Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;439010]You should never ever make a decision out of fear, and this topic has a ton of fear behind it. The main argument for getting rid of guns is bad people are doing bad things with them. Well, you're right. But why try a assbackward way to fix it?[/QUOTE]

The gun rights advocates seem to talk a lot about the "bad guys" and the need to protect themselves. If anything, it sounds like the gun rights advocates use fear to justify their beliefs.

And I don't agree that limiting access to guns is a assbackward way of fixing "the problem." Punishment reacts to the problem, it doesn't prevent it.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;439093]The gun rights advocates seem to talk a lot about the "bad guys" and the need to protect themselves. If anything, it sounds like the gun rights advocates use fear to justify their beliefs.

And I don't agree that limiting access to guns is a assbackward way of fixing "the problem." Punishment reacts to the problem, it doesn't prevent it.[/quote]
Well people believe that they should have the right to owen a gun to protect themself. Who else are they protecting themself from if its not the bad guy? With all the crime that goes on how could you say they use fear when all you have to do is open up the news paper or watch the news on any given day. The threat is there, now the chance of that threat could be debated but not the threat itself. I have had two friends defend themself with a gun. One was home sick when two guys broke into his home and one was armed with a bat and the other with a knife. They came at him until they realised he had a gun. Another friend had his gun with him and while sitting in his car looking up an address he had three guys try to enter his car and threatend him with harm if he did not unlock his door. He pulled out his gun and they took off. Did guns save either one of these guys life? Who knows. but it sure turnd what could have been bad situation into a happy ending. In the first case the guy did shoot one of the intruders in the leg put they still fled and they never found the guys.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

I didnt watch the clip,i really dont care what Nuge has to say,all I know is he rocks,Rush was my first concert,Nuge was my second,keep rockin Ted
[YT]<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cUtYP52Ijvc&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cUtYP52Ijvc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>[/YT]

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;439024]I am sorry, I just don't understand what point you are trying to make.

If you are saying that, "when government begins to infringe on your constitutionally guarranteed rights, we are heading down a slippery slope". [/quote]
Yes, that is what I am saying. Sometimes I write really quick and don't articulate what I am trying to say. My apologies.

[quote]I would still argue that the qualifications to the underlying assumptions of that statement are numerous and invalidate the conclusion. First, as with the 2A debate, the question of what are your "constitutional rights" is something continually the topic of debate and evolution. Second, even once defined, your "constitutional rights" are subject to regulation. [b]There are simply no constitutional rights that are are unlimited.[/b] Your freedom of speech does not entitle you to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Thus, your "freedom of speech" is limited and regulated for the safety of others.[/quote]
See, that's the problem. If we let the government take too much control of our lives, we will become dependant on them. You don't have to look far to see this either. Look at the amount of people on welfare and food stamps, and how many of them volunteer to get off???? We don't rehabilitate those than need rehabilitation, we as a country allow them to suckle off the teet of America without any concern about actually making them a "normal" member of society. We talk a lot about an "exit strategy" in iraq, but we have none for those already sucking our systems dry.
I'm not saying we are around the corner from this, but the next thing you know is the government will tell us what movies to watch, what plants to grow, what food to eat etc. The less they are involved in my life, the better.

[quote]It seems to me that, what you see as a "slippery slope", is simply the government performing its requisite balancing act. [/quote]

Maybe you're right, and I'm just being cynical. It just seems over the years the government is stepping in more and more and taking decisions away from others and telling us more and more on what to do.

[quote]I have never been opposed to maximum individual freedom. I firmly believe that it is the essence of our form of government and necessary for the good of society as a whole. The problem, of course, is that your complete, unfettered freedom will inevitably clash with the complete, unfettered freedom of another (in the words of Isiah Berlin - the fox's idea of freedom is entirely different from the sheep's idea of freedom). Thus, our government exists to balance the inevitable conflicts that arise between you and others when each party is exercising what it views as its constitutional rights. In such clashes, and just as inevitable as the conflicts, is the result that the "constitutional rights" of one or more people will be subject to limitation. [/quote]

Well, I am not saying I have the "freedom" to shoot someone (unless of course he breaks into my home), nor do I have the "freedom" to drink and drive cause that puts others in jeopardy.

[quote]The whole 2A debate is exactly a repesentation of this clash - You assert that you are guarranteed the "right" to "keep and bear" firearms - others argue that they have the "right" to limit the spread of firearms by limiting their ownership to those individuals who are part of a "well-regulated militia". Each side has legitimate constitutional arguments and support. Thus, it is up to the Supreme Court to determine the position that more closely reflects the Constitutional guarrantees. In doing so, the losing side will, inevitably, claim that their rights are being infringed upon when, in fact, the SC is just determining what rights are guarranteed and just how far those guarantees extend before they infringe upon others rights.[/quote]

How is it their right to limit the spread of firearms? That has nothing to do with them directly. Taking firearms away does directly affect someone.
That being said, I have no problem with having stiffer restrictions on guns. (within reason) I do not think a felon should possess a gun. I'm all for getting the guns OUT of those that abused guns in the first place.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;439093]The gun rights advocates seem to talk a lot about the "bad guys" and the need to protect themselves. If anything, it sounds like the gun rights advocates use fear to justify their beliefs.

And I don't agree that limiting access to guns is a assbackward way of fixing "the problem." [b]Punishment reacts to the problem, it doesn't prevent it.[/b][/QUOTE]

I disagree 100%.
Look at a dog. If he pees on the carpet and you let it go, he will continue to do so. If you shove his nose in it, spank him and throw him outside, he eventually learns not to do it.
If you cut the hand off a person that steals, and others watch it, do you seriously think that won't deter others from stealing? I certainly do. Punishment absolutely prevents issues if the punishment is severe enough.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;439240]I disagree 100%.
Look at a dog. If he pees on the carpet and you let it go, he will continue to do so. If you shove his nose in it, spank him and throw him outside, he eventually learns not to do it.
If you cut the hand off a person that steals, and others watch it, do you seriously think that won't deter others from stealing? I certainly do. Punishment absolutely prevents issues if the punishment is severe enough.[/QUOTE]

How many times do you have to do it to a dog? My dog is still shitting in the house:hitfan::laughing2

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;439240]I disagree 100%.
Look at a dog. If he pees on the carpet and you let it go, he will continue to do so. If you shove his nose in it, spank him and throw him outside, he eventually learns not to do it.
If you cut the hand off a person that steals, and others watch it, do you seriously think that won't deter others from stealing? I certainly do. Punishment absolutely prevents issues if the punishment is severe enough.[/QUOTE]

But you don't do all that to the dog before he pees on the carpet do you? You're not shoving his nose in the carpet just because

I think that's what SGG is trying to say

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=htownskinfan;439242]How many times do you have to do it to a dog? My dog is still shitting in the house:hitfan::laughing2[/QUOTE]

My first basset hound figured it out in less than 2 weeks, my second basset took a tad bit longer but it was because of his dominance issues.
The spankings got progressively worse the more they didn't learn it.

What kind of dog do you have?

(editted to be a little more PC)

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;439243]But you don't do all that to the dog before he pees on the carpet do you? You're not shoving his nose in the carpet just because

I think that's what SGG is trying to say[/QUOTE]

I see his point, this is what he said:
[i]Punishment reacts to the problem, it doesn't prevent it.[/i]
He is correct in saying punishment reacts to a problem. However I am saying that punishment prevents problems. We are already having the problem, so the only way to really stop it is to show that we are willing to punish it, and create fear so that the problem does not occur again.
It's not like we're trying to prevent something from EVER occuring, it already is. Since it's not stopping (I believe partly cause of weak punishments) the punishments needs to get severe in order to put fear into the people who are doing the acts.
My dogs fear the beatings, therefore they do their dirty business outside. If I didn't beat on them when they peed on the carpet, they would not have stopped.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;439239]See, that's the problem. If we let the government take too much control of our lives, we will become dependant on them. You don't have to look far to see this either. Look at the amount of people on welfare and food stamps, and how many of them volunteer to get off???? We don't rehabilitate those than need rehabilitation, we as a country allow them to suckle off the teet of America without any concern about actually making them a "normal" member of society. We talk a lot about an "exit strategy" in iraq, but we have none for those already sucking our systems dry.
I'm not saying we are around the corner from this, but the next thing you know is the government will tell us what movies to watch, what plants to grow, what food to eat etc. The less they are involved in my life, the better.[/QUOTE]

So many assertions, so many flawed conclusions.

Preliminarily, I am uncertain as to why you bolded the phrase “There are simply no constitutional rights that are unlimited” in my original post. If it is your assertion that there should be, then I would suggest that you assert an impossibility. In any society of people, unfettered individual liberty simply cannot exist. I would think that to be self-evident but, if you disagree or if I have misstated your intent, please let me know.

On to the rest!

[B]A) “If we let government take too much control of our lives we will become dependant on them”[/B]:

Okay, can we go back to Govt. 101? The “government” which you fear so much is, in fact, nothing more than the embodiment of societal will acting through Constitutionally created structures. Because it represents the whole of us, “Government” was [I]created to [/I]“control our lives” so that the corporate whole can exist through the rule of law and maximize our competing personal liberties. Simply put - without a Government “taking control”, there is no American society – just warlords, tribes and individuals in violent competition with one another.

To balance against this fundamental reason for its existence, i.e. the right of the whole to control the actions of the individual, the Founders, in a moment of brilliance and clarity, realized (as they had seen in Britain) that any government [I]could [/I]overstep this essential function [I]unless[/I] certain personal liberties were guaranteed. In other words, the “government”, i.e. the will of the collective, could very easily, in the name of the collective need, destroy the very thing it was created to protect- the individual. Thus, the Bill of Rights and its guarantees of personal liberties were created to provide a line and to delineate the extent to which the will of the societal whole may “take control” of the individual.

[B]B) “You don't have to look far to see this either. Look at the amount of people on welfare and food stamps, and how many of them volunteer to get off???? We don't rehabilitate those than need rehabilitation, we as a country allow them to suckle off the teet of America without any concern about actually making them a "normal" member of society. We talk a lot about an "exit strategy" in iraq, but we have none for those already sucking our systems dry.”[/B]

The plusses and minuses, abuses and inadequacies of the welfare system could be a thread in and of itself. How many volunteer to go off? I don’t know. I also don’t know how many volunteered to go on either. I am sure, however, that the answer to both questions is not “100%”.

Relevant to the issue at hand, however, is that the whole welfare system, again, represents the balancing of conflicting societal interests and remedies. On one hand, welfare is intended to provide a minimum level of aid to avoid having portions of the populace living in abject poverty b/c, as societies through the ages have recognized, large swaths of poverty create a host of even more expensive and dangerous problems. On the other hand, society as a whole does not want a system that destroys incentive.

Inevitably, these two goals – avoidance of poverty v. disincentive - are in conflict. Through the federal, state, and local govts, our society works on various solutions to the underlying conflicts. Ultimately, we – you and me – have both the ability and opportunity to affect these decisions because the Founders created a federalistic system where we have a legislative voice, popularly elected executives to apply the laws enacted by the will of the people, and a judicial branch to challenge any action by that executive and ensure that the executives apply the laws as enacted.

[B]C) The linkage between govt. “taking control of our lives” and the assertion that we will become dependent upon it.[/B]

And this is where it all completely falls apart: Every day, and in every way, everyone who is a citizen of the US is dependent on the “Government”.

Did you drive on a road today? Do you maintain it? Or are you dependent upon the "Government" to do so? Did you have electricity in your home? As power concerns are monopolistic entities, what steps did you take to ensure that utilities companies provided power at constant rate and price? Do you test your food to ensure it is properly inspected and safe? Again, I could go on forever.

Don’t tell me that these functions are entirely different from Welfare/Food Stamps because they aren't. All of these functions, including the welfare program, are merely various ways of determining how to divide and protect the corporate wealth of the nation and the individuals who comprise that society. You may disagree with how the pie is apportioned, but that does not make you any less dependent upon receiving a slice of it.

Because we live in and are members of a larger society, we are dependent on the “Government”. As I said in the beginning, our dependence upon a central government to determine our corporate needs and balance them against our individual liberties is the essence of and raison d'être for “Government”.

Simply put, we created a “government” because we needed one and, thus, our “dependence” upon the created government is inherent.

Government, despite the current Red State/Blue State characterizations, is not an “Us v. Them” situation. It is an “Us. v Us” situation. The conflict arises as different parts of “Us” fundamentally disagree as to what it is best for the whole of “Us”.

[QUOTE=jsarno;439239]Maybe you're right, and I'm just being cynical. It just seems over the years the government is stepping in more and more and taking decisions away from others and telling us more and more on what to do.[/QUOTE]

Because of our fundamental guarantees of personal freedom, IMO, our society is more free and our government (even considering all its various levels) is less intrusive than any other in the world. I have no extrinsic proof of this, it is just my opinion based on my understanding of other forms of government and my review of the news. The fact that this country of 300 Million people can create a system that provides a single postage rate for letters whether being delivered down the street or across the country and still can guarantee the level of individual freedom that it does is, to me, mind boggling.

Are there flaws, abuses, and inefficiencies and an occasional overstepping of the authority? Absolutely. Does the fact that we can lawfully, consistently and openly discuss these problems create, in me at least, a confidence that the extreme abuses you fear are without foundation? Absolutely.

[I]Of course[/I], we must be ever vigilant and always question governmental actions. The fact that we, as a society, believe it is necessary to protect the individual civilian duty to ask and debate such questions [I]is the very reason[/I] that the abuse you fear will not come to pass.

[QUOTE=jsarno;439239]Well, I am not saying I have the "freedom" to shoot someone (unless of course he breaks into my home), nor do I have the "freedom" to drink and drive cause that puts others in jeopardy.[/QUOTE]

You don’t have these “freedoms” b/c society as a whole, through the “Government” has a right to control your actions by creating limitations on your actions and punishments for violating those limitations. In fact, as your examples demonstrate, the right of the "Government" to limit your rights is the pre-existing situation and that societal right was only limited by the foresight of our founders to enact and guarantee certain personal liberties.

[QUOTE=jsarno;439239]How is it their right to limit the spread of firearms? That has nothing to do with them directly. Taking firearms away does directly affect someone.
That being said, I have no problem with having stiffer restrictions on guns. (within reason) I do not think a felon should possess a gun. I'm all for getting the guns OUT of those that abused guns in the first place.[/QUOTE]

The guarantee of individual liberty that you rely on as your right to possess a firearm exists only as limit [I]to the pre-existing and essential societal right[/I] to limit or control your individual actions to the benefit of the corporate whole. Thus, if the society determines that it is in the best interests of the corporate whole to deprive individuals of gun ownership, it is the "Government’s" right and [I]duty [/I]to do so.

Because of the foresight of our Founders in protecting certain individual liberties, however, society’s right to control your actions as to gun ownership [I]may[/I] be limited by certain 2A constitutional guarantees. That is the essential balancing that Founders created and for which the Constitution provides.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

I have never liked Ted Nugents music, but I agree with over 90% of his political views.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

Ahhh, I haven't got my Ted-Nugent-gun-control-warpath-debate fix in a while. As usual, JoeRedskin has expressed my views far better than I could.


Just a thought: all y'all who are anti-government here, should we then do away with our massive military? Should we at least limit the amount of hard-earned tax-payer dollars siphoned directly into the military-industrial complex? Can we at least get a little oversight there? The lion's share of our tax dollars fund programs in defense, not welfare. A true libertarian (see Milton Friedman or Robert Nozick, for example) would argue for a privatization of the military and an end to the enormous transfer of individual's money to defense contractors.

Here's another thought: gun owners and supporters of gun rights are generally pro defense spending. This suggests it's not rights that are at issue. It's about the ability to KICK ASS, either as an individual or as a nation. There's a feeling that we are being neutered, weakened, pussified, etc. when we can't have serious firepower, either in our homes or in the world at large. And that's something the MOTOR CITY MADMAN would NEVER stand for. Whatever he is, he is no pussy.

Rock on.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=JWsleep;442176]Ahhh, I haven't got my Ted-Nugent-gun-control-warpath-debate fix in a while. As usual, JoeRedskin has expressed my views far better than I could.


Just a thought: all y'all who are anti-government here, should we then do away with our massive military? Should we at least limit the amount of hard-earned tax-payer dollars siphoned directly into the military-industrial complex? Can we at least get a little oversight there? The lion's share of our tax dollars fund programs in defense, not welfare. A true libertarian (see Milton Friedman or Robert Nozick, for example) would argue for a privatization of the military and an end to the enormous transfer of individual's money to defense contractors.

Here's another thought: gun owners and supporters of gun rights are generally pro defense spending. This suggests it's not rights that are at issue. It's about the ability to KICK ASS, either as an individual or as a nation. There's a feeling that we are being neutered, weakened, pussified, etc. when we can't have serious firepower, either in our homes or in the world at large. And that's something the MOTOR CITY MADMAN would NEVER stand for. Whatever he is, he is no pussy.

Rock on.[/quote]
May be you should look at a chart of federal spending. We spend twice as much for SS, and medicare type programs then for our military.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;439249]My first basset hound figured it out in less than 2 weeks, my second basset took a tad bit longer but it was because of his dominance issues.
The beatings got progressively worse the more they didn't learn it.

What kind of dog do you have?[/QUOTE]

rat terrier

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;439472]So many assertions, so many flawed conclusions.

Preliminarily, I am uncertain as to why you bolded the phrase “There are simply no constitutional rights that are unlimited” in my original post. If it is your assertion that there should be, then I would suggest that you assert an impossibility. In any society of people, unfettered individual liberty simply cannot exist. I would think that to be self-evident but, if you disagree or if I have misstated your intent, please let me know.

On to the rest!

[B]A) “If we let government take too much control of our lives we will become dependant on them”[/B]:

Okay, can we go back to Govt. 101? The “government” which you fear so much is, in fact, nothing more than the embodiment of societal will acting through Constitutionally created structures. Because it represents the whole of us, “Government” was [I]created to [/I]“control our lives” so that the corporate whole can exist through the rule of law and maximize our competing personal liberties. Simply put - without a Government “taking control”, there is no American society – just warlords, tribes and individuals in violent competition with one another.

To balance against this fundamental reason for its existence, i.e. the right of the whole to control the actions of the individual, the Founders, in a moment of brilliance and clarity, realized (as they had seen in Britain) that any government [I]could [/I]overstep this essential function [I]unless[/I] certain personal liberties were guaranteed. In other words, the “government”, i.e. the will of the collective, could very easily, in the name of the collective need, destroy the very thing it was created to protect- the individual. Thus, the Bill of Rights and its guarantees of personal liberties were created to provide a line and to delineate the extent to which the will of the societal whole may “take control” of the individual.

[B]B) “You don't have to look far to see this either. Look at the amount of people on welfare and food stamps, and how many of them volunteer to get off???? We don't rehabilitate those than need rehabilitation, we as a country allow them to suckle off the teet of America without any concern about actually making them a "normal" member of society. We talk a lot about an "exit strategy" in iraq, but we have none for those already sucking our systems dry.”[/B]

The plusses and minuses, abuses and inadequacies of the welfare system could be a thread in and of itself. How many volunteer to go off? I don’t know. I also don’t know how many volunteered to go on either. I am sure, however, that the answer to both questions is not “100%”.

Relevant to the issue at hand, however, is that the whole welfare system, again, represents the balancing of conflicting societal interests and remedies. On one hand, welfare is intended to provide a minimum level of aid to avoid having portions of the populace living in abject poverty b/c, as societies through the ages have recognized, large swaths of poverty create a host of even more expensive and dangerous problems. On the other hand, society as a whole does not want a system that destroys incentive.

Inevitably, these two goals – avoidance of poverty v. disincentive - are in conflict. Through the federal, state, and local govts, our society works on various solutions to the underlying conflicts. Ultimately, we – you and me – have both the ability and opportunity to affect these decisions because the Founders created a federalistic system where we have a legislative voice, popularly elected executives to apply the laws enacted by the will of the people, and a judicial branch to challenge any action by that executive and ensure that the executives apply the laws as enacted.

[B]C) The linkage between govt. “taking control of our lives” and the assertion that we will become dependent upon it.[/B]

And this is where it all completely falls apart: Every day, and in every way, everyone who is a citizen of the US is dependent on the “Government”.

Did you drive on a road today? Do you maintain it? Or are you dependent upon the "Government" to do so? Did you have electricity in your home? As power concerns are monopolistic entities, what steps did you take to ensure that utilities companies provided power at constant rate and price? Do you test your food to ensure it is properly inspected and safe? Again, I could go on forever.

Don’t tell me that these functions are entirely different from Welfare/Food Stamps because they aren't. All of these functions, including the welfare program, are merely various ways of determining how to divide and protect the corporate wealth of the nation and the individuals who comprise that society. You may disagree with how the pie is apportioned, but that does not make you any less dependent upon receiving a slice of it.

Because we live in and are members of a larger society, we are dependent on the “Government”. As I said in the beginning, our dependence upon a central government to determine our corporate needs and balance them against our individual liberties is the essence of and raison d'être for “Government”.

Simply put, we created a “government” because we needed one and, thus, our “dependence” upon the created government is inherent.

Government, despite the current Red State/Blue State characterizations, is not an “Us v. Them” situation. It is an “Us. v Us” situation. The conflict arises as different parts of “Us” fundamentally disagree as to what it is best for the whole of “Us”.



Because of our fundamental guarantees of personal freedom, IMO, our society is more free and our government (even considering all its various levels) is less intrusive than any other in the world. I have no extrinsic proof of this, it is just my opinion based on my understanding of other forms of government and my review of the news. The fact that this country of 300 Million people can create a system that provides a single postage rate for letters whether being delivered down the street or across the country and still can guarantee the level of individual freedom that it does is, to me, mind boggling.

Are there flaws, abuses, and inefficiencies and an occasional overstepping of the authority? Absolutely. Does the fact that we can lawfully, consistently and openly discuss these problems create, in me at least, a confidence that the extreme abuses you fear are without foundation? Absolutely.

[I]Of course[/I], we must be ever vigilant and always question governmental actions. The fact that we, as a society, believe it is necessary to protect the individual civilian duty to ask and debate such questions [I]is the very reason[/I] that the abuse you fear will not come to pass.



You don’t have these “freedoms” b/c society as a whole, through the “Government” has a right to control your actions by creating limitations on your actions and punishments for violating those limitations. In fact, as your examples demonstrate, the right of the "Government" to limit your rights is the pre-existing situation and that societal right was only limited by the foresight of our founders to enact and guarantee certain personal liberties.



The guarantee of individual liberty that you rely on as your right to possess a firearm exists only as limit [I]to the pre-existing and essential societal right[/I] to limit or control your individual actions to the benefit of the corporate whole. Thus, if the society determines that it is in the best interests of the corporate whole to deprive individuals of gun ownership, it is the "Government’s" right and [I]duty [/I]to do so.

Because of the foresight of our Founders in protecting certain individual liberties, however, society’s right to control your actions as to gun ownership [I]may[/I] be limited by certain 2A constitutional guarantees. That is the essential balancing that Founders created and for which the Constitution provides.[/quote]

Straight up embarassing Jsarno. I gotta love that.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=jsarno;439249]My first basset hound figured it out in less than 2 weeks, my second basset took a tad bit longer but it was because of his dominance issues.
The beatings got progressively worse the more they didn't learn it.

What kind of dog do you have?[/quote]

I can't believe I missed this the first time around. Do you really beat your dogs?? :doh:

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=jsarno;439240]I disagree 100%.
Look at a dog. If he pees on the carpet and you let it go, he will continue to do so. If you shove his nose in it, spank him and throw him outside, he eventually learns not to do it.
If you cut the hand off a person that steals, and others watch it, do you seriously think that won't deter others from stealing? I certainly do. Punishment absolutely prevents issues if the punishment is severe enough.[/quote]

This logic implies that man and dog are the same. Do you really want to say that?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

Not do hijack this thread too much but does anyone watch the dog whisperer? He's proof that you don't need to beat down a dog to make him learn.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;442337]May be you should look at a chart of federal spending. We spend twice as much for SS, and medicare type programs then for our military.[/QUOTE]

I think there's some question about that, though this is certainly a source with an agenda. The bigger pie is calculated by including debt incurred from military spending, including the supplemental support for the war, and trying to more accurately gauge what is being spent on the war on terror that's buried in other outlays. The smaller pie is the one you refer to, I take it.

We could argue the accuracy of this stuff, no doubt, but if you don't think the gov't is downplaying military spending to some degree, I think you should look more closely.

In any event, my point was more general: if you're against gov't intrusion and taxation, what about military spending? Should there be more or less? Why is it acceptable to a libertarian? My guess is that it's because it's for the common good. But that same reasoning can be used to promote gun control and welfare. The main issue is not whether taxation and government programs are allowed, it's a question of what is in the common interest. There is no blanket prohibition against the government acting in this way, which I take it was JoeRedskin's point.

(And I think a pie hijacking might be appropriate now...)

[IMG]http://www.warresisters.org/pages/images/pieFY09.gif[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.warresisters.org/pages/images/FY09_deception.gif[/IMG]
[url=http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm]The Federal Pie Chart[/url]

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Mattyk72;442389]Not do hijack this thread too much but does anyone watch the dog whisperer? He's proof that you don't need to beat down a dog to make him learn.[/quote]

Cesar is the man. I've used his techniques and they work. I don't think people should be naive enough to think it's going to work as fast for them as they do him though. It does take more time and effort than what you see in a 30 minute TV program. Consistency is the key.

Also, I work around several K9 officers and pick up tips from them. I've been told repeatedly that over-correcting your dog works against what you're trying to instill in them. Dogs live in the moment. You have to correct them while their exhibiting the undesireable behavior, otherwise you're just confusing them if you correct them after the fact. The biggest thing is rewarding a dog when they do something correct. That will re-enforce their training quicker than anything.

As far as house training goes. Shoving your dog's nose in his own urine and smacking it basically tells the dog that urinating is bad, not that the location he did it in is bad.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;442373]I can't believe I missed this the first time around. Do you really beat your dogs?? :doh:[/QUOTE]

As probably the biggest dog lover on this site, I have no problem saying I do indeed punish my dogs with smacks on the ass that get progressively worse until they learn. It works, and it worked within a very short time frame. Haven't had to discipline them in many years now since they are about 6 years old.
Weren't you the same person that got on me cause I seem to love animals more than humans? So I have to ask why in the world you'd bring this up like this on a site about gun control? Maybe it has something to do with the fatc that you would quote someone just to cause trouble. I would give you negative rep points both for that post, and this one, but what's the point? You would just delete yours and then attack another and take away ALL of his right Matty? (think I forgot that one did you?)
When you make posts personal, what kind of remarks are you expecting? Or should I say..."yes massta, sorry massta"?
SO why not get back to being a decent poster again, and not abusing your position here. You [i]can[i] provide decent feedback, and I look forward to seeing those around here instead of crap posts like this with the sole intent of causing trouble.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=jsarno;442411]As probably the biggest dog lover on this site, I have no problem saying I do indeed punish my dogs with smacks on the ass that get progressively worse until they learn. It works, and it worked within a very short time frame. Haven't had to discipline them in many years now since they are about 6 years old.
Weren't you the same person that got on me cause I seem to love animals more than humans? So I have to ask why in the world you'd bring this up like this on a site about gun control? Maybe it has something to do with the fatc that you would quote someone just to cause trouble. I would give you negative rep points both for that post, and this one, but what's the point? You would just delete yours and then attack another and take away ALL of his right Matty? (think I forgot that one did you?)
When you make posts personal, what kind of remarks are you expecting? Or should I say..."yes massta, sorry massta"?
SO why not get back to being a decent poster again, and not abusing your position here. You [i]can[i] provide decent feedback, and I look forward to seeing those around here instead of crap posts like this with the sole intent of causing trouble.[/quote]

I brought it up because you mentioned it earlier in this thread. I didn't just pull this dog beating thing out of the air.

Why are your panties all in a bunch?

I don't even know what you are ranting about.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;442412]I brought it up because you mentioned it earlier in this thread. I didn't just pull this dog beating thing out of the air. [/quote]

I'm sure you were deathly concerned about my dogs :doh:

[quote]Why are your panties all in a bunch?[/quote]

They are not, but I won't sit by and allow you to cause trouble 2 times in 2 days and just take it. How about we just get back to decent discussion?

[quote]I don't even know what you are ranting about.[/QUOTE]

K.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=JWsleep;442393]I think there's some question about that, though this is certainly a source with an agenda. The bigger pie is calculated by including debt incurred from military spending, including the supplemental support for the war, and trying to more accurately gauge what is being spent on the war on terror that's buried in other outlays. The smaller pie is the one you refer to, I take it.

We could argue the accuracy of this stuff, no doubt, but if you don't think the gov't is downplaying military spending to some degree, I think you should look more closely.

In any event, my point was more general: if you're against gov't intrusion and taxation, what about military spending? Should there be more or less? Why is it acceptable to a libertarian? My guess is that it's because it's for the common good. But that same reasoning can be used to promote gun control and welfare. The main issue is not whether taxation and government programs are allowed, it's a question of what is in the common interest. There is no blanket prohibition against the government acting in this way, which I take it was JoeRedskin's point.

(And I think a pie hijacking might be appropriate now...)

[IMG]http://www.warresisters.org/pages/images/pieFY09.gif[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.warresisters.org/pages/images/FY09_deception.gif[/IMG]
[URL="http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm"]The Federal Pie Chart[/URL][/quote]
Yes the cost of Iraq does currently drive up defence spending but that will drop off when the war is over. Take WWII and what that must have done to the budget in its years. I'm talking in general we spend more on other programs than defense. The libertarian party does not believe that all fuctions of the fed gov should be done away with they are more against its ever expanding role in our everyday life. They feel that it sould be left up to the states. One example is health ins. If you could buy health ins by picking you coverages you could save a bunch of money. I don't need addiction coverage, mental health cov. (well my wife may say differently) or aids coverage. I could go on and on but the federal goverment mandates that health ins. co provide these coverages in every policy and it drives the cost way up.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

I said right away in that thread yesterday I was wrong for quoting schneed.

[URL]http://www.redskinswarpath.com/442045-post19.html[/URL]

What more do you want? Everyone makes mistakes. I guess you want to keep it going.

I had moved on, I just wanted to talk about your dog beating.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=jsarno;442411]As probably the biggest dog lover on this site, I have no problem saying I do indeed punish my dogs with smacks on the ass that get progressively worse until they learn. It works, and it worked within a very short time frame. Haven't had to discipline them in many years now since they are about 6 years old.
Weren't you the same person that got on me cause I seem to love animals more than humans? So I have to ask why in the world you'd bring this up like this on a site about gun control? Maybe it has something to do with the fatc that you would quote someone just to cause trouble. I would give you negative rep points both for that post, and this one, but what's the point? [B]You would just delete yours and then attack another and take away ALL of his right Matty? (think I forgot that one did you?) [/B]
When you make posts personal, what kind of remarks are you expecting? Or should I say..."yes massta, sorry massta"?
SO why not get back to being a decent poster again, and not abusing your position here. You [i]can[i] provide decent feedback, and I look forward to seeing those around here instead of crap posts like this with the sole intent of causing trouble.[/quote]

LOL

HUH?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;442422]I said right away in that thread yesterday I was wrong for quoting schneed.

[URL]http://www.redskinswarpath.com/442045-post19.html[/URL]

What more do you want? Everyone makes mistakes. I guess you want to keep it going.

I had moved on, I just wanted to talk about your dog beating.[/QUOTE]

Well, it wasn't right away, I had to PM you why, but whatever.

You're right, everyone makes mistakes, and maybe I am just still a little erked at you for such a post, then another today that has personal attack undertones. (whether you think they were there or not, I did) So I will let this go and we can move on from here. Like I said, you can provide decent feedback to threads.
So, if I overreacted, I apologize.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;442430]LOL

HUH?[/QUOTE]

Do you really want me to get into the specifics here, or would you prefer PM?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

Go ahead shoot, I don't know what you're talking about.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;442447]Go ahead shoot, I don't know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]

Alrighty.
Back when we were just starting out these rep points, I had quite a few...high 30's if I recall. I gave you a negative rep, and the next thing I knew, all those points were erased from me. I even PMed you about it. You then put some back. You got very upset at me about the rep points, even though you deserved it, and you erased what I gave you and erased what others gave me due to your anger over the rep points I gave you.
You don't recall that?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

I don't usually post PM's here, but since you asked, this is what I wrote to you:

[quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by jsarno
I give you an honest reputation comment, and you give me a negative 9 reputation comment saying it is super retarded? A bit high and mighty don't you think Matty? [/quote]
I actually forgot you dropped me to negative 9 points.

this is what you replied:
[quote]I said the thread was retarded and that was my honest opinion, I didn't say you were retarded.

Or are you the only one allowed to be honest and have an opinion?[/quote]

We had 3 more interactions, but that's what started it. I wrote about how it's ok to give me honest feedback, but you did it out of retaliation and you took away all my feedback points out of spite. Like I said, you returned a few, but never back to what it was.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

I recall deleting negative reps that we gave each other after we discussed it, but it was only one each. And if I recall you were the one that got upset when I left you negative points. And I didn't delete anyone else's. I never took any points away from you, I just deleted both the negative reps we left for each other.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;442460]I recall deleting negative reps that we gave each other after we discussed it, but it was only one each. And if I recall you were the one that got upset when I left you negative points. And I didn't delete anyone else's. I never took any points away from you, I just deleted both the negative reps we left for each other.[/QUOTE]


I suppose it could be a misunderstanding, however, how do I go from 30ish in points to negative 9 points, then up to the teens or so for points?
There was obviously some other points deleted.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

I have to agree with jsarno on this one. At times the MODs on here go on a bit of a power trip.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=jsarno;442462]I suppose it could be a misunderstanding, however, how do I go from 30ish in points to negative 9 points, then up to the teens or so for points?
There was obviously some other points deleted.[/quote]

There should have been no net effect on your points, I gave you neg rep and then deleted it.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=mredskins;442463]I have to agree with jsarno on this one. At times the MODs on here go on a bit of a power trip.[/quote]

Right. I guess you haven't frequented any other boards lately? We're just so horrible around here.

Care to give some specifics since you've decided to call us out?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

Matty, this is the last PM we had:

I wrote:

[quote]... I had a feeling these rep points would not be a good thing...I had no idea that you would be the one abusing it. [/quote]

you wrote back:
[quote]ok I edited the rep I left for you to be only -1 and I deleted the comment. [/quote]
Giving me 1 negative rep is fine, but what I was upset about it how you dropped me an unfair amount because it was you that was upset. A non mod or non admin can only give 1 negative rep comment (depending on how many points they have will determine how much you fall) and that was what I would have expected back then. Just cause you have the power to edit / add / delete rep points doesn't mean you should.

I've usually enjoyed your posts here matty, and like I have told you before, you were the reason I came back to this site after my daughter died. I have respect for you, all I ask for is fairness and everyone have the rules applied to them equally.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=mredskins;442463]I have to agree with jsarno on this one. At times the MODs on here go on a bit of a power trip.[/QUOTE]

I'm not really saying that. They are human, and they do make mistakes. I am not the type to look the other way when some injustices occur. When they do, I bring it up to them. I have had a couple issues with exactly 2 mods on here, but nothing we didn't resolve. Other sites would not have been so willing to discuss them, which is why I prefer this site.
Everyone is human, including mods.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Mattyk72;442466]Right. I guess you haven't frequented any other boards lately? We're just so horrible around here.

Care to give some specifics since you've decided to call us out?[/quote]

I didn't say horrible and this is my favorite site, I come every day. My PERCEPTION at times is that the mods on here sometimes go on power trips.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Mattyk72;442422]I said right away in that thread yesterday I was wrong for quoting schneed.

[URL]http://www.redskinswarpath.com/442045-post19.html[/URL]

What more do you want? Everyone makes mistakes. I guess you want to keep it going.

I had moved on, I just wanted to talk about your dog beating.[/quote]
There is a big difference in dog discpline and dog beating. The way you make it sound is that he is beating his dog just because he likes to beat on his dog.