RE: The Gun Control divide

RE: The Gun Control divide (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

The Gun Control divide

I despise you and your poll.

19% (5)

I need a weapon so I can defend my family from others and tyranny.

15% (4)

I need a weapon so I can defend my family from tyranny.

0% (0)

I need a weapon so I can defend my family from others.

0% (0)

I don't need a good reason for owning a gun. It's my right.

26% (7)

Weapon access causes harm, individual rights wins because Constitution

3% (1)

Weapon access causes societal harm which trumps individual rights

26% (7)

Access to weapons does not cause societal harm

7% (2)

Total Votes : 26

(last vote on : 6/19/2016 9:25:06 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

tweakabelle -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 7:19:26 AM)
What a tedious troll you are. Nothing intelligent to say. Nothing even remotely interesting or original to say. Just relentless trolling .... post after post after post ..... I dread to think how boring your life is if you are reduced to such sad tenuous pleasures. I suppose that for you, anything is preferable to coming to terms with your utter and overwhelming irrelevance. Actually I don't dread it .... I prefer not to think about such depressing things at all. Get a life loser.

Lucylastic -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 7:42:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyJSirF At 450 million people in the us the percentage of dead is so miniscule that it is an oddity. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyJSirF but in a country of over 475 million people .00000001% of our population shouldn't be used as a reason to change laws that affect all of us. Im sorry, but while you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts or your own math.

Awareness -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 10:28:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The Australian experience of gun control, (Australia has a similarly heterogeneous population, is also English speaking and subject to the rule of law, and so directly comparable to the US in this instance) is also compelling evidence that the introduction of strict gun laws in the mid 1990s did not result in anarchy or anything remotely approaching it. In fact crime rates fell after gun control was introduced. Again the opposite to your claim. Directly comparable? I suppose if you look at land mass and the language spoken that's true. But when you start comparing the population numbers and the number of large cities they are not even close. According to the internet your largest city has around 4.5 million people. The total of your 5 biggest cities doesn't come close to the total in New York alone. Throw in the mix of cultures that we have there and the poverty in a lot of the areas and you are going to have an increase in violence. Trying to blame the weapon they chose is just stupid and won't solve anything. Oh, I see. So what you're saying is that Americans are gun-toting lunatics because their population density is higher?

mrevibo -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 12:28:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The Australian experience of gun control, (Australia has a similarly heterogeneous population, is also English speaking and subject to the rule of law, and so directly comparable to the US in this instance) is also compelling evidence that the introduction of strict gun laws in the mid 1990s did not result in anarchy or anything remotely approaching it. In fact crime rates fell after gun control was introduced. Again the opposite to your claim. Directly comparable? I suppose if you look at land mass and the language spoken that's true. But when you start comparing the population numbers and the number of large cities they are not even close. According to the internet your largest city has around 4.5 million people. The total of your 5 biggest cities doesn't come close to the total in New York alone. Throw in the mix of cultures that we have there and the poverty in a lot of the areas and you are going to have an increase in violence. Trying to blame the weapon they chose is just stupid and won't solve anything. Oh, I see. So what you're saying is that Americans are gun-toting lunatics because their population density is higher? I think it's more of a genetic thing; we've been gun toting lunatics since long before the revolution and constitution. I know I've passed it on to my son.

ResidentSadist -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 1:36:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness The Gun control debate is usually about ends and what it misses are the differing fundamental assumptions that people operate from. This poll is aimed at effectively gaining an idea of the popularity of a few of these various presuppositions. I don't have a specific agenda here, and you may not wish to play along but it might be worth giving it a go. A) Do you effectively believe that free access to weapons is a societal problem which causes harm? If no, then choose option 8 in the poll. Otherwise proceed to the next question. B) Does the individual's right to a weapon trump the harm which the free access of weapons provides? If no, then choose option 7 in the poll. Otherwise proceed to the next question. C) Does your right to a weapon trump societal harm primarily because of the Constitution or for your own reasons? If the Constitution, then choose option 6 in the poll. Otherwise proceed. D) Do you need a justification for having a gun? Or is it your right and all other considerations are irrelevant? If you don't need a justification for owning a gun and it's your right regardless of what else is happening in society, choose option 5. E) Does your right to a gun trump societal harm because you need to defend yourself against your fellow citizens or against the government or both? If citizens choose option 4, if the government, choose option 3, if both, choose option 2. If you despise this poll and the person who made it, choose option 1... but only after choosing one of the other options first. See, this is not the debate. It's not guns or no guns -- it's what guns, and under what circumstances. This is the debate: [image]http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-i-do-not-believe-in-taking-away-the-right-of-the-citizen-for-sporting-for-hunting-and-ronald-reagan-57-76-62.jpg[/image] Anything else is simply parroting the modern NRA nonsense, in its present day capacity as shill for the gun manufacturers. And it's unnecessary, because the "no restrictions ever" gun-tokers are pretty gullible and will buy whatever special gun/ammo you come up with and tell them is potentially threatened. Fucking Reagan... like Obama, he said one thing but did the opposite and tried to pervert the Second Amendment. So many lies perpetrated by the anti-gun advocates to pervert the United States Constitution saying that the Second Amendment was not about assault riffles. The fact is, it was explicitly about military weaponry for an individual or a militia. Quote: "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." They aren't talking about self defense pistols or referring to duck hunting rifles. They are talking about the right to own military assault rifles. either as individual "people" or as a "group" in a militia... which is why it is also legal for you to own a tank (arms). The Emerson case explores our Second Amendment rights and the definition of terms extensively. Here is a good article if the topic interests you: http://brainshavings.com/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-what/

Musicmystery -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 3:47:43 PM)
. . . and now it's time for the "well-regulated" part. Because it's clearly not running well at present.

ifmaz -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 4:28:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery . . . and now it's time for the "well-regulated" part. Because it's clearly not running well at present. This tired "argument" again?

mrevibo -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 5:01:53 PM)
People means people. I'm one of the people, and so may you be, depending if you live here. Regulated does not, however, mean regulated as we use the word now, but rather trained and ready for service. Training is lacking now that we have a standing army, but readiness requires being armed.

Musicmystery -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 5:09:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery . . . and now it's time for the "well-regulated" part. Because it's clearly not running well at present. This tired "argument" again? Neither "tired" (as it's still current, clearly) nor an "argument" (I'm not surprised you can't recognize one), but rather an observation. Yet another instance of gunning down innocents is not a marking of a "well-regulated militia." So Captain ForeFather -- what did the founders intend to do about poorly running militia?

Musicmystery -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 5:11:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mrevibo People means people. I'm one of the people, and so may you be, depending if you live here. Regulated does not, however, mean regulated as we use the word now, but rather trained and ready for service. Training is lacking now that we have a standing army, but readiness requires being armed. It would be interesting to see the NRA pushing for mandatory training. Certainly we'd have a better idea who's holding and firing these weapons.

mrevibo -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 6:55:08 PM)
I think some mandatory training would be a grand idea. I saw a video of high school students in Russia lining up and assembling and disassembling an AK47, and damn if they couldn't do it faster than I can. At the very least we should have a basic safety course, and the NRA does offer it, but you have to get the special snowflakes that run the schools to sign on, or the legislatards to make them, but that's not going to happen.

ifmaz -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 7:00:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: mrevibo People means people. I'm one of the people, and so may you be, depending if you live here. Regulated does not, however, mean regulated as we use the word now, but rather trained and ready for service. Training is lacking now that we have a standing army, but readiness requires being armed. It would be interesting to see the NRA pushing for mandatory training. Certainly we'd have a better idea who's holding and firing these weapons. Imagine for a moment you had to attend a government-mandated class in order to vote. The class was held on Tuesdays at 8am through 3pm. You are unable to vote until you attend this class. Is this constitutional? Same situation except the government could limit your speech or who you got together with until you attended a class. Is this constitutional? How, then, is it constitutional to mandate a class for any other right?

Awareness -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 7:36:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mrevibo I think it's more of a genetic thing; we've been gun toting lunatics since long before the revolution and constitution. I know I've passed it on to my son. No. Your contention is the product of a mind trying to have a discussion about a subject it's way too stupid to comprehend.

Musicmystery -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 7:40:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: mrevibo People means people. I'm one of the people, and so may you be, depending if you live here. Regulated does not, however, mean regulated as we use the word now, but rather trained and ready for service. Training is lacking now that we have a standing army, but readiness requires being armed. It would be interesting to see the NRA pushing for mandatory training. Certainly we'd have a better idea who's holding and firing these weapons. Imagine for a moment you had to attend a government-mandated class in order to vote. The class was held on Tuesdays at 8am through 3pm. You are unable to vote until you attend this class. Is this constitutional? Same situation except the government could limit your speech or who you got together with until you attended a class. Is this constitutional? How, then, is it constitutional to mandate a class for any other right? Any other imagined restrictions you want to add to your hypothetical bullshit? Because just making shit up is also a logical fallacy. Imagine you were accused of a crime, and the prosecution could just bring in irrelevant evidence . . . [8\|] You should have attended a few more classes.

mrevibo -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 7:43:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: mrevibo I think it's more of a genetic thing; we've been gun toting lunatics since long before the revolution and constitution. I know I've passed it on to my son. No. Your contention is the product of a mind trying to have a discussion about a subject it's way too stupid to comprehend. Have I got another mind in here again? I thought I was sitting on something in my recliner earlier, but it was just a tape measure. Please, you're talking to a guy that has a room like in your av., for real.

LadyPact -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 9:07:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness The Gun control debate is usually about ends and what it misses are the differing fundamental assumptions that people operate from. This poll is aimed at effectively gaining an idea of the popularity of a few of these various presuppositions. I don't have a specific agenda here, and you may not wish to play along but it might be worth giving it a go. A) Do you effectively believe that free access to weapons is a societal problem which causes harm? If no, then choose option 8 in the poll. Otherwise proceed to the next question. B) Does the individual's right to a weapon trump the harm which the free access of weapons provides? If no, then choose option 7 in the poll. Otherwise proceed to the next question. C) Does your right to a weapon trump societal harm primarily because of the Constitution or for your own reasons? If the Constitution, then choose option 6 in the poll. Otherwise proceed. D) Do you need a justification for having a gun? Or is it your right and all other considerations are irrelevant? If you don't need a justification for owning a gun and it's your right regardless of what else is happening in society, choose option 5. E) Does your right to a gun trump societal harm because you need to defend yourself against your fellow citizens or against the government or both? If citizens choose option 4, if the government, choose option 3, if both, choose option 2. If you despise this poll and the person who made it, choose option 1... but only after choosing one of the other options first. Could you have made this more complicated? OK. I'll play. Option one is out. I don't think I have to explain that. Options two and three. "Tyranny" was a very interesting word. I'm really not afraid of the government coming to kill me. Option four. I lean toward this if we are willing to discuss what my death would do to my family. Option five. I'm torn. I'm not sure I want to get into the territory of having to prove a person needs a firearm, rather than a right. What are your suggestions in this area? Options six and seven. Isn't this the crux of the debate? We know bad people do bad things with weapons. We also know the majority of gun owners never shoot another person. Do we penalize the majority because the minority do terrible things? How do we make these determinations? Option eight. I think mass shootings cause societal harm. Should we blame the person or the weapon? Nothing in your poll about hunting. Nothing about SELF defense. It would be my opinion you should address those aspects, too.

ifmaz -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 9:46:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Any other imagined restrictions you want to add to your hypothetical bullshit? Because just making shit up is also a logical fallacy. Imagine you were accused of a crime, and the prosecution could just bring in irrelevant evidence . . . [8\|] You should have attended a few more classes. So you can't answer the simple questions? EDIT: Nevermind, I remember you now: you avoiding answering direct questions then claim the other person is unintelligent.

Musicmystery -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 9:59:08 PM)
Well, if you come up with any logical arguments free of fallacies and stuff you just make up, come on back and lay them out.

ifmaz -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 10:00:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, if you come up with any logical arguments free of fallacies and stuff you just make up, come on back and lay them out. I'm sure you'll avoid answering those as well.

Musicmystery -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 10:01:52 PM)
Nope, that's not a logical argument. Speculation. Keep trying.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Spam Policy

6.347656E-02