Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

When did the 2nd amendment stop being important in U.S history?

It didn't stop being important in US history. It stopped being a useful tool for the creation of a functioning society. You know. The whole keep-government-in-check idea. That was real. It isn't anymore.

[Laize]

Your paranoia about "protecting our rights" clearly demonstrates your hypocrisy. It's so hilarious that you deny it and prop yourself up with semantics in order to feel better.

I said "explain". Not "make a baseless assertion".

[Rukentuts]

I said "explain". Not "make a baseless assertion".

Oh look he's at it again.

- - - Updated - - -

It didn't stop being important in US history. It stopped being a useful tool for the creation of a functioning society. You know. The whole keep-government-in-check idea. That was real. It isn't anymore.

It hasn't been relevant since other "arms" have been regulated.

Primitive fear is what keeps it alive.

[Laize]

Oh look he's at it again.

Still not an explanation.

As near as I can tell, you seem to be under the impression that I'm afraid that without guns the federal government would take away all our other rights. Yet you have done absolutely nothing to show that I have said or even suggested that WOULD happen.

[TZucchini]

You sound exactly like I imagine I sound to Democrats when I say that there was a time when unions were important, but that time has passed.

It's an interesting comparison, that's for sure.

We're simply not going to agree. The right to remain armed to protect our rights will never be obsolete.

Do you think it's possible for citizens to protect their rights, in this day and age, with firearms? I can't imagine a single incident where that could happen.

[Rukentuts]

Still not an explanation.

As near as I can tell, you seem to be under the impression that I'm afraid that without guns the federal government would take away all our other rights. Yet you have done absolutely nothing to show that I have said or even suggested that WOULD happen.

Who are you "protecting" them from?

The right to remain armed to protect our rights will never be obsolete.

From texters during movie previews?

You're either in fear from the government, or fear of "self-defense". Either way, you're a bloody hypocrite.

[Laize]

It's an interesting comparison, that's for sure.

Do you think it's possible for citizens to protect their rights, in this day and age, with firearms? I can't imagine a single incident where that could happen.

Whether you agree with the individuals who have aptly demonstrated exactly what you can't seem to imagine is immaterial to whether or not such a thing is possible.

That's just ONE guy with a gun.

[lockedout]

Still not an explanation.

As near as I can tell, you seem to be under the impression that I'm afraid that without guns the federal government would take away all our other rights. Yet you have done absolutely nothing to show that I have said or even suggested that WOULD happen.

They are already doing that, taking away guns from civilians just makes it easier.

[rhandric]

OK but in modern day America, I think it's pretty silly to believe that a higher power has granted us certain rights. The rights granted to us in the Constitution are first and foremost recognized by government. Without that recognition, these rights wouldn't exist.

Natural rights doesn't imply being granted by some higher power; instead, it means rights that exist regardless of laws, culture, or belief therein.

[Laize]

Who are you "protecting" them from?



From texters during movie previews?

You're either in fear from the government, or fear of "self-defense". Either way, you're a bloody hypocrite.

I'm not, and I'll prove it with one simple statement.

You have not, and cannot provide a compelling reason for the abridgment of any citizen's right to own a gun.

The onus is not upon me to explain to you why my rights should remain intact. The onus is on YOU to provide a compelling reason to me to give some of them up.

Gun crime is on the decline and there are already background checks. So you give me one good reason we should abridge Americans' right to own guns. JUST ONE.

[Rukentuts]

I'm not, and I'll prove it with one simple statement.

You have not, and cannot provide a compelling reason for the abridgment of any citizen's right to own a gun.

The onus is not upon me to explain to you why my rights should remain intact. The onus is on YOU to provide a compelling reason to me to give some of them up.

Gun crime is on the decline and there are already background checks. So you give me one good reason we should abridge Americans' right to own guns. JUST ONE.

You didn't prove anything. You just decreed it so.

Once again you're being hypocritical.

PS: SCOTUS ruled ex-felons can't have guns. So yes, I can abridge a citizen's right. Move along now.

[lockedout]

You didn't prove anything. You just decreed it so.

Once again you're being hypocritical.

How about you answer his question?

[TZucchini]

Whether you agree with the individuals who have aptly demonstrated exactly what you can't seem to imagine is immaterial to whether or not such a thing is possible.

That's just ONE guy with a gun.

I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to demonstrate. This isn't an example of someone using a firearm to protect his rights. And it isn't an example of government being incapable of apprehending him.

- - - Updated - - -

Natural rights doesn't imply being granted by some higher power; instead, it means rights that exist regardless of laws, culture, or belief therein.

How exactly do rights exist outside of law? They're created by man. We create the very rights that we grant ourselves.

[Laize]

You didn't prove anything. You just decreed it so.

Once again you're being hypocritical.

PS: SCOTUS ruled ex-felons can't have guns. So yes, I can abridge a citizen's right. Move along now.

What a load of bullshit and you know it.

I've never said rights were immutable. I said you had to provide a compelling reason for abridging them.

Recidivism among violent criminals is a pretty compelling reason. Baseless fear of being involved in a mass shooting is not.

[Rukentuts]

What a load of bullshit and you know it.

Yeah no.

I've never said rights were immutable. I said you had to provide a compelling reason for abridging them.

You obviously have problems reading your own posts:

"You have not, and cannot provide a compelling reason for the abridgment of any citizen's right to own a gun."

I love how you move goalposts when you're wrong.

[Payday]

Whether you agree with the individuals who have aptly demonstrated exactly what you can't seem to imagine is immaterial to whether or not such a thing is possible.

That's just ONE guy with a gun.

Are you serious with that example? Is there more to the story, or is he really just a fugitive nut job on the run? I don't see how that helps your argument here. He wouldn't be able to legally own a firearm if they cared to catch him (I don't really get why they haven't yet, either)

[PhaelixWW]

Whether or not those numbers are inflated, and whether or not Tobacco use and alcohol use have higher societal costs, the fact remains that firearm violence costs this country $179 billion each year. That's a perfectly legitimate reason to increase regulation and restrict access.

Not really, no. The point I was trying to make is that with tobacco and alcohol, it's the substance itself that causes the problem, so restricting the substance has a direct effect on the damage it causes. With firearms, the intent is far more important than the tool. Unlike tobacco, which damages the user and those around him/her every time it's used, or alcohol, which impairs your judgment, simply owning or using a firearm does not directly damage those around you.

Restricting firearms across the board would have, at best, an indirect effect on reducing the damage caused by firearms. Restricting firearms for violent criminals and the mentally unstable would have more of a direct benefit, and I'm fine with that.

Just because I want to restrict firearm access doesn't mean that I'm blaming them for specific crimes. It's obviously the fault of the individual.

However, if we make it so ridiculously easy for these individuals to access firearms, then it's we who are to blame. Criminals will always exist. Ease of access to firearms doesn't have to exist.

And I don't honestly think that many people want to hand firearms to criminals. Almost all people support a background check to keep the guns out of the wrong hands. We just want the background check method to be more successful, without placing an undue burden on the law-abiding.

[lockedout]

What a load of bullshit and you know it.

It's a steaming pile.

AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Laize]

I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to demonstrate. This isn't an example of someone using a firearm to protect his rights. And it isn't an example of government being incapable of apprehending him.

How do you not see the way the effectiveness of one individual's gun ownership could be extrapolated to a group?

Fine. How about looking at how impotent the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been at eliminating the opposition? A group with nothing more than guns and homemade explosives stymied the most powerful military on the planet for 10 years. Now we're going home flat broke with practically nothing to show for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah no.

You obviously have problems reading your own posts:

"You have not, and cannot provide a compelling reason for the abridgment of any citizen's right to own a gun."

I love how you move goalposts when you're wrong.

Oh for fuck's sake, you're being semantic.

Why don't you go ahead and read the goddamned 14th amendment. Tell me what it says. Specifically right around the location it says "due process of law".

Here let me amend my statement since you are apparently so incapable of determining context that I have to spell it out for you.

"You have not, and cannot provide a compelling reason for the abridgment of any law-abiding citizen's right to own a gun without due process of law."

[rhandric]

How exactly do rights exist outside of law? They're created by man. We create the very rights that we grant ourselves.

Something doesn't have to be delineated for you to have the right to it. I mean, the 10th amendment is purposefully vague, because it's impossible to delineate every possible right that can and will ever exist.