TakeYouToTasker

Well, largely because "brutal punishment as spectacle" is a barbaric practice specifically prohibited by the Constitution in the 8th Amendment with it's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment".

Are you advocating for pre-crime units?

Intentionally written at a 5th grade level, and clearly worded. If you can't read at a 5th grade level, that isn't the fault of the Founders. You want a discussion? Fine. Here's my offering: I don't believe a circumstance that results in 400 deaths a year is dire enough that it requires a rethinking of our understandings about natural rights or Constitutional protections. It's an infinitesimally small problem which unfortunately has tragic and heart wrenching consequences for the few people who personally encounter it, but is well worth the cost of the freedoms which accompany it (and I can say that as someone who has had this impact them personally, having lost a close family friend in the Virginia Tech shootings). Further, even if it happening frequently enough to rise to the standard of a true epidemic, those advocating for change are not an honest negotiating partner as has been demonstrated by the constant pushing for more restrictions after "common sense" compromises have already been made; and as such I'm no longer willing to negotiate with them. If you don't like that, that's fine. We have a Constitutional process though which you can override mine, and anyone else's objections.

You can't know before it's too late. But fortunately these shootings are not an epidemic. They are so exceedingly rare that you're just as likely to die being attacked by a dog, and only 2.5x more likely to die in a mass shooting than of being constipated.

Irrelevant to the point. Someone willing to break the law to murder someone else is not likely to concern themselves with the legality of obtaining firearms; and we know that prohibition is an ineffective deterrent to acquisition.

The problem is that we can't uninvent the gun, and that laws only matter to the law abiding. The problem is not law abiding citizens. The problem is those who would break the law; and if one is willing to break laws and kill people then a law telling them they can't do something less horrific won't stop them. Laws disarming people, or outlawing certain weapon types only impact the law abiding, and the law abiding are not the problem.

Bob, the problem is that of value systems. Yours, apparently, does not place a premium value on freedom; where as mine does. The value I place on freedom overwhelms any desire I have to mitigate consequences of having freedom. Freedom is messy, and allows for maximizing human choices, both good and bad; but it is the optimal condition for humans to live under. These two value systems, yours and mine, are irreconcilable. But here's the deal: I like me and my value system more than I like you and yours, so I'm going to keep mine, defend it with my guns, and tell you to !@#$ right off. He comes off as condescending. You are coming off as ignorant. Him, not so much.

No, Bob, it's not a problem rising to the level that requires the forfeiture of rights by every US citizen. Again, one death per 110,000 Americans over the course of their entire lives. That's roughly 400 deaths per year on the very high end. To put that in perspective, somewhere around 100 people die in the US every year from bee stings. Roughly 45 people die every year from skiing and snowboarding. The CDC reports that roughly 45 people die per year from tap water that is too hot. Roughly 200 people die per year falling off of chairs. Being constipated accounts for approximately 150 deaths per year. Are these also circumstances requiring the suspension of rights? Where is your outrage, Bob, you cold hearted jerk!

Bob, the thing is I don't view this as a problem requiring the infringement of the rights of US citizens. Again, an American citizen's odds of dying in a mass shooting over the course of their entire life span are approximately 1:110,000. The same as dying in a dog attack. While any death is unfortunate, this is not a systemic problem; and the system which protects our rights itself is far more important than individual outcomes, especially those generated by circumstances which are exceedingly unlikely. The problem, as usual Bob, is you and your poor arguments. This is a strawman argument, and one that's easily dismantled to boot. Would you like me to dismantle it for you?

"shall not be infringed" Time to list your proposed changes so I can evicerate your argument, Bob.

Gun violence is far more likely to occur in places where guns are strictly forbidden. Criminal pathology seeks victims and victims are more likely to be found among the disarmed. Predators don't prey on the strong.

Over the course of a lifetime an American's odds to dying in a mass shooting are approximately 1:110,000. Thats roughly that same odds you have of dying in a lethal dog attack. Mass shootings are not a problem. You are being fed a narrative.

It's amazing how effective prohibition has been in eliminating drug and alcohol use.

Tracking Sudafed purchases is, in fact, a violation of the rights of US citizens. There is, however, no Constitutional Amendment expressly forbidding the government from placing restrictions on Sudafed purchases, and our sad state of Constitutional law permits it, so here we are. As you know, there is a Constitutional protection for gun ownership however. You're entitled to as many bad and factually inaccurate opinions as you'd like, but that doesn't validate them in any way.

You have an absolute right to keep and bear arms. Any artificial limitations placed on you by an authority which prevent you from keeping or bearing arms is by definition an infringement. You'll need to make a better argument.

Again, it's hard to tell if you're stupid or dishonest, though I leave open the possibility that it could be both. You are the one who introduced repealing or changing the Second Amendment. Smoke some more, Bob.

The number of mass shootings is "way way down". Do you have any idea how many things are on the list of "things you are more likely to die from than a mass shooting"? Mass shootings are made out to be a much larger problem then they really are because they are a useful tool to a particular political agenda.

Trump is Hitler, but those living in fear of him wish to disarm themselves.

When the other side isn't an honest bargaining partner, you stop bargaining. This far, no further.

You've done no such thing. The slippery slope argument is that every time gun owners are asked to make a "reasonable concession" that "reasonable concession" becomes, by default, the new residence of what you label "fringe gun nuts", then you work for a new "reasonable concession" working towards "the new middle" you've established, which creeps every closer to an all out ban. Gun owners are now waking up to this realization and are saying "this far, no further".

Your posts are getting more ignorant. I'm not even sure how that's possible, but here we are. If the bolded is your understanding of how the Bill of Rights came to be, then you need to read up on your history. As for changing the Constitution by amending the Second Amendment? Do you know what the process for changing the Constitution is? Now, looking at that, do you know what percentage of the nation's legislatures are held by folks whose constituents looking to ban or restrict guns and gun ownership? Here's a hint: given the current ideological makeup of the country, and 50 year trends, you're far more likely to see a Constitutional Amendment banning or restricting abortion (a proposition with a likelihood of zero point zero) than you are to see a repeal/change of the Second. And even if you do successfully amend the Constitution, you still have an even more difficult problem ahead of you: you have zero idea how many guns there, what types of gun there are, where they are, and how much ammunition there is. None. No idea. Soooo... you, and you meaning the federal government, need to criminalize every single person in the country by default, and do wildly invasive, rights decimating, door to door complete searches of every single property and person in the entire country. This is problematic even if every single person capitulates, which they absolutely won't. You have massive segments of the population that object to census taking and won't participate in that. Now you're talking about violating the rights of hundreds of millions of people? Good luck with that. Banning guns would result in more gun violence and death than you can possibly imagine. You'd be instigating a civil war.

Freedom can be dangerous, but it's the best thing we have.

That's not how the Constitution works. The Constitution was designed as a cage around the government, limiting what the government is allowed to do, not on what the citizens are allowed to do. The Second Amendment says that the government "shall not infringe" on the people's right to keep and bear arms. "Shall not infringe". You're asking them to infringe. That would require a Constitutional Amendment, and after that it would require you to come and take away my ammunition. If you'd like to try, I have a very specific way I'll give it to you.

Again, this is war propaganda.

Because men and women are different. We have different brain chemistries, and as a result different pathologies.