For Open Minds and Independent Thinkers

[bu villain]

For those of you who consider yourselves open minded and independent when it comes to political views, when's the last time you changed your mind on a political issue? What were the circumstances that caused the change? Also if you consider yourself a republican or democrat, what is the biggest issue you hold a different view of than most of your party?

If you want to debate a particular issue, please take it to a new thread.

For myself, I was originally pro-abortion rights and was happy with the current legislation. After reading a lot about ethics theories I realized that Americans' ethical theories are much more diversified than I thought before and were equally justifiable (although I think many people's abortion beliefs are not consistant with any reasonable ethical theory). This combined with my constitutionalist beliefs led me to believe that the Roe v Wade decision should be overturned and left for the states to decide.

[BanginJimmy]

I'm an economic conservative and lean liberal on social issues so I dont fall into line with any party. I honestly cant think of a single issue that I have made a firm decision on that I have changed my mind.

For the sake of argument, I will say I disagree with republicans on prayer in school. The vast majority of republicans seem to be in favor of it, but really dont have a clue. Allowing organized prayer in public schools means that you christian kid may be taught to pray as a budist, muslim, or jew. There is nothing wrong with those religions, but I know those same christians who want prayer in school, would be outraged to hear that their kids are subjected to that.

[Verik]

considering the only thing i give a rat's ass about is economics, no i haven't changed a major opinion. I'm open minded and by that I mean willing to consider a differing opinion, take it into thought and try to see things from their shoes but being open minded doesn't mean you change your personal beliefs... its simply defines how you take into consideration the possibility of a better alternative.

[bu villain]

considering the only thing i give a rat's ass about is economics, no i haven't changed a major opinion. I'm open minded and by that I mean willing to consider a differing opinion, take it into thought and try to see things from their shoes but being open minded doesn't mean you change your personal beliefs... its simply defines how you take into consideration the possibility of a better alternative.

I agree but there are so many complex issues and noone knows everything about all the issues. If you a truly open minded and seek out new information then there is a good chance that at some point you will learn something that will change the way you see things. Of course it's not gonna happen every day. Also you may only care about economics but there are so many issues within economics (tax rates, trade issues, contract law, etc.)

[SampaGuy]

Just search for any gun control thread on here, its pathetic, all the NRA members prefer to just simply invalidate any argument put forth rather than to actually debate the issue. Which is why I don't waste my time anymore.

[BanginJimmy]

Just search for any gun control thread on here, its pathetic, all the NRA members prefer to just simply invalidate any argument put forth rather than to actually debate the issue. Which is why I don't waste my time anymore.

I take it you believe no one should be allowed to own a gun? That makes sense, you know, all those people that legally purchase guns are out there killing people. You must believe that if the govt banned guns criminals would willingly turn their guns in too.

For every case you can find of someone with a legally purchased weapon killing someone, I can find an instance of someone with a legally purchased handgun using it to protect themselves or someone else.

[bdydrpdmazda]

I take it you believe no one should be allowed to own a gun? That makes sense, you know, all those people that legally purchase guns are out there killing people. You must believe that if the govt banned guns criminals would willingly turn their guns in too.

For every case you can find of someone with a legally purchased weapon killing someone, I can find an instance of someone with a legally purchased handgun using it to protect themselves or someone else.

X2

[SampaGuy]

1. Dont ruin this guy's thread

2. That is not my view. My view is just on restrictions on where you shouldn't be allowed to carry, and how easily you any moron can get one in their hands.

[eraser4g63]

1. Dont ruin this guy's thread

2. That is not my view. My view is just on restrictions on where you shouldn't be allowed to carry, and how easily you any moron can get one in their hands.

Because if they restricted it more people who illegally carry would follow the new laws.

[81911SC]

Because if they restricted it more people who illegally carry would follow the new laws.

Don't try to make sense to this guy, wasting time.

[eraser4g63]

Don't try to make sense to this guy, wasting time.

Touche,

[SampaGuy]

damn this thread quickly became a redneck reunion.

did u misread the thread title?

[Verik]

I agree but there are so many complex issues and noone knows everything about all the issues. If you a truly open minded and seek out new information then there is a good chance that at some point you will learn something that will change the way you see things. Of course it's not gonna happen every day. Also you may only care about economics but there are so many issues within economics (tax rates, trade issues, contract law, etc.)

I absolutely agree, I love learning new information about topics but it still comes down to your personal stance. New information is always to be taken into consideration but that doesn't necessarily change your thought process.

Take healthcare for example... If all of a sudden the efficiency of the government programs in place exceeded the efficiency of free markets, then yes I would be far more likely to support a move to a government program for healthcare. The thing healthcare people argue based on isn't what is empirical though, they argue on theory, "oh man healthcare will be different than every other gov't program and it will actually be efficient and insure everyone without excessive waste".... if you're going to say that, be sure you have examples where the government has done that before because its track record is terrible in the areas of waste management.

I love economics yes and my opinion has changed before on the subject, however as I learn more and more, I develop my own theories and concepts further (which is very much in line with milton friedman's side of the coin rather than the keynesian economic theories). I believe certain actions are for certain times, and I'm absolutely open to learning when new findings come up. However just claims like "lowering taxes for the bottom 95% will stimulate the economy" when there is very limited supporting correlating evidence (and when previous policies of lowering tax on the top 5% has improved economic conditions in times of recession or low growth) then I'm very unlikely to change my stance. My stance is based on a rational (economically speaking) logic. If you are going to claim that a policy is going to do something, show me the theory that supports it. I can't stand all these people who take stances and make arguments on economic matters and argue out of pure ignorance and bs statements (a lot more politicians do this than you imagine).

Because if they restricted it more people who illegally carry would follow the new laws.

So you think it's appropriate that repeat assault offenders are perfectly mentally stable to carry a CCW permit? Or own an assault weapon? JW.... im not a big gun politics buff, and fairly apathetic towards the issue of the restriction (although I do support bearing arms, which includes: semi automatic weapons, pistols, non sawed off shotties, etc... I just think there are limitations, such as violent criminals and people with mental health issues do not earn the privilege of owning a gun). Remember, as with many things in this country, this is a privilege, not a right. Just like a driver's license... sure you shouldn't discriminate in giving out the privilege to drive on the road when the person has done nothing wrong, but at the same time someone who has 3 dui's and no insurance in the past 6 months has cast responsibility to the wind and has not earned the privilege to drive..

[David88vert]

.... Remember, as with many things in this country, this is a privilege, not a right. Just like a driver's license... sure you shouldn't discriminate in giving out the privilege to drive on the road when the person has done nothing wrong, but at the same time someone who has 3 dui's and no insurance in the past 6 months has cast responsibility to the wind and has not earned the privilege to drive..

Incorrect. You have a constitutional right to bear arms. You do not have a right to a driver's license.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller

[BanginJimmy]

damn this thread quickly became a redneck reunion.

did u misread the thread title?

SO now anyone that believes in the rights that are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is just as redneck? Typical liberal.

[Verik]

Incorrect. You have a constitutional right to bear arms. You do not have a right to a driver's license.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller

So you are making an argument that a repeat violent criminal offender has the right and should be allowed to buy an automatic assault weapon? If you are not hypocritical in your stance you will say yes, he has that right.

[David88vert]

So you are making an argument that a repeat violent criminal offender has the right and should be allowed to buy an automatic assault weapon? If you are not hypocritical in your stance you will say yes, he has that right.

You are wanting to deal with hypotheticals, rather than the law. I said nothing about any criminals. You said that owning a gun was a priviledge, like driving, and not a right. You are wrong, plain and simple.


We will assume that when you say repeat violent criminal offender, that you are referring to someone who has actually been convicted of multiple felonies. Obviously, someone who has not been convicted is not a criminal, and retains all of their rights, no matter how many times that they have been accused.
If you would read GA criminal code 16-11-120 - 16-11-134, you would already know that:
"The following persons are not allowed by Georgia Law to keep, own, bear, wear, and/or carry firearms; any person convicted of a felony offense, Any person who has previously been convicted of or who has previously entered a guilty plea to the offense of murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, rape, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy, aggravated sexual battery, or any felony involving the use or possession of a firearm and who shall have on or within arm's reach of his or her person a firearm during the commission of, or the attempt to commit:
Any crime against or involving the person of another;
The unlawful entry into a building or vehicle;
A theft from a building or theft of a vehicle;
Any crime involving the possession, manufacture, delivery, distribution, dispensing, administering, selling, or possession with intent to distribute any controlled substance
Any crime involving the trafficking of cocaine, marijuana, or illegal drugs."

On other words, he is already banned from possessing a firearm, unless all of his convictions are expunged.

Basically, you need to educate yourself. I am not being hypocritical - you are just making an idiotic statement.

[BanginJimmy]

So you are making an argument that a repeat violent criminal offender has the right and should be allowed to buy an automatic assault weapon? If you are not hypocritical in your stance you will say yes, he has that right.

Its not hypocritical at all. When you are convicted of a felony, you give up the right to own a firearm, it is not taken away. Just like you give up the right to vote, and many other rights that you would otherwise have.

[Verik]

You are wanting to deal with hypotheticals, rather than the law. I said nothing about any criminals. You said that owning a gun was a priviledge, like driving, and not a right. You are wrong, plain and simple.

/sigh/.... Last I checked, the 4th amendment is the only "right" people have no problem taking away from others based on certain circumstances or conditions (i.e. crime). You are arguing semantics of wording, which is a waste of time with someone like you who doesn't even know the definition of the words you speak of. So lets take, right and condition and put them together... since that is what you are claiming is the 2nd amendment (by your own statements), conditional rights. Last time I checked, a conditional right is considered a privilege. You tell me to educate myself? Go use a fucking dictionary.

priv⋅i⋅lege  [priv-uh-lij, priv-lij] Show IPA noun, verb, -leged, -leg⋅ing.
–noun
1. a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
2. a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
4. the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
5. any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.

Its not hypocritical at all. When you are convicted of a felony, you give up the right to own a firearm, it is not taken away. Just like you give up the right to vote, and many other rights that you would otherwise have.

When convicted you don't give up jack shit. They don't say "you're guilty, do you want to give up your rights to bear arms?". The "right" is removed from him by the courts. Therefore his right is given based on condition of him not committing a crime. I really don't want to explain this again... just read above.


End of argument.

ps, I was fucking agreeing with you redneck douches from the start in regards to "actual law and policy" and yet you want to argue semantics of wording, which you lost on. No wonder people here claim that its hypocritical you even posted in a thread named this.

[David88vert]

/sigh/.... Last I checked, the 4th amendment is the only "right" people have no problem taking away from others based on certain circumstances or conditions (i.e. crime). You are arguing semantics of wording, which is a waste of time with someone like you who doesn't even know the definition of the words you speak of. So lets take, right and condition and put them together... since that is what you are claiming is the 4th amendment (by your own statements), conditional rights. Last time I checked, a conditional right is considered a privilege. You tell me to educate myself? Go use a fucking dictionary.

When convicted you don't give up jack shit. They don't say "you're guilty, do you want to give up your rights to bear arms?". The "right" is removed from him by the courts. Therefore his right is given based on condition of him not committing a crime. I really don't want to explain this again... just read above.


End of argument.

ps, I was fucking agreeing with you redneck douches from the start in regards to "actual law and policy" and yet you want to argue semantics of wording, which you lost on. No wonder people here claim that its hypocritical you even posted in a thread named this.

You are wrong yet again. Please put down your crack pipe and pick up some law books.

Second Amendment - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment states and establishes gun ownership as a right, not a priviledge. They would have stated priviledge if that is what they wanted to state. - http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...lofrights.html


The State makes the laws regarding disability of rights due to state felony convictions. Simplified for you - http://www.georgiapacking.org/law.php
http://www.georgiapacking.org/GaCode...11&section=133
On purely semantic terms, "give up rights to guns" is incorrect. Technically, if you are convicted, federal or stat law disables your right to purchase or possess a firearm. The removal of the disability is commonly referred to restoration of rights.

I never referred to the Fourth Amendment - that concerns search and seizure. Please learn your amendments.

[Verik]

You are wrong yet again. Please put down your crack pipe and pick up some law books.

Second Amendment - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

You are right, I cited the 4th as the 2nd. First time I have been wrong in this thread.

The State makes the laws regarding disability of rights due to state felony convictions. Simplified for you - http://www.georgiapacking.org/law.php
http://www.georgiapacking.org/GaCode...11&section=133
On purely semantic terms, "give up rights to guns" is incorrect. Technically, if you are convicted, federal or stat law disables your right to purchase or possess a firearm. The removal of the disability is commonly referred to restoration of rights.

Therefore based on the conditions of not committing a felony, you maintain your rights to bear arms. Are you fucking illiterate? Or have you just imagined up a definition for privilege? A privilege is a form of rights by its very definition! Calling something a privilege is simply explaining something as a conditional rights which IN YOUR OWN WORDS, you have described the 2nd amendment as being. Give up already and go read a fucking dictionary you ignorant redneck fuck. Seriously did they not teach you how to understand a definition before you dropped out of the 3rd grade? All you choose to do with someone who agrees with a pro-gun pov, is argue semantics to try and boost your epenis and stroke your superiority complex, but you backfire horribly when you argue and end up losing at your own argument.

[BanginJimmy]

When convicted you don't give up jack shit. They don't say "you're guilty, do you want to give up your rights to bear arms?".

Actually you do have a choice. If you dont CHOOSE to commit a crime then no one can take away that right.

[Verik]

Actually you do have a choice. If you dont CHOOSE to commit a crime then no one can take away that right.

Then you are beginning to discuss causality and not law. You shift from a empirical discussion of law to one of theoretical philosophy (i mean shit, there are so many what if's that rebuttal your one liner about not choosing to commit a crime its not fucking funny, with the obvious being, what if you didnt do it but are convicted. don't perpetuate stupid infinites in an argument that you tried to focus on "law"). Is that how you avoid admitting you are wrong in an argument? You wage an argument based on semantics, and lose, and change the focus to avoid admitting you were wrong. This is where you get your close minded reputation from. The inability to see your own faults and acknowledge them.

You both jumped on my fucking case screaming "zomg omg such a fucking idiot, its a right not a privilege."..... then when you finally crack a dictionary (or in this case, let someone else... such as myself, crack one open for you) and realize that a privilege is a form of right and that you have been actually claiming the definition of privilege all along to support the 2nd amendment rights.... all you can do is change topic to avoid being embarrassed. Seriously? Grow the fuck up and admit you were wrong in the first place for jumping all over me (which in reality was solely because of my word "privilege" as nothing else in my original statement of position has been challenged... most likely because you support the stance i take but the superiority complex on the issue makes you feel the need to argue the use of the word you dont even know the correct definition to.)

[BanginJimmy]

Then you are beginning to discuss causality and not law. You shift from a empirical discussion of law to one of theoretical philosophy (i mean shit, there are so many what if's that rebuttal your one liner about not choosing to commit a crime its not fucking funny, with the obvious being, what if you didnt do it but are convicted. don't perpetuate stupid infinites in an argument that you tried to focus on "law"). Is that how you avoid admitting you are wrong in an argument? You wage an argument based on semantics, and lose, and change the focus to avoid admitting you were wrong. This is where you get your close minded reputation from. The inability to see your own faults and acknowledge them.

Well if you want to find ANY reason I may be wrong you can find alot of them. The simple truth of the matter is that the number of innocent people that get convicted are far fewer than the number of guilty people that go free.

You have yet to show me where I am wrong though. You simply pointed out 1 way in which someone that didnt choose to give up the right had it taken away.

[David88vert]

You are right, I cited the 4th as the 2nd. First time I have been wrong in this thread.



Therefore based on the conditions of not committing a felony, you maintain your rights to bear arms. Are you fucking illiterate? Or have you just imagined up a definition for privilege? A privilege is a form of rights by its very definition! Calling something a privilege is simply explaining something as a conditional rights which IN YOUR OWN WORDS, you have described the 2nd amendment as being. Give up already and go read a fucking dictionary you ignorant redneck fuck. Seriously did they not teach you how to understand a definition before you dropped out of the 3rd grade? All you choose to do with someone who agrees with a pro-gun pov, is argue semantics to try and boost your epenis and stroke your superiority complex, but you backfire horribly when you argue and end up losing at your own argument.

As I have stated previously, a convicted felon already cannot purchase or possess a firearm, so your question, "So you are making an argument that a repeat violent criminal offender has the right and should be allowed to buy an automatic assault weapon? " is completely and absolutely moronic.

You are the one arguing semantics, and unable to comprehend basic law, so when you pass the bar you can come back and talk. Until then, try to get an education. You don't even know what the amendments are, nor have a clue about basic rights, especially those regarding firearms.
Some more gun law education for you:
http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=60
http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/GASL.pdf
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/index.htm

[David88vert]

Then you are beginning to discuss causality and not law. You shift from a empirical discussion of law to one of theoretical philosophy (i mean shit, there are so many what if's that rebuttal your one liner about not choosing to commit a crime its not fucking funny, with the obvious being, what if you didnt do it but are convicted. don't perpetuate stupid infinites in an argument that you tried to focus on "law"). Is that how you avoid admitting you are wrong in an argument? You wage an argument based on semantics, and lose, and change the focus to avoid admitting you were wrong. This is where you get your close minded reputation from. The inability to see your own faults and acknowledge them.

You both jumped on my fucking case screaming "zomg omg such a fucking idiot, its a right not a privilege."..... then when you finally crack a dictionary (or in this case, let someone else... such as myself, crack one open for you) and realize that a privilege is a form of right and that you have been actually claiming the definition of privilege all along to support the 2nd amendment rights.... all you can do is change topic to avoid being embarrassed. Seriously? Grow the fuck up and admit you were wrong in the first place for jumping all over me (which in reality was solely because of my word "privilege" as nothing else in my original statement of position has been challenged... most likely because you support the stance i take but the superiority complex on the issue makes you feel the need to argue the use of the word you dont even know the correct definition to.)

No one has stated that they are superior. Seems like you have an inferiority complex.....

I am not jumping on your case, simply pointing out the difference of the priviledge of driving - which you have to earn, vs the rights afforded to an individual through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Put down the dictionary and read some law books and case judgments.