|
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. |
Ok, then with what has gun ownership to do if not with power?
A gun does downright nothing but giving you more power, it was invented to give the user more power and thats the only thing it does.
|
On November 10 2017 01:18 PoulsenB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 01:14 jowelsgrry wrote:On November 10 2017 01:08 Aveng3r wrote:On November 10 2017 00:54 4ZakeN87 wrote:
I think this is pretty simple.
US have much higher murder rate than any other western country. One reason is likely due that the more advanced weapons you have available, the easier it is to kill a large amount of people. Also if you priorly have access to weapons, it requires no planing to do so, i.e. a person in rage could easily kill a considerable amount of people.
In general, this idea/dream that people can defend themselves if they have a weapon, is not supported by the data. It is simply not the case. Anyone looking at the end result will come to conclusion that this is shit. Thus no other country in the world ever considers applying US weapon laws.
To be honest, who would suggest this to another country? Take Japan, should Japan allow semi automatic rifles to be sold in the streets? In what way would that make Japan a better country? And why would it be any different for US?
Is it your culture, your heritage? That is a nonsense argument as far as I am concerned. The vikings used to raid and plunder other nations. It is part of my heritage, but I am not about to suggest that Swedish people should go and raid the Polish coastline.
You move on and develop, that is what societies ought to do. Your last 2 paragraphs really hit the nail on the head. I think a lot of people feel that gun ownership and the sense of power it brings are things they should have a right to. Maybe its the way we teach our children about how we fought for our freedoms or something, IDK. I think another reason that we are so struggling to adapt here is that it requires people to relinquish tangible property. You actually have to physically part with something that you have been conditioned since birth to recognize as something you have a god given right to. It has nothing to do with God. It's blatantly spelled out in the bill of rights! The second amendment exists and can be repealed if you convince enough Americans to abolish it. (see 18th amendment which prohibited alcohol -- another "great idea" which turned out disastrously) Gun ownership isn't about a "sense of power" I have no idea what you're talking about and I own 2 guns and know several other people who own guns. It has nothing to do with that at all, lol. Maybe if you're borderline autistic or extremely introverted I guess... then maybe, but I dunno wtf you're talking about really! "I've never ate cabbage, what even is a cabbage? I know several people and they don't know what a cabbage is too?!"
What's your point? If you have something to share, say it!
|
On November 10 2017 01:19 jowelsgrry wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 01:18 PoulsenB wrote:On November 10 2017 01:14 jowelsgrry wrote:On November 10 2017 01:08 Aveng3r wrote:On November 10 2017 00:54 4ZakeN87 wrote:
I think this is pretty simple.
US have much higher murder rate than any other western country. One reason is likely due that the more advanced weapons you have available, the easier it is to kill a large amount of people. Also if you priorly have access to weapons, it requires no planing to do so, i.e. a person in rage could easily kill a considerable amount of people.
In general, this idea/dream that people can defend themselves if they have a weapon, is not supported by the data. It is simply not the case. Anyone looking at the end result will come to conclusion that this is shit. Thus no other country in the world ever considers applying US weapon laws.
To be honest, who would suggest this to another country? Take Japan, should Japan allow semi automatic rifles to be sold in the streets? In what way would that make Japan a better country? And why would it be any different for US?
Is it your culture, your heritage? That is a nonsense argument as far as I am concerned. The vikings used to raid and plunder other nations. It is part of my heritage, but I am not about to suggest that Swedish people should go and raid the Polish coastline.
You move on and develop, that is what societies ought to do. Your last 2 paragraphs really hit the nail on the head. I think a lot of people feel that gun ownership and the sense of power it brings are things they should have a right to. Maybe its the way we teach our children about how we fought for our freedoms or something, IDK. I think another reason that we are so struggling to adapt here is that it requires people to relinquish tangible property. You actually have to physically part with something that you have been conditioned since birth to recognize as something you have a god given right to. It has nothing to do with God. It's blatantly spelled out in the bill of rights! The second amendment exists and can be repealed if you convince enough Americans to abolish it. (see 18th amendment which prohibited alcohol -- another "great idea" which turned out disastrously) Gun ownership isn't about a "sense of power" I have no idea what you're talking about and I own 2 guns and know several other people who own guns. It has nothing to do with that at all, lol. Maybe if you're borderline autistic or extremely introverted I guess... then maybe, but I dunno wtf you're talking about really! "I've never ate cabbage, what even is a cabbage? I know several people and they don't know what a cabbage is too?!" What's your point? If you have something to share, say it!
I thought it was clear enough with the bolded text and all. Basically, just because something never happened to you doesn't mean that it isn't a thing for other people. Saying "that can't be right, I don't know anyone like that" isn't an argument.
|
On November 10 2017 01:14 jowelsgrry wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 01:08 Aveng3r wrote:On November 10 2017 00:54 4ZakeN87 wrote:
I think this is pretty simple.
US have much higher murder rate than any other western country. One reason is likely due that the more advanced weapons you have available, the easier it is to kill a large amount of people. Also if you priorly have access to weapons, it requires no planing to do so, i.e. a person in rage could easily kill a considerable amount of people.
In general, this idea/dream that people can defend themselves if they have a weapon, is not supported by the data. It is simply not the case. Anyone looking at the end result will come to conclusion that this is shit. Thus no other country in the world ever considers applying US weapon laws.
To be honest, who would suggest this to another country? Take Japan, should Japan allow semi automatic rifles to be sold in the streets? In what way would that make Japan a better country? And why would it be any different for US?
Is it your culture, your heritage? That is a nonsense argument as far as I am concerned. The vikings used to raid and plunder other nations. It is part of my heritage, but I am not about to suggest that Swedish people should go and raid the Polish coastline.
You move on and develop, that is what societies ought to do. Your last 2 paragraphs really hit the nail on the head. I think a lot of people feel that gun ownership and the sense of power it brings are things they should have a right to. Maybe its the way we teach our children about how we fought for our freedoms or something, IDK. I think another reason that we are so struggling to adapt here is that it requires people to relinquish tangible property. You actually have to physically part with something that you have been conditioned since birth to recognize as something you have a god given right to. It has nothing to do with God. It's blatantly spelled out in the bill of rights! The second amendment exists and can be repealed if you convince enough Americans to abolish it. (see 18th amendment which prohibited alcohol -- another "great idea" which turned out disastrously) Gun ownership isn't about a "sense of power" I have no idea what you're talking about and I own 2 guns and know several other people who own guns. It has nothing to do with that at all, lol. Maybe if you're borderline autistic or extremely introverted I guess... then maybe, but I dunno wtf you're talking about really!
Alright man thats fine if it doesnt apply for you.. easy does it suggesting that I might be borderline autistic or extremely introverted for having a different view, we can do without that bit
|
On November 10 2017 01:28 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 01:14 jowelsgrry wrote:On November 10 2017 01:08 Aveng3r wrote:On November 10 2017 00:54 4ZakeN87 wrote:
I think this is pretty simple.
US have much higher murder rate than any other western country. One reason is likely due that the more advanced weapons you have available, the easier it is to kill a large amount of people. Also if you priorly have access to weapons, it requires no planing to do so, i.e. a person in rage could easily kill a considerable amount of people.
In general, this idea/dream that people can defend themselves if they have a weapon, is not supported by the data. It is simply not the case. Anyone looking at the end result will come to conclusion that this is shit. Thus no other country in the world ever considers applying US weapon laws.
To be honest, who would suggest this to another country? Take Japan, should Japan allow semi automatic rifles to be sold in the streets? In what way would that make Japan a better country? And why would it be any different for US?
Is it your culture, your heritage? That is a nonsense argument as far as I am concerned. The vikings used to raid and plunder other nations. It is part of my heritage, but I am not about to suggest that Swedish people should go and raid the Polish coastline.
You move on and develop, that is what societies ought to do. Your last 2 paragraphs really hit the nail on the head. I think a lot of people feel that gun ownership and the sense of power it brings are things they should have a right to. Maybe its the way we teach our children about how we fought for our freedoms or something, IDK. I think another reason that we are so struggling to adapt here is that it requires people to relinquish tangible property. You actually have to physically part with something that you have been conditioned since birth to recognize as something you have a god given right to. It has nothing to do with God. It's blatantly spelled out in the bill of rights! The second amendment exists and can be repealed if you convince enough Americans to abolish it. (see 18th amendment which prohibited alcohol -- another "great idea" which turned out disastrously) Gun ownership isn't about a "sense of power" I have no idea what you're talking about and I own 2 guns and know several other people who own guns. It has nothing to do with that at all, lol. Maybe if you're borderline autistic or extremely introverted I guess... then maybe, but I dunno wtf you're talking about really! Alright man thats fine if it doesnt apply for you.. easy does it suggesting that I might be borderline autistic or extremely introverted for having a different view, we can do without that bit
PM sent! (check your inbox)
|
On November 10 2017 01:18 Velr wrote:
Ok, then with what has gun ownership to do if not with power?
A gun does downright nothing but giving you more power, it was invented to give the user more power and thats the only thing it does.
The framers of the American constitution wrote this in so that future congresses and presidents of the USA cannot legislatively remove this right, only the people can (voters) because we do not in fact have a true democracy. We have a constitutional republic whereby one political party (if swept into power) can pretty much write any new laws it wants. It can also delete any laws it wants. It pretty much gives that one political party complete power and control over people.
The process of repealing an amendment to the constitution requires an actual super-majority of VOTERS (rather than politicians) and that's why the framers and founding fathers of America explicitly used the constitution to "slip things in" which the government cannot remove -- only the people & voters of the united states can remove.
According to the Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and the anonymous authors of the federalist papers, the right to bear arms was absolutely something that the original founders clearly wanted the people of the United States to have (as a "right") but for the future governments and political administrations to have an extremely difficult time taking away that right.
It's a rather long topic so I'll just refer to wikipedia and link to this historian website:
http://humanevents.com/2008/07/03/why-do-we-keep-and-bear-arms-part-1/
|
Uhm, what exactly does that have to do with my question?
Yeah, your constitution grants you the right to bear arms (iirc if you are part of a well trained militia and only due to extensive rephrasing you ended up with the "right to bear arms for everyone" you got now?)... But again, what exactly has that to do with my question?
|
So as a fan of the second amendment, you surely support the creation of well armed black or Muslim militia groups in the US.
Considering that those groups are certainly most threatened to get their civil rights restricted (or it already happens), those groups should be the first to be able to defend themselves from the oppressive state.
But of cause, I can understand how the average Farmer Joe, seeing the situation of his fellow citizens of different religion or color, is afraid that this could one day also happen to him, and thus stocks up on weaponry. Under this lens, an AR-15 is Farmer Joes way to show compassion with the abused.
More guns, less kneeling!
|
The founders had very different opinions about people’s rights to own carry arms openly in public and brandish them while protesting the government. They firmly believed people should own them and they should not be taken away.
Also, people need to stop leaning on the Federalist papers as prescriptive. Those were written before any of the founding fathers had to govern. Their opinions changed after holding office and seeing the conflicts facing the nation.
|
On November 10 2017 01:56 Velr wrote:
Uhm, what exactly does that have to do with my question?
I'm not sure if you're asking facetiously or trying to draw attention to yourself? If you want to ask me something then don't be coy, just ask!
|
On November 10 2017 02:03 Plansix wrote:
The founders had very different opinions about people’s rights to own carry arms openly in public and brandish them while protesting the government. They firmly believed people should own them and they should not be taken away.
Also, people need to stop leaning on the Federalist papers as prescriptive. Those were written before any of the founding fathers had to govern. Their opinions changed after holding office and seeing the conflicts facing the nation.
Nice to meet someone who is likewise both intelligent and knowledgeable! (rare combination from my limited experience here at TL.net!)
|
On November 10 2017 02:02 mahrgell wrote:
So as a fan of the second amendment, you surely support the creation of well armed black or Muslim militia groups in the US.
Considering that those groups are certainly most threatened to get their civil rights restricted (or it already happens), those groups should be the first to be able to defend themselves from the oppressive state.
But of cause, I can understand how the average Farmer Joe, seeing the situation of his fellow citizens of different religion or color, is afraid that this could one day also happen to him, and thus stocks up on weaponry. Under this lens, an AR-15 is Farmer Joes way to show compassion with the abused.
More guns, less kneeling!
This argument just LOL. ^^
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On November 10 2017 01:56 Velr wrote:
Yeah, your constitution grants you the right to bear arms (iirc if you are part of a well trained militia and only due to extensive rephrasing you ended up with the "right to bear arms for everyone" you got now?)... But again, what exactly has that to do with my question?
are you saying that the US Supreme Court was bending and extensively rephrasing the Constitution?
DC vs Heller ruled that:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. pp. 47–54.
|
On November 10 2017 01:56 ahswtini wrote:
Yeah, your constitution grants you the right to bear arms (iirc if you are part of a well trained militia and
Your question is for Velr, right? I'll mainly let him answer but wanted to clarify your "if you are part of a militia" is supposed to say...
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 first two parts of this sentence separated by commas are clauses not qualifiers (i.e. "if") and your inadvertently changing the words around changes the meaning entirely!
|
I am convinced jowelsgrry is actively trying to troll as hard as possible. I can see no other explanation for someone trying soo hard to be polite, while being as condescending as humanly possible and picking the statements that are the most infuriating for the opposition.
If you are not trying to troll, know that your style of arguing is not received (by me) to be civil and polite, but trollish.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On November 10 2017 02:21 Broetchenholer wrote:
I am convinced jowelsgrry is actively trying to troll as hard as possible. I can see no other explanation for someone trying soo hard to be polite, while being as condescending as humanly possible and picking the statements that are the most infuriating for the opposition.
If you are not trying to troll, know that your style of arguing is not received (by me) to be civil and polite, but trollish.
i find your and Velr's posts equally as infuriating
|
On November 10 2017 02:07 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 01:56 Velr wrote:
Yeah, your constitution grants you the right to bear arms (iirc if you are part of a well trained militia and only due to extensive rephrasing you ended up with the "right to bear arms for everyone" you got now?)... But again, what exactly has that to do with my question? are you saying that the US Supreme Court was bending and extensively rephrasing the Constitution? DC vs Heller ruled that: Show nested quote +1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. pp. 47–54.
Yes i do.
Many (most?) countries rewrite/rephrase/update their constitutions from time to time, the US doesn't so stuff like this is necessary, it just irks me that many in the US see the constitution as this holy thing when at the same time reinterpreting it extensivly when the need arises because the morals/times are changing.
Not just for gun laws, in general. Just have a do over and stop with this idiocy...
|
He's a pretty clear troll yeah, the problem in this case is that the actual positions of the republican party on guns are hard to distanciate from trolling.
|
On November 10 2017 02:25 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 02:07 ahswtini wrote:On November 10 2017 01:56 Velr wrote:
Yeah, your constitution grants you the right to bear arms (iirc if you are part of a well trained militia and only due to extensive rephrasing you ended up with the "right to bear arms for everyone" you got now?)... But again, what exactly has that to do with my question? are you saying that the US Supreme Court was bending and extensively rephrasing the Constitution? DC vs Heller ruled that: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. pp. 47–54. Yes i do. Many (most?) countries rewrite/rephrase/update their constitutions from time to time, the US doesn't so stuff like this is necessary, it just irks me that many in the US see the constitution as this holy thing when at the same time reinterpreting it extensivly when the need arises because the morals/times are changing. Not just for gun laws, in general. Just have a do over and stop with this idiocy...
Jefferson thought we should rewrite the thing every 20 years, so have no doubt they didn't see it as holy or sacrosanct. People lean on it when they was to preserve the status quo, not matter how dysfunctional it may be.
|
On November 10 2017 02:05 jowelsgrry wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 02:03 Plansix wrote:
The founders had very different opinions about people’s rights to own carry arms openly in public and brandish them while protesting the government. They firmly believed people should own them and they should not be taken away.
Also, people need to stop leaning on the Federalist papers as prescriptive. Those were written before any of the founding fathers had to govern. Their opinions changed after holding office and seeing the conflicts facing the nation.
Nice to meet someone who is likewise both intelligent and knowledgeable! (rare combination from my limited experience here at TL.net!)
You actually met him two pages ago when you called him a whiny kid who should grow up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.giphy.com/media/vWDrezW0rMjmM/giphy.webp)
