Liberal olive branch extended to the right...

69charger

my2hands wrote:

i would argue that we dont need cars that go over 80 mph, let alone 200

Need? No.

That's what America's about! Do you need a car that can do 200? No. But you can own one if you'd like.

[DON KING]Only in America!![/DON KING]

my2hands

69charger wrote:

Need? No.

That's what America's about! Do you need a car that can do 200? No. But you can own one if you'd like.

[DON KING]Only in America!![/DON KING]

the same argument could be applied to anything, such as child pornagraphy...we can all agree that possessing this should be illegal...because of the victims... the same that there are multiple victims from excessive speeding or mis handled weapons such as the ones being discussed ? i see no need to fire 100 rounds per minute...there is only one purpose of these weapons, that is to use on humans ?

69charger

my2hands wrote:

the same argument could be applied to anything, such as child pornagraphy...we can all agree that possessing this should be illegal...because of the victims... the same that there are multiple victims from excessive speeding or mis handled weapons such as the ones being discussed ? i see no need to fire 100 rounds per minute...there is only one purpose of these weapons, that is to use on humans ?

Not even close to being the same thing. Child pornography is the end result of a crime comitted against a child.

Simply lawfully owning a gun hurts absolutely NO ONE! What people choose to do with anything they own is up to them. A person could kill you with a pencil. Banning pencils will not stop someone from killing if that's what they want to do. They'll simply use something else to do it.

As for firing 100rds/min, there is indeed a need. I like having a 40rd magazine on my rifle. It means I don't have to reload as often. I am a responsible law-abiding citizen, why shouldn't I be able to own a full auto gun? I pose no threat of harm to anyone.

You should have someone you know who is a responsible gun owner, take you out to a range. Shooting is fun!

1970RR

my2hands wrote:

the same argument could be applied to anything, such as child pornagraphy...we can all agree that possessing this should be illegal...because of the victims... the same that there are multiple victims from excessive speeding or mis handled weapons such as the ones being discussed ? i see no need to fire 100 rounds per minute...there is only one purpose of these weapons, that is to use on humans ?

So I guess it would be okay to ban everything that has potential to hurt someone since child pornography is bad, right?
Comparing speeding and guns to child pornography is ridiculous.

69charger

+++++++++++

Replied to wrong post.

my2hands

69charger wrote:

I fully support licensed fully automatic weapons.

Firearms are involved in the deaths of more than 37,000 people each year, the second leading cause of injury-related death in the United States.

Firearm deaths have increased 60 percent since 1968. During 1991, 5,356 young men and women under the age of 20 were killed by firearms, the leading cause of death for both African-American and Caucasian youth in America.

?, is this what the costitution intended

my2hands

Gun Violence Statistics
Yearly, Japan experiences a gun-violence rate drastically less than that experienced in the United States. This becomes evident when you compare gun violence statistics for Japan with gun violence statistics for the United States.

· Japan had fewer gun violence deaths in all of 1995 than the United States had in an average day (Coalition).

· According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, in 1997 there were 32,436 gun-related deaths in the United States. According to Japan's National Police Agency there were 19 gun-related deaths nation-wide in Japan in 1998 (Dolan).


· The robbery rate in Japan is 1.4 per 100,000, compared to 220.9 in the United States (Kopel).

· Tokyo has 40 reported muggings a year for every million inhabitants; New York City has 11,000 (Japanese).

69charger

my2hands wrote:

Gun Violence Statistics
Yearly, Japan experiences a gun-violence rate drastically less than that experienced in the United States. This becomes evident when you compare gun violence statistics for Japan with gun violence statistics for the United States.

· Japan had fewer gun violence deaths in all of 1995 than the United States had in an average day (Coalition).

· According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, in 1997 there were 32,436 gun-related deaths in the United States. According to Japan's National Police Agency there were 19 gun-related deaths nation-wide in Japan in 1998 (Dolan).


· The robbery rate in Japan is 1.4 per 100,000, compared to 220.9 in the United States (Kopel).

· Tokyo has 40 reported muggings a year for every million inhabitants; New York City has 11,000 (Japanese).

You are dealing with a far less violent culture in the Japanese and they also have a much lower overall crime rate.

Apples and Oranges.

Look at the skyrocketing crime rates of Great Britian and Austrailia. Two countries where firearms have been nearly totally banned.

Our crime rate continues to decline year after year.

69charger

my2hands wrote:

Firearms are involved in the deaths of more than 37,000 people each year, the second leading cause of injury-related death in the United States.

Firearm deaths have increased 60 percent since 1968. During 1991, 5,356 young men and women under the age of 20 were killed by firearms, the leading cause of death for both African-American and Caucasian youth in America.

?, is this what the costitution intended

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

In 2003 the rate of violent crime involving a firearm was only about 7%.

7% of the population fucking up means the rest of us have to suffer?

The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 67% of the 16,503 murders in 2003 were committed with firearms. That equals 11,057 a third of the number you provided.

Gun crime is at the same level now as it was in 1973.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm

Also firearms are not the leading cause of death amongst Adolescents, accidents were http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/001915.htm

my2hands

69charger wrote:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

In 2003 the rate of violent crime involving a firearm was only about 7%.




meaningless statistic... if there were 1 billion violent crimes then that would result in 7 million firearm related ? a % doesnt reflect the much documented problem the US faces in gun violence (comparitively to the rest of the industrial world)... i work with at risk youth, mostly in the inner city and I have seen too many 14 year olds die as a result of guns... it is very tragic... the difference is that because of your location (assuming rural) guns are used for legitimate purposes such as hunting or recreation (i would argue you can target practice with Bows or pellet guns for the same affect of marksmanship)... where as in non-rural locations we have a tremendous problem with gun related crime

Pastor JeffD

my2hands wrote:

In 2003 the rate of violent crime involving a firearm was only about 7%.

Id bet that every single measly campus and barroom fist fight in counted in with the "violent crime" stats. Not very trustworthy.

As for me and guns...

eh.

I own quite a few, shotguns and rifles... but I would prefer to see an EXTENSIVE background check done on anyone before they are allowed to be purchased. And no more fucking same-day buys, thats just fuckin stupid.

I do have to differ with the Constitutional arguement that Charger used earlier - no way IN HELL did the framers of the Constitution mean for anyone and everyone to have a gun. A well regulated militia is the equal to each state having a National Guard... the states would be allowed to protect themselves. That's it. No more should be read into it.

THAT SAID, this came from a time when everyone needed guns, or that guns were a lot more needed -- as tools for the survival of your family. We've always been a gun culture and I suppose we always will be... it's as much a part of America as baseball or Super Sized fries.

Im a Liberal through and through - but Im also a gun owner and like nothing better than shooting the shit outta coffee cans (and other debris) with my 30-30 lever action... skeet shooting can be a blast as well. I dont want to take anyones guns away, but I wanna make sure that only responsible non-criminals have the access to them as much as possible.

69charger

my2hands wrote:

(i would argue you can target practice with Bows or pellet guns for the same affect of marksmanship)

You can also be killed with both.

69charger

Pastor JeffD wrote:

Id bet that every single measly campus and barroom fist fight in counted in with the "violent crime" stats. Not very trustworthy.

Yeah, let's not trust official crime statistics from the FBI. That would be silly.

I would prefer to see an EXTENSIVE background check done on anyone before they are allowed to be purchased. And no more fucking same-day buys, thats just fuckin stupid.

I agree totally.

I do have to differ with the Constitutional arguement that Charger used earlier - no way IN HELL did the framers of the Constitution mean for anyone and everyone to have a gun. A well regulated militia is the equal to each state having a National Guard... the states would be allowed to protect themselves. That's it. No more should be read into it.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."

This sets up the right of a state to defend itself. Including the right to defend itself from the Federal Government.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right of the PEOPLE...PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Not the right of the militia, to keep and bear arms, the PEOPLE!

Why do anti-gun people and anti-gun scholars have no problem with the wording of any other part of the Bill of Rights but they think the wording of the Second Amendment is vauge at best?

I think the founding fathers knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they wrote it.

...I wanna make sure that only responsible non-criminals have the access to them as much as possible.

Again I agree totally with this statement.

OutOfBreath

my2hands wrote:

As a far left leaning contributor to this message board, i have noticed that there seems to be an equal number of right leaning voices. Within the threads we seem to get caught into partisan discussion, each side stating their position over and over (myself a guilty party), which most of us already have an understanding of each sides position. The problem with this is that we are getting caught in a cycle of agreeing to disagree. On either side of these discussions there seems to be very intelligent, talented minds. I fell we need to find a common ground and help to affect a positive change in our resepctive communities and the global community. Quite frankly, we are achieving exactly what is desired by the elite that profit from our labor and hardships, we are engaging in endless partisan arguments, achieving little action for the better of humanity. I can confidently state that both sides want to achieve the same goals... peace, equality, living wage, just treatment for all, heal the sick, feed the poor, house the homeless, strong education for all, strong enviroment protection, etc... to leave a better world for our children and the future generations to come. The difference seems to be the application or approach to achieve these common goals. I do not think that even the farthest right leaning soul (on this board) wants war, famine, disease, etc... We are just viewing the world through different colored lenses. let us unite against the people that block this progress, that continue to exploit this planet and the human race for their immense gain. We must realise that we are pawns in a game, and that average folks like me and you are truly losing out. Please, let us use our brains (and hearts) to help one another bring about much needed change. please accept my extension of this olive branch from the left to the right! peace to all


"wont someone save the world" eV

I havent read the thread apart from first post, but I just felt like commenting on this by a little example. If, as you say, we should all be cheering on "progress" and work together to achieve this, it gets problematic. It's like standing in a huddle saying: "okay folks, we all know what needs to be done. We must further progress and the good cause. You all with me? Alright, go team!" And then all the players running in opposite directions getting nothing done, because one doesn't agree what the problems really are. Actually, the mental image of "go team" and *poof* each to his side brought a smile to my face

Anyway, continue with your discussion, of which I know nothing

Peace
Dan

my2hands

my2hands wrote:

As a far left leaning contributor to this message board, i have noticed that there seems to be an equal number of right leaning voices. Within the threads we seem to get caught into partisan discussion, each side stating their position over and over (myself a guilty party), which most of us already have an understanding of each sides position. The problem with this is that we are getting caught in a cycle of agreeing to disagree. On either side of these discussions there seems to be very intelligent, talented minds. I fell we need to find a common ground and help to affect a positive change in our resepctive communities and the global community. Quite frankly, we are achieving exactly what is desired by the elite that profit from our labor and hardships, we are engaging in endless partisan arguments, achieving little action for the better of humanity. I can confidently state that both sides want to achieve the same goals... peace, equality, living wage, just treatment for all, heal the sick, feed the poor, house the homeless, strong education for all, strong enviroment protection, etc... to leave a better world for our children and the future generations to come. The difference seems to be the application or approach to achieve these common goals. I do not think that even the farthest right leaning soul (on this board) wants war, famine, disease, etc... We are just viewing the world through different colored lenses. let us unite against the people that block this progress, that continue to exploit this planet and the human race for their immense gain. We must realise that we are pawns in a game, and that average folks like me and you are truly losing out. Please, let us use our brains (and hearts) to help one another bring about much needed change. please accept my extension of this olive branch from the left to the right! peace to all


"wont someone save the world" eV

bump becuase it needs to be

melodious

you brought this back for a reason you must feel pertinent in life's events...so could you please elaborate?????

my2hands

bump, again, because it needs to be

eddies grrl

Pastor JeffD wrote:

No thanks. The Right Wing has spent the last 40 years at war with anyone that doesnt share their views, they've been at work at this since Goldwater lost.

This olive branch stuff is equal to the Dem Convention last fall - be above the fray, be positive. Then the GOP strolls out Zell Miller and Dick Cheney, the Swift Boat Liars, and they bash Kerry and Dems into pulp.

No thanks. There is an idealogical war in America. The Left has been getting its ass kicked, but is just now starting to put together the frame-work of a real body politic and getting a mechanism to spread it's message.

Now, Im all for real debate between the Liberal and Conservative schools of political theory, but in so far as the on going struggle for the soul of America -Our country is turning from a Republic to an Imperial State, from one founded on freedoms, to one ruled by fear -- no thanks, I will not go quietly.

It's game ON. In AMT and in real life. Game on.

I love you.

Sorry folks, but I have to agree with the Pastor. Treading lightly only leaves us liberals sinking in the quicksand. The pendulum has swung frighteningly far right; we need a strong, hard push back left just to get to the middle! The gloves are off.

cincybearcat

my2hands wrote:

bump, again, because it needs to be

If it needed bumping someone other then the person who started the thread would have posted something more valuable then...bump.

my2hands

cincybearcat wrote:

If it needed bumping someone other then the person who started the thread would have posted something more valuable then...bump.

i believe you are one of the cons i was referring to...