Curious George
Veteran Member
Me: we cannot conclude that correlation = causation.
You: sure we can.
Yeah, I don't agree. Sorry.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Question for supporters of the second amendment.
- Thread starter fantome profane
- Start date
Me: we cannot conclude that correlation = causation.
You: sure we can.
Yeah, I don't agree. Sorry.
I agree.
dfnj
Well-Known Member
No one is going to stop the government from abusing power by owning an AR-15. It's just irrational.
dfnj
Well-Known Member
Where is the line is a great question. What makes stinger missiles different than AR-15s?
dfnj
Well-Known Member
Maybe we can have government again in this country and have public policies to address poverty and opportunity and we would not have such a great need to have guns in the first place! There's just something really wrong in this country when doing crimes pays much better than doing hard honest work.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
it is an important CIVIL right
it is unfortunate that civility cannot be determined at the point of acquisition
but to disarm the population ....would be a disaster
only the criminals would have guns
dfnj
Well-Known Member
Police would have guns. And guns with much better technology which would be much harder for criminals to buy and illegal to possess. What better way to keep our streets safe than to put someone in jail for a night for walking the streets with a gun that can shoot 45 bullets per minute and then confiscate the illegal weapon?
A citizen doesn't need a gun that shoots 45 bullets per minute to defend themselves. A six shooter would be fine.
This simple scenario is just one of the many possible.
And as the Kent State shooting shows, our military does have soldiers willing to kill us if so ordered.
Instead of looking at this as an all or nothing matter, consider that military support for attacking
fellow citizens is something which is variable. And no matter how powerful the military, small
arms are still effective in modern conflicts. Missiles, tanks, & aircraft have only limited uses.
If there actually were widespread revolt, the revolutionaries would be embedded in the general
population. So only small arms would be useful against such revolutionaries. And this would
be complicated by soldier sympathizers.
The best thing to do is to politically avoid such a scenario in the first place.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Indeed. But the Red Dawn fantasy is powerful with some people.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I have posted a similar notation here at the forum
with great reservation
our founding fathers lived in a time when the best of munitions could be had.....by any one
and the territory was rough and dangerous.
still is.....
Lol. That argument is completely stupid considering the weaponry the military and police have. Your stupid AR-15 won't protect you from a drone strike. Try and take on the government like a ******. Enjoy that Hellfire missile up your ***.So if you're going to use that argument, the Second Amendment is outdated and useless.
The military are usually not allowed to act against the citizenry. As for the police, how would you feel about limiting their access to guns as well?
I tend to doubt a AR-15 would be of much use in such a situation either.
I know. My son was beaten, tazed, kick in the balls, attacked by a police dog which nearly bit his arm off because he refused entry on account the police didn't have a search warrant.
An ex-boyfriend of the girl my son was living with had call into the police saying she was being held hostage. He ending up spending 3 months in jail on a charge of terrorism. Fortunately there were no weapons in the house else he might have ended up dead.
I don't think most people are prepared in any way to defend their freedom. The government has made sure that ship has sailed.
So you're ready to surrender. Gotcha.
I don't blame you. Best not to act against a group that holds that much power.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Don't get glib with me just because I asked you a question you can't answer. If you can't answer a reasonable question, the problem doesn't lie with the person asking it.
I didn't realize that you had asked a question.
averageJOE
zombie
Come on...
You really think mass shooters are unaware of laws? You really think an mass shooter isn't well trained, well educated, well informed with their firearms?
This is not what I was addressing.
I've proposed a bunch of gun control measures.
All are envisioned to work in concert with each other.
None by itself addresses the entire problem.
To pick one scenario which isn't addressed by one measure is meaningless.
Good handling of information has the advantages I stated....
- An informed gun owner can avoid running afoul of the law.
- A government which makes needed info available to its many elements is more prepared to act upon it.
These advantages exist, even if this particular aspect doesn't stop every shooting.
But I note that if government had better information handling abilities,
the FBI would've likely reacted to prevent the recent shooting.
They dropped the ball for reasons which can be fixed.
So I propose fixing them.
averageJOE
zombie
Fair enough.
I was referring to your argument that the citizenry should guns to fight off the government and pointing out why it's stupid. Disarming cops would be a good idea with all the shootings of unarmed people those trigger happy fools do. The less guns in society, the better.