Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Bytch]

The burden of proof isn't on her when you're the one making the extraordinary claims.

yes, the burden of proof is on the person making 1st claim. So, again. Prove and make me believe without a doubt. Show me the MONEY!!

[Maleficus]

Our right to bear arms does not "give teeth" to anything, much less our constitution. Most Americans like to think that thy can use their weapons to help fight a currupt government. This is a laughable prospect. ANY formally trained would literally roll over anyone that opposed it, guns or no guns. If it gets to the point of citizens fighting the government the best they could hope to do is be fodder.

I wonder if cops are formally trained to use their guns? I sure hope so!

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...tim/57297548/1

...at least the 9 innocent bystanders got to play the role of fodder. It's so much more fun when everyone joins in!

[Kasierith]

You're too lazy to do your own research? Google and many other sources are at your finger tips. You can easily check into it just as quick as i can.

Actually, throughout the course of this discussion I have linked numerous sources to back up my claims. You, however, have repeatedly failed to do so. It's almost like you have absolutely no sources to pull from apart from the most radical and tangent theorists whose basis in reality was lost long ago.

It's your point. Stop being lazy and back it up.

[Bytch]

Armed enough? I have no doubt. There are millions of paranoid people in America. Trained enough? Not a chance in hell.

Another thing worth mentioning is our 100% volunteer military, sworn to uphold American ideals. If it really got as bad as all the gun nuts think it will if they lose their precious guns, do you honestly believe the military would continue to back that government? I wouldn't.

No, Our military swore oaths to uphold the Constitution. Not Ideals.

[Reeve]

yes, the burden of proof is on the person making 1st claim. So, again. Prove and make me believe without a doubt. Show me the MONEY!!

Yeah, you're the one making the first claim!

[Bytch]

Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift. It must be pursued constantly and responsibly. Freedom is not an ideal located outside of man; nor is it an idea which becomes myth. It is rather the indispensable condition for the quest for human completion.Freedom will be the result of praxis — informed action — when a balance between theory and practice is achieved.

Dialogics as an instrument to free the colonized, through the use of cooperation, unity, organization and cultural synthesis (overcoming problems in society to liberate human beings). This is in contrast to antidialogics which use conquest, manipulation, cultural invasion, and the concept of divide and rule. Populist dialogue is a necessity to revolution; that impeding dialogue dehumanizes and supports the status quo.

--Paulo Freire (Book: Pedagogy of the Oppressed )

---------- Post added 2013-02-01 at 03:09 PM ----------

Yeah, you're the one making the first claim!

No, the person making the 1st claim has the burden of proof. Im the one making the 2nd claim by asking questions.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I like how we went down the line from brainwashed to sway, pretty soon we will get to nudge or poke. CNN is a privately owned company and can do what ever they want to make money. You saying what they should be doing is really meaningless, even more so in a gun debate.

Not really, especially when what they say is being used as "facts."

[Reeve]

Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift. It must be pursued constantly and responsibly. Freedom is not an ideal located outside of man; nor is it an idea which becomes myth. It is rather the indispensable condition for the quest for human completion.Freedom will be the result of praxis — informed action — when a balance between theory and practice is achieved.

Dialogics as an instrument to free the colonized, through the use of cooperation, unity, organization and cultural synthesis (overcoming problems in society to liberate human beings). This is in contrast to antidialogics which use conquest, manipulation, cultural invasion, and the concept of divide and rule. Populist dialogue is a necessity to revolution; that impeding dialogue dehumanizes and supports the status quo.

--Paulo Freire (Book: Pedagogy of the Oppressed )

---------- Post added 2013-02-01 at 03:09 PM ----------



No, the person making the 1st claim has the burden of proof. Im the one making the 2nd claim by asking questions.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you then. What are your questions?

[Deleted]

No, Our military swore oaths to uphold the Constitution. Not Ideals.

The constitution is not full of American ideals? Interesting.

[Bytch]

The constitution is not full of American ideals? Interesting.

It is full of Ideals. But Ideals change on a daily basis. Our Military and Govt officials swore oaths to IT. Not a ever changing ideal or ideas.

[Maleficus]

The constitution is not full of American ideals? Interesting.

What American ideals would those be? The antiquated ones from the time when the Constitution was written and horses were the only form of transport? Or those of today, which the founders obviously would not recognize?

[Sicarus]

1. Universal Background Checks
2. Mandatory training and safes
3. No loopholes at public venues
4. End the drug war
5. get rid of gun free zones (or soft target buffets)
6. further Community action in inner city communities
7. Improve education system and localize it so it can be tailored to specific student needs

1. Already a thing.
2. Meh, can't really force people to do anything, liberty and all that.
3. Same principle as privately selling your car to someone, that car could end up being a get away car, or running someone over. So.
4. Legalize the "forbidden!111one" drugs.
5. For sure, but don't mandate armed guards, that promotes a police state mentality. Allowing teachers to have a way of self-defense is better.
6. Key word beign community, allow communities to do it on their own, don't force it.
7. Or we could just pull the government out of the education system, it's kinda, you know, declined, a lot, under their "guidance".

---------- Post added 2013-02-01 at 02:21 PM ----------

What American ideals would those be? The antiquated ones from the time when the Constitution was written and horses were the only form of transport? Or those of today, which the founders obviously would not recognize?

Well when you use that argument, you have to realize that at the time, they only had parchments, word of mouth, letters that took weeks to deliver, I can guarantee you they never imagined computers or the internet. So that's an invalid argument right thar.

Obviously they could forsee technology would advance, but they didn't know what it would, so they kept things vague for a reason, and I bet if the founders had the opportunity, they would aquire modern day weapons for not only the military.

[Deleted]

It is full of Ideals. But Ideals change on a daily basis. Our Military and Govt officials swore oaths to IT. Not a ever changing ideal or ideas.

Everything changes on a daily basis. Our government, society and military have all evolved, grown and adapted to where we are today. The constitution has been challenged, interpreted and amended hundreds of times, all in the name of progress. Yet this one thing. One paragraph has not changed a single bit because of (mostly) paranoid morons and lobbyists with money as a goal and not the greater good. Gun control may not be popular, but anyone that can take an honest step back and look at it from the outside can see that we clearly have a very large issue with very simple solutions.

[Sicarus]

Not scary, but aggressive... Alright... So, you have a problem with a ban on additions to a gun, which public finds to look aggressive? Doesn't at least scope and silencer imply more aggression, regardless of what they look like?

Do you expect large, tattoo'd, mean looking guys to be thrown in jail?

---------- Post added 2013-02-01 at 02:27 PM ----------

It's not apples to oranges. He's saying that the 2nd Amendment is what allows the 1st Amendment to exist, but somehow in parts of the world that have no 2nd amendment equivalent, they retain a 1st amendment equivalent. It's showing how his argument doesn't pass the sniff test.

Except England isn't ruled by a dictator, look at the countries that aren't first world countries. Obviously if England decided to turn their citizens into slaves, there'd be riots and the United Nations would give them a stern talking to.

Also their crime rate is way high, lol.

[Maleficus]

1. Already a thing. (Background checks)

Unfortunately, MOST of those on the "for gun control" side of the debate are arguing out of ignorance. I'd be very surprised (and smacked with irony) if even a fraction of them have purchased a gun and gone through the background check. The questions cover pretty much any "issue" that could be an indicator of future violent actions.

Maybe we should have psychics doing background checks instead? Nah...that would inevitably lead to those weir spider things that walk around...though the puke sticks are cool.

[Sicarus]

If the truth is so apparent, than you should have no difficulty presenting sources to back your claims.

Well, think about the world, if someone had influence over a lot of people, would you think they would use it for good? Or do you understand that power and greed has the capability to corrupt those who hold it?

[Reeve]

Well, think about the world, if someone had influence over a lot of people, would you think they would use it for good? Or do you understand that power and greed has the capability to corrupt those who hold it?

Sure. I also understand that there are lots of checks and balances on such corruption, such as rival networks, independent fact checking organizations, and even whistleblowers within the supposedly corrupt organization.

[Sicarus]

Unfortunately, MOST of those on the "for gun control" side of the debate are arguing out of ignorance.

For sure, FusedMass was convinced that at long ranges, full-autos were death machines.

---------- Post added 2013-02-01 at 02:39 PM ----------

Sure. I also understand that there are lots of checks and balances on such corruption, such as rival networks, independent fact checking organizations, and even whistleblowers within the supposedly corrupt organization.

But then how much do you see of that exactly? Once every so often, and even then, it's not that likely.

[Reeve]

Except England isn't ruled by a dictator, look at the countries that aren't first world countries. Obviously if England decided to turn their citizens into slaves, there'd be riots and the United Nations would give them a stern talking to.

Also their crime rate is way high, lol.

The US isn't ruled by a dictator either. England couldn't turn their citizens into slaves if they wanted to.

As for 3rd world countries, let's look at Yemen, which has the highest number of guns per capita in the world after the US. They are ranked 171st for freedom of the press, 9th place from the bottom. Their guns haven't exactly guaranteed their freedoms.

It's a complicated picture out there having to do with culture, socioeconomic status, etc. It's a silly claim, though, to say that the 1st Amendment wouldn't be there without the 2nd Amendment, when it obviously is in equivalence in many other countries.

[Laize]

No, willingness to die does not materialize an army equipped with the latest technology. He doesn't decide it, the reality of the American millitary might is what decides it.

I was referring to the idea that "the second amendment is anachronistic because you can't win even with guns." You don't get to decide "Oh well it would be pointless to even try, so let's ditch the 2nd Amendment!" Especially not when there are people out there who would fight such a government in a heartbeat.

Unnecessarily? To go up against US government? You just want a militia that can kill a bunch of civilians, until the millitary with those unnecessarily dangerous weapons stops them? The people you plan to kill in your uprising against tyranny of US government, are the people who want these guns banned. It's not just the government officials that fear it, but cops, receptionist, janitors and passer bye of the places these guns are to be used.

I'm usually pretty good at understanding context... but just what the fuck are you talking about? When have I said or even implied that I want a militia that will kill civilians? That's a positively abhorrant thought.

Americans deserve a government that serves them. It is possible the government and those who run it may, one day, decide they don't feel like they owe us anything anymore... suspension of the Constitution... etc etc. Sure, the odds of that happening are vanishingly small... But if it were to ever happen, the Second Amendment is the guarantee such a state would not last.

You can argue that the US military is the most technologically powerful military ever... and that we'd never stand a chance... blah blah blah... but if 24,000 lunatics can resist 600,000+ armed and trained forces then you can be pretty sure 100 million armed American civilians can actually win a war.

They are ineffective in use, but are effective in making the public feel safer. Why are you arguing on behalf of something you claim is stupid and ineffective, when the result is public feeling safer?

Really? To make the public feel safer without actually being safer? You're really getting on my nerves with this ridiculous tripe. Why don't we ban hate speech to make the public feel better while we're at it?

There is simply no good reason to abridge a constitutional right simply to make people feel better.