Guns in Theaters are a Good Idea?

[Vort]

oh baloney.

Not really. You don't like how he expressed it, which used partisan and even slanted wording, but he is essentially correct (if you strip down past the value judgments). Modern American liberals value the power of government and believe that government should be used as a force to remake society in a better mold. Modern American conservatives fear the power of government and believe it should be curtailed wherever possible, letting the power reside with the individuals in society.

My wording may not be completely unbiased, either, since I tend strongly toward the latter viewpoint, but I expect most liberals can see the underlying truth I'm driving at and are probably mostly happy to concede it.

[MarginOfError]

Not really. You don't like how he expressed it, which used partisan and even slanted wording, but he is essentially correct (if you strip down past the value judgments). Modern American liberals value the power of government and believe that government should be used as a force to remake society in a better mold. Modern American conservatives fear the power of government and believe it should be curtailed wherever possible, letting the power reside with the individuals in society.

My wording may not be completely unbiased, either, since I tend strongly toward the latter viewpoint, but I expect most liberals can see the underlying truth I'm driving at and are probably mostly happy to concede it.

I think it depends on the issue, actually. On the issue of abortion, liberals value personal responsibility while conservatives value the power of the government to control the behavior. On the issue of gun control, conservatives value personal responsibility and liberal value the power of the government to control the behavior.

We're all hypocrites (and that's okay).

[MarginOfError]

From LM's scenario:

You're reading into the situation your own understanding of the behavior of people that conceal carry. These people can recognize crazy mass-shooters from other conceal carryers. They don't just shoot at somebody just because they are carrying a gun.

I'm not entirely sold. I'd be terrified of something going horribly wrong in the scenario I gave.

Regardless, I also stated in the other thread that I believed that concealed carry should be legal. But along with it, if one of those concealed carriers draws his weapon in the theater to fire at the shooter and inadvertently kills another movie-goer, the carrier should be charged with manslaughter. As long as we're all agreed on that, go ahead and fire away.

[Vort]

We're all hypocrites (and that's okay).

We are not all hypocrites -- please speak only for yourself in that -- and hypocrisy most certainly is not "okay".

[bytor2112]

I think it depends on the issue, actually. On the issue of abortion, liberals value personal responsibility while conservatives value the power of the government to control the behavior. On the issue of gun control, conservatives value personal responsibility and liberal value the power of the government to control the behavior.

We're all hypocrites (and that's okay).

Seems liberals valued government quite a bit over personal responsibility with Roe v Wade.

[MarginOfError]

Seems liberals valued government quite a bit over personal responsibility with Roe v Wade.

The point was made regarding Vort's definition of the "modern liberal" and the "modern conservative." In essence, for the things we agree with, we tend to want the government to support us, and for the things we disagree with, we want the government to butt out. Such was the case for the conservatives and liberals of Roe v. Wade.

In short, I think it's folly to say that one political ideology values government involvement or personal responsibility more than another. The truth is that all of the various ideologies just want government to agree with them on their selected issues.

[MarginOfError]

We are not all hypocrites -- please speak only for yourself in that -- and hypocrisy most certainly is not "okay".

When it comes to political ideologies, yeah, we pretty much are all hypocrites. That's what makes the political process so interesting though.

[skalenfehl]

Not if you strongly support true freedom. Lehi did. We ought to be free to choose liberty and eternal life or to choose captivity and death. I may write a paper on it, drawing from the Book of Mormon and the D&C. Just saying.

[applepansy]

When it comes to political ideologies, yeah, we pretty much are all hypocrites. That's what makes the political process so interesting though.

That's your opinion. I disagree.

[MarginOfError]

Not if you strongly support true freedom. Lehi did. We ought to be free to choose liberty and eternal life or to choose captivity and death. I may write a paper on it, drawing from the Book of Mormon and the D&C. Just saying.

Well, let me create a small example:

If you oppose gun control laws AND support any of the following:

• banning smoking in public buildings
• banning cigarette commercials from playing on air
• child safety seat laws
• laws that penalize a driver for running a red light

Then you are a hypocrite.

[Vort]

When it comes to political ideologies, yeah, we pretty much are all hypocrites. That's what makes the political process so interesting though.

Again, speak for yourself.

[skalenfehl]

Well, let me create a small example:

If you oppose gun control laws AND support any of the following:

• banning smoking in public buildings
• banning cigarette commercials from playing on air
• child safety seat laws
• laws that penalize a driver for running a red light

Then you are a hypocrite.

If I subscribed to the two party system and sided one way, you're probably right.

[MarginOfError]

If I subscribed to the two party system and sided one way, you're probably right.

The example I gave was independent of party. You don't have to be a member of any party to agree or disagree with any of those items. In fact, most people of any party have no object to the bulleted items given. Ergo.......

[skalenfehl]

The example I gave was independent of party. You don't have to be a member of any party to agree or disagree with any of those items. In fact, most people of any party have no object to the bulleted items given. Ergo.......

Perhaps, but people easily fall into line on one side or the other with such issues. I do find it ironic that Conservatives are opposed to abortion yet advocate preemptive war. The US is a warmongering country and most Mormons are just fine with it as evidence by their support of a certain candidate (by a landslide). Personally speaking, I support the Constitution as the Lord caused it to be written and uphold His position on war as He revealed to Joseph Smith in the D&C. But I am of a tiny minority.

Edited August 16, 2012 by skalenfehl

[Vort]

Well, let me create a small example:

If you oppose gun control laws AND support any of the following:

• banning smoking in public buildings
• banning cigarette commercials from playing on air
• child safety seat laws
• laws that penalize a driver for running a red light

Then you are a hypocrite.

You clearly have no idea what the word "hypocrite" means.

[MarginOfError]

Perhaps, but people easily fall into line on one side or the other with such issues. I do find it ironic that Conservatives are opposed to abortion yet advocate preemptive war. The US is a warmongering country and most Mormons are just fine with it as evidence by their support of a certain GOP candidate (by a landslide). Personally speaking, I support the Constitution as the Lord caused it to be written and uphold His position on war as He revealed to Joseph Smith in the D&C. But I am of a tiny minority.

Which is why I think it's a form of lunacy to go around trying to frame issues in terms of personal responsibility. We're all in favor of personal responsibility, right until we aren't, and then we want the government to step in and support us. "Personal responsibility" is just one of those pretty terms we like to use instead of saying, "I want the government to agree with me, darnit"

Is that hypocritical? Yeah, it is. But who cares? It's one of the quirks of human nature that makes us so maddeningly wonderful.

I would also suggest that one of the purposes of government is to restrict individual rights and personal responsibility when there is a clearly understood benefit to doing so (eg, child safety seats). Typically, we don't see a whole lot of controversy when the benefit is so well understood. In the case of gun control, the benefit isn't well understood at all, hence all the controversy.

[MarginOfError]

You clearly have no idea what the word "hypocrite" means.

Either that, or I'm dishonest and a liar.

[skalenfehl]

Which is why I think it's a form of lunacy to go around trying to frame issues in terms of personal responsibility. We're all in favor of personal responsibility, right until we aren't, and then we want the government to step in and support us. "Personal responsibility" is just one of those pretty terms we like to use instead of saying, "I want the government to agree with me, darnit"

Is that hypocritical? Yeah, it is. But who cares? It's one of the quirks of human nature that makes us so maddeningly wonderful.

I would also suggest that one of the purposes of government is to restrict individual rights and personal responsibility when there is a clearly understood benefit to doing so (eg, child safety seats). Typically, we don't see a whole lot of controversy when the benefit is so well understood. In the case of gun control, the benefit isn't well understood at all, hence all the controversy.

Honestly, you're probably right. Most people are responsible up to a point and then are happy to let Big Brother bail them out. Believe it or not, not everyone thinks this way. Most, yes, but not all. I cannot disagree with you about the purpose of (today's) government being to restrict individual rights. We're certainly heading in this direction, if not already there. But it didn't start out that way and certainly not with this intention.

[Vort]

Either that, or I'm dishonest and a liar.

I guess so. One or the other.

[Guest]

Liberal versus Conservative is not too much about personal responsibility as it is about State Rights.

Liberals want either Federal government takes care of it or it is their personal responsibility.

Conservatives want as little Federal government as possible, State government as it aligns with their personal/religious social values, and personal responsibility for everything else.

So, the initial construct of what it means to be liberal - liberated from state regulation - now only applies to liberated from State regulation but not from federal regulation. And the initial construct of what it means to be conservative - government defines social behavior - does not apply to federal government.

Edited August 16, 2012 by anatess

[annewandering]

Well I am so glad I can define my own liberalness. Those definitions sure dont fit with any thing I believe in.

I am more into the scriptural definition myself. Charity is the love of God. If you have charity you have love for God. and for your fellow man.

I can not see how a person can love God and not want to help people with whatever is good. Food, housing, education, healthcare are things people need. Government programs make it easier and more efficient, cost, material, personnel wise, to help.

You can put in states rights, whatever in your definition but its not mine.

[kapikui]

Well I am so glad I can define my own liberalness. Those definitions sure dont fit with any thing I believe in.

I am more into the scriptural definition myself. Charity is the love of God. If you have charity you have love for God. and for your fellow man.

I can not see how a person can love God and not want to help people with whatever is good. Food, housing, education, healthcare are things people need. Government programs make it easier and more efficient, cost, material, personnel wise, to help.

You can put in states rights, whatever in your definition but its not mine.

As a conservative, I would agree with you. Helping is good, and we all should help. The problem is that those who call themselves liberals right now seem to feel that they have the right and the authority to dictate to me that I should help, how much I should help, and who I should help, and jail me if I don't do it. In my opinion, this is not in accordance with the principle of free agency.

I would also argue that government programs are most certainly NOT more efficient. In most states the welfare system is so inefficient that if it were a charity, and had that much overhead, the people running it would, by codified state law, be jailed for running a scam, because they don't give a high enough percentage of the money taken in to those they claim to help.

There is also a problem with what constitutes "help" we live in such an entitlement state right now that people are becoming dependent on it instead of going out and standing on their own. Our heavenly father doesn't just give us things to "help" us because it would not teach us how to become perfected beings. Some help is good. I've met far too many mult-generational professional welfare recipients, who considered a lifetime living on welfare to be a valid life choice to ever believe that the U.S. welfare system is a good thing.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'll repost what I said on this topic earlier.

http://www.lds.net/forums/advice-board/48029-what-our-rights-when-being-searched-4.html#post690210

I think there's a difference between a gun owner looking for situations in which to play the hero (as the gun owners in your example) and a gun owner who is merely determined not to be a victim himself.

It's one thing to rush into a dark theater guns a'blazing with only a dim notion where the bad guy is. It's quite another to, when he's already thirty feet away, be able to pull out your own gun and neutralize him.

Your anecdote notwithstanding, I daresay (hope?) most carriers aren't really wannabe heroes nearly as much as they are simply determined not to become victims themselves.

[NeuroTypical]

Government programs make it easier and more efficient, cost, material, personnel wise, to help.

You just identified a core, foundational belief of liberals. You can't find many conservatives who believe similarly.

[Guest]

Well I am so glad I can define my own liberalness. Those definitions sure dont fit with any thing I believe in.

I am more into the scriptural definition myself. Charity is the love of God. If you have charity you have love for God. and for your fellow man.

I can not see how a person can love God and not want to help people with whatever is good. Food, housing, education, healthcare are things people need. Government programs make it easier and more efficient, cost, material, personnel wise, to help.

You can put in states rights, whatever in your definition but its not mine.

Anne, this has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. Liberal or conservative is an ideology of GOVERNANCE. Not personal philosophies of being.

I am a person who loves God and want to help people with whatever is good. But you and I have a completely different philosophy on the GOVERNMENT'S role in that principle. And that difference is what makes a liberal versus a conservative.

And one thing that is a FACT. Government programs are not efficient - costwise, material-wise, personnel wise. The bigger the constituency, the less efficient it becomes. That is why there is a big difference between LDS welfare and government welfare programs. One is efficient, the other isn't. That's fact. And that's why it is always a political issue. We can pick another program - Education. Social Security. Medicare. Post Office. Amtrak. Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. The one of the very few things that is exempt from this is NASA. They have their problems but efficiency is not one of them.

Edited August 16, 2012 by anatess