Topic: In the gun debate who do you think is the most stupid? - page 9. (Read 15507 times)

I think there's no point in pointing fingers and telling who's most stupid in the gun control debate in the us.

I think looking at the core of the issue would give better results, mainly - who is it that commits this awful crimes ?

I think you will find that more often than not, it's the students that are not socially successful. If all teachers paid attention
to their students, they would be able to spot who's falling outside the social circles and give these students some extra
attention and follow up.

Someone that loves to go to school, have a nice family, do a lot of leisure activities, and in general have a good life, has
no incentive to go around killing anyone, on the contrary if you're getting picked on, live in a sucky home, and life in general
just sucks, the chances for mischief are much bigger.

Also, if we see at the incident where a man put a barn on fire and shot the fireworkers when they came rushing to help, he
apparently killed his mother with a hammer some years ago. People who do things like that, perhaps they should just be kept
away from society for the entire reminder of their lives, at least they should be kept in check and receive treatment.

It seems to be that everybody is treating the symptoms and not the root cause. Of course it could be beneficial to upgrade
physical security in all schools, but this will never happen, it's too costly.

Parents and teachers that do care about students however, that can significantly help in preventing things like this happening.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/guncontrol.htm

1) I do not support the Selective Service, but I understand the need for it.  I am too old to register, and never needed too because I was enlisted at 17.  No, I was not drafted.


You didn't bother to look up the legal meanings of those terms, did you?  Let me help you.  "Well regulated" means well trained or well practiced.  There is no doubt that the framers believed that marksmanship training should begin in early childhood and be performed by the family.  Anyone who tells you differently is uninformed.  The term does not refer to the "regular" army as we understand it today, as even the "regulars" during and after the revolutionary war were local and state militia, trained by whomever was willing and none were 'issued' arms by any government at any level.  A militiaman owns his own weapon.  This remained true up until the civil war.

The term "milita" did have a military context to it, but legally refered to, and still does in most states (including Kentucky and Texas) to any able bodied male citizen of the state between the ages of 16 and 55.  Any of them.  If they didn't own a weapon, or know how to use them, they were simply not "well regulated", it did not mean that they were not part of the militia.

And this is the legal justification of the Selective Service.  Not that the federal government actually has a right to draft citizens into combat against their own will, but that it has the obligation to know who the milita actually consists of.

1. Do you support the Selective Service? Are you of an eligible age for the Selective Service?
2. The government will provide you arms in the event of being drafted. So in such a case, it seems you don't necessarily need any yourself.

Based upon the common understanding of the terms "well regulated" and "militia" as they existed at the time of the 2nd's writing, we are both members of such, whether or not you believe that or not.  That is the legal justification for the Selective Service registration system.

I believe that the right to defend myself and my family is a basic human right, and that the possession of the most effective tools to that end (by my own perspectives) are an extension of that right.  The 2nd does not grant such a right, it only recognizes that one exists.  Therefore, the truth of the statistical risks or advantages of private gun ownership are irrelevant.  Human rights are not dependent upon the practical argument.

http://www.a-human-right.com/

Furthermore, there really is no debate in this country on gun ownership.  If the attempt to repeal the 2nd were ever to gain traction politically, Texas would secede and several plains states would follow.  Texas still has the right of secession written into their state constitution, and is one of the largest economies on Earth independently of the US at large. The US gun culture is very real, and would not settle for public debate as failed to work in Britain and Australia.  The final argument against repeal of the 2nd is a civil war, and we've still got the weapons.  And don't tell me that US citizens wouldn't stand a chance against the US military, for there are more former US trained military in America just on the pro-gun side than there are active military everywhere in the service of the US government; and we know their capabilities and tactics because we taught them.  A modern civil war in the US would be as bloody as if the Taliban in Afganistan had been trained & equipt by the United States Marine Corps.

Depends on how you read the second amendment, I guess. Do you consider yourself a member of a well regulated militia? Switzerland adheres to our second amendment to be honest. We aren't in any way regulated like they are. And where is our militia anyway, let alone a well regulated one? Do you mean our National Guard? Are you a member of the National Guard?  

...whom they control.

I couldn't care less about the stats myself.  The second amendment of the constitution is all I need.    I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals as much as we can, but the right to bear arms is just that - a right.

You make a fair point actually, it's not just political elite though, they're just simply pawning off responsibility to soldiers and police officers, I always wondered why they didn't make any mention of that.

There is no anti-gun position in this debate. Both sides are pro gun the difference being that one side wants the decentralization of gun ownership into the hands of the people and the other side wants the centralization of gun ownership into the hands of a small political elite. Undoubtedly both situations present their own dangers but when put in the proper perspective it becomes clear, at-least to reasonable people, which one of these two situations presents the greater danger.

I thought as someone from the UK I could have a different take on this gun 'debate' which seems to have devolved at least on the official places like mainstream news into nothing more than a shouting and insult match with blatantly flawed statistics being constantly cited and silly hypothetical arguments taking place on both ends. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other people who felt the same way really and the paranoid side of me does make me think this is the most obvious case of political opportunism towards a massacre I have ever seen.

I'm sure the two sides are bound to try swarming this thread but tell me, what do you think of the whole mess? I'm personally looking forward to laughing at their arrogance and stupidity along with Jon Stewart next year especially with the automatic tax rises and spending cuts around the corner.