• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

5-year old Idaho girl dies afterIdaho playmate gets gun

US Conservative said:
I dont care what you think is more convincing, my rights are not based on your opinion, nor does a "need" have to be shown for them. :2wave:
Click to expand...

If your rights are not based on my opinion, then they are not based on your opinion either.
 
Capster78 said:
Oh, so your saying our opinions do matter? Or only my opinion does not matter because you don't agree with it.
Click to expand...

I answered clearly and directly to your question, we do not live in a dictatorship. And no, your opinion does not matter because its immaterial to my rights.

If you disagree with this, here would be where you demonstrate that your opinion is at all relevent to my rights.
 
US Conservative said:
I answered clearly and directly to your question, we do not live in a dictatorship. And no, your opinion does not matter because its immaterial to my rights.

If you disagree with this, here would be where you demonstrate that your opinion is at all relevent to my rights.
Click to expand...

Because the constitution is not a static document. It can be amended, changed, re-written. The thought that the constitution is written in stone is akin to extremists who believe the bible is the literal word of god. There are debates even today as to how to decipher the words in the constitution, just as there are debates on what the writings in the bible mean. Just think if we had held to the writings in the bible, just as thouse in the ME have the Koran. It was the whole reason the ME went from one of the scientific centers of the world to one of the most archaic is because they did not conform their beliefs to the evolution of society. The same is true with the constitution. The ideals expressed within are up for debate, and not static. Which is why there are ways to amend, change and even re-write it if we wanted. Which is why my opinion does matter, as well as yours. We both have the capacity to debate for change. And while our opinions may not have an immediate effect, they can over time if enough people agree with our opinion.
 
Capster78 said:
Because the constitution is not a static document. It can be amended, changed, re-written. The thought that the constitution is written in stone is akin to extremists who believe the bible is the literal word of god. There are debates even today as to how to decipher the words in the constitution, just as there are debates on what the writings in the bible mean. Just think if we had held to the writings in the bible, just as thouse in the ME have the Koran. It was the whole reason the ME went from one of the scientific centers of the world to one of the most archaic is because they did not conform their beliefs to the evolution of society. The same is true with the constitution. The ideals expressed within are up for debate, and not static. Which is why there are ways to amend, change and even re-write it if we wanted. Which is why my opinion does matter, as well as yours. We both have the capacity to debate for change. And while our opinions may not have an immediate effect, they can over time if enough people agree with our opinion.
Click to expand...

It surely is not static, nor is it not inclusive of all natural rights, it merely recognizes some, and establishes the criteria for change. Change which is thankfully meticulous and difficult to change, because if the left had its way we'd all be in gulags within a few months.

Debate to your hearts content, your opinion is immaterial.
 
US Conservative said:
It surely is not static, nor is it not inclusive of all natural rights, it merely recognizes some, and establishes the criteria for change. Change which is thankfully meticulous and difficult to change, because if the left had its way we'd all be in gulags within a few months.

Debate to your hearts content, your opinion is immaterial.
Click to expand...

Well, thankfully those who wrote the constitution do not agree.
 
US Conservative said:
It surely is not static, nor is it not inclusive of all natural rights, it merely recognizes some, and establishes the criteria for change. Change which is thankfully meticulous and difficult to change, because if the left had its way we'd all be in gulags within a few months.

Debate to your hearts content, your opinion is immaterial.
Click to expand...

picard-facepalm2.jpg
 
US Conservative said:
Your opinion is irrelevant. A 2/3's majority willing to put forward such a measure, yes.

Or do you think your opinion trumps that?
Click to expand...

You thing change happens overnight. Historically that is not the case. Change comes from a growing movement of people which derive from a minority opinion. At least at the time it was a minority opinion, but as more people agree, it no longer becomes a minority opinion. The vietnam war protests started out as a minority opinion, just as the protest against the war in Iraq. Both opinions started out small and grew.

That is how society has moved from survival of the fittest to civilized society. The whole way, conservatives tried to maintain the status quo, while liberals have tried to make changes. It has always been the case that the compromise between the two has lead to a responsible continuous change over time. A drastic change would be devastating, as well as no change at all. So the compromise of the two has lead to current day civilization and morals.

I watched a documentary on Chinese society. The Chinese seem to understand this very well. While they continue to recieve outside pressure to change overnight, they know that overnight change would be disasterous for chinese society and culture. Based on what I have read and seen, the chinese are not against democracy and capitalism, they are actually moving in that direction. But they want to do it in a way that preserves chinese culture. So in essence, a minority opinion which grows in popularity can change even a country as large as china.
 
US Conservative said:
Statistics, advocating for state control like its cool. And they'd gladly trade our rights for some "solution" they have been sold.

This is the face of the left.
Click to expand...

Sure. :roll:
 
Capster78 said:
You thing change happens overnight. Historically that is not the case. Change comes from a growing movement of people which derive from a minority opinion. At least at the time it was a minority opinion, but as more people agree, it no longer becomes a minority opinion. The vietnam war protests started out as a minority opinion, just as the protest against the war in Iraq. Both opinions started out small and grew.

That is how society has moved from survival of the fittest to civilized society. The whole way, conservatives tried to maintain the status quo, while liberals have tried to make changes. It has always been the case that the compromise between the two has lead to a responsible continuous change over time. A drastic change would be devastating, as well as no change at all. So the compromise of the two has lead to current day civilization and morals.

I watched a documentary on Chinese society. The Chinese seem to understand this very well. While they continue to recieve outside pressure to change overnight, they know that overnight change would be disasterous for chinese society and culture. Based on what I have read and seen, the chinese are not against democracy and capitalism, they are actually moving in that direction. But they want to do it in a way that preserves chinese culture. So in essence, a minority opinion which grows in popularity can change even a country as large as china.
Click to expand...

Change? Are we now moving on from the constitution? "Change" does not stem from the constitution or even govt. Govt is downstream from culture. Sometimes-change does stem from a minority opinion, of course many times that minority opinion is that way for a reason-and it goes away.

One need only look at marxism-a failed set of policies that killed millions and left the rest poor. That was a minority idea, and it will remain so.
Its important that you dont confuse adopting capitalist policies (in the case of china-they saw the writing on the wall with marxism), with capitalism.

In this way, its like palliative care-a temporary relief of symptoms in a terminally ill patient.
 
US Conservative said:
Change? Are we now moving on from the constitution? "Change" does not stem from the constitution or even govt. Govt is downstream from culture. Sometimes-change does stem from a minority opinion, of course many times that minority opinion is that way for a reason-and it goes away.
Click to expand...

That is actually a great question. I think there should be another discussion about that very question. Should we move on from the constitution? I think the basic tennents of the constitution are still relevent today, but there are others that have outlived their purpose. The 2nd ammendment is one I fell has. If I had a pen and the power; which I know I don't, and you dont have to remind me of that, I would re-write the 2nd amendment to state that everyone has the right to self defense. Then we could debate by what means, instead of being stuck with the outdated and confusing wording that exists now. Where the confusion comes in is in the framing of the 2nd amendment stating that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". If the writers intended firearms to be used in ones own personal protection from crime, why was that not written more clearly? So I think if we as a country believe in the right to bear arms for self defense purposes, we need to re-write it to say that. It is not how I would choose to write it. As I have said.. I would simply write it stating ones right to self defense while leaving out the method of self defense. That way we could have a discussion as to what type of weapons we are allowed to use for self defense purposes.

One need only look at marxism-a failed set of policies that killed millions and left the rest poor. That was a minority idea, and it will remain so.
Click to expand...

Well, in some countries an expiremental process has to occur in order to determine what works and what does not work. That is the reason why I stated that its dangerous to change society overnight. Slow gradual change is necissary in order to keep us from putting all our eggs in one basket and getting them all crushed. We have to throw ideas out there, good or bad, and expiriment with them. If they don't work, we get rid of them before they do more damage.
 
Capster78 said:
That is actually a great question. I think there should be another discussion about that very question. Should we move on from the constitution? I think the basic tennents of the constitution are still relevent today, but there are others that have outlived their purpose. The 2nd ammendment is one I fell has. If I had a pen and the power; which I know I don't, and you dont have to remind me of that, I would re-write the 2nd amendment to state that everyone has the right to self defense. Then we could debate by what means, instead of being stuck with the outdated and confusing wording that exists now. Where the confusion comes in is in the framing of the 2nd amendment stating that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". If the writers intended firearms to be used in ones own personal protection from crime, why was that not written more clearly? So I think if we as a country believe in the right to bear arms for self defense purposes, we need to re-write it to say that. It is not how I would choose to write it. As I have said.. I would simply write it stating ones right to self defense while leaving out the method of self defense. That way we could have a discussion as to what type of weapons we are allowed to use for self defense purposes.



Well, in some countries an expiremental process has to occur in order to determine what works and what does not work. That is the reason why I stated that its dangerous to change society overnight. Slow gradual change is necissary in order to keep us from putting all our eggs in one basket and getting them all crushed. We have to throw ideas out there, good or bad, and expiriment with them. If they don't work, we get rid of them before they do more damage.
Click to expand...

:doh When I said move on, I meant with our discussion-not from the Constitution-however I understand that is the natural tendency for leftists.

Why is it instead of worrying about your self leftists invariably get around to forcing others to do as they wish? Your opinions on the 2nd reflect ignorance. The 2nd is ALL ABOUT self defense-from the govt or anyone else who would seek to take our rights. The founders knew exactly what the 2nd meant-it meant the rights of all individuals-THE PEOPLE. This same term THE PEOPLE is found all over the constitution and bill of rights-and there is no confusion there. Moreover several SCOTUS cases affirmed this right, as well as over 2 centuries of case law. The only "confusion" is falsely presented by the left-as a means to infringe that very right. Only now, and because the left says so-are things "confusing". Please its silly.

Separate from the 2nd, the right to self defense already exists-its a natural right. Ever seen a lion running down a gazelle? The gazelle runs and runs, and if its taken down it kicks and it bites and it fights for its life. Nobody thinks its wrong to do so. But for some reason leftists here in the US would seek to prevent Americans from using the most effective means to self defense-guns. Moreover-I could use anything to protect myself, from my hands to a blunt implement to a knife-the right exists separately from anything to do with firearms-and it exists OUTSIDE of the constitution, which merely recognizes some rights.

Debate to your hearts content-nothing changes this-its not granted by any document.
 
Capster78 said:
There are enough people who support such legislation, but it will probably take a string of incidents or possibly one large incident to light the fire under their butts to care enough to push for it. That is the way Americans are. Take 911 for example. It takes a series or one large tragic event to get people going. These events are starting to manifest themselves starting with the string of school shootings. Based on the current climate of a society saturated with guns and mental illness, it is only a matter of time before an event transpires that will force people to get off their bums and actually voice their opinions.
Click to expand...

IMO that is all unfounded, unsupported imagination.
 
haymarket said:
yup that is very true. The entire world experience of an heavily populated nation like ours shows that it would be nearly impossible to have the society we do without the automobile. So the price is indeed paid and probably one we must pay.

So can we say the same for the world experience with firearms and the price we must pay for that?

btw - that is the point.
Click to expand...


Sources please. Many industrialized countries make do without cars for every family, without multiple cars per family, and have much more robust public transportation. *People* can adapt lifestyle and where they live. Most people in America dont NEED cars outside of convenience. Otherwise they have other options. If people in the US were truly as upset about car collateral as you say they are with gunfire collateral, there would be movements to restrict those too. Sorry, we just 'like' our cars and the convenience. It's just a matter of perspective...not fact.

And our nation's experience with firearms is pretty good....that's why we are free and also make it easier for us to remain so.
 
shrubnose said:
Tell us all about it if a child is ever in your home and finds that gun and uses it.

It's the things that people don't think are going to happen that create problems for a lot of people.

I'm not wishing bad luck on anyone, but that's a fact.
Click to expand...

I live in a rural area and am older so almost no friends with 'kids' anymore. I said I put it away IF kids come over. I put it away when most COMPANY comes over, period.

That would be a real shame. If a child or teens broke in. And even tho I probably would be held legally liable, morally ***by no means would it be my fault or responsibility that the gun I leave ready to save my life was used that way,***

That's a fact. Darwin can be a bitch.
 
Capster78 said:
True, but vehicles have the tightest regulations of anything we purchase.
Click to expand...

And see how many deaths and injuries still occur?

The vehicles have lots of mechanical and structural regulations. We have lots of laws to prevent car misuse and promote safetly.

Millions die or are injured every year.

So apparently it's not the cars themselves or the laws. Because personal irresponsiblity causes most accidents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom