Old timers... - Page 3 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 24th, 2014, 10:18 AM   #41
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 31,968
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
There's no problem with different opinions. But when those opinions are based on incorrect or suspect information I see no problem with challenging that information.

I do find it ironic that some people sound like their saying "Yes, we're way to polarized, and it's (the other side)'s fault.
I am 100% in favor of the right to bear arms, I don't believe we should need to have any sort of weapon bans, etc.

What I was trying to show is that I would be WILLING to subject myself to some REGULATION on gun control to be ABLE to keep my RIGHT to bear arms and have NO regulation on the types of ARMS I can KEEP.

I'll try again.

There are zero restrictions on what type of car I can own. But there is a system in place that legislates I must insure that vehicle and I also must keep a valid driver's license in place to be able to use my car. Sure, it's not a direct comparison because you do not have to have a license to own a vehicle, but you do have to have a license to operate it.

I'm just saying that I am willing to give a little on the process, so in the end I can own, operate, and keep whatever I would like to protect myself/family. Rather than being restricted on what I can own because I'm unwilling to give a little on the process.
kickstand is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old April 24th, 2014, 11:18 AM   #42
TJJEEP
Senior Member
 
TJJEEP's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: Orchard Lake
Posts: 2,970
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to TJJEEP Send a message via MSN to TJJEEP
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstand View Post
I am 100% in favor of the right to bear arms, I don't believe we should need to have any sort of weapon bans, etc.

What I was trying to show is that I would be WILLING to subject myself to some REGULATION on gun control to be ABLE to keep my RIGHT to bear arms and have NO regulation on the types of ARMS I can KEEP.

I'll try again.

There are zero restrictions on what type of car I can own. But there is a system in place that legislates I must insure that vehicle and I also must keep a valid driver's license in place to be able to use my car. Sure, it's not a direct comparison because you do not have to have a license to own a vehicle, but you do have to have a license to operate it.

I'm just saying that I am willing to give a little on the process, so in the end I can own, operate, and keep whatever I would like to protect myself/family. Rather than being restricted on what I can own because I'm unwilling to give a little on the process.
The issue with this is, it turns into a slippery slope. Most gun deaths in America are due to hand guns. For some reason the administration is trying to ban assault rifles. Poof - a ban on assault rifles passes then no noticeable decrease in gun deaths happens. New calls for gun control arise. Now there is a new "middle ground" and the next measure would require moving towards that new middle ground after the last measure already had gun owners move to the previous middle ground.

Taking away rights is a process of chipping away, not in one swoop.
TJJEEP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014, 11:33 AM   #43
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 31,968
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJJEEP View Post
The issue with this is, it turns into a slippery slope. Most gun deaths in America are due to hand guns. For some reason the administration is trying to ban assault rifles. Poof - a ban on assault rifles passes then no noticeable decrease in gun deaths happens. New calls for gun control arise. Now there is a new "middle ground" and the next measure would require moving towards that new middle ground after the last measure already had gun owners move to the previous middle ground.

Taking away rights is a process of chipping away, not in one swoop.
Well, you can argue slippery slope for every subject, and then bam, we're totally polarized again.

You have to give in the right places, comprimise correctly (like in your example, why ban assault rifles when handguns are the "problem").
kickstand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014, 11:40 AM   #44
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brods View Post
No you are wrong. You have not supported your opinion with facts. And your facts are wrong anyway ‘cause my favorite talking head says so.

There is a difference between supplying factual information and challenging an opinion. Seriously, look at this thread. While you may not have a problem with others’ opinions there are many who do. As you know better than most, most opinions are based on at least some misinformation while way too many opinions are based mostly on hearsay.

Dickstand posted an example and was immediately jumped on. I do not see where he provided incorrect facts or where “correct” information would add to the topic of the thread. He voiced an opinion as an example, which needed no reply. People could not help but take the bait. Why? Why could they not just ignore his example and stay on topic?

We’ve become so super sensitive to hot topics (guns, gay rights, etc) that any comment on those subjects, in any context, is an excuse to rant and push your own opinions on others. Again it is an intolerance of others right to have an opinion, even if they are “wrong”. What would you prefer to call it if “intolerance” doesn’t suit you?
I didn't mean to suggest that I thought all opinions need to be supported with facts, but rather that when opinions are based on incorrect information it is those falsehoods that should be challenged, not the opinions based on them.

For example, if I said that since the moon is made of cheese I think we should start looking for ways to mine the cheese to feed the hungry. It would not be my opinion that a huge chunk of cheese could be used to help feed the hungry that would be in question, it would be the "fact" about the makeup of the moon that I should be called out on.

I'm trying to learn to be more tolerant of others intolerance.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014, 11:48 AM   #45
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstand View Post
I am 100% in favor of the right to bear arms, I don't believe we should need to have any sort of weapon bans, etc.

What I was trying to show is that I would be WILLING to subject myself to some REGULATION on gun control to be ABLE to keep my RIGHT to bear arms and have NO regulation on the types of ARMS I can KEEP.

I'll try again.

There are zero restrictions on what type of car I can own. But there is a system in place that legislates I must insure that vehicle and I also must keep a valid driver's license in place to be able to use my car. Sure, it's not a direct comparison because you do not have to have a license to own a vehicle, but you do have to have a license to operate it.

I'm just saying that I am willing to give a little on the process, so in the end I can own, operate, and keep whatever I would like to protect myself/family. Rather than being restricted on what I can own because I'm unwilling to give a little on the process.
In no way was my comment directed at you. I agree with your opinion.

I suppose it may be true that you can own any type of vehicle, there are a huge amount of restrictions on what can be used on, and sold for use on public roads.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014, 12:05 PM   #46
Brods
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 01-21-07
Location: Salem, Mi
Posts: 704
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I didn't mean to suggest that I thought all opinions need to be supported with facts, but rather that when opinions are based on incorrect information it is those falsehoods that should be challenged, not the opinions based on them.

...
Didn't think you did, just yanking your chain. I see nothing wrong with correcting factual information as long as you have a reliable source for your facts. The problem is what happened in this thread. There was an example of polarization given. There were no facts in dispute. Yet that example triggered a strong response voicing an opposing point of view unrelated to the topic at hand. Why? I suggest is because as a society we've become intolerant of opposing opinions. They just have to be challenged no matter what. How would you explain or categorize it?
Brods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014, 12:09 PM   #47
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 22,306
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Default

Chad,
Bruce's comments were directed at me. Now, on to your example of driving, there is no constitutional right to own or drive a car. However, there is one to keep and bear arms. THAT is the difference. I personally believe that our right to bear arms is a direct contributor to the freedoms we have. Since our revolution, no army has ever attacked us on our own soil. (other than off shore at Pearl Harbor) There was a Japanese general who said (paraphrasing here) they should never attack the continental U.S. because there would be a farmer with a gun, behind every tree . I strongly believe in that concept.

Personally, regarding guns, I believe we are already regulated more than we should be. For a non-felon, general citizen;
- cannot own a full automatic weapon (military and police only, I think)
- cannot own a gun with a silencer (special permit that takes months to get)
- must have a purchase permit to buy a hand gun
- must have a special permit to carry a concealed weapon
- in order to carry a concealed weapon, must pass a background check, including finger printing

Where does it say in the constitution that our right to bear arms can/should be regulated?
__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014, 12:10 PM   #48
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 22,306
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Default

Yes, I am guilty of getting off topic in response to Chad's comments about guns. So, back on topic, I believe that both sides need to give a little. But, not when it comes to gun control.
__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014, 12:11 PM   #49
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 31,968
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
In no way was my comment directed at you. I agree with your opinion.

I suppose it may be true that you can own any type of vehicle, there are a huge amount of restrictions on what can be used on, and sold for use on public roads.
Thank you for poking a hole in my example

I suppose you could say that you can own any vehicle that is offered for sale by an OEM.

Where as you can not own any gun that is offered by an OEM.

You could take this pretty far, sure, I can't drive a military specific vehicle down the road, and I guess you can't own a military specific rocket launcher or automatic machine gun either.

Since we're in agreement, the slippery slope comment in the end is what I believe polarizes us so much.

The left wants welfare, the right wants you to work for what you have, we already have welfar, the right wants it reformed, the left wants it expanded.

The right says, since the left won't budge we'll ask for all welfare to be removed to smaybe the left will give an inch. The left says, whoa, that's a slippery slope, we won't even give an inch.

The left says guns are bad, the right says no way, zero regulation on guns, its out right. The left says just give us an inch then, the right says, no way, thats a slippery slope, we won't give you shit.

the left GOT socialized healthcare, had the right comprimised a bit on how this played out, maybe we wouldn;t have slid so far down the slope with obamacare? Maybe had the right shown comprimise earlier on maybe they could have worked with the left to develop a better middle ground plan than what we ended up with?

slippery slope.....
kickstand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014, 12:11 PM   #50
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJJEEP View Post
The issue with this is, it turns into a slippery slope. Most gun deaths in America are due to hand guns. For some reason the administration is trying to ban assault rifles. Poof - a ban on assault rifles passes then no noticeable decrease in gun deaths happens. New calls for gun control arise. Now there is a new "middle ground" and the next measure would require moving towards that new middle ground after the last measure already had gun owners move to the previous middle ground.

Taking away rights is a process of chipping away, not in one swoop.
Slippery slopes often run down both sides. On the gun control subject it might look like : no ban on assault rifles, OK, how about full auto? Well I want a grenade launcher on mine, to defend my property from attack. The middle ground is then moving the other way and people want to be able to own bombs and missiles.

Or maybe it's rolling back the background checks until we're allowing anyone to buy a gun regardless of criminal or mental health histories.

To me, compromise is carving out some level ground between these slippery slopes, where we can all exist, even if it's lower than before. I think that's basically the same thing kickstand is saying.

BTW I fully support the right to bare arms and understand that most gun crimes take place using guns that have been illegally acquired, so I don't think more laws will help solve whatever problem people think exists.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014, 12:16 PM   #51
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 31,968
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
Chad,
Bruce's comments were directed at me. Now, on to your example of driving, there is no constitutional right to own or drive a car. However, there is one to keep and bear arms. THAT is the difference. I personally believe that our right to bear arms is a direct contributor to the freedoms we have. Since our revolution, no army has ever attacked us on our own soil. (other than off shore at Pearl Harbor) There was a Japanese general who said (paraphrasing here) they should never attack the continental U.S. because there would be a farmer with a gun, behind every tree . I strongly believe in that concept.

Personally, regarding guns, I believe we are already regulated more than we should be. For a non-felon, general citizen;
- cannot own a full automatic weapon (military and police only, I think)
- cannot own a gun with a silencer (special permit that takes months to get)
- must have a purchase permit to buy a hand gun
- must have a special permit to carry a concealed weapon
- in order to carry a concealed weapon, must pass a background check, including finger printing

Where does it say in the constitution that our right to bear arms can/should be regulated?


Fine, but imagine this, be willing to do the same things you do for a hand gun, so that you can now own a gune with a silencer (why you REALLY need a silencer I don't know), a full auto, a rocket launcher, etc.

Would you be willing to add a small amount of registration (give an inch) so that you can own whatever you want (get an inch)?

If our government was trustworthy, I see no reason why something ALONG those lines wouldn't be realistically feasible and acceptable.

No example is perfect, every topic has it's own special circumstances, sure, one is a constitutional right, the other is just a standard priviledge, but you should be able to see the comparison drawn.
kickstand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014, 12:22 PM   #52
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 31,968
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
In no way was my comment directed at you. I agree with your opinion.

:
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
Chad,
Bruce's comments were directed at me.
I did not quote bruce because I thought his comment was directed at me, I quoted it to expand on it with my opinion/thoughts.
kickstand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014, 12:35 PM   #53
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstand View Post
...

the left GOT socialized healthcare, had the right comprimised a bit on how this played out, maybe we wouldn;t have slid so far down the slope with obamacare? Maybe had the right shown comprimise earlier on maybe they could have worked with the left to develop a better middle ground plan than what we ended up with?

slippery slope.....

Yep. And there won't even be agreement on where on the slippery slope we are. Healthcare is a perfect example of that. You call Obamacare "socialized healthcare", but it's still mostly based on private insurance companies. What those on the far left would rather have is a completely government controlled tax supported single payer healthcare system, they may feel as though they have made a huge compromise in accepting Obamacare.

And yes, TJJEEP, you are correct that the shift to the left to Obamacare has created a "new middle" from which future future measures will move.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014, 12:37 PM   #54
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 22,306
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstand View Post
Fine, but imagine this, be willing to do the same things you do for a hand gun, so that you can now own a gune with a silencer (why you REALLY need a silencer I don't know), a full auto, a rocket launcher, etc.

Would you be willing to add a small amount of registration (give an inch) so that you can own whatever you want (get an inch)?

If our government was trustworthy, I see no reason why something ALONG those lines wouldn't be realistically feasible and acceptable.

No example is perfect, every topic has it's own special circumstances, sure, one is a constitutional right, the other is just a standard priviledge, but you should be able to see the comparison drawn.
There is the kicker right there. I see gun control and free speech as a couple items that can help to keep our government in check and therefore not to be compromised. FWIW, I don't see a need for a silencer either.

I believe I am strongly opinionated on many things but am willing to negotiate and look at both sides of the coin and can find middle ground. I don't like to pay taxes, but see why we must. However, I don't like giving free handouts, but am willing to give free handouts to the people (I believe) are in need. In the same vein, I don't agree with gay rights but am not going to get in a fist fight over it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstand View Post
I did not quote bruce because I thought his comment was directed at me, I quoted it to expand on it with my opinion/thoughts.
I know, but knowing how sensitive you are, I didn't want you going off on Bruce.
__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014, 01:30 PM   #55
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post


I know, but knowing how sensitive you are, I didn't want you going off on Bruce.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014, 05:11 PM   #56
93yj06unlimited
Senior Member
 
93yj06unlimited's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-02-09
Location: Scotts, Mi
Posts: 522
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreezy View Post
Its no longer a republican vs democrat issue. They work together by fighting in public. Behind closed doors they are all friends. It isn't about the topic being discussed as much as it is about what they are hiding (how they are filling their own pockets). As far as I am concerned the vast majority of politicians are crooks and thieves. Party lines are just a front to keep the sheeple distracted.

X1,000,000,000 this is exactly what is going on these days. Both parties are all to happy to keep the liberals and conservatives fighting over non issues as it provides a distraction to their real agendas. Imagine how powerful we could be if we quit fighting each other and banded together to attack the real issues that need to be addressed. The politicians don't want to address the real issues because there goes their power and their bankrolls. I believe some people are finally waking up and seeing all this infighting for what it truly is, one big distraction.
93yj06unlimited is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014, 05:48 PM   #57
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 93yj06unlimited View Post
X1,000,000,000 this is exactly what is going on these days. Both parties are all to happy to keep the liberals and conservatives fighting over non issues as it provides a distraction to their real agendas. Imagine how powerful we could be if we quit fighting each other and banded together to attack the real issues that need to be addressed. The politicians don't want to address the real issues because there goes their power and their bankrolls. I believe some people are finally waking up and seeing all this infighting for what it truly is, one big distraction.
So what do you believe are the "real issues"?
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014, 06:32 PM   #58
SS
Doing stuff...and things.
 
SS's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-12-05
Location: 48309
Posts: 12,142
iTrader: (14)
Mentioned: 53 Post(s)
Default

The Second secures the rest.

It's already been compromised and the true intent of it disregarded. There can be no more infringement.

The whole point of the Second Amendment was to ensure that We The People had all of the same arms as the military so that a tyrannical government wouldn't have the advantage over them. It was never about hunting or even self defense against criminals. It has everything to do with having the means for self defense against GOVERNMENT. The supporting clarifications through letters and essays written by the Founding Fathers PROVES it.

Am I saying that everyone should be able to go out and buy a nuclear weapon? Of course not. That level of destructive power is something they could never imagine. Am I saying that machine guns, anti-aircraft weapons, anti-armor weapons, tanks, etc should be as available as a AR-15? Absolutely. That was the intent of our Founding Fathers and our government wouldn't be as nearly as out of control as it is now if we hadn't been robbed of that ability over the last 80 years.
__________________
-Jer

SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014, 06:34 PM   #59
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 817
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
No doubt.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2014, 07:27 PM   #60
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,249
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
Looks like I was wrong.



You made a post calling the dems deceitful but say nothing about anyone else.
Yup, those dam just keep going after the corruption going on in the democratic party.
They are both guilty of being deceitful I just see more of it going on within this administration and what's worse, some things they don't even hide it.
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:13 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.43832 seconds with 80 queries