I want to argue with a liberal please!

[Muse]

So are you going to go house to house taking guns without any guns yourself?

Not me, I'm behind my boulder. But I favor a law saying you are guilty of a crime if you possess a gun. You will be asked to voluntarily turn in your guns, maybe with compensation... that's what they did in Australia and they haven't had any mass shootings since the Port Arthur incident, which precipitated theire legislative reaction (they gave them Australian bucks), and this is, what? 2 decades ago? We get them all the time around here. Current top of the heap is Las Vegas. Who's going to top that? Stay tuned! They still have some brains in Australia, I'm not so sure of the USA.

If you don't turn in your guns, what good will it do you? You can't show it publicly, you can't use it for anything that outs you. The market will shrivel, eventually asymptotic with the zero line. I'm all for that.

 

[realibrad]

Okay, on the surface that makes sense, but in reality, less access to guns legally has zero impact on access to guns illegally. Black market guns aren't going away and are not going to be influenced by policy or government restriction.

That is incorrect. It might not reduce guns as much as is wanted, but it does reduce them. By restricting then, you increase the cost. As cost goes up, consumption goes down. Guns are not an addiction or a necessity. Guns will not go away, but they would be reduced and be used less.

We saw this effect during prohibition. Alcohol consumption went down. There were other negative effects, but that is a different argument.

 

[justoh]

Topics (liberal's choice): Guns, Hate Speech/Freedom of Speech, Wage Gap, Women's Rights, ANTIFA, BLM, Socialism, etc.



Cheers,

GB

Was god wrong to sacrifice his son? Does it send the wrong message, vicarious redemption? Could you imagine a society where we'd allow a third party to serve another's sentence for some criminal wrongdoing? Do you think jesus looks kind of hot, whenever you see him up on that cross?

 

[GobBluth]

Okay, so the argument here is that less is less. Government regulation and confiscation of guns will, over time, result in a diminished black market product, and will eventually weed guns out of the hands of wrongdoers as well.

Sounds logical, but what about that waiting period, where I'm unarmed because my country says it is in my best interest to be, but you are still armed with illegal firearms because it just hasn't taken enough time yet. Are we just going to chalk those victims up as for the greater good? Are we not going to give them the same right to self defense as everyone else used to have?

And lastly, (dons tin foil hat), what happens when the people decide they need to rise up against a tyrannical, militarized, government? Not saying that is going to happen, but history has repeated itself before. If we've allowed and supported the disarmament of citizens, then we were putting the trust of our lives and freedom in the hands of government. Dictatorships are born in such ways.

Before someone hops on that, I did not say that guns = freedom. What I said was a country of citizens who have the ability to stand up to tyranny stands a far better chance of not becoming a Cuba, or a Nigeria, or a N. Korea.

 

[HomerJS]

I'm seeking a rational argument to get me through my Friday. I intend to be completely open minded here.

Prerequisites: Don't be a dick and get your feelings hurt if I oppose your views, support your position with facts, I promise to do the same.

Topics (liberal's choice): Guns, Hate Speech/Freedom of Speech, Wage Gap, Women's Rights, ANTIFA, BLM, Socialism, etc.

Lets keep all shots above the belt, touch gloves, and get it on.

Cheers,

GB

I'll bite but may not be able to respond until this eve.

Racism/Republican Party.

Why does the Republican Party keep insisting they are not racist but make little or no effort to rid racists from their midst. They also refuse to loudly denounce racist behavior in our country.

 

[nakedfrog]

Sounds logical, but what about that waiting period, where I'm unarmed because my country says it is in my best interest to be, but you are still armed with illegal firearms because it just hasn't taken enough time yet. Are we just going to chalk those victims up as for the greater good? Are we not going to give them the same right to self defense as everyone else used to have?

Like we're currently doing with kids that keep getting shot in schools?

 

[Muse]

Sounds logical, but what about that waiting period, where I'm unarmed ...

You're buying that? That's what the NRA has sold you. They want you to be able to have guns to defend yourself, that's their argument for not making it illegal to own guns. I saw the ad. It's, what? 200 years old the 2nd Amendment? That wasn't informed by what we have now.

I don't believe it's in my best interest to buy a gun, possess a gun. Am I vulnerable, yes. I'm not willing to sell out humanity in order to protect my own skin. I'm reminded of a saying, "there's no helmet and mail (you can substitute that with your weapons of choice such as assault weapon and kevlar vest) like loyalty and good faith." As pointed out above in this thread, people who don't possess guns are statistically shown to suffer less from gun violence than people who do possess guns. That supports my intuition rather well.

 

[Thebobo]

Sorry, not down with the labels. They are intellectually lazy (both to self-label, and to paint others). I am "liberal" on some issues, others not much. Personally if more people would stop blindly subscribing to a packaged set of beliefs and evaluate each issue on its own merits we'd be better off. Instead political discussion is pretty much the same as listening to two rival sports fanatics yell about how their team is best....

Amen

 

[GobBluth]

Like we're currently doing with kids that keep getting shot in schools?

You're laying the responsibility of those horrific acts on the artifact rather than the person who pulled the trigger? As if to say, if we had strict gun control, that child wouldn't have had a semi automatic rifle and therefor would not have killed those kids? That's the argument, right?

 

[Puffnstuff]

If I oppose generally accepted right wing doctrine/practices does that make me a liberal?

 

[GobBluth]

I'll bite but may not be able to respond until this eve.

Racism/Republican Party.

Why does the Republican Party keep insisting they are not racist but make little or no effort to rid racists from their midst. They also refuse to loudly denounce racist behavior in our country.

Thanks for joining!

First off, we need proof of racism. And if we find it, and hopefully we do, we fire without second consideration the individual responsible. Problem is in the proof.

 

[GobBluth]

You're buying that? That's what the NRA has sold you. It's, what? 200 years old? Wasn't informed by what we have now? I don't believe it's in my best interest to buy a gun, possess a gun. Am I vulnerable, yes. I'm not willing to sell out the best interests of humanity in order to protect my own skin. I'm reminded of a saying, "there's no (weapons of choice) like loyalty and good faith."

You're obviously welcome to that, I'm not going to argue that the premise of our gun agenda in America is antiquated and based on principals that don't exist anymore, but faith isn't going to protect you in the end. You have to, by whatever means necessary.

 

[nakedfrog]

You're laying the responsibility of those horrific acts on the artifact rather than the person who pulled the trigger? As if to say, if we had strict gun control, that child wouldn't have had a semi automatic rifle and therefor would not have killed those kids? That's the argument, right?

You asked a question about hypothetical future victims in a scenario where action is being taken, I asked a follow-up question about actual victims where no real action is being taken. I'm not making an argument, more food for thought.

 

[Indus]

Thanks for joining!

First off, we need proof of racism. And if we find it, and hopefully we do, we fire without second consideration the individual responsible. Problem is in the proof.

LMAO your whole base is made up of nazi's and you need more proof.

That's proof that there's no arguing against a conservaterrorist. Facts don't matter to you even when you see it everyday.

 

[mikeymikec]

And lastly, (dons tin foil hat), what happens when the people decide they need to rise up against a tyrannical, militarized, government?

Unless the government and military are absolutely inept, then the people don't stand a chance, guns or no. This has also happened before and will again.

 

[fskimospy]

Okay, so the argument here is that less is less. Government regulation and confiscation of guns will, over time, result in a diminished black market product, and will eventually weed guns out of the hands of wrongdoers as well.

Sounds logical, but what about that waiting period, where I'm unarmed because my country says it is in my best interest to be, but you are still armed with illegal firearms because it just hasn't taken enough time yet. Are we just going to chalk those victims up as for the greater good? Are we not going to give them the same right to self defense as everyone else used to have?

And lastly, (dons tin foil hat), what happens when the people decide they need to rise up against a tyrannical, militarized, government? Not saying that is going to happen, but history has repeated itself before. If we've allowed and supported the disarmament of citizens, then we were putting the trust of our lives and freedom in the hands of government. Dictatorships are born in such ways.

Before someone hops on that, I did not say that guns = freedom. What I said was a country of citizens who have the ability to stand up to tyranny stands a far better chance of not becoming a Cuba, or a Nigeria, or a N. Korea.

As has been shown on here many times the empirical research indicates that gun ownership is associated with an increased risk of being the victim of homicide and suicide. This means for the average person owning a gun makes them LESS safe, not more. That should obviate your concern about the potential victims during a gun draw-down, no?

 

[Thebobo]

Thanks for joining!

First off, we need proof of racism. And if we find it, and hopefully we do, we fire without second consideration the individual responsible. Problem is in the proof.

Proof, it's all around. Look at trump and charlottesville or you going to somehow someway defend what he said as not racist.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Okay, so the argument here is that less is less. Government regulation and confiscation of guns will, over time, result in a diminished black market product, and will eventually weed guns out of the hands of wrongdoers as well.

Never completely. You can never completely put the genie back in the bottle. But we are not talking absolutes here, we are talking about statistical reduction, and that will have a dramatic effect.

Sounds logical, but what about that waiting period, where I'm unarmed because my country says it is in my best interest to be, but you are still armed with illegal firearms because it just hasn't taken enough time yet. Are we just going to chalk those victims up as for the greater good? Are we not going to give them the same right to self defense as everyone else used to have?

The phase out will be gradual on both sides of the equation. It is also unreasonable to try to disarm everyone quickly. Instead you limit new production, increase regulations on all sales including 3rd party, do long-term buyback projects, and work on education and social programs to change gun culture. This will create a gradual decrease of all gun supply in both legal and illegal markets.

what happens when the people decide they need to rise up against a tyrannical, militarized, government?

That is already a fantasy. We decided that when we determined that civilians did not need military grade weaponry. A semi-auto AR-15 is not going to stop an Apache gunship or even the APCs that every police force now has. The only real hope a people has of wining a armed insurrection against a tyrannical, militarized, government is for a significant amount of the military of that government, or that of another government, to back them.

 

[jackstar7]

Okay, so the argument here is that less is less. Government regulation and confiscation of guns will, over time, result in a diminished black market product, and will eventually weed guns out of the hands of wrongdoers as well.

Sounds logical, but what about that waiting period, where I'm unarmed because my country says it is in my best interest to be, but you are still armed with illegal firearms because it just hasn't taken enough time yet. Are we just going to chalk those victims up as for the greater good? Are we not going to give them the same right to self defense as everyone else used to have?

And lastly, (dons tin foil hat), what happens when the people decide they need to rise up against a tyrannical, militarized, government? Not saying that is going to happen, but history has repeated itself before. If we've allowed and supported the disarmament of citizens, then we were putting the trust of our lives and freedom in the hands of government. Dictatorships are born in such ways.

Before someone hops on that, I did not say that guns = freedom. What I said was a country of citizens who have the ability to stand up to tyranny stands a far better chance of not becoming a Cuba, or a Nigeria, or a N. Korea.

Only addressing the bolded to point out that you see the people against your position as deserving of no respect or consideration. The use of YOU rather than whatever coded words you'd use for the other people you fear irrationally is really telling.

But carry on.

 

[GobBluth]

LMAO your whole base is made up of nazi's and you need more proof.

That's proof that there's no arguing against a conservaterrorist. Facts don't matter to you even when you see it everyday.

Ladies and Gents, our first hurt feelings. Welcome, and thanks! Feel free to continue to flame and name call, or you can also feel free to find a different thread to pollute.

 

[GobBluth]

You asked a question about hypothetical future victims in a scenario where action is being taken, I asked a follow-up question about actual victims where no real action is being taken. I'm not making an argument, more food for thought.

That's fair.

 

[GobBluth]

Only addressing the bolded to point out that you see the people against your position as deserving of no respect or consideration. The use of YOU rather than whatever coded words you'd use for the other people you fear irrationally is really telling.

But carry on.

I don't believe for a second that you're to dense to read the hypothetical nature of that sentence. This entire thread is based on respect and consideration for an opposing idea. That "you" you're referencing was pointed at a fictitious character which represents a person who intends to do harm to me. It does not reference my opposition, or anyone who has a different view from me. C'mon man.

 

[GobBluth]

Never completely. You can never completely put the genie back in the bottle. But we are not talking absolutes here, we are talking about statistical reduction, and that will have a dramatic effect.



The phase out will be gradual on both sides of the equation. It is also unreasonable to try to disarm everyone quickly. Instead you limit new production, increase regulations on all sales including 3rd party, do long-term buyback projects, and work on education and social programs to change gun culture. This will create a gradual decrease of all gun supply in both legal and illegal markets.




That is already a fantasy. We decided that when we determined that civilians did not need military grade weaponry. A semi-auto AR-15 is not going to stop an Apache gunship or even the APCs that every police force now has. The only real hope a people has of wining a armed insurrection against a tyrannical, militarized, government is for a significant amount of the military of that government, or that of another government, to back them.

Damn, that was well written. Hard to argue with your point here. I see it.

 

[Thebobo]

Ladies and Gents, our first hurt feelings. Welcome, and thanks! Feel free to continue to flame and name call, or you can also feel free to find a different thread to pollute.

Well he's right.

 

[Stokely]

Okay, labels aside, I want to see someone else's point of view, that's the end of it.

Understood, and I wish more people would want to do this.

But you listed a bunch of subjects, and my point is that "liberals" (or any group) shouldn't be expected to be lock-step on all those issues.

Example: A gun-loving hunter who hates what is being done to the environment and who wants welfare reform (because he knows people scamming the system) as well as increased spending for addiction treatment (because his sister got hooked on prescription drugs). What the hell is he? A Liberal? Conservative?