Democrats/Libs

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Controversial Topics Democrats/Libs

Viewing 50 posts - 51 through 100 (of 140 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1775963

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    KY
    “People who spend the majority of their time watching videos that glorify murder and mayhem”

    thats a convenient scapegoat, but I dont think it makes sense. Do European countries have less violent video games?

    “Remember law enforcement needs to get it right 100% for these to be no mass murders. ”
    Again, even if we have half the mass murders that would be progress

    “Will it stop some? Sure.”
    I love when we agree!

    #1776181

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Ubiquitin, you sound like someone who lives near a shul.

    #1776282

    Avi K
    Participant

    CTL, do you really believe that gun control will stop criminals and domestic terrorists from obtaining weapons? How about instead of gun control having an armed citizenry as per the Second Amendment? How about education – in particular bringing Gd and the Ten Commandments back into the classroom?

    #1776296

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq
    I don’t know what the video culture is in Europe (I would imagine it’s much worse in arayos and probably similar in murder)
    And perhaps their stricter gun laws keep them safer.
    That’s why I keep falling back on the stupid answer of the second amendment.
    It’s difficult for me to imagine that the second amendment excluded weaponry that was not yet invented at the time.
    It’s more probable that it meant any available weaponry.
    So if they want to change /amend/abolish it, by all means, go ahead.

    According to your way, we should ignore all the societal breakdown that is causing people to lose any semblance of worth for human life, and deny people their freedom to something enshrined in the law of their country.
    To me that is a step towards communism/dictatorship/totalitarianism which by the way always leads to way more murders than all the civilian mass murders of the entire history of America.
    A government must follow. The laws it operates under. That is imperative.
    A private citizen who breaks the law almost always has a personal pressure to do so. As such it is not intrinsically societally destructive or dangerous.
    A government that does not follow its own laws is a terror.

    Yes this argument can and should be used in any case where government infringes on individual rights enshrined in law.

    The fact that people will die who could have been saved is an unfortunate fallout from the fact we live in an imperfect world (until moshiach )
    How many innocent people died while the allies bombed the axis countries?
    Would you say they should not have done it? Of course not because on the other side millions were being saved.
    It’s always a trade off.
    Sad but true

    #1776300

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “And perhaps their stricter gun laws keep them safer”.

    Yes!

    “That’s why I keep falling back on the stupid answer of the second amendment.”
    Yes, but don’t fall back on stupid answers.
    The Constitution once protected slavery, it once banned alcohol. It did all sorts of silly things.

    Changing silly policies is not “A government that does not follow its own laws ”
    They are called amendment s it is a “change” we can change it again.
    Though in this case we don’t even have to change it just revert to the original understand ing which applied to a “militia” oops I mean a “regulated militia”
    Nopey bad I mean a “well regulated militia”

    #1776304

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Avi
    while not addressed to me, I like this topic

    “do you really believe that gun control will stop criminals and domestic terrorists from obtaining weapons?”

    Of course not, but no reason to make it weasier for them

    ” How about instead of gun control having an armed citizenry as per the Second Amendment? ”

    becasue it isnt working

    “How about education – in particular bringing Gd and the Ten Commandments back into the classroom?”
    We all know how religious people starting with the crusades up until modern day islamic fundamentalists never kill in the name of their Gd.

    RY
    nope 🙁
    and at any rate, Im surprised you’d discriminate between those who live near and far from shul

    #1776364

    Whatsaktome
    Participant

    U shouldn’t make it easier for criminals and mentally unstable, but should make it accessible to the average American,

    #1776343

    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“Of course not, but no reason to make it weasier for them”

    WHAT’S “WEASIER”?
    The only thing that Gun Control does – is making it harder for Law-abiding guys to get guns!
    Guns for criminals will be sold on the street like abused Drugs.

    #1776342

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq
    “Yes, but don’t fall back on stupid answers.
    The Constitution once protected slavery, it once banned alcohol. It did all sorts of silly things.

    Changing silly policies is not “A government that does not follow its own laws ”
    They are called amendment s it is a “change” we can change it again.”

    That’s correct. That’s why I keep saying change the amendment and then I would not argue.
    You keep sidestepping that.
    There is a procedure in place.
    Correct me if I’m wrong, while slavery was an everyday way of life in the late 1700’s I don’t believe the right to own slaves is enshrined in the constitution.
    So passing a law outlawing it is no issue.
    As to your contention that the amendment reefers to a militia and not individuals, that is a debate among constitutional “scholars ” so it’s certainly not going to be a winning argument.

    #1776389

    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    The president says, guns don’t kill, people kill. They both do as the guf and neshomo don’t sin individually, so they are punished together as the stealing from the fruit tree where the blind holds the lame are punished together.

    #1776409

    Whatsaktome
    Participant

    What he meant is that owning the gun alone is not the problem, the problem is when the owner is bad

    #1776417

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “You keep sidestepping that”
    i’m not side stepping anything

    “1700’s I don’t believe the right to own slaves is enshrined in the constitution”
    Well it didnt say there was a right to own slaves per se (neither does it says there is right ot own guns) but yes the constitution made references to slaves (3/5th compromise in Article 1), thus allowing their existence
    IT took a constitutional amendment to change it

    “As to your contention that the amendment reefers to a militia and not individuals, that is a debate among constitutional “scholars ” so it’s certainly not going to be a winning argument.”
    i’m not sure what you mean. You grant that it is a debate. It isnt just scholars of course justices of the supreme court are divided as well. Warren Byrger a conservative called the idea that 2nd amendment applies to an indivdual a “fraud” The supreme court can theoretically overrule heller

    I’m not sure what argument you think I’m trying to win.

    The bottom line is the 2nd amendment is changeable (which you agree) or reinterpret-able (which you agree with too “debate among constitutional “scholars ”” )

    So arguing that we cant do anything because of the second amendment is wrong.

    Again if arguing that you don’t want to do anything because you think the gun deaths are worth it for the right to carry guns DOES make sense, and earlier you indicated that, but you keep jumping back to this silly point and I’m not quite sure why it is giving you so much trouble.

    “That’s correct. That’s why I keep saying change the amendment and then I would not argue.”
    Ah but I need you there with me at my side Uibiquitin and KY just like in the good old days, I can’t do it alone.
    So are you in?

    And if your not in, thats ok! but dont keep blaming the second amendment, It is dishonest t o say which is what you are saying (though not verbatim) “We cant do anything about guns because of the second amendment and lets not do anything about the second amendment because reasons”

    #1776419

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health
    “WHAT’S “WEASIER”?”

    Its “easier” with a W in front (W is right next to the E on a standard qwerty keyboard )

    ” is making it harder for Law-abiding guys to get guns!”
    what percentage of mass shootings were done by people who were “Law-abiding” until they started shooting .
    And again (and this was my question from the start of the thread):

    “Guns for criminals will be sold on the street like abused Drugs.”
    Isn’t that better than just walking into your corner bodega and buying a gun no questions asked. We dont say people buy abused drugs in the streets so lets top regulating them (or is that what you are saying?), why is that an argument you (and others) make for guns.?

    PS thanks for satisfying ubiquitin’s law of the internet

    #1776507

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq I call it sidestepping because until this post you seemed to advocate laws that ignore the second amendment.
    Now you are more open that the proper way is to change it.
    The reason and intent when I wrote you can’t win that argument, is because the battle lines are clear. Some say it allows armed individuals others say not. I don’t believe in today’s day and climate you will ever get a public consensus on that. So you can’t convince those against gun control, that it’s not in the amendment. They will Say קים לי like those who hold its for individuals.
    Personally I would NOT. like to see it changed.
    But if it were I would say that the government then has the right to do what is trying to do.
    There are many laws I don’t like. Tough on me.

    #1776560

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Ubiquitin, you must then be either a very strong, fast walker, or someone who has all the time in the world to get from one place to another.

    #1776539

    interjection
    Participant

    “Guns for criminals will be sold on the street like abused Drugs.”

    They already are.

    Ever heard of TOR? Every criminal has and they are probably more likely to buy them in cash, through the dark web or with some other non traceable way, rather than to risk having the government have any tabs on them.

    Anyone with bad intentions can get a gun within a day or two. It’s the good guys who will have to wait for 911 to arrive when they have seconds to protect themself.

    #1776569

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    KY

    Let me try another approach
    As you may know the supreme court ruled in Obergefell that the constitution guarantees same -gender marriage .

    Now imagine we are arguing whether restrictions should be placed on same-gender marriage.
    Lets assume for arguments sake, that you oppose it.
    and you make some impassioned argument about decline of family structure, leading to more crime , increases suicide rate etc etc. or whatever argument you make.

    And I reply ” oh well the supreme court ruled that it is constitutional so there is nothing we can do about it”

    Would you accept that argument?

    #1776558

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “Ubiq I call it sidestepping because until this post you seemed to advocate laws that ignore the second amendment.”

    no of course not. The only law ii’m advocated for in this thread is universal background checks which already exist in sa few states. These are not considered unconstitutional (though of course that can change) .

    and Of course the government shouldn’t ignore the 2nd amendment . I agree compleltly with this line of yours “A government must follow. The laws it operates under. That is imperative.” My reply though, was “Changing silly policies is not “A government that does not follow its own laws ”They are called amendment s it is a “change” we can change it again.”

    “Some say it allows armed individuals others say not. I don’t believe in today’s day and climate you will ever get a public consensus on that.”
    We dont need a “public consensus” when Heller was decided 4/9 interpreted correctly. We just need it to come up again when have less activist judges on the bench trying to legislate from the bench.

    “So you can’t convince those against gun control, that it’s not in the amendment. ”
    Of course not, I’m not tryin g too. I’m trying to convince you that saying there is nothing that we can do because of the second amendment is wrong .

    “Personally I would NOT. like to see it changed.”
    Beseder. So stand up and say that. don’t blame the second amendment.
    Lets put it another way,
    Scenario 1) if John roberts calls you and says , “Hey KY there is a case coming up tomorrow regarding expanding gun control, I’m just not sure how to vote what should I do?”

    scenario 2) 2/3 of both chambers decide to limit the second amendment ot a “well regulated militia” wait that doesn’t work, they decide to get rid of it completely. 37 states voted to ratify it the tie breaking vote in the 38’th ( making 3/4 of the states) vote is yours. Would you vote to repeal?

    Based on your answer “Personally I would NOT. like to see it changed.” I imagine you would vote not to change it.

    thus it is dishonest for you to blame the second amendment. since even without it you still support gun deaths, I mean “rights” and given the option to amend it you wouldn’t.

    I feel like I’m repeating myself more than usual. do you understand my point ? I’m concerned that your not since “until this post you seemed to advocate laws that ignore the second amendment.”

    #1776584

    Health
    Participant

    interjection -“They already are.”

    TY for conforming my point.
    Gun control doesn’t stop Murders. Except in the Liberal Mind!

    #1776581

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    In Obergefell, the Supreme Court twisted the Constitution and interpreted it as stating something that was never written or intended. It has nothing to do with interpreting the Second Amendment as written.

    #1776585

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq why is it dishonest?
    Personally I would vote as you guessed.
    Not to expand
    Not to repeal.
    But I am aware that a reasonable argument can be made to repeal…
    However I believe that currently I have the constitutional right to purchase any weaponry I want.
    You feel I should not have that right. I say change the constitution and then I lose that right.
    I’m not blaming the second amendment anymore than you blame your cash for getting you groceries in your supermarket.
    It’s the vehicle through which you get your wish.
    My position is not formed because of the amendment rather it’s allowed to exist because of it.

    #1776592

    interjection
    Participant

    Health, I wasn’t arguing with you. My intention was to quote you but elaborate on what you said.

    #1776596

    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“what percentage of mass shootings were done by people who were “Law-abiding” until they started shooting .”

    Your point would be applicable – if the US Murder Problem was mainly Mass shootings.
    But it isn’t!
    If you listen to the Media & the Lib politicans, you’d think that the US doesn’t have a Murder Prob; only with Mass Shootings.

    #1776600

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health
    “Gun control doesn’t stop Murders. Except in the Liberal Mind”
    and In Europe and Israel (though again, of course doesn’t stop, it limits)

    RY
    “It has nothing to do with interpreting the Second Amendment as written.”
    I’m the one arguing to interpret the second amendment as written .

    KY
    “However I believe that currently I have the constitutional right to purchase any weaponry I want.”
    Of course you do, The supreme court said so. I don’t follow when was that point disputed?

    “My position is not formed because of the amendment rather it’s allowed to exist because of it.”
    But that isnt true (and thus dishonest) . you position exists regardless of the 2nd amendment. As you yourself said “Personally I would vote as you guessed.” your position isnt predicated on the second amendment. If the second amendment didn’t exist you would still support gun rights

    My Obergfell argument went up separate
    would love to hear your reply

    #1776605

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health
    “If you listen to the Media & the Lib politicans, you’d think that the US doesn’t have a Murder Prob; only with Mass Shootings.”

    I listen to the Media and I dont think that. the US has many problems
    – a murder problem
    – lack of guaranteed healthcare problem
    – mass shooting problem
    – drug problem
    – a president who is an imbecile

    fixing any of these is a good thing even , if if it doesn’t fix all our problems

    #1776653

    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“– a murder problem
    – lack of guaranteed healthcare problem
    – mass shooting problem
    – drug problem”

    Why is having an imbecile as Pres. a prob.?
    You didn’t complain about Obama (Imbecile from Kenya).

    A murder prob – can be solved with stricter punishments. (Eg. All murderers – DEATH Penality.)

    Healthcare was #1 in the World, until Clinton & Obama came along!

    Drug prob – If the US had a strong border – alot of the Illegal drugs would go away!

    #1776663

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq you really make me work.
    I haTe typing on my phone

    My position, which is that I like the idea of a citizenry with access to arms, has legal support from the second amendment. Therefore I feel that until the amendment is changed that right cannot be legally taken away.
    Correct I didn’t for my opinion because of the amendment

    #1776676

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    KY
    “My position, which is that I like the idea of a citizenry with access to arms”

    Yes. nailed it period end your position there.
    The rest is just filler, and is irrelevant to your position, since your position is not changed by the amendment “Correct I didn’t for my opinion because of the amendment”

    Say we dig up the annotated version of the bill of rights signed by Madison himself. and there he says specifically that he is limiting the 2nd amendment specifically to militias, and not to others. He specifies that it must be well regulated with all guns being registered, extensive background checks, waiting periods etc etc etc.
    would your view change?

    Based on what youve written, I assume it would not (correct me if I’m wrong)
    Becasue as you said “My position, which is that I like the idea of a citizenry with access to arms” period. It has nothing to do with the second amendment.

    #1776677

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    If guns were regulated like cars, they would be harder to get, but a significant number of places would be unarmed-free zones.

    #1776678

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health
    “You didn’t complain about Obama (Imbecile from Kenya).”

    when was Malik Obama presdient? was your supreme court case during his administration.

    Look wehther or not you think these are problems is not the point. surely you agree there are some problems in America.
    Just becasue a solution solves one problem and not another doesnt make it a bad solution

    This is a variant of the mistake you made in the op where you indicated that if it doesn’t stop something completely it isnt worth doing at all.
    This position of yours is one of the most baffling ones you’ve had.
    The collector I told your first argument too didnt buy it, “Look my 5 dollars wont help you out of poverty, so why bother” I’m going to try your new argument “look giving you tzedaka wont solve the shiduch crises so why bother”

    #1776679

    Amil Zola
    Participant

    The last time I checked there were 150 known militias here in the US, each believes itself to be well regulated. Heck a few even own tanks. Who is regulating them? Lets face it many are Jew hating nationalists who would like to see any Jew, from or not go up in smoke. But above all they believe they fit the descriptor.

    #1776688

    justme22
    Participant

    Most pro gun advocates are not defending the right of owning guns for its recreational use.
    If it was possible to remove every single gun from the country (and completely prevent new ones from been manufactured or smuggled in ) then it would make sense to prohibit gun ownership ; the reality is however that if we just ban it then who would give them up ? Only law oviding citizens would , the ones who want to harm with guns will not give them up. Those of us who do want respect law will not have a way to defend ourselves.
    There is also the importance of defending ourselves from the government in situations like Venezuela or nazi Germany
    .. the fear with “controls” is where would the limit be? How much control would we allow before letting our right to own guns disappear.
    Anyhow some stricter gun control does make sense … the nra has done some great stuff to protect the 2nd amendment but sometimes their protecting of guns as s sport (as a business ) is a bit extreme.
    Heroin is very different of course but if the government takes away the right to hace heroin , the good guys are not going to be less protected …

    #1776709

    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“when was Malik Obama presdient? was your supreme court case during his administration.”

    Who’s talking about Malik?
    I was talking about Barack HUSSAIN Obama!

    “Just becasue a solution solves one problem and not another doesnt make it a bad solution
    This is a variant of the mistake you made in the op where you indinicated that if it doesn’t stop something completely it isnt worth doing at all.”

    The last line makes sense. The prob I have is all the Libs (Media & politicians), only talk about Mass Murders. What about all the killings that go on in the US?
    WHY WON’T THEY TALK ABOUT THEM?
    I think simply that their theories on deterring CRIME Doesn’t work & it hasn’t worked in at least 30 years!

    #1776715

    philosopher
    Participant

    I believe in a complete ban of assault weapons and semi-automatic guns. Only concealed guns should be legal.

    And recreational drugs should never be legalized. Legalizing drugs is not only a liberal idea, I remember years ago Sean Hannity promoting the use of lighter drugs ( I’m not so familiar with drugs b”H so I don’t remember which one it was he was promoting relugar use of… ) Maybe conservatives nowadays changed their tune after it became a liberal issue…

    #1776729

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Even if guns are more dangerous than bears, we should not allow a single person to be attacked by a bear.

    #1776779

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Just me
    “There is also the importance of defending ourselves from the government in situations like Venezuela or nazi Germany”

    I have heard this argument before, I have a few questions for you

    1) we aren’t going to be able to stop the government with AR-15 s. We will need automatic weapons, tanks armed drones here etc. Do you support my right to own those? Keep in mind the 2nd amendment says “arms” it isn’t limited to guns. So why are these arms ok but not these, particularly if the rational is to stop a tyranical government?

    2) how does this work. Who decides if the government is tyranical. If I think paying taxes is tyranical do I have a right to protect my property from the IRS? Who decides?

    #1776778

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq,
    Why must I stop there?
    Why can’t I point out that my position, IMHO, is protected and enshrined by law.

    I believe you should treat red lights as stop signs even in NYC between 12-630am, (like they do in many small towns and cities )
    But if I act upon it and get caught, it will cost me dearly. Because I have no legal standing.

    My point with bringing in the second amendment is that this position has legal standing, so if someone want to curtail it, they should not be able to just make a new law. They should have to go through the rigorous process of changing /deleting and amendment, which we all know is very unlikely to happen on this issue.
    Why is that not germane to the discussion here?

    #1776739

    Avi K
    Participant

    First of all, I think that guns should be like another dangerous weapon – a car. Require licensing after learning how to use it safely (and passing a background and psychological check). Secondly, the real issue, as with narcotics, is mental health. In every generation there have been mass killers. The fact that Prohibition-era gangsters (mainly) only killed other gangsters does not change the fact that they had mental health issues. This is apparent in their bios. Some were even nicknamed variants of “Bugsy” and “Mad Dog”.

    #1776839

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    KY

    “Why must I stop there?”

    You dont must, you can say whatever you want, see the first amendment 🙂

    “Why can’t I point out that my position, IMHO, is protected and enshrined by law.”

    you can, but that isn’t what we are debating, it is a silly distraction. Yes your right to own a gun is protected by the second amendment as interpreted by the supreme court. I did not dispute that point, that is not the discussion.

    “Why is that not germane to the discussion here?”
    Because it is a distraction (and is designed to be one). You say “. They should have to go through the rigorous process of changing /deleting and amendment,” Yes I agreed to that over and over and over Yet we are still “debating” it. which is what makes it so frustrating .

    Yes you have the right to own guns, that was never debated. in this thread.
    SHOULD you have that right? you say yes even though it results in deaths (like cars which we agree we should be allowed to own even though they result in deaths) becasue you like them, fine.

    but dont say “I should have the right to own BECAUSE of the second amendment” That is circular reasoning, and a distraction.

    “I believe you should treat red lights as stop signs even in NYC between 12-630am, … But if I act upon it and get caught, it will cost me dearly. Because I have no legal standing.”

    Great example! now, lets compare it to our discussion, If I were to argue and say “no we shouldn’t treat red lights as stop signs even in NYC between 12-630am,* because the law doesn’t allow that”
    would you accept my argument “Ok I guess we shouldn’t”
    Of course not ! (correct me if I’m wrong)
    you would correctly, retort, “so change the law! ”
    On the other hand if I argued ” At night it is dark it is hard to see cars, NYC is ‘the city that never sleeps’ even at night its busy etc etc etc” or “No , It is a good way to keep the populace nice and obedient a citizenry that sits idly at a red light at 2 AM when it is clearly safe to drive out of fear of what big brother can do to them, is one that is less likely to rise up (especially if we disarm them)” then THAT is my argument on your proposal. It would be empty filler to add “plus the law doesn’t allow it”

    (* In reality I agree with you completely)

    #1776846

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Avi K, you too compare guns to cars? The car menace is destroying our cities.

    #1777018

    justme22
    Participant

    Ubiquiten

    About Germany , I don’t mean to say we could have stoped the entire nazi movement. I just meant certain families would have been able to defend themselves.

    Who decides when the government is to be gunned down. Disagreement about taxes is very different than when the constitution is clearly been ignored in which the country or your family is in clearly illegal danger. So I guess our laws decide: freedom of speech , freedom of religion , right to own property …

    Yes no system will be perfect , the government will always have more power than any militia that doesn’t mean that a gun would never help . Like what’s the point if airbags if they don’t always help ?

    #1777083

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    ” Disagreement about taxes is very different than when the constitution is clearly been ignored”

    Agree completely. but who decides? For example I believe my right to free speech includes burning the flag. Before 1989 most states had laws barring said burning . when Gregory Johnson was arrested in 1984 for burning the flag, would you have supported his right to open fire on the police officer arresting him. OF course in hindsight the supreme court ruled he was right and that the law he was violatign was unconstitutional.

    My point is who decides? If your argument th that we should have guns is to protect ourselves from Nazi Germany, you’d need a system in place to identify when we are on that track.

    you air bag analogy is faulty. Airbags dont always help, but sometimes they do and those people are alive thanks to them. no mililita armed with guns has any chance of standing up to a Nazi United States, its not like well some btimes the milita would win.

    #1777453

    klugeryid
    Participant

    ubiq
    sorry but we are going to have to agree here
    oh well we will find something else to argue about im sure

    #1777684

    interjection
    Participant

    “I have heard this argument before, I have a few questions for you

    1) we aren’t going to be able to stop the government with AR-15 s. We will need automatic weapons, tanks armed drones here etc. Do you support my right to own those? Keep in mind the 2nd amendment says “arms” it isn’t limited to guns. So why are these arms ok but not these, particularly if the rational is to stop a tyranical government?”

    How is this not contradictory to other statements that you’ve said.

    You said previously that although better background checks wouldn’t be able to prevent all mass shootings, most likely it should result in much fewer mass shootings.

    Here, you’re suggesting that if a bunch of people have guns they won’t be able to prevent a government takeover. You’re right that they won’t be able to save the whole country, but at least they have a chance of protecting themselves.

    #1777722

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “You’re right that they won’t be able to save the whole country, but at least they have a chance of protecting themselves.”

    I dont follow, how would we be able to protect ourselves against tanks, drones and jets with AR 15’s?

    and at any rate “How is this not contradictory to other statements that you’ve said.” I wasn’t making a statement. I’m asking a question, WHY don’t I have a right to own armed drones ? (or do I) (my question was not what is the point of owning AR-15’s if we dont own tanks, question is why can’t I own a tank)

    #1781059

    Ben L
    Participant

    I really think that this whole gun control thing is a distraction that causes us to avoid confronting the bigger issue.

    55 years ago virtually none of the current gun laws were on the books , guns were much more readily available.
    In fat kids used cap guns and such freely.

    Yet the current mass shootings that are sadly becoming more and more common were also virtually non-existent.

    So the problem is not the lack of gun control laws.
    Rather it’s what changed so fundamentally in the culture that makes these things common.

    But I suspect that is conversation that will never be had because that the Dems must look at themselves since they control the systems for teaching and influencing the culture in America i.e the entertainment industry and public school system.

    Furthermore it is their policies that advocate further changing the make up of the nuclear family of that era that successfully raised a generation that at least valued life enough not to shoot up a school or workplace because they were “angry”.

    #1781317

    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    Ben L, look ar my previous post on August 19th about guns.

    #1781368

    Ben Levi
    Participant

    Sorry I tried to understand your post but failed.
    How is the guf the gun?

    #1781384

    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    No one said the guf is the gun. I am saying that sometimes two things contribute to one result like the guf and the neshomo to sin. Similarly, the gun and the person together contribute to the murder, so both should be held responsible.

    #1781518

    Ben Levi
    Participant

    Sorry
    Should we perhaps ban knives because they sometimes are used to kill?
    How about cars?
    Perhaps Sticks?

    Guns are tools just as any other tool.

    They have no feelings.
    They have no free will.
    They are an inanimate object, the same as a knife is an inanimate object.

    You cannot hold an inanimate object “responsible” for anything.
    However you can hold the operator of an inanimate object responsible.

    However I do understand that those who wish to wage war on personal responsibility would want to focus on anything other then those truly responsible.

Viewing 50 posts - 51 through 100 (of 140 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending