|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 16 2010 13:42 Crushgroove wrote:
Least informed thread I've ever read. Some posters seem to have a few facts and documentation to reinforce their arguments, but for the most part...
If you hold an opinion, you're entitled to it. But If you honestly don't know how you arrived at said opinion, please refrain from spreading misinformation, or what *may be* misinformation, until you have done a little research.
I could say this about any thread on TL. Specific points to show your position as an authority on the subject would be welcome. Lead by example.
On July 16 2010 14:00 furymonkey wrote:
Just pass the law, and judge it by the result. You guys should be happy there is a ginnie pig state willing to try. Maybe they will be hero for showing laws that should never be passed, saving the future debate for the other states.
If people die in another state, or another country, that is something that has an impact on me as a fellow human.
+ Show Spoiler + For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga.A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief — I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper — that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 16 2010 13:32 brain_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 13:12 LaLuSh wrote:On July 16 2010 11:46 Myles wrote:On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote:
Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously. Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized. You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things. Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place. Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem. On July 16 2010 11:42 WeSt wrote:On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote:
Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously. Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized. You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things. Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place. Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo. I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible. Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God! This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people. Because it IS our governmental bible. America has been a stable (aside from a brief episode in the 1860s), free, and incredibly prosperous country for two and a half centuries because of the constitution, the bill of rights, and the individualistic entrepreneurial spirit that they endorse. This is just not true at all. Aside from all the many, many times in history that the Constitution has been broken or ignored to fit a particular crisis, the idea that the country has been stable or that it's due to the Constitution is ridiculous. We're at least an ocean away from where most wars take place. That's what has historically kept the US "stable." Besides, you know, the major unrest during the turn of the century, during the Great Depression, during Vietnam or the Cold War in general. "Entrepreneurial spirit" is a silly modern term to describe negative liberties, which there are many of, but those have been cut down or readjusted time after time. So to think that the Constitution is untouchable is ridiculous.
-Remember that whole Monarchy deal? We never bought into that.
-Remember Fascism, that trend that was sweeping Europe a while back? Not only didn't we buy into it, we ended up being the key force in defeating it.
-Remember Communism? Pretty much the same thing.
-Remember Democratic Socialism? Wait, no, Europe is still doing that. Wait another decade until all of Europe looks like Greece, then I'll be able to say "told you so" once again. Alright, so you don't understand how the American government works and you probably don't understand US or World History. It's not Democratic Socialism, but we do have a Socialist Democracy. This is not new. GWB partook in it, Reagan partook in it, Nixon, Eisenhower and down the line, even to Jefferson.
Our constitution is what makes us American. It protects our freedoms, provides the groundwork for our national government, etc. Well, it would if statist politicians and useful idiots hadn't eroded it to the point of being ignored. Hence why our country is going down the shitter almost as fast as the rest of the world.
Do people not take Civics classes anymore? Stop with this originalist bullshit. There was no single intent of the Founding Fathers and even if that magical cohesive idea existed, it'd be impossible to understand it today. The Constitution is a living document that has shed its skin for every new era. This is not a modern thing. It was given elasticity for these purposes.
|
Its easy enough to possess a weapon. Bringing them into schools and bars legally is just going to make shit worse. We have enough idiots going around killing each other as it is we don't need more. Its sick enough as it is that we don't have a idiot proof test and that we give people guns that clearly have no reason having one.
Example A: A woman who was aloud to have a gun even though she had a history of being mentally ill.
**Warning this may be disturbing to some viewers**
+ Show Spoiler +
|
In order to understand what is happening in "crazy" Arizona it is necessary to step back and take a look at what our Democracy was and is today.
The key to a functioning democracy are not laws, guns, illegal immigrants but the people themselves. A democracy was created by educated, armed, citizens that loved their country as much as their Blood family. The Founding Fathers were a law abiding, God fearing, English speaking, well educated individuals. They wrote the Constitution in order to establish and maintain a way of life they were willing to lay down their lives for.
In Arizona today we have non citizens entering the country and eroding the legacy granted us by the Founding Fathers. The "crazy" laws in Arizona were written in order to stop non citizen criminal elements of Mexican Drug Cartels from invading , murdering, and forcing civilians of the united States of America to fear for their own lives on their own land. The sad implications of this is that law abiding immigrants also from Mexico are unfairly going to be persecuted in the by the sheriffs and police of Arizona because they enter and habitat in the same areas as Drug Lord gangsters.
The state of Arizona is left holding the "bag" because the Federal Government can not or will not enforce the integrity of the border with Mexico. So since the Federal Government does not maintain its own laws, the State is trying to protect its citizens from the murder and carnage that is happening in Mexico. Last year just in one province in Mexico, over 5000 people many of them Mexican citizens were murdered or fell victim to the civil war that is being fought in Mexico. This war is now spilling over into the United States.
Guns in the hand of criminals is crazy. Guns in the hands of an educated , professional, landed individual is something else. Outlawing guns makes sense on the surface,but what is actually the problem is that the people using the guns in this country are no longer brought up in the same way anymore. What I mean is this, during the Founding Fathers day, kids had two parents that taught them right/wrong according to strict interpretations of the Bible. Today we have single parents that leave the teaching of their kids to the T.V. set. I'm not qualified to say which one is better but I'm leaning toward a clear ,strict interpretation of good/evil right/wrong rather than Jerry Springer. So going back to the "crazy" gun question, it is a little more clear that educated citizens holding guns forces those around them to act responsibly. If you go back to the bar example. How many people would get shit faced in a bar full of armed patrons? I know I would mind my manners if everyone in a bar was carrying a weapon. One of the core pillars of democracy is having citizens that act responsibly in treating with guns and other human beings legal and illegal. Guns are not the problem. Illegal immigrants are not the problem. We have had both since the founding of this country.
|
Insane woman. Politics is just crazy recently 
|
Insane woman is insane.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 16 2010 14:10 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 13:32 brain_ wrote:On July 16 2010 13:12 LaLuSh wrote:On July 16 2010 11:46 Myles wrote:On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote:
Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously. Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized. You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things. Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place. Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem. On July 16 2010 11:42 WeSt wrote:On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote:
Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously. Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized. You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things. Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place. Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo. I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible. Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God! This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people. Because it IS our governmental bible. America has been a stable (aside from a brief episode in the 1860s), free, and incredibly prosperous country for two and a half centuries because of the constitution, the bill of rights, and the individualistic entrepreneurial spirit that they endorse. This is just not true at all. Aside from all the many, many times in history that the Constitution has been broken or ignored to fit a particular crisis, the idea that the country has been stable or that it's due to the Constitution is ridiculous. We're at least an ocean away from where most wars take place. That's what has historically kept the US "stable." Besides, you know, the major unrest during the turn of the century, during the Great Depression, during Vietnam or the Cold War in general. "Entrepreneurial spirit" is a silly modern term to describe negative liberties, which there are many of, but those have been cut down or readjusted time after time. So to think that the Constitution is untouchable is ridiculous. Show nested quote +-Remember that whole Monarchy deal? We never bought into that.
-Remember Fascism, that trend that was sweeping Europe a while back? Not only didn't we buy into it, we ended up being the key force in defeating it.
-Remember Communism? Pretty much the same thing.
-Remember Democratic Socialism? Wait, no, Europe is still doing that. Wait another decade until all of Europe looks like Greece, then I'll be able to say "told you so" once again. Alright, so you don't understand how the American government works and you probably don't understand US or World History. It's not Democratic Socialism, but we do have a Socialist Democracy. This is not new. GWB partook in it, Reagan partook in it, Nixon, Eisenhower and down the line, even to Jefferson. Show nested quote +
Our constitution is what makes us American. It protects our freedoms, provides the groundwork for our national government, etc. Well, it would if statist politicians and useful idiots hadn't eroded it to the point of being ignored. Hence why our country is going down the shitter almost as fast as the rest of the world.
Do people not take Civics classes anymore? Stop with this originalist bullshit. There was no single intent of the Founding Fathers and even if that magical cohesive idea existed, it'd be impossible to understand it today. The Constitution is a living document that has shed its skin for every new era. This is not a modern thing. It was given elasticity for these purposes.
"negative liberties".
ROFL. What planet do you have to live on for that to NOT be an oxymoron?
|
Being against illegal immigration is NOT the same as being racist.
|
This is a subject near and dear to my heart. I'm a college student in Virginia. I'm also a Concealed Handgun Permit carrier. I am not allowed to carry my concealed handgun onto campus in my state (coincidently, a state where a massacre of students occurred a few years ago that may have been avoided), but any random person off the street IS allowed to concealed carry on a public campus.
That's right.
The only people NOT allowed to concealed carry on public campuses are students and faculty. Everyone else can.
That seems absurd to me, but sure enough, it's the law. And the solution clearly isn't to outlaw guns from campuses; that has been tried, and it has failed. Guns are simply a fact of life in this country, so why can't we allow responsible people, after qualifying with a background check and a class, to exercise their rights?
I love our police force. I'm a volunteer EMT. Our emergency response system is great, but we can't be everywhere at once, and we simply can't be there in time when someone is committed to harming others. The most criminal thing of all, to me, is to remove the ability for lawful individuals to simply defend their right to live.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
A very old video of a testimony before congress regarding the 2nd Amendment, if anyone is interested.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 16 2010 15:42 brain_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 14:10 Jibba wrote:On July 16 2010 13:32 brain_ wrote:On July 16 2010 13:12 LaLuSh wrote:On July 16 2010 11:46 Myles wrote:On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote:
Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously. Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized. You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things. Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place. Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem. On July 16 2010 11:42 WeSt wrote:On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote:
Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously. Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized. You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things. Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place. Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo. I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible. Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God! This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people. Because it IS our governmental bible. America has been a stable (aside from a brief episode in the 1860s), free, and incredibly prosperous country for two and a half centuries because of the constitution, the bill of rights, and the individualistic entrepreneurial spirit that they endorse. This is just not true at all. Aside from all the many, many times in history that the Constitution has been broken or ignored to fit a particular crisis, the idea that the country has been stable or that it's due to the Constitution is ridiculous. We're at least an ocean away from where most wars take place. That's what has historically kept the US "stable." Besides, you know, the major unrest during the turn of the century, during the Great Depression, during Vietnam or the Cold War in general. "Entrepreneurial spirit" is a silly modern term to describe negative liberties, which there are many of, but those have been cut down or readjusted time after time. So to think that the Constitution is untouchable is ridiculous. -Remember that whole Monarchy deal? We never bought into that.
-Remember Fascism, that trend that was sweeping Europe a while back? Not only didn't we buy into it, we ended up being the key force in defeating it.
-Remember Communism? Pretty much the same thing.
-Remember Democratic Socialism? Wait, no, Europe is still doing that. Wait another decade until all of Europe looks like Greece, then I'll be able to say "told you so" once again. Alright, so you don't understand how the American government works and you probably don't understand US or World History. It's not Democratic Socialism, but we do have a Socialist Democracy. This is not new. GWB partook in it, Reagan partook in it, Nixon, Eisenhower and down the line, even to Jefferson.
Our constitution is what makes us American. It protects our freedoms, provides the groundwork for our national government, etc. Well, it would if statist politicians and useful idiots hadn't eroded it to the point of being ignored. Hence why our country is going down the shitter almost as fast as the rest of the world.
Do people not take Civics classes anymore? Stop with this originalist bullshit. There was no single intent of the Founding Fathers and even if that magical cohesive idea existed, it'd be impossible to understand it today. The Constitution is a living document that has shed its skin for every new era. This is not a modern thing. It was given elasticity for these purposes. "negative liberties". ROFL. What planet do you have to live on for that to NOT be an oxymoron?
The planet of people who actually study political science and didn't just bandwagon onto liberalism.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
Next question?
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On July 16 2010 16:29 w_Ender_w wrote:+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJFAvA-ZUE A very old video of a testimony before congress regarding the 2nd Amendment, if anyone is interested.
Laws and rules are not based on testimonies, but on statistics and studies.
What happens to you, this lady, or me, doesn't matter if we are the exception to the rule, or we are just 1 in 1000000.
|
On July 16 2010 16:36 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 16:29 w_Ender_w wrote:+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJFAvA-ZUE A very old video of a testimony before congress regarding the 2nd Amendment, if anyone is interested. Laws and rules are not based on testimonies, but on statistics and studies. What happens to you, this lady, or me, doesn't matter if we are the exception to the rule, or we are just 1 in 1000000.
Right, which is why I said it was a testimony if anyone was interested, not whether or not we should base law off of it. If you want my opinion on the actual law, please refer to my previous post, friend. It's right above the one you quoted.
And as for statistics or studies... this depends on what law you are talking about. Are you talking about current gun restrictions? Those are more based on fear of violence, then statistics (not that they are wrong; I'm all for common sense restrictions). Or do you mean the current law in Virginia that I highlighted in my post? I'm not sure what that's based on, since it's a very clear contradiction. Or do you refer to the 2nd Amendment? That is based on a moral belief, not any statistic or study.
|
On July 16 2010 16:34 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 15:42 brain_ wrote:On July 16 2010 14:10 Jibba wrote:On July 16 2010 13:32 brain_ wrote:On July 16 2010 13:12 LaLuSh wrote:On July 16 2010 11:46 Myles wrote:On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote:
Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously. Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized. You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things. Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place. Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem. On July 16 2010 11:42 WeSt wrote:On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:
[quote]
Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized. You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things. Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place. Tada! Seriously the USA needs to get rid of this problem sooner or later, but there's just too much money involved imo. I'd love to live in fantasy land with you, but there's no possible way to remove guns from people in the US. For one, the constitution forbids it; and two, it would be logistically impossible. Never understood why so many americans treat the constitution as some sort of a bible. Questioning the founding fathers in any context seems a big no no; their word is the word of God! This post isn't directed at you, just a general observation. Amend the freaking amendment people. Because it IS our governmental bible. America has been a stable (aside from a brief episode in the 1860s), free, and incredibly prosperous country for two and a half centuries because of the constitution, the bill of rights, and the individualistic entrepreneurial spirit that they endorse. This is just not true at all. Aside from all the many, many times in history that the Constitution has been broken or ignored to fit a particular crisis, the idea that the country has been stable or that it's due to the Constitution is ridiculous. We're at least an ocean away from where most wars take place. That's what has historically kept the US "stable." Besides, you know, the major unrest during the turn of the century, during the Great Depression, during Vietnam or the Cold War in general. "Entrepreneurial spirit" is a silly modern term to describe negative liberties, which there are many of, but those have been cut down or readjusted time after time. So to think that the Constitution is untouchable is ridiculous. -Remember that whole Monarchy deal? We never bought into that.
-Remember Fascism, that trend that was sweeping Europe a while back? Not only didn't we buy into it, we ended up being the key force in defeating it.
-Remember Communism? Pretty much the same thing.
-Remember Democratic Socialism? Wait, no, Europe is still doing that. Wait another decade until all of Europe looks like Greece, then I'll be able to say "told you so" once again. Alright, so you don't understand how the American government works and you probably don't understand US or World History. It's not Democratic Socialism, but we do have a Socialist Democracy. This is not new. GWB partook in it, Reagan partook in it, Nixon, Eisenhower and down the line, even to Jefferson.
Our constitution is what makes us American. It protects our freedoms, provides the groundwork for our national government, etc. Well, it would if statist politicians and useful idiots hadn't eroded it to the point of being ignored. Hence why our country is going down the shitter almost as fast as the rest of the world.
Do people not take Civics classes anymore? Stop with this originalist bullshit. There was no single intent of the Founding Fathers and even if that magical cohesive idea existed, it'd be impossible to understand it today. The Constitution is a living document that has shed its skin for every new era. This is not a modern thing. It was given elasticity for these purposes. "negative liberties". ROFL. What planet do you have to live on for that to NOT be an oxymoron? The planet of people who actually study political science and didn't just bandwagon onto liberalism. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/Next question?
Get you ass whooped
User was warned for this post
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On July 16 2010 16:38 w_Ender_w wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 16:36 IntoTheWow wrote:On July 16 2010 16:29 w_Ender_w wrote:+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJFAvA-ZUE A very old video of a testimony before congress regarding the 2nd Amendment, if anyone is interested. Laws and rules are not based on testimonies, but on statistics and studies. What happens to you, this lady, or me, doesn't matter if we are the exception to the rule, or we are just 1 in 1000000. Right, which is why I said it was a testimony if anyone was interested, not whether or not we should base law off of it. If you want my opinion on the actual law, please refer to my previous post, friend. It's right above the one you quoted. And as for statistics or studies... this depends on what law you are talking about. Are you talking about current gun restrictions? Those are more based on fear of violence, then statistics (not that they are wrong; I'm all for common sense restrictions). Or do you mean the current law in Virginia that I highlighted in my post? I'm not sure what that's based on, since it's a very clear contradiction. Or do you refer to the 2nd Amendment? That is based on a moral belief, not any statistic or study.
I'm talking laws in general. But I should have said "Laws should be based on...", because it does not always happen, I agree.
Also I didn't mean to come off as offensive. It's just that "testimonies", "what I read somewhere", "what I heard", etc doesn't help at all in a discussion because it fuels one argument in the wrong direction with no information to back it up.
|
On July 16 2010 16:43 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 16:38 w_Ender_w wrote:On July 16 2010 16:36 IntoTheWow wrote:On July 16 2010 16:29 w_Ender_w wrote:+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJFAvA-ZUE A very old video of a testimony before congress regarding the 2nd Amendment, if anyone is interested. Laws and rules are not based on testimonies, but on statistics and studies. What happens to you, this lady, or me, doesn't matter if we are the exception to the rule, or we are just 1 in 1000000. Right, which is why I said it was a testimony if anyone was interested, not whether or not we should base law off of it. If you want my opinion on the actual law, please refer to my previous post, friend. It's right above the one you quoted. And as for statistics or studies... this depends on what law you are talking about. Are you talking about current gun restrictions? Those are more based on fear of violence, then statistics (not that they are wrong; I'm all for common sense restrictions). Or do you mean the current law in Virginia that I highlighted in my post? I'm not sure what that's based on, since it's a very clear contradiction. Or do you refer to the 2nd Amendment? That is based on a moral belief, not any statistic or study. I'm talking laws in general. But I should have said "Laws should be based on...", because it does not always happen, I agree. Also I didn't mean to come off as offensive. It's just that "testimonies", "what I read somewhere", "what I heard", etc doesn't help at all in a discussion because it fuels one argument in the wrong direction with no information to back it up.
You definitely have a point. And I took no offense, sorry if it seemed that way (it's late). I just thought this testimony would be interesting to certain people arguing in this thread because it's a real example of the current law in action, and topical, as the change in the proposed law could have affected a similar situation.
As far as whether or not laws should be based on statistics and studies... I am of two minds on that. Where as it'd be nice if laws were all logical and backed by scientific proof, some of our most important laws are based on human rights and moral beliefs that may or may not have any statistical backing. What statistic or study backs up free press rights? Privacy rights? The 2nd Amendment is very debatable, but I believe most people in the United States would say it's a very important one that is not based on any statistic or study, but on the simple ideal that the common man should be able to defend his own life.
Of course, as to whether statistics back up the 2nd Amendment or not, it depends on your source. I know I could cite many reputable sources that would point to gun possession being an effective deterrent to crime, or that registered gun owners commit far less crimes than other groups. I'm also sure someone could go to the Brady Campaign's website and pull up a bunch of gun statistics that would argue that guns are quite evil.
|
On July 16 2010 12:36 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 12:28 jello_biafra wrote:
So you want me to go back in time, join the US government and change the constitution myself?
I know it would be a next to impossible task because so many people already have firearms but you could at least stop exacerbating the problem by allowing anyone to by them freely now... You realize Congress can pass a constitutional amendment that invalidates the 2nd amendment, right? Just exercise your right to vote. Nobody has come remotely close to proving that gun ownership is even a problem, so your argument is pretty weak.
I'm not American though, kinda hard to vote when you're not a citizen and you don't live in the country.
On July 16 2010 12:56 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 12:28 jello_biafra wrote:On July 16 2010 12:10 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On July 16 2010 11:51 jello_biafra wrote:On July 16 2010 11:46 Myles wrote:On July 16 2010 11:31 jello_biafra wrote:On July 16 2010 10:40 Myles wrote:On July 16 2010 10:35 Tomnki wrote:On July 16 2010 10:30 Jugan wrote:
Legalizing gun possession in public schools, bars, and universities is NOT going to happen. That campaign ad made me laugh really hard... What a joke, seriously. Not like it would matter anyways. Colombine and VT still happened with these bans in place. People who think these laws are going to stop people from bringing a gun and shooting up these places are dumb. I find it ironic that a lot of conservatives are in favor of the "war on drugs" thinking that banning drugs somehow stops people from using then. Then when someone is like "ban guns" they are like that will never work! Likewise for liberals who want guns banned and drugs legalized. You win this thread. All out bans are 99% of the time a poor way to go about things. Only when everybody already has a gun, if guns hadn't been so freely available then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place. Perhaps, but there would always be ways to get them. I also think we have a society problem rather than a gun problem. Of course, gun crime exists in every western country, but it's much more difficult to get a hold of a gun in somewhere like the UK so the rate is far lower. What are your thoughts on this. Not much, I don't really give a damn what goes on down in england but I think it's more a result of the increased activities of african gangs bringing weapons/drugs into the country than anything else, all these illegal firearms have to be coming from somewhere and there are the people (mostly immigrants) who are crazy enough to use them. Also Labour were pretty dumb and I'm glad to see the back of them. Regardless though, ~5,000 to ~10,000 is a small increase considering the large increase in population over the last 10 years and that statistic covers an area with over 50 million people living in it. And finally the article is from the Daily Fail, I wouldn't put too much faith in them. 5,000 to 10,000 isn't a small increase. That's a 100% increase. Meanwhile the population has gone up by less than 5% over the last decade, according to wiki. How is a 100% increase a small increase while a 5% increase is a large increase?
It may be a %100 increase but it's still small since 5,000 a year out of 50 million is such a low rate and of this large increase in population a relatively high number of them will be the kind of person who can acquire illegal weapons.
On July 16 2010 12:57 Ichabod wrote:
Gun crime is lower(Edit: In the UK), but most likely more deadly on average per incident (since law enforcement over in the UK doesn't have direct access to guns at all, and a special unit needs to be called in (similar to SWAT in the US) in the event of a gun-related emergency).
Actually most police cars have guns, armed response units are always rolling.
|
On July 16 2010 16:29 w_Ender_w wrote:+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJFAvA-ZUE A very old video of a testimony before congress regarding the 2nd Amendment, if anyone is interested.
Damn, that was a crazy story. I still can't help to think though that the only reason that madman was able to do that harm was because of your right to have guns in the US. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/28/supremecourt/main6626538.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody. The woman instead addresses the issue that she wasn't able to carry a gun to defend herself but I think misses the point that in a society where firearms are banned the chances that these killing sprees will happen is so much less frequent.
She is right about the purpose of the second amendment. Makes you wonder why it shouldn't be read as to make available anti-aircraft missiles to defend yourself against the government as well 
The only thing I can say about guns in the U.S. is that it's unfortunate we have them and it's also unfortunate that they are practically impossible to get rid of. Instead, we let James Bond wannabes and potential serial killers free access to weapons and have people like me pray we won't get shot during the course of our normal day. Having guns so protected in this country only means that there will be more innocent lives lost; screw the original intent of the amendment, it's out-dated.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On July 16 2010 17:06 w_Ender_w wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 16:43 IntoTheWow wrote:On July 16 2010 16:38 w_Ender_w wrote:On July 16 2010 16:36 IntoTheWow wrote:On July 16 2010 16:29 w_Ender_w wrote:+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJFAvA-ZUE A very old video of a testimony before congress regarding the 2nd Amendment, if anyone is interested. Laws and rules are not based on testimonies, but on statistics and studies. What happens to you, this lady, or me, doesn't matter if we are the exception to the rule, or we are just 1 in 1000000. Right, which is why I said it was a testimony if anyone was interested, not whether or not we should base law off of it. If you want my opinion on the actual law, please refer to my previous post, friend. It's right above the one you quoted. And as for statistics or studies... this depends on what law you are talking about. Are you talking about current gun restrictions? Those are more based on fear of violence, then statistics (not that they are wrong; I'm all for common sense restrictions). Or do you mean the current law in Virginia that I highlighted in my post? I'm not sure what that's based on, since it's a very clear contradiction. Or do you refer to the 2nd Amendment? That is based on a moral belief, not any statistic or study. I'm talking laws in general. But I should have said "Laws should be based on...", because it does not always happen, I agree. Also I didn't mean to come off as offensive. It's just that "testimonies", "what I read somewhere", "what I heard", etc doesn't help at all in a discussion because it fuels one argument in the wrong direction with no information to back it up. You definitely have a point. And I took no offense, sorry if it seemed that way (it's late). I just thought this testimony would be interesting to certain people arguing in this thread because it's a real example of the current law in action, and topical, as the change in the proposed law could have affected a similar situation. As far as whether or not laws should be based on statistics and studies... I am of two minds on that. Where as it'd be nice if laws were all logical and backed by scientific proof, some of our most important laws are based on human rights and moral beliefs that may or may not have any statistical backing. What statistic or study backs up free press rights? Privacy rights? The 2nd Amendment is very debatable, but I believe most people in the United States would say it's a very important one that is not based on any statistic or study, but on the simple ideal that the common man should be able to defend his own life. Of course, as to whether statistics back up the 2nd Amendment or not, it depends on your source. I know I could cite many reputable sources that would point to gun possession being an effective deterrent to crime, or that registered gun owners commit far less crimes than other groups. I'm also sure someone could go to the Brady Campaign's website and pull up a bunch of gun statistics that would argue that guns are quite evil.
Well yes, some laws are based on morals which are nothing but beliefs. We have to start somewhere. But as time goes on and we evolve as a society, we modify rules.
When the option is at hand, using science/statistics/studies seems like the best and more neutral solution. Of course this is not always the case.
I think what your video does show well is that middle solutions are maybe the worst of all, because they create ridiculous scenarios where the laws seem to make more bad than good, and leave people with a sense of injustice.
|
damn straight! today, the mad scientist can't get a doomsday device, tomorrow it's the mad grad student. where will it end?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
