Extreme gun control positions

[Sparagmos]

You cannot sacrifice liberty for security. You’ll yield neither.

So you are OK with getting rid of all laws that restrict our freedom, and allowing people to own nuclear weapons?

 

[OK Jeff]

So you are OK with getting rid of all laws that restrict our freedom, and allowing people to own nuclear weapons?

Reductio ad absurdum

 

[Sparagmos]

I can put up a quote, but revised history claims it’s false. You have google? Check for yourself.

It’s going to take more than one quote...not that anyone is thinking of invading the US - because our military is enormous and everywhere. Not because billy bob has a shotgun.

 

[Sparagmos]

Oh not this dance again! YOU made a claim, YOU are obliged to defend it.

Why is it ALWAYS those on the right that refuse to fulfill their obligation to defend their claims? C’mon now, surely you can find something from Breitbart or InfoWars.

You may wish to ruminate on the matter if you insist, as is your right, that I defend my claim that it is invariably those on the right who try this stunt of evading responsibility for their claims.

Go ahead, make my day.

Yes I pretty much only see this from ppl on the right. Weren’t they taught in middle school like the rest of us to source our claims?

 

[Sparagmos]

Without the right to defend themselves, they are not as free as we are. And neither are you.

Well how can we be free until we all own nuclear weapons then?

 

[OK Jeff]

Yes I pretty much only see this from ppl on the right. Weren’t they taught in middle school like the rest of us to source our claims?

Skip to the end. We talked about it further.

 

[Sparagmos]

Reductio ad absurdum

So where do you draw the line? I draw it at weapons designed to kill more than one person very quickly. Weapons of war. The fact that you agree that ppl shouldn’t own nuclear weapons mean you do think there is a line somewhere. So where do you draw the line?

 

[OK Jeff]

So where do you draw the line? I draw it at weapons designed to kill more than one person very quickly. Weapons of war. The fact that you agree that ppl shouldn’t own nuclear weapons mean you do think there is a line somewhere. So where do you draw the line?

The second amendment exists so we the people can defend ourselves from our own government. The fact they wish to disarm us should alarm anyone. You can’t defeat evil by disarming the innocent.

 

[Sparagmos]

And there you nailed it. The restriction should be around the problem persons. Not the guns. The gun is a tool, neither good nor bad. Gun violence is a human problem

We

The ridiculous truth regarding 2nd amendment arguments / proponents is the following:

They maintain that the Constitution is so important, so sacred that you simply cannot infringe on it in any way... and they argue this very vehemently yet there is a huge problem with this...

ALL OF OUR RIGHTS ARE INFRINGED UPON IN SOME WAY!!!!

This position that the 2nd amendment is so sacred it cannot be infringed upon never ever applies to any of the other amendments...

My freedom of free speech is routinely limited and even infringed upon by the Government. Don't believe me? Go to a police station and yell, "F you pigs I hope you all die" and see what happens to you.

I could go on listing examples amendment by amendment but I will stop there. Point is simple, this notion that you simply can't touch an amendment in any way, shape, or form is pure fallacy... but for some reason 2nd amendment proponents get away with using this logical fallacy as a shield.

And I say this as a gun owner.

Amendments are not untouchable, no amendment is absolute, so stop treating the 2nd amendment as if any infringement is tantamount to ripping the entire Constitution to shreds...

/[end rant]

I’d just like to add: How are constitutions such magical things that we can’t as a people declare they need to be amended or updated? That the framers were the wisest people that ever lived? Or is it just OUR constitution, since we are gods chosen nation...?

 

[Sparagmos]

The Second Amendment literally has "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" in it, so an argument for infringement in spite of it is not a good one. Your example of yelling in the police station is not a good one, since police have the right to defend themselves and other officers, and can reasonably suspect that such a stunt would be a prelude to an assault. Hence, they would subdue you in short order.

Only if you think the original constitution is a holy book passed to us by god that could not possibly need to be amended or improved upon. Which is a silly idea.

 

[Sparagmos]

Of course one must also consider what they can do that we can't. Simply having one freedom that they do not enjoy doesn't necessarily make us freer.

I think they woukd say that being able to send their kids to school knowing there is about a zero chance of a mass shooting is a freedom we don’t have.

 

[OK Jeff]

What makes our constitution unique is that it (at least the early amendments) limited the scope of government. Other nations aren’t typically this way. Ours was written as right given to us by God. Not given by man, therefore can’t be taken by man. Without it, these rights (all of them) could easily be taken by Washington. They were wise in the way they protected us from ourselves and the potential for knee jerk actions. I’m eternally grateful.

 

[disciple Clint]

Why don’t we just do what other countries that have much lower gun death rates do, instead of speculating? They’ve already tested stuff out.

Primarily because that has not solved the problem of multi casualty events

 

[OK Jeff]

I think they woukd say that being able to send their kids to school knowing there is about a zero chance of a mass shooting is a freedom we don’t have.

Mass shootings are a relatively recent happening. It was unheard of not so long ago. Maybe we should look at what changed.
One could argue that gun free zones advertises easy targets that can’t shoot back. I won’t, but it certainly has some merit.

 

[Sparagmos]

You could play this game forever. Its the old "drawing the line" problem. Whats the exact right age to let kids drive? Whats the exact right speed limit on a certain street?

Maybe it should be 3 shots. Maybe 7 is better. The idea is to permit reasonable self defense while reducing the likelihood of firearm mass casualty crimes.[/

Name one.

the law that says I have to walk

To think that in 1790 the Founding Fathers were concerned that men would not be allowed to own guns to feed and protect themselves, their families, and their property is laughable.

What they were concerned about was a government that would try to take their guns in order to force the people into submission to tyranny. Thus the Second Amendment.

Which in no way means that men shouldn't own guns for the other above rational and logical reasons that are just as justified today as they were in 1790.

i see you think similarly to our founding FATHERS.

 

[Sparagmos]

Primarily because that has not solved the problem of multi casualty events

Yes, it has. There is a wealth of data on it.

 

[Sparagmos]

Mass shootings are a relatively recent happening. It was unheard of not so long ago. Maybe we should look at what changed.
One could argue that gun free zones advertises easy targets that can’t shoot back. I won’t, but it certainly has some merit.

If it had merit you would see more mass shootings in other countries with even more gun free zones.

 

[Sparagmos]

Driving isn’t a privilege.
I’m not sure selling ready made bombs prevents anything. Anyone can easily learn how to build a dozen different kinds. And the restriction of certain ingredients has proven very difficult as a farmer (ammonium nitrate). I don’t think any of it is beneficial of successful. Again, it punishes the innocent.
Probable cause to make an arrest is a stretch at best. But while I respect the law and law enforcement, I think they should be held to a very high standard. And the burden of proof absolutely falls upon their shoulders.

I’m confused - you support law enforcement but do not support any laws that limit people’s freedom? Or was that another poster?

 

[disciple Clint]

Oh not this dance again! YOU made a claim, YOU are obliged to defend it.

Why is it ALWAYS those on the right that refuse to fulfill their obligation to defend their claims? C’mon now, surely you can find something from Breitbart or InfoWars.

You may wish to ruminate on the matter if you insist, as is your right, that I defend my claim that it is invariably those on the right who try this stunt of evading responsibility for their claims.

Go ahead, make my day.

Why is it ALWAYS those on the right that refuse to fulfill their obligation to defend their claims? EVIDENCE

 

[Sparagmos]

The second amendment exists so we the people can defend ourselves from our own government. The fact they wish to disarm us should alarm anyone. You can’t defeat evil by disarming the innocent.

Can you please answer the question? Where do you draw the line between rifles and nuclear weapons?