1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Elementary school shooting

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Sloth, 14 Dec 2012.

  1. longweight

    longweight Possibly Longbeard.

    Joined:
    7 May 2011
    Posts:
    10,517
    Likes Received:
    217
    How do you know that it isn't in the interest of the American population? You seem to think that your opinion is that of the nation and even then what people want isn't necessarily what is in their best interest.
     
  2. patrickk84

    patrickk84 New Member

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    193
    Likes Received:
    5
    I'm going to assume that was sarcasm.

    Because what you describe as the "American citizen" isn't true.
     
  3. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,575
    Likes Received:
    189
    That's a rather empty argument. And although I would be calling the pot black, you can not speak for all the interests of all the American populace. There are interests for a lack of gun control (Private gun manufacturers...) just like there are interests for gun control (perhaps the gov't (probably not given the tax revenue), safety advocacy, etc). To say that any topic has no relevance when clearly there are consequences related to the subject in politics is a misleading statement.

    Just because the interests aren't explicitly stated (like the NRA) does not mean no one is interested. Surely there are people interested in the safety and well being of themselves if not others? Guns and other weapons fall into this category. Self-interest or not, this topic carries a certain amount of interest for many parties not just the government. After all we are discussing it no?
     
  4. StingLikeABee

    StingLikeABee New Member

    Joined:
    17 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    562
    Likes Received:
    23

    I'm not suggesting that every American is like I described. Even I know that would be wrong. I should have worded it better, and meant every American who keeps arms for the reasons mentioned, or is pro gun for the reasons mentioned. Apologies for that.
     
  5. patrickk84

    patrickk84 New Member

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    193
    Likes Received:
    5
    Now that what you meant is clear to me I can agree with you. Cheers.
     
  6. Big_malc

    Big_malc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    7 Sep 2010
    Posts:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    81
    yes its 2 years old but still relevant
     
  7. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,715
    Likes Received:
    55
    I would disagree with that, but even if it was so, the constitution is there to protect individual rights, and one of those is the right to bear arms. People don't have to like it, there are those that don't like the 1st amendment either, because people often times say things that someone either dislike, or find offensive.

    As for government and mainstream media, well, published opinion is not public opinion.

    ....

    Fair enough, I suppose.
    Page 17
    How would you know what's in everyones interest? You seem to think that your opinion is that of everyone.

    Page 17 (same quote)
    Well, who are you to decide what is in the best interest of the people? that of the individual. Or should that read: government?
     
    Last edited: 27 Dec 2012
  8. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,575
    Likes Received:
    189
    I think you're misunderstanding. And perhaps I may be wrong. But the crux of my point lies in the fact that you made a blanket statement regarding the interests of the American people regarding gun control and it was rather untrue.
     
  9. faugusztin

    faugusztin I *am* the guy with two left hands

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    261
    Guess what - if it goes through the necessary steps, repealing and/or replacing the 2nd amendment can be constitutional. If you want an example, then look at 18th (prohibition of alcohol) and 21st (removal of 18th). In same way the 2nd amendment could be repealed and replaced by a new one which is more strict - and it wouldn't be unconstitutional.
     
  10. mucgoo

    mucgoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    9 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    1,602
    Likes Received:
    41
    Or you could just reinterpret the current 2nd placing more emphasis on "well organised militia."
     
  11. DXR_13KE

    DXR_13KE BananaModder

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    9,130
    Likes Received:
    379
    walle

    Can the constitution change?

    What can be defined by an "arm"?

    Does the constitution defend your right to own a anti tank rifle? What about an RPG?
     
  12. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,715
    Likes Received:
    55
    Well actually, the founding fathers didn't want a standing army, they wanted the people to be responsible for the defence of the country, local communities, and so on.
     
  13. DXR_13KE

    DXR_13KE BananaModder

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    9,130
    Likes Received:
    379
    That would be amazing if it was still like that today...
     
  14. mucgoo

    mucgoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    9 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    1,602
    Likes Received:
    41
    Do you believe that it would be acceptable to reinterpret it as guns only being allowed if your an active member of of a "well regulated militia" (or nowadays gun club) with your weapon needing to be stored safely.
     
  15. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,256
    Likes Received:
    1,684
    You are making the assumption that private gun ownership is in the interest of the population and the prohibition against private gun ownership is not. That can be challenged.

    You are making the assumption that there are only three interested parties in this matter: you (such conceit!), the public or government. That, too, can be challenged.

    You are making the assumption that it would be in the government's interest specifically to ban private gun ownership. You therefore must have an opinion why, but suddenly you get bashful when asked for it. So your reasoning is:

    "Well, I cannot see gun control being in the public's interest, so it must be in the government's. Why I dunno, but the very fact that it wants this control means that we should be highly suspicious and deny it."

    Paranoid much? I know that you can do better than that.
     
  16. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,256
    Likes Received:
    1,684
    That made sense when the US was still a colony that had recently achieved independence, and was under possible threat from the British Empire and the South American colonies (not to mention that internal little problem of the natives). Now the US has an army, National Guard, homeland security, NSA, CIA, FBI and local police forces. Not needing to rely on some farmers with muskets anymore.

    Seriously, if you need a gun to keep your government in line, you need to seriously reflect on your voting behaviour over the last few elections. People get the government they deserve. And the society. I for one am happy to live in one where gun ownership is not yet the norm.
     
  17. steveo_mcg

    steveo_mcg New Member

    Joined:
    26 May 2005
    Posts:
    5,841
    Likes Received:
    80

    I'm inclined to go with Eddie_dane on this one...
     
  18. Carrie

    Carrie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    3,183
    Likes Received:
    992
    No, no, no, no, no, Nexxo. You're crediting Walle with too much public patriotism. It should have just said:

    "Well, gun control is not in my interest, so it must be in the government's. After all, I have to blame someone other than me :D"
     
  19. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,575
    Likes Received:
    189
    I know it's cherry picking, but in the same vein, I don't think that's necessarily true. Elections in the US are massively ambiguous and the real power still lies within super PACs (political action comittees) and those with money.

    I am also aware that this is a tangent, but indirectly, any steps towards any sort of reform would take not only a upheaval (or at least paradigm shift) in the thought processes of the Representatives (which btw, representation is not as prevalent or well done in the US) but also a massive voter movement.

    Given that the United States is a big lumbering conglomeration of States which comprise of people and organizations, to say that the people deserve the government they get is akin to placing the blame on just the government. Both have to have a modicum of transparency and ease of understanding for a society to ever reach a proper consensus (if of course, Democracy is believed to be a good way of running things, oligarchy still seems to be the way though).

    If I was to relate this to the topic. No meaningful action would occur on a large scale unless everyone took the time to understand the reasoning behind the events that have transpired. We could have gun control within reason. But we could also (thanks to our rather fast paced and more often than not, ignorant constituency) go way out of hand and end up with another prohibition (except with knives I suppose...) like disaster.
     
  20. lm_wfc

    lm_wfc Member

    Joined:
    18 Feb 2011
    Posts:
    481
    Likes Received:
    13
    Wheras in your "land of the free", you can't bet on sports in most states, or drink a pint with a meal at 20 years old. At 18 years old in most civilised countries you are deemed responsible enough to make you own mistakes, and can bet on sport or what colour the queens hat will be on christmas day.
     

Share This Page