and they’re generally immune to beliveing their rights ending where they impinge on mine!
Just today I had a libertarian ask for an apology for a thoughtless faux pas, and when he got one, he then called me an asshole. And I was like, wha? You get an apology AND you get to punish? What a world to be the center of!!
They got millions and millions of votes…
When that kid said they’d come up with an equal amount of money to match what the NRA gives him so he can represent his constituents… wow kid. Well done. This is officially Rubio’s last term in office. It wasn’t even the concept. It was delivered.
No, you can counter argue this, but only with the associated status of being a selfish heartless bastard that can’t see beyond their own fetish in order to help keep our kids safe.
There is no argument - 2nd amendment, responsible ownership, mental health, protect myself from the gubberment - nothing that can’t be overcome, in fact torn to shreds by the heartless disregard for children’s lives.
I’ll repeat it for you on the optimistic hope that you are self aware enough to not be a despicable selfish heartless bastard that would pave the road to the death of our children by opposing gun control:
The safety of our school children must override the rights of gun ownership.
Absolutely. And that’s exactly why what we really need to do is arm a million teachers!
/Facepalm, head-desk etc.
Since this was in reply to me, I figure I owe you a reply…
I’ll start with the admission that I am pretty much a heartless bastard. I trust facts and numbers, and if they say “model A 8 people die, model B 3 people die” I may want a “model C 0 people die”, but I’ll advocate for change from model A to model B. I will not be happy switching from B to A. Yes, I’m proposing 3 people die, but that is because I prefer it to 8. Yes, I’m a trolley switch puller.
More over I have seen far too many times common sense not turn out to be true. I like to look at the results of experiments, not the results of common sense. Sadly people don’t like to run experiments on people, otherwise I would totally be for making up 4 sets of gun laws from “the wild west we have now” to “as close to zero guns as we can get without constitutional change”, and having every state pull a number out of a hat so we get 12.5 states with each set…er, maybe we need 5 sets of laws, but still… and then reviewing the crime and suicide changes over say 4 to 10 years and then adopting the best one.
Since we won’t be giving that a go though, I’ll settle for what meter data we have, plus “common sense”.
I don’t actually own a gun at this time, and haven’t for a number of years. I think we definitely need more gun control then we have. No debate there what so ever. Not the “what is the smallest amount we can possibly come up with to get past this crisis”.
I’m not as optimistic about a full ban, but it has worked out in other countries, so maybe it would be a solution here as well. I don’t think it should be in any way off the table.
I took the original message I was replying to as saying nothing is a decent counter argument to a full ban, and I think there are some. I’m unconvinced one way or the other on it, but do think it needs a debate. Not a “well the constitution says, so end of story”, but a “ok, I’m aware the constitution says, but if enough of us agree we can change it, so why don’t we see if we can convince each other, should citizens have guns or not? If so, what are reasonable limits?”
Before that though, we should fix the most stupid parts.
Or they can just blame the Democrats for not doing anything to “fix” things while not doing anything other than paying lip service to gun reforms and dragging out the same tired straw men as usual.
I’ll say it again:
The safety of our school children must override the rights of gun ownership.
There is nothing in that sentence that implies or suggests a ban on gun ownership. In fact it does not propose a solution at all. What it does is state what our priorities should be (and are not).
Everyone should without exception and without conditions be able to agree with that sentence.
And I assert that if you can not agree with that sentence, that you are somebody who is not responsible enough, clear minded enough, rational enough to have a say in the matter.
Ok, speaking just for myself, I’m not going to agree with that exact sentence, but I’ll agree to one I think you would find acceptable. Remove “school children”, replace it with “people”, and I’ll agree. I’ll do one here:
“The safety of people is more important then the right for any person to own any gun (aka the rights of gun ownership)”
Good enough? (school children is definitly part of people, but I don’t think we should just stop there…if we could magically turn guns into noodles on school property, I think we would still have a reason to tighten up gun laws!)
That sentence isn’t one I think everyone will get behind, although I’m pretty sure it is 100% consistent with the Supreme Court’s last 2nd amendment ruling (Heller), which is nice (at least as long as you avoid a blanket ban). Which is nice, it means we can do it “just with laws”, we wouldn’t need a constitutional amendment.
I don’t disagree, but as a call for reform, identifying school children as a pivot point has more power.
My statement does not suggests that people other than school children should be bullet fodder, and I think we all know that creating safety for school children would create safety for all people.
So my statement stands.
The safety of our school children must override the rights of gun ownership.
Of course these happen in any period, but not all resonate the same. Sandy Hook might seem the worst because of the ages of the victims, and may have had the most impact culturally. Second, it’s going to be more difficult for the right to maintain their gun-grabber conspiracy fantasy by idiots like Alex Jones when he is an advisor to the White House. But, now that Republicans are discussing at least some new policies, what do you think has become different?
The constitution isn’t magic, it’s a fucking political manifesto. It, like all political manifestos, can, and indeed has, been changed before.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
