I don't know what to say.
That the right to bear arms was put in place in order for our citizenry to be able to rise up against a tyranical government is spot on. However, if that were to be the case today the citizenry would need to be so incredibly armed, that it would be impossible. It's an impossible comparison.
Whatever the original meeting I believe that gun rights are to protect us from the government. Why should the government have a monopoly on guns?
- However, if that were to be the case today the citizenry would need to be so incredibly armed, that it would be impossible. It's an impossible comparison.
The citizenry is so incredibly armed. 90 per 100 households. It would be difficult for government forces to control the American people in a reasonable way. This is good.
Mass shootings are tragic. Absolutely tragic. I will agree with the American in the video above that statistically its a non-issue. The reaction that the government, the media, and the meek have in response is the same one they have to terrorism. Terrorism is tragic but its a drop in the ocean. Its not worth casting such a wide net to stop such a small problem.
The best gun control solution I have heard after the Auora and Newtown shootings is Gun Liability insurance for gun-owners. You must have insurance if you own a gun and if your gun is used in gang-violence or some other criminal activity then your insurer will have to pay out. This encourages the insurer to correctly screen their clients at a reasonable rate.
Because those 90-to-100 household gun owners would be organized and trained enough to engage in combat with the well-trained soldiers employed by the US army? To contend with bombs and tanks? If the government wanted to subjugate its people, rolling over a few gun owners with romanticized notions of firearms would be nothing. The second amendment is made to protect people in an age where a gun was the ultimate weapon, and when firing a gun required a minute to reload if you were trained, and had a moderate chance of hitting anything of worth, and that's what both people and governments had available. This is not the case anymore.
Let me be extremely clear - the notion that the second amendment, in 2013, protects american citizens from tyranny, is romantic at best and dangerously misleading at worst. No citizen uprising in the US will ever be won again by strength of arms. It is not possible. Maybe there are other means, but what the pro-gun camp is supporting is not what will do it.
That might not have been the main thrust of your point but I wanted to make sure that is brought to attention. It's totally unreasonable.
- The best gun control solution I have heard after the Auora and Newtown shootings is Gun Liability insurance for gun-owners. You must have insurance if you own a gun and if your gun is used in gang-violence or some other criminal activity then your insurer will have to pay out. This encourages the insurer to correctly screen their clients at a reasonable rate.
- It was so USA could have a well armed militia
This is almost unwatchable. What a god damn lunatic.
I agree. That said, the people that support this guy will think he performed admirably.
Honestly, this in microcosm, represents one of America's biggest problems: how can you improve overall discourse and minimize this seemingly unstoppable increased polarization.
I think America's biggest problem is having a profit driven media machine that makes situations like this seem like every day occurrences. Both of these people represent a fringe and in the middle resides the majority of Americans, having thoughtful discourse around a kitchen table just like any country. Don't buy in to this crap. It's only slightly removed from Jerry Springer. It's all theatre.
CNN, but specifically Piers Morgan, bring people who act like this on so that the viewers, people who think and therefore want to identify themselves as smart, can watch and poignantly say, "look at this crazy man; his opinions must be wrong too". Please give me a better reason why a "news" (and I use that term so loosely) station would bring someone on whom they know will act like this if they were sincerely looking to have a real debate!
Watching Alex Jones doesn't make me say "look at this crazy man; his opinion must be wrong too." Watching Alex Jones makes me think what I stated "What a god damn lunatic." His opinions happen to be wrong, and it shows because if he did have any valid points he would be able to engage in debate without shouting over the other person.
Alex mainly starts shouting over Piers when Piers tries to get him to repeat talking points off of a cue card. Alex is a stupid person to have on to debate this and that's why they chose to put him on (I think understanding that alone should be enough to think further into what the role of liberal media is). Personally, I think you hear "35 deaths in UK" and the case is closed, no other reasoning or logic will ever change your mind about the role of guns because of one single fact. That's certainly true for Piers himself.
I don't think CNN classifies as "liberal media" and I don't even like Piers Morgan (don't assume I don't think critically about the media - and that I am some liberal robot).
I believe the U.S. needs stricter gun control laws because they have over 90 guns for every 100 individuals in the country. The next closest countries have approximately 50 guns for every 100 individuals (Yemen and Serbia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_co...
Point 1: there are lots of weapons other than guns that can kill people, but guns make it easier to kill a mass of people and it makes it easier for people to distance themselves from the brutality of taking someone else's life (when compared to knives for example).
Point 2: This is not 1776; and right-wing Americans completely misunderstand the second amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This means that guns are necessary for a well regulated militia. At the time America was expanding into new territory and conflict between Americans and Native American was common. Also, America had just gone through a war against an imperial power that was viewed by Americans as tyrannical. Therefore, they needed their populace to be armed (justly or unjustly that is a different conversation). I think the Times of India said it best:
"For those griping about the American right to bear arms, wake up. This is the 21st century and America's a settled state, not the rough-edged, wide open spaces of the 1780s when the Constitution was framed and everything, from land to liberty, was based on violent contests. Bearing arms then might have made sense — doing so today is swallowing the nonsense posed as liberty by commercial lobbies. Some argue weapons empower victims against aggressors. If so, should second-graders pack pistols in their schoolbags? Such shaky logic simply intensifies dangerous situations."
For a full article on how the world sees America's gun laws:
http://theweek.com/article/index/237955/the-connecticut-scho...
Point 3: there is a strong undeniable correlation between gun control laws and gun-related deaths throughout the world. There are no gun-related deaths in Japan because no one has a gun. Also, because there are no guns, that doesn't mean people in Japan just start stabbing each other with knives. It is harder to kill on mass scale without a gun. And, I would contend, it would take a lot more guts to actually walk up and stab someone than it would to pull a trigger at someone from a distance.
Finally, the reason this is such an important issue for me and the reason why I think pro-guns advocates don't have a point is because they desperately trying to save a multi-billion dollar industry and the expense of people's lives.
- If so, should second-graders pack pistols in their schoolbags?
What would you say about the point made about the drug war in Mexico? Tens of thousands dead - a helpless population; not to mention the fact that a the vast number of American gun deaths are directly manifested from the same drug war. Look at the death rates by guns from the era of alcohol prohibition. A gun ban then wouldn't have solved any problems then either since the root of the issues surrounding them had nothing to do with the guns themselves.
Also, just touching on your point of "corporate interest", I find it hard to believe that ten of millions of people are conspiring to "save an industry" and I find that type of logic to degrade your only real argument that guns kill people easily: so ban them.
More guns will definitely do little to help the situation. We have to agree on that? I think people are starting to get fed up with Gun advocates not admitting a clear problem e.g. NRA supporting armed soldiers in school. However, it does get annoying when anti-gun people start to be over-sensitive or suddenly start blaming situations solely on guns. The "second grader" argument is definitely not sound. They call that reductio ad absurdum. The mexican drug war and prohibition cannot be used to negate the efficacy in a gun ban; having guns or not having guns do not change the situation, and those should be dealt by with the police. The problems with guns are what we see right now: reckless mass shootings and gang violence as a result of easy access of guns,even the very potent ones. advancedapes brings up some good points regarding the constitution and current countries that have low gun violence. There definitely needs to be more conversation toward progress. We shouldn't seek to ban guns, but at least make efforts toward better regulation. I think that's where the debate needs to go in order for progress and change to be made. It's irresponsible to not see something wrong with the influx of mass shootings and the danger of guns in the hands of the often irrational(humans).
- guns in the hands of the often irrational(humans)
- The mexican drug war and prohibition cannot be used to negate the efficacy in a gun ban;
I don't think adding more guns to the drug war would help. If anything, more deaths may occur.The situation is totally different though and unfair the parallel. And speculation is pointless. True, I will agree that there are many other issues that should be addressed. You definitely won't see me out in the streets protesting against guns or doing any activism(but I cannot blame those who have been victims to gun violence, which isn't limited to mass shootings, but gang violence and reckless murders too). I do firmly believe though that there can be constructive conversation--not the one showed in the video--and improvements regarding gun regulation.
Well let's not speculate then: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-media-isnt-being-honest-...
Forget his gun control opinions, can we talk about his "prozac = suicide pills" madness? I mean, I follow conspiracy theories for amusement but this guy is about as mainstream as these radicals get and seriously, saying things like that to an audience of his size is as dangerous as anti-vaccination (which he is) and so-called 'faith healing'. Absolute madness, that part made me sick and I honestly don't know how Piers didn't just kick him out at that point. Perhaps Jones would have considered that a win though, because he was 'silenced.' What a warped, awful man.
- I honestly don't know how Piers didn't just kick him out at that point
I know, and I get that, but how many people make threats to public figures every day? If the media machine behind CNN wanted to quell the amplification of this guys crazy quest to deport Piers Morgan, they probably could have. However, they chose to not just allow it to be amplified but to give it center stage on their own network. This was all calculated, I have no doubt about it. They helped to make this a story, to embrace it and then to attempt to control the message. They absolutely knew in advance that this guy would look like a bumbling ass on TV and sat around talking about how Piers wouldn't push back but would take "the high road" etc, etc. All calculated.
None of this, or at least very little, is about gun control but rather it's about entertaining.
That's my take. By the way, you seen Major Khaaan anywhere? He must be to Europe by now??
Well they picked a damn good heel for their "gun control" debate. You are correct that calling out every loony who makes threats or sweeping statements about public figures is ridiculous and obviously calculated. However, these fringe people don't often have million-dollar media hubs and a whole subculture surrounding them like Alex does. I'm honestly disappointed by the fact that they even let the guy plug his website on air. But I will agree that they definitely picked him, probably exclusively, because every word he says seems nuts and makes every argument he says seem just as crazy. (To normal, non-conspiratorial people anyway.)
- But I will agree that they definitely picked him, probably exclusively, because every word he says seems nuts and makes every argument he says seem just as crazy. (To normal, non-conspiratorial people anyway.)