420!

GoingThere

I was under the impression we were having a debate, inwhich I argue my points and opinions, and you argue yours. Apparently while I was arguing my points you were just arguing.

Why refrain from stating your position, and actually mislead others of your position and claim you were just doing it to help me prove my point? You claimed I was making convenient arguments, but it’s pretty freaking convenient of you to make all the arguments you want and then say you were just kidding without having to address my counterpoints.

Excuse me, but what the fuck are you doing?

Have an argument like an adult or let your opponent that you’re not really participating and just messing around.

Where it’s NOT nearly as easy, is in the middle to upper class neighborhoods. Take out that exception of yours I previously mentioned, and the need for a gun, rather than the simple desire (that most 2nd amendment advocates have) decreases dramatically. But guess what: That’s where these massacres take place! Much to the implied perspective your arguments hold is the strong irony that it’s these neighborhoods, dominated by non-black and non-hispanic peoples, that need these waiting periods and background checks the most. These would be the small towns with big eyes and ears watching and listening to their community. A lot harder than the previously mentioned areas to get a gun illegally without risking the wrong (right?) person raising an eyebrow as a witness.

You white people, man. You whites and you asians. You’re all to blame. Y’all have good priorities for the racist-most part but then snap and kill without honor. The thugs? Why, they kill with honor…but have poor priorities. If I sound contradictory considering how happy I am that these gang folk kill themselves after pointing out their honor in murder, I’ll explain in three words: I’m white too.

However, you are morbidly misinterpreting much that I say. I use your arguments against you not because I believe in them, but because I’m trying to help you make your points on a stronger foundation. You see that as me contradicting myself, but those arguments you think I’m trying to make are not sincere on my part at all. That is not their purpose (e.g. purchasing guns illegally, war on drugs, anything and everything I’ve pointed out to you where you contradict yourself but don’t address, etc.).

And, I’ve never said what kind of libertarian I might be. I playfully told Smart Lass that I was one, but I don’t believe in such labels because there’s no such one that encompasses ANYone.

Also, I never hinted my position, in this last post, where I stand on the war on drugs. That’s not the subject here. It was an example of laws that don’t seem to be effective.

Have a good one now, I’m very bored of this debate. No offense, but we beat it to death and nobody persuaded anybody of anything.

That road to hell thing is a cute cliche, but empty as far as I can see. There’s no hell, and “good men who do nothing…” comes to mind against your view on good intentions.

Law abiding people are called law abiding people because they don’t break the law, nor do they wish to. To a law abiding person, a felony conviction can ruin the rest of their life. Criminals rack up felonies and prison stays regularly and don’t get turned down for that great CPA job because they picked up a gun illegally because they feared for their safety. When it comes down to the possibility of being murdered, or committing a felony, some people will commit the felony but most will just (mis)place their trust in the police.

I maintain that all citizens have the right to keep an bear arms, and arguing about how the best way to apply restrictions to that right is not something I feel I should even spent time doing. Arguing that people’s rights aren’t really infringed because they can just break the law doesn’t make sense to me.

If you don’t mind the government pretending to be responsible, let them pass pretend laws. While they’re doing their best to make common sense gun laws, people are dying. Why are you advocating more laws even if they don’t work? What kind of libertarian are you again?

Do I think the government should give up on the war on drugs? Yes yes yes. I’m a little surprised that you seem to support it. Where in the Constitution does it say that the government gets to decide what you do to yourself? So long as you aren’t infringing on the rights of others by theft or violence, you should have the right to do whatever you want to yourself. “My body, my choice” as they say. The government should not and does not have the authority to protect me from myself. When prohibition was repealed the government pretty much said, “We give up. We will never win the war on alcohol. We admit it. Good luck!” What they didn’t mention how much they contributed to the rise of organized crime, and the lives lost in the turf wars between rival bootlegging gangs. Parallels abound.

Cho had apparently been planning this for some time. He was obviously motivated. I have no doubt that he would have been able to otherwise obtain a gun had he tried hard enough. But even if he had not been able to do so, and decided to carry out his attack via arson or homemade bombs, the fact remains that criminals ARE obtaining firearms, regardless of your or Cho’s inability to do so.

“I guess you think I’m the only one without a known connection. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that I disagree that someone can get one illegally if they really want to” I don’t have a connection either, but if I needed to violate the law in order to get a gun to protect the lives of my loved ones, I’m fairly confident I’d be able to. But that’s really just speculation.

“…but I don’t think it’d be as easy and risk free as you’re making it out to be.” Now I’m confused. I’ve argued that criminals can obtain guns illegally, yes it’s easy, and yes it’s mostly risk free. But if you’re claiming that obtaining a gun illegally is risky, why were you advocating victims obtain a gun illegally as one of your recommendations in your second paragraph. You said that though someone might have the right to have a gun, if they’re suffering a 10 day waiting period they need only break the law. But now you’re saying you think it’s likely a risky endeavor?

As for the possibility of borrowing a gun from a friend to cover the 10 days during which you are waiting, I don’t think anyone should have to depend on anyone else for their personal safety.

I’m struck by what you’re trying to argue. You’re admitting that law abiding citizens could be placed in a position of danger by gun control laws, but you’re advocating circumventing the very law you’re supporting? You’ve even admitted that the laws don’t stop criminals. Why are you supporting the law if you know it doesn’t work and that it hinders law-abiding citizens?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and in the government, it’s paved with good intentions and little bits of the constitution.

I appreciate the time you’re taking for the debate, I really do. But when you address part of what I say and not all of it because it points out one of your contradictions, such as “Calling the police is fine, but saying someone in fear for their life should stay at a friend’s house is low. Why should someone live in fear when they shouldn’t have to,” I don’t feel compelled to reciprocate in length.

I mentioned that if that person who’s supposedly suffering from the waiting period really wants one, they can go buy a gun illegally as you so often argue when it’s to your benefit. Or they can borrow one from a friend in the meantime (said meantime is very short if it’s a month or less).

My point is, with the waiting period, by your own arguments, someone can get a gun if they want to so badly. That takes away your disgruntled ex/stalker victim exception. And without that exception, these waiting periods hurt no one no matter how many times you repeat “Who do they really help/hurt?”

Obviously I’m the only one between us, or even on this website, who thinks the government should at least pretend to be responsible by making laws that, as you are convinced, might help nothing. I’m not convinced of that. We have a war on drugs, that’s failing and likely will continue to fail at all times. Does that mean you’d advocate that the government come out and say “We give up. We will never win the war on drugs. We admit it. Good luck!”?

We can assume all we want how easy just anyone can get ahold of a gun, but personally, I don’t know how to get one illegally. I don’t know anyone that’d sell one illegally. And I’m not sure this Cho-bastard, who was apparently an extreme loner, had better connections than I do.

I guess you think I’m the only one without a known connection. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that I disagree that someone can get one illegally if they really want to, but I don’t think it’d be as easy and risk free as you’re making it out to be.

I’m not sure you understood what I was saying. I said that gun control killed those victims, that argument is in line with my previous statement that one should not take rights from the people to protect them from the few. This is what gun control is about, taking rights away with the failed promise of protection. Your seemingly failed interpretation of my argument aside, you say: “So you want to potentially risk the lives of the many to protect the few?” I think I require clarification. I think what you’re saying is that having no gun control risks everyone’s lives, and protects the few people who could benefit from it? Please correct me if I’m wrong. If this is your argument, I don’t think it’s appropriate because you’re assuming that gun control is 100% targeted at criminals, and that no gun control could only benefit criminals. This idea is wrong since gun control affects tens of millions of gun owners in America in their ability to purchase guns at their leisure, and to carry guns to protect themselves and their loved ones.

Mentioning Washington DC’s murder rate was to establish that banning guns doesn’t work. The idea that more gun control will keep guns out of the wrong hands has been soundly defeated. This was the point of yours I was addressing.

If thinking “shall not be infringed” means “shall not be infringed” means I’m part of the problem, then I guess I’m part of the problem then. But be careful, because when “criminals and crazies” can be denied their rights, I guarantee you the government’s definition of “criminals and crazies” will expand over time. Well-meaning legislation combined with incrimentalism has denied many honest citizens their rights.

As for the streets running red with blood, if someone has proven themselves a threat to society by infringing on the rights of others by murder or theft, they deserve to be locked up. I’m not talking about anarchy here. But those that are locked up must be locked up with one of two clear intentions; to rehabilitate, or to remove from society. If someone has proven themselves worthy of being removed from society indefinitely, then so be it. If someone is to be held until rehabilitation, then hold them until rehabilitation. But once they are rehabilitated in the truest sense of the word, don’t they deserve their rights back? If they don’t, are they really rehabilitated? Right now we have probation and reduced sentences that are mainly in place because of overcrowding in the prisons. Is this the right way to handle the problem?

The idea that the local police serves as a militia is, frankly, hilarious. If you don’t already see why, then I don’t think I can help you. Despite what you think, the police do NOT “defend” you. 90% of the time all they do is write reports after the crime has been committed. It’s the truth, ask a cop. If you call the police and tell them that someone is going to kill you tonight they’re going to tell you to hide from them, and call if they show up to kill you. The police have NO legal obligation to protect you. The supreme court has found this many times. People place too much trust in the police.

My point doesn’t conveniently cover all the bases. My point results in those who may have malicious intentions being free to legally obtain a firearm. My point can result in criminals obtaining guns. But my point allows those who aren’t criminals to buy guns freely and carry them freely which is meant to counteract the negatives. As for you comment about the state of Virginia, yes, guns are easy to obtain in Virginia. But that didn’t matter because there were NO GUNS allowed on campus. This didn’t stop one loser from harming many, it only stopped the many law-abiders from being able to protect themselves from one law-breaker.

You said “…background checks and waiting periods do not limit the rights of any law-abiding citizen considering the end result.” The point is not to legislate and regulate as much as you can without stepping over the constitutional barrier. Yes, people do get their guns, and in many states there is no waiting period, but I see no reason to legislate up to the limit on any of our rights just for good measure. It only means that the next step will cross the line. On the same token, background checks and waiting periods do not limit the ability of criminals to obtain guns either. So who are we really legislating against?

Calling the police is fine, but saying someone in fear for their life should stay at a friend’s house is low. Why should someone live in fear when they shouldn’t have to.

By the way, please don’t mistake my tone, I’m really enjoying this debate and being challenged :)