Durbin's Reply

[xmatax]

And since it was brought up...I really can't stand when people stereotype or generalize words like "Liberals", "Ultra-Conservatives", etc...

Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity.

Without trying to bring politics into the debate...Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equal opportunity...so how a "liberal" has come to be defined as someone who mooches off the government, wants free hand outs, thinks everything should be given to them, wants guns banned, etc. is beyond me. If anything Liberals, at least in my mind, want to govern themselves based on conservative principles and their core beliefs with minimal government interaction and that doesn't mean more laws.

Understand WHO you are talking to...Just because someone is a "liberal" doesn't mean they agree 100% with everything defined in the "idiots guide to being liberal" and the same goes with conservatives, repubs, democrats, moderates, Libertarians, Greens, Oranges, Yellows, Independents, or any other type of party that has been created as a spin-off.

[rthomas4]

xmatax, something very strange just occurred here. I posted at 7:27, exactly as you did, and my post disappeared. In it I had asked jph to actually compare the demographics of Canadian cities that are comparable to NYC, LA, St. Louis, Washington, and New Orleans. I also asked him to then compare the FBI violent crime statistics based on racial demographics and do a comparative analysis and show me if my comments are wrong.

I don't feel that it's the place of any citizen of another country, whether it's Canada, China, Mexico, or Great Britain to express opinions on our Constitutional rights. If foreigners are content to live under a socialist government that dictates to them every aspect of their lives from what they can or can not own, to how they receive their medical care, then so be it. If they are jealous of our rights as Americans, then they should make an effort to change their own government, not try to influence changes in ours!

Thank you for your comments, but I also believe you have stated an outdated view of the definition of liberalism. What you defined is more closely aligned with the libertarian philosophy in today's political atmosphere. Liberalism as it is being defined by today's standards is more closely identified with socialism in the respect that it's perceived that the government is responsible for the citizens. Social programs are a major result of the liberal progressive movement that was begun under one of my favorite presidents of all time, Theodore Roosevelt. The problem is that the progressive movement took a left turn beginning with Woodrow Wilson and a radical left turn under Franklin Roosevelt. What we have with Obama is the most socialist POTUS in the history of the US, and his socialism is the direct result of the ever increasing liberal elements of the Democratic Party. If we as a country are to see these social programs come to an end, as well as diverging back towards the rule of law as established by our Constitution, we need to see a stronger libertarian influence gain momentum within the Republican party. Old school conservatism may very well be the basis of our economy, but not for the sustainability of our nation given the diverse nature of our population in today's world. Actually, a Centrist political party with a stronger state's rights lean could possibly be the best solution. That blending of Libertarian ideas with some of the best of the Conservative and old school Liberal policies just might be our salvation.

You have to admit that the 3rd and 4th generation welfare families strongly align themselves with the current socialist/liberal philosophy, and that philosophy is certainly leading the nation to ever growing bankruptcy, financially, morally, and socially. Also, I believe if you polled most gun control advocates, animal rightist, greenies and those who support increased social programs; they would all tell you that they identify themselves as Liberals.

[xmatax]

Very educational post for sure...I'm liberal turned libertarian through no fault but the change in perception of views over time hahaha...

Back to the post...

While there is some good in views here and there as a socialist/liberal, welfare for a family who recently lost a job on a limited basis comes to mind, (I agree sometimes we all need a little "bailout" because of certain circumstances) I would have to agree the assessment of "out of control" and is an understatement as it appears our country is heading down a path of "what can my government do for me" instead of "what can I do for myself (or neighbor or country)". In my view of do whatever the hell you want as long as it doesn't affect me...the political push to create laws to "protect us" is definitely an infringement upon the 2A.

That being said, some of my views can be construed as extremely conservative (Not touching the 2A). I think it has less to do with having a conservative view but rather, if I obey the laws and my morals and live my life respectful of others why should I be punished (new laws) for someone else and their bad actions. The same can be said about wearing a seat belt, or wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle. It's my life, let me do as I please.

I have read thoroughly as I stated everyone's posts about their beliefs...I do agree there needs to be some sense of "regulation" but regulation doesn't necessarily mean passing a new law in my mind. As most others have stated, and rightly so, their love of guns was bestowed upon them usually from a family member (my greatest influence from an early age is my father). In my opinion, the respect one earns in the proper care, use, etc. of these weapons is bestowed upon them by the individuals directly involved in their life. However, that isn't to say that everyone owning a gun, if required, went through classes our situation would improve. The age old argument of Nature vs. Nurture if you will and if one, or both, have an impact and which is greater.

So while I agree with everyone here on "something has to be done"...The "something" is what we are at odds with. It, as always, appears media whether social, liberal, progressive, conservative wants to blame the problem/solution on guns, an inanimate object. In that sense, all sides are wrong. In the truest sense of the equation, guns do not kill people. So in my honest opinion, making another law, creating another restriction or hoop to jump through as it relates to the gun itself doesn't fit into the equation. Instead, as JPH has stated not only in this thread but others...it starts with us, as humans, and I believe that to be the greatest contribution to the thread. I believe no matter how the equation is sliced up, we as humans have to change in order as a society to see the results that everyone wants.

Much like this thread and digressions, we have an issue and somehow we as humans have been sidetracked to bring in other arguments that may or may not even relate to the topic today depending on how interpreted. Consequently it is and has caused some collateral damage to which I hope we, at least as a forum, can get past and once again talk civilly to one another regardless of race, creed, religion, social status and/or political views.

I really only brought up the "liberal" comment to bring up the point that just because a view stereotyped as something doesn't mean generalizations should be thrown around because I still define myself as a "liberal" (modern day libertarian):
"favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."

However, as you pointed out in your post, in today's society we have cast aside the historical definition, or in my opinion the true definition of the word, and replaced it through the passing of time to mean something almost completely opposite of it's original definition. Which in itself is a bit ironic but again that's another topic haha.

[JPH]

I had asked jph to actually compare the demographics of Canadian cities that are comparable to NYC, LA, St. Louis, Washington, and New Orleans. I also asked him to then compare the FBI violent crime statistics based on racial demographics and do a comparative analysis and show me if my comments are wrong.

Now you are assigning me homework? No thanks! I come here when I'd dodging work.

It would not matter anyway. I still don't understand why racial demographics matter in the least. If I'm tracking your logic properly I think your point is that the problem in America is not so much guns as it is black people. I so want to hear you come out and say it!

[xmatax]

"Race, unfortunately and tragically, factors into gun death at the metro level. The share of the population that is black is positively related to both the overall rate of gun death (.56) and even more so with gun-related homicides (.72). The pattern is similar for the share of the population that is comprised of young black males which is also positively related to the overall rate of gun death (.55) and murder by gun (.70)."

Taken from...http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighb ... ence/4171/

Please note there are other correlations to stats that show lack of education or a lower education has higher incidents involving guns than areas that are considered "more educated".

There is also this site which has information in Baltimore and Chicago on "gun related" homicides.
http://www.gunlaws.com/GunshotDemographics.htm

I'm sorry, I looked, apparently not hard enough...but didn't find anything to break down "by race" for Canada...although I did find that Vancouver was the city that had the highest related gun incidents for Canadian cities. (perhaps this is in part due to the strong presence of Hells Angels and other related gang activity)

While I don't believe blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, Japanese, Native Americans, or any other minority is the "reason" behind gun violence, statistics do point towards a correlation between race and gun violence in the United States. It does NOT mean however, because you are black you are going to shoot someone. Again, you have to further dive into the statistics and realize that while this may reflect a small portion of America, these trends, and that is all they are, point to specific geographic locations and specific race are incrementally higher to the "norm" as it relates to the nation as a whole. So the argument by rthomas4 that is if we take out these small concentrated pockets, gun violence as a whole is lower is a true statement, though I don't think he actually meant to eliminate them. Instead focus on these areas to find a common way to make them safer for everyone.

[JPH]

xmatax, are you screening for rthomas4 for a reason? I'll wait for rthomas4 to speak for himself.

As for your own remarks. Even with your statistics, which I will accept at face value, I do not see the relevance to the gun debate. Yes, there are areas of our country that are more violent than others. Yes, these areas often often predominantly black. SO WHAT? Why does that change the fact that human beings that are at stake? Do you feel the need to highlight the racial demographics of Littleton and Aurora, CO or Newtown, CT?

If you want to discuss the issues of poverty, poor education, drug use, and the breakdown of the family as it relates to violence, I'm all in! I've said these are closer to the real issue of mass shootings from the beginning. If you feel the need to drag skin color into the issue I'm calling that out as a racist. Period.

[xmatax]

I'm not screening for anyone. As I pointed out there are other factors that relate to this as well such as a "lower education" level and the material is there to read for yourself. And you are 100% right, one life is no more important than the other. However, these are FACTS that poverty rates play into the GUN equation, education levels play into the GUN equation, upbringing plays into the GUN equation, unfortunately because of these rates playing into the equation the areas affected are predominantly minorty. It has NOTHING to do with being a racist or not being a racist so stop throwing around accusations as such. If I found evidence that of the vast amounts of these crimes were carried out by people of German heritage and posted it on here would I be labeled a neo-nazi? Perhaps the shooters at Columbine, Newtown, and Littleton were Jewish and getting back at the Germans for WW2...Maybe they had no faith at all and are anarchists? All of these, as well as someone pointing out the fact that the majority of shootings are linked to a specific ethnic group of people does not mean someone is "insert label here". It only means they are looking into the situation and finding similiarties or patterns or trends which should be taken into consideration when solving the problem.

What you are bringing into equation with Littleton and Newton are out of the "norm" events but starting to happen with more frequency and they are concerning, but the fact remains the most troubled areas as it relates to gun related crimes are inner cities, usually gang related, particularly the 18 - 24 age group and dare I say it, black community. The everyday gun violence result in a lower loss of life at a single moment when compared to the Newtowns, Littleton's and Columbine, yet the media and politicians neglect the real problems of gun violence in the inner cities and want to "honor" victims of select instances, project them as heroes, and use it for personal gain to pass new laws.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/informat ... sp?ID=3419 Perhaps this family should have sung instead at the Super Bowl?

JPH, I do my best to let emotion stay out of situations when looking at anything in life and try to get to the FACTS because emotional decisions do NOT solve problems, well thought out plans solve problems.

Equally so, I did point out that I believe you were 100% spot on in this is "something else" an evil if you will, upbringing, hatred, amongst human beings that is our largest dilema. Just because someone points out a stastical fact that is contradictory to your argument doesn't label them as anything other than a person pointing out a fact.

I don't believe in a "higher power" so that being said the arguement of people being troubled by faith and possessed by "evil" and they need god and/or praryer in their life is cult-like and only thrown out by religious fanatics. I know better, it's a copmlete fallacy to label everyone who thinks people who suffer from troubled faith are the cause of the shootings as religious fanatics, you being one of those people. I have not once said because you choose to have god in your life you're a religious nut, skewed by faith, etc. I accept your thoughts for what they are and I agree to an extent there are troubling reasons as to why this problem gets bigger everyday. Whether you think they are the work of the devil, or I think they are the work of imporoper education, our end result is the same we have a problem and it needs fixed. There is "something else" playing part in the the whole scenario and in your context of "troubled faith" and mine of improper education points to it NOT being GUNS in any way, shape, or form are a part of the problem it's the people involved.

However, if you choose to label me a racist because of facts pointed out, I'll refrain from posting on the forum. It's that lack of intelligent forethought to label me as such. It'd be the same as me calling you a religious freak for believing in god, and religion or lack there of, is playing part into all of this.

[rthomas4]

At least xmatax understands my position. Thank you for stating the obvious and trying to legitimize my comments to someone who would rather play the race card when confronted with the truth.

jph, I suggested you do the research for your own enlightenment, not as a homework assignment. I was hoping that you would possibly get past your own misconceptions about my point and discover that what I stated has a basis in fact. Considering your comments to xmatax, and your obvious desire to label me as a racist, I have come to the realization that no amount of logic will sway you from your opinion. So in order to satisfy you, if stating the truth about violence in the inner cities is being a racist, then hell yes I'm a racist! Happy now??????????? BTW, I'm also an agnostic, vote Republican 99% of the time, and live in a county where whites are outnumbered 9-1 by blacks and our crime rates reflect the population demographics. I believe 100% in state's rights, the Constitution, and that Obama and the current administration is intent on creating a situation that will result in martial law and civil unrest. I despise the UN and NATO, don't believe in foreign aid, and especially don't subscribe to sending humanitarian aid to stricken third world nations while ignoring our own parts of the country that are living in third world situations. I believe in survival of the fittest, and if places such as Haiti and the Dominican get wiped off the map by hurricanes and disaster then it's their problem, not ours. I don't believe the Federal Government should be responsible for disaster relief for the victims of hurricanes and other natural disasters, when homeowners build in flood zones and on beach front properties (and I live in a major hurricane prone portion of the country). I suppose that all of my beliefs also contribute to making me a racist in your opinion.......and I don't really give a damn!

I will continue to fight against any individual or group who desire to take away any of my gun rights, or destroy our Constitution; and will fight side by side with my beloved NRA in every effort to protect those rights.

BTW, I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Journalism with equivalent hours for minors in history, political science, English education, and psychology, from Georgia Southern University, class of 1975. I am a past president of the Optimist International Chapter of Fernandina Beach, Florida, and have received FEMA training on Flood Hazard areas and maps, I've taught commercial banking classes, and managed Automotive Parts stores and several restaurants. I am permanently disabled due to suffering 3 strokes in 4 days after a fall that broke my back. As a result I have Parkinson's disease, and have had open heart surgery, suffer from kidney stones, diabetes, and high blood pressure. I have permanent legal custody of my 16 year old step-grandson whom I took from his crack smoking mother at the age of 3 months, and have raised him by myself after my wife died the day after he turned two.

I am a redneck, gun owning, deer hunting fanatic, and am willing to die for my beliefs.........and contrary to indications by you, I posted the above as proof of my education and background in order to provide evidence that I'm not an ignorant, Southern hick as so many Northerners love to portray us in the South. I've never dated a cousin, either, and I do fly both the US and the Confederate flag every day. I drive a pickup truck with a gun rack, CB radio, and keep a gun in my possession at all times.....because the Constitution says I can!!!!!!!!!

[JPH]

xmatax, I'm not calling you a racist. I'm calling efforts to correlate skin color and violence a racist tactic.

Now, when people start tossing out that the war that ended slavery was the "War of Northern Aggression", or make repeated references to certain people as "illegals", red flags go up. And the suggestion that the solution to gun violence is to segregate black inner-city youth?!? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Lets say for a second that your enlightened thought process does in fact lead to the discovery that the melanin in a person's skin makes them prone to gun violence? What then? Segregation? Race panels? Camps? I really don't know what you hope to gain from the suggestion and the idea that it would go unchecked is offensive to me.

[Woods Walker]

Well, if you commit and illegal act and get into the country illegally, then that does make one's presence here "illegal", regardless of race or nationality. I understand what you mean in that their existance as a human being is NOT, and cannot be "illegal" in any way, but their ACTIONS in this regard certainly can be and in fact are.