Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You replied to me and made some claims that weren't true about things I said. I wanted to clear up that misconception.
We don't need the right to bear arms because it's pointless.
Wait, that's it? Just some nebulous personal feeling that you think the 2A is unnecessary? And you do NOT want to ban guns?
And your case for it is "just look at some other countries that don't have a right to bear arms, they seem to be ok"?
If so, again, noted. Come back when you have narrowed that down into something more tangible (e.g. what are you measuring the 2A against when you say 'it's pointless'? Safety?). And when you have it narrowed down, back it up with some correlates in a time series for each country in your comparison. Then we're getting somewhere.
Until then, we just have you saying "I think the 2A is pointless" and me saying "I don't think so". Cool story.
Wait, that's it? Just some nebulous personal feeling that you think the 2A is unnecessary? And you do NOT want to ban guns?
And your case for it is "just look at some other countries that don't have a right to bear arms, they seem to be ok"?
If so, again, noted. Come back when you have narrowed that down into something more tangible (e.g. what are you measuring the 2A against when you say 'it's pointless'? Safety?). And when you have it narrowed down, back it up with some correlates in a time series for each country in your comparison. Then we're getting somewhere.
Until then, we just have you saying "I think the 2A is pointless" and me saying "I don't think so". Cool story.
not to mention e have him being like some of the liberals on the scotus saying that we need to look at the laws in other countries as well as our own when making decisions. and that is rubbish. we are our own country, we are not spain, or england, or france, but rather we are the USA. we have a different culture, different laws, etc. as such we step to a different drummer than other countries do, and that is what has made us great. that and having a can do attitude.
not to mention e have him being like some of the liberals on the scotus saying that we need to look at the laws in other countries as well as our own when making decisions. and that is rubbish. we are our own country, we are not spain, or england, or france, but rather we are the USA. we have a different culture, different laws, etc. as such we step to a different drummer than other countries do, and that is what has made us great. that and having a can do attitude.
That's exactly right. The quickest way (in my experience) to stop that country comparison farce is with one question:
Show me some countries with gun violence problems like America that became safer by banning (or heavily restricting) gun use.
The responses fall into one of two categories:
1. They list some countries with low violence rates now. When pressed to show the trends over time, especially where the gun laws changed the safety trends, they change the subject (to something like militia definitions or insults about being a 'gun nut').
2. They vanish, only to appear days later responding to someone else.
That's fine if they think that tightening gun laws will make the US safer. But don't pretend it's an opinion based in fact.
It is a right and I'm simply arguing it's pointless. I'm well aware what it takes to repeal an amendment and I'm simply giving my opinion on the matter and inserting facts were applicable. Kay thanks.
So is freedom of speech, but you won't agree with that, will ya...kay thanks...
Wait, that's it? Just some nebulous personal feeling that you think the 2A is unnecessary? And you do NOT want to ban guns?
You should really get out of your state... big world out there.
So you don't understand how it works without a second amendment for the rest of the world?
Quote:
And your case for it is "just look at some other countries that don't have a right to bear arms, they seem to be ok"?
If so, again, noted. Come back when you have narrowed that down into something more tangible (e.g. what are you measuring the 2A against when you say 'it's pointless'? Safety?). And when you have it narrowed down, back it up with some correlates in a time series for each country in your comparison. Then we're getting somewhere.
They are more than "okay"....
What exactly are the benefits of the 2nd amendment compared to how Sweden or Germany handles gun ownership? They are doing better job than us ensuring gun owners are responsible.
Quote:
Until then, we just have you saying "I think the 2A is pointless" and me saying "I don't think so". Cool story.
I don't see any difference in your side....
How do you justify the right to bear arms in the 21st century using modern arguments? Can you do better than the argument below?
"It was decided a few hundreds year ago that we should have the right to bear arms, that settles it".
You should really get out of your state... big world out there.
So you don't understand how it works without a second amendment for the rest of the world?
They are more than "okay"....
What exactly are the benefits of the 2nd amendment compared to how Sweden or Germany handles gun ownership? They are doing better job than us ensuring gun owners are responsible.
I don't see any difference in your side....
How do you justify the right to bear arms in the 21st century using modern arguments? Can you do better than the argument below?
"It was decided a few hundreds year ago that we should have the right to bear arms, that settles it".
Hey, I'm just asking you to back up your opinion with facts. You know... measures, correlates, trends over time, that kind of thing. It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong, I'm asking YOU to prove YOUR assertion.
How do you justify the right to bear arms in the 21st century using modern arguments? Can you do better than the argument below?
The first problem is that firearms cannot be un-invented. I can build a gun in my garage, just as people 600 years ago were able to build them in stables. Unless you can first make them unnecessary and unwanted, you can't make them unavailable to anyone who wants one badly enough.
Even if you did, you'd also have to do away with everyone who is physically stronger than anyone else. You would have to do away with knives, you would have to do away with gangs with clubs...you'd essentially have to do away with the violent nature of man.
Unless you can guarantee me that either you or the state can protect me and mine from someone who invades my house with greater numbers and knives better than I can with my firearm; unless you can guarantee me, if caught in a classroom with a mass killer--whether armed with a gun or a knife--that you or the state can give me some other option besides cowering under a desk and pleading for mercy, then you do not have a moral argument to prevent me from having a gun to protect myself.
Now, if you can invent a device that is just as effective for such purposes in all the circumstances that a gun is effective--effective enough that the Secret Service is willing to adopt it to protect the president--then you have a moral argument. Until then, you do not. Your willingness to leave yourself and your family without an ultimate option is not persuasive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
