COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

The Second Amendment, Gun Control, and School Shootings.

WoundedKnee said:
Okay, yes with a caveat is a no. What you say is there is a limitation on the right to self-defense. That outlook is not speaking of the individual right, but the tribal right. If tribal rights trump individual rights, then human rights are whatever the Strong Man says they are and in most all instances, the strong man insists that he (the government) has the right to self defense, but its subjects do not.

Now, which statistics do you base that on?

Because, here, where there is still an individual right to self-defense and an emphasis on local government, the areas of the worst gun violence (those instances that inflate the statistics that you tried to point to earlier) demonstrate that you are safer in a place where gun ownership is high compared to living in a place with the strictest of gun prohibitions.

Are you comparing an apple to an orange? especially in the light of my earlier carnage about the death and destruction rained down upon humanity by those government/nations enlightened enough to use the power of the Strong Man to ensure that you live in a "safe" gun-free environment?

~~~~~

This is also one of those instances, in light of your last statement, in that which I also pointed out earlier, the tendency of so many to think that their basal belief is an a priori building block of the argument that every 'intelligent' person should recognize.
Click to expand...

I am totally talking about individual rights to self defense - this is not 'yes with a caveat' but 'yes - living in/protecting/fighting for a culture of low gun ownership IS self defence'. The research clearly demonstrates that the risk of homicide is greater in cultures where gun ownership is widespread. Therefore, it is in my interests, as an individual, to either protect or fight for a culture in which gun ownership is not widespread because that makes me safer* - that IS individual self defense. I'm not talking about the wellbeing of the collective (although I'm all for that as well) - I'm talking about MY wellbeing.

*This research includes that conducted within the US, comparing countries with high levels of gun ownership vs those with lower levels. I've referenced that in an above post, but here it is again.

Do you have any actual facts that back your assertion regarding safety being higher in places of high gun ownership? Because if you don't, it's basically just your opinion.
 
Last edited:
Sorry. Epic fail. Yes, I could give you the links and I am sure that you have been, in the past, presented with them by the OP. Those facts, that compare to a society in which both conditions exist are more valid that using the statistics that you choose to use because you like the outcome. It is easy to demonstrate, in light of statistics and in light of the headlines that strict gun control laws and and gun-free zones, in a society that actually believes in an individual's right to self-defense, are the places that attract gun violence. Very few individuals wanting to cause carnage are going to attack a gun show.

;) ;)

As far as I can tell, you are saying that you prefer to live under the control of the Strong Man where the idea of self-defense is important to you, but only under the aegis of the Strong Man and not the individual.
 
WoundedKnee said:
Sorry. Epic fail. Yes, I could give you the links and I am sure that you have been, in the past, presented with them by the OP. Those facts, that compare to a society in which both conditions exist are more valid that using the statistics that you choose to use because you like the outcome. It is easy to demonstrate, in light of statistics and in light of the headlines that strict gun control laws and and gun-free zones, in a society that actually believes in an individual's right to self-defense, are the places that attract gun violence. Very few individuals wanting to cause carnage are going to attack a gun show.

;) ;)

As far as I can tell, you are saying that you prefer to live under the control of the Strong Man where the idea of self-defense is important to you, but only under the aegis of the Strong Man and not the individual.
Click to expand...

So you don't have the relevant data then.
 
No, I recognize the game you play and I'm not BotanyBoi and I'm not going to go round and round with you for days on end.

Your game is this: My statistics are the only relevant ones (yours are not relevant) and if you do not argue based on my statistics then you are not educated enough on the topic to have a relevant position. In short, you are guilty of that which you accuse everyone else of, but being the accuser does, in no, way, shape or form make you the paragon of truth on the issue, just an over-opinionated poster with a closed mind.

Since I have demonstrated this, then I have also demonstrated the futility of having a discussion with you because you are unyielding in your belief system and unwilling to entertain anything out of it or even pause to think about the easy-to-point-out fallacies of rhetoric that you are engaging in.

So, have a nice day and wait, patiently I hope, for BB to show up so that you can talk past each other for days upon end.

For my part, I am done with you.
 
The NRA was nowhere for this legally gun-owning American tax-paying citizen:

philando-castile1.jpg


so as far as the 2nd Amendment gun debate goes, they can go fuck themselves and the suntan-only lobster thermidor-skinned constituency they represent. And so can this country that reps this shitty mentality.

tumblr_o7ma0zYWkf1ukes1io2_500.gif
 
And the clowns crawling out of the tiny car never fails to amuse, which is why they persist...
 
KimGordon67 said:
What would 'meaningful' and 'thoughtful' engagement look like (apart from just agreeing with you old men)? The GB gun lobby barely ever engage actual research or data in their arguments, just supposition, or if they do mobilise actual facts, they entirely misread them.
Click to expand...

He doesn't appear to have much to say on any subject, sans a few sniper shots from the peanut gallery.

Sy_Snootles said:
No, that never happened.
Click to expand...

Everyone lies on the internet, this guy hasn't figured out where the truth-bending stops and the outright lying begins.

WoundedKnee said:
And the clowns crawling out of the tiny car never fails to amuse, which is why they persist...
Click to expand...

You came into the thread talking loud but haven't said shit yet. Until you do, sit in the corner and observe and we'll call on you when it's your turn.
 
There are statistics, there are statistics, and then there are damn lies.

You (the plural You) can bandy about all the 'statistics' you want, so can the 2nd Amendment supporters. We'll call it the battle of the floating point flinger's. It changes nothing. Go back and read paragraph #2 in the OP slowly and carefully. Contained therein is the real problem you're going to face if you try to do anything re. the Second Amendment.
 
bellisarius said:
There are statistics, there are statistics, and then there are damn lies.

You (the plural You) can bandy about all the 'statistics' you want, so can the 2nd Amendment supporters. We'll call it the battle of the floating point flinger's. It changes nothing. Go back and read paragraph #2 in the OP slowly and carefully. Contained therein is the real problem you're going to face if you try to do anything re. the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

This isn't your thread regarding the second amendment, you must be lost.
 
State's Rights: Let the people decide

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts assault weapons ban

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit on Friday challenging Massachusetts's ban on assault weapons.

U.S. District Judge William Young said in his ruling that the firearms and large magazines banned by the state in 1998 are “not within the scope of the personal right to ‘bear Arms’ under the Second Amendment.”

The features of a military-style rifle are "designed and intended to be particularly suitable for combat rather than sporting applications," Young wrote.
Massachusetts was within its rights since the ban passed directly through elected representatives, Young decided.

The Supreme Court already declined to hear a challenge to the similar law in Maryland. Like many decisions, for example marriage equality, this will play out in the States first w/r/t banning certain types of weapons.

Other remedies will include extreme vetting of those that wish to obtain weapons and holding accountable those in possession of weapons for improperly caring for them - like the father of the Parkland shooter and the father of the most recent shooter in TX.
 
bestone4ever said:
I know we can't. The NRA and the frighten cunts in this nation would shit themselves so it would never happen. I know you're trying to pick a fight but I learned long ago that this is just something we have to deal with to live "free" while some of you retarded fuckers mow down dozens of people at concerts or kids at school.
Click to expand...


You're main problem is the habit of projecting your own characteristics onto the American majority.
 
BoyNextDoor said:
Federal judge upholds Massachusetts assault weapons ban

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit on Friday challenging Massachusetts's ban on assault weapons.

U.S. District Judge William Young said in his ruling that the firearms and large magazines banned by the state in 1998 are “not within the scope of the personal right to ‘bear Arms’ under the Second Amendment.”

The features of a military-style rifle are "designed and intended to be particularly suitable for combat rather than sporting applications," Young wrote.
Massachusetts was within its rights since the ban passed directly through elected representatives, Young decided.

The Supreme Court already declined to hear a challenge to the similar law in Maryland. Like many decisions, for example marriage equality, this will play out in the States first w/r/t banning certain types of weapons.

Other remedies will include extreme vetting of those that wish to obtain weapons and holding accountable those in possession of weapons for improperly caring for them - like the father of the Parkland shooter and the father of the most recent shooter in TX.
Click to expand...

It will be reversed at the SCOTUS if it gets there.
 
Rightguide said:
It will be reversed at the SCOTUS if it gets there.
Click to expand...

again: The Supreme Court already declined to hear a challenge to the similar law in Maryland. Like many decisions, for example marriage equality, this will play out in the States first w/r/t banning certain types of weapons.
 
BoyNextDoor said:
again: The Supreme Court already declined to hear a challenge to the similar law in Maryland. Like many decisions, for example marriage equality, this will play out in the States first w/r/t banning certain types of weapons.
Click to expand...

Scotus already ruled in Heller and in Miller v United States 1939. In Miller the court outlawed sawed off shotguns because they have no military utility. The Court:

"Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Of course this means it would be hard to prove the AR-15 couldn't contribute to the national defense, or that it had no military utility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JaySecrets
Worse song covers ever
Replies
12
Views
124
JaySecrets
JaySecrets
goldytheGoldfish
Where Bus Go?
Replies
2
Views
106
goldytheGoldfish
goldytheGoldfish
J
Wild Flowers Growing Near California Coast with Pacific Ocean
Replies
2
Views
194
Nikki269
Nikki269
B
Torture in Russia
Replies
0
Views
115
Bigtitsbitch1000x
B
M
Beautiful hentai sluts
Replies
10
Views
374
Misterwhisper
M
Back
Top