Why Gun Control Doesn't Work In The USA

[katiegrrl0]

You paint with a wide brush.

Anyone who claims to be a socialist in this day and age doesn't have a realistic of the world, either.

Since most people on a good day can't tell you want actual socialism is beyond old wives tales. Now with that said what does that have to do with the question of gun control in America. The first principle rebuttal from someone who knows knowing about actual debate is to change the subject and make it something other than the actual question and response to that question. I answered the actual question you take a shot across the bow of socialism because you can't defend your position or you have no clue how to form a defense about what I said about fear in America.

 

[TurtleDude]

If you really believe it prove that those things I pointed out are wrong. How many military personal did the US lose protecting yourselves from the mighty Vietnam? Prove me wrong? You can't because I am correct.

the duty is upon you to prove your stupid claims. we weren't protecting ourselves from Vietnam. We were half-heartedly trying to stop the spread of communism

 

[Rucker61]

Since most people on a good day can't tell you want actual socialism is beyond old wives tales.

Even self-admitted socialists don't all agree on what they want via "socialism".

Now with that said what does that have to do with the question of gun control in America. The first principle rebuttal from someone who knows knowing about actual debate is to change the subject and make it something other than the actual question and response to that question. I answered the actual question you take a shot across the bow of socialism because you can't defend your position or you have no clue how to form a defense about what I said about fear in America.

You didn't actually support your claims regarding fear with any actual data or studies. In post 69, I provided data that would counter your "fear" claims. Come back after you've read it, perhaps with some citations of your own.

Make an actual statement on the Constitutionality, effectiveness, or enforceability of a specific gun control proposal for the United States, and I'll be glad to get into the details with you.

 

[katiegrrl0]

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-gives-famous-domino-theory-speech

How many military personnel did we lose protecting Asia from the Japanese or helping to kick the Nazis out of Western Europe?

Again, what does this have to do with gun control? You can't focus on the response I gave. You pick points and attack an abstract idea. When did I mention Japan or Nazi's? Did you read my response? Ah yes the domino theory which does prove one of my points. Americans are afraid of the domino theory. This was a fear tactic used by Eisenhower's government to get your mom's and dad's to defend against the domino's. It proves my point governmental fear politics. Thanks

 

[katiegrrl0]

Even self-admitted socialists don't all agree on what they want via "socialism".



You didn't actually support your claims regarding fear with any actual data or studies. In post 69, I provided data that would counter your "fear" claims. Come back after you've read it, perhaps with some citations of your own.

Make an actual statement on the Constitutionality, effectiveness, or enforceability of a specific gun control proposal for the United States, and I'll be glad to get into the details with you.

I responded to why it won't work in America which was the question. You have changed the question because you can not defend in any way the response I made. You can attack Socialism which was never part of the question, or you can ask a different question? I answered the first question posed by the OP. I answered with my opinion which you have yet to disprove or even debate.

 

[Rucker61]

Again, what does this have to do with gun control? You can't focus on the response I gave. You pick points and attack an abstract idea. When did I mention Japan or Nazi's?

You've referred multiple times to the Vietnam War; this is the historical reasoning behind the US involvement. Perhaps you can explain what the Vietnam War has to do with gun control?

Did you read my response? Ah yes the domino theory which does prove one of my points. Americans are afraid of the domino theory. This was a fear tactic used by Eisenhower's government to get your mom's and dad's to defend against the domino's. It proves my point governmental fear politics. Thanks

Perhaps they erred on the side of caution/fear, maybe as a result of watching the Anschluss followed by the annexation of the Sudatenland, the annexation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Poland, or the post-WWII occupation of Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovika, Hungary and East Germany by the Soviet Union with the goal of a world-wide Communist state. But of course, people like you want to live in a socialist state.

 

[Rucker61]

I responded to why it won't work in America which was the question. You have changed the question because you can not defend in any way the response I made. You can attack Socialism which was never part of the question, or you can ask a different question? I answered the first question posed by the OP. I answered with my opinion which you have yet to disprove or even debate.

"I think gun control does not work in the US because the populace is pretty much afraid of everything."

One, you've not proven this, or even attempted to, and two, in post 69 I pointed out countries with much stricter gun control than the US who seem to have more fear than Americans do.

 

[Media_Truth]

The right of the People to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes is not dependent upon the existence or participation in a militia. It's been that way from before the Constitution was even written.

The constitutional text is clear. You choose to read into it, what fits your views.

 

[Media_Truth]

more nonsense that is unsupported by either the words of the founders or the current Supreme Court case law. Why do you avoid telling us what Natural right-a right that pre-exists the constitution-that the second amendment sought to guarantee?

If some pre-existing right existed, and the framers of the Constitution wanted to incorporate that right, they would have put it into the text. You cannot add your personal whims to the Constitution.

 

[Rucker61]

If some pre-existing right existed, and the framers of the Constitution wanted to incorporate that right, they would have put it into the text. You cannot add your personal whims to the Constitution.

Read the 9th Amendment.

 

[Rucker61]

The constitutional text is clear. You choose to read into it, what fits your views.

It is clear. You GCAs just can't understand it. How can the 2nd protect the arms of the militia when Congress was granted the power to complete control the arms of the militia in Article 1, Section 8? How can the 2nd be the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that expands federal powers when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to further restrict federal power? If the general understanding of the Framers was that only the collective rights of the militia are protected why did multiple prior to and subsequent to ratification include references to a protected individual right? Why has a SCOTUS decision never supported a collective view but has upheld an individual right multiple times?

 

[Media_Truth]

Read the 9th Amendment.

Yeah, by all means, go ahead and explain this logic. Looking forward to that...

You can't support Amendment 2, so you really start reaching.

 

[Rucker61]

Yeah, by all means, go ahead and explain this logic. Looking forward to that...

You can't support Amendment 2, so you really start reaching.

"If some pre-existing right existed, and the framers of the Constitution wanted to incorporate that right, they would have put it into the text." - You

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - The Framers.

You do see that just because a right isn't mentioned that it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or isn't protected, right?

I can support the Second Amendment. I can't make you think.

 

[katiegrrl0]

the duty is upon you to prove your stupid claims. we weren't protecting ourselves from Vietnam. We were half-heartedly trying to stop the spread of communism

The duty rests with you to disprove what I have put forth. I responded to the question. I have in no way berated you your intelligence by calling you names. You like other have failed completely to respond to any of my claims. The US was protecting itself from Vietnam by becoming involved in their civil war because a president spoke of a domino effect. This is I stated earlier is a way of instilling fear and driving Americans to base their lives on dispelling fear. Back on September 19, 1985 the Committee Hearings brought forth by the PMRC ( Parents Music Resource Center ) were opened. They were opened because concerned parents wanted the Government to legislate the lyrics their children were hearing on Records. They were afraid their children were going to be tainted so in fear wanted the government to do something. I always thought it was the parents who protected children. I guess in the US you expect the government to protect your fears. But when you look at the things that have been said they do a good job of creating the fears. Domino's Cold Wars and such have kept fear in the hearts of Americans a long time. So, you might want to tell me exactly how and why I am wrong. Thanks. Please don't call names it is rather childish and proves nothing. Whop knows children may be reading and get the wrong idea how upstanding adults act.

 

[Rucker61]

The duty rests with you to disprove what I have put forth.

Not in a typical debate it isn't. The onus of proof lies with the one making the claim.

You're guilty of the shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

"Shifting of the Burden of Proof
onus probandi

(also known as: burden of proof [general concept], burden of proof fallacy, misplaced burden of proof, shifting the burden of proof)

Description: Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim. The burden of proof is a legal and philosophical concept with differences in each domain. In everyday debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim, but it can also lie with the person denying a well-established fact or theory. Like other non-black and white issues, there are instances where this is clearly fallacious, and those which are not as clear."

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/222/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof

I responded to the question. I have in no way berated you your intelligence by calling you names. You like other have failed completely to respond to any of my claims. The US was protecting itself from Vietnam by becoming involved in their civil war because a president spoke of a domino effect. This is I stated earlier is a way of instilling fear and driving Americans to base their lives on dispelling fear. Back on September 19, 1985 the Committee Hearings brought forth by the PMRC ( Parents Music Resource Center ) were opened. They were opened because concerned parents wanted the Government to legislate the lyrics their children were hearing on Records. They were afraid their children were going to be tainted so in fear wanted the government to do something. I always thought it was the parents who protected children. I guess in the US you expect the government to protect your fears. But when you look at the things that have been said they do a good job of creating the fears. Domino's Cold Wars and such have kept fear in the hearts of Americans a long time. So, you might want to tell me exactly how and why I am wrong. Thanks. Please don't call names it is rather childish and proves nothing. Whop knows children may be reading and get the wrong idea how upstanding adults act.

Please provide any substantive proof that Americans are extremely fearful, especially in light of the links provided in post # 69. Then provide substantive proof that this fear is either the sole or primary reason for preventing gun control similar to Western Europe from being enacted in the US.

 

[katiegrrl0]

Even self-admitted socialists don't all agree on what they want via "socialism".



You didn't actually support your claims regarding fear with any actual data or studies. In post 69, I provided data that would counter your "fear" claims. Come back after you've read it, perhaps with some citations of your own.

Make an actual statement on the Constitutionality, effectiveness, or enforceability of a specific gun control proposal for the United States, and I'll be glad to get into the details with you.

Again for the benefit of those without debate training. The point is to stay on focus not talk about socialism or breakfast cereals or TV commercials. I understand you want to change the subject it is easier to debate if you can pick the topic. Japanese and Nazi's are not part of the discussion. But the idea of Domino's plays well into proving the government has spread fear and enhanced this idea by telling you to be afraid there are communists out there and we need to stop them in Vietnam even if 58220 have to die to stop the red menace. You lost Vietnam and you are not communist (oligarchy perhaps) so 58220 Americans lost there lives trying to keep the domino from falling out of fear. It dropped and communism has not taken over. So even when the idea of domino effect is disproved you want to use it as proof. okay whatever. I am not addressing Constitutionality as the questiuon asked why Gun Control will not work. Thanks

 

[Rucker61]

Again for the benefit of those without debate training. The point is to stay on focus not talk about socialism or breakfast cereals or TV commercials. I understand you want to change the subject it is easier to debate if you can pick the topic. Japanese and Nazi's are not part of the discussion. But the idea of Domino's plays well into proving the government has spread fear and enhanced this idea by telling you to be afraid there are communists out there and we need to stop them in Vietnam even if 58220 have to die to stop the red menace. You lost Vietnam and you are not communist (oligarchy perhaps) so 58220 Americans lost there lives trying to keep the domino from falling out of fear. It dropped and communism has not taken over. So even when the idea of domino effect is disproved you want to use it as proof. okay whatever. I am not addressing Constitutionality as the questiuon asked why Gun Control will not work. Thanks

Why are you still talking about the Domino Theory in a gun control forum?

You made a claim that it's fear that prevents gun control from passing in America. Prove that claim. And yes, Constitutionality is part of why gun control will or will not work in the US. You cannot ignore it.

 

[katiegrrl0]

You've referred multiple times to the Vietnam War; this is the historical reasoning behind the US involvement. Perhaps you can explain what the Vietnam War has to do with gun control?



Perhaps they erred on the side of caution/fear, maybe as a result of watching the Anschluss followed by the annexation of the Sudatenland, the annexation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Poland, or the post-WWII occupation of Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovika, Hungary and East Germany by the Soviet Union with the goal of a world-wide Communist state. But of course, people like you want to live in a socialist state.

The Vietnam war was fought over fear and the Domino Effect. It was fought because Americans are afraid as I plainly stated. You object. Fear caused the war so it plays toward why gun control won't work. It plays because Americans did that out of fear and they carry guns out of the same sense of fear your leadership still creates. You better have a gun because if not you will be attacked. The Muslims, Mexican, Illegals, LGBTQP, women are to be feared. No they did not err on the side of caution. They erred to keep you afraid and in chains to that fear. What communist state are you talking about? The CCCP was Stalinist Totalitarianism. Had very little to do with communism. But that is what great grandmothers believed so the school children in the US believe it still today. See you spend so much time being afraid that I as a professed socialist that you never tell me why you think I am wrong. You never tell me how any one thing is untrue. Tell me you really believe Americans are not afraid Illegals are going to hurt your country and Americans are not just a bit more afraid of a Muslim than once they were. Maybe you could take a class on Political Science 101 in some other country where you will be taught truth and not wives tales.

 

[Rucker61]

The Vietnam war was fought over fear and the Domino Effect. It was fought because Americans are afraid as I plainly stated. You object. Fear caused the war so it plays toward why gun control won't work. It plays because Americans did that out of fear and they carry guns out of the same sense of fear your leadership still creates. You better have a gun because if not you will be attacked. The Muslims, Mexican, Illegals, LGBTQP, women are to be feared. No they did not err on the side of caution. They erred to keep you afraid and in chains to that fear. What communist state are you talking about? The CCCP was Stalinist Totalitarianism. Had very little to do with communism. But that is what great grandmothers believed so the school children in the US believe it still today. See you spend so much time being afraid that I as a professed socialist that you never tell me why you think I am wrong. You never tell me how any one thing is untrue. Tell me you really believe Americans are not afraid Illegals are going to hurt your country and Americans are not just a bit more afraid of a Muslim than once they were. Maybe you could take a class on Political Science 101 in some other country where you will be taught truth and not wives tales.

I don't have to tell you why you are wrong. You have to provide proof that you are right. Your posts are not sufficient. I've lived overseas and have traveled to 30 countries, so I'm no naif.

Do you think that the US is dangerous enough that we need more gun control?

 

[The Mark]

The Vietnam war was fought over fear and the Domino Effect. It was fought because Americans are afraid as I plainly stated. You object. Fear caused the war so it plays toward why gun control won't work. It plays because Americans did that out of fear and they carry guns out of the same sense of fear your leadership still creates. You better have a gun because if not you will be attacked. The Muslims, Mexican, Illegals, LGBTQP, women are to be feared. No they did not err on the side of caution. They erred to keep you afraid and in chains to that fear. What communist state are you talking about? The CCCP was Stalinist Totalitarianism. Had very little to do with communism. But that is what great grandmothers believed so the school children in the US believe it still today. See you spend so much time being afraid that I as a professed socialist that you never tell me why you think I am wrong. You never tell me how any one thing is untrue. Tell me you really believe Americans are not afraid Illegals are going to hurt your country and Americans are not just a bit more afraid of a Muslim than once they were. Maybe you could take a class on Political Science 101 in some other country where you will be taught truth and not wives tales.

Frankly if I were to ever purchase a firearm for defensive purposes it'd be because I was afraid the government might overstep the bounds it's supposed to be restrained by.

Not because I feared regular people, no matter where they come from.

 

[Media_Truth]

"If some pre-existing right existed, and the framers of the Constitution wanted to incorporate that right, they would have put it into the text." - You

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - The Framers.

You do see that just because a right isn't mentioned that it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or isn't protected, right?

I can support the Second Amendment. I can't make you think.

That is the most ridiculous Constitutional interpretation I ever heard. The Ninth Amendment covers rights not covered by the other 8 amendments.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/9th+Amendment

It provides that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not take away from the people rights that are not named.

Either Amendment 2 has it covered or it doesn't. For Amendment 2 to be relevant today, the military would have to show a need for a Citizen Militia.

 

[Rucker61]

That is the most ridiculous Constitutional interpretation I ever heard. The Ninth Amendment covers rights not covered by the other 8 amendments.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/9th+Amendment

It provides that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not take away from the people rights that are not named.

Either Amendment 2 has it covered or it doesn't. For Amendment 2 to be relevant today, the military would have to show a need for a Citizen Militia.

You are claiming that the 2nd only covers a collective right. In that case, there is still nothing in the Constitution that grants the government power over the individual right to keep and bear arms. That right is therefore protected by the 9th.

 

[DebateChallenge]

You better have a gun because if not you will be attacked.

Not necessarily. Lots of people keep guns for reasons other than defense, they keep guns for hunting, target shooting, recreational use.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That is the most ridiculous Constitutional interpretation I ever heard. The Ninth Amendment covers rights not covered by the other 8 amendments.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/9th+Amendment

It provides that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not take away from the people rights that are not named.

Either Amendment 2 has it covered or it doesn't. For Amendment 2 to be relevant today, the military would have to show a need for a Citizen Militia.

The constitution defines (lists or enumerates) limited federal government powers and the BoR explicitly protects some basic rights of the people. The 9th simply says that just because a right of the people was not specifically addressed (such as travel, self-defense or having sex) does not make it fair game for the federal government to later limit (abridge or deny) such rights. The 10th says that constitutional powers not specifically assigned (granted?) to the federal government are left to the several states or to the people. When combined the 9A and 10A prevent the federal government from removing rights of the people or granting itself new powers not specifically mentioned in the constitution.

 

[Media_Truth]

You are claiming that the 2nd only covers a collective right. In that case, there is still nothing in the Constitution that grants the government power over the individual right to keep and bear arms. That right is therefore protected by the 9th.

Yes, the individual right is there, as long as it is deemed that there is a military need for armed citizens.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.
...
There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

The intent was military, and there is no question about it.