you can kill? How bout the death penalty?? more killing there! BITE ME!!

 

[Amused]

<<

<< Yes, a gun in the wrong hand IS extremely dangerous. But I also think that the LACK of guns being carried by law abiding individuals is dangerous as well. None of those spree shooters would have got far had they run up against armed victims.

Let's deal with reality again. We've already determined that banning guns wont stop criminals, and most likely wont stop most spree shooters. Therefore it is only prudent that law abiding folks be armed to level the field and ensure their own safety. >>


So this is all about how public shootouts will be better than one sided massacres, and that citizens taking the law into their own hands, firing weapons in public to "defend" is actually a good thing?

I can see situations where this could be a good thing... But I can also see the right or the possibility of such an event occuring being abused in far more situations than it helps... >>



Defending yourself is NOT taking the law into your own hands. There is NO constitutional right to guaranteed safety, nor are the police obligated to protect each individual from harm. Think I'm kidding? Try suing the police for negligence next time you're a victim of a crime.

Your personal safety is your responsibility. This includes defending yourself from attack. Taking the law into your own hands would be punishing a criminal for a crime after the fact, not defending yourself during the attack.

It's this kind of convoluted thinking that has led to a near total ban of self defense in England.

Firing weapons against a spree shooter IS a good thing. What would you have victims do, beg for mercy? Sing them a song?

The spree shooter created the danger. The victims shooting back creates no more danger than already existed, for they are only targeting someone who, left alone, will harm far more people than the victims will.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< Criminals I agree. "Irresponsible idiot" is subjective. If you want licensing like we have with cars... :::choking back laughter::: ...have you driven on our roads lately?
>>



choke all you want, but roads are generally safer than they've ever been. While the number of accidents might still be high, as a percentage, it is much better than it was during the 50-60s >>



What increased restrictions on drivers have come about since the 50s, besides tougher laws on drunk driving? (Note that the laws on drunk driving are "after the fact" laws. They do nothing to physically stop a person from driving drunk.)

 

[AaronP]

EDoG2K

You must really be liberal. If the liberal figureheads of the democratic party support what we're doing in Afganistan (Gore, Daschel) then you must be somewhere to the left of Mao Tse Tung. Bullsh*t reasoning like you just made EdoG2K makes you and people who share your beliefs look VERY out of step with America, and in the rest of the country, the 99.999999999999% of square footage that isn't in the bay area thinks you people are all whackos.

A few hundred innocent Afgan people are dead as a result of our military operations there. A few MILLION are liberated and INCREDIBLY GLAD that we got rid of the Taliban. The Afganis are glad we're there, but the berkely brain f*cks aren't. Some strange thinkin if you ask me.

To paraphrase the great Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf, GO HAVE SEX WITH RALPH NADER!

 

[Athanasius]

<< Do you hardcore christian republicans think you're going to heaven? killing afgan people is okay because they're 'bad.'? Just b/c you believe in god, you can kill? How bout the death penalty?? more killing there! BITE ME!! >>



Could you please specify who you mean by "hardcore christian republicans"?

Who exactly on this thread would you characterize as such?

Your generalities cannot really be discussed, since your blanket statement, seemingly meant to apply to the conservative or libertarian posters as a group, in fact probably applies to no one.

 

[AaronP]

As for gun liscensing and gun classes, I don't think they're neceessary. Classes should be voluntary. I learned how to shoot and handle guns from my dad who used to take me out into the woods with my grandpa's 100 year old .22 rifle. I took hunter's safety class and it was a waste of time, however for someone who wasn't taught gun care when they were young, like some woman who wants one for protection or something, of course classes should be an option.

I basically think gun handling safety comes down to 4 basic rules:

1. Always be wary of where your barrel is pointing
2. Keep the safety on
3. Remember that even if you take out the clip, there could always be one in the chamber
4. If you have kids in the house, keep em locked and keep the ammo in a seperate place

I can't tell you the number of times I've seen TV shows and movies completely ignore rule number 3, it's scary.

 

[Amused]

<< While I don't disagree with you on every point, I do disagree on most. I consider myself a liberal. Every one of these political threads makes me sad to see how conservative AT, and perhaps the whole country is.


"Reading this saddest the FVCK out of me. makes me a little glad at the same time that i live in Berkeley/San Francisco,

me too! It's good to keep the freaks all bunched together in one place."


I'm at UC Davis right now, but I was born and raised in Oakland. I like to think of the bay area being normal and everywhere else in the US being 'conservative backwater red-necks.' Oh well, i guess i'm a freak. Do you hardcore christian republicans think you're going to heaven? killing afgan people is okay because they're 'bad.'? Just b/c you believe in god, you can kill? How bout the death penalty?? more killing there! BITE ME!! >>



What an idiot. Most of the people on this board are libertarian leaning with either a liberal, or conservative bent. I can only think of three or four "hard-core Christian Republicans" on this board. Hell at least 40% of the folks on this board are agnostic or atheist. As for the rest of your post, it's just chicken-sh!t pacifist crap that accomplishes nothing. Tell me, should we have not fought back in WWII either???

There goes that little pile of ignorance. Don't let the door hit you on the ass, buddy.