Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Sevvania]

Nuclear weapons averted nuclear war.

That doesn't make sense.

Well it does, in a way, because it's the premise behind the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction.

But nuclear war is neither here nor there when it comes to the Second Amendment.

[Sambka]

Hell to the no we should not repeal the Second Ammendment what we should do is tighten regulations on who is allowed to own a firearm and who isnt!!!

[Gun Manufacturers]

Well, the Supreme Court is 4 biased liberals and 5 biased conservatives. Guess who decided that gun rights apply to all citizens. While I recognize a liberal majority would have completely annihilated the amendment, that doesn't make dinosaur logic acceptable.
I know the Court's decision. They are wrong. The Republican majority decided to fail their duty as justices to interpret the Constitution without bias, and rather help out their pals in Congress.
The Court's purpose has been abandoned.

I'd tend to trust Supreme Court justices opinion over a random stranger on the internet (such as yourself). I may not always agree with the decision (like the ACA "tax" ruling), but their opinion holds more weight than mine.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Really Roski, Besko? You haven't done anything to straw man me? Because it looks more like every other post against me is a straw man or ad hominem.

It would be nice if you would stop flinging around words you are learning as part of the AP Lang curriculum when you clearly do not have a full grasp of what they consist of.

[Kernen]

Really Roski, Besko? You haven't done anything to straw man me? Because it looks more like every other post against me is a straw man or ad hominem.

They mostly just showed how your disagreement with the SCOTUS was juvenile and your conflation of private ownership to nuclear proliferation is wrong.

I own several firearms, most of them military pattern semi-automatics. I'm not a menace to society. Not since I was in high school...

[Gun Manufacturers]

Like hell nuclear warheads preserved peace! Their proliferation nearly ended the human race before you were even born. Don't give that kind of shit. You may think gun control advocates are fools, but remember that they are the ones learning at the top schools while Farmer Joe (by no fault of his own) can't send his kids to high school.

Why wouldn't ANYONE be able to send their children to high school? Public school is paid for by taxes, so it's not a matter of being poor.

Also, there's videos online of gun control advocates saying some pretty stupid things regarding firearms. Ghost guns, the shoulder thing that goes up, magazines being ammunition, etc.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Really Roski, Besko? You haven't done anything to straw man me? Because it looks more like every other post against me is a straw man or ad hominem.

They mostly just showed how your disagreement with the SCOTUS was juvenile and your conflation of private ownership to nuclear proliferation is wrong.

I own several firearms, most of them military pattern semi-automatics. I'm not a menace to society. Not since I was in high school...

Eh we all were in high school, or are, in my case I suppose. At least for another few months

[Grinning Dragon]

Like hell nuclear warheads preserved peace! Their proliferation nearly ended the human race before you were even born. Don't give that kind of shit. You may think gun control advocates are fools, but remember that they are the ones learning at the top schools while Farmer Joe (by no fault of his own) can't send his kids to high school.

Why wouldn't ANYONE be able to send their children to high school? Public school is paid for by taxes, so it's not a matter of being poor.

Also, there's videos online of gun control advocates saying some pretty stupid things regarding firearms. Ghost guns, the shoulder thing that goes up, magazines being ammunition, etc.

Not to mention the violent tone many anti gun advocates seem to espouse toward those who own and operate weapons.

[Ziegenhain]

Like hell nuclear warheads preserved peace! Their proliferation nearly ended the human race before you were even born. Don't give that kind of shit. You may think gun control advocates are fools, but remember that they are the ones learning at the top schools while Farmer Joe (by no fault of his own) can't send his kids to high school.

Why wouldn't ANYONE be able to send their children to high school? Public school is paid for by taxes, so it's not a matter of being poor.

Also, there's videos online of gun control advocates saying some pretty stupid things regarding firearms. Ghost guns, the shoulder thing that goes up, magazines being ammunition, etc.

Because banning the tool makes sense, not actually targeting the problems in our society that drives people to do such heinous crimes.

If we're going to ban the tools we may as well ban people to be honest.

And everyone was a menace to society in high school. And what the hell does a gun control advocate being educated at a "higher school" even matter?

[Wallenburg]

Listen to Sambka. You won't even consider my argument. I tried reasoning with you, but illogical attacks have caused this thread to devolve into name-calling on both sides. Why don't we all calm down and think of compromise. Both sides know they won't get exactly what they want. We're just pissing each other off. Try to maintain civility. From now on, I will ignore all previous posts regardless of how insulting they are.
I hope not only I but my allies AND my enemies will think before posting.
And while you may further insult me for this last tidbit, I pride myself knowing that, despite my apparent record of ranting and logical fallacy, I had the stronger capacity to rise above the brutish, primal infighting and hope for a return to real debate.
We can all think before we type. Either that or the aspirin is finally kicking in.

[Scomagia]

And what was your image of the gun control advocate?
Oh yeah, a shaggy guy in baggy, multicolored clothes, smoking pot, and carrying a peace sign.
Yeah, you're really hitting the mark on accurate depiction of your opponent.

This is typical of people who refuse logic. Demand the opponent respects their image entirely, down to the minutiae, and then set up a straw man against those same opponents.

The only person making generalizations thus far has been you, broheim.

I'm shaggy guy wearing baggy, multicolored clothes, and generally being a peace advocate. I also support gun rights. Now, why would I stereotype people I disagree with as being....myself?

[Scomagia]

Listen to Sambka. You won't even consider my argument. I tried reasoning with you, but illogical attacks have caused this thread to devolve into name-calling on both sides. Why don't we all calm down and think of compromise. Both sides know they won't get exactly what they want. We're just pissing each other off. Try to maintain civility. From now on, I will ignore all previous posts regardless of how insulting they are.
I hope not only I but my allies AND my enemies will think before posting.
And while you may further insult me for this last tidbit, I pride myself knowing that, despite my apparent record of ranting and logical fallacy, I had the stronger capacity to rise above the brutish, primal infighting and hope for a return to real debate.
We can all think before we type. Either that or the aspirin is finally kicking in.

The only person I can think of in this thread that has acted illogically and been genuinely uncivil is you. Were you ever of the mind to participate in a real debate, you've yet to demonstrate it.

[Galloism]

Listen to Sambka. You won't even consider my argument.

When you make one, I will be more than happy to consider it.

However, it needs to be clear, concise, utilizing sufficiently coherent grammar so as to be understandable to the average person, and, perhaps most importantly, contain sufficiently coherent logical steps so as to constitute an actual argument that can be examined, dissected, questioned, and either be accepted, or rebutted.

Otherwise, it's hard to "consider" it, and perhaps just as difficult to appropriately label it as an "argument".

[Scomagia]

Listen to Sambka. You won't even consider my argument.

When you make one, I will be more than happy to consider it.

However, it needs to be clear, concise, utilizing sufficiently coherent grammar so as to be understandable to the average person, and, perhaps most importantly, contain sufficiently coherent logical steps so as to constitute an actual argument that can be examined, dissected, questioned, and either be accepted, or rebutted.

Otherwise, it's hard to "consider" it, and perhaps just as difficult to appropriately label it as an "argument".

Don't forget actually replying to rebuttals. It's pretty important and he hasn't been doing so thus far, just moving from one inane post to another.

[Galloism]

When you make one, I will be more than happy to consider it.

However, it needs to be clear, concise, utilizing sufficiently coherent grammar so as to be understandable to the average person, and, perhaps most importantly, contain sufficiently coherent logical steps so as to constitute an actual argument that can be examined, dissected, questioned, and either be accepted, or rebutted.

Otherwise, it's hard to "consider" it, and perhaps just as difficult to appropriately label it as an "argument".

Don't forget actually replying to rebuttals. It's pretty important and he hasn't been doing so thus far, just moving from one inane post to another.

Well, but that's past "consider[ing] an argument" and more "having an argument/discussion".

Baby steps.

[Olthar]

Revise it.

[Wallenburg]

I'm disappointed you prefer hostility and self contradiction to logic.
In your argument, you overgeneralized by claiming I am the only one here making generalizations. Clearly after over 600 posts, someone else has done the same. You and I are both guilty. Who has done this more, I am unsure. But it is indefensible that I am the only one to overgeneralize on this thread.
Also, I cannot believe that someone would just happen to match a detailed stereotype of their opponent made in the same discussion they are taking part in, AND say nothing against it when it associates their image with a rival ideology. You may be telling the truth, but the probability is astronomical.
Press Reply to try again.

[Scomagia]

I'm disappointed you prefer hostility and self contradiction to logic.
In your argument, you overgeneralized by claiming I am the only one here making generalizations. Clearly after over 600 posts, someone else has done the same. You and I are both guilty. Who has done this more, I am unsure. But it is indefensible that I am the only one to overgeneralize on this thread.
Also, I cannot believe that someone would just happen to match a detailed stereotype of their opponent made in the same discussion they are taking part in, AND say nothing against it when it associates their image with a rival ideology. You may be telling the truth, but the probability is astronomical.
Press Reply to try again.

I have not once generalized in this thread. Not. Once.

The same cannot be said for you.

Also, the fact that I'm a gun rights advocate who also fits one of the stereotypes of gun rights opponents isn't odd at all. Stereotypes aren't based in reality, after all.

[Sevvania]

Press Reply to try again.

Please rise above the brutishly primal infighting so that we may return to the debate of whether or not the Second Amendment should be repealed. I don't think it should be, because violent crime, including gun crime, has been on the decline for decades, even after the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. "Assault weapons" are the least likely to be used in a gun crim, and gun control efforts such as those implemented in Australia have been proven to have had little or no effect on crime by multiple studies.

[Wallenburg]

Also, consider this: I am the only person who has dared to stand constantly against the stream of guns rights advocates. I am being expected to answer every counterargument when my opponents outnumber me enormously. On top of that, I am typing on a slow-ass phone that can't handle half of NationStates's features. I find it difficult to argue on one of the most controversial debates in the country under these conditions. Still I press on. Give me some slack for cutting my explanations down to save time. Don't expect me to be perfect, especially when your arguments are just about as watertight as mine. You have the easy part: rerunning the same lines that you have your rights and guns aren't so bad. I have to find strong evidence and then pray you won't just ignore it.

[Scomagia]

Press Reply to try again.

Please rise above the brutishly primal infighting so that we may return to the debate of whether or not the Second Amendment should be repealed. I don't think it should be, because violent crime, including gun crime, has been on the decline for decades, even after the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. "Assault weapons" are the least likely to be used in a gun crim, and gun control efforts such as those implemented in Australia have been proven to have had little or no effect on crime by multiple studies.

I agree with you but, for the sake of completeness, could we see those studies?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Listen to Sambka. You won't even consider my argument. I tried reasoning with you, but illogical attacks have caused this thread to devolve into name-calling on both sides. Why don't we all calm down and think of compromise. Both sides know they won't get exactly what they want. We're just pissing each other off. Try to maintain civility. From now on, I will ignore all previous posts regardless of how insulting they are.
I hope not only I but my allies AND my enemies will think before posting.
And while you may further insult me for this last tidbit, I pride myself knowing that, despite my apparent record of ranting and logical fallacy, I had the stronger capacity to rise above the brutish, primal infighting and hope for a return to real debate.
We can all think before we type. Either that or the aspirin is finally kicking in.

The only person I can think of in this thread that has acted illogically and been genuinely uncivil is you. Were you ever of the mind to participate in a real debate, you've yet to demonstrate it.

Not to mention one of the first replies he made to me was that I need to die for views i have that are completely unrelated to the topic at hand...

[Wallenburg]

I have no hope for reasoning with you, guy with the flag of a prancing sheep or whatevs.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Press Reply to try again.

Please rise above the brutishly primal infighting so that we may return to the debate of whether or not the Second Amendment should be repealed. I don't think it should be, because violent crime, including gun crime, has been on the decline for decades, even after the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. "Assault weapons" are the least likely to be used in a gun crim, and gun control efforts such as those implemented in Australia have been proven to have had little or no effect on crime by multiple studies.

I agree, it should not be repealed. Such a thing is pretty much impossible to get passed anyway. I say stick with the background checks and everything, and I particularily liked one suggestion made where you must take classes of safety and handling with firearms before you own or purchase them, and possibly even have to renew your license similar to a driver's kiscense every few years to make sure you can still be able to posses firearms.

[Wallenburg]

Scomagica, I AM demonstrating a desire to be civil. Unfortunately, the outlook is bleak on you ALLOWING me to demonstrate civility. You are all caught up in a big caricature of me that I am doing everything I can to prove false.