I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say I misinterpreted. To know whether or not a kid is transgender is not dependant on what they play with, who they hang out with. I'll say this; You can NOT be transgender UNLESS you have gender dysphoria. That's what separates the ones who are transgender and the ones who are not. I completely agree that before anybody switches their gender, they should make it an informed and not emotional decision. Gender Dysphoria is what leads to all these other mental illnesses, depression, anxiety, etc. Imagine being in a body you hate, not one you just feel self-conscious about. But one that you physically and mentally hate, and one you believe you can't live in. THAT's Gender Dysphoria, THAT's when you get hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery. I also wanna say I completely agree that children under 16 shouldn't be getting treatment, it's something you can't reverse once it's done with. Having hormone therapy and a complete sex change does present a lot of health risks. Some short term, others long term. In my opinion, if somebody believes they NEED a sex change or hormone therapy. Then there should be no reason that we stop them. Regular therapy never makes someone comfortable in their own skin. Having these operations, however, help immensely. (I have multiple friends who are transgender, and once they get TOP surgery or hormones. You can tell it's the best day of their life.)
Just to be clear, I'm not a Doctor or Psychologist or anything like that. But I believe that feeling uncomfortable in your own body isn't right. When someone stops eating and drops down to 60 pounds, we don't tell them "Wow, you look so good! I'm so happy you're finally happy inside your body," or when someone is severely depressed we definitely don't tell them to kill themselves. Those aren't cures, or solutions to the disease. They're the easy way out. The human condition is unique in that we possess the ability to change ourselves from within. When someone is anorexic we try to teach them how to be happy inside their body, rather than unhealthily skinny and malnourished. We don't allow depressed people to continue feeling "sad" (Gross oversimplification, I am aware), we try to teach them how to be happy again. When someone is daignosed with PTSD, they aren't put into a safe space for the rest of their life because the real world isn't safe. They're going to hear fireworks on the 4th of July that remind them of mortars, grenades, RPGs, and the like, and cause them to have an episode. Instead, we try to have these people cope, and that's what "good" mental health is. It's just people managing themselves -- doing the best they can with the sense they have. So, when someone tries to tell me that the sex change operation, or hormone therapy, or what have you is a cure - I have to call bullocks. The cure is being able to say "I wish I was a girl, but I'm not. I can live with that.", just as it would be with someone diagnosed with PTSD saying "I was there. I watched my 2 best friends lose their legs. I sometimes can't sleep at night. But those things happened. I have to try to move forward. I can't be caught in the past anymore (perhaps with the help of medication, PTSD is quite tough.)." Because that's what mental health is about -- living with who you are. Mind you, this is all purely conjecture based on personal experiences, so feel free to mostly ignore this. Just stuff I've learned over the (very few) years I've been around -- I am not an expert in this field.
Gender Dysphoria can never really be fixed. It's just something that can get slightly better. BUT, Gender therapy, reassignment surgery, and hormone replacement therapy. All help. I've been to multiple gatherings and hangouts where someone gets their first shot of T (testosterone). Within months all of those people felt a great amount better about themselves. They started noticing things that they liked, because of the T or the top surgery. I go to therapy for depression and anxiety. Will that ever completely fix those illnesses? I completely doubt that. But will it help treat them? Abso-fucking-lutely. Same goes for all of my friends who are transgender. There will never be a cure for gender dysphoria. But are their treatments? Yes. Those are the treatments. I've seen them work, I've seen people who hate their body. Feel immensely more comfortable with it, maybe not totally. But still a great enough margin.
You're in the same body though, you just either have one sex organ or the other, and it's only skin deep. I know there's also a lot of people who are confused, usually from outside influence, that make them think the gender they are is wrong, is that gender dysphoria as well? how far does it go?
Sounds a bit like the placebo effect, they convince themselves that they NEED the T shot and it will help, and when they get it they can see all the things it did right, but what would happen if you gave them a shot of nothing? (i don't mean an empty needle that will kill them, i just mean make them think they got a shot of T when it's actually nothing).
It isn't placebo due to what they notice being strictly because of the T. I.e, their muscles getting bigger, their jawline more defined, that type of thing. That's what makes them a bit more confident. Giving them a shot of something that is meant to be placebo, however, won't have this effect. Their muscles won't get bigger, their jawline not more defined, their shoulders not broader. It's really the little things you wouldn't expect. If you did give someone who wasn't really transgender a placebo, then you'd notice the effect you just described. In the trans community, these people are usually referred to as "transtrenders." People who only come out as transgender for attention. That's why you can't cure dysphoria. But it's more than just the sex organ like I said above ^ it's those little things that men usually have that make a woman transitioning into a man, more comfortable. There always will be people that have outside influence, that believe they are transgender. But someone who really is transgender is someone who has true dysphoria. Noticing the little "girly" or "feminine" things about their body, that make them hate themselves. It would come down to, how do we separate the ones who truly feel this way or the ones who think they do, but only say it because of attention or some other reason.
I would like to chime in on this thread, but god damn y'all got fired off over this and I don't feel like reading 7 pages of thread. Gun control - Literally the main issue that gets me fired up the most. I'll start by saying, the framers of the constitution were very intelligent people. They anticipated technological advancements, and to argue that the 2nd amendment applies only to firearms of that era, is just absolutely retarded (not sure if that was mentioned in the thread, but it's the most common one). To say that I should not be allowed to own an AR-15 (which many are hell bent on referring to as an assault rifle - wrongly, I might add) because *insertgunsarebadandscaryreasonhere*, it's utter bullshit. The 2nd amendment was not written for the purpose of hunting, it was written to keep the American people armed and free, and provide them with a means to resist and deter tyranny from rearing its ugly head on our soil. Does that/has that still happened? Debatable. It was also written to provide the citizens with a means of self defense, as nobody can deny the human right to defend yourself from a threat on your life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. When you attempt to regulate, control, or outright ban firearms, you begin to chip away, slowly, but surely, the means of the people to protect themselves from those who wish to harm them. There's not a single piece of legislation that can effectively control firearms (but I'd like to add background checks are already mandatory, and should be). You know why? There's a plethora of reasons, but lets start with the largest one. Human ingenuity is damn near limitless. A firearm is nothing more than a pressure-resistant barrel, with a pin used to strike a primer on a round. You can make a shotgun out of 2 pieces of pipe, a cap, and a nail. You can find all sorts of designs and videos on building one yourself (which isn't illegal, if you're allowed to own a weapon). With some basic machining skills, you could build an AR15 yourself, granted the equipment is expensive, but it's doable. There's files on there for CNC machines to build the lower receiver (AKA the actual firearm according to the ATF) and do it on your own. If you ban these weapons, what happens? Same thing as prohibition. You'll open up further an already large market for illegal weapons. Furthermore, you deny the average law abiding citizen to protect themselves from the people who will not follow these laws. Seriously, gun legislation does next to nothing to prevent heinous acts from happening. These people use any means available to commit mass murder. Timothy McVeigh used a rental truck and fertilizer. A man in china used a sword. Criminals in Britain use knives. Many third world countries use explosives, and even acid. This shit gets me heated, stay away from my shooty bois.
As for Trans in the military, it's a bad idea. Trans people have a very high rate of suicide as is. It's scary. Suicide rates in the military are at an all time high. If you take an individual already statistically proven to be prone to suicide, or mental health issues in general and put them into an environment ripe with stress, hazing (in some cases), and general discomfort, what do you think will happen? I'm no Gordon Ramsey, but that doesn't seem like a recipe for success to me. Day to day life in the military sucks. You deal with assholes on the daily, if they're already depressed, its not a good idea for them to be put into a situation that could exacerbate the problem. If you think civilians are mean and un-accepting try and enlist. It's not the greatest. Unit cohesion is one of the most critical areas in the military for mission success. I've met people in my brief (but still alive) career in the military that I'd kill for. However, that doesn't mean they aren't assholes. We make fun of each other daily. We fight. We argue. We despise each other while still keeping the understanding that one day, we might be dependent on the other for something critical. My personal opinion is that honestly, I don't think most trans people would be comfortable, nor be able to handle it. It seems like quite a bit more trouble than its worth to allow them to serve.
As for the rest of my opinons: Legalize weed, there's really no point in keeping it illegal Trump isn't that bad, he really needs to work on his public speaking though Illegal immigration - make the path to citizenship easier as we want legal immigrants with valuable skills and work ethics, but vet them very well. Increase border security and crack down on ILLEGAL immigration Trump 2020 - The only way I'd vote for him in 2020 is if A, the libertarian candidate is trash again, and B) if the republicans nominate him again as opposed to someone better Border wall - Could potentially be a step in the right direction, but a wall is a wall. There's ways around it. Democratic nominees - Hell will likely freeze over before I see a democrat worth voting for. It's not impossible, and I'm not opposed to voting for one that I feel truly puts American interests first, but with what the democrats have been spewing and producing lately, I don't think it's happening. Feminism - Was once needed, but now females are equal and modern day feminism is essentially (in my personal opinion, as all of my posts are) doing more harm than good, and creating negative connotations with feminism. It's also more often than not associated with socialism. Capitalism vs Socialism - Really? Why is this a thing? Capitalism creates a profit incentive which basically drives our economy. Why should I work harder than the guy next to me if at the end of the day we're ending up with the same results? The profit incentive drives innovation in technology, it drives work ethic and productivity, and it drives many other things. When you remove that (or severely limit that), you kill any reasons people have to set themselves above the norm. Don't come at me with that BS talking about CEOs make too much money and Burger McFlipper at your fast food joint down the street doesn't get paid enough. There's a million ways to make a buck, its Elon Musk's fault that the man couldn't learn any valuable skills and now he's stuck working a dead end job. Another beautiful thing about capitalism, he can always find a better paying job somewhere else. As for specific politicians. F*** Hillary Clinton, can't believe she's still being considered as a presidential candidate, Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi are retarded, Obama was not a great president and it astounds me he's paraded as such. Bernie Sanders is a batshit crazy, but I do genuinely believe he does mean well. He's pursuing a just cause by unreasonable means, in my opinion. He should practice what he preaches, though. Maybe learn a thing or two about economics. Wouldn't vote for him in a million years.
My phrasing with that was bad and should have clarified. I'm against the people who find it acceptable for people to say that it is "ok and normal" to be transgender and to not do anything about the symptoms
Being transgender isn't the cure, its the problem. It isn't normal to associate yourself with the other sex because you "feel out of place". It is a chemical imbalance specified in the study I reviewed (and cited in my original post). Search other studies and you will see abnormal genotypes. The cause of being transgender is mass hysteria and abnormal genotypes and the solution is hormone therapy that increases the hormones of their sex along with regular psychiatric evaluations and meetings with them to cope with being transgender along with slowly transitioning them back to a normal mental state. Also for further research in how to prevent this. The best way to prevent mental illnesses like this is to prevent it from occurring. Encourage them to seek out a psychologist if they begin to start thinking about this and explain their life situation. We can help before they experience the onset of symptoms being transgender brings with it. I'm for these people getting help; I want to help them. I'm just not for embracing the idea that we should give them hormones of the opposite sex when they already have enough chemical imbalances. When we do so, we create the idea more that they are the opposite sex; they aren't. Your born a boy, you're a boy. Not a girl. Chemical imbalances affect your perception of how you feel about being yourself which we must help.
Couple of things: 1. Background checks are mandatory if you go through a licensed dealer, however, if you go to a gun show you can get a gun without a background check because the person is usually instigating a private purchase. Understandably, some private salesman do background checks. Even background checks (and I know, i'm arguing your point, but it is a problem nonetheless) aren't perfect. Many times background checks come back clean despite obvious issues with the individual. 2. The constitutional argument is limiting because it neglects the fact that we can change the constitution. "Well, you can't pass gun legislation because the constitution says so" "what if we change the constitution" "f u c k" 3. I will give you a bit of a bone here: The constitution, and the framers, could not have anticipated machine guns. I'm sorry but, no. That being said, they didn't really give too much articulation to the 2nd amendment, and left it largely open to interpretation. MOST historians believe that the idea was to allow for militias, and by extension, people's right to own guns. Back then Militias were not very organized, so people would often times have guns in their homes and be prepared to fight at a moments notice. So, the supreme court has ruled throughout history that your right to own a gun is contextualized by what is necessary to have a militia. It is why the supreme court ruled that having sawed off shotguns served no practical usage in a Militia, and why they were able to outlaw it. I'd personally blame the NRA for changing people's interpretation of the constitution. You could honestly argue it any way you want, no answer is right or wrong if we were solely looking at historical context. I think the argument here is that we shouldn't give so much credibility to the founding fathers when they did not foresee these issues becoming a problem. They gave us the power to change the constitution so that we may use that power to keep the constitution relevant. 4. One thing that has remained clear throughout history is that the 2nd amendment does not give you the right to rebel against a tyrannical government. There are so many examples, but i'll stick to two of them: Whiskey's Rebellion and The Civil War. The reason Militias were so prevalent was because of the threat of foreign invasion (Britain to the north, France to the west and Spain to the south). Regardless, it is a moot point. 5. Do you suspect that you can hold off against a drone strike? IF the government became tyrannical you'd be fucked. 6. While I can build a bomb, while I could use a truck, while I could build a gun, the easiest method to murder people seems to be guns. They are the easiest for people to get because of two reasons: 1) There are a lot of them 2) the vetting process sucks dick. Obviously, if I want to kill people, guns are the quickest and easiest way for me to do it. It is just an undeniable fact that we have a gun problem in these united states. While I'm trying to figure out practical solutions that will satisfy everyone, you (and so many other conservative types) want to insist that there is no problem. We have the highest gun suicide rates, the highest gun homicide rates among high income countries. 7. Doesn't it increase your chances of dying if you are armed and you come face to face with a burglar? If he sees that you are armed, he will not hesitate to shoot. In the words of Jim Jefferies "They just want your shit". 8. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness are not legal defenses for anything and not rights according to the US code. I can't go and shoot my neighbor because it would make me happy. I can't rise against the government because it would give me liberty. Death penalty and abortions are pretty strong indicators that the state doesn't really value life. 9. Keep your AR buddy, I don't really care. Now let me tell you what I want so you can stop worrying about the boogie man that wants to take your guns (I highlighted the ones in red that I believe to be the most extreme. I'd understand if you disagreed with those ones): 1. Comprehensive background checks for all gun sales (Close the gunshow loophole) 2. Improve background checks so they are more accurate 3. Restrict people from buying a gun if they have a gun offense on their record 4. Restrict the amount of guns and ammunition a person can buy at a single time (we can all agree that you don't need thousands of boxes of ammo and 50 guns at a single time) 5. Require weight times for guns (This one to limit the amounts of suicides that occur) 6. Increase the purchasing age to 21 7. Require all gun owners to be certified in hunter safety or a similar weapon's safety course (to be allowed by the age of 10) 8. Require valid reason for wanting to purchase a gun (home defense, Hunting, target shooting, etc.) 9. Creating a gun registry so the federal government can track who has the guns 10. Allow the federal government to create no buy lists (lists where individuals are not allowed to buy guns because of a high likely hood that they will commit crime) (I would even write into this one that there can be an appeals process) 11. Require citizenship for firearms purchasing 11. Ammend the 2nd Amendment to the following: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed. By extension, any person may own a gun for reasonable means, and Congress shall not pass any legislation that bars people from using firearms in the context of a Militia." NOTICE: I AM NOT FOR ANY BLANKET BANS ON ANY FIREARMS EXCEPT FOR AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. My family owns guns and I totally respect people's right to own them. There are certain uses for firearms (in this case, hunting) that are beneficial. Can you agree with any of these, or are we doomed to continue the constant cycle of perpetual gun violence?
1. Comprehensive background checks for all gun sales is something I don't think any reasonable person would debate. 2. I think it depends on how you'd propose to make them more accurate, but it's not a bad idea 3. This one is pretty vague. I'd say more so along the lines of a violent crime, not necessarily a gun charge. 4. No, I can't get on board with this one. Some people have more time and money to pursue their hobbies than others. I think this one is just absurd. 5. A wait time wouldn't prevent suicides, if someone is bent on killing themselves, there's rope in hardware stores, bridges and tall buildings everywhere, a gun doesn't change much. 6. Why? What purpose does this serve? 7. Weapons safety is absurdly simple, and seeing how its a right acknowledged in the constitution, when you require things, that sort of infringes on it 8. No, "valid reasons" is what gets many people denied CCWs in many places. In most CA counties, you won't get your CCW unless you know someone important, and they use the premise of good cause to ensure this. It's BS 9. As paranoid as it sounds, registries open up for confiscation, and even if it was passed, there's no way to track the hundreds of millions of guns owned privately. 10. Again, seems too easy to exploit. 11. You don't need a reasonable means. They're fun, it's a valid hobby and sport. They're not toys, of course. Don't misconstrue what I'm saying. As you stated, the 2nd amendment does not give you the right to rebel against your government. The 2nd amendment gives no rights. It merely acknowledges the rights we were born with. The right to rebel against your government is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, though. "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." And no, it would be pretty damn hard to hold off against drone strikes, but the second the government starts bombing its own citizens, its lost its support. You'd have all sorts of foreign intervention. It's not an impossible concept, but its meant as a last ditch effort. There is indeed a problem in our country, but I don't believe the root of the problem is firearms. I think firearms are a means to an end. Mental health is likely the cause, but I'm sure there's much more. For the record, guns are not faster nor more effective than explosives, but I feel that's not as relevant
My boii here is woke asf. While I can see where you come from tho I’m far more libertarian on guns. Any gun law is an infringement.
I will go back and try to respond to the more important topics I addressed in my earlier posts that were replied to, but for now I want to weigh in on what @Pacifist is saying on guns. Bottom line, and one that you have to realize in order for the following facts I will state to make sense is this: gun violence is not a problem in the USA, or anywhere. Crime and violence itself, are the problems. To single out gun violence betrays either monumental ignorance or an agenda, with the latter being more likely. 1. Background checks are an unnecessary burden on the law abiding American citizen and haven't accomplished the things their advocates have harped on and on that they would. The reason is that a criminal that wouldn't be able to pass a background check would acquire his weapon though illegal means, including private sales, even if we passed a law requiring a BC on private sales. The reason is because HE IS A CRIMINAL, HE DOESN'T OBEY THE LAW, INCLUDING THOSE REQUIRING HIM TO PASS A BACKGROUND CHECK! The definition of insanity is doing something over and over expecting to get a new result, i.e the one you want, when it has never happened. You are stupid, STUPID, if you think passing more laws requiring people to pass background checks to acquire firearms will actually keep criminals from getting firearms. They don't obey laws. All this would do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to be armed. The criminal will always find way to circumvent these laws. That's why we still have crime! We have more laws than any nation has ever had, and we still haven't legislated crime out of existence. Furthermore, all the high profile shootings in recent US history were carried out with either stolen firearms, or those acquired AFTER THE LATER SHOOTER PASSED A BACKGROUND CHECK, with the majority being the latter! How about that! Your background check green-lighted him! Remember what we just said about insanity? These people previously had clean records, so the background check was powerless to stop them. Every time a shooting has happened, the "progressives" wet themselves screaming for more BCs and bans, but they cannot show how those would at all have helped to prevent the shooting. And there is no such thing as a "gunshow loophole". There is no evidence that a criminals are buying guns at gunshows, but we do know that most guns used in crime are simply stolen, and in many cases were obtained legally, after passing a background check, by the criminal. At any rate, the right of two citizens to enter into a private sale, is not something to be infringed upon, especially when focusing on guns is not the answer. 2. Just because we can change the Constitution doesn't mean we should. It is just as relevant today as it was in 1789. You will disagree with me, but, once again, there are these things that are called right and wrong. Those are eternal, they don't "evolve" or become "irrelevant". That every person should be unhindered in possessing tools giving him the power to safeguard his life against those who would do violence against it, and that we are capable of keeping our government in check is right, and will always be relevant. 3. This is a stupid argument, made by many. There were early machine guns at the time of the Founders, in use in combat. But that is beside the point. They didn't specify in the 2nd Amendment that "the right to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed", they said "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". They wrote it this way because they were not stupid. They knew technology would advance, they didn't have a specific set of arms in mind, the point is that the people will always be free to keep and bear the arms equivalent to those their national military might possess. Don't be ridiculous and say, "Then why don't you want to buy a nuke?", that is unattainable because of cost, but also unnecessary. And I would give the men who built this country a lot more credit than you, who think we should try to change right and wrong, and make it harder for law abiding citizens to safeguard themselves and their families and make it easier for a tyrannical government to enslave them. If you have a problem with that, there are plenty of countries that have your views already set in policy. Have fun, I'll send you a card. 4. This means nothing. Without going into the exact details of the two incidents you cited, that is no conclusion that the people were not in the right to challenge the government, especially on the Whiskey Rebellion, which was about taxation. I don't say this because I am saying they were right, I am not well read on that incident, but your statement is not a real argument. The Civil War is its own can of worms. 5. This is one of the most stupid things a person could say in challenge to the 2nd Amendment. The point isn't whether or not a citizen has the financial means to be able to defeat a drone, the point is that there will be no law preventing him from doing so. And the ideal thing would be the National Guard of each state being returned solely to the command of the state, not under Federal jurisdiction. That was their original intent, and since the Guards have come under federal control, they have ceased to be the "militia" spoken of in the Constitution. Furthermore, the point is that if every citizen is armed with a combat weapon, if the government was ever become so tyrannical that they did use a drone on their own people, the people would be capable of breaking down the door and shooting the bastards. More on this point later. 6. This also means nothing at all. The vetting process for knives is even worse, btw, not that it even matters. The bottom line is firearms are a tool, nothing more. They can be used in illegal violence against a person, yes. So what? It is a tool. You don't ban cars in response to drunk driving deaths, you ban drunk driving. Firearms are no different. We don't have a problem with guns, we have a problem with crime, as does every nation on earth, but we are not going to solve that by banning tools. This is wrong, and will only result in another tool of choice arising. The UK banned most firearms under most circumstances. Now they have an epidemic of knife crime, so now they are banning knives! Where will it end? These are band-aids, treating superficial items instead of curing the illness. And the criminals, WHO DON"T OBEY THE LAWS, will still find guns to use if they desire. There are still people being shot to death in the UK. And in Australia, which banned private firearm ownership almost entirely, there is still a huge amount of violent crime with a firearm, because the criminals still get guns, even though the rest of the citizenry obey the law and don't try to obtain them. Comparing our crime with guns in the USA to other nations is stupid and pointless, because the firearm is only a tool. The UK and France, for example, have a growing problem with violent crime, especially in their urban areas, comparable to the US. In the UK, knife and acid attacks are skyrocketing. It doesn't matter what the tool used is, the point is the violent crime is there, period. Address crime, not the tools used to commit it, which is an exercise in futility. Banning alcohol only made it a more profitable business. Banning drugs has not stopped the same from happening there. It is guaranteed the same would happen with firearms. For the same reason that a firearm is used in crime to a large degree, because it is a useful and effective tool, it must also be unrestricted in its availability to the law abiding citizenry, so they can make use of it to defend themselves from crime. In all states and cities that loosen their gun laws, followed by a larger percentage of the population keeping and bearing arms, crime reduces. More guns truly does equal less crime. And it is our God given right to defend ourselves, and the right to do so with a firearm is protected in our constitution. So, restricting guns will always be wrong, no matter how different the situation may look. 7. This could be a matter of opinion; if you want to be face to face with someone looking to rob or assault you and be unarmed, be my guest. I don't want that. And the facts prove you wrong, because we know more guns equals less crime. This means that criminals are less likely to even confront you, because they know there is a good chance you are armed and ready to put an end to them. Even the CDC admits that there are far, far more incidents per year in this country of firearms being used to stop crime, than a firearm being used to commit a crime. This number is in the millions higher. We don't have solid stats, because more often than not these incidents go undocumented or unreported. Furthermore, some crime isn't even about "stuff", it's about someone wanting someone else dead, and if you are that someone, you had better have a gun with you, because in that moment it is up to you to save yourself. The police are going to arrive ten minutes after you are dead otherwise. 8. Yes and no. Those three things are what our law code is supposed to be oriented around, even though in this day and age we have lost sight of the ideals and principles in law, was well as basic right and wrong, that our Founders held sacred. The analogy of shooting your neighbor is stupid, because that is simply wrong, and isn't true liberty. True freedom is the freedom to do what is right, not just whatever you want. The death sentence is true justice. Abortion is truly wrong, which is another example of how we have lost sight of right and wrong.
PT 2 @Pacifist On to your wants: 1 & 2: we already know how background checks are useless and only an infringement, so no. 3. If a person is convicted of murder or harming another person, they should be executed or in prison, so this would be a moot point. For any crime that is non-violent, that had no direct intent to harm or kill others, no. 4. No. This is an infringement. You don't get to tell me how much property I can own. And it isn't even relevant in the realm of addressing crime. 5. No. This wouldn't help at all and would only be an infringement. They will kill themselves with something else or simply wait until they receive the firearm. 6. Absolutely not. What you are saying in essence is, "Let's make everyone younger than this, but not still directly under their parents care defenseless." In our day and age, we do have a problem with people who are immature and not set to handle serious responsibilities, but that is a societal problem we need to address, not a gun problem. 7. YES. We should require people to train and to be proficient. Schools in this country used to teach safe firearms handling and marksmanship, and we had less accidental deaths as a result! This is because people, particularly young people, were familiar with firearm safety, and firearms in general, so they weren't so curious about them and didn't do stupid things. 8. No. This is an infringement. We don't need to justify our rights. This is also wide open to corruption and abuse. 9. No. This is an infringement at very best and, more realistically, a directly tyrannical and criminal move, as it would allow a malicious government to start targeting gun owners. There is no good reason for it that would outweigh the tremendous danger to privacy and the right to keep and bear arms. 10. No, for the same reasons as 8 & 9. 11. I agree, as you should be a citizen to do anything in this country. 12. No. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is what brings the militia into existence. We ARE the militia. And the National Guard could only truly be that militia if it is under the sole control of the individual state, not at the beck and call of the federal powers. What we should have, in addition to every citizen keeping and bearing a combat grade firearm, is regular training, and at every local armory the warfighting equipment necessary to defeat the "drone attack" that you worry about and more. On the note of a "tyrannical government" and the true nature of the push for "gun control": it is an agenda to disarm the people. We can prove that it is not about "reducing gun crime" because, except for in the minds of very ignorant, firearms are tools, and in crime, we need to address the motives and the perpetrator, not the means, not the tool. So, the only other purpose for hindering the acquisition of firearms by law abiding citizens, the restriction of their right to bear them, etc., is to disarm the populace in order to more easily control them. It is item number one on the to do list of any tyrant. A disarmed people can't stop you from acting against them. Stalin did it, Pol Pot did it, Mao did it, and the list goes on and on. And don't think for a second that it could not happen here. The people who brought these Communists to power thought they were being liberated, that they were making progress. They didn't foresee the deaths of millions and millions under tyranny. That is not a risk we will take in this country. And this push for our disarmament speaks volumes of the power that we hold in the possession of these simple firearms, what a threat to tyranny that poses. We must keep these teeth. And you can call me loony, say I am a "conspiracy theorist" wearing a tin foil hat. But, in truth, if you are blind to these things, you are a sheeple with the wool already pulled over your eyes. One thing we must also do is outlaw the "gun free zone", which is lunacy and a death sentence to those within it. Every, EVERY mass shooting in recent US history has occurred within a "gun free zone". Why? Because the perpetrator knows that his victims will have disarmed themselves in accordance with the law, which he is about to break, and that he will be unchallenged, unhindered, he will not face the danger of someone returning fire. Those within a "gun free zone" are sitting ducks. If our schools allowed the carry of firearms within, we would not have single mass shooting. Because firearms are such powerful tools, both for good and for evil, is why we must focus on making sure good, law abiding citizens are not hindered in keeping and bearing them. That is why we must loosen gun restrictions. You will cry, "But that will make it easier for criminals to get guns!" Yes. It will. But we will never be able to fully control that, no matter what we do, because they will break any law we can pass. We must focus not on disarming the lawbreakers, but on arming the law abiding. That is what will level the playing field, and ensure the greatest safety that we can achieve. Our politicians, including the Democrats, don't rely on laws and "gun free zones" to keep themselves safe. They have armed bodyguards, because that is the only thing that works. Why would we disadvantage any of our other citizens? Are they not as worthy as our politicians of actually functional protection?
No victim no crime. Exactly. Gun free zones is the craziest thing known to man, thank god going into a gun free zone with a CCW (that isn’t a government building) is only considered trespassing if you are caught.
4. I'm not denying anyone the right to have a hobby, what I mean to say is that you shouldn't be allowed to purchase a lot of fire arms at one time. Like, more than 10 guns at once. Or more than 5000 rounds of ammunition. 5. You're right. I'm talking specifically about gun related suicides. What I mean is that the weight time may give them some time to calm down and think about it. Anything that MAY help someone draw out that terrible time in their life is better than a quick and easy death. 6. Raising the age to 21 just ensures that people are more mature when they buy guns. This isn't always the case, but it would make sense. 7. Ok, well they require you to take classes with the sheriffs department (at least where I live) in order to get a pistol, so why is that allowed? 8. How is this such a bad thing? If you don't have a good reason for owning a gun, why should one be given to you? I would define good reasons as hunting, target practice, home defense, etc. IF it isn't reasonable for you to own an AR-15, why should you be allowed to have one? 9. Yes. They do. That is the fucking point haha. It would help if the FBI knew who had guns, and who was purchasing guns erratically. Think about how many mass shootings could be prevented if the FBI monitored gun sales more effeciently. 10. Dude, most things can be exploited. That is why I added an appeals process. 11. They're fun, but the constitution is very vague about them. This whole argument is unfavorably leveraged against gun control. The people are not allowed to decide what THEY want because of it. IF the vast majority of people vote that gun control is necessary, why shouldn't it be implemented? I get it. You like guns. Hell, I like guns too. I own 5 bolt action rifles, 4 crossbows, a handgun and a few shotguns. I am not saying that taking away guns is a good thing, but it is necessary to protect school children and people who just want to have a good time at a nightclub. Also, a bomb is much harder to build and operate than a fucking rifle.
