CDZ Gun Lovers, complete this sentence

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Nosmo King, Feb 25, 2018.

  1. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    45,740
    Thanks Received:
    9,842
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +28,914
    There is no need for an AR 15, it’s pure avocation.

    But absent a need doesn’t warrant prohibitive regulation.

    Now that we’ve established the fact that there is no legitimate need for an AR 15, let’s return to your original post to review some points:

    “We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations.”

    Perhaps not, but unlike other nations in the developed world we’ve failed miserably to afford mental health treatment to our citizens. Millions of Americans have no access to affordable healthcare, no access to mental health screening and treatment, and the situation will only grow worse as we continue to refuse to implement a universal healthcare system found in the rest of the developed world.

    “There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other nations in the developed world.

    What do you suppose is our unique American problem?”

    One cannot compare the United States to other nations in the developed world because indeed the problem is unique to America.

    Unlike other First World nations, the United States has a uniquely violent culture, where violence is perceived as a legitimate means of conflict resolution, from corporal punishment in our schools to capital punishment in our prisons, and the many wars waged to the benefit of the military/industrial establishment.

    The issue of gun violence in America is complex and multifaceted, immune from resolution with more restrictions, more regulation, and bans.
     
  2. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,471
    Thanks Received:
    755
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,489
    Assault rifles were banned prior to Cruz going on his assault rifle shooting spree. They should be banned again because it was a mistake to allow the 1994 ban to end. Here's why.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...ed-assault-weapons-in-1994-and-why-it-worked/

    Gun, not knife massacres, fell significantly during the ten year assault rifle ban.

    Your friend's knife collection will remain safely in his hands.

    So. “the real objective of the assault weapons ban was always to reduce both the frequency and lethality of mass shootings.” Which the original ban did. You see your friend's knives are not ever going to be involved in a mass shooting or any government confiscations. Another weak paranoid and foiled argument on your part.
     
  3. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,471
    Thanks Received:
    755
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,489
    C_Clayton_Jones, post: 19426951

    "Immune from resolution" ???

    Just not so. Current bans on fully automatic firearms certainly have saved numerous victims of mass shooters who could have 'easily' purchased them. The 1994 assault rifle ban reduced mass shootings during its run and mass shootings spiked after it ended.

    I tend to focus on the psychological/moral aspect of let's say an assault rifle ban on those who desire so much to be able to play with them. A ban sets a kind of moral taboo within society against that desire to play with a weapon designed for the sole purpose of mass killing of human beings in combat.

    Playing with human killing toys should receive the same taboo from decent, public safety-concerned society as behavior such as public masterbation does.

    We have the opposite norm now which glorifies that killing tool as some kind of first line of patriotic defense of human liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the flag, apple pie the whole nine yards.

    GenX I hope continues to call bs on that norm.

    An repeat of the former assault rifle ban is a moral step in the right direction.
     
  4. NotfooledbyW
    Offline

    NotfooledbyW Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Messages:
    7,471
    Thanks Received:
    755
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,489
    Uncensored2008, post: 19426547
    Yes, if the SA is to be followed correctly, we need to have a 'well regulated' militia. You can start justifying your wanton civilian militia need to play with an assault rifle, by explaining who you fully accept is supposed to be regulating you 'well' so very well.
     
  5. SingleVoyce
    Offline

    SingleVoyce Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    136
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Ratings:
    +52
    I have no idea what that was supposed to mean. If you apply Washington's quote to the Heller decision, the logical conclusion is that the Supreme Court usurped the Constitution by changing the meaning of the second amendment that had been used for 200+ years.
     
  6. Humorme
    Offline

    Humorme BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    2,415
    Thanks Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +887
    The United States has used its power to change the Constitution on an incremental basis until today, the Constitution is interpreted 180 degrees opposite of what it meant on many issues when it was ratified.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Humorme
    Offline

    Humorme BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    2,415
    Thanks Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +887
    You've proven no such conclusion. I need an AR 15 (though I can't afford the one I need.)

    My Right is not based on need.
     
  8. ding
    Offline

    ding Confront reality

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    38,530
    Thanks Received:
    1,710
    Trophy Points:
    1,155
    Ratings:
    +15,023
    Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Uncensored2008
    Online

    Uncensored2008 Libertarian Radical Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    69,358
    Thanks Received:
    8,989
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Ratings:
    +33,697

    The same reason you NEED to be allowed to speak against Trump.
     
  10. hadit
    Offline

    hadit Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    15,286
    Thanks Received:
    1,801
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,353
    The premise of the question is false. "Need" is not part of the calculation, nor should it be.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2

Share This Page