Guns, Guns, Guns.
POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Monday, June 30, 2025 05:56
VIEWED: 46757
PAGE 10 of 44
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"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."
Not sure what part of 'well regulated militia' you don't understand.
Probably the same part the Supreme Court did on McDonald vs. Chicago.
"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), was a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I'm an American. The forth amendment says "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's the Second Amendment, actually.
And see McDonald vs. Chicago, above, for the determination as to who can keep and bear arms.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Assumed you were an Auzzie, not that it really matters.
You can't keep guns for one thing, but not another. Either you have the right to bear arms, or you don't. Period.
Pretty clear.
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
Funny, the Left loves to give such wide, ever reaching interpretations to the parts of the constitution they DO like, but the parts of it they don't like, could fit though a pin hole, and they'd claim they're following what the Founders intended.
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Frem,
Thanks for making your most compelling argument to date (in my hearing, at least). And I do appreciate you civility in these latest posts. It helps, it really helps! I think the point that outlawing guns in this country would lead to more violence and fear has merit. However, I'm still clocking a major disconnect on this issue and, interestingly, on the issue of abortion you bring up.
With abortion, relatively few people are in favor of late term abortions. Most folk would understand and accept a ban on that sort of thing. But that never seems to stop the anti-abortion folk from placing late term abortion at the center of their anti-abortion arguments, their poster child, literally. So here, you oppose a prohibition on guns and nobody here, to my knowledge, is advocating an absolute prohibition on guns. No one, right? What I hear people calling for is regulation. Just as we have regulation on the alcohol content of various spirits distilled in this country. Not a ban, but regulation.
And now you propose a training requirement similar to the one required to get your CCW license. (Something I proposed on page one of this thread which no one seemed to notice. Y'know, "gun literacy.") That sure as heck fire sounds like increased regulation to me! So here you are, within striking distance of simply agreeing with the folk you're calling liars and hypocrites. Take the leap!
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
With abortion, relatively few people are in favor of late term abortions. Most folk would understand and accept a ban on that sort of thing. But that never seems to stop the anti-abortion folk from placing late term abortion at the center of their anti-abortion arguments, their poster child, literally.
Hello,
This is a common tactic. You pick something that seems awful that most people can agree on as being awful. Then you pile on as much stuff as you can into that thing and try to ban it. It's pretty much the playbook for convincing people to surrender rights.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I've learned that he does not actually favor chaos. Just a very different system of decision making and community management."
Well, if one goes by the comic he referenced as his ideal society, it's one where everyone has a gun, and the fastest and best armed are the most free. As to how the trash gets picked up on a regular basis, it's a rosy haze of religious belief that it will all work out.
"This is no different than saying that government has no right to your reproductive system."
Then you mistake my arguments if you think I make absolutist ones. I recognize that lines must be drawn somewhere in the grey zone - the argument is where. For example, I think it's quite reasonable to forbid abortion in the last 2 months of pregnancy, unless there are compelling reasons that have to do with the life of the mother. I'm willing to listen to any reasons to draw the lines elsewhere, except reasons which conclude always or never.
"That we don't, in fact, have ample real life examples of exactly the kinds of gun controls you may advocate?"
Then tell me what I think - and I'll tell you where you're wrong. B/c until you can predict my position and my thoughts (and you failed utterly in the above example), you really can't make any claims to understanding.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
And now you propose a training requirement similar to the one required to get your CCW license. (Something I proposed on page one of this thread which no one seemed to notice. Y'know, "gun literacy.")
I've seen proposals like this a few times, and, while it might reduce the number of accidental shootings, I can't see it as doing much about a tragedy like at Sandy Hook. Seems like finding and fixing the folks who do such things might be a better solution.
I've proposed several times recently that reporting - by school counselors, doctors, psychiatric professionals, and family members - of folks who might be prone to mass killing should be encouraged, so those persons might get evaluation, treatment, or possibly confinement; possibly with disincentives for failure to make such a report. No one seems interested in this idea. Any idea why?
I'd note that the reduction in drunk driving fatalities from 26143 in 1982 (60% of all fatalities) to 12,744 in 2009 (38%), wasn't due to the government taking everyone's cars away. They increased enforcement and punishment of the folks caught (though I'd like to see more), and increased education. While there's still a way to go, the process seems to be working. Why not something similar for potential violence, that focuses on the possible offender rather than their tool of choice, be it gun or car.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Well, if one goes by the comic he referenced as his ideal society, it's one where everyone has a gun, and the fastest and best armed are the most free. As to how the trash gets picked up on a regular basis, it's a rosy haze of religious belief that it will all work out.
Hello,
Are you sure you're not confused? Frem has never expressed to me that the comic you mention is his ideal society.
Quote:
Then you mistake my arguments if you think I make absolutist ones. I recognize that lines must be drawn somewhere in the grey zone - the argument is where. For example, I think it's quite reasonable to forbid abortion in the last 2 months of pregnancy, unless there are compelling reasons that have to do with the life of the mother. I'm willing to listen to any reasons to draw the lines elsewhere, except reasons which conclude always or never.
You are quite correct that I misjudged you.
For my own part, I consider a person's body their own property.
Quote:
Then tell me what I think - and I'll tell you where you're wrong
All right. I think that there are certain firearms you don't perceive as being necessary amongst civilians in our society, such as assault weapons.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I stopped reading this thread at some point, it just keeps going in circles. But of what I did read:Quote:
If you know of a way to convince someone that something they despise is valuable, especially when they can't make the mental leap to comparing it to anything they do consider valuable, what is there to do?
You just keep saying no when they ask to take your rights away, and stand up for them when someone asks to take their rights away.
I fear the point Cav is trying to make will always, always be lost on you and Frem, and those like you:Quote:
This is precisely the problem: NO ONE HERE is ever gonna take your rights away. Not a single soul among us. So, when you talk like this, reasonable people are inclined to think you're not present; like you're stuck in a nightmare shouting "NO, NO, NO!" and we all just want you to wake up and tell us about your dream.
And as to how to convince people that something they despise is valuable, you're framing the issue in the most hostile terms possible. What is it you believe everyone here "despises?" Guns? No. Signy has one. What then? Really, I can't guess what you're refering to here.
That, again, is the think I keep referring to. The attitude that "ANY restriction means you want to take ALL our guns away!"
If reality were to intrude, those saying that would recognize that there is no political power on earth which could take away everyone's guns. America wouldn't stand for it, not now, not ever. It's not going to happen. So with this delusion firmly entrenched, the idea of ANY limitation on ANY gun is immediately translated into "You want to take my guns!"
I agree with Cav that the entire argument of "convincing people something they despise" is ridiculous. I don't despise guns, I know few who do. The vast, overwhelming number of people who LOVE guns in America is only countered by the far smaller number who, whether they love them, have no particular feelings about them, or actually hate them, want to see common-sense restrictions on them.Quote:
the collective 'you' i.e. the public may very well push to take my rights away. In pieces or in large part, depending on what is possible at the time.
If we could ever succeed in getting past your absolutism--because that's what it is--you might possibly recognize that nobody is EVER going to take those rights away. I don't think we can ever get past it, despite the fact that it's patently obvious to everyone else.
Frem,Quote:
Of course not, but you will demand others do so, you will support and abet them in this, despite demanding that rights you like, or are used in manners you approve of, be left alone.
You are liars.
You are hypocrites.
That's the worst thing I've ever seen you write here. Your absolutism is every bit as rigid as Anthony's, and every bit as wrong. Who here has EVER demanded guns be taken away from everyone? Who here ever WOULD? None that I know of, and equally, in society, the number who actually want all guns taken away are no more than deluded fools, and no, neither we nor the VAST majority of Americans would EVER support it! You're usually a pretty sensible person, as is Anthony; but on this point, you are both blind as bats.
Damn. Cav keeps saying it for me:Quote:
You and Frem and Anthony all seem to cherish this romance of freedom that your guns bestow. It's simply not true.
What gets me is that I'm not at all interested in taking your guns away. I think you do have a right to them. I just think you guys have the wackiest way of thinking about it and it's not a little worrisome. Seriously.
A-fucking-men. There can be no discussion, no debate, with such mentality.Quote:
I do not think that a firearm, any firearm, should not be in the same home as someone with problems with their mental health.
Now that I HEARTI
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Firstly, I've often wondered whether empathy is learned. From what I understand, its near impossible for small children to have empathy, they see the world only through the lens of their own experience. As they reach around 7 - sometimes younger, sometimes older - they tend to really grasp that others have feelings, and there is a reason their parents tell them not to hit their little sibling over their head.
Magons, you're simply missing that empathy is a developmental issue. A newborn has no access to a lot of faculties she will naturally develop later on. No one is saying empathy comes at birth. (Oh man, now I'm imagining some goofball future fundy saying that empathy develops at conception! Yikes!) The empathy a new born needs is the empathy felt and expressed by the adults around her. It is not so much learned as it is nutured and internalized in a healthy parent child relationship.
Quote:This is an extraordinary claim or it's irrelevant. Some people never devolop feet. Even with a small minority of footless people, society can develop shoes and escalators and diving boards and help the footless people to get around by other means. What you seem to be saying is that a society cannot be predominantly empathic and that is an extraordinary claim that needs backing up.
Some people never learn it, never develop it and some societies are good at inhibiting it. You will never get a society where everyone is empathic.
Quote:This is where I nearly lose hope of having a meaningful discussion with you on this subject. This is pure literature, pure mythology.
Secondly, violence and cruelty are as much a part of human nature as empathy is, maybe more so since we tend to lean towards that if empathy is not learned. We evolved with the capacity to use violence against others, against animals, as a survival mechanism. We are predators after all.
We are not predators. We are opportunistic omnivores. We're designed to eat meat only occasionally and to get the bulk of our dietary needs from things like nuts and fruit. We can adapt to a more meat centered diet, but it's not optimal.
And actually, our evolution demonstrates quite plainly an opposite trend away from violence. Magons, our pre-homonid ancestors had fangs and claws and tremendous strength by human standards. In our process of evolution over millions of years there has been a steady trend away from violence until Homo sapien emerged with these goofy little finger nails and mostly flat teeth. If violence was natural to us, nature would have maintained our bodily armament in good working condition. But she did no such thing, because we little hairless monkeys are the children of a very peaceful, largely herbivorous history. Use it or lose it, the man says, and our natural capacity for violence was lost millennia ago. Violence is something we've since had to reinvent for ourselves. Talk about leaned behavior!
Quote:More extraordinary claims and mythology. These are all very recent developments in human history and not intrinsic to our natures. And this argument that "This is how it has to be because this is how it has always been" is deeply problematic. We have evolved from ruleless social animals. When and how we came up with all these rules is a historical matter and has nothing to do with nature.
Thirdly, and I know this will be the most contentious, people are social animals, and societies need rules. How rigid and how many is all part of the push/pull of individual rights vs collective living. And I see that is the crux of the debate. Sometimes invididual rights need to be sacrificed for the collective good, otherwise you live in a society where everyone else be damned. Maybe America is seeing the end result of the growth of individualism. It peaked some time ago, and now the destruction and dysfuntion of living somewhere where the individual is more important than the many has kicked in.
Quote:
EveNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME