|
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 April 17 2019 09:32 micronesia wrote:
ShambhalaWar, why are you providing specific example? We all know these types of examples exist. The mere fact that they exist don't prove much in isolation, making this essentially spam. In addition, do you really want other users posting articles of specific examples where people claim their privately owned gun improved a situation? You'd surely argue that isolated events like that don't necessarily warrant the status quo.
The purpose is that there are more than daily national examples of the impact of gun violence and the over prevalence of guns in our society.
Here is another.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/17/us/columbine-threat-search-for-woman/index.html
A woman with obsessions toward columbine shooting came to Colorado, bought a gun (she should never have had access) and it forced the closure of 19 some schools, then she killed herself.
This impacted everyone in those schools by impacting their education and creating fear that someone in the state will come and shoot them, I don't know how many students attend one school, but if was only just 100 that would be almost 2000 kids affected.
By 1 person who was severely mentally unstable and allowed to buy a gun just coming over from out of state.
I mean this with all sincerity. Spam is irrelevant by it's definition. My posts are all relevant and prove a point, that real world examples of situations in which guns actually help people are few in contrast to the overwhelming number of people that are hurt or traumatized by the ubiquitous presence of guns in America.
I post them here so people that come to the thread will see them, and hopefully discuss how outrageous the whole thing is.
I do welcome gun advocates to post positive stories of how guns save lives in the present day any time they come by one, though I don't think many exist.
And to the contrary, people please post the successes of guns in our country as well, I'd love to know if I'm wrong about my view, but all I see is people dying or getting traumatized by guns. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places and someone will post a bunch of positive stories.
Frankly I don't think we all know the situations on either side of the argument, probably because each one of us is biased in that we visit places for news that we habitually choose to. I don't frequent the NRA website for example. Maybe they have a great story about a guy with a gun that saves a bus of kids by shooting someone, idk... but if someone knows of that story they should post it.
Maybe it would alter my opinion. But right now I'm inundated with the opposite stories of people dying to gun violence so that is why I share it here.
Maybe other people that frequent fox news don't get the same story, and if they read enough maybe they will have a change in their mind.
I think all of this is extremely relevant to many of the points frequently post about here (I also can't be expected to restate them all each time I post). People are free to read the articles or not, it doesn't bother me if the entire thread is ignored, it's still very relevant.
*Maybe more relevant than all the back and forth bickering that never really seems to lead to anyone having a shift in opinion or change of heart.
|
I’ve gotta await Micronesia’s response, but clearly at least one person needs the countervailing examples or hell assume “the real world examples of situations where guns actually help people are few in contrast to the overwhelming number of people that are hurt and traumatized” and “I don’t think many exist.” These kind of baseless assumptions drive the feeling that increased regulatory intrusion on the second amendment is a purely beneficial arrangement.
Not that the prevented crime and saved lives does truly matter ... I’ve seen enough evidence that it’s truly a victim-centered argument, not a weighing of the costs and benefits.
|
United States24680 Posts
To be clear, competitions where people post as many articles as they can find that seem to prove their point are not welcome. ShambhalaWar, I appreciate what you are trying to do, but you will need to go about it a different way. Nobody denies that these examples exist, so posting them doesn't provide anything new. If there is something striking about one of them that brings something new to the discussion then by all means, discuss it. If you want to discuss how the prevalence of these types of incidents is not fully appreciated, you can discuss that too... just don't "discuss" it with daily article postings about how a firearm was abused.
As discussed previously, despite a couple of users claiming to be interested in seeing "counter examples," they are not desired either.
|
|
|
On April 18 2019 11:23 JimmiC wrote:
Because imperically speaking, no matter how much Danglars trys to messy it up. The amounts are not even remotely equal. And pretending they are disingenious of either of you to do. It is better to stick to tthe "right" or personal freedom angle. Because it is abundtly clear that guns cause FAR more harm then they solve.
Or provide statistics instead of anecdotal evidence, as one is hard facts while the other is a fallacy (Not that is stops certain people from trying to argue against said hard facts of course)
|
On April 18 2019 11:11 micronesia wrote:
To be clear, competitions where people post as many articles as they can find that seem to prove their point are not welcome. ShambhalaWar, I appreciate what you are trying to do, but you will need to go about it a different way. Nobody denies that these examples exist, so posting them doesn't provide anything new. If there is something striking about one of them that brings something new to the discussion then by all means, discuss it. If you want to discuss how the prevalence of these types of incidents is not fully appreciated, you can discuss that too... just don't "discuss" it with daily article postings about how a firearm was abused.
As discussed previously, despite a couple of users claiming to be interested in seeing "counter examples," they are not desired either.
It's isn't welcome, but since certain other posters are doing just that, it seems fair to point out other posters are doing just that, by well by doing exactly the same thing. if you genuinely had a problem with people post as many articles as they can find that seem to prove their point, perhaps you should name and tell the person who started that in the first place, rather than the person who is doing the same thing in protest.
|
At the very least gun owners should be placed "first in line" for any military draft. The ultimate constitutional purpose of gun ownership is for Congress to be able to call up the militia to fight for the state. If gun owners arent willing to be first in line for the draft, they dont really respect the constitution. You just cant give the well regulated militia clause no functional consequence.
|
On April 20 2019 02:02 Doodsmack wrote:
At the very least gun owners should be placed "first in line" for any military draft. The ultimate constitutional purpose of gun ownership is for Congress to be able to call up the militia to fight for the state. If gun owners arent willing to be first in line for the draft, they dont really respect the constitution. You just cant give the well regulated militia clause no functional consequence.
I mean damm thats pretty dark dude.
1. The well regulated militia clause is something that people disagree with.
2. The militia was the military when they wrote the second amendment
3. The militia can only be called up by the states by the state's governors
4. Hinging peoples respect for the constitution based on your interpretation on it is pretty shitty.
5. Thats not how drafts work.
|
|
|
While somewhat less common I think situations like forcing an indigenous person who's family has passed down a colt revolver since it was used to kill the government man trying to take their hunting grounds (or whatever the story may be) should then be forced to enlist to fight for that same governments next imperialist adventure demonstrate the weakness of that argument.
That same general principle could be extrapolated out to a wide variety of marginalized peoples who still are yet to enjoy the full extent of those freedoms they would be supposedly fighting for.
That said, I recognize doosmacks post was largely a jab at the inconsistency of conservatives rather than one intended to advocate a real policy idea.
|
|
|
On April 20 2019 03:09 JimmiC wrote:
He knows that is not how they work, he is suggesting that it is how they work. He is trying to point out that the right to bear arms was not meant for people to be able to carry hand guns around town and so on. It was meant to defend the nation.
His logic ain't bad, you can disagree with it, but it makes sense.
His logic was that people who own guns should be drafted first. Nothing in his post had handguns or concealed carry in it. Drafting the people who don't trust the government to fight for the government doesn't make sense.
His logic is terrible from any angle that doesn't include wanting to see his enemies dead.
|
On April 20 2019 03:41 JimmiC wrote:
You could make it just people who purchase guns in the last 50 years to stop the common ancient general passed down gun situation.
But I believe your last sentance is accurate.
Even that doesn't make any sense as you would be drafting 60 year olds or similarly aged people out of spite.
|
The military does not want 60 year olds for general service for all the reasons you can think of.
|
On April 20 2019 02:45 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2019 02:02 Doodsmack wrote:
At the very least gun owners should be placed "first in line" for any military draft. The ultimate constitutional purpose of gun ownership is for Congress to be able to call up the militia to fight for the state. If gun owners arent willing to be first in line for the draft, they dont really respect the constitution. You just cant give the well regulated militia clause no functional consequence. I mean damm thats pretty dark dude. 1. The well regulated militia clause is something that people disagree with. 2. The militia was the military when they wrote the second amendment 3. The militia can only be called up by the states by the state's governors 4. Hinging peoples respect for the constitution based on your interpretation on it is pretty shitty. 5. Thats not how drafts work.
They may disagree with that clause but it's in the constitution so they're kinda screwed there. The militia was not the same as the military considering that article II mentions the army and navy separately from the militia. Article I grants Congress the power to regulate the militia and to call it up to serve the national government. Article II makes the president the commander in chief of the militia when so called (separately from him being commander in chief of the army and navy). The 2nd amendment explicitly uses the word militia. So as a matter of the constitutional text, the militia mentioned in the second amendment corresponds to the militia that Congress can call up. Logically, the notion of a draft corresponds to calling up a militia. So really, if people arent willing to be called up for defense of the state, their gun ownership is most definitely not serving the purpose the second amendment. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too.
|
On April 20 2019 04:43 Plansix wrote:
The military does not want 60 year olds for general service for all the reasons you can think of.
I think a lot of things might be better if the old people fought their wars themselves, rather than having the young people fight them for them.
I am especially in favor of sending politicians to the frontlines of wars they start.
|
The relationships between the militia and the states was always seen as a hedge against the federal government, not a Congressional and Executive tool.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
Madison, in literally selling the constitution to states that would have to surrender some liberty to have it (federalist paper #46), explained that the militia is a bulwark against a future federal government that might use its army to turn tyrannical. He was not a dupe of people selling a false version of the Constitution, he was describing protections the States had within the constitution. Just keep the militia with their arms, and they will always dwarf a federal armed force in numbers.
|
|
|
On April 20 2019 05:44 JimmiC wrote:
Pretty sure it was to both stop the Feds and stop outsiders like the Red coats from invading.
Yeah it was both. The plain text of the constitution is that Congress can call up the militia in service of the national government, and in that case the president is its commander in chief.
|
On April 20 2019 02:02 Doodsmack wrote:
At the very least gun owners should be placed "first in line" for any military draft. The ultimate constitutional purpose of gun ownership is for Congress to be able to call up the militia to fight for the state. If gun owners arent willing to be first in line for the draft, they dont really respect the constitution. You just cant give the well regulated militia clause no functional consequence.
not sure if serious
That is literally not the "ultimate constitutional purpose" of gun ownership as per the constitution LOL
In any case, regardless of the militia business, the 2nd amendment clearly states that people have the right to use guns in a civilian manner
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1086176
this is well studied and supported and is only a debate point for the most anti-gun people grasping at straws
I mean think about it. Guns were all around America, used for hunting, self defense, decoration, and even dueling, when it was founded and none of the founding fathers did anything about it.
Hell Alexander Hamilton literally died in a private gun dual
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
