• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arlington Man Loses Gun License Due To Blog About Tucson Shooting

I mean why don't you stand for election on the basis that there should be no restriction on unstable or mentally ill people having the right to buy and carry guns?

Your position is clear though. Thank you. You do not believe that behaviour which demonstrates instability or a lack of normal self-control in personal behaviour be taken into account by the authorities when they decide whether to issue a license. As long as such behaviour is not criminal.

Did Laughner see a shrink. Was he declared to be mentally unfit to carry a weapon? Is that no that he never saw a shrink? Again do you want the government to restrict people's rights based on nothing more than hear-say instead of professional mental health expertise?

This is a logical position for a libertarian to take. Why for example should the State have the right to restrict anyone else's right unless they have been convicted of a crime by a jury of their peers?
After being ruled by some little inbred dictator from across the sea our founding fathers developed a serious mistrust of governments and developed the constitution to restrict what the government can and can't do. THe people today should carry that same mistrust of the government. Uncle Sam should be seen as that creepy child molesting uncle instead of a friendly relative you can trust.

The problem is that people like Loughner, who were judged too unstable to join the army, are therefore permitted to carry guns, and in the state of Arizona, to conceal this. Libertarians consider dead nine year old girls a price worth paying for this "freedom".

Did the army say why they rejected Loughner? Or are you repeating someone else's assumptions of why the army rejected him? HE could have failed his Asvab test, pissed hot, said he was gay,too fat or a whole bunch of other reasons for getting rejected by the army. The last time I went a MEPS(Military Entrance Processing station) which was back in February 2000 they did not have shrinks examine you and they do actually check records to see if you have seen a shrink, have a criminal record and so on.

Other regard people who demonstrate unstable or threatening behaviour, such as this Arlington jerk, to be at least worth investigating and checking out before letting him loose in the land with a lethal weapon.

All the individual in Arlington did was plead with any future potential murderers to not shoot bystanders.

It's a question of judgement. Of course all of us who live in countries which have proper control over those who can carry guns are struggling under the yoke of tyranny. That's the clincher I suppose.

I suppose when your governments become tyrannical and protest against the government and military get considered to be hate speech and you people only have rocks and kitchen knives to defend yourselves, we Americans will be laughing our asses off at you. The government and criminals are the last two groups of people to be trusted with weapons around an unarmed populace and the government is the one entity who should not be allowed to say who can and can not have a weapon.
 
So they take his concealed carry permit away from him. What's that going to accomplish? He's not going to commit murder, because he can't legally carry a concealed weapon?

Not at all. We ALL know that if it is his motivation to actually commit murder he will find a way. What it will accomplish is preciesly what it should accomplish...the revocation of a privelege by someone demonstrating he is too stupid to be allowed to have said privelege. As a CCW permit holder assholes like that piss me off. It gives mindless morons out there a platform to attack ALL CCW holders and call for new rounds of gun control.

He didnt say "man...I sure understand peoples frustrations with our government and we should work to get them thrown out of office." He endorsed political assassination. I dont suggest they arrest him or throw him in jail. But as a consequence of his choices...I personally am FINE with them removing his right to carry concealed.
 
All the individual in Arlington did was plead with any future potential murderers to not shoot bystanders.
I actually do see your point in his urging any potential shooters not to shoot others such as the 9 yr old girl.

But am having a real hard time by his statement "1 down and 534 to go" . To me that means we have 534 other congresspersons to kill.

If he had been Muslim do you think the reaction would be different here on this forum?
 
Did Laughner see a shrink. Was he declared to be mentally unfit to carry a weapon?


He flunked the army exam, and that includes a shrink. If the army doesn't trust him with a weapon, shouldn't that be a clue?
 
I actually do see your point in his urging any potential shooters not to shoot others such as the 9 yr old girl.
I think many people would agree with this, just like many people would want gang bangers to keep the violence to themselves.


But am having a real hard time by his statement "1 down and 534 to go" . To me that means we have 534 other congresspersons to kill.

How many people have jokingly said something similar? Politicians are seen as a necessary evil and currupt.

If he had been Muslim do you think the reaction would be different here on this forum?
Maybe. If Blogger was a Muslim, perhaps positions would be reversed and many of us would be saying take his guns away. Sometimes the shoe has to be on our foot before we realize that something is wrong.
 
People saying that this guy is having his rights infringed upon are being silly. People get arrested all the time for inciting violence against others regardless of the fact that there is a 1st amendment. With rights come responsibilities. If he was arguing that politicians should be shot, hey, take his gun away and let him complain about the NWO Jared-style.

Is it silly? Considering one of the main reasons for the right to keep and bear arms is to protect yourself against the tyranny of state. Considering that rebellion and revolt are considered proper tools of the people if a government acts too grievously against our rights. Considering the very beginnings of our Republic. Is it really silly? I don't think so.

Also, he didn't incite violence. He made a statement. Stupid or not, he at no point presented a credible threat.
 
Not at all. We ALL know that if it is his motivation to actually commit murder he will find a way. What it will accomplish is preciesly what it should accomplish...the revocation of a privelege by someone demonstrating he is too stupid to be allowed to have said privelege. As a CCW permit holder assholes like that piss me off. It gives mindless morons out there a platform to attack ALL CCW holders and call for new rounds of gun control.

He didnt say "man...I sure understand peoples frustrations with our government and we should work to get them thrown out of office." He endorsed political assassination. I dont suggest they arrest him or throw him in jail. But as a consequence of his choices...I personally am FINE with them removing his right to carry concealed.

That's the same reactionary thinking that causes people to want to pass more gun laws and ban assault rifles and ban high capacity magazines.

Just like all other reactionary laws, where does it end? And, who get's to interpret what our comments mean?

How many times have you been called a racist, because you disagree with a Liberal policy? Is that the level at which we want all our comments interpreted?
 
Maybe. If Blogger was a Muslim, perhaps positions would be reversed and many of us would be saying take his guns away. Sometimes the shoe has to be on our foot before we realize that something is wrong.

But this isn't true is it? Proponents of gun control do not exempt Muslims from such proposals no matter how much conservatives wish them to.

Your reply to my post was a hoot. It relies on your fantasies that democratic countries with gun control will suddenly be turned into tyrannies by those governments that just can't help themselves but do anything else....and that when this happens in the USA the people being armed will defeat the standing army, navy and air force in the manner prescribed by the Founding Fathers.

Is this in a parallel universe? Do you have a date when all this tyranny will prevail in those unAmerican lands where all the dragons live?
 
This is ridiculous in my opinion and possibly unconstitutional.
Are we going to search everyone's home who has made similar comments on the internet? Granted, I didn't see his words in context to form an opinion as to whether or not it was something to be taken seriously.
Is his blog out there somewhere?

What if nothing is done about this, and then he shoots somebody? Then would it be appropriate to talk about how somebody should have taken his guns away?

I am just asking to open dialogue... I am intersted in what people have to say. I personally think making statements like this should bear some kind of consequence, espically given what happened. WTF... who would honestly get on the internet and make such a tasteless comment in a time like this? This guy is an @sshole, and is acting inappropriate.
 
That's the same reactionary thinking that causes people to want to pass more gun laws and ban assault rifles and ban high capacity magazines.

Just like all other reactionary laws, where does it end? And, who get's to interpret what our comments mean?

How many times have you been called a racist, because you disagree with a Liberal policy? Is that the level at which we want all our comments interpreted?

I disagree...I think it is more likely that if the pro-firearm ownership crowd had a higher expectation of legal firearm owners, then those that promote bans would be LESS likely to be successful.

This guy didnt just object to policies, nor did he state that he wanted to see those elected officials voted out. Worlds of difference.
 
I disagree...I think it is more likely that if the pro-firearm ownership crowd had a higher expectation of legal firearm owners, then those that promote bans would be LESS likely to be successful.

This guy didnt just object to policies, nor did he state that he wanted to see those elected officials voted out. Worlds of difference.

You're usually right, but this is that .1% of the time that you're wrong.
 
You're usually right, but this is that .1% of the time that you're wrong.

I can accept that! ;)

I am SO grateful we all dont agree all the time. Lord how BORING would that be. And in the great grand scheme of things...these are just opinions. I dont makle the rules in Boston.

Not go al Uncle Ben...but I do think firearm ownership while a constitutional right still requires responsiblity. The right to carry concealed is not a constitutional right...thats been decided as a State right issue. People like that jackass make it harder not easier. So...I would just reiterate my final (and 'wrong') position. No arrest...no charges...but I have no problem with the state revoking his concealed carry rights. Actions have consequence.
 
I can accept that! ;)

I am SO grateful we all dont agree all the time. Lord how BORING would that be. And in the great grand scheme of things...these are just opinions. I dont makle the rules in Boston.

That's a no ****ter.

Not go al Uncle Ben...but I do think firearm ownership while a constitutional right still requires responsiblity. The right to carry concealed is not a constitutional right...thats been decided as a State right issue. People like that jackass make it harder not easier. So...I would just reiterate my final (and 'wrong') position. No arrest...no charges...but I have no problem with the state revoking his concealed carry rights. Actions have consequence.

I agree with that 100% and when someone commits a crime with a gun, that person should face the music.
 
But this isn't true is it? Proponents of gun control do not exempt Muslims from such proposals no matter how much conservatives wish them to.

Your reply to my post was a hoot. It relies on your fantasies that democratic countries with gun control will suddenly be turned into tyrannies by those governments that just can't help themselves but do anything else.

What would stop the government from becoming tyrannical if the people are not adequately armed? Their word? The founder's documents?


...and that when this happens in the USA the people being armed will defeat the standing army, navy and air force in the manner prescribed by the Founding Fathers.

THe terrorist in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be doing a pretty good job against our military.
Is this in a parallel universe? Do you have a date when all this tyranny will prevail in those unAmerican lands where all the dragons live?

Gun control is a precursor to tyranny.
experts-gun-control.jpg
 
What would stop the government from becoming tyrannical if the people are not adequately armed? Their word? The founder's documents?




THe terrorist in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be doing a pretty good job against our military.


Gun control is a precursor to tyranny.
experts-gun-control.jpg

those who impose gun control are often the people most in need of being shot by honest citizens
 
those who impose gun control are often the people most in need of being shot by honest citizens

You mean like the parliamentarians of European democracies who do so with the full support of their electorates?

Everyone imposes gun control, except some crackpots in the USA, lawless third world countries and of course the country of Switzerland.

Why is the gun control debate so ludicrous? It is as clear as anything that the Founding Fathers made gun ownership a right because they wanted to arm a civilian population against a State that would use a standing army to extort taxes from them so that it could go and fight more wars and enslave more people to pay taxes to pay for more armies to conquer more countries....

This was a smart move at the time which has now passed its sell by date (unless you are a pacifist who opposes all American military intervention). But of course to the US Right the Constitution is not there to serve mankind but to act as a God given set of edicts that cannot be challenged or discussed. The idea that a papal infallibility or Biblical dogmatism would be applied to their actions and words more than two hundred and fifty years after they lived, would be utterly ludicrous to the Enlightenment loving, dissent fomenting Founding Fathers.

Just how are an armed citizenry supposed to withstand the might of the world's mightiest superpower ( a concept that the Founding Fathers would have struggled to imagine)? If you really are serious you should be recommending that citizens be issued with IEDs and SAMs being the only viable way of even troubling the greatest military on Earth. This seems to be james suggestion - preparing for the US insurgency as in Iraq. Seems to go with some defeatist talk to me. Strange conservativism that pans its military so!

Or you could move on and recognize that history develops from a time where only the USA has an elected leader unbeholden to an autocracy and that in democratic societies people have rights and responsibilities and that your rights have to be balanced against my right not to be harmed by your freedom.

Funnily enough I think the Founding Fathers understood this principle (that of conflicting rights and freedoms) rather well.
 
Last edited:
What would stop the government from becoming tyrannical if the people are not adequately armed? Their word? The founder's documents?

Elections. As they do.

That's when people vote. And kick out a government they don't like.

Of course you could give me all the examples of liberal democracies where the government has become tyrannical against an unarmed population and abolished elections. Start with the advanced liberal democracies in Western Europe since 1945.

I would imagine, given your certainty as to how governments just cannot help themselves when faced with an unarmed population, that you can point to the governments of the United Kingdom, France, Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg, abolished elections and started to abuse their people.

Obviously I never learned about this at school because I was educated in Britain. Clearly the government here, faced with all us un-armed numpties, abolished elections and pretended to hold them regularly just to fool us. The fact of our de facto tyranny was hidden from us by an education system which was forced to do its government's bidding and pretend that we still had the right to kick out any government we didn't like.

There were people at my university who claimed this sort of thing and told us that we were just naieve dupes of a tyrannical government only giving us the illusion of freedom. We called these paranoid delinquents communists and all thought they were crazy. Still I am sure that you james can now point out where we were going wrong all the time.

If only we'd had guns, then we would really know freedom. If only we were American and not the sub-human sub caste that we furners really are. If only... hand on heart looking mystically into the sky...
 
Last edited:
Just how are an armed citizenry supposed to withstand the might of the world's mightiest superpower ( a concept that the Founding Fathers would have struggled to imagine)?

was this not the EXACT situation they fought against to win their independence. jefferson always said we'd have to do it again someday, never said it would be easy though.
 
was this not the EXACT situation they fought against to win their independence. jefferson always said we'd have to do it again someday, never said it would be easy though.

The super power was far away.

Still if the NRA and its friends really believe that guns are for fighting the US Army, Air Force and Navy, why don't they say so?

I'm also a little confused. It seems now that the Iraqi insurgents are just armed citizens fighting a tyrannical government and that Americans should prepare to do just the same. Not terrorists anymore, apparently. Role models in fact.

I wish people would clearly say this too.

Then everyone would know where they are.
 
The super power was far away.

Still if the NRA and its friends really believe that guns are for fighting the US Army, Air Force and Navy, why don't they say so?

I'm also a little confused. It seems now that the Iraqi insurgents are just armed citizens fighting a tyrannical government and that Americans should prepare to do just the same. Not terrorists anymore, apparently. Role models in fact.

I wish people would clearly say this too.

Then everyone would know where they are.

well the hope is that people enlisted in our military wouldn't be coerced into firing on americans. the problem is the private mercinary army is now larger than the enlisted army, so hopefully when it comes time, the army, navy, airforce are on our side.

and i agree with you about the iraqis, i don't think we'd do much different if another country tried to occupy us or build military bases on our land. or would we?
 
Last edited:
well the hope is that people enlisted in our military wouldn't be coerced into firing on americans. the problem is the private mercinary army is now larger than the enlisted army, so hopefully when it comes time, the army, navy, airforce are on our side.

and i agree with you about the iraqis, i don't think we'd do much different if another country tried to occupy us or build military bases on our land. or would we?

Thanks for being so clear. It is interesting that constitutional arguments for gun control depend on such extremist and marginal positions.

It does so much remind me of waiting for the revolution when I was young. Now its waiting for the military industrial complex to come and get us....
 
Elections. As they do.

That's when people vote. And kick out a government they don't like.

What good would voting do if the government becomes tyrannical? If they are tyrannical then obviously your ballet becomes something they wipe their ass off with.


Of course you could give me all the examples of liberal democracies where the government has become tyrannical against an unarmed population and abolished elections. Start with the advanced liberal democracies in Western Europe since 1945.
Any country that abolished the right of the people to keep and bear arms and became tyrannical will suffice.

I would imagine, given your certainty as to how governments just cannot help themselves when faced with an unarmed population, that you can point to the governments of the United Kingdom, France, Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg, abolished elections and started to abuse their people.


Obviously I never learned about this at school because I was educated in Britain. Clearly the government here, faced with all us un-armed numpties, abolished elections and pretended to hold them regularly just to fool us. The fact of our de facto tyranny was hidden from us by an education system which was forced to do its government's bidding and pretend that we still had the right to kick out any government we didn't like.

There were people at my university who claimed this sort of thing and told us that we were just naieve dupes of a tyrannical government only giving us the illusion of freedom. We called these paranoid delinquents communists and all thought they were crazy. Still I am sure that you james can now point out where we were going wrong all the time.

If only we'd had guns, then we would really know freedom. If only we were American and not the sub-human sub caste that we furners really are. If only... hand on heart looking mystically into the sky...


You think if tyranny doesn't happen over night then it is not going to happen at all? You and your fellow countrymen are practically unarmed, the government has no reason to fear any of you.
 
Thanks for being so clear. It is interesting that constitutional arguments for gun control depend on such extremist and marginal positions.

i don't think it's a marginal position at all. when the supreme court knocked down the dc gun ban i was against it. the reason being that i'm for communities deciding the best way to protect themselves. gun control is a question of how people decide to protect themselves. some, mostly in urban populations, feel safer relying on the local police force for protection. others, in prodominantly rural areas, feel safer protecting themselves. i wouldn't assume that i should tell any other city or state how to accomplish that goal.
 
i don't think it's a marginal position at all. when the supreme court knocked down the dc gun ban i was against it. the reason being that i'm for communities deciding the best way to protect themselves. gun control is a question of how people decide to protect themselves. some, mostly in urban populations, feel safer relying on the local police force for protection. others, in prodominantly rural areas, feel safer protecting themselves. i wouldn't assume that i should tell any other city or state how to accomplish that goal.

I am not saying opposing gun control is a marginal position. I am saying that opposing all gun control, based on paranoid visions of dystopias where governments turn on their people, so that they have to be protected from them by armed insurgencies, is a marginal position.

Personally I think its up to local communities too and should not be classified as a universal inalienable right handed down by God to the Founding Fathers on tablets of stone. It's a matter of balancing rights against responsibilities. Guns are for hunting and self protection and therefore have a use. But gun owners have a responsibility to keep and use their weapons responsibly according to judgements made today and not two hundred years ago.

The protection against tyrannical government has nothing to do with gun control any more. That is extremist nonsense that the majority of Americans laugh at. In well established democracies we are protected against tyranny by our ability to vote, by the separation of powers and by the rule of law. Guns are not necessary.

I am not sure how, but you seem to agree with the first part of my view. As well as thinking that you need to protect yourself against the coming government attack....I am confused!
 
Last edited:
What good would voting do if the government becomes tyrannical? If they are tyrannical then obviously your ballet becomes something they wipe their ass off with.



Any country that abolished the right of the people to keep and bear arms and became tyrannical will suffice.




You think if tyranny doesn't happen over night then it is not going to happen at all? You and your fellow countrymen are practically unarmed, the government has no reason to fear any of you.

Sorry james. I was asking if you could relate any of this baloney to reality.

Well established democracies since 1945 are not tyrannies. The evidence for this is clear. We hold regular elections and regularly switch governments. Typically it is only Marxists who dismiss these elections as an illusion of freedom.

You see you can live in a paranoid fantasy world where you imagine all sorts of terrible things happening. Or you can look at reality and see the EVIDENCE that free democratic peoples do not need guns to guarantee their authority over their governments. Our governments fear us because we can throw them out at elections. Which we do when they screw up.

Now maybe instead of lurid fantasies you could present some evidence?

Name a well established democracy that has become a tyranny. At most you can point to fledgling ones (like Weimar Germany) and these are complicated by the fact that it was defeated by millions of armed Germans who had been hoodwinked by politiicans into detesting democracy. Undoubtedly the German people had no wish to resist Hitler. They largely supported him.

A well established democracy that has become a tyranny because its people were not armed (which is nearly all well established democracies) has NEVER happened. In the early days of a democracy, a government morphing to tyranny is a distinct possibility, and this was a legitimate fear in 1776 (many wanted Washington to be King and it was a great achievement for him to hand over power).

The FF, like you, could not conceive of a government that would easily bow to the will of the people. There is however a difference between the FF and you. They lived in a time when governments had no democratic traditions and behaved like that. You do not.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom