• Topic Closed
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. GameFAQs Contests
  3. Politics Containment Topic 225: Pardon Me For My War Crimes Against Good Titles
Going to defend no background checks or can we agree that the NRA is insane?
Sir Chris

User Info: Jakyl25

Jakyl25
4 weeks ago#72
Nelson_Mandela posted...

If you think that example is extreme, this is exactly what was happening in the 1950s against black families in the Deep South (which incidentally is where much of the gun grabbing was initiated).


You are concerned about this happening again but you aren’t concerned women would go back to coat hangers if abortion is illegal
Thank you, Eddie Guerrero.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large

User Info: Jakyl25

Jakyl25
4 weeks ago#73
Also heritage, not hate
Thank you, Eddie Guerrero.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large

User Info: Nelson_Mandela

Nelson_Mandela
4 weeks ago#74
Jakyl25 posted...
Nelson_Mandela posted...

If you think that example is extreme, this is exactly what was happening in the 1950s against black families in the Deep South (which incidentally is where much of the gun grabbing was initiated).


You are concerned about this happening again but you aren’t concerned women would go back to coat hangers if abortion is illegal

That's not a counterargument
"A more mature answer than I expected."~ Jakyl25
"Sephy's point is right."~ Inviso

User Info: Nelson_Mandela

Nelson_Mandela
4 weeks ago#75
DoomTheGyarados posted...
Going to defend no background checks or can we agree that the NRA is insane?

I think common sense background checks are fine, but you have to be really careful with this. We are essentially trying to determine which citizens can't be trusted to defend themselves from harm.
"A more mature answer than I expected."~ Jakyl25
"Sephy's point is right."~ Inviso

User Info: red sox 777

red sox 777
4 weeks ago#76
Yes, the Second Amendment is about a fundamental distrust for government. Not sure the background check rationale makes sense either. If the right to bear arms is about self-defense, should you lose the right to defend yourself for life just because you are convicted of a crime? How about a conviction for disorderly conduct for participating at a civil rights march? Throwing a snowball at a police officer in middle school?
September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

User Info: Jakyl25

Jakyl25
4 weeks ago#77
Well the counterargument is that a free society is not in society’s best interest and we have to impose limits
Thank you, Eddie Guerrero.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large

User Info: red sox 777

red sox 777
4 weeks ago#78
I will say, I find the law in California (and maybe other states? I don't know what the rules are there) on temporary restraining orders to be very questionable. Right now, you have to turn in your firearms after being served with a temporary restraining order, before the hearing. The problem is that in issuing the TRO, the judge basically assumes everything the person requesting the restraining order says in their pleading is true, figuring that the truth will come out at the hearing.

Well, the truth won't come out at the hearing if the person requesting the restraining order murders you first, knowing that for a period of a couple weeks, you will be disarmed. I suppose in practice most criminals don't think to first apply for TROs against their victims, but they could and this would totally eviscerate the utility of firearms in self-defense.
September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

User Info: ChaosTonyV4

ChaosTonyV4
4 weeks ago#79
Nelson_Mandela posted...

For example, imagine if you are in a rural setting. A mob of people are surrounding your house, ready to drag you out and kill you. You can call 911, but by the time they arrive, you'll already be dead. Your only means of reasonable self-defense will be a semi-automatic weapon to fend off the group. If you don't have the right to own that weapon, you are essentially dead. That's not a free society.


What if you have the right to something, but you can't afford it and end up "essentially dead"? Is that a free society?
Phantom Dust.
"I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado

User Info: Jakyl25

Jakyl25
4 weeks ago#80
That’s an interesting idea

If we have to have the right to defend ourselves from lynch mobs to be considered free, should the government PROVIDE for that freedom by offering guns to those who can’t afford them?
Thank you, Eddie Guerrero.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large
  1. Boards
  2. GameFAQs Contests
  3. Politics Containment Topic 225: Pardon Me For My War Crimes Against Good Titles
  • Topic Closed