Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Chernoslavia]

so yer talking outta yer arse? ok.

Your free to think so.
Its not like I get any rewards for proving you guys wrong in your beliefs.

Exactly.

[Vyvansia]

The second Amendment. You know, the whole subject of this thread.

That makes it a legal right. What makes it a fundamental right?

As far as the US Constitution is concerned they are inseparable, because the Constitution is said to merely enumerate rights that are already inherent.

[Chernoslavia]

(Image)

Purchasing guns over the Internet should require some form of license or identification. It is needed when buying guns in person.

It already does.

[Caninope]

The second Amendment. You know, the whole subject of this thread.

That makes it a legal right. What makes it a fundamental right?

What makes anything a fundamental right?

[Not Safe For Work]

Neither did I. Do you have a source on these new robo-guns?

Or are you posting pointless nonsense?

A gun not wielded is an empty gun.
and empty gun is no more a threat than furniture.

And?

The post I responded to said "Guns aren't a threat unless wielded by a madman."

...which simply wasn't true. Your weird aside about empty guns obviously being not just irrelevant, but actually wrong as well.

[Not Safe For Work]

Would a criminal or any person who harbors the intent to kill other people for no other reason than to just do it really follow the rules and not break the law? If that were the case then right now there should be no murders/massacres in the world because that's illegal, cartels and drug lords would not exist because their activities are by definition "illegal". In the end any type of restrictions or attempts to repeal the 2nd Amendment would only serve to inhibit the ability for responsible civilians to purchase firearms.

Not true, and already thoroughly debunked throughout the thread.

The problem with the statement that "any type of restrictions or attempts to repeal the 2nd Amendment would only serve to inhibit the ability for responsible civilians to purchase firearms" is that it's obviously false - since so many guns come into the hands of criminals through the hands of (theoretically) 'innocent' people. Either through theft of legally purchased guns, or guns from legitimate sellers.... or through off-the-book sales by sellers, or through 'straw' purchases' - it's obvious that restricting the 2nd amendment certainly CAN serve more purpose than just to "inhibit the ability for responsible civilians to purchase firearms".

There's really no argument that restricting access serves NO purpose other than limiting legitimate ownership.

[Not Safe For Work]

Ummm....all rights are granted by the government or society. There is NO inherent right to anything.

A right cannot be granted. It doesn't work, the two concepts are contradictory. A right is not optional. It either IS, or IS NOT. I can't have the RIGHT to do THIS HERE, but not THERE. Those are called privileges.

And yet, people insist on calling them 'rights'.

But you've cut right through that charade.

[The UK in Exile]

That makes it a legal right. What makes it a fundamental right?

What makes anything a fundamental right?

nothing. its just a polite way of admitting your not going to be reasonable about the issue.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Your free to think so.
Its not like I get any rewards for proving you guys wrong in your beliefs.

Exactly.

Still having issues with the basic concepts of debating I see. Once more - if you make a claim it is reasonable to ask for a source that backs your claim. If you cannot then your position is untenable.

It really is as simple as that. I cannot reduce this concept any further. If you are unable to comprehend this then really you have no place on a forum that is essentially geared towards debate.

Of course I am quite certain that you two are not interested in debate but rather to drown out any debate by making lots and lots of noise.

[Jassysworth 1]

Jassyworth?

The paranoid if you own a gun you will become a mass murderer poster we've been forced to deal with. I think he's engaging in a little fantasy transference.

The only people who are engaged in fantasy transference are those who believe that guns and people can peacefully co-exist in America. Guns must be eradicated... in order to ensure a future America that is safer, stronger, and sustainable.

[Jassysworth 1]

What makes anything a fundamental right?

nothing. its just a polite way of admitting your not going to be reasonable about the issue.

There are no fundamental rights... and ownership of a gun is definitely a privilege... not a natural right. And furthermore... its a very dangerous priviledge that needed to be eradicated from US society eons ago.

No more guns = no more school shootings

[Jassysworth 1]

California has some the strictest gun laws in America. They ban magazine capacities over 10 rounds, flash hiders, bayonets, folding stocks, pistol grips and thumb hole stocks on rifles and shotguns, barrel shrouds, .50 caliber rifles, pistols with magazines outside of the grip, magazine fed shotguns, and some guns by name. They do not issue concealed carry licenses in urban areas. They have a waiting period from purchase to pick up. Even with all these laws the violent crime rate remains high.

These laws are not enough. You need to ban all guns, put out large numbers of new officers with special training, and introduce harsh sentencing for anyone who has ANYTHING to do with guns (I suggest death penalty or decades long imprisonment with no parole). Put out informants and give people cash rewards for reporting anyone who violates the ban.

When THAT fails after a few decades of implementation, then you can convince me you can't ban guns.

It's like saying you can't cook a turkey with a candle... so there's no way you can ever cook a turkey no matter what (let's ignore the fact that something stronger should have been used... like an oven at high temperature?).

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

California has some the strictest gun laws in America. They ban magazine capacities over 10 rounds, flash hiders, bayonets, folding stocks, pistol grips and thumb hole stocks on rifles and shotguns, barrel shrouds, .50 caliber rifles, pistols with magazines outside of the grip, magazine fed shotguns, and some guns by name. They do not issue concealed carry licenses in urban areas. They have a waiting period from purchase to pick up. Even with all these laws the violent crime rate remains high.

These laws are not enough. You need to ban all guns, put out large numbers of new officers with special training, and introduce harsh sentencing for anyone who has ANYTHING to do with guns (I suggest death penalty or decades long imprisonment with no parole). Put out informants and give people cash rewards for reporting anyone who violates the ban.

When THAT fails after a few decades of implementation, then you can convince me you can't ban guns.

It's like saying you can't cook a turkey with a candle... so there's no way you can ever cook a turkey no matter what (let's ignore the fact that something stronger should have been used... like an oven at high temperature?).

Death penalty?

Making puerile comments like that do not in any way help build a consensus to address this issue in a rational manner. Your comments are as bad as those of any rabid gun nut. Just not needed.

Your analogy needs some work as well.

[Jassysworth 1]

These laws are not enough. You need to ban all guns, put out large numbers of new officers with special training, and introduce harsh sentencing for anyone who has ANYTHING to do with guns (I suggest death penalty or decades long imprisonment with no parole). Put out informants and give people cash rewards for reporting anyone who violates the ban.

When THAT fails after a few decades of implementation, then you can convince me you can't ban guns.

It's like saying you can't cook a turkey with a candle... so there's no way you can ever cook a turkey no matter what (let's ignore the fact that something stronger should have been used... like an oven at high temperature?).

Death penalty?

Making puerile comments like that do not in any way help build a consensus to address this issue in a rational manner. Your comments are as bad as those of any rabid gun nut. Just not needed.

Your analogy needs some work as well.

My analogy is just fine. Read carefully.

Why do you have a problem with the death penalty? It's a politically and pragmatically viable option. There's a reason why several US states still have it... and why it's working so well in places like China and Singapore.

You're the only one who's not contributing to any consensus... trying to shoot down someone else's point of view without addressing their points? Good luck with that.

I am here to have an intelligent discussion, not to be called names. Hey Rubiconic what-s-your-name... name-calling should have been left behind in the school yard.

[Jassysworth 1]

Exactly.

Still having issues with the basic concepts of debating I see. Once more - if you make a claim it is reasonable to ask for a source that backs your claim. If you cannot then your position is untenable.

It really is as simple as that. I cannot reduce this concept any further. If you are unable to comprehend this then really you have no place on a forum that is essentially geared towards debate.

Of course I am quite certain that you two are not interested in debate but rather to drown out any debate by making lots and lots of noise.

Seems like someone thinks he can set the rules for how discussion/debate is conducted in this forum eh?

Hey Ruby-what's-your-name... if you can't respect other people's opinions and different points of view... you should be the one packing your bags and beating it.

With that said... please let the two of them work out their own disagreement.

Now... back to the topic.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Death penalty?

Making puerile comments like that do not in any way help build a consensus to address this issue in a rational manner. Your comments are as bad as those of any rabid gun nut. Just not needed.

Your analogy needs some work as well.

My analogy is just fine. Read carefully.

Why do you have a problem with the death penalty? It's a politically and pragmatically viable option. There's a reason why several US states still have it... and why it's working so well in places like China and Singapore.

You're the only one who's not contributing to any consensus... trying to shoot down someone else's point of view without addressing their points? Good luck with that.

I am here to have an intelligent discussion, not to be called names. Hey Rubiconic what-s-your-name... name-calling should have been left behind in the school yard.

I oppose the use of state sanctioned executions for a number of reasons, a major one being that if there is a mistake and an innocent person is killed there is no way to rectify that mistake. It is not a politically nor a pragmatically viable option because you are playing into the hands of the more extremist 'out of my cold dead hands' groups. This means that you are justifying their fears making it even more difficult to actually achieve a change without bloodshed. You have demonstrated that you are happy to commit bloodshed so that makes your view as extreme as the rabid gun nuts.

If it works so well in Singapore and China why do they still have executions?

Actually my position has been quite consistent throughout this and the other gun threads. I have built consensus with people who believe that they have the right to bear arms. You have done nothing but parrot the extremist gun nuts but in a manner that is diametrically opposed to them. This makes it very unlikely anyone with a reasonable mind will take you seriously. Your points are so ludicrous that they really do not deserve a response but I am going to humour you for the time being.

Name calling? Where? I am quite certain I have not committed an ad hom. You do know what that is right?

If you are going to use my handle I suggest you familiarise yourself with the ctrl c and v keys on your keyboard.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Still having issues with the basic concepts of debating I see. Once more - if you make a claim it is reasonable to ask for a source that backs your claim. If you cannot then your position is untenable.

It really is as simple as that. I cannot reduce this concept any further. If you are unable to comprehend this then really you have no place on a forum that is essentially geared towards debate.

Of course I am quite certain that you two are not interested in debate but rather to drown out any debate by making lots and lots of noise.

Seems like someone thinks he can set the rules for how discussion/debate is conducted in this forum eh?

Hey Ruby-what's-your-name... if you can't respect other people's opinions and different points of view... you should be the one packing your bags and beating it.

With that said... please let the two of them work out their own disagreement.

Now... back to the topic.

It is a convention within debating on this site that requests for sources are a given. If you make a claim and cannot back it up with a source your point moot or invalid. It really is as simple as that. I am not setting the rules. I am educating you on how to conduct yourself on NSG if you want to be taken seriously.

Taking a passive-aggressive stance as you have is also not doing you any favours.

[Shady Deals]

Given that this thread has literally reached over 5,000 posts, I suggest we discontinue the discussion. It has become painfully obvious neither side is going to budge. What's worse is that users are willing resort to completely off-the-wall logic in attempts to build credible support for their side.

[Jassysworth 1]

My analogy is just fine. Read carefully.

Why do you have a problem with the death penalty? It's a politically and pragmatically viable option. There's a reason why several US states still have it... and why it's working so well in places like China and Singapore.

You're the only one who's not contributing to any consensus... trying to shoot down someone else's point of view without addressing their points? Good luck with that.

I am here to have an intelligent discussion, not to be called names. Hey Rubiconic what-s-your-name... name-calling should have been left behind in the school yard.

I oppose the use of state sanctioned executions for a number of reasons, a major one being that if there is a mistake and an innocent person is killed there is no way to rectify that mistake. It is not a politically nor a pragmatically viable option because you are playing into the hands of the more extremist 'out of my cold dead hands' groups. This means that you are justifying their fears making it even more difficult to actually achieve a change without bloodshed. You have demonstrated that you are happy to commit bloodshed so that makes your view as extreme as the rabid gun nuts.

If it works so well in Singapore and China why do they still have executions?

Actually my position has been quite consistent throughout this and the other gun threads. I have built consensus with people who believe that they have the right to bear arms. You have done nothing but parrot the extremist gun nuts but in a manner that is diametrically opposed to them. This makes it very unlikely anyone with a reasonable mind will take you seriously. Your points are so ludicrous that they really do not deserve a response but I am going to humour you for the time being.

Name calling? Where? I am quite certain I have not committed an ad hom. You do know what that is right?

If you are going to use my handle I suggest you familiarise yourself with the ctrl c and v keys on your keyboard.

Why do they still have executions? Still having on-going executions is not evidence that it doesn't work.

The same reason we still have imprisonments. The fact that we still have imprisonments in the States isn't evidence that imprisonment is not working or is unecessary. Same goes with executions in Singapore. By the way, Singapore has some of the lowest crime rates in the world (and this is especially true with regards to drugs and guns... both of which are punishable by death).

I am not ''playing into the hands of the extremists'' whatever that means. And calling someone's position ''extreme'' does nothing to bolster your own position... it is an example of name calling and rhetorical brandishing.

The best way to stop someone from doing something is to threaten them with their own lives (execution)... it's not hard to understand that. Unless they are doing something really desperate or impulse-driven, you can deter almost anyone from doing anything simply having a strong police force that ensures executions.

Would you be replying to my message right now if you knew you would be executed for it?

Point proven. That's how we can put an end to all these guns floating around in America...

[Roan Cara]

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I oppose the use of state sanctioned executions for a number of reasons, a major one being that if there is a mistake and an innocent person is killed there is no way to rectify that mistake. It is not a politically nor a pragmatically viable option because you are playing into the hands of the more extremist 'out of my cold dead hands' groups. This means that you are justifying their fears making it even more difficult to actually achieve a change without bloodshed. You have demonstrated that you are happy to commit bloodshed so that makes your view as extreme as the rabid gun nuts.

If it works so well in Singapore and China why do they still have executions?

Actually my position has been quite consistent throughout this and the other gun threads. I have built consensus with people who believe that they have the right to bear arms. You have done nothing but parrot the extremist gun nuts but in a manner that is diametrically opposed to them. This makes it very unlikely anyone with a reasonable mind will take you seriously. Your points are so ludicrous that they really do not deserve a response but I am going to humour you for the time being.

Name calling? Where? I am quite certain I have not committed an ad hom. You do know what that is right?

If you are going to use my handle I suggest you familiarise yourself with the ctrl c and v keys on your keyboard.

Why do they still have executions? Still having on-going executions is not evidence that it doesn't work.

The same reason we still have imprisonments. The fact that we still have imprisonments in the States isn't evidence that imprisonment is not working or is unecessary. Same goes with executions in Singapore. By the way, Singapore has some of the lowest crime rates in the world (and this is especially true with regards to drugs and guns... both of which are punishable by death).

I am not ''playing into the hands of the extremists'' whatever that means. And calling someone's position ''extreme'' does nothing to bolster your own position... it is an example of name calling and rhetorical brandishing.

The best way to stop someone from doing something is to threaten them with their own lives (execution)... it's not hard to understand that. Unless they are doing something really desperate or impulse-driven, you can deter almost anyone from doing anything simply having a strong police force that ensures executions.

Would you be replying to my message right now if you knew you would be executed for it?

Point proven. That's how we can put an end to all these guns floating around in America...

Your point utterly fails. Much like your argument. You even contradict yourself when on the one hand you say executions work as a deterrent and then you say it doesn't hence the need for more executions.

Regarding your questionable comments regarding extremism...utterly facile. I suppose you would say that people with extreme views like Hitler, Stalin, Churchill et al are actually cute cuddly little bunny wabbits.

[Jassysworth 1]

(Image)

No.

But I can tell you how to stop them from breaking it...

[Jassysworth 1]

Why do they still have executions? Still having on-going executions is not evidence that it doesn't work.

The same reason we still have imprisonments. The fact that we still have imprisonments in the States isn't evidence that imprisonment is not working or is unecessary. Same goes with executions in Singapore. By the way, Singapore has some of the lowest crime rates in the world (and this is especially true with regards to drugs and guns... both of which are punishable by death).

I am not ''playing into the hands of the extremists'' whatever that means. And calling someone's position ''extreme'' does nothing to bolster your own position... it is an example of name calling and rhetorical brandishing.

The best way to stop someone from doing something is to threaten them with their own lives (execution)... it's not hard to understand that. Unless they are doing something really desperate or impulse-driven, you can deter almost anyone from doing anything simply having a strong police force that ensures executions.

Would you be replying to my message right now if you knew you would be executed for it?

Point proven. That's how we can put an end to all these guns floating around in America...

Your point utterly fails. Much like your argument. You even contradict yourself when on the one hand you say executions work as a deterrent and then you say it doesn't hence the need for more executions.

Regarding your questionable comments regarding extremism...utterly facile. I suppose you would say that people with extreme views like Hitler, Stalin, Churchill et al are actually cute cuddly little bunny wabbits.

I really don't see how anything I have just said fails.

Executions in Singapore have deterred drugs and guns. The fact that they continue to do executions is to make sure that the deterrence CONTINUES... not evidence that it doesn't deter. Do you even understand the concept of deterence?

If you take a golden shovel and using it to dig brings you a TON of diamonds magically... would you STOP digging after or would you KEEP digging? Same reason why they keep executing in Singapore; it's working, so why stop?

As for the part about how you think I think Hitler, Stalin etc are ''bunny wabbits''... it's funny but it really shows how you like to jump from place to place in your assumption-making and how poor your logic generally is.

If you read what I said above you will find nothing that suggests I think ANYTHING about Hitler or Stalin or anyone else. So how do you know what I think about any of them?

What I did say was that it was not productive to call people extremists when you are trying to engaging in a debate... it's rhetorical brandishing and accomplishes nothing. Learn to deal with people who disagree with you...

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Your point utterly fails. Much like your argument. You even contradict yourself when on the one hand you say executions work as a deterrent and then you say it doesn't hence the need for more executions.

Regarding your questionable comments regarding extremism...utterly facile. I suppose you would say that people with extreme views like Hitler, Stalin, Churchill et al are actually cute cuddly little bunny wabbits.

I really don't see how anything I have just said fails.

Executions in Singapore have deterred drugs and guns. The fact that they continue to do executions is to make sure that the deterrence CONTINUES... not evidence that it doesn't deter. Do you even understand the concept of deterence?

If you take a golden shovel and using it to dig brings you a TON of diamonds magically... would you STOP digging after or would you KEEP digging? Same reason why they keep executing in Singapore; it's working, so why stop?

As for the part about how you think I think Hitler, Stalin etc are ''bunny wabbits''... it's funny but it really shows how you like to jump from place to place in your assumption-making and how poor your logic generally is.

If you read what I said above you will find nothing that suggests I think ANYTHING about Hitler or Stalin or anyone else. So how do you know what I think about any of them?

What I did say was that it was not productive to call people extremists when you are trying to engaging in a debate... it's rhetorical brandishing and accomplishes nothing. Learn to deal with people who disagree with you...

This is even more illogical than you previous post.

Given that executions are continuing it is clear that deterrence is not effective. You can argue the toss until you are blue in the face but it will not alter this fact.

That is the end of it for time being as far as I'm concerned because you clearly have no clue and I can't be arsed to argue with you. I'm not interested in talking to people who just want a circle jerk.

[Jassysworth 1]

I really don't see how anything I have just said fails.

Executions in Singapore have deterred drugs and guns. The fact that they continue to do executions is to make sure that the deterrence CONTINUES... not evidence that it doesn't deter. Do you even understand the concept of deterence?

If you take a golden shovel and using it to dig brings you a TON of diamonds magically... would you STOP digging after or would you KEEP digging? Same reason why they keep executing in Singapore; it's working, so why stop?

As for the part about how you think I think Hitler, Stalin etc are ''bunny wabbits''... it's funny but it really shows how you like to jump from place to place in your assumption-making and how poor your logic generally is.

If you read what I said above you will find nothing that suggests I think ANYTHING about Hitler or Stalin or anyone else. So how do you know what I think about any of them?

What I did say was that it was not productive to call people extremists when you are trying to engaging in a debate... it's rhetorical brandishing and accomplishes nothing. Learn to deal with people who disagree with you...

This is even more illogical than you previous post.

Given that executions are continuing it is clear that deterrence is not effective. You can argue the toss until you are blue in the face but it will not alter this fact.

That is the end of it for time being as far as I'm concerned because you clearly have no clue and I can't be arsed to argue with you. I'm not interested in talking to people who just want a circle jerk.

Thank you for losing your temper and proving to this ENTIRE forum how you are a name caller! I applaud you sir!

You simply can't stand the idea that execution MIGHT just be working in Singapore because you've been brainwashed since birth to believe in boring, liberal, politically-correct fluff like how executing someone is never justified and anyone who believes in the death penalty is automatically an extremist.

Executions in Singapore have almost completely saved the country from gun smuggling, gun crimes, drug smuggling, and drug consumption... these are FACTS and hard proof that executions CAN work as deterrent.

The fact that executions CONTINUE in Singapore is proof of how effective this measure has been and how it would be crazy to throw it out now that it has been proven to work.

And that's exactly why banning guns in America and then backing it with a full on death penalty is NOT a crazy idea with no basis and no chance of success. Extremist? Maybe... but thousands of years ago democracy was an extremist idea too.

I would also like to revisit this point...

The best way to stop someone from doing something is to threaten them with their own lives (execution)... it's not hard to understand that. Unless they are doing something really desperate or impulse-driven, you can deter almost anyone from doing anything simply having a strong police force that ensures executions.

Would you be replying to my message right now if you knew you would be executed for it?

Point proven. That's how we can put an end to all these guns floating around in America...

Can't swallow that? I think some water could help... Oh and don't let the door hit you on the way out.