Fox News vs. mental stability

**YetAnotherBloodyCheek** · Feb 19th, 2013, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by reaper239

why not? they aren't hurting anybody? i understand that in europe that's ilegal (i don't mean that all of europe is the same, but i'm pretty sure that's not allowed anywhere) but why should it be?who's rights are they violating? their clearly there for the sole purpose of making a visible protest, who is actually afraid here? i doubt if they were going to cause any harm they would be standing there taking pictures and posing for the camera.

regarding fox news: fox news is the most watched news program in the united states http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...4-2013/169564/. the reason is that, while fox news does lean slightly right, the other networks are so far left, they don't even try to hide it anymore. the other "news" agencies cover up stories, misrepresent stories, report out right lies, and the people are tired of it.

There is not wrong with the guns picture above. I just said that it would not be possible in Europe.
Moreover, I like to watch a Fox show on a regular basis:

**Osiris** · Feb 19th, 2013, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by reaper239

why not? they aren't hurting anybody? i understand that in europe that's ilegal (i don't mean that all of europe is the same, but i'm pretty sure that's not allowed anywhere) but why should it be?who's rights are they violating? their clearly there for the sole purpose of making a visible protest, who is actually afraid here? i doubt if they were going to cause any harm they would be standing there taking pictures and posing for the camera.

regarding fox news: fox news is the most watched news program in the united states http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...4-2013/169564/. the reason is that, while fox news does lean slightly right, the other networks are so far left, they don't even try to hide it anymore. the other "news" agencies cover up stories, misrepresent stories, report out right lies, and the people are tired of it.

To be honest? I don't feel safe being around someone with an assault rifle slung around their neck if they aren't in a uniform. I have no idea who the guy is. Why would I trust him enough to be comfortable with that? I have to agree with the principle of random citizens being barred from bringing firearms to any type of legislative building. Who knows what asshole is going to walk into a place and start shooting? Whose rights are they violating? Mine. It's violating my right to freedom, because as long as someone is standing in front of me with a gun, I'm not free. I'm restricted to what they allow me.

I cannot abide someone standing behind an misinterpreted clause on a bit of paper no longer applies to the modern world. It's misguided, misinformed, and antiquated. The world has evolved beyond that, and the laws need to catch up. This is not to say that I'm supportive of gun control laws one way or the other. It doesn't mean that I don't believe an individual has a right to protect his/herself. It means I'm against any citizen, anywhere having the ability to walk into a place carrying an assault rifle, pistol or musket where the officials that I have elected are holding court.

It means I'm against anyone having the ability to carry a weapon in public. Period. I agree that citizens should have the right to bear arms, but the purpose is to maintain a militia to keep their governing body in check, not to go to the grocery store with a 9mm in the small of their back because they have a concealed carry license. Those people represent as much of a danger to me as the drug dealer on the corner with his 9mm.

I think it's a blatant misreading of an outmoded "law" which was drafted in a very different world, and it's convoluted and distorted to no end, and for no real benefit to the citizens as a whole.

**reaper239** · Feb 19th, 2013, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Osiris

To be honest? I don't feel safe being around someone with an assault rifle slung around their neck if they aren't in a uniform. I have no idea who the guy is. Why would I trust him enough to be comfortable with that? I have to agree with the principle of random citizens being barred from bringing firearms to any type of legislative building. Who knows what asshole is going to walk into a place and start shooting? Whose rights are they violating? Mine. It's violating my right to freedom, because as long as someone is standing in front of me with a gun, I'm not free. I'm restricted to what they allow me.

I cannot abide someone standing behind an misinterpreted clause on a bit of paper no longer applies to the modern world. It's misguided, misinformed, and antiquated. The world has evolved beyond that, and the laws need to catch up. This is not to say that I'm supportive of gun control laws one way or the other. It doesn't mean that I don't believe an individual has a right to protect his/herself. It means I'm against any citizen, anywhere having the ability to walk into a place carrying an assault rifle, pistol or musket where the officials that I have elected are holding court.

It means I'm against anyone having the ability to carry a weapon in public. Period. I agree that citizens should have the right to bear arms, but the purpose is to maintain a militia to keep their governing body in check, not to go to the grocery store with a 9mm in the small of their back because they have a concealed carry license. Those people represent as much of a danger to me as the drug dealer on the corner with his 9mm.

I think it's a blatant misreading of an outmoded "law" which was drafted in a very different world, and it's convoluted and distorted to no end, and for no real benefit to the citizens as a whole.

but you have the same rights he does, he's not barring you from anything. in fact, more than likely, he's just like you: a law abiding citizen. so you're saying, that in order to facilitate your false sense of security (because remember, criminals carry guns in gun free zones, that's why they're criminals) you would bar someone their right to an actual sense of security in the fact that they have the ability to defend themselves from the criminals who don't care about the law? i take personal offense that you are calling me a criminal. i know it wasn't meant that way, but i am the person in the grocery store with my concealed handgun, and to compare me, and all the people like me, to a criminal who commits violence as a means of facilitating his illegal enterprise, is a gross misrepresentation of us, or an outright insult (i don't think you meant it that way though). i don't understand how a principle that has proven itself out over and over can be said to be out dated, or out moded. the benefit comes from the more than 5,000 honest citizens who defend themselves everyday in this country with firearms. it comes from the fact that chicago, which has had the strictest gun laws of any city in the nation, has the highest murder rate, at one point up to a murder every 3.5 hours, and tampa, a city in florida aka the gun-shine state, just recorded their first murder last week. it comes from safer schools in utah, where teachers carry guns and there has never been a school shooting, and safer streets in our cities and towns. anyone who says the second ammendment is outdated and we need to prohibit citizens from carrying needs to pay attention: the US is one giant experiment where different flavors of law are implimented across the country to see which one is best. where liberals reign, there are stricter gun laws, higher crime, higher poverty, higher unemployment, and where true conservatives have control there is less gun control, lower crime rates, lower poverty, and lower unemployment.

**Osiris** · Feb 19th, 2013, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by reaper239

but you have the same rights he does, he's not barring you from anything. in fact, more than likely, he's just like you: a law abiding citizen. so you're saying, that in order to facilitate your false sense of security (because remember, criminals carry guns in gun free zones, that's why they're criminals) you would bar someone their right to an actual sense of security in the fact that they have the ability to defend themselves from the criminals who don't care about the law? i take personal offense that you are calling me a criminal. i know it wasn't meant that way, but i am the person in the grocery store with my concealed handgun, and to compare me, and all the people like me, to a criminal who commits violence as a means of facilitating his illegal enterprise, is a gross misrepresentation of us, or an outright insult (i don't think you meant it that way though). i don't understand how a principle that has proven itself out over and over can be said to be out dated, or out moded. the benefit comes from the more than 5,000 honest citizens who defend themselves everyday in this country with firearms. it comes from the fact that chicago, which has had the strictest gun laws of any city in the nation, has the highest murder rate, at one point up to a murder every 3.5 hours, and tampa, a city in florida aka the gun-shine state, just recorded their first murder last week. it comes from safer schools in utah, where teachers carry guns and there has never been a school shooting, and safer streets in our cities and towns. anyone who says the second ammendment is outdated and we need to prohibit citizens from carrying needs to pay attention: the US is one giant experiment where different flavors of law are implimented across the country to see which one is best. where liberals reign, there are stricter gun laws, higher crime, higher poverty, higher unemployment, and where true conservatives have control there is less gun control, lower crime rates, lower poverty, and lower unemployment.

Curious that you drew the conclusion I called you a criminal. I'd encourage you to point that out to me with a direct quote. As of now, you're interpreting my words the same way you interpret the "right to bear arms." And that is--as I see it, mind you--falsely.

That aside, this is exactly where we get into the rub. What is a right? What are the rights of citizens? What are the rights of gun owners? What are the rights of humans? I encourage you to read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While I may not be in agreeance with the UN or all that it stands for, I believe in the charter of human rights at its core. Article 3 states

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

You have the right to security, as do I. I feel that someone standing behind me in the checkout with a pistol is as much a threat to my personal security as the drug dealer standing outside with the pistol in his pocket. Now, to be completely clear: This does NOT equate the average gun owner with the average drug dealer. What that means is the person standing in front of me has as much potential to harm me with that pistol as the person standing outside. I don't want him to have a gun any more or less than I want the person standing in front of me to.

I think there is room to improve gun laws, and I think there is room to improve the consequences of breaking those laws. They are far too lenient.

As for arguing that "law abiding" gun owners differ from "criminal" gun owners, you can't really make that argument without raising the questions of mental stability of individuals. Saying that the guy you go shooting with every weekend isn't going to snap on Tuesday morning when he comes home to find his wife in bed with his neighbour. It doesn't go very far in defence of that argument when the guns and ammunition used in Aurora were purchased legally. Or Colorado, again legal acquisition. This is the area that needs the work. Who can buy, as well as what they can buy. You can argue now that, "Well, the drug dealers have assault rifles, so we should be able to have them, too," and I'll tell you, "No, that's both near-sighted, and short-sighted." The fact that they are made available is the reason they are on the streets.

I can tell you for a fact, the guy at the Pho restaurant down the road selling guns gets them from a local gun store, not Colombian warlords. It is too easy to get things that are not needed--rather, shouldn't be--in a first world country. As far as your support of the idea that guns don't kill people, people kill me people--as evident by the statistics you've thrown out--I say that simply isn't true. People with guns kill people. There is no evidence to support your thesis that carrying weapons prevent violent crimes. That's a myth, plain and simple. I could say, "More guns being available equates to higher incidences of gun related fatalities," and I would be correct, because the numbers add up.

As far as your politics, that's your own business. I'm not going to argue the merits of one over the other, as it isn't applicable to the fundamental issue: who is violating whose rights, and which is more important? How do you separate them? Are you arbitrarily assigning a greater value to one simply because it conflicts with something you feel you shouldn't have to give up? What right is worth more in the grand scheme of things, and which is fitting more fitting for an advanced, intelligent civilization that we seem to be striving for?

**reaper239** · Feb 19th, 2013, 01:45 PM

so if they're a threat, then arm yourself. and yes, i did take a little liberal interpretation with what you said, but that is certainly one way of taking it, because it seems that you are equateing all people who carry the same. they are not. you and i differ greatly on our definition of "improve." from my point of view, improvement would be getting rid of gun free zones, getting rid of the permit system (ie you don't need a permit to carry), and removing restrictions on what people can buy. who defines need? and as far as myth goes, the only myth is the myth of police protection. all you have to do is look at gun laws across the US, go ahead this is a challenge, and then look at violent crime. my thesis is a fact. while correlation does not automatically equal causation, the facts are that violent crime sees a precipetous drop whenever concealed carry has been enacted. it's not the wild west, there are no rivers of blood, it's just law abiding citizens defending themselves from criminals. as far as rights go, what gives you the right to tell me what i can and can't carry? what gives you the right to determine what rights i can have? i say the more civilized and advanced society doesn't attempt to micro manage their citizens and instead entrusts them to mangage themselves in all aspects. without violating their rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and property. and after all, that's all guns are, property.

**Osiris** · Feb 19th, 2013, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by reaper239

so if they're a threat, then arm yourself. and yes, i did take a little liberal interpretation with what you said, but that is certainly one way of taking it, because it seems that you are equateing all people who carry the same. they are not. you and i differ greatly on our definition of "improve." from my point of view, improvement would be getting rid of gun free zones, getting rid of the permit system (ie you don't need a permit to carry), and removing restrictions on what people can buy. who defines need? and as far as myth goes, the only myth is the myth of police protection. all you have to do is look at gun laws across the US, go ahead this is a challenge, and then look at violent crime. my thesis is a fact. while correlation does not automatically equal causality, the facts are that violent crime sees a precipetous drop whenever concealed carry has been enacted. it's not the wild west, there are no rivers of blood, it's just law abiding citizens defending themselves from criminals. as far as rights go, what gives you the right to tell me what i can and can't carry? what gives you the right to determine what rights i can have? i say the more civilized and advanced society doesn't attempt to micro manage their citizens and instead entrusts them to mangage themselves in all aspects. without violating their rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and property. and after all, that's all guns are, property.

Again, what gives you the right to force me to conform to your way of thinking? You seem intent to push your way of thinking upon anyone and everyone around you, content that your beliefs are the only ones that matter. That simply isn't true. As far as your facts, they are also not true. You show me the proof, and I'll say sure. You can't do that, because that proof doesn't exist. The reason it doesn't is simple: it isn't true. Harvard seems to support the idea that more guns equate to more gun related crimes and fatalities. The studies are on their website if you care to read them.

The idea that you have the ability to define and manipulate the law to fit your way of thinking is 80% of the problem with gun crime. Registered owners are just as likely to commit crimes with their weapons as anyone. Sorry, but that's just a fact of human behaviour. It has nothing to do with a piece of paper. You can't argue against that because thousands of years of human history support me. Human nature is not defined with a piece of paper. As far as getting rid of "gun free zones," we're once again getting into whose right is more important? It's simple. If I don't have a gun, and you don't have a gun then neither one of us can shoot the other. Therefore, we are safe as houses from gun crime. If you have a gun, and I don't have a gun then you can shoot me, and one of us is no longer safe as houses from gun crime. Therefore, it is my right to make myself safe by having your gun removed from the equation. You can argue that I should simply arm myself, but now I've comprimised violated someone else's right in doing so.

You can argue that guns are property, but I can argue that anything can be construed as property, and we'd both look like idiots for doing so. Again, it's a manipulation of language to stand in favour of a personal opinion, not at all in the spirit or intent of the language in which it was written. Which is what makes it antiquated, and outmoded. It doesn't apply any longer. Just ask the blade runner. Registered gun owner, caps his old lady. He's not safe, what makes you safe? Because you say you are? I bet he said he was safe, too.

**Osiris** · Feb 19th, 2013, 02:10 PM

It's a circular argument--gun law.

That said, I hate Fox "News."

**reaper239** · Feb 19th, 2013, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Osiris

Again, what gives you the right to force me to conform to your way of thinking? You seem intent to push your way of thinking upon anyone and everyone around you, content that your beliefs are the only ones that matter. That simply isn't true. As far as your facts, they are also not true. You show me the proof, and I'll say sure. You can't do that, because that proof doesn't exist. The reason it doesn't is simple: it isn't true. Harvard seems to support the idea that more guns equate to more gun related crimes and fatalities. The studies are on their website if you care to read them.

which is the exact same thing you are doing. you say that i'm forcing my view onto you, but that's exactly what you're doing by denying me my rights. how can you not see that? you say no one should have a gun, and that arguing against you is forcing you to conform to my way of thinking, but you are doing the same thing. as far as facts, do a little studying yourself, look at the statistics, honest and unbiased, and if you still say there's no correlation, then i say you are dilluded.

The idea that you have the ability to define and manipulate the law to fit your way of thinking is 80% of the problem with gun crime. Registered owners are just as likely to commit crimes with their weapons as anyone. Sorry, but that's just a fact of human behaviour. It has nothing to do with a piece of paper. You can't argue against that because thousands of years of human history support me. Human nature is not defined with a piece of paper. As far as getting rid of "gun free zones," we're once again getting into whose right is more important? It's simple. If I don't have a gun, and you don't have a gun then neither one of us can shoot the other. Therefore, we are safe as houses from gun crime. If you have a gun, and I don't have a gun then you can shoot me, and one of us is no longer safe as houses from gun crime. Therefore, it is my right to make myself safe by having your gun removed from the equation. You can argue that I should simply arm myself, but now I've comprimised violated someone else's right in doing so.

you can say that, but the fact is that most people do not commit crimes. how can i say that? because there aren't daily bloodbaths with people killing each other over the same few dollars they stole from that schmuck under all the other bodies. and sure, we're safe from guns, until a criminal shows up with a gun and then, OH! neither one of us has a gun to defend from that guy! you cannot control criminals, that's why there's a booming drug trade (in case you were wondering). owning property (ie a gun) does not violate anyones right. misuse of that property may constitute a violation of a third parties rights, but taking that property away from the rightful owner is definitely a violation. you cannot preserve rights by violating rights, that's like saying to get out of debt you have to spend more money, or to lose weight, eat more cake. it doesn't work, it's a fundamental truth. if you are going to make arguments like that, you clearly don't have a solid understanding of the concept of "rights," so it wouldn't make any sense for me to continue debating this with you as we have two diametricly opposed points of reference.

You can argue that guns are property, but I can argue that anything can be construed as property, and we'd both look like idiots for doing so. Again, it's a manipulation of language to stand in favour of a personal opinion, not at all in the spirit or intent of the language in which it was written. Which is what makes it antiquated, and outmoded. It doesn't apply any longer. Just ask the blade runner. Registered gun owner, caps his old lady. He's not safe, what makes you safe? Because you say you are? I bet he said he was safe, too.

see above.

**Osiris** · Feb 19th, 2013, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by reaper239

which is the exact same thing you are doing. you say that i'm forcing my view onto you, but that's exactly what you're doing by denying me my rights. how can you not see that? you say no one should have a gun, and that arguing against you is forcing you to conform to my way of thinking, but you are doing the same thing. as far as facts, do a little studying yourself, look at the statistics, honest and unbiased, and if you still say there's no correlation, then i say you are dilluded.

Speculative. Show me definitive proof. There isn't any. I can show you examples of people who followed the system to the letter only to commit crimes later on. Please tell me that those stories are made up by the media who are in favour of gun control to sway public opinion. Please tell me that they are lies. Who is deluded here? I'm standing on 2000 years of human history, what are you standing on?

you can say that, but the fact is that most people do not commit crimes. how can i say that? because there aren't daily bloodbaths with people killing each other over the same few dollars they stole from that schmuck under all the other bodies. and sure, we're safe from guns, until a criminal shows up with a gun and then, OH! neither one of us has a gun to defend from that guy! you cannot control criminals, that's why there's a booming drug trade (in case you were wondering). owning property (ie a gun) does not violate anyones right. misuse of that property may constitute a violation of a third parties rights, but taking that property away from the rightful owner is definitely a violation. you cannot preserve rights by violating rights, that's like saying to get out of debt you have to spend more money, or to lose weight, eat more cake. it doesn't work, it's a fundamental truth. if you are going to make arguments like that, you clearly don't have a solid understanding of the concept of "rights," so it wouldn't make any sense for me to continue debating this with you as we have two diametricly opposed points of reference.

Again, a distortion of the language and numbers to suit the argument. Who said that guns bring daily blood baths? Nobody. You're putting words in my mouth to suit your argument. As far as "can't violate rights to preserve them" this is entirely true. You're not preserving my rights by violating them. Remember you said that when you hide behind that argument, because it no longer holds weight for your cause. You can't rail against what you're trying so desperately to hold dear. That's just futile. As far as my understanding of "rights" trying to argue that violating my rights is your own right, shows that you don't have an understanding of the principle, proof of which being you've failed to understand the question put forth. It's a question you haven't answered yet: What gives you the right to determine where my rights end, and what gives your rights precedence over my own?

So answer it.

Further, saying the drug trade is booming because of an inability to control criminals is akin to saying that freedom to carry a gun wherever you like lowers crime rates across the board. There's no evidence that supports this. There isn't. If there was you would have shown me already, ending the argument. You can't. Neither can anyone else who stands on your side of the table. Arguing about taking away property with the examples you cited shows me that you're not understanding the language I'm using. So let me put it to you this way:

Are you against smoking in public? It's a matter of property. The cigarettes are my property, I've a right to do with them as I please.
What about drugs? I have a right to do with my drugs as I please, so is it ok for me to shoot up in public, or to give those drugs to someone else? Perhaps outside of a school yard? It's a matter of property by your definition of the law.
How about nudity? My body is my property, are you going to refuse my right to do with my property as I see fit? Even if what I see fit is to walk naked into your business?

The law you're arguing is purposely ambiguous.

Continue your ravings, I'm finished.