Agnostic.com

4 3

For 2nd amendment avid supporters: you need to learn to argue with better and reasonable points.

The general arguments used by the average avid gun enthusiasts are weak and grossly misrepresent reality. This is one reason why the debate veers off into nowhere land.

Some of my favorite arguments I find null and void with my (thought). Please make your point in a civil manner:

1: it’s in the 2nd amendment. (Sure as part of the militia to defend the state. Please join the Reserve. Amendments can be removed too. Be careful to use that one).

2: I must defend myself against my own government (laughable. I’ll buy you your AR15 and I bet only 2000:1 the government’s drone wins.)

3: guns don’t kill people. People kill people. (Very true. Unlike a rock, a knife, and a hammer, a gun is specifically designed to kill. There is a significant difference for its intended purpose. To hit a nail or to willfully kill.)

4: an AR15 is not an assault weapon. (Picking myself up from the floor. I grab a woman by the p45ssy and I get charged with sexual assault. I hit someone with a hammer, I get charged with assault. I may use aggressive language as a keyboard warrior, someone commits suicide, and I get charged with assault. But when it comes to a gun, all of a sudden, it’s not assault? That is nucking futs.)

5: arm teachers (the dumbest of all imnsho. Okay let’s do that. All teachers are now armed. School shooters ain’t no dummies. So they go to other high density areas like train stations -> arm all transportation personnel; hospitals -> arm all health care personnel; stadiums -> allow all supporters to bring their guns etc. the Wild West reborn).

Look, I favor the 2nd amendment myself as it levels the playing field esp in home invasion and believe in some reasonable restrictions.

Yet, the avid supporters will never win with the arguments they are using. They are weak, not in touch with reality, and will in the end not uphold the amendment which can also be removed.

Think about better arguments and start a reasonable debate.

Marcel3405 7 Mar 23
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

4 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Tragic part is, they don’t need to win an argument in the USA, only throw money at it.. Money talks louder than any Amendment.

I applaud you bringing this topic up, and you are correct. Problem is ..too many of us are simply numb. But thanks ~

Varn Level 8 Mar 23, 2019
0

"School shooters ain't no dummies"? Well, it's true that one of the dumbest signs I've ever seen in the one I've attached: "For everyone's safety, no handguns permitted". I'd like to be the judge of what's best for my safety, thank you. I can just picture someone intent on killing the doctor with whom they're disgruntled reading that sign: "Wait, no handguns allowed? Oh, never mind then. I'll go back home."

I don't imagine I'll ever be involved in any kind of violent incident anywhere, ever, but that's the point; nobody ever does, and when they find themselves in one, it's too late to wish they'd ignored that sign on the door and brought the handgun which they're legally entitled to carry (in my state, anyway). Every time I walk into a hospital, I find myself wondering if today will be that day.

1
  1. The Reserves isn't a militia as it is actually part of the military. ( So 1 Fail point for you)
    It does say regulated but also not infringed, so thats a little wonky wording yeah?

2.Uprising against your government isn't a 1 man on 1 drone thing. Its a group and coordinated effort. Then you have social implications if the government shoots people who haven't fired upon them. P.S. politicians aren't surrounded by drones.

3.you should see the CDC stats on kitchen knives and hammer deaths.

  1. Under your definition all guns are assault guns thereby defeating the very thing you are trying to propose to remove. The ambiguity of its shape, and functions of various rifles is pointless to debate over. So is an AR-15. Statistically mass shootings occur more often with hand guns and shotguns than semi-automatic rifles.

  2. Im not gonna defend this one.

Home invasion is the dumbest reason to say you need a gun. Guns need to be locked away securely in a safe with the bullets not chambered in them. People don't sit and watch TV or have dinner with a loaded gun less than an arms reach away. The ones that do are in the group of people more likely to have accidental shootings or their guns stolen.

Your understanding of guns is weak and so is your touch with reality of empirical data on actual shootings. In the end the second amendment will continue to stand. Should we better regulate gun sales sure. Should gun owners be at least as trained and liable as a driver of a car, for damn sure.

0

1: it’s in the 2nd amendment. (Sure as part of the militia to defend the state. Please join the Reserve. Amendments can be removed too. Be careful to use that one).

>> The text of the 2nd amendment is 100% clear. "Shall not be infringed" has no ambiguity.
>> "Amendments can be removed too". You are 100% correct here. If you don't like the "Shall not be infringed" text of the 2nd amendment, then attempt to repeal the 2nd amendment.

2: I must defend myself against my own government (laughable. I’ll buy you your AR15 and I bet only 2000:1 the government’s drone wins.)

>> Governments overreach their power all the time. Including the US government. Just google "Branch Davidians" and "Cliven Bundy standoff". Whenever the government overreaches their power and a large group of citizens stand up to them, the government has a choice, they either overpower the armed citizens like they did in Waco, TX, or they back down, like they did at Cliven Bundy's ranch. If they kill the citizens, like they did the Branch Dividians, the majority of US citizens see their actions as wrong. If they back down, they are humiliated, and learn not to overreach their power. If the citizens did not have the right to arm themselves, there would be no such check on the government's power to bully citizens through force.

3: guns don’t kill people. People kill people. (Very true. Unlike a rock, a knife, and a hammer, a gun is specifically designed to kill. There is a significant difference for its intended purpose. To hit a nail or to willfully kill.)

>> They make a valid point. You make a valid point.

4: an AR15 is not an assault weapon. (Picking myself up from the floor. I grab a woman by the p45ssy and I get charged with sexual assault. I hit someone with a hammer, I get charged with assault. I may use aggressive language as a keyboard warrior, someone commits suicide, and I get charged with assault. But when it comes to a gun, all of a sudden, it’s not assault? That is nucking futs.)

>> If politicians would respect "Shall not be infringed" this would be an unnecessary argument.

5: arm teachers (the dumbest of all imnsho. Okay let’s do that. All teachers are now armed. School shooters ain’t no dummies. So they go to other high density areas like train stations -> arm all transportation personnel; hospitals -> arm all health care personnel; stadiums -> allow all supporters to bring their guns etc. the Wild West reborn).

>> Archie Bunker had this solution 45 years ago.

BD66 Level 8 Mar 23, 2019
Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:316234
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.