Gun Control - Your stance, views, and recent developments
- Thread starter Shining Raikou
- Start date
Teal said:
Ok. Then lets dissect it.
People who are afraid, and have insecurities, of those whom own firearms.
This is is talking about people, who want to initiate bans/restrictions.
Insecurities means fear/doubts.
You then speak of insecure people leading to an anarchy. Actually, yes that does make sense. Fears drive people to commit acts such as anarchy.
Take away rights, people get antsy and angry. Fear and doubts of the government and whats really going on,will lead to some type of uprising. In turn, an anarchy.
So, there, i broke it down for you to understand better. I had to word it in a way to where your example made sense.
The Second Amendment said:
The question isn't "should guns get banned?" The question is, do you want your rights taken away one by one? If we disregard the Second Amendment and ban guns (or even if we severely restrict them) what will be next, our freedom of speech? People should have the right to own guns, are we really afraid that all of our neighbors are psycho killers? Because even if they were, they wouldn't need guns to "get the job done." A simple background check is all we need to reduce gun violence without restricting an established right.
I don't think this is a question of whether our other fundamental rights are in danger after an outlaw on guns. I think comparing freedom of speech to the right to bear arms is an apples and oranges scenario. Speech will obviously never be able to inflict the kind of harm that a gun can (in before people try to bring up bullies & suicides), and so there wouldn't need to be a similar restriction on it.
When we look at firearms we can see how shootings have become more prominent over the years; but how can something like speech get to a point where they have to start restricting that too? Haven't humans already said everything they could possibly say, and hasn't our judicial system already set up enough standards regarding free speech to control it? What do you think?
When we look at firearms we can see how shootings have become more prominent over the years; but how can something like speech get to a point where they have to start restricting that too? Haven't humans already said everything they could possibly say, and hasn't our judicial system already set up enough standards regarding free speech to control it? What do you think?
r3skyline said:
If you haven't heard, they usually teach people how to read when entering Kindergarden. I've already recognized that:
Elite Stride said:
When the common person refers to free speech they are referring to the extent to which one can exercise that right under what the law allows, which in America, is very liberal. Our speech is very free compared to some countries. Obviously there are limitations to speech, it would be hard to have civilized society if everyone was allowed to run around doing whatever they want.
You know exactly what people mean when they say free speech, don't troll. Plus, take the post into proper context. When I refer to 'restrictions on speech' it's obviously referring to the higher regulation of speech that Mr. Mafia up there is referring to, not that there isn't already restriction on speech.
If we take guns away then there will be a lot of people (and I mean a lot) who will be really mad at the government. So mad in fact that they will try one of these three things:
1) Try and overthrow the government.
2) Try and succeed from the nation.
3) Leave the country, bringing as many people as they can with them.
I'm betting that congress doesn't want any of those things to happen. So in order to prevent more people rising up against them, it would be logical to try and make any sour words against the government a criminal act. The sad thing is that they would probably say that it's for "the safety of the people" and almost everyone would buy it. Also the media already makes it hard to disagree with them without being ridiculed (for example, many Science text books still refer to macroevolution as a theory, but if you go outside and start saying that then everyone will laugh at you and make fun of you. Partially because the main stream media has accepted this theory as fact. Sure you can go out and say that you believe evolution is a theory, that's perfectly legal. But can you take all the public humiliation that comes with it? I don't want to make a whole discussion out of this since it was purely an example from my point of view and a discussion on this would just throw us off topic.) I know my ideas seem pretty far fetched, and they are, but to me at least it makes sense. Also the First Amendment was another example like the one I just used, so I would like to end the discussion on it here. If you want I could easily edit it to the 3rd amendment which would be more related to this issue...
1) Try and overthrow the government.
2) Try and succeed from the nation.
3) Leave the country, bringing as many people as they can with them.
I'm betting that congress doesn't want any of those things to happen. So in order to prevent more people rising up against them, it would be logical to try and make any sour words against the government a criminal act. The sad thing is that they would probably say that it's for "the safety of the people" and almost everyone would buy it. Also the media already makes it hard to disagree with them without being ridiculed (for example, many Science text books still refer to macroevolution as a theory, but if you go outside and start saying that then everyone will laugh at you and make fun of you. Partially because the main stream media has accepted this theory as fact. Sure you can go out and say that you believe evolution is a theory, that's perfectly legal. But can you take all the public humiliation that comes with it? I don't want to make a whole discussion out of this since it was purely an example from my point of view and a discussion on this would just throw us off topic.) I know my ideas seem pretty far fetched, and they are, but to me at least it makes sense. Also the First Amendment was another example like the one I just used, so I would like to end the discussion on it here. If you want I could easily edit it to the 3rd amendment which would be more related to this issue...
Elite Stride said:
I have my BSE (bachelors in science engineering) so yes I can read.
You contradicted yourself. You keep circling in your posts.
Example.
but how can something like speech get to a point where they have to start restricting that too?
You see what I mean? Sure you talk about its limited but then you say that. Which stance are you taking?
I don't care what is supposed to be assumed. There are no assumptions when it comes to debate. You should know this. It's very black and white. If someone says free speech, they expect to say whatever the hell they want to. That's what I want. True free speech. Nothing is real in this country. Try telling a cop to go eff himself and see what happens. No harm was done, no threat was initiated, but you can still be arrested. Funny how there are so many laws in this liberal country that the general public does not know about.
Pika Mafia, we can't do any of those things (save #3) w/o guns.
Haunted Water said:
Exactly. Which is why something like a revolution or a civil war would happen immediately after the restrictions on guns and before they were actually taken away. I really don't want to see that happen since it would mean a lot of senseless killing, so it's just another reason why I think guns shouldn't be banned.
The Pikachu Mafia said:
"but how can something like speech get to a point where they have to start restricting that too? "
My message was a clear response to TPM's quote. You aren't reading the context of these posts at all. When I refer to restrictions on speech, I'm responding to the the restrictions that TPM is referring to, that is plainly obvious since I was replying to his post. He is talking about free speech being restricted more than it is now. When read in proper context, my sentence is saying: "how can something like speech get to a point where they have to start putting more restrictions on that too?" Basic reading comprehension.
BTW, there are assumptions in discussion. There is no intelligence if the person you are speaking with doesn't possess common knowledge or is attuned with reality. I would say that realizing the way America currently defines "free speech" is a matter of accepting reality.
You realize your first ammendment right covers this scenario? Sure, you might get arrested cause they're mad, but you can't be prosecuted for this so why does it matter? An officer wouldn't win in court, I can guarantee you. My cousin did it once and the court didn't even give a second look to the cop. If you consult any lawyer, they will tell you the same thing.r3skyline said:
The Pikachu Mafia said:
One word: lol.
In what country would citizens overthrow an entire government for not agreeing with them? And if people, for some reason, do decide to leave the country, where would they go to? What civilised country does still allow for guns? Well Mexico, but I doubt many citizens of the USA would favour Mexico over the USA for the principle of bearing arms alone.
It is not going to happen.
(Also, science textbooks(?) refer to evolution (macro-evolution included) as a scientific theory, and yes that is different from the everyday use of the word 'theory')
r3skyline said:
As far as a world with ''true'' free speech would perhaps be better off than what we have today, it would be impossible. Verbal bullying would therefore be allowed, and even though this does not affect all people, it is a fact that it does affect a lot of people. And it is well known that it is problematic enough to result in social isolation, or even worse, suicides.
Pokequaza said:
Err what? The whole point of a revolution is to overthrow a government that you would consider corrupt and naturally you'd disagree with them on everything. So taking that into account I can safely say that Egypt, the US, France, Russia etc. all started revolutions based off disagreements (I'm not saying that all of these revolutions were good, I'm saying that they do happen and you shouldn't be blind to them). Also what's your definition of a civilized country? Because I could name a few countries but I want to hear your interpretation on what you meant by "civilized" first.
Pokequaza said:
I don't want to make a case out of this, but a scientific theory doesn't equal a fact and it never will. 20 years from now some "scientific theories" will be completely different due to new evidence. So it doesn't matter if I call it scientific or not, at the end of the day it's still just a theory. I really don't know where you meant to go with this one...
Elite - you have never been in a discussion have you? I mean a true discussion where the outcome can have a major impact. Not a discussion amongst friends and family. I mean, one where a memorandum needs to be passed along and the brief goes along that. That is a discussion. Nothing should ever be assumed. Never. If you do not realize this now, supervisory positions and management/ownership will be hard for you to grasp.
It goes beyond what you are being taught in high school. It's beyond your "basic reading comprehension" insults you deliberately try to throw my way, I assume because you see the ranger tab and army and think, here is an idiot on a pokemon forum. see how assumptions can be misleading?
TPM spoke of rights being taken away one by one, and then he wrote what's next our freedom of speech. He never mentioned speech being restricted as his sentence flow was following his original rights being stripped thought.
I mentioned the telling off of a cop situation because a cop can restrain you as they can use the "possible threat" crap. I never spoke of them being able to prosecute you. Again, assumptions can be misleading.
Pokequaza - the overthrow the government scenario happens all the time in the Middle East/Asia areas.
It goes beyond what you are being taught in high school. It's beyond your "basic reading comprehension" insults you deliberately try to throw my way, I assume because you see the ranger tab and army and think, here is an idiot on a pokemon forum. see how assumptions can be misleading?
TPM spoke of rights being taken away one by one, and then he wrote what's next our freedom of speech. He never mentioned speech being restricted as his sentence flow was following his original rights being stripped thought.
I mentioned the telling off of a cop situation because a cop can restrain you as they can use the "possible threat" crap. I never spoke of them being able to prosecute you. Again, assumptions can be misleading.
Pokequaza - the overthrow the government scenario happens all the time in the Middle East/Asia areas.
TPM, I'd like to point you to this video. It basically shows why seceding from the United States, or revolting against it, is a deathwish.
As you can see, any of those options you listed earlier that involved violence basically end with the government winning. Also, I'd like to note that the American Revolutionary War is actually more or less a British Civil War. Same reason as to why the American Civil War is a botched CSA Revolutionary War.
As you can see, any of those options you listed earlier that involved violence basically end with the government winning. Also, I'd like to note that the American Revolutionary War is actually more or less a British Civil War. Same reason as to why the American Civil War is a botched CSA Revolutionary War.
The Pikachu Mafia said:
The USA is a democracy (although I am not going to argue how it is barely a real democracy), the revolutions you are talking about happened in times and places when and where modern democracy was still a long way ahead. If the majority of the USA votes in favour of the ban of the right to bear firearms, then who are you to tell them otherwise? I have yet to see a modern example of people overthrowing a democratic government. April 23th; the date same-sex marriages were recognised in France, the bill passed by just a small majority (50% to 55% if I recall correctly). A vast number of people did not agree with their government, there were some protests, but none attempted to ''overthrow'' the government.
By civilised I meant any country or recognised state or group with its own laws that have high state of culture and development both social and technological. The exact same definition a dictionary would give you. I am sure you understand the meaning of that word; a modern country, and not one that has still no proper leadership, lacks education for masses, never underwent an industrial revolution, etc.. (edit: Perhaps that one might associate the term ''Western'' with a civilised modern country.)
The Pikachu Mafia said:
This pretty much sums it up, this is true for the theory of gravity, germ theory, theory of evolution, etc., but I will hereby rest this case though, as arguing about it will not change its definition, and it does not anything to the topic of debate.