Discussion: The Second Amendment III

[Kelly]

I think it's fair to bring up that NCLB law. It's pretty well regarded in great pieces of sh***y legislation, which may be a long list but still.

The break from "tracking" in schools is what brought on the thought process for NCLB. The "idea" of NCLB was solid, and if we were still tracking, it would probably work pretty well, in some states. But, because of the culture of "give it to me, whether I deserve it or not" brought on in the 80's and 90's....made NCLB a lost cause, and not a chance in hell of working. Teachers knew this, but no one asked us.

We knew that it would not work in a large state like Texas, would work fine in say, North Dakota...but as a National Education initiative....noooooo way, and we knew it.

 

[Bill]

I read a response to the gun debate where a person said "come for my guns and see what awaits you". Obviously people have a right to defend what is theirs, but are there really that many people that would rather use they're guns to shoot people that come for their guns rather then hand them over?

Imagine, for a moment, that the colonists had that attitude when Britain wanted them to just hand over their freedom.

I understand that there are many people that have no use for firearms. That's fine. But there is a provision for their ownership as a right guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights. If they, being the government, can so easily revoke, rescind, or limit that right, with the consent of the people that don't care, imagine what can happen if they decide to take something away about which you do care. The 2nd Amendment was provided, in part, for just that reason. It enables the people to defend their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, even against their own government. Sadly, there are people who would give up those rights simply because the government says it's good for you to do so with no fight whatsoever.

 

[Destructus86]

I read a response to the gun debate where a person said "come for my guns and see what awaits you". Obviously people have a right to defend what is theirs, but are there really that many people that would rather use they're guns to shoot people that come for their guns rather then hand them over?

It's a step closer to dictatorship. You are either the person that bends over and grits your teeth or resists. There's no inbetween if that were the case

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Can't believe all the idiotic statements that keep coming from Piers Morgan. Seems liker ever since Newtown, he says something stupid every day. Yesterday, he told a former Marine that everyone having an "assault rifle" will turn the US into the Wild Wild West again. Considering how many guns are already out there, his statement is patently false. No wonder so many people want him out and the UK doesn't want him back.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/piers...r-wild-west-hell/article/2518009#.UO47nOSLbgW

 

[Thundercrack85]

Actually in Switzerland, every adult male is required by the state to own an assault rifle. Not an "assault weapon", not a semiautomatic rifle, a true, fully-automatic assault rifle. Though I believe once you're thirty, you can turn it in.

One hell of a regulated militia.

There's a reason no one invades Switzerland.

 

[wiegeabo]

Actually in Switzerland, every adult male is required by the state to own an assault rifle. Not an "assault weapon", not a semiautomatic rifle, a true, fully-automatic assault rifle. Though I believe once you're thirty, you can turn it in.

One hell of a regulated militia.

There's a reason no one invades Switzerland.

Because they don't want to risk their bank accounts

 

[ericadawn16]

Every male is also properly trained and is or was part of the military in Switzerland. Of course, if we want every gun owner to be 'part a well-regulated militia" as intended, I could back that. It could keep guns with the responsible ones instead of the ones who just think they're fun.

 

[Thundercrack85]

So, random question: are all semiautomatic rifles considered "assault weapons"?

 

[Spider - Man]

Oh hell no, you can't blame this on Bush too.....good grief, that type of thing has been happening in schools for over 20 years. I've been teaching for 22...it DID NOT just start with No Child Left Behind....When schools stopped tracking which was about 1980, was when the "herd mentality" began in our education system, and with that mentality came the "find anyway you can to make sure that they pass and graduate" even if they don't know how to read, which has led to what we have now...the "I'm entitled generation" and "I'm the best..." even though they don't know that Alaska is a state, not a country. : )

Yeah, OBE came about in the 80s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome-based_education

Basically, they thought it would be more beneficial to the child who didn;t know as much to tell them they knew more than they actually did to boost their confidence and self-esteem rather than identifying their problem and helping nthem learn what they needed to.

Basically it was:

Teacher: Jimmy, what's 2+2?

Jimmy: Seven!

Teacher: Correct! You are so smart, Jimmy!

And it's gone downhill from there.

 

[Spider - Man]

It figures that you would give some insensitive response.

Why does it figure? Because I'm an evil gun owner who only wants to kill people? OK, lets get serious about it. The odds against that sort of thing happeneing are astronomical. I'm sure more people die having cut-down trees falling on them. We gonna outlaw lumberjacking?

The Red Barron was dead by the time this incident happened (the late 1970's).

Yeah, it was just a stupic reply to a stupid point.

No, but the mere fact that it was shot into the ground means that there would be substantial risk that it or the debris from the impact could have injured someone. The fact that the shooter did not consider that makes it reckless endangerment.

wrong.

He had his girlfriend in the car. You want him to follow the guy and endanger her? Of course he let him go and then called the police.

As I said, a support for banning idiocy. There's a world of difference between a moron flashing his gun and badge to impress a girl and someone firing a warning shot to try to get an intruder to leave his home before the situation escalates.

No, I don't. That's why things are going to change.

Yeah, get back to me when they do. Til then, keep harpin.

Not really. You said that if the guns go away, the criminals will find some other way to commit crimes. The thing is that it will be more difficult to commit that crime without a gun. You suggested some pretty remote things like explosives or a car, but over the years we have taken a lot of precautions against those things. The biggest concern is that a criminal has access to a firearm out side the jurisdiction of the law and then brings it in to a municipality to commit crimes. That is what is happening in Chicago.

Yes I did say that, and YOU responded with a scenario where the guns have NOT gone away completely, just in some places. You said it would be a 'different story if it was a national standard' which is exactly what I said. You were just restating MY pov. Pay attention.

I am. Like I said before I have been around for 51 years and have never had a need for a gun (I even lived in a rough neighborhood with some pretty smart criminals). All I need to protect myself is a cell phone.

No all you have NEEDED (emphasis on past tense) is your cell phone. It would only take one incident of someone breaking into your house, kicking in the door to the closet where you're cowering and terminate you (with your trusty cell phone) and your family before taking your valuables and leaving long before the police ever arrive to render your faith in your cell phone defense worthless.

I heard on the news not long ago a story about how it was taking too long for police to respond to 911 calls. They played part of a call where the woman was hysterically crying that someone had broken into her house and how he was coming up the steps, was in her room. They cut the audio but said the woman was raped (while the 911 operator was still on the line) and the man fled before cops ever arrived. She must've been on a land-line. If she'd have only used her CELL phone...

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Jon Stewart completely destroyed the ridiculous, self-serving and fear mongering argument put forth by nuts like Alex Jones that an assault-weapon ban would somehow turn America into a giant 1984-esque gulag.

Money quote:

"No one's taking away all the guns. But now I get it. Now I see what's happening. So this is what it is. Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present. We can't even begin to address 30,000 gun deaths that are actually, in reality, happening in this country every year, because a few of us must remain vigilant against the rise of imaginary Hitler."

Worth watching in its entirety:
Part1
http://comedycentral.com/tds_video.rbml?id=scapegoat-hunter


Part2
http://comedycentral.com/tds_video.rbml?id=scapegoat-hunter---gun-control

 

[Destructus86]

A society built on isolation and narcissistic behaviour will always self destruct.

 

[Hotwire]

I'm sure more people die having cut-down trees falling on them. We gonna outlaw lumberjacking?

Stop that. I swear, this has to be the single most asinine counter argument to gun control. The, some common thing causes more deaths that guns, are we gonna outlaw that common thing? Just think about how it sounds. It's literally defending something deadly by saying that something else is more deadly. And, it doesn't work across the board. You can use it to argue against drunk driving laws. It's just a stupid and childish excuse to try and defend against any kind of guns control.

 

[Destructus86]

Stop that. I swear, this has to be the single most asinine counter argument to gun control. The, some common thing causes more deaths that guns, are we gonna outlaw that common thing? Just think about how it sounds. It's literally defending something deadly by saying that something else is more deadly. And, it doesn't work across the board. You can use it to argue against drunk driving laws. It's just a stupid and childish excuse to try and defend against any kind of guns control.

I think the war on drugs is the best comparison. Both are linked to death and violence. Drugs are illegal, but still EASILY obtainable. Likewise, if all guns were made illegal, they would be easily obtainable. (likely from the same people)

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Well it's a lot easier to make (some) drugs, even in the privacy of your home.

 

[Destructus86]

True, for the small time stuff. But the hardcore stuff is just as easy to get. The network is huge. There are just not enough police to make any real impact.

 

[Spider - Man]

Stop that. I swear, this has to be the single most asinine counter argument to gun control. The, some common thing causes more deaths that guns, are we gonna outlaw that common thing? Just think about how it sounds. It's literally defending something deadly by saying that something else is more deadly. And, it doesn't work across the board. You can use it to argue against drunk driving laws. It's just a stupid and childish excuse to try and defend against any kind of guns control.

If instead of knee-jerking, you actually read the context of what I wrote, you'd see this was not a point about outlawing guns based on overall crime but outlawing them based on dino's point that someone should not fire a warning shot to warn off an intruder because some girl got hit in the head with an errant bullet that 'could have come from a warning shot fired into the air.' I was merely pointing out the odds against this type of thing being repeated. Take a bit more time and actually know what you're responding to.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Stop that. I swear, this has to be the single most asinine counter argument to gun control. The, some common thing causes more deaths that guns, are we gonna outlaw that common thing? Just think about how it sounds. It's literally defending something deadly by saying that something else is more deadly. And, it doesn't work across the board. You can use it to argue against drunk driving laws. It's just a stupid and childish excuse to try and defend against any kind of guns control.

It's not asinine. Well, maybe "banning lumberjacks" is if you discount the sarcasim, but the point is solid:

If something allows for, or causes deaths, it is worth looking into the issue and how we can avoid it or lessen it. Whether it's guns, drunk driving, asbestos, tanning booths, chemicals in our food, etc. What IS asinine is the idea that you willfully ignore things that cause more death than guns, simply because guns are the things you don't understand/like.

This reminds me, Biden recently said that if our actions (on gun control) save just ONE life, than it is worth looking into. This is a nice sentement, but it completely ignores the idea that the logic works the other way around: gun ownership have saved countless lives, and the lack of gun ownership has caused the death of countless lives as well. Why is that not worth "looking into"?

Spoiler

Because it would hurt their anti-gun agenda.

 

[Kane52630]

Every time people or the news brings up Alex Jones, my mind almost automatically pops up this video.

[YT]LhqUk28OwHs[/YT]

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

True, for the small time stuff. But the hardcore stuff is just as easy to get. The network is huge. There are just not enough police to make any real impact.

It's really not "easy" to get heroine, good cocaine (like real cocaine), or other drugs that cannot be made by the average individual. Not impossible, just not as easy as the flippancy that people talk about it being easy makes it sound. You have to develop solid connections first, which is hard, after that, it's very easy.

I used to do coke, I should know.

 

[Destructus86]

Typically a person can get it through someone they know who already has the connections. Which is part of the reason it's so hard to crack down on.

 

[Spider-Who?]

It really depends on who you know and where you are. In my younger days, it was very easy to get harder stuff without the "solid" connections. Just one or two phone calls and later that day or the next, you'd have what you wanted. I saw it first hand all the time (I never did the hard stuff, but roomed with people in college that did). Of course, that was in the city, though one might be surprised at the ease one can get all manner of drugs in rural areas - I've got many friends in the police force in my town and heroine and meth have become a huge problem here.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Every time people or the news brings up Alex Jones, my mind almost automatically pops up this video.

[YT]LhqUk28OwHs[/YT]

I really wish someone would shut him up.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Considering a lot of the people going on about "assault weapons", are the same people who wanted to outlaw handguns (some still do, others have changed their tune), I'm skeptical of their true intent.

 

[Hotwire]

If instead of knee-jerking, you actually read the context of what I wrote, you'd see this was not a point about outlawing guns based on overall crime but outlawing them based on dino's point that someone should not fire a warning shot to warn off an intruder because some girl got hit in the head with an errant bullet that 'could have come from a warning shot fired into the air.' I was merely pointing out the odds against this type of thing being repeated. Take a bit more time and actually know what you're responding to.

It was really the only part of the post I took issue with.

It is asinine. It's always used as a sarcastic excuse to draw a ridiculous parallel in an attempt to make the other person's stance look well, ridiculous. This type of statement is always done out of sarcasm. There are better ways to draw the parallel and make the point. It's not so much what's being said but rather, how it's being said.