frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




An exploration of the Second Amendment

Debate Information

One of the questions I have been pondering myself with as of late is whether or not the second amendment really does need amending?  I have decided that in a country where guns are not going away any time soon then the best defense you do have against someone coming at you with a gun is to have a gun yourself; I believe in the right to self defense and if the use of a Gun is the only way to do it then so be it.  However, I think the second amendment applies to bare up arms in case of the improbable event o government tyranny. As US republican and Gun owner Sam Harris puts it:
Given the changes that have occurred in our military, and even in our politics, the idea that a few pistols and an AR 15 in every home constitutes a necessary bulwark against totalitarianism is fairly ridiculous. If you believe that the armed forces of the United States might one day come for you—and you think your cache of small arms will suffice to defend you if they do—I’ve got a black helicopter to sell you. https://samharris.org/the-riddle-of-the-gun/

I am in full agreement here with Harris that the Second Amendment is no longer needed in case of the highly unlikely event of government tyranny and nor would it make much of a difference anyway, which is pretty much a no-brainer anyway, well, at least according to me anyway. Similarly, a number of things in the approximately 800-year-old Magna Carta in the UK also states things that we would now deem ridiculous. However, unlike the UK the USA is a much younger nation where their constitution is only about a couple of hundreds of years old. Understandably then I think the whole US constitution holds a lot of power over the citizens due to how new it is, relatively speaking. It is my belief, however, that just like what happened with the Magna Carta just shy of about 1000 years in the UK several things within the US constitution will also lose a  lot of its power over time as things continue to change; this I will say is a logical progression and one that could be argued to be applicable to all countries in reference to many different kind of things.

That being said, however, I still think that for the time being there still needs to be that right to defend oneself. And if one already lives in a country where guns are not going away any time soon and/or if the place they currently live in has a bad reputation then to have a gun yourself for self-defense is at least a plausible option that provides you with the ultimate fighting chance of survival. 



«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • I am in full agreement here with Harris that the Second Amendment is no longer needed in case of the highly unlikely event of government tyranny and nor would it make much of a difference anyway, which is pretty much a no-brainer anyway, well, at least according to me anyway.

    No, I respectfully disagree with that statement. While, yes, a gun is useless in head-to-head combat against the government, it isn't for more covert operations. To try to assassinate the one in power that is tyrannical, it's far more difficult to do so without a gun. Sure, gun versus tank, drone, or otherwise is . No one suggests that. We suggest covert ops.
    WinstonCPlaffelvohfen
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • I am in full agreement here with Harris that the Second Amendment is no longer needed in case of the highly unlikely event of government tyranny and nor would it make much of a difference anyway, which is pretty much a no-brainer anyway, well, at least according to me anyway.

    If this is true why take the Fire-arm away at all? An amendment to constitution is nothing more than an addition placed on basic principle or legal precedent. Any united state can be made as violation of the union set between constitutional principle, including law which is what is suggested. The hurtle of changing 2nd amendment rests in the united state set by United State constitution as fact introduced is common defense for the general welfare of the people, for the people. 

    The civil argument is about common defense to use and apply lethal force. Crimes that are committed by aggressions independent of the United States Constitution are not the blame of private authors which preserve liberty. There is no evidence to support this vast general accusation, it is the burden of every person within the united state of America to assume the burden of lethal force and share it equally with all armed services of a united state. The purpose is Common legal defense in the burdens of lethal forces publicly, this is a much greater truth than the basic idea of self-defense.

    There is agreement the United State in American Constitution needs additional amendment. All citizen who are is the age of 17 should share equally the burden of lethal force, all those who are unarmed and shot in public share equally the civil blame for deaths caused with the judicial process in general. A military draft is not constitutional legal however the burden of lethal force in the matters of civil liberty can be placed directly on all hands of the people, for the people.


  • WinstonCWinstonC 209 Pts   -  
    Mao Zedong: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

    While in previous ages it was the sword this fundamental truth of power has not changed. All political power comes ultimately from the ability to utilize force. The balance of power between the state and the citizen has and presumably always will lean on the side of the state, however the degree of this imbalance is of great import. In western liberal democracies we have a better balance of power than in North Korea and this is part of why our people are treated so well relative to North Koreans. By making those who wield force somewhat accountable to the people, we thereby create a better balance of power between state and citizen. The ability of the citizenry to utilize force themselves grants further power to the citizenry, resulting in an even more equitable balance of power. As aforementioned, this balance of power results in better conditions for the citizenry.

    There is also the fact that in the U.S. there are more guns than people and this would make things incredibly difficult for any tyrannical government that may emerge from within or invade from without. The civilian resistance would inspire and enable a multitude of military turncoats; If no civilian resistance existed then military desertion wouldn't happen at anywhere near the same rate. This is both because resistance wouldn't seem as futile and there would be an existing force to join. Further, the high risk of assassination for any would-be dictator is a strong deterrent against any such attempt.

    As for a fear of a government becoming oppressive being unfounded, I would point simply to the fact that over a long enough time frame an oppressive government is inevitable. This is not to mention the fact that advances in technology mean that progressively smaller numbers of people can control increasingly large populations.

    Finally, to defend oneself against an armed or stronger attacker, rapist, thief, etc. one requires a weapon. The police do not typically arrive until after the crime has taken place. I don't believe that people's ability to defend themselves and their property should be taken away simply because other people are irresponsible.
  • WinstonCWinstonC 209 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @GeoLibCogScientist I agree that covert ops are the way to go. If we consider history, effective guerilla warfare seems to overcome technological and numerical advantage. Good modern examples could be the Vietcong in Vietnam, Mao in China and the Mujahideen in Soviet Afghanistan.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1484 Pts   -  
    As a man born in the 30s that lived through WW2, the Korean "police action", Viet Nam, etc.. Presidents like Roosevelt, Ike, Kennedy, even Reagan (whom I blame for many of our troubles today), I had trouble even contemplating a tyrannical United States President …. until NOW. Even then, the thought that the American military, a military made up of our American neighbors, friends, relatives, would follow the orders of a tyrant, is STILL beyond my comprehension where little else is. 
    Anyway, I agree that a group of "patriots" armed with ANY assault type weapon, wouldn't stand a chance against the military arms and technology of today. Forget it. I have said, and still do, the National guard is our "well regulated militia". The Second was penned when a Musket was the best weapon available. The founders could not have anticipated a weapon that could fire 30-50 rounds at a rate of 1K rounds per minute., let alone that a bunch of angry men would be allowed to LEGALLY run around with them. I do NOT have a problem envisioning a tyrannical "posse" deciding the GOVERNMENT was tyrannical and attempting to over throw IT! NOT what the founders had in mind. 
    It's a shame we have come to this, America WAS great, the NRA WAS great (I WAS a member, today I could not be).  You can make ANY argument you wish, (It's still a free country, hopefully, it continues), but this "protect yourself" country has more reason than ANY other country … not in a war zone …. to protect ourselves from our own. We are somewhat of a circular firing squad of our own choosing. DUMB!
    MODIFY THE SECOND, WISELY!
    CYDdharta
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    I believe that the individual has the right for the same means of destruction as the government. If the government is afraid of individuals using nuclear weapons, for example, then the government itself must refrain from researching and stockpiling such.

    The government is nothing more than people we as a nation hire to do our bidding. Its members are individuals just like us, and they should not gain special privileges in terms of what weapons they can use that we do not have.

    Aside from that, the Second Amendment is good as it is; no point changing anything there. It is one of those amendments that were written with a great foresight. If anything, it is the Fifth Amendment that needs to be changed, in a way that prevents other Amendments from being amended, barring extreme cases of nearly unanimous consensus among all 3 branches of power. 
  • I am in full agreement here with Harris that the Second Amendment is no longer needed in case of the highly unlikely event of government tyranny and nor would it make much of a difference anyway, which is pretty much a no-brainer anyway, well, at least according to me anyway.

    No, I respectfully disagree with that statement. While, yes, a gun is useless in head-to-head combat against the government, it isn't for more covert operations. To try to assassinate the one in power that is tyrannical, it's far more difficult to do so without a gun. Sure, gun versus tank, drone, or otherwise is . No one suggests that. We suggest covert ops.
    Actually, a covert operation would be unlikely to succeed too. The only best way for this to work would be if the military personnel that is experts on covert ops were on your side. Not only that but due to modern-day mass surveillance assassination attempts would most likely be thwarted, much like terrorist acts that get thwarted today. The stuff you're advocating seems all very glamorous and makes for good action movies but it's far from actual reality. 

    Moreover, my argument was that the amendment was no longer needed for cases of tyranny due to the low probability according to the way things are in the modern-day, but still needed for self-defense. That being said I also ask myself is it really necessary then to amend it instead of just leaving it as it is? I am beginning to think the latter; the US government have got far more pressing matters than worrying about whether the 2nd amendment needs amending or not.

    Anyway, I do hope that more people do realize or will eventually realize that Tyranny is something that might have been a likely threat in the medieval era of one's nation but not so much in the modern-day 21st century. 
    GeoLibCogScientist



  • Anyway, I do hope that more people do realize or will eventually realize that Tyranny is something that might have been a likely threat in the medieval era of one's nation but not so much in the modern-day 21st century.

    Tyranny is something created by democracy, the very notion that a nations Armed Service must maintain a legal burden of lethal force alone is a tyranny. The burden of use of lethal force is something that does not change with time. The united state held in democracy is not justice it is only majority, which is funny as the united state in constitution is justice. Yet, elected representatives to the republic pay for the spread democracy like justice is a united state of democracy.
  • WinstonCWinstonC 209 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42 "The only best way for this to work would be if the military personnel that is experts on covert ops were on your side."

    If the U.S. government turned tyrannical a good amount of military personnel would defect.

    "Anyway, I do hope that more people do realize or will eventually realize that Tyranny is something that might have been a likely threat in the medieval era of one's nation but not so much in the modern-day 21st century."

    The only protection against government tyranny is a good balance of power between citizen and government.

  • MrNinesMrNines 10 Pts   -  
    The sentence, "Crimes that are committed by aggressions independent of the United States Constitution are not the blame of private authors which preserve liberty." Doesn't make grammatical sense. The first clause holds that, "Crimes ... are committed by aggressions..." Whatever you meant to say, this is what was written. I could continue to nitpick at the grammar, but if it is not clear what the subject and predicate were intended to be, how does this writer expect any of the arguments presented to be followed. @GeoLibCogScientist
  • MrNinesMrNines 10 Pts   -  
    Consider what is now possible with remotely piloted drones. The capabilities of drones will continue to increase. The examples you cite are from a pre-drone, pre-robotic world. As to your other comment on tyranny, another source to consider is the power of large multinational corporations. These were to be feared long before our current cadre of Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc. Companies like the tech giants and Toyota, GM, IBM, BP; can pick up and move operations out of countries that are demanding something disliked. The corporation lessens its presence in one country and moves to a friendlier one. Now we have corporate giants that are so large that it really isn't possible for any existing national government, or collection of nations such as the EU, to effectively control them. All the guns that could ever be created will not help with that problem. The idea that guns provide protection in remote areas, or even in cities has been repeatedly debunked yet it is trotted out again. Why is the NRA fearful of research done by the CDC on gun safety? If the argument that guns protect people while the police are coming has merit that would be borne out by empirical studies that could be done if they were allowed. Since these studies are not allowed, arguments that have been debunked in other countries (Australia) would be found equally specious here. @WinstonC
  • WinstonCWinstonC 209 Pts   -  
    @MrNines "The examples you cite are from a pre-drone, pre-robotic world."

    They also had numerical inferiority, whereas the opposite would be true in any U.S. civil war. This is not to mention that military defectors would bring the latest technology with them. As aforementioned, military defection would not happen at nearly the same rate if there was not an existing "resistance" to join. This is not to mention the threat of assassination and the more equitable balance of power provided. Both of these safeguard against politicians even attempting to become tyrannical.

    "As to your other comment on tyranny, another source to consider is the power of large multinational corporations."

    Most certainly, and these same corporations finance most politicians.

    "If the argument that guns protect people while the police are coming has merit that would be borne out by empirical studies that could be done if they were allowed."

    Do you mean studies like these (1,2) that suggest guns prevent over 2 million crimes annually including 200k rapes?

    "Since these studies are not allowed, arguments that have been debunked in other countries (Australia)"

    What studies? If you mean studies about guns being fired to prevent crime, the vast majority of the time brandishing the gun is enough to prevent a crime; the offender was shot in only 8% of defensive gun uses (1).

    Sources:
    (1) http://americangunfacts.com/pdf/Armed Resistance to Crime- The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defe.pdf
    (2) www.johnlott.org/files/GeneralDisc97_02Surveys.zip

  • GeoLibCogScientistGeoLibCogScientist 128 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    ZeusAres42 Actually, a covert operation would be unlikely to succeed too. The only best way for this to work would be if the military personnel that is experts on covert ops were on your side. Not only that but due to modern-day mass surveillance assassination attempts would most likely be thwarted, much like terrorist acts that get thwarted today. The stuff you're advocating seems all very glamorous and makes for good action movies but it's far from actual reality. 

    Moreover, my argument was that the amendment was no longer needed for cases of tyranny due to the low probability according to the way things are in the modern-day, but still needed for self-defense. That being said I also ask myself is it really necessary then to amend it instead of just leaving it as it is? I am beginning to think the latter; the US government have got far more pressing matters than worrying about whether the 2nd amendment needs amending or not.

    Anyway, I do hope that more people do realize or will eventually realize that Tyranny is something that might have been a likely threat in the medieval era of one's nation but not so much in the modern-day 21st century. 
    Well, sure. It would take a lot of expertise to successfully pull off covert ops. However, I consider this irrelevant due to that the topic is strictly whether a gun would be useful in covert ops. It definitely is. If we assume the covert ops would be successful, a gun makes a huge difference, irrespective of whether the execution of the covert ops can work even before the use of said gun.

    But, I would argue in today's society, if we had a good hacker or something, that would make a world's of a difference in such an operation. I mean, we could discuss more of the details of how one could be successful in covert ops in the case of a tyrannical government, but that might put me on some list for the state to be concerned about if I went into details of such a plan lol. 

    And you think the probability is low for tyranny? I mean, I'd argue we already have the tyranny to some extent. It's happening more slowly than all at once, but right now the state has the power to imprison anyone and strip away an individual's rights as long as they decide to classify them as a terrorist. It's already a lot like the book 1984, except instead of the state being the one putting the recording devices in our houses, it's us buying from private companies who are compliant with the state if the state wants access to said recording devices. Details are a little bit different than in 1984, but the spirit of things is very similar to how it was in that book. If you think of the laptop, smart phone, etc as the recording devices, they're constantly recording you. Siri, Alexa, google, in order for them to know you want the device's attention, it's technically recording you constantly. Though the companies say they do nothing with that recording, we know it's stored and accessible to the state should the state want it, and the company will comply to hand it over. 
    WinstonC
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • ZeusAres42 Actually, a covert operation would be unlikely to succeed too. The only best way for this to work would be if the military personnel that is experts on covert ops were on your side. Not only that but due to modern-day mass surveillance assassination attempts would most likely be thwarted, much like terrorist acts that get thwarted today. The stuff you're advocating seems all very glamorous and makes for good action movies but it's far from actual reality. 

    Moreover, my argument was that the amendment was no longer needed for cases of tyranny due to the low probability according to the way things are in the modern-day, but still needed for self-defense. That being said I also ask myself is it really necessary then to amend it instead of just leaving it as it is? I am beginning to think the latter; the US government have got far more pressing matters than worrying about whether the 2nd amendment needs amending or not.

    Anyway, I do hope that more people do realize or will eventually realize that Tyranny is something that might have been a likely threat in the medieval era of one's nation but not so much in the modern-day 21st century. 
    Well, sure. It would take a lot of expertise to successfully pull off covert ops. However, I consider this irrelevant due to that the topic is strictly whether a gun would be useful in covert ops. It definitely is. If we assume the covert ops would be successful, a gun makes a huge difference, irrespective of whether the execution of the covert ops can work even before the use of said gun.

    But, I would argue in today's society, if we had a good hacker or something, that would make a world's of a difference in such an operation. I mean, we could discuss more of the details of how one could be successful in covert ops in the case of a tyrannical government, but that might put me on some list for the state to be concerned about if I went into details of such a plan lol. 

    And you think the probability is low for tyranny? I mean, I'd argue we already have the tyranny to some extent. It's happening more slowly than all at once, but right now the state has the power to imprison anyone and strip away an individual's rights as long as they decide to classify them as a terrorist. It's already a lot like the book 1984, except instead of the state being the one putting the recording devices in our houses, it's us buying from private companies who are compliant with the state if the state wants access to said recording devices. Details are a little bit different than in 1984, but the spirit of things is very similar to how it was in that book. If you think of the laptop, smart phone, etc as the recording devices, they're constantly recording you. Siri, Alexa, google, in order for them to know you want the device's attention, it's technically recording you constantly. Though the companies say they do nothing with that recording, we know it's stored and accessible to the state should the state want it, and the company will comply to hand it over. 
    I agree that most of what you say here is valid, plausible and you make good arguments minus only one detail though which was this bit: "However, I consider this irrelevant due to that the topic is strictly whether a gun would be useful in covert ops."

    The title I gave this debate was "An exploration of the 2nd Amendment" and my original argument in short was that I no longer deemed the 2nd Amendment necessary for a possible case of Government Tyranny, but still deemed it necessary for self-defense. This was also in response the the question that I had been pondering myself with which I also stated in my original post which was whether or not the Amendment need Amending.

    Anyway, after writing this I later asked myself "Even if the 2nd Amendment is no longer necessary in case of Government Tyranny does that actually constitute to a good reason for changing the Amendment at all? and why not just leave it as it is?" I am not entirely sure if that does constitue to a good reason or not, altough I am currently leaning more to conceding that it doesn't. 



  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    I'd like to take you up on your argument that, in regards to Government Tyranny, the 2A is no longer necessary.  I've ready over your arguments regarding this specific portion of the debate and I could be wrong but I think I'm able to conclude that you've determined that the Government is no longer a threat in regards to tyranny against the people.

    I'm curious to understand your premise for that conclusion. 

    Allow me to present a premise: 
    1. The American Revolution or War of Independence ended in 1783 after eight years of fighting against the British Empire.  
    2. Eight years later the Second Amendment was ratified in December of 1791.  
    3. During this time period, our Fathers of the United States made some of the most powerful statements regarding the arming of the citizenry and more specifically about their willingness to preserve their own freedoms through violence.
    Some of what our Fathers said regarding the citizenry being armed was during the War and some after, but the tone didn't shift between the two phases.  The United States being newborn at the time couldn't have been particularly susceptible to corruption...certainly not as susceptible as it is today.  So then why the language from our Fathers?  If they had no reason to believe that the U.S. government would bring tyranny on its people then why be so dogmatic regarding the people's right and duty to be heavily armed and prepared to destroy its own government?

    Now these facts and questions above don't necessarily serve as a valid argument against the Second Amendment no longer being necessary for the purpose of preventing Government tyranny but instead serve as benchmarks for my ideology regarding it still being a realistic threat.

    So I want to know, is the Government somehow less susceptible to corruption or exacting tyranny today than they were when the 2nd Amendment was written and if so, how? 
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    Yes, it needs amending.

    With the Death Penalty.
  • GeoLibCogScientistGeoLibCogScientist 128 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    I said it elsewhere and I'll say it again.

    The second amendment may allow you to bear arms, but it doesn't allow you to use that gun in any way you see fit(otherwise killing innocents with it wouldn't be illegal. I'm sure no gun-toting lover would disagree with that, right?)

    So following this logic, why should people be allowed to have guns that can kill innocent people? One may ask: "Don't all have that capability?"
    Dumb guns do.  Let's outlaw dumb guns, have the state replace your gun or upgrade it to a smart gun that will only fire when it recognizes someone is a threat or simply just won't fire if it determines someone is just an innocent person.

    Before anyone expresses the concern that it could be flawed in doing that, I agree. So let's iron out that little problem and focus our efforts on perfecting such a smart gun, and when it is acceptably able to recognize threats from innocent people, then we outlaw dumb guns, replace all current gun owners' guns with smart gun versions, for free or tax-payer funded.

    What possible concern can you have after this? Why in the world do you need a gun that is capable of killing innocents? If you have a smart gun that is capable of doing all else, you should not have any complaints whatsoever, unless you really are a criminal who wants to kill innocents with that gun. Additionally, if we did this, we could go back to a time where literally anyone can buy a gun. Let's get rid of all the current restrictions on it such as licensing, background checks, etc since they would no longer be needed if guns were literally impossible to be used to kill innocents. This would actually make it easier for people to bear arms in a way and would be pro-second amendment. So, what's the objection?

    Before anyone expresses the concern that the government could abuse its power on this, I also agree. But the government has a role in providing security right now to some extent(hence police even exist). And indeed, it abuses its powers a lot right now. We need to solve that issue too. But, we still also need to solve the issue of innocent people continually being shot. 

    Before anyone says "I don't want tax payer dollars going to that".
    You do realize this may actually decrease the deficit in the long-run, right? It's a huge upfront cost, but preventing people from being able to murder innocent people would mean no more need for as much detective work that the government already spends your tax dollars on. We can lower the amount of money the government steals from you for that purpose if we reduce homicides and gun deaths in general. That money would no longer be needed to spend on that investigative work, as, theoretically, it would decrease such gun deaths.
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • vaulk said @ ZuesAres
    So then why the language from our Fathers? 
    The Nation of America was no-where near its size today. It is growth that brings the desire of tyranny.

    GeoLibCogScientist said:
    The second amendment may allow you to bear arms, but it doesn't allow you to use that gun in any way you see fit. It may have nothing to do with how the Fire-arm is used at all.
    The additional basic principle of the 2nd amendment to American Constitution adds the burden of proving that tyranny is abolished from law before a common defense can be taken as a liberty to bear by the people. Basic principle behind bearing arm means that the responsibility of such things a lethal force shall not be placed on one side by the people, for the people, that of  the governing of a nation by is democracy, without proof they  the democracy can legislate law that is not tyrannical in nature. 

    The state of this Union is that the people have the inalienable right to purchase all common defense as united state from the independent people/person, not take by law. The person who commits and is sentenced with crime is not kept from preservation of American Constitution, only from liberty of which arms they are to bear equal burden of consequence with as common defense general welfare,
    the problem is that tyranny in legislation has driven that specific cost up immensely, no-one want's to buy them, the Gun, they wish to outsmart the principle of constitution. Again the basic principle is a person only has a American United State Constitutional right when constitution is held as a state of the union by them. No easy task.


  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    Im sorry to tell you this, but your argument, isn't fair to the rest of the public, who doesn't own a gun.

    I don't own a gun.

    Therefor I view your argument as unfair and unequal to me not owning a gun.

    "I have decided that in a country where guns are not going away any time soon then the best defense you do have against someone coming at you with a gun is to have a gun yourself."

    The best defense, is to Amend the Second Amendment, with the Death Penalty language, thus making it fair and equal to you and I both.

    And every gun, all 400 million plus of them, should be accounted for.




  • Ok, I'm starting to be convinced Debra really sucks at its job. How does John_C have a 96% rating for spelling and grammar? I honestly can't tell what they are even saying in the second paragraph due to this atrocious grammar. The first one was manageable, but that second paragraph.. what are you even saying? And why do you have this pattern of writing this way?
    Plaffelvohfen
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • To simplify the basic principles even more with an apology to GeoLibCogScientis. The people have a right to buy with money the guns form gun owners as a constitutional right. The none-gun owners have a right to drive up cost of owning a gun they want to buy by civil court settlements.

    The cost of purchase is not the cost of buy back for the people.

    The argument of the second Amendment is to bear-arm. When something bears or is to bear arm the are to carry the united state of cost. In the case of gun, the united cost is the application of lethal force not self-defense. We defend others and ourselves with all guns.

    “Again, I apologize sometimes a principle must be simplified several times to find the basic or easiest to understand points for different people.”

  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    Yep, I'm lost.  I don't understand what @John_C_87 is trying to say in either of his arguments.  At one point I thought I had it and then after reading further I became more and more lost on what he's trying to get across.

    Are you using google translate?
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    Im sorry to tell you this, but your argument, isn't fair to the rest of the public, who doesn't own a gun.

    I don't own a gun.

    Therefor I view your argument as unfair and unequal to me not owning a gun.

    "I have decided that in a country where guns are not going away any time soon then the best defense you do have against someone coming at you with a gun is to have a gun yourself."

    The best defense, is to Amend the Second Amendment, with the Death Penalty language, thus making it fair and equal to you and I both.

    And every gun, all 400 million plus of them, should be accounted for.




    The Second Amendment isn't about equality of outcome, it's regarding equality of opportunity.  We all have an equal opportunity to own a gun.  Nothing is free, not truly.  If I'm black and you're white, a .357 Smith and Wesson revolver costs the same amount.  That's equality of opportunity.  What you're suggesting is that you expect equality of outcome...which is what you find in a great deal of socialist and communist governments.

    "You have something that I don't have, therefor it's not fair and the laws have to be changed in order to force fairness upon us all" 

    This is an evil ideology.
    ZeusAres42
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    Im sorry to tell you this, but your argument, isn't fair to the rest of the public, who doesn't own a gun.

    I don't own a gun.

    Therefor I view your argument as unfair and unequal to me not owning a gun.

    "I have decided that in a country where guns are not going away any time soon then the best defense you do have against someone coming at you with a gun is to have a gun yourself."

    The best defense, is to Amend the Second Amendment, with the Death Penalty language, thus making it fair and equal to you and I both.

    And every gun, all 400 million plus of them, should be accounted for.




    Well, I don't own a gun either. Does that mean I am also being unfair to myself?

    But at the same time, I can also see why others in some places may want a gun to defend themselves. FYI, this is what's called being fair, equal, and objective.



  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2668 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    John_C_87 said:

    To simplify the basic principles even more with an apology to GeoLibCogScientis. The people have a right to buy with money the guns form gun owners as a constitutional right. The none-gun owners have a right to drive up cost of owning a gun they want to buy by civil court settlements.

    The cost of purchase is not the cost of buy back for the people.

    The argument of the second Amendment is to bear-arm. When something bears or is to bear arm the are to carry the united state of cost. In the case of gun, the united cost is the application of lethal force not self-defense. We defend others and ourselves with all guns.

    “Again, I apologize sometimes a principle must be simplified several times to find the basic or easiest to understand points for different people.”

    To exemplify the issue even further without problematical errors and an apology to others therein The people of the public have a superficial entitlement of to by with their abundant finances. The without owning gun people should seek to exhilarate the costs of those that possess such endeavors.

    Also bears eats shoots and leaves.



  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    "Well, I don't own a gun either.
    Does that mean I am also being unfair to myself?"

    Your perception of how you view, being unfair, towards yourself, is completely up to your individual mindset. 

    To me, the Second Amendment, is unfair, and unequal, as it's currently written.

    "But at the same time, I can also see why others in some places may want a gun to defend themselves."

    "FYI, this is what's called being fair, equal, and objective."

    FYI, And any criminal, or an offender, with an illegal firearm, is being unfair, and unequal to the rest of the public, when they've gone about killing Police Officers, and citizens, I'm going to guess is what those criminals, and offenders, "objectivity" looked like? 


    ZeusAres42
  • TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    FYI, And any criminal, or an offender, with an illegal firearm, is being unfair, and unequal to the rest of the public, when they've gone about killing Police Officers, and citizens, I'm going to guess is what those criminals, and offenders, "objectivity" looked like? 


    Yes, I think most of us here know that already. But thanks for the info anyway.




  • @ZeusAres42

    To exemplify the issue even further without problematical errors and an apology to others therein The people of the public have a superficial entitlement of to by with their abundant finances. The without owning gun people should seek to exhilarate the costs of those that possess such endeavors.

    Try to simplify not exemplify a basic principle is not exemplifying an idea..

    The 2nd change to American Constitution does not give the right to own a gun it gives us the right to legally argue a use of lethal forced so it cannot be forced onto the hands of government. The right to bear-arm is saying a person carries a burden with armament. The basic principle is saying a burden of lethal forces is shared as united state with all weapons.

    Exemplify: to be typical of

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exemplify

    United: made one

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/united

    Bears eats shoots, leaves, and people of all intelligence.( United State)


  • @Vaulk ;

    The men who work on United State Constitution and the group of men who worked on Amendments are not all the same men. The America represented by the Declaration of Independence and American United State Constitution is not the same America is size it has grown bigger. The size of legal united state is not subject to change if America was to become larger by growth in area the Nation takes up. The legal united state remains the same in all basic principles of constitutional law.

    Bearing ( 3a) : an object, surface, or point that supports(1.) the arms and equipment with which a military unit or military apparatus is supplied.

    noun

    the arms and equipment with which a military unit or military apparatus is supplied.

    a land, sea, or air force equipped for war.

    Usually armaments. military strength collectively: the armaments race; a country without armaments.

    the process of equipping or arming for war.

    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/armament

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bearing ;

    "The right to keep and bear Arm" is as object, lethal force. Is as surface, common defense to the general welfare. Is as point that supports,  the equality in insuring that the burden of lethal force when refused can be used against use in a court of law. Only the Military draft is illegal a request to bear arm is nothing more then asking someone to do something on behalf of American  independence. 

    I'll keep trying one might ring a bell under lady liberty...……….
     
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    Your arguments:

    "Yes, I think most of us here know that already. But thanks for the info anyway."

    "FYI, this is what's called being fair, equal, and objective."

    @ZeusAres42

    The objectivity of the criminals, and the offenders, with the illegal guns, is the objectivity that is the most concerning on a nationwide level.

    Your individual objectivity isn't concerning enough, to be concerned over.

    (FYI, And any criminal, or an offender, with an illegal firearm, is being unfair, and unequal to the rest of the public, when they've gone about killing Police Officers, and citizens, I'm going to guess is what those criminals, and offenders, "objectivity" looked like?)
  • TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    Your arguments:

    "Yes, I think most of us here know that already. But thanks for the info anyway."

    "FYI, this is what's called being fair, equal, and objective."

    @ZeusAres42

    The objectivity of the criminals, and the offenders, with the illegal guns, is the objectivity that is the most concerning on a nationwide level.

    Your individual objectivity isn't concerning enough, to be concerned over.

    (FYI, And any criminal, or an offender, with an illegal firearm, is being unfair, and unequal to the rest of the public, when they've gone about killing Police Officers, and citizens, I'm going to guess is what those criminals, and offenders, "objectivity" looked like?)
    Those that you call are my arguments are from two separate posts of mine. So please don't play games with my texts. A bit of honesty would be nice.



  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    Where's your objectivity? 

    Again:
    The objectivity of the criminals, and the offenders, with their illegal guns, is the objectivity, that is the most concerning on a nationwide level.

    The below is my objectivity:

    (I believe, in fair, and equal debating.)

    To me, the Second Amendment, is unfair, and unequal, as it's currently written.

    And the 400 plus guns in the United States, and some of which, at the moment, a fair amount of them are unaccounted for, thus creating another nationwide situation, that needs, full accountability.

    And any criminal, or an offender, with an illegal firearm, is being unfair, and unequal to the rest of the public, when they've gone about killing Police Officers, and citizens, I'm going to guess is what those criminals, and offenders, "objectivity" looked like?  

    "Objectivity is a goal of scientific investigation. Sociology also being a science aspires for the goal objectivityObjectivity is a frame of mind so that personal prejudices, preferences or predilections of the social scientists do not contaminate the collection of analysis of data."

    "What do you mean by objectivity?
    Objectivity is a noun that means a lack of bias, judgment, or prejudice. Maintaining one's objectivity is the most important job of a judge. The meaning of objectivity is easy to remember, when you see that the word "object" embedded within it."

  • TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    Where's your objectivity? 

    Again:
    The objectivity of the criminals, and the offenders, with the illegal guns, is the objectivity, that is the most concerning on a nationwide level.

    The below is my objectivity:

    To me, the Second Amendment, is unfair, and unequal, as it's currently written.

    And any criminal, or an offender, with an illegal firearm, is being unfair, and unequal to the rest of the public, when they've gone about killing Police Officers, and citizens, I'm going to guess is what those criminals, and offenders, "objectivity" looked like?  

    "Objectivity is a goal of scientific investigation. Sociology also being a science aspires for the goal objectivityObjectivity is a frame of mind so that personal prejudices, preferences or predilections of the social scientists do not contaminate the collection of analysis of data."

    "What do you mean by objectivity?
    Objectivity is a noun that means a lack of bias, judgment, or prejudice. Maintaining one's objectivity is the most important job of a judge. The meaning of objectivity is easy to remember, when you see that the word "object" embedded within it."

    Firstly thanks for the information about the word objectivity although not needed as that's bad basic high school English.

    Secondly, exactly where have I mentioned anything about being objectivity fair to criminal gun owners?  Or viewing them as fair and equal people?

    Please stop trying to put words in my mouth and please try to keep on topic. Or bother someone else.



  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    All I did, was pose a question to you?

    Where's your objectivity? 

    And the below, are my answers, to that very question.

    (I didn't put words in your mouth.)

    The objectivity of the criminals, and the offenders, with their illegal guns, is the objectivity, that is the most concerning on a nationwide level.

    The below is my objectivity:

    (I believe, in fair, and equal debating.)

    To me, the Second Amendment, is unfair, and unequal, as it's currently written.

    And the 400 plus guns in the United States, and some of which, at the moment, a fair amount of them are unaccounted for, thus creating another nationwide situation, that needs, full accountability.

    And any criminal, or an offender, with an illegal firearm, is being unfair, and unequal to the rest of the public, when they've gone about killing Police Officers, and citizens, I'm going to guess is what those criminals, and offenders, "objectivity" looked like?   



  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @Vaulk

    "The Second Amendment isn't about equality of outcome, it's regarding equality of opportunity."

    "We all have an equal opportunity to own a gun."

    "Nothing is free, not truly."

    "If I'm black and you're white, a .357 Smith and Wesson revolver costs the same amount."

    "That's equality of opportunity."  

    "What you're suggesting is that you expect equality of outcome...which is what you find in a great deal of socialist and communist governments.

    @Vaulk

    I didn't suggest anything of the sort.

    Now I'm being educated by an individual, who's, apparently defending the Second Amendment as it's currently written, with a conversation in regards to communist, and socialist governments?

    @Vaulk

    Being off topic:

    The below set of words from you, is how the marijuana user's and addicts are getting their way, with those states, that legalized recreational marijuana, to suit their needs.

    Because those marijuana addicts, and users, viewed the Marijuana laws, as being unfair, and unequal to them, because it maybe interfered with their own family time?

    I view the laws making recreational marijuana legal, as a way to force the marijuana user's issues, and addiction problems, upon the rest of us, who don't use marijuana.

    (Just like a criminal, or an offender with an unlawfully own gun, took lives, and has now changed, the lives of the victims families, forever.)

    "You have something that I don't have, therefor it's not fair and the laws have to be changed in order to force fairness upon us all" 

    "This is an evil ideology."



  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2668 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    All I did, was pose a question to you?

    Where's your objectivity?
    I already answered that question before you even asked it a few posts back. Here is an excerpt from that post of mine:

    "Well, I don't own a gun either."

    "But at the same time, I can also see why others in some places may want a gun to defend themselves."

    This has nothing to do with the objectivity of criminals. This is about innocent people defending themselves against criminals in an imminent threatening situation with a gun so as they don't become victims.

    You also said previously that this position of mine is unfair. Well, by the same token I could say that I find your position unfair to good people that own guns, also unfair to good people that thwart crime and thus save other peoples lives.

    And yes, as I've stated before that laws do need to calibrated so as to prevent guns from getting into the hands of bad and/or mentally unstable and/or irresponsible people. My argument does not imply that I am against this.

    As Sam Harris Said you can find Zealots on both sides of the gun debate with one side rejecting even the slightest gun control measures and then on the other side you have people that cannot see why a good person would want ready access to a loaded firearm. I myself try to be in the middle, hence, equality, fairness, and objectivity; you cannot be objective if you're on the other far side of the spectrum. https://samharris.org/the-riddle-of-the-gun/



  • @TKDB ;

    TKDB

    "The Second Amendment isn't about equality of outcome, it's regarding equality of opportunity."

    "We all have an equal opportunity to own a gun."

    The Second Amendment is dealing with Military Arm not gun. We establish opportunity to share equally the load created when bearing arm with military. The Right in gun ownership is not held in basic principle by the Second Amendment it is assigned as fact in American Constitution preamble, which in basic principle is an account stating secure independence of a united judicial oversight of the people.

    "Nothing is free, not truly."  Freedom is a display maid without an assigned cost or a self-value that has been placed on an object. When these two things are united as a single state something is free.

    "If I'm black and you're white, a .357 Smith and Wesson revolver costs the same amount."
    "That's equality of opportunity."  No, you are wrong it is not. If a person is black and a second person is back as well. The person with the Gun shares an equal burden of lethal force with a person holding a screwdriver. Intelligence is not a method of basic principle and legal standard in separation of all things.

    The drastic example here is the Military command stop, or I will be forced to use lethal forces, and stop or we will be forced to use lethal forces. Looks at a person ability to be a threat even without gun. A person that understands hand to hand combat and can kill someone with the bear hand. It is this threat which is equal to the threat of a gun.



  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    John_C_87 said:
    @TKDB ;

    TKDB

    The Second Amendment is dealing with Military Arm not gun. We establish opportunity to share equally the load created when bearing arm with military. 


    No, it's not.  The Second Amendment does not apply to the Military, it never has and never will.  The second Amendment applies to all citizens of the United States, the applicability is clearly stated in the Amendment itself. 

    "The right of
    "The People" to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

    This is NOT dealing with the Military and there's actually no reference to the Military in the second amendment.  The Amendment does however mention a  justification for the PEOPLE'S right to keep and bear arms as the need to maintain a well regulated "Militia"

    The Militia and the Military ARE NOT the same thing, CANNOT be confused with each other, NEVER have been the same thing, aren't SIMILAR enough to be compared and the two terms ARE NOT interchangeable.  Words mean things.

    The Militia is raised from the civilian population and is designed to supplement the regular Army during an emergency.  In the case of the Second Amendment though, our Nation's Fathers were talking about the Militia as a force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular Army.

    This is the Militia: 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF3EI0KW54w
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".



  • I agree Vaulk it is not dealing with Military it is using the principle of Military Armament only, the idea difference has no relevance on a Congressional Armed Service, Presidential Armed Serves, Presadera Armed Service, and United State Military is not true. It is however a complex constitutional principle.

    While the 2nd Amendment does not apply to all citizens either the American United State Constitution applies to thoughts who only maintain Constitutional principle. “The right of the People to keep and bear arms (armaments) shall not be infringed.”

    “The right of keeping the burden of what military weapons bring as a weight, lethal force, shall not be actively used to breaking the terms of law. The basic principle is a criminal must stand trial before they are punished for a crime. Law is changed to effect evidence of a crime after the fact.

    Realistically the Formation of Militia is documented in the 2nd Amendment as they are a group not stated in the 1st Amendment in relationship to peaceful assembly, Of the People. The difference in our  interpretation of writing comes by way of Arms, people do not bear arms, armaments, it is an expression of the Military. The state of the union is by basic principle lethal force where the idea of weapon (Gun) is in relationship by fact to the preamble common defense to the general welfare. 

    You may feel that what you are saying can be proven before a court of law by you it is not something by your explanation I can do the same way as you with confidence of preserving constitution.

  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    I'm afraid whatever language barrier we have is going to make this debate impossible my friend.  I wish you the best of luck but I cannot understand your premise nor your conclusion.  Your syntax is so far off I cannot comprehend what it is that you're trying to get across.

    Respectfully,

    Vaulk


    ZeusAres42
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • @Vaulk ;

    Okay. This isn't a debate one of us is preserving constitution one of is not.

    The idea of military is taken from the word Arm's not militia, the right to bear arm's does not allow a person to own a gun it allows a the people to have a responsibility equal to lethal force. Yes a gun carries the burden of lethal force so is part of the 2nd Amendment. You are making an interpretation that has no specification to constitutions two principles. To the people buy gun's or does the government supply Armament to them? Multiple weapons and protection from forms of weapon aka Arm's?

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/armament 

    Armament and arm are saying the same thing. Armament: a military or naval  “forceWhat kind's of force in basic principle do they bear as a group? Lethal force is the weight they carry bear for the people as a group. Correct?



  • Do the people buy gun's or does the government supply Armament to them? The supplier is Private, correct? Basic principle has a yes and no answers. We can say yes and no then give detail it is a liberty.

    Sorry, I had written that question wrong. Interpretation outside the limit of constitution is not always describing something freely it becomes a filed grievance instead. The 1st Amendment instructs the people of this. Free must have no imposed cost no self-value it is then free. One or both of those process takes away the free state. ( 1st Amendment) The right of holding blame for lethal for is necessary to maintain no imposed cost and not self-value. 


  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    Sam Harris, is a gun owner, and he's entitled to his opinion, and his opinion is both pro gun bias oriented, and wrong.

    And here are his concluding words to his Opinion piece.

    "Finally, I have said nothing here about what might cause a person like Adam Lanza to enter a school for the purpose of slaughtering innocent children. Clearly, we need more resources in the areas of childhood and teenage mental health, and we need protocols for parents, teachers, and fellow students to follow when a young man in their midst begins to worry them. In the majority of cases, someone planning a public assassination or a mass murder will communicate his intentions to others in advance of the crime. People need to feel personally responsible for acting on this information—and the authorities must be able to do something once the information gets passed along. But again, any law that allows us to commit or imprison people on the basis of a mere perception of risk would guarantee that large numbers of innocent people will be held against their will.

    Rather than new laws, I believe we need a general shift in our attitude toward public violence—wherein everyone begins to assume some responsibility for containing it. It is worth noting that this shift has already occurred in one area of our lives, without anyone’s having received special training or even agreeing that a change in attitude was necessary: Just imagine how a few men with box cutters would now be greeted by their fellow passengers at 30,000 feet.

    Perhaps we can find the same resolve on the ground."


    @ZeusAres42


    "Rather than new laws, I believe we need a general shift in our attitude toward public violence—wherein everyone begins to assume some responsibility for containing it."

    His point of view, appears to be pro gun oriented?

    And any lawful gun owner, who uses a gun outside of self defense, meaning unlawfully, deserves the Death Penalty.


    Just as any criminal, or an offender, who commits a crime, with an illegal gun, deserves the Death Penalty as well.

    Because the Second Amendment, as it's currently written, is causing a huge disservice to the United States public as a whole, when the 329 million citizens, are outnumbered, by the 400 plus million guns, that exists in the U.S.

    And the Death Penalty, by itself, apparently isn't working, as an anti gun violence deterrent either.

    So put an amended Second Amendment, together, with the Death Penalty language, and let's see, how the public overall, views that change?

    And I guarantee this, you will never see some of the pro gun extremists, or the NRA, itself conjuring up an Opinion Piece, about the very citizens of the United States, being outnumbered by the guns, that are in the U.S., because that would be bad for business.

    Because, in regards, to those 400 million guns, I've still, yet to see any legitimate information, that has stated that all 400 million of those guns, both legal, and illegal, have been accounted for nationwide?




    ZeusAres42
  • TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    Sam Harris, is a gun owner, and he's entitled to his opinion, and his opinion is both pro gun bias oriented, and wrong.


    How is it wrong?
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @John_C_87

    Because it is wrong.

    And its sad, that some of the pro gun crowd, are in a sense pushing their gun ownership on the rest of the country?

    I don't care if a citizen owns a gun.

    But don't, in a sense, act like the rest of the public, who doesn't own a gun, should mindfully cater, to their opinions about their gun ownership, because of how they view the Second Amendment?

    The Second Amendment, as it's currently written, isn't fair, and equal to the rest of the country, who doesn't own a gun.

    It's fair to the gun owners, and it's fair to the NRA, and I guess, it's fair to those companies that manufacture guns, in the United States?

    And because of how it's currently written, there's millions of guns both legal, and illegal, that have been created through the wake, of how the Second Amendment, is being abused, by the criminals, offenders, and the first time offenders, who have used their guns to kill Police Officers, and citizens alike?

    That's the kind of unequal, and unfair treatment that the Second Amendment, as it's written, isn't providing for. 

    That's wrong, for the victims of the gun violence crimes.
    John_C_87
  • John_C_87 said:
    TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    Sam Harris, is a gun owner, and he's entitled to his opinion, and his opinion is both pro gun bias oriented, and wrong.


    How is it wrong?
    He made one of the basics of logical fallacies there. It's like me saying that all Republican arguments are wrong because they're biased to Republican views. Also known as Ad Hominem Circumstantial. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/9/Ad-Hominem-Circumstantial
    Description: Suggesting that the person who is making the argument is biased or predisposed to take a particular stance, and therefore, the argument is necessarily invalid. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/9/Ad-Hominem-Circumstantial
    I prefer to actually read what's being said and address that than rather than addressing the person who is saying it. If you read the article you may find like I did that Sam Harris made some very reasonable and fair arguments to both sides of the Gun debate.

    Obviously though, someone that is on the extreme zealot side of this debate is most likely not going to to see this or at least refuse to open their eyes anyway.



  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2668 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    John_C_87 said:
    TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    Sam Harris, is a gun owner, and he's entitled to his opinion, and his opinion is both pro gun bias oriented, and wrong.


    How is it wrong?
    The argument in standard form would like like this:

    Premise 1: "Sam Harris writes about his views on the Gun debate."

    Premise 2: "Sam Harris is a Gun Owner."

    Premise 3: "Sam Harris must be biased because he is a gun owner" (also a conlusion made from premise 2)

    Conlusion: "Therefore Sam Harris is wrong because he is a gun owner and is Biased."



  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -   edited August 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    John_C_87 said:
    TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42 

    Sam Harris, is a gun owner, and he's entitled to his opinion, and his opinion is both pro gun bias oriented, and wrong.


    "How is it wrong?

    The argument in standard form would like like this:

    Premise 1: "Sam Harris writes about his views on the Gun debate."

    Premise 2: "Sam Harris is a Gun Owner."

    Premise 3: "Sam Harris must be biased because he is a gun owner" (also a conlusion made from premise 2)

    Conlusion: "Therefore Sam Harris is wrong because he is a gun owner and is Biased." 

    The above is your second response.


    @ZeusAres42

    The below is your first response:


    "He made one of the basics of logical fallacies there. It's like me saying that all Republican arguments are wrong because they're biased to Republican views. Also known as Ad Hominem Circumstantial."

    Description: Suggesting that the person who is making the argument is biased or predisposed to take a particular stance, and therefore, the argument is necessarilyinvalid. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/9/Ad-Hominem-Circumstantial


    "I prefer to actually read what's being said and address that than rather than addressing the person who is saying it. If you read the article you may find like I did that Sam Harris made some very reasonable and fair arguments to both sides of the Gun debate."

    "Obviously though, someone that is on the extreme zealot side of this debate is most likely not going to to see this or at least refuse to open their eyes anyway."


    @ZeusAres42

    I don't care how you perceive my words.

    Being that you're the only individual, who has to live with your own mindset.

    My mindset, is pro family, pro public, and pro law abiding.

    So you can present your argument, however you wish to.

    Just as I presented mine.
    ZeusAres42John_C_87
  • @TKDB ;

    So, to condense the principle of dissatisfaction the writer does not express the 2nd Amendment is the cause of legal and illegal guns in the United State of America.The 2nd Amendment does not hold all burden of a united state on lethal force for the action created by other unconstitutional law.The 2nd Amendment took guns away from the victims allowing them to be shot while unarmed.



  • @TKDB ;
    My mindset, is pro family, pro public, and pro law abiding.

    Saying Law alone should hold the weight of lethal force for you, for us, does not have a United State with any of the principles you favorer as pro and not nay. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch