Gun Control Debate Thread

[Marou]

Did those 6k deaths deter us from what we were doing and intending to do there? No, and that's the point. How many deaths are we responsible for? Even the most conservative estimate is in the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions if you count incidental civilian deaths related to invasion. Wow, what an effective resistance! Even if we are able to provide insurgency to the level of Iraq and Afghanistan (PROTIP: we aren't), we would still lose just by the numbers!


I'm not against gun ownership or ownership of automatic weapons. I am against people pretending they want to protect the 2nd amendment so they can keep the gov't afraid of instituting martial law if some shit goes down. Its disingenuous at best, but more than likely just plain ol misinformed thinking. If you disagree, that's fine. You also seem to think our rednecks that have never acted as a militia could take on "goat herders" that have been trained and have decades of first hand experience being soldiers and fighting in rough terrain.


I lol'd at the hacking drones part. Cause the gov't doesn't have any control over our data and communications infrastructure, amirite? The internet would be shut down so fast, organization and data transmission capacity crippled in one fell swoop.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1638100.html

You don't need the internet to hack a drone. You need about $1000 in equipment and some know-how. Bringing it down with a home-made R/E/MP would be easier and less expensive, but it would render it unredeployable. I was going to link you to a site showing you how to make a pretty effective briefcase sized one with 2 car batteries and some gear from radio shack but it's not there anymore.

[Sazz]

The entire point of owning guns is so that the gov can't just walk in and kick the shit out of the people without a fight.

You are dumb.

[Marou]

You are dumb.

[Alex Mars]

I will point out that our government has deployed regular military against its citizens before and did not see mass desertions or defections, although it has been a long time since it did so. The National Guard was willing to fire on unarmed demonstrators in the 60s as well. Soldiers are trained to follow orders.

[Marou]

I will point out that our government has deployed regular military against its citizens before and did not see mass desertions or defections, although it has been a long time since it did so. The National Guard was willing to fire on unarmed demonstrators in the 60s as well. Soldiers are trained to follow orders.

Indeed, the police has militarized up so much in the past several decades it just hasn't "been needed" to keep people in line for awhile. I don't think it's single protests or a few weeks of tension that would lead to significant defection, however, I believe the bleed over time of attempting to have martial law on US Soil would lead to significant (though not nearly majority) defection over the long haul. It's one thing to "put down a protest" in Times Square on a weekend, and another to ask that some soldier to patrol streets in Brooklyn where people want to shoot him for weeks.

[Alex Mars]

Indeed, the police has militarized up so much in the past several decades it just hasn't "been needed" to keep people in line for awhile. I don't think it's single protests or a few weeks of tension that would lead to significant defection, however, I believe the bleed over time of attempting to have martial law on US Soil would lead to significant (though not nearly majority) defection over the long haul.

I wouldn't disagree with that, but I don't think a citizens uprising would go on long enough for long term effects to occur. It would end fast.

[Marou]

I wouldn't disagree with that, but I don't think a citizens uprising would go on long enough for long term effects to occur. It would end fast.

You're probably right, I think it would take a catalyzing event (like an EMP via solar flare), super plague, supervolcano eruption, hypercane, etc; for it not to be put down fast. They'd basically just swing in, kill everyone armed, lock up everyone else in FEMA re-education camps, and say, "Enjoy your freedom, vote for me in the next cycle."

[Alex Mars]

You're probably right, I think it would take a catalyzing event (like an EMP via solar flare), super plague, supervolcano eruption, hypercane, etc; for it not to be put down fast. They'd basically just swing in, kill everyone armed, lock up everyone else in FEMA re-education camps, and say, "Enjoy your freedom, vote for me in the next cycle."

Show me a government that wouldn't do that. No government will tolerate an armed uprising.

[Marou]

Show me a government that wouldn't do that. No government will tolerate an armed uprising.

Well, yeah. I'm hard pressed to think of any non disaster event that could organize enough people to simultaneously rebel to actually be successful. It might be possible I suppose to cause a rebellion if you tried to rescind the 2nd amendment. There are like 2000 militias and how many armed civilians?

Personally I'd like to see everyone armed. The act of pulling a gun should be an act that people accept will likely end in their own death. With most of the population defenseless abuses by criminals and police are far easier to carry out. For a brief time there would be a huge spike in gun related deaths as people prone to spontaneous violence self selected, but in the aftermath we'd have a more equatable society.

[Sillywilly]

Did those 6k deaths deter us from what we were doing and intending to do there? No, and that's the point. How many deaths are we responsible for? Even the most conservative estimate is in the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions if you count incidental civilian deaths related to invasion. Wow, what an effective resistance! Even if we are able to provide insurgency to the level of Iraq and Afghanistan (PROTIP: we aren't), we would still lose just by the numbers!


I'm not against gun ownership or ownership of automatic weapons. I am against people pretending they want to protect the 2nd amendment so they can keep the gov't afraid of instituting martial law if some shit goes down. Its disingenuous at best, but more than likely just plain ol misinformed thinking. If you disagree, that's fine. You also seem to think our rednecks that have never acted as a militia could take on "goat herders" that have been trained and have decades of first hand experience being soldiers and fighting in rough terrain.


I lol'd at the hacking drones part. Cause the gov't doesn't have any control over our data and communications infrastructure, amirite? The internet would be shut down so fast, organization and data transmission capacity crippled in one fell swoop.

I could imply your ignorance has some validity by typing out a reply but I'd be plagurising what Marou just said. If you don't like the 2nd amendment and don't believe it's valid you're welcome to move the fuck out, it's not as hard as you think.

Its disingenuous at best, but more than likely just plain ol misinformed thinking. If you disagree, that's fine. You also seem to think our rednecks that have never acted as a militia could take on "goat herders" that have been trained and have decades of first hand experience being soldiers and fighting in rough terrain.

And exactly what the fuck is your expertise in this area? What is your military experience?

There's just over 2 million people serving in the US armed forces, that's counting the reserves and people deployed over seas.

In your brilliant military experience, derived I'm sure from many hard fought hours at Magic the Gathering tournaments, have you ever considered how many of the other approx 306,000,000 are ex-military and law enforcement or retired law enforcement? Have you considered that if even half the US military isn't willing to kill innocent civilians that it'll be 1 million vs 1 million + whatever arises out of a pool of 306 million people?

Have you ever considered what will happen to that US infrastructure when the people who kept it up and running are revolting against the US Gov? Will the military be able to replace all the technicians and workers that keep up the infrastructure? Yeah the god damn internet is dependent on the US gov. That's why there's zero illegal activity on the web. The gov has complete and total control. BIG ROLL EYES. This just in people, there is no wireless communication if the Gov turns off your home phone service OMFG what will we do.

And of course the US doesn't have any other interests other than genociding it's civilians. I mean it's not like Russia flying training missions around Alaska would start foaming at the mouth at the thought of the US military being in a guerrilla war with 306 million civilians. The government would have to shut down the borders to keep people from getting in and out not only to escape but to smuggle in resistance aid. We can't even keep 8 month pregnant Mexican bitches from getting in and the US government is going to shut down the borders?

Apparently there's hundreds of thousands of farmers employed by the US military as well. And we all know that everything from the ammunition to the tanks that the US military uses is manufactured in house by the US army. Nope, no civilian workers or contractors or engineers or inventors supplying the military in this country. It's all done in house.

[Marou]

I could imply your ignorance has some validity by typing out a reply but I'd be plagurising what Marou just said. If you don't like the 2nd amendment and don't believe it's valid you're welcome to move the fuck out, it's not as hard as you think.

Its disingenuous at best, but more than likely just plain ol misinformed thinking. If you disagree, that's fine. You also seem to think our rednecks that have never acted as a militia could take on "goat herders" that have been trained and have decades of first hand experience being soldiers and fighting in rough terrain.

And exactly what the fuck is your expertise in this area? What is your military experience?

There's just over 2 million people serving in the US armed forces, that's counting the reserves and people deployed over seas.

In your brilliant military experience, derived I'm sure from many hard fought hours at Magic the Gathering tournaments, have you ever considered how many of the other approx 306,000,000 are ex-military and law enforcement or retired law enforcement? Have you considered that if even half the US military isn't willing to kill innocent civilians that it'll be 1 million vs 1 million + whatever arises out of a pool of 306 million people?

Have you ever considered what will happen to that US infrastructure when the people who kept it up and running are revolting against the US Gov? Will the military be able to replace all the technicians and workers that keep up the infrastructure? Yeah the god damn internet is dependent on the US gov. That's why there's zero illegal activity on the web. The gov has complete and total control. BIG ROLL EYES. This just in people, there is no wireless communication if the Gov turns off your home phone service OMFG what will we do.

And of course the US doesn't have any other interests other than genociding it's civilians. I mean it's not like Russia flying training missions around Alaska would start foaming at the mouth at the thought of the US military being in a guerrilla war with 306 million civilians. The government would have to shut down the borders to keep people from getting in and out not only to escape but to smuggle in resistance aid. We can't even keep 8 month pregnant Mexican bitches from getting in and the US government is going to shut down the borders?

Apparently there's hundreds of thousands of farmers employed by the US military as well. And we all know that everything from the ammunition to the tanks that the US military uses is manufactured in house by the US army. Nope, no civilian workers or contractors or engineers or inventors supplying the military in this country. It's all done in house.

I think at the heart of the issue is that people don't want to take personality responsibility for anything, let alone things as dangerous as their own freedom or the lives of their families. They'll be serfs happily as long as the lord of the manor isn't too much of a dick. If he is, they will whine and deal with it until it reaches unlivable levels.

The majority of the population in human history is not filled with people who took responsibility for their own well being; it is filled with serfs, villeins, and slaves. It's not really too surprising the descendants of this huge majority would by and large pine for a manor lord or government to "take care of everything". As long as someone has "power" over nothing, they feel responsible for "nothing", and this makes them greatly happy.

[Valec]

I lol'd at the hacking drones part. Cause the gov't doesn't have any control over our data and communications infrastructure, amirite? The internet would be shut down so fast, organization and data transmission capacity crippled in one fell swoop.

Except they need it more than the 'resistance' would. So no, I think you're wrong here. They need it to stay up. Which would leave room for people to jack their connections and cause mayhem.

[Marou]

Relevant to the topic at hand: http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/...RhrWCM9dQ.cspx

/edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZV3iyMz470 Also relevant, if these people were armed that would not have happened, because the police would not have wanted to die.

[Pyrrhus]

Well, yeah. I'm hard pressed to think of any non disaster event that could organize enough people to simultaneously rebel to actually be successful. It might be possible I suppose to cause a rebellion if you tried to rescind the 2nd amendment. There are like 2000 militias and how many armed civilians?

Personally I'd like to see everyone armed. The act of pulling a gun should be an act that people accept will likely end in their own death. With most of the population defenseless abuses by criminals and police are far easier to carry out. For a brief time there would be a huge spike in gun related deaths as people prone to spontaneous violence self selected, but in the aftermath we'd have a more equatable society.

My favorite post in this thread.

[ofrm1]

A little late to this discussion, but figure I'll give my opinion on the subject.

I'd like to see all guns banned over the course of several generations. I see no practical application for guns in a developed first-world society anymore.

I am not willing to allow people to continue to carry AR-15's because there's a chance that the government could become dictatorial and malevolent and turn on it's own people. Is it possible? Yes. This is a cost/benefit analysis.

If you're going to make an argument for gun rights, that's fine. Do it in lieu of the second amendment. People who advance arguments for gun rights by stating that it's in the constitution have effectively conceded the point that it is a satisfactory reason when it is irrelevant to the debate entirely. The debate is whether it should be a right to own/use guns in any capacity/limited capacity/no capacity. From those three contentions, you must then mount an argument for that position. The fact that we have a second amendment is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. If reason tells us that the second amendment is a great right or a terrible right for citizens to have, it's current existence in the constitution has no bearing on that reasoning.

The chance that american militias could hope to effectively and indefinitely repel an invasion by the armed forces is so small that it likely rounds to zero.

It would appear that virtually everyone disagrees with my opinion, whether partly or completely. But, I figured I'd give my take on the issue.

[Valec]

A little late to this discussion, but figure I'll give my opinion on the subject.

I'd like to see all guns banned over the course of several generations. I see no practical application for guns in a developed first-world society anymore.

I am not willing to allow people to continue to carry AR-15's because there's a chance that the government could become dictatorial and malevolent and turn on it's own people. Is it possible? Yes. This is a cost/benefit analysis.

If you're going to make an argument for gun rights, that's fine. Do it in lieu of the second amendment. People who advance arguments for gun rights by stating that it's in the constitution have effectively conceded the point that it is a satisfactory reason when it is irrelevant to the debate entirely. The debate is whether it should be a right to own/use guns in any capacity/limited capacity/no capacity. From those three contentions, you must then mount an argument for that position. The fact that we have a second amendment is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. If reason tells us that the second amendment is a great right or a terrible right for citizens to have, it's current existence in the constitution has no bearing on that reasoning.

The chance that american militias could hope to effectively and indefinitely repel an invasion by the armed forces is so small that it likely rounds to zero.

It would appear that virtually everyone disagrees with my opinion, whether partly or completely. But, I figured I'd give my take on the issue.

We disagree for reasons that should be obvious to everybody. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. People will ALWAYS kill people. Taking away guns is just taking away a line of defense. There's very little logic behind it, just a lot of wishful thinking.

[Draconian]

If you're going to make an argument for gun rights, that's fine. Do it in lieu of the second amendment. People who advance arguments for gun rights by stating that it's in the constitution have effectively conceded the point that it is a satisfactory reason when it is irrelevant to the debate entirely. The debate is whether it should be a right to own/use guns in any capacity/limited capacity/no capacity. From those three contentions, you must then mount an argument for that position. The fact that we have a second amendment is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. If reason tells us that the second amendment is a great right or a terrible right for citizens to have, it's current existence in the constitution has no bearing on that reasoning.

The chance that american militias could hope to effectively and indefinitely repel an invasion by the armed forces is so small that it likely rounds to zero.

It would appear that virtually everyone disagrees with my opinion, whether partly or completely. But, I figured I'd give my take on the issue.

Largely agree. I just happen to be someone that can say screw you I like shooting guns and they're fun, I want one. I don't need to pretend I want to or could hold off the FBI.


Also, really a fan of suicide. I think people should be able to kill themselves if they want to, and owning a gun is a nice easy way to keep that option quick and available in a moments notice!

[Mute]

A little late to this discussion, but figure I'll give my opinion on the subject.

I'd like to see all guns banned over the course of several generations. I see no practical application for guns in a developed first-world society anymore.

Hunting is still practical.

[ofrm1]

We disagree for reasons that should be obvious to everybody. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. People will ALWAYS kill people. Taking away guns is just taking away a line of defense. There's very little logic behind it, just a lot of wishful thinking.

Your response makes the claim either that:

1) That said murderers will still be capable of getting guns through less than official channels. (which is a common argument in favor of gun rights)
2) That said murderers will simply use other means to murder.

To which I say:

1) This is a criticism of gun control enforcement, not of gun control itself. If efficiently enforced, gun control can and would be effective. Guns are not like drugs when it comes to the underground manufacturing and purchase of them. Guns cannot be easily manufactured, guns are significantly harder to smuggle and are far more expensive both to buy and to transport due to their demand and weight.
2) Good. The goal of gun control policy isn't to change the psychological profile of murderers so that they don't murder. It's to remove guns as a tool for murder from their list of options.

The issue here is that people are capable of killing other people TOO EASILY with guns. I'm not for outlawing knives and other weapons because you can't go on a murdering spree nearly as effectively when someone can fight back. Assuming you catch someone by surprise, there's no fighting back when someone is shooting at you with a gun.

The difference being someone stabbing someone with a knife and quickly being subdued by others because all he has is a knife and a man dropping tear gas, firing a remington 12-gauge, an AR-15 with a 100-round drum magazine which (thank god) jammed early on, then firing a glock.

Also, really a fan of suicide. I think people should be able to kill themselves if they want to, and owning a gun is a nice easy way to keep that option quick and available in a moments notice!

So are sleeping pills.

Hunting is still practical.

Poor clarification on my part. I meant practical in the sense that we need guns for some practical necessity. We no longer require hunting for food or self defense.

[Valec]

Your response makes the claim either that:

1) That said murderers will still be capable of getting guns through less than official channels. (which is a common argument in favor of gun rights)
2) That said murderers will simply use other means to murder.

To which I say:

1) This is a criticism of gun control enforcement, not of gun control itself. If efficiently enforced, gun control can and would be effective. Guns are not like drugs when it comes to the underground manufacturing and purchase of them. Guns cannot be easily manufactured, guns are significantly harder to smuggle and are far more expensive both to buy and to transport due to their demand and weight.
2) Good. The goal of gun control policy isn't to change the psychological profile of murderers so that they don't murder. It's to remove guns as a tool for murder from their list of options.

The issue here is that people are capable of killing other people TOO EASILY with guns. I'm not for outlawing knives and other weapons because you can't go on a murdering spree nearly as effectively when someone can fight back. Assuming you catch someone by surprise, there's no fighting back when someone is shooting at you with a gun.

The difference being someone stabbing someone with a knife and quickly being subdued by others because all he has is a knife and a man dropping tear gas, firing a remington 12-gauge, an AR-15 with a 100-round drum magazine which (thank god) jammed early on, then firing a glock.




So are sleeping pills.




Poor clarification on my part. I meant practical in the sense that we need guns for some practical necessity. We no longer require hunting for food or self defense.

Yes. Guns can kill people 'too easily' as you say. Which makes them an incredible deterrent to someone thinking about committing murder with them. As has been referenced in this thread, places in America where guns are plentiful in the hands of law abiding citizens, gun violence is down. You can't really argue with the effectiveness of that.

Also, the idea of disarming the entire nation is just stupid. I don't care how hard you think smuggling guns is, it'll still happen.

Fortunately this is all just purely theoretical. It will literally never happen. Guns are here to stay. Until we get lasers. Then people can bitch about laser control.

[Esfires]

Of course guns make it easy to kill people, that's why it's so good that everybody can have one. Without guns, the strong can dominate the weak merely by being strong. With guns, the weak are lifted onto an even playing field with those who would oppress them. Guns are not a tool of oppression, they are the means by which oppression can be defeated.

[VKhaun]

If you're going to make an argument for gun rights, that's fine. Do it in lieu of the second amendment. People who advance arguments for gun rights by stating that it's in the constitution have effectively conceded the point that it is a satisfactory reason when it is irrelevant to the debate entirely.

No. Backwards.

You do it IN LIGHT of the second amendment or it's a completely different discussion. In the real world the constitution is what our country is made of.

How about tomorrow we throw out your right to Habeas Corpus because some judge has an opinion and signs his own 'take on the issue' after some court case comes up where it might be nice to have someone in jail extra long?

How about we move some soldiers into your home to sleep there and eat your food 'because it would be nice not to have to pay for tents or an expansion of the nearby base'? The founding fathers didn't know we were going to have a recession that year! We can just ignore that part of the constitution!

No. The second amendment is 100% within the debate -it DEFINES the debate- and it's the job of those who don't want guns in our hands to overcome it and be checked by it EVERY TIME. You can say I'm a gun nutt, you can say I'm wrong about the issue, you can say your opinion until you're blue in the face, but that fact will still stand. Those who want to infringe upon the right to bear arms have to do it within the bounds of the second amendment.



If you don't understand that, GTFO, because you can't contribute to the thread no matter how right you would be in a hypothetical where the amendment wasn't real. Your argument with Valec is nothing but a derail based on the assumption that if you are right in your base opinions we should go along with your plan or your ideals and that's not how it works.


(Besides, your argument is dumb. You take guns away from everyone and only talk about the bad guys losing offense but not the good guys losing defense and what that means. If your pregnant wife is at home and a murderer is kicking at the door, you will want guns in that equation specifically BECAUSE They make it easier to kill. She has no chance hand to hand even if she gets a knife or bat.)

[ofrm1]

Yes. Guns can kill people 'too easily' as you say. Which makes them an incredible deterrent to someone thinking about committing murder with them. As has been referenced in this thread, places in America where guns are plentiful in the hands of law abiding citizens, gun violence is down. You can't really argue with the effectiveness of that.

I agree. That is effective compared to areas which have the lax gun control policies which are touted as robust gun control. Compare them to a place where guns are effectively controlled like Singapore and you have virtually no gun violence at all.

Also, the idea of disarming the entire nation is just stupid. I don't care how hard you think smuggling guns is, it'll still happen.

The black market only exists as long as the profit exceeds the risk. Again, other developed countries with tough gun control are a proof of concept that you can virtually eliminate the amount of guns in a population.

Fortunately this is all just purely theoretical. It will literally never happen. Guns are here to stay. Until we get lasers. Then people can bitch about laser control.

As is the standard US policy, within 30 years the US will completely change it's position on gun control as it's dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Along with other outmoded concepts like private sector healthcare, the US customary system, and American Exceptionalism.

Of course guns make it easy to kill people, that's why it's so good that everybody can have one. Without guns, the strong can dominate the weak merely by being strong. With guns, the weak are lifted onto an even playing field with those who would oppress them. Guns are not a tool of oppression, they are the means by which oppression can be defeated.

This isn't the old west. There is a reason why it is the policy of virtually all convenience store chains for the attendants to simply give robbers everything they want. It's not your job to protect the money and stop bad guys. That's the professional's job. AKA: the police. People who aren't trained to react in serious situations should not be using guns in those situations. The last thing that is needed is someone who isn't trained to react properly to open fire as well. Learning how to properly fire and store a gun does not come close properly training you to react when someone opens fire.

[Draconian]

No. Backwards.

I think what he's saying is that you should be able to substantiate your stance on guns without using the 2nd as de jure justification. "Cause the constitution says so" isn't really an argument. It's a reason, not an argument. He's not saying throw away the 2nd amendment at all (maybe he thinks that but I don't think that was the point of his post you quoted). The 18th amendment prohibited alcohol... at one point the constitution of the United States banned alcohol, literally. The issue defined the crafting of the amendment, and its repeal. If you are trying to justify law by the virtue of the fact that it's already law... that is just circular reasoning. He's just saying, to define laws, the argument should be one of morality/justice/prudence/whatever, not legality. Legal status is the result, not the argument. Now you could claim that tradition and heritage is important enough in any legal issue, and that's the only way the current status of the 2nd begins to matter in such an argument... but I've never bought into tradition as a very good reason to do anything other than ignore and dismiss new thought (legally speaking).


Keep in mind the constitution is not perfect, which is why it has the capacity to be a "living document" that can be questioned, debated, and modified as appropriate when the time comes. You'd think that slavery was prohibited just by reading that the document is for "We the people"... you know the ones that are all created equal and deserve independence? Unless you are a slave and not a citizen?

Not everything is perfect or appropriate or as forward thinking as you might wish, and needs to change once in a while. And the notion that if someone doesn't like X or Y about the constitution should leave the United States.... is just mind boggling. The thing that is supposed to make us so special is the fact that we can be free to have discussions, question our laws, debate what's right and wrong, etc... and try to evolve as a society. Kicking people out who don't agree isn't quite in the spirit of the US, is it? That's fundamentalism, not patriotism.

[ofrm1]

No. Backwards.

You do it IN LIGHT of the second amendment or it's a completely different discussion. In the real world the constitution is what our country is made of.

You're trying to derive an ought from an is which is impossible. You're contending that we SHOULD have gun rights because we have an amendment that allows us gun rights.

How about tomorrow we throw out your right to Habeas Corpus because some judge has an opinion and signs his own 'take on the issue' after some court case comes up where it might be nice to have someone in jail extra long?

Because Habeas Corpus is a necessary right for the stable functioning of a liberal state and gun rights are not.

How about we move some soldiers into your home to sleep there and eat your food 'because it would be nice not to have to pay for tents or an expansion of the nearby base'? The founding fathers didn't know we were going to have a recession that year! We can just ignore that part of the constitution!

1) What a stupid response. The Third Amendment has only been brought to court ONCE in the entire time it has been in effect and it has never been reviewed by SCOTUS. It is, by all reasonable criteria; the least litigated sections of the constitution. Oh. I guess I shouldn't forget to remind you that the right to keep troops off my property is already guaranteed by my right to privacy which didn't extend to property during colonial times.

2) The most telling thing about you bringing up those particular amendments is that you avoided likely the most important one; that being the first one. The reason you avoided it is simple. Because even you realize that removing that amendment would completely undermine the liberal democracy we live in and would make your argument a giant slippery slope fallacy. Of which it already is due to your contention that because we can get rid of the second amendment, it's just as reasonable to get rid of Habeas Corpus which is patently absurd.

3) I'm not even contending that we "ignore" the second amendment. I'm contending that we repeal it because it's worthless.

No. The second amendment is 100% within the debate -it DEFINES the debate- and it's the job of those who don't want guns in our hands to overcome it and be checked by it EVERY TIME. You can say I'm a gun nutt, you can say I'm wrong about the issue, you can say your opinion until you're blue in the face, but that fact will still stand. Those who want to infringe upon the right to bear arms have to do it within the bounds of the second amendment.

Sorry. You don't get to magically set the lines of debate where YOU want them. The issue is a conceptual one. It is about whether it is better to live in a society with no gun control/some amount of gun control/total gun control. All you're doing is resting your case on a premise which isn't supported by anything other than you insistence that it is. That premise being that the Second Amendment is worth holding on to.

If you don't understand that, GTFO, because you can't contribute to the thread no matter how right you would be in a hypothetical where the amendment wasn't real. Your argument with Valec is nothing but a derail based on the assumption that if you are right in your base opinions we should go along with your plan or your ideals and that's not how it works.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret here. Your views on this issue are precisely the same type as mine. Opinions. So are Silly's and so are Valec's. You will never NEVER come to an objectively true conclusion about what someone SHOULD do based upon facts. It is impossible. You're attempting to corner the discussion by forcing everyone to accept the premise that the second amendment's normative conclusions are valid and sound at the beginning of the discussion so that you can claim victory.

(Besides, your argument is dumb. You take guns away from everyone and only talk about the bad guys losing offense but not the good guys losing defense and what that means. If your pregnant wife is at home and a murderer is kicking at the door, you will want guns in that equation specifically BECAUSE They make it easier to kill. She has no chance hand to hand even if she gets a knife or bat.)

Oh no. Because you were capable of thinking up a specific example in which guns would have protected the lives of the stooges you concocted in your example, then we should instantly abandon any discussion of taking guns away. By that same logic, I can easily conceive of serious negative ramifications of living in a liberal democracy. Guess we should abandon this and return to the guilded age.

Not once in your entire post do you actually fully grasp the point of what I was trying to say. The truth has nothing to fear from investigation. If the second amendment's ramifications are valid and sound, they have nothing to fear from examination. Apparently you seem to think they do.

I think what he's saying is that you should be able to substantiate your stance on guns without using the 2nd as de jure justification. "Cause the constitution says so" isn't really an argument. It's a reason, not an argument. He's not saying throw away the 2nd amendment at all (maybe he thinks that but I don't think that was the point of his post you quoted). The 18th amendment prohibited alcohol... at one point the constitution of the United States banned alcohol, literally. The issue defined the crafting of the amendment, and its repeal. If you are trying to justify law by the virtue of the fact that it's already law... that is just circular reasoning. He's just saying, to define laws, the argument should be one of morality/justice/prudence/whatever, not legality. Legal status is the result, not the argument. Now you could claim that tradition and heritage is important enough in any legal issue, and that's the only way the current status of the 2nd begins to matter in such an argument... but I've never bought into tradition as a very good reason to do anything other than ignore and dismiss new thought (legally speaking).


Keep in mind the constitution is not perfect, which is why it has the capacity to be a "living document" that can be questioned, debated, and modified as appropriate when the time comes. You'd think that slavery was prohibited just by reading that the document is for "We the people"... you know the ones that are all created equal and deserve independence? Unless you are a slave and not a citizen?

Not everything is perfect or appropriate or as forward thinking as you might wish, and needs to change once in a while. And the notion that if someone doesn't like X or Y about the constitution should leave the United States.... is just mind boggling. The thing that is supposed to make us so special is the fact that we can be free to have discussions, question our laws, debate what's right and wrong, etc... and try to evolve as a society. Kicking people out who don't agree isn't quite in the spirit of the US, is it? That's fundamentalism, not patriotism.

At least one person understood what I was getting at.

Beware. Mentioning American Pluralism in a discussion will get you painted as a traitor to America.

As John Rawls famously said: Reasonable people can disagree.