Gun control

[chaney23 0]

The point was that we shouldn't treat the words of men who lived in a time where slavery was acceptable as a moral authority.

 

I don't think anyone needed an explanation as to how the 3/5ths Compromise worked or why it was instated.

I agree with the point he was making. When I say something that is inaccurate, I don't mind it when someone corrects me. I didn't mean to come off as a smart ass. I apologize for coming off that way.

[chaney23 0]

And as for my earlier post, yes, "You" in that case was a hypothetical you. "If you think..." should be read as "If one thinks..."

 

That said, I'm not really seeing why I owe anyone an apology to anyone ever for arguing that a society with increases in swearing, divorce and "amount of leg shown by young women" is morally superior to one where most black people are property and married women have no legal rights.

 

Not to mention the age of consent in those days.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

And as for my earlier post, yes, "You" in that case was a hypothetical you. "If you think..." should be read as "If one thinks..."

 

That said, I'm not really seeing why I owe anyone an apology to anyone ever for arguing that a society with increases in swearing, divorce and "amount of leg shown by young women" is morally superior to one where most black people are property and married women have no legal rights.

 

In addition, even as recently as the 1930s, we had public executions in this country. And they were attended by people in the same way that people today attend a football game.

 

And that's just official government-administered executions. There were also lynchings which were informal but sometimes still supported by local authorities. Also attended with the same kind of excitement as a sporting event.

 

We also no longer kill handicapped children. We no longer burn women who are accused of being witches. We no longer have slaves, and we also no longer allow factory slavery, which persisted even after we abolished plantation slavery. Religious freedom is greater today than it has been at any point in the past.

 

We have made substantial moral progress in a relatively short time. You can also argue that increased divorce is another aspect of that progress, since it was either actually illegal or practically illegal at various points in the past. It seems profoundly immoral to tell a woman that she isn't allowed to divorce her abusive husband, for example.

 

I think movies and tv shows are largely responsible for this whitewashing of the past. People think everyone in the 1950s acted like the Cleaver family. It's just not true. That was a far worse period in our history than today.

[For the love of the game 56]

And as for my earlier post, yes, "You" in that case was a hypothetical you. "If you think..." should be read as "If one thinks..."

 

That said, I'm not really seeing why I owe anyone an apology to anyone ever for arguing that a society with increases in swearing, divorce and "amount of leg shown by young women" is morally superior to one where most black people are property and married women have no legal rights.

 

I did not say you owed me an opology. I was however defending myself and/or the hypothetical you in that you cannot claim ones priorities are out of wack (I forgot the exact wording) just because of one belief. You do not know enough about me or the hypothetical you.

 

I did acknowledge your point and argued that those things (slavery, womens rights, etc) were either the accepted norm or in some cases, the law. That did not make any of them right and in time, those norms and laws were over turned. Progress has been made in those areas.

 

In my most offensive post on this thread I pointed out that single parent homes are a big issue in how people treat each other. This is a broad statement not aimed at you or anyone one else in particular. My mistake in that thread was that I focused primarly on homes with only moms, so my wording was off. I did however see my error and apologized.

 

I also agree TV shows have done some white washing as Brooks posted. Of course there were issues. We could agrue this all day long. What I see all the time today is worse than what I saw all the time 5 years ago and 10 years ago. Thats my perspective and it does not mean my priotities are out of wack.

[For the love of the game 56]

Now if we could, move back to the gun control debate:

 

I have heard three proposals on this topic I believe that have been discussed.

 

Banning "assault rifles" and limiting the number of rounds a gun can have in it?

 

Stricker back ground checks including some kind of mental health screening?

 

And I believe, though I cannot find the post, that someone felt banning guns was the solution.

 

I will also add in ending in some way or places gun free zones.

 

Anyone care to debate the pros and cons of each? Add in any other ideas?

[Crazyhorse81 251]

Now if we could, move back to the gun control debate:

 

I have heard three proposals on this topic I believe that have been discussed.

 

Banning "assault rifles" and limiting the number of rounds a gun can have in it? Won't have much of an impact, and to me seems to be more about how a weapon looks/perception versus actually getting something done.

 

Stricker back ground checks including some kind of mental health screening? Will have great impact, especially if it's expanded to include known associates and their mental health. Does no good to let a sane man carry if his insane neighbor can steal the gun and use it for evil.

And I believe, though I cannot find the post, that someone felt banning guns was the solution. I don't remember actually seeing anyone propose this at all, and it would make the situation much worse.

 

I will also add in ending in some way or places gun free zones. I agree. "Gun free zone" basically says "no one here can defend themselves"

Anyone care to debate the pros and cons of each? Add in any other ideas?

[chaney23 0]

Now if we could, move back to the gun control debate:

 

I have heard three proposals on this topic I believe that have been discussed.

 

Banning "assault rifles" and limiting the number of rounds a gun can have in it?

 

Stricker back ground checks including some kind of mental health screening?

 

And I believe, though I cannot find the post, that someone felt banning guns was the solution.

 

I will also add in ending in some way or places gun free zones.

 

Anyone care to debate the pros and cons of each? Add in any other ideas?

Assault Weapon" is a term made up to describe semi-automatic weapons that have military features. It is basically given to a semi-automatic weapon deemed to be too scary looking, not because of the lethality of the weapon. Since an assault rifle is a weapon that can fire semi-auto and auto, an Ar-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a semi-auto rifle. If politicians really care about violence used by guns, why are they going after rifles, which make up a small percentage of the violence used by guns. Handguns are used in much more violent crimes, but they are not calling for a ban on them. Are the people who died at the hands of someone with a handgun less important? If you want to be at least philosophically consistent, you would be for the banning of all guns.

 

You might be thinking of my post. I don't believe banning guns will work.

[For the love of the game 56]

Ed, the only problem I have with your response is the circle of friends/ neighbor portion. I feel it is a way too far reaching. If my neighbor was mentally ill with a history of violence or even had a voilent past period, that would be more the reason to own a gun. If I had a friend with the same past, same would apply. Only one of my neighbors now I have a gun in the first place and only my closest friends know I have one, so my neighbor or friend with a violent past of any kind would never know I had a gun. If the government managed to pass a law like this, would it not be easier next time something horrible happens to try to push the "you cannot have a gun because you have a convicted fellon living down the block from you"?. Just seems too far reaching.

[Crazyhorse81 251]

Ed, the only problem I have with your response is the circle of friends/ neighbor portion. I feel it is a way too far reaching. If my neighbor was mentally ill with a history of violence or even had a voilent past period, that would be more the reason to own a gun. If I had a friend with the same past, same would apply. Only one of my neighbors now I have a gun in the first place and only my closest friends know I have one, so my neighbor or friend with a violent past of any kind would never know I had a gun. If the government managed to pass a law like this, would it not be easier next time something horrible happens to try to push the "you cannot have a gun because you have a convicted fellon living down the block from you"?. Just seems too far reaching.

 

I agree, it is pretty far-reaching. And I don't think it's a perfect solution. But, what we saw in the Sandy Hook tragedy was a legal gun owner who had her guns taken (and killed after the theft), and had those weapons turned against innocents by an evil mind. If the background checks for her had included her mentally ill son, maybe she wouldn't have been cleared to have them? I don't know. Off-topic, but this is similar to the New York Times (was it them?) who published the names and addresses of gun owners. Was it legal to do that? I think it was. Was it smart? No. Now, any criminal knows they can wait until someone goes to work, and have ready access to firearms and ammunition.

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

Off-topic, but this is similar to the New York Times (was it them?) who published the names and addresses of gun owners. Was it legal to do that? I think it was. Was it smart? No. Now, any criminal knows they can wait until someone goes to work, and have ready access to firearms and ammunition.

 

Better yet, criminals have a guide to show them which houses they are less likely to run into an armed homeowner.

[barnettej 263]

Holy Crap... I missed out on this?

 

My view: too much of anything is bad. Moderation is a necessary evil that has to be placed to avoid this. 2nd Amendment was good it took account of the moderation by stating well regulated within the context of the meaning. They knew too much of guns were bad as a whole, specially for a nation barely learning how to walk.

 

When I look at the reasons that I have heard for owning a AR-15, anywhere from hunting to personal protection to the government has them why not me. I spent 6yrs in Marines and I can tell you that none of the reasons I have so far are worth the justification of owning an AR-15 or any semi-automatic weapon.

 

I know real hunters, and real rednecks what they have in common is they like to preserve as much meat as possible when hunting animals, there for they use solid rounds, single shot weapons so they dont get lead poisoning digging out 10 to 15 rounds.

 

Using a Semi-Auto for home defense is a mistake. Plenty of those that I know who own a AR-15 dont shoot on a regular basis... maybe once a year. What good is a weapon that can spit out mulitple rounds in a single trigger pull going to do you when your not proficient? Most will definitely screw up their homes and probably kill someone by accident.

 

The evil government, my favorite. Your screwed. No auto weapon will save you when there are drones, secret death squads and nukes. Lasers are being tested as we speak as well as sonic weapons.. read up on some DARPA projects.

 

Last but not least. I dont need 30 bullets to protect myself.... I dont need 20.... I dont need 10..... I just need 1. I have no problems in banning a type of weapon that isnt reasonable compared to its purpose. Like a hunting rifle for example... the specs of a weapon like that should match its intentions.

 

The Only Time I had a Automatic Assault Rifle, Was When I Was Hunting People

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

Please familiarize yourself with the term semi-automatic.