The answer is the gun isnt the problem. Mental health is a joke in this country. Combine that with a lack of family values and you have crazies killing people over really dumb shit. So rather than focus on what guns or gun accesories to ban, why dont liberals focuse on why people kill people? Attack the problem at it's source rather than put a bandaid on a cancerous tumor and pretend like you created world peace.
The bit about nukes is way over the top, extreme, and has nothing to do with any points made. It's a straw man - an argument nobody made. You did the same thing in your logic about shootings vs. other forms of killings. People kill, period. The suggestions posed are akin to violating the unalienable Natural Rights of hundreds of millions of people because of the deeds of .001% of them who abuse the right. When this logic is taken to its extreme, why not ban cars? Less than .001% of them abuse the privilege. Or ban swimming pools so children don't accidentally drown in them. It's hard to take you serious when you talk about "logic" faults and then commit them repeatedly. If the state can make the case that it has an overwhelmingly compelling interest, then it can ban certain kinds of arms. The court never, until 2008, ruled on whether the 2nd guaranteed the rights it says in black and white in the bill of rights. But government never tried to ban guns until D.C. and Chicago, thus Heller. And the Heller ruling was 100% correct and spot on. The 2nd amendment is untouchable without amending the constitution. The founders couldn't have been clearer about their reasons. I have no interest in going around the constitution and its requirements to appease the political agenda of some.
Absolutely correct. I a wait the amendment you would replace the 2nd with. If it is sound, it could pass.
"The bit about nukes is way over the top, extreme, and has nothing to do with any points made. It's a straw man - an argument nobody made." I stated clearly that this was a technique for seeing how your premise was faulty by suggesting a weapon that the 2nd amendment protection could theoretically allow for, since the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention what sort of arms would be the limit. Of course a nuke is hyperbole. That is the intention of taking something to a logical extreme for purposes of making a point clearer. You can call it a straw-man argument all you want, but that isn't what my comment is. I could have very easily reduced it to a bazooka or some other military weapon that, I assume, most could agree isn't needed for personal protection, but could be useful in defending against a tyrannical government as part of a militia. Taking something to a logical extreme to make a point, which you do here: "The suggestions posed are akin to violating the unalienable Natural Rights of hundreds of millions of people because of the deeds of .001% of them who abuse the right. When this logic is taken to its extreme, why not ban cars? Less than .001% of them abuse the privilege. Or ban swimming pools so children don't accidentally drown in them." Is apparently ok when you do it, but not when I do it? Even though I clearly state that I'm exaggerating the extreme to drive the point home, you then throw that back in my face to avoid admitting your original argument isn't very strong? I know you aren't completely serious when you are doing it in this particular case, but it still can make a point for you. In my use of the nuke, I am well aware that the nuke is not reasonable and that one should mentally fill in the placeholder word of 'nuke' with a weapon of your choice that would likely go beyond what most gun advocates would deem to be reasonable. Is that clearer? Is that unreasonable use of rhetoric in an informal debate/conversation like we are having here? If I remove my "over the top" exaggeration to show how your line of reasoning is faulty, can you then tell me where the logic breaks down? (It seems it is only helpful to use exaggeration when someone actually is testing their own ideas, because when you use it to help others see if their own ideas are valid, they will try to find fault with the tool and disregard the conclusion. My mistake, I'll keep it simpler for us.) "You did the same thing in your logic about shootings vs. other forms of killings. People kill, period." You mean when I broke down sentence by sentence what you and Maris61 were saying about stabbing and fists comparing them to AR-15 platform rifles? Just making sure this is what you are referring to. If so, unless it's again using the word nuke that you have a problem with, then that has been addressed; if not, let me know specifically what logic/reasoning you have a problem with. "People kill, period" You mention this often, but it's so short, so I don't want to misconstrue what you mean. You are suggesting that any instrument that can be used to harm needs to have an actor performing an action on said instrument in order for this instrument to become deadly. So the blame should never under any circumstances be placed on the instrument since the instrument is inert and can do no harm on its own? If this is your meaning, give or take, this would suggest that you feel there is no limit on what the average citizen should be able to own. Is this a fair conclusion? "If the state can make the case that it has an overwhelmingly compelling interest, then it can ban certain kinds of arms." So what is the limit on what you feel a law-abiding citizen should own as far as a weapon is concerned? "The court never, until 2008, ruled on whether the 2nd guaranteed the rights it says in black and white in the bill of rights. But government never tried to ban guns until D.C. and Chicago, thus Heller. And the Heller ruling was 100% correct and spot on." And up until that point people would still debate the subject of whether or not the 2nd amendment would protect their right to bear arms for self-defense. And considering it was a 5-4 ruling, it is still clearly a debatable issue. One might say it is a partisan issue, but if we are honest we have to say that we are no better than the "other" side. They might be right on some things, and we might be wrong on some things. YOU say it was 100% correct and spot on because it's the ruling you want, that's fine. Even so it is not as clear as you think and is still very debatable and is subject to future interpretation. "The 2nd amendment is untouchable without amending the constitution." I'm not suggesting otherwise. My contention is that it is healthy to always be open to having discussions on all matters. It is vitally important to hear what people have to say about every issue and not dismiss their concerns out of hand because something is sacred. If something considered sacred can't stand up to scrutiny, then maybe it shouldn't be sacred in the first place. "The founders couldn't have been clearer about their reasons." And yet it was debated, and not made clearer by the courts, for over a century and it's still a hot topic of debate to this day for millions of people, as it should continue to be in to the future. No matter if a court comes to a conclusion on one side or the other. We are all human and can come to incorrect conclusions ( or change judges ) and then be corrected. Lastly, could you please stop with this? "I have no interest in going around the constitution and its requirements to appease the political agenda of some." I have said repeatedly that I am not anti-gun and that I don't want to take away guns from law-abiding citizens, and that there should be a discussion about how the right to own a gun for someone as a suspected terrorist is problematic and that this system should be looked at closely to minimize the impact of infringing upon the rights of law-abiding citizens. Again, I have said I'm trying to hear the responses of those that hold the 2nd Amendment in such high regard they talk about prying the weapons from their cold dead hands. All I feel I've done is not pull my punches in saying one of your arguments in support of your position was weak. I pointed out how I thought it was weak. Said that I'm all ears for better arguments, because I want to get a better feel for what the right way to think on this matter is. So can we get off the name calling and painting me with a broad brush? I have never attacked you once, only your argument, and then defended my own arguments. Personally, I take no offense to someone calling out my arguments, we are both men. Just it's a real distraction to be called a name that isn't accurate. If I wore the SJW badge or thought of myself as part of the democrats, liberals, anti-gun, etc then I could take your insult on the chin and maybe dish it back. But, I'm not what you suggest. If you feel that I'm coming at you personally or that I really have an axe to grind and won't listen to your arguments carefully, then fine. Let's end it here. But, I can tell you honestly that I see you as the Alpha here and respect your opinion on this subject which is why I'm spending so much of my time off replying. Cheers
Yet it is debated. "Let's debate making W King." I think I summed up your whole argument in those 5 words. Because we can debate it, the idea has merit. Calling my argument weak doesn't make it so. It just means you have no better argument. Otherwise, you have "broken down sentences" written by maris61 and myself and attributed your own straw man meanings to them. We have laws against murder, yet people kill anyway. Using all sorts of methods. It is the "get rid of guns and you get rid of some murders: argument that we have shown to be downright silly. Absurd on the face of it, not worthy of debate. If the murderer wants to kill, they'll use other means. Then you argue that nobody should have an AR-15, yet there are millions of them and they're not used to kill people except in the rarest of rare circumstances. What is the point of banning them? There was an assault rifle ban for a decade+ that had zero positive effect except to deny law abiding citizens from owning them. Makes no sense at all to have the ban in the first place. So, "let's debate it" some more? No thanks, I'd rather not debate repeating past mistakes. In fact, "it'll work better this time" rings of "fool me twice." Women are smaller and weaker than men, for the most part. In an abusive relationship, being stalked, assaulted, or simply having to walk through a dark parking lot alone, if a woman wants a gun for protection, I am the last person that would deny her. In spite of all the court rulings over 250 years, none have denied the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. It's not really the courts' job to rewrite the law, that is done by amendment or con con. It's only when outright ban was put in place was the court forced to clarify the obvious. The sawed off shotgun case was the wrong ruling. The lower court favored the 2nd amendment. The Supreme Court heard no argument at all on behalf of the 2nd.
Bernie Sanders argues we should ban all guns not suitable for hunting. At least he's honest about his intentions. Nearly 1/2 the Democratic Party supports him.
“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.” -- Obama 10/5/15 Britain and Australia have outright bans on all non sport guns.
It's sad the way the governments in those countries have assumed absolute power because of the unarmed population. I can't remember the last time the UK had a meaningful election. barfo
England has a queen and royal family. Let's make W King for life. And except for the American Revolution, which occurred after a ban on guns.
A little apples/oranges here. US is just gun homicides, Britain is all homicides. Our gun homicide rate is a fraction of Britain's in 1990 and 2010. Our homicides have fallen from about 1990 on, while Britain only experienced a drop after a massive deployment of new police. Speaking of police, there are a lot of pictures of British cops like this in Google search results:
There is much I would like to address with what you write here. I could try another long discourse breaking down every sentence, but it doesn't get through to you and your cohorts. ( I don't say that in a mean way, I'm sure you feel that I don't get your perspective either ) I don't argue that "nobody should have an AR-15". I argued that your "fists and knives" argument didn't prove what you want it to prove. That is all. I wanted to hear an argument that was stronger than the one you proposed, but we got bogged down. Then I tried to get you to tell me what you feel would be your limit, and I get no answer. You keep attributing to me the desire to take your guns! It's just like you're on auto-pilot and keep spouting the same talking points again and again. You aren't the only one here that does that, but our time is finite and it's not possible to address everyone with the responses they deserve. So apologizes to them if they bother to read this. I wonder how many times I have to say that I have no problem with the 2nd amendment; that I don't want to do away with it, and that I merely want to know the best arguments you guys that really pay close attention to it have on the subject. Honestly, I was hoping I wouldn't have to go down the route of trying to find some other forum to join in order to get the opinions of people I thought would be reasonable. I was completely and utterly wrong. Honestly and seriously, you guys have lost an opportunity to make a case to someone that was giving an open ear to your arguments. Maybe you just don't come across people other than those that think according to an ideology without thinking for themselves. Maybe I shouldn't blame you guys for your attitude towards me. I'm too new and too different ( verbose and acerbic ) and it must be hard to let your guard down and give someone that is moderate the benefit of the doubt. No need to address any of this with a comment. Just saying my peace as I find my way out the door to find another place to discuss this. Thanks for your time and patience. I mean that. Cheers
I think your argument here is "they aren't exactly like us in every way, so we can't possibly learn anything from them"? Otherwise, I don't see the relevance. And which was successful, despite the gun ban? Are you arguing against yourself here? barfo
Or you found one video, where Sanders appeared to say that, and presented it as fact. It's just like Obama believes there are 57 states, because after all, he once said 'all 57 states'. Sadly, that's the only time Sanders has ever talked about guns, so we have to assume that one sentence is his position. Right? barfo
Fists and knives proved all it needed to. People kill, no matter what we legislate. Legislate against WMDs and those who desire to will turn a pressure cooker and ball bearings into a WMD. You cannot put a ridiculous number of restrictions on Liberty and remain free. The whole car thing is in response to the fallacy that if banning weapons saves a few lives, it's worth it. Why limit that reasoning to guns? What is obvious is that the intent is to ban guns. I posted a video of Sanders and Clinton saying so, and gave you a quote from an Obama speech where they outright said so. Couched in terminology like reasonable gun control laws, they suggest banning guns outright. And suckers buy it. Aside from the obvious is how rights are eroded. They want a mile but are willing to take it an inch at a time. Anything given up along those lines is no victory for the masses, only for those who love government, want to be a part of it, or otherwise are sycophants.
