2nd Amendment: The right to bear arms.

So what? Its sad, but it doesn't change anything.

 

No arguments, just demagoguery. Completely irrelevant.

 

You're using those tactics.

 

No, it describes you perfectly:

verb (used with object)
3. to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.

You dismiss us as indoctrinated, yet reveal yourself as biased and indoctrinated yourself, working from a place of emotion and intellectual laziness, insulting those who disagree with you, diminishing them, seeking to undermine them at a basic level without ever actually addressing the subject at hand in a meaningful way.

This is you, Cran, you are the indoctrinated demagogue.

If you cannot engage the debate with arguments that are rational and have merit, beyond simple emotional appeal, why bother posting?

 

Kirazy, you insult someone a demagogue.

He replies he is not a demagogue.

You are still thinking he's a demagogue.



Where is your progresssion ?
Nowhere, as this debate since you came in it!

 

Chaeris, you liked a post by Cran, you and Madness both, where all he does is insult people who own guns, and then got murdered.

"Retards killing retards since December 15, 1791."

I have no respect for you, Chaeris. I have made my arguments, and since making them no one has addressed them except to insult and try to change the subject. And you claim I am the one causing all the problems in this thread? You are biased.

And Chaeris, someone can say "I didn't do that!" (Or, in Cran's case "I'm not a demagogue!") and they can still be a demagogue, or have done that.

 

I did never tell you make all the problems in this thread.
BTW I'm just claiming that the thread goes nowhere, and won't even go anywhere, because EVERYONE IS STUCK IN HIS MIND WITH THAT SUBJECT AND NOW IT HAS NO POINT TO DEBATE!

I recognized myself that removing 2nd amendment is a bad idea if you already have it!
And that it would be as bad to add the 2nd amendment to a country that hasn't it!

And this is because, basically, everyone is stuck on this subject because everyone lives like this since more than 200 years !

 

Not addressing any argument made in this thread. Insulting my person, distracting from main issue by way of dismissing my views, arguments, and opinions. Deflection.

On the contrary, I said that the obsession with assault rifles is irrational when the majority of murders perpetrated by a firearm are with a handgun. I did not say it was a suitable reason for gun control. And suddenly we're talking about racism? Subject change.

Look who made it an issue. And for the record, it's not perfectly fine for blacks to go and kill each other, innocent bystanders included.

Alright, how about guns in the hands of those who are rational, emotionally stable, law abiding individuals? Who make up the majority of those who own guns?

Dismissal, no attempt at argument, just ad hominem attacks on my person, attempting to undermine my position by way of undermining credibility. And you say you're rational?

I do not believe this. Further, if Guns really are the problem, then why is it that Switzerland has such a low crime rate, but a substantial number of owned guns? And in fact hands out guns? You have no data that confirms your assertion, you are merely making a claim.

The Supreme Court of the United States, which does actually have the authority to speak to what the Constitution says and intends to say... disagree with you. See 2010 ruling regarding Gun Control in Illinois. The 2nd amendment does not speak to the type of weapon in the least. Further, as has been mentioned, the types of weapons used to commit gun violence and murder are typically handguns. Handguns. Not assault rifles, semi or fully automatic. But handguns. In places like Mexico you have military weaponry in the hands of organized cartels.

These are not law-abiding people. Making a law against guns will do nothing to affect them. How will making a gun control law affect those who do not observe the law, and are already in violation of the law? How? What will it accomplish beyond simply affecting those who do follow the law?

Who said that? Again with the emotional appeal and demagoguery

And again with the ad hominem and attempts to undermine.

 

I am going to do this sentence by sentence, so as to not take anything out of context.

"I can be both rational and informative,"
So be rational and informative. Instead of dogmatic and fallacious.

"but I cannot educate those that believe that they are more educated on the subject of what affects this country than the people who live in the areas of interest."

You assume that I need education. You also assume that not only am I less educated than you, but that I believe that I am more educated than you. Not only have I never said such a thing, which makes this statement a strawman fallacy, but an unbiased look at this thread will show that not a single person has made a fully fleshed out, fallacy free, counter-argument against my points. While I have tried to remain objective and rational, I have been insulted and degraded. (Another fallacy, Ad Hominum)

What "area's of interest" are you talking about? The meth shacks a few blocks over from my house? The psycho across the street?

"You commented about handgun statistics being a suitable reason for handgun control instead of assault rifles. I can agree with you about that but racism is alive and well in America. It is perfectly fine for uneducated black people to gun each other and innocent bystanders down in the streets but when a school of white kids gets shot up by a maniac with an assault rifle then its a big fucking issue in our society."
Non sequitur, another fallacy. Did anyone claim that it is okay for black people to shoot at each other? One of my points was that school shootings, and other mass killings, are extremely isolated incidents and do not warrant measures that may in fact multiply the harm done. So, racism. Unless you have an argument to make regarding how racism affects this issue, other than an attention diverting statement, or a red herring (another fallacy), then make it.

"Don't come on here trying to establish things in your own personal views."
You claim that I have been biased in my reasoning. Prove it. And don't do the same back.

"ALL guns are a problem in the hands of those with emotional problems."
Not really, we all have emotional problems, but you mean psychos who shoot up schools. Okay, yeah a psycho with a gun is a problem. So is a psycho with a knife. Or a car. Or a bomb. A gun-free zone is merely a soft target for one of those people.

"You understand nothing about how people are controlled in this country."
I don't?

"I bet you sit around at home watching the news and believe whatever is fed to you."
Actually, I play Alice when I'm sitting around at home. But as for news, I do try to keep up with current events, I read TIME, and I try to find a variety of sources with varying viewpoints when an issue I care about comes up. I attempt to find credible data from unbiased sources, and to objectively examine the credibility of my own beliefs. As my family is rabidly liberal, I actually get far more input that is contrary to my views than otherwise.
Also, Ad Hominum.

"Gun control is a serious issue in this world. Not just america."
Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but that is a deceptive statement. What is serious? I never claimed anything contrary.

"You believe that since a rule got made two hundred and twenty two years ago that nothing has changed."
I do? I wasn't aware of that.

"Technology is leaps and bounds over the weapons they used back then. It was not their intent for that rule to apply to what we have today."
What the founding fathers thought is always up for debate, as there are no written records other than the Constitution, the bill of rights, and the federalist papers. Despite that, I said the same thing at the beginning of this thread. I also said that I don't care what some stuffy, aristocratic, old dudes thought, and that we should focus on whether gun control is right or not, not what the law said two hundred years ago.

"If you can't see that then you are as blind as a cactus."
I guess that my eyesight is better than that of the foliage.

"Stop complaining that us moving forward as a species, while maintaining compassion for those that are different than us is unconstitutional and against your beliefs."
You are assuming that your belief is superior to mine, without any backing, and that I am lacking compassion for anyone different from me.

"The thought of a good christian being a gun nut is proof enough to your hypocrisy."
I'm a christian? I thought that I was an Atheist.

"As a race and as a human society we must evolve and change as time moves forward."
Yes we do. We must abandon our dogmatic roots and reach for a better tomorrow. I took out my chainsaw a long time ago. Would you like to borrow it?

 

Where in the Bible does it say that you can't own a gun?

 

thou shall not kill.

 

If the tyrannical government has an air force and armored vehicles, how is the public supposed to overthrow/resist them with a couple thousand untrained men with automatic weapons? I feel that the 2nd amendment doesn't serve a purpose in modern times aside from giving people a reason to push for no gun control.

 

You haven't read the Bible, it seems. It's littered with Christians exercising self-defense, with arms.

Couple thousands? Try 39%-50% of the United States' Households. You may have an Air Force, and you may have military materiel, but... that will only get you so far when nearly half of your 318+ million population is armed, and doesn't like you. Or did we forget that there are several hundred million guns in circulation in the United States?

And a good share of those are actually trained and know how to use their weapons.

(And a reminder: Only 6220 handgun deaths in 2011, out of several hundred million available guns.)

And Doctor, just because you don't take seriously the idea that having a way to defend against a tyrannical government, doesn't mean others do not. I realize you have a difficult time conceive that anyone could possibly consider that, but people do. I do. Others who have posted in this thread do. There are also more immediate concerns for owning firearms, namely protection of life, limb, and property, from would be thugs, thieves, rapists, and the like.

 

I thought the 10 commandments are holier to you than what some other guys did.

 

-sigh-

It's not worth discussing with you. You know far less than you think you do about the religion to which I adhere; it's just not worth trying to explain to you. In any case, if you have nothing to say with regards to the 2nd amendment and the arguments put forth, and all you can do is try to change the subject, why post?