Let the great gun grab begin!

[HashiriyaS14]

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-241635

^^While I'll say that I don't like this one bit, I still don't see convincing evidence that the MOTIVATION for this is anything but wanting a more effective tool-set via which to track potential terrorists/whatever.

I don't like the legal precedent, but I still don't buy that this is being enacted with the intent for misuse.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI....html

AGAIN, I'm not sure how this is evidence of a premeditated conspiracy to impose new blanket limits on the freedoms of MOST Americans. They had some people they wanted to target and they "bent the rules" to accomplish their ends. This is unacceptable, but it isn't the same thing as if they had attempted to monitor all citizens. They're being open about why they did it. You need to prove that their intent is something other than what is being stated, and I don't see that here.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI....html

^^I remember this, it was all over the news at the time. ONCE AGAIN, I see no reason to believe that the intent is something other than the stated intent. Keeping tabs on all American citizens in an across-the-board manner is an infeasible task and I don't see why they would want to do that. They want a more potent tool-set to chase bad guys. Now, that doesn't mean they should HAVE it, but it doesn't mean it is somehow obscuring a greater and more nefarious effort either.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US....html

^^So....one chick ends up on the "no fly" list and you cite this as credible evidence of an orchestrated conspiracy to limit the freedoms of the citizenry across the board? Mmmm...nope.

You have also made some sort of assumption that the republicans are "my party". A rather dubious leap of "logic" but when taken into context of the body of your rapid turning into the credibility skid, hardly worth note.

I voted for McCain, not because I am a republican but because he was the lesser of two evils. If in the next election cycle, the democrats put up the less offensive candidate, they will get my vote.

Your views are the views of whoever you vote for. When you checked the box for John McCain, you are wholly endorsing each and every particular of his agenda as it stands at that time. You cannot pick and choose.

That doesn't mean you necessarily have to like it, but you have to accept that it is a compromise and that in order to get some of the things you want, you may have to endorse other things you're not so hot on. This is how voting works. I can't check the box for Obama but then add "I wish he was more of a free-trader" as an addendum essay answer.

The fact that you continue to dodge the issue, engage in ad hominem, appeals to ignorance, question begging, sweeping genralizations, and a cadre of other logical fallicies despite repeated attempts by several people to bring you into some semblance of a mature discussion is really tragic. You claim to be the voice of reason, a title you have awarded yourself, a claim you repeatedly show to be erroneous.

I'm not sure what issue I'm dodging. I'm not certain that you actually even realize what it is that we're discussing. If you think I've got it wrong, perhaps you should clarify it to me.

You are ,insomuch as I can see, asserting that there is one or many ongoing premeditated conspiracies that aim to severely limit the freedoms of the average American. You are then also asserting that a number of assorted laws have been drafted specifically to further this larger agenda rather than simply to accomplish the aims that have been specifically stated in said laws.

Here is your argument:

"DRAGONS EXIST! THEY EXIST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT THEY DON'T EXIST!"

This is completely ridiculous. The burden of proof here is on you, you're the one making the claim, and thus far I've seen nothing that qualifies as proof.

As the moderator of this section, I'm cracking down on the conspiracy threads as I believe that they detract from legitimate political discourse. If you can demonstrate credible evidence that said conspiracies exist, in this or any other thread, so be it, but otherwise, frankly, I'm going to start shutting them down. Accusations must be packaged with proof.

When I say proof, I am speaking of proof of INTENT. This entire discussion is a question of intent. A law that limits a liberty is not necessarily proof of a larger conspiracy to limit liberties unless specifically shown to be intended as such.

I'm not saying these are GOOD laws. I think we can both agree that warrant-less wiretapping is a bad idea, but that isn't the issue at hand. You're not just saying that it's a bad idea, you're saying that all these laws are part of some larger intentionally nefarious whole. I don't see any proof of that.

These threads are an ongoing distraction, a set of discussions on things that do not, in fact, exist.

[Logan76]

lol you two are in every political thread going at each other, I just grab my popcorn and sit back and watch hah.

[480sx]

TMS and 480 are (whether they realize it or not) arguing that this new law is being expressly designed to create a loophole which will later be exploited in some kind of "great gun grab", all of which is being planned from day 1. That's ridiculous.

Whether they realize it or not, they are making an argument. Nicely done, once again.

Pretty sure if TMS or i are making an argument, we know what the fvk we are saying. You however, seem to be incapable of reading, understanding, comprehending, whatever, our fairly simple arguments.

Once again, this argument that you seem to think we are making, is NOT what were saying at all.

Here is your argument:

"DRAGONS EXIST! THEY EXIST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT THEY DON'T EXIST!"

Its insulting that the moderator of our political forum sums up a legitimate multi faceted argument like this. Completely wrong i might add.

Its funny because that quote right there is a perfect example of the same fallacy you make in this thread, repeatedly.

As the moderator of this section, I'm cracking down on the conspiracy threads as I believe that they detract from legitimate political discourse. If you can demonstrate credible evidence that said conspiracies exist, in this or any other thread, so be it, but otherwise, frankly, I'm going to start shutting them down.

FOR THE LAST f***ING TIME. THIS THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A GOD DAMN CONSPIRACY. YOUR THE ONE TAKING IT THERE, NO ONE ELSE HAS SAID ANYTHING REMOTELY CLOSE TO THE GARBAGE ABOUT 'THE CONSPIRACY' ANYTHING AS you.

YOU are the one acting like the conspiracy theory nut job, with a most bizarre twist. YOU are f***ing up what could be a good discussion and a good thread with your horribly formed arguments, your personal attacks, and your own unique blend of ostrich-like nuttiness.

You might as well be a fanatical anticonspiracy theorist. GUESS WHAT! You take one little prefix out of that 3 word arrangement, and you get FANATICAL CONSPIRACY THEORIST.
Modified by 480sx at 6:59 PM 5/18/2009

[HashiriyaS14]

FOR THE LAST f***ING TIME. THIS THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A GOD DAMN CONSPIRACY. YOUR THE ONE TAKING IT THERE, NO ONE ELSE HAS SAID ANYTHING REMOTELY CLOSE TO THE GARBAGE ABOUT 'THE CONSPIRACY' ANYTHING AS you.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm largely ignoring your contributions to this discussion. I'm still pretty much responding to the first post and the title. As the moderator of this section, I spend a lot of time focusing on thread titles, as I feel that they should be an accurate representation of what is to be found within the thread.

TMS alleged that this law constitutes a "first salvo" in a "great gun grab". Implicit in these words is that the law is part of some larger orchestrated whole beyond the plain stated intent. He did not, however, prove conclusively that there is any larger nefarious scheme present to disarm America. He made a claim without any kind of legitimate backup.

If the answer is just: "I picked the wrong words in that first post and the title", then that's fine, but I haven't heard that yet. If he really just means "this is a shxtty law, and it needs to go away", I would just agree wholeheartedly and be gone. It's the title that I'm really taking issue with.

As far as I'm concerned, TMS, and by association you, are still asserting that there is some larger movement at work here beyond what is being explicitly stated. That constitutes a "conspiracy".

I'm sensitive to all this conspiracy talk for what SHOULD be obvious reasons. This section should be home to legitimate political discourse only and should generally follow the rules of civilized argument. One party should NOT be permitted to come in, make a bunch of allegations, and then disappear without having to back up their statements. I can't let the conservatives say that "Obama wants to grab all the guns" anymore than I can let the liberals say that "Bush wants to wiretap every American citizen". Both statements are equally ridiculous.

Cheap argumentative tactics will result in deleted posts in this section, period. Any unsubstantiated claims are a form of cheap argumentative tactics. No one can talk about a "great gun grab" unless it is indeed occurring in plain sight. You can talk about the law being crappy, because there's a law and it's existence is not in doubt, but no one, liberal or conservative, is permitted to imply the existence of things that may well not exist. It's my line to draw and that's where I'm drawing it.

I actually attempted to step down as mod of this section awhile back but no reasonably impartial person seemed to want to step up. If someone would care to do so, I'd welcome retirement. Furthermore, if an even-handed conservative mod (i.e. Bud) wants to step up and co-mod with me, we can start handling these issues together instead of my handling them unilaterally.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

I'll co-mod with you!

What better mods than two intelligent, abrasive dudes who get along so famously?

[480sx]

I'm still pretty much responding to the ...... title.

As far as I'm concerned, TMS, and by association you

Cheap argumentative tactics will result in deleted posts in this section, period.

but no one, liberal or conservative, is permitted to imply the existence of things that may well not exist.

I actually attempted to step down as mod of this section

Thats a list the fails in your last post.

You are inhibiting good discussion.

[themadscientist]

I'll co-mod with you!

What better mods than two intelligent, abrasive dudes who get along so famously?

I would pay to watch that. A whole forum silent while the mods go at each other.

Hey, wait a minute.....

[themadscientist]

Since Hash continues to want to engage in hyperbolic interpretation of my position, lets clarify for him. I will leave 480 to state his position for himself. Unlike some, I don't feel the need to present my interpretation of others opinions in a self-serving, insulting, dismissive manner.

Hash and I seem to agree that people do things based on self interest.

Hash and I seem to disagree to what extent politicians are willing to serve their interests. I am of the belief that politicians seek to accumulate power and that is their interest. Hash, you have made several posts on what you think is their interest, I will let them speak for themselves.

Using my starting point of accumulation and retention of power as the ends for the means I move to the means that serve that end.

A free electorate, an armed electorate, an electorate that cannot be easily brought to heel is a direct threat to a government that seeks to consolidate power and compel the aforementioned electorate to do as its told. For this reason, the people must be cautiously, systematically stripped of their rights. The pace at which this is done is crucial.

The behavior and statements of the players in this administration is evidence enough to me that they have an objective to erode the American public's second amendment rights.

To suggest that calling the first move of any plan by what it can logically be interpreted to be makes one a "whack job" is weak. This would be like arguing that suggesting the first move in a game of chess is designed to lead to checkmate on the opposing player is "rushing to judgment". Your argument sucks. The sum total of the base of your argument is "I disagree". Good for you, cookies and milk after nap time.

Want to demonstrate precedent to the contrary of my theory? That is more likely to get you consideration as a critical thinker rather than venomous rants spouted from your wobbly bully pulpit.

From Holder, to Clinton, to Emmanuel, Pelosi, Feinstein, all on record to the effect of restriction, databases, banning etc, the writing is on the wall. to expect them to write a bill titled HR666 we are coming for your guns is ridiculous, as has been most of your attempts at communicating your position here. Calling your opponent various names and awarding yourself unsubstantiated claim to "right" is rather comical.

YOU are the one who has treated the opposition with great disrespect.

YOU are the one who has leveled juvenile, personal insults and attacks upon the character of the opposition.

YOU are the one who has done nothing but repeat your beliefs without demonstrating why we should beleive your interpretation of the world.

I have provided several examples of abuse directly correlative to the kind of abuse I suggest could result from this legislation. That you don't think they are relevant is a personal choice you make for yourself, not others.

If anybody is engaging in dime store debate techniques it is you Hash. If anybody is guilty of unsubstantiated claims, it is you Hash.

Hypocritical much?

I suggest you cast that accusatory eye at your own work here. If you want to start deleting posts of the type you describe start with your own.

[HashiriyaS14]

Hash and I seem to agree that people do things based on self interest.

Hash and I seem to disagree to what extent politicians are willing to serve their interests. I am of the belief that politicians seek to accumulate power and that is their interest. Hash, you have made several posts on what you think is their interest, I will let them speak for themselves.

Using my starting point of accumulation and retention of power as the ends for the means I move to the means that serve that end.

^^Fair enough, we are disagreeing on self interest. I imagine this is because we hold somewhat different convinctions on the innate "goodness" of humans. This is a point on which few people agree precisely, so I won't press this one anymore.

A free electorate, an armed electorate, an electorate that cannot be easily brought to heel is a direct threat to a government that seeks to consolidate power and compel the aforementioned electorate to do as its told. For this reason, the people must be cautiously, systematically stripped of their rights. The pace at which this is done is crucial.

^^Ok, here's the problem.

You're seeing a "government that seeks to consolidate power" and I'm seeing "individuals who work in government who are seeking to maximize their own individual influence".

I'm not saying you're "wrong", as that's a totally subjective position and thus for either one of us to call the other one "wrong" would be silly.

My issues with this whole discussion aren't in WHAT you believe, as you're certainly entitled to believe whatever you choose. My issues are in how certain ideas impact discussion in this section, as I hope to clarify in a paragraph below.

Want to demonstrate precedent to the contrary of my theory? That is more likely to get you consideration as a critical thinker rather than venomous rants spouted from your wobbly bully pulpit.

From Holder, to Clinton, to Emmanuel, Pelosi, Feinstein, all on record to the effect of restriction, databases, banning etc, the writing is on the wall. to expect them to write a bill titled HR666 we are coming for your guns is ridiculous, as has been most of your attempts at communicating your position here. Calling your opponent various names and awarding yourself unsubstantiated claim to "right" is rather comical.

^^Again, I don't feel the need to demonstrate anything, I feel like if someone else makes a claim, the onus is on them to provide proof. Not proof to them, but proof to me, or to whomever the other side happens to be. This likely all ties back to how I see this section operating. I view the politics forum as debate team practice, effectively. Discussions must be defined, on-topic, and must take place within the narrow confines of certain rules for them to have any meaning. Otherwise it's just people yelling at each other. You've got a thread subject matter, you've got two or three sides, and no one presents any information that isn't 100% substantiated. Discussions can get messy enough with various subjective viewpoints on established facts that, IMO, they needn't be further muddied by the introduction of things that are not even 100% proven to exist.

I've made the mistake of sort of expecting people to do this on their own, and this obviously hasn't taken place. I should, then, either revise my expectation for the section, clarify my expectations, or simply let someone else run the show. I've reached no conclusion on that issue as yet.

My problem with "theories" (be they conspiratorial or otherwise) is that they offer a poor foundation for any discussion. If one party enters the discussion with the conviction that "X" (whatever it is) is a given, and then builds off that to make an argument, the opposition needs to first disprove "X" in order to offer an effective counter-argument. If "X" is just a theory, it can be nearly impossible to disprove, making the entire discussion effectively not worthwhile for the opposition. It then just becomes one side saying something and the other side not participating. This cannot occur, as then we just get a bunch of people standing on soapboxes talking with no one else listening.

The problem isn't the existence of the theory, as we all have theories. The problem is that one party is operating on the assumption that their theory is a given. This makes for crappy discussion, which can't happen, and so that then puts me in the position of having to just axe the whole thing. I don't want to have to do that.

Y

YOU are the one who has treated the opposition with great disrespect.

YOU are the one who has leveled juvenile, personal insults and attacks upon the character of the opposition.

^^Yep, I did. I shouldn't have done that, and I apologize. I have to walk the line between impartial moderation and actual participation in discussion myself, which I sometimes get tripped up on. It can be difficult for me to gracefully illustrate moderation rationale in situations where I am obviously at odds with the politics, as it undermines my credibility as objective.

Honestly, if Charlie was already a mod, I'd halfway consider taking him up on that. It's hard to have a more impartial standard than the hard-fought consensus of two parties that almost always disagree.

[480sx]

I will leave 480 to state his position for himself.

My position differs from yours and is interestingly enough more moderate between the two of you. I dont believe this is legislation IMMEDIATELY INTENDED to be a 'run on guns' ect ect. I believe it is partially in response to the massive amounts of American made assault weapons being smuggled out of the US and used in Mexico and abroad. I cant see it being a legitimate anti-terrorlst tool.

I think that in its best original intentions, it is a horribly misguided, piece of trash that should never hit the floor. If it were passed, it would once again, be legislation that would eventually be used to violate the constitution 'legally'. No one has brought up Habeas Corpus yet either. It might be a bit of a stretch, but i think it still holds some water. What about the citizen who gets denied his 2nd amendment rights and never gets his day in court? Never an explanation, never an accusation.

I believe that it COULD indeed be the 'first salvo', but there is no real evidence to support this theory and unfortunately we dont know what the monkeys in DC are really up to. The fact that it COULD be the first salvo should raise enough of an alarm, dont let it seem like i am minimizing the situation.

However, the balance to this is simply that, this is still a democracy. If the democrats were to try and pass garbage such as this, they wont stay in power for long, and their legislation shouldnt stay intact.

It just seems to me to be like the same kind of crap the government has been trying to pull, and pulling since 9/11.

---

My current position is simple. Hash has made a joke out of himself, this thread and this forum. He has contradicted himself so many times its absurd. He has yet to acknowledge his horribly formed fallacious arguments, that IMO are a waste of everyones time here. I have a hard time thinking that its worth engaging in a discussion in a forum moderated by such a person who has so little respect and knowledge of the fundamentals of debate. The CORE of real politics.
Modified by 480sx at 4:50 PM 5/19/2009

[themadscientist]

I got the feeling we were kind of arguing on tangents to each other.

I'm not a conspiracy nut. Every time I hear somebody talking about the government blew up the towers , and they are going to herd us into camps and such illuminati BS (saw Angels & Demons last night, kick a**), I have to catch the bile in my throat.

I beleive the current administration seeks to erode 2nd ammendment rights as much as possible, that's about the size of it. No secret meetings with shadow powerbrokers in Geneva and new world orders, just garden variety greed and lust for power.

I can see no additional gain for this legislation. As I described in my first post, there are already laws on the books that would address what this thing purports too. If someone is seriously being watched, there is enough reason to pick them up.

Taking that and plugging it into the first part it adds up to a plan, not a conspiracy and all the spookyiness and crackpot connotation that brings.

I do worry because I really don't trust our government as an institution. I have seen enough examples of legislators who seem to actually fight for our rights and it gives me hope. I have sort of a trust but verify feeling.

I think interested parties, ie. us and others like us who bother to even ask questions, have a duty to beat these issues and see if they pass muster so vigorous, perhaps even heated debate is required. Good stuff.

If we are awarding "kook points" though, I have two assault rifles on order NOT paid with my credit card.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Honestly, if Charlie was already a mod, I'd halfway consider taking him up on that. It's hard to have a more impartial standard than the hard-fought consensus of two parties that almost always disagree.

I'd most certainly erase your posts while drunk.

[bobotech]

I believe it is partially in response to the massive amounts of American made assault weapons being smuggled out of the US and used in Mexico and abroad. I cant see it being a legitimate anti-terrorlst tool.

Why the f*** should I care about guns being illegally smuggled into Mexcianland from the US? If the stupid Mexican government and our governement would actually enforce the borders a lot more, there would be much less of this alleged smuggling.

In the end, I don't give one rat's a** about guns smuggling into that country since its not MY responsiblity to prevent them from being smuggled. I just don't want MY ability to buy whatever I want in the way of guns to be infringed.

Its not MY fault that people allegedly smuggle guns into Mexcianland so don't infringe on my rights.

[themadscientist]

It is my beleif, I have not verified it as of yet, but would value some hard stats one way or the other if someone can get them, that the majority of military "style" weapons the gangs down there are using are either illegally aquired elsewhere or brought in by Mexican Army deserters.

Regardless, coming from a country that aids the smuggling of thousands of its own citizens into America, the crys of "foul" IF weapons are indeed being legally procured in the states for smuggling into Mexico, rings a bit hollow.

[480sx]

Check these links out TMS.

This is what i was going on. I have read a few stories of this nature.http://articles.latimes.com/20...uns10

Lol but i found this too.. http://www.foxnews.com/politic...-come/


Modified by 480sx at 10:09 PM 5/19/2009

[HashiriyaS14]

My current position is simple. Hash has made a joke out of himself, this thread and this forum. He has contradicted himself so many times its absurd. He has yet to acknowledge his horribly formed fallacious arguments, that IMO are a waste of everyones time here. I have a hard time thinking that its worth engaging in a discussion in a forum moderated by such a person who has so little respect and knowledge of the fundamentals of debate. The CORE of real politics.

If you want to rail on me, I suggest for your own good that you do it personally, over email.

At any rate TMS, I get where you're coming from. I'll shoot you a reply email later today.

[themadscientist]

kewl

[480sx]

EDIT - Please note when you edit a post.

Wish i had the cash to order an extra AR right now..
Modified by 480sx at 3:46 AM 5/21/2009

[480sx]

Its not MY fault that people allegedly smuggle guns into Mexcianland so don't infringe on my rights.

I completely agree with you btw.

[4cefed]

I completely agree with you btw.

Seconded, and

[JustinStrife]

Why the f*** should I care about guns being illegally smuggled into Mexcianland from the US? If the stupid Mexican government and our governement would actually enforce the borders a lot more, there would be much less of this alleged smuggling.

In the end, I don't give one rat's a** about guns smuggling into that country since its not MY responsiblity to prevent them from being smuggled. I just don't want MY ability to buy whatever I want in the way of guns to be infringed.

Its not MY fault that people allegedly smuggle guns into Mexcianland so don't infringe on my rights.

Amen.

Think I'm going to go out and buy another AR-15 now.