Thread: Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

Let me start of by saying that this is all Ed's fault ( ) for thinking tempers shouldn't flair over hot topics. Here is what he said in the General Annoyance thread...

I don't get it (actually I do, but for the sake of argument...), why is it that conversations about the 2d amendment, relegion, abortion, the death penalty, war...(fill in the blank with your own hot button issue) necessarily degrade into either a shouting match, a fistfight, a gunfight, or hurt feelings?

What ever happened to debate, well reasoned (or otherwise) discussion, respect for opposing points of view? I firmly believe that the core issue with this thread (and my questions) is a lack of respect for anyone other than oneself, i.e. selfishness. Although I don't always live up to my ideal, I firmly believe that if one of my opinions is challenged and I don't have a reason for that opinion/belief, then I should be willing to consider the alternative. It seems that more and more often people confuse personal attack with debate. The loudest, meanest, most vulgar individual wins. Rather than suggesting that an opposing opinion may be flawed because...(fill in a logical argument), the typical response is if you don't agree with me, you're stupid, or more common these days, you're evil!

Showing respect for another does not require that you to agree with them, it requires civility.

Ed... I have to commend you for some very insightful words. I like them... and I wish they would always work. I'm ok with conversations about topics like this as long as that is what the discussion is about in the beginning and it doesn't come out of the air... with the air being someone's methane. Here is why I think it is so hard to live up to your words, however.

• Debates assume that two opinions can be given and the observer should be able to make a choice between the two by listening to the respective arguments.

The thing is that on issues like guns and abortion, and politics, people have already locked in firmly to the side in which they believe. It doesn't matter how many convincing points are made with common sense as a companion. Neither side is going to change their mind... Someone always says something stupid. When the other person responds to the stupidity, the war of words begin.

Allow me to illiterateillustrate, for those of you who didn't get it... )
Guns Kill People
No kidding... but that's a stupid catch-phrase argument for not allowing guns. So, the gun advocate comes back with an insult, and there ya go. It's on...

Seems like "debatable" threads always get a share of gun ownership being mentioned when they have nothing to do with the original topic. Well, everyone can get it out of their system now. Let's do all of them. Guns, politics, and abortion. Let's see how long it stays civil.

Here is my prediction. I think everyone will pretty much behave on this thread 'cause they won't want to let Ed down, including me. But after a hundred posts, maybe we could see if anyone has changed their opinion from when the thread was first started. I think that count will be ZERO.

Here is my take on guns. Everyone should have a gun and know how to use it, with one single rule for the ownership... each person is held accountable for its use. Here's a catch phrase that California uses for the commission of crimes. "Use a gun and you're done."

If someone robbed a store and killed the clerk with a gun he/she should be executed, in my book. (Oh wow, death penalty too) But if you don't execute him, keep him in prison for his natural life... without a TV or conjugal visits, and only allowed out of the cell for an hour a day to shower and excercise.

Our country is based on the Constitution. The 2nd amendment to the Constitution reads like this.

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.

Let the debate begin... I promise to be nice on this thread

Oh, and I wonder how civil Ed would be if people started a petition here in California to clear-cut the entire Sequoia forest?

This is NOT my constitution of which you speak, so let me weigh in right away.

This is exactly the right sentiment. Intended to protect people from tyrranny including that of their own government. It has been said that there isn't much protection there against tanks and mortars, but it's something and I think it's important.

Caadians have MORE guns pre capita than Americans, but much less violence with them so that's a societal issue that needs to be addressed south of the 49th.

That all said, I do prefer our northern society where people just don't cary guns ... AT ALL! At this point, kung fu is a man's best weapon.

X

Guns....I have no problem with guns. As long as no-one uses em on me In the Netherlands it's quite difficult to own a gun legally....and even illegaly they're not available by the dozen. The few times that someone uses a gun in the wrong way are big news right away.
Imprisonment for life...I'm for that as long as you can proove for 100% that the person is guilty. And only then if it's been deliberate murder. (Shooting a store clerk would definately be under that caption for me. Shooting someone is knowing that you can kill them with it. If you can't do the time....)
I'm not against death penalty either. But once again only if for 100% can be proven that the person was guilty.

I'm against abortion,
I'm against smoking,
I'm against alcohol
I'm against premarital sex and the easiness that it has become to get a divorce. (I'ts still quite a hassle over here but it's coming to be worse all the time)
I'm against same sex mariage. Just because people want to be together doens't mean that they can call it a mariage. In my opinion mariage is between a woman and a man. If you want a union for same sex couples give it it's own name as well because I won't let you degrade my union with my wife just because someone else wants one.

Having said this though I won't hate someone if they do all these things....I just don't think they're right. But being wrong doens't make a person bad. I've plenty of friends who do most of the things I'm against and they're still my friends and I love them like brothers and sisters.....but I still don't agree with them.

There you go Bill.....anyone else wants to blow on this thread?

Guns don't bother me in the least. It's the bullets I'm afraid of. I'm not a gun guy. I have a shotgun that I've owned since 7th grade. Still on my first box of shells! My point in commenting is simple. These "hot topics" cause issues because they are things we are passionate about. I have my beliefs. You have yours. And on most topics, a discussion can be held in a civil manner. But introduce passion, and tempers will generally flare. I've been watching that tonight at a couple of DE forums. I always welcome someone's opinion. Then, I can choose to agree or disagree. There have been many threads at the B&B forum that got ugly because of passion and disagreement. I don't participate in them. If someone wants to know about my beliefs, I'll share them privately. For me, this is a shaving forum. I have nothing against this thread or any thread like it, but I'm here to talk about shaving, have fun and make friends. If I want to deal with idiots, well, I have work for that!

RT

Let me kick off with the first dissenting opinion even though I agree with you Bill and doubt that I'll change anyone's mind lol...

Even though I believe that hunting rifles should be legal for people who hunt, I'm against hand-guns, assault rifles, sub-machine guns and any other implements designed to kill people.

1) Even though it's in your constitution doesn't mean it's right for current application. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, there were real threats against the populace and the government could not mobilize enough forces to protect it. Now the whole area of the USA is governed by the democratically elected government. The country is protected from external threats by the best armed forces in the world and internal peace is maintained by the various policing agencies. Having a gun for protection from any of these demonstrates a lack of trust in the democratic process and the institutions created by the US democracy.

2) I don't say that guns kill people. Guns make it too easy for people to kill people. A person is more likely to survive a beating or a stabbing than a shooting. And if you had to get up-close and personal and put in some physical effort into killing a lower probability of success, you'd be less likely to think it's worth it as opposed to just pointing and pulling the trigger.

3) Legal gun ownership makes guns more available to criminals. The more you have out there on the market, the more they are available for criminals to obtain through theft, robbery, smuggling and fraud. If they're only legally available to armed services and policing agencies, the criminals won't be able to get their hands on one as easily.

4) Some of you may tout its potential to protect the law abiding citizen from the criminal element. For it to be a reliable protective tool, it has to be constantly loaded and within arm's reach. It's statistically more likely for you to accidently hurt yourself and/or your loved ones than to protect yourself from an armed criminal who already had experience using his gun on people. He'll just shoot you, take your gun and sell it to one of his criminal-buddies for a few grams of nose-candy so his buddy can do it to some other poor average Joe. If you can get gun training ,so can a violent criminal and that's the person I'd bet on to win a violent confrontation against a person with no military/policing experience.

In conclusion:
1) Your army will protect you from the king of England and if you don't like the government, vote it out of the oval office. 2nd amendment is obsolete.
2) Guns make killing too easy and too many people are stupid enough to take the easy route.
3) Lots of guns on the market = lots of guns available to criminals
4) A violent criminal is more likely to survive a gun battle with Joe the CSR who's more likely to shoot himself or have his kid have an accident playing with the gun than to protect himself from the aforementioned violent psycho.
Therefore, mass availability of firearms designed for killing people is highly impractical and would lead to a huge increase in violent crime, thus ill-advised.

OK, X... you say no one should carry guns. Even if you were very good at kung fu, what if the two bad guys had very large knives? Or baseball bats? What if you didn't know kung fu? What if you were handicapped in one form or another? Does that mean the person without the fighting skills is just flat out of luck? Guns are the best example of affirmative action I can think of. The only valid example, as well.

And what if your family was with you? What if the predators were on PCP? You, or one of your family members is toast, no doubt. More often than not, assaults will happen in the very areas where you would guess they would be. However, too often, the victims are just in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

Or do you think it is plausible to ban knives... and baseball bats as well?

I think we need to start with a ban on criminals.

I'd really love to see a society that doesn't have a need for guns to protect themselves. But, it just ain't gonna happen. Bad people exist... and they always will. Unless we can shoot them...

I think that Bill's sensitivity is in part due to the state in which we both live. Some time in the last 45 years, the NRA has become a demon with members that are "Right Wing wackos". When I was in high school, one of the teachers started a rifle club. This was Los Angeles Unified. Now, if a school has an ROTC, the color guard doesn't even carry a toy gun. I was taught to shoot at an indoor range at a high school by LAPD. Now, if you are carrying a gun within 1000(?) feet of a school, they just take you to jail. When I was in high school, I would carry a pocket knife. Now, a student that has a nail clipper with a built in file gets expelled. A knife on school grounds with a blade in excess of 2.5(?) inches is a felony.

I would guess that respect for individual freedoms and ideas as well as respect for the individual has declined. Some people have the idea that because they are offended by something like a gun; then nobody should be allowed to have a gun. Unfortunately, if these people are in power and have a voice, they can force the issue. One of our U.S Senators had a CCW. However, she sponsered a bill to eliminate ownership of handguns in one of our major cities.

Tort law is based on what a reasonable man would do. The phrase "the right of the people , shall not be infringed" appears in some form maybe four times in the first ten amendments of the Constitution. Why is it that when it comes to the second amendment, it suddenly doesn't mean "the people"? There was a case around 1935, involving a shotgun, that is widely cited as a decision that poeple ment the army. Those that use this explaination , never read the case. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld the Second Amendment to mean PEOPLE.

"Here is my take on guns. Everyone should have a gun and know how to use it, with one single rule for the ownership... each person is held accountable for its use. Here's a catch phrase that California uses for the commission of crimes. 'Use a gun and you're done.'" The State dances all around enforcement when it comes to murder during a crime. It is generally 25 to life. With use of television, weight rooms etc. I like the idea of Pelican Bay. Lockdown 23 hours a day and no prisoner interaction. I think this idea was first tried at Port Arthur, Tazmania.

Rick

Bill, what if someone stole a gun shipment heading to your local Wal Mart and sold a few pieces to those criminals? A gun won't be much help then and those criminals will make quicker work of you that way with less effort. Beating or stabbing me to death will cause a lot of commotion and take a lot of time (enough for a LEO or a good samaritan or 10 to jump in) compared to shooting.
If we invest enough into:
1) Reduction of poverty
2) Policing
3) Fighting addiction
4) Mental health infrastructure,
guns will become obsolete for personal protection. However since you started with the horror stories, here's a couple..
Joe just pulled a 13 hour shift dealing with disgruntled customers, came home and put away his gun into...
1) The drawer of his night stand. As he was dead tired, his kid snuck into his room, started playing with the gun and shot himself.
2) A gun safe. Armed intruders got into the condo and shot him in the back as he was trying to open the safe.

No matter what "government" does, bad guys will always have guns. Otherwise, they wouldn't be bad guys. Some years back, my parents were headed to a work convention in Chicago. Now, keep in mind they have lived in small towns their entire lives. Dad asked me if he should buy a gun. All I could tell him is that if he had a gun, and felt the need to "pull it", he would have to use it. He opted to go unarmed.

RT

I think that Bill's sensitivity is in part due to the state in which we both live. Some time in the last 45 years, the NRA has become a demon with members that are "Right Wing wackos". When I was in high school, one of the teachers started a rifle club. This was Los Angeles Unified. Now, if a school has an ROTC, the color guard doesn't even carry a toy gun. I was taught to shoot at an indoor range at a high school by LAPD. Now, if you are carrying a gun within 1000(?) feet of a school, they just take you to jail. When I was in high school, I would carry a pocket knife. Now, a student that has a nail clipper with a built in file gets expelled. A knife on school grounds with a blade in excess of 2.5(?) inches is a felony.

I would guess that respect for individual freedoms and ideas as well as respect for the individual has declined. Some people have the idea that because they are offended by something like a gun; then nobody should be allowed to have a gun. Unfortunately, if these people are in power and have a voice, they can force the issue. One of our U.S Senators had a CCW. However, she sponsered a bill to eliminate ownership of handguns in one of our major cities.

Tort law is based on what a reasonable man would do. The phrase "the right of the people , shall not be infringed" appears in some form maybe four times in the first ten amendments of the Constitution. Why is it that when it comes to the second amendment, it suddenly doesn't mean "the people"? There was a case around 1935, involving a shotgun, that is widely cited as a decision that poeple ment the army. Those that use this explaination , never read the case. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld the Second Amendment to mean PEOPLE.

"Here is my take on guns. Everyone should have a gun and know how to use it, with one single rule for the ownership... each person is held accountable for its use. Here's a catch phrase that California uses for the commission of crimes. 'Use a gun and you're done.'" The State dances all around enforcement when it comes to murder during a crime. It is generally 25 to life. With use of television, weight rooms etc. I like the idea of Pelican Bay. Lockdown 23 hours a day and no prisoner interaction. I think this idea was first tried at Port Arthur, Tazmania.

Rick