Why We Should Never Compromise On Gun Rights

[piezoe]

None of your laws would have prevented Cruz from shooting up the school. Law enforcement, on the other hand, would have prevented it entirely.

The first sentence is prima facie wrong as worded; and it misses the point, which I'll repeat. We can not know the future and certainly anecdote can at best give us only a glimmer of what might be, or indeed, what might have been. But we can rely on probability. The gun control debate should center on probability; not on some non-germane slogan or non-sense about the Second Amendment that the NRA invariably tries to inject. We know why they do it. They do it because they are paid lobbyists for the gun manufacturing industry, and their trite appeal to emotion has succeeded despite its lack of logic. The Parkman kids' arguments are based on probability , whether they realize it or not. Therein lies the strength of their arguments. And they have their sights fixed on the Bullseye! -- those congressmen who have tossed logic out the window to get NRA campaign funds. They will succeed where others have failed.

The second sentence is a statement that is incorrect as written. If it was rephrased to read: "Had the circumstances been different, law enforcement might have prevented the event," then the sentence would be correct. There are no proposals, with any traction, regarding changes in law enforcement that would make your second sentence correct as worded. You can reduce the severity of a mass shooting at a school by having a vigilant, armed, on duty officer on site at every school. But you can not prevent entirely future similar tragedies. Regardless of these simple statements of the obvious, as long as the arguments are phrased in incorrect absolutes, replete with anecdotes, nothing of substance is contributed.

Another point is being missed entirely by the simple minded approach suggested in your second sentence. I'm referring here to schemes such as arming teachers or having an armed guard always on duty. In light of the broader problem, these piecemeal ideas are absurd. Has everyone forgot that schools have no monopoly on mass shootings?

The Parkman kids on the other hand have applied logic and probability to obtain the most practical, effective and broadly applicable answer to the problem. What they want has a real chance of gaining enough political traction to become law. Their proposed remedies will reduce the probability of mass shootings everywhere, not just in schools!

 

[futurecurrents]

I mean, let's say I have five shotguns and 4 rifles at home. How could I defend my house from zombies? There r so many of them that I need to hav a ar15 and a Glock hand gnu.

It's like written in the Bible. "He without assault rifles and handguns cannot enter the kingdom of hevun." "Or defend themselves from zombie invasions"

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

The first sentence is prima facie wrong as worded; and it misses the point, which I'll repeat. We can not know the future and certainly anecdote can at best give us only a glimmer of what might be, or indeed, what might have been. But we can rely on probability. The gun control debate should center on probability; not on some non-germane slogan or non-sense about the Second Amendment that the NRA invariably tries to inject. We know why they do it. They do it because they are paid lobbyists for the gun manufacturing industry, and their trite appeal to emotion has succeeded despite its lack of logic. The Parkman kids' arguments are based on probability , whether they realize it or not. Therein lies the strength of their arguments. And they have their sights fixed on the Bullseye! -- those congressmen who have tossed logic out the window to get NRA campaign funds. They will succeed where others have failed.

The second sentence is a statement that is incorrect as written. If it was rephrased to read: "Had the circumstances been different, law enforcement might have prevented the event," then the sentence would be correct. There are no proposals, with any traction, regarding changes in law enforcement that would make your second sentence correct as worded. You can reduce the severity of a mass shooting at a school by having a vigilant, armed, on duty officer on site at every school. But you can not prevent entirely future similar tragedies. Regardless of these simple statements of the obvious, as long as the arguments are phrased in incorrect absolutes, replete with anecdotes, nothing of substance is contributed.

Another point is being missed entirely by the simple minded approach suggested in your second sentence. I'm referring here to schemes such as arming teachers or having an armed guard always on duty. In light of the broader problem, these piecemeal ideas are absurd. Has everyone forgot that schools have no monopoly on mass shootings?

The Parkman kids on the other hand have applied logic and probability to obtain the most practical, effective and broadly applicable answer to the problem. What they want has a real chance of gaining enough political traction to become law. Their proposed remedies will reduce the probability of mass shootings everywhere, not just in schools!

The practical reality is athough there may be minor changes in gun laws in the near future, until the Democrats regain the three branches of Government, not much will change.

When the Left finally does control the Federal Government and revokes the second amendment, a civil war is possible, if not probable.

Should we have a civil war, some other entity will probably end up calling the shots anyway to the detrement of the American people. Look at how the Soviet Union faired after their collapse.

 

[Tsing Tao]

The first sentence is prima facie wrong as worded; and it misses the point, which I'll repeat. We can not know the future and certainly anecdote can at best give us only a glimmer of what might be, or indeed, what might have been. But we can rely on probability. The gun control debate should center on probability; not on some non-germane slogan or non-sense about the Second Amendment that the NRA invariably tries to inject. We know why they do it. They do it because they are paid lobbyists for the gun manufacturing industry, and their trite appeal to emotion has succeeded despite its lack of logic. The Parkman kids' arguments are based on probability , whether they realize it or not. Therein lies the strength of their arguments. And they have their sights fixed on the Bullseye! -- those congressmen who have tossed logic out the window to get NRA campaign funds. They will succeed where others have failed.

Nonsense. Almost completely. To make the argument (as an example) that "if we disarm all the law abiding citizens and not the criminals, crime will increase" is not certain simply because we cannot know the future is just overly pedantic. We can, and do, know cause and result relationships based on a whole number of factors, including previously similar circumstances here or abroad.

The second sentence is a statement that is incorrect as written. If it was rephrased to read: "Had the circumstances been different, law enforcement might have prevented the event," then the sentence would be correct. There are no proposals, with any traction, regarding changes in law enforcement that would make your second sentence correct as worded. You can reduce the severity of a mass shooting at a school by having a vigilant, armed, on duty officer on site at every school. But you can not prevent entirely future similar tragedies. Regardless of these simple statements of the obvious, as long as the arguments are phrased in incorrect absolutes, replete with anecdotes, nothing of substance is contributed.

If all you have is arguments on semantics, then just bow out and stop wasting both our times. Law enforcement doing their job would have isolated and incarcerated Cruz before it got to this point. No proposals changing law enforcement are needed. They just needed to do what they were supposed to.

Another point is being missed entirely by the simple minded approach suggested in your second sentence. I'm referring here to schemes such as arming teachers or having an armed guard always on duty. In light of the broader problem, these piecemeal ideas are absurd. Has everyone forgot that schools have no monopoly on mass shootings?

No, but students seem to have monopolies on the protest movement. No matter what you legislate, you will never, ever rid us of all mass killing events. Ever. And the fact that you, a self proclaimed libertarian wants to remove freedoms and have government institute tighter controls, is just laughable.

The Parkman kids on the other hand have applied logic and probability to obtain the most practical, effective and broadly applicable answer to the problem. What they want has a real chance of gaining enough political traction to become law. Their proposed remedies will reduce the probability of mass shootings everywhere, not just in schools!

No, they won't. Not by any significant or measurable amount. Not in the real world.

 

[Tsing Tao]

When the Left finally does control the Federal Government and revokes the second amendment, a civil war is possible, if not probable.

This will never happen. First, an amendment cannot be revoked. It must be replaced by another amendment, via this process:

To begin, a proposed amendment must be voted approved by a 2/3 majority of both legislative bodies of the US Congress. The Proposed Amendment must then be sent to every individual State's legislature for consideration. Each state follows its own parliamentary process to arrive at a yea or nay on the Proposed Amendment. For the Proposed Amendment to become a Constitutional Amendment, 3/4 of the individual American States must vote a final yea. With the current body of States numbering 50, the required number of State ratification to adopt the new amendment is 38. Upon the confirmation of the 38th yea, the Amendment becomes part of the Constitution, amending, or changing, whatever the subject of the amendment covers--whether it be a new cause, or eliminating an old Amendment.
​

This is an impossibility. Not a statistical one, but as close as you can get.

 

[Poindexter]

Whats wrong with banning sale of assault riffles and bump stock modification?

You don't even know what assault rifles are, yet you call for their ban. Assault rifles (like M16s) have selective fire and don't need bump stocks -- which cause jams in AR-15s and reduce their accuracy considerably. Also, you keep writing "riffle." Are you intoxicated or just that ignorant?

I am only interested in arguing facts not opinion.

Arguing opinions, which you passive-aggressively call "facts," is ALL you do.

Also its a fact the Parkman kids...

Parkland, NOT "Parkman." If you want to debate something, get a clue first.

In a democracy the majority isn't always right, but it should always be in charge

We're not a democracy. Are you really an American or just another non-citizen pretending to be one?

The gun control debate should center on probability; not on some non-germane slogan or non-sense about the Second Amendment that the NRA invariably tries to inject.

The Second Amendment is the furthest thing from "non-sense" you ignoramus, it's a Constitutional RIGHT and it trumps your feelings and those of the brainwashed useful idiots who think their stupid marches are more important.

 

[RedDuke]

This will never happen. First, an amendment cannot be revoked. It must be replaced by another amendment, via this process:

To begin, a proposed amendment must be voted approved by a 2/3 majority of both legislative bodies of the US Congress. The Proposed Amendment must then be sent to every individual State's legislature for consideration. Each state follows its own parliamentary process to arrive at a yea or nay on the Proposed Amendment. For the Proposed Amendment to become a Constitutional Amendment, 3/4 of the individual American States must vote a final yea. With the current body of States numbering 50, the required number of State ratification to adopt the new amendment is 38. Upon the confirmation of the 38th yea, the Amendment becomes part of the Constitution, amending, or changing, whatever the subject of the amendment covers--whether it be a new cause, or eliminating an old Amendment.
​

This is an impossibility. Not a statistical one, but as close as you can get.

Correct, but if let's say 28th amendment is passed that prohibits owning guns, would all those law abiding citizens surrender their guns??? It did happen in Australia as we discussed. If we are a nation of laws, who cherish constitution, then there should be no civil war and we should peacefully disarm.

Aren't we?

 

[Poindexter]

Correct, but if let's say 28th amendment is passed that prohibits owning guns, would all those law abiding citizens surrender their guns??? It did happen in Australia as we discussed. If we are a nation of laws, who cherish constitution, then there should be no civil war and we should peacefully disarm.

Aren't we?

We're not Australia and never will be.

Australia’s Gun Laws Are Not a Model for America
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/opinion/australias-gun-laws-america.html

 

[snowman80]

people in america are scared in their own homes. owning a gun makes them feel more secure. the more guns they buy, the more guns end up ‘on the streets’. the more guns end up ‘on the streets’ the more frightened they become.

who benefits from this dynamic?

someone important once said:

‘If you want to control someone, all you have to do is to make them feel afraid.’

 

[piezoe]

The practical reality is athough there may be minor changes in gun laws in the near future, until the Democrats regain the three branches of Government, not much will change.

When the Left finally does control the Federal Government and revokes the second amendment, a civil war is possible, if not probable.

Should we have a civil war, some other entity will probably end up calling the shots anyway to the detrement of the American people. Look at how the Soviet Union faired after their collapse.

There won't be any revoking of the second amendment. Not in any of our lifetimes. You need not worry about that. What people want now is uniform law; not piecemeal. That is reality and that's coming. We will get universal and uniform background checks. (90% favor it in FOX poll!!!) Probably age to purchase set at 21, and for sure Bump stocks illegal, and there is a strong possibility that sale of Assault style weapons will halt and magazine size on semi-automatics will be limited. That's all close at least to a fait accompli. And all very sensible and well supported by public opinion.