RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

JVoV -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 7:31:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV After the Oklahoma bombings, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which has done a hell of a lot more to erode the American Justice System more than The Patriot Act. Any new gun legislation needs to be thought out much better, in order to be effective, while still honoring the Second Amendment. The FDA has the sole authority to approve or deny new medications from entering the market. Why shouldn't the ATF have that same authority for new gun models, aftermarket add-ons, and ammo? Is that reasonable? Does it follow the Second Amendment? No it doesn't fit the 2nd. The ability to stop new firearms leads to no new firearms and so on. I'm talking about new models, specifically. That has nothing to do with banning any current model. How often are totally new gun models introduced? Wiki has the latest Smith & Wesson handgun 'series' released in 2012, and latest rifle coming in 2008. And with no control of aftermarket addons being introduced, what good is any legislation? Under the very broad definition of 'assault rifle' you can see where there might be a problem. As for the addons, there are some that allow a disabled shooter more control of the weapon, but according to at least one senator the only reason anyone would want that particular modification is to kill people. Do you understand the point? that does not mean I agree with all add ons, but seriously, some do have practical uses besides murdering other people. I'm not OK with weaponizing Stephen Hawking, or with addons that enhance the designed specs of a gun in any way. What disabilities could potentially require an aftermarket add-on to give the physically impaired the same ability with a firearm as someone without disabilities? Is it a good idea for someone with Parkinson's to be armed? Should someone with a brain tumor surrender their guns (ideally to family) while going through treatment? These are serious questions, and have to all be part of the conversation.

jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 7:33:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: The Constitution is a fairly sacred document to many Americans, even the ones that haven't read it since high school (of they went to high school). And like Christians and the Bible, we focus on the parts we like, and that justify our positions. Sure, I get that it's considered sacred. I see how that's desirable, too. But even more sacred than that is surely that part of the Declaration of Independence that states 'we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'. Of course, those 59 dead have been deprived of their liberty and their ability to pursue happiness, along with their lives. It strikes me, from my no doubt simple outsider's point of view, that it's even more important than anything in the Constitution - including the 2nd, obviously - that America has failed most fundamentally of all insofar as it's not protected those people's rights to those three absolutely essential things. While I agree with the fundamentals of your argument, I disagree with your solution, that being to deny the rights of the 187000000 gun owners who have never taken another human life, or harmed another human with a gun. You have posted the numbers of US citizens killed by guns, but you fail to grasp that it is less than one percent (not even a one hundredth of a percent of gun owners) who have committed these heinous acts. So the only solution is to punish the guilty and innocent equally? So, I am curious, how would you handle the fact that in 2016, 330,000 people were injured in accidents caused by texting and driving? Just about every state has laws against it, but it still goes on, by people ignoring the law? The number of people killed in these accidents is, admittedly slightly lower at approximately 20,000. So, do we ban cars? Smart phones? There are a few hundred million of both in the US right now. It is preventable. The real kicker is that many point to guns as a preventable cause of death, which it is, and treat it as the leading cause of preventable deaths in the US, which it is not. [image]https://www.healthaliciousness.com/blog/images/Preventable_causes_of_death.png[/image] So, while people claim that car accidents are a non applicable comparison, in the argument of preventable deaths, I disagree.

PeonForHer -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 7:40:55 PM)
Got to get to bed. Two quick points before I go, however: quote: While I agree with the fundamentals of your argument, I disagree with your solution, that being to deny the rights of the 187000000 gun owners who have never taken another human life, or harmed another human with a gun. I haven't argued for that. quote: You have posted the numbers of US citizens killed by guns, but you fail to grasp that it is less than one percent (not even a one hundredth of a percent of gun owners) who have committed these heinous acts. I haven't posted the numbers of US citizens killed by guns. Unless by 'you' you mean some generic 'all you anti-gun people'? Anyway, that's it for me tonight.

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 7:43:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV After the Oklahoma bombings, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which has done a hell of a lot more to erode the American Justice System more than The Patriot Act. Any new gun legislation needs to be thought out much better, in order to be effective, while still honoring the Second Amendment. The FDA has the sole authority to approve or deny new medications from entering the market. Why shouldn't the ATF have that same authority for new gun models, aftermarket add-ons, and ammo? Is that reasonable? Does it follow the Second Amendment? No it doesn't fit the 2nd. The ability to stop new firearms leads to no new firearms and so on. I'm talking about new models, specifically. That has nothing to do with banning any current model. How often are totally new gun models introduced? Wiki has the latest Smith & Wesson handgun 'series' released in 2012, and latest rifle coming in 2008. And with no control of aftermarket addons being introduced, what good is any legislation? So someone comes out with a new gun. Kel Tec for example. They have come out with several new firearms in the last few years What with it being a new company and all. With the need to get the ATF each of these would be buried in paperwork for a couple of years and the company would be put out of business. Since none of them were full auto or anything like that why should they have that delay. Do you what the government testing new cars to see if the don't anything some paper pusher didn't like?

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 7:45:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV After the Oklahoma bombings, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which has done a hell of a lot more to erode the American Justice System more than The Patriot Act. Any new gun legislation needs to be thought out much better, in order to be effective, while still honoring the Second Amendment. The FDA has the sole authority to approve or deny new medications from entering the market. Why shouldn't the ATF have that same authority for new gun models, aftermarket add-ons, and ammo? Is that reasonable? Does it follow the Second Amendment? No it doesn't fit the 2nd. The ability to stop new firearms leads to no new firearms and so on. I'm talking about new models, specifically. That has nothing to do with banning any current model. How often are totally new gun models introduced? Wiki has the latest Smith & Wesson handgun 'series' released in 2012, and latest rifle coming in 2008. And with no control of aftermarket addons being introduced, what good is any legislation? Under the very broad definition of 'assault rifle' you can see where there might be a problem. As for the addons, there are some that allow a disabled shooter more control of the weapon, but according to at least one senator the only reason anyone would want that particular modification is to kill people. Do you understand the point? that does not mean I agree with all add ons, but seriously, some do have practical uses besides murdering other people. Exactly some in congress would outlaw such things since as they see it any improvement is only there to make murder easier.

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 7:48:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: The Constitution is a fairly sacred document to many Americans, even the ones that haven't read it since high school (of they went to high school). And like Christians and the Bible, we focus on the parts we like, and that justify our positions. Sure, I get that it's considered sacred. I see how that's desirable, too. But even more sacred than that is surely that part of the Declaration of Independence that states 'we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'. Of course, those 59 dead have been deprived of their liberty and their ability to pursue happiness, along with their lives. It strikes me, from my no doubt simple outsider's point of view, that it's even more important than anything in the Constitution - including the 2nd, obviously - that America has failed most fundamentally of all insofar as it's not protected those people's rights to those three absolutely essential things. And you don't seem to get that murder is against the law. The right to bear arms does not in any way confer the right to misuse said firearms.

JVoV -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 8:12:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: The Constitution is a fairly sacred document to many Americans, even the ones that haven't read it since high school (of they went to high school). And like Christians and the Bible, we focus on the parts we like, and that justify our positions. Sure, I get that it's considered sacred. I see how that's desirable, too. But even more sacred than that is surely that part of the Declaration of Independence that states 'we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'. Of course, those 59 dead have been deprived of their liberty and their ability to pursue happiness, along with their lives. It strikes me, from my no doubt simple outsider's point of view, that it's even more important than anything in the Constitution - including the 2nd, obviously - that America has failed most fundamentally of all insofar as it's not protected those people's rights to those three absolutely essential things. To this, I'll quote a song from Evita: "There is evil, ever around, fundamental. System of government quite incidental." Blame God for that whole 'free will' thing. No State can provide the absolute guarantee of life to every citizen every day. Your government can't. Canada can't. No government has ever been able to. And there are governments, or would be governments, all around the world right now, actively killing their people. In the US, like most of the civilized world, we provide punishments and consequences for crimes. We provide civil processes for victims and their families to seek financial restitution. But we have no way to stop evil deeds done on a daily basis, all over the country, before they happen, without going full 1984. Though the Declaration of Independence is an amazing document, and parts of it should be used as our nation's true goal, most of it's a fuck off to King George III and the rest of Britain. But remember that none of it applied to slaves or Native Americans. And it's "All men were created equal", so none of that gender equality nonsense either.

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 8:27:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: The Constitution is a fairly sacred document to many Americans, even the ones that haven't read it since high school (of they went to high school). And like Christians and the Bible, we focus on the parts we like, and that justify our positions. Sure, I get that it's considered sacred. I see how that's desirable, too. But even more sacred than that is surely that part of the Declaration of Independence that states 'we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'. Of course, those 59 dead have been deprived of their liberty and their ability to pursue happiness, along with their lives. It strikes me, from my no doubt simple outsider's point of view, that it's even more important than anything in the Constitution - including the 2nd, obviously - that America has failed most fundamentally of all insofar as it's not protected those people's rights to those three absolutely essential things. To this, I'll quote a song from Evita: "There is evil, ever around, fundamental. System of government quite incidental." Blame God for that whole 'free will' thing. No State can provide the absolute guarantee of life to every citizen every day. Your government can't. Canada can't. No government has ever been able to. And there are governments, or would be governments, all around the world right now, actively killing their people. In the US, like most of the civilized world, we provide punishments and consequences for crimes. We provide civil processes for victims and their families to seek financial restitution. But we have no way to stop evil deeds done on a daily basis, all over the country, before they happen, without going full 1984. Though the Declaration of Independence is an amazing document, and parts of it should be used as our nation's true goal, most of it's a fuck off to King George III and the rest of Britain. But remember that none of it applied to slaves or Native Americans. And it's "All men were created equal", so none of that gender equality nonsense either. Declaration of Independence isn't law.

Lucylastic -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 8:47:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: The Constitution is a fairly sacred document to many Americans, even the ones that haven't read it since high school (of they went to high school). And like Christians and the Bible, we focus on the parts we like, and that justify our positions. Sure, I get that it's considered sacred. I see how that's desirable, too. But even more sacred than that is surely that part of the Declaration of Independence that states 'we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'. Of course, those 59 dead have been deprived of their liberty and their ability to pursue happiness, along with their lives. It strikes me, from my no doubt simple outsider's point of view, that it's even more important than anything in the Constitution - including the 2nd, obviously - that America has failed most fundamentally of all insofar as it's not protected those people's rights to those three absolutely essential things. 59 out of hundreds of millions is not even a blip on the radar. so you should just lift the law against murder???.... yes, that would help wouldnt it. and arm everyone. being shot, and murdered mean nothing compared to the second amendment, brava people should just get a gun, and everything will be perfect.

tamaka -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 8:54:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: The Constitution is a fairly sacred document to many Americans, even the ones that haven't read it since high school (of they went to high school). And like Christians and the Bible, we focus on the parts we like, and that justify our positions. Sure, I get that it's considered sacred. I see how that's desirable, too. But even more sacred than that is surely that part of the Declaration of Independence that states 'we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'. Of course, those 59 dead have been deprived of their liberty and their ability to pursue happiness, along with their lives. It strikes me, from my no doubt simple outsider's point of view, that it's even more important than anything in the Constitution - including the 2nd, obviously - that America has failed most fundamentally of all insofar as it's not protected those people's rights to those three absolutely essential things. 59 out of hundreds of millions is not even a blip on the radar. so you should just lift the law against murder???.... yes, that would help wouldnt it. and arm everyone. being shot, and murdered mean nothing compared to the second amendment, brava people should just get a gun, and everything will be perfect. Some people dying occassionally so that this world has some hope of free men is still worth it.

jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 9:00:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Some people dying occassionally so that this world has some hope of free men is still worth it. Needless deaths at the hands of a madman is not the way to prove the argument. In fact, it makes you sound like some of the batshit crazy mother fuckers that I, as a gun owner, do not think should own guns. In other words, you aint helping, please go play chicken with a freight train or something.

tamaka -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 9:01:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Some people dying occassionally so that this world has some hope of free men is still worth it. Needless deaths at the hands of a madman is not the way to prove the argument. In fact, it makes you sound like some of the batshit crazy mother fuckers that I, as a gun owner, do not think should own guns. In other words, you aint helping, please go play chicken with a freight train or something. Go fuck yourself.

jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 9:17:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Some people dying occassionally so that this world has some hope of free men is still worth it. Needless deaths at the hands of a madman is not the way to prove the argument. In fact, it makes you sound like some of the batshit crazy mother fuckers that I, as a gun owner, do not think should own guns. In other words, you aint helping, please go play chicken with a freight train or something. Go fuck yourself. Seriously, you really think that 11000 people dying directly from gun violence is a sane argument for not fixing the problem? Sounds like the guy that appeared before congress arguing that safety notices on children's toys were an unnecessary costs since the number of children hurt of killed because the swallowed a part was small in comparison to the number that didnt. Let me guess, you are against the fixing the little issue with the National Crime Information Service database that might cut that number significantly, right? Because it may violate someone's privacy? Come on tamaka, you put your foot in it, see if you can pull it out, or choke on it.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 9:21:02 PM)
I wonder if tamaka might be one of the ones volunteering to sleep on a marble slab tonight ? Or any night ? I'm sure he/she/it will agree it's worth it because of course, it might keep others free

tamaka -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 9:23:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Some people dying occassionally so that this world has some hope of free men is still worth it. Needless deaths at the hands of a madman is not the way to prove the argument. In fact, it makes you sound like some of the batshit crazy mother fuckers that I, as a gun owner, do not think should own guns. In other words, you aint helping, please go play chicken with a freight train or something. Go fuck yourself. Seriously, you really think that 11000 people dying directly from gun violence is a sane argument for not fixing the problem? Sounds like the guy that appeared before congress arguing that safety notices on children's toys were an unnecessary costs since the number of children hurt of killed because the swallowed a part was small in comparison to the number that didnt. Let me guess, you are against the fixing the little issue with the National Crime Information Service database that might cut that number significantly, right? Because it may violate someone's privacy? Come on tamaka, you put your foot in it, see if you can pull it out, or choke on it. I didn't put my foot in anything. I made a true statement. I would be glad to take guns away though from anyone who states online that he would consider doing mass murder. Like you, for example.

tamaka -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 9:25:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 I wonder if tamaka might be one of the ones volunteering to sleep on a marble slab tonight ? Or any night ? I'm sure he/she/it will agree it's worth it because of course, it might keep others free It's a gamble we all take. Just like when we drive a car.

Lucylastic -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 9:43:20 PM)
tamaka is a true trumpy its sad.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 9:47:26 PM)
trumpy ? That sounds like something that happens when you eat too much KimChee

Lucylastic -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 9:51:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 trumpy ? That sounds like something that happens when you eat too much KimChee just as foul

tamaka -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/9/2017 10:30:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic tamaka is a true trumpy its sad. You are a true.... nothing at all.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625