Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Tchocky]

The worst part is that she was forced by the President to do the address. She had no choice in the matter.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

The worst part is that she was forced by the President to do the address. She had no choice in the matter.

Really?

[eddie]

Since when is it illegal for a private citizen to speak in this cou8ntry. Or is that reserved for the Tea Party looneys and the punked up NRA.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by eddie

Since when is it illegal for a private citizen to speak in this cou8ntry. Or is that reserved for the Tea Party looneys and the punked up NRA.

[Bilge_Rat]

bubba80, you are so predictable...so graduate law school yet?

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

bubba80, you are so predictable...so graduate law school yet?

I detect your sarcasm but next year will be my final year.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by eddie

Since when is it illegal for a private citizen to speak in this cou8ntry. Or is that reserved for the Tea Party looneys and the punked up NRA.

I do not fault her as she is emotional and not thinking clearly.The mother of the victim may be a liberal hack but I will not blame her for now and will give her the benefit of the doubt.However, it is inappropriate for the president to allow this as it is exploiting a tragedy to advance his unconstitutional agenda.Like I said, he(they) know they have no legal, rational, or even moral ground to stand in the gun "debate", so they appeal not to the rational but the irrational, the emotions of citizens hoping to gain enough support.They do this on every issue , it is wrong and just disgusting.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Really?

Hell no.

This kind of thing could be seen as emotionally manipulative from a certain point of view.

You could also look at when Pres. Obama said that the Newtown shootings were the worst day of his presidency, and so he feels very strongly about this, therefore getting the voice of someone affected by it out there is important to him.

Both arguments are valid, but they are both irrelevant. Nobody who's inclined to the NRA/GOA view on this will change their minds, nobody who wants gun control will have their minds changed on this.

Because it's entirely subjective and subject to pre-existing biases. By which I mean it's standard Bubblehead territory.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Hell no.

This kind of thing could be seen as emotionally manipulative from a certain point of view.

You could also look at when Pres. Obama said that the Newtown shootings were the worst day of his presidency, and so he feels very strongly about this, therefore getting the voice of someone affected by it out there is important to him.

Both arguments are valid, but they are both irrelevant. Nobody who's inclined to the NRA/GOA view on this will change their minds, nobody who wants gun control will have their minds changed on this.

Because it's entirely subjective and subject to pre-existing biases. By which I mean it's standard Bubblehead territory.

That's the great thing here, this is not about opinions, it is about CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS that the Government shall NOT infringe upon.The Federal government has no right to do anything here, especially when the goal is not "safety" but to take a right, which they are not permitted to do. However, the point is that it is wrong to exploit this poor woman or any victim to advance his agenda.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Hell no.

Is that, "Hell no the president didn't force her", or is that " Hell no she didn't have a choice"?

This kind of thing could be seen as emotionally manipulative from a certain point of view.

Well I think putting someone up on the mic like that is pretty damn manipulative. It's a direct and blatant effect to tug on people's heartstrings, as opposed to sound logic and reasoning. Which, from a certain point of view ( ), is wrong and immoral.

You could also look at when Pres. Obama said that the Newtown shootings were the worst day of his presidency, and so he feels very strongly about this, therefore getting the voice of someone affected by it out there is important to him.

Honestly, I think he was waiting for an opportunity to pounce. Did you watch the speech where he supposedly cried? I'm no expert on body language, but his crying on stage was lacking some vital details of sincerity:
- Your eyes are connected to your nose via tear ducts. I don't recall him sniffeling at all.
- His eyes weren't red in the slightest, as crying is apt to cause.
- No tear left his eyes. He put his finger up to the corner of his eye, paused in his speech, and that was it.

Now, it's not my intention to turn this into a debate about Obama, body language or what not, my point here is I doubt it was the worst day of his presidency, and i'm just giving you the reasons why I think this.

Both arguments are valid, but they are both irrelevant. Nobody who's inclined to the NRA/GOA view on this will change their minds, nobody who wants gun control will have their minds changed on this.

Because it's entirely subjective and subject to pre-existing biases. By which I mean it's standard Bubblehead territory.

Well i agree nobody is going to change their minds. In fact I think it will only serve to heighten tensions between opposing views, and here I would take issue with Obama, Fienstien, et al, for inflaming and making the issue more divisive then it needed to be. They sure as hell got me politically active, which is no easy task.


EDIT:

Originally Posted by Méo

According to Nietzsche in his book ''beyond good and evil'' the notion of good and bad had to be replaced by the notion of ''values''.

Maybe the values of those who experienced a terrible tragedy like this simply switched from total freedom to a certain type of regulation (particularly for those who are mentally unstable).

Just sayin...

I experienced plenty of violence growing up as a kid. Drive by shootings, gang violence, people out to get me wiith assorted weapons including guns, etc. etc. It didn't change my opinion any. Law and legislature is the field of logic and reasoning. Not emotionally charged kneejerk reactions.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Well I think putting someone up on the mic like that is pretty damn manipulative. It's a direct and blatant effect to tug on people's heartstrings, as opposed to sound logic and reasoning. Which, from a certain point of view ( ), is wrong and immoral.

Her emotional effect is exactly why she's been chosen to give the address. Politics is ALL about emotion and whilst logic and reasoning are held up to be higher forms of thought but some, emotions are the reason we care enough about something to say something or do something. That is initelf entirely logical. The choice of speaker is also entirely logical and well reasoned because of the emotional response it is expected to promote. The bigger question is whether it will have enough emotional power to change peoples opinions or not.

Well i agree nobody is going to change their minds. In fact I think it will only serve to heighten tensions between opposing views, and here I would take issue with Obama, Fienstien, et al, for inflaming and making the issue more divisive then it needed to be. They sure as hell got me politically active, which is no easy task.

So your emotions were engaged to get you off your backside and become politically active.

I experienced plenty of violence growing up as a kid. Drive by shootings, gang violence, people out to get me wiith assorted weapons including guns, etc. etc. It didn't change my opinion any. Law and legislature is the field of logic and reasoning. Not emotionally charged kneejerk reactions.

But politics is all about emotional reactions and quite a lot of law and legislature is based on those emotions. The two cannot be separated. The birth of your country and its consittution was based almot entirely on the emotional responses of the Founding Fathers. Were they not, you would still be flying a flag with a Union Jack in the corner.

[Ducimus]

Tarjak, in short, I disagree, on all points.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Tarjak, in short, I disagree, on all points.

So the govt are not trying to use this woman's emotional tug to sway opinion?
Further emotion plays no part in politics.?
Thats some pretty strange logic and reasoning in my book.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Her emotional effect is exactly why she's been chosen to give the address. Politics is ALL about emotion and whilst logic and reasoning are held up to be higher forms of thought but some, emotions are the reason we care enough about something to say something or do something. That is initelf entirely logical. The choice of speaker is also entirely logical and well reasoned because of the emotional response it is expected to promote. The bigger question is whether it will have enough emotional power to change peoples opinions or not.


So your emotions were engaged to get you off your backside and become politically active.


But politics is all about emotional reactions and quite a lot of law and legislature is based on those emotions. The two cannot be separated. The birth of your country and its consittution was based almot entirely on the emotional responses of the Founding Fathers. Were they not, you would still be flying a flag with a Union Jack in the corner.

Really, you are incorrect here. The emotions you refer to(ill just call them that for discussions sake) were not irrational ones though.After a long series of abuses, the founders made a sound, rational and logical choice to fight for liberty, to free their nation from oppression, which is a natural instinct more than an emotion.

Emotions over a tragedy like Newtown while justified, are not the same and people should not allow them to influence public policy.The emotions this woman is feeling is to give up our rights in order to prevent another tragedy? Well time and time again it's proven this will not help.Only people driven by an irrational, illogical force such as grief would do so.Much like 9/11, so many are ready to surrender their rights in the name of "safety" while not thinking clearly.Really, it is akin to someone shooting a lover when upset, caught in the heat of the moment.Of course people closest to it are affected the most and the longest, which disqualifies them from offering an objective opinion, at least for a while.

People like Obama could care less, well I will be nice, he cares but sees an opportunity here to advance his agenda, knowing that many of the sheep will just fall in line, as they have a few times before.Obama is many things but I have never said he is dumb.Although if one is a marxist, there is a certain lack of intellect but that is another story.Bottom line, this is exploitation of people who are for the time being, unstable(somewhat) and in no way qualified to make judgements on public policy. Issues like this require rational, well thought out decision making.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Really, you are incorrect here. The emotions you refer to(ill just call them that for discussions sake) were not irrational ones though.After a long series of abuses, the founders made a sound, rational and logical choice to fight for liberty, to free their nation from oppression, which is a natural instinct more than an emotion.

I don't think I said either Ducimus or the Founding father's emotional responses were irrational. Merely that their emotions drove their behaviours. What they rationalise about their responses makes no difference to my point. Emotions and politics are intrinsically linked and are inseparable. When a politician says something about something you care about, you are more likely to have an emotional response that motivates you to do or say something about it.

Call it what you will, but natural instinct and emotion are one and the same thing. It is a what your pre-frontal cortex does that makes it so.

Emotions over a tragedy like Newtown while justified, are not the same and people should not allow them to influence public policy.The emotions this woman is feeling is to give up our rights in order to prevent another tragedy? Well time and time again it's proven this will not help.Only people driven by an irrational, illogical force such as grief would do so.Much like 9/11, so many are ready to surrender their rights in the name of "safety" while not thinking clearly.Really, it is akin to someone shooting a lover when upset, caught in the heat of the moment.Of course people closest to it are affected the most and the longest, which disqualifies them from offering an objective opinion, at least for a while.

Why is their grief irrational? Can a person experiencing grief not be rational? Why is their opinion any less valid that someone that was not directly affected?

People like Obama could care less, well I will be nice, he cares but sees an opportunity here to advance his agenda, knowing that many of the sheep will just fall in line, as they have a few times before.Obama is many things but I have never said he is dumb.Although if one is a marxist, there is a certain lack of intellect but that is another story.Bottom line, this is exploitation of people who are for the time being, unstable(somewhat) and in no way qualified to make judgements on public policy. Issues like this require rational, well thought out decision making.

Which is why it is being debated in that paragon of logic and rational thought, the US Senate and Congress.