Gun Control ?

[Aquila King]

11 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

...except, it's not. Do you live in Cali by chance? You seem to view the world through a very Liberal bubble and you seem to find it absurd anyone could possibly have a different opinion.

Actually, I happen to live in Kentucky of all places (currently in Lexington, which is a progressive oasis within a desert of conservatism), and I even grew up in a conservative small town. I know first hand the backward nature of conservative ideologies. I was pretty much the only one around me that wasn't conservative.

You act as though I've never seen or heard any conservative arguments before. I've heard literally every argument imaginable I'd say. Again, I've lived it first hand. I'm telling you this with absolute 100% honesty: There has never been a single conservative I've encountered on here that has presented any argument I haven't heard a million times before.

My point is, I don't reject your position due to lack of exposure to it. Quite the opposite is true actually. I grew up with it all around me. I reject your position because I find all of these same ol' arguments of yours to be flat-out false. My lack of accepting your arguments has nothing to do with me not being open to other people's opinions, it has to do with the fact that I find your position to be false, and I have yet to encounter any argument to prove otherwise. Simply presenting the same damn thing to me over and over again will not convince me of it being true, because I have heard it all before.

20 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

Conservatism will never actually die because in some ways your political ideology is literally tied in to your biology. Liberals tend to have lower testosterone and are more agreeable and submissive to their peers. Key phrase here is "tend to have" - there are exceptions to every rule.

Liberal and Can’t Help It: Is Political Orientation Biologically Determined?

Old article but this has been studied many times.

Lol, I can play the same game here bud: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes

23 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

So as long as human beings diverge in their brain chemistry, you will never get everyone on the same page. Even more so in this politically charged climate where each side is doubling down on their beliefs. The future will be just as divided as it is now, regardless of which color party is in Office. If you really believe "the future of Social Democracy is already here", I suggest you read more polls. A lot of Democrats are not happy with this new fringe-based ideology the party is pushing.

To some extent, I can agree with you there. However the fact remains that regardless of brain chemistry, major political ideological shifts among a population does indeed happen, and the polls still bear out that such a shift is happening here in America among millennials.

[Aquila King]

41 minutes ago, Myles said:

It's too bad the good points you made in that post are overshadowed by the fake news you included.  

Do you ever post anything on here that actually seeks to prove a point?

I gave a rational argument backed by evidence, and all you do is dismiss it as 'fake news'.

Do you not understand what the difference is between an argument and an assertion?

[Aquila King]

14 minutes ago, aztek said:

living in parents house, on their dime, and not having to face real world issues is what creates opinions like that,

I just love it when baby boomers s**t on millennials like this, all while ignoring the fact that it's precisely the baby boomer's economic policies that put so many millennials in that kind of financial situation in the first place.

You F up the economy (and so much else) and then complain about the next generation not doing as well as you did. Well no s**t Sherlock, it's because you put us in this mess with your Reaganomics BS.

[Myles]

26 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Do you ever post anything on here that actually seeks to prove a point?

I gave a rational argument backed by evidence, and all you do is dismiss it as 'fake news'.

Do you not understand what the difference is between an argument and an assertion?

Much of what you posted has been debunked.    You should research before posting fluff.

 

[Dark_Grey]

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

 it has to do with the fact that I find your position to be false, and I have yet to encounter any argument to prove otherwise. Simply presenting the same damn thing to me over and over again will not convince me of it being true, because I have heard it all before.

Other than nitpicking the wording of the Second Amendment, there isn't much to debate when it comes to guns other than deliberate lies by the Liberal media to create more fear.

- Mass shootings do overwhelmingly happen in "gun free" zones.

- The number of shootings outside of gangs and suicides is relatively low compared to the numbers of guns and gun owners. 

- Good guys with guns stop home invasions, attempted mass-shootings and other crimes fairly routinely. Many of these incidents go under-reported as they don't fit the narrative of "guns = bad".

- Guns are the "great equalizer". It doesn't matter how small or how big you are, a gun puts you on the same level or better than the other guy. Which brings me to my next point...

- Restricting guns discriminates against women. Feminists want "safe spaces" for women and they can't stop raving about the evils of man yet Liberals want to deny women the right to protect themselves? In their eyes, "a woman raped and murdered is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet". 

These aren't opinions, they are simply irrefutable facts backed by data. If you've heard them all before yet you are still against gun ownership, that's on you.

Quote

Lol, I can play the same game here bud: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes

What game? Linking political affiliation and biology? Seems like you just read the title of the link I posted and not the article (Hint: the article discussed both ideologies)

Quote

To some extent, I can agree with you there. However the fact remains that regardless of brain chemistry, major political ideological shifts among a population does indeed happen, and the polls still bear out that such a shift is happening here in America among millennials.

I guess time will tell. Lucky for us, you guys don't believe in gun ownership or having families 

[Aquila King]

48 minutes ago, Myles said:

Much of what you posted has been debunked.    You should research before posting fluff.

You're proving my point... You could 'debunk' it yourself, but you aren't, and apparently you won't. You aren't making any arguments.

It's truly laughable that you tell me to do research, when I'm the one posting actual polls and statistics, while you're over here posting nothing but assertions.

[Aquila King]

1 minute ago, Dark_Grey said:

These aren't opinions, they are simply irrefutable facts backed by data. If you've heard them all before yet you are still against gun ownership, that's on you.

Dear god all mighty, I had no idea it was possible to be that delusional:

• https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts
• https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/21/17028930/gun-violence-us-statistics-charts
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/mass-shootings/?utm_term=.d556ab8ebff4
• https://qz.com/1212809/compare-us-mass-shootings-and-gun-control-to-germany-china-russia-switzerland-and-australia/
• http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
• http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

Absolutely all of the statistics overwhelmingly prove that more guns = more gun violence. THAT is an irrefutable fact, backed by data.

Yet you seriously want to claim literally the exact opposite? I mean, what more can one say? This is just straight-up delusional. There is no debate. Might as well make an argument that Santa Claus is real. You are literally no different then a flat-earther, or a young-earth creationist at this point. Nothing but absolutely absurd propositions that fly in the face of absolutely ALL scientific facts. Yet in the most ironic twist yet, you actually claim that your absurd position is an 'irrefutable fact based on data?' Don't make me laugh.

14 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

What game? Linking political affiliation and biology? Seems like you just read the title of the link I posted and not the article (Hint: the article discussed both ideologies)

Of course I read the article. Why do you think I linked my article to the same site?

My point in that was that posting a scientific article that characterizes the typical biological characteristics of people's political ideologies could be interpreted in various ways, and it's therefore senseless to even bother with such an argument. Essentially my point in all this was that the door swings both ways.

23 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

I guess time will tell. Lucky for us, you guys don't believe in gun ownership or having families 

I guess I shouldn't be surprised by such a blatant lie from you since you're literally arguing in favor of a delusion. The idea that we oppose gun ownership or having families is flat out not true. That's a brazen lie. And I suspect that you know it.

Of course we support having families, we just don't consider the conservative idea of 'family' to be the only viable model. And of course we believe gun ownership to be a right of it's citizens, we simply believe in common-sense restrictions and that high caliber assault rifles don't belong in the hands of everyday citizens. Pretty much everyone advocates for some level of gun control, unless you think private citizens should be allowed to buy freakin' bazookas or nukes. The question is simple where do you draw the line?

So go on. Respond with more of your delusional ilk. I'm listening.

[Setton]

2 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

...except, it's not. Do you live in Cali by chance? You seem to view the world through a very Liberal bubble and you seem to find it absurd anyone could possibly have a different opinion. Conservatism will never actually die because in some ways your political ideology is literally tied in to your biology. Liberals tend to have lower testosterone and are more agreeable and submissive to their peers. Key phrase here is "tend to have" - there are exceptions to every rule.

Liberal and Can’t Help It: Is Political Orientation Biologically Determined?

Your link does not actually say that. What it says is that liberals tend to focus on the positive while conservatives focus on the negative. (But never paranoid, heavens no). 

Did you link the wrong one, not read what you linked or intentionally set out to mislead? 

Just curious. 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Setton

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

27 minutes ago, Setton said:

Your link does not actually say that. What it says is that liberals tend to focus on the positive while conservatives focus on the negative. (But never paranoid, heavens no). 

Did you link the wrong one, not read what you linked or intentionally set out to mislead? 

Just curious. 

Focusing on the negative is a pretty good way to resolve the negative though.

[aztek]

Just now, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Focusing on the negative is a pretty good way to resolve the negative though.

true, by looking at only positive you will never see or fix negative.  not to mention negative and positive are very subjective  concepts.  some see armed people and think of it as negative, others see it as a positive thing, same for abortion, illegal votes, MJ.....etc

Edited March 19, 2018 by aztek

[aztek]

Just now, Dark_Grey said:

 

What game? Linking political affiliation and biology?

that game is same since beginning of times, some do things achieve result and do everything to protect it. others do nothing accomplish nothing but demand they get their share (they think of it as THEIR share, lol) of whatever another party achieved. thus such concept like socialism, communism, and wealth distribution. 

as far as t levels, i do think, those who can't figure their gender, have it below 250. many think t levels is all about sex drive, it is not just that but a lot more. 

Edited March 19, 2018 by aztek

[+DieChecker]

20 hours ago, Aquila King said:

The 'Far Left Progressive Utopia' is only a matter of time. The age of conservatism is dying out, whether you like it or not.

What we have now is simply a momentary reactionary response to an inevitability.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/25/the-gops-millennial-problem-runs-deep/

Buckle up buttercup. Your old fuddy-duddy ways are all ancient history. The future of Social Democracy is already here.

Yeah, I heard that for the entire 8 years before Trump got elected, and yet here we are.

You need to stop listening only to the echo chamber and understand the entire population of US voters.

[Aquila King]

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Yeah, I heard that for the entire 8 years before Trump got elected, and yet here we are.

You need to stop listening only to the echo chamber and understand the entire population of US voters.

The majority of millennials were too young to vote back then, and many still are. 

[+DieChecker]

9 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I genuinely fail to see how the systems of countries like Canada, Australia, and Sweden, etc. are 'the most undesirable thing humanity can experience.'

If you want a far-right conservative country, take a look at places like Saudi Arabia or Egypt.

I mean seriously, I have no clue how in the world you see conservatism as a good thing.

You know, I'd agree to a lot of changes like we see being effective in Australia and Sweden, however, just with things like the US VA Administration, and the medical care they gave veterans... I think that those in power (The professional salary people) can't be trusted to act in the people's best interests. The incompetence is simply ASTOUNDING, and it mainly stays that way due to the power of Public Unions, who also don't act in the interests of the nation, but the interests of those who pay into the Union. In turn, if you want to continue in your job, or ever advance, you have to do what the Union tells you to. 

We seriously need to fire everyone in the FedGov, and reinterview each single one so that only those who deserve to be there are there. Once we have competent people, then let us talk about handing over Vast parts of the national economy, such as healthcare, salaries and housing.

[+DieChecker]

5 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

The majority of millennials were too young to vote back then, and many still are. 

So? Doesn't mean they were not parroting stupid things, and calling them true.

One doesn't have to be 18 to have a political ideology, and be wrong about it.

[DarkHunter]

16 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

The majority of millennials were too young to vote back then, and many still are. 

How are many millennials too young to vote.  The latest age range of millennials have them ending in 2004, most have them ending in mid to late 90's so under the vast majority of age ranges all millenialls were able to vote in the last election with some age ranges having the tail end unable to vote.

Even then gen Z, or sometimes called igen, is leaning to be the most conservative generation since WW2.  

[Aquila King]

4 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

You know, I'd agree to a lot of changes like we see being effective in Australia and Sweden, however, just with things like the US VA Administration, and the medical care they gave veterans... I think that those in power (The professional salary people) can't be trusted to act in the people's best interests. The incompetence is simply ASTOUNDING, and it mainly stays that way due to the power of Public Unions, who also don't act in the interests of the nation, but the interests of those who pay into the Union. In turn, if you want to continue in your job, or ever advance, you have to do what the Union tells you to. 

We seriously need to fire everyone in the FedGov, and reinterview each single one so that only those who deserve to be there are there. Once we have competent people, then let us talk about handing over Vast parts of the national economy, such as healthcare, salaries and housing.

What good would it do to fire everyone if you don't first address the issue of money in politics? That's the real corruption in the American political system. You want to blame politicians and unions or whatever else, but the fact of the matter is that it's perfectly legal here for millionaires and billionaires and big corporations to pay huge sums of money to politician's political campaigns for political favors. If you had a complete overhaul in the government, you'd have to make absolutely sure that those we replace the corrupt politicians with will actually represent the everyday American worker, not bend to the will of multi-billion dollar corporations who only care about personal profit.

8 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So? Doesn't mean they were not parroting stupid things, and calling them true.

One doesn't have to be 18 to have a political ideology, and be wrong about it.

What millennials are doing is utilizing the internet that unlike previous generations, they grew up with. They know how to fact check and use basic research techniques. Not just parrot whatever BS comes from Fox News (or any mainstream news source, though Fox is the worst of the worst) or any other source without checking their facts.

Millennials actually grew up with the internet, where they can actually research how other countries work and compare it to our own. And the truth is, every other modern nation on the planet guarantees some form of single-payer universal healthcare, free public college and universities, a minimum wage that acts as a living wage, etc. Therefore when Bernie Sanders comes out saying that we could have what literally every other modern nation has had for decades now, but we don't have it because of the above corruption as stated above, we know exactly what needs to be done.

We grew up in the age of Reaganomics, and the Iraq war, and the stock market crash of 08 due to the deregulation of Wall Street. We've seen and experienced the mistakes of the generation before us, and are reaping the damage of what you've sowed. We're statistically the most highly educated generation to date, and we know damn well what we're bloody talking about.

So go on. Keep s**ting on millennials to your hearts content. It only makes you look like the stereotypical old geezer from any generation that just fantasizes of the 'good old days' while complaining about the next generation 'going to hell in a hand basket.' It's happened for centuries, if not millennia, and they've all been wrong before. You're no different.

[Aquila King]

Just now, DarkHunter said:

How are many millennials too young to vote.  The latest age range of millennials have them ending in 2004, most have them ending in mid to late 90's so under the vast majority of age ranges all millenialls were able to vote in the last election with some age ranges having the tail end unable to vote.

Even then gen Z, or sometimes called igen, is leaning to be the most conservative generation since WW2.  

It's all an arbitrary number anyway, but regardless, the demographic is as follows:

Quote

Millennials (also known as Generation Y) are the generational demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates for when this cohort starts or ends; demographers and researchers typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials

Given that many consider millennials being born in the early 2000's, there's still a significant portion that are unable to vote still today.

Regardless, I said in your exact quote that the majority of millennials were unable to vote durig the Obama era (the 8 years before Trump got elected). That is correct. Now the majority can vote, but there are still many more to come.

[DarkHunter]

8 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

It's all an arbitrary number anyway, but regardless, the demographic is as follows:

Given that many consider millennials being born in the early 2000's, there's still a significant portion that are unable to vote still today.

Regardless, I said in your exact quote that the majority of millennials were unable to vote durig the Obama era (the 8 years before Trump got elected). That is correct. Now the majority can vote, but there are still many more to come.

No it's not correct and I find it very interesting you didn't use the date and ranges of the Wikipedia article, probably cause it didn't help your argument like how it mentions MetLife defines millienials as 1977-1994, Nielsen Media Research uses 1977-1995 or 1996, McCrindle Research uses 1980-1995, Gallup and MSW use 1980-1996, and Pew using 1981-1996.  

Since those born in 1994 were able to vote for Obama, kind of hurts your argument when most  definitions of millenials only have the last 1 to 2 years of a generation unable to vote for Obama.

Edited March 20, 2018 by DarkHunter

[Likely Guy]

7 hours ago, aztek said:

living in parents house, on their dime, and not having to face real world issues is what creates opinions like that,

When did you get kicked to the curb before you pulled yourself up by the bootstraps?

[Aquila King]

2 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

No it's not correct and I find it very interesting you didn't use the date and ranges of the Wikipedia article, probably cause it didn't help your argument like how it mentions MetLife defines millienials as 1977-1994, Nielsen Media Research uses 1977-1995 or 1996, McCrindle Research uses 1980-1995, Gallup and MSW use 1980-1996, and Pew using 1981-1996.  

Since those born in 1994 were able to vote for Obama, kind of hurts your argument when most  definitions of millenials only have the last 1 to 2 years of a generation unable to vote for Obama.

It also explains in the article that there is no absolute definition of the age range. It's all pretty vague. There are plenty who define millennials as ranging all the way up to the early 2000's. So if you want to cut it off at the mid 90's, then be my guest. However regardless, you're missing my point entirely.

My point is that young people are overwhelmingly liberal. If you want to argue that those past the mid 1990's aren't millennials then fine. Call them whatever else. They're still young, and they're still liberal. And they are for the reasons I've listed above. That's my point.

[Luca-RoseElsie-Raemom1921]

7 hours ago, aztek said:

living in parents house, on their dime, and not having to face real world issues is what creates opinions like that,

You understand NOT everyone living in their parents house lives on their parents dime right?

I LIVE WITH MY DAD AND I AM THE ONE WHO PAYS FOR MY BILLS NOT HIM.

Hell I've helped out family living on their own because they needed it.

Real world issues, you do not know what ANYONE other then yourself goes through on a daily bases.

Opinions are free and not everyone has to like what other feel.  

[DarkHunter]

Just now, Aquila King said:

It also explains in the article that there is no absolute definition of the age range. It's all pretty vague. There are plenty who define millennials as ranging all the way up to the early 2000's. So if you want to cut it off at the mid 90's, then be my guest. However regardless, you're missing my point entirely.

My point is that young people are overwhelmingly liberal. If you want to argue that those past the mid 1990's aren't millennials then fine. Call them whatever else. They're still young, and they're still liberal. And they are for the reasons I've listed above. That's my point.

But the generation after millennials aren't liberals.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/08/11/why-democrats-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2017/07/01/why-the-next-generation-after-millennials-will-vote-republican/amp/

http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-chart-of-the-generations-and-gen-z-2015-12?r=UK&IR=T

I'm not missing your point, you are the one refusing to believe all the data and analysis that the upcoming generation z, which a lot will be able to vote in 2020, are going to be conservative and instead want to continue believing that the millennials generation and their beliefs will continue on indefinitely.

[Luca-RoseElsie-Raemom1921]

3 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

But the generation after millennials aren't liberals.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/08/11/why-democrats-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2017/07/01/why-the-next-generation-after-millennials-will-vote-republican/amp/

http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-chart-of-the-generations-and-gen-z-2015-12?r=UK&IR=T

I'm not missing your point, you are the one refusing to believe all the data and analysis that the upcoming generation z, which a lot will be able to vote in 2020, are going to be conservative and instead want to continue believing that the millennials generation and their beliefs will continue on indefinitely.

Why are you labelling all one gen as something, based off 3 news articles?

Have you actually spoken to any millennials and asked their political beliefs?

 

[DarkHunter]

Just now, Ruby04 said:

Why are you labelling all one gen as something, based off 3 news articles?

Have you actually spoken to any millennials and asked their political beliefs?

 

I am a millennial, being born in 1992, so I would say I'm pretty well acquainted with them.

Even then the articles are about gen Z, the generation after millennials, and they speak about how gen Z is shaping up to be the most conservative generation in decades, probably since WW2.