Gun Control thread (merged many)

[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.

[Sailor Steve]

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.

You really need to study a little history. After a couple of taxes the Founders (all of them, not just the famous ones) overreacted by a huge margin, tarring and feathering tax collectors, rioting, mobbing and attacking soldiers merely for what they represented. This is not to say the British governors were any better, yelling for soldiers when a little honest discussion would have done the trick. To their credit the Founders didn't actually start shooting until troops were sent to confiscate weapons. The first time they got rational and logical was when they decided it was time to write the Declaration, and that was a year after the war had started. By that point they had to start being rational or lose everything.

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.

This is a good observation. If only you had started with this, rather than the way you did.

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.

And that's something you'll never get whenever a 'hot-button' topic like this arises. No one is being rational here, on either side. For something rational to happen it needs to be discussed rationally, not with words like "disgusting". This is, however, a start.