|
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 November 09 2018 23:26 ShambhalaWar wrote:
For the people in this thread that are arguing for gun ownership, I think you all should be required to watch the videos of that father who lost his son, whom he clearly and absolutely loved, many times... Then imagine making your argument to that guy in his grief. I imagine he would actually talk to you about it, and I also imagine he wouldn't care about owning a gun anymore... I'm not him, but I imagine he would do anything to get his son back, including gun reform or giving up his right to gun ownership.
The only difference between you and the man that lost his son, is pure luck that it didn't happen to you.
The one armed person at that bar was killed.
The problem with this overly emotional type of argument is that it doesn't work, and all you are really doing is forcing people to admit that they think that their freedom is more important in the long run than the lives that are lost due to guns.
Once they confirm that this is the case (and it is an understandable point of view) your argument means nothing. Its simply - and I hate to use right wing terminology - virtue signalling, or attempting to show yourself as a more moral person.
There are many reasons to argue for more gun control, and lots of interesting points of discussion around culture etc. to be had here but 'You don't care about dead kids' and the like is just very unhelpful.
|
On November 09 2018 20:56 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 18:47 iamthedave wrote:On November 09 2018 18:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 09 2018 12:20 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 12:15 Plansix wrote:
America has super criminals now? When did this happen? Nice straw man. I said that American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that are placed into. This is played out statistically when comparing our crime rates versus other 1st world countries even if you were just looking at violent crimes but non-firearm related. Various other factors also account for the lack of respect for law enforcement in America versus other countries (i.e. perceived or real racial profiling by law enforcement, urban gang culture that glorifies violence against police, etc). No where did I say that America has 'super' criminals. My point was to point out that police officers carry firearms in America for many different reasons, but alot of it has to do with the fact that the type of criminals you would deal with here in America, are far different from the type of criminal that you would deal with in say Australia. If American criminals are on average worse due to the situations that they are placed into, doesn't 'living in a culture that guarantees access to firearms' count as one of those situations? - ie gun culture is a part of a causal relationship that places US criminals in more dangerous situations. If it was harder to get guns, criminals would be less deadly, the police would be less paranoid and freaked, so the criminals would be less paranoid and freaked etc. etc. Think about all the videos of cops shooting unarmed black people after hysterically shouting 'gun' over and over. It's a sideline to the discussion in some ways, but the police force has to assume everyone is armed because anyone can be. I'm not sure second amendment supporters appreciate the corroding affect that one dynamic is having on the US. Cops do not shoot unarmed blacks at any alarming rate. Statistics actually bear this out. In 2017 alone there were only 20 unarmed blacks shot according to the Washington Post's fatal shooting database. Remember, an unarmed person does not mean they are not dangerous also. That brings that number down much further in regards to whether it was a justified shooting or not.
How many are needed for it to be considered alarming?
20 is obviously not enough for you. 50? That would be 1/week. Or would you only consider it alarming if it was 1/day? Or still not enough, because America is so large? So lets make this 1/day/state. That's like 17.5k/year.
But surely you are right, those numbers are unavoidable, and even over here, the frequency of gun usage by the police is dramatically increasing. Last year the German police fired 75 bullets at humans! That's a 20 year high! This was always in the 25-50 bullets/year range.
Looking a bit closer, those 75 shots were categorized as:
- 60 shots were fired in cases of self defense or imminent danger to innocent people. Those shots led to 13 dead and 38 injured suspects (Hint: There is no "empty clip doctrine", in fact it is 98% single fire, but usually in this thread it is explained that neither that nor "shoot to injure" are working...) Also one bystander was injured.
- 6 shots were fired as "prevention of crime", but leading to no deaths or wounded.
- Another 8 shots were fired to prevent the escape of a suspected crime offender. Those caused another death and one wounded.
- One more shot in the same category was considered illegitimate, and led to a fatality. (This was the only bullet fired against persons, which was found illegitimate in the year)
- And finally, a single shot was fired to prevent the escape of a prisoner, but didn't harm anyone.
|
The police shooting 20 unarmed people in a year is pretty messed up, especially if you take into account that entire states don’t report on their use of lethal force to any government agency. That is 20 people killed in situations that lethal force was likely not required, but still employed by the officer.
|
On November 09 2018 22:03 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 21:09 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 21:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 09 2018 20:56 superstartran wrote:
You might find that more moderate conservatives are willing to make compromise if you recognize the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment. That's half the problem. It's easy to see like 9 out of 10 posters here on the gun control side do not see the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment, self defense, etc; When you fundamentally do not believe in something, it makes it hard for the other side to actually take you seriously at all when you're saying 'we're not trying to take away your guns.'
Remember, the NRA only represents less than 1/5 of gun owners in America. It's the other 4/5 that you need to convince, of which the vast majority of posters here are terrible at since it's very easy to say things like 'you guys have the blood of children are you hands!' rather than 'Maybe we should come to the table and talk about what we can actually do.'
I think you don't know what compromise is. There's no point in compromise if everything believes the same thing to begin with. The legitimacy of the 2nd amendment in modern America is exactly what needs to be called into question imo. Having people come to the table to discuss that shouldn't be such a taboo idea. Its like saying that you refuse to talk about moral issues with anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is the word of God. ^ Hence why this is never going to get anywhere. Calling into question the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment already calls into question your actual motives. Not recognizing that citizens should have the right to firearms as a form of self-defense, particularly in rural America, is going to not win you over any favors when it comes to compromise. I've already laid out what SHOULD be done in terms of gun control. All which are very reasonable measures that most people would agree upon. What you're asking for is not just realistically impossible, but it also alienates gun owners big time, many who you need to get passage of reasonable gun control. But that is exactly the point. If you say "2nd amendment", there can not be any discussion. The question of whether and to what extent guns should be part of a contemporary society should not be based on what some people wrote down more than 200 years ago, but about what the situation is right now. If you can make a compelling argument about guns now, make that argument. Don't stand on the "2nd amendment". That is not an argument, it is dogma. If you say "guns are needed for self defense", that is an argument that people can actually debate, and there might be an open end. Because it is possible that someone could convince you that they are not necessary, and it is possible that you convince someone that they are necessary. That is a fruitful argument, that can lead to reasonable discussion. "2nd amendment says" does none of that. Because it is not actually an argument. The question is not really about what the 2nd amendment says, but about whether you accept the dogma as reason enough to comply. And saying that you must accept the 2nd amendment before even talking about this limits the discussion greatly, and the only argument is "200 years ago some people wrote this down". A rational society should approach policy on a rational basis, not on the basis of doctrine. (I am not saying that you should immediately throw out anything old, a lot of it is working well. But something should not be immune to criticism just because it has been that way for a long time. That is evidence that it might be useful and working, which can be used in a discussion, but not a reason to completely shut down the argument.) It is similar to discussing with someone that uses their holy book as a basis of an argument. "The quran says" or "the bible says" are not rational arguments that can be debated on a rational basis, and there is no discussion to be had here. You can either accept the moral authority of the book and comply, or not accept it, but you can still not actually change anyones mind about this.
Do you not see how self-defeating this actually is? You want compromise but then you go after the one piece of legislation that guarantees the rights of gun owners. Whether or not the 2nd Amendment's interpretation is correct or not is not even what I am debating. What I am debating is your intent. You ask for people to compromise, but then put forth a completely unrealistic proposition. Even the most prominent gun control advocates currently scoff at the notion of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment.
Realistically rewriting or getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would take a herculean effort that is currently not realistically possible under current conditions. You need 2/3 of Congress to agree, which would take a miracle under the current political climate. Then you'd need 3/4 of the States to ratify said Amendment to make it a law. Even the current interpretation of the law is a relatively moderate position. Gun owners have a right to own guns, but that does not mean they are not subject to regulation. Heller vs DC 2008. That's about as moderate as a position as you are going to get. So even going after guns from a Supreme Court stance would take an almost herculean effort, as the Supreme Court has given a fairly reasonable and moderate position on the legality of private firearms.
It's very easy to see your intent is not to debate what measures can we put in place to prevent gun violence, but how do we get rid of firearms as a whole in the United States of America. The fact that you are unrealistically arguing about changing/rewriting/removing the 2nd Amendment is evidence of that, especially since you've in no way suggested any kind of 'alternative' to the removal of the 2nd Amendment.
TL;DR the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a very moderate position. You have a right to a firearm, you do not have a right to any type of firearm. It can be restricted. Going after the 2nd Amendment is really only proving my suspicions earlier that many of you are not really looking for compromise, but trying to argue for the complete abolishment of firearms in general.
|
On November 10 2018 00:26 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 22:03 Simberto wrote:On November 09 2018 21:09 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 21:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 09 2018 20:56 superstartran wrote:
You might find that more moderate conservatives are willing to make compromise if you recognize the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment. That's half the problem. It's easy to see like 9 out of 10 posters here on the gun control side do not see the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment, self defense, etc; When you fundamentally do not believe in something, it makes it hard for the other side to actually take you seriously at all when you're saying 'we're not trying to take away your guns.'
Remember, the NRA only represents less than 1/5 of gun owners in America. It's the other 4/5 that you need to convince, of which the vast majority of posters here are terrible at since it's very easy to say things like 'you guys have the blood of children are you hands!' rather than 'Maybe we should come to the table and talk about what we can actually do.'
I think you don't know what compromise is. There's no point in compromise if everything believes the same thing to begin with. The legitimacy of the 2nd amendment in modern America is exactly what needs to be called into question imo. Having people come to the table to discuss that shouldn't be such a taboo idea. Its like saying that you refuse to talk about moral issues with anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is the word of God. ^ Hence why this is never going to get anywhere. Calling into question the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment already calls into question your actual motives. Not recognizing that citizens should have the right to firearms as a form of self-defense, particularly in rural America, is going to not win you over any favors when it comes to compromise. I've already laid out what SHOULD be done in terms of gun control. All which are very reasonable measures that most people would agree upon. What you're asking for is not just realistically impossible, but it also alienates gun owners big time, many who you need to get passage of reasonable gun control. But that is exactly the point. If you say "2nd amendment", there can not be any discussion. The question of whether and to what extent guns should be part of a contemporary society should not be based on what some people wrote down more than 200 years ago, but about what the situation is right now. If you can make a compelling argument about guns now, make that argument. Don't stand on the "2nd amendment". That is not an argument, it is dogma. If you say "guns are needed for self defense", that is an argument that people can actually debate, and there might be an open end. Because it is possible that someone could convince you that they are not necessary, and it is possible that you convince someone that they are necessary. That is a fruitful argument, that can lead to reasonable discussion. "2nd amendment says" does none of that. Because it is not actually an argument. The question is not really about what the 2nd amendment says, but about whether you accept the dogma as reason enough to comply. And saying that you must accept the 2nd amendment before even talking about this limits the discussion greatly, and the only argument is "200 years ago some people wrote this down". A rational society should approach policy on a rational basis, not on the basis of doctrine. (I am not saying that you should immediately throw out anything old, a lot of it is working well. But something should not be immune to criticism just because it has been that way for a long time. That is evidence that it might be useful and working, which can be used in a discussion, but not a reason to completely shut down the argument.) It is similar to discussing with someone that uses their holy book as a basis of an argument. "The quran says" or "the bible says" are not rational arguments that can be debated on a rational basis, and there is no discussion to be had here. You can either accept the moral authority of the book and comply, or not accept it, but you can still not actually change anyones mind about this. Do you not see how self-defeating this actually is? You want compromise but then you go after the one piece of legislation that guarantees the rights of gun owners. Whether or not the 2nd Amendment's interpretation is correct or not is not even what I am debating. What I am debating is your intent. You ask for people to compromise, but then put forth a completely unrealistic proposition. Even the most prominent gun control advocates currently scoff at the notion of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. Realistically rewriting or getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would take a herculean effort that is currently not realistically possible under current conditions. You need 2/3 of Congress to agree, which would take a miracle under the current political climate. Then you'd need 3/4 of the States to ratify said Amendment to make it a law. Even the current interpretation of the law is a relatively moderate position. Gun owners have a right to own guns, but that does not mean they are not subject to regulation. Heller vs DC 2008. That's about as moderate as a position as you are going to get. So even going after guns from a Supreme Court stance would take an almost herculean effort, as the Supreme Court has given a fairly reasonable and moderate position on the legality of private firearms. It's very easy to see your intent is not to debate what measures can we put in place to prevent gun violence, but how do we get rid of firearms as a whole in the United States of America. The fact that you are unrealistically arguing about changing/rewriting/removing the 2nd Amendment is evidence of that, especially since you've in no way suggested any kind of 'alternative' to the removal of the 2nd Amendment.
I don't understand why you think its not possible to debate measures for preventing gun violence whilst also debating the validity and relevance of gun culture.
The fact is that in this thread most people are agreed on what would be good legislation to put in place to prevent gun violence - mandatory waiting periods etc. - We all think that these things are good ideas. When I have suggested other legislation those posts are ignored in favour of this ranting about intentions. This would be an interesting discussion to have.
Another interesting debate is why that legislation won't happen (a minority of weapon owners/sellers with extreme views/bad proposed legislation and overreach are good candidates - as well as those in the middle who own guns and would like to seem reasonable but actually don't really want any gun control legislation at all).
Blaming people who don't want to live in a society that is saturated with deadly weapons for the fact that no-one will entertain the possibility of getting rid of the weapons isn't a particularly coherent way to go about it.
|
On November 10 2018 01:01 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 00:26 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 22:03 Simberto wrote:On November 09 2018 21:09 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 21:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 09 2018 20:56 superstartran wrote:
You might find that more moderate conservatives are willing to make compromise if you recognize the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment. That's half the problem. It's easy to see like 9 out of 10 posters here on the gun control side do not see the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment, self defense, etc; When you fundamentally do not believe in something, it makes it hard for the other side to actually take you seriously at all when you're saying 'we're not trying to take away your guns.'
Remember, the NRA only represents less than 1/5 of gun owners in America. It's the other 4/5 that you need to convince, of which the vast majority of posters here are terrible at since it's very easy to say things like 'you guys have the blood of children are you hands!' rather than 'Maybe we should come to the table and talk about what we can actually do.'
I think you don't know what compromise is. There's no point in compromise if everything believes the same thing to begin with. The legitimacy of the 2nd amendment in modern America is exactly what needs to be called into question imo. Having people come to the table to discuss that shouldn't be such a taboo idea. Its like saying that you refuse to talk about moral issues with anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is the word of God. ^ Hence why this is never going to get anywhere. Calling into question the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment already calls into question your actual motives. Not recognizing that citizens should have the right to firearms as a form of self-defense, particularly in rural America, is going to not win you over any favors when it comes to compromise. I've already laid out what SHOULD be done in terms of gun control. All which are very reasonable measures that most people would agree upon. What you're asking for is not just realistically impossible, but it also alienates gun owners big time, many who you need to get passage of reasonable gun control. But that is exactly the point. If you say "2nd amendment", there can not be any discussion. The question of whether and to what extent guns should be part of a contemporary society should not be based on what some people wrote down more than 200 years ago, but about what the situation is right now. If you can make a compelling argument about guns now, make that argument. Don't stand on the "2nd amendment". That is not an argument, it is dogma. If you say "guns are needed for self defense", that is an argument that people can actually debate, and there might be an open end. Because it is possible that someone could convince you that they are not necessary, and it is possible that you convince someone that they are necessary. That is a fruitful argument, that can lead to reasonable discussion. "2nd amendment says" does none of that. Because it is not actually an argument. The question is not really about what the 2nd amendment says, but about whether you accept the dogma as reason enough to comply. And saying that you must accept the 2nd amendment before even talking about this limits the discussion greatly, and the only argument is "200 years ago some people wrote this down". A rational society should approach policy on a rational basis, not on the basis of doctrine. (I am not saying that you should immediately throw out anything old, a lot of it is working well. But something should not be immune to criticism just because it has been that way for a long time. That is evidence that it might be useful and working, which can be used in a discussion, but not a reason to completely shut down the argument.) It is similar to discussing with someone that uses their holy book as a basis of an argument. "The quran says" or "the bible says" are not rational arguments that can be debated on a rational basis, and there is no discussion to be had here. You can either accept the moral authority of the book and comply, or not accept it, but you can still not actually change anyones mind about this. Do you not see how self-defeating this actually is? You want compromise but then you go after the one piece of legislation that guarantees the rights of gun owners. Whether or not the 2nd Amendment's interpretation is correct or not is not even what I am debating. What I am debating is your intent. You ask for people to compromise, but then put forth a completely unrealistic proposition. Even the most prominent gun control advocates currently scoff at the notion of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. Realistically rewriting or getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would take a herculean effort that is currently not realistically possible under current conditions. You need 2/3 of Congress to agree, which would take a miracle under the current political climate. Then you'd need 3/4 of the States to ratify said Amendment to make it a law. Even the current interpretation of the law is a relatively moderate position. Gun owners have a right to own guns, but that does not mean they are not subject to regulation. Heller vs DC 2008. That's about as moderate as a position as you are going to get. So even going after guns from a Supreme Court stance would take an almost herculean effort, as the Supreme Court has given a fairly reasonable and moderate position on the legality of private firearms. It's very easy to see your intent is not to debate what measures can we put in place to prevent gun violence, but how do we get rid of firearms as a whole in the United States of America. The fact that you are unrealistically arguing about changing/rewriting/removing the 2nd Amendment is evidence of that, especially since you've in no way suggested any kind of 'alternative' to the removal of the 2nd Amendment. I don't understand why you think its not possible to debate measures for preventing gun violence whilst also debating the validity and relevance of gun culture. The fact is that in this thread most people are agreed on what would be good legislation to put in place to prevent gun violence - mandatory waiting periods etc. - We all think that these things are good ideas. When I have suggested other legislation those posts are ignored in favour of this ranting about intentions. This would be an interesting discussion to have. Another interesting debate is why that legislation won't happen (a minority of weapon owners/sellers with extreme views/bad proposed legislation and overreach are good candidates - as well as those in the middle who own guns and would like to seem reasonable but actually don't really want any gun control legislation at all). Blaming people who don't want to live in a society that is saturated with deadly weapons for the fact that no-one will entertain the possibility of getting rid of the weapons isn't a particularly coherent way to go about it.
How is this ranting? Your side says 'we should compromise' but don't even recognize the validity of a very moderate position on guns in general. Private ownership is allowed, however firearms can be regulated. If you want to get rid of all guns just state that is your position, rather than trying to moral grandstand and say that 'we aren't here to take away your guns.'
|
On November 10 2018 01:13 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 01:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 00:26 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 22:03 Simberto wrote:On November 09 2018 21:09 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 21:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 09 2018 20:56 superstartran wrote:
You might find that more moderate conservatives are willing to make compromise if you recognize the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment. That's half the problem. It's easy to see like 9 out of 10 posters here on the gun control side do not see the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment, self defense, etc; When you fundamentally do not believe in something, it makes it hard for the other side to actually take you seriously at all when you're saying 'we're not trying to take away your guns.'
Remember, the NRA only represents less than 1/5 of gun owners in America. It's the other 4/5 that you need to convince, of which the vast majority of posters here are terrible at since it's very easy to say things like 'you guys have the blood of children are you hands!' rather than 'Maybe we should come to the table and talk about what we can actually do.'
I think you don't know what compromise is. There's no point in compromise if everything believes the same thing to begin with. The legitimacy of the 2nd amendment in modern America is exactly what needs to be called into question imo. Having people come to the table to discuss that shouldn't be such a taboo idea. Its like saying that you refuse to talk about moral issues with anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is the word of God. ^ Hence why this is never going to get anywhere. Calling into question the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment already calls into question your actual motives. Not recognizing that citizens should have the right to firearms as a form of self-defense, particularly in rural America, is going to not win you over any favors when it comes to compromise. I've already laid out what SHOULD be done in terms of gun control. All which are very reasonable measures that most people would agree upon. What you're asking for is not just realistically impossible, but it also alienates gun owners big time, many who you need to get passage of reasonable gun control. But that is exactly the point. If you say "2nd amendment", there can not be any discussion. The question of whether and to what extent guns should be part of a contemporary society should not be based on what some people wrote down more than 200 years ago, but about what the situation is right now. If you can make a compelling argument about guns now, make that argument. Don't stand on the "2nd amendment". That is not an argument, it is dogma. If you say "guns are needed for self defense", that is an argument that people can actually debate, and there might be an open end. Because it is possible that someone could convince you that they are not necessary, and it is possible that you convince someone that they are necessary. That is a fruitful argument, that can lead to reasonable discussion. "2nd amendment says" does none of that. Because it is not actually an argument. The question is not really about what the 2nd amendment says, but about whether you accept the dogma as reason enough to comply. And saying that you must accept the 2nd amendment before even talking about this limits the discussion greatly, and the only argument is "200 years ago some people wrote this down". A rational society should approach policy on a rational basis, not on the basis of doctrine. (I am not saying that you should immediately throw out anything old, a lot of it is working well. But something should not be immune to criticism just because it has been that way for a long time. That is evidence that it might be useful and working, which can be used in a discussion, but not a reason to completely shut down the argument.) It is similar to discussing with someone that uses their holy book as a basis of an argument. "The quran says" or "the bible says" are not rational arguments that can be debated on a rational basis, and there is no discussion to be had here. You can either accept the moral authority of the book and comply, or not accept it, but you can still not actually change anyones mind about this. Do you not see how self-defeating this actually is? You want compromise but then you go after the one piece of legislation that guarantees the rights of gun owners. Whether or not the 2nd Amendment's interpretation is correct or not is not even what I am debating. What I am debating is your intent. You ask for people to compromise, but then put forth a completely unrealistic proposition. Even the most prominent gun control advocates currently scoff at the notion of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. Realistically rewriting or getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would take a herculean effort that is currently not realistically possible under current conditions. You need 2/3 of Congress to agree, which would take a miracle under the current political climate. Then you'd need 3/4 of the States to ratify said Amendment to make it a law. Even the current interpretation of the law is a relatively moderate position. Gun owners have a right to own guns, but that does not mean they are not subject to regulation. Heller vs DC 2008. That's about as moderate as a position as you are going to get. So even going after guns from a Supreme Court stance would take an almost herculean effort, as the Supreme Court has given a fairly reasonable and moderate position on the legality of private firearms. It's very easy to see your intent is not to debate what measures can we put in place to prevent gun violence, but how do we get rid of firearms as a whole in the United States of America. The fact that you are unrealistically arguing about changing/rewriting/removing the 2nd Amendment is evidence of that, especially since you've in no way suggested any kind of 'alternative' to the removal of the 2nd Amendment. I don't understand why you think its not possible to debate measures for preventing gun violence whilst also debating the validity and relevance of gun culture. The fact is that in this thread most people are agreed on what would be good legislation to put in place to prevent gun violence - mandatory waiting periods etc. - We all think that these things are good ideas. When I have suggested other legislation those posts are ignored in favour of this ranting about intentions. This would be an interesting discussion to have. Another interesting debate is why that legislation won't happen (a minority of weapon owners/sellers with extreme views/bad proposed legislation and overreach are good candidates - as well as those in the middle who own guns and would like to seem reasonable but actually don't really want any gun control legislation at all). Blaming people who don't want to live in a society that is saturated with deadly weapons for the fact that no-one will entertain the possibility of getting rid of the weapons isn't a particularly coherent way to go about it. How is this ranting? Your side says 'we should compromise' but don't even recognize the validity of a very moderate position on guns in general. Private ownership is allowed, however firearms can be regulated. If you want to get rid of all guns just state that is your position, rather than trying to moral grandstand and say that 'we aren't here to take away your guns.'
There's no moral grandstanding here ( I actually said nothing about morality and asked someone above not to make the moral argument - so I have no idea at all where this came from lol), and I've made my position clear many times.
In the short term some legislation needs to be put in place to curb the excessive levels of gun violence.
In the long term I'd like to see the second amendment revoked because I don't believe gun rights should be a thing. Does this mean I'm coming for your guns? No. For a start nothing I say or do can have any effect on your guns, because I'm not in America. I'm just stating what I believe in and trying to have a discussion about it.
|
On November 10 2018 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 01:13 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 00:26 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 22:03 Simberto wrote:On November 09 2018 21:09 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 21:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 09 2018 20:56 superstartran wrote:
You might find that more moderate conservatives are willing to make compromise if you recognize the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment. That's half the problem. It's easy to see like 9 out of 10 posters here on the gun control side do not see the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment, self defense, etc; When you fundamentally do not believe in something, it makes it hard for the other side to actually take you seriously at all when you're saying 'we're not trying to take away your guns.'
Remember, the NRA only represents less than 1/5 of gun owners in America. It's the other 4/5 that you need to convince, of which the vast majority of posters here are terrible at since it's very easy to say things like 'you guys have the blood of children are you hands!' rather than 'Maybe we should come to the table and talk about what we can actually do.'
I think you don't know what compromise is. There's no point in compromise if everything believes the same thing to begin with. The legitimacy of the 2nd amendment in modern America is exactly what needs to be called into question imo. Having people come to the table to discuss that shouldn't be such a taboo idea. Its like saying that you refuse to talk about moral issues with anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is the word of God. ^ Hence why this is never going to get anywhere. Calling into question the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment already calls into question your actual motives. Not recognizing that citizens should have the right to firearms as a form of self-defense, particularly in rural America, is going to not win you over any favors when it comes to compromise. I've already laid out what SHOULD be done in terms of gun control. All which are very reasonable measures that most people would agree upon. What you're asking for is not just realistically impossible, but it also alienates gun owners big time, many who you need to get passage of reasonable gun control. But that is exactly the point. If you say "2nd amendment", there can not be any discussion. The question of whether and to what extent guns should be part of a contemporary society should not be based on what some people wrote down more than 200 years ago, but about what the situation is right now. If you can make a compelling argument about guns now, make that argument. Don't stand on the "2nd amendment". That is not an argument, it is dogma. If you say "guns are needed for self defense", that is an argument that people can actually debate, and there might be an open end. Because it is possible that someone could convince you that they are not necessary, and it is possible that you convince someone that they are necessary. That is a fruitful argument, that can lead to reasonable discussion. "2nd amendment says" does none of that. Because it is not actually an argument. The question is not really about what the 2nd amendment says, but about whether you accept the dogma as reason enough to comply. And saying that you must accept the 2nd amendment before even talking about this limits the discussion greatly, and the only argument is "200 years ago some people wrote this down". A rational society should approach policy on a rational basis, not on the basis of doctrine. (I am not saying that you should immediately throw out anything old, a lot of it is working well. But something should not be immune to criticism just because it has been that way for a long time. That is evidence that it might be useful and working, which can be used in a discussion, but not a reason to completely shut down the argument.) It is similar to discussing with someone that uses their holy book as a basis of an argument. "The quran says" or "the bible says" are not rational arguments that can be debated on a rational basis, and there is no discussion to be had here. You can either accept the moral authority of the book and comply, or not accept it, but you can still not actually change anyones mind about this. Do you not see how self-defeating this actually is? You want compromise but then you go after the one piece of legislation that guarantees the rights of gun owners. Whether or not the 2nd Amendment's interpretation is correct or not is not even what I am debating. What I am debating is your intent. You ask for people to compromise, but then put forth a completely unrealistic proposition. Even the most prominent gun control advocates currently scoff at the notion of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. Realistically rewriting or getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would take a herculean effort that is currently not realistically possible under current conditions. You need 2/3 of Congress to agree, which would take a miracle under the current political climate. Then you'd need 3/4 of the States to ratify said Amendment to make it a law. Even the current interpretation of the law is a relatively moderate position. Gun owners have a right to own guns, but that does not mean they are not subject to regulation. Heller vs DC 2008. That's about as moderate as a position as you are going to get. So even going after guns from a Supreme Court stance would take an almost herculean effort, as the Supreme Court has given a fairly reasonable and moderate position on the legality of private firearms. It's very easy to see your intent is not to debate what measures can we put in place to prevent gun violence, but how do we get rid of firearms as a whole in the United States of America. The fact that you are unrealistically arguing about changing/rewriting/removing the 2nd Amendment is evidence of that, especially since you've in no way suggested any kind of 'alternative' to the removal of the 2nd Amendment. I don't understand why you think its not possible to debate measures for preventing gun violence whilst also debating the validity and relevance of gun culture. The fact is that in this thread most people are agreed on what would be good legislation to put in place to prevent gun violence - mandatory waiting periods etc. - We all think that these things are good ideas. When I have suggested other legislation those posts are ignored in favour of this ranting about intentions. This would be an interesting discussion to have. Another interesting debate is why that legislation won't happen (a minority of weapon owners/sellers with extreme views/bad proposed legislation and overreach are good candidates - as well as those in the middle who own guns and would like to seem reasonable but actually don't really want any gun control legislation at all). Blaming people who don't want to live in a society that is saturated with deadly weapons for the fact that no-one will entertain the possibility of getting rid of the weapons isn't a particularly coherent way to go about it. How is this ranting? Your side says 'we should compromise' but don't even recognize the validity of a very moderate position on guns in general. Private ownership is allowed, however firearms can be regulated. If you want to get rid of all guns just state that is your position, rather than trying to moral grandstand and say that 'we aren't here to take away your guns.' There's no moral grandstanding here ( I actually said nothing about morality and asked someone above not to make the moral argument - so I have no idea at all where this came from lol), and I've made my position clear many times. In the short term some legislation needs to be put in place to curb the excessive levels of gun violence. In the long term I'd like to see the second amendment revoked because I don't believe gun rights should be a thing. Does this mean I'm coming for your guns? No. For a start nothing I say or do can have any effect on your guns, because I'm not in America. I'm just stating what I believe in and trying to have a discussion about it.
Not talking about you specifically; talking about others who like to moral grandstand as though they are taking a moderate position on firearms, then turn around and say that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed or done away with despite the fact that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is very reasonable and moderate.
|
On November 09 2018 23:31 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 23:26 ShambhalaWar wrote:
For the people in this thread that are arguing for gun ownership, I think you all should be required to watch the videos of that father who lost his son, whom he clearly and absolutely loved, many times... Then imagine making your argument to that guy in his grief. I imagine he would actually talk to you about it, and I also imagine he wouldn't care about owning a gun anymore... I'm not him, but I imagine he would do anything to get his son back, including gun reform or giving up his right to gun ownership.
The only difference between you and the man that lost his son, is pure luck that it didn't happen to you.
The one armed person at that bar was killed. The problem with this overly emotional type of argument is that it doesn't work, and all you are really doing is forcing people to admit that they think that their freedom is more important in the long run than the lives that are lost due to guns. Once they confirm that this is the case (and it is an understandable point of view) your argument means nothing. Its simply - and I hate to use right wing terminology - virtue signalling, or attempting to show yourself as a more moral person. There are many reasons to argue for more gun control, and lots of interesting points of discussion around culture etc. to be had here but 'You don't care about dead kids' and the like is just very unhelpful.
I respectfully and 100% disagree.
People should admit that they believe their freedom is more important that the lives of children and adults... it is 100% the stance they have chosen.
I would actually respect them more if they did, but I never seen a gun advocate admit that. I'm sure they believe something else, and might be able to propose that something else is happening in their minds (and human beings are complicated). yet, on some objective level, that is the stance they are choosing. I keep my freedom to own guns even if it means more people that might commit mass shootings will have access to the guns to commit those shootings.
It's a non-logical argument.
And on a base level all arguments are emotional and born from our emotions.
No position of logical dictates the response of gun advocates. If that were true that logical drove the discussion, looking at the numbers on gun deaths by suicide, murder, cops, etc... would logically lead anyone to a conclusion that the current system isn't working and if we want to save lives we need to change it. Australia is a perfect example of real life data, that regulations save lives.
The argument made by American gun advocates is born out of fear, a created fear that they need to protect themselves from a largely imagined threat... like a migrant caravan that nobody cares about anymore because midterms are done...
That is delusional fear or ptsd fear. A real or perceived threat from long ago (or one made up by shitty news agencies) that isn't actually a threat now, but the person feels it as a threat.
While not everyone believes the mainstreams fears, many also believe some similar threat is coming for their family or them when they least expect it. I really don't blame them, America has created a culture of fear, and the old parts of our brain operate on the simple evaluation of fear and survival.
But our modern day reality no longer justify this kind of response, because largely we are safe. Yet people operate as if we are not.
Or
It's born out of simple selfishness... "I want my hobby and nobody is going to take it from me. Even if it kills people, it's my right."
And yes... dead kids is a legitimate emotional argument against guns. Death and morality are interlinked. It is a universally excepted principle that death is not welcome before it naturally should come, anything outside of that is immoral, and unacceptable across the world culture.
Therefore guns are absolutely a moral argument on both sides. and Ironically, both sides argue preventing death, but they do so in very different ways.
If you were standing in front of that dad, would you be makes these same points to him? That's a good question to ponder, because actual people die in these attacks... you better fucking believe for them and their families it's emotional.
|
On November 10 2018 01:23 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 01:13 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 00:26 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 22:03 Simberto wrote:On November 09 2018 21:09 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 21:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 09 2018 20:56 superstartran wrote:
You might find that more moderate conservatives are willing to make compromise if you recognize the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment. That's half the problem. It's easy to see like 9 out of 10 posters here on the gun control side do not see the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment, self defense, etc; When you fundamentally do not believe in something, it makes it hard for the other side to actually take you seriously at all when you're saying 'we're not trying to take away your guns.'
Remember, the NRA only represents less than 1/5 of gun owners in America. It's the other 4/5 that you need to convince, of which the vast majority of posters here are terrible at since it's very easy to say things like 'you guys have the blood of children are you hands!' rather than 'Maybe we should come to the table and talk about what we can actually do.'
I think you don't know what compromise is. There's no point in compromise if everything believes the same thing to begin with. The legitimacy of the 2nd amendment in modern America is exactly what needs to be called into question imo. Having people come to the table to discuss that shouldn't be such a taboo idea. Its like saying that you refuse to talk about moral issues with anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is the word of God. ^ Hence why this is never going to get anywhere. Calling into question the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment already calls into question your actual motives. Not recognizing that citizens should have the right to firearms as a form of self-defense, particularly in rural America, is going to not win you over any favors when it comes to compromise. I've already laid out what SHOULD be done in terms of gun control. All which are very reasonable measures that most people would agree upon. What you're asking for is not just realistically impossible, but it also alienates gun owners big time, many who you need to get passage of reasonable gun control. But that is exactly the point. If you say "2nd amendment", there can not be any discussion. The question of whether and to what extent guns should be part of a contemporary society should not be based on what some people wrote down more than 200 years ago, but about what the situation is right now. If you can make a compelling argument about guns now, make that argument. Don't stand on the "2nd amendment". That is not an argument, it is dogma. If you say "guns are needed for self defense", that is an argument that people can actually debate, and there might be an open end. Because it is possible that someone could convince you that they are not necessary, and it is possible that you convince someone that they are necessary. That is a fruitful argument, that can lead to reasonable discussion. "2nd amendment says" does none of that. Because it is not actually an argument. The question is not really about what the 2nd amendment says, but about whether you accept the dogma as reason enough to comply. And saying that you must accept the 2nd amendment before even talking about this limits the discussion greatly, and the only argument is "200 years ago some people wrote this down". A rational society should approach policy on a rational basis, not on the basis of doctrine. (I am not saying that you should immediately throw out anything old, a lot of it is working well. But something should not be immune to criticism just because it has been that way for a long time. That is evidence that it might be useful and working, which can be used in a discussion, but not a reason to completely shut down the argument.) It is similar to discussing with someone that uses their holy book as a basis of an argument. "The quran says" or "the bible says" are not rational arguments that can be debated on a rational basis, and there is no discussion to be had here. You can either accept the moral authority of the book and comply, or not accept it, but you can still not actually change anyones mind about this. Do you not see how self-defeating this actually is? You want compromise but then you go after the one piece of legislation that guarantees the rights of gun owners. Whether or not the 2nd Amendment's interpretation is correct or not is not even what I am debating. What I am debating is your intent. You ask for people to compromise, but then put forth a completely unrealistic proposition. Even the most prominent gun control advocates currently scoff at the notion of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. Realistically rewriting or getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would take a herculean effort that is currently not realistically possible under current conditions. You need 2/3 of Congress to agree, which would take a miracle under the current political climate. Then you'd need 3/4 of the States to ratify said Amendment to make it a law. Even the current interpretation of the law is a relatively moderate position. Gun owners have a right to own guns, but that does not mean they are not subject to regulation. Heller vs DC 2008. That's about as moderate as a position as you are going to get. So even going after guns from a Supreme Court stance would take an almost herculean effort, as the Supreme Court has given a fairly reasonable and moderate position on the legality of private firearms. It's very easy to see your intent is not to debate what measures can we put in place to prevent gun violence, but how do we get rid of firearms as a whole in the United States of America. The fact that you are unrealistically arguing about changing/rewriting/removing the 2nd Amendment is evidence of that, especially since you've in no way suggested any kind of 'alternative' to the removal of the 2nd Amendment. I don't understand why you think its not possible to debate measures for preventing gun violence whilst also debating the validity and relevance of gun culture. The fact is that in this thread most people are agreed on what would be good legislation to put in place to prevent gun violence - mandatory waiting periods etc. - We all think that these things are good ideas. When I have suggested other legislation those posts are ignored in favour of this ranting about intentions. This would be an interesting discussion to have. Another interesting debate is why that legislation won't happen (a minority of weapon owners/sellers with extreme views/bad proposed legislation and overreach are good candidates - as well as those in the middle who own guns and would like to seem reasonable but actually don't really want any gun control legislation at all). Blaming people who don't want to live in a society that is saturated with deadly weapons for the fact that no-one will entertain the possibility of getting rid of the weapons isn't a particularly coherent way to go about it. How is this ranting? Your side says 'we should compromise' but don't even recognize the validity of a very moderate position on guns in general. Private ownership is allowed, however firearms can be regulated. If you want to get rid of all guns just state that is your position, rather than trying to moral grandstand and say that 'we aren't here to take away your guns.' There's no moral grandstanding here ( I actually said nothing about morality and asked someone above not to make the moral argument - so I have no idea at all where this came from lol), and I've made my position clear many times. In the short term some legislation needs to be put in place to curb the excessive levels of gun violence. In the long term I'd like to see the second amendment revoked because I don't believe gun rights should be a thing. Does this mean I'm coming for your guns? No. For a start nothing I say or do can have any effect on your guns, because I'm not in America. I'm just stating what I believe in and trying to have a discussion about it. Not talking about you specifically; talking about others who like to moral grandstand as though they are taking a moderate position on firearms, then turn around and say that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed or done away with despite the fact that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is very reasonable and moderate.
How about we do what Australia did, how would you feel about that?
|
On November 10 2018 01:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 01:23 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 01:13 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 00:26 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 22:03 Simberto wrote:On November 09 2018 21:09 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 21:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 09 2018 20:56 superstartran wrote:
You might find that more moderate conservatives are willing to make compromise if you recognize the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment. That's half the problem. It's easy to see like 9 out of 10 posters here on the gun control side do not see the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment, self defense, etc; When you fundamentally do not believe in something, it makes it hard for the other side to actually take you seriously at all when you're saying 'we're not trying to take away your guns.'
Remember, the NRA only represents less than 1/5 of gun owners in America. It's the other 4/5 that you need to convince, of which the vast majority of posters here are terrible at since it's very easy to say things like 'you guys have the blood of children are you hands!' rather than 'Maybe we should come to the table and talk about what we can actually do.'
I think you don't know what compromise is. There's no point in compromise if everything believes the same thing to begin with. The legitimacy of the 2nd amendment in modern America is exactly what needs to be called into question imo. Having people come to the table to discuss that shouldn't be such a taboo idea. Its like saying that you refuse to talk about moral issues with anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is the word of God. ^ Hence why this is never going to get anywhere. Calling into question the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment already calls into question your actual motives. Not recognizing that citizens should have the right to firearms as a form of self-defense, particularly in rural America, is going to not win you over any favors when it comes to compromise. I've already laid out what SHOULD be done in terms of gun control. All which are very reasonable measures that most people would agree upon. What you're asking for is not just realistically impossible, but it also alienates gun owners big time, many who you need to get passage of reasonable gun control. But that is exactly the point. If you say "2nd amendment", there can not be any discussion. The question of whether and to what extent guns should be part of a contemporary society should not be based on what some people wrote down more than 200 years ago, but about what the situation is right now. If you can make a compelling argument about guns now, make that argument. Don't stand on the "2nd amendment". That is not an argument, it is dogma. If you say "guns are needed for self defense", that is an argument that people can actually debate, and there might be an open end. Because it is possible that someone could convince you that they are not necessary, and it is possible that you convince someone that they are necessary. That is a fruitful argument, that can lead to reasonable discussion. "2nd amendment says" does none of that. Because it is not actually an argument. The question is not really about what the 2nd amendment says, but about whether you accept the dogma as reason enough to comply. And saying that you must accept the 2nd amendment before even talking about this limits the discussion greatly, and the only argument is "200 years ago some people wrote this down". A rational society should approach policy on a rational basis, not on the basis of doctrine. (I am not saying that you should immediately throw out anything old, a lot of it is working well. But something should not be immune to criticism just because it has been that way for a long time. That is evidence that it might be useful and working, which can be used in a discussion, but not a reason to completely shut down the argument.) It is similar to discussing with someone that uses their holy book as a basis of an argument. "The quran says" or "the bible says" are not rational arguments that can be debated on a rational basis, and there is no discussion to be had here. You can either accept the moral authority of the book and comply, or not accept it, but you can still not actually change anyones mind about this. Do you not see how self-defeating this actually is? You want compromise but then you go after the one piece of legislation that guarantees the rights of gun owners. Whether or not the 2nd Amendment's interpretation is correct or not is not even what I am debating. What I am debating is your intent. You ask for people to compromise, but then put forth a completely unrealistic proposition. Even the most prominent gun control advocates currently scoff at the notion of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. Realistically rewriting or getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would take a herculean effort that is currently not realistically possible under current conditions. You need 2/3 of Congress to agree, which would take a miracle under the current political climate. Then you'd need 3/4 of the States to ratify said Amendment to make it a law. Even the current interpretation of the law is a relatively moderate position. Gun owners have a right to own guns, but that does not mean they are not subject to regulation. Heller vs DC 2008. That's about as moderate as a position as you are going to get. So even going after guns from a Supreme Court stance would take an almost herculean effort, as the Supreme Court has given a fairly reasonable and moderate position on the legality of private firearms. It's very easy to see your intent is not to debate what measures can we put in place to prevent gun violence, but how do we get rid of firearms as a whole in the United States of America. The fact that you are unrealistically arguing about changing/rewriting/removing the 2nd Amendment is evidence of that, especially since you've in no way suggested any kind of 'alternative' to the removal of the 2nd Amendment. I don't understand why you think its not possible to debate measures for preventing gun violence whilst also debating the validity and relevance of gun culture. The fact is that in this thread most people are agreed on what would be good legislation to put in place to prevent gun violence - mandatory waiting periods etc. - We all think that these things are good ideas. When I have suggested other legislation those posts are ignored in favour of this ranting about intentions. This would be an interesting discussion to have. Another interesting debate is why that legislation won't happen (a minority of weapon owners/sellers with extreme views/bad proposed legislation and overreach are good candidates - as well as those in the middle who own guns and would like to seem reasonable but actually don't really want any gun control legislation at all). Blaming people who don't want to live in a society that is saturated with deadly weapons for the fact that no-one will entertain the possibility of getting rid of the weapons isn't a particularly coherent way to go about it. How is this ranting? Your side says 'we should compromise' but don't even recognize the validity of a very moderate position on guns in general. Private ownership is allowed, however firearms can be regulated. If you want to get rid of all guns just state that is your position, rather than trying to moral grandstand and say that 'we aren't here to take away your guns.' There's no moral grandstanding here ( I actually said nothing about morality and asked someone above not to make the moral argument - so I have no idea at all where this came from lol), and I've made my position clear many times. In the short term some legislation needs to be put in place to curb the excessive levels of gun violence. In the long term I'd like to see the second amendment revoked because I don't believe gun rights should be a thing. Does this mean I'm coming for your guns? No. For a start nothing I say or do can have any effect on your guns, because I'm not in America. I'm just stating what I believe in and trying to have a discussion about it. Not talking about you specifically; talking about others who like to moral grandstand as though they are taking a moderate position on firearms, then turn around and say that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed or done away with despite the fact that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is very reasonable and moderate. How about we do what Australia did, how would you feel about that?
Australia is very different from our country. Stating that would be like me saying why don't we just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now. I've already gone over why Australia's laws had little to no impact.
For one, a buyback program isn't going to go over very well here in the U.S. for a truckload of reasons.
|
On November 10 2018 01:38 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 01:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 10 2018 01:23 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 01:13 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 00:26 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 22:03 Simberto wrote:On November 09 2018 21:09 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 21:04 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
I think you don't know what compromise is. There's no point in compromise if everything believes the same thing to begin with.
The legitimacy of the 2nd amendment in modern America is exactly what needs to be called into question imo. Having people come to the table to discuss that shouldn't be such a taboo idea.
Its like saying that you refuse to talk about moral issues with anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is the word of God. ^ Hence why this is never going to get anywhere. Calling into question the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment already calls into question your actual motives. Not recognizing that citizens should have the right to firearms as a form of self-defense, particularly in rural America, is going to not win you over any favors when it comes to compromise. I've already laid out what SHOULD be done in terms of gun control. All which are very reasonable measures that most people would agree upon. What you're asking for is not just realistically impossible, but it also alienates gun owners big time, many who you need to get passage of reasonable gun control. But that is exactly the point. If you say "2nd amendment", there can not be any discussion. The question of whether and to what extent guns should be part of a contemporary society should not be based on what some people wrote down more than 200 years ago, but about what the situation is right now. If you can make a compelling argument about guns now, make that argument. Don't stand on the "2nd amendment". That is not an argument, it is dogma. If you say "guns are needed for self defense", that is an argument that people can actually debate, and there might be an open end. Because it is possible that someone could convince you that they are not necessary, and it is possible that you convince someone that they are necessary. That is a fruitful argument, that can lead to reasonable discussion. "2nd amendment says" does none of that. Because it is not actually an argument. The question is not really about what the 2nd amendment says, but about whether you accept the dogma as reason enough to comply. And saying that you must accept the 2nd amendment before even talking about this limits the discussion greatly, and the only argument is "200 years ago some people wrote this down". A rational society should approach policy on a rational basis, not on the basis of doctrine. (I am not saying that you should immediately throw out anything old, a lot of it is working well. But something should not be immune to criticism just because it has been that way for a long time. That is evidence that it might be useful and working, which can be used in a discussion, but not a reason to completely shut down the argument.) It is similar to discussing with someone that uses their holy book as a basis of an argument. "The quran says" or "the bible says" are not rational arguments that can be debated on a rational basis, and there is no discussion to be had here. You can either accept the moral authority of the book and comply, or not accept it, but you can still not actually change anyones mind about this. Do you not see how self-defeating this actually is? You want compromise but then you go after the one piece of legislation that guarantees the rights of gun owners. Whether or not the 2nd Amendment's interpretation is correct or not is not even what I am debating. What I am debating is your intent. You ask for people to compromise, but then put forth a completely unrealistic proposition. Even the most prominent gun control advocates currently scoff at the notion of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. Realistically rewriting or getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would take a herculean effort that is currently not realistically possible under current conditions. You need 2/3 of Congress to agree, which would take a miracle under the current political climate. Then you'd need 3/4 of the States to ratify said Amendment to make it a law. Even the current interpretation of the law is a relatively moderate position. Gun owners have a right to own guns, but that does not mean they are not subject to regulation. Heller vs DC 2008. That's about as moderate as a position as you are going to get. So even going after guns from a Supreme Court stance would take an almost herculean effort, as the Supreme Court has given a fairly reasonable and moderate position on the legality of private firearms. It's very easy to see your intent is not to debate what measures can we put in place to prevent gun violence, but how do we get rid of firearms as a whole in the United States of America. The fact that you are unrealistically arguing about changing/rewriting/removing the 2nd Amendment is evidence of that, especially since you've in no way suggested any kind of 'alternative' to the removal of the 2nd Amendment. I don't understand why you think its not possible to debate measures for preventing gun violence whilst also debating the validity and relevance of gun culture. The fact is that in this thread most people are agreed on what would be good legislation to put in place to prevent gun violence - mandatory waiting periods etc. - We all think that these things are good ideas. When I have suggested other legislation those posts are ignored in favour of this ranting about intentions. This would be an interesting discussion to have. Another interesting debate is why that legislation won't happen (a minority of weapon owners/sellers with extreme views/bad proposed legislation and overreach are good candidates - as well as those in the middle who own guns and would like to seem reasonable but actually don't really want any gun control legislation at all). Blaming people who don't want to live in a society that is saturated with deadly weapons for the fact that no-one will entertain the possibility of getting rid of the weapons isn't a particularly coherent way to go about it. How is this ranting? Your side says 'we should compromise' but don't even recognize the validity of a very moderate position on guns in general. Private ownership is allowed, however firearms can be regulated. If you want to get rid of all guns just state that is your position, rather than trying to moral grandstand and say that 'we aren't here to take away your guns.' There's no moral grandstanding here ( I actually said nothing about morality and asked someone above not to make the moral argument - so I have no idea at all where this came from lol), and I've made my position clear many times. In the short term some legislation needs to be put in place to curb the excessive levels of gun violence. In the long term I'd like to see the second amendment revoked because I don't believe gun rights should be a thing. Does this mean I'm coming for your guns? No. For a start nothing I say or do can have any effect on your guns, because I'm not in America. I'm just stating what I believe in and trying to have a discussion about it. Not talking about you specifically; talking about others who like to moral grandstand as though they are taking a moderate position on firearms, then turn around and say that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed or done away with despite the fact that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is very reasonable and moderate. How about we do what Australia did, how would you feel about that? Australia is very different from our country. Stating that would be like me saying why don't we just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now. I've already gone over why Australia's laws had little to no impact. For one, a buyback program isn't going to go over very well here in the U.S. for a truckload of reasons.
So a massive education program and drive to change the mindset is the important thing? Making the NRA start promoting less gun ownership and responsibility in thinking and actions?
A 0 deaths from guns campaign running for decades to slowly steer the ship in another direction?
|
I think the problem with comparing the US to the UK/Australia is that the latter are island nations and it's relatively easy to stop illegal guns from being imported, that's not the case in the US.
Also, there might be half a billion guns in the US already, there's no feasible way to outlaw them and actually reach a comparable situation to what you have in either of these other countries, you'd have to do a nationwide door to door search, which probably wouldn't go down very well. Also it would massively incentivise gun running over the US-Mexico border.
|
I’m tell you all, Swiss Gun laws. Lets just adopt those and be done with it. Guns for anyone who wants them. Registered transfers of fire arms, even through private sales. Clear rules and regulations. It’s the perfect system for the US.
|
On November 10 2018 00:26 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 22:03 Simberto wrote:On November 09 2018 21:09 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 21:04 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 09 2018 20:56 superstartran wrote:
You might find that more moderate conservatives are willing to make compromise if you recognize the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment. That's half the problem. It's easy to see like 9 out of 10 posters here on the gun control side do not see the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment, self defense, etc; When you fundamentally do not believe in something, it makes it hard for the other side to actually take you seriously at all when you're saying 'we're not trying to take away your guns.'
Remember, the NRA only represents less than 1/5 of gun owners in America. It's the other 4/5 that you need to convince, of which the vast majority of posters here are terrible at since it's very easy to say things like 'you guys have the blood of children are you hands!' rather than 'Maybe we should come to the table and talk about what we can actually do.'
I think you don't know what compromise is. There's no point in compromise if everything believes the same thing to begin with. The legitimacy of the 2nd amendment in modern America is exactly what needs to be called into question imo. Having people come to the table to discuss that shouldn't be such a taboo idea. Its like saying that you refuse to talk about moral issues with anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is the word of God. ^ Hence why this is never going to get anywhere. Calling into question the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment already calls into question your actual motives. Not recognizing that citizens should have the right to firearms as a form of self-defense, particularly in rural America, is going to not win you over any favors when it comes to compromise. I've already laid out what SHOULD be done in terms of gun control. All which are very reasonable measures that most people would agree upon. What you're asking for is not just realistically impossible, but it also alienates gun owners big time, many who you need to get passage of reasonable gun control. But that is exactly the point. If you say "2nd amendment", there can not be any discussion. The question of whether and to what extent guns should be part of a contemporary society should not be based on what some people wrote down more than 200 years ago, but about what the situation is right now. If you can make a compelling argument about guns now, make that argument. Don't stand on the "2nd amendment". That is not an argument, it is dogma. If you say "guns are needed for self defense", that is an argument that people can actually debate, and there might be an open end. Because it is possible that someone could convince you that they are not necessary, and it is possible that you convince someone that they are necessary. That is a fruitful argument, that can lead to reasonable discussion. "2nd amendment says" does none of that. Because it is not actually an argument. The question is not really about what the 2nd amendment says, but about whether you accept the dogma as reason enough to comply. And saying that you must accept the 2nd amendment before even talking about this limits the discussion greatly, and the only argument is "200 years ago some people wrote this down". A rational society should approach policy on a rational basis, not on the basis of doctrine. (I am not saying that you should immediately throw out anything old, a lot of it is working well. But something should not be immune to criticism just because it has been that way for a long time. That is evidence that it might be useful and working, which can be used in a discussion, but not a reason to completely shut down the argument.) It is similar to discussing with someone that uses their holy book as a basis of an argument. "The quran says" or "the bible says" are not rational arguments that can be debated on a rational basis, and there is no discussion to be had here. You can either accept the moral authority of the book and comply, or not accept it, but you can still not actually change anyones mind about this. Do you not see how self-defeating this actually is? You want compromise but then you go after the one piece of legislation that guarantees the rights of gun owners. Whether or not the 2nd Amendment's interpretation is correct or not is not even what I am debating. What I am debating is your intent. You ask for people to compromise, but then put forth a completely unrealistic proposition. Even the most prominent gun control advocates currently scoff at the notion of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. Realistically rewriting or getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would take a herculean effort that is currently not realistically possible under current conditions. You need 2/3 of Congress to agree, which would take a miracle under the current political climate. Then you'd need 3/4 of the States to ratify said Amendment to make it a law. Even the current interpretation of the law is a relatively moderate position. Gun owners have a right to own guns, but that does not mean they are not subject to regulation. Heller vs DC 2008. That's about as moderate as a position as you are going to get. So even going after guns from a Supreme Court stance would take an almost herculean effort, as the Supreme Court has given a fairly reasonable and moderate position on the legality of private firearms. It's very easy to see your intent is not to debate what measures can we put in place to prevent gun violence, but how do we get rid of firearms as a whole in the United States of America. The fact that you are unrealistically arguing about changing/rewriting/removing the 2nd Amendment is evidence of that, especially since you've in no way suggested any kind of 'alternative' to the removal of the 2nd Amendment. TL;DR the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a very moderate position. You have a right to a firearm, you do not have a right to any type of firearm. It can be restricted. Going after the 2nd Amendment is really only proving my suspicions earlier that many of you are not really looking for compromise, but trying to argue for the complete abolishment of firearms in general.
What sort of compromise do you have in mind?
|
|
|
On November 10 2018 01:38 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 01:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 10 2018 01:23 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 01:13 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 00:26 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 22:03 Simberto wrote:On November 09 2018 21:09 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 21:04 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
I think you don't know what compromise is. There's no point in compromise if everything believes the same thing to begin with.
The legitimacy of the 2nd amendment in modern America is exactly what needs to be called into question imo. Having people come to the table to discuss that shouldn't be such a taboo idea.
Its like saying that you refuse to talk about moral issues with anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is the word of God. ^ Hence why this is never going to get anywhere. Calling into question the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment already calls into question your actual motives. Not recognizing that citizens should have the right to firearms as a form of self-defense, particularly in rural America, is going to not win you over any favors when it comes to compromise. I've already laid out what SHOULD be done in terms of gun control. All which are very reasonable measures that most people would agree upon. What you're asking for is not just realistically impossible, but it also alienates gun owners big time, many who you need to get passage of reasonable gun control. But that is exactly the point. If you say "2nd amendment", there can not be any discussion. The question of whether and to what extent guns should be part of a contemporary society should not be based on what some people wrote down more than 200 years ago, but about what the situation is right now. If you can make a compelling argument about guns now, make that argument. Don't stand on the "2nd amendment". That is not an argument, it is dogma. If you say "guns are needed for self defense", that is an argument that people can actually debate, and there might be an open end. Because it is possible that someone could convince you that they are not necessary, and it is possible that you convince someone that they are necessary. That is a fruitful argument, that can lead to reasonable discussion. "2nd amendment says" does none of that. Because it is not actually an argument. The question is not really about what the 2nd amendment says, but about whether you accept the dogma as reason enough to comply. And saying that you must accept the 2nd amendment before even talking about this limits the discussion greatly, and the only argument is "200 years ago some people wrote this down". A rational society should approach policy on a rational basis, not on the basis of doctrine. (I am not saying that you should immediately throw out anything old, a lot of it is working well. But something should not be immune to criticism just because it has been that way for a long time. That is evidence that it might be useful and working, which can be used in a discussion, but not a reason to completely shut down the argument.) It is similar to discussing with someone that uses their holy book as a basis of an argument. "The quran says" or "the bible says" are not rational arguments that can be debated on a rational basis, and there is no discussion to be had here. You can either accept the moral authority of the book and comply, or not accept it, but you can still not actually change anyones mind about this. Do you not see how self-defeating this actually is? You want compromise but then you go after the one piece of legislation that guarantees the rights of gun owners. Whether or not the 2nd Amendment's interpretation is correct or not is not even what I am debating. What I am debating is your intent. You ask for people to compromise, but then put forth a completely unrealistic proposition. Even the most prominent gun control advocates currently scoff at the notion of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. Realistically rewriting or getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would take a herculean effort that is currently not realistically possible under current conditions. You need 2/3 of Congress to agree, which would take a miracle under the current political climate. Then you'd need 3/4 of the States to ratify said Amendment to make it a law. Even the current interpretation of the law is a relatively moderate position. Gun owners have a right to own guns, but that does not mean they are not subject to regulation. Heller vs DC 2008. That's about as moderate as a position as you are going to get. So even going after guns from a Supreme Court stance would take an almost herculean effort, as the Supreme Court has given a fairly reasonable and moderate position on the legality of private firearms. It's very easy to see your intent is not to debate what measures can we put in place to prevent gun violence, but how do we get rid of firearms as a whole in the United States of America. The fact that you are unrealistically arguing about changing/rewriting/removing the 2nd Amendment is evidence of that, especially since you've in no way suggested any kind of 'alternative' to the removal of the 2nd Amendment. I don't understand why you think its not possible to debate measures for preventing gun violence whilst also debating the validity and relevance of gun culture. The fact is that in this thread most people are agreed on what would be good legislation to put in place to prevent gun violence - mandatory waiting periods etc. - We all think that these things are good ideas. When I have suggested other legislation those posts are ignored in favour of this ranting about intentions. This would be an interesting discussion to have. Another interesting debate is why that legislation won't happen (a minority of weapon owners/sellers with extreme views/bad proposed legislation and overreach are good candidates - as well as those in the middle who own guns and would like to seem reasonable but actually don't really want any gun control legislation at all). Blaming people who don't want to live in a society that is saturated with deadly weapons for the fact that no-one will entertain the possibility of getting rid of the weapons isn't a particularly coherent way to go about it. How is this ranting? Your side says 'we should compromise' but don't even recognize the validity of a very moderate position on guns in general. Private ownership is allowed, however firearms can be regulated. If you want to get rid of all guns just state that is your position, rather than trying to moral grandstand and say that 'we aren't here to take away your guns.' There's no moral grandstanding here ( I actually said nothing about morality and asked someone above not to make the moral argument - so I have no idea at all where this came from lol), and I've made my position clear many times. In the short term some legislation needs to be put in place to curb the excessive levels of gun violence. In the long term I'd like to see the second amendment revoked because I don't believe gun rights should be a thing. Does this mean I'm coming for your guns? No. For a start nothing I say or do can have any effect on your guns, because I'm not in America. I'm just stating what I believe in and trying to have a discussion about it. Not talking about you specifically; talking about others who like to moral grandstand as though they are taking a moderate position on firearms, then turn around and say that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed or done away with despite the fact that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is very reasonable and moderate. How about we do what Australia did, how would you feel about that? Australia is very different from our country. Stating that would be like me saying why don't we just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now. I've already gone over why Australia's laws had little to no impact. For one, a buyback program isn't going to go over very well here in the U.S. for a truckload of reasons.
...Why don't you just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now? I don't think that argument went the way you wanted it to.
|
On November 10 2018 02:13 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 01:38 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 10 2018 01:23 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 01:13 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 00:26 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 22:03 Simberto wrote:On November 09 2018 21:09 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
^
Hence why this is never going to get anywhere. Calling into question the legitimacy of the 2nd Amendment already calls into question your actual motives. Not recognizing that citizens should have the right to firearms as a form of self-defense, particularly in rural America, is going to not win you over any favors when it comes to compromise. I've already laid out what SHOULD be done in terms of gun control. All which are very reasonable measures that most people would agree upon. What you're asking for is not just realistically impossible, but it also alienates gun owners big time, many who you need to get passage of reasonable gun control.
But that is exactly the point. If you say "2nd amendment", there can not be any discussion. The question of whether and to what extent guns should be part of a contemporary society should not be based on what some people wrote down more than 200 years ago, but about what the situation is right now. If you can make a compelling argument about guns now, make that argument. Don't stand on the "2nd amendment". That is not an argument, it is dogma. If you say "guns are needed for self defense", that is an argument that people can actually debate, and there might be an open end. Because it is possible that someone could convince you that they are not necessary, and it is possible that you convince someone that they are necessary. That is a fruitful argument, that can lead to reasonable discussion. "2nd amendment says" does none of that. Because it is not actually an argument. The question is not really about what the 2nd amendment says, but about whether you accept the dogma as reason enough to comply. And saying that you must accept the 2nd amendment before even talking about this limits the discussion greatly, and the only argument is "200 years ago some people wrote this down". A rational society should approach policy on a rational basis, not on the basis of doctrine. (I am not saying that you should immediately throw out anything old, a lot of it is working well. But something should not be immune to criticism just because it has been that way for a long time. That is evidence that it might be useful and working, which can be used in a discussion, but not a reason to completely shut down the argument.) It is similar to discussing with someone that uses their holy book as a basis of an argument. "The quran says" or "the bible says" are not rational arguments that can be debated on a rational basis, and there is no discussion to be had here. You can either accept the moral authority of the book and comply, or not accept it, but you can still not actually change anyones mind about this. Do you not see how self-defeating this actually is? You want compromise but then you go after the one piece of legislation that guarantees the rights of gun owners. Whether or not the 2nd Amendment's interpretation is correct or not is not even what I am debating. What I am debating is your intent. You ask for people to compromise, but then put forth a completely unrealistic proposition. Even the most prominent gun control advocates currently scoff at the notion of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. Realistically rewriting or getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would take a herculean effort that is currently not realistically possible under current conditions. You need 2/3 of Congress to agree, which would take a miracle under the current political climate. Then you'd need 3/4 of the States to ratify said Amendment to make it a law. Even the current interpretation of the law is a relatively moderate position. Gun owners have a right to own guns, but that does not mean they are not subject to regulation. Heller vs DC 2008. That's about as moderate as a position as you are going to get. So even going after guns from a Supreme Court stance would take an almost herculean effort, as the Supreme Court has given a fairly reasonable and moderate position on the legality of private firearms. It's very easy to see your intent is not to debate what measures can we put in place to prevent gun violence, but how do we get rid of firearms as a whole in the United States of America. The fact that you are unrealistically arguing about changing/rewriting/removing the 2nd Amendment is evidence of that, especially since you've in no way suggested any kind of 'alternative' to the removal of the 2nd Amendment. I don't understand why you think its not possible to debate measures for preventing gun violence whilst also debating the validity and relevance of gun culture. The fact is that in this thread most people are agreed on what would be good legislation to put in place to prevent gun violence - mandatory waiting periods etc. - We all think that these things are good ideas. When I have suggested other legislation those posts are ignored in favour of this ranting about intentions. This would be an interesting discussion to have. Another interesting debate is why that legislation won't happen (a minority of weapon owners/sellers with extreme views/bad proposed legislation and overreach are good candidates - as well as those in the middle who own guns and would like to seem reasonable but actually don't really want any gun control legislation at all). Blaming people who don't want to live in a society that is saturated with deadly weapons for the fact that no-one will entertain the possibility of getting rid of the weapons isn't a particularly coherent way to go about it. How is this ranting? Your side says 'we should compromise' but don't even recognize the validity of a very moderate position on guns in general. Private ownership is allowed, however firearms can be regulated. If you want to get rid of all guns just state that is your position, rather than trying to moral grandstand and say that 'we aren't here to take away your guns.' There's no moral grandstanding here ( I actually said nothing about morality and asked someone above not to make the moral argument - so I have no idea at all where this came from lol), and I've made my position clear many times. In the short term some legislation needs to be put in place to curb the excessive levels of gun violence. In the long term I'd like to see the second amendment revoked because I don't believe gun rights should be a thing. Does this mean I'm coming for your guns? No. For a start nothing I say or do can have any effect on your guns, because I'm not in America. I'm just stating what I believe in and trying to have a discussion about it. Not talking about you specifically; talking about others who like to moral grandstand as though they are taking a moderate position on firearms, then turn around and say that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed or done away with despite the fact that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is very reasonable and moderate. How about we do what Australia did, how would you feel about that? Australia is very different from our country. Stating that would be like me saying why don't we just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now. I've already gone over why Australia's laws had little to no impact. For one, a buyback program isn't going to go over very well here in the U.S. for a truckload of reasons. ...Why don't you just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now? I don't think that argument went the way you wanted it to.
It went perfectly how I wanted it to. Using someone else's laws and superficially applying it across the board isn't going to just magically work.
It also exposes the fact that people aren't really interested in maintaining gun rights even though it's very possible to bring gun violence down and reduce mass shootings without taking away guns. People just want to push their agenda of taking guns away.
On November 10 2018 02:11 JimmiC wrote:
It's not like you need the second amendment to have guns. We have no such thing and we have lots of guns, they just happen to be mostly hunting rifles and shotguns, and it is much harder to get anything else. And the anything else are registered and controlled.
Other than of course the smuggled guns from down south.
The current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is in line with many other countries that have moderate stances have private firearm ownership, yet don't have the same issues that we do in regards to mass shootings. There's nothing radical about it at all; attacking it is just demonstrating that you have no real agenda other than taking away someone's right to own firearms, which plays right into the NRA's hands.
|
On November 10 2018 02:22 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 02:13 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2018 01:38 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On November 10 2018 01:23 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 01:13 superstartran wrote:On November 10 2018 01:01 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 10 2018 00:26 superstartran wrote:On November 09 2018 22:03 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
But that is exactly the point. If you say "2nd amendment", there can not be any discussion. The question of whether and to what extent guns should be part of a contemporary society should not be based on what some people wrote down more than 200 years ago, but about what the situation is right now. If you can make a compelling argument about guns now, make that argument. Don't stand on the "2nd amendment". That is not an argument, it is dogma.
If you say "guns are needed for self defense", that is an argument that people can actually debate, and there might be an open end. Because it is possible that someone could convince you that they are not necessary, and it is possible that you convince someone that they are necessary. That is a fruitful argument, that can lead to reasonable discussion.
"2nd amendment says" does none of that. Because it is not actually an argument. The question is not really about what the 2nd amendment says, but about whether you accept the dogma as reason enough to comply. And saying that you must accept the 2nd amendment before even talking about this limits the discussion greatly, and the only argument is "200 years ago some people wrote this down". A rational society should approach policy on a rational basis, not on the basis of doctrine. (I am not saying that you should immediately throw out anything old, a lot of it is working well. But something should not be immune to criticism just because it has been that way for a long time. That is evidence that it might be useful and working, which can be used in a discussion, but not a reason to completely shut down the argument.)
It is similar to discussing with someone that uses their holy book as a basis of an argument. "The quran says" or "the bible says" are not rational arguments that can be debated on a rational basis, and there is no discussion to be had here. You can either accept the moral authority of the book and comply, or not accept it, but you can still not actually change anyones mind about this. Do you not see how self-defeating this actually is? You want compromise but then you go after the one piece of legislation that guarantees the rights of gun owners. Whether or not the 2nd Amendment's interpretation is correct or not is not even what I am debating. What I am debating is your intent. You ask for people to compromise, but then put forth a completely unrealistic proposition. Even the most prominent gun control advocates currently scoff at the notion of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. Realistically rewriting or getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would take a herculean effort that is currently not realistically possible under current conditions. You need 2/3 of Congress to agree, which would take a miracle under the current political climate. Then you'd need 3/4 of the States to ratify said Amendment to make it a law. Even the current interpretation of the law is a relatively moderate position. Gun owners have a right to own guns, but that does not mean they are not subject to regulation. Heller vs DC 2008. That's about as moderate as a position as you are going to get. So even going after guns from a Supreme Court stance would take an almost herculean effort, as the Supreme Court has given a fairly reasonable and moderate position on the legality of private firearms. It's very easy to see your intent is not to debate what measures can we put in place to prevent gun violence, but how do we get rid of firearms as a whole in the United States of America. The fact that you are unrealistically arguing about changing/rewriting/removing the 2nd Amendment is evidence of that, especially since you've in no way suggested any kind of 'alternative' to the removal of the 2nd Amendment. I don't understand why you think its not possible to debate measures for preventing gun violence whilst also debating the validity and relevance of gun culture. The fact is that in this thread most people are agreed on what would be good legislation to put in place to prevent gun violence - mandatory waiting periods etc. - We all think that these things are good ideas. When I have suggested other legislation those posts are ignored in favour of this ranting about intentions. This would be an interesting discussion to have. Another interesting debate is why that legislation won't happen (a minority of weapon owners/sellers with extreme views/bad proposed legislation and overreach are good candidates - as well as those in the middle who own guns and would like to seem reasonable but actually don't really want any gun control legislation at all). Blaming people who don't want to live in a society that is saturated with deadly weapons for the fact that no-one will entertain the possibility of getting rid of the weapons isn't a particularly coherent way to go about it. How is this ranting? Your side says 'we should compromise' but don't even recognize the validity of a very moderate position on guns in general. Private ownership is allowed, however firearms can be regulated. If you want to get rid of all guns just state that is your position, rather than trying to moral grandstand and say that 'we aren't here to take away your guns.' There's no moral grandstanding here ( I actually said nothing about morality and asked someone above not to make the moral argument - so I have no idea at all where this came from lol), and I've made my position clear many times. In the short term some legislation needs to be put in place to curb the excessive levels of gun violence. In the long term I'd like to see the second amendment revoked because I don't believe gun rights should be a thing. Does this mean I'm coming for your guns? No. For a start nothing I say or do can have any effect on your guns, because I'm not in America. I'm just stating what I believe in and trying to have a discussion about it. Not talking about you specifically; talking about others who like to moral grandstand as though they are taking a moderate position on firearms, then turn around and say that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed or done away with despite the fact that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is very reasonable and moderate. How about we do what Australia did, how would you feel about that? Australia is very different from our country. Stating that would be like me saying why don't we just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now. I've already gone over why Australia's laws had little to no impact. For one, a buyback program isn't going to go over very well here in the U.S. for a truckload of reasons. ...Why don't you just do what Switzerland does with it's near 0 murder rate and 0 mass shootings for almost 20 years now? I don't think that argument went the way you wanted it to. It went perfectly how I wanted it to. Using someone else's laws and superficially applying it across the board isn't going to just magically work.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you mean?
Every first world country who have adopted these laws have seen massive decrease in gun violence (for obvious reasons. Difficult to have gun violence without guns). The reason people like to bring up Australia is because, despite what some people like to think, they were exactly like America is now. They had a problem with gun violence and mass murders, and conservatives kept yelling that they shouldn't do anything because "Their country has a different culture, it just won't work". Politicians bet their careers pushing these legislations through..and guess what? It did work. Gun violence reduced drastically, murder rate reduced quite a bit, and mass shootings are now basically non existent. Can people still buy guns for hunting and/or self protection in case you live in a rural area with 2 hour ride to the nearest police office? You bet.
The problem isn't culture. You're not as different as you'd like to think. The problem is willpower. As long as people (and especially politicians who by now are largely ignoring the majority of the people's will on this subject) don't want to do anything because <insert excuse here>, nothing will happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
