Cynic wrote:
Of course, I bet the concentration of racists in the tea bagger ranks is higher than in the surrounding environment.
Cynic:
That probably depends on how you define racist. If you consider racist the nanny-state "oh-you-poor-(skin color here)-can't-take-care-of yourself" types who advocate for enabling social welfare programs and affirmative aciton, then I would say the concentration is probably equal.
catman wrote:
Y'know, I never have understood that. It seems to me that liberals would defend the right to gun ownnership just like the other rights they are so passionate about. The conservatives have co-opted it, and liberals shouldn't have let it happen.
catman:
The conservatives have co-opted nothing. The liberals handed them the second on a silver platter. I'm a card-carrying ACLU member but they have their position on the second all screwed up: http://www.aclu.o...-amendment
I'd be delighted if my guys got on the right side of the Constitution and the Supremes.
Kowboy wrote:
That probably depends on how you define racist. If you consider racist the nanny-state "oh-you-poor-(skin color here)-can't-take-care-of yourself" types who advocate for enabling social welfare programs and affirmative action, then I would say the concentration is probably equal.
Kowboy: You are right, the liberals did hand the Second to the conservatives on a silver platter. I simply don't understand why the right to bear arms is perceived as somehow different from the other rights liberals are so eager to defend. As far as I'm concerned, they missed the bus.
If I may be so bold. I will not speak for liberals partially because I am far to the left of what is defined as liberal in this country, but I will make what I think is their argument for limitations on certain weapons.
The basic argument against hand weapons is rather simple. They have very limited usefulness for the general public. They can be enjoyed for target practice. They sometimes would be useful for killing small predators or animals like snakes or possums. Yes, they can be useful for personal defense. But primarily they are useful for the killing of other humans. If they are legally limited, if concealed, if used in furtherance of a felony, if in some cases simply possessed, that may limit the rather excessive murder rate in this country.
I have personally given up on forbidding hand gun ownership. I believe it is correct but I believe that far too many years of history have made that position mute. I also think that the political upheaval would obscure other more important issues.
If anyone cares I have several friends who own hand guns and have used them in target practice myself.
I would hope that those who advocate 2nd amendment rights here would understand that automatic weapons should be limited entirely to the police and military. Automatic weapons offer essentially no use to the average citizen. They are designed only for the purpose of killing large numbers of people.
I am an advocate of civil rights. I also understand that yelling fire in a crowded building without there being a fire should be condemned. I would suggest that carrying an automatic weapon into a crowded building should also be condemned.
Believing in civil rights without some level of constraint can be dangerous to the society. This said by someone who thinks that revolutionary change is required in the socioeconomic system.
Kowboy, It is late at night and I am not ready to go to bed and I am on a roll. So let me address your nanny state comment directly.
What nanny state do you refer to. The one that gives trillions to the people who gave us the greatest financial crisis since the great depression or the one that gives a pittance to those who are in need.
Almost all developed states have a sense of community. They understand that if some in that community are suffering there is an obligation to the state to do the what they can to alleviate that suffering. It is also generally understood that there are social reasons for the state of the suffering. It is usually that social conditions outside the control of the suffering have greatly effected their condition. Is this situation complex and not necessarily caused by the immediate conditions, yes. Should one ignore the possible fact that the suffering may have contributed to their condition, no.
In any rational society there should be an obligation to protect the most vulnerable. Should this obligation be exercised without consideration of why they are vulnerable, yes. Should this obligation be met without conditions, no.
But the society itself should make an effort to understand why the vulnerable/suffering are included in it and make an effort to correct that condition without making value judgments that are comfortable to the society in general.
Login
Happy
Tired
Similar Threads