***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[Leviathan]

I really don't understand why pretty much everyone, regardless of political affiliation, wants to end the war on drugs yet it never seems to end. Maybe we should draft a petition? I bet Mexico would love it also.

Dunno. I'm guessing that it has something to do with profit.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I really don't understand why pretty much everyone, regardless of political affiliation, wants to end the war on drugs yet it never seems to end. Maybe we should draft a petition? I bet Mexico would love it also.

Dunno. I'm guessing that it has something to do with profit.

Might have to do with wholesale drug dealers giving money to politicians IMO. I guess far right wing crazy guy and far left wing crazy guy like it, so chalk one up to the lunatic fringe. I'm not saying we should decriminalize heroin dealing, but at a user level we are spending way too much of our taxpayer dollars keeping addicts in jail/halfway houses/rehab.

 

[Leviathan]

I really don't understand why pretty much everyone, regardless of political affiliation, wants to end the war on drugs yet it never seems to end. Maybe we should draft a petition? I bet Mexico would love it also.

Dunno. I'm guessing that it has something to do with profit.

Might have to do with wholesale drug dealers giving money to politicians IMO. I guess far right wing crazy guy and far left wing crazy guy like it, so chalk one up to the lunatic fringe. I'm not saying we should decriminalize heroin dealing, but at a user level we are spending way too much of our taxpayer dollars keeping addicts in jail/halfway houses/rehab.

So you agree with me. It's profit, no? Wholesale drug dealers giving money to politicians equals profit.

Incarcerating illegal substance abusers into a for-profit prison system is lining somebody's pocket.

Reform is obviously necessary, but that equates to loss of revenue. Can't have that!

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I really don't understand why pretty much everyone, regardless of political affiliation, wants to end the war on drugs yet it never seems to end. Maybe we should draft a petition? I bet Mexico would love it also.

Dunno. I'm guessing that it has something to do with profit.

Might have to do with wholesale drug dealers giving money to politicians IMO. I guess far right wing crazy guy and far left wing crazy guy like it, so chalk one up to the lunatic fringe. I'm not saying we should decriminalize heroin dealing, but at a user level we are spending way too much of our taxpayer dollars keeping addicts in jail/halfway houses/rehab.

So you agree with me. It's profit, no?Wholesale drug dealers giving money to politicians equals profit.

Incarcerating illegal substance abusers into a for-profit prison system is lining somebody's pocket.

Reform is obviously necessary, but that equates to loss of revenue. Can't have that!

Capitalism and our system creates the strangest of bedfellows. Far wingers, politicians and peddlers, hairy vags and chicken hawks.

 

[timschochet]

How about we focus on things we can change. Gun rights are not likely to change without a landmark SCOTUS ruling or a Constitutional Amendment

We don't need either of those to require background checks for all private sales.

I simply don't understand why we can't make this ONE change in the law. At worst it would do no harm. At best it might help save lives. Must we always be stopped by the paranoia of a minority of gun owners??

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I really don't understand why pretty much everyone, regardless of political affiliation, wants to end the war on drugs yet it never seems to end. Maybe we should draft a petition? I bet Mexico would love it also.

The same reason that the "War on Terror" keeps going.

There are true believers who think that they are doing the right thing, even when it is dead wrong, and principled objections to policies that are destructive are easily demonized as "soft on crime" or "soft on terrorists". And, I imagine there are plenty of people (& corporations) who want to pursue those policies in perpetuity for financial gain (or because of power).

 

[timschochet]

I really don't understand why pretty much everyone, regardless of political affiliation, wants to end the war on drugs yet it never seems to end. Maybe we should draft a petition? I bet Mexico would love it also.

The same reason that the "War on Terror" keeps going.

There are true believers who think that they are doing the right thing, even when it is dead wrong, and principled objections to policies that are destructive are easily demonized as "soft on crime" or "soft on terrorists". And, I imagine there are plenty of people (& corporations) who want to pursue those policies in perpetuity for financial gain (or because of power).

Personally I would like to keep most drugs illegal, as I think their legality would be harmful for our society.

But there should be a way to do that without the incarceration stupidity, without mandatory sentencing, without spending billions of dollars on law enforcement that never gets us anywhere. I don't know how, though. I'm open to ideas.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I really don't understand why pretty much everyone, regardless of political affiliation, wants to end the war on drugs yet it never seems to end. Maybe we should draft a petition? I bet Mexico would love it also.

The same reason that the "War on Terror" keeps going.

There are true believers who think that they are doing the right thing, even when it is dead wrong, and principled objections to policies that are destructive are easily demonized as "soft on crime" or "soft on terrorists". And, I imagine there are plenty of people (& corporations) who want to pursue those policies in perpetuity for financial gain (or because of power).

More money in terrorism than there is in drugs, just ask Homeland Security.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I really don't understand why pretty much everyone, regardless of political affiliation, wants to end the war on drugs yet it never seems to end. Maybe we should draft a petition? I bet Mexico would love it also.

Unfortunately, I think the war on drugs is a lot more popular in real life than it is on the internet. I know lots of IRL people who vote against medical marijuana when its on the ballot, for example. Not sure there's a single person who posts in this forum who would do so. It's easy to forget that the FFA isn't a representative sample of voters.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Can we please start with the ban of cell phone use in cars?

1.6m accidents a year,

11+ teenage deaths per day (Texting while driving is the #1 killer of young people in the United States)

Over 100K people are texting & driving at any given moment during the day

Texting is 6x more likely to cause an accident than driving drunk

 

[Clifford]

If Sandy Hook didn't cause gun reform nothing will. Ever. You could have this happen simultaneously on every live news broadcast in the country, all with legally bought guns by mentally ill individuals with criminal records and nothing would change. Nothing will ever change on this issue. The gun lobby won years ago and the people in charge simply don't care how many times this happens or how man people get killed.

ETA. I shouldn't put it all on the politicians. Truth is there isn't enough popular support for gun control or reform. The people of this country don't care how many times this happens either. Our culture simply doesn't place the value on human life that most of our contemporary cultures do.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Our culture simply doesn't place the value on human life that most of our contemporary cultures do.

I think it's more that our culture likes guns a lot more than other cultures do.

 

[BowieMercs]

How about we focus on things we can change. Gun rights are not likely to change without a landmark SCOTUS ruling or a Constitutional Amendment (i seriously doubt we'll ever see one of those pass again). Education is a proven path out of poverty. Poverty & the resulting unrest are highly correlated with crime & violence. We need education reform. Some of the worst performing school districts have the highest spending per student, so funding is not the primary issue, (So expanding the DOE is the last thing we need). We need to break the cycle of poverty & ignorance, while preserving the right to be ignorant

Year round schools with a school day that is as long as a work day would do a lot. "Homework" could be done at school, not at home where there may not be a positive environment. The extended day would solve a lot of day care/latch key kid issues as well. If a rodent like me can spitball this stuff, people who really know things should be able to cook up a good solution.

What say you?

I think you are on the right path, but the real problem with education for the poorest students isn't the schools or the teachers (mostly), but the lack of family support and priority put on education. Worse still, in some groups and neighborhoods education is actually stigmatized.

Another potential solution to a huge portion of the gun crime problem is ending the War on Drugs and moving towards a decriminalization and treatment model.

I think the full day schools my rodent fall guy mentioned can do a decent job mitigating the lack of family support... the kids will get homework done in homework sessions where they can ask questions & get help that they would not get from watching TV in an empty apartment (or hanging out on a street corner). I definitely agree that there is a cultural shift needed to embrace education instead of demonizing it. Maybe we can get some role model types (pro athletes & others) to promote school as the ballfield for your mind or something. We are falling behind and adding federal funding to measure non existent progress while leaving children behind aint cuttin it.

ETA: fixed typo

 

[BowieMercs]

How about we focus on things we can change. Gun rights are not likely to change without a landmark SCOTUS ruling or a Constitutional Amendment

We don't need either of those to require background checks for all private sales.

I simply don't understand why we can't make this ONE change in the law. At worst it would do no harm. At best it might help save lives. Must we always be stopped by the paranoia of a minority of gun owners??

Most if not all of the recent incidents involve guns purchased through a dealer with a Federal Firearms License and the buyer passed a background check. I don't know what requiring background checks on private sales has to do with this situation other than "appearing to do something". Let's add more layers of ineffective government to calm the masses because its just too hard to tackle complicated issues.

 

[Johnnymac]

If Sandy Hook didn't cause gun reform nothing will. Ever. You could have this happen simultaneously on every live news broadcast in the country, all with legally bought guns by mentally ill individuals with criminal records and nothing would change. Nothing will ever change on this issue. The gun lobby won years ago and the people in charge simply don't care how many times this happens or how man people get killed.

ETA. I shouldn't put it all on the politicians. Truth is there isn't enough popular support for gun control or reform. The people of this country don't care how many times this happens either. Our culture simply doesn't place the value on human life that most of our contemporary cultures do.

Agree with this. In fact, I don't hear much about SH anymore. The only way stricter gun control will ever happen is if the masses decide it's an issue that needs to be addressed and actually try and do something about it. People, myself included, say they want this stuff to stop but very few try and get the movement going, and if they do try, they fail. People say it's important but at the end of the day it's really not.

 

[TobiasFunke]

If Sandy Hook didn't cause gun reform nothing will. Ever. You could have this happen simultaneously on every live news broadcast in the country, all with legally bought guns by mentally ill individuals with criminal records and nothing would change. Nothing will ever change on this issue. The gun lobby won years ago and the people in charge simply don't care how many times this happens or how man people get killed.

ETA. I shouldn't put it all on the politicians. Truth is there isn't enough popular support for gun control or reform. The people of this country don't care how many times this happens either. Our culture simply doesn't place the value on human life that most of our contemporary cultures do.

Agree with this. In fact, I don't hear much about SH anymore. The only way stricter gun control will ever happen is if the masses decide it's an issue that needs to be addressed and actually try and do something about it. People, myself included, say they want this stuff to stop but very few try and get the movement going, and if they do try, they fail. People say it's important but at the end of the day it's really not.

Only thing I can think of is something like Sandy Hook but captured on video. How many NFL players beat up women without any real public outcry forcing the NFL to take action before the Ray Rice incident?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Man shoots church members = not a gun problem the shooter was a racist.

Man shoots school children = not a gun problem the shooter had an emotional problem.

Man shoots camera man and reporter = not a gun problem the shooter had mental problems.

Not to nit pick, but in case #1, FBI dropped the ball and allowed Dylan to get the gun when he shouldn't have. What good are background checks if the FBI can't conduct them properly? #2 Lanza stole the guns. #3 probably could've only been prevented if the tv station had filed charges against him. But they didn't. And nothing showed up on his background check to cause him to be denied a gun. Sadly not much you can do about that.

Remember the movie theater shooter down in Louisiana? That of course sparked a big huge gun debate. "We need to ban assault weapons!" "No more gun show and private sales!" "No more high capacity magazines!" "Background checks for everyone!!" Then the detail emerged. The shooter bought the gun legally from a licensed fire arm dealer after passing a bacckground check. The gun was not an assault weapon and did not have a high capacity magazine.

So I asked the people in that thread How they realistically (banning all guns is not realistic) how they would've prevented that shooting. Suddenly the anti-gun crowd went quiet and waited for the next big event so they could shout at their lungs that guns and all of their owners are the scourge of the earth and must be done away with.

Here's the reality. Are some shootings preventable? Sure. I frequently point out that Columbine, Loughner, VT were all preventable (Columbine kids had police called on them setting off explosives in a field, Loughner had made death threats against Giffords and the sheriff brushed them off, VT shooter was legally found to be a danger to himself and others.) But there's going to be shootings that just aren't realistically preventable. It sucks, but that's the real world. The videographer and reporter shooting is tragic. But it's one of those incidents that would've happened short of the anti-gun crowd rubbing a magic lamp and then telling the genie that pops out to disintegrate all guns in the US.

I don't beleive anybody thinks that all of these or future shootings are 100% preventable via gun legislation. That does not mean that background checks, registration, licensing criteria, assault weapon/magazine limits, etc. should just be off the table though.

 

[James Daulton]

We basically live in a country divided down the middle between liberal and conservative. Neither side has enough support to fully implement their agendas.

Plus, our society has become incredibly selfish and until something happens to us, we simply don't care. Folks who support guns would rather live with this type of scenario than give up any of their gun rights. Non-gun people can't be bothered to do the hard work to try to make real change.

 

[Amused to Death]

If Sandy Hook didn't cause gun reform nothing will. Ever. You could have this happen simultaneously on every live news broadcast in the country, all with legally bought guns by mentally ill individuals with criminal records and nothing would change. Nothing will ever change on this issue. The gun lobby won years ago and the people in charge simply don't care how many times this happens or how man people get killed.

ETA. I shouldn't put it all on the politicians. Truth is there isn't enough popular support for gun control or reform. The people of this country don't care how many times this happens either. Our culture simply doesn't place the value on human life that most of our contemporary cultures do.

Propaganda. "you're against guns!? you must hate America! Its in our Bill of Rights!" "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands!" "Obama wants your guns!" "Obama's invading Texas!"

But when the government really wants to infringe on your rights, they use propaganda to sway you on that. Just look at 9/11. Our 4th amendment rights were trampled by the same party that screams about protecting our guns - but they used fear to sway us. "Gotta fight the terrorists!". "What do you got to hide?"

To infringe on our 4th amendment, they use "protect Americans from terrorists", but for guns (which has killed exponentially more then our worst attack) they just throw up their hands and say "2nd amendment - can't do anything about it". Meanwhile they collect millions from the NRA.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

If Sandy Hook didn't cause gun reform nothing will. Ever. You could have this happen simultaneously on every live news broadcast in the country, all with legally bought guns by mentally ill individuals with criminal records and nothing would change. Nothing will ever change on this issue. The gun lobby won years ago and the people in charge simply don't care how many times this happens or how man people get killed.

ETA. I shouldn't put it all on the politicians. Truth is there isn't enough popular support for gun control or reform. The people of this country don't care how many times this happens either. Our culture simply doesn't place the value on human life that most of our contemporary cultures do.

Propaganda. "you're against guns!? you must hate America! Its in our Bill of Rights!" "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands!" "Obama wants your guns!" "Obama's invading Texas!"

But when the government really wants to infringe on your rights, they use propaganda to sway you on that. Just look at 9/11. Our 4th amendment rights were trampled by the same party that screams about protecting our guns - but they used fear to sway us. "Gotta fight the terrorists!". "What do you got to hide?"

To infringe on our 4th amendment, they use "protect Americans from terrorists", but for guns (which has killed exponentially more then our worst attack) they just throw up their hands and say "2nd amendment - can't do anything about it". Meanwhile they collect millions from the NRA.

All of which explains why I am against the Patriot Act, the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, while supporting the 2nd Amendment, along with all of the others.

You can disagree with me on any of those points, but at least I am intellectually consistent.

 

[[icon]]

If Sandy Hook didn't cause gun reform nothing will. Ever. You could have this happen simultaneously on every live news broadcast in the country, all with legally bought guns by mentally ill individuals with criminal records and nothing would change. Nothing will ever change on this issue. The gun lobby won years ago and the people in charge simply don't care how many times this happens or how man people get killed.

ETA. I shouldn't put it all on the politicians. Truth is there isn't enough popular support for gun control or reform. The people of this country don't care how many times this happens either. Our culture simply doesn't place the value on human life that most of our contemporary cultures do.

Propaganda. "you're against guns!? you must hate America! Its in our Bill of Rights!" "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands!" "Obama wants your guns!" "Obama's invading Texas!"

But when the government really wants to infringe on your rights, they use propaganda to sway you on that. Just look at 9/11. Our 4th amendment rights were trampled by the same party that screams about protecting our guns - but they used fear to sway us. "Gotta fight the terrorists!". "What do you got to hide?"

To infringe on our 4th amendment, they use "protect Americans from terrorists", but for guns (which has killed exponentially more then our worst attack) they just throw up their hands and say "2nd amendment - can't do anything about it". Meanwhile they collect millions from the NRA.

All of which explains why I am against the Patriot Act, the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, while supporting the 2nd Amendment, along with all of the others.

You can disagree with me on any of those points, but at least I am intellectually consistent.

 

[Kasparov]

So perhaps we should look elsewhere to the cause of murders since it apparently isn't guns.

The cause of murders isn't guns. Wow.

Good luck out there, Ray.

Most guns aren't used in murders. A good percentage of murders don't use guns.

Blaming guns for murders is like blaming the Quran for for Islamic Terrorism (quick! We need a 7 day waiting period, background check and psych eval for anyone wanting to buy a Quran!!)

Once again you are completely wrong. Over 2/3rds of all murders involve guns, and that percentage has stayed pretty consistent over the years.

You can have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html

I'd say 1/3 of murders not using guns is a good percentage.

OK, WOW again. So I'll skip the part where you admit to being morally bankrupt by thinking those numbers are "good" and skip right to the part where your previous statement was shown to be factually wrong. Go ahead and say it Fonzie, wr... wr....

A "good percentage" in this context means a meaningful percentage. It isn't a value judgement. And his use of the term doesn't imply anything about his morals.

And I am straining to see which statement he made is "factually wrong".

Just to clarify from yesterday, Rayderr said "Most guns aren't used in murders." which turns out not to be true.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

So perhaps we should look elsewhere to the cause of murders since it apparently isn't guns.

The cause of murders isn't guns. Wow.

Good luck out there, Ray.

Most guns aren't used in murders. A good percentage of murders don't use guns.

Blaming guns for murders is like blaming the Quran for for Islamic Terrorism (quick! We need a 7 day waiting period, background check and psych eval for anyone wanting to buy a Quran!!)

Once again you are completely wrong. Over 2/3rds of all murders involve guns, and that percentage has stayed pretty consistent over the years.

You can have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html

I'd say 1/3 of murders not using guns is a good percentage.

OK, WOW again. So I'll skip the part where you admit to being morally bankrupt by thinking those numbers are "good" and skip right to the part where your previous statement was shown to be factually wrong. Go ahead and say it Fonzie, wr... wr....

A "good percentage" in this context means a meaningful percentage. It isn't a value judgement. And his use of the term doesn't imply anything about his morals.

And I am straining to see which statement he made is "factually wrong".

Just to clarify from yesterday, Rayderr said "Most guns aren't used in murders." which turns out not to be true.

Are you drunk?

Most guns aren't used in murders.

 

[Kasparov]

So perhaps we should look elsewhere to the cause of murders since it apparently isn't guns.

The cause of murders isn't guns. Wow.

Good luck out there, Ray.

Most guns aren't used in murders. A good percentage of murders don't use guns.

Blaming guns for murders is like blaming the Quran for for Islamic Terrorism (quick! We need a 7 day waiting period, background check and psych eval for anyone wanting to buy a Quran!!)

Once again you are completely wrong. Over 2/3rds of all murders involve guns, and that percentage has stayed pretty consistent over the years.

You can have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html

I'd say 1/3 of murders not using guns is a good percentage.

OK, WOW again. So I'll skip the part where you admit to being morally bankrupt by thinking those numbers are "good" and skip right to the part where your previous statement was shown to be factually wrong. Go ahead and say it Fonzie, wr... wr....

A "good percentage" in this context means a meaningful percentage. It isn't a value judgement. And his use of the term doesn't imply anything about his morals.

And I am straining to see which statement he made is "factually wrong".

Just to clarify from yesterday, Rayderr said "Most guns aren't used in murders." which turns out not to be true.

Are you drunk?

Most guns aren't used in murders.

No, but hungover (most murders are by guns). I meant to highlight his statement "So perhaps we should look elsewhere to the cause of murders since it apparently isn't guns."

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

So perhaps we should look elsewhere to the cause of murders since it apparently isn't guns.

The cause of murders isn't guns. Wow.

Good luck out there, Ray.

Most guns aren't used in murders. A good percentage of murders don't use guns.

Blaming guns for murders is like blaming the Quran for for Islamic Terrorism (quick! We need a 7 day waiting period, background check and psych eval for anyone wanting to buy a Quran!!)

Once again you are completely wrong. Over 2/3rds of all murders involve guns, and that percentage has stayed pretty consistent over the years.

You can have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html

I'd say 1/3 of murders not using guns is a good percentage.

OK, WOW again. So I'll skip the part where you admit to being morally bankrupt by thinking those numbers are "good" and skip right to the part where your previous statement was shown to be factually wrong. Go ahead and say it Fonzie, wr... wr....

A "good percentage" in this context means a meaningful percentage. It isn't a value judgement. And his use of the term doesn't imply anything about his morals.

And I am straining to see which statement he made is "factually wrong".

Just to clarify from yesterday, Rayderr said "Most guns aren't used in murders." which turns out not to be true.

Are you drunk?

Most guns aren't used in murders.

No, but hungover (most murders are by guns). I meant to highlight his statement "So perhaps we should look elsewhere to the cause of murders since it apparently isn't guns."

Well, when you look at the vast increase in the number of guns in the country during the period that violent crime (including crime with guns) was falling, it is quite difficult to explain if your simple narrative is more guns = more murders.

 

[timschochet]

If Sandy Hook didn't cause gun reform nothing will. Ever. You could have this happen simultaneously on every live news broadcast in the country, all with legally bought guns by mentally ill individuals with criminal records and nothing would change. Nothing will ever change on this issue. The gun lobby won years ago and the people in charge simply don't care how many times this happens or how man people get killed.

ETA. I shouldn't put it all on the politicians. Truth is there isn't enough popular support for gun control or reform. The people of this country don't care how many times this happens either. Our culture simply doesn't place the value on human life that most of our contemporary cultures do.

Propaganda. "you're against guns!? you must hate America! Its in our Bill of Rights!" "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands!" "Obama wants your guns!" "Obama's invading Texas!"

But when the government really wants to infringe on your rights, they use propaganda to sway you on that. Just look at 9/11. Our 4th amendment rights were trampled by the same party that screams about protecting our guns - but they used fear to sway us. "Gotta fight the terrorists!". "What do you got to hide?"

To infringe on our 4th amendment, they use "protect Americans from terrorists", but for guns (which has killed exponentially more then our worst attack) they just throw up their hands and say "2nd amendment - can't do anything about it". Meanwhile they collect millions from the NRA.

All of which explains why I am against the Patriot Act, the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, while supporting the 2nd Amendment, along with all of the others.

You can disagree with me on any of those points, but at least I am intellectually consistent.

You're intellectually consistent- in a vacuum.

None of the rights enumerated in the Constitution are absolute. They have to be weighed against each other, and against competing interests of the state. The Second Amendment, for example, doesn't give you the right to construct a bomb in your backyard that could take out the entire block once exploded. And personally, I don't believe the Fourth Amendment gives anyone the right to be protected against a government mass warrant to collect bulk data.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

If Sandy Hook didn't cause gun reform nothing will. Ever. You could have this happen simultaneously on every live news broadcast in the country, all with legally bought guns by mentally ill individuals with criminal records and nothing would change. Nothing will ever change on this issue. The gun lobby won years ago and the people in charge simply don't care how many times this happens or how man people get killed.

ETA. I shouldn't put it all on the politicians. Truth is there isn't enough popular support for gun control or reform. The people of this country don't care how many times this happens either. Our culture simply doesn't place the value on human life that most of our contemporary cultures do.

Propaganda. "you're against guns!? you must hate America! Its in our Bill of Rights!" "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands!" "Obama wants your guns!" "Obama's invading Texas!"

But when the government really wants to infringe on your rights, they use propaganda to sway you on that. Just look at 9/11. Our 4th amendment rights were trampled by the same party that screams about protecting our guns - but they used fear to sway us. "Gotta fight the terrorists!". "What do you got to hide?"

To infringe on our 4th amendment, they use "protect Americans from terrorists", but for guns (which has killed exponentially more then our worst attack) they just throw up their hands and say "2nd amendment - can't do anything about it". Meanwhile they collect millions from the NRA.

All of which explains why I am against the Patriot Act, the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, while supporting the 2nd Amendment, along with all of the others.

You can disagree with me on any of those points, but at least I am intellectually consistent.

You're intellectually consistent- in a vacuum.

None of the rights enumerated in the Constitution are absolute. They have to be weighed against each other, and against competing interests of the state. The Second Amendment, for example, doesn't give you the right to construct a bomb in your backyard that could take out the entire block once exploded. And personally, I don't believe the Fourth Amendment gives anyone the right to be protected against a government mass warrant to collect bulk data.

It is well established that you lack either criteria for intellectual consistency.

 

[Two Deep]

The Red Coats are coming, somebody get me my musket.

 

[Kasparov]

Well, when you look at the vast increase in the number of guns in the country during the period that violent crime (including crime with guns) was falling, it is quite difficult to explain if your simple narrative is more guns = more murders.

My narrative would be guns are a problem. When people pull out a chart and say "hmm, guess it's not guns" I take issue is all.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Tim's not a big fan of enumerated powers and reserved rights. He supports the State assuming power.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Tim's not a big fan of enumerated powers and reserved rights. He supports the State assuming power.

That's worked out so well globally throughout history.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

The Red Coats are coming, somebody get me my musket.

Well after watching Sons of Liberty, I'm quite confident Paul Revere can use his ninja skills to protect us.

 

[Johnnymac]

Wasn't the 2nd amendment written like 250 years ago?? Besides that, I don't think it's even interpreted the way it was meant to be. Anyway, there were no assault weapons, automatic, or semiautomatic weapons at that time (didnt look this up but I would guess this to be true). My point is times change and we need to evolve. I dont like the govt taking away people's rights but this is one aspect of our society that needs to EVOLVE. It's not the 1770's anymore.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Wasn't the 2nd amendment written like 250 years ago?? Besides that, I don't think it's even interpreted the way it was meant to be. Anyway, there were no assault weapons, automatic, or semiautomatic weapons at that time (didnt look this up but I would guess this to be true). My point is times change and we need to evolve. I dont like the govt taking away people's rights but this is one aspect of our society that needs to EVOLVE. It's not the 1770's anymore.

Feel free to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Or to attempt to take it before the Supreme Court (again).

 

[Johnnymac]

Wasn't the 2nd amendment written like 250 years ago?? Besides that, I don't think it's even interpreted the way it was meant to be. Anyway, there were no assault weapons, automatic, or semiautomatic weapons at that time (didnt look this up but I would guess this to be true). My point is times change and we need to evolve. I dont like the govt taking away people's rights but this is one aspect of our society that needs to EVOLVE. It's not the 1770's anymore.

Feel free to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Or to attempt to take it before the Supreme Court (again).

I guess my point is why do so many people vehemently hold on to this 2nd amendment right like someone is trying to pull off one of their arms or something??

 

[BowieMercs]

Wasn't the 2nd amendment written like 250 years ago?? Besides that, I don't think it's even interpreted the way it was meant to be. Anyway, there were no assault weapons, automatic, or semiautomatic weapons at that time (didnt look this up but I would guess this to be true). My point is times change and we need to evolve. I dont like the govt taking away people's rights but this is one aspect of our society that needs to EVOLVE. It's not the 1770's anymore.

Feel free to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Or to attempt to take it before the Supreme Court (again).

I guess my point is why do so many people vehemently hold on to this 2nd amendment right like someone is trying to pull off one of their arms or something??

Probably the same reason they cling to those pesky 1st, & 4th amendments.

ETA: I cant type.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Wasn't the 2nd amendment written like 250 years ago?? Besides that, I don't think it's even interpreted the way it was meant to be. Anyway, there were no assault weapons, automatic, or semiautomatic weapons at that time (didnt look this up but I would guess this to be true). My point is times change and we need to evolve. I dont like the govt taking away people's rights but this is one aspect of our society that needs to EVOLVE. It's not the 1770's anymore.

Feel free to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Or to attempt to take it before the Supreme Court (again).

I guess my point is why do so many people vehemently hold on to this 2nd amendment right like someone is trying to pull off one of their arms or something??

Probably the same reason they cling to those pesky 1st, & 14th amendments.

Oof! That's gotta' hurt.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Wasn't the 2nd amendment written like 250 years ago?? Besides that, I don't think it's even interpreted the way it was meant to be. Anyway, there were no assault weapons, automatic, or semiautomatic weapons at that time (didnt look this up but I would guess this to be true). My point is times change and we need to evolve. I dont like the govt taking away people's rights but this is one aspect of our society that needs to EVOLVE. It's not the 1770's anymore.

Well, however old the 2nd amendment is, pretty sure that the 1st amendment is even older. Maybe we should get rid of that one too since it's so old and it's "not the 1770's anymore".

 

[Two Deep]

Every time the topic of gun control comes up, the only positive effect is to gun store owners bank accounts.

 

[ATC1]

Wasn't the 2nd amendment written like 250 years ago?? Besides that, I don't think it's even interpreted the way it was meant to be. Anyway, there were no assault weapons, automatic, or semiautomatic weapons at that time (didnt look this up but I would guess this to be true). My point is times change and we need to evolve. I dont like the govt taking away people's rights but this is one aspect of our society that needs to EVOLVE. It's not the 1770's anymore.

There also wasn't the amount of media coverage we have today. Thus the overreaction of the public. There are already been posts about the largest mass murders in American history and they too did not have access to the same weapons.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I guess my point is why do so many people vehemently hold on to this 2nd amendment right like someone is trying to pull off one of their arms or something??

Because lots of people really like guns.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I guess my point is why do so many people vehemently hold on to this 2nd amendment right like someone is trying to pull off one of their arms or something??

Because lots of people really like guns.

Also, because some of us are really sensitive about seeing our rights curtailed, even if we aren't actively using them.

 

[Bucky86]

I guess my point is why do so many people vehemently hold on to this 2nd amendment right like someone is trying to pull off one of their arms or something??

Because lots of people really like guns.

Also, because some of us are really sensitive about seeing our rights curtailed, even if we aren't actively using them.

And also for some people, only when it's not gay rights and abortion rights.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I guess my point is why do so many people vehemently hold on to this 2nd amendment right like someone is trying to pull off one of their arms or something??

Because lots of people really like guns.

Also, because some of us are really sensitive about seeing our rights curtailed, even if we aren't actively using them.

And also for some people, only when it's not gay rights and abortion rights.

That is undoubtedly true, though that doesn't apply in my case.

 

[BowieMercs]

I guess my point is why do so many people vehemently hold on to this 2nd amendment right like someone is trying to pull off one of their arms or something??

Because lots of people really like guns.

Also, because some of us are really sensitive about seeing our rights curtailed, even if we aren't actively using them.

And also for some people, only when it's not gay rights and abortion rights.

Gays have the right to bear arms. Pretty sure arming an unborn child would prove fatal.

 

[[icon]]

I guess my point is why do so many people vehemently hold on to this 2nd amendment right like someone is trying to pull off one of their arms or something??

Because lots of people really like guns.

Also, because some of us are really sensitive about seeing our rights curtailed, even if we aren't actively using them.

And also for some people, only when it's not gay rights and abortion rights.

Strange strawman to throw out there. Must be getting desperate.

I'm pro 2nd amendment , pro 14th amendment, and pro everyone minding their own business when it comes to who marries who.

 

[Instinctive]

This seems like the best thread for this little anecdote. The point being: I think a big reason so many people are very anti-gun is because they don't understand them. Things you know nothing about tend to be more scary. I'm of the opinion that poverty -> crime -> murders is the problem, as opposed to guns -> crime -> murders. Hypothesis being: if you took away all the guns, desperate/criminal people would find other ways to kill each other.

I'm from Texas. I've spent the last year in California, except that this summer I have been in New York. Since leaving Texas, any conversation on guns has inevitably ended in one place: "So you've never fired a gun before? Seen one in person?" When we get to that point, it feels like you've got no ethos left and the conversation dies. Of course you're afraid of guns, they're scary...until you learn about them. Just like a lot of things.

Anyway, storytime:

In NY this summer, we were all discussing which hand you bat with, how some people switch-hit, and how still others throw with one hand and bat with the other hand. I tossed out the idea that this last group of people could be caused by having a different dominant eye from their dominant hand. The response I got (from a table of very well educated people, all oh whom I respect) was universally, "Dominant eye?"

My response, of course, was to ask, "Yeah. Which eye do you use to shoot? I'm left-eye dominant even though I'm right-handed, so I tend to be a better marksman shooting left-handed."

I got blank stares again... "Shoot? Shoot what?"

Still not quite understanding what was going on, I answered with a kind of quizzical look, "A gun? Or a bow? Or a shotgun?"

Among a group of ten people, 9 of whom were from the northeast, I was the only one who had ever actually fired a gun. I still don't quite know how you make it through 25+ years of life and haven't ever fired a gun.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This seems like the best thread for this little anecdote. The point being: I think a big reason so many people are very anti-gun is because they don't understand them. Things you know nothing about tend to be more scary. I'm of the opinion that poverty -> crime -> murders is the problem, as opposed to guns -> crime -> murders. Hypothesis being: if you took away all the guns, desperate/criminal people would find other ways to kill each other.

I'm from Texas. I've spent the last year in California, except that this summer I have been in New York. Since leaving Texas, any conversation on guns has inevitably ended in one place: "So you've never fired a gun before? Seen one in person?" When we get to that point, it feels like you've got no ethos left and the conversation dies. Of course you're afraid of guns, they're scary...until you learn about them. Just like a lot of things.

Anyway, storytime:

In NY this summer, we were all discussing which hand you bat with, how some people switch-hit, and how still others throw with one hand and bat with the other hand. I tossed out the idea that this last group of people could be caused by having a different dominant eye from their dominant hand. The response I got (from a table of very well educated people, all oh whom I respect) was universally, "Dominant eye?"

My response, of course, was to ask, "Yeah. Which eye do you use to shoot? I'm left-eye dominant even though I'm right-handed, so I tend to be a better marksman shooting left-handed."

I got blank stares again... "Shoot? Shoot what?"

Still not quite understanding what was going on, I answered with a kind of quizzical look, "A gun? Or a bow? Or a shotgun?"

Among a group of ten people, 9 of whom were from the northeast, I was the only one who had ever actually fired a gun. I still don't quit know how you make it through 25+ years of life and haven't ever fired a gun.

Funny, I've had very similar experiences. I didn't grow up around guns at all as a northeast liberal type, but I've fired them several different times. Whenever it comes up everyone around me looks at me like I just told them I have syphilis. I knew attitudes were different based on where you grew up but I never realized how different until I had these conversations as an adult.

 

[[icon]]

This seems like the best thread for this little anecdote. The point being: I think a big reason so many people are very anti-gun is because they don't understand them. Things you know nothing about tend to be more scary. I'm of the opinion that poverty -> crime -> murders is the problem, as opposed to guns -> crime -> murders. Hypothesis being: if you took away all the guns, desperate/criminal people would find other ways to kill each other.

I'm from Texas. I've spent the last year in California, except that this summer I have been in New York. Since leaving Texas, any conversation on guns has inevitably ended in one place: "So you've never fired a gun before? Seen one in person?" When we get to that point, it feels like you've got no ethos left and the conversation dies. Of course you're afraid of guns, they're scary...until you learn about them. Just like a lot of things.

Anyway, storytime:

In NY this summer, we were all discussing which hand you bat with, how some people switch-hit, and how still others throw with one hand and bat with the other hand. I tossed out the idea that this last group of people could be caused by having a different dominant eye from their dominant hand. The response I got (from a table of very well educated people, all oh whom I respect) was universally, "Dominant eye?"

My response, of course, was to ask, "Yeah. Which eye do you use to shoot? I'm left-eye dominant even though I'm right-handed, so I tend to be a better marksman shooting left-handed."

I got blank stares again... "Shoot? Shoot what?"

Still not quite understanding what was going on, I answered with a kind of quizzical look, "A gun? Or a bow? Or a shotgun?"

Among a group of ten people, 9 of whom were from the northeast, I was the only one who had ever actually fired a gun. I still don't quit know how you make it through 25+ years of life and haven't ever fired a gun.

Funny, I've had very similar experiences. I didn't grow up around guns at all as a northeast liberal type, but I've fired them several different times. Whenever it comes up everyone around me looks at me like I just told them I have syphilis. I knew attitudes were different based on where you grew up but I never realized how different until I had these conversations as an adult.

Very true. I find it difficult to respect people's opinions on this kinda stuff when they have zero experience with it.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

This seems like the best thread for this little anecdote. The point being: I think a big reason so many people are very anti-gun is because they don't understand them. Things you know nothing about tend to be more scary. I'm of the opinion that poverty -> crime -> murders is the problem, as opposed to guns -> crime -> murders. Hypothesis being: if you took away all the guns, desperate/criminal people would find other ways to kill each other.

I'm from Texas. I've spent the last year in California, except that this summer I have been in New York. Since leaving Texas, any conversation on guns has inevitably ended in one place: "So you've never fired a gun before? Seen one in person?" When we get to that point, it feels like you've got no ethos left and the conversation dies. Of course you're afraid of guns, they're scary...until you learn about them. Just like a lot of things.

Anyway, storytime:

In NY this summer, we were all discussing which hand you bat with, how some people switch-hit, and how still others throw with one hand and bat with the other hand. I tossed out the idea that this last group of people could be caused by having a different dominant eye from their dominant hand. The response I got (from a table of very well educated people, all oh whom I respect) was universally, "Dominant eye?"

My response, of course, was to ask, "Yeah. Which eye do you use to shoot? I'm left-eye dominant even though I'm right-handed, so I tend to be a better marksman shooting left-handed."

I got blank stares again... "Shoot? Shoot what?"

Still not quite understanding what was going on, I answered with a kind of quizzical look, "A gun? Or a bow? Or a shotgun?"

Among a group of ten people, 9 of whom were from the northeast, I was the only one who had ever actually fired a gun. I still don't quit know how you make it through 25+ years of life and haven't ever fired a gun.

Funny, I've had very similar experiences. I didn't grow up around guns at all as a northeast liberal type, but I've fired them several different times. Whenever it comes up everyone around me looks at me like I just told them I have syphilis. I knew attitudes were different based on where you grew up but I never realized how different until I had these conversations as an adult.

Most people in NYC also can't imagine owning a car. Their views and experiences aren't a good gauge of what is normal.