Study shows gun control would prevent mass shootings

[Cthulu]

Also, in general, people are really ignorant about what the Snowden files showed.

I've read most of them. Have you?

 

[Shugo]

I don't have much of an opinion on tax stamps and similar things because I haven't looked into the subject.

You really, really need to learn the actual regulations and gun control in place before you start arguing for more, talking about background checks, or anything.

And I'm confident in saying that because of groups like the ACLU.

The ACLU actively denies that the 2nd amendment is a right for the people. They for the most part refuse to take cases involving gun regulation.

 

[The Master Debater]

I guess we should get rid of the Supreme Court and just put you in charge since it's very easy to you.

Okay, then. What's the right? And what would or would not infringe it?

Nice ad hominem.

Since I'm now in charge of the country, I would repeal all rights and resume slavery.

Rights are rights. The point of things like terrorism is to subvert said rights.

 

[Cthulu]

The second amendment is very clear. Read it. Do it. It's not ambigious.

No it's not I quoted it. Define militia.

 

[Shugo]

There's fighting words and things like that, as there should be. I think background checks fit a nice balance between enabling people to exercise their rights while curbing the dangerous people.

Ok, besides background checks, what about the right to bear arms that several states outright refuse to let their citizens exercise? What about the months it takes for a license to carry a gun in some states, or the states that deny it, and the states that charge hundreds of dollars for the right, and require continual payment? Is that not an infringement?

There is a way huger argument to gun control besides background checks, something almost everyone with a gun goes through. There is an extremely minimal amount of people who commit crimes with guns purchased through individuals.

 

[The Master Debater]

No it's not I quoted it. Define militia.

A militia is an organization of civilians exercising their rights to bear arms, generally in defense of their local region.


Break out Google

 

[Cthulu]

A militia is an organization of civilians exercising their rights to bear arms, generally in defense of their local region.


Break out Google

Ok.
mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə/
noun

1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
   • a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
   • all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

So the national guard is a militia.

 

[The Master Debater]

Ok.
mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə/
noun

1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
   • a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
   • all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

So the national guard is a militia.

You never said to use Google. You really showed me.

If I say the constitution is a Garfield comic can I disregard it?

 

[AnOminous]

Nice ad hominem.

Since I'm now in charge of the country, I would repeal all rights and resume slavery.

Rights are rights. The point of things like terrorism is to subvert said rights.

Nice tautology. Rights are rights. What does that even mean?

If rights could never be diminished by the government in any way, nobody could be locked up in prison, and convicted murders would be allowed to buy guns even if they said they intended on using them to murder more people.

So what does "infringe" a right?

And of what does the "right to bear arms" consist?

Those issues are not so easy as you seem to think, or they would already be the subject of universal agreement.

 

[Cthulu]

You never said to use Google. You really showed me.

If I say the cons

Excuse me. You told me to use google. I did. Lol.

Break out Google[\QUOTE]

 

[The Master Debater]

Nice tautology. Rights are rights. What does that even mean?

If rights could never be diminished by the government in any way, nobody could be locked up in prison, and convicted murders would be allowed to buy guns even if they said they intended on using them to murder more people.

So what does "infringe" a right?

And of what does the "right to bear arms" consist?

Those issues are not so easy as you seem to think, or they would already be the subject of universal agreement.

Wow! You must be an expert.

Rights are not to be infringed upon lawful citizens.

If I kill someone I am no longer a law abiding citizen.

Infringing a right consists of mitigating it in such a way so as to render it useless.

The right to bear arms allows you and me to lawfully obtain and use firearms and other weapons.

I never said it was easy. You did. Why are things so easy for you? Don't you need your forth PHD?

Excuse me. You told me to use google. I did. Lol.

Then the constitution is a Garfield comic and since it's too complex for people like you and I we can't discuss it.

 

[AnOminous]

A militia is an organization of civilians exercising their rights to bear arms, generally in defense of their local region.


Break out Google

Actually, the militia as of the time of the drafting of the Constitution consisted of every able-bodied white male citizen, whether or not they were engaged in any particular activity. It also distinguished between the militia of the several States and the active duty military of the federal government, with the intention being that there was not to be a permanent standing army at the federal level.

The "militia of the United States" as contemplated by Congress and a militia are not the same thing.

 

[The Master Debater]

Actually, the militia as of the time of the drafting of the Constitution consisted of every able-bodied white male citizen, whether or not they were engaged in any particular activity. It also distinguished between the militia of the several States and the active duty military of the federal government, with the intention being that there was not to be a permanent standing army at the federal level.

The "militia of the United States" as contemplated by Congress and a militia are not the same thing.

So I'm unable to discuss the issue if I can't name what an early-USA militia was?

 

[Cthulu]

Then the constitution is a Garfield comic and since it's too complex for people like you and I we can't discuss it.

We are discussing it. You and I and Marvin and Anonymous and everyone here.

 

[The Master Debater]

We are discussing it. You and I and Marvin and Anonymous and everyone here.

But as Anon said it's too complex for me to state.

Huh?

 

[Marvin]

My whole point to everyone is for a compromise to work you have to listen and understand both sides. Lol I'm rated autistic for asking questions and stating my views? These are serious questions with no good answers. I'm glad you have the answers @Marvin because I don't. You think you do but is it the answers for everyone? No debate allowed? No questions allowed? No free speech? The point of debate is understanding the other persons point of view. I willing to try. Are you?

I'm sorry. This is how I read your post:

Fine, you guys want background checks? What's next? Psychiatric evaluations? Mobile kill switches? Mind control? That's ridiculous!

It read like a very classic, slippery slope argument against background checks.

I addressed your post with that assumption in mind. I was saying that if you're comparing background checks to more ridiculous regulation, you might as well be against all regulation. When you responded to this, you acted like you weren't posing rhetorical questions, but actually wanting answers to them. That seemed to me like you were being deliberately obtuse. That's why I rated your post autistic. If that wasn't your intention, I apologize.

I've read most of them. Have you?

No I haven't. Most of my knowledge on the Snowden leaks comes from other reports summarizing them. Nothing I've heard leads me to believe that there's anything (technically) notable in them.

Basically, the NSA largely isn't doing anything that was previously thought impossible. They rely on very pedestrian hacking techniques that any other company could pull off. Like, in addition to the run-of-the-mill hacking they've done, I'm sure they've snagged a few phd's to help out, and those few guys might've provided some technically distinctive work.

But overall: the NSA is what you get when you take (mostly) garden variety hackers and give them a 10 billion dollar budget to work with.

You really, really need to learn the actual regulations and gun control in place before you start arguing for more, talking about background checks, or anything.

I haven't really argued for more. Why shouldn't I argue about background checks though? I mean, I know there are systems of background checks in place. From what I've seen, the general framework is in place. Things should be tightened up, but it's not like this is unprecedented.

Is there something I'm missing?

There is a way huger argument to gun control besides background checks, something almost everyone with a gun goes through. There is an extremely minimal amount of people who commit crimes with guns purchased through individuals.

Eh, if someone does shoot some people up because of a flaw with a background check, that should be fixed. I'm not really concerned about the volume of killings.

 

[Cthulu]

Actually, the militia as of the time of the drafting of the Constitution consisted of every able-bodied white male citizen, whether or not they were engaged in any particular activity. It also distinguished between the militia of the several States and the active duty military of the federal government, with the intention being that there was not to be a permanent standing army at the federal level.

Is that how you yourself would define militia? How about the free states part?

 

[The Master Debater]

Is that how you yourself would define militia? How about the free states part?

He's shutting down an argument by using a century-old factoid.

 

[Cthulu]

Basically, the NSA largely isn't doing anything that was previously thought impossible.

I would agree. Not impossible but they are doing a lot more than they should IMO. Their charter states they have no right to do anything on home soil.

He's shutting down an argument by using a century-old factoid.

Excuse me? I'm not shutting anything down. I asked for want of knowledge. I would like to know his opinion. I would think you would like to hear it as well since we are not as far apart as you think on our views. There is no need to be rude to me or them.

 

[AnOminous]

He's shutting down an argument by using a century-old factoid.

No, I'm pointing out that when you interpret Constitutional language, the first step is knowing what it would have meant to the people who wrote it. There's nothing particularly arcane about that.