It goes on like this. Lots of dodging the question, including an appeal to the long-gone “assault weapons ban.”
Wow. Someone asks a serious question, and all the libertarian kooks immediately come in and try to poison the well by accusing him of poisoning the well.
“How dare you point out the human cost of my policy!?”
You guys are beyond hope. Really. I’m just glad you’re dumb enough that when this country finally gets desperate enough for a fascist revolution, you’ll happily sell my jackbooted thugs the instrument of your own terrorization and enslavement.
*That’s *what poisoning the well looks like, you cretins.
Don’t want to compromise on gun rights? Fine. Damn you all to bloody fucking hell.
Seriously, though, what John Stamos’s Left Ear is talking about is the way the gun nuts poison the well whenever we try to talk about regulation.
(Point of information: Regulation is named in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution; an individual right to bear arms is not. [Point of information: most of this board will never admit this is true.])
So they poison the well by accusing him of doing it. Classic.
Well, now, to be strictly fair, it speaks of regulating the militia that are bearing the arms. Whether or not regulation infringes upon the right to bear arms is a question of semantic precision that leads to a bounteous harvest of debate and billable hours.
Big Number Two is a marvel of ambiguity, it permits two entirely opposing views of its meaning and purpose. The Founding Fuckups really screwed ye pooch on that one.
You’re the ones with the guns. The ones trying to change your minds have to choose their words carefully*. Most of y’all have already declared upfront that if the gubmint try to take 'em away, there’ll be hell to pay.
Arguing on the internet seems about the safest place to do it, as long as the gun owner you’re arguing with doesn’t know where you live.
And that is why there is rarely an honest discussion. People like you rarely enter it honestly.
Would you even believe me if I told you your characterization of American gun owners will accurate for some misses the mark substantially?
As for the OP in the thread that spurred this idiotic pitting:
Self serving a-holes with personal agendas tend to get answered in kind.
Want an honest discussion? Let’s talk about the problem of violence and why guns become involved and what we can do to reduce the violence.
“I assure you: I don’t want to take away your legally owned and used for hunting and protection guns. But I want less gun violence in this country, particularly in the urban area that I live in.”
Show me gun control laws which will take guns away from the people who use them maliciously in said urban areas. For bonus points, do it in a way which doesn’t violate the 4th amendment. 'cos they’re not just going to turn them in if TPTB say to.
the bulk of firearm-related violence is in the inner cities. The inner cities are largely populated with people who are effectively caught in a poverty trap for any of a long list of historical and current reasons. fixing the social issues will do a lot more towards reducing violent crime than passing marginally-useful or marginally-enforceable gun laws. But the latter is easier to do, so that’s what gets done.
I rise to speak on behalf of the Keep the Goddam Things If They Mean That Much To You Caucus. Gun control is politically impossible, so long as there is a rock solid minority of people who will tear their hair and set themselves on fire at the very mention of the words.
I don’t really believe that alleviating poverty will eradicate the gun violence problem, but it certainly can’t hurt. So I am willing to accept that rationale so long as the actual work is done, rather than promised.
Keep 'em, much good may they do you, muzzel tov! We have some very very big fish to fry, and this just gets in the way. I would that it were not so, but it is.
As passed by the Congress:
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 right there. See the comma? Were suppose to be allowed to have well regulated Militia for of our own in each state, and our arms. The Military is not what this means. A Militia is citizens united in this case well regulated who own arms for defense of community and country.
What kills me is why would anyone think one more law will fix crime. Clue…criminals just break the law. The only people affected by a gun law would be law abiding…I don’t think they are the problem …do you?
People have been killing one another sense the beginning of time. Guns are just them most current of the weapons used. The concept of killing one another is the issue not what you use.
What are you going to do when deadly weapons can be made from Radio Shack Parts? That time is coming. Gun control advocacy is a distraction and a waste of time. You can stop people who really want a gun from acquiring one with the same efficiency as you keep drugs away from them.
When I see sensible gun owners shouting down the more extreme representatives of the gun owning population on a regular basis, instead of directing their ire at the people suggesting some gun owners give the rest a bad name, I might be a bit less cynical in my approach to these kind of discussions.
Where I come from, the only people who really want guns are those with a profitable drug business to protect, or people who’ve seriously pissed off some nasty people. The knock-on effect of this is that unless you are either very unlucky or are involved in serious crimes, you should never need a gun in this country and you could go a lifetime without seeing one close up.
Because of this, I obviously find it hard to relate to people who insist they are a not even a necessary evil, but an actual force of good… in the right hands. But you don’t always know they are in the right hands. At least if you know only violent criminals have them, you can take steps to avoid the likely places they might be, but if every Tom, Dickhead and Dirty Harry can have one, it’s a recipe for the disasters the USA regularly has.
A fair, unbiased reading of the text of the US Constitution produces:
(a) a belief that there’s an individual right to bear arms protected therein
(b) a belief that the state is forbidden from stopping abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy
Now, you may disagree with (a). But can you disagree with (a) and agree with (b) simultaneously? That is, can you believe that the text of the Constitution more strongly supports a right to a first trimester abortion than it does the individual right to bear arms?
I say you can’t. I say you need something beyond the plain text to arrive at those simultaneous conclusions.
Yep. When someone thoroughly poisons the well and then asks to have a civil discussion, I’m going to go :dubious: and point it out. If that bothers you, you can go fuck a cactus.
As for my position on the issue, I’m on record on this MB as stating that I think the 2nd amendment is a anachronism. I’d vote to repeal it, if it were up for a vote. Thing is, some of us can see that our own preferred policy is not what the American people actually want. Boo fucking hoo for us. Pretending that the 2nd amendment says something that it doesn’t, and that the SCOTUS “got it wrong” nothing but horse shit.
The OP should do a little research into what the term “regulated” means wrt the 2nd amemdment. He or she might find out that it means “trained” or “disciplined” or even “supplied”. It does not mean what he or she seems to think it means.
And what does “militia” mean? Seems to me, it means, in context, that it is needful that private citizens be banded together, armed, to meet an emergency. And because that is so, the right of the people to bear arms is protected.
However, it explicitly protects that right without further reference to the justification, it doesn’t say “If, in the future, the Huron and Iroquois cease to be a threat, then all bets are off.” More’s the pity.