Labels Matter

[hjmick]

You're right, a gun is much more expediant than using your bare hands. However, a person is no less dead having been strangled than they are having been shot.

We have laws on the books right now designed to prevent the wrong people from owning handguns, more legislation is the wrong way to go. No matter what laws are passed, if a person really wants a gun, they're going to get one, whether it is legal or not. I could drive down to Los Angeles right now, get a gun off of the street, and be home before dinner. I don't know a single person who lives in Los Angeles. The Vermont shooter, if he truly wanted to wreak havoc with firearms, if guns were the only way he could get his jollies, would have found a place to get guns, legally or not. There was a murder in Japan just recently. Japan bans all of it's citizens from owning a gun. The manner of death? Gunshot. Now, how in the hell did the killer get a gun in country that bans it's citizens from owning guns?

Can you possibly think of a reason why I might be uncomfortable giving you the ability to easily kill me?

This question only works if my intent in owning a gun is to kill you, otherwise it is nonsensical. You have no reason to think that the average, legal gun owner means you harm. This is not the case. The truth is, if you lived next door to me, you wouldn't even know there were guns in my house.

Just curious...if you think individuals have rights to weapons, do you think nations have the right to have larger weapons ? (WMD perhaps?)

Huh? While I'm not too sure that I understand your question, I will try to answer it anyway. Yes, I believe that the Second Ammendment affords every citizen of the U.S. who is of legal age the right to own firearms. I do not believe that it is necessary to legalize assault weapons for the average American, but I do believe that handguns, shotguns, and rifles are reasonable. I also believe that every nation has a right to protect themselves from their neighbors by any means necessary, including WMDs. The idea that a nation such as North Korea or Iran might someday have such a weapon is bothersome to me and less than ideal in a global perspective, but it was unavoidable. Until the day comes that every nation agrees to dismantling their WMDs, and everyone forgets how to build them, they will be part of our existence. The best that we can hope for is that cooler heads will prevail and they will never again be used.

 

[hjmick]

BTW Larkinn, I apologize for coming on a little strong in my first post, it wasn't you, it was the subject matter.

 

[Larkinn]

You're right, a gun is much more expediant than using your bare hands. However, a person is no less dead having been strangled than they are having been shot.

<3

We have laws on the books right now designed to prevent the wrong people from owning handguns, more legislation is the wrong way to go. No matter what laws are passed, if a person really wants a gun, they're going to get one, whether it is legal or not.

I disagree. Many, if not most, people that is true for...but I think there are many people who just wouldn't know where to look.

I could drive down to Los Angeles right now, get a gun off of the street, and be home before dinner. I don't know a single person who lives in Los Angeles.

I disagree. You would have to know where in LA to go. I know several people who live in LA, and frankly I would have no idea where the hell to go.

The Vermont shooter, if he truly wanted to wreak havoc with firearms, if guns were the only way he could get his jollies, would have found a place to get guns, legally or not. There was a murder in Japan just recently. Japan bans all of it's citizens from owning a gun. The manner of death? Gunshot. Now, how in the hell did the killer get a gun in country that bans it's citizens from owning guns?

I don't think its true when you are talking about someone who is so isolated from society, as mass murderers sometimes are.

This question only works if my intent in owning a gun is to kill you, otherwise it is nonsensical. You have no reason to think that the average, legal gun owner means you harm. This is not the case. The truth is, if you lived next door to me, you wouldn't even know there were guns in my house.

Correct, it depends entirely on your intent. Now, granted that I have some degree of belief that you aren't a crazy psycho based on the reasonableness of your posts, but there are many people out there who have them who I have never met, who it is completely impossible for me to know their intent.

Huh? While I'm not too sure that I understand your question, I will try to answer it anyway. Yes, I believe that the Second Ammendment affords every citizen of the U.S. who is of legal age the right to own firearms.

Before you said something that I believe implied something to the effect of "people have a right to own firearms"...does that right come solely from the 2nd amendment, or do you think it is something higher/other than that? If its something other than that, then my question is why is it not the same thing on a global scale?

I do not believe that it is necessary to legalize assault weapons for the average American, but I do believe that handguns, shotguns, and rifles are reasonable. I also believe that every nation has a right to protect themselves from their neighbors by any means necessary, including WMDs. The idea that a nation such as North Korea or Iran might someday have such a weapon is bothersome to me and less than ideal in a global perspective, but it was unavoidable.

This is sort of my point I guess...why do you find it bothersome about NK or Iran? Because you distrust their intentions. This is the same reason why I find it a less than ideal way of being to allow anyone to have access to guns as well, just on a smaller level.

BTW Larkinn, I apologize for coming on a little strong in my first post, it wasn't you, it was the subject matter.

No sweat. What we are now talking about doesn't really have to do with the original post, but you are, as usual, conducting yourself maturely and intelligently so I don't really mind at all.

 

[Bern80]

Incorrect, that is a moral response, not an emotional one. I believe everyone should have access to healthcare, not because I am saying shit like "omg think of the children THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!"...rather I am saying that is a particular moral belief that I have.



Umm, no, actually intro economics most definitely DOES say that reducing the price will increase access. And no, your description of the "emotional response" is incorrect. It is immoral for people NOT to have access to healthcare. Not that paying for it just isn't fair.

What happens to the supply of something as the price of it is reduced?

Congratulations for using an emotional response while decrying it at the same time. Will "bring us down"? How? That is a load of bullshit. You are free to disagree with everything the left does, but if you say they will "bring us down", that is emotional claptrap.

what exactley was emotional about my response?

Please tell me how it is "emotional" to ban something that contributes to the deaths of over 100,000 people per year?

Because it isn't your job to protect people from the choices they wish to make in a free society no matter how horribly you 'feel' about the consequences

Please tell me what is emotional about the belief that one should have the right to work in a smoke free environment.

Because a property owner has the right to allow whatever he wants to allow on his property. If you don't want to eat in smoke, don't eat there. If you don't want to work in smoke, don't work there. To ban across the board everywhere where people can or can't smoke is an overractive solution to a problem. Overractive responses are emotional responses.

Considering we have pretty much no information as to what makes a human being, and not many people have the knowledge of the intellect to delve deeply into that issue, yes its emotional. However, if you notice, it is emotional on both sides of the aisle. On the right its the old chestnut "omg you are killing kids, baby-killers", etc, etc.

since you state you don't know when 'humanity' begins, how do you know i'm wrong when i say 'you're killing babies'? My side of the argument can reason out at least that a human is a human at some point before it actually leaves the womb.

Please tell me what is emotional about the belief that we should ban something that kills thousands of people per year?

Because guns don't kill people. peole kill people. Go read the the other thread started in current events about gun control. Yet another overractive response to a perceived problem. Guns were used to kill people, thus guns must be the problem and so we must ban them. Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.

Again, you seem to have confused morals with emotions. Your argument, hence, seems to be more akin to "liberals have morals behind their arguments, while conservatives have none" which is a bit amusing, if also incorrect.

Whatever helps a lib sleep at night I guess. You're welcome to test my morals any day of the week.

 

[Bern80]

Larkinn...

I think you have hit upon the distinction that has eluded me for some time now when reading Bern's rants about rational conservatives versus emotional liberals. It really has little to do with "emotion" and much to do with "morality".

Conservatives don't have much of the latter (excpet the faux righteously indignant variety), so they mischaracterize it as the former.

And where is the immorality in any of my statements?

 

[hjmick]

Before you said something that I believe implied something to the effect of "people have a right to own firearms"...does that right come solely from the 2nd amendment, or do you think it is something higher/other than that? If its something other than that, then my question is why is it not the same thing on a global scale?

I don't believe that our right to own guns comes from any source higher than the Second Amendment. Hell, I'm agnostic.

On the rest of the stuff, it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree, though I do understand where it is you are coming from on this issue and I respect that. I may not agree with all of it, but I respect it.

 

[Larkinn]

What happens to the supply of something as the price of it is reduced?

The supply of something goes down if the price RECIEVED is reduced, not the price paid. Its not as if suddenly doctors won't get paid if healthcare is free, just the government will pay for it.

what exactley was emotional about my response?

Making a generalized statement that has no real meaning behind it was what was emotional about it. Of course I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in thinking that you don't actually believe that liberals will cause the collapse of America. If you well and truly believe that you are an idiot on the scale of rsr.

Because it isn't your job to protect people from the choices they wish to make in a free society no matter how horribly you 'feel' about the consequences

I disagree. I think it is the governments job to protect people, even from themselves. That is NOT an emotional argument I am making, it is an ideological difference between us which you can't see.

Because a property owner has the right to allow whatever he wants to allow on his property. If you don't want to eat in smoke, don't eat there. If you don't want to work in smoke, don't work there. To ban across the board everywhere where people can or can't smoke is an overractive solution to a problem. Overractive responses are emotional responses.

No, a property owner does NOT have the right to allow whatever he wants to allow on his property. This is a stupid generalization. Obviously I can't kill you on my property, even though I own it. Hence your generalization is incorrect.

And "to ban across the board everywhere where people can or can't smoke" is an incoherent sentence. Your emotions must be clouding your writing skills.

since you state you don't know when 'humanity' begins, how do you know i'm wrong when i say 'you're killing babies'? My side of the argument can reason out at least that a human is a human at some point before it actually leaves the womb.

I didn't say you were wrong when you said that, merely that it is an emotional argument. And the left thinks a human is a human before it leaves the womb as well. At least the large majority of the left does.

Because guns don't kill people. peole kill people. Go read the the other thread started in current events about gun control. Yet another overractive response to a perceived problem. Guns were used to kill people, thus guns must be the problem and so we must ban them. Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.

I know. Banning something that is used to kill people doesn't make any sense at all. Who knows, next you'll want to stop countries from getting nukes, invade countries cause they have wmd's, and stop the mass production of anthrax by Iran.

Whatever helps a lib sleep at night I guess. You're welcome to test my morals any day of the week.

Way to completely not anwser my statement. You confused morals with emotions. You are wrong, and frankly have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

 

[Larkinn]

I don't believe that our right to own guns comes from any source higher than the Second Amendment. Hell, I'm agnostic.

On the rest of the stuff, it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree, though I do understand where it is you are coming from on this issue and I respect that. I may not agree with all of it, but I respect it.

This is the thing that is missing from so many people on the right and the left. This is why my response to Bern was so dismissive. He thinks that because I disagree with him I am "emotional" and irrational and just wrong. Because, of course, he has all of the anwsers and is always right. You can disagree with someone and still recognize that they have a point. That was my SOLE purpose in bringing up gun control, and all of the issues here. To show that two completely rational people can disagree on something and *gasp* not disrespect the other because of it.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

labels only matter if they are true, and if they are made in a civil way.

I found this article interesting

Your thoughts?


Labels Matter: Progressive Better than Liberal, Reagan-Like Better than Conservative
Thursday, July 26, 2007

During last Monday’s Democratic Presidential debate, Senator Hillary Clinton indicated that she preferred to be called “progressive” rather than “liberal.” The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that is probably a good move--Americans are more receptive to the term progressive.

Just 20% said they consider it a positive description to call a candidate politically liberal while 39% would view that description negatively. However, 35% would consider it a positive description to call a candidate politically progressive. Just 18% react negatively to that term. Those figures reflect a huge swing, from a net negative of nineteen points to a net positive of 17 points.

On the other side of the ideological spectrum, being called politically conservative is considered a positive description by 32% and negative by 20%. It’s much better for a candidate to be described as being like Ronald Reagan—44% consider that a positive description and 25% negative. That swing is meaningful, but not as dramatic as the difference between liberal and progressive. Being called conservative generates a net 12 point positive response that jumps to 19 points when someone is said to be like Reagan.

There are more self-identified conservatives in the United States than self-identified liberals.

Describing someone as a political moderate is viewed positively by 29% and negatively by 12%.






http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._liberal_reagan_like_better_than_conservative

 

[Toro]

Absolutely labels matter.

I recently purchased Frank Luntz's book. Can't wait to read it.