The Gun Conversation

[BwareDWare94 723]

I'd love to hear the testimony of a Sandy Hook parent whose child didn't make it through that day. His perspective is not applicable to the parents of any of the deceased children, and to speak as though he would trust just anybody with the same kind of weaponry he trusts himself is, in a word he used, asinine.

 

To the Sandy Hook father: I very much appreciate how intelligently you made your statements, but consider you less credible than the parents of any family affected to the utmost degree in that massacre. His daughter survived, so as far as I'm concerned he's just another citizen.

[OSUViking 505]

Why is he less credible? Are we only taking opinions on gun control from the victims of massacres? He is an educated man, and his voice deserves to be heard just as much as the parents who lost someone that day.

[Thanatos 2,847]

In reply to Phail:

 

Definitely a contradiction of our Constitution to partake in an armed insurrection. The very reason that we believe (and I like to think the founders believed) that we have the right to own guns is because we are not openly violent with them. To rebel against our government as armed individuals willing to pull a trigger with violent intent would be an absolute contradiction of our beliefs. The irony would be remarkably hilarious.

 

Disagree entirely. The Founding Fathers would also disagree entirely for what its worth. If the government infringes upon the rights of an individual to such an extent, (the extent of which is outlined in the Declaration of Independence), so that rebellion and revolution is the last resort of the oppressed, then it is not only their right to do it, it is their responsibility to do it.

 

If a group of tyrants take over the congress and the presidency and amends the Constitution via inappropriate methods, (or even appropriate methods, if it came to that), and they refuse to be taken out of office, and the majority of people in office agree with them, it would then be time for the citizens to take them out of office.

 

There is a line, that if crossed, would result in rebellion. And it would be right to do so.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Thanatos19

[Thanatos 2,847]

I'd love to hear the testimony of a Sandy Hook parent whose child didn't make it through that day. His perspective is not applicable to the parents of any of the deceased children, and to speak as though he would trust just anybody with the same kind of weaponry he trusts himself is, in a word he used, asinine.

 

To the Sandy Hook father: I very much appreciate how intelligently you made your statements, but consider you less credible than the parents of any family affected to the utmost degree in that massacre. His daughter survived, so as far as I'm concerned he's just another citizen.

 

This makes no sense at all. So his opinion is invalid because his daughter wasn't killed? What you are suggesting is an emotional response. Let us ask people who cannot possibly be expected to look at this in a reasonable light and only their opinions matter? He is no less credible than a parent whose child was killed, and they are no more credible than any other citizen of the United States.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Disagree entirely. The Founding Fathers would also disagree entirely for what its worth. If the government infringes upon the rights of an individual to such an extent, (the extent of which is outlined in the Declaration of Independence), so that rebellion and revolution is the last resort of the oppressed, then it is not only their right to do it, it is their responsibility to do it.

 

If a group of tyrants take over the congress and the presidency and amends the Constitution via inappropriate methods, (or even appropriate methods, if it came to that), and they refuse to be taken out of office, and the majority of people in office agree with them, it would then be time for the citizens to take them out of office.

 

There is a line, that if crossed, would result in rebellion. And it would be right to do so.

 

The premises of your argument doesn't seem very plausible. A group of tyrants could not simply take over Congress & the Presidency without the people having first elected them to their respective positions. And if that were the case, is that not what the people wanted if they elected these tyrants?

 

I don't disagree with the notion that insurrection would be acceptable in such a scenario because clearly the democratic process no longer exists but that seems to be an insanely extreme and unlikely circumstance to me.

[BwareDWare94 723]

This makes no sense at all. So his opinion is invalid because his daughter wasn't killed? What you are suggesting is an emotional response. Let us ask people who cannot possibly be expected to look at this in a reasonable light and only their opinions matter? He is no less credible than a parent whose child was killed, and they are no more credible than any other citizen of the United States.

 

As they are affected directly by what happened in Newtown, yes their opinions would be more credible.

 

It's easy to have an opinion about a problem that hasn't directly affected you. His daughter got out of that school breathing. Any parent of any of the deceased is much more credible, in my eyes.

[BwareDWare94 723]

This makes no sense at all. So his opinion is invalid because his daughter wasn't killed? What you are suggesting is an emotional response. Let us ask people who cannot possibly be expected to look at this in a reasonable light and only their opinions matter? He is no less credible than a parent whose child was killed, and they are no more credible than any other citizen of the United States.

 

So what you're saying would justify insurrection is a hypothetical scenario that is not going to happen in this country? I appreciate your counter-argument, but if it's based on a scenario we will not face in our lifetime, how relevant is it to us? That's my question. Let's get philosophical for a second. Do you, can you, give a shit about a hypothetical, unlikely situation?

[SteelersNation36 128]

As they are affected directly by what happened in Newtown, yes their opinions would be more credible.

 

It's easy to have an opinion about a problem that hasn't directly affected you. His daughter got out of that school breathing. Any parent of any of the deceased is much more credible, in my eyes.

 

How did it not directly affect him? "Hey a bunch of your school mates died but that doesn't directly affect you, run a along back to school now suzy"

 

edit: i'm sure his daughter was just brimming with joy to run back to school.

 

You weren't affected by it either so your opinion must mean ZERO also.

Edited February 8, 2013 by SteelersNation36

[Thanatos 2,847]

So what you're saying would justify insurrection is a hypothetical scenario that is not going to happen in this country? I appreciate your counter-argument, but if it's based on a scenario we will not face in our lifetime, how relevant is it to us? That's my question. Let's get philosophical for a second. Do you, can you, give a shit about a hypothetical, unlikely situation?

 

The premises of your argument doesn't seem very plausible. A group of tyrants could not simply take over Congress & the Presidency without the people having first elected them to their respective positions. And if that were the case, is that not what the people wanted if they elected these tyrants?

 

I don't disagree with the notion that insurrection would be acceptable in such a scenario because clearly the democratic process no longer exists but that seems to be an insanely extreme and unlikely circumstance to me.

 

I don't understand you two at all on this one. Of COURSE its unlikely that a tyrant takes over the American government. That's the entire damn point of the Constitution. That doesn't mean it won't happen.

 

The difference here is who you believe gives you certain rights. The Founders believed they came from God. If you think the government can take away life or liberty unjustly simply by passing laws- even if the majority agree with them- then naturally you would say you should not rebel against them.

 

I would entirely disagree. If they start infringing upon my inalienable, God-given right to life or liberty, then I would most certainly agree with revolting. My point is simply that there is a line in the sand, that if crossed, I would revolt. The government cannot do whatever it wants to do merely by passing laws.

[Thanatos 2,847]

As they are affected directly by what happened in Newtown, yes their opinions would be more credible.

 

It's easy to have an opinion about a problem that hasn't directly affected you. His daughter got out of that school breathing. Any parent of any of the deceased is much more credible, in my eyes.

 

No, it would not be. Can you explain WHY a parent who has their child killed has more weight on the matter of whether we should restrict guns across the entire country? You're basing this on their *emotional* response to a situation, not logically reasoning it through.

[BwareDWare94 723]

No, it would not be. Can you explain WHY a parent who has their child killed has more weight on the matter of whether we should restrict guns across the entire country? You're basing this on their *emotional* response to a situation, not logically reasoning it through.

 

You're claiming that their emotional response is not logic. If my child is killed by a gunman, my emotional response is logical because I'm a human being and have emotions.

 

Just think about that for a second, Thanatos. Can you honestly claim that you would ever suggest that the parents of these deceased children couldn't look at gun control with logical reasoning? Their logic would be the least flawed of all, I think.

[Thanatos 2,847]

You're claiming that their emotional response is not logic. If my child is killed by a gunman, my emotional response is logical because I'm a human being and have emotions.

 

Just think about that for a second, Thanatos. Can you honestly claim that you would ever suggest that the parents of these deceased children couldn't look at gun control with logical reasoning? Their logic would be the least flawed of all, I think.

 

What? No it wouldn't be. People affected by a personal tragedy should absolutely NOT be driving our policy making and our laws on that issue. That is ASKING for something like the Patriot Act to be implemented, even worse than that. You overreact, because you never want to see that happen to any child, again, and go way overboard on the necessary regulations. In so doing, you make the problem worse than it was.

 

I really don't get how you say what you said with a straight face. There is no logical reasoning involved in using an emotional response to dictate the laws of the nation for *everyone.*

[Omerta+ 1,206]

You're claiming that their emotional response is not logic.

 

Well I would hope he is because it is the absolute truth.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Well I would hope he is because it is the absolute truth.

 

"Excuse me, sir, but your eight your old son has very little of his head left because some nutjob who had absolutely no trouble accessing a firearm pumped 8-11 rounds into his head, so your perspective on whether or not the gun is part of the problem is not credible."

 

Yeah, fuck that. These parents who had to deal with this are much more credible than anybody who has no idea what it feels like to find out that your child had an unnecessary amount of rounds shot through his or her skull.

 

I understand the point you guys are making, but I want you to understand the point I'm trying to make, too. Do we not assume that veterans who return from war a bit more credible about the goings on, the politics, and the overall nastiness of war?

 

For a man to speak so vehemently about whether or not he should get to keep his guns and to point out that his daughter was in Sandy Hook was, in my opinion, completely insensitive to the parents whose children were killed. Completely, beyond the realms of empathy, insensitive. He threw it out there like he had more credence than anybody else. His daughter survived. He knows nothing of the torment of the other families, so he should have just spoken as a concerned citizen.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

"Excuse me, sir, but your eight your old son has very little of his head left because some nutjob who had absolutely no trouble accessing a firearm pumped 8-11 rounds into his head, so your perspective on whether or not the gun is part of the problem is not credible."

 

Yeah, fuck that. These parents who had to deal with this are much more credible than anybody who has no idea what it feels like to find out that your child had an unnecessary amount of rounds shot through his or her skull.

 

I understand the point you guys are making, but I want you to understand the point I'm trying to make, too. Do we not assume that veterans who return from war a bit more credible about the goings on, the politics, and the overall nastiness of war?

 

For a man to speak so vehemently about whether or not he should get to keep his guns and to point out that his daughter was in Sandy Hook was, in my opinion, completely insensitive to the parents whose children were killed. Completely, beyond the realms of empathy, insensitive. He threw it out there like he had more credence than anybody else. His daughter survived. He knows nothing of the torment of the other families, so he should have just spoken as a concerned citizen.

 

No absolutely, positively, incorrect. When your emotions are in control and not your logical brain you make irrational decisions that will long outlast the consequences of decisions made with the logical side of your brain. And as to your first quotation I would absolutely be on board with someone saying that.

 

To act like both sides of the brain are the same and that the brain as a whole acts together in a unified function is also debunked by science. You could google this and find out more about it and if you would like me to point some articles out I would be glad too.

 

Just because the guys kid does not die it does not really make him any less credible than someone whose child did. His kid was there and it easily could have been his child. He feels as though his guns make him safer. Why would you deprive him of that ? You nor should anybody else in the country should be able too.

 

When you start adding shit to the constitution because you feel that it supports your conclusions is especially dangerous. Liberals like to say,"Well our forefathers could not have had any idea what weapons would be available." How the fuck do you know ? You can speak for people who have been dead for 200 years ? Maybe they meant it in a comparison state. WE should be allowed all the weapons our government has aside from automatic, mechanized, explosive, and aviation armaments. Why because if it ever does come down to another revolution or civil war we should not just be crushed and swept away like we would in this state. You can not say that the forefathers would not be ok with this because neither you nor the liberal media has any clue and are like the rest of us "uneducated, backwater, hick-ass, shit splat town inhabiting folks" that comprise the rest of the country in having our thumb in our ass and no real clue what they wanted.

 

As to the soldiers thing. A little different and still does not work. When you ask most after they come back then they say," I did a job.","I served my country.""It sucked ass", "It was fuckin hot." I dont like being shot at." or something of the sort. Ask them in a fire fight or a buddy dies and you will get the atypical ,"Kill all the raghead mother fuckers." So should we annihilate an entire country because some soldier irrationally said we should ? I would like to think that calmer heads would prevail. That said I understand the soldiers pain and emotion at the time and I can empathize with the parents because thankfully and hopefully will/haven't known their pain.

 

As to the got the guns with no restriction thing. Are you joking ? They already said that he had been turned down from buying his own weapons. He had to steal them. That is not a little inconvenience. That is a major roadblock. And that is assuming indeed that he even used an automatic weapon, there have been reports that he did not use them but 4 pistols and both were to have come from coroners.

 

This liberal thing where we leave out the facts, assume what others would think, disregard everyone else because we are clearly smarter, and we care for everybody therefore holier than thou approach is not only stupid and baseless, but has become more than annoying.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Ngata_Chance

[Thanatos 2,847]

"Excuse me, sir, but your eight your old son has very little of his head left because some nutjob who had absolutely no trouble accessing a firearm pumped 8-11 rounds into his head, so your perspective on whether or not the gun is part of the problem is not credible."

 

I never said it wasn't credible. You are saying that it is more credible than anyone else's opinion. No it's not. I think they would be more prone to overreaction, (entirely understandable), so if anything they would be less credible. But their opinion is certainly worth hearing.

 

Yeah, fuck that. These parents who had to deal with this are much more credible than anybody who has no idea what it feels like to find out that your child had an unnecessary amount of rounds shot through his or her skull.

 

The issue is when you let your emotions drive your laws, you give the government far more power than was ever originally intended. After 9/11, we as a country were understandably afraid. But we let that fear drive our policy making and our laws, and that directly led to the formation of the Patriot Act six weeks later. The Patriot Act is a clear violation of our constitutional rights, and the reason it was implemented was because we passed a law within six weeks of the worst tragedy in recent history. We let emotions drive us to making a policy that was way, way overboard.

 

I understand the point you guys are making, but I want you to understand the point I'm trying to make, too. Do we not assume that veterans who return from war a bit more credible about the goings on, the politics, and the overall nastiness of war?

 

As Ngata pointed out, many of these veterans will be unable to see the big picture. That is the whole problem with your point, the parents of children killed in Sandy Hook only see an empty bedroom, a child who isn't there anymore. And that's a tragedy, a terrible, terrible, tragedy. I don't ever want to diminish what they have suffered. But most of the time, this leads to an inability to see the big picture.

 

For example, if a soldier sees his buddy gets killed beside him, and then later on they find the guy who shot him and he surrenders, most people are going to want to kill that guy. We may know it is in the wrong, but in the heat of the moment and the closeness of the loss, we act without truly thinking it through.

 

For a man to speak so vehemently about whether or not he should get to keep his guns and to point out that his daughter was in Sandy Hook was, in my opinion, completely insensitive to the parents whose children were killed. Completely, beyond the realms of empathy, insensitive. He threw it out there like he had more credence than anybody else. His daughter survived. He knows nothing of the torment of the other families, so he should have just spoken as a concerned citizen.

 

I didn't get that vibe at all from him. He's saying that he could easily see that what happened to her classmates get also happen to his daughter, and clearly all the gun regulations that CT had in place did nothing to prevent the Newtown tragedy. He thinks the way the school goes about their security is terrible, and he is going to protect his home as he sees fit- with a gun if necessary, because he is never going to let someone come into his home and infringe on the safety of his family.

[Duck Fallas 209]

Conflict of interest defeats logic almost 100% of the time. It doesn't make their opinion less valid than others, it is just clouded by emotion.

[Vin+ 3,121]

Well guys, it's been nice knowing you. Pretty sure this means the world is going to end sometime soon.

 

 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has spoken out against the connection between video games and violence. In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Pelosi challenged the idea that violent media leads to real-life violence.

 

Host Chris Wallace compelled Pelosi to talk to her “friends in Hollywood” about violent games, movies and TV shows, saying they need to “knock it off.”

 

“I understand what you’re saying,” Pelosi responded. “I’m a mother. I’m a grandmother. But the evidence says that in Japan, for example, they have the most violent games [compared to] the rest and the lowest mortality from guns. I don’t know what the explanation is for that except they might have good gun laws.”

 

"I think we have to do it all, and that's why we included in there that we have to take a look at what these games are," she added. "I don't think we should do anything anecdotally. We have a saying here, 'the plural of anecdote is not data.' So we want to know what is the evidence, what will really make a difference here? And I think it has to be comprehensive."

 

Pelosi’s comments come after several U.S. senators blamed games for gun violence last month and President Obama asked Congress to commission a study on violent games.

 

Via GI.biz

 

[Thanatos 2,847]

What the...

 

Maybe it was December 21, 2013 the Mayans meant?

 

I mean, when Nancy Pelosi is the one speaking sense... yeah, the world is definitely ending very soon. Nice knowing you guys.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Thanatos19

[seanbrock 1,684]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html?cmpid=yhoo

 

Regardless of how you feel about gun control I think this is pretty unacceptable. Brings a little credence to points that people are making about having their guns taken. I realize these people aren't allowed to own guns but going into people's homes and seizing them if they don't voluntarily give them up? Seems a little absurd.

[blotsfan 2,112]

"You're not allowed to have guns because you're mentally unstable."

 

"I'm not going to give them up."

 

"Oh, ok. Sorry to disturb you. Have a nice day."

 

Yeah, that seems about right.

[Thanatos 2,847]

The lady in question was illegally held under a 5150, which in CA is supposed to just be a period of evaluation.

 

I agree in principle, mentally ill people shouldn't have guns, but she isn't one of them.

[SteelersNation36 128]

[blotsfan 2,112]

Well, this one was pretty easy. Let me break it down for you.

 

1. Video title is stupid. We see no response by the lawmakers to her speech.

 

2. Why does she need to own a gun to be on the rife team? Have special target shooting areas where the guns must be kept.

 

3. "Guns are not the problem: people are." I agree with this. If we can get people to stop being violent, then there would be no need for any gun control. Until then, lets make it harder to get the things that make it easy for the bad people to kill innocent people.

 

4. Mentioned 2nd amendment. Quick tangent: The constitution is not perfect. The founders specifically designed it to be modified as time went on. If the main reason for something being the way it is is that its in the constitution, thats not good enough.

 

5. "Chicago has really strict gun control laws but still a lot of violence." Maybe thats because of how easy it is to get a gun outside of Chicago where the gun laws are lax and bring it into Chicago. Not to mention the whole, correlation not being the same as causation thing.

 

6. Good point by the girl. Handguns kill many more than rifles and designing gun control laws solely around rifles is stupid. Gun control should extend to both.

 

7. Guns were not registered or licensed to people who used them. Maybe thats why we should make the gun control laws for everyone. Since the people who buy them suck at keeping them out of the hands of people who want to misuse them.

 

8. Correct again. Not all mass killings are done by firearms. According to this article, only 83% of the largest mass killings involved firearms. Clearly no pattern there.

 

9. Gun violence in poor areas. "If poor people cant afford guns, they cant protect themselves." Also means a lot of poor attackers cant afford guns. Also, not to mention you're four times more likely to have someone innocent accidentally shot by your gun than to actually protect yourself with it.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I'm glad this thread was bumped. I've been thinking about the 2nd amendment some lately and have some questions. This is, again, me thinking out loud about stuff. I figured it might spur some cool discussion. And let me start by saying the following arguments are about those who think the 2nd amendment allows for armed sedition.

 

1. We accept that our first amendment right, the freedom of speech, can be limited in some capacities. For instance, libel, slander, etc. This not a controversial issue for almost nobody, even by those who purport that the 2nd amendment prohibits the government from controlling or regulating firearms in ANY capacity. There's a strong contradiction here, is there not? Why is it OK to place limits on one amendment, but not the other? Do we not take it as seriously? In reality, isn't the first amendment FAR more important than the 2nd?

 

2. The Constitution is chockful of lawyer jargon and abstractions because the founders couldn't agree politically anymore than our Congressmen can today. That's evident throughout the entire Constitution. To better understand what the framers were talking about when writing the 2nd amendment, why not look at what actually happened at the conventions? Check this quote from the Philly convention in 1787, by James Madison. It doesn't sound like anyone thinks the 2nd amendment allows for armed insurrection. It's more like a debate about which sect of government will be responsible for establishment and control of the militias, not that citizens can raise private armies (which is actually something for which Aaron Burr was tried for treason).

Mr. ELSWORTH & Mr. SHERMAN moved to postpone the 2d. clause in favor of the following “To establish an uniformity of arms, exercise & organization for the Militia, and to provide for the Government of them when called into the service of the U. States” The object of this proposition was to refer the plan for the Militia to the General Govt. but6 leave the execution of it to the State Govts.

 

Mr. LANGDON said He could not understand the jealousy expressed by some Gentleman.7 The General & State Govts. were not enemies to each other, but different institutions for the good of the people of America. As one of the people he could say, the National Govt. is mine, the State Govt. is mine. In transferring power from one to the other, I only take out of my left hand what it can not so well use, and put it into my right hand where it can be better used.

 

3. Why would a government, in the constitution establishing its existence, write in it a provision allowing for its destruction? Especially in a republic! If we think today that it's necessary that we'll have to raise arms against the government, is that not an indictment on the democratic process? An indictment on us? It's an admittance to ourselves that we are idiots and are unfit to govern ourselves if we, as voters, allow our government to grow to a tyrannical level. If the government ever achieves that state, it's OUR fault because WE are responsible for voting those politicians into office, are we not?

 

I think Thanatos said to me earlier in this thread that revolting against a tyrannical government is a natural right--that I can agree with. These argument are more focused on an attack of those who think the Constitution authorizes revolt in a positive law manner. I think that very notion is absurd. I also think that, if it were true, it'd be incredibly dangerous.