Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Compromises on Gun Control

keunglh
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 3:50:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hey guys!

I know I recently put a post on gun control, but the main idea of my topic quickly changed and I realized that perhaps I asked too much in the original post and made it easy to get sidetracked.

So to redo this.

What are some compromises that both the the Anti-Control and Pro-Control groups would agree to? As in what would each group give up and what would they receive in return?

Thanks!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 4:26:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You're gonna find a major problem with trying to find compromise with members on this site. Many are fundamentalism on either side are so set that they are not willing to compromise. They will see any act of such as a weakness and fault in their beliefs.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 4:35:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 4:26:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
You're gonna find a major problem with trying to find compromise with members on this site. Many are fundamentalism on either side are so set that they are not willing to compromise. They will see any act of such as a weakness and fault in their beliefs.

Yeah I don't see why the OP has a presumption in favor of compromise.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
keunglh
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 4:36:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 4:35:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/4/2012 4:26:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
You're gonna find a major problem with trying to find compromise with members on this site. Many are fundamentalism on either side are so set that they are not willing to compromise. They will see any act of such as a weakness and fault in their beliefs.

Yeah I don't see why the OP has a presumption in favor of compromise.

I don't favor compromise, I'd just like to see what people would like to see in compromise. That's all. I personally believe in less restrictive laws, but there are others who want more restrictive, i'd just like to see their opinions too.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 5:50:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed upon, then why can't we assign Christianity as the the official American religion??
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 5:53:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 5:50:50 PM, medic0506 wrote:
If the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed upon, then why can't we assign Christianity as the the official American religion??

we already did with forcing our children to claim that their country is "under God"...and placing "in God we trust" on our currency.
"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
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 5:58:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 5:53:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 5:50:50 PM, medic0506 wrote:
If the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed upon, then why can't we assign Christianity as the the official American religion??

we already did with forcing our children to claim that their country is "under God"...and placing "in God we trust" on our currency.

Eh...

That whole pledge thing is a bit of a stretch, really. I'd agree that it probably shouldn't be in there, but come on. FORCING children to claim that? The pledge is not a forced activity at all. It actually would illegal for it to be forced. Freedom of speech necessitates the freedom to NOT speak.

Anyway, using that logic Ike would basically then say, "Well, cuz Christianity is vaguely supported by the government, let's forget all the other amendments."
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 6:40:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 5:58:28 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 11/4/2012 5:53:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 5:50:50 PM, medic0506 wrote:
If the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed upon, then why can't we assign Christianity as the the official American religion??

we already did with forcing our children to claim that their country is "under God"...and placing "in God we trust" on our currency.

Eh...

That whole pledge thing is a bit of a stretch, really. I'd agree that it probably shouldn't be in there, but come on. FORCING children to claim that? The pledge is not a forced activity at all. It actually would illegal for it to be forced. Freedom of speech necessitates the freedom to NOT speak.

Anyway, using that logic Ike would basically then say, "Well, cuz Christianity is vaguely supported by the government, let's forget all the other amendments."

If the teacher tells you that you have to say something, do you honestly think that kids will respond "Actually my freedoms exempt me from having to say the pledge." The reality is that every kid in public schools says the pledge at the beginning of every school day because they are under the impression that it is mandatory, even if it isn't.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 6:44:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 5:58:28 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 11/4/2012 5:53:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/4/2012 5:50:50 PM, medic0506 wrote:
If the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed upon, then why can't we assign Christianity as the the official American religion??

we already did with forcing our children to claim that their country is "under God"...and placing "in God we trust" on our currency.

Eh...

That whole pledge thing is a bit of a stretch, really. I'd agree that it probably shouldn't be in there, but come on. FORCING children to claim that? The pledge is not a forced activity at all. It actually would illegal for it to be forced. Freedom of speech necessitates the freedom to NOT speak.

Anyway, using that logic Ike would basically then say, "Well, cuz Christianity is vaguely supported by the government, let's forget all the other amendments."

You've made a sport out of contravening everything I say, so I've learned to filter out your opinion when looking through my responses.
"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
blameworthy
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 6:46:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Medic, the Framers never intended Christianity to be the state religion. The Treaty of Tripoli, which was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate notes thusly:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,"as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],"and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 11:24:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 3:50:37 PM, keunglh wrote:
Hey guys!

I know I recently put a post on gun control, but the main idea of my topic quickly changed and I realized that perhaps I asked too much in the original post and made it easy to get sidetracked.

So to redo this.

What are some compromises that both the the Anti-Control and Pro-Control groups would agree to? As in what would each group give up and what would they receive in return?

Thanks!

No compromise! The constitution is clear, and compromise would be in violation of the constitution.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 11:29:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 4:36:35 PM, keunglh wrote:
At 11/4/2012 4:35:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/4/2012 4:26:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
You're gonna find a major problem with trying to find compromise with members on this site. Many are fundamentalism on either side are so set that they are not willing to compromise. They will see any act of such as a weakness and fault in their beliefs.

Yeah I don't see why the OP has a presumption in favor of compromise.

I don't favor compromise, I'd just like to see what people would like to see in compromise. That's all. I personally believe in less restrictive laws, but there are others who want more restrictive, i'd just like to see their opinions too.

I agree; if we meet in the middle on a bad idea we still partially agree to a bad idea.

Nazi: Let's kill all the Jews!
Sane Person: Let's not kill any Jews...
Compromiser: Why don't we just kill half the Jews?

Who has the better idea? The Sane Person or the guy willing to Compromise with the Nazi?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 11:30:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I support replacing guns with non-lethal alternatives.

In absence of this, I am pro gun rights.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 11:02:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 11:30:36 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I support replacing guns with non-lethal alternatives.

In absence of this, I am pro gun rights.

So you tase the deer then strangle him while he's stunned. It would make it more sporting.

I think it's reasonable to require mental stability to buy a gun or ammo. Exclude felons, mental patients, and those under restraining orders.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 11:18:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 11:02:38 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/4/2012 11:30:36 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I support replacing guns with non-lethal alternatives.

In absence of this, I am pro gun rights.

So you tase the deer then strangle him while he's stunned. It would make it more sporting.

I think it's reasonable to require mental stability to buy a gun or ammo. Exclude felons, mental patients, and those under restraining orders.

Everyone agrees on that...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 11:30:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 6:46:59 PM, blameworthy wrote:
Medic, the Framers never intended Christianity to be the state religion. The Treaty of Tripoli, which was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate notes thusly:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,"as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],"and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

That was my point, to draw a comparison. The Constitution forbids a national religion, just as it forbids an encroachment onto the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 11:53:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 11:18:52 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 11/5/2012 11:02:38 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/4/2012 11:30:36 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I support replacing guns with non-lethal alternatives.

In absence of this, I am pro gun rights.

So you tase the deer then strangle him while he's stunned. It would make it more sporting.

I think it's reasonable to require mental stability to buy a gun or ammo. Exclude felons, mental patients, and those under restraining orders.

Everyone agrees on that...

I don't! More than 2 million American adults have Bi-polar disorder, and 19 million suffer from depression. Simply because they have depression or bi-polar does not mean they should be denied their constitutional rights. One can only be denied their rights through due process of law; so yes to the felons no to the mental disorders. Simply because you have depression or bi-polar does not mean you will kill yourself or others.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 11:55:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 11:53:42 AM, DanT wrote:
At 11/5/2012 11:18:52 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 11/5/2012 11:02:38 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/4/2012 11:30:36 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I support replacing guns with non-lethal alternatives.

In absence of this, I am pro gun rights.

So you tase the deer then strangle him while he's stunned. It would make it more sporting.

I think it's reasonable to require mental stability to buy a gun or ammo. Exclude felons, mental patients, and those under restraining orders.

Everyone agrees on that...

I don't! More than 2 million American adults have Bi-polar disorder, and 19 million suffer from depression. Simply because they have depression or bi-polar does not mean they should be denied their constitutional rights. One can only be denied their rights through due process of law; so yes to the felons no to the mental disorders. Simply because you have depression or bi-polar does not mean you will kill yourself or others.

People with metal disorders are not second class citizens! What next, are you going to deny amputees the right to vote?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 11:58:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 11:53:42 AM, DanT wrote:
At 11/5/2012 11:18:52 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 11/5/2012 11:02:38 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/4/2012 11:30:36 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I support replacing guns with non-lethal alternatives.

In absence of this, I am pro gun rights.

So you tase the deer then strangle him while he's stunned. It would make it more sporting.

I think it's reasonable to require mental stability to buy a gun or ammo. Exclude felons, mental patients, and those under restraining orders.

Everyone agrees on that...

I don't! More than 2 million American adults have Bi-polar disorder, and 19 million suffer from depression. Simply because they have depression or bi-polar does not mean they should be denied their constitutional rights. One can only be denied their rights through due process of law; so yes to the felons no to the mental disorders. Simply because you have depression or bi-polar does not mean you will kill yourself or others.

It depends on the disorder. My friend has chemical depression, loves guns. Same with my aunt and grandpa. They don't go crazy because they have medications.

Many people with bipolar disorder can also be controlled through drugs, experimental treatment, and therapy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Making sure someone is mentally stable (as simple as a medical fax) seems reasonable.

Other then that, gun control doesn't seem to be effective.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 1:38:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 11:55:39 AM, DanT wrote:

People with metal disorders are not second class citizens! What next, are you going to deny amputees the right to vote?

And deny blind people the right to drive? Or, in Chicago, the right of dead people to vote?

The question is whether the infringement of rights is justified by the nature of the impairment. I used the phrase "mental stability." I person may have a mental disability that has no relevance to gun ownership. I would put the burden on mental health professionals and law enforcement people to properly identify people who are unstable according to law, and the determination could be challenged in court.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 3:59:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 1:38:19 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/5/2012 11:55:39 AM, DanT wrote:

People with metal disorders are not second class citizens! What next, are you going to deny amputees the right to vote?

And deny blind people the right to drive? Or, in Chicago, the right of dead people to vote?

The question is whether the infringement of rights is justified by the nature of the impairment. I used the phrase "mental stability." I person may have a mental disability that has no relevance to gun ownership. I would put the burden on mental health professionals and law enforcement people to properly identify people who are unstable according to law, and the determination could be challenged in court.

Maybe a change from "mentally unstable" to "psychologically dangerous to others," might clear it up?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 12:02:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ike, for the last two years of HS I never stood up for the pledge. Students would get pissed at me but no teacher ever asked me to stand up. I know it surprised me too. I think it should be removed, I mean if we're going to have a pledge let's at least make it fun, but it's not the most bothersome thing the State does. It's not as much the fact that it's forced as much as it seems like brainwashing. But then again that relates to any pledge, not just ones with the word God in them.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 12:06:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/6/2012 12:02:26 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Ike, for the last two years of HS I never stood up for the pledge. Students would get pissed at me but no teacher ever asked me to stand up. I know it surprised me too. I think it should be removed, I mean if we're going to have a pledge let's at least make it fun, but it's not the most bothersome thing the State does. It's not as much the fact that it's forced as much as it seems like brainwashing. But then again that relates to any pledge, not just ones with the word God in them.

It is.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...