DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Gun rights advocates rally at state capitols across U.S.

Arguing for limited gun control because of an amendment is like arguing that murder is bad because we have laws against murder. If your best argument is that we have an amendment, it's an incredibly poor one.

Slippery slopes are slippery!

True once you start giving up rights they continue to take them all, Canada and Australia both found that out and have warned the USA citizens.

No one knows more about lost freedoms than those who have lost them.

Yep...

The actiion of a bump stock can be replicated by putting your thumb in the belt loop of your jeans and pulling the trigger of a semi auto.....gonna suck to have to an shirts and pants that use belts

One issue with the proactive approach is you have to be right 100% of the time....the mass shooter has to be right once. Ramp up all the proactive rules and regulations....then when itgey don’t stop then next shooting we keep all those rules and regs in place and add another round of even more rules and regs that will be added to when they fail to to stop the next shooter......wash rinse and repeat till we have a gun law book that rivals the IRS code book.

Not saying proactive is wrong, but pointing out how it will just keep growing and be more onerous on honest US citizens

While it's true you can create a method that replicates the actions of a bump stock, I do not see where that means we should allow and permit companies making a profit from a device that intentionally was created and is used to turn an semi automatic weapon into a virtual fully automatic weapon.

You see, this is the problem. Even when people come up with a common sense idea, which isn't protected by the second amendment, you still hear people make excuses not to do it.

True, but it will only be onerous on citizens who choose to own a firearm, myself included. Proactive or not, the more mass shootings we have, the more discussions will be had in state and federal chambers to enact meaningful changes, adding regulations on top of what is already on the books.

Slippery slope rhetoric is barely a useful position for a novice high school debater, much less so for an adult. Rights have never been conferred to be absolute, whether discussing 2nd Amendment rights or any other amendment. We have free speech but can't yell fire in a crowded theater when no fire exists. We have a right to privacy but go through metal detectors at an airport. We understand that in certain cases rights can be limited. Interestingly enough, both of the cases I cited are limitations in place for safety. The same reason proffered by sensible gun legislation.

Learn how exactly our rights are conferred and managed by law. Do not buy into the falsehood of absolutism.

Do you believe that with +350 million guns in America that you will ever get to a point that the private market and private sale of guns could ever be regulated??? One good boating accident on Lake Erie would easily lose any of my guns to be lost forever if you know what I mean. I personally would NEVER sell a gun I went to the trouble of buying, but many people do and even if you created a new purchase database to track guns from cradle to grave starting at date x....the plus 350 million that would be off record would create one helluva black market that would last decades if not an entire century.

I don't remember Aristotle writing anything like that...

In times like this I like to remember the words of Abraham Lincoln, "Don't believe everything you read on the internet."

There would need to be a lot of work done to even begin to consider a registry, component repeal of FOPA86 being critical.

However, rather than dive into the particulars of your hypothesis, the gist of what I'm reading is a concern that we'd never be able to regulate everything. That is true. No congressperson votes to enacts a law expecting full compliance. However, a reasonable person will not let perfect become of the enemy of the good. We have to determine what's more expedient: ease of access and possession, or human life. With the bounty of data available for the US and other western countries, we can see a full picture demonstrating the full human cost of our ease of access and possession.

What we are seeing is younger people unwilling to accept the cost. They tend to view issues from a moral perspective moreso than older generations. They consider climate change a moral problem. They consider gun violence a moral problem. It will be interesting to observe how these viewpoints manifest themselves legally, but we are observing quite a bit of support at the activist level, and those efforts often have reverberating effects.

You can call it more moral. Or one could call it more emotional.

With age it seems to me that people mature and become more rational rather than let their emotions dictate their thought process.

I can see how you arrived at your opinion but there is another way to look at it.

It is not slander to call into question logical fallacies. If any ad hominem is to be found, you are bringing it on me by tone policing.

Socrates never said that btw, it was created via social media.

Morals and emotions can occupy the same speech. A mother can be emotionally devastated her son was lost in a school shooting and still express moral outrage at how the event was allowed to occur. Just because someone is upset does not mean that their views are invalid.

See,you used the term "allowed it to occur". That's an emotional response. Not a rational one.

You're moving the goalposts. We're not arguing rationality, but morality and emotions.

Actually I'm not moving the goal posts. You brought up high school kids to begin with. My point was that as people age they usually approach things on a more rational basis than they do when they're younger. Morality is something that's gauged differently by different people. It's a variable. Some things you may see as being moral, I may not. For that reason, morality is a vague concept.

Rationality verses emotions is not.

I disagree... everybody has their morality and their moral issues... and if you want to debate the morality of an issue, you can make your argument using emotion or you can make it using reason.. those who make their argument with reason and logic start debates... those who make their argument with emotion start fights.

Okay, point re-established. I think our division here is you are divorcing emotions and rationale. I don't see how it's possible. Yes, being overly emotional can block rational thought, yet rational thought is derived from emotions.

If emotions disqualified legislation from being passed, then it would be hard to think of a world where gay marriage was legalized or DUI laws were passed. Those laws may have ended up as rational talking points but most certainly started from emotional events.

One of the reasons our government was established the way it was.. is to protect it from the very thing you just said.

Except in time of dire emergency, it has always been expected to move slowly and methodically... simply to prevent us from acting on emotion... yes, a lot of issues have a deep emotional component but that is supposed to be distilled down into a rational discussion before any laws are changed or before action is taken.. that's the point.

Decisions made purely on emotion tend to not be the best decisions...

I don't think so at all. Both of those laws are based in rational thought. Actually the emotional component is if they hadn't been passed.

Oh yea, my wife has been asking me quite a bit lately about Mark Zuckerberg and if anything will happen with Facebook. I've told her a few times now that if any action is to be taken that it will take months or even years. Change moves slowly in a republic, especially one as diverse as ours.



I agree, and it's not my intention to say that we should legislate on pure emotion. I don't want to further sidetrack the discussion, so I'll leave it that.

As mentioned with DC, I think we're getting off track here, it's not really a discussion about whether emotions or rationality are connected. I will say, to whatever amount it matters, that in my view, and those of psychologists I've read, that rational thought is something derived from emotion. Rationality does not exist outside of emotion, nor is it expected to. A simple example: early man gets attacked by a bear in a cave, gets scared and flees. Later he will remember what happened the next time he sees that cave, and not enter. The rational thought develops from emotional.

The bottom line for me is this, and why we got sidetracked in the first place: Someone being emotional does not disqualify their view from being correct. To disqualify someones view on the basis of emotion is akin to tone policing. It doesn't automatically make their view correct either, but typically someone latching onto someones emotional state in time of debate will use it in attempt to discredit. It's not good argument building.

So after all of this discussion and debate, it appears that we were never really that far apart in what we were saying...

Long live honest exchange of ideas.

I must call BS on this concept of rational thought being derived from emotion. Total Crap. It may exist concurrently with emotion, but rational thought is that which is devoid of emotion. Doesn't mean emotion is bad, just non-rational. You can have rational thoughts about your left elbow, doesn't mean they were derived from it.

As for the kids, they do not understand what it is that they are dealing with. They are nurtured by the nanny state, blanketed by it, and have no understanding that those who serve as that nurturing blanket, do so with guns.

They can not conceive of a time when it will no longer be Somebody Else who is tasked with protecting them, that it will be THEIR BEHIND on the line, and their responsibility to defend it. From what they do not yet know.

They are having a nightmare and asking Mommy and Daddy to make the bad people go away. They need to grow up and understand that this will NEVER happen, as most of the bad people cannot be identified beforehand. Neither can there be a cop on every street corner. You are on your own.

For someone who claimed to only use logic and facts, this sure was an emotional post based on pure opinion.

Atleast we now know you’re fake.

Has anyone noticed that 2 months after the shooting the rhetoric and emtional response has died down? All I hear are whispers...Heck David is even starting to fade away for the 24/7 hour news feed...he is now giving advice in investing to try and stay relevant......This is why "now is not the time" repsonse is often given in the hours and days after a shooting...It is also the reason Rahm says never let a good crisis go to waste...time allows sanity to reign

Funny, I heard there are school walkouts planned today in memorial to Columbine. Doesn't sound dead to me. Let's see if it is dead at the ballot box before we judge.

Heard there was a school shooting in Florida today too. One kid shot, suspect in custody. then there is this:



Alex Jones being sued over Sandy Hook lies.

Some interesting reads for those inclined: http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/decis...decision-making

https://qz.com/922924/humans-werent-designed-to-be-rational-and-we-are-better-thinkers-for-it/