Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gun Rights

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 9:54:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 12:17:52 AM, Lasagna wrote:
http://www.wimp.com...

A startling story about guns.

Her delivery was so excellent that it seemed more like a film clip.

I feel that the argument for gun control is not based on a desire to take away peoples rights to self-defence, but rather on the assumption that it is bad for everyone regardless of personality, intelligence or mental health to own a gun and that somehow legislation will regulate this.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 10:05:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 9:54:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/5/2011 12:17:52 AM, Lasagna wrote:
http://www.wimp.com...

A startling story about guns.

Her delivery was so excellent that it seemed more like a film clip.

I feel that the argument for gun control is not based on a desire to take away peoples rights to self-defence, but rather on the assumption that it is bad for everyone regardless of personality, intelligence or mental health to own a gun and that somehow legislation will regulate this.

No dictator has ever advocated the Right of the People to Bear Arms

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." ~ Mahatma Gandhi, An Autobiography, page 446

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." ~ The Dalai Lama

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ~ Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

"Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. ...A simple weapon -- so long as there is no answer to it -- gives claws to the weak." ~ George Orwell

"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." ~ Edward Abbey

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1764

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." ~ George Washington
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 10:14:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 10:05:31 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/5/2011 9:54:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/5/2011 12:17:52 AM, Lasagna wrote:
http://www.wimp.com...

A startling story about guns.

Her delivery was so excellent that it seemed more like a film clip.

I feel that the argument for gun control is not based on a desire to take away peoples rights to self-defence, but rather on the assumption that it is bad for everyone regardless of personality, intelligence or mental health to own a gun and that somehow legislation will regulate this.

No dictator has ever advocated the Right of the People to Bear Arms

Machiaevelli who advised dictators advocated this...


"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." ~ Mahatma Gandhi, An Autobiography, page 446

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." ~ The Dalai Lama

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ~ Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

"Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. ...A simple weapon -- so long as there is no answer to it -- gives claws to the weak." ~ George Orwell

"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." ~ Edward Abbey

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1764

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." ~ George Washington

You like to put a lot of effort into posts that don't directly relate to what has been said.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 3:10:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 12:17:52 AM, Lasagna wrote:
http://www.wimp.com...

A startling story about guns.

I love that clip and I refer it to others quite often.

Why do you consider it to be "startling?"
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 3:25:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 9:54:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/5/2011 12:17:52 AM, Lasagna wrote:
http://www.wimp.com...

A startling story about guns.

Her delivery was so excellent that it seemed more like a film clip.

I feel that the argument for gun control is not based on a desire to take away peoples rights to self-defence, but rather on the assumption that it is bad for everyone regardless of personality, intelligence or mental health to own a gun and that somehow legislation will regulate this.
That assumption is a false one, make no mistake.
turn down for h'what
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 3:27:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 12:17:52 AM, Lasagna wrote:
http://www.wimp.com...

A startling story about guns.

Most societies take a rational point of view on the issue of private ownership of firearms, i.e. they recognize that it's a non-issue, that it's a manifestly bad idea for a society to allow lethal weapons such as street sweepers, Uzis, AKs, etc. to be easily accessible to every potentially irresponsible, unstable, and criminal Tom, Dick, and Harry. That the U.S. and many of its citizens don't get this is I suppose another case of "American exceptionalism", or should I say aberrancy. Perhaps one day the United States will join "the community of civilized nations" in realizing the lunacy of the notion of a "right" to bear arms. Until that time we can continue to turn on the evening news to learn about the latest drive-bys and home invasion massacres.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 3:30:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 3:27:32 PM, charleslb wrote:
Until that time we can continue to turn on the evening news to learn about the latest drive-bys and home invasion massacres.
Drive-bys and home invasion massacres are most likely committed by gangs who have easy access to guns regardless of the law. You think making guns illegal will remove them from society? Anybody who truly desires them can get them. Especially in America.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 3:31:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
And you think that if one truly wanted to massacre everyone in a house that he wouldn't have alternative weapons? Some gasoline and fire on the entire building, perhaps? That sounds very hard, eh? No.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 6:01:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 3:30:54 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/5/2011 3:27:32 PM, charleslb wrote:
Until that time we can continue to turn on the evening news to learn about the latest drive-bys and home invasion massacres.
Drive-bys and home invasion massacres are most likely committed by gangs who have easy access to guns regardless of the law. You think making guns illegal will remove them from society? Anybody who truly desires them can get them. Especially in America.

Most firearms used by criminal types were originally legal, i.e. sold and purchased and owned legally by someone without a rap sheet. Indeed, a quite sizable number of guns used by gang members or in the commission of criminal acts were legally purchased in states with lax gun laws by unscrupulous individuals and crime rings who upon acquiring a car or van load of weapons drive back to a state such as New York and resell them on the street to gang bangers and other hoodlums. Also, many weapons that end up being used as crime guns were purchased aboveboard at gun shows. And of course a good many guns in the hands of crooks were stolen from legal owners. A thief burglarizes a residence and acquires the homeowner's gun and, voilà, now he's armed as well as dangerous! It's simply an uninformed myth that most crime guns come from some sort of black market of guns illegally smuggled into the country by international "gunrunners".

Actually then, most guns in the possession of non-law-abiding citizens once belonged to a law-abiding individual or seller. In fact, when guns are smuggled across the border, it's usually in the other direction, as it were. That is, the Mexican drug cartels purchase most of their firepower from legal gun stores in U.S. states such as Texas, and then smuggle them into Mexico where they can be used to arm the Zetas and Sinaloa Cowboys!

Mm-hmm, anybody who desires a gun can easily get one, on either side of the U.S.-Mexico border, but that's largely thanks to the legality of guns in this country, more than it is to the criminality of those who traffic in guns on the street. If guns were made illegal and the ample supply of legal firearms available to black market dealers was removed from the equation, far fewer weapons would be out there for use by thugs & thieves; and American society would, arguably, be a safer and saner place.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 6:04:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 3:30:54 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/5/2011 3:27:32 PM, charleslb wrote:
Until that time we can continue to turn on the evening news to learn about the latest drive-bys and home invasion massacres.
Drive-bys and home invasion massacres are most likely committed by gangs who have easy access to guns regardless of the law. You think making guns illegal will remove them from society? Anybody who truly desires them can get them. Especially in America.

Career Criminals also prefer black market guns or stolen guns because they can't be traced....
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 6:17:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 3:31:44 PM, Mirza wrote:
And you think that if one truly wanted to massacre everyone in a house that he wouldn't have alternative weapons? Some gasoline and fire on the entire building, perhaps? That sounds very hard, eh? No.

And are you really saying that you think that all of the crimes committed with a firearm would still be committed without one?! The availability of an easy means to do something is often a deciding factor, i.e. when people have the easy means to take an action available to them they're far more likely to take rather than merely contemplate that action. And there's no better or easier means for perpetrating a violent act or an armed robbery than a gun. You can't really quell all resistance in a takeover store robbery, for example, with a club quite the same way that you can with a Glock. A gun gives a villain control of a situation like no other weapon, and knowing that he's going to instantly have that kind of control once he brandishes his piece can most definitely help influence someone on the fence about doing a crime in favor of breaking the law and victimizing his neighbor. Guns are not just innocent inanimate objects that play no part in determining whether or not a dastardly deed is done, they do factor into people's motivation and decision-making process. Quite simply, take away the ideal means, i.e. guns, and many a violent crime and homicide will never be committed.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 6:21:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 6:04:23 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/5/2011 3:30:54 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/5/2011 3:27:32 PM, charleslb wrote:
Until that time we can continue to turn on the evening news to learn about the latest drive-bys and home invasion massacres.
Drive-bys and home invasion massacres are most likely committed by gangs who have easy access to guns regardless of the law. You think making guns illegal will remove them from society? Anybody who truly desires them can get them. Especially in America.

Career Criminals also prefer black market guns or stolen guns because they can't be traced....

I refer you to my previous reply, concerning the origin of most crime guns. The reply that I refer to occurs just before yours and you should have perused it before posting your above comments, but perhaps you missed it. Please give it a read. Thanks.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 6:22:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I find it ironic that the title of the video is "The True Meaning of The Second Amending" when the second amendment was never about the right for everyone to have a gun until the Supreme Court ruled so in 2008.

Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It clearly states the right to a militia, and that it is a right of "the people" not an individual right as it is depicted. It even goes as far as to say "well regulated". How conservatives could get so confused about it, I have no idea.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 6:26:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 6:22:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I find it ironic that the title of the video is "The True Meaning of The Second Amending" when the second amendment was never about the right for everyone to have a gun until the Supreme Court ruled so in 2008.

Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It clearly states the right to a militia, and that it is a right of "the people" not an individual right as it is depicted. It even goes as far as to say "well regulated". How conservatives could get so confused about it, I have no idea.

Actually, it clearly states that you have a right to bear arms, and the purpose of this right is so that you can have a militia. But the right is to bear arms.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 6:29:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 6:04:23 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/5/2011 3:30:54 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/5/2011 3:27:32 PM, charleslb wrote:
Until that time we can continue to turn on the evening news to learn about the latest drive-bys and home invasion massacres.
Drive-bys and home invasion massacres are most likely committed by gangs who have easy access to guns regardless of the law. You think making guns illegal will remove them from society? Anybody who truly desires them can get them. Especially in America.

Career Criminals also prefer black market guns or stolen guns because they can't be traced....

And that is only true because we actively trace them (a form of gun regulation). Going to the black market is not hard, but it is harder than going to a gun store in a regulation free society. Therefore, gun regulations are making it harder for them. We're just doing a half-arsed. Like the people that start up companies, put no effort into them, the company doesn't grow or go anywhere and they blame anything other than their own lack of effort.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 6:29:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 6:26:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/5/2011 6:22:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I find it ironic that the title of the video is "The True Meaning of The Second Amending" when the second amendment was never about the right for everyone to have a gun until the Supreme Court ruled so in 2008.

Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It clearly states the right to a militia, and that it is a right of "the people" not an individual right as it is depicted. It even goes as far as to say "well regulated". How conservatives could get so confused about it, I have no idea.

Actually, it clearly states that you have a right to bear arms, and the purpose of this right is so that you can have a militia. But the right is to bear arms.

Aaaaactually, it does NOT say we have the right to bear arms so we can have a militia. It says that we have the right to a militia and that this IS the right to keep and bear arms which, as I pointed out, is a right held by "the people" not individuals.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 6:40:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 6:29:58 PM, FREEDO wrote:

Aaaaactually, it does NOT say we have the right to bear arms so we can have a militia. It says that we have the right to a militia and that this IS the right to keep and bear arms which, as I pointed out, is a right held by "the people" not individuals.

I was going to challenge this, but thinking about it more, I think it makes sense. Her argument in the video was well delivered, but I see it as an appeal to emotion in support of her side. I imagine the idea of everyone carrying assault rifles and machine guns for "self defense" and that simply exerts the air of discord.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 6:46:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is absolutely zero reason to carry a lethal weapon unless you intend to kill with it.

There is absolutely zero reason to kill someone in "self-defense".
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 6:49:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 6:29:58 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 10/5/2011 6:26:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/5/2011 6:22:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I find it ironic that the title of the video is "The True Meaning of The Second Amending" when the second amendment was never about the right for everyone to have a gun until the Supreme Court ruled so in 2008.

Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It clearly states the right to a militia, and that it is a right of "the people" not an individual right as it is depicted. It even goes as far as to say "well regulated". How conservatives could get so confused about it, I have no idea.

Actually, it clearly states that you have a right to bear arms, and the purpose of this right is so that you can have a militia. But the right is to bear arms.

Aaaaactually, it does NOT say we have the right to bear arms so we can have a militia. It says that we have the right to a militia and that this IS the right to keep and bear arms which, as I pointed out, is a right held by "the people" not individuals.

Aaaaaaaaaaactually, it says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." This shows that the right is to "keep and bear arms." You can argue if it is a right of individuals or the right of the people as a whole. But the "right" is that to keep and bear arms for the purpose to have a well regulated militia. But it is very clear what the "right" is.

However, if we look at the bill of rights, we'll see that it never uses the word "individual" is never used. If we accept that "the people" does not imply "individuals" then along with the right to bear arms, you are throwing out the following rights...

1A) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
4A) "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
9A) "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
10A) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, if "the people" does not include individuals, then does "the citizens" include individuals? If so, why the difference?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 6:51:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What if there was some kind of long range taser? It does not kill, but it still stops the aggressor. That should replace guns as far as "self defense" goes. We should be expending money and brain power trying to perfect such an instrument, not make bigger guns.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 6:59:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 6:26:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/5/2011 6:22:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I find it ironic that the title of the video is "The True Meaning of The Second Amending" when the second amendment was never about the right for everyone to have a gun until the Supreme Court ruled so in 2008.

Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It clearly states the right to a militia, and that it is a right of "the people" not an individual right as it is depicted. It even goes as far as to say "well regulated". How conservatives could get so confused about it, I have no idea.

Actually, it clearly states that you have a right to bear arms, and the purpose of this right is so that you can have a militia. But the right is to bear arms.

Exactly correct, Ore...

The 2nd Amendment is an expansion of the right that we the people have to keep and to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment is not where the right to keep and bear arms comes from as that right predated the Constitution itself.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 7:29:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 6:59:36 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 10/5/2011 6:26:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/5/2011 6:22:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I find it ironic that the title of the video is "The True Meaning of The Second Amending" when the second amendment was never about the right for everyone to have a gun until the Supreme Court ruled so in 2008.

Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It clearly states the right to a militia, and that it is a right of "the people" not an individual right as it is depicted. It even goes as far as to say "well regulated". How conservatives could get so confused about it, I have no idea.

Actually, it clearly states that you have a right to bear arms, and the purpose of this right is so that you can have a militia. But the right is to bear arms.

Exactly correct, Ore...

The 2nd Amendment is an expansion of the right that we the people have to keep and to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment is not where the right to keep and bear arms comes from as that right predated the Constitution itself.

We can debate the fine points of the Second Amendment like early Christian theologians arguing the nature of Christ and the Trinity, or we can get real and come to our presumed senses about the serious drawbacks of the easy accessibility of guns in a society suffering from so many social pathologies.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 7:30:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 3:31:44 PM, Mirza wrote:
And you think that if one truly wanted to massacre everyone in a house that he wouldn't have alternative weapons? Some gasoline and fire on the entire building, perhaps? That sounds very hard, eh? No.

Lizzie Borden had an ax,
She gave her mother 40 wacks.
When she saw what she had done,
She gave her father 41.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 7:33:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Societies don't suffer.

"Social pathologies?" (translation: "People I don't like.")
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 7:38:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 7:33:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Societies don't suffer.

Perhaps an explanation is in order? Societies are collections and communities of human beings. Human beings suffer, so societies suffer. The country of America is a society. I guess a country can't suffer, the great depression, was actually a small depression, right? A theory as punctual as this cannot stand on its own isolated in such unfounded and unproved glory.

"Social pathologies?" (translation: "People I don't like.")

Actually, social pathologies = things that harm society.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 7:54:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 7:38:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/5/2011 7:33:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Societies don't suffer.

Perhaps an explanation is in order? Societies are collections and communities of human beings. Human beings suffer, so societies suffer. The country of America is a society. I guess a country can't suffer, the great depression, was actually a small depression, right? A theory as punctual as this cannot stand on its own isolated in such unfounded and unproved glory.

"Social pathologies?" (translation: "People I don't like.")

Actually, social pathologies = things that harm society.

Good job refuting Ragnar's libertarian nihilism (now watch the card-carrying nihilists here come out of the woodwork to refute my loose usage of the word "nihilism", or is annhasle no longer around?)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 8:24:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you make a law banning guns, there's no *poof* and they magically disappear.

There's nothing magically about laws. Outlawing an action is just an incentive.

There *might* be a punishment associated with a person breaking the law. However the person might not care about the punishment or is unlikely to get caught, so he or she does not commit such action.

Also, If one does not respect the law, one will not follow the law.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 8:56:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I do commend charles for using relatively more logic and relatively less fluff in his arguments here, at least so far.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 8:58:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 8:24:40 PM, darkkermit wrote:
If you make a law banning guns, there's no *poof* and they magically disappear.

There's nothing magically about laws. Outlawing an action is just an incentive.

There *might* be a punishment associated with a person breaking the law. However the person might not care about the punishment or is unlikely to get caught, so he or she does not commit such action.

Also, If one does not respect the law, one will not follow the law.

Outlawing guns is very effective for disarming law abiding citizens; Criminals on the other hand will remain well armed.

For anyone who thinks prohibitions actually work, let me ask you this;
How effective was the prohibition of alcohol?
How effective is the war on Drugs?
Why do you think that is?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle