(V):

> Seeing pre pubescent kids owing over a dozen firearms is freaky.

Correction. Seeing ANYBODY owning a dozen firearms is freaky.

Would be comfortable living next door to a man who has a dozen shotguns in his basement?

Art says "respnsibility and discipline in handling firearms". Now, your next door neighbor might be really good and responsible, or he might go crazy one day and start shooting everybody. If you are lucky he will be the former. If you are not, you might end up dead. In the meantime you are waiting to find out, and I am sure you will sleep soundly at night!

Übergeek 바둑이: Not really unless it was his job to make or repair/restore them.

If someone needed them to make themselves feel 'safe' ... then no way. That kinda paranoia and guns do not mix well. It's a rampage waiting to happen and statistically one will.

"or he might go crazy one day and start shooting everybody."

Well... then surely like we have in the UK the person needs declaring sane before he is allowed to possess that much death dealing hardware. N' that most is locked up safely to stop kids and criminals nicking them.

(V): "It's a rampage waiting to happen and statistically one will"

unless you can show a statistic that says that half of gun owners will go on a rampage, then it is just another false liberal spin that you are making up

Vikings: It's a total false liberal spin. They always play to the worse case scenario. But as I've already pointed out in an earlier post, in a State where carrying a concealed weapon into restaurants and bars etc is the law of the land, crime is down. Not up, down. The libs have their pants down on this issue and have to make up stories in order to support their refuted position.

Artful Dodger: A few years ago I read about a town where a law was passed requiring every person of age to own a gun. After that law was passed there was no (zero) crime reported during the following year. So what does this mean? It probably means that no criminal in his right mind is going to assault anyone in a town where everyone is required to own a weapon.

Liberals seemed to be focused on what a violent or deranged person might do. It begs the question, just what percentage of the population do they believe is mindlessly violent and deranged?

Iamon lyme: Well we know there are plenty of those in the liberal camp. Just look at the violence at any liberal gathering. Hate speech and violence against persons. Maybe they are afraind of their own?

Artful Dodger: Afraid to disagree with their own, and of course deathly afraid of pre pubescent kids.

I get the same hillarious image of toddlers going camando in their pull ups, the little rambos and ramboettes running around terrorizing the neighborhood. Parents often joke about their kids this way, but maybe liberals think we are being serious.

There seems to be no end to the things we are supposed to be afraid of.. and we can't spend too much money to fight the imaginary dragons either.

Iamon lyme: So true. We were always playing cops and robbers and cowboys and indians. Anything would do for a gun - like a stick. To this day, I've never used a stick to shoot anyone. I did throw a rock once tho.

Iamon lyme: It would be interesting to see how many of the crazies who have shot people up, are libs. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a high percentage. Perhaps they know in the back of their minds that THEY are the likely ones we should be worrying about having guns.

rod03801: I've wondered about that too, but have you noticed we are aways informed of a crazies political views if it sounds like right wing ranting?

In my local news paper if a politician has done something embarassing or said something odd, more often than not you'll see his party affiliation in parenthesis next to his (or her) name. But not if that politician happens to be a Democrat. Sometimes misinformation is subtley passed along more by omission than by out right lying. So it is very possible to create a mental image in the publics eye that doesn't necessarily reflect reality.

When someone talks about the public being ignorant of what is going on, I don't believe it's always the publics fault. It never hurts to read between the lines.. the aliens are watching, and waiting to make their move, so we must be ever vigilant.

rod03801: I think trying to say more conservatives then liberals or vice versa have gone crazy and killed is nuts.

But.. you could ask under your version of the freedom of information act there is such data available.

(V): clearly there is more violence, both in rhetoric and physical violence, on the liberal side. It's a no brainer.

Vikings: lol I said it is statistically inevitable that there will be a rampage. NOT that half the gun owners will go on the rampage.

You just can't have the loose controls on guns and ownership without one disturbed person flipping and ending up taking out his fear/anger induced reality on others.

Can I prove this is true? History shows it is true. It's not spin, it's a fact.

(V): "Seeing pre pubescent kids owning over a dozen firearms is freaky."

Where have you seen that? Here in the U.S. pre pubescent kids are too young to own guns, and the pubescent ones are usually too preoccupied with thoughts of sex to care about having a gun.

Iamon lyme: They are making this argument up as they go. Next we will have little Johnny, the terrible 2 year old, driving a tank down the sidewalk trying to take out little Suzie's swimming pool.

Artful Dodger: Little Suzie knows that Johnny is coming, and is waiting to take him out with her laser sighting anti-tank thingy. Before that happens they need to call a cease fire so Johnny can hurry home to go potty.. hopefully, he will reach his objective before accomplishing his mission.

Iamon lyme: And we mustn't forget IPBM's. Inter-property Ballistic Missiles. Currently they are using water balloons and sling shots, but you KNOW where that leads!!!

Artful Dodger:

Your arguments contradict themselves:

> Fear? How about putting some responsibility and discipline into your children instead, so they can responsibly handle guns to defend their freedom when they get older?

> Our freedom was bequeathed to us by our Founders, who fought an armed revolution against the British to secure it. James Madison, who wrote in Federalist #46 that Americans have "the advantage of being armed, which [they] possess over the people of almost every other nation" must be rolling in his grave.

OK, the Founding Fathers gave you freedom and posession of a firearm is enshrined in the constitution. Now, you say that we should put responsibility and dsicipline into children so they can protect freedom when they grow up.

Well, then why is this idea not enshrined in the educational system?

> Another huge flaw in your argument is that the law prohibits guns on school campuses. No one except a police officer can have a gun on a school campus.

So the consitution applies everywhere except a school campus.

> And schools aren't supposed to be in the business of teaching everything under the sun. However, it's a very good idea to teach kids about gun safety IF and only IF there are guns in the home. And who better to teach them but their own parents? (as opposed to the teachers who may or may not have expertise in firearms).

You mean, like parents teach sexual education to their kids? If the way parents taught sexual education were adequate, there would NEVER be teenage pregnacies. Then, I am sure all parents with guns are really responsible and know how to teach gun safety.

Since teachers are not equipped to teach firearms, why not bring in the military? Every school would have a career military instructor teaching kids how to handle guns safely. It makes sense to let an expert teach other how to do things, rather than leaving it to "amateurs" such as school teachers and parents.

I know that my argument is stupid. I am trying to make a point. you come out and say this:

"From the "They can't really be this stupid - can they?" category, an urban anti-violence group in Buffalo, NY conducted a gun "buyback" - targeting Nerf guns. Yes, Nerf guns - the spring-loaded children's toys that fire harmless, spongy little projectiles."

To you anything that opposes the right wing view of gun ownership seems wrong. Is it stupid to teach children that guns are wrong? I suppose simulated violence is not harmful until some kid realizes that if he replaces nerf sponge with real lead bullets he can get back at the bullies in his school.

No, we should teach them discipline and responsibility. Let's leave that to parents because ALL parents are really disciplined and responsible. Then the kids will grow up to be good little soldiers who will die protecting freedom, and the political and eocnomic interests of the ruling elite.

Did it occur to you perhaps that teaching children that guns are wrong is a form of discipline and responsibility too? I suppose it is OK for Children to play games taht simulate violence. It is disciplined and responsible to do so.

Übergeek 바둑이: You don't get it. It isn't ABOUT owning a gun. It's about being responsible. Most liberals miss that point. You focus on the gun and omit the personal responsibility we all have. You CAN own a gun responsibly. And here's a news flash for ya: It's a constitutional right so stop whining about it and move on already. ~sigh

Übergeek 바둑이: There would be less. Some part of teenage sex (as with teenage drug taking/booze drinking) is that it is wrong... a rebellion, as expected of kids, as it is what kids do.

Unless they are so mentally abused they become zombies par say.

"Since teachers are not equipped to teach firearms, why not bring in the military? Every school would have a career military instructor teaching kids how to handle guns safely. It makes sense to let an expert teach other how to do things, rather than leaving it to "amateurs" such as school teachers and parents."


Übergeek 바둑이: And since you are also an advocate of sex education in schools, let's take your logic into that area as well.

Since teachers are not equipped to teach sex education, why not bring in professional prostitutes? Better yet, a couple from the porn industry. Every school would have a sex instructor teaching kids how to handle ...er.....sex safely. It makes sense to let an expert teach other how to do things, rather than leaving it to "amateurs" such as school teachers and parents.

Artful Dodger:

> Since teachers are not equipped to teach sex education, why not bring in professional prostitutes?

Of course, sex education is about teaching children how to have sex, not about how to avoid unwated sexually transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancies. That is of course, teching responsibility.

Now, how do you teach responsibility with guns? Some parents are equipped, other are not. if every parent were equipped to teach responsible use of guns, there would be no Columbine massacres.

Übergeek 바둑이: Of course you can teach responsible gun ownership. Thousands do it all the time. And since we have the Constitutional right to own guns, that's the best you're gonna get. You won't get rid of guns with extreme examples of abuse. That happens in many siituations. You don't limit freedoms because of the abuse of a few.

Artful Dodger:

> Of course you can teach responsible gun ownership. Thousands do it all the time. And since we have the Constitutional right to own guns, that's the best you're gonna get. You won't get rid of guns with extreme examples of abuse. That happens in many siituations. You don't limit freedoms because of the abuse of a few.

The truth is that Americans love their guns. It is why the USA has one of the highest per capita rates of gun ownership in the world. 99.99 % of the population are responsible. There is the odd psychopath or sociopath that commits horrendous crimes.

Some day it will cause problems. If there is ever real austerity measures then there will be rioting, and violence will follow. Americans are not used to scarcity of resources or money any more.

To me it seems a big contradiction that some defenders of gun ownership claim to be good Christians. They seem to think that it is OK to hold a gun with one hand and a Bible with the other hand. Sarah Palin comes to mind, with the Christian rethoric and the NRA suppor It is a contradiction because Jesus never carried any weapons. He never condoned the use or possession of weapons. But then we as human beings are very good at contradicting ourselves.

I know it is stupid to suggest that children should learn gun use in schools. I say it because if we keep saying that learning to use guns will make children defenders of freedom in the future, then it would make perfect sense to formalize that training. Nobody would like to see that in schools and we somehow assume it is OK to do it at home. We assume all parents who own guns are equipped to teach their children properly.

In a perfect world there would be no guns, no violence, no crime, no wars, etc. We use the imperfect nature of the world to condone our own violence and to toss aside our most cherished values. It is why the contradiction between Christian values and gun use arises.

Eventually something will have to give because all those guns will become a problem if scarcity of resources or austerity measures put pressure on our social structure. We see signs of this in the rioting in Greece, Paris, London, the old LA riots, etc. The we will see our police moving in with lethal force against rioters armed to the teeth. It is a scary thought.

Übergeek 바둑이: It depends on your point of view. In the would be thief or rapists "perfect world", he shouldn't expect to find himself staring down the barrel of a gun and being invited to re-examine his evaluation of my values somewhere else.

Whose 'perfect world' are you promoting here?

Übergeek 바둑이: The so called contradiction between Christian values and gun use exists primarily in your own mind. During his ministry Jesus only had the clothes on his back. Are you suggesting all Christians give up everything but the clothes on their backs?

And can you show me where he exorted his followers to 'lay down thy staff and thy rod'? Those were the common weapons of choice in those days, for defense against wild animals and people who would attack them. You over simplify Christian values and beliefs, either intentionally or because of ignorance. I doubt you would claim ignorance, so should I assume it's intentional?

Iamon lyme: Have you ever listened to Cenk Uygur? He actually makes sense when he supports conservative ideas. But when he leans left, he falls on his fat face!

Artful Dodger: I don't know the name, is he on radio or tv? Or both?

Maybe he should stick to conservatism and leave the left leaning to someone else.. I was never a good liberal myself, I asked too many questions. I think I became a full fledged conservative shortly before my thirtieth birthday.

Iamon lyme: If one asks the right questions, they wouldn't be able to remain a liberal. But they don't ask those questions and they march only to one beat. They are like lemmings. (apologies to lemmings).

Artful Dodger: Well that's the problem, because asking the 'wrong' questions is what got me into trouble. I found myself on the outside looking in when I thought I was already in. I became less defensive when it became obvious the people who said question everything didn't mean that I could question them. My choice was to either change affiliations or shut up and not say anything.. heh heh heh heh heh heh

It was a tough decision to make.. NOT!

Iamon lyme: I was a die hard lib in my 20's. By the time I was thirty, I matured and whatdoyaknow? I saw through the lies. I was an asst VP in the CWA and that really opened my eyes.

Iamon lyme:

> The so called contradiction between Christian values and gun use exists primarily in your own mind. During his ministry Jesus only had the clothes on his back. Are you suggesting all Christians give up everything but the clothes on their backs?

I suppose the Sermon on the Mount says nothing about being violent. I am sure Jesus walked around with a sword under his cloak. I suppose giving up a gun is the same as walking around destitute. Jesus never said to give up everything. He simply said to give up violence and selfishness. I suppose that part of his message escapes a lot of people.


> And can you show me where he exorted his followers to 'lay down thy staff and thy rod'? Those were the common weapons of choice in those days, for defense against wild animals and people who would attack them.

From Luke 6:27-31

27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

And when the Romans came to arrest Jesus, did he pick a sword and fight his way out of the jam or did he surrender to avoid killing?

There is a very good reason why Jesus carried no weapons. He did not believe in them. So my question is simplke: Should a Christian, somebody who claims to follow the example of Jesus, carry or own weapons?


> You over simplify Christian values and beliefs, either intentionally or because of ignorance. I doubt you would claim ignorance, so should I assume it's intentional?

Well then, show me an example in which Jesus says it is OK to own, use or carry weapons? Then explain how the use or ownership of weapons relates to Christian values. I am ignorant and in need of enlightenment.

Übergeek 바둑이: From what I remember when one of Christ's disciples cut off an ear with a sword he healed it...

The use of violence is totally against the teachings of Jesus.

This fear of Muslims is also against what Christ said...

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28 KJV)

(V): Totally against the teaching of Jesus?

Personally, I do not subscribe to any organized religion, and see the Bible as nothing more than a book.

I looked around and found a few cases that seem to contradict your "Totally" comment. But again, one of the main faults of the "Bible" is that anyone can search for any quote that seems to support whatever thing they want to proclaim as the word of "God".

How about Luke 23:36?

And he [Jesus] said to them [His disciples], ‘But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And he was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.’ They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ And He said to them, ‘It is enough.

That doesn't sound "Totally" to me.

I also read something about him creating a whip and whipping people. Of course you'll have to pardon my lack of the exact quote. Sure, it may have been "figurative", but it cracks me up that people pick and choose what parts are "figurative" and which parts are "literal"

Personally, it's all Hooey.

rod03801: Aye... He did, but that was so prophecy (Isaiah 53:9-12) could be fulfilled. 11 disciples and two swords were not exactly a challenge to those who were arresting him.

Taking things out of context don't work.

As to "what parts are "figurative" and which parts are "literal""

All at the same time and more...

as for the whip. He chased them with it is all I see, he drove the money changers out of the temple. Something that needs doing today seeing all those wearing bling that are paid for by donations to help fight the DeViL!!

Personally it's good to question, without that we'd still be ruled by the RCC.

Übergeek 바둑이: You are missing the point. Jesus recognised the reality of living "in the world." Paul talked about having to deal with wild animals and bandits, how far do you think he would have gotten if he didn't believe in defending himself?

Where do you see me promoting needless violence against anyone? If I manage to deter someones intended violence against me or my family, then I have successfully stopped violence from happening.

Where do you see virtue in allowing yourself to be a victim when that doesn't need to happen? Are you seriously suggesting I should allow someone to harm someone in my family when it's in my power to stop it? You seem intent on telling Christians what they should or should not do. What would you do if someone threatened to rape and or kill your wife and children? What makes you believe Christians should not protect themselves and the ones they love when it's obvious you would if it was in your power? Or perhaps this is not so obvious. What would you do?

Iamon lyme:

> You are missing the point. Jesus recognised the reality of living "in the world." Paul talked about having to deal with wild animals and bandits, how far do you think he would have gotten if he didn't believe in defending himself?

The answer is that Jesus set an example that few human beings can live up to. Jesus could have defended himself physically. He could have grabbed a sword, ask his disciples to arm themselves to the teeth, and then fought against the Romans who came to arrest him. Why would Jesus do that? He could have called on angels to come to his aid. He could have put the Romans and the Pharisees to the angel's sword. Why would Jesus not even be remotely tempted by a violent solution to his unjust incarceration and execution? The answer is that Jesus was giving us all a lesson. Violence among human beings is pointless. It is nothing but a sin in the eyes of God.

Of course, we are not enlightened like that. We make excuses for ourselves. We own weapons for "sport" and "entertainment". We say to ourselves that the guns are there to defend ourselves and our families. We justify ownership of weapons on legal grounds such as the Constitution. But deep inside (and this is where God looks) we know that something is wrong. We want peace, and it comes out of the barrel of a gun. So we contradict ourselves.

Übergeek 바둑이: It's not my job to make you want enlightenment. And if you are really all that concerned about 'contradictions', then why am I being tutored in moral principles by someone whose own sense of morality is derived by eons of evolutionary development.. ???

According to you, the law of tooth and fang should not apply to me. If your own world view is correct, then why wouldn't the same evolutionary principles apply to me as well?

And please stop pretending you know anything about what I believe, you would have more luck if you pretended to be a Christian preacher..

Strike that last thought. We have enough phonies pretending to be just that. We don't need any more fakers trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Iamon lyme:

> then why am I being tutored in moral principles by someone whose own sense of morality is derived by eons of evolutionary development.. ???

?? What does evolution have to do with any of this?

> We have enough phonies pretending to be just that. We don't need any more fakers trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Sure I am a phony and a fake. You still haven't proved that there is no contradiction between possessing weapons and Christian ethics. Find me a Bilbical quote, or a sensible argument. Calling me names proves not your point, but your inability to make intelligent arguments.

Übergeek 바둑이: ???

I wasn't calling you a phonie or a fake. If you are a 'Christian' preacher, then you would be. Are you?

It takes two to carry on an intelligent conversation. I've done my part, so I'll just have to wait for you to stop repeating yourself and actually address what I've said.

Übergeek 바둑이: "?? What does evolution have to do with any of this?"

It has to do with your own particular world view, and how perceptions are filtered through that view.

I've taken a leap of faith by assuming two things:
1. You don't believe in God, or if you do you don't believe he created life on earth
2. You believe we are all here because of evolution

If my assumptions are correct, and I admit they are only assumptions, then you are free to show me how you do not contradict yourself.

Übergeek 바둑이: Okay, I can see now why you might not understand my point. My bad.

If your own sense of morality doesn't come from God, it would have to come from something else. If there is no God and everything we have is owed to evolution, then it follows that whatever sense of morality we have would have neccessarily been derived from eons of evolutionary development.

I've sudied evolution, so I know what the forces are that enable simple organisms to change into increasingly complex ones, the primary one being whatever change that brings about an advantage to survival.

Morality does not play any part in this, as it implies a higher responsibily to a creator who, in the mind of the evolutionist, either does not exist or only exists in some far away place, and does not intervene in our affairs.

This is already getting too long, so I'll stop here and ask you why it even matters what people do or don't do, since survival of the fittest has nothing to do with right or wrong. The concept of right and wrong are MORAL precepts. Not evolutionary precepts. According to evolution, there is no such thing as right and wrong, only what works for you and what doesn't.

The condratiction in your argument, which I admit is based on an assumption of your own particular world view, is evident in how your own sense of morality finds it wrong that anyone should own a weapon for ANY reason.

If I'm wrong about what you believe (about God or about evolution) then I appologize for assuming too much. Of course, then you WOULD be a phonie and a fake for suggesting you actually care one way or the other about Christian principles.

I'm sure you will suggest that neither is right, and that there is some middle ground here.. can't wait to hear it.

Iamon lyme: I think I disagree a bit with "survival of the fittest has nothing to do with right and wrong"

I personally can see how knowing what is acceptable and not acceptable in one's society would be pretty crucial/beneficial to "survival". (Without your morality being grounded in "God")

Of course I could be misunderstanding your point completely.

rod03801: Your point is well taken, but I don't see how defending yourself, your family or your property is not crucial or beneficial to a societies survival. In a "perfect world" we would not have to deal with people constantly on the prowl looking to do violence and take what is not theirs. Like it or not we do not live in a perfect world. I might expect to see Ubers argument coming from someone hoping to fool me into believing I have no right to stop him from harming me.. I may be a fool, but I'm not that kind of fool.

I wasn't just blowing smoke when I said (in a previous post) that nothing could live in a 'perfect universe', where all mass and energy is evenly distributed. Nothing works where there is even distribution. Not the economy, not the universe, not anything.

If you think about opposing forces as conflict, then the moon is orbiting the earth precisely because of a conflict.. the moon is trying to fly away and the earth is trying to get the moon to come crashing down on it. The opposing forces keep the moon orbiting the earth, which is highly beneficial for those of us here living on the earth. So conflict in the physical universe is not a bad thing.. that and the fact that everything is NOT evenly distributed works very well for us here living on this earth.

There is another kind of conflict, I don't fully understand it but I have the sense that it too is neccessary if for nothing else then maybe for some higher purpose. And the universe is a staging area for that higher purpose to be worked out.. btw what I believe created that conflict in the first place is free will. The universe doesn't make free will choices, but we do, and that is why we experience a different kind of conflict. It won't always be unresolved, but I think there is a purpose for that conflict and some good will come from it.

Iamon lyme: Oh no! Don't get me wrong! I'm FULL on with agreement on the right to bear arms, etc! I'm not a silly lib! lol

rod03801:
Rod, I was wondering whether you thought you had a conflict of interest in offering your right wing views on the politics board and that of being staff? For example if a notoriously “silly liberal” who you had argued with many times before got his posts censored, on another board could you be seen as being unbiased?

I appreciate you are not the moderator on this board but if it seems a bit like the referee playing centre forward for Right Wing United.

Justaminute: Simple quick answer. No.

This board is about Politics, not moderating. Future moderating conversations need to be held via PM.

Thank you.

Justaminute: Of course anyone who is not right wing is silly here. It's like Fox news

rod03801: "survival of the fittest has nothing to do with right or wrong."

I'm talking about two irreconcilable points of view. I'm not attempting to mix the two as though they are same the thing, because that would be inaccurate as well as confusing. It's better to talk about them as if two purists were comparing notes.

An evolutionary purist doesn't believe in God, or is willing to allow the possiblity but doesn't acknowledge His involvement. He doesn't acknowledge morality because it is grounded in God. His own sense of 'morality' is grounded in himself (what man deems is right) and not in God, so his own version of 'morality' is called ethics.

The idea of right and wrong can transcend what we might find convenient, or beneficial only to ourselves. For reasons that should be obvious, a lot of people don't like the concept of morality, because what is right and wrong is ultimately determined by God and not by ourselves.

When an evolutionist talks about how evolution occured, he never puts it in terms of right and wrong. He never says morality played a part in evolution.. because evolution just happened, and the only forces in play were those that enabled a living thing to continue living and progress to becoming other living things. Survival of the fittest means whatever it takes to survive, and ultimately dominate and/or replace creatures who are not as fit as they are for survival.

If you watch nature shows you can't miss the fact that one of the features that enable survival is deception. I see it especially when they show ocean life.. or when someone here (not you) attempts to divert my attention to defending Christian principles, when the only point I was making was that it's okay to own a weapon if it's used for self defense. I was also accused of name calling when it was obvious I wasn't. An attempt to intimidate by alerting the moderator?