Liberal "Tolerance"

[SaxyHaloBeast]

First off, I just want to make this clear. I don't want to in any way offend anyone. My goal here is to just point out something I have noticed.

In today's society, there are many debates and conflicts going on. The issues are usually divided between conservatives and liberals. In these fights, you hear lots of things thrown around such as open-minded, close-minded, intolerant, tolerant, bigoted, accepting, and so on. To get to my point, one side of the fight seems to only throw out these terms and then not realize that they themselves are like those terms. Let me explain.

Gay rights is a big issue in today's world. Gun control is also a rising issue. I won't be taking a side right now, but I will point out a problem with one of the sides. Liberals call for acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality but yet demonize and hate on guns and sometimes even gun owners. Conservatives can be arguably the same way: calling for acceptance and tolerance of guns but demonizing and sometimes hating on homosexuality. The problem I see here is that the liberal side calls themselves tolerant, open-minded, and accepting while the truth is, they are only selectively tolerant, open-minded, and accepting. I see them only supporting the causes that would stand to benefit them in some way. Conservatives aren't all good either of course. But they don't hide behind tolerance, open-mindedness, and acceptance. They come straight out and say that they support their good old fashioned morals and customs, and that they support the constitution and all of its amendments.

To sum it up, I don't always agree with conservatives but I appreciate that they fight for something mainly because of their beliefs. My problem with liberals is that they only seem to support something that will eventually support them back. When preaching tolerance and acceptance, you have to be tolerant and accepting. Being selective with your tolerance can in fact make you just as intolerant.

[FreeFall]

It's not that they're not intolerant of guns, they'd rather them not be so open for grabs. Granted, there are a few select fanatics in every group no matter what kind or the nature, to suggest the majority are failing because of them is foolish. It's the fanatics that will grab your attention because they're so insane, but they're not the voice of every liberal or conservative. And it's the fanatic liberals I have seen use the tolerance as their springboard in their gimme gimme attitude.

Every speaks and follows their ideas and beliefs to an extent. Everyone.
Conservatives, going on stereotype so forgive me, believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Woman can mean many things. A girl over 18, a girl who has a job, the first time a girl gets her period. Many other cultures see that as a rite of passage, that the girl is a woman now. Does that mean Conservatives feel a girl who just got her period is now a woman and able to marry any man? Maybe, a few out there do, but the majority will not agree with that.
Feminists are for equality of women, the few saying women = men with the obvious difference. Some have gone too far and are men haters, others use that old woe is me I'm a woman to hide behind. I feel a man has every right to hit a woman if she hits him first, we're equal after all not fragile glass objects that need to be sheltered. But some feminists will have a bonfire screaming over how a male hit a woman and how they're sexist pigs that have no respect for us or decency.
Liberals, most support gay rights and equality and fairness. Some support gay rights, but not gay marriage. Some support maternity leave but don't care about paternity leave. They're not exactly open love and peace and freedom for all. Frankly, I feel they're called that because they're more open than the conservatives, the other majority in political standing, in comparison. Not that they are in fact 100% liberal and open and whee butterflies for all.

Same for tolerance. It's human nature that there's something we just cannot seem to accept, how we act on it is what seals the deal, but we all have our limits. I agree though, selective tolerance can make you just as intolerant, but there's always the other side to coins.

[SaxyHaloBeast]

I appreciate what you just said. You're right, everyone has limits on what they tolerate and accept. I just wish everyone understood that, that you can't accept everything because sometimes you just don't believe in that. I don't like it when I get told I'm wrong because I am not tolerant or accepting enough. Thank you for understanding.

[Cicero]

I agree. Liberals say they are open minded, yet they say they dislike the religious and dislike gun owners. But I never really hear conservatives saying they are open minded,I. Think the majority of them are closed minded, and some intolerant.

I think both are in favor of specific rights, conservatives are more supportive of things like free speech, gun rights, traditional marriage, etc. while liberals are in favor of abortion rights, gay marriage, etc.

Both are in favor of basic human rights, but from different fields.

[Gigablue]

Gun ownership is a choice. Homosexuality is not. Gun ownership does harm. Homosexuality does not.

I am tolerant of that which doesn't hurt others. I don't think you have a right to hurt others, and I won't stand by and let harm befall others. I don't think it's intolerant to be opposed to homophobia, for example, since it does harm and is irrational.

[Gaybaby94]

gun ownership is a choice. Homosexuality is not. Gun ownership does harm. Homosexuality does not.

I am tolerant of that which doesn't hurt others. I don't think you have a right to hurt others, and i won't stand by and let harm befall others. I don't think it's intolerant to be opposed to homophobia, for example, since it does harm and is irrational.

this!!!!

[Sir Suomi]

This is exactly what I've been thinking too. I guess that's why when the time comes, I'm saying screw everyone else and listing myself off as an Independent! :D

[Zaposchk]

Gay rights is a big issue in today's world. Gun control is also a rising issue. I won't be taking a side right now, but I will point out a problem with one of the sides. Liberals call for acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality but yet demonize and hate on guns and sometimes even gun owners.

There is no good argument for private gun ownership. It is the responsibility of the state to keep its citizens safe. The countries with the lowest gun crime rates have extremely high restrictions on gun ownership. Countries that have legalised gay marriage and encourage tolerance have a higher HDI (Human Development Index) than those who do not i.e. Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Canada as well as England, Germany and several others who are considering legalisation after already legalising civil unions/partnerships for homosexuals.

As far as open-mindedness is concerned. We're open-minded to intellectual considerations. We don't have to accept the utter drivel certain conservatives spew, in the name of 'being open-minded'.

Edit: Someone here made a very good point.

Homosexuality and drugs don't directly affect anyone but the people indulging in it (voluntarily). Guns have a direct effect on others in society. Which is why they are worthy of being shunned.

[Professional Russian]

There is no good argument for private gun ownership. It is the responsibility of the state to keep its citizens safe. The countries with the lowest gun crime rates have extremely high restrictions on gun ownership.

Sweden has the practically no gun control and has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. care to explain?

[Sugaree]

I agree. Liberals say they are open minded, yet they say they dislike the religious and dislike gun owners. But I never really hear conservatives saying they are open minded,I. Think the majority of them are closed minded, and some intolerant.

I think both are in favor of specific rights, conservatives are more supportive of things like free speech, gun rights, traditional marriage, etc. while liberals are in favor of abortion rights, gay marriage, etc.

Both are in favor of basic human rights, but from different fields.

See, you're typecasting liberals. You're saying that all liberals dislike gun owners and religious people. That's not true at all. Not every single liberal dislikes gun owners and religious. It also has to do with your personal background when it comes to things like this. If you were raised in a very gun oriented household, you might come to dislike guns; if you were in a religiously oriented household, you might dislike religion.

Gun ownership is a choice. Homosexuality is not. Gun ownership does harm. Homosexuality does not.

You have got to be joking. Gun ownership does harm? How the hell does owning a gun cause harm? Oh no, you have a gun, that means you MUST be harming something/someone! Talk about a huge load of bull. Yes, gun ownership is a choice; it's also a right for every citizen to own a firearm or multiple firearms if they so wish. But it doesn't do them, or anyone else, harm unless they use it for that specific purpose.

There is no good argument for private gun ownership. It is the responsibility of the state to keep its citizens safe. The countries with the lowest gun crime rates have extremely high restrictions on gun ownership.

While it is a responsibility of the state to keep its inhabitants safe, it's not the state's responsibility to force everyone into accepting that protection. That's the problem most Americans have. While we accept that the protection the state gives to us, we also want it to be known that we can't always rely on state authority to help defend us. Many areas of the United States are still underdeveloped; it takes some police officers 10 or 15 minutes to get to the scene. If I lived out in the open like that and my house was broken into? You'd bet I'd have a gun to stop the robber. That's not because I'm paranoid or feel that the police don't care; it's because I know they won't get here in time to get the perpetrator.

It also comes down to the fact that America is slowly becoming a quasi-police state. Not many people know this, but last month, while everyone was distracted by gun control, the Senate passed a House bill that pretty much nullifies the fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments to the constitution. These amendments protect the rights of citizens when it comes to unreasonable searches/seizures, the use of search warrants, excessive bail, and many things in regards to the law. When the state begins to whittle away at the rights of its citizens through things like the NDAA and the Patriot act, those citizens have a right to defend what they believe is constitutional through any means necessary. It's not always peaceful, it's not always considerate, but you can't always trust the state to protect you if it takes away your rights.

[Guillermo]

Sweden has the practically no gun control and has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. care to explain?

Actually, Sweden does have gun control, Bert. They just have a high rate of gun ownership. In Sweden, owning a gun is more like a privilege than a right. The Swedish government doesn't ban any type of weapon really, but their requirements to own obtain a gun license and ultimately a gun are different and more restrictive than those of the United States. Take a look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#Sweden) and this (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/sweden). But you're right, Sweden does have a very low crime rate.

[Professional Russian]

Actually, Sweden does have gun control, Bert. They just have a high rate of gun ownership. In Sweden, owning a gun is more like a privilege than a right. The Swedish government doesn't ban any type of weapon really, but their requirements to own obtain a gun license and ultimately a gun are different and more restrictive than those of the United States. Take a look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#Sweden) and this (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/sweden). But you're right, Sweden does have a very low crime rate.

OK well my point still works because theyre are alot of guns floating around. so technically more guns=less crime. and look at Chicago they are one of the most strictest citys when it comes to gun control. they have one of the highest crime rates in the country

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Everything for the MOST part liberals have right. Gun control? I think not.

[Guillermo]

OK well my point still works because theyre are alot of guns floating around. so technically more guns=less crime.

Not necessarily. Most of western Europe has banned and outlawed many types of guns. Their gun ownership rate is not very high either. And still they have around the same amount of crime rate as Sweden - which is low.

and look at Chicago they are one of the most strictest citys when it comes to gun control. they have one of the highest crime rates in the country

I wouldn't say they are the one of the most "strictest cities when it comes to gun control". And they still don't have restrictive gun laws like Sweden does, honestly. But they do have a high violent crime rate, overall. Though, most neighborhoods in Chicago have been plagued by gangs. Gangs perform violent acts and usually gather members from areas of poverty. Hmmm, so that's the root of the problem maybe, eh? Poverty. You see how crime rates are inextricably linked to other issues such as living conditions and gangs?

[ethanf93]

It is the responsibility of the state to keep its citizens safe.
Keep in mind this does not translate to any specific guarantee of safety; https://www.google.com/search?q=police+do+not+have+a+responsibility+to+protect+you

As far as open-mindedness is concerned. We're open-minded to intellectual considerations. We don't have to accept the utter drivel certain conservatives spew, in the name of 'being open-minded'.To rephrase, the words "open-minded" don't mean anything to you, except perhaps being open to your own preconceived set of ideas.

[Gigablue]

You have got to be joking. Gun ownership does harm? How the hell does owning a gun cause harm? Oh no, you have a gun, that means you MUST be harming something/someone! Talk about a huge load of bull. Yes, gun ownership is a choice; it's also a right for every citizen to own a firearm or multiple firearms if they so wish. But it doesn't do them, or anyone else, harm unless they use it for that specific purpose.

Guns lead to gun crime. Fewer guns leads to less gun crime. Gun ownership does harm to society as a whole. I don't see what's so complicated about it.

[Professional Russian]

Guns lead to gun crime. Fewer guns leads to less gun crime. Gun ownership does harm to society as a whole. I don't see what's so complicated about it.

Less Guns=More Crime. Chicago: extremely tight gun control. one of the highest crime rates in the country. Care to explain?

[Gigablue]

Less Guns=More Crime. Chicago: extremely tight gun control. one of the highest crime rates in the country. Care to explain?

There are sure to be some exceptions, but the trend still holds. Care to explain Canada? We have far fewer guns, and far less gun crime.

Source (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/comp-eng.htm)

[Professional Russian]

There are sure to be some exceptions, but the trend still holds. Care to explain Canada? We have far fewer guns, and far less gun crime.

Source (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/comp-eng.htm)

Sweden: Most people are armed. Very Very VERY few crimes.

[Guillermo]

Sweden: Most people are armed. Very Very VERY few crimes.

Did you not understand what I said about Sweden?

Sweden's case is like this:

Huge gun ownership per population of people--> Restrictive gun control --> Less violent crimes.

And this is the US's case:

Huge gun ownership per population of people--> Permissive gun control --> More violent crimes.

[Skyline]

I think that ALL political parties are pointless... I mean come on where are we going to get in life when half say yes and half say no... I'm in 10th grade and even I understand how to co-operate...

[Zaposchk]

While it is a responsibility of the state to keep its inhabitants safe, it's not the state's responsibility to force everyone into accepting that protection.

On the contrary, the state is in a position of authority because we have given them the responsibility to protect us, with that responsibility comes the right to establish a force (the police) who can protect us. Therefore, it makes no sense to give individuals the right to bear arms. These are dangerous weapons which should only be held in positions of justified authority.

That's the problem most Americans have. While we accept that the protection the state gives to us, we also want it to be known that we can't always rely on state authority to help defend us. Many areas of the United States are still underdeveloped; it takes some police officers 10 or 15 minutes to get to the scene. If I lived out in the open like that and my house was broken into? You'd bet I'd have a gun to stop the robber. That's not because I'm paranoid or feel that the police don't care; it's because I know they won't get here in time to get the perpetrator.

Do you for a second feel it's realistic that having a gun in your drawer will keep a robber away?

1. If they are cunning, which they usually are, they will most likely break in at night when you're asleep... quietly might I add.

2. Even if they break in when you're awake, how likely is it that they'll give you time of day to take a shot at them. You be the judge. My point here is, criminals usually have a better clue of what they're doing with the weapon. You can shoot targets day in and day out but these people have way more practical knowledge of their weapon. Additionally, if they have the nerve to break into your house, chances are they don't care about your life either.

See. What is intensely annoying is that just because there is crime and there are criminals, we're deluding ourselves with this notion that it's every man for himself. What is the point of a state when you are not even going to trust it to keep you safe? And if it so happens that this state isn't doing its job well, then if its democratic, there will always be new members looking to serve the interests of the people. Through this democratic process you may eventually vote the lunatics out of power and bring people in who will strengthen the security forces and use them appropriately.

It also comes down to the fact that America is slowly becoming a quasi-police state. Not many people know this, but last month, while everyone was distracted by gun control, the Senate passed a House bill that pretty much nullifies the fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments to the constitution. These amendments protect the rights of citizens when it comes to unreasonable searches/seizures, the use of search warrants, excessive bail, and many things in regards to the law. When the state begins to whittle away at the rights of its citizens through things like the NDAA and the Patriot act, those citizens have a right to defend what they believe is constitutional through any means necessary. It's not always peaceful, it's not always considerate, but you can't always trust the state to protect you if it takes away your rights.

Dude. Fuck, as an anarchist I do understand your point about individual rights. However, guns by definition are devices used to harm or at the very least disable, injure/damage. In fact, looking at Europe, Canada, Japan and all other places with strict gun laws... I can trust the state to protect me. Why? Because the state has established that it is its responsibility to keep its citizens safe from harm by:

(a) Making sure that those who are legally allowed to own a weapon are authoritatively justified in holding the weapon.

(b) Not putting guns out there as some kind of marketing, nationalistic demagoguery. This I especially feel is the main reason why America is so bad when it comes to gun control - everyone is fascinated by guns and obsessed with the individual right to own one.

[ProudConservative]

I wouldn't say they are the one of the most "strictest cities when it comes to gun control". And they still don't have restrictive gun laws like Sweden does, honestly. But they do have a high violent crime rate, overall. Though, most neighborhoods in Chicago have been plagued by gangs. Gangs perform violent acts and usually gather members from areas of poverty. Hmmm, so that's the root of the problem maybe, eh? Poverty. You see how crime rates are inextricably linked to other issues such as living conditions and gangs?

Yes, gangs are plaguing Chicago, but guess what, they get their guns illegally. No matter how restrictive gun ownership in the US becomes, guns will always be smuggled in through the US/Mexican borders. Then, distributed throughout the country. How do you plan on stopping that?

Gigablue: Where to start. :confused: More gun ownership leads to less crimes. The police can't do a lot because when they arrive, for example, at the scene of a home invasion. It's in the middle of the night. Everyone's in bed. Their stuck up in their rooms without a weapon to defend themselves, leaving them defenseless. The invader goes upstairs, sees the parents, freaks out, and shoots them. He then continues to run away, not noticing the kids. Parents are dead, kids are orphaned. There is little physical evidence to find the killer. No motives either. The criminal is long gone by the time the police arrive. Do you really think that you aren't allowed to protect yourself with a gun in this case? A gun locked up in the father's side dresser with the key in the wife's side dresser. The wife gets the key, hands it to the father to open the case, load the gun, and when the criminal walks in, he's dead because the parent's aren't defenseless. The family will be safe and unharmed with the gun, as opposed to the kids grieving and growing up without their parents, who didn't have any means of protection. Can you have a knife there, yes, but you will only get one shot. Can you have a baseball bat, yes, but that would require getting up, and letting the criminal hear you, where he will proceed to, again, freak out, and shoot you.

[Jean Poutine]

More gun ownership leads to less crimes.

Maybe in bizarro world. Source me up, buddy.

The police can't do a lot because when they arrive, for example, at the scene of a home invasion. It's in the middle of the night. Everyone's in bed. Their stuck up in their rooms without a weapon to defend themselves, leaving them defenseless. The invader goes upstairs, sees the parents, freaks out, and shoots them. He then continues to run away, not noticing the kids. Parents are dead, kids are orphaned. There is little physical evidence to find the killer. No motives either. The criminal is long gone by the time the police arrive. Do you really think that you aren't allowed to protect yourself with a gun in this case? A gun locked up in the father's side dresser with the key in the wife's side dresser. The wife gets the key, hands it to the father to open the case, load the gun, and when the criminal walks in, he's dead because the parent's aren't defenseless. The family will be safe and unharmed with the gun, as opposed to the kids grieving and growing up without their parents, who didn't have any means of protection. Can you have a knife there, yes, but you will only get one shot. Can you have a baseball bat, yes, but that would require getting up, and letting the criminal hear you, where he will proceed to, again, freak out, and shoot you.

Wife breaks up with husband, husband despairs, husband gets gun, shoots wife and kids. That wouldn't have happened without a gun in the house (and before you say "knife" or "sledgehammer" : it takes somebody long gone to stab somebody, much less so to shoot him/her since guns are so indirect). We can stay in "what if" territory until we both die if you want to but scenarios aren't arguments.

Good guys aren't always good guys. NRA rhetoric, however, is always stupid rhetoric.

I'm awaiting the next storm of -rep of the resident bunch'a derpfaces for daring to suggest gun control.

[Sugaree]

On the contrary, the state is in a position of authority because we have given them the responsibility to protect us, with that responsibility comes the right to establish a force (the police) who can protect us. Therefore, it makes no sense to give individuals the right to bear arms. These are dangerous weapons which should only be held in positions of justified authority.

Which is exactly what frightens me. Electing someone to a position of power and expecting them to really execute their duties properly is a HUGE risk. Sure, I might vote in someone to Congress because they SAID they would represent me when they actually represent their own interests. I can appoint someone sheriff, but I can't expect them to eventually use their power to go beyond their lawful limits. Putting this type of trust into the state is way too naive for me.

Do you for a second feel it's realistic that having a gun in your drawer will keep a robber away?

That's not what I said at all. I don't think it's realistic to think that "Oh, I have a gun; no one will mess with me". However, it's much better to think that, in the case where it DOES happen and I DO happen to catch whoever broke into my home, I would have a better chance of defending myself if they also had a weapon. I'm not going to wait for police officers while my house gets ransacked and I'm forced to cower in a corner.

1. If they are cunning, which they usually are, they will most likely break in at night when you're asleep... quietly might I add.

2. Even if they break in when you're awake, how likely is it that they'll give you time of day to take a shot at them. You be the judge. My point here is, criminals usually have a better clue of what they're doing with the weapon. You can shoot targets day in and day out but these people have way more practical knowledge of their weapon. Additionally, if they have the nerve to break into your house, chances are they don't care about your life either.

1. Indeed, this is true. But how often, really, is a robbery prone to be quiet? They can get in quietly, but once they start rummaging through your things, you'll get a bit suspicious about what's happening. But you do raise a good point, I'll give you that.

2. Of course it's not likely they'll give me the time of day to make the first shot. Their mentality, if they have a weapon, is simply to shoot at whoever interrupts them. So yes, they do have a better clue of what they're going to do. Of course they don't care about my life, they only care for themselves; that's almost the basic point of stealing. However, if I'm handling a weapon and they are too, I'm not going to wait for them to draw. A simple handgun goes a long way in terms of defense. It's not like I'd kill them on the spot, but I can immobilize them for a short time to get the job done.

See. What is intensely annoying is that just because there is crime and there are criminals, we're deluding ourselves with this notion that it's every man for himself. What is the point of a state when you are not even going to trust it to keep you safe? And if it so happens that this state isn't doing its job well, then if its democratic, there will always be new members looking to serve the interests of the people. Through this democratic process you may eventually vote the lunatics out of power and bring people in who will strengthen the security forces and use them appropriately.

Oh, I don't think it's an "every man for himself" world anymore. We're not living in a primitive world (or most of us, anyway). The state is very useful in keeping people safe through the police force and other departments. I don't doubt that at all. But I can't always depend on their protection when I'm all alone and it's going to take them more than five minutes to get to me. The natural right to self defense can't be taken away and replaced by the state. What concerns me is that the state will grow too powerful with being trusted and we'll be under constant watch. It's not entirely unreasonable to think that it's not already happening. Traffic speed cameras, the TSA...the list goes on from here.

While I still think the state is a useful organization made by the people, it's still made of human beings. Human beings are prone to mistakes, corruption, and a shitload of other things. Sure, I can vote out people who are overtaken by these things, but will it really matter? The chances of a political official becoming corrupted or overreaching their own limits is still there. If the chance is there, you're doing nothing by taking someone old out and putting someone new in. It's literally doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Dude. Fuck, as an anarchist I do understand your point about individual rights. However, guns by definition are devices used to harm or at the very least disable, injure/damage. In fact, looking at Europe, Canada, Japan and all other places with strict gun laws... I can trust the state to protect me. Why? Because the state has established that it is its responsibility to keep its citizens safe from harm by:

(a) Making sure that those who are legally allowed to own a weapon are authoritatively justified in holding the weapon.

(b) Not putting guns out there as some kind of marketing, nationalistic demagoguery. This I especially feel is the main reason why America is so bad when it comes to gun control - everyone is fascinated by guns and obsessed with the individual right to own one.

I fully agree with you. Looking at many countries where gun laws are strict, I could easily trust those states to protect me if I were there. Unfortunately, it's different in the United States. The right to bear arms used to be something you HAD to take advantage of. At the time the second amendment was written, it was a very dangerous way to live without a gun in the home. It served many as a way to obtain food, protect cattle, and defend the home from robbers. Now? Not so much. However, our fascination with guns is because a bunch of fear mongering fringe activists have put so much emphasis on it. Our high crime rate was made, mostly, through these fear tactics that make people paranoid to own an assault rifle. It's disgusting and I'm in full support of banning such weapons.

But there's still a natural right to self defense. If someone punches me, I'm not going to just curl up and wait for big brother to come save me. It's not an obligation to defend yourself, that's just human instinct. And no matter how you do it, through physical combat or firearms, everyone should realize that they should defend themselves if they are in danger and if it is feasible for them to do it. I see nothing wrong with a pistol, because these are reasonable for self defense; an AR-15, like many people own, is simply made for killing whatever it's pointed at. Guns are not always the answer to self defense though, and hand-to-hand combat can be just as effective.

[Human]

Gun ownership is a choice. Homosexuality is not. Gun ownership does harm. Homosexuality does not.

I am tolerant of that which doesn't hurt others. I don't think you have a right to hurt others, and I won't stand by and let harm befall others. I don't think it's intolerant to be opposed to homophobia, for example, since it does harm and is irrational.

this

Liberals don't bash on religion, they want secularism which is where there is no bias to atheism or theism.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Im just about certain I already posted something like this except without my point. Gun ownership actually doesn't do harm. Note the quote "Guns dont kill people. People kill people."
Guns only kill people only if people PULL THE TRIGGER.
This is one of the very few Democratic policies I disagree with.

[Professional Russian]

Im just about certain I already posted something like this except without my point. Gun ownership actually doesn't do harm. Note the quote "Guns dont kill people. People kill people."
Guns only kill people only if people PULL THE TRIGGER.
This is one of the very few Democratic policies I disagree with.

Exactly. my dads .44 will not get up and walk out from under his bed and come shoot me. someone has to pick it cock it point at me and pull the trigger. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. Guns a merly a tool used to make it easier

[Majin Vegeta]

guns are dangerous, gay marriage is not. I am tolerant, I'm anti-guns, and I'm not a hypocrite for that

[Professional Russian]

guns are dangerous, gay marriage is not. I am tolerant, I'm anti-guns, and I'm not a hypocrite for that

Guns are not dangerous them selves. it is the person who is useing them who is dangerous or not.

[Majin Vegeta]

Guns are not dangerous them selves. it is the person who is useing them who is dangerous or not.

I understand what you're saying but I think guns are dangerous because the point of them is to kill regardless of who's using it or what the motives are

[Professional Russian]

I understand what you're saying but I think guns are dangerous because the point of them is to kill regardless of who's using it or what the motives are

Yes guns were made to kill....in self defense and hunting. nothing more nothing less. I have shot and had tons of guns but yet i have not killed anyone....i have killed alot of deer though. Ive killed alot of zombies also

[Majin Vegeta]

Yes guns were made to kill....in self defense and hunting. nothing more nothing less. I have shot and had tons of guns but yet i have not killed anyone....i have killed alot of deer though. Ive killed alot of zombies also

do you eat deer?

[Professional Russian]

do you eat deer?

Yes I eat the deer I kill. I just had 3 deer steaks.

[Majin Vegeta]

Yes I eat the deer I kill. I just had 3 deer steaks.

killing animals for sport is unecessary violence.

[Professional Russian]

killing animals for sport is unecessary violence.

no shit.

[Lovelife090994]

I will say this, thank you for voicing your thoughts in a well thought out manner. Me? I am an Independent moreso because I fit in neither the Democratic nor the Republican side. I am conservative but I don't agree with everything conservative nor everything liberal. I usually say I am a Conservative Democrat.

[Majin Vegeta]

no shit.

so the comment about 3 deer steaks wasn't sarcastic?

sorry idk why I thought you were being a smartass

[Professional Russian]

so the comment about 3 deer steaks wasn't sarcastic?

sorry idk why I thought you were being a smartass

No I literally just ate 3 deer cube steaks from 2010

[Majin Vegeta]

No I literally just ate 3 deer cube steaks from 2010

oh, ok

[ProudConservative]

I will say this, thank you for voicing your thoughts in a well thought out manner. Me? I am an Independent moreso because I fit in neither the Democratic nor the Republican side. I am conservative but I don't agree with everything conservative nor everything liberal. I usually say I am a Conservative Democrat.

Fun fact: Ronald Reagan was a liberal Republican.

[Zenos]

Gun ownership is a choice. Homosexuality is not. Gun ownership does harm. Homosexuality does not.

I am tolerant of that which doesn't hurt others. I don't think you have a right to hurt others, and I won't stand by and let harm befall others. I don't think it's intolerant to be opposed to homophobia, for example, since it does harm and is irrational.



Get real Gun ownership in and of itself does not harm people.

It's nutters how use a gun to hurt people.

Thats like saying electricity is bad becuase it can kill.


The Bill of Rights gaurantees Americans the right to gun ownership,the supreme court has had to deal with this subject many times and have concluded that Gun ownership is fundamental right of the American Citizen.


Don't blame guns for for what people do with them,after all does anyone blam electricity for it's being used to execute criminals or when people are accidently elcetrocuted?

A gun is like any other tool,it's nether good nor bad it's neutral,it's how it's used by PEOPLE,and the PEOPLE that use it thats good or bad.

But as usual people want to whine and cry and blame guns not the people that used them.

They usually run and say "Oh he wasn't as bad person,I just don't know what happened to him",or it's that "He had mental problems" angle.

The media and politians 100% demonize the guns and yet with the perps everyone VACILLATES between demonizing them and whoa as meing over them as aperosn with mental problems that didn't mean to hurt anyone!

So don't give me that bunk about Gun ownership does harm because you sound brainwashed and incapable or unwilling to think beyond you're "OPINIONS" on the subject!

[Gigablue]

Get real Gun ownership in and of itself does not harm people.

It's nutters how use a gun to hurt people.

Thats like saying electricity is bad becuase it can kill.

Electricity has many other uses. The main use of guns is to kill. Electricity has saved countless lives. Guns haven't. The two are not analogous.

The Bill of Rights gaurantees Americans the right to gun ownership,the supreme court has had to deal with this subject many times and have concluded that Gun ownership is fundamental right of the American Citizen.

So what. Laws can be changed. Also, why should it be a right? Here in Canada we don't have that right and we're fine.

Don't blame guns for for what people do with them,after all does anyone blam electricity for it's being used to execute criminals or when people are accidentally electrocuted?

A gun is like any other tool,it's nether good nor bad it's neutral,it's how it's used by PEOPLE,and the PEOPLE that use it thats good or bad.

But as usual people want to whine and cry and blame guns not the people that used them.

They usually run and say "Oh he wasn't as bad person,I just don't know what happened to him",or it's that "He had mental problems" angle.

No one is saying that criminals shouldn't be held responsible for their crimes. I'm just saying that by getting rid of guns, you would make it harder to carry out a crime, and could prevent them.

[Taryn98]

Electricity has saved countless lives. Guns haven't. The two are not analogous.


Guns prevent 2.5 million crimes per year. I'd say that's pretty significant.
http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

[Zenos]

Electricity has many other uses. The main use of guns is to kill. Electricity has saved countless lives. Guns haven't. The two are not analogous.

( Guns have not saved lives? BULL!!! I have a feeling Citizens who have had to use a gun in defence of them and theirs,as well as to defend other peoples lives would say you are full of it.

Also with all the shootings that have happened I bet many would have been thankful if someone would have had a gun and used it in their defence.)


So what. Laws can be changed. Also, why should it be a right? Here in Canada we don't have that right and we're fine.



(let me address this right here first! You are a Canadian,not a citizen of ther USA so you do not get a say in how things are here in the USA.It's not just the U.S. Military as to why the USA has not been invaded since the battle of New Orleans,it's also the fact that the average U.S. Citizen owns firearms.

WE have the right to own firearms for Hunting,to protect ourseleves,our families and friends,other citizens,our property,and if we are invaded to rise up and act as resistance behind the lines in defence of OUR NATION!,as well as to use to fight against and remove an opressive government that is in office here in the USA if we have too! THATS THE REASONS ITS A FUNDAMNETAL RIGHT here in the USA,so WHO ARE YOU TO TELL AMERICANS WE SHOULDN"T BE ALLOWED TO OWN GUNS.
Espeically seeing as you have probably never owned a gun,and it was Canadian Gun owners who let the government disarm the Canadian population)


No one is saying that criminals shouldn't be held responsible for their crimes. I'm just saying that by getting rid of guns, you would make it harder to carry out a crime, and could prevent them.

( you really are blind and brainwashed New York City does not allow the citizens to own guns and yet criminals have ways of getting firearms and then go about committing crimes with them so your reasoning is flawed)





In short dude you are from Canada,don't dictate to Americans you're wisdon about how wrong it is to own guns and try to convince us that we should trun in our guns and that when we do things will be ohhh so much better.

We have OUR RIGHT to own guns.Our Founding fathers where wise,and thoughtful in putting it in the Bill of Rights for the average citizen to be able to own and bare arms,because they realized the Citizen is not truly free if they are disarmed and have no way to fight a tyrannical government !

What would you do if you had an oppressive government in Power in Canada that was brutalizing it's citzenry?

You have no weapons to rise up and fight against it.Here in the USA if we had an oppressive government in Power that was brutalizing it's citzenry,seeing as we have the right to own guns we could rise up and fight for our freedoms and our rights!

You on the other hand would just have to sit there and take it.

[Harry Smith]

A good example about liberals picking side would have to be what the enemies of JFK said about him. They accused him and his brother of only supporting civil rights to get the black vote. Which probaly was partly true but also because they realised the bigger picture. Being a Blairite myself on some issues I am rather liberal - gay marriage, abortion and gun control. However I'm also quite right wing on - defence, taxes and immigration. Polictics will always have split issues, look at the southern democrats who ruled the democrat party for about 100 years. Then civil rights came along and now most of the bible belt belongs to the GOP

[Sugaree]

Electricity has many other uses. The main use of guns is to kill. Electricity has saved countless lives. Guns haven't. The two are not analogous.

Electricity is also deadly. People have died from being electrocuted. Better ban that along with guns. What do you mean guns haven't saved lives? Earlier this month, an off duty cop stopped a would-be theater shooting with her concealed firearm. That saved probably 30 or so people. What about the military? Do their guns, in the appropriate circumstance, not save lives also? Sure, there's plenty of gun crime in the United States, and we DO need to work in getting it down; but to say that guns are not life savers in some situations, or that they've never saved a single life, is completely false.

So what. Laws can be changed. Also, why should it be a right? Here in Canada we don't have that right and we're fine.

Maybe I'm just crazy, but why do you Canadians (and many other countries for that matter) care so god damned much about us? Yeah, I realize we've acted like imperialistic fuckheads, but we're working to fix that now. I don't care if Canadian citizens don't have a right a United States citizen DOES have. I'll admit that Canada's gun crime rate is low, but how can you be sure it revolves around the fact that you aren't guaranteed the right to own a gun? We have a Bill of Rights which the government has no right to take away. Instead, the government needs to enforce and regulate those rights, not take them away because a small few have abused those rights.

No one is saying that criminals shouldn't be held responsible for their crimes. I'm just saying that by getting rid of guns, you would make it harder to carry out a crime, and could prevent them.

England got rid of guns and are still pretty high up in violent crime (mostly stabbings). So, by your logic, getting rid of guns solves this problem of a criminal wanting to commit a crime. It's been said countless times, but a criminal is going to commit a crime regardless if they have a gun or not. Plenty of other things can be used. Knives, baseball bats, blunt objects...if you want to ban guns, then you have to ban everything else that can be used as a means for a criminal to do their thing.

[Gigablue]

Electricity is also deadly. People have died from being electrocuted. Better ban that along with guns. What do you mean guns haven't saved lives? Earlier this month, an off duty cop stopped a would-be theater shooting with her concealed firearm. That saved probably 30 or so people. What about the military? Do their guns, in the appropriate circumstance, not save lives also? Sure, there's plenty of gun crime in the United States, and we DO need to work in getting it down; but to say that guns are not life savers in some situations, or that they've never saved a single life, is completely false.

Electricity is dangerous, but it has many uses other than killing. Guns, on the other hand, are designed to kill. They don't have other uses.

I never said guns didn't save lives in some cases, just that in general they do more harm than good. Take your theatre example. With tighter gun control laws, the shooter would never have gotten a gun and the whole thing would never have happened.

Guns are necessary in some cases. It would be stupid to say that police officers, for example, shouldn't be armed. However, that doesn't mean every citizen needs a gun.

Maybe I'm just crazy, but why do you Canadians (and many other countries for that matter) care so god damned much about us? Yeah, I realize we've acted like imperialistic fuckheads, but we're working to fix that now. I don't care if Canadian citizens don't have a right a United States citizen DOES have. I'll admit that Canada's gun crime rate is low, but how can you be sure it revolves around the fact that you aren't guaranteed the right to own a gun? We have a Bill of Rights which the government has no right to take away. Instead, the government needs to enforce and regulate those rights, not take them away because a small few have abused those rights.

I care because innocent people are dying. I don't care about their nationality. Innocent people shouldn't be getting shot for no reason.

You act as though gun control would somehow allow the government to take away all your rights, and as though you should have the right to guns. Here is Canada, we also have a charter of rights, though ours never mentions guns. I don't feel less any less free. I do, however, feel safer, since there are fewer people who could shoot me.

England got rid of guns and are still pretty high up in violent crime (mostly stabbings). So, by your logic, getting rid of guns solves this problem of a criminal wanting to commit a crime. It's been said countless times, but a criminal is going to commit a crime regardless if they have a gun or not. Plenty of other things can be used. Knives, baseball bats, blunt objects...if you want to ban guns, then you have to ban everything else that can be used as a means for a criminal to do their thing.

Once again, all those other things have other uses. The main use of a gun is to be shot. Knives can be used for plenty of nonviolent things. Also, it's very hard to commit a massacre with a knife, but easy to do it with a gun.

[ProudConservative]

Unfortunately Fisk, Congress can do whatever the hell they want. If the executive branch is just as corrupt, it will be enforced. It is up to the People to being the specific issue to the Supreme Court. Remember, also, the issue has to be brought up to the Court, the Court can't just say this is unconstitutional, it has to be brought up in a suit.

[Sugaree]

You act as though gun control would somehow allow the government to take away all your rights, and as though you should have the right to guns. Here is Canada, we also have a charter of rights, though ours never mentions guns. I don't feel less any less free. I do, however, feel safer, since there are fewer people who could shoot me.

It's not gun control that scares me. The United States has become a quasi-police state, and giving the government power to take something away is dangerous for the citizens. It's just as bad as innocents being killed by the gun. I don't feel that by taking away one right takes away ALL rights, but it DOES present the possibility of more things being taken away because a few people decided to abuse those rights. This is where the problem lies: taking away from the majority because the minority can't behave is simply ludicrous thinking.

Unfortunately Fisk, Congress can do whatever the hell they want. If the executive branch is just as corrupt, it will be enforced. It is up to the People to being the specific issue to the Supreme Court. Remember, also, the issue has to be brought up to the Court, the Court can't just say this is unconstitutional, it has to be brought up in a suit.

Which is the point I'm trying to make. If we give the government the power to decide what we can and can not have, we're dropping trowel and bending over. It's the right of every citizen to own a gun if they want one (not necessarily an assault rifle, mind you, but something small like a handgun). Perhaps it's best if we were to rewrite the second amendment to have a larger relevance to the modern era.

[SaxyHaloBeast]

After reading all of these comments, I have discovered the problem behind almost every single issue. We have given the government way too much power over our lives.

Gay Marriage: Since when does the government dictate what marriage is or not? What happened to separation of church and state? Marriage should be based off of an individual's beliefs. If you are gay and believe you should be able to get married, then you should be able to go find someone who will marry you and your partner. If you are straight, you get the same right. Marriage isn't even mentioned in the Constitution once I think. The government shouldn't even be deciding this issue.

Gun Rights: When the Constitution was written, it was soon found that some things had been left out, hence we have amendments. The first 10 were collectively named the Bill of Rights. These 10 rights are guaranteed to Americans. Number 2 says we can bear arms. Why? To protect ourselves. Yes we have the police and the military, but there are also individual freedoms which we have. We shouldn't have to be dependent on our government to protect us. You can help protect yourself as well. "Guns do harm!". "So does electricity!" "True, but electricity has many other good uses, not just killing!" So we are only allowed to use things that have MANY good uses? As far as I can tell, my desk lamp has one function: to light up the immediate area. My plate has one purpose: to hold my food. My piano has one function: to be a piano. Just because guns only have purpose, to kill, does not mean we shouldn't have them. Yes I understand, guns can be used to harm and kill others. I get that. But guns are used to hunt which provides us with food. Guns are used in the military and police forces to protect and fight for those in need of it. Guns are used by individuals to protect themselves from those who would wish to harm them. There will always be criminals and wrong-doers. But look at it this way. Adam Lanza was 1 person out of thousands in his area, 1 out of hundreds of thousands in his state, 1 out of millions in his country. There are other examples of people like Adam Lanza but even all together they don't amount to much compared to the entire population. A few bad apples shouldn't ruin the taste of a good apple for you. Don't take the guns away from the people who use them right because of the ones who used them wrong. Government shouldn't be able to take away a right as fundamental as protecting one's self.

[xmojox]

Everyone who is of the opinion that firearms are somehow obsolete because we have police to protect us should read this ( http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0) and then tell me again how safe I should feel because we have police.

[Elysium]

I agree to an extent. I'm very liberal and I call myself accepting of everyone, yet I get uncomfortable around conservative people, partly because of how angry I get when someone disapproves of homosexuality. I recently made a friend who I get along really well with and I love talking to him, but he's seriously Christian and extremely conservative. Learning this made me re-evaluate myself... he wasn't protesting my beliefs or getting mad at me for disagreeing, he was just stating his own standpoints. Why couldn't I do the same? So, in that particular conversation I made an effort to and I've been thinking about it since. I'm still working on it, but I think the realization has definitely helped me.

I stand firm in my beliefs and opinions, but I can't try to impose them on others. That makes me just as bad as the people that anger me.

[SaxyHaloBeast]

I agree to an extent. I'm very liberal and I call myself accepting of everyone, yet I get uncomfortable around conservative people, partly because of how angry I get when someone disapproves of homosexuality. I recently made a friend who I get along really well with and I love talking to him, but he's seriously Christian and extremely conservative. Learning this made me re-evaluate myself... he wasn't protesting my beliefs or getting mad at me for disagreeing, he was just stating his own standpoints. Why couldn't I do the same? So, in that particular conversation I made an effort to and I've been thinking about it since. I'm still working on it, but I think the realization has definitely helped me.

I stand firm in my beliefs and opinions, but I can't try to impose them on others. That makes me just as bad as the people that anger me.

Exactly. I wish it could always be like this. I also heard this somewhere once. "If you want others to be tolerant of what you tolerate, you must tolerate their present intolerance." In other words, people who support gay marriage have to be patient with those who don't. If you can't accept that others are going to disagree with you, you have already lost your argument.