Impedes the rights of other to live? Like the right of criminals to live and commit crime? Like rapists to live and rape? Like murderers to live and murder?
2A is the only enumerated right with a specific “do not touch” admonition
Of course that was a reinterpretation of the Second Amendment that was unprecedented:
By the beginning of the twenty-first century, many of the U.S. Courts of Appeals that considered the matter concluded that the Second Amendment protected a collective right tied to militia or military use of firearms…
Impedes the rights of other to live? Like the right of criminals to live and commit crime? Like rapists to live and rape? Like murderers to live and murder?
Criminals, armed with guns bought legally, or without a background check or stolen from a “responsible gun owner” whose idea of safe storage was in the glovebox of their car.
Rapists, like the domestic abusers who use their legal guns to threaten and intimidate their family, like the prominent Trump support that recently tried to execute his wife in the street.
Murderers, like the 80% of mass shooters using legal firearms or the majority of the remaining 20% using the unsecured guns of a family member.
But don’t worry guys, in 3 out of 100 mass shootings, a good guy will kill them after they’ve only killed 3 or 4 people. That’s only slightly worse than unarmed people!
What’s really fucked in the head is that you haven’t even realised that most people aren’t like you and don’t throb in anticipation at the idea of killing someone.
“If you don’t want to be raped, just use your cool gun to murder them before they murder you with their cool gun, replacing one trauma with another”.
Unless you can grok the concept of a violent event that was prevented being significant, I don’t think you’re qualified to weigh in on the ethics of deterrence.
It must be heartbreaking that nobody lines up to suck gun owners cocks whenever they save themselves from a problem they created.
The rates of property crime and sexual assault in America are practically identical to other wealthy countries.
You and your guns have done nothing to lower those numbers, but you’ve done everything you possibly could to enable hundreds of murderers and mass shooters every year.
Your family would be safer without you and safer still in a country where you couldn’t vote.
These 12 Defensive Uses of Guns Support Student’s Plea for Armed Self-Defense
If I didn’t know better, I’d think this was an onion article because of how dumb it is. Children shouldn’t need to defend themselves in the first place.
Impedes the rights of other to live?
Yes. The unrestricted access to guns in this country has lead to countless deaths and mass shootings.
It is impeding on people’s right to life.
Like the right of criminals to live and commit crime? Like rapists to live and rape? Like murderers to live and murder?
I never alluded to crime being a right. If you can’t make an argument without jumping to strawman arguments, then politics may not be for you.
I know the statistics of gun deaths (mass shootings, firearm suicide statistics, general gun deaths in the US), but so what?
People are dying. What do you mean so what? Do you have no empathy?
As Pizza man said:
I think one of us is confused about who is saying/arguing what.
It’s enumerated and says don’t infringe on it.
The constitution was built to be able to be changed. And it can be changed so that firearms are no longer the leading cause of death for children.
If I didn’t know better, I’d think this was an onion article because of how dumb it is. Children shouldn’t need to defend themselves in the first place.
This is a Just World Fallacy in which you assume the world is just, thus unsavory actions not be taken and anyone who dies is suspect.
Unfortunately the world is a dangerous place, and big cities, many of which are host to a lot of the universities in the country of United States of America, are typically the most dangerous in the first world.
Although there are many negative stereotypes but americans, especially American gun owners, people are more complicated than stereotypes.
There is a saying amongst responsible gun owners, and that the only good gun owners are the ones who hope that they never have to fire a single shot.
Gun ownership, especially for people who live in cities, is often a case of “Better to have it and not need it…”
Sure you have your gun nuts that masturbate over the idea of getting to legally kill someone who tried breaking into their house, people who may even be tempted to intentionally create an attractive nuisance in order to try to create the scenario which would still count as a murder charge by the way. However just like with every group, there are many sensible people who are gun owners, it’s just the craziest tend to be the loudest.
Ah yes, the mythical “responsible gun owners”. How do we know they’re responsible? Why, because they promised us on the internet of course! They followed every completely optional safety rule! They loudly tutted at videos of people who didn’t!
And the thousands and thousands of former “responsible gun owners” like the Ulvade shooter? They don’t count, despite buying the same guns from the same stores with the same checks and same legal requirements.
Gun ownership, especially for people who live in cities, is often a case of “Better to have it and not need it…”
This is a marketing slogan for the gun lobby, not actual wisdom.
Do you know what’s even better than “having it and not needing it”? Just not needing it, like everybody living in comparable countries the world over.
Do you know what the crime rate is like in those cities? Basically identical across the board, except with a thousandth the gun violence. So what exactly are all these guns preventing?
If you want your family to be safer, the best thing you could do is move to a country with gun control and the worst thing you could do is buy a gun.
There are about 70 million gun owners in the United States. If it weren’t for the vast majority of them being responsible, every American would die of gunshot wounds in about 15 minutes.
The “responsible” part is entirely optional, at your own staunch insistence and every single person who commits a crime with a legally purchased gun was once one of your “responsible gun owners”.
The Ulvade shooter was a former “responsible gun owner”. The Republican donor who just tried to execute his wife in the street was a former “responsible gun owner”. The man who shot a black child through his door, then tried to execute him as he lay bleeding on the ground was a former “responsible gun owner”.
And where do the people with illegal guns get them? Why, from “responsible gun owners” of course!
Over a million “responsible gun owners” allow their poorly secured firearms to be stolen each year, because responsibility is optional.
Millions more conduct private sales without a background check, because responsibility is optional.
The dirty secret is that you don’t care if they’re responsible or not. You don’t care if they don’t know how to safely handle a gun, if they leave it sitting loaded in a drawer or if they sweep their friends 50 times each hunting trip. You don’t care if they kill their wives or mutilate a room full of children beyond recognition.
The only thing you care about is that you will never have to prove you’re responsible or be held accountable when you’re not.
That’s by design. The intentionality of that design varies person by person who’s in charge. But the design of our society itself is most often to blame.
The design ought to be changed to one in which there is no danger.
However just like with every group, there are many sensible people who are gun owners
And if you are that’s great for you. But the reality is that the more a population owns guns, and the more unrestricted, the more untrained, the more deaths there are. Avoidable deaths.
See I agree with you that there need to be more restrictions on guns, where I disagree is the belief that the existence of guns in and of itself is a problem and that people who carry guns for the Judgment self-defense purposes are automatically suspect.
where I disagree is the belief that the existence of guns in and of itself is a problem and that people who carry guns for the Judgment self-defense purposes are automatically suspect.
Suspect is not the word I would use.
But regardless, guns objectively are dangerous, and therefore often a problem. Simply owning a gun increases the chance that you will kill yourself or somebody else.
So where on your graph of gun ownership versus death do the various government led massacres fall? I think it was two years ago people were massacred in Myanmar (where guns are prohibited), people are currently being massacred in Gaza (where guns are prohibited), a bunch of people at a music festival (which I would bet was a gun free zone) were massacred last week. Like you don’t have to reach very far into history before you run into governments and armies massacring unarmed populations.
Are those kinds of events counted in your data on gun ownership and gun deaths, or would they be considered outliers?
Are those kinds of events counted in your data on gun ownership and gun deaths, or would they be considered outliers?
An outlier is something that is graphed. Government tyranny is not a part of the above metric.
But that doesn’t matter much because:
Like you don’t have to reach very far into history before you run into governments and armies massacring unarmed populations.
Ukraine is currently getting mascaraed despite the population being one of the most armed in all of Europe.
If guns did something to prevent such massacres, then we would have noticed by now. But authoritarian governments do not care about how armed a population is, as evidence by Russia’s complete disregard for how armed the Ukrainian population was. You cannot protect yourself or your family from a Russian airstrike with your gun. The Palestinians in Gaza cannot protect themselves from Israeli bombs with guns. Isrealis cannot protect themselves from Hamas rockets with guns.
I was not saying it was literally “designed” from some central cabal. It’s been designed by countless parties, both within government office and outside.
Little bits of it have been designed maybe. In the same way you’d be designing the interior space of a warehouse full of chopped wood, if you were allowed to move the wood around. That’s designing and so is what people do to society but the basic facts of the matter are beyond anyone’s ability to choose, just like no matter where you stack the wood it’s gonna smell like pine sap and sawdust in that warehouse.
Nobody [should] have to defend themselves in the first place. There shouldn’t be any threats at all.
What are you seven?
Consider this: somebody ought to tell nature about how “no threats existing” is a better state of affairs, because literally every organism in existence has weapons.
If it’s a better strategy to just “say no to threats”, nature wouldn’t waste enormous quantities of energy arming literally every living thing.
I never alluded to such non-existent rights. If you can’t make an argument without jumping to strawman arguments, then politics may not be for you.
Taking a subset of a political opponent’s argument and showing how it’s harmful is a core conservative rhetorical strategy. Look at this article from today about Britney Spears’s abortion which argues against it because she had access to it, the liberal dream. If one person has access to abortion, and it causes problem, then it probably causes problems in the majority of cases.
In any case, my three links about gun statistics support your argument. I’m not strawmaning anything. I’m looking at it directly in the face and dismissing it based on the fact that the law and historical interpretation of the Second Amendment (as of 2008) establishes a right to bear arms. I assume the law is the final arbiter of all things permissible in society (except for all the laws I don’t care to follow). Thus, having concluded that guns are permissible and desirable, I can rationalize backwards, finding evidence that guns support life in contrast to a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
The other day, someone pointed out that I was a troll from the previous conservative instance. They’re not exactly wrong…but I don’t discriminate. Liberals need to get better at handling conservative rhetoric. Because none of your arguments are effective.
These 12 Defensive Uses of Guns Support Student’s Plea for Armed Self-Defense
Impedes the rights of other to live? Like the right of criminals to live and commit crime? Like rapists to live and rape? Like murderers to live and murder?
I know the statistics of gun deaths (mass shootings, firearm suicide statistics, general gun deaths in the US), but so what?
As BearOfaTime said:
Of course that was a reinterpretation of the Second Amendment that was unprecedented:
And then Scalia did his thing, and now guns deaths are rising and they are the leading cause of death of children.
But so what? It’s enumerated and says don’t infringe on it.
Criminals, armed with guns bought legally, or without a background check or stolen from a “responsible gun owner” whose idea of safe storage was in the glovebox of their car.
Rapists, like the domestic abusers who use their legal guns to threaten and intimidate their family, like the prominent Trump support that recently tried to execute his wife in the street.
Murderers, like the 80% of mass shooters using legal firearms or the majority of the remaining 20% using the unsecured guns of a family member.
But don’t worry guys, in 3 out of 100 mass shootings, a good guy will kill them after they’ve only killed 3 or 4 people. That’s only slightly worse than unarmed people!
What’s really fucked in the head is that you haven’t even realised that most people aren’t like you and don’t throb in anticipation at the idea of killing someone.
“If you don’t want to be raped, just use your cool gun to murder them before they murder you with their cool gun, replacing one trauma with another”.
What a shithole of a place a pro-gun utopia is.
Unless you can grok the concept of a violent event that was prevented being significant, I don’t think you’re qualified to weigh in on the ethics of deterrence.
It must be heartbreaking that nobody lines up to suck gun owners cocks whenever they save themselves from a problem they created.
The rates of property crime and sexual assault in America are practically identical to other wealthy countries.
You and your guns have done nothing to lower those numbers, but you’ve done everything you possibly could to enable hundreds of murderers and mass shooters every year.
Your family would be safer without you and safer still in a country where you couldn’t vote.
Of course it was Scalia
If I didn’t know better, I’d think this was an onion article because of how dumb it is. Children shouldn’t need to defend themselves in the first place.
Yes. The unrestricted access to guns in this country has lead to countless deaths and mass shootings.
It is impeding on people’s right to life.
I never alluded to crime being a right. If you can’t make an argument without jumping to strawman arguments, then politics may not be for you.
People are dying. What do you mean so what? Do you have no empathy?
I think one of us is confused about who is saying/arguing what.
The constitution was built to be able to be changed. And it can be changed so that firearms are no longer the leading cause of death for children.
Hey Genius, he means College Students
College students basically are children, though I will I admit I only skimmed the article.
Regardless, nobody shouldn’t have to defend themselves in the first place. There shouldn’t be any threats at all.
This is a Just World Fallacy in which you assume the world is just, thus unsavory actions not be taken and anyone who dies is suspect.
Unfortunately the world is a dangerous place, and big cities, many of which are host to a lot of the universities in the country of United States of America, are typically the most dangerous in the first world.
Although there are many negative stereotypes but americans, especially American gun owners, people are more complicated than stereotypes.
There is a saying amongst responsible gun owners, and that the only good gun owners are the ones who hope that they never have to fire a single shot.
Gun ownership, especially for people who live in cities, is often a case of “Better to have it and not need it…”
Sure you have your gun nuts that masturbate over the idea of getting to legally kill someone who tried breaking into their house, people who may even be tempted to intentionally create an attractive nuisance in order to try to create the scenario which would still count as a murder charge by the way. However just like with every group, there are many sensible people who are gun owners, it’s just the craziest tend to be the loudest.
Ah yes, the mythical “responsible gun owners”. How do we know they’re responsible? Why, because they promised us on the internet of course! They followed every completely optional safety rule! They loudly tutted at videos of people who didn’t!
And the thousands and thousands of former “responsible gun owners” like the Ulvade shooter? They don’t count, despite buying the same guns from the same stores with the same checks and same legal requirements.
This is a marketing slogan for the gun lobby, not actual wisdom.
Do you know what’s even better than “having it and not needing it”? Just not needing it, like everybody living in comparable countries the world over.
Do you know what the crime rate is like in those cities? Basically identical across the board, except with a thousandth the gun violence. So what exactly are all these guns preventing?
If you want your family to be safer, the best thing you could do is move to a country with gun control and the worst thing you could do is buy a gun.
Can’t just magically not need it by willing the Second Amendment away buddy
There are about 70 million gun owners in the United States. If it weren’t for the vast majority of them being responsible, every American would die of gunshot wounds in about 15 minutes.
The “responsible” part is entirely optional, at your own staunch insistence and every single person who commits a crime with a legally purchased gun was once one of your “responsible gun owners”.
The Ulvade shooter was a former “responsible gun owner”. The Republican donor who just tried to execute his wife in the street was a former “responsible gun owner”. The man who shot a black child through his door, then tried to execute him as he lay bleeding on the ground was a former “responsible gun owner”.
And where do the people with illegal guns get them? Why, from “responsible gun owners” of course!
Over a million “responsible gun owners” allow their poorly secured firearms to be stolen each year, because responsibility is optional.
Millions more conduct private sales without a background check, because responsibility is optional.
The dirty secret is that you don’t care if they’re responsible or not. You don’t care if they don’t know how to safely handle a gun, if they leave it sitting loaded in a drawer or if they sweep their friends 50 times each hunting trip. You don’t care if they kill their wives or mutilate a room full of children beyond recognition.
The only thing you care about is that you will never have to prove you’re responsible or be held accountable when you’re not.
That’s by design. The intentionality of that design varies person by person who’s in charge. But the design of our society itself is most often to blame.
The design ought to be changed to one in which there is no danger.
And if you are that’s great for you. But the reality is that the more a population owns guns, and the more unrestricted, the more untrained, the more deaths there are. Avoidable deaths.
And we should avoid them.
See I agree with you that there need to be more restrictions on guns, where I disagree is the belief that the existence of guns in and of itself is a problem and that people who carry guns for the Judgment self-defense purposes are automatically suspect.
Suspect is not the word I would use.
But regardless, guns objectively are dangerous, and therefore often a problem. Simply owning a gun increases the chance that you will kill yourself or somebody else.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html
https://apnews.com/article/science-health-homicide-d11c8f4ac07888b19309c3e1ff2ae3c9
So where on your graph of gun ownership versus death do the various government led massacres fall? I think it was two years ago people were massacred in Myanmar (where guns are prohibited), people are currently being massacred in Gaza (where guns are prohibited), a bunch of people at a music festival (which I would bet was a gun free zone) were massacred last week. Like you don’t have to reach very far into history before you run into governments and armies massacring unarmed populations.
Are those kinds of events counted in your data on gun ownership and gun deaths, or would they be considered outliers?
An outlier is something that is graphed. Government tyranny is not a part of the above metric.
But that doesn’t matter much because:
Ukraine is currently getting mascaraed despite the population being one of the most armed in all of Europe.
If guns did something to prevent such massacres, then we would have noticed by now. But authoritarian governments do not care about how armed a population is, as evidence by Russia’s complete disregard for how armed the Ukrainian population was. You cannot protect yourself or your family from a Russian airstrike with your gun. The Palestinians in Gaza cannot protect themselves from Israeli bombs with guns. Isrealis cannot protect themselves from Hamas rockets with guns.
Thinking that society is “designed” is a conspiracy theory of enormous proportions.
Society evolves. It’s not a theme park built by some central cabal.
I was not saying it was literally “designed” from some central cabal. It’s been designed by countless parties, both within government office and outside.
Little bits of it have been designed maybe. In the same way you’d be designing the interior space of a warehouse full of chopped wood, if you were allowed to move the wood around. That’s designing and so is what people do to society but the basic facts of the matter are beyond anyone’s ability to choose, just like no matter where you stack the wood it’s gonna smell like pine sap and sawdust in that warehouse.
What are you seven?
Consider this: somebody ought to tell nature about how “no threats existing” is a better state of affairs, because literally every organism in existence has weapons.
If it’s a better strategy to just “say no to threats”, nature wouldn’t waste enormous quantities of energy arming literally every living thing.
No.
This is a naturalistic fallacy.
That is objectively not true.
You have fundamentally failed to understand what I am suggesting.
Taking a subset of a political opponent’s argument and showing how it’s harmful is a core conservative rhetorical strategy. Look at this article from today about Britney Spears’s abortion which argues against it because she had access to it, the liberal dream. If one person has access to abortion, and it causes problem, then it probably causes problems in the majority of cases.
In any case, my three links about gun statistics support your argument. I’m not strawmaning anything. I’m looking at it directly in the face and dismissing it based on the fact that the law and historical interpretation of the Second Amendment (as of 2008) establishes a right to bear arms. I assume the law is the final arbiter of all things permissible in society (except for all the laws I don’t care to follow). Thus, having concluded that guns are permissible and desirable, I can rationalize backwards, finding evidence that guns support life in contrast to a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
The other day, someone pointed out that I was a troll from the previous conservative instance. They’re not exactly wrong…but I don’t discriminate. Liberals need to get better at handling conservative rhetoric. Because none of your arguments are effective.
I am well aware. I deal with it all the time.
If you have suggestions I’m all ears. Until then this is only a complaint with no solution.
I’m also not really here to convince conservatives.
The last two do, but I don’t see how your first link comes to a pro-gun control conclusion.