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.
No one here is arguing that we don't have the right to our own opinion, but statements like those are exactly the kind of argument it seems gun-enthusiasts love to make, as if any counter opinion is a threat to basic rights and all things American including the Constitution and apple pie...
Also of course, even the SCOTUS and the POTUS are fallible. Again, who would argue otherwise (these are called strawman arguments btw).
The point I've been trying to make is that nobody here is any sort of real Constitutional scholar and as such, we should not be so quick to pretend otherwise and immediately suggest any gun control measure is unconstitutional, or that gun control advocates have disregard for the Constitution, and/or that all efforts to thwart gun violence are entirely futile.
We should give these efforts their due and allow those who are entrusted to decide such things their due as well. All the unsubstantiated propaganda and unwarranted fears about losing our Constitutional rights is effective for those who don't know better, and sadly there are too many of those folks, but clearly the great majority of these charges are just "hot air" intended to exhaust gun-control proponents to the point of giving up.
But then there is the next mass-shooting altogether too soon to follow yet again...
Yes, because trusting politicians has worked so well for us. You really want to put your faith in people who brought us NSA wiretapping, IRS bullying of political opponents, and so many other Constitutional infringements?
If someone on the left could come up with a new gun law that would actually be effective against school shootings and other incidences, they might actually be able to get more moderate gun owners to listen. As it stands, though, all we hear is a rehash of already failed ideas and an encouragement to double down on them.
Yes, because trusting politicians has worked so well for us. You really want to put your faith in people who brought us NSA wiretapping, IRS bullying of political opponents, and so many other Constitutional infringements?
If someone on the left could come up with a new gun law that would actually be effective against school shootings and other incidences, they might actually be able to get more moderate gun owners to listen. As it stands, though, all we hear is a rehash of already failed ideas and an encouragement to double down on them.
The words we choose to use makes all the difference when it comes to understanding one another, and clearly I am having trouble being misunderstood, but be fair! I have never written that I "trust" politicians or have "faith" in people any more or any less than we must.
I think what it will take to get "moderate gun owners to listen" involves more than a few things.
1) Would help if the extremists and even the moderates would refrain from making up their own arguments, putting words in other peoples mouths (or posts), misrepresenting the arguments and intents altogether. For example, just because I might support a gun control initiative does not make me unamerican or an enemy of the Constitution.
2) I think we've all heard the simpleton back-and-forth along those lines forever now. No argument one way or another really gets traction when for the most part anti-gun control folks don't want traction of any kind. There really needs to be a desire to do more, best we can, and that desire expressed, or why kid ourselves into thinking a discussion is going to be at all productive, time worth taking?
3) Without getting into specifics, I also think there needs to be paradigm shift by gun enthusiasts that might forego the concern about gun-control effectiveness. After all, none of us will ever be satisfied along those lines while the violence just keeps coming. But if a gun enthusiast can continue to buy guns, use guns as always in a lawful manner, why not just agree to whatever measures a gun-control advocate might suggest?
4) Leave the Constitutional soundness of any gun control measure to those who are best to decide! This is not just the SCOTUS, we have an entire court system set up to vet our laws as appropriate, with lots of checks and balances. Enough of the fear-mongering to the contrary already.
5) Leave the concerns of effectiveness to the gun control advocates, the legislators and law enforcement. Give any glimmer of an idea at least the chance to be implemented, a chance to see the light of day. Given all the killings, don't we owe it to those killed and their families to say, "sure, we'll give that a try, and we're okay that it might come with some cost, some inconvenience and not really know how well it will work." Let us have our guns, don't impinge on our gun fun, and we'll give just about anything a try! Why not?
Finally, if the generalities don't work so well for anyone, which is the latest best gun control initiative being considered? What has recently been submitted as a gun-control measure that should not be considered for lack of any merit? If anyone has those kinds of specifics, it makes good sense to evaluate these things in a variety of different ways. I'm suggesting the above as a bit of a change that might help get us somewhere better...
The words we choose to use makes all the difference when it comes to understanding one another, and clearly I am having trouble being misunderstood, but be fair! I never wrote that I "trust" politicians or have "faith" in people any more or any less than we must.
I think what it will take to get "moderate gun owners to listen" involves more than a few things.
1) Would help if the extremists and even the moderates would refrain from making up their own arguments, putting words in other peoples mouths (or posts), misrepresenting the arguments and intents altogether. For example, just because I might support a gun control initiative does not make me unamerican or an enemy of the Constitution.
2) I think we've all heard the simpleton back-and-forth along those lines forever now. No argument one way or another really gets traction when for the most part anti-gun control folks don't want traction of any kind. There really needs to be a desire to do more, best we can, and that desire expressed, or why kid ourselves into thinking a discussion is going to be at all productive, time worth taking?
3) Without getting into specifics, I also think there needs to be paradigm shift by gun enthusiasts that might forego the concern about gun-control effectiveness. After all, none of us will ever be satisfied along those lines while the violence just keeps coming. But if a gun enthusiast can continue to buy guns, use guns as always in a lawful manner, why not just agree to whatever measures a gun-control advocate might suggest?
4) Leave the Constitutional soundness of any gun control measure to those who are best to decide! This is not just the SCOTUS, we have an entire court system set up to vet our laws as appropriate, with lots of checks and balances. Enough of the fear-mongering to the contrary already.
5) Leave the concerns of effectiveness to the gun control advocates, the legislators and law enforcement. Give any glimmer of an idea at least the chance to be implemented, a chance to see the light of day. Given all the killings, don't we owe it to those killed and their families to say, "sure, we'll give that a try, and we're okay that it might come with some cost, some inconvenience and not really know how well it will work." Let us have our guns, don't impinge on our gun fun, and we'll give just about anything a try! Why not?
Finally, if the generalities don't work so well for anyone, which is the latest best gun control initiative being considered. What has recently been submitted as a gun-control measure that should not be considered for lack of any merit? If anyone has those kinds of specifics, it makes good sense to evaluate these things in a variety of different ways. I'm suggesting the above as a bit of a change that might help get us somewhere better...
AWESOME... Typing SHEEP!!!
Must be some kind of gene splicing experiment; What will they think of next?
Take it from a retired contractor... if you leave your life up to "those who know best" you'll be first in the screwed line.
Dismissing someone who expresses a reasonable and articulate point of view that is different than yours and branding them a "sheep" is both rude and lame at the same time.
Let us have a serious conversation here without calling another person here an animal.
Must be some kind of gene splicing experiment; What will they think of next?
Take it from a retired contractor... if you leave your life up to "those who know best" you'll be first in the screwed line.
Not sure I get the typing sheep or want to hear this sad story, but ultimately there is no doubt we need to look out for ourselves above all else. At the same time, "no man is an island."
I leave it for you to figure out, but if you have a medical condition or maybe a legal matter that needs proper handling, you might want to consider "those who know best." Or take matters into you own hands of course. You wouldn't be the first or last fool to do so.
Some even decide to shoot the place up, whether in the "screwed line" or fearful of ending up there...
Dismissing someone who expresses a reasonable and articulate point of view that is different than yours and branding them a "sheep" is both rude and lame at the same time.
Let us have a serious conversation here without calling another person here an animal.
Serious conversations on the political forum on CD? That is an oxymoron.
The point I've been trying to make is that nobody here is any sort of real
Constitutional scholar and as such, we should not be so quick to pretend
otherwise and immediately suggest any gun control measure is
unconstitutional
You don't NEED to be a Constitutional scholar to surmise that some things are blatantly unconstitutional... For instance, there are some gun control advocates who proclaim that the SCOTUS in fact got it wrong when they concluded that the 2A protects an individual right. ( Hillary Clinton being the most notable )... They still cling to the theory that the 2A was only intended to be about militias, despite the fact that almost everything in the historical record indicates otherwise. Not only that, but there are countless quotations by the founders and those both directly and indirectly involved in the drafting of the Constitution that indicate they understood the 2A to safeguard an individual right, a "birthright of all Americans" as one put it, to keep and bear arms. I can post those if you wish. So do I need to be a Constitutional scholar to reasonably say that their "collective right" interpretation is wrong? I think not.
Quote:
and/or that all efforts to thwart gun violence are entirely futile.
Well, when "universal background checks" are proposed as a policy solution after some wing nut goes out and shoots up a school with the gun he bought AFTER PASSING A BACKGROUND CHECK, I think it's a fair assessment to say that passing universal background checks in an effort to thwart gun violence, as it relates to mass shootings, is futile.
Quote:
All the unsubstantiated propaganda and unwarranted fears about losing
our Constitutional rights is effective for those who don't know better
Unsubstantiated and unwarranted? I hardly think so. All one needs to do to substantiate the fears that some gun owners have is to look at any other country around the world where adherents of the gun control ideology have a better foothold in the political procedure.. In almost every example, "common sense" solutions have ultimately lead to confiscations ( some compensated, some not ) and banning of entire weapon classes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by And D
3) Without getting into specifics, I also think there needs to be paradigm
shift by gun enthusiasts that might forego the concern about gun-control
effectiveness.
In other words, "just shut up and take it, and don't ask any questions"
No thanks. I don't subscribe to the "throw some spaghetti against the wall and we'll see what sticks" approach of governance....
Quote:
After all, none of us will ever be satisfied along those lines while
the violence just keeps coming.
Exactly!!! So touching on something I brought up earlier, where's the balance? Aren't gun owners right to worry that when the next mass shooting happens, gun control folks will come for another round of "common sense" gun laws? And then another? And then another?
Quote:
4) Leave the Constitutional soundness of any gun control measure to those who
are best to decide!
There you go letting someone else do your thinking again....
Quote:
5) Leave the concerns of effectiveness to the gun control advocates, the
legislators and law enforcement.
I might be willing to do that when every gun control advocate and every law maker that proposes these type of laws posses so much as a basic working knowledge of the very guns they're trying to regulate, but when you have lawmakers who don't even know what things like a barrel shroud or an ammunition magazine are, what they're for, and how they operate, I think it's fair to be concerned about whether or not they can pass laws that will be effective, don't you?
Give any glimmer of an idea at least the chance to be implemented, a chance to
see the light of day.
If by "the chance to be implemented", you mean without a debate on it's merits, or without discussing exactly how it will be effective, then no, that's never going to happen.
Quote:
Given all the killings, don't we owe it to those killed and their families to
say, "sure, we'll give that a try, and we're okay that it might come with some
cost, some inconvenience and not really know how well it will work."
Not at all, no. Would you say the same thing if say, a bunch of families who've lost loved ones to drunk drivers got together and proposed passing a law mandating a breathalyzer in ever car?
Quote:
Let us have our guns, don't impinge on our gun fun, and we'll give just about
anything a try! Why not?
Something I've noticed in more than one of your posts is your own condescension when it comes to guns and gun rights with your use of terms like "gun fun" which really diminishes the seriousness of the topic at hand. So many gun control advocates have this condescending attitude toward gun rights, like they aren't really a constitutional right, and there aren't any serious arguments, neither legal nor practical, against more laws. Why should 2A advocates take anything gun control advocates have to say seriously when it's obvious they don't take gun rights seriously?
Quote:
I'm suggesting the above as a bit of a change that might help get us
somewhere better..
No, your arguments and suggestions basically boil down to... "don't question anything, you aren't qualified to do so"... "don't ask how the law will actually be effective, you don't need to know"... "don't worry about your rights, nothing can take them away"... " just write a blank check because we owe it to the families to appease their desire to DO SOMETHING"... "let more qualified people do your thinking for you, they'll keep us all safe"..." the government will take care of everything, don't worry your pretty little heart about it, just truuust uuuuussss"....
Classic leftist...
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 10-13-2015 at 02:11 AM..
Dismissing someone who expresses a reasonable and articulate point of view that is different than yours and branding them a "sheep" is both rude and lame at the same time.
Let us have a serious conversation here without calling another person here an animal.
But that's just it, nothing And D said in his last few posts was reasonable or articulate. He's basically made the argument that we shouldn't question the effectiveness of laws, we shouldn't question anything judges in the courts have to say, we should pass laws blindly, even those where it isn't clear how they will work, basically that we should just write a blank check, hope everything works out well, and just trust those in government will take care of us....
Normally I would agree with you about the childish name calling, but in this instance, I think the term "sheep" was apropos...
I was talking about depression and anxiety which are completely different from ADHD and requires different medication
I was talking about what the topic is about and this is part of the problem. You obviously didn't read the article and understand what it is saying.
Other places are treating the disease as opposed to treating the symptoms. That would include depression and anxiety.
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.
Enough with the straw man, please???
