In the discussion thread: The 2nd Amendment crystal clear or as clear as muddy water? [View all]
Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #57)
Fri May 4, 2012, 01:51 PM
SoutherDem (2,306 posts)
63. Agree to Disagree???
Last edited Fri May 4, 2012, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)
I am willing to continue the back and forth debate as long as you like, we are keeping it civil and I do enjoy this type of debate. But, as a rather liberal person living in Alabama I have learned to offer the agree to disagree option when it becomes obvious both sides are passionate but from different points of view. Trust me as an Atheist in this state I have had many conversations end with agree to disagree.
Assuming you want to continue here is my reply;
2A says keep and bear arms, this is not specific, and applied to weapons of 1789. We really do not have any way of knowing if the signers would have wanted this to continue to expand or placed limits if they knew how technology would proceed.
The circumstances of history and current times in 1789 must have given the signers the reason for having a well regulated militia. We do not know how they would feel 223 years later whether they would still feel we need the well regulated militia or not.
You may very well be correct that if we could bring the signers to 2012 that they would want us to have every weapon (small arms) available to the "regular army" and would still want us to be ready to as citizens to assist the regular army or even stand against our army if needed. I am not sure and am not willing to make such an assumption.
I agree all opinions on the internet may not be "valid", if valid is factually correct. But, to say all opinions but yours are not valid, could be considered closed minded.
Yes, the ignorance of the general public about weapons is used by "anti-gun" groups. But, pro-gun groups are using the ignorance of the general public too. By the way, believe it or not, there are more than anti-gun vs. pro-gun. While there are some who want there to be no guns and those who want no regulation there are many, maybe the majority who want guns but with regulations.
Yes, polls are often worded incorrectly and yes if it was understood that some hunting rifles were semi-auto the results would change, but if you did ask if fully-auto weapons should be legal the results would change too. If we assume of the population which is polled, some do know and answered as they really intended and some answered in a way in which they didn't intend. If we took the question about semi-auto weapons which 63% did not want them and made it two questions, one about semi-auto with an explanation as to what that means and one about fully-auto with an explanation, people who want restrictions on semi-auto would go down because some who said they didn't' want them would now not have an issue, but fully-auto would go up.
On the issue of having a guns everywhere, yes possibly if everybody in the room had a gun someone my have taken Amy Bishop down, they also may have accidentally shot someone else or caused a ricochet and hit someone else. One last thing, according to the Secret Service a trained person takes 3 seconds to react, an untrained person 10 seconds. The idea that an untrained person can really help is not as valid as some claim.
I understand you want a gun on your body 24/7-365. If you know what you are doing that is fine. I am not against CCW. I simply want those who are carrying guns to know how to safely use them. At the current time we issue CCW to those who know nothing about gun safety nor the use of the weapon. Call a "real" test punitive or responsible that's up to you. I will just say I hope someone's right to irresponsibly carry a gun never cost you a loved one because it does happen.
Yes, I agree with the erosion of freedoms over the last 10 years I just don't feel picking up arms against our country would be the answer.
If trained police officers have only a 30% hit average makes the self defense argument even less valid. Just my opinion.
I know my argument about shoulder launched rockets and mortars was a little over the top but, if we are to defend against our or any real army wouldn't we need those also?
Until you spoke of eroding freedoms I started to question if you were liberal at all. You actually, at least on the 2A subject, could make some hardcore conservatives look rather moderate if not liberal. Also, to look at your previous posts it appears most (or at least the ones I looked at) are only on the subject of 2A. I was starting to wonder if you were on DU just to take jabs at the liberals who don't appreciate or agree with you on the gun issue.
If you want to continue to debate the issue I welcome the opportunity. While I have not changed my opinion, nor most likely will I, and I know I haven't changed your mind, nor will, I am starting to understand why some are so passionate on the subject. I understand why from your point of view, you feel the way you do. Honestly before our debate most, if not all, those who were against regulations which I spoke with were defending "grandpa's hunting rifle" which I don't know anyone who what to take that away. Although I am sure there are some out there.
Also, if you are "atypical liberal" I would welcome you to share to me or DU some other issues which you are passionate about. I would find it interesting if we agree on anything or even everything except 2A.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
|Sherman A1||May 2012||#2|
|Atypical Liberal||May 2012||#34|
|Atypical Liberal||May 2012||#51|
|Atypical Liberal||May 2012||#57|
Agree to Disagree???
|Atypical Liberal||May 2012||#65|
|Atypical Liberal||May 2012||#71|
|Tuesday Afternoon||May 2012||#74|
Please login to view edit histories.