King of the Walrus People, Michael Moore’s twitter message is a common rejoinder to those making the argument that if someone wants to kill someone else, guns aren’t necessary. For example, baseball bats, cars, knives, anything really can be misused for harm just like guns.
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this point made. The problem is that it’s only true technically, it needs some qualification. What I mean is, while a gun’s purpose is to kill, its purpose isn’t to kill innocent people. Guns are intended to kill people who are doing great harm one’s own self, or to another, i.e., self-defense or defense of another; as well as to defeat designated enemy combatants in a military campaign.
The point is that even though guns are for killing, they are not intended for killing innocent people. This is the important distinction liberals refuse to make. Just like cars are for transportation and bats are for sports, guns are for defense and military offense. There are proper uses and improper uses. The tool is not responsible for the owner’s misuse no matter how scary the tool may be.
Sifting Reality 
I just want to make a technical point. Guns are also built for target practice, which is all I have ever done with mine (I was on my high school rifle team). Many target guns were never designed for killing.
Of course the guns I use for target practice are indeed designed for killing. My shotgun and rifle were both meant for killing animals – hunting, ya know. But my two pistols were designed to kill bad guys.
Would you agree that, as a “tool” has a greater potential harm level, we can more reasonably expect greater regulation?
That is, to own and operate a hand drill has a very low potential harm level, whereas owning and operating a two ton automobile, full of gas and toxins and which goes at great speeds, there is a much greater potential for harm. So, we have no reason to regulate a hand drill but we CAN reasonably regulate an automobile, require registration, insurance, etc – isn’t that a reasonable starting point on dealing with issues like this?
And, if we can agree that cars can reasonably be regulated (not banned, but regulated – with reasonable limits on who can and can’t own them and how they can and can’t be operated), can we agree the same for guns which pose a similar potential risk?
I think we should be able to find common ground on issues like this, if we set aside the extremes (“ALL firearms should be banned!” vs “I should be able to own a nuke if I want to…”). You?
Terrible analogy Dan. Anyone of legal age can own a car. Generally 16 and older may purchase and own a car at will, no license required.
However, I can kill people with a drill just like I can kill people with a gun or car. You are broaching the subjective nature of “easier” to kill and “many” people. How easily does a thing have to be to kill too many people before you think its a good idea to violate the constitution?
Actually no, you don’t need to register it or insure it to simply own it.
?
If you purchase a car, you are required to register it with the state and you are required to have insurance on it. Correct?
What is wrong with the analogy? The point is, there are some tools/things (medicine, cars, guns, explosive materials…) which we have agreed to regulate, not have free and clear ownership, but have specific reasonable regulations/limitations upon them. We do this because these things are not like owning soap or a pencil – they have some inherent danger associated with them, creating a potential risk in their use, and so we can reasonably regulate them.
Do we agree on that?
That is, to phrase it the way you have: Do we agree that we, the people can reasonably regulate SOME items without violating the Constitution? If you disagree, where specifically do you disagree? Do you think poisons, cars, explosives and guns… ANY dangerous item ought not have ANY regulations/limits upon them, or do you and I agree that on these items, we can reasonably and constitutionally have regulations/limits upon them?
But to USE it, you have to have it registered and insured. Are we agreeing that this is a reasonable and constitutional regulation as it relates to cars?
And I could be mistaken, but I believe in many states, if not all, if you purchase a car – even if you don’t drive it, you have to have some liability insurance on it… and you may have to either register it or specifically UN-register it, but you can’t just purchase it and pretend you didn’t… you have to take that purchase to the state, I believe. Maybe I’m mistaken. Regardless, I think the point is sound.
And why do we do this? Because the potential for harm is great with motor vehicles. And requiring this is neither unconstitutional or unreasonable.
Where specifically am I mistaken?
Dan,
Here’s the problem with your analogy: Gun ownership is a Constitutional right – car ownership isn’t. You are comparing apples to oranges in that regard.
And so, to phrase it the way you have: Do we agree that we, the people can reasonably regulate SOME items without violating the Constitution? If you disagree, where specifically do you disagree? Do you think poisons, cars, explosives and guns… ANY dangerous item ought not have ANY regulations/limits upon them, or do you and I agree that on these items, we can reasonably and constitutionally have regulations/limits upon them?
And so, Glenn, are you agreeing that on all items with potential danger, we can reasonably have regulations/limits on it EXCEPT for with firearms, because firearms are specifically mentioned in the Constitution?
The second amendment outlines “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…” and “arms” there is not limited to guns, presumably, but might also include bombs and nuclear weapons. Do you think we have an unlimited right to any and all “arms” with no regulations/limits?
Free speech is a constitutional right, do you think it is right to have NO limits on what one can say because of that?
Or do you agree with most reasonable people that, just because something is constitutional does not mean that it comes with unlimited boundaries?
Dan,
I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with you on anything. I simply pointed out that you analogy is erroneous because the Constitution guarantees ownership of guns but doesn’t do so for cars. Guns are a right, cars aren’t.
Okay, well, I’m asking a specific question that I’m curious as to your response to, whether you agree or not:
Most of your fellow citizens think it reasonable to regulate/limit actions as they relate to items with potentially dangerous effects. We have no problem with limits on explosives, poisons, motor vehicles and guns. We recognize that we have a right to drive cars, we have a right to own guns, we have a right to purchase explosives… but ALL within some reasonable limits.
Do you agree that it is reasonable and constitutional to place limits on items with potentially dangerous effects?
Re: the attempted car analogy, are regulations not a state responsibility? I’m wondering, because in Canada, the regulations do differ. I recall one province bringing in new regulations that said all vehicles had to be registered, even if they were not being used. This was a problem for people who kept “spare” vehicles on their private property for parts, so they might have 5 vehicles, but only one of them was operational. The new regs. would require they register all 5 vehicles. I do believe they changed the regs due to the outcry, but I moved again before I heard how it played out.
Re: the purpose of guns. That’s pretty basic. Accurately propel an object, at high velocity, to a target. What is supposed to happen next depends on things like the type of gun, type of ammunition and the intent of the user. To use the car analogy, as flawed as it might be, a car’s purpose is to get passangers from point A to point B. That some people use a car to deliberately run into crowds of people with the intent to kill, or deliberately swerve to hit an animal (as demonstrated by a recent experiment involving a fake turtle on the road) does not change the purpose of the car.
I really don’t think that there is much objection to reasonable restrictions on the aquisition of firearms. It is beneficial to all if, for example, a person might need to take certain safety courses or pass a test before they get a gun license. After all, a lot of jobs demand employees take hazardous materials tests before they can be hired. Projessional carpenters often have courses, apprentiships, etc. under their (tool) belts to prove they are qualified to do their jobs.
The question then becomes, at what point do “reasonable” restrictions cease to be reasonable? Since the US has a second amendment, that question can be more easily answered then most countries, but there would still be room to argue whether or not a regulation is “infringing” on the right to bear arms, rather then simply making sure people who have guns know enough to use them safely.
Like most rights, our actions can sometimes result in forfeiting a right. This is true of civil rights (a drunk driver forfeits their granted right of having a driver’s license), but also of human rights, in extreme cases. We forfeit our right to freedom when we commit certain crimes with a penalty of imprisonment. If we commit a violent crime, we essentially forfeit our right to life if our victims defend themselves, resulting in our own death or injury, since our victim’s right to defend or protect themselves or their loved ones from attack is primary.
When it comes to gun rights, until someone *forfeits* their right to keep and bear arms (e.g. by committing violent crimes) or has been found incapable of responsibility (e.g. has certain mental illnesses), it is unreasonable to treat gun owners *as if* they have done something to forfeit their constitutional right. That is what many gun control proposals are doing. They are based on the assumption of potential criminality, with no evidence to back it up. There are already tonnes of regulations. People who break regulations might be doing so unknowingly (e.g. we took a road trip to visit family and my brother gave me a rifle as a belated wedding gift. Since the trip back required passing through 3 provinces, my husband went out of his way to find out the different transport regulations to legally bring it home; this is something I would not have even thought to do.) There are already laws. People to break those laws legitimately forfeit their right to own a gun. Gun control proposals are based on the assumption of potential, future crimes, then punish current gun owners for those crimes as if they were criminals whose actions forfeit their rights.
At least part of the problem is the a significant portion of the left side of the political spectrum, thinks that the only reasonable restriction is a ban of all firearms. I suspect that most would not object to some sort of licensing, I could even see some sort of liability insurance requirement. The problem is, as always, that it comes down to the intent of the user, not the existence of an inanimate object.
But the driver who has been imbibing before driving has no intent to harm anyone. The driver who goes 35 mph in a seemingly empty school zone has no intent to harm anyone.
Nonetheless, it is reasonable to impose regulations/limits upon those drivers – regardless of their intent or their history.
Reasonable people support reasonable regulations/limits. Unreasonable people can fall on either extreme – wanting to ban all guns on the one side and wanting NO regulations on the other side. Let’s set aside the minority in the extremes and meet in the middle to create reasonable regulations. How about it?
Craig, for what it’s worth, I know of no one in my circles of so-called liberals who wants to ban all guns. Some people may say something like that in a moment of frustration, but I don’t know of anyone who actually advocates it. I’m sure there are some extreme folk out there who do, but I don’t know any of them personally.
Regulating firearms is the wrong path. Regulate the people. If one is a convicted felon, he cannot have a gun. I believe that is already law. The same should be for those who have been certified as mentally unstable. These two groups of people should be in some kind of national database that all gun dealers can easily access so as to avoid the sale.
Of course, no law will prevent the truly criminally minded or mentally disturbed from getting their hands on guns and I believe it is for this reason that gun-grabbers want to do the grabbing. Of course that infringes on the rights of the law-abiding, and suggests, as has been mentioned above, that to desire ownership somehow marks one as likely to kill.
I think it is clear and most honest to say that guns are made to kill. I have no problem with admitting this very real fact. Target practice merely means the person practicing is also better at killing. If protection of self, loved ones and property is the goal, then such practice is essential. I am interested in all forms of self-defense. The use of weapons, or more to the point, the ability to anything as a weapon, including actual weapons, is a a skill worthy of developing. Even the peace-lover benefits by the deterrent factor of being known, or even suspected, of being trained to defend.
As to the type of weapon, it is clear to anyone who takes the time to investigate that the intention of the 2nd was not to hunt, shoot at inanimate targets or simply to defend against bad guys and injuns. It was to keep the gov’t at bay. In today’s world, how does a shotgun solve this problem? It doesn’t so well as law-abiding people with automatic weapons.
What’s more, as a punk is kept at bay in concealed carry states by the threat that any potential target might shoot back, licensing removes that fear from the gov’t. To register my weapons is to alert the gov’t, the very people from whom I might wish to protect myself, that I possess the means of thwarting their despotic dreams. I don’t want anyone to know how many and what types of weapons are in my possession; most particularly the gov’t. And again, this is not an issue due to the fact that criminals and mental patients aren’t necessarily keen on registering the firearms they shouldn’t have in the first place.
I do not fear my neighbor and I fear him less when I am armed.
I do not fear my neighbor and I do not fear him more or less when I am unarmed (ie, all the time). Bravery does not come at the end of a gun, but in one’s heart and soul.
Dan keeps bring up cars. HEY DAN- THE TOPIC IS WHAT ARE GUNS FOR!!!!
In his POST, Glenn, John made the point…
Just like cars are for transportation and bats are for sports, guns are for defense and military offense. There are proper uses and improper uses.
So John is the one who initially brought up cars. I’m just asking reasonable questions related to the point of the post. Yes, John is right, cars are tools for transportations and they have proper and improper uses. We require registration and licensing and insurance and have rules related to those uses, to help ensure proper use.
Why not simply answer the questions I’m asking Glenn (or John, or Marshall)? They are reasonable questions related to the topic at hand. On what grounds would we limit anything in our democratic republic?
Do you really think “arms” access should be unlimited with no restrictions? Marshall is saying that some reasonable restrictions would include limiting it from criminals and mentally unstable people. Those are good and rational restrictions that do not conflict with the Constitution.
Given what guns are for AND given the potential for harm, why WOULDN’T we treat them the same way we treat cars, toxins, explosives and other items that can be used dangerously?
Why keep dancing around the question? Converse, my brother, engage in dialog and explain your position.
Dan,
I have no desire to enter into a dialog of this nature with you. It is off the original topic and you are determined to keep it that way. You want to continue to compare them with other items which have no comparison, because nothing else you have compared them to have a Constitutional right to be owned.
Glenn – John made the comparison, I just followed up on his reasoning. Don’t blame me if you can’t rationally defend your positions.
Marshall, you note that we regulate people. You’re right (not just people, but still). We require a person – before handling/using a car which might harm someone – to have a license. We require auto owners to carry insurance in case they harm someone with their use of that item. We require registering cars that will be driven.
Do you advocate handling guns the same way as we do cars, with regulations and limits on the people who use them?
This is what we’re saying is only rational. I’m open to any rational disagreement against the case, but saying, “nyaa, nyaa, nyaa, I won’t deal with your rational arguments, I’ll stick to ignoring them because that works so well…” is not a winning case. It is, as it seems, only childish fussing, not adult reasoning.
Laws will likely be changing. Now is the time for you to make your case in a rational, adult manner or you will lose your case.
Dan,
Thanks for the ad hominem attack – you know, the one where you claim I am unable to rationally defend my positions. I am certainly able to do so, but the topic of the blog was not anything other than “What Are Guns For.” I responded to that question. John may have made a minor analogy to cars, but you ran with that and now have made that the topic.
As for regulating gun owners, who can and who cannot own them, those regulations are already in place. But the gov’t rarely enforces the laws in place and instead want to do more to harm those who legally own guns. All the new laws in the world will not stop the bad guys from getting every type of banned weapon and killing people. Remember, the guy in CT was not legally allowed guns of any type. The guy who shot the firefighters was also not allowed guns, and a friendly neighbor knowingly violated the law to get the guns for him. So the lack of laws aren’t the problem – the lack of enforcement is.
The liberals are not interested in enforcing current laws – they want to disarm the legal owners so as to have a nation ready for takeover by martial law.
heh, yes, Glenn, that’s what we want. You so clever!
I am glad to see, though, that you appear to agree that having laws – and enforcing them – is a good and rational thing. If that is your point, I think we (at least, you, Marshall and I) are in the community of rational thinking citizens who support the notion of reasonable regulations.
So, doing a better job of enforcing these reasonable regulations could be a good thing (I’m guessing it may require some money to support gov’t programs to run them, though). And on the notion of regulations/limits in and of themselves, we appear to agree and that’s good, too. See? It’s not so hard nor so far off topic.
There is something close to 20000 gun laws already on the books across the nation. They do nothing to prevent the criminally minded from acquiring guns. The only way to do that is to ban guns from manufacture and sale (outside of the military and law enforcement), and to confiscate all guns known to exist (outside of the military and law enforcement). But to do so would be in conflict with the 2nd. We need no further laws enacted. We need no further restrictions, though many in place could be lifted without resulting in greater threat to the populace.
As to fear, Dan, there is rational fear and there is stupidity. Stupidity is assuming law-abiding people cannot be responsible gun owners without burdening them with regulations only they, as law-abiding citizens, would honor. Stupidity is believing that guns in the hands of the law-abiding is a threat to the populace. You indeed suffer from great fear, and no doubt would even if you owned a weapon yourself. This is clear.
My fear is of those who will do harm to me, my family or friends and neighbors be being emboldened by their possession of weapons for which I have no defense. The criminals prey upon the helpless and with a weapon in their pockets there are more helpless upon whom they can prey. Lift the unConstitutional ban against carrying a weapon (concealed or otherwise), and the number of helpless is reduced, and the fearful now include the criminal. This is simple logic. Banning and restricting weapons does not flow from logic, but stupid emotion.
There is something close to 20000 gun laws already on the books across the nation. They do nothing to prevent the criminally minded from acquiring guns.
So… keep them or get rid of them all?
And there are doubtless thousands of rules in place as it relates to automobile usage. Similarly, those laws don’t do anything to stop those determined to ignore them. Should we get rid of all laws that might get ignored by some few?
Or are the laws reasonable, in principle, to begin with – as guidelines and as a way of making clear the expectations?
After all, there are no doubt many who’d ignore the 55 mph speed limit on highways, but there are also many who obey them who might go faster if the rule (and threat of punishment) wasn’t there. Good rule or no?
I say that rules are good to have in place, limitations are good to have in place, especially as it relates to potentially dangerous use of potentially deadly items (like cars, explosives and firearms). Are you a supporter of keeping the rules, getting rid of all of them or keeping only some and, if only some, which ones and based on what?
Marshall…
Stupidity is believing that guns in the hands of the law-abiding is a threat to the populace.
And I, for one, don’t think that guns in the hands of law-abiding folk is a general threat to the populace, AS LONG AS we have rules in place as to their proper use.
Marshall, you speak of the rules that drivers have – getting a license and keeping insurance, for instance – good rules to have. Do you support the same for gun owners. If not, why not?
Marshall…
You indeed suffer from great fear, and no doubt would even if you owned a weapon yourself. This is clear.
Funny, coming from the man who is so afraid of his neighbors that he needs a gun to make him feel safe. If we follow down this ad hom attack/off track road, in what POSSIBLE way have I indicated fear in what I have said?
Again, I return to my point that bravery is something that is found internally. The fearful man will be afraid of his neighbors even if he has a pocket nuke in his possession, because he lacks bravery in his soul.
“The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can Man do to me?”
~Hebrews 13
Perhaps the author should have noted that “I’ve a gun in my pocket, I will not be afraid…”?
Marshall…
This is simple logic. Banning and restricting weapons does not flow from logic, but stupid emotion.
Since no one here is speaking of banning weapons, this complaint comes across as a rather emotional rant, rather than addressing actual issues. As to restricting weapons, well, that IS the question.
We almost certainly agree that some items in a free nation can reasonably be restricted. We haven’t banned even nuclear weaponry in our nation, but we DO restrict access to them. This is only rational, unless you consider a nuclear-armed populace as constitutionally essential (I hope you don’t, because that would seem quite irrational). We agree that we will restrict tanks from driving freely on our highways, and rationally so. We restrict children and drunk people from driving, and rationally so.
It is only rational that we have restrictions/limitations when we are speaking of items that are so potentially dangerous. There is nothing emotional about that argument. If you think there is, then tell me specifically: What is “emotional” or unreasonable about wanting to see nukes restricted?
Someone made a great point. We, as a nation, don’t regulate inanimate objects so much as we regulate those who use those objects. Given that why should we single out guns as the one inanimate object that we do regulate. It makes sense to regulate behavior and people, it really makes no sense to regulate inanimate objects.
Dan,
Your limited experience and circle of acquaintances not withstanding, there are a number of folks, including some who are in positions to influence legislation (shoot, some of whom are my facebook friends) who are advocating totally banning firearms. Perhaps you need to expand your horizons beyond those you know when you form your opinions.
” Similarly, those laws don’t do anything to stop those determined to ignore them.”
So your solution is to add additional laws that those determined to ignore the existing laws can ignore also? The guy in CT broke multiple laws before he fired one shot in the school building, does anyone seriously think one more law would have made a single bit of difference.
Dan,
You say you don’t know anyone who wants to ban guns. Or that those folks are some tiny extreme. Well, here goes.
“I started a petition at Change.org. It’s really simple to understand. It calls for repeal of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.”
This from a prolific commenter on your blog.
You say you want “reasonable” gun laws, great, can you define what you consider to be reasonable gun laws?
Dan,
“So… keep them or get rid of them all?”
Didn’t propose either, but there is a push to add new ones. What’s the point? Those being proposed are no more likely to be followed, nor are they any more sensible than most of the gun laws now on the books.
I believe I’ve stated my position on gun laws. There should be no restrictions on law-abiding people to own and carry whatever weapon they want. I don’t want the government knowing what weapons I own or even if I own any. A criminal won’t tell anybody he possesses a gun and until he decides to use it no one will. Thus, even there, there is no threat to anyone until that point. But you won’t be able to tell if he has one, either. So no law regarding licensing, registering or whatever really matters, does it?
The people will restrict themselves. If you want to walk around with a shotgun slung over your shoulder, some might prefer you didn’t enter their house or place of business. Your right to carry would infringe on their right to determine behavior on their property. Some agreement between you must be reached or you will have to leave your piece in the car. That same property owner might actually have trusted friends in his home or business while they carry a weapon, but he knows them and trusts them. You he might not know. It’s his place, his call. If you aren’t a jerk, you respect his wishes. Elsewhere, as long as you give no reason for others to feel otherwise, no complaint is enough to prevent you from feeling secure with that shotgun over your shoulder.
Your fear is manifested in your demand that restrictions on gun ownership is sensible and required. Why, if not for fear that some might abuse the privilege? If you truly believed that Hebrews passage, you’d not be demanding restrictions and regulations that infringe on one’s right to bear arms and defend one’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Indeed, your demand for all sorts of regulations is based on fear of your fellow man.
BTW, I was using the term “neighbor” in the same way “Love thy neighbor” does. Not necessarily the guy next door.
As for my own fear, it is a rational understanding that shit happens and assholes exist. Not a fear as if I cower in the presence of every stranger I meet. So nice of you to assume the worst. What’s more, courage isn’t enough when it comes to dealing with said shit and assholes. For some are savage and able to inflict a world of hurt. Feel free, however, to courageously get your ass kicked. Or worse. I’ll courageously do what needs to be done to preserve my life and the lives of loved ones and innocents.
You also suggest the foolish, that there would be many people that would want to possess their own nuke. While I am willing to maintain that there is little to fear from responsible people possessing the most destructive weapon imaginable, there is also little reason to suspect that anyone would want to risk his own self or loved ones by having a nuke at hand 24/7.
But assuming there might be, just how would that work? Just like the tank and bazooka nonsense, how many people could easily negotiate their lives while in constant possession of a nuke, a tank or a bazooka? I would be willing to go up against any who had one of these due to the inability to act quickly. Could I be blowed up by a guy in a tank if I am behind him? How quickly could he aim his canon at me? How easy is it to whip out a bazooka to fire off against a guy with pistol? Most anyone who would suspect they can live life while toting around a bazooka or a nuke would likely soon find it tiresome and a great pain in the ass and opt for a Glock under their sport coat.
And even if we are speaking of automatic weapons or large capacity clips, the same things go: Is the weapon feasible for the purpose? Some smaller automatics might be, but again, in the hands of a responsible person, I have no fear. Large capacity clips are, I am told, more likely to jam when feeding rounds to the weapon than would standard clips. But assuming this is not the case, are they practical to carry around full time? How much time is wasted changing standard clips? Not much, that’s for sure. All these arguments are stupid and emotion based and not based on realities of weapons use or how people interact during the course of normal living.
Marshall…
There should be no restrictions on law-abiding people to own and carry whatever weapon they want. I don’t want the government knowing what weapons I own or even if I own any.
So, why do we license drivers and register cars and limit who can drive them and require insurance for them, but not for guns/gun owners? What is the rational difference between the two?
Craig…
You say you want “reasonable” gun laws, great, can you define what you consider to be reasonable gun laws?
Just off the top of my head, I do think that the rules for drivers are a good model…
1. License gun owners, like we license drivers. Why for cars and not for guns?
2. Require people to pass test to prove that they know the rules of responsible gun-ownership.
3. Require some insurance in case of accidents.
4. Some reasonable age requirement.
And some other rules that are or might be in place already (I don’t know):
1. Violent ex-convicts lose their right to gun-ownership.
2. Mentally unstable folk who might be dangerous are restricted from ownership.
3. Rules about the type of guns – assault weapons, bombs, nukes, chemical weapons, for instance, ought only be for military, police or specially licensed folk, not the general population
Like that.
License gun owners, like we license drivers. Why for cars and not for guns?
Dan, read my lips! It is a Constitutional right to own guns – ergo no license necessary. It is NOT a right to own a car – it is a privilege. The rest of your diatribe – as usual – show you lack common sense.
Marshall…
Your fear is manifested in your demand that restrictions on gun ownership is sensible and required. Why, if not for fear that some might abuse the privilege?
For the same reason that wanting folk to be licensed to drive, to carry insurance and obey rules of the road is not based on fear but on simple logic.
Dan,
A hand-drill poses a greater potential for harm than a pair of pliers, so isn’t it reasonable that the drill be subject to more regulation than the pliers?
You’re argument is lame, Dan, and that rhetorical question above proves it.
John,
The purpose of a gun is entirely related to the mindset of the owner. Some, like Glenn, intend only to use it for target practice. Police Officers intend to use it for self defense or the safety of others. Criminals intend to use it either to instill fear or kill. The gun itself has no intent.
Dan,
I forgot one thing – not only do you show a lack of common sense, but your logic is severely flawed.
Isu,
I’m assuming that was just an attempt at humor.
And, Dan, you don’t have to register or insure your car to use it if you’re using it on private property.
Your analogy sucks, for many reasons.
Dan,
1). You have an explicit Constitutional right to possess a firearm. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Terrible comparison.
2). The Constitution does not mention anything about passing some arbitrary test.
3). Should their be insurance on kitchen knives, bowling balls, and other goods that pose potential harm?
4). I agree. If you can vote at 18 and sling an M16 over your soldier whilst in military garb, you can own a firearm. If not, then raise the voting and enlistment age to 21.
1. I agree.
2. By what metric would someone be deemed “mentally unstable?”
3. The term “assault-weapon” has no meaning independent of the arbitrary definitions set by lawmakers. Basically, whatever weapon Democrats feel like banning is an “assault-weapon.” The rest are weapons of mass destruction and of course not appropriate for the general population. I don’t recall a Constitutional right to own an ICBM.
Dan,
Lenin once said, “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”
You shouldn’t be so dismissive of Glenn’s fear. Almost all tyrannical regimes – save Hitler’s Germany – denied citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Idi Amin, Mao tse-Tung, and Pol Pot all favored gun-control measures. Hitler did as well, but not to the same extent. Hitler is actually the exception. He didn’t do anything as far as gun-control until several years after he came to power, mostly because gun-control legislation from the Weimar Republic was left in place.
You’ll note as well that all those men were leftist dictators. Mussolini was a pro-war socialist that founded fascism. Lenin and Stalin were communists. Idi Amin was basically a socialist. Mao tse-Tung and Pol Pot were communists.
It strikes me as curious that almost all tyrannical dictators the world has ever known were on the left side of the political spectrum…And don’t dare argue that fascism is a rightwing philosophy because it’s plainly not. Mussolini founded fascism and was an avowed socialist. He turned socialism into a nationalist philosophy known as fascism. It’s that simple. Mussolini and HItler’s anti-Marxist rhetoric was solely because Marxism disavowed nationalism.
The left literally sickens me. The lengths they’re willing to go to institute total government control is absolutely sickening. Without guns, there is no resistance. I firmly believe it’s a leftist conspiracy. I’m with Glenn.
The problem with crazy-sounding, delusionally-based arguments is the person making them comes off as crazy-sounding and delusional.
Fail.
Now it is yours to explain what is delusional or crazy-sounding as any of the arguments presented in opposition to yours. Is it the drill licensing idea? If so, how is it more crazy sounding than citizens with their own nukes?
I also notice how convenient it is for you to regard your fears as logical and mine not.
Another problem with your car insurance and licensing angle is that if I was to accidentally shoot someone, the courts would force me to be responsible. Insurance protects victims of others without insurance and themselves when they are at fault.
Guns are for killing and/or doing severe damage. That is what they are they designed for.
John’s point is nonsense. Guns have no morality and they kill innocent people as efficiently as they kill evil people.
Desilusional or crazy-sounding arguments: for example, to call Mussolini a socialist when he fought against them.
Comparing American liberals/Democrats to Fascist killers makes you sound loopy as hades. I thought that was obvious.
The second amendment reads…
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed…
It is speaking of “arms” and “arms” goes undefined. I’m just pointing out the extremely obvious: THAT WE ALL AGREE. There SHOULD be limits on “arms.” We do NOT have a constitutional right to unlimited “arms” of any and all kinds or in any and all situations.
We ALL agree that we don’t want the people at large having an unlimited “right” to tactical nuclear ARMS. We ALL agree that we don’t want the people at large having a “right” to chemical ARMS.
We ALL appear to agree that WE WANT LIMITATIONS on our arms. You all have said you agree with at least the restriction against felons having firearms.
This is just stating the obvious and the rational. I’ll say it again:
The extreme, more nutty fringes on both sides should be ignored: Those who’d advocate a ban on ALL guns AND those who’d advocate NO limits on “arms” – these are not right-thinking people, they should be ignored. Along with those who’d compare either American “liberals” or “conservatives” to Hitler, they’re just goofy nutcases and should be treated as such.
And then, those of us in the middle – ie, those who AGREE that SOME LIMITATIONS and restrictions are reasonable, should be talking about what limitations, restrictions and regulations are most reasonable.
Which is why the example/analogy of motor vehicles that John brought up is a good reference point/starting point. Why WOULDN’T we license gun owners like we license car owners? What rational reason is there for a license with the one and not with the other?
The only reason I’ve heard thus far is the foaming-at-the-mouth “‘Cause the liberals want to subject us to tyranny like the fascists they always are!!” But that is the argument of the nutcases. Are there any rational arguments for saying that gun-owners are a different case than car-owners?
Here we go again. People, the type of weapons we are to be Constitutionally allowed are the weapons commonly in use, which would include so-called assault weapons. Here is some 2nd Amendment info for you:
The first 10 amendments were added by popular demand to give “the people” specific guarantees. The amendments clearly indicated reference to individual rights, not states’ rights. The term “militia” referred to all able-bodied male citizens at least 18 years old.
In 1903 an act was passed creating the federal control, funding and training of state forces as organized militia. It designated all other adult male citizens as the unorganized militia.
An act of 1916 designated the organized militia as the National Guard. This was further clarified by the National Defense Act of June 4, 1920, and this act again designated all other adult male citizens as the unorganized militia.
Title 10 U.S. Code, Section 311, states that the militia consists of all able-bodied males 17 to 45. It also specifies two classes of militia exist; the organized and unorganized.
In U.S. vs Miller, 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court said that when militia members were called to service, there were “expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the same kind in common use” at the time.
The 2nd Amendment mentions the need for a militia as the primary reason for the right to bear arms, but it does not limit it to solely the militia, be it organized or unorganized.
Marshall…
Another problem with your car insurance and licensing angle is that if I was to accidentally shoot someone, the courts would force me to be responsible.
To be clear, I’m not saying that I definitely think mimicking the auto model is a perfect fit, just bringing up the possibility as a reasonable model to consider.
Now, as to the specifics, let us consider:
If someone is going to drive a car, we require them to get a license. This serves a few purposes:
1. They have to pass written and real-world tests to demonstrate some basic knowledge/skils/abilities prior to getting a license. This seems reasonable whether we are speaking of car usage or gun usage. Where specifically is this not reasonable?
2. It provides for some stronger means of accountability if and when they are engaged in unsafe behavior related to their driving. If someone is caught using their vehicle in an unsafe manner, they can be stopped by police and a license is requested, thus verifying who they are, that they have the necessary approval/skills to use the vehicle.
This does not seem unreasonable either, as it relates to guns. Where specifically would it be unreasonable?
3. Having insurance not only provides protection for the car-driver, it provides some remonstrable protection for those who might be hurt by the car-owners bad driving. If someone wants to USE and benefit from the liberty to drive a car, they have to be prepared to financially account for possible accidents that WILL occur when they drive.
Now, this might be slightly different, in that gun accidents may not occur as regularly as car accidents do – a quick search seems to verify that and, at a guess, a good number of those injured in gun accidents are the gun owners, not innocent bystanders. So, the insurance analogy may or may not be appropriate, but I think it’s worth considering. Any reasons why we ought not consider it, out of hand?
Oh, and Dan,
There is no excuse for claiming there is “excrement” anywhere on this post. It is crude and unnecessary to use such language. You are being totally foolish.
When will you quit the illogical argument of comparing something we have a Constitutional right to own versus something we DON’T have a right to own? As long as you persist in that illogical argument, you prove that you are unteachable.
Glenn, this line of thinking is not very deep or well-considered, for at least two reasons…
I. “The right to bear arms” is a specifically enumerated right in the Amendments to the Constitution, but that does not mean that we don’t have a right to drive a car, to ride a horse or a bicycle, to shop at Walmart, etc. Just because a behavior is not specifically enumerated as a right does not mean that we don’t have a right to do it. We have the right to life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness. We DO have a right to transport ourselves via car, via train, via horse or bicycle or walking if we want.
BUT, it is not an unlimited right. The right to walk is fairly unlimited (as long as you’re not trespassing) because there is very little harm one can cause to others by one’s walking.
The right to drive a car is a much more limited right – and a privilege, as well – and a right we can lose or have restricted. And this is because of the dangers associated with driving.
II. Just because a Right is enumerated in the Constitution (or its amendments), does NOT mean that we have an unfettered/unlimited Right associated with it. The “right” to bear arms does NOT (notnotnot) give you any right to bear nuclear arms, for instance. That would be insane. Your right to bear arms IS limited, you appear to agree with this (insofar as you don’t want to see everyone owning nukes and you agree that felons have lost their right to bear arms), so referring to the enumeration of “bearing arms” in the Amendments does not support the notion of UNLIMITED rights.
Now, do you have any specific real-world rational points to make to suggest why we shouldn’t treat gun ownership/usage like car ownership/usage?
Glenn.
The second ammend talks about arms, not about guns.
Guns can be banned without removing your right to own arms.
You keep saying stupid excrement like that, Glenn. Where SPECIFICALLY is anything that I’ve said logically flawed?
Is it illogical to say, ‘The expressed right to bear arms implies the right to bear ANY and ALL arms with no limit, or can we reasonably say that, yes, there ARE reasonable limits…”?
You appear to agree with my specifics, but then claim vaguely that I’m being illogical with no support for such a ridiculous claim. By all means, my brother, IF I’m being illogical, then POINT TO WHERE SPECIFICALLY I am mistaken, because it appears to me that you and I AGREE that there are reasonable limits and I can’t see where I’m mistaken unless you also are mistaken.
If you only want to make vague, unsupported claims that are, on the face of them, irrational-sounding, then be prepared to be ignored as acting less-than-rational.
Dan,
I have NOT agreed to anything by you. Your logic is flawed every time you compare guns to cars. Your common sense is flawed every time you compare guns to anything else other than another weapon – except for nuclear and other WMD.
Everyone needs to read THIS;
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/01/02/why-the-2nd-amendment-n1476632/page/full/
Oh, and DAN, you continue to show unChristian behavior every time you make comments like “stupid excrement.” You do this type of attack way too often.
Try Eph 4:29. Oh, that’s right – my interpretation of Eph 4:29 is probably just a hunch.
And, as noted before, I find it offensive for you to call me “brother” – I am not your brother in any sense of the word.
That you do not accept me as your brother, Glenn, in no sense of the word means that you are not my brother. You are factually my brother human – a fellow human on the face of this world. You are factually my brother in Christ – we are both beloved by Christ and saved by God’s grace, and you are beloved by me as my brother in Christ. If God can love and forgive me in all my flawed humanity, then the least I can do is extend the same grace to my brothers in Christ, even when I disagree with them.
But just because I love you does not mean that I won’t call “stupid excrement” “stupid excrement.” If someone makes a vague and unsupported charge, that IS less than adult, less than mature, less than reasonable arguing – I call it “stupid excrement” to indicate that how ridiculous I find such “arguing.” You appear to argue for the sake of arguing, EVEN WHEN we agree.
You DO agree, do you not, that we don’t have an UNLIMITED right to “bear arms,” right? If not, THEN WHERE SPECIFCALLY do you disagree?
Man, I truly love you as best I can, Glenn. I’m quite sure you’re a stand up guy in many ways. But, this line of arguing is vacuous and unsupported. Because I love you as my brother, Glenn, I will hold you accountable to making points in an adult, rational manner.
Any time you’d like to respond in a non-excremental way, I’m open to hearing your adult arguments. You can do this, I believe in you.
Your brother in Christ (whether you like it or not),
Dan
Glenn said…
Everyone needs to read THIS;
and pointed to an essay that says we shouldn’t ban guns.
wtf?
WHO is speaking of banning all guns?
I have not made that argument (I’ve said just the opposite).
Obama has not made that argument.
No one serious is speaking of banning all guns.
You can run that red herring out 1,000 more times and it will remain a red herring.
Any chance to comment SPECIFICALLY on the SPECIFIC ideas being actually discussed, or are you content to beat strawmen to death?
And Dan said,
and pointed to an essay that says we shouldn’t ban guns.
wtf?
“wtf?” has a specific meaning, Dan. Something I’m sure Eph. 4:29 addresses. Something someone who claims to be a Christian should not be using in any type of communication.
Dan,
So you intend to continue to offend me in un-Christian behavior by calling me your brother? Of course, because you are not a Christian – which is why you are not my brother in any sense of the word. Now, how about you accept my request to cease calling me your brother!
Dan, if the only takeaway you got from that article was about a total banning of guns, then you have demonstrated once again that you read only through liberal bias. The point of the article was WHY we should have the right to own guns – any guns.
Obama and many in his administration are certainly interested in the total banning of guns, as has been demonstrated above, and in the media at large. The problem they have is that pesky 2nd Amendment getting in the way.
Glenn…
People, the type of weapons we are to be Constitutionally allowed are the weapons commonly in use, which would include so-called assault weapons
So, “arms” in the second amendment means “weapons commonly in use…”
1. “In use” by whom? The military’s weapons “commonly in use” would include missiles and bombs, does that mean that “the people” ought to have unlimited rights to buy and use missiles and bombs?
2. Who says that the term “arms” in the second amendment is a reference to weapons commonly in use? The weapons “commonly in use” then were muskets and swords, are you advocating that “the people” can have use to muskets and swords? If so, okay.
But where are you getting your interpretation of the second amendment?
But where are you getting your interpretation of the second amendment?
From the records of those who wrote it (try reading the Federalist Papers) as well as the above cited laws and judicial decisions (comment at 11:36). You apparently have trouble with reading and comprehension.
Okay, you are being a total and 100% fool and are behaving as a typical liberal bore because you continue to insult me by calling me your brother. I told you I found that to be offensive but you don’t care. Then you make the implication that it is a fact. No it is not a fact, because the term brother has specific definitions. You are not my biological brother, nor an adopted brother, nor a brother in the Christian faith. You claim to be Christian but on every single blog you fill with your liberal blather you time and again have been told you worship a different God and a different Christ than what the Bible identifies – sort of like Mormons, you use the same language with a different referent. And THAT is 100% fact!
You justify your use of foul language – language which dehumanizes and mocks sexual intercourse – by using the KJV use of “piss” as your example. The fact is that “piss” was not considered crude in that culture, and was simply the expression for what we now call urine or to urinate. You know well that the “f” word is totally unacceptable in polite society, and totally unacceptable for anyone who claims to be a Christian. And then you call it “childish” for me to hold you accountable for it. It is NOT “adult” to use foul language, rather it demonstrates a lack of command of the English language.
Since you have demonstrated the inability to be civil in your language, the inability to refrain from calling me your brother, the inability to logically and rationally discuss the subject of guns and gun restrictions, my conversation with you is at an end. Keep your foolishness to yourself.
Glenn…
“wtf’ has a specific meaning…”
Yes, It means your reasoning is screwed up and irrational, brother Glenn. Come, let us reason together like adults.
Or, tell me this, Glenn: Is it the case that you are not all there emotionally/mentally? If so, then you may be right that I shouldn’t try to hold you accountable to adult reasoning. But IF you are an adult and right-thinking, then I will hold you accountable to adult levels of making your points. And if crude language hurts your feelings, man, you better give up reading the Bible.
Blind guides! Fools! “pissing against the wall…,” etc.
I do not think you are childish in mind, Glenn, don’t make me talk down to you. I’m going to treat you as an adult because I love and respect you as a brother in Christ. That is just a fact, I don’t know why you’d want me to deny facts. If you said, “It hurts my feelings that you think the world wasn’t created in six 24 hour days, don’t make that claim anymore…” I’d tell you to get over it. Facts are facts.
Glenn…
you are being a total and 100% fool and are behaving as a typical liberal bore because you continue to insult me by calling me your brother. I told you I found that to be offensive but you don’t care.
You find being told “I love you, you are my brother – my fellow human and brother in Christ…” offensive and uncivil? Do you find that to be rational, Glenn?
So, you are leaving without defending your point in a rational manner. That’s fine with me.
So, let me repeat my understanding of where we are:
1. The “right to bear arms” does not mean that we have an unlimited/wholly unrestricted right to bear any and all arms we want to. We can reasonably place limitations upon that right. Everyone agrees with this thus far.
2. The question then, is NOT, “Why do they want to ban guns?!!” or the delusional, “Why are they trying to take our guns and institute a tyrannical state?” but, “We AGREE on limitations, but what are reasonable restrictions to place upon ‘arms’ ownership and use?”
3. I’ve suggested the reasonable, moderate consideration: Let’s set aside the extreme radicals who would ban guns completely AND who’d say “NO restrictions” and let us consider rationally all reasonable suggestions.
4. For instance, I’ve suggested that restrictions similar to (although not necessarily exactly like) what we agree to with car-ownership seem a reasonable idea. Having a license to own guns, like we require for owning cars, seems reasonable. Passing tests to demonstrate readiness to own guns, like we do for owning cars, seems reasonable. I’ve asked for any SPECIFIC reasons why we shouldn’t consider this model as viable. I’m still waiting.
And that’s where we are, and Glenn has removed himself from the conversation because he finds the terms “my brother” and “I love you” to be offensive and uncivil. His appears to be a crazy, upside down world. More’s the pity for him.
Dan,
You have misrepresented me, as usual.
What I find offensive and uncivil is not only your calling me your brother, but your use of foul and crude language. And, when YOU say “I love you,” I have to wonder about whether or not you are lusting after me!
And you’ve been told too many times that comparing cars to guns is illogical.
And you wonder why people ban you from their blogs.
Being told, “I think that is illogical” is not the same as giving supporting EVIDENCE to support the claim. You can CLAIM, “I think I am a duck” all day, but that doesn’t mean that anyone believes you are a duck.
And really, “I love you” from one Christian fella to another makes you wonder about lust? Do you think that when God says “I love you” that God is lusting after you?
Get your mind out of the gutter, my friend.
You are indeed really dense. It is illogical to compare two different things in argumentation – comparing apples to oranges for example. It’s called a false analogy. The false analogy fallacy is your comparing something which is given as a right under the constitution to something that is not given as a right under the Constitution. One is a right and the other is a privilege.
With you ardent and vociferous support of homosexuality, it is not unreasonable to wonder if when YOU say “I love you” to another male that it might be lust. That’s not a mind in the gutter, it is a rational statement based on your proclaimed belief system. And since you are not a Christian by biblical definition, it was not one Christian brother to another.
And I am not your friend either.
Isu,
Your equivocation fallacy then was not an attempt at humor? It certainly wasn’t a logical or rational statement to make.
I don’t have any conspiracy theories – I just look at history and what happened every time the government disarmed the population, especially when the leader was a rank marxist socialist such as Mr. Obama.
Glenn.
I was serious and said something which was right.
As serious as your conspiranoia.
“But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.”
Matthew 5:44-45.
Sorry, that was the sound of my eyes rolling…
Isu,
By the way, in regard to your statement at 9:06, guns have never killed anyone. People kill, the tool doesn’t.
So, Glenn’s bumper sticker deep-thoughts aside, let me repeat my understanding of where we are:
1. The “right to bear arms” does not mean that we have an unlimited/wholly unrestricted right to bear any and all arms we want to. We can reasonably place limitations upon that right. Everyone agrees with this thus far.
2. The question then, is NOT, “Why do they want to ban guns?!!” or the delusional, “Why are they trying to take our guns and institute a tyrannical state?” but, “We AGREE on limitations, but what are reasonable restrictions to place upon ‘arms’ ownership and use?”
3. I’ve suggested the reasonable, moderate consideration: Let’s set aside the extreme radicals who would ban guns completely AND who’d say “NO restrictions” and let us consider rationally all reasonable suggestions.
4. For instance, I’ve suggested that restrictions similar to (although not necessarily exactly like) what we agree to with car-ownership seem a reasonable idea. Having a license to own guns, like we require for owning cars, seems reasonable. Passing tests to demonstrate readiness to own guns, like we do for owning cars, seems reasonable. I’ve asked for any SPECIFIC reasons why we shouldn’t consider this model as viable. I’m still waiting.
I’ve asked for any SPECIFIC reasons why we shouldn’t consider this model as viable. I’m still waiting.
You are not “still waiting.” You’ve been answered over and over. False analogy. Rights don’t have requirements like privileges do. Gun ownership is a right, car ownership isn’t. How many times must you be told that.
Glenn.
I made no fallacy. Banning guns does NOT deny your right to own arms, since you still can own arms. You are the one who makes the fallacy equalising guns and arms.
You do have a conspiracy theory:
“The liberals are not interested in enforcing current laws – they want to disarm the legal owners so as to have a nation ready for takeover by martial law.”
That’s plainly conspiranoia.
“I just look at history and what happened every time the government disarmed the population, especially when the leader was a rank marxist socialist such as Mr. Obama.”
Tell me were population was allowed to own arms prior to marxist overtake.
Tell me were that ban was promoted by marxist prior to the overtake.
I think there is no historical record of your conspiranoia.
I’m sure of historical veracity of right dictatorial goverments banning population arming and of democratic goverments banning population arming without any marxist overtaking.
“By the way, in regard to your statement at 9:06, guns have never killed anyone. People kill, the tool doesn’t.”
So you don’t worry if you shoot yourself in the head because the bullet won’t kill you.
Why don’t you try? (This one is a joke).
Free speech is a right AND YET, we are required not to advertise false information. We are required to not yell “Fire” in a crowded theater.
Rights DO have requirements, Glenn. They are called “Responsibilities,” and you’ve had this pointed out to you multiple times. You have not established anywhere that any rights we have are unlimited.
That is the philosophy of a cancer, not a rational mind.
Dan,
Responsibilities are not legal requirements. You don’t have a license to have free speech. A responsibility for gun ownership would be using appropriate safety precautions, etc.
Yours is the philosophy of a rank fool, and not of a rational mind.
For clarification, responsibilities are not legal requirements for the granting of rights. While one may be held liable after misuse of the right, one has no legal qualifications as to responsibilities to qualify for a right. Rights can indeed be abused, but we don’t certify people for rights based on the possibility that they may abuse said right due to irresponsible behavior.
Something for everyone to consider here about the term “arms”. When the constitution was written, pistols and cannons existed and are indisputably considered “arms”. The constitution explicitly guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and does not exclude pistols or cannons. We’d have to ask why not? Neither were illegal for people to own at the time, and cannons were likely the largest most destructive arm at the time in American history.
Isu,
Guns are arms by the definition of the 2nd Amendment word. They are firearms.
So looking at history and learning from it is a conspiracy theory? That’s the problem with liberals – they never learn from history, which is why this nation is so deeply in debt, and why our culture is disintegrating around us.
My comment did not restrict the socialist types to just marxists, by the way; I just said “especially” the marxist socialist kind. Hitler as a socialist restricted gun ownership by Jews. Stalin as a marxist socialist took away guns, as did every other dictator who has been some variety of socialist. Do you even read history?
Again, inanimate objects don’t kill people. It is the people using the inanimate object who does the killing. I can set a fully loaded and cocked machined gun pointing out my front door for weeks and years and it will never kill anyone – in fact, it won’t even shoot!
Quit blaming the tool for the actions of the user.
Or are you thinking the way liberal, heretic, racist, Democrat Al Sharpton was when he said if people use knives to kill after all the guns away, then knives would also have to be restricted?
It’s evident you know little history of the ideology that guides you. American liberals were entranced with Mussolini and Hitler. To them, Mussolini was the modern day Caesar, a hero and champion to American progressives. In the early 1930s, American liberals were equally fascinated with Hitler, believing his “experiment” noble.
It’s not loopy to accurately place Mussolini and Hitler on the left side of the political spectrum. It’s simply the truth, whether you like it or not. And no amount of double-talk or dismissive leftwing jive is going to change that reality.
I know what it reads…
Quit with your jive, Dan. It’s simplistic, silly, and unworthy of serious consideration. At the time the Second Amendment was written, there were no nuclear weapons, no sticks of dynamite, no ICBMs or tanks. It’s clear the term “arms” means “guns.” Nice try, though.
I didn’t compare American liberals with Hitler. I accurately pointed out that before becoming tyrannical, leftist regimes slowly chip away at gun rights. Is it nutty to speak the truth? Is that what this country has come to? We can no longer speak the truth for fear of offending some unthinking leftist like yourself?
You have a Constitutional right to own a gun; you do not have a Constitutional right to drive a car. How many times must that be explained to you as though you were a little infant?
Such a response is typical of either those conspiring to create tryanny, or those Chamberlain-sque radicals too stupid to see the truth.
You like to play stupid a lot, don’t you? You’ve been told numerous times that you do not have a right to drive a car…
So, John, do you think there is/should be NO limitation/regulation to what arms a citizen can own?
Glenn.
“Guns are arms by the definition of the 2nd Amendment word. They are firearms.”
I didn’t say guns weren’t arms. So your comment is pointless.
“So looking at history and learning from it is a conspiracy theory? That’s the problem with liberals – they never learn from history, which is why this nation is so deeply in debt, and why our culture is disintegrating around us.”
Silly question.
Saying that gun restrinction is a agenda driven by liberals to overtake goverment and saying that it is historical when there is no historical record of such action is a conspiracy theory.
“My comment did not restrict the socialist types to just marxists, by the way; I just said “especially” the marxist socialist kind. Hitler as a socialist restricted gun ownership by Jews. Stalin as a marxist socialist took away guns, as did every other dictator who has been some variety of socialist. Do you even read history?”
Your coment was about liberals. Hitler and Stalin were not liberals, but dictators.
And they didn’t overtake the prior goverment by means of making arm restriction.
The arming restriction have been used by despotic goverments (also right winded ones) in history.
But it is used also by democratic goverments. Letting unrestricted access to arms increases criminal firepower and make it easier for antidemocratic groups to perform a “coup d’État”.
“Again, inanimate objects don’t kill people. It is the people using the inanimate object who does the killing. I can set a fully loaded and cocked machined gun pointing out my front door for weeks and years and it will never kill anyone – in fact, it won’t even shoot!”
Inanimation objects DO kill people. A stone falling from a natural caused avalanche CAN kill you.
“Quit blaming the tool for the actions of the user.”
A killing tool, can kill.
“Or are you thinking the way liberal, heretic, racist, Democrat Al Sharpton was when he said if people use knives to kill after all the guns away, then knives would also have to be restricted?”
Knifes are cutting tools and we have common uses, for example cooking.
A machine gun is a killing tool and has no other use. Due to its firepower should be restricted to militar and security forces to exceed criminals.
Glenn…
While one may be held liable after misuse of the right, one has no legal qualifications as to responsibilities to qualify for a right.
Where specifically is this reasoning mistaken:
I. We have a Right of Free Speech in the First Amendment.
II. That free speech RIGHT is not umlimited.
III. Specifically, we do NOT have the constitutional right to “yell” fire in a theater. Our RIGHT to speech is LIMITED by rational laws.
Ergo: Our constitutionally enumerated rights are NOT unlimited/unfettered by law, nor should they be.
Trying to have a rational conversation with liberals is pointless and fruitless. They are unteachable.
We do indeed have the right to yell “Fire” in a theatre if there is a fire in a theatre. It is only the irresponsible use that is forbidden.
Like I said, dialog with liberals is pointless.
“Trying to have a rational conversation with liberals is pointless and fruitless. They are unteachable.”
Thats a good description about arm liberals.
Dan,
As far as your list of restrictions goes, I could see that in some form or another those could be made workable. There are already restrictions on felons and the mentally ill restricting their ability to own guns. The problem is that felons and the mentally ill don’t always follow those restrictions.
You do realize that the term “assault rifle/weapon” is a reference ONLY to certain cosmetic features of certain rifles, not to function.
This is an AR-15, considered an “assault rifle”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
This is a Mini-14, NOT considered an “assault rifle”:
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html
I used to own (and wish I still did) a Mini-14 and had a 30-round magazine for it.
The only difference between these rifles is their appearance. They fire the same round and both are semi-automatic – i.e., they have the same performance. One looks “scary” and the other doesn’t; the scary one must be banned!
It seems entirely reasonable to me for normal folk who have passed a licensing test and are sound of mind to be able to own handguns and/or hunting rifles. I have no problem with that.
I think that anyone that wants to own speciality guns/military-style rifles designed for large killing purposes, they should have a special license and insurance and hoops to jump through. I see no great need for “assault-style” weapons (ie, weapons designed for mass destruction – rifles, bombs, missiles or otherwise). I don’t think that just any joe should have unlimited access to any and all weaponry out there.
The dividing line, to me, is whether it’s a sporting firearm (for target shooting/hunting) or a killing firearm (one designed for maximum destruction). Why would an average citizen need something like that? How is giving unlimited access to those sorts of weapons any different than giving access to missiles or bombs? It has nothing to do with “looking scary” and everything to do with purpose.
This seems to me to be a reasonable dividing line. Since we ALL AGREE that some limitations are reasonable, what is the dividing line for you on what limitations are and aren’t reasonable?
Having said that (about the “scary-looking” one), I can see that some disturbed individuals might find the military-styling on the one to be impetus (to an unbalanced person) to use it military-style – ie, for mass destruction. But that’s just a hunch.
Craig…
The problem is that felons and the mentally ill don’t always follow those restrictions.
Some do and some don’t, no doubt. Does the fact that some people will ignore laws mean we ought to do away with laws, though? No, I’m sure you wouldn’t suggest that.
Many people WILL and DO ignore the 55 mph speed limit. That isn’t a rationalization for doing away with limits, though, just for better enforcement procedures.
I think reasonable folk in the middle could come together and find a great deal of common ground.
Isu,
Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao, and others may have been dictators, but they were dictators firmly planted on the left side of the political spectrum.
Hitler didn’t really need to make gun-control a priority because much of it was already in place during the Weimar Republic. When the Nazi’s finally did address the issue, they actually lowered the legal age to 18 instead of 21. Hitler knew that few people would turn against the Nazi’s right away. Think about it. They ended the severe depression, gave all sorts of things away to the German people (e.g., mandatory vacations at Italian villas), and totally brainwashed them. It was a land of milk and honey. It wasn’t until the early 40s that citizens actively tried to remove Hitler (e.g., Operation Valkyrie). Gun-control just wasn’t necessary.
Dan,
You do have a right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. You’re pulling that metaphor from a Supreme Court case that was overturned. It comes from Schneck v. United States, in which Justice Holmes argues:
However, in Brandenburg v. Ohio the Supreme Court limited banned speech to only that which is intended to incite violence and lawlessness. Shouting “fire” in a crowded theater would not qualify under that definition.
The First Amendment is scarcely limited because speech intended to “incite violence and lawlessness” is almost impossible to define. It’s a matter of perspective. Some liberals may believe that a Tea Party rally is inciting violence and lawlessness, while conservatives like myself believe pro-choice rallys incite violence and lawlessness. So the First Amendment is about as limited as the Second Amendment should be. Of course people shouldn’t be allowed to own an Uzi, an AK47, or an ICBM. In my view, only automatic weapons should be banned. Semiautomatic weapons should be completely legal.
Dan,
the fact that you lump rifles in with, missiles, bombs, etc. makes me wonder if you actually understand what is being discussed. No one is suggesting that anyone have unfettered access to missiles, bombs, flamethrowers etc. Just so that you know AR-15 style rifles are becoming one of the most popular firearms for hunting.
Personally I find your criteria rather whimsical the fact that you personally see “no need” for someone to choose to own one of these weapons has no actual meaning. You seem to be buying the low information folks line that this is all about cosmetics and not about function. Since when do you get to decide what someone else needs?
Glen showed you to functionally identical weapons, and you seem perfectly content to ban the one that looks scary. I guess some might think that’s a rational reasoned response.
I’d agree with the whole licensing/insurance thing if it would allow folks (at a certain level of licensing) to automatically receive a CCW permit, or to be able to own weapons that now require a FFL.
Anyway, it might help if you took a more rational, less opinion based look at the issue.
Some interesting food for thought: FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year Than Rifles
Dan,
Since we know that hammers pose a greater hazard than rifles, shouldn’t hammers be subject to greater regulation?
Yes, yes, I know, John. EPIC!
Of course the main problem with the restriction of weapons is the obvious implication (heck, it’s not so subtle as that) that no one is capable of restraining their latent, unknown to even themselves, desire to unload their large capacity magazines clipped on to their automatic military-style weapons into crowds of unsuspecting citizens. I know once I get my hands on an Uzi or AK47, I’m gonna go totally bat-poop crazy and light up the neighborhood. Yeah, man, that’s what ALL gun owners are pining to do! Why? Because we’re incapable of overcoming the power a mighty weapon has over our psyche. We’re just too immature and eager to resist the urge to shoot up the town. Hunting? Target shooting? Self-defense? Hell no! I just wanna kill, KILL, KILL!
TerranceRAH
“Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao, and others may have been dictators, but they were dictators firmly planted on the left side of the political spectrum.”
I didn’t discuss if they were leftist or not.
Glenn talked about liberals, and Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao and other were NOT LIBERALS.
“Hitler didn’t really need to make gun-control a priority because much of it was already in place during the Weimar Republic.”
That’s an example dismissing Glenn’s paranoia.
There already was a republican gun control prior to Hitler’s politics and, as you said, a gunned population wouldn’t have stopped him.
In fact, a gunned population if most of it becames marxist (for example) would help to overthrow a democratic goverment.
Isu,
I would consider Hitler and his ilk to be “liberal” in much of their philosophical worldviews. SO I guess it depends on what you think “liberal” includes. Him and his ilk are certainly very liberal in their theology!
TerranceRAH
“Since we know that hammers pose a greater hazard than rifles, shouldn’t hammers be subject to greater regulation?”
False. The article says “hammers and clubs”
And, of course, rifles aren’t the only guns.
Isu
That’s right, rifles aren’t the only guns, but those are the kinds of guns Democrats are talking about banning because they kill so many people and are so dangerous.
TerranceRAH
“Quit with your jive, Dan. It’s simplistic, silly, and unworthy of serious consideration. At the time the Second Amendment was written, there were no nuclear weapons, no sticks of dynamite, no ICBMs or tanks. It’s clear the term “arms” means “guns.” Nice try, though.”
False. Arms means arms, weapons, not guns.
At the time, there were arms suchs as daggers, swords, spears, bows and so on. There were FIREarms, also, such as one shot rifles, muskets and pistols, with slow loading time and low precision. There were also bombs and cannons.
There were no nuclear weapons, no sticks of dynamite, no ICBMs or tanks. Sure, but there were no magazine firearms, semiautomatic firearms, automatic firearms…
The same basis you use to ban nuclear weapons (they didn’t exist “at the time”) can be used to ban semiautomatic guns.
Isu
Cannons were also arms during the drafting of the constitution and there was no mention of regulating the civilian population from them. They were one of the most powerful military weapons of the period and yet the constitution made no attempt to exclude them. I believe it’s reasonable therefore, that high capacity and military style weapons were not intended to be banned by the constitution.
John.
“That’s right, rifles aren’t the only guns, but those are the kinds of guns Democrats are talking about banning because they kill so many people and are so dangerous.”
I don’t know what Democrats are talking about banning, but if it is so, I agree it has no sense.
AND SO, I ask again, John: Are you suggesting there should be NO limits on “arms” of any kind? Based on your reasoning, there is no reason to presume that nukes were not intended to be banned for civilians…
Dan
And I ask you, do civilians even have access to the technology, materials, and infrastructure to possess a nuclear weapon? Why must liberals turn a debate about guns into a comparison to nuclear weapons? Is it that you don’t want to deal with the real situation so you caricature the debate?
I bring up cannons because liberals like to say civilians shouldn’t have military “style” weapons. By weapons they mean guns, not missiles, and you know that. So let’s try talking about guns, which is the real discussion.
The point still stands, Dan. If a law abiding citizen was able to obtain and possess a nuke, what fear do you have that is not accidental in nature? I don’t fear a good person from possessing anything, and the better the person (particularly common sense-wise), the less rational fear becomes, due to the higher degree of care that would be taken in possessing such a device. If nukes are available to non-governmental personnel at all, they are available to criminal types, the only category the founders did not have in mind when guaranteeing the right to bear arms. You may recall Qadafi attempting to fund American street gangs at one time. Do you truly believe that criminals could not get their hands on a nuke now if they so chose to do so?
But your irrational fear of your fellow man with a nuke does not consider that the rational people of good character and common sense would not keep a nuke due to the unexpected. The people for whom the right was guaranteed would have the sense to know the dangers inherent in having a nuke and thus would opt for a more practical weapon. Besides, few people fear entire towns or neighborhoods to the extent that they rationally expect attack by everyone in them. Thus, no need for such a weapon in the first place.
So, unless you can tell of the many gun owners YOU know that are clamoring for the right to own their own nuclear device, your argument is typical leftist emotional crap. And by the way, you have in the past chided me for so labeling opinions such as yours as crap, claiming it lacked grace, or some such crap as that, and here you are referring to Glenn’s comments as “excrement”. Do you truly believe your word choice means you are not a hypocrite?
John.
“Cannons were also arms during the drafting of the constitution and there was no mention of regulating the civilian population from them. They were one of the most powerful military weapons of the period and yet the constitution made no attempt to exclude them. I believe it’s reasonable therefore, that high capacity and military style weapons were not intended to be banned by the constitution.”
That’s not a point agains my argumentation but agains TerranceRAH’s one.
Are you saying that constitution grants the right to the civilians to own a nuke? (Please, don’t avoid the question).
There are some reasons to not considering cannons.
1. Cannons are very expensive: General population couldn’t not afford to have them.
2. Cannons need special training: Aiming a cannon is not as easy as a handgun. General population couldn’t afford to have it.
3. Cannons are not personal guns: They are ineffective at close range for a single personal target, and they are ineffective at single handling. People would have little interest in having one.
4. Cannons are quite visible when not used for militia purposes: If I would set my cannon in front of a bank, what would you think?
At last, but not least reason, the general statements are can be flawed in particular cases. Example, do a convict has the right to “keep and bear arms”?
Isu
You just gave a four point argument against public nukes, as well as my comments to Dan.
Second to bear a weapon means to possess and own publicly, it doesn’t need to be a secret.
John.
Another point. Tell me how do you “bear” a cannon.
marshalart
“If a law abiding citizen was able to obtain and possess a nuke, what fear do you have that is not accidental in nature?”
1. A law abiding citizen can become a law trespassing citizen, for example, by going nuts.
2. Environmental law tresspassing citizen. For example, law abiding citizen could have a son going nuts and using the weapon. (Ej. Adam Lanza), a suicidal terrorist could broke in when you were unaware and get it or detonate it.
“Do you truly believe that criminals could not get their hands on a nuke now if they so chose to do so?”
Do you truly believe that criminals could get a nuke if they chose to do so?
Do you think a criminal who chose to do so, could broke in your military bases and steal a nuke?
Of course, he could do it if a civilian would own one in house.
“unless you can tell of the many gun owners YOU know that are clamoring for the right to own their own nuclear device”
I know many that are claiming for the right to own arms. That includes nuclear devices.
John.
“You just gave a four point argument against public nukes, as well as my comments to Dan.”
I gave a four point argument against cannon mentioning when setting the amend.
But argumentation against public nukes have no use when you set the constitutional argument to the right of people owning nukes: “I believe it’s reasonable therefore, that high capacity and military style weapons were not intended to be banned by the constitution”.
You have failed to answer my question.
Contradictory argumentations cannot be rationally sustained.
“Second to bear a weapon means to possess and own publicly, it doesn’t need to be a secret.”
False. “Bear” means “carry”, even hidden.
If people here on the Right can’t see that allowing ordinary folk to own bombs, missiles, even nuclear weapons is batcrap crazy, there is little hope for a serious adult conversation. Extremists are not reachable.
I will repeat: There is plenty of room in the middle for most of us to find common ground on reasonable restrictions.
Let’s let those who would ban ALL guns and those who don’t want ANY regulations/limitations go off to their rubber rooms and be ignored. Let’s ignore the extremists on both ends of the spectrum and we responsible adult citizens can discuss reasonable limitations, registrations, licensing and the like of automobiles, explosives and arms..
Dan
Just the fact that you think anyone here believes the general public should own bombs, missiles, or nuclear weapons shows that YOU are batshit crazy.
John, I’m establishing what GUIDELINES we might have for having a reasonable adult conversation about guns and limitations.
I have REPEATEDLY SAID (if you’d bother to read my actual words) that I AM SURE WE AGREE: There SHOULD be limitations on what “arms” we can own.
When I say that I imagine we AGREE, that is an indicator that I DO NOT think you think it’s okay to own guns.
MY POINT (and read closely so you understand) is that WE AGREE: THERE SHOULD BE LIMITATIONS ON WHAT ARMS WE CAN AND CAN’T OWN – that WE AGREE there SHOULD be limitations on ownership of “arms.”
But when I keep saying, “Yes? Right? We agree on the principle involved – that there SHOULD be some limits on arms ownership…?” …all I have got, for the most part, is pushback, rather than a simple, “YES! Of course we agree there should be limits.”
So, how about it John: CAN WE AGREE ON THE OVERARCHING PRINCIPLE THAT SOME LIMITATIONS ON ARMS-OWNERSHIP IS REASONABLE AND CONSTITUTIONAL?”
If you’ll look back, that was my very first question here and one that I’ve repeated and has mostly gone ignored or received push back (like Glenn’s “I agree with NOTHING with you…”)
Where I said “you think it’s okay to own guns,” obviously, I meant “bombs…”
Nazism/Hitler’s ideology/philosophy:
* “believed that ethnic and linguistic diversity had weakened it.”
Liberals, on the other hand, believe that ethnic and linguistic diversity is a Good.
* “he saw democracy as a destabilizing force, because it placed power in the hands of ethnic minorities”
Liberals, on the other hand, believe democracy to be a moral good, as well as getting power into the hands of ethnic minorities
* “The Nazi rationale was heavily invested in the militarist belief that great nations grow from military power”
Liberals, on the other hand, tend AWAY from militarism.
* “Hitler’s Nazi theory also claimed that the Aryan race is a master race, superior to all other races”
Liberals, on the other hand, are strongly opposed to such ideology, we are the ones who SUPPORT and VALUE diversity of races and opinions.
* “it is an obvious mistake to permit or encourage multilingualism and multiculturalism within a nation.”
Again, liberals favor multiculturalism and are not opposed to multilingualism, that tends to be our more conservative brothers and sisters.
* “For Hitler, Those that preach love and tolerance, “in contravention to the facts,” were said to be “slave” or “false” religions.”
Liberals are all about preaching love and tolerance.
* “Nazism is a form of fascism.”
Liberals are opposed to fascism.
* “Nazism used elements of the far-right racist Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture which fought against the communists in post-World War I Germany.[7] It was designed to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.”
While liberals are not socialists/communists, we tend to lean towards some DEMOCRATIC/CHRISTIAN socialist/communist ideals – ideals that were counter to Hitler’s philosophy.
* “A majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as a form of far-right politics.”
Obviously, “far-right” is not a description of liberalism.
* “Adolf Hitler and other proponents officially portrayed Nazism as being neither left- nor right-wing, but syncretic. Hitler in Mein Kampf directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany”
…in short, given the evidence, I’m hard-pressed to think of ANY non-lunatical way in which Nazism could be compared in any way to liberalism’s ideals.
“If people here on the Right can’t see that allowing ordinary folk to own bombs, missiles, even nuclear weapons is batcrap crazy, there is little hope for a serious adult conversation. Extremists are not reachable.”
Of course to totally fabricate the position of the other side, is batcrap sane, right? NO ONE is suggesting that”ordinary folk” should be allowed to own bombs, missiles, or nukes. But you’ll go ahead and say they are. Hell, you’re the one who lumped rifles in with bombs, missiles, and nukes, now who’s batcrap crazy.
So, we agree on this much, It’s very difficult to have a rational adult conversation with someone who won’t even accurately state his opponents positions.
It’s also difficult to have a rational discussion about this without realizing that cosmetics is not a reason to ban things. and that the licenses and restrictions should be on people rather than inanimate objects. But other than that we agree, right?
AS I JUST SAID: MY POSITION ALL ALONG IS THAT I AM SURE WE AGREE – THERE SHOULD BE LIMITS ON WHAT ARMS PEOPLE CAN FREELY HAVE.
The only reason I begin to question what I am sure of is when YOUR comrades say, “I haven’t agreed with anything you’ve said…” and otherwise dodging my questions seeking agreement.
Feel free to be clear and agree with me and make it clear this is the case:
MY POSITION ALL ALONG IS THAT I AM SURE WE AGREE – THERE SHOULD BE LIMITS ON WHAT ARMS PEOPLE CAN FREELY HAVE…RIGHT???
The belligerence of some here, notwithstanding, I am relatively confident that no one here wants UN-LIMITED gun/arms access to all people. WE AGREE (as I have stated and re-stated) on this point. The question therefore, is not, “should there be limits?” The question for the rational folk in the middle is, “What limits are reasonable…?”
That has been my point and question all along.
Read what has actually been said and understand.
I want to make about about Trabue’s claim in reference to me saying I don’t agree with him on anything. The point is, that even though Trabue will start with something with may seem sound, there’s always a gimick behind it so that while you appear to be in agreement with him on the first statement, when he later expounds upon what he means you realize that there was little to agree with behind what he states up front. So I refuse on principle to agree with anything he says, knowing that behind an opening statement there will come additional qualifications to what he initially says.
Dan,
Don’t be ignorant. Hitler was a rightwing socialist, and rightwing socialism is still socialism. This tit-for-tat method you’re using to disprove Hitler’s leftwing values is simply silly. As a counter, I could list all the child labor laws and other pro-worker regulations the Nazi’s passed, but I don’t need to because Hitler himself said he was a socialist.
Isu,
Fine. Since we know hammers and clubs pose a greater hazard than rifles, shouldn’t they be subject to more regulation than rifles? And so what if rifles aren’t the only guns? You liberals are the ones that want to get specific, remember? “Oh, well, this is an assault-weapon, so it should be banned.”
And I never said HItler, Mussolini, and Stalin were liberals. I said they were left-wingers – and they were. That is not open for discussion or debate. There is no doubt they were all. left-wingers
Dan,
If you had paid attention to my comment, you would note that not only did I read your words, I actually quoted your words. You also may have noted, that in earlier comments that I actually agreed in principal with your ideas. Yes, we agree that restrictions are realistic, but differ on what. You want to regulate inanimate object, I think we should regulate people. Maybe you can explain why you think that makes more sense. It’s difficult to find common ground with someone who lumps rifles, bombs, and missiles in the same category. (I know this because I have read what you said) It’s hard to find common ground with someone who’s take on this is based on superficial cosmetic considerations not practical functional ones. It’s hard to find common ground with someone who keeps insisting that his opponents are saying things that they have not said.
I’ve read and responded to your actual words while you lump me in with ” my comerades” as if we are all somehow interchangable. So maybe you could “Reda what has actually been said and understand.”
In case you missed it I’m the only one here who has actually attempted to agree with you and try to see what some limits might be. So, why not try to accurately represent those who disagree with you and engage those who to some degree do agree with you.
Craig
“I would consider Hitler and his ilk to be “liberal” in much of their philosophical worldviews. SO I guess it depends on what you think “liberal” includes. Him and his ilk are certainly very liberal in their theology!”
Except from wikipedia:
“Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.”
Hitler was not a liberal. Nor the others mentioned.
Hitler and his ilk liberal in ther theology? Tell the jews. It would be a good joke.
ISU,
You addressed to Craig what I said about Hitler and his ilk being liberals. You pick out a wikipedia definition which has no basis in regard to the way the term “liberal” is used today. The term liberal is used often almost synonymous with socialist, but also a liberal says human sexuality is a free-for-all, which a lot of dictators have espoused in many ways so as to wreak havoc on the family unit because it is the foundation of society. A liberal says the government should care for you from cradle to grave – much like a socialist. There are many other similarities and common practices between liberals and socialists that they have much of their philosophies in common.
If Hiter was conservative in his theology, he would have accepted what the Bible says about the Jews being God’s chosen people in need of the Gospel rather than declaring them as rats who needed extermination.
This page describes in detail why Hitler was a socialist. It’s well-sourced.
The 1925 National Socialist German Workers Party manifesto reads:
Gee. That doesn’t sound very rightwing, now does it?
It goes on.
What? Combating the military industrial complex? How rightwing of them!
Nationalizing business? Those darn rightwingers!
Spreading the wealth around? How rightwing!
What? A Social Security program?
Curtailing the free market in favor of small business? Damn rightwingers!
And here I thought conservatives fought eminent domain.
You clearly see that Hitler was a socialist. He may have been a eugenicist, but so were American liberals at the time. Margaret Sanger comes to mind. A favorite among American liberals, George Bernard Shaw, was also a eugenicist. Eugenics is a leftwing idea, Dan. You need to read a few history books, my friend.
Isu,
You’re making your point with an editable Wikipedia article that glorifies liberals. Too bad if you picked up a history book every now and again, you’d realize that early 20th centurty liberalism was nothing close to laudable. They were eugenicists, racists, pro-war fascists – and Hitler was absolutely one of them. At the time, they were known as “progressives” in America.
Seriously, read a history book.
TerranceRAH.
“Fine. Since we know hammers and clubs pose a greater hazard than rifles, shouldn’t they be subject to more regulation than rifles? And so what if rifles aren’t the only guns?”
You use again the same rethorical cheating suming two things agains one. The post is about guns not only rifles.
They pose a greater hazard? Good joke. Gun owner beware of my hammer!
“You liberals are the ones that want to get specific, remember? “Oh, well, this is an assault-weapon, so it should be banned.”
I haven’t said that.
Well, when I think about assault weapons I think about automatic weapons, but it seems that in your legislations you could have another definitions.
By the way, in my country semiautomatic rifles are limited to three bullets. To own one you must be licenced and only use it for specific purposes such as hunting.
“And I never said HItler, Mussolini, and Stalin were liberals. I said they were left-wingers – and they were. That is not open for discussion or debate. There is no doubt they were all. left-wingers”
Uh, oh! You have said to Dan that Hitler was “rightwing”, now you say he is “left-winger”.
Do you know what is leftwinger or rightwinger? Do you know what is the etiologic sense of these terms?
Isu,
Just because your country restricts gun ownership and how many bullets one can have, so as to more easily control the populace, that doesn’t mean we should have anything close to your dictatorial regulations. We have a Constitutional right which you apparently don’t have.
TerranceRAH.
“You’re making your point with an editable Wikipedia article that glorifies liberals. Too bad if you picked up a history book every now and again, you’d realize that early 20th centurty liberalism was nothing close to laudable. They were eugenicists, racists, pro-war fascists – and Hitler was absolutely one of them. At the time, they were known as “progressives” in America.”
That’s the other way round. You are the one demonizing liberals calling liberals someones who weren’t. You are making strawmans to attack liberals.
Dictatorship and suppressing minorities and political opponents has nothing to do with liberalism.
No. This post is about the recent push by Democrats to ban “military-style assault weapons,” which are specific guns. Dan seems to believe that items which pose greater danger to the public should be subject to greater regulation. Fine. Now I want to hear him admit that hammers & clubs should be subject to greater regulation than rifles.
If anyone is playing rhetorical games, it’s you two.
According to the FBI, hammers & clubs are responsible for more murders than rifles. But I realize that fact doesn’t coalesce with ideology so you’re determined to ignore its mere mention.
Dan did. The original question was posed to Dan, not you, because of statements Dan previously made.
No. The term “assault-weapon” has no meaning independent of definitions set by lawmakers. No gun is an “assault-weapon” until politicians arbitrarily say it is.
John’s post is a response to the recent push by Democrats to pass an assault-weapons ban. Senator Diane Feinstein is actually sending one to the Senate for consideration. And as Glenn proved, liberals are not concerned with simple hunting rifles; they’re concerned with specific weapons (for the present) like the AR 15. Remember, Dan was shown two photographs of two guns that, while different in appearance, are functionally the same weapon, yet Dan only wanted to ban the scary looking one.
So as I said, this is about specific guns.
I don’t see the relevance. Our Constitution specifically guarantees our right to possess a gun, and the use of weapons is not limited to simple hunting expeditions.
Apparently people from your country have trouble reading. Do you guys have Hooked on Phonics? Look into it.
I said Hitler was a rightwing socialist, because even rightwing socialism is still socialism. I say rightwing only because Hitler favored nationalist policies that, in Marxist thought, are irrelevant. Marxists are not concerned with race, but with class. Such socialists are on the left-end of the socialist spectrum, while socialists concerned with race are on the right-end of the socialist spectrum. But the socialist spectrum remains on the left-end of the political spectrum.
Ironically, this argument is a straw man. I have said repeatedly that I do not consider Hitler, Mussolini, or Stalin to be liberals. Instead, I consider them left-wingers. Hitler and Mussolini were pro-war socialists (fascists) while Stalin was a communist. All those ideologies are on the left-end of the political spectrum. I’ve proven this.
Do you agree that communism and socialism are on the left-end of the political spectrum?
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOchkL7LfJA"Watch This Documentary Clip: Nazism A Form Of Communist Despotism.
Nazi’s Were Socialists: Documentary Clip
For crying out loud, HItler was nothing close to a Christian. Hitler said repeatedly that he wished Islam had won the war in Europe because then the German people would be Muslim and not Christian. He viewed Christianity as weak because of all the “love your enemy” teachings.
The Nazi’s used the Christian identity of the German people at first in order to come to power, but eventually they entered a post-Christian era of German Paganism. In no sense was Hitler a Christian.
Here you go peeps —>> https://siftingreality.com/2013/01/04/should-we-regulate-dangerous-weapons-or-dangerous-people/
TerranceRAH
Excerpt from wikipedia:
“In politics, left-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. It usually involves a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that need to be reduced or abolished.”
Hitler politics were not left-winged but righ-winged.
“I’ve proven this.”
You haven’t. You simply dogmatized.
Glenn.
“Just because your country restricts gun ownership and how many bullets one can have, so as to more easily control the populace, that doesn’t mean we should have anything close to your dictatorial regulations.”
These are not dictatorial regulations, but democratic regulations.
“We have a Constitutional right which you apparently don’t have.”
We voted the Constitution without that right and I would vote “No” to an ammend or change to include that right.
Isu,
Your abjuratory responses aside, you cannot escape the inconvertible reality that Hitler was a well-known socialist of his day. Those familiar with history understand that the baseline definition of liberalism has changed radically since the early 20th century. “Liberalism” was once an economic distinction that espoused low-taxes and free-market economics. Or, doesn’t your country teach reality?
Point One
“Nazi’ stands for “Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiter Partei.” In English, we understand it to mean “The National Socialist German Workers Party.” The name itself signals the party’s political distinction: socialist. Hitler ran as a socialist and campaigned as a socialist.
Point Two
I’ve already provided the 1925 Nazi Manifesto, which included campaign promises along the lines of limiting unearned income, nationalizing businesses, criminalizing war profiteering, employment for all, and labor laws. Does any of that sound rightwing to you?
Seriously, how many right-wingers want to nationalize business, criminalize profits, and pass labor laws?
Point Three
Author James P. O’Donnel wrote a book entitled “The Bunker,” a vivid account of Hitler’s final days.
In it, O’Donnell quotes Nazi Youth Leader Artur Axmann.
How many right-wingers are “anti-capitalist,” “anti-bourgeois,” “anti-reactionary,” and could conceivably be referred to as “Bolsheviks,” brown or otherwise? And don’t liberals describe right-wingers as “reactionary?”
Point Four
Such pro-union sentiments must’ve been written by a 21st liberal in response to all the anti-union laws around the country, right?
Wrong. It was actually written by Adolf Hitler, and it appears in Chapter 12 of Mein Kampf.
So how many right-wingers do you know that are pro-union?
Point Five
In 1944, Australian philosopher Ludwig von Mises wrote:
So how many right-wingers do you know that favor a centrally planned economy? How many right-wingers do you know that favor price controls? That limit how much a businessman can earn?
Point Six
The book The Dictators by Richard Overy is a comparison between Hitler and Stalin. Ascherson writes a review for The Guardian. He said:
Point Seven
The following direct quotes from Hitler you can find in the book The Voice of Destruction: Conversations with Hitler: 1940
Isn’t that interesting? Hitler saying the only real difference between Nazism and Communism is Communism’s acceptance of Jewish Marxists…
Hitler also said:
Point Eight
The Nazi Platform is also useful. Points 9 – 17 are most telling.
Weren’t you yammering earlier that liberals are concerned with equality?
Working for the public good? Such egalitarianism is not rightwing – and you know it.
Abolishing unearned income is not rightwing either.
Are you familiar with Blackwater? It’s the private security firm Bush and rightwing lawmakers hired to police Iraq. Liberals were up in arms over what they considered war profiteering, and here we learn that Hitler banned it in Germany.
I ask again: How many right-wingers favor nationalizing business?
How many right-wingers talk about spreading the wealth around?
These days, liberals claim right-wingers want to do away with Social Security. Curiously, however, Hitler was in favor of it. Perhaps that’s because he wasn’t right-wing…
How many right-wingers want to disrupt the free-market in favor of small businessmen? I thought right-wingers were all about survival of the fittest with respect to economics.
The abolition of private property is not a right-wing idea. In fact, right-wingers are vociferously opposed to it, but curiously Hitler was in favor of it. Why? Because he was a left-winger, a socialist.
Point Nine
This one is so good I had to make it a point all by itself rather than include it with some of the other direct Hitler quotes.
Hitler said:
How many right-wingers tell people they’re socialists who want to do away with the capitalist system?
And I think I’ll end with that. I could go on and explain how eugenics is a liberal idea championed even by some American “progressives,” but why cobble that much information into a post you’re just going to ignore anyway? You don’t care about the truth, Isu. You’re blindly ideological. You’re brainwashed. You’re an unthinking leftist pawn.
TerranceRAH
I debunked the “hammers” cheat and you put it forward again. So I don’t want to waste my time debunking your Hitler leftist idea if you are stuck dogmatically to it.
I’ll give a try with the first point but I you follow supporting it I won’t continue with the rest.
Point 1
Name has nothing to do with one is. (Matthew 7:16)
The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is not democratic despiste its name.
The same is applied to Hitler.
Isu,
LOL. You didn’t debunk anything. Fact of the matter is, hammers & clubs pose a greater hazard than rifles. That begs the question: Should hammers & clubs be subject to greater regulation than rifles? You’ve failed to answer the question because you don’t have an answer.
You cannot debunk the “Hitler leftist idea” because I just proved it to you via Hitler’s own words. Only an utter asshat of your low stature would keep this foolishness going. You were wrong, and ya know it. But why not go read another Wikipedia article. It’s obviously doing a wonderful job keeping your educated. LMAO.
True, Isu. Names don’t always imply purpose. But the difference is that in Korea, for example, there is no campaigning. In Germany, Hitler actively campaigned and won his postion of power in a democratic election. He campaigned as a socialist and the party name entirely distinguished them from other Bolsheviks. They were nationalists and socialists, as the party name implied, concerned with German Workers, as the party name implied. All this has been proven, you infant.
So now that you’ve failed to debunk Point 1, try your hand at the rest of them.
Isu,
My last point in the above post is worth reading again.
HITLER SAID:
Now stick your end in the sand and pretend I didn’t just post this.
Don’t be a buffoon, Terrance. Hitler was a fascist, not a modern liberal, not a modern conservative.
Dan has trouble with degrees, as in because something isn’t frozen, it isn’t cold. With politics, he needs some notarized form to determine just how left one might be before being called liberal, progressive, socialist, communist, fascist… all degrees of the same animal. But because Hitler isn’t EXACTLY like a modern lib, he therefor can’t be placed in the same category. So much for the big tent of progressive-ism.
Dan,
Marshal said it best. But I would like to mention – yet again – that I never claimed Hitler was a modern anything. Instead, I factually stated that Hitler was on the left-wing of the political spectrum.
Believe me, Dan, I know Hitler couldn’t be a modern liberal….because he was a war hero, after all….
TerranceRAH
“hammers & clubs pose a greater hazard than rifles”
Nonsense.
Which pose a greater hazard? An attacker armed with them or an attacker armed with a rifle?
You debunk your rethorics when you arm yourself with rifles instead of hammers.
“You cannot debunk the “Hitler leftist idea” because I just proved it to you via Hitler’s own words”
Words don’t prove anything. (Matthew 7:16).
On the other hand, it seems you confuse rightism with neoliberalism, but they aren’t equal.
“Only an utter asshat of your low stature would keep this foolishness going.”
Your words saying I’m stupid don’t prove I’m stupid.
Your inconditional believing on what other says, if it isn’t rethorical prove that you are the stupid one.
“You were wrong, and ya know it. But why not go read another Wikipedia article. It’s obviously doing a wonderful job keeping your educated. LMAO.”
Reading Wikipedia, and no limiting your reading to your party propaganda, is a better way to be educated.
“Names don’t always imply purpose.”
Yes, not only names, words also.
“In Germany, Hitler actively campaigned and won his postion of power in a democratic election.”
And he destroyed democracy.
“He campaigned as a socialist”
LOL.
And my current president campaigned as he wasn’t to raise VAT, for example, and then he raised it.
“HITLER SAID:
We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions”
He says he is socialist because he is against CURRENT (today’s) capitalism. That would seem to be a socialist to neoliberals like you.
He doesn’t say he is against capitalism, but against exploitation of the economically weak.
The exploitation of the economically weak. Is that right politics and what you support?
Don’t be buffoons, folks. We can point to some Right wing aspects of Hitler and we can point to some Left wing aspects of Hitler. He was a fascist and, as such, not really right or left wing in any modern sense of the words.
Was Hitler Right or Left Wing?
There are For and against both “wings.”
The most rational answer is just as I’ve said: That Hitler/the Nazis had aspects of both modernly-defined “wings” and Nazism is best associated with fascism, not Left or Right Wing.
Historically speaking, the “wing” terminology is not a defined and constant set of values and thus, it is not a useful measure/descriptor of the changing and varied political ideologies throughout history.
Rather, shallow-thinking idealogues and partisan types use the comparison as a bludgeon when it is convenient for them, rather than an historically accurate and reasonable assessment.
Dan
“He was a fascist and, as such, not really right or left wing in any modern sense of the words.”
I talked based on clasical sense of what right or left wing are.
“Historically speaking, the “wing” terminology is not a defined and constant set of values and thus, it is not a useful measure/descriptor of the changing and varied political ideologies throughout history.”
I think it is historical defined and can be used to describe political ideologies throughout history when they are heavily adhered to left/right wing description.
“Rather, shallow-thinking idealogues and partisan types use the comparison as a bludgeon when it is convenient for them, rather than an historically accurate and reasonable assessment.”
I wouldn’t mind to say Hitler was leftist if he followed that description. Having an apparently left characteristic when following a right characteristic doesn’t mean to be leftist.
It seems as though Dan has trouble with the concept that right/left wings are a continuum, not points.
So, are you suggesting that fascism is an end point on the Left/Right wing continuum? That would defy reason and I’d doubt that you’d be silly enough to suggest that, Craig.
If left/right wings are a continuum (and I’d say yes, they are, obviously), fascism has occurred with both left and right wing-ish types, it would seem clear that fascism is not part and parcel of either Left or Right, but an aberration on both wings. Right?
Nope, I am suggesting that fascism is primarily left of the center point on the scale. Not at the extreme end, just left of center. Especially Hitler’s version.
Then you’ve been drinking too much kool aid. Read a bit of history and not just Right Wing reading points.
I, for one, don’t think it’s apt to associate fascism with one or the other “wings,” but it’s not for naught that fascism tends (in my reading experience) to be associated with Right Wing politics – those who support nationalism, “my country, right or wrong,” those who try to implement their views by force.
According to the Oxford Dictionary…
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43); the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach…
According to the New World Encyclopedia…
Fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race, and promoting cults of unity, strength and purity.
Fascists promote a type of national unity that is usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, national, racial, and/or religious attributes.
This is NOT a description of left-wing or liberal causes. If you think that fascism is “primarily” left of center, you have not read enough history and you’ve read too much modern “conservative” rantings. Enlighten yourself.
I’ve read plenty of history thanks, maybe if you’d stop trying to fit others descriptions into your mold of “modern liberal” whatever and look at things in context it might be helpful.
You can cherry pick all you want, it doesn’t make your point. For example.
Modern liberal talking point= guns are bad and must be banned.
Hitler= banned guns
There, a similarity.
Cherry pick away.
Don’t be so hard on yourself.
I shouldn’t like to meet either in a dark alley.
I don’t own a rifle.
Matthew 7:16 reads, “You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?”
Indeed, you know the Nazi’s were leftists by their fruits. I have posted twenty-five different Nazi laws and promises that appeared in their manifesto. All of them are leftist ideas.
No, I don’t. If anyone is having trouble understanding historical facts and political theory, it’s you.
Stupid? No, I don’t think you’re stupid. I think you’re desperately trying to kick Hitler from the left, and doing a poor job of it.
You refuse to accept Hitler’s own words. You refuse to accept the Nazi manifesto. You refuse to accept all the laws and regulations the Nazi’s passed. You refuse to accept the words of other Nazi’s. You refuse to accept anything that proves you wrong. You keep doing end-arounds and giving us your own special brand of leftwing jive. Since Nazism, left-wingers haven’t changed a lick, it seems.
Something modern Democrats say all the time. Face it, Isu, Hitler was a left-winger, just like you.
Dan, Did you seriously just post a Wiki Answers link? While I have posted books and other scholarly material, you and Isu have posted Wikipedia and Wiki Answers. Nice.
Then you post a dictionary definition that is just as bias as you and Isu. How much Nazi literature must I post and link to before you people realize that National Socialism, or Fascism, is a left-wing reality?
TerranceRAH
“Don’t be so hard on yourself.”
It’s hard to put up your nonsenses, but I keep on.
“I shouldn’t like to meet either in a dark alley.”
You have avoided the answer to keep up with your nonsense.
“I don’t own a rifle.”
I was pluralizing. I was talking about the group who says something like “hammers pose a greater hazard than rifles”.
“Matthew 7:16 reads, “You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?”
Indeed, you know the Nazi’s were leftists by their fruits. I have posted twenty-five different Nazi laws and promises that appeared in their manifesto. All of them are leftist ideas.”
That are words, not fruits no works.
Apart from I haven’t reached to debate that point. We are yet at point 1.
“No, I don’t. If anyone is having trouble understanding historical facts and political theory, it’s you.”
Not adhering to your ad-hoc redefinitions doesn’t mean understanding historical facts nor political theory.
“Stupid? No, I don’t think you’re stupid.
You called me asshat, that means stupid.
“I think you’re desperately trying to kick Hitler from the left, and doing a poor job of it.”
I think you’re desperately trying to stick Hitler to the left by using an made-on-purpose redefinition.
“You refuse to accept Hitler’s own words. You refuse to accept the Nazi manifesto.”
As leftist and all of them true, of course.
“You refuse to accept all the laws and regulations the Nazi’s passed.”
Which ones?
The ones banning unions and making a fake central union controled by bussines owners representatives?
The ones banning strikes?
And so on.
“You refuse to accept the words of other Nazi’s.”
I don’t trust nazis.
“You refuse to accept anything that proves you wrong.”
You haven’t shown anything that supported social equality proper of the left.
“You keep doing end-arounds and giving us your own special brand of leftwing jive.”
Just the other way round, you are the one giving your special band of lefwing jive. I’m using the general one.
“Since Nazism, left-wingers haven’t changed a lick, it seems.”
Saying left-wingers and nazis are the same is false propaganda.
“Something modern Democrats say all the time. Face it, Isu, Hitler was a left-winger, just like you.”
It don’t have to face propagandistic inventions.
“Dan, Did you seriously just post a Wiki Answers link? ”
Yes, when it describes general idea of what left and right is.
“While I have posted books and other scholarly material, you and Isu have posted Wikipedia and Wiki Answers. Nice.”
You didn’t posted scholarship definition of what “left” is.
“Then you post a dictionary definition that is just as bias as you and Isu.”
It’s yours which is biased. Just to support your demonizing propaganda.
“How much Nazi literature must I post and link to before you people realize that National Socialism, or Fascism, is a left-wing reality?”
First, post a not-biased definition of what is “left-wing” and what is “right-wing”, since you say what I posted is biased.
Second, post not what they say but what they do.
That’s the way.
I can’t stand it any longer. From the first time Isu abused Matthew 7:16 I cringed but let it slide. I can’t do it any more.
That passage is about how to discern false prophets!!!! ARGH!! it has nothing to do with anything else.
Isu,
Back when, I would furiously slap the keyboard in response to such vacuous and coreless material put forth by inane liberals such as you, but these days I merely guffaw. I know your non-argument is intended to simulate sophistication, but you must realize that no amount of verbiage can becloud such transparent ignorance.
For good measure, however, I will oblige one last time.
I gave you an answer. If I were walking down the street and saw a group of guys carrying clubs for no apparent reason, I would be just as alarmed as if they were carrying rifles for no apparent reason.
You may not realize this, but you don’t get to decide the answers another person gives. You thought you were going to trick me into admitting that I’m more afraid of guns than clubs, but I’m not afraid of either generally. I am afraid of the circumstances by which they are being brandished.
I listed the leftwing reforms the Nazi’s put in place. If you had read any of my sources, you’d know it wasn’t just talk. They turned Germany into a socialist society.
I’ve not redefined anything. I’m not the one magically trying to turn Hitlerian socialism into a rightwing archetype.
If you don’t think the reforms Hitler put in place were leftwing, then you must be a child.
I’ve listed them four times now. You’re not confusing anyone with these non-arguments, Isu. You’re making yourself look like an idiot. Anyone who reads our discussion will know this immediately.
Hitler only disbanded the unions of the Weimar Republic to quell hyperinflation. He immediately replaced them with a new union known as the German Labor Front. Have you heard of the Volkswagen? It was created by a union program known as Strength through Joy (Kraft durch Freude, KdF) that developed the “People’s Car,” as it was called.
Please, stop fist-bumping your solidarity poster for ten-minutes and read a damn book.
Hitler said:
And guess what? The German Labor Front comprised two primary “chambers”: (1) the National Socialist Factory Organization; and (2) the National Socialist Trade and Industry Organization.
It seems Hilter stayed true to his word after all. And since you seem to be such a fan of Wikipedia: German Labor Front
From Wikipedia:
You lose.
I have put forth factual accounts of history backed up by four scholarly books, two documentary videos, Nazi pamphlets, and Hitler’s own speeches. You have put forth – nothing but definitions that have absolutely nothing to do with our discussion. You can paste the definition of liberal all you want, but it will not deny the fact that Hitler was a left-winger.
You and Dan can continue this liberal jerkin’ circle if you wish, but I will not. You don’t have any serious arguments to offer. I have proved you wrong repeatedly. Fascism is a left-wing reality that you and Dan are going to have to own up to.
TerranceRAH
You start insulting me and saying I didn’t give arguments. Your writting down it in a simutated sophisticated way don’t make it less crap propaganda.
You didn’t answer my question. I asked about a single attacker in general, not about multiple attackers in a specific situation.
“no apparent reason”? What about the so claimed self-defense?
I didn’t asked you about what you were affraid of, but about which poses a “greater hazard”.
No, defenitely you didn’t answered my question. To keep up with your rethorics, I presume.
Nazis didn’t create a socialist society. The property in general was kept in private hands.
You redefine leftwing since you don’t accept how leftwing general definition.
“I’ve listed them four times now. You’re not confusing anyone with these non-arguments, Isu. You’re making yourself look like an idiot. Anyone who reads our discussion will know this immediately.”
You haven’t still said what left-wing is, so I cannot call them leftist.
“Hitler only disbanded the unions of the Weimar Republic to quell hyperinflation. He immediately replaced them with a new union known as the German Labor Front. Have you heard of the Volkswagen? It was created by a union program known as Strength through Joy (Kraft durch Freude, KdF) that developed the “People’s Car,” as it was called.”
Hitler disbanded the unions to control workers and created a fake union controled by bussinessmen.
Yes, I heard about Vokswagen. It was inspired in Henry Ford’s ideas. Was Ford a leftist?
When it cames to the name, it’s is tipical to set mass appealing names. For example, when someones changed “French Fries” for “Liberty Fries” when France didn’t back up the last Iraq war.
“Please, stop fist-bumping your solidarity poster for ten-minutes and read a damn book.”
I said I didn’t trust nazis. Nor I trust their liars.
“Hitler said:
I think that I have already answered the first question adequately. In the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation.
…
Before everything else, the trades unions are necessary as building stones for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of chambers representing the various professions and occupations.”
He banned WORKERS unions.
“And guess what? The German Labor Front comprised two primary “chambers”: (1) the National Socialist Factory Organization; and (2) the National Socialist Trade and Industry Organization.”
There is a difference between workers unions and bussinessmen unions.
“The employees were given relatively high set wages, security of work, dismissal was increasingly made difficult, social security programmes were started by the Arbeitsfront, leisure programmes were started, canteens, pauses and regular working times were established, and therefore generally the German workers were satisfied by what the DAF gave them in repaying for their absolute loyalty.”
That are Henry Ford ideas. It’s a good right-wing strategy on the long run, it increases wealthness.
“You lose.”
I haven’t, socialism is public’s control of means of production. That’s different: that is oligarchy control.
“I have put forth factual accounts of history backed up by four scholarly books, two documentary videos, Nazi pamphlets, and Hitler’s own speeches.”
I have said that I don’t trust propaganda.
And you still haven’t put a left-wing or right-wing definition.
“You have put forth – nothing but definitions that have absolutely nothing to do with our discussion.”
Definition are neccesary when talking about different meanings of the word.
You haven’t put forth the definition of what left-wing is.
” You can paste the definition of liberal all you want, but it will not deny the fact that Hitler was a left-winger.”
That’s your wannabe definition of Hitler and left-wing, not a fact.
“You and Dan can continue this liberal jerkin’ circle if you wish, but I will not. You don’t have any serious arguments to offer. I have proved you wrong repeatedly. Fascism is a left-wing reality that you and Dan are going to have to own up to.”
Keep on in your own fairy tale world!
I’m seems many conservatives think right-wing must imply individualist and/or economical overharvesting.
But rights is based on social hierarchy or social inequality.
As an analogy, a sheep overkilling lone wolf is as wolf as a one in a pack of wolves which kills sheeps without exhausting them.
To sum up Isu’s argument:
Gotcha.
“Your definitions are wrong, I think, so therefore Hitler was a right-winger. Duurrr.”
According to given definitions, (you gave none) Hitler wasn’t left-winger.
You say the same the other way round.
Gotcha. (Matthew 7:2)
“P.S. Even though I was utterly wrong about Hitler banning unions, I’m not yet willing to admit as much.”
I said he banned trade unions and created a fake one.
I don’t think of fake unions as real unions.
I don’t know the idiom expression in english, so I’ll translate it literally: you are selling cat as hare.
“And I’m bringing up Henry Ford for no real reason at all.”
You brought up Volskwagen and it was inspired in Henry Ford’s ideas.
Pretty much the same in improving workers situation without fallling into socialism.
Isu and Dan Trabue, and others of their ilk have a severe case of hoplophobia. End of discussion.
Isu,
Who do you think you’re fooling? You posted a baseline definition of modern liberalism that had absolutely nothing to do with our discussion, since I never once claimed Hilter was a liberal. I factually stated that fascism is a left-wing ideology. You seem to think that “liberal” and “left-wing” are interchangeable. They’re not.
Sorry but I didn’t realize it would be necessary to explain political theory to children. I figure most people would know the difference between left and right.
The German Labor Front was in no sense a fake union. That’s just something uneducated liberals such as yourself have been conditioned to believe. A fake union that heaped all sorts of lavish benefits on its workers. Yeah. Soooooo fake…Soooooo rightwing. Idiot.
I brought up Volkswagen because its production was a union program. One of those lavish benefits of being in the German Labor Front.
You’re about as ignorant as they get.
Oh, and Matthew 7:2 has to do with hypocritical judging – not that we can’t judge or that we shouldn’t judge.
If people are going to use the Bible, at least use it in context and don’t abuse it!
“Who do you think you’re fooling? You posted a baseline definition of modern liberalism that had absolutely nothing to do with our discussion, since I never once claimed Hilter was a liberal. I factually stated that fascism is a left-wing ideology. You seem to think that “liberal” and “left-wing” are interchangeable. They’re not. ”
Nein. Nein. Nein. Nein.
I posted a definicion of “Left-wing politics”.
“Sorry but I didn’t realize it would be necessary to explain political theory to children. I figure most people would know the difference between left and right.”
It could be that you have been brainwashed with conservative propaganda and its made-on-purpose redefinitions.
“The German Labor Front was in no sense a fake union. That’s just something uneducated liberals such as yourself have been conditioned to believe. A fake union that heaped all sorts of lavish benefits on its workers. Yeah. Soooooo fake…Soooooo rightwing. Idiot. ”
Lavish?
It seems that for conservatives like you anything apart from slavism is a lavish condition for a worker.
“I brought up Volkswagen because its production was a union program. One of those lavish benefits of being in the German Labor Front.”
The car wasn’t for free, did you know?
Those who paid for it didn’t get one, factory production was destinated to war, did you know?
The “union” used jew slaves at war time, did you know?
“You’re about as ignorant as they get.”
You are the ignorant one.
Glenn.
“Oh, and Matthew 7:2 has to do with hypocritical judging – not that we can’t judge or that we shouldn’t judge.
If people are going to use the Bible, at least use it in context and don’t abuse it!”
I used it in contest.
TerranceRAH judging was hypocritical because he was doing the same.
So I judged him in the same way.
“hoplophobia”
A word invented by conservatives (Jeff Cooper) for propaganda purposes.
“Homophobia” was invented by liberals for propaganda purposes, and to marginalize any discussion.
And, no, you abused Matthew 7:2.
Glenn.
““Homophobia” was invented by liberals for propaganda purposes, and to marginalize any discussion.”
Right. You are not phobics, you are haters.
“And, no, you abused Matthew 7:2.”
I didn’t.
Isu,
I have never yet met anyone who hates or even dislikes homosexuals. But disapproving of the behavior is not hate. Not wanting to be forced to sanction it is not hate.
However, liberals profess hatred of guns, or at least dislike of guns.
And when you judge people’s hearts (i.e. accusing them of hate) is a violation of Matt. 7:2.
Glenn.
“I have never yet met anyone who hates or even dislikes homosexuals.”
Sure? And all those “God hates fags” conservative banners?
Anyway, I was talking about homosexuality at the least.
“But disapproving of the behavior is not hate. Not wanting to be forced to sanction it is not hate.”
If it is a mere disapproving, it isn’t. But taking actions against it or them, it is.
“However, liberals profess hatred of guns, or at least dislike of guns.”
I don’t hate guns or dislike them on a general basis. I don’t want a general ban on guns.
“And when you judge people’s hearts (i.e. accusing them of hate) is a violation of Matt. 7:2.”
This says “not that we can’t judge or that we shouldn’t judge”.
You forget your own words pretty quickly.
Isu
The “God hates fags” banners, etc come from a cult who are not Christians.
The actions taken against is not against the homosexual individuals, rather we are taking actions against homosexuality being sanctioned by the state.
You violated Matt.7:2 by judging the heart – judging motives not professes, ascribing to someone something they do not believe – i.e., you stated we hate homosexuals. How can you judge my heart? I have never stated I hate homosexuals, nor have my actions ever implied such, and I don’t hate them to begin with – and this is the same for every Christian I have ever known in my almost 40 years as a Christian. THAT is the type of judging proscribed.
Glenn.
“The “God hates fags” banners, etc come from a cult who are not Christians.”
I said conservatives, not Christians.
By the way, I’m interested to know why they aren’t Christians.
“The actions taken against is not against the homosexual individuals, rather we are taking actions against homosexuality being sanctioned by the state.”
So if you don’t want it to be sanctioned but you want iand act so it becomes forbidden you are taking actions against it.
“You violated Matt.7:2 by judging the heart – judging motives not professes, ascribing to someone something they do not believe – i.e., you stated we hate homosexuals.”
I didn’t say you hate homosexuals. Check my words.
“I have never stated I hate homosexuals, nor have my actions ever implied such, and I don’t hate them to begin with – and this is the same for every Christian I have ever known in my almost 40 years as a Christian. THAT is the type of judging proscribed.”
Is death penalty the type of judging acknowledge (Lev 20:13)?
Isu,
Hey, thanks for hijacking this blog article; I’m sure John appreciates it. I would ignore your nonsense if it wasn’t for your blatant lies and misrepresentations of the Christian faith, let alone me as an individual.
Fred Phelps, who leads Westboro “Baptist Church” is far from being a conservative – he’s not even conservative in his theology! And he is a registered Democrat!
In order to be a Christian, one must subscribe to specific, non-negotiable doctrines. This is what separates the cults from true believers. All one has to do is read WBC’s web site to know all they use the Bible for is to abuse it for their own perverse beliefs. They are indeed the purpose of Matthew 7:15-16.
So if you don’t want it to be sanctioned but you want iand act so it becomes forbidden you are taking actions against it.
I have no idea what this was supposed to mean.
you are haters.
If it is a mere disapproving, it isn’t [hate]. But taking actions against it or them, it is. (my emphasis)
You called us (me) “haters” and you stated that if we take actions against homosexuality or homosexuals, then it is hate. I checked your words and cited them. And I have no problem with taking actions against homosexuals by having them removed from being teachers or Boy Scout leaders for moral reasons. Just like I would not want an adulterer or a fornicator as a school teacher, because they would be setting a bad moral example.
Now, there is nothing at all with hating a behavior. I hate rape, I hate adultery, and I hate homosexuality and pedophilia! And God also hates all this. But we do NOT hate the people.
The only thing we want are to stop laws which give sanction to homosexual behavior, let alone get rid of laws which give homosexual unions the sanction of marriage. Such laws force the other 98% of Americans to either accept homosexuality as right and proper or be punished; no speaking against it, no denying support for it, etc.
The death penalty of Leviticus 20:13 was for Israel and Israel only. It was part of the law which was to make Israel into a holy nation for God’s use, and the death penalty was establish for adultery, as well as bestiality. If you don’t like the penalty for homosexual behavior, then why don’t you also complain about it for adultery? Sexual sin is something God abhors.
“Sure? And all those “God hates fags” conservative banners?”
Hate to burst your bubble, but the Phelps clan are big time liberal democrats. There’s a great picture out there of Fred and Al Gore huggin on each other. Fred also ran for office as a Dem.
It’s too bad when facts get in the way.
Glenn.
Hijacking, blatant lies, misrepresentations? I did none.
“Fred Phelps, who leads Westboro “Baptist Church” is far from being a conservative – he’s not even conservative in his theology! And he is a registered Democrat!”
I find it theologically conservative.
“In order to be a Christian, one must subscribe to specific, non-negotiable doctrines. This is what separates the cults from true believers.”
They can’t told you the same and say that your doctrines are the false ones.
“I have no idea what this was supposed to mean.”
Then, I have no idea how I would explain it to you.
“You called us (me) “haters” and you stated that if we take actions against homosexuality or homosexuals, then it is hate. I checked your words and cited them”
That’s different from “you stated we hate homosexuals”, which was what I complained about.
“And I have no problem with taking actions against homosexuals by having them removed from being teachers or Boy Scout leaders for moral reasons. Just like I would not want an adulterer or a fornicator as a school teacher, because they would be setting a bad moral example.”
That’s an example of taking actions against them.
I’m not familiar with Boy Scout ideology, but to be a teacher moral is not a concerning matter, the concerning matter is the taught subject.
“Now, there is nothing at all with hating a behavior. I hate rape, I hate adultery, and I hate homosexuality and pedophilia! And God also hates all this. But we do NOT hate the people.”
So I was right, you are a hater.
“The only thing we want are to stop laws which give sanction to homosexual behavior, let alone get rid of laws which give homosexual unions the sanction of marriage. Such laws force the other 98% of Americans to either accept homosexuality as right and proper or be punished; no speaking against it, no denying support for it, etc.”
sanction
2 [mass noun] official permission or approval for an action:
That doesn’t force you to accept as right, but to tolerate it.
“The death penalty of Leviticus 20:13 was for Israel and Israel only. It was part of the law which was to make Israel into a holy nation for God’s use, and the death penalty was establish for adultery, as well as bestiality. If you don’t like the penalty for homosexual behavior, then why don’t you also complain about it for adultery? Sexual sin is something God abhors.”
Then, why is not homosexuality a sin for Israel and Israel only?
This is a discussion about guns.
Isu,
If you find Phelps to be theologically conservative, then you have know idea what the Bible really teaches.
And yes, any cult member can say I hold to the false doctrines. However, since I subscribe to what has been taught since the Bible was written, I’d say I’m in much better company than the likes of any cult, including WBC.
I had no idea what your comment meant because, if you look back at it, there was grammatical or typographical errors which led to an unclear statement.
Again, I pointed out that you did indeed say we hated homosexuals if we dared to take any actions to denounce homosexuality.
Teachers have always been held as moral examples – well, at least they used to be. Now not many can be held that way. But besides that, homosexuals in the classroom have already been demonstrate to be teaching homosexual propaganda. It’s bad enough to have leftists who promote abortion and socialism, but the last thing we need is a teacher promoting sexual immorality. And for the record, the percentage of pedophiles among homosexuals is way out of proportion to their numbers. Why put a child in a candy shop alone?
Yes, I am a hater of bad behaviors. I would hope you are also. In fact, if anyone ISN’T a hater of bad behaviors, then they should not be trusted with anything!
And, no, we are not forced to tolerate – we are forced to sanction. I could load continue hijacking this string by give a very long list of cases where people have lost jobs, been fined, forced to undergo indoctrination classes, etc, for doing nothing more than refusing to give sanction homosexuality. In other cases people are charge with hate speech and fined or jailed just for speaking against homosexuality!
Why is adultery not a sin for Israel and Israel only? DUH!
I’m not going to extend this hijacking. the issue of homosexuality is not the topic.
Glenn
They can told the same about you, that you have know idea of what Bible teaches, and that they suscribe to was has been taught since the BIble was written. There are plenty of “taughts”.
Sure, it wasn’t grammatical or typograhical correct, but you could get and idea of what I was saying.
“Teachers have always been held as moral examples – well, at least they used to be. Now not many can be held that way.”
I firstly relied on parents as moral examples, not teachers.
And, in fact, my classmates didn’t concern about teacher’s morals.
“But besides that, homosexuals in the classroom have already been demonstrate to be teaching homosexual propaganda.”
Well, don’t conservatives do the same?
I teacher should restricted to teach the subject.
“It’s bad enough to have leftists who promote abortion and socialism, but the last thing we need is a teacher promoting sexual immorality.”
And what about conservatives? Don’t do they indoctrinate?
For no conservatives, it may be bad a conservative teacher.
I don’t mind political or sexual inclinations of the teacher on a basis, if they are not concerning the subject.
“And for the record, the percentage of pedophiles among homosexuals is way out of proportion to their numbers. Why put a child in a candy shop alone?”
Hererosexuals have their share too.
I agree to ban pedophiles from teaching, but not homosexuals.
“Yes, I am a hater of bad behaviors. I would hope you are also. In fact, if anyone ISN’T a hater of bad behaviors, then they should not be trusted with anything!”
I’m a hater of bad behaviors, such as not trusting someone whose behaviour has nothing to do with their work.
“And, no, we are not forced to tolerate – we are forced to sanction. I could load continue hijacking this string by give a very long list of cases where people have lost jobs, been fined, forced to undergo indoctrination classes, etc, for doing nothing more than refusing to give sanction homosexuality. In other cases people are charge with hate speech and fined or jailed just for speaking against homosexuality!”
“nothing more than refusing to give sanction homosexuality”?
Well, I lack of data.
“Why is adultery not a sin for Israel and Israel only? DUH!”
I expected you explained me that point. I don’t know your “right” doctrines.
“I’m not going to extend this hijacking. the issue of homosexuality is not the topic.”
As you wish.
Isu,
Are you not fluent in the English language? Do you have great trouble typing? I don’t ask to be a jerk, but your comments are extremely difficult to read due to typographical errors and poor grammar and sentence structure.
marshalart
Asking rethorical questions seems jerking to me.
A piece of advice: if you are unable to, don’t read them.
They were not rhetorical questions. They were specific and direct. I’m going to stick my neck out and assume you would prefer to be understood. Is that not true?
Yes, I would pefer to be understood. So what?
So a simple encouragement toward a clearer style of expression should not be taken as an offense. Perhaps you need to slow down, maybe proof read your comments before publication. I’d rather not have to guess what you mean when you print a jumble of letters and words where a clearly thought out and presented statement would save time and eliminate misunderstanding. Go ahead and take a poll and see if its only me having trouble with your comments. If so, I’ll just ignore your comments in the future. If I’m not the only one, then I would hope you’d man up and take greater care.
A simple encouragement toward a clear style of expression shoud not have questions.
I shall try your to follow your advice.
There have been visitors to this blog from other countries (I’m thinking of a guy from Finland) who often was unclear due to the inability to find the right English words to express himself. My questions were meant to find some legitimate reason for what seemed poorly written comments. They were not meant as a slight.
I’m also a foreigner.
And, what do you stand for “legitimate” reason?
If you are a foreigner, that would be a legitimate reason why your comments don’t always seem sensible. As I said, there was a dude from Finland who sometimes wrote confusing statements due to his limited ability with the English language and common forms of speech. Now I have a sense of why your comments might contain some confusing parts. Now I have a better sense of how to ask clarifying questions.
Marshall,
You have to wonder if Isu speaks English at all. He may be using Google translator, which would explain the lack of subject/verb agreement in some of is posts.
marshalart
I would be pleased if you point out what you find confusing and ask me clarifiying questions.
TerranceRAH
I don’t use Google Translator, automatic translators are inefficient and bad tools. They are use by people who have no idea of the language and I’m sure that if my comments are hard to understand, those ones will be harder.
Speaking for myself, I find no serious troubles understanding 95% of what Isu – the “foreigner” who speaks English as a second language – says. The rest of you all, on the other hand…
Isu, you’re doing great. I’m quite sure that if they were trying to post in your native language, they couldn’t even begin to do so. Am I right, fellas?
Dan,
Why don’t you speak for yourself throughout your entire post? If Isu’s native language is German, tell him to try me.
Sowohl Isu und Dan sind unwissend.
:-)
Wenn er deutsch ist, ist er eine Schande nach Deutschland. Er weiß nichts über Hitler.
As for the rest of our friends, Dan, so what if they can’t speak Isu’s native language? They’re not frequenting German blogs (or wherever he’s from) giving their opinion of German politics. He came here. Don’t you forget that.
Now stick that foot back in its mouth where it belongs.
As I said, I have no serious problem understanding Isu. Perhaps it’s a conservative thang?
I have no problem offering alternative explanations when I’m told I’m unclear. Perhaps taking offense over every little thing is a liberal thang?
marshalart,
“So if you don’t want it to be sanctioned but you want iand act so it becomes forbidden you are taking actions against it.”
Apart from removing the mistyped “i”. What changes are necessary in order to be clear?
Isu,
How was I to know that the “and” part wasn’t the misspelled part and the word you wanted was “it”?
It still doesn’t make sense in line of the conversation, because no actions anyone I know have been directed at homosexuals to forbid homosexual behavior, nor is there anything said in this string about wanting homosexual behavior forbidden. SO you just wrote a statement that even if understood the first time was nothing but a red herring.