Gun Control

[DefenderAO]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I see. But the lower rates of violence in far more progressive societies suggest... what exactly? 

 

Help me out here: if progressive policies are leading us down a morally inferior path, why does the United States have rates of violence 600% higher?

 

Tell ya what, I'm going to think of what our children are subjected to in American society by taking my 5 and 7 year old nephews out to lunch at Hooters. That way gender and sex expectations are drilled into them to prevent said moral decay from taking place. 

Look at the crime rates in the US in the least gun-friendly areas of our country.  The US has a moral decay and cultural issue where certain types of violence is almost celebrated (get and maintain respect, or whatever) within these areas.  And these shootings make up the majority of gun violence, historically, in the US.  

 

You're likely joking, but that's the free agency you have and, I'd posit, one of the worst things one could do to affirm masculinity.  

[DefenderAO]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Just so we're clear, you've moved on from the 2A being designed by the Founding Fathers as a tool meant for citizens to protect themselves from big Gubmint coming after them - as evidenced by Federalist Paper 46 written by Founding father James Madison - which you explicitly stated was true. Good.

 

Not that you're going to change your thought process, now we've moved onto "well maybe the Founding Father's didn't mean the 2A for that purpose but I sure bet it would've been nice when an army turned on its populace in an unnamed military event I don't have the knowledge of history to name."

The 2A was meant as a means for protection against tyranny.  Secondarily it serves a purpose for multiple types of defense. 

 

Are you saying there is no historical evidence a government has turned on its citizens?  

 

EDIT:  Gun violence, gender misidentification etc are both a symptom.  Deal with the root or the symptoms will remain or evolve into further immoral acts

[BigRedBuster]

@DefenderAO We are on multiple pages of this conversation and you still haven't told anyone who decides what the truth is....and, what retaliation does society have if someone goes against that truth?

[Guy Chamberlin]

24 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

Continuing to set the baseline - Truth isn't swayed by experience, locale, etc.  Truth should be the lens to see experience from, give contextual framing, not something that moves based upon emotion or other externals.

 

The truth is, someone changing their gender to feel better is not going to bring them true joy.  People wanting to change their gender is a symptom of a deeper sickness.  This sickness, for a very few, then leads them to take a weapon and horrifically gun people down.  More often this illness yields a trip to a child drag show where they celebrate "pride" amongst egregiously underaged kids.  Sometimes, the root doesn't yield to a gender identity crisis in the individual.  There still remains a moral and mental illness that needs to be addressed...

 

It's moral filth and has become normalized.  The sickness should not be normalized or celebrated.  It should be treated with care for that individual.  

 

 

But that's the rub, isn't it? Why do you assume your truth should be the baseline?

 

You are too generous assuming progressives are so open minded as to believe anything goes. They hold their own firm truths, and like you most of those involve personal freedoms. If you want to go by literal truths, the vast majority of people who choose to change gender are far happier than they were before. Whether you believe that or it simply affronts your personal moral code doesn't make it a truth. Certainly not a truth to enforce on a small percentage of others. It really shouldn't affect you at all, and it's a bit troubling that transgender grooming and mutilation is your main reference point in thread about citizens needing to stay heavily armed.

 

Assuming you vote, what happens when your party of choice runs the government locally and/or nationally? At that point they become the state. So when the state shows up to arrest someone based on horribly misinformed views on grooming and mutilation, or to remove books they don't like from the library, what happens if they are met with armed resistance? Do you celebrate those people for using the Second Amendment to stand against tyranny? 

 

I think it's helpful for people concerned about America's moral decline to study  up on America a little more. Our greatness and influence around the world was always based on America being more.....uhm.....progressive than the European empires we escaped and the totalitarian regimes we stood up against over the centuries. Freedom of religion, freedom from religion, diversity, immigration, civil rights, worker rights, personal freedoms, etc. are all baked into the great American experiment and represent the success, not the failure, of progressive ideals. Ideals that are also leavened by conservative pragmatism and free market forces that have managed to thrive in the same freedoms.

 

At this moment in America we have one side wanting to keep assault weapons away from schools, and another side more concerned about keeping tampons away from schools. I just can't give you the moral high ground there.

 

I do appreciate you stepping up on a tough subject in a tough room, and I honestly want your take on this:

 

When you see a politician celebrating the birth of Christ by having his family pose with assault rifles, what should we think about this lawmaker?

[DefenderAO]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

@DefenderAO We are on multiple pages of this conversation and you still haven't told anyone who decides what the truth is....and, what retaliation does society have if someone goes against that truth?

We are living in a country that, generally, is in active rebellion against truth.  There are many individuals who stand firm through it, but generally the moral decay of the US shows this fact.  

 

I'm very curious, what is your current spiritual stance or belief?  

[ZRod]

6 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

The 2A was meant as a means for protection against tyranny.  Secondarily it serves a purpose for multiple types of defense. 

I think it's pretty clear that is not what it says. It very clearly states that arms should be maintained inorder to form a well regulated milita that can protect this country. The militia is infact the modern day national guard and police departments (since militias also acted as law enforcement in colonial times).

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

We are living in a country that, generally, is in active rebellion against truth.  

 

Boy, you got that right.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Just now, DefenderAO said:

The 2A was meant as a means for protection against tyranny.  Secondarily it serves a purpose for multiple types of defense. 

False. This is a creation of modern Conservative identity politics which is in no way true. You can read why in Federalist Paper #46 written by James Madison.

 

2 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

Are you saying there is no historical evidence a government has turned on its citizens?  

The modern examples of these instances are authoritarian countries or in democracies with weak institutions. This is another example of Conservatives role playing some sort of hero, defending America against perceived tyranny that exists only in their paranoid minds.

 

7 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

Look at the crime rates in the US in the least gun-friendly areas of our country.  The US has a moral decay and cultural issue where certain types of violence is almost celebrated (get and maintain respect, or whatever) within these areas.  And these shootings make up the majority of gun violence, historically, in the US.  

If you really want to compare violent crimes per capita, sure.

 

12 of the top 15 states in terms of violent crime are Conservative. The 5  safest states in the country are Liberal. If you want me to give you a comparison of violent crimes of morally superior Conservative states vs the progressive hell holes of Europe, I can do that. But it wouldn't be good for you. 

[Fru]

Being able to shrug off children routinely getting slaughtered in a classroom over a bastardized interpretation of a 200+ year old law is the true moral decay of this country. 

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

We are living in a country that, generally, is in active rebellion against truth.  There are many individuals who stand firm through it, but generally the moral decay of the US shows this fact.  

 

I'm very curious, what is your current spiritual stance or belief?  

I find your question very interesting as it pertains to this conversation.  There is a very clear part of the constitution that declares that there is a separation of Church and State.  By asking this question in this conversation, I'm assuming you believe that Christianity should rule the country and it should be imbedded in everything our government does.

 

Would this be true?

[NM11046]

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

I mean the other 60% of the time when it's straight white male... We'll just disregard that.

Well then it's the doors silly, or the fact that teachers (who they don't trust to select books) aren't trained and armed, or mental health.  Duh.

[DefenderAO]

6 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

But that's the rub, isn't it? Why do you assume your truth should be the baseline?

 

You are too generous assuming progressives are so open minded as to believe anything goes. They hold their own firm truths, and like you most of those involve personal freedoms. If you want to go by literal truths, the vast majority of people who choose to change gender are far happier than they were before. Whether you believe that or it simply affronts your personal moral code doesn't make it a truth. Certainly not a truth to enforce on a small percentage of others. It really shouldn't affect you at all, and it's a bit troubling that transgender grooming and mutilation is your main reference point in thread about citizens needing to stay heavily armed.

 

Assuming you vote, what happens when your party of choice runs the government locally and/or nationally? At that point they become the state. So when the state shows up to arrest someone based on horribly misinformed views on grooming and mutilation, or to remove books they don't like from the library, what happens if they are met with armed resistance? Do you celebrate those people for using the Second Amendment to stand against tyranny? 

 

I think it's helpful for people concerned about America's moral decline to study  up on America a little more. Our greatness and influence around the world was always based on America being more.....uhm.....progressive than the European empires we escaped and the totalitarian regimes we stood up against over the centuries. Freedom of religion, freedom from religion, diversity, immigration, civil rights, worker rights, personal freedoms, etc. are all baked into the great American experiment and represent the success, not the failure, of progressive ideals. Ideals that are also leavened by conservative pragmatism and free market forces that have managed to thrive in the same freedoms.

 

At this moment in America we have one side wanting to keep assault weapons away from schools, and another side more concerned about keeping tampons away from schools. I just can't give you the moral high ground there.

 

I do appreciate you stepping up on a tough subject in a tough room, and I honestly want your take on this:

 

When you see a politician celebrating the birth of Christ by having his family pose with assault rifles, what should we think about this lawmaker?

I haven't claimed it's the truth I derived.  It's one I'll bow to as all the "truths" I've adopted, or seen other follow through on, seem to lead to pain and lifelessness at some point.  Without fail.

 

And agree with your situation and the slippery slope.  Any time one group has power, your risk ruining any contrarian ideas or risk having that empowered group becoming tyrannical or dictatorial.  Such is the human condition and aptly pointed out.  Totalitarianism, at its root, is the same problem.  

 

The base issue of it all is indeed the human condition. The broken human condition leads to immorality to include mass shootings, governing tyranny, and a slew of other personal, familial, and larger mess.

 

As to the politician, I don't know him or his motivations.  It seems to lack emotional intelligence and likely pandering to a voter base.  It doesn't stir up a predominant emotion other than shaking my head...

7 minutes ago, ZRod said:

I think it's pretty clear that is not what it says. It very clearly states that arms should be maintained inorder to form a well regulated milita that can protect this country. The militia is infact the modern day national guard and police departments (since militias also acted as law enforcement in colonial times).

This point has been argued for years and in many more prominent mediums than HB.  We'll agree to disagree.

 

[DefenderAO]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

False. This is a creation of modern Conservative identity politics which is in no way true. You can read why in Federalist Paper #46 written by James Madison.

 

The modern examples of these instances are authoritarian countries or in democracies with weak institutions. This is another example of Conservatives role playing some sort of hero, defending America against perceived tyranny that exists only in their paranoid minds.

 

If you really want to compare violent crimes per capita, sure.

 

12 of the top 15 states in terms of violent crime are Conservative. The 5  safest states in the country are Liberal. If you want me to give you a comparison of violent crimes of morally superior Conservative states vs the progressive hell holes of Europe, I can do that. But it wouldn't be good for you. 

 

How about by city?  That's the higher fidelity view.  But, I'll state again, the existent party lines aren't solving this crisis.

 

 

[DefenderAO]

13 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I find your question very interesting as it pertains to this conversation.  There is a very clear part of the constitution that declares that there is a separation of Church and State.  By asking this question in this conversation, I'm assuming you believe that Christianity should rule the country and it should be imbedded in everything our government does.

 

Would this be true?

No.  I'm stating the issues we're seeing now are a manifestation of the human condition.  The normalization of misgendering people (who have great value, intrinsically), mass shooting (the predominance of shootings are not sensationalized because they don't enhance an agenda), and other mess come from a root issue.

 

I do believe in the wisdom of separating church and state as broken people are at the core of both.  

[DefenderAO]

17 minutes ago, Fru said:

Being able to shrug off children routinely getting slaughtered in a classroom over a bastardized interpretation of a 200+ year old law is the true moral decay of this country. 

I can hold two positions at once.  Ache for the families of this horrific tragedy and also listen to my grandmother in-laws stories of her family's encampment and slaughter..the latter could've been written a little differently had there been a means for those people to defend themselves.  

 

I believe there is an element where freedom is scary.  I believe the alternative is a dystopia the word scary well understates.