TakeYouToTasker

This is a fairly obvious point. Mass shooters seek out victims. Victims are more easily found among the disarmed. This is buttressed by the fact the most mass shooters shoot themselves after being engaged. They are not interested in fire fights.

And it would be the entire point of repealing the Second. There is no other reason to do so. If no one wants to government to take away your guns, then there is no need to repeal the Second, which would give them the authority to do so. Saying you are ignorant of something is exactly that. It's not insulting, and is not synonymous with calling a person stupid. It's is synonymous with telling someone they aren't informed on a given topic.

Saying you were ignorant on the topic was not intended as an insult. You were opining on something where you obviously lacked the working knowledge. In general I think people would be better of listening instead of talking in those situations. As to your three guns, if the Second Amendment is repealed you have no protected right to them; and will have given the government all the power they need to come into your home and do exactly that. Please bear in mind that the protection of your rights is what is important here. Once you've surrendered those protections, there is no getting them back once the government has already begun violating your rights.

Poverty exists on a wide scale because Peru has only recently (in the 1990's) thrown off their centrally planned economy. Since they have, it has been one of the most steadily growing economies in the world, with it's inhabitants standard of living considered "upper-middle" globally. Only 10% of their population lives in what the World Bank describes as extreme poverty. This is markedly different than what Venezuela is experiencing.

Yes, I am. The fact that you disagree shows a tremendous amount of ignorance about gun ownership, and gun usage to the point that you probably shouldn't opine about it until you've done actual research. As to "walking into my home and taking guns away", that's a red herring. The repeal of the Second Amendment would mean that I no longer would have my right to own arms protected by the government, and without that protected right, could have any and all arms seized at the will of those in power.

Venezuela was a healthy and established democracy, with and emerging economy, and was the wealthiest country in South America prior to it's socialist revolution. Now it's children fight with machetes for garbage.

He is correct, and you are wrong on several fronts. ARs are very often used for hunting, and they are looking to violate individual's right to bear arms. You have a former Supreme Court Justice opining that it's time to repeal the Second Amendment.

Related to this specific post, you don't find it problematic that governments are working to silence whistleblowers?

https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/constitution-jeff-sessions-dismiss-robert-mueller-non-campaign-cases/ On the face, this would seem like a pro-Trump position to take, but I do not believe that to be the case. Following the trail Greg has been blazing for us, this speaks to powerful people, realizing their Russian collusion narrative is about to fail, and that Mueller's work has not actually been related to the Trump campaign, trying to insulate themselves from prosecution.

Actually, it's not a "now" thing. He's been claiming that to be the case for months now, and while this particular claim lacks the backing with direct evidence that most of his claims have had, given the context and landscape, and the scant bits of evidence he has shown, I find his claims plausible, though not actually probable at this time.

Oh, something tells me this is just the tip of the iceberg for Gillibrand.

His entire style of argument is to demand that you accept and operate through his base premises, then to attack the character of his opponents with ugly ad homs intended to discredit the individual making the argument, and then to make a series of bare asserts, strawmen, and bailey-motte fallacies. For instance, right now he's asserting that because he can't visualize a profit motive for the protests, but can visualize one for the NRA, that the NRA are bad actors whose sole motivation is corporate profit seeking at the expense of dead kids (completely ignoring the Constitutional background of rights advocacy), and that the Parkland kids are magical, the protests grassroots, and disagreement means you hate Jews.

No artistry in the dismembering? No artistry in the dismembering?!?! Here's a man who needs to learn to paint with his boning knife if I've ever seen one.

Except for when you brag about your artistry, like now.

How sad it is to watch history air this rerun over, and over again.

I'm honestly not concerned if individuals believe me or not, but I have no motivation to be untruthful about this, and I'm not sure why it's hard to believe. The world was a very different place in the early 80's. We were not as litigious as a society. The same school did things like call in the local fire department at the beginning of winter to completely flood the recess yard so that we could ice skate all winter. When kids slipped and broke bones the school would call the parents who would come get them and have a good laugh, with the "kids will be kids, and sometimes they slip and fall, but I'm glad they were outside having fun" mentality.

It wasn't conducive to anyone's health or social life to be a bully. They were beaten senseless and bloody, and then punished and isolated. And then they had to come crawling back, now humbled and shamed, to rejoin their classmates, who held the position of power.

It led to a culture in which there were no bullies. They integrated into the general class, and became part of the solution.

The school that I attended had a unique and incredibly effective stance on bullying. Students were encouraged to physically engage bullies in groups, and pummel them into submission whenever they would act, and only the bullies were punished after the fact. It led to a culture in which bullies never emerged, and groups collaborated to solve problems.

Important to note that restrictions on the right to speech exist within the framework of the liberty philosophies from which the derived. You cannot be said to have the right to something which violates the rights of someone else.

I understand that. I just thought the point could use some clarification.

David Hogg's right to free speech is no more or less important than the that of neo-nazis. Again, this is because of the fundamental nature of rights. The assertion that the government gets to decide that some speech is too ugly or controversial to allow is to acquiesce to the idea that individuals have no rights at all, but instead live under the thumb of a benevolent dictatorship which has the just authority to grant special privileges to favored groups. The underlying moral philosophy which defines natural rights as intrinsic and inalienable is far more important than individual outcomes, like repugnant !@#$s like Richard Spencer saying hateful things.

My rights have always been the same. They don't come from you, and they don't come from America. And they are mine, not yours or anyone else's. The fact that you seem to think you have a say in what my rights (within the context of natural rights) are only serves to reinforce the necessity of the Second Amendment, and lionizes the NRA in it's advocacy efforts. Also, you've confused "citizen" with "subject".

Well, that's an awfully dopey argument. I fully endorse David Hogg's right to speech. No where have I advocated for restricting his ability to do so. What I have taken issue with, and am attacking, are his political agenda and his moral character for advocating an anti rights platform standing on a podium carefully constructed with the dead bodies of his classmates. As an aside, David Hogg is advocating against his own right to free speech, though he may not even realize it. He is making an attack on the fundamental philosophy of natural rights. His argument is either that it is OK to violate the natural rights of others on pursuit of political goals; or that natural rights don't exist at all, and rather we simply enjoy privileges granted to us by our ruling class which can and should be suspended on the whims of the masses. The rights philosophies which dictate the principals outlined in the Second Amendment are the exact same rights philosophies which dictate the principals outlined in the First Amendment, and you can't undercut one without undercutting the other. This is another dopey argument. It assumes that all opinions have equal merit by nature of being opinions, that no opinions are better or worse, and that advocating harmful opinions as political goals doesn't speak to a lack of moral character.

I didn't say you were a piece of ****, I said David Hogg is a piece of ****. I don't know what your stance on natural rights is, and I don't know if you presume yourself special enough that you'd advocate directly violating the rights of millions of people, and billions more not even born yet, as Hogg is. My rights are not David Hogg's to surrender.