Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Should students be allowed to walk out of school to support pro gun rights?


KCitons

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, KCitons said:

This was not my point. I share some of those same opinions.

Are there people on this board and in society that are calling for the removal of the Second Amendment? Has that sentiment grown since the school shooting in Florida?

To be honest I really don't know what percentage want the removal of the Second Amendment.  My guess is that it probably has grown but is still a low percentage.  I think if our lawmakers could begin to make ground in some of the areas a lot of people wouldn't feel the need to demonstrate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, KCitons said:
5 hours ago, The Commish said:

Then they're doing it wrong OR the "cause" isn't one people agree all that much with.

Do you think the media, or social media, had a hand in Trump being elected?

In that they put on the screen what would get them ratings?  Sure.  Do I think they were part of the initial snowball creation?  No.  That was all Donnie Two Scoops and his antics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

I'm not interested in a discussion with you on this because I watch you constantly use these logical fallacies in every attempted discussion you have on this subject.  You did this the one time I tried.  If you find someone who wants to remove the 2nd Amendment, you should debate them.  You need to stop projecting that view unto everyone that criticizes your false equivalences. This has been going on for weeks now.

You know this is BS. There is a movement of people that would be ok if the 2nd amendment went away. Treating them and the anti gun people the same is just like treating gun owners as NRA members. 

Sucks when you get lumped in, doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KCitons said:

You know this is BS. There is a movement of people that would be ok if the 2nd amendment went away. Treating them and the anti gun people the same is just like treating gun owners as NRA members. 

Sucks when you get lumped in, doesn't it?

Not sure why I expected you to do anything but ignore what I said.  I just wish you'd ruin less threads arguing against people who aren't here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

I'm not interested in a discussion with you on this because I watch you constantly use these logical fallacies in every attempted discussion you have on this subject.  You did this the one time I tried.  If you find someone who wants to remove the 2nd Amendment, you should debate them.  You need to stop projecting that view unto everyone that criticizes your false equivalences. This has been going on for weeks now.

And this is really the problem IMO.  Are there people out there who want to repeal the 2nd Amendment?  Yes.  Is it incorrect to say that nobody wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment?  Of course.  The problem is when it's brought up in situations where the audience/protesters whomever aren't those people who want to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  At that point it's a straw man / deflection tactic.  And it's absurd to ask that audience (the people who aren't making the proposal) to argue the position of those who are making the proposal.  It happens all the time.  

So in this example of MSDHS, I don't believe there's been a theme from them demanding the second amendment be repealed, so when one reads that as the opening argument essentially, that person is going to be ignored, even if other valid points are made later because it's not really an honest discussion.  It was asked "what would it take to convince you otherwise?".  Of course this misses the point and is the wrong question to ask.  However, in the interest of open dialogue, I feel the appropriate answer is essentially what you say here.  Bring that question up with those who are proposing it, not those who aren't.  Repeal of the 2nd Amendment isn't one of the driving principles of the movement started in Parkland.  It doesn't belong in discussion about that group.  It's not that complicated and I can only think of one legitimate reason people insist on doing it.

Edited by The Commish
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Commish said:

And this is really the problem IMO.  Are there people out there who want to repeal the 2nd Amendment?  Yes.  Is it incorrect to say that nobody wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment?  Of course.  The problem is when it's brought up in situations where the audience/protesters whomever aren't those people who want to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  At that point it's a straw man / deflection tactic.  And it's absurd to ask that audience (the people who aren't making the proposal) to argue the position of those who are making the proposal.  It happens all the time.  

So in this example of MSDHS, I don't believe there's been a theme from them demanding the second amendment be repealed, so when one reads that as the opening argument essentially, that person is going to be ignored, even if other valid points are made later because it's not really an honest discussion.  It was asked "what would it take to convince you otherwise?".  Of course this misses the point and is the wrong question to ask.  However, in the interest of open dialogue, I feel the appropriate answer is essentially what you say here.  Bring that question up with those who are proposing it, not those who aren't.  Repeal of the 2nd Amendment isn't one of the driving principles of the movement started in Parkland.  It doesn't belong in discussion about that group.  It's not that complicated and I can only think of one legitimate reason people insist on doing it.

The discussion of reasonable gun control will always lead to discussion of a repeal of the second amendment, because as long as we have Heller as our precedent for interpreting the second amendment, reasonable gun control will be difficult to achieve.   Yes, the Parkland kids aren't saying repeal the second amendment, but to achieve effective gun control, it is the most effective approach.    The logical gap is in the fear-based narrative that either discussion is about banning/confiscating guns.   May as well just take that on head-on, because that's the issue, not the mechanism of effecting change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, -fish- said:

The discussion of reasonable gun control will always lead to discussion of a repeal of the second amendment, because as long as we have Heller as our precedent for interpreting the second amendment, reasonable gun control will be difficult to achieve.   Yes, the Parkland kids aren't saying repeal the second amendment, but to achieve effective gun control, it is the most effective approach.    The logical gap is in the fear-based narrative that either discussion is about banning/confiscating guns.   May as well just take that on head-on, because that's the issue, not the mechanism of effecting change.

I get this but disagree with it a little bit.  I get the impact of Heller.  It provides a huge boulder that the fringe cling to and fall back on when the reasonable discussion goes away and it becomes a shouting match.  I get that.  But I'll also suggest anyone relying on or bringing up Heller isn't really interested in reasonable discussion in the first place.  They have no interest in meeting in the middle.  If they did, they wouldn't be using Heller at all.  They'd be trying to work towards a middle ground despite what Heller says

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, -fish- said:

The discussion of reasonable gun control will always lead to discussion of a repeal of the second amendment, because as long as we have Heller as our precedent for interpreting the second amendment, reasonable gun control will be difficult to achieve.   Yes, the Parkland kids aren't saying repeal the second amendment, but to achieve effective gun control, it is the most effective approach.    The logical gap is in the fear-based narrative that either discussion is about banning/confiscating guns.   May as well just take that on head-on, because that's the issue, not the mechanism of effecting change.

Can you expand on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

Can you expand on that?

Sure.  Start a discussion about gun control, and the first point of pushback is that gun owners have an unfettered constitutional right to own guns.   This will inevitably be countered by someone bringing up the fact that the second amendment means no such thing, and that it was limited to a "well-regulated militia"  and the founders could not have envisioned a private citizen owning a weapon capable of firing upwards of 300 rounds a minute, with devastating ammunition.  

Heller essentially disposes of "well-regulated militia," so we are left with Miller, that says the second amendment allows ownership of weapons of the types "in common use," which doesn't really have any basis in the constitution at all and was wrongly or rightly invented by the Supreme Court.  So any regulation runs up against this interpretation and its limits because once a weapon becomes "common" it becomes more difficult to regulate without violating the second amendment.   Repealing or replacing the second amendment with something more suitable to the 21st century would make reasonable gun control simpler to enact, and could still provide assurances to law-abiding citizens that they will be able to own and use guns with reasonable regulation.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Slapdash said:

Not sure why I expected you to do anything but ignore what I said.  I just wish you'd ruin less threads arguing against people who aren't here.

Just because you don't see it, doesn't make it so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, -fish- said:

Sure.  Start a discussion about gun control, and the first point of pushback is that gun owners have an unfettered constitutional right to own guns.   This will inevitably be countered by someone bringing up the fact that the second amendment means no such thing, and that it was limited to a "well-regulated militia"  and the founders could not have envisioned a private citizen owning a weapon capable of firing upwards of 300 rounds a minute, with devastating ammunition.  

Heller essentially disposes of "well-regulated militia," so we are left with Miller, that says the second amendment allows ownership of weapons of the types "in common use," which doesn't really have any basis in the constitution at all and was wrongly or rightly invented by the Supreme Court.  So any regulation runs up against this interpretation and its limits because once a weapon becomes "common" it becomes more difficult to regulate without violating the second amendment.   Repealing or replacing the second amendment with something more suitable to the 21st century would make reasonable gun control simpler to enact, and could still provide assurances to law-abiding citizens that they will be able to own and use guns with reasonable regulation.   

Is the thought that Heller would keep us from doing an AR ban like under Clinton?  Or requiring registration of guns?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

Is the thought that Heller would keep us from doing an AR ban like under Clinton?  Or requiring registration of guns?  

Scalia said, "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."  That seems to create an issue where the quantity or popularity of a particular weapon makes it more difficult to regulate or prohibit.   

It should be noted that the Supreme Court denied an appeal on a Maryland ban of assault weapons (thus upholding the ban), but did not comment.

From the FindLaw commentary:

Quote

Maryland's assault weapons ban applied to military-style arms and ammunition capabilities:

The characterization of the arms impacted by the FSA was essential to the case's outcome. The state had advanced uncontroverted evidence that the firearms affected by the FSA were "exceptionally lethal weapons of war," the Fourth noted. The AR-15 was developed for the U.S. Army, where it's known as an M16. The AK-47 was its Soviet equivalent. Civilian versions of both are semiautomatic, rather than fully automatic, "but otherwise retain the military features and capabilities" of their military cousins.

That distinguished those weapons from other firearms -- those used "in defense of hearth and home" -- that could not be banned under the Supreme Court's prior gun control ruling in D.C. v. Heller. The Fourth Circuit concluded instead that "assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment."

This will certainly come up again.   Many of the pro-gun folks in here have argued that the civilian version of the AR15 frame is just another version of a semi-automatic rifle that is essential to defending our country against the threat of small varmints.  The only difference, other than it being the preferred weapon of mass murderers, is that it scares liberals (including children that are getting shot at with it--but they're too young to have an opinion).

And because you asked, Heller specifically allows licensing and registration requirements.

Edited by -fish-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Scalia said, "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."  That seems to create an issue where the quantity or popularity of a particular weapon makes it more difficult to regulate or prohibit.   

It should be noted that the Supreme Court denied an appeal on a Maryland ban of assault weapons (thus upholding the ban), but did not comment.

From the FindLaw commentary:

This will certainly come up again.   Many of the pro-gun folks in here have argued that the civilian version of the AR15 frame is just another version of a semi-automatic rifle that is essential to defending our country against the threat of small varmints.  The only difference, other than it being the preferred weapon of mass murderers, is that it scares liberals (including children that are getting shot at with it--but they're too young to have an opinion).

And because you asked, Heller specifically allows licensing and registration requirements.

Appreciate the response here.  I'm not a lawyer guy nor am I particularly against or for the second amendment.  I suggested those two angles because those seem ones that could be common sense to implement. Although, I wonder if the SC would have a different opinion on a federal ban vs a state level ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, KCitons said:

My posts really anger you that much? 

Your circular reasoning and refusal to abandon logical fallacies can be infuriating.  It's like trying to explain to a toddler that they shouldn't eat red paint, but they think they can eat it because apples are also red.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

Appreciate the response here.  I'm not a lawyer guy nor am I particularly against or for the second amendment.  I suggested those two angles because those seem ones that could be common sense to implement. Although, I wonder if the SC would have a different opinion on a federal ban vs a state level ban.

Second amendment applies to states through the 10th and 14th, so it shouldn't matter.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to start a new thread, but I'll just ask here.

If you have a choice between 2 candidates, who do you vote for?

1 - Wants to remove the 2nd amendment and ban all guns.

2 -  Wants to keep keep the 2nd amendment and make minimal changes to gun laws. (raise minimum age, universal background checks, but zero bans on any guns)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Your circular reasoning and refusal to abandon logical fallacies can be infuriating.  It's like trying to explain to a toddler that they shouldn't eat red paint, but they think they can eat it because apples are also red.

Do you think comparing me a toddler does anything? Are you hoping that I will suddenly say "you're right, I support everything you are saying" 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

Second amendment applies to states through the 10th and 14th, so it shouldn't matter.  

I get that, but the SCOTUS is a political organism, not a robotic one. I'm trying follow the idea that Heller presents most of what gun control advocates advocate for, but it seems like it allows plenty of things between the current state and the 2nd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I was going to start a new thread, but I'll just ask here.

If you have a choice between 2 candidates, who do you vote for?

1 - Wants to remove the 2nd amendment and ban all guns.

2 -  Wants to keep keep the 2nd amendment and make minimal changes to gun laws. (raise minimum age, universal background checks, but zero bans on any guns)

3.  wants to remove the second amendment and institute meaningful gun control regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

I get that, but the SCOTUS is a political organism, not a robotic one. I'm trying follow the idea that Heller presents most of what gun control advocates advocate for, but it seems like it allows plenty of things between the current state and the 2nd.

Not really.  Heller is not a pro-gun control case.   If it was, Stevens would have carried the day, "well regulated militia" would not have been thrown on the scrap heap, and the federal government and states would have been able to institute things like handgun bans and mandatory trigger locks.

Heller allows regulation of the outliers.   Even if we ban all AR-15s, the next logical step toward decreasing gun violence would be to ban semi-auto handguns with similar capabilities.  Heller makes that nearly impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, -fish- said:

3.  wants to remove the second amendment and institute meaningful gun control regulations.

So you're voting Independent?

This is the issue with the gun control debate. You're only going to have 2 choices. Are you prepared to vote the extreme choice, or the one that doesn't accomplish what you want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Do you think comparing me a toddler does anything? Are you hoping that I will suddenly say "you're right, I support everything you are saying" 

 

No I want you to recognize that there is a reason people are taught logical fallacies, and that nearly everyone here keeps telling you to stop.   It's pointless to debate anything with you when you continue to rely on false equivalencies, circular reasoning, arguments from ignorance, and your other go-to's.  Lots of people have been more than civil to you.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KCitons said:

So you're voting Independent?

This is the issue with the gun control debate. You're only going to have 2 choices. Are you prepared to vote the extreme choice, or the one that doesn't accomplish what you want?

This is called a false dilemma.   The true facts are that there aren't any politicians embraced by the mainstream who advocate for a repeal and ban.  But you want to argue like the toddler who thinks apples and paint are the same because they are red.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Not really.  Heller is not a pro-gun control case.   If it was, Stevens would have carried the day, "well regulated militia" would not have been thrown on the scrap heap, and the federal government and states would have been able to institute things like handgun bans and mandatory trigger locks.

Heller allows regulation of the outliers.   Even if we ban all AR-15s, the next logical step toward decreasing gun violence would be to ban semi-auto handguns with similar capabilities.  Heller makes that nearly impossible.

I see what you mean.  I'm just saying that banning AR15s is a pretty big item.  I think there is plenty to do at the margins without destroying the 2nd amendment.  I think many are in the same boat.  The Constitution is certainly important.  We're (Congress and the POTUS) aren't doing anything though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

I see what you mean.  I'm just saying that banning AR15s is a pretty big item.  I think there is plenty to do at the margins without destroying the 2nd amendment.  I think many are in the same boat.  The Constitution is certainly important.  We're (Congress and the POTUS) aren't doing anything though.

To some extent, I think the pro-gun guys have a point in arguing that the current wave of support is to ban what comes down to "scary-looking weapons" that have the same capabilities as other weapons that look more like a traditional hunting rifle, so it doesn't make a lot of sense.  But with Miller and Heller, that may be the only reasonable place to start if you want to work toward a larger gun control platform.  The AR-15 is a military weapon converted to civilian use.  That's the hook under Miller and Heller that it doesn't get second amendment protection. I think a large portion of the pro-gun crowd doesn't get that.  That's also the reason the NRA keeps banging the "there's no such thing as an assault weapon" drum.   Military-style weapons aren't protected, even if they're semi-auto instead of full auto.  They want to keep as many weapons as possible away from the categories that these two cases don't protect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freaky coincidence that I’m scrolling through the Amazon Prime movie list tonight and come across Miss Sloane, I movie I never heard of and didn’t know anything about.  Watched it because I like Jessica Chastain, and it turns out it’s about the gun lobby.  Good movie.

Edited by joffer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, -fish- said:

This is called a false dilemma.   The true facts are that there aren't any politicians embraced by the mainstream who advocate for a repeal and ban.  But you want to argue like the toddler who thinks apples and paint are the same because they are red.  

Apples and paint can be the same, if they are the same color. It's just depends on what aspect you are comparing. Which has been my point for years. If you are comparing deaths, then you are not really concerned with saving lives when it comes to banning things. 

As far as a false dilemma, five years ago, would you have thought that we'd have Trump as our POTUS? Some politician will use the emotional charge of gun control to build a platform around banning the 2nd Amendment. It's low hanging fruit when it comes to votes. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you list for me the clauses of the Constitution and its Amendment which haven't been limited in any way? And you can't have the 3rd, because the 3rd is dumb. I'll sit here and wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, KCitons said:

I was going to start a new thread, but I'll just ask here.

If you have a choice between 2 candidates, who do you vote for?

1 - Wants to remove the 2nd amendment and ban all guns.

2 -  Wants to keep keep the 2nd amendment and make minimal changes to gun laws. (raise minimum age, universal background checks, but zero bans on any guns)

What are their other positions?  I try to avoid voting one issue.  It's shortsighted and simplistic and honestly, guns aren't very high on my priority list.  It's laughable that this country can't seem to get out of it's own way with respect to guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KCitons said:

Apples and paint can be the same, if they are the same color. It's just depends on what aspect you are comparing. Which has been my point for years. If you are comparing deaths, then you are not really concerned with saving lives when it comes to banning things. 

As far as a false dilemma, five years ago, would you have thought that we'd have Trump as our POTUS? Some politician will use the emotional charge of gun control to build a platform around banning the 2nd Amendment. It's low hanging fruit when it comes to votes. 

No....you're butchering the English language with this nonsense.  They can have the same color sure, but that does not make them the same thing.  Apples and paint will NEVER and can NEVER be the same thing.  Sharing a characteristic <> being the same thing.

Edited by The Commish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Godsbrother said:

Most people that I have talked to, even gun enthusiasts, feel that you should be able to own guns for self defense and sport but want a minimum age of 21, better background checks, a longer waiting period and a ban on certain types of firearms, ammo and accessories. 

 

 

How has at least some of this not happened yet? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, KCitons said:

I was going to start a new thread, but I'll just ask here.

If you have a choice between 2 candidates, who do you vote for?

1 - Wants to remove the 2nd amendment and ban all guns.

2 -  Wants to keep keep the 2nd amendment and make minimal changes to gun laws. (raise minimum age, universal background checks, but zero bans on any guns)

Let me know when you find anyone who is #1. Thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KCitons said:

Apples and paint can be the same, if they are the same color. It's just depends on what aspect you are comparing. Which has been my point for years. If you are comparing deaths, then you are not really concerned with saving lives when it comes to banning things. 

As far as a false dilemma, five years ago, would you have thought that we'd have Trump as our POTUS? Some politician will use the emotional charge of gun control to build a platform around banning the 2nd Amendment. It's low hanging fruit when it comes to votes. 

This is the perfect FFA politics post. Just a beautiful, compact combination of non sequiturs, logical fallacies and good old blathering nonsense. Where would one even begin to respond to this? Brings a tear to my eye.  Shut it down folks, nobody's topping this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Commish said:

No....you're butchering the English language with this nonsense.  They can have the same color sure, but that does not make them the same thing.  Apples and paint will NEVER and can NEVER be the same thing.  Sharing a characteristic <> being the same thing.

This logic is missing from the coffee thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My in-laws are conservatives who always vote Republican, and last weekend they expressed the same frustration about gun control that Para just did- they support reasonable restrictions up to and including banning the AR-15, they don’t like the NRA, they support the Parkland kids, and they want to know why more hasn’t been done. 

But in November they’re going to vote Republican again down the line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

This is the perfect FFA politics post. Just a beautiful, compact combination of non sequiturs, logical fallacies and good old blathering nonsense. Where would one even begin to respond to this? Brings a tear to my eye.  Shut it down folks, nobody's topping this.

I, for one, look forward to see how one politician will get 75% of states to agree to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which politician would you vote for?

1 - Someone who wants reasonable restrictions on free speech, but still allowing flag burning.
2 - Someone who wants to ban the 1st Amendment and have state-controlled media.

1 - Someone who has decided that abortion is a woman's personal choice
2 - Someone who wants to pass a constitutional amendment dictating that the government has the right to veto any medical procedure

1 - Someone who believes that deference to police has gone a little too far and wants to make reasonable changes to make them more culpable and easier to prosecute in case of shootings, removing their special emergency loophole
2 - Someone who wants to do a constitutional amendment that anyone who is a police officer may shoot someone at any time for any reason

TIA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...