• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Will Trump Destroy the Republican Party?

Underhill

Underhill

Well-Known Member
Mister Emu said:
It's like you don't even acknowledge that the current situation is the result of a series of compromises that have almost exclusively added regulations to gun ownership.

If we're going to talk about lack of willingness to compromise, how many gun regulation proponents do you know that are okay with compromising on the issue in the other direction? How many gun regulations would you be okay giving up?

Would you be okay if the compromise were enhanced background checks but removing the special licensing required to own an automatic weapon?
Click to expand...

Pretty extreme choice. But yes, there are plenty of pointless or over the top gun regulations that could be done away with.

Here is the problem. When people do not compromise, or even talk, there is no true understanding. The anti gun crowd have little understanding of the problem and the pro gun people have little understanding of guns or gun training.

NYS passed a law that only allows up to 7 bullets in a rifle at any time. It's the kind of thing that is completely pointless. I understand why they did it, as AR's and other assault rifles generally only have 10 round magazines or larger. But just like the AR ban in general, the rule is based in propaganda as much as anything else.

The same kind of nonsense happens on the other side. Every time someone suggest gun lock laws, the automatic response from the right is, "they are penalizing legal gun owners". They are completely ignoring the fact that most gun crime (outside of suicide) happens with stolen weapons.

Both sides have their nuts. But here is the the difference. The left does not have an NRA with millions of members getting peppered with propaganda about the evils of gun owners. Yes, there are hardened leftist who are against any compromise. But there are plenty, like myself, who are more than willing to discuss the issue and come to some kind of reasoned position for the betterment of all. The right has turned gun ownership into a sort of religion. This is why no republican politician can even hint at compromise over the issue.
 
Last edited:
Underhill

Underhill

Well-Known Member
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Underhill said:
It looks to me like a moron posted a story that incited idiots.

So you've proven there are idiots in Portland. That isn't all that surprising.

I would agree that there are stupid people on both sides of the aisle.
Click to expand...
Is the closest you & I have been to detente?
Woo hoo!
 
Stevicus

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Underhill said:
I'm 40 and I have witnessed first hand the good government done well can do. So I have a serious problem with the right and their notions of evil government.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, although my criticism of the right on that issue is slightly different. This is because I've noted an inconsistency in their position on "government." They only really have a problem with the federal government having power, yet they don't seem to mind if the state government has even more power. For example, here in Arizona, a lot of people complain when the Feds interfere in state-level politics, although they don't have a problem when state government interferes in county and municipal governments.

Funny thing is, if state governments could learn to limit and restrain themselves, there wouldn't need to be any federal interference to come in and restrain them at all.

I'm all for the idea of local autonomy and that the people in a given jurisdiction should have some measure of self-rule and self-determination. But I don't support "states' rights" when it's interpreted as allowing state governments to act like petty dictatorships or police states.

I've never understood how a government 'of the people' is a scary thing. If there is a problem then 'we the people' need to make a change.
Click to expand...

It's not really that scary when you put it like that, but it's a representative democracy. And sometimes, those who do the representing leave much to be desired. Then, there's a lot of government posts which are appointed, not elected. Then, we also have one of the largest war machines in the world, with about 1.2 million active duty personnel - not to mention our intelligence community. There's also federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel which number over a million. And they're also somewhat "militarized" in terms of the training and equipment they're getting these days.

In some ways, it is kind of scary, not so much because of what the government is right now, but what it could potentially become if just a few things fell out of place. We supposedly have a system of checks and balances, but it sometimes seems a very delicate and precarious balance. A government "of the people" is fine, as long as the people remain vigilant and wise.

It all depends on the quality of the people. If the people are intelligent, educated, wise, courageous, vigilant, thoughtful, have common sense, and give consideration to the best interests of our country and the rights of its citizenry, then a government of the people can work quite well.

Unfortunately, there are many who say that the electorate has turned stupid (or maybe they never were really smart). Some believe that they are easily led by propaganda, political manipulation, pandering. Some even call them "sheeple," as they don't seem to formulate any views on their own; they just rely upon what is spoon-fed to them by the media. This feeds into the perception that the voters are being tricked and duped into supporting political factions and politicians who may not have the people's best interests at heart.

I don't think it's that we've lost faith in democracy, but we've lost faith in ourselves. Truth be told, I think more Americans are scared of each other than they are of the government.

In fact the entire notion of the evil big government seems counter productive. We want people active in government not running from it or afraid of it. Conservatives in this country, starting with Reagan, have distorted peoples view of what government is supposed to be. I'm not in favor of unlimited government power or anything close to it. But the people are supposed to be in control. We have lost sight of that and as a result have largely lost control.
Click to expand...

In theory, I can somewhat see the conservative side when it comes to waste and inefficiency in government. I think both liberals and conservatives are somewhat similar in that they basically agree on what government's role should be, but they differ on how they should go about doing it - and how much we should be willing to spend on it. I think most people understand that if you're on a tight budget, you have be frugal - and I think liberals understand that, too. I never believed that liberals actually want to waste the taxpayers' money.

Other than that, the size of government doesn't seem nearly so much at issue as much as what the apparatus of the state can actually do and what "the people" are willing to allow them to do. And again, the conservatives have generally been the ones pushing for more military and law enforcement.
 
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
tytlyf said:
Is the country more divided now than it was 9 years ago? (yes)
If your answer is yes, who has been the leader of the country between Jan 2009 and Jan (Obama)

Anything else? You're still missing the point.
Click to expand...
Then Obama and the Democrats are responsible for dividing the country.
 
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
suncowiam said:
@tytlyf @esmith

Come on guys. We're acting like typical Democrats and Republicans. Why don't you reach over the aisle and give each other a hug? Maybe a kiss if you both like.
Click to expand...
rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-smiley-emoticon.gif
 
Copernicus

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Revoltingest said:
He was attacking an attitude that needed attacking. Business success does not depend just on the brilliance and hard work of the person who runs a business. Labor is important, and so is the government that enables the business to thrive.
Click to expand...

You made my point for me with the underlined word.
He attacks for political gain. He creates enemies for rallying the faithful.
Click to expand...
That is utter nonsense. All political speech is polemical. You are paranoid to think that it is aimed at you. There have been plenty of business owners and corporate executives who supported Obama, so don't go pretending that you speak for the entire class. Your politics are libertarian, which is a rather large component of the Republican base. I don't care whether you consider yourself a Republican. You are clearly more in the Republican camp than the Democratic one. When I speak of Republicans, you think I'm talking about you and scold me for it. I think that your reaction itself tells us where your sympathies lie. And you are not more familiar with Obama's speech than I am, although you may be a little bit more obsessed with it. :p

Revoltingest said:
That labor is important is an undisputed issue....one he turns into a faux controversy.
A conducive business environment provided by government is an undisputed issue....another faux controversy.
Again.....this is demagoguery, all built on straw.
Click to expand...
You seem to think that any political advocacy that does not advocate for your take on the issues is demagoguery. Barack Obama was one of the most diplomatic and rational political leaders in America. He was criticized by both sides of the political divide precisely because he was so timid about offending people. If you want to understand what a demagogue is really like, we have a perfect example in our current President, who can't seem to give a speech without scapegoating classes of people and calling his opponents names.

Revoltingest said:
Parenthetical aside....
I find demagoguery widespread, infecting all parties.
It will vary with individuals....extent, style, target, audience.
But it's there nonetheless.
Those who cannot see it on their own side are doomed to support it.
(Libertarians like to attack government. I see it.)
Click to expand...
This is the stuff of false equivalence. Yes, everybody is both the same and different to different degrees. Everybody says something to offend somebody. Democrats are no different from Republicans, except when they are. :rolleyes:
 
Mister Emu

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
Underhill said:
Here is the problem. When people do not compromise, or even talk, there is no true understanding.
Click to expand...
My only issue with compromise is whereby it is meant "we won't regulate as much as we want, this time." (See picture in spoiler)
compromise_v2.png

I don't necessarily agree with everything you've said, but I'm glad to see you are open to real compromise that restores our right toward its proper place.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Mister Emu said:
My only issue with compromise is whereby it is meant "we won't regulate as much as we want, this time." (See picture in spoiler)
Click to expand...
This is unreasonable, imho. The slippery slope argument is a bit ludicrous. It seems like a cop-out; an excuse to never move an inch or "compromise" on anything. Regulations can be taken one at a time. If another comes up down the road, deal with it then.
 
Mister Emu

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
leibowde84 said:
This is unreasonable, imho.
Click to expand...
Eh, I think it is unreasonable to expect me to continue to support "compromise" in a manner that never considers my position.

leibowde84 said:
It seems like a cop-out; an excuse to never move an inch or "compromise" on anything.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. I've already pointed out something I'm willing to move on, enhanced background checks, in agreement for movement in favor of a position I hold, on allowing automatic weapons again. Heck, you want a waiting period? Sure, but lets make it federal law that no one can be denied ownership of a non-federally regulated firearm except following a failed background check.

I am all for real compromise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top