Gun Control

TGHusker said:
Pluralism in itself is not a plague.  Our founding fathers knew America was going to be and already was a pluralistic society.  The best form of govt to deal with this dynamic was the representative democracy form which was set up with checks and balances so no party (people group - rich/poor, political, race, etc)  had the power to exert their will unjustly on other parties.  As I Christian, I do not want a man made theocracy in which one set value system/world view rules - this is Iran.  What happens if said theocracy decides that a certain sect of Christianity was the only right sect  - all others would be persecuted or left out of the political marketplace.  Our type of govt allows the Christian faith to flourish as well as the 'faith' of non-believers.  Yes, it would be easier if each world view group had its only little country in which we could 'incubate' ourselves from every other influence - easier but not better; easier but not missional, easier but not sanctifying,  easier but not Christ like.  Like you, I grieve over the current state of our society - we all hurt.  Good people of all faiths and non-faiths need to stand up against the tide in the areas they have influence. Direct action, voting, contacting our congress representatives, etc.  There is something us 'little' guys can do. 
Click to expand...


The term "relativism" may be more appropriate to my points, then.   If your truth opposes someone else's truth, who becomes correct?  The mob?  That's democracy.

And to your exact point here.  What happens if said government decides that a certain sect of society was the only right sect - all others would be persecuted...

The exact Founding Father's point of the 2A.   

 
DefenderAO said:
The term "relativism" may be more appropriate to my points, then.   If your truth opposes someone else's truth, who becomes correct?  The mob?  That's democracy.

And to your exact point here.  What happens if said government decides that a certain sect of society was the only right sect - all others would be persecuted...

The exact Founding Father's point of the 2A.   
Click to expand...
Uh... I think that was the point of the 1st amendment, not the 2nd...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DefenderAO said:
The term "relativism" may be more appropriate to my points, then.   If your truth opposes someone else's truth, who becomes correct?  The mob?  That's democracy.

And to your exact point here.  What happens if said government decides that a certain sect of society was the only right sect - all others would be persecuted...

The exact Founding Father's point of the 2A.   
Click to expand...
Wait.....

You're against people having differing understanding of what their truth is.....but you're against the government deciding what that truth is.

And....from you'r first paragraph.....so you are anti-democracy?

 
Dr. Strangelove said:
You're trying to claim that mental illness or bad intentions leave the US with disproportionate death rates by guns. Higher gun ownership leads to more gun deaths you say. 

While simultaneously confessing that gun ownership is therefore bad and in need of regulation - which I'm assuming your voting behavior does not do - this argument is bad.

Consider intentional homicide rates (per the United Nations):

US - 6.5 (per 100k)

Filthy Progressive Countries poisoning the minds of Children:

Denmark - 1.0

UK - 1.1

Finland - 1.6

Canada - 2.0

Germany - 0.8

France - 1.3

Sweden - 1.2

Children being taken to drag shows is such a small issue that is stupid and disingenuous to bring it up. Was this a concern of yours in say 2018 before Fox News made it a culture war talking point? No, because it's not a problem. It's so far from being a problem relevant to mass shootings that it strikes me as delusional to think it's related whatsoever.

A mentally deranged person had easy access to a gun, full stop. No different than when a straight white kid commits the same acts of violence. 
Click to expand...
Children dressing as opposite sex members and dancing for cheering adults is tangentially related to the moral and mental illness of the latest shooter.  And it stems from an extreme, accepted, moral decay of our country.  

Anyone who does this has a mental derangement and needs help.  

 
DefenderAO said:
The term "relativism" may be more appropriate to my points, then.   If your truth opposes someone else's truth, who becomes correct?  The mob?  That's democracy.

And to your exact point here.  What happens if said government decides that a certain sect of society was the only right sect - all others would be persecuted...

The exact Founding Father's point of the 2A.   
Click to expand...
This is the delusional ramblings of somebody convinced of something they want to be true rather than what is true.

James Madison, for example, wrote in the Federalist Paper 46 that gun ownership via the 2A is necessary to keep the standing Army under 30k troops. The 2A is strictly meant to discourage a large militaries. 

We all know we've moved passed this, that WWII necessaited a much larger standing Army, and that the 2A as the Founding Father's meant it (and talked about numerous times in the Federalist Papers and other works) no longer applies.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Wait.....

You're against people having differing understanding of what their truth is.....but you're against the government deciding what that truth is.

And....from you'r first paragraph.....so you are anti-democracy?
Click to expand...
I'm against mob rule where a Constitutional Republic is designed to prevent.

Subjective truth and subjective experience is much different.  For the former, subjectivity leads to moral decay.  

Who is right if your truth opposes someone else's?  

 
DefenderAO said:
Children dressing as opposite sex members and dancing for cheering adults is tangentially related to the moral and mental illness of the latest shooter.  And it stems from an extreme, accepted, moral decay of our country.  

Anyone who does this has a mental derangement and needs help.  
Click to expand...
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. 

 
Dr. Strangelove said:
This is the delusional ramblings of somebody convinced of something they want to be true rather than what is true.

James Madison, for example, wrote in the Federalist Paper 46 that gun ownership via the 2A is necessary to keep the standing Army under 30k troops. The 2A is strictly meant to discourage a large militaries. 

We all know we've moved passed this, that WWII necessaited a much larger standing Army, and that the 2A as the Founding Father's meant it (and talked about numerous times in the Federalist Papers and other works) no longer applies.
Click to expand...
My wife's family line, from WWII, would surely have liked anything remotely related to a 2nd Amendment...  

What happens to the people when that army is turned on its disarmed populace?

 
DefenderAO said:
My wife's family line, from WWII, would surely have liked anything remotely related to a 2nd Amendment...  

What happens to the people when that army is turned on its disarmed populace?
Click to expand...
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."

 
DefenderAO said:
I'm against mob rule where a Constitutional Republic is designed to prevent.

Subjective truth and subjective experience is much different.  For the former, subjectivity leads to moral decay.  

Who is right if your truth opposes someone else's?  
Click to expand...
That's why we vote.  So....you're against people being able to vote showing their sense of reality on how they see the country should be ran.

I'm really confused on this.  So, we have a constitutional Republic.  We vote in representatives that represent us on how we feel the country should be ran.  That has never changed.  So....what are you angry about?

 
Back
Top