Woman shot in the head after knocking on door and asking for help - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42805817]What about beneficial legislation?[/QUOTE] very few people in the usa find a gun ban to be beneficial legislation.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42805817]You are extrapolating to the future. You have no idea if the constitution will be modified in such a way. Legally it can happen. [editline]9th November 2013[/editline] What about beneficial legislation?[/QUOTE] Legally it can. But it has never been changed to remove amendments except for prohibition. Removing any amendment in the US should never happen because of the precedent it says. It says our government is no longer a liberal democracy. It says that our government is no longer focused on securing the rigbts of its people and that if its people disagree the government can simply take away their right to disagree as well.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42805881]very few people in the usa find a gun ban to be beneficial legislation.[/QUOTE] Depends on the type of legislation. For instance, there must be at least a few laws pertaining to firearms, it's not like there can be no regulation of them at all can there? [editline]9th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=darkrei9n;42805886]Removing any amendment in the US should never happen because of the precedent it says. It says our government is no longer a liberal democracy. It says that our government is no longer focused on securing the rigbts of its people and that if its people disagree the government can simply take away their right to disagree as well.[/QUOTE] What if a majority of people vote for it? Would not ignoring their wishes be counter to democracy?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42805892]Depends on the type of legislation. For instance, there must be at least a few laws pertaining to firearms, it's not like there can be no regulation of them at all can there? [editline]9th November 2013[/editline] What if a majority of people vote for it? Would not ignoring their wishes be counter to democracy?[/QUOTE] Actually it wouldn't be counter to our government. Our governments job is to protect the rights of all citizens, even the minority. Its also setup to avoid allowing the majority to rule over the minority with mob rule. Its meant to be slow and its meant to make people wait and ask if this is really needed and whether this is the best course of action.

[QUOTE=darkrei9n;42805911]Actually it wouldn't be counter to our government. Our governments job is to protect the rights of all citizens, even the minority. Its also setup to avoid allowing the majority to rule over the minority with mob rule. Its meant to be slow and its meant to make people wait and ask if this is really needed and whether this is the best course of action.[/QUOTE] Yes I understand this. If after years of studies and research, it shows that some new gun legislation is beneficial and the majority of people demand it, would it not be good idea to implement it?

[QUOTE=darkrei9n;42805911]Actually it wouldn't be counter to our government. Our governments job is to protect the rights of all citizens, even the minority. Its also setup to avoid allowing the majority to rule over the minority with mob rule. Its meant to be slow and its meant to make people wait and ask if this is really needed and whether this is the best course of action.[/QUOTE] but protecting the people's rights over the people's will goes against democracy too, it's paradoxical and the reason why a truly representative system of governance cannot exist if based upon the threat of force. you either have true democracy, or you have a government and all the benefits and problems that entails, you cannot have both because they conflict on a fundamental level.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42805916]Yes I understand this. If after years of studies and research, it shows that some new gun legislation is beneficial and the majority of people demand it, would it not be good idea to implement it?[/QUOTE] No. Because its a right. When you pass an amendment to the constitution and it establishes a right its establishing that this is something everyone should have. You can't take it away. It would pretty much violate the constitution and the people.

[QUOTE=darkrei9n;42805948]No. Because its a right. When you pass an amendment to the constitution and it establishes a right its establishing that this is something everyone should have. You can't take it away. It would pretty much violate the constitution and the people.[/QUOTE] Yet is that not undemocratic? [quote]It says our government is no longer a liberal democracy.[/quote] Is this not a contradiction?

[QUOTE=darkrei9n;42805948]No. Because its a right. When you pass an amendment to the constitution and it establishes a right its establishing that this is something everyone should have. You can't take it away. It would pretty much violate the constitution and the people.[/QUOTE] owning slaves was implied as a right by the constitution. people thought abolition was a violation of the constitution.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42805947]but protecting the people's rights over the people's will goes against democracy too, it's paradoxical and the reason why a truly representative system of governance cannot exist if based upon the threat of force. you either have true democracy, or you have a government and all the benefits and problems that entails, you cannot have both because they conflict on a fundamental level.[/QUOTE] Our government isn't meant to run on the peoples will. Its meant to run on the educated and people with cooler heads who will take the time to think before they vote.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42805916]Yes I understand this. If after years of studies and research, it shows that some new gun legislation is beneficial and the majority of people demand it, would it not be good idea to implement it?[/QUOTE] Except every time the government commissions research on the topic it comes to the same conclusion: gun control doesn't work.

[QUOTE=darkrei9n;42805968]Our government isn't meant to run on the peoples will. Its meant to run on the educated and people with cooler heads who will take the time to think before they vote.[/QUOTE] that's not democracy that is rule of the elite aka an oligarchy.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42805958]owning slaves was implied as a right by the constitution. people thought abolition was a violation of the constitution.[/QUOTE] The constitution does not mention slavery anywhere in it. People may have thought there were rights implied regarding it but they were wrong. [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42805974]that's not democracy that is rule of the elite aka an oligarchy.[/QUOTE] An elite elected by the people to represent themselves.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;42805971]Except every time the government commissions research on the topic it comes to the same conclusion: gun control doesn't work.[/QUOTE] I was under the impression it was contested at best. Don't say that "Gun control doesn't work". This is legitimately false and stifles further research because we don't have the empirical evidence to state that "Gun control doesn't work". I mean, you are ignoring every other country, all of their research, studies, and the fact that research into firearms in the USA is incredibly underfunded and politicized.

[QUOTE=darkrei9n;42805981]The constitution does not mention slavery anywhere in it. People may have thought there were rights implied regarding it but they were wrong.[/quote] "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." [quote]An elite elected by the people to represent themselves.[/QUOTE] that is still an oligarchy.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42806003]I was under the impression it was contested at best. Don't say that "Gun control doesn't work". This is legitimately false and stifles further research because we don't have the empirical evidence to state that "Gun control doesn't work". I mean, you are ignoring every other country, all of their research, studies, and the fact that research into firearms in the USA is incredibly underfunded and politicized.[/QUOTE] US studies into gun control say gun control doesn't work, US Studies into other countries' gun control say their gun control doesn't work, studies from other countries into their own gun control say it doesn't work, or that numbers were padded to make it seem like it was working, or have simply not been done. But since the argument is about the US, the majority of US government funded research into the topic has concluded thus far that gun control doesn't and won't work. It's privately/academically funded research that comes to variable and contested answers on the topic in the US. Making that statement is also neither legitimately false or stifling, when it is the conclusion of several studies, notably the recent CDC study commissioned by Obama. You also can't call it "legitimately" false and then say there isn't evidence to conclude either way, because you therefore do not know the legitimacy of its falseness if such a conclusion has supposedly not been made.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42806026]"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." that is still an oligarchy.[/QUOTE] Doesn't explicitly mention slavery or ownership of other human beings. As for the oligarchy thing. Mob rule was viewed as a threat to democracy. Which is why we went witb a representative system instead.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;42806045]It's privately/academically funded research that comes to variable and contested answers on the topic in the US.[/quote] Why do you think this is? [quote]Making that statement is also neither legitimately false or stifling, when it is the conclusion of several studies, notably the recent CDC study commissioned by Obama. You also can't call it "legitimately" false and then say there isn't evidence to conclude either way, because you therefore do not know the legitimacy of its falseness if such a conclusion has supposedly not been made.[/QUOTE] It's false because it's such a vague and overreaching statement that we can discount it. What type of "gun control"? What do you mean by "work"?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42805974]that's not democracy that is rule of the elite aka an oligarchy.[/QUOTE] Just a heads up dude; Technically the us of a is a representative democratic republic, not a democracy. Carry on.

[QUOTE=darkrei9n;42805748]Part of the point of amendments, is that they're supposed to be something that can't change. The rights listed in the constitution are meant to be inalieble rights. Not things that can just be taken away just because the majority disagrees with it.[/QUOTE] That's just the bill of rights, a lot of the rest don't even address rights, and tbh the inalienable rights concept is pretty shaky in the first place presidential succession isn't a right congressional salary isn't a right term limits aren't a right income tax isn't a right lame duck isn't a right prohibition was pretty much taking away a right

I don't know how gun-ban enthusiasts plan to work out such a ban anyway.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;42802285]It's also why the slippery slope "fallacy" isn't so fallacious.[/QUOTE] Except it is? Slippery slope arguments are almost always "supported" by extreme hypotheticals that will most likely never happen. Gradualism is a sort of reform, not a logical device.

[QUOTE=darkrei9n;42806048]Doesn't explicitly mention slavery or ownership of other human beings. As for the oligarchy thing. Mob rule was viewed as a threat to democracy. Which is why we went witb a representative system instead.[/QUOTE] 3/5 compromise implies that there are people who are "not free". the 5th and 10th amendments then say that slavery is legal as per the constitution and that it is the individual states that can legislate on slavery. [QUOTE=viper shtf;42806421]Just a heads up dude; Technically the us of a is a representative democratic republic, not a democracy. Carry on.[/QUOTE] that's my point. we can't be a democracy because people choosing for themselves is incompatible with having a government. any government is going to be a mix of democratic ideals and authoritarianism.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;42810166]Except it is? Slippery slope arguments are almost always "supported" by extreme hypotheticals that will most likely never happen. Gradualism is a sort of reform, not a logical device.[/QUOTE] Except the argument that "Gun control is a slippery slope towards confiscation" is supported by the idea of gradualism as it relates to gun control.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;42811606]Except the argument that "Gun control is a slippery slope towards confiscation" is supported by the idea of gradualism as it relates to gun control.[/QUOTE] Gun control does not inherently mean confiscation. You are using a fallacy.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;42811606]Except the argument that "Gun control is a slippery slope towards confiscation" is supported by the idea of gradualism as it relates to gun control.[/QUOTE] there's a logical and practical difference between saying that there is a group that wants to use gradualist methods to eventually get rid of "gun rights" and saying that any form of gun control "opens the floodgates" for a complete gun ban.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42811624]Gun control does not inherently mean confiscation. You are using a fallacy.[/QUOTE] Yes it does, as basically all your arguments have put forward, and as the concept exists in the eyes of those pushing for it. You literally have claimed the US has too many guns, and needs less. That is something that can only be accomplished by attrition over several centuries or by confiscation.

gradualism is a gradual uphill progression whereas a slippery slope implies the minute you take a step you'll be unable to stop

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;42811652]Yes it does, as basically all your arguments have put forward, and as the concept exists in the eyes of those pushing for it. You literally have claimed the US has too many guns, and needs less. That is something that can only be accomplished by attrition over several centuries or by confiscation.[/QUOTE] Not everybody who is for gun control wants to abolish firearms. You keep putting everybody who seeks to introduce gun legislation into the same camp, as something "negative" to be ignored. Let us imagine not a single law existed on firearms of any kind. Would that be acceptable, or would you seek to legislate something?

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42811661]gradualism is a gradual uphill progression whereas a slippery slope implies the minute you take a step you'll be unable to stop[/QUOTE] Which has been largely the case as it relates to gun control. The US AWB of 1994 only disappeared because it had an expiry date, like the Untraceable Weapons Act will later this year, but the only countries I know of that have reversed any enacted gun control in the legislature are Canada and Italy in the last 80 years, and both were incredibly minimal (the elimination of part of the gun registry for the former and the removal of magazine limits for the other). Once gun control is enacted in a country, it's an incredible uphill battle against propaganda, special interest groups, the media, and public opinion to try and get it repealed, and after every shooting there's always a renewed push down the slope, after the Cumbria shooting in 2010 people were pushing England to basically ban all guns, which is about the only place they can really go from where they are now.