First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1 Jan 30, 2013
Guns and the Tyranny of Extreme Rhetoric
By Anson Kaye

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/anson-kay...

" ...These days, some on the right have seized on an invisible elephant all their own. They've named him Tyranny, and to hear them tell it, he's big, he's scary, and he's tearing up the place. The problem, of course, is that he doesn't exist—but that hasn't stopped them from trying to convince the rest of us that he does.

Their latest effort came in the form of a Scott Rasmussen poll that found "65 percent See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny." If it's true, that's quite a finding. It means most of us believe that our government may descend into tyranny and that guns are the right way to protect ourselves from that eventuality.

Of course, there's good reason to doubt Rasmussen: His polls reliably lean to the right. But for the sake of argument let's take his findings on their face. How should we reconcile them with the great many other polls that suggest broadening support for gun control? The 55 percent in a CNN/Time poll who say gun controls should be tightened. The 58 percent in an ABC/Washington Post poll who back an assault weapons ban. The 63 percent in a CBS/New York Times poll who support banning high capacity magazines. The 78 percent in the same poll who favor creating a database to track all gun sales in the United States.

If you take the Rasmussen poll on the one hand and all the other polls on the other, it can only mean that there are many millions of us who somehow believe both that Americans need guns to protect ourselves from a government that may turn tyrannical and that we should make it harder for Americans to get guns. This is a, ahem, nuance that Rasmussen fails to address.

And then of course, there's this: According to a recent Pew survey, only 33 percent of Americans have a gun in their home at all. If so many of us really think that tyranny looms and that guns are our protection but so few of us actually own them…well, we must be a pretty self-destructive lot.

As it happens, there was another poll in the field at around the same time as Rasmussen's that was about the same issue, and conducted by a similarly conservative pollster—Wenzel Strategies (the pollster for Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, among others). Wenzel asked respondents whether they believed the Second Amendment "exists to allow Americans to have small arms for hunting and self-protection" or "to give Americans the ability to defend themselves against government if it becomes tyrannical?" The results? Forty-seven percent said it's just for hunting and self-protection. A whopping 8 percent said it's just to defend against tyranny. And 40 percent said all of the above.

...That doesn't make the tyrannists' rhetoric any less insidious, however. In asking us to conceive of an America that is profoundly different from the one in which we actually live they seek to conform our public policy to threats that exist only in some kind of make-believe place. When they are successful, the mainstreaming of lunatic ideas (like: We live under the threat of tyranny) makes possible ever more extreme policies (like: We all must have the right to semi-automatic weapons). And when we let that happen, nightmares of a very different kind than those conjured up by the ideologues really do come true.

When you take the invisible elephant out of your living room, you can clearly see what caused the mess (your kids.) And when you take the false threat of tyranny out of the equation, the case against assault weapons is pretty clear too (we don't need them).

The elephant doesn't exist. And it's time for us to say so."
Beaner

Coffeyville, KS

#2 Feb 1, 2013
Australian Gun law Update By Australian police officer Ed Chenel
Australia Wide Homicides up 6.2 per cent.
Assaults up 9.6 per cent
Armed robberies up 44 per cent. Yes 44 per cent

In the state of Victoria homicides with firearms are up 300 per cent.
The law abiding turned thier guns in and the criminals still possess thier guns.
The gun confiscation program cost Australians 500 million dollars.

Since: Oct 10

Independence, Kansas

#3 Feb 1, 2013
Beaner wrote:
Australian Gun law Update By Australian police officer Ed Chenel
Australia Wide Homicides up 6.2 per cent.
Assaults up 9.6 per cent
Armed robberies up 44 per cent. Yes 44 per cent
In the state of Victoria homicides with firearms are up 300 per cent.
The law abiding turned thier guns in and the criminals still possess thier guns.
The gun confiscation program cost Australians 500 million dollars.
Beaner: Give us the website for your source of information. I would love to check it out.
Beaner

Coffeyville, KS

#4 Feb 1, 2013
Indy_Dick wrote:
<quoted text>Beaner: Give us the website for your source of information. I would love to check it out.
Indy, the source was named in my post. Ed Chenel an Australian policeman posted it on facebook.
Beaner

Coffeyville, KS

#5 Feb 1, 2013
Indy_Dick wrote:
<quoted text>Beaner: Give us the website for your source of information. I would love to check it out.
Indy The source was named in my post. Australian Policeman Ed Chenel posted this the other day on facebook.
Okay

Independence, KS

#6 Feb 1, 2013
Katniss258, do you get paid to copy/paste articles? It's obvious that you don't have the intellect to write your own, so you have to use the words of other people. Please spare us your ignorance, and either move away from this area that you obviously despise, or keep your opinions to yourself. You won't find many that agree with your stance here.
Whatta

Independence, KS

#7 Feb 1, 2013
Katniss258 wrote:
Wenzel asked respondents whether they believed the Second Amendment "exists to allow Americans to have small arms for hunting and self-protection" or "to give Americans the ability to defend themselves against government if it becomes tyrannical?" The results? Forty-seven percent said it's just for hunting and self-protection. A whopping 8 percent said it's just to defend against tyranny. And 40 percent said all of the above.
I didn't realize 48% believed the Second Amendment was for defense against tyranny. I expected it to be a higher number.

Having 87% believe it is for self-protection even sounds low.

Okay

Independence, KS

#8 Feb 1, 2013
Whatta wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't realize 48% believed the Second Amendment was for defense against tyranny. I expected it to be a higher number.
Having 87% believe it is for self-protection even sounds low.
I'm guessing the percentage is a lot higher, as people these days have a common mistrust of the Federal Government. When it comes to articles like this, they generally poll 100-500 people, and base it off that. That's why polls are highly inconsistent, and many times... wrong.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9 Feb 2, 2013
Okay wrote:
Katniss258, do you get paid to copy/paste articles? It's obvious that you don't have the intellect to write your own, so you have to use the words of other people. Please spare us your ignorance, and either move away from this area that you obviously despise, or keep your opinions to yourself. You won't find many that agree with your stance here.
If you don't like or agree with what I post, simply don't read it. Otherwise, my right to free speech = your right to bear arms. And I can express my opinion however I like, be it free thought or through articles.
news flash

Coffeyville, KS

#10 Feb 2, 2013
Katniss258 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't like or agree with what I post, simply don't read it. Otherwise, my right to free speech = your right to bear arms. And I can express my opinion however I like, be it free thought or through articles.
So you like freedom of speech, just not others right to bear arms, is that it? The only good freedoms are the one you agree with?

Since: Oct 10

Independence, Kansas

#11 Feb 2, 2013
Beaner wrote:
<quoted text>Indy, the source was named in my post. Ed Chenel an Australian policeman posted it on facebook.
Sorry Beaner, it wasn't clear that the source was Facebook.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12 Feb 2, 2013
news flash wrote:
<quoted text>
So you like freedom of speech, just not others right to bear arms, is that it? The only good freedoms are the one you agree with?
Sounds like you don't know what "=" means. Equal. Got it? Not "greater than", or "less than". If I thought my right to speech was greater than the right to bear arms, that's what I would have said in my previous post.

I believe there are aspects of gun ownership that should now be re-evaluated and changed, such as background checks, but not so much as to violate the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms. I believe it is time for every responsible citizen to set aside their petty differences and try to come up with some solutions. Simply shrugging and saying "there ARE no solutions" is not an answer.

Clear now?
Former Local

Berryville, AR

#13 Feb 2, 2013
Katniss258 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't like or agree with what I post, simply don't read it. Otherwise, my right to free speech = your right to bear arms. And I can express my opinion however I like, be it free thought or through articles.
Glad to see you ADMIT that 2nd Amendment is EQUAL to the 1st Amendment.
Did not think you anti-gun libs were that intelligent.
Speech

Independence, KS

#14 Feb 2, 2013
Katniss258 wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe there are aspects of gun ownership that should now be re-evaluated and changed, such as background checks, but not so much as to violate the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms. I believe it is time for every responsible citizen to set aside their petty differences and try to come up with some solutions. Simply shrugging and saying "there ARE no solutions" is not an answer.
Clear now?
Do you equally agree that we need to re-evaluate and change the freedom of speech? The copycat shootings are because they know the media coverage they will get.
Beaner

Coffeyville, KS

#15 Feb 4, 2013
Indy_Dick wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry Beaner, it wasn't clear that the source was Facebook.
sorry Indy, you are right. I did not make it clear that it was originally posted on facebook in my original post. My bad.
TheCataclysmicAb yss

Shawnee, KS

#16 Feb 4, 2013
Katniss258 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like you don't know what "=" means. Equal. Got it? Not "greater than", or "less than". If I thought my right to speech was greater than the right to bear arms, that's what I would have said in my previous post.
I believe there are aspects of gun ownership that should now be re-evaluated and changed, such as background checks, but not so much as to violate the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms. I believe it is time for every responsible citizen to set aside their petty differences and try to come up with some solutions. Simply shrugging and saying "there ARE no solutions" is not an answer.
Clear now?
It sounds like you don't know what "=" means either. You want to restrict the 2nd Amendment, yet keep the 1st as sacred. The 2nd Amendment protects the 1st. You need to keep in mind that the more you whittle away at the right to bear arms, the more you place the right to free speech in harm's way. Once the anti-gun lap dogs achieve their goal, the 1st Amendment will be one piece of legislation away from following the way of the 2nd. If the people in charge so choose, every right you have will fall and they will be stripped without resistance. Unfortunately, Copy and Paste will not be as effective against government usurpation.
Oh please

Coffeyville, KS

#17 Feb 4, 2013
Katniss258 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like you don't know what "=" means. Equal. Got it? Not "greater than", or "less than". If I thought my right to speech was greater than the right to bear arms, that's what I would have said in my previous post.
I believe there are aspects of gun ownership that should now be re-evaluated and changed, such as background checks, but not so much as to violate the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms. I believe it is time for every responsible citizen to set aside their petty differences and try to come up with some solutions. Simply shrugging and saying "there ARE no solutions" is not an answer.
Clear now?
So if you think the 2nd Amendent should be "re-evaluated and changed" but want us to know it's "not so much as to violate" them then what exactly would it be for???

I think the person is right that suggest you think it's ok to violate the 2nd Amendent because you don't like or agree with it or something but you still hold strong to the your right to the 1st Amendent because you like and agree with it.

I think you need to grow up. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you like and agree with and expect it to be left alone while you suggest violating others right to the ones you don't like or agree with.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18 Feb 5, 2013
Speech wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you equally agree that we need to re-evaluate and change the freedom of speech? The copycat shootings are because they know the media coverage they will get.
Yes, I would have liked to have seen a way around the 1st Amendment regarding the Westboro "Church", but the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. Personally, I find the whole process of our rights - what's constitutional, what's not, what's right, what's not, what's legal, etc.- very fascinating and wonderful, so all the hate and hostility about it bewilders me. We make up the People of this nation, we should be able to talk and work out solutions that are mutually agreeable together.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#19 Feb 5, 2013
Oh please wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the person is right that suggest you think it's ok to violate the 2nd Amendent because you don't like or agree with it or something but you still hold strong to the your right to the 1st Amendent because you like and agree with it.
No, go back a few posts and threads. Wanting better background checks and a better mental health system hardly "violates the 2nd Amendment", it's called trying to find a way to decrease the gun violence in this country. I "like" all our rights in America, that's why I'm a citizen here. But I don't think I should be bullied into shutting up, just like I don't think you should be bullied into giving up your gun. Are we clear NOW, or shall we go on and on and on about, well, nothing?'Cause I'm getting bored with it.
Beaner

Coffeyville, KS

#20 Feb 5, 2013
Indy_Dick wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry Beaner, it wasn't clear that the source was Facebook.
Indy, I am well aware the poster on facebook may very well be one who is against the confiscation policy in Australia. He may be telling the truth and may not.
I am also aware that a government who disarms it's citizens is not going to advertise the bad about what they have done with tax payer money. So to me any statistics put out by the official government media of Australia is also very suspect as far as truthfulness. 500 million is a lot to pay for a failed policy which may endanger the Australian people.
I thought some on here may appreciate some food for thought from another source.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Neodesha Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll Do You Approve Of Harriet Tubman On Five Dollar... 5 min someone else 7
Stadium getting to torn down? 5 min Indy_Dick 40
Highest State Unemployment - Montgomery County 31 min Doc holiday 16
David Wallis (wally 515) resigned from ICC Boar... 3 hr The Marshal 24
rental houses and good landlords 3 hr Frank Crebase 8
Local youth pastors 5 hr Just me 3
Clarity for City Commission Actions 16 hr Frank Crebase 5
More from around the web

Neodesha People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]