Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    26 Feb '18 15:162 edits
    Who should we blame for guns other than science?

    As long as man has the technology, he will invent new ways of controlling his fellow man. Guns are but one of many methods.

    No one is suggesting that the problem of guns will ever go away. The only issue is, who should be trusted with them?

    For many, the average Joe should not be trusted. Apparently you must be a government approved official of some sort.
  2. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    26 Feb '18 15:21
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Who should we blame for guns other than science?

    As long as man has the technology, he will invent new ways of controlling his fellow man. Guns are but one of many methods.

    No one is suggesting that the problem of guns will ever go away. The only issue is, who should be trusted with them?

    For many, the average Joe should not be trusted. Apparently you must be a government approved official of some sort.
    Government is itself a way to control people. Who should be trusted with government?
  3. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    26 Feb '18 15:25
    Originally posted by @js357
    Government is itself a way to control people. Who should be trusted with government?
    Indeed. As James Madison wrote, “Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression"

    From a Madison perspective, this is why checks and balances were placed within government. Many feared an all powerful federal government for this very reason.

    A better model would be for the federal government to play referee among the states and not the role of the most powerful player, which is how it was originally set up.
  4. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    26 Feb '18 15:56
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Indeed. As James Madison wrote, “Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression"

    From a Madison perspective, this is why checks and balances were placed within government. Many feared an all powerful federal government for this very reason.

    A better model would be for the federal government to play referee among the states and not the role of the most powerful player, which is how it was originally set up.
    Assuming you speak of the USA: By "originally" do you mean the British colonial system, or the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution sans Bill of Rights, or the Constitution plus Bill of Rights, or the antebellum Constitution (12 amendments) or what?

    My own opinion is that the US constitution was built knowing it would fail. That's why it is amendable.
  5. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    26 Feb '18 16:221 edit
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Who should we blame for guns other than science?

    As long as man has the technology, he will invent new ways of controlling his fellow man. Guns are but one of many methods.

    No one is suggesting that the problem of guns will ever go away. The only issue is, who should be trusted with them?

    For many, the average Joe should not be trusted. Apparently you must be a government approved official of some sort.
    "Who should we blame for guns other than science?"
    The NRA bribing politicians to vote in favor of the gun industry instead of the interests of american citizens. The judges on the supreme court who made bribes in politics legal, thus enabling the NRA. The americans who, after Sandy Hook and Columbine and Las Vegas, still vote for NRA bought politicians. The gun industry who continues to sell guns without any shred of guilt and decency in order to make a profit.


    "As long as man has the technology, he will invent new ways of controlling his fellow man. Guns are but one of many methods."
    Meaningless rant. What's your point.

    "No one is suggesting that the problem of guns will ever go away. "
    except the ones that are, based on the fact that it did.

    "The only issue is, who should be trusted with them?"
    depends on the gun. from a given X bullets per magazine in combination with fire rate Y, a gun is a weapon of war. As such, only soldiers get to use it.

    "For many, the average Joe should not be trusted. "
    the average joe cannot be trusted. one must become way above average to be trusted with certain death machines.

    The average joe isn't trusted with certain vehicles, certain construction machines, certain professions. In many states, the average joe isn't trusted to cut hair. This has been an universal truth in the entire human history: certain individuals must become more than average to be trusted with something dangerous. You and the NRA try to exempt gun ownership from rules you have for becoming a hair dresser.

    "Apparently you must be a government approved official of some sort."
    yes. we call them soldiers.

    The funny thing is that soldiers have to train to be given a death stick. Have to train even more to be given deadlier death sticks.
  6. SubscriberVery Rusty
    Treat Everyone Equal
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Joined
    04 Oct '06
    Moves
    424320
    26 Feb '18 16:271 edit
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Who should we blame for guns other than science?

    As long as man has the technology, he will invent new ways of controlling his fellow man. Guns are but one of many methods.

    No one is suggesting that the problem of guns will ever go away. The only issue is, who should be trusted with them?

    For many, the average Joe should not be trusted. Apparently you must be a government approved official of some sort.
    I don't own a gun or any weapon....I just know I'd use it if I had it!!! 😉

    Saying sorry after the fact would be a little late. One can eliminate any chance of ever using it simply by not having one around.

    -VR
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    26 Feb '18 16:28
    Originally posted by @js357
    Assuming you speak of the USA: By "originally" do you mean the British colonial system, or the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution sans Bill of Rights, or the Constitution plus Bill of Rights, or the antebellum Constitution (12 amendments) or what?

    My own opinion is that the US constitution was built knowing it would fail. That's why it is amendable.
    and it definitely wasn't built thinking that one day you could buy a rifle that could be loaded in a second with 30 round magazines and emptied in seconds, a rifle you could buy from a gun shop in under an hour, for what is basically a monthly minimum wage or even less.

    nor did they think the gun nuts will pick the parts they like and disregard the very important "well regulated militia" part.
  8. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    26 Feb '18 17:241 edit
    Originally posted by @js357
    Assuming you speak of the USA: By "originally" do you mean the British colonial system, or the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution sans Bill of Rights, or the Constitution plus Bill of Rights, or the antebellum Constitution (12 amendments) or what?

    My own opinion is that the US constitution was built knowing it would fail. That's why it is amendable.
    Having corrected whodey's vision of what the Framers did many times (the Constitution was intended to be and was a vast expansion of Federal government power), I feel no need to uselessly plow that field again.

    "Fail" is perhaps too strong a word; they did not believe in their own infallibility nor that arrangements they thought proper in their day might not be fit for later generations. Some of the provisions didn't wind up working as intended; the original Presidential election system was quickly amended for example and state legislature election of Senators proved to be so unwieldy that the state legislators themselves were glad to be rid of it.
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    26 Feb '18 18:00
    Originally posted by @js357
    Assuming you speak of the USA: By "originally" do you mean the British colonial system, or the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution sans Bill of Rights, or the Constitution plus Bill of Rights, or the antebellum Constitution (12 amendments) or what?

    My own opinion is that the US constitution was built knowing it would fail. That's why it is amendable.
    If you compare the role of the Federal government originally to what it is now, you can see the change clearly that has taken place.

    The problem I have with it is all the power it has been given. There is no longer an advocate to run to when it goes awry.

    Typically, when a scandal breaks out, like conservatives being targeted by the IRS or really sick and expensive veterans being put on secret death lists, one person gets fired and it is all swept under the rug.
  10. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    26 Feb '18 18:03
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Having corrected whodey's vision of what the Framers did many times (the Constitution was intended to be and was a vast expansion of Federal government power), I feel no need to uselessly plow that field again.

    "Fail" is perhaps too strong a word; they did not believe in their own infallibility nor that arrangements they thought proper in their day m ...[text shortened]... nators proved to be so unwieldy that the state legislators themselves were glad to be rid of it.
    You may be right, the Founders really wanted an all powerful tyrannical federal power, which may explain why the passed the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts right after the revolution so that if anyone spoke out against the Federal government they would be arrested.

    However, their writings seem to indicate otherwise, as Madison wrote about the General Welfare clause that is used by Progs to justify a never ending and exponentially expanding federal government.

    "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
    and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
    they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
    they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
    and pay them out of their public treasury;
    they may take into their own hands the education of children,
    establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
    they may assume the provision of the poor;
    they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
    in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
    down to the most minute object of police,
    would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
    of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
    it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
    of the limited Government established by the people of America."
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    26 Feb '18 18:071 edit
    Originally posted by @whodey
    If you compare the role of the Federal government originally to what it is now, you can see the change clearly that has taken place.

    The problem I have with it is all the power it has been given. There is no longer an advocate to run to when it goes awry.

    Typically, when a scandal breaks out, like conservatives being targeted by the IRS or really sick ...[text shortened]... terans being put on secret death lists, one person gets fired and it is all swept under the rug.
    As I said it is useless to point out that your description of these so-called "scandals" are wildly inaccurate; the facts have been brought to your attention numerous times here but you simply keep repeating the same charges either knowing they aren't true or (perhaps more likely) having been so brainwashed by the right wing blogosphere sources you constantly quote that you can't separate fact from reality. That seems a common ailment among the right wingers here; another poster repeated the claim that CNN leaked all the debates questions to Hillary to disadvantage Trump in another thread (you repeat that one regularly, too) when the fact are it was one CNN contributor giving one or two questions to the HRC campaign before a debate with Bernie Sanders (that contributor, Donna Brazile, was promptly fired). But those details aren't as politically helpful to your side so they are ignored or lied about.

    Sure "change" took place; it always does as the Framers well knew. The fact remains that most policy decisions continue to be made in the States and there are wide variances among them. Your insistence that there is an all-powerful Federal government overriding the States' wishes in virtually all areas is a right wing fairy tale.
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    26 Feb '18 18:084 edits
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    As I said it is useless to point out that your description of these so-called "scandals" are wildly inaccurate; the facts have been pointed out to you numerous times but you simply keep repeating the same charges either knowing they aren't true or (perhaps more likely) having been so brainwashed by the right wing blogosphere sources you constantly quote ...[text shortened]... eral government overriding the States' wishes in virtually all areas is a right wing fairy tale.
    Are you seriously denying that the IRS targeted conservative groups or do you simply reject the court ruling saying they did?

    Also, do you reject the notion that very sick veterans were put on secret "do not treat" lists?

    Funny thing, why did Obama fire someone over it, someone who had nothing to do with it?

    The scary part is, both scandals almost did not see the light of day. We are that close to not even the media reporting such things, and I'm certain things like this have happened that have never been reported, and are happening as we speak.

    As for the power of the Feds, name one thing they don't have some form of influence or input? States may have the power to do certain things but they may lose federal funding if they do if the Feds don't like it, federal funding which they are now dependent upon. They even give money internationally to the entire world for influence so they can tinker around as they see fit.

    Hence the insane debt level. Just throw money around and watch people bend over backwards to get some of it.
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    26 Feb '18 18:121 edit
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Are you seriously denying that the IRS targeted conservative groups or do you simply reject the court ruling saying they did?

    Also, do you reject the notion that very sick veterans were put on secret "do not treat" lists?

    Funny thing, why did Obama fire someone over it, someone who had nothing to do with it?

    The scary part is, both scandals almost d ...[text shortened]... ain things like this have happened that have never been reported, and are happening as we speak.
    Yes, I deny both and have given the facts why your claims are inaccurate in other threads.

    There was no "court ruling" as I already explained to you.
  14. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    26 Feb '18 18:161 edit
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Yes, I deny both and have given the facts why your claims are inaccurate in other threads.

    There was no "court ruling" as I already explained to you.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-conservative/justice-department-settles-with-conservative-groups-over-irs-scrutiny-idUSKBN1CV1TY

    I see, so you discount the DOJ settling with them out of court.

    You also discount the IRS admitting wrong doing and apologizing.

    You also discount Obama firing a high ranking IRS employee over the scandal.

    You are a loon.

    So what of the VA scandal? What do you deny about that as well?
  15. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    26 Feb '18 18:16
    I guess we'll have to do this AGAIN:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/politics/irs-targeting-tea-party-liberals-democrats.html

    A federal watchdog investigating whether the Internal Revenue Service unfairly targeted conservative political groups seeking tax-exempt status said that the agency also scrutinized organizations associated with liberal causes from 2004 to 2013.

    The findings by the Treasury Department’s inspector general mark the end of a political firestorm that embroiled the I.R.S. in controversy, led to the ouster of its commissioner and prompted accusations the tax collection agency was being used as a political weapon by the Obama administration.

    The exhaustive report, which examined nine years worth of applications for tax-exempt status, comes after a similar audit in 2013 found that groups with conservative names like “Tea Party,” “patriot” or “9/12” were unfairly targeted for further review.

    The new report found that the I.R.S. was also inappropriately targeting progressive-leaning groups. While the investigation does not specify the political affiliations of the groups, names that were flagged included the words “Progressive,” “Occupy,” “Green Energy,” and Acorn — the acronym for the now defunct Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

    A spokeswoman for the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration noted that the report makes no characterization of the political leanings of any of the groups.
Back to Top