Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[kaz]

When drunk driving was rampant, the legal limit was tightened. When lung cancer was rampant, cigarette machines disappeared and smoking in public curtailed. When gun violence is rampant, conservatives talk about Thomas Jefferson.

No wonder they've won the pop vote for the white house once in two decades. Good work.

drunk driving is not down, cigarette smoking is on the rise again.

I hadn't heard either of those, but either way I'm not sure what your point is in regard to guns.

 

[BlackSand]

When drunk driving was rampant, the legal limit was tightened. When lung cancer was rampant, cigarette machines disappeared and smoking in public curtailed. When gun violence is rampant, conservatives talk about Thomas Jefferson.

No wonder they've won the pop vote for the white house once in two decades. Good work.

drunk driving is not down, cigarette smoking is on the rise again.

I hadn't heard either of those, but either way I'm not sure what your point is in regard to guns.

When drunk driving was rampant ... They initiated Unconstitutional roadblocks with illegal searches.
When Lung Cancer was rampant ... They initiated Unconstitutional bans of activities regarding private properties accessed by the public ... And levied a tax on a publically distributed product as a strictly punitive measure.
When gun violence is rampant ... Conservatives finally said ... We saw what you did the last two times, and no way in hell are you getting away with it again.

Edit:
Jefferson just happened to be a pretty avid supporter of the last point ... Didn't give a damn about driving drunk, and was a regular smoker.

.

 

[yeo]

Once again -- M-W is a dictionary, not a political science resource. My citation was from FreeDic and I omitted nothing pertinent to politics (I linked it; go look for yourself). It would appear your Merriam Webster is wrong (I'm taking your word that that's what it says) because liberal and leftist are in no way synonymous. What would be the point of that? Liberal and "government involvement" are in fact antithetical. Liberalism is opposed by both the left and the right.

I did leave you a link that explained all this. You might try reading it. Matter of fact I'd say it would behoove you to spend more time listening/reading and less time spewing before you know what you're talking about.

And no I'm not at all "uncomfortable"; Liberalism is what founded this country and wrote the Second Amendment, Bub. But I will correct you when you try to distort what it is.

Edit: I really didn't want to waste the time but I checked Merriam Webster anyway, and it does not say what you claimed -- to wit:

>> Full Definition of LIBERALISM

1
: the quality or state of being liberal
2
a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)
d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party << (link here)

Not a great definition, particularly the "crucial instrument" part, but also not what you quoted. It does however list left, leftism and left wing as synonyms, which is erroneous.

For what it's worth historically, this attempt at demonizing the word liberal comes from the dark McCarthy days; it was a desperation tactic when Democrats were in power to paint them as communists or communist sympathizers and polarize political discourse into a juvenile "good" and "evil" dichotomy. George Bush the First revived it in the 1988 Presidential campaign too. But I'll be damned if I'm going to start misusing a definition I know better just because Joe McCarthy and Rush Limblob want to score cheap political sport-points.

So much of what you have written is illogical that I do not know where to begin. Let's begin by your refuting my source as merely a dictionary, then offering as your only source, FreeDic, which, of course, is a dictionary. Second, if you go to the Merriam-Webster website, as I'm sure other readers have done by now, liberal is first defined, right below the term liberal, ": believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change." Your claiming it is not there does not make it disappear. You should state, instead, that you wish it was not there since it shatters your archaic concept of the meaning of modern American liberalism. Secondly, everything else you wrote is based on opinion, with no facts offered. Here's a couple from Wikipedia, perhaps not the best source for political science but the website's quotes are accurate. Such as from the self-professed liberal Paul Krugman, "I believe in a relatively equal society, supported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty.: And another from JFK, who defines liberal as, "...someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs..." Equality and welfare of the people...that about sums up the liberal philosophy.
The current liberals are the "demonizers, quick to label Tea Party activists, the NRA and conservatives as right-wing fanatics and obstructionists, while they push their socialist agenda in a Congress overcrowded with knee-wobbly Republicans.
I would appreciate, if and when you respond, your citing some sources to back up your claims, rather than expecting others to go along blindly with everything you write.
One more thing, lose the hostility. When you show anger, you help the argument of your opponent.
__________________

 

[M14 Shooter]

>> Full Definition of LIBERALISM1
2
a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity

Well, we know this does not apply to tghe Modern American Liberal

b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard

Nor does this.

c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties;

Nor this.

And thus, the Modern Americal Liberal is NOT a classical liberal.
Those of us with any degree of intellectual honesty already knew this.

 

[kaz]

drunk driving is not down, cigarette smoking is on the rise again.

I hadn't heard either of those, but either way I'm not sure what your point is in regard to guns.

When drunk driving was rampant ... They initiated Unconstitutional roadblocks with illegal searches.
When Lung Cancer was rampant ... They initiated Unconstitutional bans of activities regarding private properties accessed by the public ... And levied a tax on a publically distributed product as a strictly punitive measure.
When gun violence is rampant ... Conservatives finally said ... We saw what you did the last two times, and no way in hell are you getting away with it again.

Edit:
Jefferson just happened to be a pretty avid supporter of the last point ... Didn't give a damn about driving drunk, and was a regular smoker.

.

Good points, though I don't think that's what the spoon man meant. He's a good guy, I just didn't get what he was getting at with that particular argument.

 

[Pogo]

Once again -- M-W is a dictionary, not a political science resource. My citation was from FreeDic and I omitted nothing pertinent to politics (I linked it; go look for yourself). It would appear your Merriam Webster is wrong (I'm taking your word that that's what it says) because liberal and leftist are in no way synonymous. What would be the point of that? Liberal and "government involvement" are in fact antithetical. Liberalism is opposed by both the left and the right.

I did leave you a link that explained all this. You might try reading it. Matter of fact I'd say it would behoove you to spend more time listening/reading and less time spewing before you know what you're talking about.

And no I'm not at all "uncomfortable"; Liberalism is what founded this country and wrote the Second Amendment, Bub. But I will correct you when you try to distort what it is.

Edit: I really didn't want to waste the time but I checked Merriam Webster anyway, and it does not say what you claimed -- to wit:

>> Full Definition of LIBERALISM

1
: the quality or state of being liberal
2
a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)
d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party << (link here)

Not a great definition, particularly the "crucial instrument" part, but also not what you quoted. It does however list left, leftism and left wing as synonyms, which is erroneous.

For what it's worth historically, this attempt at demonizing the word liberal comes from the dark McCarthy days; it was a desperation tactic when Democrats were in power to paint them as communists or communist sympathizers and polarize political discourse into a juvenile "good" and "evil" dichotomy. George Bush the First revived it in the 1988 Presidential campaign too. But I'll be damned if I'm going to start misusing a definition I know better just because Joe McCarthy and Rush Limblob want to score cheap political sport-points.

So much of what you have written is illogical that I do not know where to begin. Let's begin by your refuting my source as merely a dictionary, then offering as your only source, FreeDic, which, of course, is a dictionary. Second, if you go to the Merriam-Webster website, as I'm sure other readers have done by now, liberal is first defined, right below the term liberal, ": believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change." Your claiming it is not there does not make it disappear. You should state, instead, that you wish it was not there since it shatters your archaic concept of the meaning of modern American liberalism. Secondly, everything else you wrote is based on opinion, with no facts offered. Here's a couple from Wikipedia, perhaps not the best source for political science but the website's quotes are accurate. Such as from the self-professed liberal Paul Krugman, "I believe in a relatively equal society, supported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty.: And another from JFK, who defines liberal as, "...someone who cares about the welfare of the people &#8212; their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs..." Equality and welfare of the people...that about sums up the liberal philosophy.
The current liberals are the "demonizers, quick to label Tea Party activists, the NRA and conservatives as right-wing fanatics and obstructionists, while they push their socialist agenda in a Congress overcrowded with knee-wobbly Republicans.
I would appreciate, if and when you respond, your citing some sources to back up your claims, rather than expecting others to go along blindly with everything you write.
One more thing, lose the hostility. When you show anger, you help the argument of your opponent.
__________________

Look, dood. If you just want to hear the sound of your own voice, you're in the wrong place. This is a message board, the purpose of which is dialogue, not monologue.

All the links are there. The M-W page (see where it says "link here"? that's why it's there -- what you quoted simply doesn't appear on that page). I pasted what WAS on the page within my post, so I don't know what page you were looking at. I also linked a 30-page background political science history on all of this previously; I also linked my own FreeDic citation before that. ALL of them are linked. If you're not interested in any view but your own, seeya later, but don't sit there and tell me the links sitting on the page aren't there.

 

[Pogo]

drunk driving is not down, cigarette smoking is on the rise again.

I hadn't heard either of those, but either way I'm not sure what your point is in regard to guns.

When drunk driving was rampant ... They initiated Unconstitutional roadblocks with illegal searches.

They did, that's true, and it's a major blot on the face of liberty. But two things: (a) I don't think those road searches were inspired by drunk driving, and (b) I don't think that's what the poster meant; he said "When drunk driving was rampant, the legal limit was tightened". Meaning the BAL. That's hardly the same thing as a Gestapo roadblock.

When Lung Cancer was rampant ... They initiated Unconstitutional bans of activities regarding private properties accessed by the public ... And levied a tax on a publically distributed product as a strictly punitive measure.

Trouble with this one is... smoking doesn't affect the smoker only. It fucks up the entire room. My mother died of lung cancer. She wasn't a smoker. I don't think a random smoker has the right to kill my mother. Do you?

As for the "punitive" tax... Fuck 'em. If they're going to self-destruct in a completely selfish act, let's get something productive out of 'em.

When gun violence is rampant ... Conservatives finally said ... We saw what you did the last two times, and no way in hell are you getting away with it again.

This point would appear not to apply after the first two points...

The poster's actual line "conservatives talk about Thomas Jefferson" as I read it draws a distinction between, on the one hand the social mores being modified by popular consent to address social problems in the case of drunk driving and smoking (both of which kill bystanders) and on the other hand, gun violence. I'm not sure what Jefferson talk he's referring to, but his point is whereas we took on drunk driving and public smoking, conservatives go silent on this one. In effect he's turning the OP around and asking "conservatives, what is your plan?". That's my take.

Edit:
Jefferson just happened to be a pretty avid supporter of the last point ... Didn't give a damn about driving drunk, and was a regular smoker.

.

Jefferson drove drunk? You're perhaps thinking of Franklin Pierce.
And where's your background on his smoking?

 

[71sportstourer]

Conservatives logic when it comes to guns: abolish traffic laws because automobile accidents are still happening.

 

[71sportstourer]

The fact is the NRA and gun nuts argument is that gun control and ample gun rights can't co-exist in the same time and place.

I might buy that if Canada, which has huge numbers of armed sportsmen (a very high per capita firearms ownership ratio) at the same time didn't also have, compared to the paltry background check expansions Dems have proposed, extremely tight gun control.

So, on this issue the right is clearly lying, extreme, etc.

 

[BlackSand]

I hadn't heard either of those, but either way I'm not sure what your point is in regard to guns.

When drunk driving was rampant ... They initiated Unconstitutional roadblocks with illegal searches.

They did, that's true, and it's a major blot on the face of liberty. But two things: (a) I don't think those road searches were inspired by drunk driving, and (b) I don't think that's what the poster meant; he said "When drunk driving was rampant, the legal limit was tightened". Meaning the BAL. That's hardly the same thing as a Gestapo roadblock.



Trouble with this one is... smoking doesn't affect the smoker only. It fucks up the entire room. My mother died of lung cancer. She wasn't a smoker. I don't think a random smoker has the right to kill my mother. Do you?

As for the "punitive" tax... Fuck 'em. If they're going to self-destruct in a completely selfish act, let's get something productive out of 'em.

When gun violence is rampant ... Conservatives finally said ... We saw what you did the last two times, and no way in hell are you getting away with it again.

This point would appear not to apply after the first two points...

The poster's actual line "conservatives talk about Thomas Jefferson" as I read it draws a distinction between, on the one hand the social mores being modified by popular consent to address social problems in the case of drunk driving and smoking (both of which kill bystanders) and on the other hand, gun violence. I'm not sure what Jefferson talk he's referring to, but his point is whereas we took on drunk driving and public smoking, conservatives go silent on this one. In effect he's turning the OP around and asking "conservatives, what is your plan?". That's my take.

Edit:
Jefferson just happened to be a pretty avid supporter of the last point ... Didn't give a damn about driving drunk, and was a regular smoker.

.

Jefferson drove drunk? You're perhaps thinking of Franklin Pierce.
And where's your background on his smoking?

That's what I keep saying ... It is the freaking Constitution that makes it so it doesn't matter how good you think one thing or another may be ... It isn't the business of the government.
Of course don't get the idea that I ever thought you would understand ... I mean you made a comment and Thomas Jefferson and driving drunk ... When it is obvious he didn't give a damn because there weren't any cars.

You would do better sitting in front of a mirror and arguing with yourself.

.

 

[71sportstourer]

[/QUOTE] That's what I keep saying ... It is the freaking Constitution that makes it so it doesn't matter how good you think one thing or another may be ... It isn't the business of the government.[/QUOTE]

Quoting the first half of the second amendment, as the right does incessantly, is "not the freaking Constitution."

 

[BlackSand]

Quoting the first half of the second amendment, as the right does incessantly, is "not the freaking Constitution."

Yeah, I know ... It bugs the hell out of you doesn't it?
When you read what they said about why it was put there ... That probably pisses you off a little too.

.

 

[71sportstourer]

Doesn't bug me in the least. Because, in the long run, they'll lose, as liars and zealots do, and I'm happy not to be one of them.

 

[BlackSand]

Doesn't bug me in the least. Because, in the long run, they'll lose, as liars and zealots do, and I'm happy not to be one of them.

If you are happy with being the loser ... That's fine with me.

.

 

[71sportstourer]

You equate losing the pop vote all but once in the past two decades with winning, okay.

 

[BlackSand]

You equate losing the pop vote all but once in the past two decades with winning, okay.

Uh no ... I don't equate anything off the popular vote ... I was referring to exactly what you said.

.

 

[71sportstourer]

Win the White House a few times, then talk about winning.

 

[BlackSand]

Win the White House a few times, then talk about winning.

I didn't say anything about winning ... You talked about losing ... I just agreed with you.

.

 

[Spoonman]

That's what I keep saying ... It is the freaking Constitution that makes it so it doesn't matter how good you think one thing or another may be ... It isn't the business of the government.[/QUOTE]

Quoting the first half of the second amendment, as the right does incessantly, is "not the freaking Constitution."[/QUOTE]

then again if you ever bothered to read what madison described a well regulated militia to be you see it even give more credence to the fact his intent was that citizens be as well armed as the government.

 

[Spoonman]

Doesn't bug me in the least. Because, in the long run, they'll lose, as liars and zealots do, and I'm happy not to be one of them.

you do know you gun grabbing idiots couldn't even exploit the deaths of school kids to pass legislation you claimed 90% of americans favored. you've already lost