How To Argue For Gun Control.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Maccabee, Jul 27, 2016.

  1. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member

    Okay.
     
  2. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator

    Mac


    LOL – I stand by the posts in this thread - as I’ve said many times already you say these things but when asked to actually point to where you actually have addressed the many outstanding criticisms you become all evasive, and the outcome is always that you can produce no evidence.


    But as I’ve mentioned racism is by its very nature a violent philosophy it is about removing the rights (and in some cases lives) of people that are seen as been inferior and even the dumbest racist knows that cannot be done peacefully.

    Anyone that chooses to stand alongside the KKK and Nazis knows they are part of a violent movement, so I wonder why you think these are fine people?

    Let’s go back to the hypothetical ‘fine’ Auschwitz guard he might have thought that killing Jews was a good idea long before he was given the chance to gas them, was he a ‘fine’ person when he wanted to but hadn’t been given the chance and then not fine when he got to do what he wanted?

    Also when does discrimination based on racist ideas go from being fine to not being fine? Yes we have the thing about enslavement and murder what about not getting served by some businesses? I mean there are people that think business owners should be allowed to not serve black people if they don’t want to.


    That seems to run counter to you view that being a racist is fine and that racist are fine people.


    Sorry were you aiming for humour, oh I see what you did there ha ha ha you evaded the question oh that’s so funny, you really are funny, hey man you ever thought of writing your own sitcom, I mean ha ha ha, I’m laughing so much my gonads are going to explode.

    So you have had your “Joke” now can you reply to the question.

    You said you KNOW (in caps) “for a fact” that Americans are superior to “Brits

    Was that another one of your ‘funny’ jokes? Remember it was in the context of you explaining why it is ok to be a racist that would like to kill those who they see as inferior but hasn’t yet.

    So is it possible for you to answer the question without being humorous?
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator

    And here we have John Kelly basically saying that those white people who fought to keep slavery were honourable decent and ‘fine’ people, ok they may have thought black people were inferior and that therefore it was ok to treat them as property, to exploit, to rape, to maim and to kill them, but the important thing is that these racists where honourable, decent and ‘fine’ people.

    Which to me seems to be sending the message that people today that think black people (and others) are inferior are fine people.

    Its makes me wonder how prevalent is this view amongst the right wing and since its mainly right wingers that own guns and are more likely to oppose gun control how prevalent are racist view amongst gun owners?
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator

    To ad to the above - Kelly’s statements also seem to be condoning armed rebellion - he is saying that to him it was ‘honourable’ to rise up against your government if it wanted do things you don’t like - in this case curtail slavery.

    Well we know this is a common theme amongst right wingers and right wing gun owners especially, who say that one of the main reasons they want guns is to raise armed revolt if the government did things they didn’t like (eg gun control for example).
     
  5. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    What don't I understand?

    First off, this is after the 1800s ruling saying that states cannot bar private ownership if you want to claim that the older rulings (plural) were in favor of collective gun ownership rather than individual ownership. Secondly, at least what I found in Wikipedia, it doesn't specifically state that citizens don't have individual rights to bear arms. It just says that certain weapons aren't covered.

    "Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[1] and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177.
    Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.
    The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

    Also the ruling is factually wrong about short barreled shotguns not being in military use. The military and police have been using short barreled shotguns for some time.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawed-off_shotgun

    Not only that but the notion of restricting guns under a certain length is ridiculous on its face. For one, it doesn't take much more than a hacksaw to make a literal saw off shotgun if a criminal wants to do it, for another, sawed off shotguns aren't that much easier to conceal than their legal counterparts, and finally their are legal work arounds to beat the NFA such as the Mossberg shockwave.

    You're first sentence is a double negative so I'm not sure if you're saying can or can't prevent private ownership.

    That only means the law was never challenged in court. It doesn't mean they were right.

    Again, that only means that they were never challenged in court.

    Couldn't respond to your poinys on how the founding fayhers were liberals but a lot of tgem were flimsy at best.
     
  6. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member

    What you don't seem to understand, or at least see my point, is that gun ownership has never been a right in the U.S. until the 2008 Heller v D.C. case.

    I have provided you with numerous examples of various levels of government prohibiting various people and citizens the right to possess a gun, but you don't seem to accept that that was the law prior to 2008, and still is to a certain degree.
    There is no a priori right to own a gun in the U.S. as there are numerous restrictions and people that are not allowed to own them.

    My "double negative sentence" isn't. Just because the state can restrict something, doesn't mean it has to.

    If a law is not challenged in court, and overturned...then it's a valid law.
    For example, as of today it is lawful to own a shotgun for hunting...oh, say pheasant in the state of PA.
    No one has challenged that law.
    Therefore it's "right".
    At some future date the law may be challenged or altered and using a shotgun to hunt pheasant in the state of PA would no longer be right.

    But we are veering far afield.
    Do you agree that the various levels of government have the legal right to issue gun control laws?
     
  7. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    You've provided examples of government regulating certain guns. You haven't provided a single national case where the ruling states that the right is a collective right rather than an individual right.

    It depend on what you mean by legal.
     
  8. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    I was joking from the start. It should've been obvious with the all caps lettering and absolutism of my statement.
     
  9. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member

    Heller v D.C. is the ruling that made gun ownership an individual right. 2008.
    This is the court case that overturned the previous collective right. If by collective right you mean the right to own guns was in connection to the militias. Before this any level of government could outlaw guns.

    But I'm just repeating the same thing over and over again as you know and continue to deny.

    Calling a duck a cow over and over gets us nowhere.


    What I mean by legal is legal.
    le·gal

    ˈlēɡəl/

    adjective




    1. 1.


      of, based on, or concerned with the law.
      "the American legal system"














    2. 2.


      permitted by law.
      "he claimed that it had all been legal"
      synonyms: lawful, legitimate, licit, within the law, legalized, valid; More







    Do you want to continue playing games??
     
  10. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator

    Mac



    Ooooh well haven’t you turned into quite the little joker, and I know jokes are not so funny when you have to explain them (often a problem with jokes that are not that funny to begin with) but can you tell me - is the joke the thing about racists being fine people or about your cack-handed attempt to evade the questions put to you?
     
  11. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Not so. Before the ruling any level of government can outlaw CERTAIN guns in certain places. No national ruling stated that tge right to bear arms is collective rather than individual.

    Technically, the government does have the legal right to ban certain guns but it doesn't have the constitutional right.
     
  12. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    I couldn't respond to every point you made in your last post. The site wouldn't let me. However, I still stand by my claim that those who do not want to take away rights from other people but still think they are superior are wrobg and when the subject comes up it should be pointed out that they're wrong, however they may be fine people otherwise. This whole argument was based on the hypothetical that President Trump said some racists are fine people. He didn't said that and this is way off topic. I'll respond to you when you post something relevant to the topic at hand.
     
  13. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator

    Mac



    LOL I notice it is ‘respond’ not - address the outstanding criticisms - or answer the questions – you will respond as you always do by repeating the same flawed statements over and over and over and over again.



    As I’ve explained to be able to best get through to those that are opposed to gun control I think we need to understand just why those people have that stance, so it is germane to understand their thinking in a wider sense.



    For me one of the bedrocks of people’s rights is a belief in equality, to see others as equal, to be seen as of equal worth as fellow human beings.

    Racism undermines that, if you think a group in your society are inferior you are unlikely to care, sympathise or help them if they do suffer from discrimination, hardship or even the loss of their civil rights or life.

    Let’s go back to the hypothetical ‘fine’ Auschwitz guard he might have thought that killing Jews was a good idea long before he was given the chance to gas them, was he a ‘fine’ person when he wanted to do it but hadn’t been given the chance and then not fine when he got to do what he wanted?

    But also what about those that didn’t do the actual murders but didn’t really care if they were done?

    I mean gun owners like to say they would protect their fellow citizens from ‘tyranny’ but racism undermines that also -think about the thousands of black people murdered by the KKK and other racists why didn’t the decent and good white people of those areas protect the black people being abused, they had access to guns, they had votes, they filled juries, they could have done a lot to stop what was happening, why didn’t they?

    Many black people in the US today are dying due in large part to the easy availability of guns in American society. But many of those that oppose gun control that could help that situation seem not to care or sympathise with what is going on or with those deaths.

    Why do you think that is?
     
    2 people like this.

Share This Page