TomJ
Contributing Member
How somebody labels themselves is not as important as who controls the direction of the party and how they vote. To bring this back to the original post, they do, as a party, want to ban private gun ownership.
Helpless Venezuelans lament losing guns, right to stand up to government
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
How somebody labels themselves is not as important as who controls the direction of the party and how they vote. To bring this back to the original post, they do, as a party, want to ban private gun ownership.
SilentStalker
Member
In what regard? Most people I know like what he is doing for the most part.
entropy
Member
Actually the word democracy can mean both. BUT, history shows Democracy as a government structure is not suportable above a population of @ 30,000. (The population of Athens when the Athenians discovered this.) A representative Republic, such as Rome, or our current system, which despite what you claim, is exactly what it is, can responsibly govern a much larger group, for a while, until it too falls to the cycle of all civilizations. Refer to Edward Gibbon's "The History of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" I have been waiting for each successive POTUS to declare himself Imperator Americanus since Carter. The incumbent is possibly full enough of hubris to actually do it.
I agree fully. Some have kept the structure intact in appearance, some did away with it.
There are many in Saudi Arabia that would disagree with you, if they weren't so fearful for their lives. Dictator of a gilded cage, perhaps, but a cage nonetheless. But yes, there are thankfully few. Even one is one too many.
Pull the wool over your own eyes if you like, but "Progressive" is a leftist euphamism for Socialist.
Read this thread:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/is-this-a-great-country-or-what.844854/#post-10994074
Then consider that when it happens, we will not have another country to go to if we want to fire such rifles, like this Brit did. Unless we want to join the Peshmerga.
I do my part at the soap box, and at the ballot box, (even to the point of voting for a POTUS I find repulsive), but I'd really rather not have to go to the ammo box on this. I do understand why many rather underinformed and or misinformed people want to ban guns, and I also understand why those who manipulate them want to ban guns, and they are not the same reasons.
Last edited:
And most people who live on the upper east side thought HRC was going to win by 20%.
If everyone you know tends to have the same views, then you don't know a very representative sample of the populace. That's why politicians pay for polls... they don't just ask their friends or their campaign workers' friends.
AlexanderA
Member
The Democratic party platform says nothing about banning private gun ownership. It says they want (a) universal background checks, and (b) the banning of assault weapons. Which admittedly is bad enough. Regarding assault weapons, Beto O'Rourke walked back his earlier support for a ban to, most recently, say he only wants to ban the commercial sale of assault weapons (implying he would be in favor of grandfathering existing ones). The Dems are gearing up for a national campaign and they know they can't alienate gun owners too much and have any hope of carrying critical states such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and Texas.
entropy
Member
Pull the other one.
AlexanderA
Member
I was serious.
entropy
Member
Not overtly, of course not. One would have to be blind to not seen what they've been working toward for the last 50 years, however. They won't out and say it publicly, (though some of them have said it when they think there are no gun owners listening) because it would subvert their mission to vilify and demonize gun ownership and legislate it away bit by bit.
AlexanderA
Member
Yeah, he's popular in "flyover country," rural areas, and small towns. Not so much in cities, suburbs, and on the coasts. Guess where the bulk of the population lives. Practically everyone I know hates him.
You're right, but there's no logical stopping point. Discussing gun control with people who want more gun control is like talking tax rates with Grover Norquist. The gun control proponents already know - in a way that is not subject to empirical proof or testing - that gun control reduces crime/violence/gun-involved-death-rates. Just as Norquist just knows - regardless of proof - that lower tax rates are always better for the economy.
So if the gun control proponent gets some gun control and some crime remains, the answer is always more gun control. Not a re-evaluation of whether the first bit of gun control was, perhaps, not a great idea in the first place. Just like Norquist's answer to any fiscal or economic situation is to cut taxes. Doesn't matter how the last round went... more would always be better.
All you have to do is look at states that banned sales of "assualt weapons" some time ago. They've pretty much all followed up with subsequent additional control and restrictions... with no promises that those are the end.
AlexanderA
Member
I don't dispute that. The point I was trying to make is that the progressives/socialists are a minority among the Democrats in the House.
Saudi Arabia is one of the few absolute monarchies left. Nevertheless, the king of Saudi Arabia is not really in charge, being in his dotage. The true power lies in the Crown Prince. That system is so corrupt that it's a wonder it functions at all.
SilentStalker
Member
You shot your own argument down here. Those polls you refer to, get it wrong too much of the time. A prime example of that was Hilary vs. Trump. Polls had her winning by a landslide and we know the outcome was much different. If you want to argue that polls closely represent the people’s vote overall then you can do that, but luckily we don’t elect solely based on numbers of votes alone. If we did the entire country would be controlled by about 4 of the major population centers. I personally don’ put much weight in polls as you can make them yield whatever you want them to.
No, the polls didn't have HRC "by a landslide." They had her as a narrow winner. They had her consistently enough in that spot that most of the prognosticators acted and talked as though the polls showed a landslide. But some of the more intelligent poll-readers cautioned that they were showing a race close enough for an upset to be a realistic possibility. Most pundits ignored this, though, because they made precisely the same mistake you are making - everyone they knew were horrified by Trump and considered him a bad joke. Their bubble insulated them from the broader scope of reality.
Polls aren't infallible, but they're closer to right than wrong most of the time. And every politician who can afford it pays to have their own private polling done. Even Donald Trump.
And polls did a pretty good job of predicting the mid-term results this year. Not perfect, but pretty good.
Polls aren't infallible, but they're closer to right than wrong most of the time. And every politician who can afford it pays to have their own private polling done. Even Donald Trump.
And polls did a pretty good job of predicting the mid-term results this year. Not perfect, but pretty good.
AlexanderA
Member
I don't disagree with you. Our problem in the next few years will navigating an adverse landscape (regarding gun control). It would be to our benefit to keep communication lines open with all parties. That doesn't mean compromise, but it does mean an effort at education. Unfortunately, the organized spokesmen for the gun community -- the NRA -- have totally demonized and cut ties with the Democrats. This is an incredibly bad mistake. The Democrats are the ones they're eventually going to have to deal with. The NRA has zero credibility with any Democrat, even one who might otherwise be sympathetic to gun owners.
AlexanderA
Member
You are mixing up a direct democracy with a representative democracy. Obviously, a direct democracy is not workable for a country the size of America (or even for a large city). America is still a democracy, although a representative one. I'm arguing against those who are contending that the U.S. is not a democracy. That statement has become a meme of the far right, as a blanket justification for stymieing the will of the majority. In a way it's a forlorn hope, because they know that they are weak. "A Republic, not a democracy." Frankly, it's sickening.
TomJ
Contributing Member
What they say and what they want to do are two different things. We call that lying. What do you think Hillary meant when she referenced the Australian model? Look at their track record. They lied through their teeth to get Obamacare passed because the knew if they told people the truth about it, it would never pass. I'm not saying they're the only party that is dishonest, but in regards to gun control, they do want to ban private ownership but need to do so one bite at a time because doing it suddenly would never fly.
OK, but even the Australian model doesn't ban private gun ownership. It's quite different than America, and some types of guns are banned, and I wouldn't want anything like it, and HRC was admitting to favoring some confiscation... but even thinking our laws should be exactly like Australia isn't the same thing as banning private gun ownership.
Shanghai McCoy
Member
Gee, I live in a rural area, near a small town in "flyover country".
Guess you know what's best for us..?
Zerodefect
member
Smug city folk are always the first pathetic people to cry like b!@#)$%, whenever there's an emergency. I only respond to red states now. I won't volunteer in blue anymore. They simply don't deserve my help.
Sheep aren't a good example of a nations worth. They'll continue to vote the way the brainwashing TV tells them to. They are idiots.
Sheep aren't a good example of a nations worth. They'll continue to vote the way the brainwashing TV tells them to. They are idiots.
SilentStalker
Member
And, you are ok with this? Where does it stop? As far as I’m concerned we’ve already given up enough.
And here lies the problem. It’s getting more and more polarized. So what’s the fix? I don’t see one. Freedom loving Americans take up most of flyover country, coastal people and the NE seem to fall more in line with favor towards socialistic views. Neither of those two groups will ever go together when extremes are reached. And both sides will argue that the other is ignorant. That doesn’t help.
Again, polls can be skewed to say whatever you want. They had her ahead enough that the dems were celebrating before the election was over. I’d also argue that these same people think popular vote should rule which is very dangerous. As stated earlier, if that ever happened then roughly 4 cities would control the country, all the time. What was it AlexanderA said earlier, something about when group mentality rules over individual freedoms then...yeah seems to be where we are headed. That’s super dangerous.
It doesn’t ban them but it certainly bans a lot and getting them at all is difficult according to those I know in Australia. And she certainly didn’t explain any details in her plan. If she didn’t give details of what her plan looked like instead of just making the blanket statement sends the message that she is perfectly fine mimicking their ban completely. Otherwise, she would have stated as much. Regardless, I’m not ok with any ban, period. Where does it stop? It won’t and never will. And, I certainly wouldn’t put my trust in any of them to ever stop. In fact, I’m sure HRC would love to call herself sole leader of this country, think tyrant, simply based on the way she behaved after the election.
Last edited:
TomJ
Contributing Member
Attached is a link to a NY Times article following the Newton shooting as well as as article regaridng Jan Schakowsky discussing the banning of guns. They don't often show their hand, but do so enough so that the truth comes out. Maybe I'm just a little more jaded, as I live (for now) in the belly of the beast.
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/why-gun-control-is-not-enough/
http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/il...-opportunity-and-seeks-to-ban-handguns-70067/
You mean like the Democrats deleting the Second Amendment from their platform, sponsoring every anti-gun rights bill since I was born and having Democrat officials supporting the repeal of the Second Amendment on social media when brought up by a former USSC Justice (which was in turn applauded by Dems everywhere)?
https://reason.com/blog/2016/07/26/Democrats-erase-the-second-amendment-fro
SilentStalker
Member
How long will it be before those that are made criminals overnight start to act like criminals and not care for the law? An unintended consequence of these stupid laws against freedom is just that happening. Laws are only good as long as the governed decide to follow them. At some point, they keep pushing, and they won’t.
SilentStalker
Member
In short, I don’t want to concede all power and weapons to the governing bodies of this country like Venezuela did, for the common good or not. Why you ask would I never be a proponent of this even if some of it might seem like a good idea? I would never give in simply because of politicians making statements of nuking civilians that are against his ideals, whether he said it in jest or not, that’s why!
- Status