Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gun Control - "If it Saves Just One Life"

AngstChrist
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 7:27:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In the wake of the tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut last year, a lot of the impetus for new gun control has been justified by politicians, activists and pundits saying "if new laws save 'just one life," it"s worth sacrificing the rights of law abiding gun owners.

As someone who is relatively new to the realities of fatherhood, it strikes me as reprehensible that children, more specifically dead children, are used as a rallying cry or podium with which to stand on to justify further infringements of civil rights. Does this mean that if I oppose such legislation, that I am less of a father? Does it mean that I don't care for the safety and welfare of children?

No and not by a long shot. And it is time that gun owners, especially those who have children, come out swinging on this issue and counter these displays of emotional diarrhea masquerading as common sense and compassion. Gun owning parents need to be front and center on this issue and have a clear, decisive answer to this extremely and irresponsibly loaded question when asked.

The answer, if you haven"t guessed, is a resounding no.

Even if the flawed and shamelessly opportunistic legislation saves thousands of lives, it"s not worth sacrificing the rights and legacy that men and women, people exceedingly more esteemed and honorable than any politician or pundits, fought and died for since our nation's inception. The Second Amendment is a Constitutionally guaranteed civil right, but it is more than that - when the framers put pen to paper establishing the right to bear arms, they recognized that self-preservation and preservation of our freedoms is a concept far greater than being able to possess a rifle: they recognized that it is a fundamental HUMAN RIGHT to have the ability to defend life, liberty and yes, property from the evils of tyrannical regimes and the evils inherent in the human condition.

I expect and await disdainful responses to my position; in fact, I embrace them. I embrace them not because I don't care about the life of my son or the security and safety of children. My position is rooted in intense respect for his rights and for the rights of his and successive generations of his peers. I have no idea how my son is going to view the politics of the Second Amendment and I will allow him to make up his own mind on the matter.

What I will do however, is teach him that life is a precious and fleeting commodity, more valuable than any amount of money and more important than the whims of a vote seeking legislator who says otherwise.

No amount of carnage should ever justify the repression of human and civil liberties. The Constitution made it so these liberties are non-negotiable and not subject to any opinion polls or majority (mob) desires. With all due respect and deference to those whose families have suffered as a result of gun violence, their pain in no way justifies the rolling back of our rights. What it does justify and require, is a conversation based on a deep introspection of the state of this country and its humanity.

You see, gun violence is not the result of our ownership of firearms or exercise of the Second Amendment; it is the symptom of a society whose reliance and pursuit of material gain has superseded any semblance of humanity or respect thereof. Maybe its technology, maybe it"s the national addiction to reality television and or celebrity worship - better and more advanced minds than mine ought to examine these topics in greater detail.

What is patently obvious to me is that we have devolved culturally, to a society that cares only for individual gain. At the height of the Roman Empire, blood sports united all classes to cheer on the mindless carnage at the Coliseum. Today, one can't have a drink at a pub without a crowd of people entertained by the sight of modern day gladiators brutalizing each other in a UFC cage match. As Americans, we glamorize violence and celebrate the worst behavior of our celebrity culture and do so at the cost of our very souls. Ironically, most of those who cheer for the bloodletting would never serve in the armed forces, let alone be involved in a physical altercation themselves - that in and of itself, is very revealing.

I am not a religious man, in fact, I often identify as an Atheist when the question of religion is brought to bear. As irreligious as I am however, I do have tremendous respect for the teachings and dogma contained in most of the major religions we protect and celebrate under the Constitution. Such beliefs and teachings ought to ground people in the notion of tolerance and respect for their fellow man. It is for that reason, I find it strange, that in a nation so religiously diverse, with so many that are teaching tolerance and the love of one"s fellow man, that we are so insular and uncaring when it comes to those we don"t know.

Religious or not, we ought to have the decency to care for one another and to look out for the most vulnerable in our communities, instead of relying on an often inept and callous government "authority" to do it for us. Community is not a special department in any municipality, but an unwritten social contract signed by all members of the human race, American or otherwise.

As a community of gun owning parents, as Americans concerned about the very nature of the freedoms we see threatened every day, we have an obligation to speak for our children. When confronted by emotionally charged questions such as these, we must stand with pride and conviction and deliver an answer that preserves the rights of future generations. I intend to speak for my son, in telling them that no amount of tragedy is worth even considering the sacrifice of his liberties; that his life is worth defending, that his freedoms, all of them, are worth fighting for.

I urge everyone to do the same.

Shameless Plug for my blog:

http://bathsaltsandskittles.blogspot.com...
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 10:38:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 7:27:18 AM, AngstChrist wrote:
Even if the flawed and shamelessly opportunistic legislation saves thousands of lives, it"s not worth sacrificing the rights and legacy that men and women, people exceedingly more esteemed and honorable than any politician or pundits, fought and died for since our nation's inception. The Second Amendment is a Constitutionally guaranteed civil right, but it is more than that - when the framers put pen to paper establishing the right to bear arms, they recognized that self-preservation and preservation of our freedoms is a concept far greater than being able to possess a rifle: they recognized that it is a fundamental HUMAN RIGHT to have the ability to defend life, liberty and yes, property from the evils of tyrannical regimes and the evils inherent in the human condition.

Sorry, no, a gun isn't a defensive specialist, much less a life, liberty and property defensive specialist. It's as handy if not handier for offense, and defense of things like conquest and slavery (though I admit they can be folded into property). And while it's done a fairly good job of that, its record of defending against tyrannical regimes is 0 for 1. Even though the Union Army's advantages were slight by modern standards, the armed rebels failed to accomplish anything except spilling a lot of blood. Well, today, if you go up against the government, the asymmetry will be a lot more than different-colored uniforms. I'm afraid your guns are no match for drones, for example, no matter how many Treyvon Martins they can kill without reloading.

What I will do however, is teach him that life is a precious and fleeting commodity, more valuable than any amount of money and more important than the whims of a vote seeking legislator who says otherwise.

There are legislators who say life is less valuable than money?

No amount of carnage should ever justify the repression of human and civil liberties. The Constitution made it so these liberties are non-negotiable and not subject to any opinion polls or majority (mob) desires. With all due respect and deference to those whose families have suffered as a result of gun violence, their pain in no way justifies the rolling back of our rights. What it does justify and require, is a conversation based on a deep introspection of the state of this country and its humanity.

Is that how the UK took care of gun violence? The Constitution is a piece of paper, by the way, that was itself, by definition, unconstitutional. We may abide it like pitiful sheep or ignore it as we choose. But even if we choose to abide, we must acknowledge that it does allow for amendment by supermajorities (supermobs), who then hold sway until they become a minority (submob) small enough to be overruled. That was the compromise the disorganized collection of lawyers, war-profiteers and slave-owners came to.

You see, gun violence is not the result of our ownership of firearms or exercise of the Second Amendment; it is the symptom of a society whose reliance and pursuit of material gain has superseded any semblance of humanity or respect thereof. Maybe its technology, maybe it"s the national addiction to reality television and or celebrity worship - better and more advanced minds than mine ought to examine these topics in greater detail.

They already have, and the statistics are pretty clear. The best predictors of violence are unemployment, job insecurity and inequality. There are plenty of countries that are as technologically advanced as ours but are far less violent, and in both the short and the long term violence has been declining though technology has obviously been progressing.

What is patently obvious to me is that we have devolved culturally, to a society that cares only for individual gain. At the height of the Roman Empire, blood sports united all classes to cheer on the mindless carnage at the Coliseum. Today, one can't have a drink at a pub without a crowd of people entertained by the sight of modern day gladiators brutalizing each other in a UFC cage match. As Americans, we glamorize violence and celebrate the worst behavior of our celebrity culture and do so at the cost of our very souls. Ironically, most of those who cheer for the bloodletting would never serve in the armed forces, let alone be involved in a physical altercation themselves - that in and of itself, is very revealing.

Yes, fighting seems to have changed to something more like the bareknuckle bouts of the 19th century, but most sports have become less brutal.
AngstChrist
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 10:48:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Tell that to the soldiers and Marines whose superior might wasn't much vs a very poorly armed and unorganized jihadist movement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

. Well, today, if you go up against the government, the asymmetry will be a lot more than different-colored uniforms. I'm afraid your guns are no match for drones, for example, no matter how many Treyvon Martins they can kill without reloading.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 10:59:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 10:48:51 AM, AngstChrist wrote:
Tell that to the soldiers and Marines whose superior might wasn't much vs a very poorly armed and unorganized jihadist movement in Iraq and Afghanistan.


. Well, today, if you go up against the government, the asymmetry will be a lot more than different-colored uniforms. I'm afraid your guns are no match for drones, for example, no matter how many Treyvon Martins they can kill without reloading.

My thoughts exactly. All the liberals are all like, you can't beat the government!!!! And I think to myself, "how many times has our military been resisted by an informal, mostly untrained militia with little more than rifles and home made explosives?"".. Oh yeah, A FREAKING LOT!" I think it's totally possible a domestic militia could fend off the military, as long as they stayed urban.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 11:00:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 10:38:09 AM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/19/2013 7:27:18 AM, AngstChrist wrote:


Sorry, no, a gun isn't a defensive specialist, much less a life, liberty and property defensive specialist. It's as handy if not handier for offense, and defense of things like conquest and slavery (though I admit they can be folded into property). And while it's done a fairly good job of that, its record of defending against tyrannical regimes is 0 for 1.

What if the prevalence of guns prevents tyrannical regimes from ever transpiring in the first place? Your analysis doesn't account for that. Also, what failure are you referring to in your remark '0 for 1'?
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 11:11:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 11:00:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
What if the prevalence of guns prevents tyrannical regimes from ever transpiring in the first place? Your analysis doesn't account for that. Also, what failure are you referring to in your remark '0 for 1'?
The most armed countries are all democratic. No, tyrants can not monopolize force when everyone is armed. Statists want to monopolize force so that they can coerce the population without any resistance.
http://www.latitudenews.com...
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 11:13:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 11:11:45 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 12/19/2013 11:00:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
What if the prevalence of guns prevents tyrannical regimes from ever transpiring in the first place? Your analysis doesn't account for that. Also, what failure are you referring to in your remark '0 for 1'?
The most armed countries are all democratic. No, tyrants can not monopolize force when everyone is armed. Statists want to monopolize force so that they can coerce the population without any resistance.
http://www.latitudenews.com...

I'm pretty sure you misunderstood me...I more or less agree with this.
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 11:14:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 11:13:28 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/19/2013 11:11:45 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 12/19/2013 11:00:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
What if the prevalence of guns prevents tyrannical regimes from ever transpiring in the first place? Your analysis doesn't account for that. Also, what failure are you referring to in your remark '0 for 1'?
The most armed countries are all democratic. No, tyrants can not monopolize force when everyone is armed. Statists want to monopolize force so that they can coerce the population without any resistance.
http://www.latitudenews.com...

I'm pretty sure you misunderstood me...I more or less agree with this.
No lol I agreed with what you were saying. I was backing your claim about tyrannical regimes and guns.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 11:20:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 11:14:52 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 12/19/2013 11:13:28 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/19/2013 11:11:45 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 12/19/2013 11:00:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
What if the prevalence of guns prevents tyrannical regimes from ever transpiring in the first place? Your analysis doesn't account for that. Also, what failure are you referring to in your remark '0 for 1'?
The most armed countries are all democratic. No, tyrants can not monopolize force when everyone is armed. Statists want to monopolize force so that they can coerce the population without any resistance.
http://www.latitudenews.com...

I'm pretty sure you misunderstood me...I more or less agree with this.
No lol I agreed with what you were saying. I was backing your claim about tyrannical regimes and guns.

Lol, looking at it again, I don't know what I was thinking. Derp
AngstChrist
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 1:30:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My dad served in Vietnam from 1967-1970 with the Marine Corps. The US Military had tanks (my dad fought in the ONTOS), air superiority and all manners of the latest and greatest military technology known at the time.

Still, the Vietnamese, a largely unorganized and technologically inferior force, managed to defeat the United States. Just like the French before them.

When I was learning to shoot, one of my instructors on the Kalashnikov platform was a Red Army soldier, who emigrated/defected to the US after his time in Afghanistan in the 1970s. His experience was the same - mighty military machine defeated by smaller, less organized and less armed forces of Afghanis. Yes, they had SOME help from the CIA, but not to the level necessary to defeat them. The Soviets were defeated because of the heart and soul of the Afghani people coming together to resist tyranny.

If tyranny came to be here in the United States, I can assure you that while it would be ugly and bloody, the people, equipped with their own historical reference to tyranny and god willing, the second amendment, that tyranny would be defeated again.

At 12/19/2013 10:59:30 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 12/19/2013 10:48:51 AM, AngstChrist wrote:
Tell that to the soldiers and Marines whose superior might wasn't much vs a very poorly armed and unorganized jihadist movement in Iraq and Afghanistan.


. Well, today, if you go up against the government, the asymmetry will be a lot more than different-colored uniforms. I'm afraid your guns are no match for drones, for example, no matter how many Treyvon Martins they can kill without reloading.

My thoughts exactly. All the liberals are all like, you can't beat the government!!!! And I think to myself, "how many times has our military been resisted by an informal, mostly untrained militia with little more than rifles and home made explosives?"".. Oh yeah, A FREAKING LOT!" I think it's totally possible a domestic militia could fend off the military, as long as they stayed urban.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 1:34:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 11:00:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/19/2013 10:38:09 AM, CarefulNow wrote:
Sorry, no, a gun isn't a defensive specialist, much less a life, liberty and property defensive specialist. It's as handy if not handier for offense, and defense of things like conquest and slavery (though I admit they can be folded into property). And while it's done a fairly good job of that, its record of defending against tyrannical regimes is 0 for 1.

What if the prevalence of guns prevents tyrannical regimes from ever transpiring in the first place? Your analysis doesn't account for that. Also, what failure are you referring to in your remark '0 for 1'?

The Civil War, the one major armed rebellion that's occurred since the passage of the Second Amendment. Whether you agree that the federal government was acting tyrannically is irrelevant. All that matters is that the rebels believed it was acting tyrannically and were armed and indeed better acquainted with rifles than their opponents. Yet that was not enough to overcome disadvantages that are far greater today, such as that the government now has drones while its subjects are basically just breaking down, polishing and reassembling the same weapon they used in their last rebellion, scarcely interrupting the monotony other than to bury their careless children or murder their adulterous girlfriends. Also, the UK was already basically gun-free (worse, guns were limited to aristocrats) come the Bill of Rights; if gun proliferation kept the US from degenerating into tyranny, what kept the UK?
AngstChrist
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 1:39:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Id rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

At 12/19/2013 1:34:40 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/19/2013 11:00:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/19/2013 10:38:09 AM, CarefulNow wrote:
Sorry, no, a gun isn't a defensive specialist, much less a life, liberty and property defensive specialist. It's as handy if not handier for offense, and defense of things like conquest and slavery (though I admit they can be folded into property). And while it's done a fairly good job of that, its record of defending against tyrannical regimes is 0 for 1.

What if the prevalence of guns prevents tyrannical regimes from ever transpiring in the first place? Your analysis doesn't account for that. Also, what failure are you referring to in your remark '0 for 1'?

The Civil War, the one major armed rebellion that's occurred since the passage of the Second Amendment. Whether you agree that the federal government was acting tyrannically is irrelevant. All that matters is that the rebels believed it was acting tyrannically and were armed and indeed better acquainted with rifles than their opponents. Yet that was not enough to overcome disadvantages that are far greater today, such as that the government now has drones while its subjects are basically just breaking down, polishing and reassembling the same weapon they used in their last rebellion, scarcely interrupting the monotony other than to bury their careless children or murder their adulterous girlfriends. Also, the UK was already basically gun-free (worse, guns were limited to aristocrats) come the Bill of Rights; if gun proliferation kept the US from degenerating into tyranny, what kept the UK?
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 1:51:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 1:39:25 PM, AngstChrist wrote:
Id rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

I'd rather die decommissioning the F-16 than shooting in its general direction.
AngstChrist
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 2:02:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That's why Im a strong advocate of fighting with my words. I hope we never have to again experience what the Founding Fathers did.

At 12/19/2013 1:51:58 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/19/2013 1:39:25 PM, AngstChrist wrote:
Id rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

I'd rather die decommissioning the F-16 than shooting in its general direction.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 4:01:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 1:34:40 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/19/2013 11:00:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/19/2013 10:38:09 AM, CarefulNow wrote:
Sorry, no, a gun isn't a defensive specialist, much less a life, liberty and property defensive specialist. It's as handy if not handier for offense, and defense of things like conquest and slavery (though I admit they can be folded into property). And while it's done a fairly good job of that, its record of defending against tyrannical regimes is 0 for 1.

What if the prevalence of guns prevents tyrannical regimes from ever transpiring in the first place? Your analysis doesn't account for that. Also, what failure are you referring to in your remark '0 for 1'?

The Civil War, the one major armed rebellion that's occurred since the passage of the Second Amendment. Whether you agree that the federal government was acting tyrannically is irrelevant. All that matters is that the rebels believed it was acting tyrannically and were armed and indeed better acquainted with rifles than their opponents.

The South was up against the North - citizens included - not merely a military regime. Your example doesn't compromise the proposition in the least.

Yet that was not enough to overcome disadvantages that are far greater today, such as that the government now has drones while its subjects are basically just breaking down, polishing and reassembling the same weapon they used in their last rebellion, scarcely interrupting the monotony other than to bury their careless children or murder their adulterous girlfriends.

Guns are hardly obsolete. Yes, the government has access to tanks and plains and drones, but the resistance that hundreds of millions of gun owners could put up is very significant. Also, the purpose of the second amendment isn't necessarily to ensure that citizens could defeat the military in a conflict, but rather to make the steps that it would take to get there that much more cumbersome and unattractive for potential dictators to pursue.

Also, the UK was already basically gun-free (worse, guns were limited to aristocrats) come the Bill of Rights; if gun proliferation kept the US from degenerating into tyranny, what kept the UK?

Gun proliferation is just one of many factors that work to deter such degeneration. I never claimed that gun rights are necessarily required to maintain a free society.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 5:54:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 4:01:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/19/2013 1:34:40 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
The Civil War, the one major armed rebellion that's occurred since the passage of the Second Amendment. Whether you agree that the federal government was acting tyrannically is irrelevant. All that matters is that the rebels believed it was acting tyrannically and were armed and indeed better acquainted with rifles than their opponents.

The South was up against the North - citizens included - not merely a military regime. Your example doesn't compromise the proposition in the least.

First of all, the South initially had more volunteers, with the North only gaining a numerical advantage after the start of the draft. Secondly, the OP didn't single out government. He was equally concerned about the tyranny of his sadly fractured human "community", the majority of whom he paradoxically grouped together in an ignominious "mob". Here's a tip: if you want people to stop voting for gun control, it's probably not a good idea to let them know you're as eager to shoot them as you are the government.

Yet that was not enough to overcome disadvantages that are far greater today, such as that the government now has drones while its subjects are basically just breaking down, polishing and reassembling the same weapon they used in their last rebellion, scarcely interrupting the monotony other than to bury their careless children or murder their adulterous girlfriends.

Guns are hardly obsolete. Yes, the government has access to tanks and plains and drones, but the resistance that hundreds of millions of gun owners could put up is very significant. Also, the purpose of the second amendment isn't necessarily to ensure that citizens could defeat the military in a conflict, but rather to make the steps that it would take to get there that much more cumbersome and unattractive for potential dictators to pursue.

Well, that's not the purpose. In addition to the embarrassing and thus unspeakable pretenses, like squashing slave revolts, there are others that may seem sensible to you but that my opinions of range from indifference to horror, such as paramilitary preparedness and defense of what the actual dictators (you know, the property-owners) have left over from slave emancipation.
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 7:16:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
All the people who support gun control because there's a possibility that they themselves can be shot are idiots.

I recognize that I might die any given moment. And it might be by getting shot, who knows? But I still support gun rights. Someone robbed In-N-Out, pointed a gun in my dad's face and threatened to shoot him if he moved. My dad still supports gun rights. I know people who have been shot, and still support gun rights!

A friend of mine once asked me how I would feel if my brother was shot dead in a school massacre. I told him I wouldn't be mad at the gun, but the shooter. I told him I'd track down the shooter, tear his face off and stuff it into his skull, but I wouldn't go after the gun. And after my prison sentence, I would go on to become a huge gun rights activist, promoting arming innocent people against the blood-thirsty maniacs out there.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 7:20:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is a DDO CENTER NEWSFLASH!!!

1. Appeal to the Constitution is appeal to tradition, which is a fallacy for an excellent reason. So that basically boils down to, "The Constitution said so, therefore I win!" but that is, of course, complete garbage.
2. I'm a utilitarian. I don't believe that one has the "right" to anything that hurts more than it helps.
3. At what point does something that brings us no palpable benefit become no longer worth defending? At what point does the cost become too high? Would you sentence half the country to death to keep in line with your vision of the Constitution? If not, where is the cut-off line? How many people will you cause the deaths of?
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 7:46:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 7:20:24 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
This is a DDO CENTER NEWSFLASH!!!

1. Appeal to the Constitution is appeal to tradition, which is a fallacy for an excellent reason. So that basically boils down to, "The Constitution said so, therefore I win!" but that is, of course, complete garbage.

Well I'd say the Founding Fathers were smarter than you are. I wouldn't doubt them. After all, they founded the United States of America, possibly the most free country in the world.

2. I'm a utilitarian. I don't believe that one has the "right" to anything that hurts more than it helps.

Guns have benefited me more than they have hurt me. They have also benefited me more than gun laws have. Therefore, by your definition, the government has no right to put gun restrictions on me.

3. At what point does something that brings us no palpable benefit become no longer worth defending? At what point does the cost become too high? Would you sentence half the country to death to keep in line with your vision of the Constitution? If not, where is the cut-off line? How many people will you cause the deaths of?

Right, because half the country would be dead because of guns.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 7:51:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 7:20:24 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
This is a DDO CENTER NEWSFLASH!!!

1. Appeal to the Constitution is appeal to tradition, which is a fallacy for an excellent reason. So that basically boils down to, "The Constitution said so, therefore I win!" but that is, of course, complete garbage.

Just pointing out: there's a difference between the statement "the right to bear arms is a moral right because the constitution says so" and the statement "we should recognize one's right to bear arms because the constitution says so".
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 7:52:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 7:46:19 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/19/2013 7:20:24 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
This is a DDO CENTER NEWSFLASH!!!

1. Appeal to the Constitution is appeal to tradition, which is a fallacy for an excellent reason. So that basically boils down to, "The Constitution said so, therefore I win!" but that is, of course, complete garbage.

Well I'd say the Founding Fathers were smarter than you are. I wouldn't doubt them. After all, they founded the United States of America, possibly the most free country in the world.

2. I'm a utilitarian. I don't believe that one has the "right" to anything that hurts more than it helps.

Guns have benefited me more than they have hurt me. They have also benefited me more than gun laws have. Therefore, by your definition, the government has no right to put gun restrictions on me.

3. At what point does something that brings us no palpable benefit become no longer worth defending? At what point does the cost become too high? Would you sentence half the country to death to keep in line with your vision of the Constitution? If not, where is the cut-off line? How many people will you cause the deaths of?

Right, because half the country would be dead because of guns.

Oh my, this is painful to look at.
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 7:57:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 7:52:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/19/2013 7:46:19 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/19/2013 7:20:24 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
This is a DDO CENTER NEWSFLASH!!!

1. Appeal to the Constitution is appeal to tradition, which is a fallacy for an excellent reason. So that basically boils down to, "The Constitution said so, therefore I win!" but that is, of course, complete garbage.

Well I'd say the Founding Fathers were smarter than you are. I wouldn't doubt them. After all, they founded the United States of America, possibly the most free country in the world.

2. I'm a utilitarian. I don't believe that one has the "right" to anything that hurts more than it helps.

Guns have benefited me more than they have hurt me. They have also benefited me more than gun laws have. Therefore, by your definition, the government has no right to put gun restrictions on me.

3. At what point does something that brings us no palpable benefit become no longer worth defending? At what point does the cost become too high? Would you sentence half the country to death to keep in line with your vision of the Constitution? If not, where is the cut-off line? How many people will you cause the deaths of?

Right, because half the country would be dead because of guns.

Oh my, this is painful to look at.

I didn't mean to sound genius, obviously. But why is it "painful?"
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 8:07:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 7:20:24 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
This is a DDO CENTER NEWSFLASH!!!

1. Appeal to the Constitution is appeal to tradition, which is a fallacy for an excellent reason. So that basically boils down to, "The Constitution said so, therefore I win!" but that is, of course, complete garbage.
2. I'm a utilitarian. I don't believe that one has the "right" to anything that hurts more than it helps.
3. At what point does something that brings us no palpable benefit become no longer worth defending? At what point does the cost become too high? Would you sentence half the country to death to keep in line with your vision of the Constitution? If not, where is the cut-off line? How many people will you cause the deaths of?

Do you know how many people did exactly what you are asking and died to defend your right to free speech? Something that is guaranteed by the Constitution. So if the government came out tomorrow and said were getting rid of free speech since it's just an old antiquated piece of garbage paper that we shouldn't listen to and now you can only say what we specifically tell you to say or you'll be fined/arrested. Would you be pissed then?
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 8:16:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 7:20:24 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
This is a DDO CENTER NEWSFLASH!!!

1. Appeal to the Constitution is appeal to tradition, which is a fallacy for an excellent reason. So that basically boils down to, "The Constitution said so, therefore I win!" but that is, of course, complete garbage.

Not really. The Constitution is law, and therefore has full right to be used in an argument.
2. I'm a utilitarian. I don't believe that one has the "right" to anything that hurts more than it helps.

Well then, you must dislike gun control, since guns have helped feed the human race far more than it's killed it.
3. At what point does something that brings us no palpable benefit become no longer worth defending? At what point does the cost become too high? Would you sentence half the country to death to keep in line with your vision of the Constitution? If not, where is the cut-off line? How many people will you cause the deaths of?

When the benefits are outweighed by the risk. Your analogy makes no sense by the way.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 8:46:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 7:20:24 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
This is a DDO CENTER NEWSFLASH!!!

Can't be on long but I'll give a quick response.

1. Appeal to the Constitution is appeal to tradition, which is a fallacy for an excellent reason. So that basically boils down to, "The Constitution said so, therefore I win!" but that is, of course, complete garbage.

I don't think it's a fallacy to appeal to the constitution. I mean, ultimately it is an appeal to authority but the fact is that in terms of law (and that's what the gun control debate revolves around) the constitution is the supreme authority.

2. I'm a utilitarian. I don't believe that one has the "right" to anything that hurts more than it helps.

I think it would be a very uphill battle to prove that guns do more harm than good, let alone prove that a gun law would have a good effect. I don't object too much to using util for policy decisions on a macro level, but I think the gun debate is far from resolved.

3. At what point does something that brings us no palpable benefit become no longer worth defending? At what point does the cost become too high? Would you sentence half the country to death to keep in line with your vision of the Constitution? If not, where is the cut-off line? How many people will you cause the deaths of?

What does this have to do with gun control? Luckily for us, the constitution has an amendment process so a constitutionalist doesn't have to always say the constitution is right even if it would lead to half of the population dying. The constitution itself solves for the issue of outdated or asinine constitutional clauses.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 9:15:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 7:16:18 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
A friend of mine once asked me how I would feel if my brother was shot dead in a school massacre. I told him I wouldn't be mad at the gun, but the shooter. I told him I'd track down the shooter, tear his face off and stuff it into his skull, but I wouldn't go after the gun. And after my prison sentence, I would go on to become a huge gun rights activist, promoting arming innocent people against the blood-thirsty maniacs out there.

Is that why you think those who want to control guns for safety's sake are idiots? Because all we really need is for you to deter gun violence by stuffing the faces into the skulls of the shooters?
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 9:42:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 7:20:24 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
This is a DDO CENTER NEWSFLASH!!!

1. Appeal to the Constitution is appeal to tradition, which is a fallacy for an excellent reason. So that basically boils down to, "The Constitution said so, therefore I win!" but that is, of course, complete garbage.

In the context of U.S. law, the Constitution is the entire framework. To say otherwise would be like saying that the Bible is irrelevant to debates about Christianity. Due to the extreme difficulty of changing the Constitution and the fact that all U.S. laws have to conform to the Constitution in order to be continuously upheld, it is not "complete garbage."
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 11:27:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 9:15:09 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/19/2013 7:16:18 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
A friend of mine once asked me how I would feel if my brother was shot dead in a school massacre. I told him I wouldn't be mad at the gun, but the shooter. I told him I'd track down the shooter, tear his face off and stuff it into his skull, but I wouldn't go after the gun. And after my prison sentence, I would go on to become a huge gun rights activist, promoting arming innocent people against the blood-thirsty maniacs out there.

Is that why you think those who want to control guns for safety's sake are idiots? Because all we really need is for you to deter gun violence by stuffing the faces into the skulls of the shooters?

You're obviously not getting the point. Did you even read it through? I didn't say I would tear his face off and stuff it into his skull to deter gun violence. I said I would tear his face off and stuff it into skull if he shot my brother dead.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 12:33:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 11:27:16 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/19/2013 9:15:09 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/19/2013 7:16:18 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
A friend of mine once asked me how I would feel if my brother was shot dead in a school massacre. I told him I wouldn't be mad at the gun, but the shooter. I told him I'd track down the shooter, tear his face off and stuff it into his skull, but I wouldn't go after the gun. And after my prison sentence, I would go on to become a huge gun rights activist, promoting arming innocent people against the blood-thirsty maniacs out there.

Is that why you think those who want to control guns for safety's sake are idiots? Because all we really need is for you to deter gun violence by stuffing the faces into the skulls of the shooters?

You're obviously not getting the point. Did you even read it through? I didn't say I would tear his face off and stuff it into his skull to deter gun violence. I said I would tear his face off and stuff it into skull if he shot my brother dead.

Oh, so you just called those who advocate gun control idiots and then, instead of defending your provocative and ironic accusation, turned to more important matters, such as imaginary brother-murder revenge fantasies. Got it.