DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: kimba1 on June 17, 2016, 05:38:42 PM
-
it`s seems to me no true dialog about the two side about guns ? both sides argue but neither bother to find resolution. the goal is to get thier idea through not to keep the most people alive.
-
A "little" wrong Kimba. Both sides have offered multiple resolution proposals (keeping in mind there will never be 100% resolution) I think what you're looking for is compromise. Where does that exist? Let me ask you, how far do you go to compromise on your 1st amendment right to free speech? How much do you compromise on your 4th amendment right to unreasonable searches to you or your property?
-
We restrict people from owning RPGs and bazookas. If the goal was to allow people to arm themselves well enough to overthrow an oppressive government,then these and m,any more weapons would not be restricted.
-
So, because we're not armed as well as we should be, we should just completely disarm?
But at least you've finally given up on the nonsense that the 2nd was all about hunting down slaves
-
But T least you've finally given up on the nonsense that the 2nd was all about hunting down slaves
Not at all. It was obvious that slave rebellions in the Caribbean were scaring the crap out of the slaveowners.
Here is how Nat Turner was captured:
Turner had originally planned for the rebellion to begin on July 4, 1831, but had fallen ill, pushing the date back until August 22.[11] Turner started with several trusted fellow slaves, and ultimately gathered more than 70 enslaved and free blacks, some of whom were mounted on horseback.[12] On August 13, 1831, an atmospheric disturbance made the sun appear bluish-green. Turner took this as the final signal, and began the rebellion a week later on August 22. The rebels traveled from house to house, freeing slaves and killing all the white people they encountered.
Because the rebels did not want to alert anyone, they discarded their muskets and used knives, hatchets, axes, and blunt instruments instead of firearms. (The latter also would have been more difficult for them to collect.) Historian Stephen B. Oates states that Turner called on his group to "kill all the white people."[13] A contemporary newspaper noted, "Turner declared that 'indiscriminate slaughter was not their intention after they attained a foothold, and was resorted to in the first instance to strike terror and alarm.'"[14] The group spared a few homes "because Turner believed the poor white inhabitants 'thought no better of themselves than they did of negroes.'"[13][15]
The rebels spared almost no one whom they encountered, with the exception of a small child who hid in a fireplace among the few survivors. The slaves killed approximately sixty white men, women and children[13] before Turner and his brigade of insurgents were defeated. A white militia with twice the manpower of the rebels and reinforced by three companies of artillery eventually defeated the insurrection.[16]
I
-
That's all nice. Has squaf to do with the Bill of Rights, and the 2nd Amendment in particular
-
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13450251_780545032080723_5743661959363272254_n.jpg?oh=20129573b400061a5630d5c1d521016d&oe=57D1CB8D)
-
yes a compromise but something that bothsides will hate.
-
But what are you willing to compromise with your 1st amendment? Something you'd hate
-
i have no idea what can or cannot be done. but this extreme which both sides are at the offensive is gonna cause more trouble. correction is now happening. but it looks like things are escalating
-
Whether you realize it or not, you're helping to make my point, Kimba. The fact you couldn't come up with something that you'd hate in compromising your 1st amendment right, is largely why folks like myself, will suggest all manner of proposals, with the goal of lessening these types of shootings.....so long as our 2nd amendment right isn't being infringed.
In other words, folks like myself have no problem with the idea of compromise. It's where the compromise hits. Banning some specific firearm will be hated by folks like myself.....and do precisely squat in preventing these attacks from occurring in the future. So, that's really a non-starter. It's like Israel giving up defensible land for the "promise of peace"
And what exactly would Gun Control advocates be hating in some sort of compromise? That they weren't able to ban all firearms?
-
There is no reason why a person would need a weapons that could fire 30 bullets in rapid succession to defend himself, A mass murderer would prefer such a weapon.
-
And again the notion of need. I don't think you need to to be able to plead the 5th. You definitely don't need to be able to criticize any Republican candidate for President. Anything a bad guy can get his hands on, I should legally be able to as well. But I'm willing to compromise on being limited to semi-automatic that can fire in rapid siccession, to their illegally obtained fully automatic
-
That is not really a compromise.
Who the Hell do you think will attack you?
The Muslim Brotherhood?
The Marx Brothers (Chico, Harpo, Gummo, Zeppo, Groucho and Karl)?
The Purple Gang, aka the whole rhythm section from Jailhouse Rock?
-
Doesn't matter. Given that criminals can and will get illegal guns, including automatics, I have every right to defend myself with a firearm that can fire quickly...... period
-
Yeah, you could be attacked by a whole mob.
AS regular Chuck Norris, sirs is.
You never know when some nefarious agent of the Evil Dr Fu Manchu might try to take you out with a throwing star.
-
Exactly. .... you never know. And since we never know, better to have and never need to use, then need one, and not have one. Or worse, prevented to have because some anti constitutional moron deemed we don't need it
-
There is no reason why a person would need a weapons that could fire 30 bullets in rapid succession to defend himself
Are you kidding?
The first 2nd Amendment is just as much about defending against tyrannical government.
Rapid fire guns are needed in war.
As the country accelerates towards extreme polarization there is no doubt war is coming.
And that is exactly the reason Obama/Left want to disarm "the people".
-
When an armed Government claims you don't need to be armed, that's precisely why we need to be armed.
So, redirecting to Kimba, what exactly do we compromise on such a vital constitutional right, that we've already compromised so much on?
-
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/12495194_512430782272442_8207778125851306402_n.jpg?oh=99f1d8ed52582d1c8f4aab7c8ac71a66&oe=57C60F75)
-
i know several example which if one allowances is made it actually it started a floodgate that over runsthings.on rights issue I can understand the fear. but that does not mean a dialog should not be bother with . both sides may eternally fail an never ever get a resolution but to not make an effort.
-
But see Kimba, the effort is consistently being made. The problem hits a wall when one side solution is to start demanding that someone(s) be made to compromise on a Constitutional right. You yourself couldn't answer to how much you'd be willing to compromise your 1st amendment right...to a point of hating it, no less. And their apparent version of "compromise" is that they aren't pushing that all guns be banned. Merely those that are presently politically incorrect.
I grasp the dilemma.....all the other Constitutional Rights are merely parameters or specific guidelines. There's nothing tangible. The 2nd Amendment has a physical manifestation, in the form of a firearm, that can be held, and used. As such, people focus on that and forget what its part of....a Constitutional Right, just as integral to this country's freedoms, as the 1st amendment is
-
yes a compromise but something that bothsides will hate.
We are deep in that territory now.
Note XO observing that we can't get automatic weapons and rpgs?
-
The first 2nd Amendment is just as much about defending against tyrannical government.
Rapid fire guns are needed in war.
UTTERLY STOOPID!
When Washington led the army against Shea's Rebellion and the Whisky Rebellion, it became clear that even a bunch of armed hicks could not defeat the national army.
There were exactly ZERO rapid fire guns in existence when the second amendment was written.
As a "good man wit6h a gun" you are the rest of the NRA Idiots are total, abysmal failures. You have allowed an increasing number of mass murders.
You are the shittiest excuse for a militia ever.
-
There were exactly ZERO rapid fire guns in existence when the second amendment was written.
Nor were their modern printing presses or the internet, when the 1st amendment was written. Irrelevant, as we all grew in technology & modernization
And what lives are taken in murders, 10+fold lives are saved....a staggering success
-
A staggering LIE from sirs.
-
You apparently flunked math
-
A friend just brought it up. The group who defend the 1st amendment get way less public support than the supporters of the 2nd amendment .
I can't really deny that
-
can't deny that. Probably because the left's war on the 1st amendment is far more subtle than what they wage on the 2nd
-
Actually ACLU gets very little support from anyone but NRA has serious backing
-
ACLU gets my total support....and has had the support of other conservative organizations as well.....when they're consistent. When they start picking and choosing causes that are closer to liberal ideals while ignoring Conservative issues, is when they lose said support
-
Yes, the NRA is more consistent.
It helps that the task of the NRA is simpler.
But doesn't the NRA depend n the first amendment and support it also?
-
The NRA's task is to serve as a shill for the gun industry.
They are very good it it.
-
(http://s33.postimg.org/tuob624sv/13466156_570987239729560_5300471811643374151_n_j.jpg)
-
The NRA's task is to serve as a shill for the gun industry.
They are very good it it.
Couldn't be more wrong. Then again, you're very good it it
-
The NRA's task is to serve as a shill for the gun industry.
They are very good it it.
The NRA spanks the gun industry when it needs to.
Try again.
-
They do no spanking. I bet they do not even refuse ad revenues from people who make guns that blow up in your face.
-
And what guns are those??
-
Ignoring conservative issues? Isn't ACLU supposed to do that on bothsides and blindly support 1st amendment. I remember they backed to klan to protest. Im not saying their not biased but ACLU is still not a tream player supposedly
-
Yes, they are. In fact, they have had in the past, which garnered support from organizations, like the NRA. But lately, IIRC, they've been picking positions that are more politically correct, while ignoring other constitutionally grounded positions that would be less than politically correct
-
which is Why i find them presently weak
-
ditto
-
I think they insist that the 2nd amendment involves a "well-trained militia."
-
Actually, no they don't. But keep up that stellar record of being wrong
-
I think they insist that the 2nd amendment involves a "well-trained militia."
Do they have any proposal for the establishment of a well regulated militia?
-
I don't think writing proposals is what the ACLU does.
But they do not seem to be very gung ho on the second amendment.
-
Then the ACLU is seriously lax.
-
Precisely. Like i said, they've become more politically correct instead of fully defending ALL the Bill of Rights
-
SIRS...this expert using CDC stats echoes what you often state about the protective use of guns:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6axS9F-qeY
-
8)
-
Most of the members of any local ACLU chapter are lawyers.
I think they like the idea of wining lawsuits against gun and ammo manufacturers and retailers.
-
...and screw the Constitution, which is what they originally came about to support
-
thier not actually trying to uphold the bill of rights at all but make sure people has those rights, so if the bill of rights does not help the people thier not gonna back it . thier origins are a reaction to the mccarthy era.
but i find them weak now due to black lives matters tend to shut other peoples voice and i hear nothing from aclu. very silent. crickets
-
...and the 2nd amendment is the 2nd most important amendment to the Constitution & Bill of Rights, that the founders believed......and rightly so
-
But since the NRA exist the ACLU is a bit redundant to be involved with the 2nd amendment
-
Yes...IF....they weren't so down on the 2nd most important amendment to the Constitution. That's the point I'm making....the ACLU was founded to defend the Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights. But as we've been referencing thru-out this tangent, they've mutated via the PC virus, and now are picking and choosing which amendments they're going to defend, and which ones aren't currently PC to defend. It doesn't matter what the NRA has become, this is about what the ACLU is supposed to be
-
they've mutated via the PC virus, and now are picking and choosing which amendments they're going to defend, and which ones aren't currently PC to defend. It doesn't matter what the NRA has become, this is about what the ACLU is supposed to be
BINGO BINGO BINGO!
-
Why should the ACLU be needed to support your stupid "gun rights" anyway?
If you want to complain, complain to THEM.
-
Why should the ACLU be needed to support your stupid "gun rights" anyway?
Because those "stupid gun rights", are part of the Constitution.....JUST as importat as those stupid speech rights, and stupid privacy rights. It's an organization that's SUPPOSED to defend ALL the stupid rights we have
-
But lately I find silent on anything now
-
Like I said, the Constitution was written in a time when all firearms were single shot weapons and slave revolts needed to be quelled by militias.
-
And the "press", back in the day, used quills. That's a moronic response to what the Bill of Rights was specifically designed to do
-
I though aclu has nothing to do with defending the bill of rights but about people and how those rights effects Them. as if the bill of rights compels or deprive people of things then aclu will take action against the bill of rights also. At the moment aclu should be going against trump protesters for denying peoples rights .
-
IIRC the ACLU was established to defend the Bill of Rights, in particular the 1st amendment
-
i`ve always had the impression it`s was about peoples rights more than the document.
ex. alot of the civil rights are not covered by our constitutions but if we were follow the letter of the law those rights would not be here. I think it something to do with goldwater
-
People's rights IS the document. Literally, interchangable
-
im just putting it out thier that maybe it`s not and hence the conflict with the organization.
-
With all due respect Kimba, it is. Whatever other "rights" people or the ACLU think they have is trumped by the Bill of Rights & Constitution.
-
Like I said, the Constitution was written in a time when all firearms were single shot weapons and slave revolts needed to be quelled by militias.
When it was written there was nearly as much military power in the hands of the public as there was in the governments control and this was considered a good thing.
George Washington barely stopped a clause from being included that would have capped the size of the Army at a certain number, a number too small presumably to oppress the people. George Washington made the point that there was not going to be a constitutional limit on the size of invasion forces and got this clause laughed out.
But no one even suggested a limit on private ownership of weapons, they had just thrown that faction back to England.
We are pretty lucky to have the well behaved military we do , our Constitution writers did not know how few mutinies and coups there were going to be .
I wonder if having an armed population has helped us avoid having a coup every two or three decades? There are nations that do , and they are not a different sort of human there.
-
The difference was that the Protestant culture of England is one that evolves, rather than has revolutions.
American Independence was not so much a revolution as it was a transfer of power from the distant Parliament and King to an alliance of bourgeois New England traders and Southern planters.
-
The difference was that the Protestant culture of England is one that evolves, rather than has revolutions.
American Independence was not so much a revolution as it was a transfer of power from the distant Parliament and King to an alliance of bourgeois New England traders and Southern planters.
Could you add, " that had a hatred of tyranny and a distrust for concentrating power in government."...?
I would even add that they felt responsible to do a good job on the constitution and made it good in the first place with a lot of effort, but best of all they made it possible to change its wording without revolution.
-
I though aclu has nothing to do with defending the bill of rights but about people and how those rights effects Them. as if the bill of rights compels or deprive people of things then aclu will take action against the bill of rights also. At the moment aclu should be going against trump protesters for denying peoples rights .
I agree, but this would not be easy for the ACLU because the people protesting Trump are not government directed.(as far as we know)
Perhaps the ACLU could do some good work stopping the IRS and FBI from being used by the government to impede the rights of citizens, this is where I thing the ACLU is falling down on its job.
-
Could you add, " that had a hatred of tyranny and a distrust for concentrating power in government."...?
Pretty sure that folks who owned slaves did not hate ALL tyranny,
Many of them seemed okay with BEING tyrannical.
They did not trust the people to directly elect senators or the president.
So, COULD add that, but I won't because it just isn't true.
-
Could you add, " that had a hatred of tyranny and a distrust for concentrating power in government."...?
Pretty sure that folks who owned slaves did not hate ALL tyranny,
Many of them seemed okay with BEING tyrannical.
Which is why we have a Constitution, especially a 2nd amendment.....to prevent precisely such a scenario, from ever duplicating itself here, ever again
-
Could you add, " that had a hatred of tyranny and a distrust for concentrating power in government."...?
Pretty sure that folks who owned slaves did not hate ALL tyranny,
Many of them seemed okay with BEING tyrannical.
They did not trust the people to directly elect senators or the president.
So, COULD add that, but I won't because it just isn't true.
There was a lot of wrangling over this at that time , and compromises were made that were later regretted.
But the slave owners attitude was hypocritical enough that they did not love to be enslaved , so they too were contrary to government tyranny and were agreeable to measures that might prevent it.
-
On the subject of slavery.
I find people who talk about slavery and the damage it did to them hypocritical since they seem nonplussed to modern version of it. Ex. Sex trafficking.
But then i see parallels in many other subjects. Like jew complaining the word holocaust should not be used for the albanian mass graves in croatia.
-
People arguing about the use of words are mostly wasting their time.
There is no international vocabulary police.
I donlt think anyone is in favor of White slavery or sex slavery.There are a lot of people who are trying to abolish it. The UN has done rather a lot.
-
What about illegal immigration. Some of them had to work it off when they arrive in this country and the work is not exactly agreed upon beforehand. The excuse thats it voluntary despite they were not informed beforehand sounds shaky to me. Sex slavery is excused by many people as not slavery due to them agreeing to go despite never knowing the full details of whats happening.
-
People arguing about the use of words are mostly wasting their time.
There is no international vocabulary police.
No one is advocating arresting anyone for not proclaiming what is, is. What it does do (ACCURATELY labeling who our enemy is), is isolating them from the whole of Islam, and making them the target, vs someone who's merely Muslim. Obama's approach is like taking all references to Japan, out of the attack on Pearl Harbor
Wasting time, would be like trying to connect terrorist attacks to gun control legislation, that would have not stopped any terrorist attacks
-
What about illegal immigration. Some of them had to work it off when they arrive in this country and the work is not exactly agreed upon beforehand. The excuse thats it voluntary despite they were not informed beforehand sounds shaky to me. Sex slavery is excused by many people as not slavery due to them agreeing to go despite never knowing the full details of whats happening.
It benefits some people , and these people learn who to avoid talking to.
The sex workers are stuck far from home, speaking little of the language , dependent on their handlers for food and medicine.
A few years ago Georgia had a major bust , finding hundreds of people in violation, I imagine they have been replaced by now.
-
like actress/model agreeing to a private meeting with royalty overseas. I tend to hear if she`s stupid to go then it``s her fault.
that would be the end of the subject and we`ll never hear from these ladies ever again. but slavery from he past is the real tragety
-
I think you are right , there is less difference than is sometimes pretended.
-
From what I have read, the odds are rather high that the people who cook, wait tables and serve at many, perhaps most, Chinese buffet restaurants are brought here illegally by snakehead gangs, and are working off outrageous fees for being smuggled in. Most of their income goes to their parents back in some rural hamlet in China,. or to pay off the snakeheads.
I have not noticed anyone who speaks much English or is not obviously Chinese working in such places. I suppose they could be Japanese or Korean or such, but I tend to doubt it.
-
Here I see mostly Mexicans working. I think the cost of importing and housing makes it prohibited.