The second amendment is failing the USA : Another school shooting!

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

bush_cheney2004,

You've (a) argued that Logic is irrelevant and (b) that even an Emotive appeals do not matter, only power.

Rationally, this proves you lack the POWER to further your argument on this....

 

.....unless you've got a gun concealed in your anonymous presence here?

 

No, I have demonstrated than guns in America can be distilled down to POWER historically.

Just because you want to make an emotional leap in logic(?) doesn't mean I have to agree.

[Scott Mayers]

13 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No, I have demonstrated than guns in America can be distilled down to POWER historically.

Just because you want to make an emotional leap in logic(?) doesn't mean I have to agree.

So you are now reasserting that 'power' is NOT something essential to the present gun ownership?

A child can argue that bullying in the past was what worked to get him through to adulthood. That he had to use some weapon to protect himself back as a kid, he was justified. BUT NOW, as a grown up, he needs not worry because he's defeated his enemies. He's also a big guy now and holds an arsenal of weapons. So his past POWER justifies his present fortune to BE 'powerful' while still NEEDING his stash of those weapons? 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Scott Mayers said:

So you are now reasserting that 'power' is NOT something essential to the present gun ownership?

 

Guns are owned for lots of reasons, but brandishing or discharging a firearm at other humans beings is absolutely an exercise in POWER.

See the difference ?

Quote

A child can argue that bullying in the past was what worked to get him through to adulthood. That he had to use some weapon to protect himself back as a kid, he was justified. BUT NOW, as a grown up, he needs not worry because he's defeated his enemies. He's also a big guy now and holds an arsenal of weapons. So his past POWER justifies his present fortune to BE 'powerful' while still NEEDING his stash of those weapons? 

 

No, only the need to exercise POWER and CONTROL at the individual and government level is required to motivate possession and use of firearms.   Non-lethal alternatives have also been developed but the option for escalation to deadly force (i.e. firearms) remains close at hand.

[Scott Mayers]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Guns are owned for lots of reasons, but brandishing or discharging a firearm at other humans beings is absolutely an exercise in POWER.

See the difference ?

No, I don't follow you. If you followed the reasoning I explained with the example of the kid being weak in the past who USED weapons to get to adulthood, this is a comparison of you asserting (or backing down from your stricter stance before) that in the PAST America had validity to use POWER then. Yet you imply that today is not the case. This is only accidental though because NOW by having the POWER of holding arsenals as a grown up [as America today], the FACT that you don't NEED them should suffice in getting rid of that stockpile UNLESS you are using it to BE the NEW bully. 

Just because you can feel brave enough not to require overtly being mean, you still are when you use your confidence by retaining those guns and simply expecting others who don't to STEP aside or risk being STEPPED on. If you were NOT the bully you were originally justified in defeating in the past, I challenge you to get rid of your guns for your confidence that you are a nice person. But you won't. WHY? .....Because you can USE your confidence with those weapons on your belt to 'bully' without a word spoken. 

The Bill Maher example of the car movies replaced with guns means that you act like your POWER is from something you do by the ease of pulling a trigger. That is cowardly. Just because you can push a pedal in a BIG CAR and go Vroom vroom!, you think you ARE dominant in that trivial act. But I dare you to put down your guns or get out of your car and try demonstrating you STILL have power without them. Its insincere because it hides that you are the same as those meek and weak individuals who do school shootings but just lack the present NEED to harm others. But when you DO have a need, you WILL behave in sync with the very terrorists you claim to require guns to defeat. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Scott Mayers said:

No, I don't follow you. If you followed the reasoning I explained with the example of the kid being weak in the past who USED weapons to get to adulthood, this is a comparison of you asserting (or backing down from your stricter stance before) that in the PAST America had validity to use POWER then. Yet you imply that today is not the case. This is only accidental though because NOW by having the POWER of holding arsenals as a grown up [as America today], the FACT that you don't NEED them should suffice in getting rid of that stockpile UNLESS you are using it to BE the NEW bully. 

 

 

Again, if you are accusing Americans of being the same as Americans in the past, that only reports the obvious.

Why would Americans stop gun ownership to satisfy a disarmament fetish that is foreign to the U.S. experience ?

Canadians have a lot of guns too....13th in the world for gun ownership per capita last time I checked.  

 

[Scott Mayers]

30 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Again, if you are accusing Americans of being the same as Americans in the past, that only reports the obvious.

Why would Americans stop gun ownership to satisfy a disarmament fetish that is foreign to the U.S. experience ?

Canadians have a lot of guns too....13th in the world for gun ownership per capita last time I checked.  

 

You're trying to distract the attention away from the argument. 

I NEED you to tell me if you hold that (a) Logical arguments on this point matter, or (b) Emotional ones ALSO do not matter; AND thus, we'll separate as a conclusion, (c) that only FORCE matters.

If you agree that we cannot change anyone's opinion on this to any forum using REASONING, then logic is out. IF you also think that you have no need to appeal to me or others that we should accept your stance EMOTIONALLY, there is nothing left to even 'rhetoric' to argue. This leaves FORCE as the only means to justify FORCE. I want you to confirm WHICH of the three views you hold or why I should continue trying. If I can't convince you (nor you of me) to anything except by force, then while you can argue guns should remain an unchallenged reality to anyone, all you do is argue circularly:

 

...that gun rights should be retained because those fortunate to have guns are those owners who shall use their guns to maintain those very rights to have them.

Logically equivalent: I should have the right to guns because I say so.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Scott Mayers
Changed an 'and' to 'or'.

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

You're trying to distract the attention away from the argument. 

I NEED you to tell me if you hold that (a) Logical arguments on this point matter, and (b) Emotional ones ALSO do not matter; AND thus, we'll separate as a conclusion, (c) that only FORCE matters.

If you agree that we cannot change anyone's opinion on this to any forum using REASONING, then logic is out. IF you also think that you have no need to appeal to me or others that we should accept your stance EMOTIONALLY, there is nothing left to even 'rhetoric' to argue. This leaves FORCE as the only means to justify FORCE. I want you to confirm WHICH of the three views you hold or why I should continue trying. If I can't convince you (nor you of me) to anything except by force, then while you can argue guns should remain an unchallenged reality to anyone, all you do is argue circularly:

 

Why are you trying to change anyone's opinion about gun control ?    It's not "my stance"....it is reality.

"We The People" (Americans) have the right to own and bear firearms for individual POWER and utilitarian purposes.

Guns are sacred in the U.S. because the U.S. has made them sacred.

Is that circular enough for you ?

[Scott Mayers]

11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Why are you trying to change anyone's opinion about gun control ?    It's not "my stance"....it is reality.

"We The People" (Americans) have the right to own and bear firearms for individual POWER and utilitarian purposes.

Guns are sacred in the U.S. because the U.S. has made them sacred.

Is that circular enough for you ?

Thank you. You've reduced your argument to the point that I'm getting at. 

You thus have nothing more to argue and, although I like your company, I suggest Twitter. SEE https://twitter.com/hashtag/gunrights?lang=en

All your politics on this is like your mentor's tactics on Sadam Hussein's WMDs,

...post your belief that "Guns are here to stay" and REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT until others just give up, buy a gun, shoot up a school, and prove to your victims why they too need more guns to prevent those like yourself who have them from shooting you.!!

 

OHH, and invest in the gun store so it at least makes this chaos all profitable!

Edited February 17, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Scott Mayers said:

Thank you. You've reduced your argument to the point that I'm getting at. 

You thus have nothing more to argue and, although I like your company, I suggest Twitter. SEE https://twitter.com/hashtag/gunrights?lang=en

All your politics on this is like your mentor's tactics on Sadam Hussein's WMDs,

...post your belief that "Guns are here to stay" and REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT until others just give up, buy a gun, shoot up a school, and prove to your victims why they too need more guns to prevent those like yourself who have them from shooting you.!!

 

No, clearly your attempt to conflate gun ownership and mass shootings with American foreign policy has failed.

You can reject the reality of gun ownership in the U.S. if you want, but that won't change anything.

Guns are here to stay, but a majority of Americans choose not to own them, while retaining the right to do so.

 

 

[Scott Mayers]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No, clearly your attempt to conflate gun ownership and mass shootings with American foreign policy has failed.

You can reject the reality of gun ownership in the U.S. if you want, but that won't change anything.

Guns are here to stay, but a majority of Americans choose not to own them, while retaining the right to do so.

 

 

But you victimize those who OPT OUT of gun ownership by goading terrorists (who are often gun-right advocates like you) to act out. You are 'winning' by being deceptive and thus MAKES YOU the very terrorist. 

It is like a capitalistic mean girl who notices that she can create a business in her school by simply whispering bad rumors to someone that another one has against them, step back and watch the chaos, and then set up a business that avenges the bullies.

[Scott Mayers]

Reminds me of a great movie: Pretty Persuasion. [Its' about a pretty girl who sets up a teacher for sexual assault so that she can PROVE her acting credibility, gain notoriety for her incredulity and get that part she was turned for before.] 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Scott Mayers said:

But you victimize those who OPT OUT of gun ownership by goading terrorists (who are often gun-right advocates like you) to act out. You are 'winning' by being deceptive and thus MAKES YOU the very terrorist.

 

I am not a terrorist for exercising a right of U.S. citizenship, the same right afforded to other Americans who choose to own firearms.

Criminals (terrorists) and the mentally ill are responsible for acting out, not lawful gun owners.

Children in a school setting are usually not armed.

I note that you refuse to deal with the fact that Canadians are ranked 13th in the world for gun ownership per capita, or are you assigning the identical label of terrorist for them because Canada has mass shootings and gun homicides ?

 

 

[Scott Mayers]

21 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I am not a terrorist for exercising a right of U.S. citizenship, the same right afforded to other Americans who choose to own firearms.

Criminals (terrorists) and the mentally ill are responsible for acting out, not lawful gun owners.

Children in a school setting are usually not armed.

I note that you refuse to deal with the fact that Canadians are ranked 13th in the world for gun ownership per capita, or are you assigning the identical label of terrorist for them because Canada has mass shootings and gun homicides ?

 

 

I'm NOT even CARING whether we are discussing Canada or the U.S.. This is just a distraction. The argument is about gun rights ANYWHERE. It just happens to be that the U.S. is the one with the problems relating to gun violence based on the interpretation/misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment. And the incident of the recent shooting based on such laws WHEREVER they are in the world would occur because of this 'controversy'. Most recognize the circular scam for what it is. And that too happens to be an 'American' abuse of its system from within: Creating Profitable INDUSTRY by whatever means , ....even by fostering a false need to own guns. The 'right-wing' parties (anywhere in the world) like to capitalize on others by exploiting them in this type of deception. The American 'love for guns' is NOT real but CREATED by the right-wingers EXPLOITING the capacity to create a false need and turning the original intent of very laws made to defeat abuses against the society. 

I saw a car parking area in Chicago once that was owned by a Tow-truck company who set it up in a high-demand area, then placed no parking signs there. The business was purposely created to exploit the high demand of downtown, deceive others into parking there given it looks so empty and harmless to do so, then tow the car away to a compound where they can extort the owner to require paying the fee to get it out. 

IS this appropriate? Is the American way a system specifically designed to fuck people? I don't believe this was the case. But the gun lobby controversy IS this kind of behavior. They want to create a WAR-demand mechanism to justify REDIRECTING government funds to it by indirectly taunting others into acting out terrorist acts (a type of 'entrapment' set-up), then justify GOING to war, implementing war measures in government to sponsor industries to that effort, create the weapon industry and outlets to conveniently profit from this, and all at the same time INDEBTING that very government to the average taxpayers burden to them and their powerful friends in the same 'capitalist' spirit. This reduces the power of the same government to the very social services that they also want to disrupt and destroy. WIN WIN WIN for the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the masses they are exploiting.

 

We have WAY more to fear from the CLEVER cons and manipulators who capitalize on strife that act as puppeteers to the violence occurring. These are more of the terrorists than those poor idiots who act as pawns doing their bidding as they are lead to act out direct violence.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Scott Mayers said:

I'm NOT even CARING whether we are discussing Canada or the U.S.. This is just a distraction. The argument is about gun rights ANYWHERE. It just happens to be that the U.S. is the one with the problems relating to gun violence based on the interpretation/misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment. And the incident of the recent shooting based on such laws WHEREVER they are in the world would occur because of this 'controversy'. Most recognize the circular scam for what it is. And that too happens to be an 'American' abuse of its system from within: Creating Profitable INDUSTRY by whatever means , ....even by fostering a false need to own guns. The 'right-wing' parties (anywhere in the world) like to capitalize on others by exploiting them in this type of deception. The American 'love for guns' is NOT real but CREATED by the right-wingers EXPLOITING the capacity to create a false need and turning the original intent of very laws made to defeat abuses against the society. 

IS this appropriate? Is the American way a system specifically designed to fuck people?...

 

Okay....now you have gone completely off topic to rant about whatever is bugging you.

Even your bad movie references are American.

[Scott Mayers]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Okay....now you have gone completely off topic to rant about whatever is bugging you.

Even your bad movie references are American.

You're playing the distraction game. I'm using very significant and powerful logic here. That I have a rational emotive MOTIVE here is due to the deception that the vast majority are being suckered into. Yes, I AM also emotively troubled by the mass shootings that add rational 'force' here. Should you not be? 

 

P.S. The movie reference ALSO shows how the 'left' has resorted to the same tactics simply because they cannot compete with the manipulation without manipulating themselves. I don't approve of it and is also why I am frustrated on this. ALL people in ALL political persuasions should be paying attention. This issue is only going to get worse if we can't logically see this.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

You're playing the distraction game. I'm using very significant and powerful logic here. That I have a rational emotive MOTIVE here is due to the deception that the vast majority are being suckered into. Yes, I AM also emotively troubled by the mass shootings that add rational 'force' here. Should you not be? 

 

No, I am not concerned about your emotional state about this or any other mass shooting incident.

The majority of Americans do not own guns, so your theory is flawed.

Rant against the "terrorist" gun owners in Canada if that makes you feel better, 'cause Americans ain't giving them up.

Edited February 17, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Scott Mayers]

6 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No, I am not concerned about your emotional state about this or any other mass shooting incident.

The majority of Americans do not own guns, so your theory is flawed.

Rant against the "terrorist" gun owners in Canada if that makes you feel better, 'cause Americans ain't giving them up.

And you try to deflect with more Red Herrings.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[Kerfuffle]

Second Amendment, which includes the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

If the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, mentally ill felons can own nuclear weapons. Children can own machine guns. Terrorists can bring hand grenades on airplanes.

Since nobody who buys into the concept of society actually believes that, it’s clear that everybody believes in some level of gun control, including conservative courts that have allowed assault weapons bans, background checks, and other limits on gun ownership to stand for years. 

So the clear consensus among ordinary Americans and constitutional law scholars is that the type of gun control being proposed today does not violate the Second Amendment.

 

[Argus]

On 2/17/2018 at 9:53 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Guns are sacred in the U.S. because the U.S. has made them sacred.

Most Americans don't own guns. And the vast majority, including the vast majority of NRA members, want gun control. That doesn't mean they want guns banned, but they want elementary gun control like background checks. But the US is a piss-poor democracy these days, and only responds to what the money men want done. The money men don't care about street crime and school shootings. They have bodyguards and send their kids to elite private schools. They don't want the government doing anything that costs taxes, and they make sure the politicians they own, primarily Republicans, obey.

[Argus]

On 2/16/2018 at 3:21 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Health care is not a right in Canada, but guns are a right in the United States.

Are they? Has the supreme court ever actually affirmed this? Clearly gun controls are legal or there wouldn't be states with gun control. So how much control is actually acceptable under the 2nd amendment. And would that change if there were 5 Democrats on the SC instead of 5 Republicans? (and spare me the suggestion they have no political affiliation). 

[Argus]

On 2/16/2018 at 1:13 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

So ?   Congress exists as a check and balance on executive power.

Yes, and in theory the members of congress represent their districts. The system breaks down when they represent other interests instead.

[Argus]

On 2/15/2018 at 11:51 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Ergo, Canada's "gun laws" did not prevent mass shootings.

Clearly they help. When a terrorist invaded parliament all he had managed to obtain (illegally) was a lever action rifle. Hard to face down a half dozen guys with Glocks with that sucker. When that Somali terrorist who crossed the Alberta border from the US wanted to kill people he had to try and run over a cop in hopes of stealing his gun (he failed) so he was out of luck and could only kill a few people. Those crazed Muslim terrorists in the London Bridge incident could only use knives since they couldn't get guns. And the guy who mowed down bicycle riders in New York City a short time back couldn't arm himself with more than a pellet gun and an air gun because gun control is fairly strict in New York and New Jersey. No doubt if he was in Florida he'd have had an Uzi picked up at a corner store. Another terrorist who set off a bomb in NYC last year also couldn't get his hands on a gun for the same reason.

Gun control isn't going to stop all incidents but it certainly stops some, and it makes most of those which happen anyway a lot less bloody.

[Kerfuffle]

 

 

Edited February 18, 2018 by Kerfuffle
wrong insert

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Are they? Has the supreme court ever actually affirmed this? Clearly gun controls are legal or there wouldn't be states with gun control. So how much control is actually acceptable under the 2nd amendment. And would that change if there were 5 Democrats on the SC instead of 5 Republicans? (and spare me the suggestion they have no political affiliation). 

 

Yes it has....see McDonald v City of Chicago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Gun control isn't going to stop all incidents but it certainly stops some, and it makes most of those which happen anyway a lot less bloody.

 

The victims in the École Polytechnique massacre (1989) may disagree with you, which happened long before current trends in U.S. mass school shootings.

Canada eventually abandoned the resulting "Gun Registry" for the expensive farce that it was.

 

Edited February 18, 2018 by bush_cheney2004