|
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 15 2018 12:05 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 11:22 superstartran wrote:...
Ah yes, this idea that other countries are superior once again because we somehow have a 'fetish.'
Part of the reason why we value the Constitution is because it protects individual freedoms not just from elites in government and society, but also protects individual rights from the mobs. Technically in countries like the UK, Freedom of Speech actually isn't guaranteed. Good example would be the CNN Jim Acosta situation here in the United States with President Trump. There's a very good chance President Trump and the White House is going to lose this battle, and quite badly I might add. Somewhere like the UK? Government can quite easily suppress the press very easily; why? Because Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press isn't actually a thing there (and by a thing, it isn't explicitly a guaranteed right in their Constitution). Are you claiming that there is a broad systemic issue with the practical application of freedom of speech in the UK? If not this entire argument is, once again, missing the point. "Explicitly guaranteed rights in the Constitution" are not the only way to in practice end up with a country with appropriate liberties and freedoms. Show nested quote +In terms of a broader context, Danglers and me very likely see eye to eye on the idea that we shouldn't be kow towing to the morality of the majority, because sometimes the majority doesn't actually know better. It's true that you should't automatically bow to the morality of the majority - but that is not, in as of itself, a justification for not doing so. Show nested quote +The Founding Fathers didn't setup a perfect system, but it certainly prevents nonsensical knee jerk reactions. It also prevents changes made with more solid grounding.
1) Yes; the UK in principle does have issues with freedom of speech, because it actually doesn't have freedom of speech. Depending on the severity of hate speech and such, you can be prosecuted in the UK for doing so. That's essentially the moral majority enforcing an idea that you must speak a certain way or we as a society will punish you. I'd prefer not to live in a society like that. In the United States, you're free to hate all you want and say what you want with very few specific exceptions (i.e. student's in a school environment, actively calling for draft dodging during a time of war)
2) The Constitution works slow on purpose. It was their belief that the Federal Government's role is not to dictate or play the moral police. It's built this way to prevent both elites and mobs from having too much influence over any situation or time period. It is slow moving, but generally does work. Meanwhile, in systems like the UK, and others who have true parliamentary sovereignty, yes, you can move quicker, but that can also be bad too.
Most of this comes down to our fundamental views on how government should work, but saying we have a 'fetish' is silly and quite honestly insulting.
|
On November 15 2018 10:59 JimmiC wrote:
Danglars I think you spend more time posting about why you should not or will not trust someone then anything else.
I’m sure we’ve all profited by this recital of why to distrust my distrust.
How much of this European ideal of kissing the chains that bind them is self-aware performance versus sincere belief? Free speech, yet fine people for bad jokes. Individual rights but take away the right of self defense of person, family, and property with a gun. It’s positively Orwellian to choose safety and security above liberty, and double back once again to call it liberty and freedom. This has got to be some kind of corollary to the “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe” rule.
|
On November 15 2018 12:08 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 11:22 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 10:33 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 15 2018 10:22 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 10:12 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 07:58 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 07:43 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 06:23 JimmiC wrote:
I think you are only supposed to be respectful if you wish people to act that way to you. And it seems like you are more interested in fighting right now than discussing. You are strangely obsessed with proving that this 475 number is wrong. Who really cares if it 475 or 100, both are far too much, it is strange that you are so stuck on proving this number wrong. If the number was truly 475 would that drastically or even slightly change your opinions?
It is super odd to me because your beliefs are not very different from those on "the other side" it is a imaginary war you are fighting.
These all seem pretty sensible to me, why are you not supporting politicians that support these measures?
"I believe in gun control laws such as...
1) Banning Bumpstocks
2) Firearm Registration
3) Red Flag Laws
4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval)
5) Expanded Background Checks
6) Required Firearm Education Classes
7) Wait Times
" 1) Someone started out by using clearly fraudulent numbers. This has already been proven to be true. This whole entire thread has been about mass shootings in the context of an armed person(s) attacking people in a public area like a school, park, bar, etc; Said poster tried to pass it off as true. This is highly dishonest It isn't merely just about the numbers, it's the fact that the poster attempted to pass those highly inflated numbers in a way to prove their point. That's where I'm calling bullshit. 2) You yourself along with other posters then attempted to mock me, saying "I made shit up" and that "I watch too much TV and Movies" then proceeded to factually be proven wrong. Plainsix tried to claim that there are no police shootings within that database despite the database itself saying that there were, then I had to literally comb through it and find one just to prove it. You then tried to tell me that there was no way anyone could have possibly defended their home against multiple assailants, and I proved you wrong with three examples. 3) It's ok to have an honest debate about many things. What you're asking me to do though is to accept the fact that you, Plainsix, and others in this thread have stated factually incorrect things, supported an assertion that was intellectually dishonest, and then now you're telling me that I need to trust your side that you're not out to get rid of guns, when I caught a good chunk of you bold faced supporting a highly dishonest BBC article. On November 15 2018 02:48 Plansix wrote:
I would argue that in the 1990s and pre-9/11 there was better gun control in the form of better enforcement of existing gun laws. One of the things that took place after the now legendary Brady Bill and the assault rifle ban of 1994 was the republican congress moving resources away from the federal agencies that would police illegal fire arms sales. Including the FBI and ATF. And a adjustment in regulations over how the ATF is allowed to trace fire arms and their sales, including a prohibiting them from using computers for a number of tasks. The best change to the current system would be to fund those agencies better and remove restrictive regulations that no longer make sense in the digital era. When the assault weapons ban expired gun violence continued to go down. So there goes your theory that gun control was "better" in the 1990s and pre-9/11. In fact, gun homicide and gun related crimes in the 90s was far worse than it is today. And that's despite a massive uptick in the number of firearms per Americans. The theory that gun control can alone influence homicide rates is silly. I wouldn't want gun control alone, I think impacting marketing of guns and violence the way they did with Cig's is needed. I've said it many times you have ignored it. If you go back to the first time I asked the question about home invasions it was around the "over 3 fatalities" you were talking about and I put the over under at 1.5. You brought up one that surprised me but I have not seen others. As I have stated over and over, I don't think it a real statistically relevant event. That you found 3 articles, one that fit my initial question does not make me factually wrong. Not to mention you are missing the whole point of what most (notice how I didn't say all) people are saying to you, no we don't things guns are the only problem, yes we understand American culture is different, and no we don't think if you made guns illegal tomorrow all gun violence would stop. We are saying many changes need to happen if you want the problem to decrease. Your suggestions are all worthwhile and would be supported. It is worth looking at what other countries do because they all have wildly different cultures from each other and yet they have all had varying level of success. And finally stop looking to pick fights about the insignificant parts of people arguments and the minor details. Hell you want gun control. You have posted the rules you agree with shockingly you are on the same side on the issue. You just have for some reason been convinced that people looking for gun control are the boogieman. Are you the boogieman? Let's go back and see what you posted in your highly condescending manner, that can easily be seen as highly disrespectful. On November 13 2018 10:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 13 2018 10:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:05 JimmiC wrote:
You never answered me on how how many multiple intruder shot by defense of a homeowner, multi fatalities there has been ever.
And you never the article on why Switzerland is actually different from the states, and why you using in as your example is misinformed. So I would go calling out others, you are as guilty, at least, as anyone for avoiding arguments. So you want me to comb through a data base that purposely hides that information and doesn't make it easy to sort through what is a home invasion/self-defense/etc.? Ok. Let me just sort through this highly biased database that many news outlets source their numbers, and so conveniently hide the fact that gang warfare, home invasions, police shootings, self-defense, etc. are all a part of their 'mass shooting' numbers. In regards to the Switzerland argument, you should go back like 15-20 pages and read through it yourself. I'm not gonna rehash that argument. I did read the whole article it was very enlightening, but I guess if you know everything you don't have to.... It is not because of the database it is because you use it as a example that not only might happen, but rather something that happens from time to time. I would be shocked if it has happened more then once ever. I think you watch way to much T.V and movies. Let's go back to the original conversation 1) The data base includes far too wide of a parameter to even be considered accurate. It involves far too many other types of crimes, accidental shootings, lawful defenses, etc. to be used. I merely used certain examples such as police shootings versus multiple assailants or lawful defense of one's home against multiple assailants. 2) You responded in pro-typical gun control manner essentially trying to mock me by stating that there's no way that someone could ever defend their home from multiple suspects, and that I've been watching too much TV and movies (which is easily seen as an insult by anyone). 3) You then back track and state "well not all of those events fit the criteria of the database", despite the fact that they prove that people have defended their homes versus multiple suspects with firearms in a lawful manner. 4) Now you want to go and say "I'm nitpicking at details" and need to be more respectful. Why should I respect you, or anyone else who clearly got caught with their pants on the ground either using or supporting completely fraudulent data? Mind you, there was NO reason to support that data. It took me literally 15 seconds to figure out how much buffoonery there was behind BBC's shitastic journalism within that article. Either someone was attempting to inflate mass shooting numbers to make the US look like some hell hole, or someone did not do their due diligence in reporting the news. This wasn't like it takes a rocket scientist to figure that out either, it should have been immediately obvious and many of you should have called out the serious errors of said database in attempting to call those events 'mass shootings.' Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. your last paragraph is basically proof that you dont really give a shit about making changes at all. i mean, this has been noted multiple times in this thread already. you cant pretend to be an advocate for gun control but then "not come to the compromise table" because apparently we secretly want to ban all guns. what an absolute load of shit. even if that scenario were true, our intention would be to reduce death by firearms. banning all firearms would be a possible method, not the intention. the reality is that you cosplay as a gun-control advocate and then like jimmic said, start arguing against semantics and minor details to derail the point or try and destroy the credibility of everyone against you in order to make our arguments seem worthless. whether or not the death stat plansix used, or any stat for firearm deaths, was 100% accurate isnt the issue here. the issue here is that whatever number you come up with is that many deaths too many. whatever solution is agreed upon will 100% result in gun owners having to make a sacrifice but unfortunately, from what i can see, you have either of the following viewpoints: 1. you dont actually want further gun control. you just say you do and then proceed to shoot every argument down. 2. you genuinely do want gun control, but you dont think the current number of deaths is statistically relevant enough for gun owners to make some sacrifices, and so you shoot every argument down. either way there is a clear lack of urgency on your part because you have clearly decided in your mind the value of the lives lost to firearms and calculated that it isnt worth making an effort to make changes. if you were feeling the urgency and desperation of the situation, you wouldnt be sitting here arguing semantics; youd accept that some changes will have to be made (probably forcefully and despite the disapproval of hardcore gun owners) for the sake of your country. youre the one arguing in bad faith Questioning people's credibility when they are being dishonest or refuse to admit said article is at bare minimum poor and shoddy journalism is not semantics. If you cannot be fair and objective, why should I even have a conversation with you in the first place?Notice how all of you want to dismiss the argument completely, and attack my posting history rather than my argument. The argument is that said article is completely shoddy work; it's biased, and it is clear that the author of the article wants to push a gun control agenda. Several posters here came to the defense of the sources of the article despite the fact that I actually in fact proved them wrong from a factual standpoint (There are no police shootings in that database, there are no self-defense cases vs multiple assailants, shifting definitions of mass shootings to fit argument etc.) Rather than actually debating the merits of my argument or conceding that they might just be wrong, now I'm being branded as someone who argues semantics, rather than someone who might just actually have a point after all. Good job. Just further demonstrate why so many conservatives and even gun owning democrats don't vote for gun control. dont act like its the first time youve heard us calling you out for arguing semantics. it isnt. and i dont disagree that inaccurate information is not a good basis for an argument. what you dont seem to understand is the importance of the inaccuracy in context of the current topic. you made it your mission to destroy the credibility of an article not worth arguing about. like i said, the exact figure is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. it only becomes relevant if you want to calculate whether or not you have to actually give a shit whether people are dying at all. this brings me to my last point, youre either purposefully shooting down arguments with derailments and nitpicking, or you dont think the actual number is big enough for you to give a fuck about making actual changes. why dont you pick an imaginary number and tell us what that number has to be for you to accept that changes have to be made in desperate fashion? How is purposely and knowingly using inaccurate information not a sign of severe dishonesty, thus a major detractor in an honest debate? It's not just about the article; the article itself is representative of a large portion of the liberal left. There is no purpose to using the numbers they used in that article other than to push an agenda, especially with how they managed to leave out key information within their article. This is clear from the get go. Ergo, anyone using or supporting such an article or information from said article is supporting a piece of writing that is agenda driven, and not based on fair and objective facts. Said people can no longer really can be trusted, especially when all it took was an internet poster like me literally 30 seconds to comb through and see all the multiple holes in those statistics. And I don't even major in math. On November 15 2018 11:08 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 07:43 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 06:23 JimmiC wrote:
I think you are only supposed to be respectful if you wish people to act that way to you. And it seems like you are more interested in fighting right now than discussing. You are strangely obsessed with proving that this 475 number is wrong. Who really cares if it 475 or 100, both are far too much, it is strange that you are so stuck on proving this number wrong. If the number was truly 475 would that drastically or even slightly change your opinions?
It is super odd to me because your beliefs are not very different from those on "the other side" it is a imaginary war you are fighting.
These all seem pretty sensible to me, why are you not supporting politicians that support these measures?
"I believe in gun control laws such as...
1) Banning Bumpstocks
2) Firearm Registration
3) Red Flag Laws
4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval)
5) Expanded Background Checks
6) Required Firearm Education Classes
7) Wait Times
" 1) Someone started out by using clearly fraudulent numbers. This has already been proven to be true. This whole entire thread has been about mass shootings in the context of an armed person(s) attacking people in a public area like a school, park, bar, etc; Said poster tried to pass it off as true. This is highly dishonest It isn't merely just about the numbers, it's the fact that the poster attempted to pass those highly inflated numbers in a way to prove their point. That's where I'm calling bullshit. 2) You yourself along with other posters then attempted to mock me, saying "I made shit up" and that "I watch too much TV and Movies" then proceeded to factually be proven wrong. Plainsix tried to claim that there are no police shootings within that database despite the database itself saying that there were, then I had to literally comb through it and find one just to prove it. You then tried to tell me that there was no way anyone could have possibly defended their home against multiple assailants, and I proved you wrong with three examples. 3) It's ok to have an honest debate about many things. What you're asking me to do though is to accept the fact that you, Plainsix, and others in this thread have stated factually incorrect things, supported an assertion that was intellectually dishonest, and then now you're telling me that I need to trust your side that you're not out to get rid of guns, when I caught a good chunk of you bold faced supporting a highly dishonest BBC article. This is after I was literally insulted too rofl. But I'm supposed to now be nice? Kick rocks bro. On November 15 2018 02:48 Plansix wrote:
I would argue that in the 1990s and pre-9/11 there was better gun control in the form of better enforcement of existing gun laws. One of the things that took place after the now legendary Brady Bill and the assault rifle ban of 1994 was the republican congress moving resources away from the federal agencies that would police illegal fire arms sales. Including the FBI and ATF. And a adjustment in regulations over how the ATF is allowed to trace fire arms and their sales, including a prohibiting them from using computers for a number of tasks. The best change to the current system would be to fund those agencies better and remove restrictive regulations that no longer make sense in the digital era. When the assault weapons ban expired gun violence continued to go down. So there goes your theory that gun control was "better" in the 1990s and pre-9/11. In fact, gun homicide and gun related crimes in the 90s was far worse than it is today. And that's despite a massive uptick in the number of firearms per Americans. The theory that gun control can alone influence homicide rates is silly. I don't know why you are so angry, I'm guessing it is because your logic is flawed, because as mad as you are now, I made a post complimenting you earlier for how discussing your point. But now you think because a number in some article plansix quoted may have inflated numbers you some how got check mate? Your whole argument about why not to take the steps you think are needed is because of slippery slope. This is literally a logical fallacy. Doing these things does not open some magical door to other things. All it does is do those things. Now if there is a bunch of success with those things people might want to do more, or they might think it is good enough. Or it could be a complete failure and be a win for 0 regulation. But to be fearful of doing what you think is necessary or would help might mean you think it would be effective but not fully and encourage more. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slope It's not a slippery slope because I've proven that at bare minimum four of you have either used, or supported a piece of writing that is under most academic journalistic standards dishonest. It is significant that you are arguing or utilizing false/dishonest information, otherwise this debate over your intentions would have never occurred. Intentions DO matter in debates like this. You're asking me to vote for gun control. That's fine. But do it in an honest way. People are more likely to support your cause if you don't flat out lie. On November 15 2018 11:13 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 09:36 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 09:05 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. I think in several cases you are mistaking "flexible" for "not honest". Speaking for myself, I find your country's overriding fetish for its constitution bizarre and counterproductive, and I'd be perfectly okay with a significant revision or nullification of the Second Amendment - in fact that would be my preferred solution. That does not mean, however, that I'm not willing to accept a considerably more moderate outcome - it is not my preferred solution but it will do. I'm getting the distinct impression that you would take the first objective and use it as an excuse to not compromise with me, even when I am advocating for the second, instead of recognising that all it means is that I'm willing to compromise on my ideal solution. 'Overriding fetish' You mean the document that prevents significant abuses of individual rights? Rather than allowing the loud parts of society as a whole to have a knee jerk reaction to something and shovel legislation down people's throats, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created to prevent nonsense like that from occurring. On November 15 2018 10:55 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 09:05 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. I think in several cases you are mistaking "flexible" for "not honest". Speaking for myself, I find your country's overriding fetish for its constitution bizarre and counterproductive, and I'd be perfectly okay with a significant revision or nullification of the Second Amendment, along with laws of similar flavour to those in other countries - in fact that would be my preferred solution. That does not mean, however, that I'm not willing to accept a considerably more moderate outcome - it is not my preferred solution but it will do. I'm getting the distinct impression that you would take the first objective and use it as an excuse to not compromise with me, even when I am advocating for the second, instead of recognising that all it means is that I'm willing to compromise on my ideal solution. Superstartran has beaten me to it, but to declare the constitution an “overriding fetish” and then hope to convince some fool that your goal of compromise is real and not imagined ... it’s just fantastical. Yes, the only reason we can still debate the limits of this freedom is the constitution’s enduring legacy and narrow Supreme Court victories. Otherwise, tyranny would’ve had its legacy on the right of effective self defense a very long time ago. Few things indeed will engender more distrust by my side of yours than declaring it a fetish. You have both missed the point. In my country (and in many others), we care about individual rights, liberty, safety and so forth. We do not have a fetish for the piece of paper they're written down on (or for not modifying their formulation to maintain reasonable intentions as situations change, or for arguing about how to interpret the intent of people who made their decisions centuries past), and we seem to do just fine in terms of maintaining a democratic society with enlightened values and liberties despite that. Ah yes, this idea that other countries are superior once again because we somehow have a 'fetish.' Part of the reason why we value the Constitution is because it protects individual freedoms not just from elites in government and society, but also protects individual rights from the mobs. Technically in countries like the UK, Freedom of Speech actually isn't guaranteed. Good example would be the CNN Jim Acosta situation here in the United States with President Trump. There's a very good chance President Trump and the White House is going to lose this battle, and quite badly I might add. Somewhere like the UK? Government can quite easily suppress the press very easily; why? Because Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press isn't actually a thing there (and by a thing, it isn't explicitly a guaranteed right in their Constitution, which is actually a weird unofficial constitution consisting of multiple documents). In terms of a broader context, Danglers and me very likely see eye to eye on the idea that we shouldn't be kow towing to the morality of the majority, because sometimes the majority doesn't actually know better. The Founding Fathers didn't setup a perfect system, but it certainly prevents nonsensical knee jerk reactions. your response to my posts is just further evidence that you tunnel vision on retarded points and shit up the thread by arguing something stupid. ive already stated that the accuracy of the article isnt really important if you consider the point the posters are trying to make. you are completely ignoring that point and are arguing against things that do nothing but distract people and take arguments off on a tangent. all youre doing is confirming what ive called you out on
Ok, so let's repeat
Argument 1 : More firearms means more homicides
Proven false. In the United States from the 80s all the way up till now, the gun homicide rate and gun crime rate has gone drastically down despite a massive increase in guns per person within the United States. This has been an ongoing trend now for pretty close to 40 years now. Now, I'm not making the argument that more guns = more safe. That's kind of a silly argument to make. I'm merely pointing out that a higher number of firearms does not necessarily correlate with a higher number of gun murders, which lots of you love to point out for some reason.
Evidence for Argument 1 : https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
Only goes to 2008, but you get the idea. You can look up more by looking at FBI statistics.
Argument 2 : Gun Control Laws would prevent mass shooters
I'd argue half false; States for sure need to pass Red Flag laws, however mass shooters is really more of a mental health issue than a gun issue. The recent incident in California proves that even with all the laws in the world, it didn't prevent a mass shooting.
Argument 3 : There is no reason to own an AR-15 for self-defense
Pretty sure this one has been thoroughly debunked, but just for clarification, a .223 round is less likely to over penetrate once it strikes its first target. The AR-15 also because of being a low recoil center fire Rifle will be less likely to miss, and you have more chances to strike a target because of it's semi-automatic nature.
Evidence Argument 3 :http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?id=14&option=com_content&task=view
Argument 4 : Just pass Switzerland/Australia/UK Gun Laws and it's fine!
For one, the UK/Switzerland/Australia are culturally very different, geographically much smaller, and just overall different places than America. Switzerland is closer to us in that they do value firearms in the aspect of preventing a foreign power from taking over. I think the United States can learn alot from adopting a similar firearm culture that emphasizes safety and training at very young ages. However, I don't think you'd want Switzerland Gun Laws across the board in the United States in areas like New Orleans, or the Bronx. Collateral damage in gang wars is already a thing, so making fully automatic weapons legal across the entire nation would be uh..... not very smart.
Not to mention, people like to parrot UK and Australia as shining examples of how they solved gun violence. They never had an issue with gun violence in the first place because of how they historically developed.
Evidence for impact on Australia Gun Control Laws :
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362
Edited last part because I posted the wrong source, lul.
So what do you got for me bro? Because all you've done is attack me without actually responding to my arguments at all. All you guys do is state "But compared to 1st world Countries!" Last I checked the UK/Australia/etc. doesn't have places like New Orleans, Oakland, Memphis, etc. that have more in common with 3rd world countries.
|
On November 15 2018 12:18 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 12:05 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 11:22 superstartran wrote:...
Ah yes, this idea that other countries are superior once again because we somehow have a 'fetish.'
Part of the reason why we value the Constitution is because it protects individual freedoms not just from elites in government and society, but also protects individual rights from the mobs. Technically in countries like the UK, Freedom of Speech actually isn't guaranteed. Good example would be the CNN Jim Acosta situation here in the United States with President Trump. There's a very good chance President Trump and the White House is going to lose this battle, and quite badly I might add. Somewhere like the UK? Government can quite easily suppress the press very easily; why? Because Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press isn't actually a thing there (and by a thing, it isn't explicitly a guaranteed right in their Constitution). Are you claiming that there is a broad systemic issue with the practical application of freedom of speech in the UK? If not this entire argument is, once again, missing the point. "Explicitly guaranteed rights in the Constitution" are not the only way to in practice end up with a country with appropriate liberties and freedoms. In terms of a broader context, Danglers and me very likely see eye to eye on the idea that we shouldn't be kow towing to the morality of the majority, because sometimes the majority doesn't actually know better. It's true that you should't automatically bow to the morality of the majority - but that is not, in as of itself, a justification for not doing so. The Founding Fathers didn't setup a perfect system, but it certainly prevents nonsensical knee jerk reactions. It also prevents changes made with more solid grounding. 1) Yes; the UK in principle does have issues with freedom of speech, because it actually doesn't have freedom of speech. Depending on the severity of hate speech and such, you can be prosecuted in the UK for doing so. That's essentially the moral majority enforcing an idea that you must speak a certain way or we as a society will punish you. I'd prefer not to live in a society like that. In the United States, you're free to hate all you want and say what you want with very few specific exceptions (i.e. student's in a school environment, actively calling for draft dodging during a time of war)
Whatever liberties the UK does and doesn't have could be enshrined in a constitution or similar document; alternatively, they could alter their laws to replicate the United States' freedom of speech if they wanted. As such, the above isn't an argument for or against putting stuff in a constitution, it's an argument about what levels of freedom of speech are appropriate.
A discussion of the relative merits of "the freedom to do things potentially harmful to other people" and "the right to not be wilfully harmed by other people" is probably apropos to the thread topic, but not to the subject currently under debate, so I'll defer it for now.
2) The Constitution works slow on purpose. It was their belief that the Federal Government's role is not to dictate or play the moral police. It's built this way to prevent both elites and mobs from having too much influence over any situation or time period. It is slow moving, but generally does work. Meanwhile, in systems like the UK, and others who have true parliamentary sovereignty, yes, you can move quicker, but that can also be bad too.
Most of this comes down to our fundamental views on how government should work, but saying we have a 'fetish' is silly and quite honestly insulting.
The bolded depends on whether you are somebody who wants to change something or not. Since you don't it's natural that everything would seem fine to you, since you have a vested interest in defending your current system.
|
On November 15 2018 12:37 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 12:18 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 12:05 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 11:22 superstartran wrote:...
Ah yes, this idea that other countries are superior once again because we somehow have a 'fetish.'
Part of the reason why we value the Constitution is because it protects individual freedoms not just from elites in government and society, but also protects individual rights from the mobs. Technically in countries like the UK, Freedom of Speech actually isn't guaranteed. Good example would be the CNN Jim Acosta situation here in the United States with President Trump. There's a very good chance President Trump and the White House is going to lose this battle, and quite badly I might add. Somewhere like the UK? Government can quite easily suppress the press very easily; why? Because Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press isn't actually a thing there (and by a thing, it isn't explicitly a guaranteed right in their Constitution). Are you claiming that there is a broad systemic issue with the practical application of freedom of speech in the UK? If not this entire argument is, once again, missing the point. "Explicitly guaranteed rights in the Constitution" are not the only way to in practice end up with a country with appropriate liberties and freedoms. In terms of a broader context, Danglers and me very likely see eye to eye on the idea that we shouldn't be kow towing to the morality of the majority, because sometimes the majority doesn't actually know better. It's true that you should't automatically bow to the morality of the majority - but that is not, in as of itself, a justification for not doing so. The Founding Fathers didn't setup a perfect system, but it certainly prevents nonsensical knee jerk reactions. It also prevents changes made with more solid grounding. 1) Yes; the UK in principle does have issues with freedom of speech, because it actually doesn't have freedom of speech. Depending on the severity of hate speech and such, you can be prosecuted in the UK for doing so. That's essentially the moral majority enforcing an idea that you must speak a certain way or we as a society will punish you. I'd prefer not to live in a society like that. In the United States, you're free to hate all you want and say what you want with very few specific exceptions (i.e. student's in a school environment, actively calling for draft dodging during a time of war) Whatever liberties the UK does and doesn't have could be enshrined in a constitution or similar document; alternatively, they could alter their laws to replicate the United States' freedom of speech if they wanted. As such, the above isn't an argument for or against putting stuff in a constitution, it's an argument about what levels of freedom of speech are appropriate. A discussion of the relative merits of "the freedom to do things potentially harmful to other people" and "the right to not be wilfully harmed by other people" is probably apropos to the thread topic, but not to the subject currently under debate, so I'll defer it for now. Show nested quote +2) The Constitution works slow on purpose. It was their belief that the Federal Government's role is not to dictate or play the moral police. It's built this way to prevent both elites and mobs from having too much influence over any situation or time period. It is slow moving, but generally does work. Meanwhile, in systems like the UK, and others who have true parliamentary sovereignty, yes, you can move quicker, but that can also be bad too.
Most of this comes down to our fundamental views on how government should work, but saying we have a 'fetish' is silly and quite honestly insulting. The bolded depends on whether you are somebody who wants to change something or not. Since you don't it's natural that everything would seem fine to you.
This is going way off topic but..
When you start moral policing people's speech, that becomes problematic. The UK does have a fundamental issue with freedom of speech, to believe otherwise is abit silly. If the majority in the UK wanted to suppress your ability to criticize the government, they can actually do that. You know what we call that historically? A totalitarian leftist regime. You know... the likes of Hitler, Mao, and all those cool dudes. And no, the UK cannot replicate the US's level of Freedom of Speech, because the UK doesn't have an explicit constitution that is considered the supreme law of the land. It's an informal constitution with different parts thrown together based off of tradition and history. Historically speaking, Parliament is the sovereign power of the land in the UK, not really something I'm really keen on living under.
So before you go hating on the U.S. Constitution again, you may want to rethink your line of thought, especially when you start criticizing the idea that people should consider the moral majority right. Like I said, the Constitution process is slow moving, and it was designed that way on purpose.
|
|
|
On November 15 2018 12:44 superstartran wrote:
...
This is going way off topic but..
When you start moral policing people's speech, that becomes problematic. The UK does have a fundamental issue with freedom of speech, to believe otherwise is abit silly. If the majority in the UK wanted to suppress your ability to criticize the government, they can actually do that. You know what we call that historically? A totalitarian leftist regime. You know... the likes of Hitler, Mao, and all those cool dudes.
You keep trying to run off into theoretical possibilities.
I am interested in the functioning of countries in practice, and in practice the UK maintains reasonable liberties and freedoms (as an outside observer).
+ Show Spoiler +I'll limit my engagement with your absurd reductio ad Hitlerum to noting that calling the Nazis a totalitarian leftist regime is also pretty far off the mark.
And no, the UK cannot replicate the US's level of Freedom of Speech, because the UK doesn't have an explicit constitution that is considered the supreme law of the land. It's an informal constitution with different parts thrown together based off of tradition and history.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Rights and freedoms can be enforced without reference to a constitution.
So before you go hating on the U.S. Constitution again, you may want to rethink your line of thought, especially when you start criticizing the idea that people should consider the moral majority right. Like I said, the Constitution process is slow moving, and it was designed that way on purpose.
I'm aware your Constitution and the surrounding processes are, by design, slow moving. I don't think that is necessarily or inherently a good thing, especially not with respect to all of its particulars.
|
On November 15 2018 12:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 12:18 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 10:59 JimmiC wrote:
Danglars I think you spend more time posting about why you should not or will not trust someone then anything else. I’m sure we’ve all profited by this recital of why to distrust my distrust. How much of this European ideal of kissing the chains that bind them is self-aware performance versus sincere belief? Free speech, yet fine people for bad jokes. Individual rights but take away the right of self defense of person, family, and property with a gun. It’s positively Orwellian to choose safety and security above liberty, and double back once again to call it liberty and freedom. This has got to be some kind of corollary to the “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe” rule. It is your party that made decency laws, forced delays on live tv for the purpose of censorship, women lose freedo. Of their bodies and so on. You want freedom only for things you agree with.
Yeah yeah and somehow women in the womb die, and that isn’t losing freedom. It’s just the lucky women that don’t get killed before delivery that get to enjoy their freedom. It’s the same spin, different case. But since we’re getting a little far afield, I won’t continue this line of thought.
|
On November 15 2018 13:06 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 12:44 superstartran wrote:
...
This is going way off topic but..
When you start moral policing people's speech, that becomes problematic. The UK does have a fundamental issue with freedom of speech, to believe otherwise is abit silly. If the majority in the UK wanted to suppress your ability to criticize the government, they can actually do that. You know what we call that historically? A totalitarian leftist regime. You know... the likes of Hitler, Mao, and all those cool dudes. You keep trying to run off into theoretical possibilities. I am interested in the functioning of countries in practice, and in practice the UK maintains reasonable liberties and freedoms (as an outside observer). + Show Spoiler +I'll limit my engagement with your absurd reductio ad Hitlerum to noting that calling the Nazis a totalitarian leftist regime is also pretty far off the mark. Show nested quote +And no, the UK cannot replicate the US's level of Freedom of Speech, because the UK doesn't have an explicit constitution that is considered the supreme law of the land. It's an informal constitution with different parts thrown together based off of tradition and history. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Rights and freedoms can be enforced without reference to a constitution. Show nested quote +So before you go hating on the U.S. Constitution again, you may want to rethink your line of thought, especially when you start criticizing the idea that people should consider the moral majority right. Like I said, the Constitution process is slow moving, and it was designed that way on purpose. I'm aware your Constitution and the surrounding processes are, by design, slow moving. I don't think that is necessarily or inherently a good thing, especially not with respect to all of its particulars.
Reasonable liberties?
I hope you realize that in the UK you can and will be prosecuted for 'racism' or 'hate speech' that is said online, let alone in real life in a face to face conversation. That's not even a joke.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html
How you believe that is 'reasonable' is beyond me. Last thing; Rights and Freedoms are not actually guaranteed in the UK and in many other countries where their legislature has either sovereign power, or near sovereign power. You keep saying it's theoretical, but the truth of the matter is that if Parliament wanted to, it could literally repeal all individual rights without any consent of the people. Even if that's only merely a theoretical situation, the fact that it's even possible is enough for me to be glad that I live in a different system of government.
|
On November 15 2018 12:35 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 12:08 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 15 2018 11:22 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 10:33 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 15 2018 10:22 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 10:12 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 07:58 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 07:43 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 06:23 JimmiC wrote:
I think you are only supposed to be respectful if you wish people to act that way to you. And it seems like you are more interested in fighting right now than discussing. You are strangely obsessed with proving that this 475 number is wrong. Who really cares if it 475 or 100, both are far too much, it is strange that you are so stuck on proving this number wrong. If the number was truly 475 would that drastically or even slightly change your opinions?
It is super odd to me because your beliefs are not very different from those on "the other side" it is a imaginary war you are fighting.
These all seem pretty sensible to me, why are you not supporting politicians that support these measures?
"I believe in gun control laws such as...
1) Banning Bumpstocks
2) Firearm Registration
3) Red Flag Laws
4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval)
5) Expanded Background Checks
6) Required Firearm Education Classes
7) Wait Times
" 1) Someone started out by using clearly fraudulent numbers. This has already been proven to be true. This whole entire thread has been about mass shootings in the context of an armed person(s) attacking people in a public area like a school, park, bar, etc; Said poster tried to pass it off as true. This is highly dishonest It isn't merely just about the numbers, it's the fact that the poster attempted to pass those highly inflated numbers in a way to prove their point. That's where I'm calling bullshit. 2) You yourself along with other posters then attempted to mock me, saying "I made shit up" and that "I watch too much TV and Movies" then proceeded to factually be proven wrong. Plainsix tried to claim that there are no police shootings within that database despite the database itself saying that there were, then I had to literally comb through it and find one just to prove it. You then tried to tell me that there was no way anyone could have possibly defended their home against multiple assailants, and I proved you wrong with three examples. 3) It's ok to have an honest debate about many things. What you're asking me to do though is to accept the fact that you, Plainsix, and others in this thread have stated factually incorrect things, supported an assertion that was intellectually dishonest, and then now you're telling me that I need to trust your side that you're not out to get rid of guns, when I caught a good chunk of you bold faced supporting a highly dishonest BBC article. On November 15 2018 02:48 Plansix wrote:
I would argue that in the 1990s and pre-9/11 there was better gun control in the form of better enforcement of existing gun laws. One of the things that took place after the now legendary Brady Bill and the assault rifle ban of 1994 was the republican congress moving resources away from the federal agencies that would police illegal fire arms sales. Including the FBI and ATF. And a adjustment in regulations over how the ATF is allowed to trace fire arms and their sales, including a prohibiting them from using computers for a number of tasks. The best change to the current system would be to fund those agencies better and remove restrictive regulations that no longer make sense in the digital era. When the assault weapons ban expired gun violence continued to go down. So there goes your theory that gun control was "better" in the 1990s and pre-9/11. In fact, gun homicide and gun related crimes in the 90s was far worse than it is today. And that's despite a massive uptick in the number of firearms per Americans. The theory that gun control can alone influence homicide rates is silly. I wouldn't want gun control alone, I think impacting marketing of guns and violence the way they did with Cig's is needed. I've said it many times you have ignored it. If you go back to the first time I asked the question about home invasions it was around the "over 3 fatalities" you were talking about and I put the over under at 1.5. You brought up one that surprised me but I have not seen others. As I have stated over and over, I don't think it a real statistically relevant event. That you found 3 articles, one that fit my initial question does not make me factually wrong. Not to mention you are missing the whole point of what most (notice how I didn't say all) people are saying to you, no we don't things guns are the only problem, yes we understand American culture is different, and no we don't think if you made guns illegal tomorrow all gun violence would stop. We are saying many changes need to happen if you want the problem to decrease. Your suggestions are all worthwhile and would be supported. It is worth looking at what other countries do because they all have wildly different cultures from each other and yet they have all had varying level of success. And finally stop looking to pick fights about the insignificant parts of people arguments and the minor details. Hell you want gun control. You have posted the rules you agree with shockingly you are on the same side on the issue. You just have for some reason been convinced that people looking for gun control are the boogieman. Are you the boogieman? Let's go back and see what you posted in your highly condescending manner, that can easily be seen as highly disrespectful. On November 13 2018 10:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 13 2018 10:10 superstartran wrote:On November 13 2018 10:05 JimmiC wrote:
You never answered me on how how many multiple intruder shot by defense of a homeowner, multi fatalities there has been ever.
And you never the article on why Switzerland is actually different from the states, and why you using in as your example is misinformed. So I would go calling out others, you are as guilty, at least, as anyone for avoiding arguments. So you want me to comb through a data base that purposely hides that information and doesn't make it easy to sort through what is a home invasion/self-defense/etc.? Ok. Let me just sort through this highly biased database that many news outlets source their numbers, and so conveniently hide the fact that gang warfare, home invasions, police shootings, self-defense, etc. are all a part of their 'mass shooting' numbers. In regards to the Switzerland argument, you should go back like 15-20 pages and read through it yourself. I'm not gonna rehash that argument. I did read the whole article it was very enlightening, but I guess if you know everything you don't have to.... It is not because of the database it is because you use it as a example that not only might happen, but rather something that happens from time to time. I would be shocked if it has happened more then once ever. I think you watch way to much T.V and movies. Let's go back to the original conversation 1) The data base includes far too wide of a parameter to even be considered accurate. It involves far too many other types of crimes, accidental shootings, lawful defenses, etc. to be used. I merely used certain examples such as police shootings versus multiple assailants or lawful defense of one's home against multiple assailants. 2) You responded in pro-typical gun control manner essentially trying to mock me by stating that there's no way that someone could ever defend their home from multiple suspects, and that I've been watching too much TV and movies (which is easily seen as an insult by anyone). 3) You then back track and state "well not all of those events fit the criteria of the database", despite the fact that they prove that people have defended their homes versus multiple suspects with firearms in a lawful manner. 4) Now you want to go and say "I'm nitpicking at details" and need to be more respectful. Why should I respect you, or anyone else who clearly got caught with their pants on the ground either using or supporting completely fraudulent data? Mind you, there was NO reason to support that data. It took me literally 15 seconds to figure out how much buffoonery there was behind BBC's shitastic journalism within that article. Either someone was attempting to inflate mass shooting numbers to make the US look like some hell hole, or someone did not do their due diligence in reporting the news. This wasn't like it takes a rocket scientist to figure that out either, it should have been immediately obvious and many of you should have called out the serious errors of said database in attempting to call those events 'mass shootings.' Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. your last paragraph is basically proof that you dont really give a shit about making changes at all. i mean, this has been noted multiple times in this thread already. you cant pretend to be an advocate for gun control but then "not come to the compromise table" because apparently we secretly want to ban all guns. what an absolute load of shit. even if that scenario were true, our intention would be to reduce death by firearms. banning all firearms would be a possible method, not the intention. the reality is that you cosplay as a gun-control advocate and then like jimmic said, start arguing against semantics and minor details to derail the point or try and destroy the credibility of everyone against you in order to make our arguments seem worthless. whether or not the death stat plansix used, or any stat for firearm deaths, was 100% accurate isnt the issue here. the issue here is that whatever number you come up with is that many deaths too many. whatever solution is agreed upon will 100% result in gun owners having to make a sacrifice but unfortunately, from what i can see, you have either of the following viewpoints: 1. you dont actually want further gun control. you just say you do and then proceed to shoot every argument down. 2. you genuinely do want gun control, but you dont think the current number of deaths is statistically relevant enough for gun owners to make some sacrifices, and so you shoot every argument down. either way there is a clear lack of urgency on your part because you have clearly decided in your mind the value of the lives lost to firearms and calculated that it isnt worth making an effort to make changes. if you were feeling the urgency and desperation of the situation, you wouldnt be sitting here arguing semantics; youd accept that some changes will have to be made (probably forcefully and despite the disapproval of hardcore gun owners) for the sake of your country. youre the one arguing in bad faith Questioning people's credibility when they are being dishonest or refuse to admit said article is at bare minimum poor and shoddy journalism is not semantics. If you cannot be fair and objective, why should I even have a conversation with you in the first place?Notice how all of you want to dismiss the argument completely, and attack my posting history rather than my argument. The argument is that said article is completely shoddy work; it's biased, and it is clear that the author of the article wants to push a gun control agenda. Several posters here came to the defense of the sources of the article despite the fact that I actually in fact proved them wrong from a factual standpoint (There are no police shootings in that database, there are no self-defense cases vs multiple assailants, shifting definitions of mass shootings to fit argument etc.) Rather than actually debating the merits of my argument or conceding that they might just be wrong, now I'm being branded as someone who argues semantics, rather than someone who might just actually have a point after all. Good job. Just further demonstrate why so many conservatives and even gun owning democrats don't vote for gun control. dont act like its the first time youve heard us calling you out for arguing semantics. it isnt. and i dont disagree that inaccurate information is not a good basis for an argument. what you dont seem to understand is the importance of the inaccuracy in context of the current topic. you made it your mission to destroy the credibility of an article not worth arguing about. like i said, the exact figure is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. it only becomes relevant if you want to calculate whether or not you have to actually give a shit whether people are dying at all. this brings me to my last point, youre either purposefully shooting down arguments with derailments and nitpicking, or you dont think the actual number is big enough for you to give a fuck about making actual changes. why dont you pick an imaginary number and tell us what that number has to be for you to accept that changes have to be made in desperate fashion? How is purposely and knowingly using inaccurate information not a sign of severe dishonesty, thus a major detractor in an honest debate? It's not just about the article; the article itself is representative of a large portion of the liberal left. There is no purpose to using the numbers they used in that article other than to push an agenda, especially with how they managed to leave out key information within their article. This is clear from the get go. Ergo, anyone using or supporting such an article or information from said article is supporting a piece of writing that is agenda driven, and not based on fair and objective facts. Said people can no longer really can be trusted, especially when all it took was an internet poster like me literally 30 seconds to comb through and see all the multiple holes in those statistics. And I don't even major in math. On November 15 2018 11:08 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 07:43 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 06:23 JimmiC wrote:
I think you are only supposed to be respectful if you wish people to act that way to you. And it seems like you are more interested in fighting right now than discussing. You are strangely obsessed with proving that this 475 number is wrong. Who really cares if it 475 or 100, both are far too much, it is strange that you are so stuck on proving this number wrong. If the number was truly 475 would that drastically or even slightly change your opinions?
It is super odd to me because your beliefs are not very different from those on "the other side" it is a imaginary war you are fighting.
These all seem pretty sensible to me, why are you not supporting politicians that support these measures?
"I believe in gun control laws such as...
1) Banning Bumpstocks
2) Firearm Registration
3) Red Flag Laws
4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval)
5) Expanded Background Checks
6) Required Firearm Education Classes
7) Wait Times
" 1) Someone started out by using clearly fraudulent numbers. This has already been proven to be true. This whole entire thread has been about mass shootings in the context of an armed person(s) attacking people in a public area like a school, park, bar, etc; Said poster tried to pass it off as true. This is highly dishonest It isn't merely just about the numbers, it's the fact that the poster attempted to pass those highly inflated numbers in a way to prove their point. That's where I'm calling bullshit. 2) You yourself along with other posters then attempted to mock me, saying "I made shit up" and that "I watch too much TV and Movies" then proceeded to factually be proven wrong. Plainsix tried to claim that there are no police shootings within that database despite the database itself saying that there were, then I had to literally comb through it and find one just to prove it. You then tried to tell me that there was no way anyone could have possibly defended their home against multiple assailants, and I proved you wrong with three examples. 3) It's ok to have an honest debate about many things. What you're asking me to do though is to accept the fact that you, Plainsix, and others in this thread have stated factually incorrect things, supported an assertion that was intellectually dishonest, and then now you're telling me that I need to trust your side that you're not out to get rid of guns, when I caught a good chunk of you bold faced supporting a highly dishonest BBC article. This is after I was literally insulted too rofl. But I'm supposed to now be nice? Kick rocks bro. On November 15 2018 02:48 Plansix wrote:
I would argue that in the 1990s and pre-9/11 there was better gun control in the form of better enforcement of existing gun laws. One of the things that took place after the now legendary Brady Bill and the assault rifle ban of 1994 was the republican congress moving resources away from the federal agencies that would police illegal fire arms sales. Including the FBI and ATF. And a adjustment in regulations over how the ATF is allowed to trace fire arms and their sales, including a prohibiting them from using computers for a number of tasks. The best change to the current system would be to fund those agencies better and remove restrictive regulations that no longer make sense in the digital era. When the assault weapons ban expired gun violence continued to go down. So there goes your theory that gun control was "better" in the 1990s and pre-9/11. In fact, gun homicide and gun related crimes in the 90s was far worse than it is today. And that's despite a massive uptick in the number of firearms per Americans. The theory that gun control can alone influence homicide rates is silly. I don't know why you are so angry, I'm guessing it is because your logic is flawed, because as mad as you are now, I made a post complimenting you earlier for how discussing your point. But now you think because a number in some article plansix quoted may have inflated numbers you some how got check mate? Your whole argument about why not to take the steps you think are needed is because of slippery slope. This is literally a logical fallacy. Doing these things does not open some magical door to other things. All it does is do those things. Now if there is a bunch of success with those things people might want to do more, or they might think it is good enough. Or it could be a complete failure and be a win for 0 regulation. But to be fearful of doing what you think is necessary or would help might mean you think it would be effective but not fully and encourage more. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slope It's not a slippery slope because I've proven that at bare minimum four of you have either used, or supported a piece of writing that is under most academic journalistic standards dishonest. It is significant that you are arguing or utilizing false/dishonest information, otherwise this debate over your intentions would have never occurred. Intentions DO matter in debates like this. You're asking me to vote for gun control. That's fine. But do it in an honest way. People are more likely to support your cause if you don't flat out lie. On November 15 2018 11:13 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 09:36 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 09:05 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. I think in several cases you are mistaking "flexible" for "not honest". Speaking for myself, I find your country's overriding fetish for its constitution bizarre and counterproductive, and I'd be perfectly okay with a significant revision or nullification of the Second Amendment - in fact that would be my preferred solution. That does not mean, however, that I'm not willing to accept a considerably more moderate outcome - it is not my preferred solution but it will do. I'm getting the distinct impression that you would take the first objective and use it as an excuse to not compromise with me, even when I am advocating for the second, instead of recognising that all it means is that I'm willing to compromise on my ideal solution. 'Overriding fetish' You mean the document that prevents significant abuses of individual rights? Rather than allowing the loud parts of society as a whole to have a knee jerk reaction to something and shovel legislation down people's throats, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created to prevent nonsense like that from occurring. On November 15 2018 10:55 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 09:05 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. I think in several cases you are mistaking "flexible" for "not honest". Speaking for myself, I find your country's overriding fetish for its constitution bizarre and counterproductive, and I'd be perfectly okay with a significant revision or nullification of the Second Amendment, along with laws of similar flavour to those in other countries - in fact that would be my preferred solution. That does not mean, however, that I'm not willing to accept a considerably more moderate outcome - it is not my preferred solution but it will do. I'm getting the distinct impression that you would take the first objective and use it as an excuse to not compromise with me, even when I am advocating for the second, instead of recognising that all it means is that I'm willing to compromise on my ideal solution. Superstartran has beaten me to it, but to declare the constitution an “overriding fetish” and then hope to convince some fool that your goal of compromise is real and not imagined ... it’s just fantastical. Yes, the only reason we can still debate the limits of this freedom is the constitution’s enduring legacy and narrow Supreme Court victories. Otherwise, tyranny would’ve had its legacy on the right of effective self defense a very long time ago. Few things indeed will engender more distrust by my side of yours than declaring it a fetish. You have both missed the point. In my country (and in many others), we care about individual rights, liberty, safety and so forth. We do not have a fetish for the piece of paper they're written down on (or for not modifying their formulation to maintain reasonable intentions as situations change, or for arguing about how to interpret the intent of people who made their decisions centuries past), and we seem to do just fine in terms of maintaining a democratic society with enlightened values and liberties despite that. Ah yes, this idea that other countries are superior once again because we somehow have a 'fetish.' Part of the reason why we value the Constitution is because it protects individual freedoms not just from elites in government and society, but also protects individual rights from the mobs. Technically in countries like the UK, Freedom of Speech actually isn't guaranteed. Good example would be the CNN Jim Acosta situation here in the United States with President Trump. There's a very good chance President Trump and the White House is going to lose this battle, and quite badly I might add. Somewhere like the UK? Government can quite easily suppress the press very easily; why? Because Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press isn't actually a thing there (and by a thing, it isn't explicitly a guaranteed right in their Constitution, which is actually a weird unofficial constitution consisting of multiple documents). In terms of a broader context, Danglers and me very likely see eye to eye on the idea that we shouldn't be kow towing to the morality of the majority, because sometimes the majority doesn't actually know better. The Founding Fathers didn't setup a perfect system, but it certainly prevents nonsensical knee jerk reactions. your response to my posts is just further evidence that you tunnel vision on retarded points and shit up the thread by arguing something stupid. ive already stated that the accuracy of the article isnt really important if you consider the point the posters are trying to make. you are completely ignoring that point and are arguing against things that do nothing but distract people and take arguments off on a tangent. all youre doing is confirming what ive called you out on Ok, so let's repeat Argument 1 : More firearms means more homicides Proven false. In the United States from the 80s all the way up till now, the gun homicide rate and gun crime rate has gone drastically down despite a massive increase in guns per person within the United States. This has been an ongoing trend now for pretty close to 40 years now. Now, I'm not making the argument that more guns = more safe. That's kind of a silly argument to make. I'm merely pointing out that a higher number of firearms does not necessarily correlate with a higher number of gun murders, which lots of you love to point out for some reason. Evidence for Argument 1 : https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdfOnly goes to 2008, but you get the idea. You can look up more by looking at FBI statistics. Argument 2 : Gun Control Laws would prevent mass shooters I'd argue half false; States for sure need to pass Red Flag laws, however mass shooters is really more of a mental health issue than a gun issue. The recent incident in California proves that even with all the laws in the world, it didn't prevent a mass shooting. Argument 3 : There is no reason to own an AR-15 for self-defense Pretty sure this one has been thoroughly debunked, but just for clarification, a .223 round is less likely to over penetrate once it strikes its first target. The AR-15 also because of being a low recoil center fire Rifle will be less likely to miss, and you have more chances to strike a target because of it's semi-automatic nature. Evidence Argument 3 :http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?id=14&option=com_content&task=view Argument 4 : Just pass Switzerland/Australia/UK Gun Laws and it's fine! For one, the UK/Switzerland/Australia are culturally very different, geographically much smaller, and just overall different places than America. Switzerland is closer to us in that they do value firearms in the aspect of preventing a foreign power from taking over. I think the United States can learn alot from adopting a similar firearm culture that emphasizes safety and training at very young ages. However, I don't think you'd want Switzerland Gun Laws across the board in the United States in areas like New Orleans, or the Bronx. Collateral damage in gang wars is already a thing, so making fully automatic weapons legal across the entire nation would be uh..... not very smart. Not to mention, people like to parrot UK and Australia as shining examples of how they solved gun violence. They never had an issue with gun violence in the first place because of how they historically developed. Evidence for impact on Australia Gun Control Laws : https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362Edited last part because I posted the wrong source, lul. So what do you got for me bro? Because all you've done is attack me without actually responding to my arguments at all. All you guys do is state "But compared to 1st world Countries!" Last I checked the UK/Australia/etc. doesn't have places like New Orleans, Oakland, Memphis, etc. that have more in common with 3rd world countries.
youre the one who needs to suggest a method of worth, not me. all youve been doing is saying "no, none of your suggestions are going to work" and then proceed to give no ideas of your own that would properly tackle the problem which is the availability and accessibility of firearms in the US.
like i said, you claim to be for gun control but when you provide no suggestions for solutions of your own and you divert the problem to mental health or "cultural differences", its hard to say youre arguing in good faith. the fact is if you take that stance, youre saying firearms arent the problem at all and therefore would rather do nothing because attempting to change the status quo is going to be troublesome or inconvenient
|
On November 15 2018 13:19 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 13:06 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 12:44 superstartran wrote:
...
This is going way off topic but..
When you start moral policing people's speech, that becomes problematic. The UK does have a fundamental issue with freedom of speech, to believe otherwise is abit silly. If the majority in the UK wanted to suppress your ability to criticize the government, they can actually do that. You know what we call that historically? A totalitarian leftist regime. You know... the likes of Hitler, Mao, and all those cool dudes. You keep trying to run off into theoretical possibilities. I am interested in the functioning of countries in practice, and in practice the UK maintains reasonable liberties and freedoms (as an outside observer). + Show Spoiler +I'll limit my engagement with your absurd reductio ad Hitlerum to noting that calling the Nazis a totalitarian leftist regime is also pretty far off the mark. And no, the UK cannot replicate the US's level of Freedom of Speech, because the UK doesn't have an explicit constitution that is considered the supreme law of the land. It's an informal constitution with different parts thrown together based off of tradition and history. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Rights and freedoms can be enforced without reference to a constitution. So before you go hating on the U.S. Constitution again, you may want to rethink your line of thought, especially when you start criticizing the idea that people should consider the moral majority right. Like I said, the Constitution process is slow moving, and it was designed that way on purpose. I'm aware your Constitution and the surrounding processes are, by design, slow moving. I don't think that is necessarily or inherently a good thing, especially not with respect to all of its particulars. Reasonable liberties? I hope you realize that in the UK you can and will be prosecuted for 'racism' or 'hate speech' that is said online, let alone in real life in a face to face conversation. That's not even a joke. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.htmlHow you believe that is 'reasonable' is beyond me.
I'm not across the details of the United Kingdom's speech laws, but this just goes back to the question of the relative merits of "the freedom to do things potentially harmful to other people" and "the right to not be wilfully harmed by other people".
I'm certainly happy living a life where people are not permitted to abuse me without limit in person or over the internet - the question of to what degree I should have the right to that, and to what degree other people should have the right to abuse me, is not as black and white to me as it seems to be to you.
Last thing; Rights and Freedoms are not actually guaranteed in the UK and in many other countries where their legislature has either sovereign power, or near sovereign power. You keep saying it's theoretical, but the truth of the matter is that if Parliament wanted to, it could literally repeal all individual rights without any consent of the people. Even if that's only merely a theoretical situation, the fact that it's even possible is enough for me to be glad that I live in a different system of government.
Since it is convenient for your political purposes to get your knickers in a knot over this theoretical possibility, rather than being concerned about the inflexibility of your own system and the social problems which that perpetuates, I am not surprised by this.
|
On November 15 2018 13:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 12:35 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 12:08 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 15 2018 11:22 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 10:33 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 15 2018 10:22 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 10:12 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 07:58 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 07:43 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
1) Someone started out by using clearly fraudulent numbers. This has already been proven to be true. This whole entire thread has been about mass shootings in the context of an armed person(s) attacking people in a public area like a school, park, bar, etc; Said poster tried to pass it off as true. This is highly dishonest It isn't merely just about the numbers, it's the fact that the poster attempted to pass those highly inflated numbers in a way to prove their point. That's where I'm calling bullshit.
2) You yourself along with other posters then attempted to mock me, saying "I made shit up" and that "I watch too much TV and Movies" then proceeded to factually be proven wrong. Plainsix tried to claim that there are no police shootings within that database despite the database itself saying that there were, then I had to literally comb through it and find one just to prove it. You then tried to tell me that there was no way anyone could have possibly defended their home against multiple assailants, and I proved you wrong with three examples.
3) It's ok to have an honest debate about many things. What you're asking me to do though is to accept the fact that you, Plainsix, and others in this thread have stated factually incorrect things, supported an assertion that was intellectually dishonest, and then now you're telling me that I need to trust your side that you're not out to get rid of guns, when I caught a good chunk of you bold faced supporting a highly dishonest BBC article.
[quote]
When the assault weapons ban expired gun violence continued to go down. So there goes your theory that gun control was "better" in the 1990s and pre-9/11. In fact, gun homicide and gun related crimes in the 90s was far worse than it is today. And that's despite a massive uptick in the number of firearms per Americans.
The theory that gun control can alone influence homicide rates is silly. I wouldn't want gun control alone, I think impacting marketing of guns and violence the way they did with Cig's is needed. I've said it many times you have ignored it. If you go back to the first time I asked the question about home invasions it was around the "over 3 fatalities" you were talking about and I put the over under at 1.5. You brought up one that surprised me but I have not seen others. As I have stated over and over, I don't think it a real statistically relevant event. That you found 3 articles, one that fit my initial question does not make me factually wrong. Not to mention you are missing the whole point of what most (notice how I didn't say all) people are saying to you, no we don't things guns are the only problem, yes we understand American culture is different, and no we don't think if you made guns illegal tomorrow all gun violence would stop. We are saying many changes need to happen if you want the problem to decrease. Your suggestions are all worthwhile and would be supported. It is worth looking at what other countries do because they all have wildly different cultures from each other and yet they have all had varying level of success. And finally stop looking to pick fights about the insignificant parts of people arguments and the minor details. Hell you want gun control. You have posted the rules you agree with shockingly you are on the same side on the issue. You just have for some reason been convinced that people looking for gun control are the boogieman. Are you the boogieman? Let's go back and see what you posted in your highly condescending manner, that can easily be seen as highly disrespectful. On November 13 2018 10:14 JimmiC wrote:On November 13 2018 10:10 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
So you want me to comb through a data base that purposely hides that information and doesn't make it easy to sort through what is a home invasion/self-defense/etc.?
Ok. Let me just sort through this highly biased database that many news outlets source their numbers, and so conveniently hide the fact that gang warfare, home invasions, police shootings, self-defense, etc. are all a part of their 'mass shooting' numbers.
In regards to the Switzerland argument, you should go back like 15-20 pages and read through it yourself. I'm not gonna rehash that argument. I did read the whole article it was very enlightening, but I guess if you know everything you don't have to.... It is not because of the database it is because you use it as a example that not only might happen, but rather something that happens from time to time. I would be shocked if it has happened more then once ever. I think you watch way to much T.V and movies. Let's go back to the original conversation 1) The data base includes far too wide of a parameter to even be considered accurate. It involves far too many other types of crimes, accidental shootings, lawful defenses, etc. to be used. I merely used certain examples such as police shootings versus multiple assailants or lawful defense of one's home against multiple assailants. 2) You responded in pro-typical gun control manner essentially trying to mock me by stating that there's no way that someone could ever defend their home from multiple suspects, and that I've been watching too much TV and movies (which is easily seen as an insult by anyone). 3) You then back track and state "well not all of those events fit the criteria of the database", despite the fact that they prove that people have defended their homes versus multiple suspects with firearms in a lawful manner. 4) Now you want to go and say "I'm nitpicking at details" and need to be more respectful. Why should I respect you, or anyone else who clearly got caught with their pants on the ground either using or supporting completely fraudulent data? Mind you, there was NO reason to support that data. It took me literally 15 seconds to figure out how much buffoonery there was behind BBC's shitastic journalism within that article. Either someone was attempting to inflate mass shooting numbers to make the US look like some hell hole, or someone did not do their due diligence in reporting the news. This wasn't like it takes a rocket scientist to figure that out either, it should have been immediately obvious and many of you should have called out the serious errors of said database in attempting to call those events 'mass shootings.' Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. your last paragraph is basically proof that you dont really give a shit about making changes at all. i mean, this has been noted multiple times in this thread already. you cant pretend to be an advocate for gun control but then "not come to the compromise table" because apparently we secretly want to ban all guns. what an absolute load of shit. even if that scenario were true, our intention would be to reduce death by firearms. banning all firearms would be a possible method, not the intention. the reality is that you cosplay as a gun-control advocate and then like jimmic said, start arguing against semantics and minor details to derail the point or try and destroy the credibility of everyone against you in order to make our arguments seem worthless. whether or not the death stat plansix used, or any stat for firearm deaths, was 100% accurate isnt the issue here. the issue here is that whatever number you come up with is that many deaths too many. whatever solution is agreed upon will 100% result in gun owners having to make a sacrifice but unfortunately, from what i can see, you have either of the following viewpoints: 1. you dont actually want further gun control. you just say you do and then proceed to shoot every argument down. 2. you genuinely do want gun control, but you dont think the current number of deaths is statistically relevant enough for gun owners to make some sacrifices, and so you shoot every argument down. either way there is a clear lack of urgency on your part because you have clearly decided in your mind the value of the lives lost to firearms and calculated that it isnt worth making an effort to make changes. if you were feeling the urgency and desperation of the situation, you wouldnt be sitting here arguing semantics; youd accept that some changes will have to be made (probably forcefully and despite the disapproval of hardcore gun owners) for the sake of your country. youre the one arguing in bad faith Questioning people's credibility when they are being dishonest or refuse to admit said article is at bare minimum poor and shoddy journalism is not semantics. If you cannot be fair and objective, why should I even have a conversation with you in the first place?Notice how all of you want to dismiss the argument completely, and attack my posting history rather than my argument. The argument is that said article is completely shoddy work; it's biased, and it is clear that the author of the article wants to push a gun control agenda. Several posters here came to the defense of the sources of the article despite the fact that I actually in fact proved them wrong from a factual standpoint (There are no police shootings in that database, there are no self-defense cases vs multiple assailants, shifting definitions of mass shootings to fit argument etc.) Rather than actually debating the merits of my argument or conceding that they might just be wrong, now I'm being branded as someone who argues semantics, rather than someone who might just actually have a point after all. Good job. Just further demonstrate why so many conservatives and even gun owning democrats don't vote for gun control. dont act like its the first time youve heard us calling you out for arguing semantics. it isnt. and i dont disagree that inaccurate information is not a good basis for an argument. what you dont seem to understand is the importance of the inaccuracy in context of the current topic. you made it your mission to destroy the credibility of an article not worth arguing about. like i said, the exact figure is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. it only becomes relevant if you want to calculate whether or not you have to actually give a shit whether people are dying at all. this brings me to my last point, youre either purposefully shooting down arguments with derailments and nitpicking, or you dont think the actual number is big enough for you to give a fuck about making actual changes. why dont you pick an imaginary number and tell us what that number has to be for you to accept that changes have to be made in desperate fashion? How is purposely and knowingly using inaccurate information not a sign of severe dishonesty, thus a major detractor in an honest debate? It's not just about the article; the article itself is representative of a large portion of the liberal left. There is no purpose to using the numbers they used in that article other than to push an agenda, especially with how they managed to leave out key information within their article. This is clear from the get go. Ergo, anyone using or supporting such an article or information from said article is supporting a piece of writing that is agenda driven, and not based on fair and objective facts. Said people can no longer really can be trusted, especially when all it took was an internet poster like me literally 30 seconds to comb through and see all the multiple holes in those statistics. And I don't even major in math. On November 15 2018 11:08 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2018 07:43 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 06:23 JimmiC wrote:
I think you are only supposed to be respectful if you wish people to act that way to you. And it seems like you are more interested in fighting right now than discussing. You are strangely obsessed with proving that this 475 number is wrong. Who really cares if it 475 or 100, both are far too much, it is strange that you are so stuck on proving this number wrong. If the number was truly 475 would that drastically or even slightly change your opinions?
It is super odd to me because your beliefs are not very different from those on "the other side" it is a imaginary war you are fighting.
These all seem pretty sensible to me, why are you not supporting politicians that support these measures?
"I believe in gun control laws such as...
1) Banning Bumpstocks
2) Firearm Registration
3) Red Flag Laws
4) Magazine Limitations (Not completely limited, but maybe something to the degree of high capacity requires a special exception and local law enforcement approval)
5) Expanded Background Checks
6) Required Firearm Education Classes
7) Wait Times
" 1) Someone started out by using clearly fraudulent numbers. This has already been proven to be true. This whole entire thread has been about mass shootings in the context of an armed person(s) attacking people in a public area like a school, park, bar, etc; Said poster tried to pass it off as true. This is highly dishonest It isn't merely just about the numbers, it's the fact that the poster attempted to pass those highly inflated numbers in a way to prove their point. That's where I'm calling bullshit. 2) You yourself along with other posters then attempted to mock me, saying "I made shit up" and that "I watch too much TV and Movies" then proceeded to factually be proven wrong. Plainsix tried to claim that there are no police shootings within that database despite the database itself saying that there were, then I had to literally comb through it and find one just to prove it. You then tried to tell me that there was no way anyone could have possibly defended their home against multiple assailants, and I proved you wrong with three examples. 3) It's ok to have an honest debate about many things. What you're asking me to do though is to accept the fact that you, Plainsix, and others in this thread have stated factually incorrect things, supported an assertion that was intellectually dishonest, and then now you're telling me that I need to trust your side that you're not out to get rid of guns, when I caught a good chunk of you bold faced supporting a highly dishonest BBC article. This is after I was literally insulted too rofl. But I'm supposed to now be nice? Kick rocks bro. On November 15 2018 02:48 Plansix wrote:
I would argue that in the 1990s and pre-9/11 there was better gun control in the form of better enforcement of existing gun laws. One of the things that took place after the now legendary Brady Bill and the assault rifle ban of 1994 was the republican congress moving resources away from the federal agencies that would police illegal fire arms sales. Including the FBI and ATF. And a adjustment in regulations over how the ATF is allowed to trace fire arms and their sales, including a prohibiting them from using computers for a number of tasks. The best change to the current system would be to fund those agencies better and remove restrictive regulations that no longer make sense in the digital era. When the assault weapons ban expired gun violence continued to go down. So there goes your theory that gun control was "better" in the 1990s and pre-9/11. In fact, gun homicide and gun related crimes in the 90s was far worse than it is today. And that's despite a massive uptick in the number of firearms per Americans. The theory that gun control can alone influence homicide rates is silly. I don't know why you are so angry, I'm guessing it is because your logic is flawed, because as mad as you are now, I made a post complimenting you earlier for how discussing your point. But now you think because a number in some article plansix quoted may have inflated numbers you some how got check mate? Your whole argument about why not to take the steps you think are needed is because of slippery slope. This is literally a logical fallacy. Doing these things does not open some magical door to other things. All it does is do those things. Now if there is a bunch of success with those things people might want to do more, or they might think it is good enough. Or it could be a complete failure and be a win for 0 regulation. But to be fearful of doing what you think is necessary or would help might mean you think it would be effective but not fully and encourage more. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slope It's not a slippery slope because I've proven that at bare minimum four of you have either used, or supported a piece of writing that is under most academic journalistic standards dishonest. It is significant that you are arguing or utilizing false/dishonest information, otherwise this debate over your intentions would have never occurred. Intentions DO matter in debates like this. You're asking me to vote for gun control. That's fine. But do it in an honest way. People are more likely to support your cause if you don't flat out lie. On November 15 2018 11:13 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 09:36 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 09:05 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. I think in several cases you are mistaking "flexible" for "not honest". Speaking for myself, I find your country's overriding fetish for its constitution bizarre and counterproductive, and I'd be perfectly okay with a significant revision or nullification of the Second Amendment - in fact that would be my preferred solution. That does not mean, however, that I'm not willing to accept a considerably more moderate outcome - it is not my preferred solution but it will do. I'm getting the distinct impression that you would take the first objective and use it as an excuse to not compromise with me, even when I am advocating for the second, instead of recognising that all it means is that I'm willing to compromise on my ideal solution. 'Overriding fetish' You mean the document that prevents significant abuses of individual rights? Rather than allowing the loud parts of society as a whole to have a knee jerk reaction to something and shovel legislation down people's throats, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created to prevent nonsense like that from occurring. On November 15 2018 10:55 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2018 09:05 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 08:07 superstartran wrote:Instead, many of you've exposed yourselves for what you are. You're not really honest about how you want to go about gun control at all. So why should anyone on the other side of the fence like me, Danglers, Green Horizon, or anyone else even try to come to the compromise table. Sure, many gun owners would want more gun control; the problem is that it's hard to get them to come to terms when they feel that many others on the other side of the argument are really not honest about their intentions. I think in several cases you are mistaking "flexible" for "not honest". Speaking for myself, I find your country's overriding fetish for its constitution bizarre and counterproductive, and I'd be perfectly okay with a significant revision or nullification of the Second Amendment, along with laws of similar flavour to those in other countries - in fact that would be my preferred solution. That does not mean, however, that I'm not willing to accept a considerably more moderate outcome - it is not my preferred solution but it will do. I'm getting the distinct impression that you would take the first objective and use it as an excuse to not compromise with me, even when I am advocating for the second, instead of recognising that all it means is that I'm willing to compromise on my ideal solution. Superstartran has beaten me to it, but to declare the constitution an “overriding fetish” and then hope to convince some fool that your goal of compromise is real and not imagined ... it’s just fantastical. Yes, the only reason we can still debate the limits of this freedom is the constitution’s enduring legacy and narrow Supreme Court victories. Otherwise, tyranny would’ve had its legacy on the right of effective self defense a very long time ago. Few things indeed will engender more distrust by my side of yours than declaring it a fetish. You have both missed the point. In my country (and in many others), we care about individual rights, liberty, safety and so forth. We do not have a fetish for the piece of paper they're written down on (or for not modifying their formulation to maintain reasonable intentions as situations change, or for arguing about how to interpret the intent of people who made their decisions centuries past), and we seem to do just fine in terms of maintaining a democratic society with enlightened values and liberties despite that. Ah yes, this idea that other countries are superior once again because we somehow have a 'fetish.' Part of the reason why we value the Constitution is because it protects individual freedoms not just from elites in government and society, but also protects individual rights from the mobs. Technically in countries like the UK, Freedom of Speech actually isn't guaranteed. Good example would be the CNN Jim Acosta situation here in the United States with President Trump. There's a very good chance President Trump and the White House is going to lose this battle, and quite badly I might add. Somewhere like the UK? Government can quite easily suppress the press very easily; why? Because Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press isn't actually a thing there (and by a thing, it isn't explicitly a guaranteed right in their Constitution, which is actually a weird unofficial constitution consisting of multiple documents). In terms of a broader context, Danglers and me very likely see eye to eye on the idea that we shouldn't be kow towing to the morality of the majority, because sometimes the majority doesn't actually know better. The Founding Fathers didn't setup a perfect system, but it certainly prevents nonsensical knee jerk reactions. your response to my posts is just further evidence that you tunnel vision on retarded points and shit up the thread by arguing something stupid. ive already stated that the accuracy of the article isnt really important if you consider the point the posters are trying to make. you are completely ignoring that point and are arguing against things that do nothing but distract people and take arguments off on a tangent. all youre doing is confirming what ive called you out on Ok, so let's repeat Argument 1 : More firearms means more homicides Proven false. In the United States from the 80s all the way up till now, the gun homicide rate and gun crime rate has gone drastically down despite a massive increase in guns per person within the United States. This has been an ongoing trend now for pretty close to 40 years now. Now, I'm not making the argument that more guns = more safe. That's kind of a silly argument to make. I'm merely pointing out that a higher number of firearms does not necessarily correlate with a higher number of gun murders, which lots of you love to point out for some reason. Evidence for Argument 1 : https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdfOnly goes to 2008, but you get the idea. You can look up more by looking at FBI statistics. Argument 2 : Gun Control Laws would prevent mass shooters I'd argue half false; States for sure need to pass Red Flag laws, however mass shooters is really more of a mental health issue than a gun issue. The recent incident in California proves that even with all the laws in the world, it didn't prevent a mass shooting. Argument 3 : There is no reason to own an AR-15 for self-defense Pretty sure this one has been thoroughly debunked, but just for clarification, a .223 round is less likely to over penetrate once it strikes its first target. The AR-15 also because of being a low recoil center fire Rifle will be less likely to miss, and you have more chances to strike a target because of it's semi-automatic nature. Evidence Argument 3 :http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?id=14&option=com_content&task=view Argument 4 : Just pass Switzerland/Australia/UK Gun Laws and it's fine! For one, the UK/Switzerland/Australia are culturally very different, geographically much smaller, and just overall different places than America. Switzerland is closer to us in that they do value firearms in the aspect of preventing a foreign power from taking over. I think the United States can learn alot from adopting a similar firearm culture that emphasizes safety and training at very young ages. However, I don't think you'd want Switzerland Gun Laws across the board in the United States in areas like New Orleans, or the Bronx. Collateral damage in gang wars is already a thing, so making fully automatic weapons legal across the entire nation would be uh..... not very smart. Not to mention, people like to parrot UK and Australia as shining examples of how they solved gun violence. They never had an issue with gun violence in the first place because of how they historically developed. Evidence for impact on Australia Gun Control Laws : https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362Edited last part because I posted the wrong source, lul. So what do you got for me bro? Because all you've done is attack me without actually responding to my arguments at all. All you guys do is state "But compared to 1st world Countries!" Last I checked the UK/Australia/etc. doesn't have places like New Orleans, Oakland, Memphis, etc. that have more in common with 3rd world countries. youre the one who needs to suggest a method of worth, not me. all youve been doing is saying "no, none of your suggestions are going to work" and then proceed to give no ideas of your own that would properly tackle the problem which is the availability and accessibility of firearms in the US. like i said, you claim to be for gun control but when you provide no suggestions for solutions of your own and you divert the problem to mental health or "cultural differences", its hard to say youre arguing in good faith. the fact is if you take that stance, youre saying firearms arent the problem at all and therefore would rather do nothing because attempting to change the status quo is going to be troublesome or inconvenient
But I've thoroughly answered most of the common arguments and explained some of my solutions.
1) Magazine limitations I believe are in order; I don't think we should flat out ban all high capacity magazines, but there definitely needs to be much stricter regulations on high capacity magazines (30+ rounds) then there are currently. This may not affect overall gun violence, but I think in the event of a mass shooting, stricter regulations may or may not keep a mass shooter from inflicting more damage.
2) Bump fire stock bans. These are definitely fun, but I see no viable purpose for them for hunting, self-defense, etc. (unless you plan on laying down suppressing fire at a close range, not really sure why you need to go full auto).
3) Required education classes in order to purchase a firearm along with a waiting period. I know must gun owners will view this as an inconvenience, but at same point we as gun owners have to accept that there are some serious dumbasses among our own demographics.
4) Firearm registration. Sure, it's going to increase the burden on the Federal Govt, going to lead to taxes, etc. but it is what it is. I see it as a necessary evil in order to keep track of firearms trades, and to prevent firearms from landing in the hands of criminals.
5) Red Flag Laws. All states should have this law. I understand Dangler's point of view in that one could see the potential abuse in red flag laws, however I believe that due to the unique nature of guns (just like cars can be confiscated for improper behavior), red flag laws should exist so that one can potentially prevent a mass shooting. This needs to be coincided with better education about mental health, signs of deteriorating mental health in a person, etc.
I believe all of these solutions are relatively benign to most gun owners, and will likely either reduce casualties in the event of a mass shooting, or may prevent one if there are other proper solutions incorporated with these (such as better mental health education in general). So I'm not really seeing how you think I'm merely arguing semantics; I'm merely arguing that if you intend for me to vote for such laws, your side needs to stop using false facts/dishonest tactics/emotional shaming tactics in order to get me to do so.
Oh yes, one more thing. Availability of firearms has nothing to do with gun violence. Despite what biased studies love to lead people to believe, it is a statistical fact that from the 80s and on, America has had like triple the number of guns or something silly like that. But despite that, America's violent crime and gun murder rates have dropped to all time lows. I've already posted earlier why your assertion is actually factually false.
On November 15 2018 13:33 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 13:19 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 13:06 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 12:44 superstartran wrote:
...
This is going way off topic but..
When you start moral policing people's speech, that becomes problematic. The UK does have a fundamental issue with freedom of speech, to believe otherwise is abit silly. If the majority in the UK wanted to suppress your ability to criticize the government, they can actually do that. You know what we call that historically? A totalitarian leftist regime. You know... the likes of Hitler, Mao, and all those cool dudes. You keep trying to run off into theoretical possibilities. I am interested in the functioning of countries in practice, and in practice the UK maintains reasonable liberties and freedoms (as an outside observer). + Show Spoiler +I'll limit my engagement with your absurd reductio ad Hitlerum to noting that calling the Nazis a totalitarian leftist regime is also pretty far off the mark. And no, the UK cannot replicate the US's level of Freedom of Speech, because the UK doesn't have an explicit constitution that is considered the supreme law of the land. It's an informal constitution with different parts thrown together based off of tradition and history. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Rights and freedoms can be enforced without reference to a constitution. So before you go hating on the U.S. Constitution again, you may want to rethink your line of thought, especially when you start criticizing the idea that people should consider the moral majority right. Like I said, the Constitution process is slow moving, and it was designed that way on purpose. I'm aware your Constitution and the surrounding processes are, by design, slow moving. I don't think that is necessarily or inherently a good thing, especially not with respect to all of its particulars. Reasonable liberties? I hope you realize that in the UK you can and will be prosecuted for 'racism' or 'hate speech' that is said online, let alone in real life in a face to face conversation. That's not even a joke. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.htmlHow you believe that is 'reasonable' is beyond me. I'm not across the details of the United Kingdom's speech laws, but this just goes back to the question of the relative merits of "the freedom to do things potentially harmful to other people" and "the right to not be wilfully harmed by other people". I'm certainly happy living a life where people are not permitted to abuse me without limit in person or over the internet - the question of to what degree I should have the right to that, and to what degree other people should have the right to abuse me, is not as black and white to me as it seems to be to you. Show nested quote +Last thing; Rights and Freedoms are not actually guaranteed in the UK and in many other countries where their legislature has either sovereign power, or near sovereign power. You keep saying it's theoretical, but the truth of the matter is that if Parliament wanted to, it could literally repeal all individual rights without any consent of the people. Even if that's only merely a theoretical situation, the fact that it's even possible is enough for me to be glad that I live in a different system of government. Since it is convenient for your political purposes to get your knickers in a knot over this theoretical possibility, rather than being concerned about the inflexibility of your own system and the social problems which that perpetuates, I am not surprised by this.
Last thing, like I said. It's a difference of opinion. I'd very much rather live in a society where the National Government moves slow, rather than fast and to the point. Are there issues caused by this? Sure. But it's a difference in how we see society, culture, and government. There's no need to be insulting and call it a 'fetish' or saying I have my 'knickers in a knot.' I'm sure that most people in the UK love their government, and see no issues with it. I don't see an issue with my current government because I'd rather be in a society where people are allowed to speak their minds, whether it's hateful or not. I don't want to live in a society where the majority dictates what I can and cannot do. Some feel differently, and that's all fine and dandy.
But like I said, there's no need to bring the Murica hating in here just because you have a difference of opinion. Questioning and debating the merits of each system is one thing; what you're doing is pretty different, and it's borderline country hating at this point.
|
On November 15 2018 13:36 superstartran wrote:
Last thing, like I said. It's a difference of opinion. I'd very much rather live in a society where the National Government moves slow, rather than fast and to the point. Are there issues caused by this? Sure. But it's a difference in how we see society, culture, and government. There's no need to be insulting and call it a 'fetish' or saying I have my 'knickers in a knot.'
When an issue has real and serious consequences for people, dismissing it with "oh it's just a difference of opinion" isn't really good enough.
But like I said, there's no need to bring the Murica hating in here just because you have a difference of opinion. Questioning and debating the merits of each system is one thing; what you're doing is pretty different, and it's borderline country hating at this point.
You appear to have mistaken a robust challenge to your cherished system of beliefs for hatred towards a country.
|
On November 15 2018 13:51 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 13:36 superstartran wrote:
Last thing, like I said. It's a difference of opinion. I'd very much rather live in a society where the National Government moves slow, rather than fast and to the point. Are there issues caused by this? Sure. But it's a difference in how we see society, culture, and government. There's no need to be insulting and call it a 'fetish' or saying I have my 'knickers in a knot.' When an issue has real and serious consequences for people, dismissing it with "oh it's just a difference of opinion" isn't really good enough. Show nested quote +But like I said, there's no need to bring the Murica hating in here just because you have a difference of opinion. Questioning and debating the merits of each system is one thing; what you're doing is pretty different, and it's borderline country hating at this point. You appear to have mistaken a robust challenge to your cherished system of beliefs for hatred.
'Real and serious consequences.'
Oh yeah, you mean like how the UK is one of the worst places in Western Europe for journalists. Or the fact that I can be fined for making a racist joke towards one of my friends on social media, but as long as someone gets offended by it (even if they have no relation to me), I can be either fined or put into prison with no recourse.
Congrats man. I'm sure I'd love to live in a society like that. I'm not saying where I live is perfect either, but a difference of an opinion is a difference of opinion. The UK certainly does get things done a whole lot faster than the United States, but obviously not sometimes for the better (i.e. see Investigatory Powers Act)
Considering you are in a U.S. gun thread trying to argue that the U.S. Constitution is a piece of shit, I'd say yes, you are pretty much hating at this point, especially when you're using condescending rhetoric.
|
On November 15 2018 14:00 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 13:51 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 13:36 superstartran wrote:
Last thing, like I said. It's a difference of opinion. I'd very much rather live in a society where the National Government moves slow, rather than fast and to the point. Are there issues caused by this? Sure. But it's a difference in how we see society, culture, and government. There's no need to be insulting and call it a 'fetish' or saying I have my 'knickers in a knot.' When an issue has real and serious consequences for people, dismissing it with "oh it's just a difference of opinion" isn't really good enough. But like I said, there's no need to bring the Murica hating in here just because you have a difference of opinion. Questioning and debating the merits of each system is one thing; what you're doing is pretty different, and it's borderline country hating at this point. You appear to have mistaken a robust challenge to your cherished system of beliefs for hatred. 'Real and serious consequences.' Oh yeah, you mean like how the UK is one of the worst places in Western Europe for journalists. Or the fact that I can be fined for making a racist joke towards one of my friends on social media, but as long as someone gets offended by it (even if they have no relation to me), I can be either fined or put into prison with no recourse. Congrats man. I'm sure I'd love to live in a society like that. I'm not saying where I live is perfect either, but a difference of an opinion is a difference of opinion. The UK certainly does get things done a whole lot faster than the United States, but obviously not sometimes for the better (i.e. see Investigatory Powers Act)
So let's not talk about the UK, let's talk about one of those other "better" countries in Western Europe which similarly doesn't have the United States' attitude towards its constitution but still manages to maintain its people's rights and freedoms...
Let's actually not, because it would be a waste of time and not actually relevant to my argument.
Considering you are in a U.S. gun thread trying to argue that the U.S. Constitution is a piece of shit, I'd say yes, you are pretty much hating at this point, especially when you're using condescending rhetoric.
What I actually argued was that your country's attitude towards its constitution is counterproductive and bizarre (from the perspective of other countries which achieve and maintain their desired freedoms without such rigidity, and do not suffer the side-effects of such rigidity such as, for example, some archaic details of the United States' electoral system).
Please do me the courtesy of portraying my arguments honestly and accurately.
|
On November 15 2018 14:10 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 14:00 superstartran wrote:On November 15 2018 13:51 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2018 13:36 superstartran wrote:
Last thing, like I said. It's a difference of opinion. I'd very much rather live in a society where the National Government moves slow, rather than fast and to the point. Are there issues caused by this? Sure. But it's a difference in how we see society, culture, and government. There's no need to be insulting and call it a 'fetish' or saying I have my 'knickers in a knot.' When an issue has real and serious consequences for people, dismissing it with "oh it's just a difference of opinion" isn't really good enough. But like I said, there's no need to bring the Murica hating in here just because you have a difference of opinion. Questioning and debating the merits of each system is one thing; what you're doing is pretty different, and it's borderline country hating at this point. You appear to have mistaken a robust challenge to your cherished system of beliefs for hatred. 'Real and serious consequences.' Oh yeah, you mean like how the UK is one of the worst places in Western Europe for journalists. Or the fact that I can be fined for making a racist joke towards one of my friends on social media, but as long as someone gets offended by it (even if they have no relation to me), I can be either fined or put into prison with no recourse. Congrats man. I'm sure I'd love to live in a society like that. I'm not saying where I live is perfect either, but a difference of an opinion is a difference of opinion. The UK certainly does get things done a whole lot faster than the United States, but obviously not sometimes for the better (i.e. see Investigatory Powers Act) So let's not talk about the UK, let's talk about one of those other "better" countries in Western Europe which similarly doesn't have the United States' attitude towards its constitution but still manages to maintain its people's rights and freedoms... Let's actually not, because it would be a waste of time and not actually relevant to my argument. Show nested quote +Considering you are in a U.S. gun thread trying to argue that the U.S. Constitution is a piece of shit, I'd say yes, you are pretty much hating at this point, especially when you're using condescending rhetoric. What I actually argued was that your country's attitude towards its constitution is counterproductive and bizarre (from the perspective of other countries which achieve and maintain their desired freedoms without such rigidity, and do not suffer the side-effects of such rigidity such as, for example, some archaic details of the United States' electoral system). Please do me the courtesy of portraying my arguments honestly and accurately.
'Attitude' as in what? How is it bizzare that one would value their individual rights?
The Electoral system is arguably somewhat archaic, except it still arguably has some merit even in today's society. Example? It prevents the current candidates from singularly focusing on urban centers, which are largely Democratic. It puts more power into the hands of minority groups and minority states, but the whole purpose of the Constitution itself was to prevent the overwhelming majority from taking advantage of the minority group.
Again, this is a gun thread. So. Stick to the topic at hand. If you'd like to talk about the history and purpose of the 2nd Amendment and the Founding Father's beliefs on it, sure we can do that. But if you wanna keep going on in this thread bashing the U.S. Constitution in general, again, I'm gonna say that you're just hating on Murica because it's the cool thing to do.
|
On November 15 2018 14:16 superstartran wrote:...
'Attitude' as in what? How is it bizzare that one would value their individual rights?
There is nothing wrong with valuing one's individual rights. My criticism is of your country's excessive reverence for the mechanism by which those rights are enforced, as opposed to other potential mechanisms (which function reasonably well in other countries and are, by at least some metrics, more functional).
Please do me the courtesy of portraying my arguments honestly and accurately.
The Electoral system is arguably somewhat archaic, except it still arguably has some merit even in today's society. Example? It prevents the current candidates from singularly focusing on urban centers, which are largely Democratic.
...
Since this is convenient for your political purposes I am not surprised by this attitude.
Again, this is a gun thread. So. Stick to the topic at hand. If you'd like to talk about the history and purpose of the 2nd Amendment and the Founding Father's beliefs on it, sure we can do that. But if you wanna keep going on in this thread bashing the U.S. Constitution in general, again, I'm gonna say that you're just hating on Murica because it's the cool thing to do.
I am not criticising the U.S. Constitution, I am criticising your country's attitude towards the Constitution as an institution, which includes the Second Amendment.
Please do me the courtesy of portraying my arguments honestly and accurately.
edit: This is relevant to gun rights because people keep making arguments of the form "This should not be done because it breaches my Second Amendment rights" etc. which lack logical foundation and are only supported by excessive reverence for authorities such as the Constitution as an institution and the out-of-context decisions of the Founding Fathers. A correct argument would have the form "This should not be done because it breaches my rights, and I should have those rights because of X, Y and Z", where X, Y and Z are not composed of logical fallacies such as (in particular) appeal to authority.
|
On November 15 2018 15:34 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 14:16 superstartran wrote:...
'Attitude' as in what? How is it bizzare that one would value their individual rights? There is nothing wrong with valuing one's individual rights. My criticism is of your country's excessive reverence for the mechanism by which those rights are enforced, as opposed to other potential mechanisms (which function reasonably well in other countries and are, by at least some metrics, more functional). Please do me the courtesy of portraying my arguments honestly and accurately. Show nested quote +The Electoral system is arguably somewhat archaic, except it still arguably has some merit even in today's society. Example? It prevents the current candidates from singularly focusing on urban centers, which are largely Democratic.
... Since this is convenient for your political purposes I am not surprised by this attitude. Show nested quote +Again, this is a gun thread. So. Stick to the topic at hand. If you'd like to talk about the history and purpose of the 2nd Amendment and the Founding Father's beliefs on it, sure we can do that. But if you wanna keep going on in this thread bashing the U.S. Constitution in general, again, I'm gonna say that you're just hating on Murica because it's the cool thing to do. I am not criticising the U.S. Constitution, I am criticising your country's attitude towards the Constitution as an institution, which includes the Second Amendment. Please do me the courtesy of portraying my arguments honestly and accurately. edit: This is relevant to gun rights because people keep making arguments of the form "This should not be done because it breaches my Second Amendment rights" etc. which lack logical foundation and are only supported by excessive reverence for authorities such as the Constitution as an institution and the out-of-context decisions of the Founding Fathers. A correct argument would have the form "This should not be done because it breaches my rights, and I should have those rights because of X, Y and Z", where X, Y and Z are not composed of logical fallacies such as (in particular) appeal to authority.
The 2nd Amendment's draft history, including the Founding Father's previous statements on the Right to Bear Arms, all indicated that they wanted the general population at large to have the ability to arm themselves in the event the government itself or an outside power was oppressing the people. Read the landmark D.C. vs Heller case if you'd like to see this. Said decision was not made out of context at all. The court also did make exceptions; the right to bear arms is not unlimited, you cannot just have whatever weapon you want, and felons and mentally ill people do not have the right to carry said arms.
You are criticizing the Constitution. Many people view the Constitution as a valuable tool for recourse for private citizens, and the protection of minority groups within the United States. Jim Acosta's press pass was revoked; he along with CNN are allowed to seek recourse against the President of the United States through the judicial system, a system that although can be influenced by the President, is also relatively free of most outside political pressure, particularly the Supreme Court whose appointees serve for life. Said system would not exist in many other countries where their legislative branch or executive branches carry far more power. Again, it's not perfect. But my view is that my governmental system does allow me stronger protections of individual rights (that includes more than The Right to Bear Arms), and allows me recourse through a relatively neutral party (the Judicial Branch) if I feel that I need to seek recourse.
How that is 'bizzare' or a 'fetish' is pretty strange. You can word your criticisms of how people feel about the Constitution, or the Constitution itself in much better ways than you are currently; right now you just sound like quite a pompous jackass outsider who views America as a steaming pile of shit.
The system was designed from the ground up from preventing government officials, the majority, or any side really from having too much sway and power. By design it's going to be this way. It was intended that no one person, group, etc. would be able to take advantage of the other side. Historically speaking, when one group has control of the Executive and Legislative branch, it does not last very long. The people vote them out, the branches of government thus get politically divided, and you typically get legislative gridlock until both sides can agree. It is much slower moving, but the job still gets done, all while ensuring that people's rights are protected. The only time the Constitution has really truly ever failed was on the issue of slavery, which was a far more geographically and politically divisive situation than gun control is. Of course, this is partially due to the fact that the Founding Father's were kind of jack asses and kicked that can down the road too for their descendants to deal with.
And it's actually quite hilarious that you are criticizing my country's government and respect for said government, when your own form of government in Australia is set up in a way that mirrors what the United States does (with some exceptions; the overall major focuses such as the different branches of government, the convoluted process to which you need to go through to amend the Constitutions, etc.)
|
On November 15 2018 21:05 superstartran wrote:...
Everything but the last paragraph of your post seems like random noise (and not meaningfully apropos to anything I said) so I don't feel any need to waste my time with it.
And it's actually quite hilarious that you are criticizing my country's government and respect for said government, when your own form of government in Australia is set up in a way that mirrors what the United States does (with some exceptions; the overall major focuses such as the different branches of government, the convoluted process to which you need to go through to amend the Constitutions, etc.)
Nobody gets emotional about Australia's constitution (that I'm aware of), though they may be passionate about some things it refers to. It's there. It does the things it needs to do (potentially with a few foibles that have never been felt worth the bother to fix).
That being said, this paragraph is going on about irrelevant crap which has no bearing on what I've said about the United States' attitude to its constitution. Please do me the courtesy of portraying my arguments honestly and accurately.
|
On November 15 2018 21:24 Aquanim wrote:Everything but the last paragraph of your post seems like random noise (and not meaningfully apropos to anything I said) so I don't feel any need to waste my time with it. Show nested quote +And it's actually quite hilarious that you are criticizing my country's government and respect for said government, when your own form of government in Australia is set up in a way that mirrors what the United States does (with some exceptions; the overall major focuses such as the different branches of government, the convoluted process to which you need to go through to amend the Constitutions, etc.) Nobody gets emotional about Australia's constitution (that I'm aware of), though they may be passionate about some things it refers to. It's there. It does the things it needs to do (potentially with a few foibles that have never been felt worth the bother to fix). That being said, this paragraph is going on about irrelevant crap which has no bearing on what I've said about the United States' attitude to its constitution. Please do me the courtesy of portraying my arguments honestly and accurately.
'Irrelevant crap'
Prove that the United States population at large has a reverence for The Constitution. Respecting the rule of law and reverence are two different things. You criticize the process of the Constitution, now shift your argument to 'the attitudes' towards the Constitution. Shifting goal posts 101.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
