Because I believe the corrupt government angle is a farce for gun proponents to justify owning guns. Most of them don't really care about a corrupt government because it's never happened during their lifetime. They've never had to defend against a corrupt organization with small arms. The odds of this happening in an established western nation is almost 0. The odds of gun violence in the US is astronomically higher.
-
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!
Question for Anti-Trump Democrats
- Thread starter averageJOE
- Start date
Because I believe the corrupt government angle is a farce for gun proponents to justify owning guns. Most of them don't really care about a corrupt government because it's never happened during their lifetime. They've never had to defend against a corrupt organization with small arms. The odds of this happening in an established western nation is almost 0. The odds of gun violence in the US is astronomically higher.
You're mistaken about caring about corruption.
Something which hasn't happened in my lifetime is still possible.
In fact, I prefer that revolution be very unlikely.
Yeah, but God forbid to do anything about gun violence which statistically happens practically everyday. So let's worry about something that hasn't happened for centuries and ignore gun violence that occurs practically all the time in the US.
Who proposed the underlined approach?
I certainly haven't.
ecco
Veteran Member
Whoa, there. You asserted:
"The free press has done a pretty good job of diminishing and deligitimizing themselves all on their own."
You provided a list of examples including:-Church burning in Birmingham
Which google brings up as:
16th Street Baptist Church bombing - Wikipedia
The 16th Street Baptist Church bombing was an act of white supremacist terrorism
The 16th Street Baptist Church bombing was an act of white supremacist terrorism
I asked you to show what the press did to delegitimize themselves regarding the Church burning in Birmingham.
In response you post...;
We weren't discussing "Trump coverage" of anything. We were discussing your allegation regarding the Press and the list of examples you posted. You wouldn't be trying to duck and dodge would you?
ecco
Veteran Member
Thaank you for posting that link. It clearly shows the difference between then and now.
My emphases in following...
Attacking the news media is a time-honored White House tactic,” says media critic Brian Stelter, but “to an unusual degree,” this administration has “narrowed its sights to one specific organization,” which it has deemed “part of the political opposition.”
Stelter quotes a top White House staffer: “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” she says. “We don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”
Stelter didn’t write those words about President Donald Trump, and the rogue media organization isn’t Stelter’s current employer, CNN. Nor is the White House aide defending the strategy of open hostility from Sarah Huckabee Sanders or Kellyanne Conway.
Stelter wrote those words in 2009, for The New York Times, and he wrote them about President Barack Obama, who was then in the midst of furious battle with Fox News. In many ways, it was a protracted fight that presaged the one Trump is now waging against CNN and the rest of the mainstream media.
There are several key distinctions between then and now. Fox News commentators—in particular, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly—frequently maligned Obama and misrepresented his views, often in ways that seemed racially charged. On the converse, Obama didn’t tweet out doctored pro wrestling GIFs or obsessively rail about “fake news” and ratings.
Stelter quotes a top White House staffer: “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” she says. “We don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”
Stelter didn’t write those words about President Donald Trump, and the rogue media organization isn’t Stelter’s current employer, CNN. Nor is the White House aide defending the strategy of open hostility from Sarah Huckabee Sanders or Kellyanne Conway.
Stelter wrote those words in 2009, for The New York Times, and he wrote them about President Barack Obama, who was then in the midst of furious battle with Fox News. In many ways, it was a protracted fight that presaged the one Trump is now waging against CNN and the rest of the mainstream media.
There are several key distinctions between then and now. Fox News commentators—in particular, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly—frequently maligned Obama and misrepresented his views, often in ways that seemed racially charged. On the converse, Obama didn’t tweet out doctored pro wrestling GIFs or obsessively rail about “fake news” and ratings.
I don't understand the point of your response, but thank you anyway.
ecco
Veteran Member
Your "NO liberal ... accounts cancelled (sic)" comment is obviously untrue. It took less than a minute to find...
my emphasis
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/12/17848026/facebook-thinkprogress-weekly-standard
Last week, the liberal publication ThinkProgress published a piece on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing with the headline “Brett Kavanaugh said he would kill Roe v. Wade and almost no one noticed.” The fact-checker for the Weekly Standard ruled it was false. Facebook’s punishment mechanism kicked in, and the ThinkProgress article was cut off from being seen by about 80 percent of its potential Facebook audience.
On Tuesday, the author of the ThinkProgress piece — editor Ian Millhiser — publicly defended the thesis of his piece and accused Facebook of “pandering to the right” by allowing a conservative magazine to block liberal articles.
On the other side...Please list a couple and let's see why they were canceled.Last week, the liberal publication ThinkProgress published a piece on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing with the headline “Brett Kavanaugh said he would kill Roe v. Wade and almost no one noticed.” The fact-checker for the Weekly Standard ruled it was false. Facebook’s punishment mechanism kicked in, and the ThinkProgress article was cut off from being seen by about 80 percent of its potential Facebook audience.
On Tuesday, the author of the ThinkProgress piece — editor Ian Millhiser — publicly defended the thesis of his piece and accused Facebook of “pandering to the right” by allowing a conservative magazine to block liberal articles.
ecco
Veteran Member
The Women's Marches are organized by private parties. They get the funding and pay for, among other things, transportation.
I glanced through a few articles about the marches. Conservatives were not "banned", the only people specifically omitted were the anti-abortionists.
Nevertheless, why would you be upset that a private organization would restrict transportation to people who are in agreement with their goals?
I don't see the Right-To-Life busses carrying people with Pro-Choice signs.
ecco
Veteran Member
Anecdotal evidence is so wonderful, isn't it? In addition, we are just supposed to believe you about why "All his gigs dried up and flew away"?
Many Country Music stars are outspoken conservatives. Rockers like Kid Rock, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and Ted Nugent haven't been banned.
There are many conservative TV and movie actors doing very well. Look here...
Republicans in Hollywood: Republican Celebrities List
What was your opening comment - oh yeah, disconnect.
ecco
Veteran Member
I should have worded my response better. I am in agreement with your views.
I don't think we're doing enough given the statistics, is the better correct assertion.
Many pro-gun rights advocates agree.
The differences are in how far & in what
way to address the wrongful violence.
We've been through this before, you and I. So we really do not need to re-hash this but I'll summarize it.
Gun ownership should not be an innate right as the current law suggests. It's a RESPONSIBILITY and I feel most in the US have not achieved the right to be responsible enough to own guns. The second amendment hurts more than it protects.
Stanyon
WWMRD?
The U.S. has more guns than the entire population
There are more guns than people in the United States, according to a new study of global firearm ownership - The Washington Post
If most people are not responsible enough to own them wouldn't it be logical to conclude that there would be far more deaths/accidents?
There are more gun deaths and accidents when normalized to other countries.
How does it make sense comparing America to itself?
Take, for example, Japan, where they had gun murders only in the teens for a whole year. Compare that to the US. It's an astronomical difference.
https://www.vox.com/2015/12/3/9845436/japan-gun-homicides
Sounds to me, they're doing something right. Do they run into corrupt government problems?
Stanyon
WWMRD?
You claimed most people in America have not achieved the right to be responsible enough to own guns, I showed where there are far more guns than citizens therefore it doesn't make sense to claim that those who legally own guns are irresponsible or haven't earned the right to own them. Japan doesn't matter, they have their own histories and we have ours.
Here is an excellent resource for all your questions as to how to legally buy and possess a firearm, this link is by state but I encourage you to explore the site:
State Laws and Published Ordinances - Firearms (33rd Edition) | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Last edited:
The 2nd Amendment is still law.
And as interpreted by the USSC we have the rights we currently have.
Your assumption is that the ratio is one gun per owner. That obviously is an incorrect assumption. How then do you prove the ratio?
It doesn't matter that a country is able to reduce gun violence to the teens and doesn't have issues with a corrupt violent government? How convenient to make that argument?
That's usually how it ends with gun proponents as they highlight the second amendment as being the law of the land. I don't deny that but I've made many comments to help suggest that the second amendment is flawed so it being law might not really be helping us.
So back to square one.