"why kids are not taught about evil" Topic

I graduated high school in 1964. Longview Texas, pop. around 50,000. School served the whole (white -- full integration the year after I graduated) county, so city kids plus lots of rural. Many of whom if 16 drove in.

Walk through the student parking lot and count the rifles and shotguns in the racks in the pickup rear windows. Dozens. But no shootings, never.

Also, if a lady teacher needed to cut something -- this was true in grade school even -- she asked the nearest boy to borrow his pocket knife.

It is not the weapons. We all know this but deny it because nobody is willing to confront the real cultural deterioration.

Some anti-Second Amendment quotes please note that these are US politicians and don't include non-government groups:

"Only the police should have handguns." Bill Clinton

"When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps" Bill Clinton

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it." Diane Feinstein

"The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves." Diane Feinstein

"All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body power over our domestic laws." Charles Pashayan

"If a bill to ban handguns came to the house floor, I would vote for it." Pete Star

" …we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns" William Clay

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." Joe Biden

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!" John Chafee

"I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I'm supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun…." Jan Schakowsky

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens

"My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation." Bobby Rush

I want to be clear that I am not equating any of the above politicians with the group I am about to quote. But who will come to power in 10 years? 20? 50? This is why I fear disarming the American people.

President Marcos declared Martial Law by virtue of Proclamation No.1081 on Sept.21, 1972 and on the following day issued General Order No. 6 declaring that no person shall keep, possess or carry any firearms with penalties ranging up to death. The Philippines was under his dictatorship for the next 14 years.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." Adolf Hitler

"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves." Joseph Stalin

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. … Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms." Lenin

APDC

"When the rural states cant interfere with how the cities are run, their rights are being trampled? That's more of an argument to reduce rural influence."

We were talking about the Electoral College. Your response makes no sense to me. Please clarify.

"It's not the nature of mankind; it's the way Dennis Praeger views mankind and he can take his view and …
What youre saying is just a recipe for the rural states to be happy they can stay in their rural state space and enjoy that lifestyle. Don't know what this has to do with totalitarianism. Frankly, youre making it sound that along with Praeger the rural states are paranoid. I'm not that worried because I don't think you speak for them but that's the way it's sounding."

This is even more confusing. Read some history, there is always friction among people. Please name a country or society where there wasn't friction.

"Representation is one man, one vote; fascism is getting one's way irrespective of the way the system is supposed to work."

No, that's democracy. Our founders feared democracy because it turns into mob rule. Representation is somethingtotally different.

"It's a perfect response. He fabricates and manipulates events to achieve the results he wants. I find everything he publishes to be about as wrong minded as one could hope for. Further, I would put any works based on his deceits into a problematic category."

Okay, prove it.

"Dr Lott has proved nothing of the sort. He has an opinion and that's it. An opinion which goes against every single other expert in the field. And even Lott's conclusions often portray the USA as one of the worst spots for gun violence. He is also a captive interest of the NRA, the Gun Industry and several Militia groups."

Okay, prove it. Dr. Lott has decades of research that backs his claims. Link us to someone that proves him wrong.

"Sounds like a wise precaution and exactly what a law like that should effect."

So, you're good with people being stripped of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights because someone thinks it's a 'wise precaution'? What if we applied that same rule to other rights based on your criteria? How about a certain group has incited too many riots, so they can't speak freely any longer. Or, a certain group commits too many crimes, so the police can search members of that group at will?

"Think about guns the same way, they're not being denied the use of their property, theyre being denied the privilege of carrying guns in public spaces."

Not a single person has made this argument in this entire thread.

"All that needs doing is to eliminate the law that gives immunity from civil liability to the gun industry and the problem will rapidly resolve itself."

The mayor of Chicago just used this legal sillyness to sue car makers because their cars are too easy to steal. Are you prepared to live without cars?

"Like New Zealand? Or in Serbia where the citizens demanded that the government collect all guns and they themselves turned them in?"

And how did the people of New Zealand fare during Covid? Locked in their homes under fear of arrest. Yes, government becomes oppressive when the people are disarmed.

"This law, more than any other item has made the NRA and the Gun Industry the monstrosities that they currently are. Additionally, they are the originators of the concept that "People are coming to take your guns"

Can you name one industry, any industry, that is held accountable for the use of it's products by a third party?

"This is inaccurate because the law never took effect thus the law never did anything."

Have a look at the state laws it's based on.

Machiavelli: There can be no equality between an armed man and an unarmed one.

Who in his right mind, besides aspirant tyrants, wants the POLICE and the ARMY to be the only ones with guns?!?

I believe the term Lenin used was 'useful idiots'.

Charge is too literal. Hitler did not abolish a non-existent German Second Amendment, duh; but he did disarm his victims. Charge is bright enough to know that, which is why debating him is a waste of time; he is not arguing in good faith.

You have now maintained multiple times that I do not argue in good faith. Although you are using a generically generated personal attack from certain media sources, I will overlook it this time.

Let's unpack what you maintain.

From the venerable Cato Institute, a breakdown of Good vs Bad Faith arguments

PDF link

BAD FAITH: A "Bad Faith" discussion is one in which one or both of the parties has
a hidden, unrevealed agenda—often to dominate or coerce the other individual into
compliance or acquiescence of some sort—or lacks basic respect for the rights, dignity,
or autonomy of the other party. Disrespect for the other party may include dishonesty. A
person engaged in bad faith does not accept the other person as s/he is, but demands
that s/he change in order to satisfy his/her requirements or to accept his/her will

Now let's take a look at the record.

Here is what I said:

I wouldnt mind eliminating the 2nd Amendment along with rewriting some other parts of the Constitution. I think we're heading this way. Unfortunately, the Liberals are inept with policy changes like this.

Where is the bad faith element in what I said? Is there a hidden agenda? Did I demand that anyone change their views?

Let's contrast this with what Wolfshag said:

wouldnt mind eliminating the 2nd Amendment (just as Hitler did?) along with rewriting some other parts of the Constitution. I think we're heading this way. Unfortunately, the Liberals are inept with policy changes like this.

Au pas de Charge, you are the reason the 2nd Amendment exists but feel completely free to try and eliminate it – please.

Some advice, just don't try it in Tennessee.

Wolfhag

Which of our statements could be said to have a hidden, unrevealed agenda—often to dominate or coerce the other individual into
compliance or lack basic respect for the right, dignity or autonomy of the other party?

Also, to mitigate any understanding, I did invite him to clarify his statements. We will see if he is able to explain himself more fully but it cant be said that Im operating in bad faith here.

Now, in terms of your comment. If we can make mutual inferences, you know that the gist of my exchange with Wolfhag was not whether Hitler repealed the 2nd Amendment but that I expressed an opinion; I might add, a very mild opinion. To which it looks like he responded with a threat. Thus, your intervention gives the appearance of trying to help Wolfhag out of a situation that makes him look, well, troubling by pretending that our exchange was about something that it really wasnt.

Let me thus call attention to this part of Bad Faith arguments:

Disrespect for the other party may include dishonesty.

Additionally:

"bad faith" argument relies on other means,
possibly including intimidation or coercion.

Again, I invite Wolfhag to explain what exactly he thinks Tennessee gun rights advocates do to people who say they wouldnt miss the 2nd Amendment?

I should point out that my Good Faith response to Wolfhag included the belief that although I wasn't sure what he meant, I was sure that it couldnt involve gun violence because that would expose gun advocates bottom line is really, no matter what, to protect gun ownership with gun violence.

Really, allowing him to clarify what would otherwise be misunderstood is about as Good Faith as one could extend to a fellow poster.

We do not have the right to keep and bear arms because of the Second Amendment. We have NATURAL rights, anterior to government, of self-defense, and when necessary, of revolution.

Based on this, you agree that it doesn't matter whether the 2nd Amendment gets eliminated or neutralized.

Plenty of us do evil to ourselves.

I am not sure wether this fits any definition of evil.

That said, and contributing a bit statistics to the gun debate: Some 120 people die to gun abuse (or use) in the US daily. Half of these are suicides. Is it evil to shoot yourself? And if so, is it evil due to the damage you do to yourself or that you do to your family & acquaintances?

"When the rural states cant interfere with how the cities are run, their rights are being trampled? That's more of an argument to reduce rural influence."

Dn Jackson said: We were talking about the Electoral College. Your response makes no sense to me. Please clarify.

I think the reason you are confused is that you've disrupted the logical chain of the conversation. Below is the fuller conversation:

Old Contemptible said: "I would love to see an amendment to do away with the Electoral College. It doesn't serve any useful purpose."

Dn Jackson said: Without the electoral college every election would be decided by a couple of large states on the coasts. The EC gives smaller states a voice that can't be ignored. Without it rural America would have no voice.

" APDC said: And? Although what you say isnt necessarily true, how would it be worse than the current system where the elections are decided by a handful of the same medium sized states?"

Dn Jackson said: Because the smaller rural states would have no say in the election. Their interests would be ignored and their rights would ultimately be trampled. Look how major cities are run now. Single party rule for decades on end and all things valued by rural populations are ignored. Think Chicago on a national scale.

APDC said: When the rural states cant interfere with how the cities are run, their rights are being trampled? That's more of an argument to reduce rural influence.

Aside from the fact that the EC actually gives the rural states outsized representation, an unequal state of affairs you assert you have no problem with, I wanted to know what rural states rights would ultimately be trampled? Your only response was about the cities; that they are both badly run and get all the attention while the rural states are ignored.

What exactly are you saying about the EC, that even when represented up to 20 times their population, they still get ignored?

Is their only trampled right that they get ignored and aren't run as badly as the cities?

It appears that you want the EC to stay in place for some reason which is a mismatch; giving rural states a voice to avoid their rights getting trampled but you are unable to express what rights of theirs are actually getting trampled.

Please, if there are rights that are getting trampled other than their ability to involve themselves in what goes on in the cities, please list them.

APDC said: "Representation is one man, one vote; fascism is getting one's way irrespective of the way the system is supposed to work."

Dn Jackson said: No, that's democracy. Our founders feared democracy because it turns into mob rule. Representation is somethingtotally different.

Initially, our Founders also limited who could vote to a small elite but that has been corrected; unless you think we should return to that voting standard. And if so, I would like to hear why you think you would be in their category and not a member of the "mob" as they defined it?

In any case, they might've used that rationalization but but really, they wanted to maintain power in the hands of a few. So really, what the Founders claimed they feared was just an exercise in justifying a half vs a full measure of freedom.

Explain why "representation" is something different?

"It's a perfect response. He fabricates and manipulates events to achieve the results he wants. I find everything he publishes to be about as wrong minded as one could hope for. Further, I would put any works based on his deceits into a problematic category."

Okay, prove it.

McLaddie already did this by pointing out that the original thread article reflects Praeger's confirmation bias that atheism and communism are the two biggest evils and then goes on to select only the genocides he thinks proves this point and ignores the others. That's dishonest.

APDC said about Gun control laws for the mentally ill: "Sounds like a wise precaution and exactly what a law like that should effect."

So, you're good with people being stripped of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights because someone thinks it's a 'wise precaution'? What if we applied that same rule to other rights based on your criteria? How about a certain group has incited too many riots, so they can't speak freely any longer. Or, a certain group commits too many crimes, so the police can search members of that group at will?

These two rights are unrelated. The government is per se prevented from prior restrictions on speech but can punish conduct as a result of that speech. We can see this right result by recent sentences for the Proud Boys. Know your 1st Amendment rights; they are much stronger than 2nd Amendment rights.

There is no absolute right to firearms for citizens. Never has been. I suggest you examine the actual law vs the propaganda.

Additionally, the 2nd Amendment doesnt prevent citizens from demanding gun regulations which would be action outside of government action.

APDC said: "Think about guns the same way, they're not being denied the use of their property, theyre being denied the privilege of carrying guns in public spaces."

Dn Jackson said: Not a single person has made this argument in this entire thread.

Oh?

McLaddie said:"The law rescinded addressed legally determined and/or arrested for serious mental conditions, INCLUDING violent behavior, Domestic abuse and and threatening behavior. This didn't address those with depression or bi-polar diagnosis etc."

Not true, those 'red flag' laws stripped people, including veterans of their right to own firearms if they sought mental counseling. As for domestic violence being grounds to strip someone of their right to own a gun…why? Can you name any other Constitutional right that you lose because you're convicted of a misdemeanor?
People are not being denied the use of their property. They're being denied the privilege of driving on a public roadway. Your argument is non-sensical.

You literally made this argument in this thread.

No

Some anti-Second Amendment quotes please note that these are US politicians and don't include non-government groups:
"Only the police should have handguns." Bill Clinton
"When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps" Bill Clinton
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it." Diane Feinstein
"The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves." Diane Feinstein
"All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body power over our domestic laws." Charles Pashayan

"If a bill to ban handguns came to the house floor, I would vote for it." Pete Star

" …we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns" William Clay
"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." Joe Biden
"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!" John Chafee
"I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I'm supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun…." Jan Schakowsky
"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens
"My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation." Bobby Rush

Most of these quotes are antiques. What exactly is your point? That people cant have their opinions? Or do you think that saying these things magically makes it all come true?

If that is the case, then why have gun sales exponentially increased since these statements were made? On average, it looks like these quotes were made 30 years ago. One would think that all guns would be banned by now.

If anything, your litany of quotes proves how nonexistent anti-gun legislation is in the USA.

Then there is this:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." Adolf Hitler

Except, Hitler didn't say that, he said this:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so

Hitler wasn't talking about German citizens, he was talking about conquered Eastern nations.

In fact, when the Nazis finally passed the 1938 German Weapons Act they had already been in consolidated power for 5 years with zero pushback from the citizenry. Further, the only people who had their guns taken away were the Jews and the Communists.

Every other type of German saw gun ownership restrictions loosened; the age to own guns was reduced from 20 to 18 and permits were only needed for handguns while restrictions were dropped for longarms, shotguns, ammunition etc.

Wayne LaPierre's claim that confiscation of guns led to the Holocaust is a complete and utter lie. Whether Jews with guns could've prevented the Holocaust is moot but certainly all the non Jews who had guns never rose up against Hitler either on their own behalf or on the behalf of the Jewish population.

Additionally, the allies had all the weapons in the world and it was still difficult to beat the Axis. Thus, I rather doubt that the entire armed citizenry of Germany (Let alone just its Jews) could've risen up against the German Army. So let's get real, the reason the Nazis took over isn't because they confiscated a few guns and confiscating guns isn't the path to oppression. That's just made up, fear mongering jibber jabber.

Spewing false quotes, misinformation and specious conclusions is propaganda and demagoguery in its most sinister form. The NRA is using this Bogeyman to justify owning guns but the truth is, the US government isn't threatening anyone, rather it's our armed citizens running amok who are responsible for the bulk of mass killings.

If gun activists want to have guns in spite of all the obvious safety concerns that come with gun ownership, then they should just say so instead of engaging in this embarrassingly farcical charade that if you don't own guns, it's Hitler all over again. And if they do want to pretend it's Hitler, then at least get the GD quotes right…or read some history, as they say.

APDC said: "All that needs doing is to eliminate the law that gives immunity from civil liability to the gun industry and the problem will rapidly resolve itself."

The mayor of Chicago just used this legal sillyness to sue car makers because their cars are too easy to steal. Are you prepared to live without cars?

This isn't silliness, it's one of the ways that manufacturers adjust their behavior. Do some research about how tort law works, the result would not be the elimination of cars or guns but rather more care in product development and marketing.

APDC said: "Like New Zealand? Or in Serbia where the citizens demanded that the government collect all guns and they themselves turned them in?"

Dn Jackson said: And how did the people of New Zealand fare during Covid? Locked in their homes under fear of arrest. Yes, government becomes oppressive when the people are disarmed.

New Zealand had one of the best Covid responses on the planet. Government becomes oppressive? Well, "government" doesn't go on white supremacist killing sprees, that seems to be the province of law abiding gun owners. Or did NZ's government shoot and kill hundreds of people? In any case, it was the citizenry that demanded that gun ownership be banned, there was no tyrant involved.

You don't want to talk about Serbia's citizen anti-gun movement? I don't blame you really, it's a bad look for gun activist logic. Also, there are many countries where the citizens don't have guns and the government isn't oppressive. Or maybe their citizenry don't live in a constant state of anxiety that the government is coming for them.

APDC said: "This law, more than any other item has made the NRA and the Gun Industry the monstrosities that they currently are. Additionally, they are the originators of the concept that "People are coming to take your guns"

Can you name one industry, any industry, that is held accountable for the use of it's products by a third party?

Your sentence is too tightly crafted. All industries are open to potential lawsuits from abuses by third parties. But that's not the question, the question is what industries enjoy blanket immunities and the answer is only the car and gun industries. And even here, the gun industry has stronger immunities which were granted preemptively before any cases could be brought against it. The deeper question is why should the gun industry get special privileges and a unique form of immunity?

"This is inaccurate because the law never took effect thus the law never did anything."

Have a look at the state laws it's based on.

I looked at the NY version, it seems well written and carefully crafted. I support it. Mentally ill people should not have guns both for the safety of others and their own safety.

Au pas de Charge said,

I wouldnt mind eliminating the 2nd Amendment (just as Hitler did?) along with rewriting some other parts of the Constitution. I think we're heading this way. Unfortunately, the Liberals are inept with policy changes like this.

I'm waiting.

Wolfhag

"It appears that you want the EC to stay in place for some reason which is a mismatch; giving rural states a voice to avoid their rights getting trampled but you are unable to express what rights of theirs are actually getting trampled."

I can only assume that this is you trying to be difficult. I've already explained this. The rural states have a different life style than cities do. The removal of the EC would mean that the cities would rule the country because there are more people in the cities. As I said before, look at how the cities are run and imagine that on a nationwide scale. Second Amendment severally restricted, free speech restricted, criminals released, criminals not punished. How many times does this need to be explained to you? The rural areas of CA, OR, and WA have all proposed secession from their states because the politics of the cities are destroying the entire state and making the people less safe.

"Initially, our Founders also limited who could vote to a small elite but that has been corrected; unless you think we should return to that voting standard. And if so, I would like to hear why you think you would be in their category and not a member of the "mob" as they defined it?"

Why don't you answer the question asked instead of the one you want to answer?

"McLaddie already did this by pointing out that the original thread article reflects Praeger's confirmation bias that atheism and communism are the two biggest evils and then goes on to select only the genocides he thinks proves this point and ignores the others. That's dishonest."

No, what that is is a difference of opinion. You accused Prager of lying, manipulating, being deceitful, and dishonest. Prove it. All you did is point at another post you agree with. Prove he lied.

"These two rights are unrelated. The government is per se prevented from prior restrictions on speech but can punish conduct as a result of that speech. We can see this right result by recent sentences for the Proud Boys. Know your 1st Amendment rights; they are much stronger than 2nd Amendment rights."

Um, no. Constitutionally protected rights are not graded on a curve or a gradient one being more strong than another. You cannot deny someone their rights. Period.

"There is no absolute right to firearms for citizens. Never has been. I suggest you examine the actual law vs the propaganda."

I know the law, you do not. There has been time where there were no restrictions on personal ownership of firearms.

"Additionally, the 2nd Amendment doesnt prevent citizens from demanding gun regulations which would be action outside of government action."

Completely non-sensical. Only the government can make laws. You can demand all you want, laws have to be passed by legislature and signed by an executive.

"You literally made this argument in this thread."

APDC, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to legal arguments.

"Most of these quotes are antiques. What exactly is your point? That people cant have their opinions? Or do you think that saying these things magically makes it all come true?"

These quotes all come from US politicians. Some were introducing legislation, others making campaign speeches. Why does it matter when the quotes were made? None have disowned them or publicly stated they changed their positions. The argument was made that no one was trying to ban guns or get rid of the Second Amendment. Those quotes prove that politicians are, in fact, trying to do both.

"If that is the case, then why have gun sales exponentially increased since these statements were made? On average, it looks like these quotes were made 30 years ago. One would think that all guns would be banned by now."

Because they haven't been banned yet. That's really a no brainer.

"If anything, your litany of quotes proves how nonexistent anti-gun legislation is in the USA."

Obviously, you haven't looked at the docket of the Supreme Court or the code books of NY, CA, OR, or WA.

"Further, the only people who had their guns taken away were the Jews and the Communists."

Well, that makes it okay then. He only took guns away from the people he was oppressing. Kind of makes the point for me. Thanks.

I also note that you ignored the Stalin and Lenin quotes.

"Your sentence is too tightly crafted. All industries are open to potential lawsuits from abuses by third parties."

Really? Can you sue Gerber because a madman stabbed someone with a knife they made? How about Serta because someone was smothered by one of their pillows? It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

The rest of your arguments are so non-sensical to be a waste of tim refuting.

Au pas de Charge said,

I wouldnt mind eliminating the 2nd Amendment (just as Hitler did?) along with rewriting some other parts of the Constitution. I think we're heading this way. Unfortunately, the Liberals are inept with policy changes like this.

I'm waiting.

Wolfhag

Nice misquote and doubling down on Hitler eliminating the 2nd Amendment.

Also for throwing doc under the bus for his defense of you. It's a good thing the allied powers fought to restore the 2nd Amendment!

I'm a little disappointed but respect the fact that you backed away from your earlier statement; a person has to realize when they've gone to far. Good man.

In terms of the 2nd Amendment's revision, dont worry too too much; it probably wont happen in your lifetime. However, I might see it done and I wouldn't miss it.

Here is the state of affairs for a Constitutional Convention. I note that Tennessee has voted for it. Apparently you were speaking more for yourself than for your state.

Take a look:

link

Au pas de Charge,
I'm waiting for you to start eliminating the 2nd Amendment.

I'm waiting.

Wolfhag

Au pas de Charge,
I'm waiting for you to start eliminating the 2nd Amendment.

I'm waiting.

Wolfhag

Yes, I saw that; a wise choice.

While you're waiting, I rather hoped you might do some reading, apparently not.

However, hope springs eternal. Here is some legislation that might interest you. Repeal of the PLCAA:

Here is the Bill:

PDF link

Here is some background:

link

I should add that dn Jackson might find this of interest too.

Previous Link.
"WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and U.S. Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) led 78 Members of Congress, including U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) and U.S. Representatives Dwight Evans (D-PA) and Jason Crow (D-CO), in reintroducing the bicameral Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act,"

Notice specifically too "reintroducing"

Also

The legislation is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Tom Carper (D-DE), Bob Casey (D-PA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), John Fetterman (D-PA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Peter Welch (D-VT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Jack Reed (D-RI), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Chris Coons (D-DE).

The bill is also cosponsored by U.S. Representatives Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Janice D. Schakowsky (D-IL), Stephen F. Lynch (D-MA), David Scott (D-GA), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), Brian Higgins (D-NY), Henry C. "Hank" Johnson, Jr. (D-GA), André Carson (D-IN), Gerry Connolly (D-VA), Mike Quigley (D-IL), Judy Chu (D-CA), John Garamendi (D-CA), Frederica S. Wilson (D-FL), Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Suzan DelBene (D-WA), Dina Titus (D-NV), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Grace Meng (D-NY), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Don Beyer (D-VA), Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA), Salud Carbajal (D-CA), Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Jimmy Gomez (D-CA), Joseph D. Morelle (D-NY), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA), Sean Casten (D-IL), Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Katie Porter (D-CA), Haley Stevens (D-MI), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Jake Auchincloss (D-MA), Cori Bush (D-MO), Marilyn Strickland (D-WA), Ritchie Torres (D-NY), Nikema Williams (D-GA), Becca Balint (D-VT), Valerie Foushee (D-NC), Maxwell Frost (D-FL), Robert Garcia (D-CA), Brittany Pettersen (D-CO), and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)."

Not even a RHINO.

Above
Noticed the .pdf was by Adam Schiff.

😂🤣

I can only assume that this is you trying to be difficult. I've already explained this. The rural states have a different life style than cities do. The removal of the EC would mean that the cities would rule the country because there are more people in the cities. As I said before, look at how the cities are run and imagine that on a nationwide scale. Second Amendment severally restricted, free speech restricted, criminals released, criminals not punished.

I don't even care to discuss what running the cities has to do with the rural areas or what the EC has to do with any of this. It seems like you sometimes confuse cities with states. It sounds like there are some states you like vs some you dislike. If that is the case, I have no respect for that. Certainly, several rural states have big cities too. In any case, running the cities is a state issue not a federal one. If the only reason you can assert to keep the EC is because it allows the rural areas to control/dictate how the cities are run, it sounds like interference on the rural areas part. It also sounds like you have no set of rights you can name that the EC protects rural areas from being trampled. Basically, you have no reason at all to keep the EC. Which isn't to say that the EC shouldn't remain, it just means that it shouldn't rely on your reasoning for its defense.

And if you think that Im trying to be difficult then have some sympathy for me that it is difficult to follow your reasoning.

For instance, you say that in the cities criminals aren't punished? This blanket statement is patently false. Additionally, when you say that people with domestic violence restraining orders against them or who are involuntarily committed should still be able to own guns, it's hard to follow just what sort of guidelines the country should use to determine criminal protections and punishments.

How many times does this need to be explained to you? The rural areas of CA, OR, and WA have all proposed secession from their states because the politics of the cities are destroying the entire state and making the people less safe.

You should take a little time to explain it to yourself first. The rural areas get outsized assistance for what they offer. I think that that is fine but I have no idea why you think having a say should translate into effectively running the country. And a word about secession, it's less likely than the more efficacious concept of eliminating or merging some of the states which would reduce costs considerably and bring us together more closely.

APDC said:"Initially, our Founders also limited who could vote to a small elite but that has been corrected; unless you think we should return to that voting standard. And if so, I would like to hear why you think you would be in their category and not a member of the "mob" as they defined it?"

Why don't you answer the question asked instead of the one you want to answer?

Because no question was asked. You made a statement. Here it is.

Dn Jackson said: No, that's democracy. Our founders feared democracy because it turns into mob rule. Representation is somethingtotally different.

It is indeed often difficult to follow your reasoning but you compound it with your own lapses of memory over what the conversation is about.

No, what that is is a difference of opinion. You accused Prager of lying, manipulating, being deceitful, and dishonest. Prove it. All you did is point at another post you agree with. Prove he lied.

It is not a difference of opinion to omit important facts which disprove your point of view, it is dishonesty.

Praeger makes some sweeping assertions and doc introduced Praeger by reposting his assertions for their "correctness" (or discussion purposes). Then doc challenged a critic of Praeger to point out what parts of Praeger's article were a problem. I've listened to Praeger quite a bit and it would be easier to list what of his isn't a steaming pile of propaganda.

Unless you believe that whatever someone writes should be taken at face value as true. If that is the case with the way that you think, then you should also extend that courtesy to the 1619 project. Is all that true unless you can prove it is false?

And it's not just me, Praeger themselves admit proudly that they are a political advocacy group. They arent historians, they're propaganda.

It might shock you to know that there is indeed a dangerous, populist misinformation trope circulating that if you remove God from society and engage in communism it always ends up with genocide. If this is the case, then why does Praeger have to be slyly selective about what he chooses to include and exclude?

Um, no. Constitutionally protected rights are not graded on a curve or a gradient one being more strong than another. You cannot deny someone their rights. Period.

I don't know what you mean about grading on a curve, but some Constitutional protections are stronger than others. For instance, some Constitutional rights are more subject to regulations and modifications. If you don't know this, then that isn't good.

You cant deny someone their constitutional rights? SCOTUS just did exactly this in the Dobbs case. In fact, that case has opened all sorts of concerns for eliminating constitutional rights across the board. Dobbs is a case study in why you don't use your power to indulge your own beliefs because it will have broad ranging implications. Read the case, one day It will allow a liberal court to reverse everything dear to the conservatives.

"There is no absolute right to firearms for citizens. Never has been. I suggest you examine the actual law vs the propaganda."

I know the law, you do not. There has been time where there were no restrictions on personal ownership of firearms.

You think so? Maybe from a mechanical, law enforcement point of view. However, when it comes to being able to analyze legal principles, employ legal reasoning, or make rationale judgments based on the law, I don't see anything suggesting that you are comfortable with that. There's no shame in that, the law can be complex and quite a few good citizens are unfamiliar with it. Im willing to guide you through some of the more complex legal issues but I'd appreciate it if you weren't so defensive when you realize you weren't aware of the law.

"Further, the only people who had their guns taken away were the Jews and the Communists."
Well, that makes it okay then. He only took guns away from the people he was oppressing. Kind of makes the point for me. Thanks.

I also note that you ignored the Stalin and Lenin quotes.

I didn't avoid them, I picked one to check out. Your Hitler quote was misinformation. It was inaccurate. Also, it isn't what it is purported to represent. That gun act isn't what let the Nazis seize power. They didn't take everyone's guns away, quite the opposite, they made gun ownership easier for most citizens. They maybe shouldn't have taken them away from Jews and Communists but at no point during Nazi Germany did anyone Jew, Gentile or Communist ever make moves to oppose Nazi power which had been solidified for 5 years. Also, the Nazis were put in power and stayed in power with the blessings of the status quo, they didnt seize power because no one had guns.

Presumbaly, the White Russians and all their allies had guns too, didnt do them much good.And while I dislike the Soviets, let's be honest they never faced any citizen uprisings of any magnitude either. But then it takes two seconds for someone to copy and paste misinformational slop from a nameless faceless website (I checked) and it takes some time to investigate.

Thus, there is zero correlation between Nazi gun confiscation and reasons/warnings about the 2nd Amendment as a bulwark against a future holocaust. You would think you would thank me for doing the research and analysis you were obviously not interested in enough to do yourself.

Speaking oif avoiding, you avoided your misinformation about New Zealand. You also have left out every country and regime where gun confiscation has led to a better not worse life. In many ways this is exactly the same tactic deployed by Praeger in his article above. And you've avoided a lot else.

Really? Can you sue Gerber because a madman stabbed someone with a knife they made? How about Serta because someone was smothered by one of their pillows? It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.
The rest of your arguments are so non-sensical to be a waste of tim refuting.

You apparently don't have much familiarity with tort law or civil liabilities, but your examples depend heavily on the facts. However, if you think suing the gun makers is an impossibility then it shouldn't be an issue to repeal blanket immunity for the industry.

You are free to answer or not answer as you see fit but when I find something you said to be problematic or in need of kick testing, I will continue to do it, with or without your participation.

"I don't even care to discuss what running the cities has to do with the rural areas or what the EC has to do with any of this."

Since there is no way anyone can be this obtuse unintentionally I can only assume you're intentionally misunderstanding my argument. As such you're not discussing this in good faith.

Dn, yes, that is exactly why I said the same thing.

OP you mean like slavery and it's legacy on US history?

From a biologists perspective the human mind evolved to see patterns because we must find a pattern to be able to learn from it and greater brain power is all about greater ability to learn. Sadly there are many apparent patterns out there that are not supported by any rational evidence. Let's call these fake patterns prejudice, we see what we want to see. Evil is just a prejudice against people who we disagree with.

From a biologists perspective the human mind evolved to see patterns because we must find a pattern to be able to learn from it and greater brain power is all about greater ability to learn.

The problem with the OP isnt that it's flawed, it's not even that the author doesnt know it's flawed (In fact, Praeger admits his videos are conservative indoctrination for young people), the problem is that proponents of his viewpoint do what Praeger wont even do which is use his videos to create an unassailable bias; that what Praeger is asserting is the entire record and indubitably true.

For instance, at the moment, we are seeing to groups commit genocide and counter genocide both claiming to be infused with religion. Is this now disproof that absenting religion from society leads to holocaust?

Sadly there are many apparent patterns out there that are not supported by any rational evidence.

It will be interesting to see if dn Jackson offers an update to his belief that mental illness should not be a bar to gun ownership in the wake of the still-at-large Maine shooter killing 15 and wounding 30.

Let's call these fake patterns prejudice, we see what we want to see. Evil is just a prejudice against people who we disagree with.

Such as seeing one side's killing of civilians as evil genocide but believing the revenge killing of the other side's civilians as justified? It may indeed be that the definition of evil really comes down to labeling a group you hate more.

I think there should be something said about people who not only don't analyze with rational evidence but believe they are superior for not doing so; after all, thinking is what weak willed people do.

On another thread, some of these posters not only saw what they wanted to see but actually manifested thoughts and heard statements that werent there. In many way, this is taking confirmation bias to the next level. It's hard to imagine an approach like this knows how to or is even interested in a discussion.

Also, a few of these posters demonstrate the interesting behavior that although evidently completely captured by a directed narrative, they've managed to convince themselves that they are the only independent thinkers. You can see how comforting this belief is and how violently they react when someone merely asks a question about their viewpoint that they cant answer. Thus, we are not talking about logic, we are instead talking about faith. When confined to houses of worship, faith is a glorious thing for the self and for the community.

However, the weakness of faith based policies unimaginatively applied to real world issues is that they are not interested in practicality and often dont like being challenged.