|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 11 2013 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 00:46 Kimaker wrote:On May 10 2013 12:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 12:01 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:24 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 10:55 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I don't need freedom of speech, I won't die without it. I'll be pretty pissed off, but I won't die. Need shouldn't matter when it comes to what someone can and cannot own. You don't NEED your car. You don't NEED your house. But we live in a free society and a major part of a free society is property rights. The onus is on you to prove why I can't have an automatic weapon.
[quote]
If isolated incidents don't matter, why don't all gun-control proponents stop bringing up Newtown and Aurora? You can't have it both ways. You don't get to say that isolated incidents on my side don't matter, while yours do.
Militias were meant to stand up to militaries, ergo any weapon the military uses is protected. Note this doesn't cover nukes or anthrax or whatever because no military actually uses these things. They have them, but don't use them. Well... If we want to get technical... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed The militia is what is needed for the protection of the state, not the arms. Hence, having your logic of "any weapon the military uses is protected" does not fall in line with a strict reading of the amendment. Now you could say that we shouldn't be so strict with the amendment and do what Scalia did wherein he ignores militia, ignores regulated, and place the emphasis on Infringe thereby allowing Heller to have as much ammo in his guns as he'd like in the 2008 case--but that is not a strict reading of the amendment but is instead a recent interpretation of it. Just to keep things in perspective. A Militia without modern weapons can't do much protecting now can it? Further, in 1787, the English language was quite a bit different than it is now. "Well-regulated" meant well-trained and equipped; it didn't have anything to do with government regulations. That was up for contention in the beginning--mostly they realized that they couldn't figure out how much government support was allowed in regulating and specifically arming people. At some point they pretended militia didn't exist, and then they eventually thought self defense was the thing, then back to tyrrany, now its back to self defense. It really matters who the supreme court justices are and what is happening in the country at the time. At first Well Regulated meant that the government was providing the arms. That was eventually dropped. @Gold Yeah, my bad, I was just mildly annoyed at people saying doctors are not legitimate sources of research. The government never, to my knowledge, armed the militias. Certainly not at first anyways, considering the militias existed BEFORE the government. The Continental Army was practically entirely privately armed. Almost every soldier brought his own musket, and any that had to be replaced were bought privately by one of the founding father's. Washington spent a great deal of his own money buying muskets and powder. They actually got gun supplies from the french and (germany??) specifically newer musket designs that were easier to reload. So yes, they actually did pass around "government" for the same reason that Washington had to spend his money on weapons, and then became the President who still owned those weapons he had passed around to his men. And not "every guy" brought his gun because families were both larger back then and only had a few guns at most--and one had to be left behind just so people could still hunt. Then there's the loyalist who were supporting the British having their guns revoked etc... Anyway--yes, they did have to figure things out. Which is why they made the mistake of having such a vague amendment. What happens if a family doesn't have a gun--should they still be regulated? What if they don't want to be in the militia--are they not allowed to be armed? Etc... The revolution didn't get foreign support until after the Battle of Saratoga. I'd say everyone able to be in the militia should be allowed to have guns, in the hopes that they would choose to, and so would need less training should they need to take action. Given the positions put forth in the Federalist papers, I'd say this is in line with what the drafter's meant. Well, what the drafters "meant" is weird because everyone did have a gun. It wasn't until we started having people who didn't need guns and hence didn't have them (or were too poor, etc...) that it started becoming a thing to care about the nitty gritty of gun control. In the world where everyone in essence had guns, they kind of just wrote it saying we can't take guns away. Arguments started happening when we got more civilized and there discrepancies on who had guns and who didn't have guns and how to handle that power dynamic without stepping on the amendment. The drafters were smart--but they weren't psychics. They wrote what culturally made sense at the time and adapted as they went. That is perhaps the most pretentious and ill-informed Progressive Teleology I've ever heard anyone spout. Ever. Do you honestly believe they just flippantly included the 2nd amendment because, "Well hell, everyone has one, why the fuck not?" Really? These were some of the most educated and liberal minded men of the time. The eyes of the entire world were upon them, judging their every move, and here they were trying to create a nation out of thin air, and they just picked the Right to keep and bear arms as the second enumerated part of the Bill of Rights, "Cause fuck it. Logistics man." That perfectly explains the numerous justifications for the 2nd amendment in their personal correspondences, and journals, and in published articles. It was all logistics. As for the "more civilized" bit...if you believe that statement you know nothing of history. In a relative descriptive sense, you're correct. One person can act more civil than another. In a societal sense? Bull. Fine, would you prefer I say "as we got less civilized?" will that make you feel better? They ousted monarchal rule because they had guns and hence stuck with that mindset when it came to philosophical debates on law and rights. They did not put together the 2nd amendment to justify owning nukes and full auto because it was obviously not yet invented yet. Their arguments were on the how much and how little government influence should be put upon the militia. They didn't care about magazine sizes since they had no magazines. They didn't care about ammunition laws--since people made their own ammunition. There was no wallmart to buy hundreds of rounds. They didn't have a world where 1 person could own 150 guns and a several thousand rounds as a personal stash. The logistics were not the same. And as we progressed as a society, less and less people had guns because we no longer needed to fucking hunt deer for food. When you live in a city working in a factory and you have a choice of saving up money for a gun or saving up money for something else--getting guns stopped being a big priority. Not because we somehow became better and more peaceful but because it became less and less of a necessity. Stop hating history.
I think it's disappointing that the Founders are treated with such a lack of respect for their intelligence sometimes. Also, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Two important points there.
First, it is obvious that the Constitutional Convention ratified a document that was made to be as flexible as possible for future generations. The first ten amendments - excepting the 2nd, 9th and 10th - are essentially regarded as being pretty good ideas for the rest of time by just about everyone. The 9th and 10th are rather neglected and the 2nd is very controversial. I highly doubt that the Founders would have wanted a country where the citizen militia would have been handicapped resisting a foreign invasion or government tyranny by something like a 7-round maximum, or even 10 or 15. They didn't know about all that yes, but the concept itself is something they would have readily understood. And a strong argument can be made that what the Founders meant by the term "militia" in the Second Amendment was not referring to the regular, organized militia, but rather the unorganized militia - basically, everyone in the entire country.
Second, current majority Supreme Court jurisprudence argues - and I agree - that the government cannot place an undue burden on the keeping and bearing of firearms. Part of bearing firearms is bearing them for use. There is a reason that most standard police sidearms are 15-rounders. 7, 9, 10, that's not enough. If police need they think the ability to fire 15 rounds at least before having to reload, I don't see how it is constitutional to limit regular citizens to less than that.
Knowing history isn't just knowing the facts, it's understanding them. You don't understand the Founding Fathers as men, politicians, or philosophers.
|
On May 11 2013 03:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 11 2013 00:46 Kimaker wrote:On May 10 2013 12:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 12:01 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:24 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Well... If we want to get technical...
[quote]
The militia is what is needed for the protection of the state, not the arms. Hence, having your logic of "any weapon the military uses is protected" does not fall in line with a strict reading of the amendment.
Now you could say that we shouldn't be so strict with the amendment and do what Scalia did wherein he ignores militia, ignores regulated, and place the emphasis on Infringe thereby allowing Heller to have as much ammo in his guns as he'd like in the 2008 case--but that is not a strict reading of the amendment but is instead a recent interpretation of it.
Just to keep things in perspective. A Militia without modern weapons can't do much protecting now can it? Further, in 1787, the English language was quite a bit different than it is now. "Well-regulated" meant well-trained and equipped; it didn't have anything to do with government regulations. That was up for contention in the beginning--mostly they realized that they couldn't figure out how much government support was allowed in regulating and specifically arming people. At some point they pretended militia didn't exist, and then they eventually thought self defense was the thing, then back to tyrrany, now its back to self defense. It really matters who the supreme court justices are and what is happening in the country at the time. At first Well Regulated meant that the government was providing the arms. That was eventually dropped. @Gold Yeah, my bad, I was just mildly annoyed at people saying doctors are not legitimate sources of research. The government never, to my knowledge, armed the militias. Certainly not at first anyways, considering the militias existed BEFORE the government. The Continental Army was practically entirely privately armed. Almost every soldier brought his own musket, and any that had to be replaced were bought privately by one of the founding father's. Washington spent a great deal of his own money buying muskets and powder. They actually got gun supplies from the french and (germany??) specifically newer musket designs that were easier to reload. So yes, they actually did pass around "government" for the same reason that Washington had to spend his money on weapons, and then became the President who still owned those weapons he had passed around to his men. And not "every guy" brought his gun because families were both larger back then and only had a few guns at most--and one had to be left behind just so people could still hunt. Then there's the loyalist who were supporting the British having their guns revoked etc... Anyway--yes, they did have to figure things out. Which is why they made the mistake of having such a vague amendment. What happens if a family doesn't have a gun--should they still be regulated? What if they don't want to be in the militia--are they not allowed to be armed? Etc... The revolution didn't get foreign support until after the Battle of Saratoga. I'd say everyone able to be in the militia should be allowed to have guns, in the hopes that they would choose to, and so would need less training should they need to take action. Given the positions put forth in the Federalist papers, I'd say this is in line with what the drafter's meant. Well, what the drafters "meant" is weird because everyone did have a gun. It wasn't until we started having people who didn't need guns and hence didn't have them (or were too poor, etc...) that it started becoming a thing to care about the nitty gritty of gun control. In the world where everyone in essence had guns, they kind of just wrote it saying we can't take guns away. Arguments started happening when we got more civilized and there discrepancies on who had guns and who didn't have guns and how to handle that power dynamic without stepping on the amendment. The drafters were smart--but they weren't psychics. They wrote what culturally made sense at the time and adapted as they went. That is perhaps the most pretentious and ill-informed Progressive Teleology I've ever heard anyone spout. Ever. Do you honestly believe they just flippantly included the 2nd amendment because, "Well hell, everyone has one, why the fuck not?" Really? These were some of the most educated and liberal minded men of the time. The eyes of the entire world were upon them, judging their every move, and here they were trying to create a nation out of thin air, and they just picked the Right to keep and bear arms as the second enumerated part of the Bill of Rights, "Cause fuck it. Logistics man." That perfectly explains the numerous justifications for the 2nd amendment in their personal correspondences, and journals, and in published articles. It was all logistics. As for the "more civilized" bit...if you believe that statement you know nothing of history. In a relative descriptive sense, you're correct. One person can act more civil than another. In a societal sense? Bull. Fine, would you prefer I say "as we got less civilized?" will that make you feel better? They ousted monarchal rule because they had guns and hence stuck with that mindset when it came to philosophical debates on law and rights. They did not put together the 2nd amendment to justify owning nukes and full auto because it was obviously not yet invented yet. Their arguments were on the how much and how little government influence should be put upon the militia. They didn't care about magazine sizes since they had no magazines. They didn't care about ammunition laws--since people made their own ammunition. There was no wallmart to buy hundreds of rounds. They didn't have a world where 1 person could own 150 guns and a several thousand rounds as a personal stash. The logistics were not the same. And as we progressed as a society, less and less people had guns because we no longer needed to fucking hunt deer for food. When you live in a city working in a factory and you have a choice of saving up money for a gun or saving up money for something else--getting guns stopped being a big priority. Not because we somehow became better and more peaceful but because it became less and less of a necessity. Stop hating history. I think it's disappointing that the Founders are treated with such a lack of respect for their intelligence sometimes. Also, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Two important points there. First, it is obvious that the Constitutional Convention ratified a document that was made to be as flexible as possible for future generations. The first ten amendments - excepting the 2nd, 9th and 10th - are essentially regarded as being pretty good ideas for the rest of time by just about everyone. The 9th and 10th are rather neglected and the 2nd is very controversial. I highly doubt that the Founders would have wanted a country where the citizen militia would have been handicapped resisting a foreign invasion or government tyranny by something like a 7-round maximum, or even 10 or 15. They didn't know about all that yes, but the concept itself is something they would have readily understood. And a strong argument can be made that what the Founders meant by the term "militia" in the Second Amendment was not referring to the regular, organized militia, but rather the unorganized militia - basically, everyone in the entire country. Second, current majority Supreme Court jurisprudence argues - and I agree - that the government cannot place an undue burden on the keeping and bearing of firearms. Part of bearing firearms is bearing them for use. There is a reason that most standard police sidearms are 15-rounders. 7, 9, 10, that's not enough. If police need they think the ability to fire 15 rounds at least before having to reload, I don't see how it is constitutional to limit regular citizens to less than that. Knowing history isn't just knowing the facts, it's understanding them. You don't understand the Founding Fathers as men, politicians, or philosophers.
I never said the founding fathers are against magazine sizes--I said that they really don't have a say in it since it wasn't much of a concept yet at the time. I'm saying that they are human and wrote with certain biases and assumptions proper for their day. I'm saying that at the time of writing it the idea of the militia was the most important part BECAUSE THEY JUST FUCKING FOUGHT AS MILITIA and the infringe portion was not as focused on until later on when...
"In the year prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment, in Federalist No. 29 Alexander Hamilton wrote the following about "organizing", "disciplining", "arming", and "training" of the militia as specified in the enumerated powers:
This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."[59]
A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[59]
"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".[59]"
Year 1 a militia was considered a government trained body.
Year 2 a militia became a state trained body
Still emphasizing the militia because in their mind militia correlated with military training and military weapons. It was only later that we stepped away from militia and focused on infringe such as when in 2008 Scalia said
"Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right."
What we emphasize and how we emphasize it changes over time. It depends on the current state of the nation and it depends on who is in the supreme court. The actual founding fathers were not paragons of knowledge, they were just really smart people doing the best they can.
|
Yes , guns are tools and should be used as such. Tools can be misused , there are certain PEOPLE that shouldn't have guns i personally don't like guns but alot of people i know have them so yes people should be allowed to own and carry them 
|
I never said the founding fathers are against magazine sizes--I said that they really don't have a say in it since it wasn't much of a concept yet at the time. I'm saying that they are human and wrote with certain biases and assumptions proper for their day. I'm saying that at the time of writing it the idea of the militia was the most important part BECAUSE THEY JUST FUCKING FOUGHT AS MILITIA and the infringe portion was not as focused on until later on when...
And I am saying that you are looking at the Founders through one perspective, where their perspective is so limited as to have no value.
I am looking at it through another, a perspective that is timeless: the defense of the nation, the defense of the self, and the defense of the people.
Through that perspective, as I said, I doubt that the Founding Fathers would have wanted the people to be so handicapped in their arms against foreign armies or domestic tyrants that they would back limiting magazine capacity to such a degree.
"In the year prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment, in Federalist No. 29 Alexander Hamilton wrote the following about "organizing", "disciplining", "arming", and "training" of the militia as specified in the enumerated powers:
This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."[59]
A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[59]
"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".[59]"
Year 1 a militia was considered a government trained body.
Year 2 a militia became a state trained body
Dude, the Federalist Papers are great, but they are not the Constitution. What you are quoting there is an argument of Alexander Hamilton's to ratify the Constitution. He is saying that a strong central government, which he favored, is far better at organizing a regular militia than the weak organization created by the Articles of Confederation.
Here are some more quotes from the Federalist Papers:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
Alexander Hamilton, who you just quoted!
That crazy paranoid, he sounds like some scary Tea Partier!
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
I can quotemine too, but the difference is that I actually have read most of the Federalist Papers and read the histories on those men and their works and their personalities; their very lives. I don't think you have. I think you are ill-read.
Still emphasizing the militia because in their mind militia correlated with military training and military weapons.
Well you're definitely wrong about that. Please do not overlook the fact that except for cannon and hunting pieces, military and civilian firearms were basically the same thing.
What we emphasize and how we emphasize it changes over time. It depends on the current state of the nation and it depends on who is in the supreme court. The actual founding fathers were not paragons of knowledge, they were just really smart people doing the best they can.
And here's the disrespect.
What do you know about the Founding Fathers to insult them as such.
Guess what Mr. Magpie, for their time they were "paragons of knowledge." And there is one thing they understood that is timeless, the same thing Sokrates and the other philosophers of antiquity understood, the reason we still study Sokrates today. They understood human nature. They understood the importance of understanding human nature.
What you have done is mistake scientific and technological know-how with wisdom. That's not wisdom, it's just knowledge. Knowing people is wisdom. You need to read more and gain some.
George Washington may not have known about 30-round clips, but I guarantee you that if you could tell him about them and all the other advances in weaponry, he would understand precisely why citizens owning tanks or nuclear weapons would be entirely wrong. And he would also understand precisely what all those advances meant when it came to the balance of power between the citizen and the State.
George Washington wouldn't be supporting some atrocious, unconstitutional magazine capacity limit. He wouldn't be a Tea Partier either.
But he would be a card-carrying member of the NRA.
Yes , guns are tools and should be used as such. Tools can be misused , there are certain PEOPLE that shouldn't have guns i personally don't like guns but alot of people i know have them so yes people should be allowed to own and carry them
To show how much I am willing to reach across the aisle and compromise, I agree that there are certain people that shouldn't have guns. People like IdrA.
|
I wouldn't say the Founding Fathers understood human nature. I'd say they were interested in it, but I don't think anyone has ever created a perfect philosophy with respect to whatever human nature is (especially since pre-psychological accounts of human nature are lacking in many areas). The problem with what you're describing is that, yes, the Founding Fathers were really smart. Whether they rank up with the philosophers of antiquity is a matter of debate, but it ultimately doesn't matter whether historical figure X would be pro-law Y or whatever. The most important thing about all these philosophers of antiquity is that there is a huge variance of views. You have Platonic conceptions of the state which are at odds with Aristotelian conceptions which at odd with classical liberal conceptions; same goes for ethics.
By all means, study the Founding Fathers. Study all the important intellectual figures of history. But the sad fact is that there are so many disagreements and points of view that it's sorta useless to appeal to the fact that the Founding Fathers were paragons of knowledge. So what? Obviously that means they're worth listening to, but it certainly doesn't mean they're right! Look at all the other paragons of knowledge that we disagree with just by agreeing with the Founding Fathers!
I mean, I don't think you'd be too sympathetic if I said that "well, Marx, Engels and Bakunin were exceedingly intelligent men with very radical and influential views; this means that their ideas are worthy of respect!" I could be totally misreading you, but it seems to me that simply acknowledging the influence/intelligence/knowledge of a particular individual isn't enough to attach credence to their views.
|
Edit: Nevermind found the article I posted, posted by someone else.
|
On May 11 2013 04:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I never said the founding fathers are against magazine sizes--I said that they really don't have a say in it since it wasn't much of a concept yet at the time. I'm saying that they are human and wrote with certain biases and assumptions proper for their day. I'm saying that at the time of writing it the idea of the militia was the most important part BECAUSE THEY JUST FUCKING FOUGHT AS MILITIA and the infringe portion was not as focused on until later on when... And I am saying that you are looking at the Founders through one perspective, where their perspective is so limited as to have no value. I am looking at it through another, a perspective that is timeless: the defense of the nation, the defense of the self, and the defense of the people. Through that perspective, as I said, I doubt that the Founding Fathers would have wanted the people to be so handicapped in their arms against foreign armies or domestic tyrants that they would back limiting magazine capacity to such a degree. "In the year prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment, in Federalist No. 29 Alexander Hamilton wrote the following about "organizing", "disciplining", "arming", and "training" of the militia as specified in the enumerated powers:
This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."[59]
A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[59]
"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".[59]"
Year 1 a militia was considered a government trained body.
Year 2 a militia became a state trained body
Dude, the Federalist Papers are great, but they are not the Constitution. What you are quoting there is an argument of Alexander Hamilton's to ratify the Constitution. He is saying that a strong central government, which he favored, is far better at organizing a regular militia than the weak organization created by the Articles of Confederation. Here are some more quotes from the Federalist Papers: If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28 Alexander Hamilton, who you just quoted! That crazy paranoid, he sounds like some scary Tea Partier! "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46 "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356 "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188 "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 I can quotemine too, but the difference is that I actually have read most of the Federalist Papers and read the histories on those men and their works and their personalities; their very lives. I don't think you have. I think you are ill-read. Still emphasizing the militia because in their mind militia correlated with military training and military weapons. Well you're definitely wrong about that. Please do not overlook the fact that except for cannon and hunting pieces, military and civilian firearms were basically the same thing. What we emphasize and how we emphasize it changes over time. It depends on the current state of the nation and it depends on who is in the supreme court. The actual founding fathers were not paragons of knowledge, they were just really smart people doing the best they can. And here's the disrespect. What do you know about the Founding Fathers to insult them as such. Guess what Mr. Magpie, for their time they were "paragons of knowledge." And there is one thing they understood that is timeless, the same thing Sokrates and the other philosophers of antiquity understood, the reason we still study Sokrates today. They understood human nature. They understood the importance of understanding human nature. What you have done is mistake scientific and technological know-how with wisdom. That's not wisdom, it's just knowledge. Knowing people is wisdom. You need to read more and gain some. George Washington may not have known about 30-round clips, but I guarantee you that if you could tell him about them and all the other advances in weaponry, he would understand precisely why citizens owning tanks or nuclear weapons would be entirely wrong. And he would also understand precisely what all those advances meant when it came to the balance of power between the citizen and the State. George Washington wouldn't be supporting some atrocious, unconstitutional magazine capacity limit. He wouldn't be a Tea Partier either. But he would be a card-carrying member of the NRA. Yes , guns are tools and should be used as such. Tools can be misused , there are certain PEOPLE that shouldn't have guns i personally don't like guns but alot of people i know have them so yes people should be allowed to own and carry them To show how much I am willing to reach across the aisle and compromise, I agree that there are certain people that shouldn't have guns. People like IdrA.
The notion that Washington would have consented to being led by a man like Wayne La Pierre is heelareerious! Otherwise I mostly agree with you.
|
On May 11 2013 04:44 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 04:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I never said the founding fathers are against magazine sizes--I said that they really don't have a say in it since it wasn't much of a concept yet at the time. I'm saying that they are human and wrote with certain biases and assumptions proper for their day. I'm saying that at the time of writing it the idea of the militia was the most important part BECAUSE THEY JUST FUCKING FOUGHT AS MILITIA and the infringe portion was not as focused on until later on when... And I am saying that you are looking at the Founders through one perspective, where their perspective is so limited as to have no value. I am looking at it through another, a perspective that is timeless: the defense of the nation, the defense of the self, and the defense of the people. Through that perspective, as I said, I doubt that the Founding Fathers would have wanted the people to be so handicapped in their arms against foreign armies or domestic tyrants that they would back limiting magazine capacity to such a degree. "In the year prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment, in Federalist No. 29 Alexander Hamilton wrote the following about "organizing", "disciplining", "arming", and "training" of the militia as specified in the enumerated powers:
This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."[59]
A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[59]
"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".[59]"
Year 1 a militia was considered a government trained body.
Year 2 a militia became a state trained body
Dude, the Federalist Papers are great, but they are not the Constitution. What you are quoting there is an argument of Alexander Hamilton's to ratify the Constitution. He is saying that a strong central government, which he favored, is far better at organizing a regular militia than the weak organization created by the Articles of Confederation. Here are some more quotes from the Federalist Papers: If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28 Alexander Hamilton, who you just quoted! That crazy paranoid, he sounds like some scary Tea Partier! "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46 "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356 "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188 "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 I can quotemine too, but the difference is that I actually have read most of the Federalist Papers and read the histories on those men and their works and their personalities; their very lives. I don't think you have. I think you are ill-read. Still emphasizing the militia because in their mind militia correlated with military training and military weapons. Well you're definitely wrong about that. Please do not overlook the fact that except for cannon and hunting pieces, military and civilian firearms were basically the same thing. What we emphasize and how we emphasize it changes over time. It depends on the current state of the nation and it depends on who is in the supreme court. The actual founding fathers were not paragons of knowledge, they were just really smart people doing the best they can. And here's the disrespect. What do you know about the Founding Fathers to insult them as such. Guess what Mr. Magpie, for their time they were "paragons of knowledge." And there is one thing they understood that is timeless, the same thing Sokrates and the other philosophers of antiquity understood, the reason we still study Sokrates today. They understood human nature. They understood the importance of understanding human nature. What you have done is mistake scientific and technological know-how with wisdom. That's not wisdom, it's just knowledge. Knowing people is wisdom. You need to read more and gain some. George Washington may not have known about 30-round clips, but I guarantee you that if you could tell him about them and all the other advances in weaponry, he would understand precisely why citizens owning tanks or nuclear weapons would be entirely wrong. And he would also understand precisely what all those advances meant when it came to the balance of power between the citizen and the State. George Washington wouldn't be supporting some atrocious, unconstitutional magazine capacity limit. He wouldn't be a Tea Partier either. But he would be a card-carrying member of the NRA. Yes , guns are tools and should be used as such. Tools can be misused , there are certain PEOPLE that shouldn't have guns i personally don't like guns but alot of people i know have them so yes people should be allowed to own and carry them To show how much I am willing to reach across the aisle and compromise, I agree that there are certain people that shouldn't have guns. People like IdrA. The notion that Washington would have consented to being led by a man like Wayne La Pierre is heelareerious! Otherwise I mostly agree with you.
He'd probably be NRA president in place of Wayne LaPierre.
If he wasn't campaigning to repeal the 22nd amendment so he could run for President of the USA again and whip some ass in both parties.
|
On May 11 2013 04:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 04:44 farvacola wrote:On May 11 2013 04:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I never said the founding fathers are against magazine sizes--I said that they really don't have a say in it since it wasn't much of a concept yet at the time. I'm saying that they are human and wrote with certain biases and assumptions proper for their day. I'm saying that at the time of writing it the idea of the militia was the most important part BECAUSE THEY JUST FUCKING FOUGHT AS MILITIA and the infringe portion was not as focused on until later on when... And I am saying that you are looking at the Founders through one perspective, where their perspective is so limited as to have no value. I am looking at it through another, a perspective that is timeless: the defense of the nation, the defense of the self, and the defense of the people. Through that perspective, as I said, I doubt that the Founding Fathers would have wanted the people to be so handicapped in their arms against foreign armies or domestic tyrants that they would back limiting magazine capacity to such a degree. "In the year prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment, in Federalist No. 29 Alexander Hamilton wrote the following about "organizing", "disciplining", "arming", and "training" of the militia as specified in the enumerated powers:
This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."[59]
A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[59]
"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".[59]"
Year 1 a militia was considered a government trained body.
Year 2 a militia became a state trained body
Dude, the Federalist Papers are great, but they are not the Constitution. What you are quoting there is an argument of Alexander Hamilton's to ratify the Constitution. He is saying that a strong central government, which he favored, is far better at organizing a regular militia than the weak organization created by the Articles of Confederation. Here are some more quotes from the Federalist Papers: If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28 Alexander Hamilton, who you just quoted! That crazy paranoid, he sounds like some scary Tea Partier! "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46 "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356 "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188 "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 I can quotemine too, but the difference is that I actually have read most of the Federalist Papers and read the histories on those men and their works and their personalities; their very lives. I don't think you have. I think you are ill-read. Still emphasizing the militia because in their mind militia correlated with military training and military weapons. Well you're definitely wrong about that. Please do not overlook the fact that except for cannon and hunting pieces, military and civilian firearms were basically the same thing. What we emphasize and how we emphasize it changes over time. It depends on the current state of the nation and it depends on who is in the supreme court. The actual founding fathers were not paragons of knowledge, they were just really smart people doing the best they can. And here's the disrespect. What do you know about the Founding Fathers to insult them as such. Guess what Mr. Magpie, for their time they were "paragons of knowledge." And there is one thing they understood that is timeless, the same thing Sokrates and the other philosophers of antiquity understood, the reason we still study Sokrates today. They understood human nature. They understood the importance of understanding human nature. What you have done is mistake scientific and technological know-how with wisdom. That's not wisdom, it's just knowledge. Knowing people is wisdom. You need to read more and gain some. George Washington may not have known about 30-round clips, but I guarantee you that if you could tell him about them and all the other advances in weaponry, he would understand precisely why citizens owning tanks or nuclear weapons would be entirely wrong. And he would also understand precisely what all those advances meant when it came to the balance of power between the citizen and the State. George Washington wouldn't be supporting some atrocious, unconstitutional magazine capacity limit. He wouldn't be a Tea Partier either. But he would be a card-carrying member of the NRA. Yes , guns are tools and should be used as such. Tools can be misused , there are certain PEOPLE that shouldn't have guns i personally don't like guns but alot of people i know have them so yes people should be allowed to own and carry them To show how much I am willing to reach across the aisle and compromise, I agree that there are certain people that shouldn't have guns. People like IdrA. The notion that Washington would have consented to being led by a man like Wayne La Pierre is heelareerious! Otherwise I mostly agree with you. He'd probably be NRA president in place of Wayne LaPierre. If he wasn't campaigning to repeal the 22nd amendment so he could run for President of the USA again and whip some ass in both parties.
He stuck for one term before the cap was implemented!
|
On May 11 2013 04:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:
He'd probably be NRA president in place of Wayne LaPierre.
If he wasn't campaigning to repeal the 22nd amendment so he could run for President of the USA again and whip some ass in both parties.
As a gun-owner rights advocate, I absolutely hate LaPierre. He often starts the ridiculous cop-outs like the "cold dead hands" talk rather than using logical expressions.
Everyone who likes the original stance of the NRA (a long time ago) should be dropping the NRA and switching their attention to the Gun Owners of America, lead by Larry Pratt--a true cool-headed intellectual that has never resorted to stonewalling a debate.
|
On May 11 2013 03:14 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 03:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 11 2013 03:03 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 11 2013 02:53 w1nter wrote:
Yes. But only as long as you pass both strict background/mentality checks. And even then you should only be eligible to a handgun. Being able to buy an AR-15 in USA is just ridiculous. Why is it ridiculous? It's not like holding one will overwhelm you with the need to shoot someone. the worry is the reverse of that. If you had the overwhelming need to shoot someone--you can just buy an AR-15 and do it. The worry is that people who enjoy products like these http://workthatmatters.blogspot.ca/2013/05/shooting-game-company-literally-makes.html?spref=fb are the same people who love buying guns. That's pretty disturbing. o_O And while I think it's true that if you had the overwhelming need to shoot someone you can buy an automatic assault weapon and do it, the concern becomes if such a person wanted to kill someone anyway (as I wouldn't see many reasons why you'd want to shoot someone and want them to live), it seems quite easy for such a person to use any objects at their disposal for nefarious purposes. I think the main concern I have is that these weapons are enablers that allow for the mass shooting of people, which is horrifying and tragic. But even then, I have my concerns that a strategy of gun control would do much as deterrence. I've always been a favor of both a way of trying to fix our culture/nature towards gun alongside a reasonable gun control proposal, because I don't think just stopping people from buying AR-15s would be anywhere close to a good solution. Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 03:12 Millitron wrote:On May 11 2013 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 11 2013 00:46 Kimaker wrote:On May 10 2013 12:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 12:01 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:24 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
A Militia without modern weapons can't do much protecting now can it?
Further, in 1787, the English language was quite a bit different than it is now. "Well-regulated" meant well-trained and equipped; it didn't have anything to do with government regulations. That was up for contention in the beginning--mostly they realized that they couldn't figure out how much government support was allowed in regulating and specifically arming people. At some point they pretended militia didn't exist, and then they eventually thought self defense was the thing, then back to tyrrany, now its back to self defense. It really matters who the supreme court justices are and what is happening in the country at the time. At first Well Regulated meant that the government was providing the arms. That was eventually dropped. @Gold Yeah, my bad, I was just mildly annoyed at people saying doctors are not legitimate sources of research. The government never, to my knowledge, armed the militias. Certainly not at first anyways, considering the militias existed BEFORE the government. The Continental Army was practically entirely privately armed. Almost every soldier brought his own musket, and any that had to be replaced were bought privately by one of the founding father's. Washington spent a great deal of his own money buying muskets and powder. They actually got gun supplies from the french and (germany??) specifically newer musket designs that were easier to reload. So yes, they actually did pass around "government" for the same reason that Washington had to spend his money on weapons, and then became the President who still owned those weapons he had passed around to his men. And not "every guy" brought his gun because families were both larger back then and only had a few guns at most--and one had to be left behind just so people could still hunt. Then there's the loyalist who were supporting the British having their guns revoked etc... Anyway--yes, they did have to figure things out. Which is why they made the mistake of having such a vague amendment. What happens if a family doesn't have a gun--should they still be regulated? What if they don't want to be in the militia--are they not allowed to be armed? Etc... The revolution didn't get foreign support until after the Battle of Saratoga. I'd say everyone able to be in the militia should be allowed to have guns, in the hopes that they would choose to, and so would need less training should they need to take action. Given the positions put forth in the Federalist papers, I'd say this is in line with what the drafter's meant. Well, what the drafters "meant" is weird because everyone did have a gun. It wasn't until we started having people who didn't need guns and hence didn't have them (or were too poor, etc...) that it started becoming a thing to care about the nitty gritty of gun control. In the world where everyone in essence had guns, they kind of just wrote it saying we can't take guns away. Arguments started happening when we got more civilized and there discrepancies on who had guns and who didn't have guns and how to handle that power dynamic without stepping on the amendment. The drafters were smart--but they weren't psychics. They wrote what culturally made sense at the time and adapted as they went. That is perhaps the most pretentious and ill-informed Progressive Teleology I've ever heard anyone spout. Ever. Do you honestly believe they just flippantly included the 2nd amendment because, "Well hell, everyone has one, why the fuck not?" Really? These were some of the most educated and liberal minded men of the time. The eyes of the entire world were upon them, judging their every move, and here they were trying to create a nation out of thin air, and they just picked the Right to keep and bear arms as the second enumerated part of the Bill of Rights, "Cause fuck it. Logistics man." That perfectly explains the numerous justifications for the 2nd amendment in their personal correspondences, and journals, and in published articles. It was all logistics. As for the "more civilized" bit...if you believe that statement you know nothing of history. In a relative descriptive sense, you're correct. One person can act more civil than another. In a societal sense? Bull. Fine, would you prefer I say "as we got less civilized?" will that make you feel better? They ousted monarchal rule because they had guns and hence stuck with that mindset when it came to philosophical debates on law and rights. They did not put together the 2nd amendment to justify owning nukes and full auto because it was obviously not yet invented yet. Their arguments were on the how much and how little government influence should be put upon the militia. They didn't care about magazine sizes since they had no magazines. They didn't care about ammunition laws--since people made their own ammunition. There was no wallmart to buy hundreds of rounds. They didn't have a world where 1 person could own 150 guns and a several thousand rounds as a personal stash. The logistics were not the same. And as we progressed as a society, less and less people had guns because we no longer needed to fucking hunt deer for food. When you live in a city working in a factory and you have a choice of saving up money for a gun or saving up money for something else--getting guns stopped being a big priority. Not because we somehow became better and more peaceful but because it became less and less of a necessity. Stop hating history. The Second Amendment was to justify owning military equipment, because as I said before, the militia can't do much protecting if its stuck with muskets against tanks. Fully-automatic weapons are a part of that. Remember, the NFA admits that. It doesn't outright ban fully-automatic weapons, but it does essentially ban them by forcing big fees and mountains of paperwork. People still make their own ammunition, and its not hard, look up reloading. What do you mean by paperwork? Are you referring to background checks? Sorry I'm a bit confused, but if you are referring to checks, I was under the impression that it isn't really a big hassle to deal with.
Its a big hassle for NFA-restricted items. You have to fill out a bunch of forms with the ATF, spend quite a bit of money on tax stamps, wait 6 months to a year just to find out if you're approved, and if you aren't, you don't get your money back. Plus, anybody can be turned down for essentially no reason. It isn't just criminals and the insane that get turned down.
|
On May 11 2013 02:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +
You really need to stop using words like 'common-sense' and assuming your opinion is exactly that. Also, do you realize the irony of saying "only the most hardcore liberals want guns banned" and then continue to talk about "groups like the NRA"?
Also, the fear-mongering goes both ways like it or not.
The NRA is a fringe ideology but an incredibly mainstream influence. The stance of banning guns has no equivalent. It's also "common sense" because we have similar restrictions on other items that are less dangerous. It is literally easier for me to buy a gun in Minnesota than it is to get my hands on alcohol or to get a prescription drug or to get a car, and most states are in a similar situation. Show nested quote +
Wrong. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".
You claim we need more gun regulation. Burden of proof is stuck on you buddy.
I made the claim that a gun registry doesn't set a legal precedent to start mass gun confiscation. Norway and Australia were then brought up as counter-examples. The burden of proof is on the person to actually show how these examples are counter-examples. So no, it isn't on me to show how these examples are not counter-examples when I didn't bring them up. Doesn't make it any better. Sure, but you didn't address the drug part of the analogy.
The NRA doesn't represent all gun owners so I don't know why you are bringing them up as if they are important while dismissing the stance of "only the most hardcore liberals" as unimportant. You can't have it one way and not the other. No it isn't common sense and just repeating "yes it is" isn't going to change that. Drugs are far more commonly abused than guns are, so of course they are going to be more strictly regulated. Cars are the dead horse that will never stop getting beaten, they kill way more people than guns do. So no, guns are not more dangerous than drugs, alcohol, or cars, because they kill and injure significantly less people than any of those things.
What more proof do you need? It happened. Mass gun confiscation in other countries with gun registries.
I brought up Godwin's law because you are the one who brought up Hitler. Just pointing it out, since it seems to be the gun control side constantly bringing him up when their holes get poked in their arguments. When you can't use logical reasoning you just resort to insisting that people who advocate gun rights are always worried about Hitler or dictatorships, which is just complete nonsense and completely irrelevant even if someone actually thought that. Just because we want a safeguard to ensure the security of the free state doesn't mean we insist that it would be the EXACT opposite without these laws, just like not wearing a seat belt doesn't cause me to get me into a car accident.
I just addressed the drug part. Drugs are more dangerous than guns and are significantly more abused. They destroy more lives, send more people to hospitals and kill way more people. Same thing with cars.
|
The NRA is a fringe ideology but an incredibly mainstream influence. The stance of banning guns has no equivalent.
The... contradiction... can't...
Ideologies that have incredible mainstream influence aren't fringe, they're mainstream. By definition.
It's also "common sense" because we have similar restrictions on other items that are less dangerous. It is literally easier for me to buy a gun in Minnesota than it is to get my hands on alcohol or to get a prescription drug or to get a car, and most states are in a similar situation.
Apples... oranges... it's understandable what you're trying to do, but it isn't working.
I made the claim that a gun registry doesn't set a legal precedent to start mass gun confiscation. Norway and Australia were then brought up as counter-examples. The burden of proof is on the person to actually show how these examples are counter-examples. So no, it isn't on me to show how these examples are not counter-examples when I didn't bring them up.
Nothing like running to the technicality store to avoid responding to something.
Red herring for dinner, anyone? I don't know what this "legal precedent" is about (other than it is a red herring), as the gun advocate argument is that a gun registry is a necessary first step for effective gun confiscation, and that gun grabbers simply cannot be trusted in their statements that a registry will never be used for confiscation. The existence of a gun registry is not a legal precedent for anything except the existence of a gun registry.
|
The NRA doesn't represent all gun owners so I don't know why you are bringing them up as if they are important while dismissing the stance of "only the most hardcore liberals" as unimportant. You can't have it one way and not the other.
You seriously need to start learning how to read posts, as opposed to just running your vision over them. I specifically said that they are important because the ideology that they hold "No restrictions on guns at all" is very fringe (vast majority of the country wants some kind of regulation), but they are still the single most powerful lobbying group in the country. Not only is a complete ban on guns an incredibly fringe ideology, but where's the lobbying group that is comparable to the NRA that has the influence and resources that pushes for a gun ban? There isn't one.
No it isn't common sense and just repeating "yes it is" isn't going to change that. Drugs are far more commonly abused than guns are, so of course they are going to be more strictly regulated. Cars are the dead horse that will never stop getting beaten, they kill way more people than guns do. So no, guns are not more dangerous than drugs, alcohol, or cars, because they kill and injure significantly less people than any of those things.
Drugs are more commonly abused? "Abused" is subjective, so let's look at drug-caused deaths. Give me some evidence that drugs cause more deaths than guns before we continue this.
Alcohol is used exponentially more than firearms are, and definitely don't cause as much death in and of themselves, so no, alcohol isn't more dangerous.
I've already been over this; cars and guns cause similar death numbers while having similar total numbers within the population. Which one is efficiently regulated, and which one isn't?
Quick Google Search:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
http://drivesteady.com/cars-per-capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
Gun ownership, car ownership, car-related death, gun-related deaths. All numbers are very close to each other.
What more proof do you need? It happened. Mass gun confiscation in other countries with gun registries.
Cool. Did any of them have the 2nd amendment, a host of court precedents that re-affirmed our right to bear arms, or the NRA?
A quick Wikipedia search shows that Australia did a gun buyback (not just confiscation) and that they didn't go "Gun registry -> confiscation"; it was all one big heap of laws.
I brought up Godwin's law because you are the one who brought up Hitler. Just pointing it out, since it seems to be the gun control side constantly bringing him up when their holes get poked in their arguments. When you can't use logical reasoning you just resort to insisting that people who advocate gun rights are always worried about Hitler or dictatorships, which is just complete nonsense and completely irrelevant even if someone actually thought that. Just because we want a safeguard to ensure the security of the free state doesn't mean we insist that it would be the EXACT opposite without these laws, just like not wearing a seat belt doesn't cause me to get me into a car accident.
You are literally dead wrong. I did not bring up Hitler. The fact that you disagree with me doesn't annoy me as much as the fact that you are fucking horrible at reading. This is probably the 4th time in the last couple days that you have completely failed at either 1) reading what I have said or 2) understanding the context in which I said it.
I just addressed the drug part. Drugs are more dangerous than guns and are significantly more abused. They destroy more lives, send more people to hospitals and kill way more people. Same thing with cars.
Cool. Two things
1) Need stats to verify this
2) Even if your claim is true, there is still a significant amount of gun violence and mass shootings in this country, so why not put some simple regulations in place to make sure that criminals can't get their hands on guns as easily?
The... contradiction... can't...
Ideologies that have incredible mainstream influence aren't fringe, they're mainstream. By definition.
Uh, no, the NRA is the perfect example of that. The vast majority of the country wants some kind of gun regulation, and yet the NRA is the most powerful lobbying group in the country when their official stance is basically "no gun regulation at all".
Apples... oranges... it's understandable what you're trying to do, but it isn't working.
Again, no, they're not that different for the purposes of my point. I am regulated in having access to a tool that is best at transportation and a beverage that is used for enjoyment. The intrinsic properties of a gun make it far, far easier for me to kill or severely injure an individual than with either of these other items, and yet it isn't as regulated. That is ridiculous.
Nothing like running to the technicality store to avoid responding to something.
Red herring for dinner, anyone? I don't know what this "legal precedent" is about (other than it is a red herring), as the gun advocate argument is that a gun registry is a necessary first step for effective gun confiscation, and that gun grabbers simply cannot be trusted in their statements that a registry will never be used for confiscation. The existence of a gun registry is not a legal precedent for anything except the existence of a gun registry.
So you admit it then; there is no actual basis for a gun registry turning into gun confiscation. It's merely fear-mongering.
"Legal precedent" isn't a red herring; it's what this whole fucking argument is about. In this country, with the NRA, with the second amendment, with a host of court rulings re-affirming our gun rights, you are paranoid if you think that a simple gun registry is going to suddenly turn us into a dictatorship where all our guns are taken away. Registries don't mean our cars are taken away or that we're all suddenly black-bagged. It's patently ridiculous and it's fear-mongering, end of story. We have so many protections of our gun rights in this country that you are straight up paranoid if you think you're losing your guns to a simple gun registry bait-and-switch.
Think of it this way. You have two flasks; one is "Pro" and one is "against" (the topic being gun possession). Every legal basis that we have points to the fact that the "Pro" flask is overflowing. What I am saying is that, because of this, a gun registry bill would have to somehow fill the "against" flask to a point that it would tip the legal scales in favor of some kind of wide-scale confiscation actually being legal in the first place for it to be a legitimate worry. Until then, it's just paranoia.
Just because you don't like technicalities and want to stick to scaring everyone with, "BUT ANOTHER COUNTRY DID IT SO IT WILL SURELY HAPPEN HERE!" doesn't mean I'm avoiding anything.
|
|
|
Why is it so hard for you to google things that you don't believe to be true? Yes, it is true, drugs kill more people than guns. Stop arguing semantics and saying "drug abuse is subjective". That wasn't even important, it was just a little tidbit to add to the fact that drugs kill more people.
Drugs have been illegal for years, yet they take lives and ruin lives every day. The 2009 drug related deaths were 37,792 for drugs as compared to 11,493 gun deaths in crimes/18,217 suicides (29,710 gun related deaths). Any gun law making owning a gun illegal will not stop criminals from getting guns but will prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. Drug laws haven’t prevented people from getting illegal drugs or abusing drug.
Source: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-819866
I love your claim about me "not reading" your post when I actually did and addressed everything you said. Ironically you obviously aren't reading half of what I'm saying because
Just because you don't like technicalities and want to stick to scaring everyone with, "BUT ANOTHER COUNTRY DID IT SO IT WILL SURELY HAPPEN HERE!" doesn't mean I'm avoiding anything.
means you didn't read:
Just because we want a safeguard to ensure the security of the free state doesn't mean we insist that it would be the EXACT opposite without these laws, just like not wearing a seat belt doesn't cause me to get me into a car accident.
Or refuse to acknowledge it and just want to keep repeating yourself while ignoring my points.
Exactly, Stratos is literally making shit up and denying things others are saying without even having the patience to google them. It took me 2 seconds to find statistics backing up my claim that drugs kill more than guns, despite drugs being illegal and guns being for the most part legal.
|
Quotes are broken, spoiled for everyone's sanity
+ Show Spoiler +On May 12 2013 04:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +
The NRA doesn't represent all gun owners so I don't know why you are bringing them up as if they are important while dismissing the stance of "only the most hardcore liberals" as unimportant. You can't have it one way and not the other.
You seriously need to start learning how to read posts, as opposed to just running your vision over them. I specifically said that they are important because the ideology that they hold "No restrictions on guns at all" is very fringe (vast majority of the country wants some kind of regulation), but they are still the single most powerful lobbying group in the country. Not only is a complete ban on guns an incredibly fringe ideology, but where's the lobbying group that is comparable to the NRA that has the influence and resources that pushes for a gun ban? There isn't one. No it isn't common sense and just repeating "yes it is" isn't going to change that. Drugs are far more commonly abused than guns are, so of course they are going to be more strictly regulated. Cars are the dead horse that will never stop getting beaten, they kill way more people than guns do. So no, guns are not more dangerous than drugs, alcohol, or cars, because they kill and injure significantly less people than any of those things. Drugs are more commonly abused? "Abused" is subjective, so let's look at drug-caused deaths. Give me some evidence that drugs cause more deaths than guns before we continue this. Alcohol is used exponentially more than firearms are, and definitely don't cause as much death in and of themselves, so no, alcohol isn't more dangerous. I've already been over this; cars and guns cause similar death numbers while having similar total numbers within the population. Which one is efficiently regulated, and which one isn't? Quick Google Search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_countryhttp://drivesteady.com/cars-per-capitahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_yearhttp://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-statesGun ownership, car ownership, car-related death, gun-related deaths. All numbers are very close to each other.
What more proof do you need? It happened. Mass gun confiscation in other countries with gun registries.
Cool. Did any of them have the 2nd amendment, a host of court precedents that re-affirmed our right to bear arms, or the NRA? A quick Wikipedia search shows that Australia did a gun buyback (not just confiscation) and that they didn't go "Gun registry -> confiscation"; it was all one big heap of laws.
I brought up Godwin's law because you are the one who brought up Hitler. Just pointing it out, since it seems to be the gun control side constantly bringing him up when their holes get poked in their arguments. When you can't use logical reasoning you just resort to insisting that people who advocate gun rights are always worried about Hitler or dictatorships, which is just complete nonsense and completely irrelevant even if someone actually thought that. Just because we want a safeguard to ensure the security of the free state doesn't mean we insist that it would be the EXACT opposite without these laws, just like not wearing a seat belt doesn't cause me to get me into a car accident.
You are literally dead wrong. I did not bring up Hitler. The fact that you disagree with me doesn't annoy me as much as the fact that you are fucking horrible at reading. This is probably the 4th time in the last couple days that you have completely failed at either 1) reading what I have said or 2) understanding the context in which I said it.
I just addressed the drug part. Drugs are more dangerous than guns and are significantly more abused. They destroy more lives, send more people to hospitals and kill way more people. Same thing with cars.
Cool. Two things 1) Need stats to verify this 2) Even if your claim is true, there is still a significant amount of gun violence and mass shootings in this country, so why not put some simple regulations in place to make sure that criminals can't get their hands on guns as easily? The... contradiction... can't...
Ideologies that have incredible mainstream influence aren't fringe, they're mainstream. By definition. Uh, no, the NRA is the perfect example of that. The vast majority of the country wants some kind of gun regulation, and yet the NRA is the most powerful lobbying group in the country when their official stance is basically "no gun regulation at all". Apples... oranges... it's understandable what you're trying to do, but it isn't working. Again, no, they're not that different for the purposes of my point. I am regulated in having access to a tool that is best at transportation and a beverage that is used for enjoyment. The intrinsic properties of a gun make it far, far easier for me to kill or severely injure an individual than with either of these other items, and yet it isn't as regulated. That is ridiculous. Nothing like running to the technicality store to avoid responding to something.
Red herring for dinner, anyone? I don't know what this "legal precedent" is about (other than it is a red herring), as the gun advocate argument is that a gun registry is a necessary first step for effective gun confiscation, and that gun grabbers simply cannot be trusted in their statements that a registry will never be used for confiscation. The existence of a gun registry is not a legal precedent for anything except the existence of a gun registry. So you admit it then; there is no actual basis for a gun registry turning into gun confiscation. It's merely fear-mongering. "Legal precedent" isn't a red herring; it's what this whole fucking argument is about. In this country, with the NRA, with the second amendment, with a host of court rulings re-affirming our gun rights, you are paranoid if you think that a simple gun registry is going to suddenly turn us into a dictatorship where all our guns are taken away. Registries don't mean our cars are taken away or that we're all suddenly black-bagged. It's patently ridiculous and it's fear-mongering, end of story. We have so many protections of our gun rights in this country that you are straight up paranoid if you think you're losing your guns to a simple gun registry bait-and-switch. Think of it this way. You have two flasks; one is "Pro" and one is "against" (the topic being gun possession). Every legal basis that we have points to the fact that the "Pro" flask is overflowing. What I am saying is that, because of this, a gun registry bill would have to somehow fill the "against" flask to a point that it would tip the legal scales in favor of some kind of wide-scale confiscation actually being legal in the first place for it to be a legitimate worry. Until then, it's just paranoia. Just because you don't like technicalities and want to stick to scaring everyone with, "BUT ANOTHER COUNTRY DID IT SO IT WILL SURELY HAPPEN HERE!" doesn't mean I'm avoiding anything.
Australia's buyback WAS confiscation. If you don't sell your guns to the government, you're a felon.
|
On May 12 2013 09:07 Millitron wrote:Quotes are broken, spoiled for everyone's sanity + Show Spoiler +On May 12 2013 04:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +
The NRA doesn't represent all gun owners so I don't know why you are bringing them up as if they are important while dismissing the stance of "only the most hardcore liberals" as unimportant. You can't have it one way and not the other.
You seriously need to start learning how to read posts, as opposed to just running your vision over them. I specifically said that they are important because the ideology that they hold "No restrictions on guns at all" is very fringe (vast majority of the country wants some kind of regulation), but they are still the single most powerful lobbying group in the country. Not only is a complete ban on guns an incredibly fringe ideology, but where's the lobbying group that is comparable to the NRA that has the influence and resources that pushes for a gun ban? There isn't one. No it isn't common sense and just repeating "yes it is" isn't going to change that. Drugs are far more commonly abused than guns are, so of course they are going to be more strictly regulated. Cars are the dead horse that will never stop getting beaten, they kill way more people than guns do. So no, guns are not more dangerous than drugs, alcohol, or cars, because they kill and injure significantly less people than any of those things. Drugs are more commonly abused? "Abused" is subjective, so let's look at drug-caused deaths. Give me some evidence that drugs cause more deaths than guns before we continue this. Alcohol is used exponentially more than firearms are, and definitely don't cause as much death in and of themselves, so no, alcohol isn't more dangerous. I've already been over this; cars and guns cause similar death numbers while having similar total numbers within the population. Which one is efficiently regulated, and which one isn't? Quick Google Search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_countryhttp://drivesteady.com/cars-per-capitahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_yearhttp://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-statesGun ownership, car ownership, car-related death, gun-related deaths. All numbers are very close to each other.
What more proof do you need? It happened. Mass gun confiscation in other countries with gun registries.
Cool. Did any of them have the 2nd amendment, a host of court precedents that re-affirmed our right to bear arms, or the NRA? A quick Wikipedia search shows that Australia did a gun buyback (not just confiscation) and that they didn't go "Gun registry -> confiscation"; it was all one big heap of laws.
I brought up Godwin's law because you are the one who brought up Hitler. Just pointing it out, since it seems to be the gun control side constantly bringing him up when their holes get poked in their arguments. When you can't use logical reasoning you just resort to insisting that people who advocate gun rights are always worried about Hitler or dictatorships, which is just complete nonsense and completely irrelevant even if someone actually thought that. Just because we want a safeguard to ensure the security of the free state doesn't mean we insist that it would be the EXACT opposite without these laws, just like not wearing a seat belt doesn't cause me to get me into a car accident.
You are literally dead wrong. I did not bring up Hitler. The fact that you disagree with me doesn't annoy me as much as the fact that you are fucking horrible at reading. This is probably the 4th time in the last couple days that you have completely failed at either 1) reading what I have said or 2) understanding the context in which I said it.
I just addressed the drug part. Drugs are more dangerous than guns and are significantly more abused. They destroy more lives, send more people to hospitals and kill way more people. Same thing with cars.
Cool. Two things 1) Need stats to verify this 2) Even if your claim is true, there is still a significant amount of gun violence and mass shootings in this country, so why not put some simple regulations in place to make sure that criminals can't get their hands on guns as easily? The... contradiction... can't...
Ideologies that have incredible mainstream influence aren't fringe, they're mainstream. By definition. Uh, no, the NRA is the perfect example of that. The vast majority of the country wants some kind of gun regulation, and yet the NRA is the most powerful lobbying group in the country when their official stance is basically "no gun regulation at all". Apples... oranges... it's understandable what you're trying to do, but it isn't working. Again, no, they're not that different for the purposes of my point. I am regulated in having access to a tool that is best at transportation and a beverage that is used for enjoyment. The intrinsic properties of a gun make it far, far easier for me to kill or severely injure an individual than with either of these other items, and yet it isn't as regulated. That is ridiculous. Nothing like running to the technicality store to avoid responding to something.
Red herring for dinner, anyone? I don't know what this "legal precedent" is about (other than it is a red herring), as the gun advocate argument is that a gun registry is a necessary first step for effective gun confiscation, and that gun grabbers simply cannot be trusted in their statements that a registry will never be used for confiscation. The existence of a gun registry is not a legal precedent for anything except the existence of a gun registry. So you admit it then; there is no actual basis for a gun registry turning into gun confiscation. It's merely fear-mongering. "Legal precedent" isn't a red herring; it's what this whole fucking argument is about. In this country, with the NRA, with the second amendment, with a host of court rulings re-affirming our gun rights, you are paranoid if you think that a simple gun registry is going to suddenly turn us into a dictatorship where all our guns are taken away. Registries don't mean our cars are taken away or that we're all suddenly black-bagged. It's patently ridiculous and it's fear-mongering, end of story. We have so many protections of our gun rights in this country that you are straight up paranoid if you think you're losing your guns to a simple gun registry bait-and-switch. Think of it this way. You have two flasks; one is "Pro" and one is "against" (the topic being gun possession). Every legal basis that we have points to the fact that the "Pro" flask is overflowing. What I am saying is that, because of this, a gun registry bill would have to somehow fill the "against" flask to a point that it would tip the legal scales in favor of some kind of wide-scale confiscation actually being legal in the first place for it to be a legitimate worry. Until then, it's just paranoia. Just because you don't like technicalities and want to stick to scaring everyone with, "BUT ANOTHER COUNTRY DID IT SO IT WILL SURELY HAPPEN HERE!" doesn't mean I'm avoiding anything. Australia's buyback WAS confiscation. If you don't sell your guns to the government, you're a felon.
Wonderful. And your argument against the majority case of gun registration not leading to a complete gun ban would be...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics
It is your burden to prove why the United States is likely to enact a total gun ban while other countries (which don't have a constitutional amendment that says people can own some guns) predominately have not.
|
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/
Was all over the news. The vast majority of the country supports increased background checks.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082
Top 10% in contributions, top 5% in lobbying, and top 5% in outside spending. Alright, so I was incorrect. They are not THE most powerful lobbying group. That said, my point still stands. An extremely fringe ideology still has incredibly powerful influence.
Why is it so hard for you to google things that you don't believe to be true? Yes, it is true, drugs kill more people than guns. Stop arguing semantics and saying "drug abuse is subjective". That wasn't even important, it was just a little tidbit to add to the fact that drugs kill more people.
One, your stats are in direct contradiction with my source. Yours cites 3k less gun deaths.
That said, it doesn't change the fact that you're right; there are more gun deaths than there are drug deaths. However, what does this prove? Because drugs are incredibly regulated. All this shows is that drugs are a pretty bad thing to have around. Are you trying to show that guns shouldn't be regulated, or that drugs shouldn't be? Because this stat doesn't show either.
I like how you just refused to acknowledge the point about gun/car ownership and gun/car death, and how you were completely wrong about "significantly more car deaths". Oh, and I also like how you just dropped the alcohol bit too when when it's absurd to say that alcohol causes more death when there's exponentially more alcohol consumption in this country than gun use. Also, it's nice that it took you 2 seconds to find stats, but that's YOUR job, since you brought the point up.
Also, it's cute that you say that I don't read when you won't even admit to fucking up when you questioned why I brought up the NRA point when I specifically explained it in the very passage you quoted. Don't forget that you accused me of bringing up the Hitler argument when that was patently false. Want to actually man up to either of those mistakes?
Not only this, but you dropped the Norway/Australia example when you realized that they didn't throw the bait-and-switch with a gun registry AND they didn't have the legal/constitutional protections on firearms possession that we do. Not even a hint of facing your own examples when they don't favor you.
The rest of your point has no relevance. If you want to keep making this discussion meaningful, you're going to have to explain to me why, in a country that DOES have both constitutional and legal protection of firearm possession, it is rational to be afraid of a simple registry and believe that it would suddenly turn into a mass gun confiscation.
|
On May 12 2013 09:43 Stratos_speAr wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/Was all over the news. The vast majority of the country supports increased background checks. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082Top 10% in contributions, top 5% in lobbying, and top 5% in outside spending. Alright, so I was incorrect. They are not THE most powerful lobbying group. That said, my point still stands. An extremely fringe ideology still has incredibly powerful influence. Show nested quote +Why is it so hard for you to google things that you don't believe to be true? Yes, it is true, drugs kill more people than guns. Stop arguing semantics and saying "drug abuse is subjective". That wasn't even important, it was just a little tidbit to add to the fact that drugs kill more people. One, your stats are in direct contradiction with my source. Yours cites 3k less gun deaths. That said, it doesn't change the fact that you're right; there are more gun deaths than there are drug deaths. However, what does this prove? Because drugs are incredibly regulated. All this shows is that drugs are a pretty bad thing to have around. Are you trying to show that guns shouldn't be regulated, or that drugs shouldn't be? Because this stat doesn't show either. I like how you just refused to acknowledge the point about gun/car ownership and gun/car death, and how you were completely wrong about "significantly more car deaths". Oh, and I also like how you just dropped the alcohol bit too when when it's absurd to say that alcohol causes more death when there's exponentially more alcohol consumption in this country than gun use. Also, it's nice that it took you 2 seconds to find stats, but that's YOUR job, since you brought the point up. Also, it's cute that you say that I don't read when you won't even admit to fucking up when you questioned why I brought up the NRA point when I specifically explained it in the very passage you quoted. Don't forget that you accused me of bringing up the Hitler argument when that was patently false. Want to actually man up to either of those mistakes? Not only this, but you dropped the Norway/Australia example when you realized that they didn't throw the bait-and-switch with a gun registry AND they didn't have the legal/constitutional protections on firearms possession that we do. Not even a hint of facing your own examples when they don't favor you. The rest of your point has no relevance. If you want to keep making this discussion meaningful, you're going to have to explain to me why, in a country that DOES have both constitutional and legal protection of firearm possession, it is rational to be afraid of a simple registry and believe that it would suddenly turn into a mass gun confiscation.
Because responding to your "points" are a waste of time, I've already explained myself several times and there is no reason for me to repeat myself again. Also, if you're just going to talk like a douche bag (see: "it's cute") why would I bother to give in to your childish demands?
You don't dictate what makes this a "meaningful discussion". I'm not wasting my time with your red herrings. It isn't my job to educate you about anything, I made a claim and you denied it without even seeing if it was true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
