Time To Dump The Second Amendment?

PoliTalker said:
Hello Flash,

It is vital policy and more of it needs to be done. Poverty is not the fault of the poor. People born into poverty often lack the self-confidence to lift themselves up, but if they are helped they can break the cycle. The right is doing the exact wrong things to combat poverty by simply blaming the poor.
Click to expand...

Those programs are welfare for the wealthy who benefit more than the poor. Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc. make the providers wealthy using sometimes fraudulent or legal robbery. As shown in an earlier post, poverty rates are actually lower under Republican presidents. That is not defending their policies but challenging your claim that Democrats are helping the poor more.

PoliTalker said:
And that is exactly what I get when I point out the well regulated militias are not necessary to the security of a free state. We have our standing army for that. When the Constitution was written a bunch of guys with muskets could gather to defend the country. That no longer works. The 2nd is outdated, and nobody has a good comeback as to why it should be kept. That makes it a great argument to call for the 2nd to be repealed and replaced.
Click to expand...

You failed to explain how abolishing the 2nd Amendment would change anything. What gun regulation(s) do you want that cannot be passed now? Federal and state legislatures choose not to pass stricter laws and not because of constitutional restrictions. About any "reasonable" regulations people call for already exist in some states.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Flash,

You want me to provide evidence that something would have happened if a condition exists?

Ok, but you won't like it. It's a hypothetical.

A black individual is considering voting. The individual observes that the lines in the individual's district are very long and arduous. The individual decides not to vote. Apathy exists.

There is no good reason to collect drop boxes which were already there. There is no good reason to order fewer voting machines and cut back on the number of polling locations for black people. Those things are done to suppress voting.

Observing that more people came out in a recent election proves nothing. It remains unknown how many would have come out if voting had been made easier.

We want more people voting to make our country work. America needs to be more cohesive. When people vote, they feel like they are a part of things, they claim part ownership of America. Suppressing votes hurts America. Republicans should be ashamed. That is trying to make elections unfair. Republicans should be able to win by having a better message, better policies. By assuming they will lose unless they pull dirty election tricks, they are conceding that their platform is not a winner and they have to try to cheat to win.

Cheaters cheat themselves of their own dignity as they cheat others.
Click to expand...

I don't want evidence about something that would have happened. I want some evidence that laws and voter IDs stopped people from voting that would otherwise have voted. If it is suppressing voters we should be able to find one.

Your hypothetical actually occurs, but that has been happening for many years before recent laws. That is why many states start early voting two weeks in advance. If a person can show up to vote on election day and leaves because of a long line, he can also vote early when there are often no lines.

During my lifetime voting has been extended to more groups and voting has gotten much easier despite these recent changes.

I certainly encourage voting, but I have doubts it is unifying since it only shows differences in people that causes hate or hostility if they are voting differently.

Despite "suppression" laws, voter turnout has been very high in recent years. When pointing out that voting did not seem to be suppressed, the only response is "more people" would have voted without those laws.
 
Last edited:
BidenPresident said:
Can't you find another hobby besides guns?
Click to expand...

Would that make mass shootings, particularly at schools, magically more relevant, outside of the emotional response? How much tile do you spend worrying about the millions of children who die due to a lack of food?
 
ZenMode said:
Would that make mass shootings, particularly at schools, magically more relevant, outside of the emotional response? How much tile do you spend worrying about the millions of children who die due to a lack of food?
Click to expand...

I take that as a no. Guns are your only hobby
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed but many JPP members can't talk about the weather without becoming emotionally involved with it.
Click to expand...

I think that is human nature, particularly when you are in an environment like this where you are arguing with the same people day after day. It takes conscious efforts to remove emotion from the conversation, whether it is emotion tied to the topic or tied to the person you are
 
ZenMode said:
I think that is human nature, particularly when you are in an environment like this where you are arguing with the same people day after day. It takes conscious efforts to remove emotion from the conversation, whether it is emotion tied to the topic or tied to the person you are
Click to expand...

Agreed. It also takes intelligence...a noticeably lacking feature in the most emotional members of JPP.
 
ZenMode said:
I think that is human nature, particularly when you are in an environment like this where you are arguing with the same people day after day. It takes conscious efforts to remove emotion from the conversation, whether it is emotion tied to the topic or tied to the person you are
Click to expand...

To clarify, this post should have ended with "the person you are talking to".
 
Hello Flash,

Flash said:
Those programs are welfare for the wealthy who benefit more than the poor. Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc. make the providers wealthy using sometimes fraudulent or legal robbery. As shown in an earlier post, poverty rates are actually lower under Republican presidents. That is not defending their policies but challenging your claim that Democrats are helping the poor more.



You failed to explain how abolishing the 2nd Amendment would change anything. What gun regulation(s) do you want that cannot be passed now? Federal and state legislatures choose not to pass stricter laws and not because of constitutional restrictions. About any "reasonable" regulations people call for already exist in some states.
Click to expand...

I heard the New York is passing stricter measures as we speak.

And I also notice that you, like everyone else, have sidestepped acknowledging that the 2nd is obsolete.

Why do we still have this provision in our Constitution which no longer addresses our national concerns?

When was the last time a well regulated militia of citizens bearing arms was needed for the security of America?
 
Hello Flash,

Flash said:
I don't want evidence about something that would have happened. I want some evidence that laws and voter IDs stopped people from voting that would otherwise have voted. If it is suppressing voters we should be able to find one.
Click to expand...

No, that is not true. What you are essentially requesting is interviews with people who considered voting, but then decided not to because it was made too arduous. first of all, who is going to admit that? And secondly, what does it accomplish to do that? There is so little investigative reporting any more since news rooms have been gutted of reporters and sold off. We don't get that kind of journalism as much any more.

Flash said:
Your hypothetical actually occurs, but that has been happening for many years before recent laws. That is why many states start early voting two weeks in advance. If a person can show up to vote on election day and leaves because of a long line, he can also vote early when there are often no lines.

During my lifetime voting has been extended to more groups and voting has gotten much easier despite these recent changes.

I certainly encourage voting, but I have doubts it is unifying since it only shows differences in people that causes hate or hostility if they are voting differently.

Despite "suppression" laws, voter turnout has been very high in recent years. When pointing out that voting did not seem to be suppressed, the only response is "more people" would have voted without those laws.
Click to expand...

It is a valid response.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Dutch,

But not all. I have encountered numerous JPP posters who are able to discuss a subject on merit. Granted, it is not the norm.
Click to expand...

Agreed, not all. Just not most. :)

Most people come here to vent, not discuss. The worst fit a standard profile: elderly, often single, Euro-American males and political extremists. While a few are far Left, the vast majority are far Right. They hate anyone who opposes them.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. It also takes intelligence...a noticeably lacking feature in the most emotional members of JPP.
Click to expand...

We all allow emotions to get better of us sometimes. I think the biggest problem today is the fact that we have social media and cable news that fuels emotional responses, whether it be anger, fear, etc. CNN's ratings didn't Spike during Trump's term because people were tuning in to get information. They were tuning in to get themselves all wound up with anger and fear. 81 million people didn't vote for Biden because they thought he was a great candidate. He wasn't. He was as much of a garbage candidates as Trump was, but they voted for him in record numbers out of fear of Trump.

The same was true with Fox and Obama. People tuned in to get whipped into a frenzy of fear over the claims that the country was going to be ruined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top