The Second Amendment is past its Use-By date

[ZiprHead]

55% more strict vs. 11% less strict. I think Rhea has it right.

 

[dismal]

A) The support for "more strict" has eroded significantly over the time it has been surveyed.
B) "More strict" not equal "let's repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban guns". There was a separate question in there on banning all handguns. Feel free to view the massively declining popularity of that idea at your leisure.

 

[Rhea]

A) The support for "more strict" has eroded significantly over the time it has been surveyed.

The majority of Americans agree with my statement that owning a gun with no controls is not a "right". Still true.

B) "More strict" not equal "let's repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban guns".

See, I warned everybody you were going to do that.

Further note: the fact that I no longer think it should be a "right" does not in any way imply that I think there needs to be a complete ban or a mass confiscation. The simple change that it is no longer a "right" means that we can better control and prevent carnage, while keeping farm and sport use available.

There was a separate question in there on banning all handguns. Feel free to view the massively declining popularity of that idea at your leisure.

Whew stay on target, Luke!

Your straw man is exactly the dishonest argument of the NRA that makes these poll numbers look the way they do. SKEEERY!!! TAKE AWAY ALL GUNS!!!! THEY WANT A COMPLETE BAN!!! EVEN THOUGH THEY EXPLICITLY SAID THEY DIDN'T!!!! If the poll is worded to circumvent the strawman, it would read, " do you think a law should be made that limits who can carry a handgun and where" especially if you got even more specific with the wording of a proposed gun control measure, it would be different. It has been different.

 

[dismal]

The majority of Americans agree with my statement that owning a gun with no controls is not a "right". Still true.

B) "More strict" not equal "let's repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban guns".

See, I warned everybody you were going to do that.

Further note: the fact that I no longer think it should be a "right" does not in any way imply that I think there needs to be a complete ban or a mass confiscation. The simple change that it is no longer a "right" means that we can better control and prevent carnage, while keeping farm and sport use available.

There was a separate question in there on banning all handguns. Feel free to view the massively declining popularity of that idea at your leisure.

Whew stay on target, Luke!

Your straw man is exactly the dishonest argument of the NRA that makes these poll numbers look the way they do. SKEEERY!!! TAKE AWAY ALL GUNS!!!! THEY WANT A COMPLETE BAN!!! EVEN THOUGH THEY EXPLICITLY SAID THEY DIDN'T!!!! If the poll is worded to circumvent the strawman, it would read, " do you think a law should be made that limits who can carry a handgun and where" especially if you got even more specific with the wording of a proposed gun control measure, it would be different. It has been different.

Well then, if everyone agrees with you there should be no trouble getting that Amendment passed. Or, at maybe just proposed.

 

[Rhea]

Well then, if everyone agrees with you there should be no trouble getting that Amendment passed. Or, at maybe just proposed.

If you think the whole purpose of this thread is to state the mechanism by which an amendment gets repealed, then I see that you're done.
I was here for a different purpose, so I'll continue to discuss.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Well then, if everyone agrees with you there should be no trouble getting that Amendment passed. Or, at maybe just proposed.

Hi. Welcome to the United States.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nra-journal-democratic-lawmakers-bullets

The National Rifle Association's official journal posted a picture of Democratic New York state lawmakers superimposed next to menacing bullets after the NRA heard about the lawmakers' plan to limit ammunition purchases.

 

[maxparrish]

Let the facts speak:

 

[Rhea]

Let the facts speak:

How come you decided to post a graphic that uses data over two years old?
Add the recent data and your trend is reversing. That has already been posted.

Let the facts actually speak.

 

[fromderinside]

No. no. no. no. The 2nd amendment is just fine. What we need are justices who believe it actually relates to a well regulated military. I don't want the government to do like the Romans, shop out our defense to foreigners. We need to assure every citizen can be candidate for participation in the military.

Read the damn thing:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[maxparrish]

Let more facts speak:

 

[Rhea]

No. no. no. no. The 2nd amendment is just fine. What we need are justices who believe it actually relates to a well regulated military. I don't want the government to do like the Romans, shop out our defense to foreigners. We need to assure every citizen can be candidate for participation in the military.

Read the damn thing:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So every citizen has to go to basic training and is required to join the reserves?

 

[maxparrish]

Let the facts speak:

How come you decided to post a graphic that uses data over two years old?
Add the recent data and your trend is reversing. That has already been posted.

Let the facts actually speak.

Because a 23 year history of shifting public support is a fact. And it is also a fact that the overwhelming trend, in spite of year to year fluxations is that the nation is evenly divided (and opposition to more control growing).

Cherry picking a year or two in a fluctuating trend is as stupid as claiming global warming is/is not occurring based on a year or two of data. If, in a year, the numbers bump to a majority against more control, are you going to retract your support or suddenly make excuses?

 

[maxparrish]

More facts that speak:

 

[dismal]

Well then, if everyone agrees with you there should be no trouble getting that Amendment passed. Or, at maybe just proposed.

If you think the whole purpose of this thread is to state the mechanism by which an amendment gets repealed, then I see that you're done.
I was here for a different purpose, so I'll continue to discuss.

Well, when you brought up Amending the Constitution. It turns out there is a specific process for that.

 

[Rhea]

If you think the whole purpose of this thread is to state the mechanism by which an amendment gets repealed, then I see that you're done.
I was here for a different purpose, so I'll continue to discuss.

Well, when you brought up Amending the Constitution. It turns out there is a specific process for that.

No shit.

 

[Rhea]

More facts that speak:

For reference, those are not facts. That's a picture. It has no source, no data, no description, no background. I could make a graph like that in about 3 minutes.

(edited to add) it even, comically, points out a not-current data point to crow about. That's patently stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

Not to mention that it COMPLETELY IGNORES the fact that it represents a false dichotomy. Which is what's wrong with your argument in first place. As I said.

...I'll just point out now that I have no intention of discussing false dichotomies. And references to them are beneath my interest in this thread.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I will. I am for gun rights and gun control.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I don't know. Maybe you should ask Freud.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

Since you equate the two, and you want to restrict one, your desire to restrict gun rights represents a much deeper seated fear of sexual activity.

Three silly images obviously not made by gun rights advocates

That doesn't answer the question.

It is those in favor of firearm restrictions that compare guns to sex. So, what are the Freudian implications of them wanting to restrict something they compare to sex?

Pro-control people don't eqaute it to sex. They equate it to carnage. Rather, we see those who are against control treating it as if it were orgasm-inducing, hence, we see THEM treating guns like sex. Hence the jokes.

ZiprHead did indeed equate it to sex, and he is not the only Gun Control Lobbyist to do so. It is not the Gun Rights Advocates who equate it to sex, it is the Gun Control Lobbyists who fetishise it.

 

[maxparrish]

More facts that speak:

For reference, those are not facts. That's a picture. It has no source, no data, no description, no background. I could make a graph like that in about 3 minutes.

You could make such a graph. However, the graph from 538 is a fact because it exists. And the charted facts (polling results by PEW) are represented in graphic form - facts because they are the results of a PEW poll. Specifically if you:

(Summarize all the conflicting views on gun control into one question, as the Pew Research Center has done, and you find a nation evenly split since 2010. Since 1993, Pew has asked the following question: “What do you think is more important — to protect the right of Americans to own guns or to control gun ownership?”

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...more-gun-buyers-should-get-background-checks/

it even, comically, points out a not-current data point to crow about. That's patently stupid.

Graphs don't crow, they display information. In this case, the graph is the result of PEWs latest research:

The latest Pew Research Center poll of 2,002 adults, conducted July 14-20, finds that opinions about other gun policy proposals also are largely unchanged from two years ago, shortly after the December 2012 school shootings in Newtown, Conn.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/08...-for-expanded-background-checks-on-gun-sales/

They are what they are. The only patently stupid aspect is that someone would refuse to engage factual polling results (and trends) because those facts, apparently, convey's factual information that displeases them.

Not to mention that it COMPLETELY IGNORES the fact that it represents a false dichotomy. Which is what's wrong with your argument in first place. As I said.

...I'll just point out now that I have no intention of discussing false dichotomies. And references tto them are beneath my interest in this thread.

No, it represents which value they consider more important. It is not suggesting that that people don't hold both values as important, but it does suggest which of the two is of most importance to the majority in a trade-off (for the moment).

And you are mistaken, I have not presented an argument in this thread. I've been letting the facts speak for themselves. When you asked why, I explained because "a 23 year history of shifting public support is a fact. And it is also a fact that the overwhelming trend, in spite of year to year fluxations is that the nation is evenly divided (and opposition to more control growing)."

The only assertion I made was that "Cherry picking a year or two in a fluctuating trend is as stupid as claiming global warming is/is not occurring based on a year or two of data." So far, you have not expressed disagreement with that observation.

So, as you hold it of great import you are, at the moment, in a fragile majority agreement in a poll by Gallup, I thought more facts (including trends) about majoritarian sentiments might be of interest...even if they may not all line up to your liking.

If, or how, you process this information is up to you. I'll just "let the facts speak", also for the moment.

 

[Rhea]

Max, when you posted that, you did not say where it came from and it says nowhere on that chart.

And yes, I think it is a false dichotomy to pose it as a "which is more important" dichotomy with zero nuance.
The squirrel said he was for rights and also controls. So am I. Which is what makes that chart useless in the discussion. The gun problem is not a dichotomy. And the MEANING of control differs.

The only thing that makes sense to discuss is actual proposed laws. Or any other discussion that allows descriptions of changes. Not "pick one of the two canned answers on this complex topic..."