Gun control

A

azeth

6,216
8
Oh boy, I completely disagree with both of you (Araysay and Big Phoenix).

To me, it's as simple as this in regard to Araysar's opinion that (paraphrase) "denying one right, but allowing others is absurd"

The freedom of speech, if used counter productively (say by the Westboro Baptist Church) will not comparatively impact the "victims" of it's misuse, as to the impact that the misuse of the 2nd amendment will.

Disagree?
 
Big Phoenix

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
44,669
93,356
Even though thats not a very good analogy, we arent in disagreement.

Difference is you seem to think putting a law on top of another law will make the first law even more effective. Like I said with pedophiles, if someone is so dangerous they cant be allowed around schools or firearms why are they out in society? The very fact that someone cant be trusted with a firearm says you acknowledge they are a threat to society so why are they free to roam it?
 
A

azeth

6,216
8
bottom line is it's a perfect analogy and you ought not keep absorbing precious oxygen

another fun analogy :

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 is neverokay to rape a woman.

as someone who wants to keep the right to keep and bear arms... I still don't really see how the 2nd amendment defends that right. Talk about a contextual argument.
 
Big Phoenix

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
44,669
93,356
Actually it is a terrible analogy, because what WBC does is no where near close to the first amendment equivalent of murder. All they are is classless assholes who hurt people's feelings, thats it.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
75,481
149,787
Azeth_sl said:
Oh boy, I completely disagree with both of you (Araysay and Big Phoenix).

To me, it's as simple as this in regard to Araysar's opinion that (paraphrase) "denying one right, but allowing others is absurd"

The freedom of speech, if used counter productively (say by the Westboro Baptist Church) will not comparatively impact the "victims" of it's misuse, as to the impact that the misuse of the 2nd amendment will.

Disagree?
Click to expand...
You mean like when polygamist mormons get free speech to establish rape cults or fundie christians have free speech to establish their own brainwashing cults where they rape kids?

Are you OK with the mentally insane voting in all of our elections?
 
Tummysticks

Tummysticks

Lord Nagafen Raider
785
63
Azeth_sl said:
bottom line is it's a perfect analogy and you ought not keep absorbing precious oxygen

another fun analogy :

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 is neverokay to rape a woman.

as someone who wants to keep the right to keep and bear arms... I still don't really see how the 2nd amendment defends that right. Talk about a contextual argument.
Click to expand...
What the goddamn unholy fuck are you talking about?
 
P

PosterOfStuff_sl

shitlord
139
0
They way I read this is...

If citizen A is a nutter, and is out in society he/she can purchase a gun still and not be impacted by the legislation that Obama was trying to push through, because that legislation is not tackling the real issue.

For example:-

Since Citizen A is a nutter they should not be released into society anyways, and even if they are they should have other rights removed to be consistent first. Or as Araysar pointed out Citizen A might of been a litterer in a particular state that has such offences considered as a felony and therefore could not get a gun, if Obama's legislation got through, it would be wrong to deny someone a gun just because they littered.

So because there are elements wrong in the justice and health care system we should do nothing about tightening gun laws until those two systems are fixed first.

That is the argument as I read it.
 
Sulrn

Sulrn

Deuces
2,159
360
Randin_sl said:
I imagine he's talking about how the 2nd amendment could be read as being contingent on militias being a necessary part of our military power, which they no longer are.
Click to expand...
Militias (as loosely organized, annually drilling minutemen) yes, are no longer directly impacting the freedom of our nation...
(The concept of "to the security of a free state" is NOT directly equivalent to military power). However, open the concept of what they represent as (arguably) intended, the inability of a monarch or military coup to sweep the country - then the modern, well-armed citizenry represents that militia in this day and age -- and multiple countries would attest that they are very contingent to the security of the state.
 
Pancreas

Pancreas

Vyemm Raider
1,124
3,818
Except we are a very fragmented society of individuals. There are few communities that will band together in opposition to authority. In face of a threat from without, Sure. We see this every time an attack from a disturbed individual or militant group or mother nature happens. Communities band together to try and get through it.

But if the government were to make demands, or the police, or any other authority figure. Neighbors would rather not get involved. The assumption is that the government is right in most cases and therefore, interfering is not productive.

So a smart military coup would not be a blatant military coup. It would be a targeted removal of individuals that might organize against and resist a new regime. They will be arrested as they out themselves. All the government has to do is to target areas these individuals find fundamental to their continued freedom and slowly outlaw them. As the regulation closes in, the potential dissidents will come to the surface, one or two at a time. They will be in the wrong as they are breaking the law, and will receive no aid from their neighbors who simply want to avoid any difficulty.

This slower process will completely negate the need to dominate by force until there is only a small remnant of what may have organized a revolt, left.

I mean, if I wanted to change a democracy or republic into a not-democracy or not-republic, that's how I would do it....
 
Sulrn

Sulrn

Deuces
2,159
360
Pancreas_sl said:
Except we are a very fragmented society of individuals. There are few communities that will band together in opposition to authority. In face of a threat from without, Sure. We see this every time an attack from a disturbed individual or militant group or mother nature happens. Communities band together to try and get through it.

But if the government were to make demands, or the police, or any other authority figure. Neighbors would rather not get involved. The assumption is that the government is right in most cases and therefore, interfering is not productive.

So a smart military coup would not be a blatant military coup. It would be a targeted removal of individuals that might organize against and resist a new regime. They will be arrested as they out themselves. All the government has to do is to target areas these individuals find fundamental to their continued freedom and slowly outlaw them. As the regulation closes in, the potential dissidents will come to the surface, one or two at a time. They will be in the wrong as they are breaking the law, and will receive no aid from their neighbors who simply want to avoid any difficulty.

This slower process will completely negate the need to dominate by force until there is only a small remnant of what may have organized a revolt, left.

I mean, if I wanted to change a democracy or republic into a not-democracy or not-republic, that's how I would do it....
Click to expand...
I only disagree with the generalization of our fragmentation. For the majority you're spot on, however, history shows that it (communal banding) runs in cycles -- currently we've been in a low period for the last 30'ish years (minus periodic spikes)?

I agree with everything else. History has already shown the most effective way to destroy a government/nation's ideals/freedom is to slowly erode it from within so you take out the opposition little by little instead of a mass coup vs the enraged peoples. The argument stands though, that it's the threat of a unified armed citizenry that protects us from such an event (an acute event -- not erosion) from occurring though. Depending on where you stand though, that can be argued as defensible or outright paradoxical at best.

Funny how the best examples of successful change-agents are Christianity/Religion, Ultra-Nationalism, and Children's "Welfare" -- all of which are currently being used currently.
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Reading what he actually said it doesn't sound too bad. The headline is awful. But cameras in public? Metal detectors at big events or whatever? Am I supposed to be outraged about that?
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Bro, if you're so outraged then explain to me why I should care that Bloomberg says we have to accept things like cameras being ubiquitous. The whole "look at how we interpret the constitution" bit was stupid. But he's talking about privacy concerns, not guns and not redefining anything in the constitution. Everything he says in the article addresses privacy issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.