CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
We need mental evaluations to get a gun? excellent...
1)The left tells us that we need mental evaluations in order to purchase a firearm.
2)The left tells us it's evil to ban transgenders from the military.
Okay, I'm game.
A man walks into a psychologist's office to do a mental exam to get a gun. He's wearing a pink ballerina suit, wearing makeup and masscara, and thinks he's a woman. Can he pass a leftist mental exam to get a gun, and if yes, then why have the exam?
If no... a man walks into a miltary recruitment office wearing a pink ballerina suit, wearing makeup and masscara, and thinks he's a woman. Shall we give him a military grade machine gun?
Oh this story's just dripping with irony Bronto...dripping...with irony....
You may have hit on a real solution when you wrote: Giving everyone firearms is probably not a good idea though. You gotta work for yer gun. That in itself weeds out some crazies, right?
I don't know if it would weed out the industrious crazy folks. At the very least, however, the requirement to work would weed out most of the irresponsible entitlement jockeys as a first cut prior to other screening.
-- 1 -- Crazy people owning guns may not be as encompassing a problem as unemployed people owning guns.
Face it, the vast majority of homicides with guns are not committed by people who are merely/only crazy or terrorists. The largest category of homicides are committed by unemployed people who are involved in other criminal activities (robbery, selling drugs and stolen gods, gang banging, etc..) This is the problem in Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, LA, etc. ad nauseum.
-- 2 -- Welfare programs are centered on giving things to people who do not demonstrate the most basic requirements for responsible gun ownership.
Being on welfare demonstrates (at least temporarily) that such people are:
-- Not responsible enough to support themselves.
-- Not being held accountable for their own actions, choices, and needs.
-- Not contributing to the greater good.
-- Not demonstrating sufficient mental competence to navigate the most basic requirements of our society.
-- More likely to feel a sense of unearned entitlement.
-- 3 -- It is a VERY bad idea for people who feel entitled to being supported by others to have a gun. That sense of entitlement to what others earned (even though they receive it via taxation, which is enforced by the government's guns) is likely to correspond with a belief that it is okay to take something (whether property or life) they did not earn through violence or threat thereof.
-- 4 -- If the only people who have jobs can own guns, then we can be more confident that they meet those requirements of responsibility, accountability, and mental competence, which are the core of what we want background checks to show us.
-- They believe in working for what they want, not just taking it (or gambling for it.)
-- They have other things to do (like work) instead of robbery, selling drugs and stolen gods, gang banging, etc..
-- They have demonstrated, at least at a basic level (through some sort of participation in a cooperative endeavor or contribution to greater good) a commitment to take part in aspects of society that center on responsibility and accountability, and that require mental competence.
Face it, the vast majority of homicides with guns are not committed by people who are merely/only crazy or terrorists. The largest category of homicides are committed by unemployed people who are involved in other criminal activities (robbery, selling drugs and stolen gods, gang banging, etc..) This is the problem in Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, LA, etc. ad nauseum.
I think you need to face that capitalism is the cause of the large gaps in wealth and opportunity which tempt entire sections of the population into crime. It isn't a coincidence that the problem of crime can't be solved. It's because nobody in a position of power wants to tackle the inequality which is the root cause, because that same inequality is the source of their power.
I think you need to face that capitalism is the cause of the large gaps in wealth and opportunity
It is TOTALLY TRUE that capitalism causes large gaps in wealth.
Without capitalism, EVERYBODY WOULD BE POOR.
By poor I do not mean the living-in-a-government-apartment-in-a-ghetto-and-getting-food-stamps kind of poor.
I mean the rag-covered, perpetually-on-the-verge-of-starvation, half-of-people-die-before-they-are 5-years-old type of destitution that is that natural state of all humans for the same reason it is the natural state of all animals.
-- -- Capitalism is why starvation and dysentery are no longer the primary cause of death in any part of the world.
-- -- Capitalism is why those "poor" criminals in inner city gangs have shoes and cars and smart phones.
-- -- Capitalism is why there is any money to fund the social welfare programs.
-- -- Capitalism is why there is some much wealth in the US that bottom 40% of earners in the US pay no income taxes, and why most of them get services they never have to pay for or work for, including welfare, education and Earned Income Credit cash payments.
-- -- Capitalism is why there is so much wealth in the US that the top 10% of earners pay more than 50% of all taxes.
Inequality is not the root cause of crime. Criminals not being willing to work for what they want or need is the primary cause of the crime. 98% of people who go to school, pay attention, graduate, get jobs, and don't have kids until they are married go on to join the middle class before they are 50.
The only ones who stay "poor" are the lazy, irresponsible, or criminal folks.
That's a ridiculously false statement which you cannot produce an iota of support for and which directly contradicts the historical record. Was everybody poor when we used feudalism? No. There was a rich population of land barons and a poor population of peasants. Statements like this prove that your belief in capitalism has crossed the line into pure religion.
I mean the rag-covered, perpetually-on-the-verge-of-starvation, half-of-people-die-before-they-are 5-years-old type of destitution that is that natural state of all humans for the same reason it is the natural state of all animals.
And yet, for seventy years, a union which was not capitalist was one of the only two superpowers on the planet. Your delusional scare tactics in which you prophesy apocalypse and ruin should we shy away from a system which rewards the exploitation of people reminds me of something from the middle ages. Convert to Christianity or burn in hell because Christianity is the one true faith. How is what you are arguing any different?
It seems like you are trying to conflate the Holodomor (a purposeful effort by Stalin to commit genocide) with the actual effects of Soviet Communism on poverty. Liars like you do this a lot. You simply love distorting facts so that they read backwards. Please do explain in detail your theory that taking a country's wealth from the hands of a few select elitists and redistributing it among the entire population causes the population to starve, you idiotic, backward Conservative cretin.
How succesful was the Soviet Union at ending extreme poverty (post-Stalin)?
The short answer is that the Soviet Union was extremely good at eliminating extreme poverty. The long answer is that they were extremely good at eliminating extreme poverty without actually solving it.
I'll be absolutely honest. The constant efforts of Conservatives to turn black into white irritate the living fuck out of me. Everything which is a demonstrable problem with pyramid systems, such as poverty, crime and homelessness, you mythologise to be a product of Communism. You are a lying idiot, Winston. It's as simple as that. Look at your own statistics, not under Stalin, but right now!!
About 15 million children in the United States – 21% of all children – live in families with incomes below the federal poverty threshold, a measurement that has been shown to underestimate the needs of families. Research shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice that level to cover basic expenses
So 15 million children in America are living in extreme poverty at this very moment and you are throwing mud at 1950s Soviet Russia? You are flat out a joke, Winston.
"It seems like you are trying to conflate the Holodomor (a purposeful effort by Stalin to commit genocide) with the actual effects of Soviet Communism on poverty."
Right, because the Holodomor was the only time that mass starvation occurred in the Soviet Union, except of course for all the other times (Source 1,2). Also, these are only the mass starvations, there were people starving throughout the entirety of the Soviet Union's existence. Also, note that purposeful genocidal mass starvation is only possible if control of agriculture is centralized to the extent that it is under communism.
Right, because the Holodomor was the only time that mass starvation occurred in the soviet union
It was the only time that "tens of millions starved" simultaneously under Soviet Communism, which is the claim you used to attack Communism with. Please stop changing what you said after the fact you dishonest little scuzzbucket.
Sources
Yeah cool, you silly little bigot. I notice you seem to have missed this one out:-
RESEARCHER: FAMINE KILLED 7 MILLION IN U.S. DURING “GREAT DEPRESSION"
"It was the only time that "tens of millions starved" simultaneously under Soviet Communism, which is the claim you used to attack Communism with. Please stop changing what you said after the fact you dishonest little scuzzbucket."
Where exactly did I suggest that they died simultaneously?
"Yeah cool, you silly little bigot. I notice you seem to have missed this one out:- RESEARCHER: FAMINE KILLED 7 MILLION IN U.S. DURING “GREAT DEPRESSION" Famine killed 7 million people in USA"
Actually, that study merely suggests a 8.5Mn population deficit in expected population growth between 1931-1940 (controlling for net emigration is why 7Mn is cited), with no cause empirically supported or investigated. The U.S. population actually grew by more than 10Mn between 1930-1940 (Source 1). Interestingly enough, mortality didn't increase during the great depression (Source 2,3), contrary to what would be expected if a mass starvation were occurring.
"Orwell considered doublethink to be a feature of Soviet-style totalitarianism, as reflected in this statement from a speech by Joseph Stalin: We are for the withering away of the state, and at the same time we stand for the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which represents the most powerful and mighty of all forms of the state which have existed up to the present day. The highest development of the power of the state, with the object of preparing the conditions of the withering away of the state: that is the Marxist formula. Is it "contradictory"? Yes, it is "contradictory." But this contradiction is a living thing and wholly reflects the Marxist dialectic."
Was everybody poor when we used feudalism? No. There was a rich population of land barons and a poor population of peasants. Statements like this prove that your belief in capitalism has crossed the line into pure religion.
The standard of living of the "rich" royalty and nobility of Feudal would have qualified them as destitute by modern American -standards.
Most feudal nobles had little to no access to fresh fruits and vegetables--limited primarily to roots like turnips and beets out of season, and to wild berries and grapes in season (3-4 months out of the year) Citrus was available almost exclusively to those in southern Europe.
By contrast, modern Americans who live below the "poverty line" have year-round access to a far wider variety of fresh fruits and vegetables that they can afford (even if only one or two servings/week) Than medieval kings could access over the course of their entire lives.
This is the result of capitalism applied to farming through the investment into development, production, and sale of new varieties of crops, pest control, and storage and distribution methods. Included in this are the capitalists who invested in the development, production, and distribution of oil, steel, and the automotive/tractor and farm machinery used to boost food production and distribution to such a degree that food is cheap enough that obesity is one of the major health risks of the bottom income level. "Children living below the federal household poverty level have an obesity rate 2.7 times higher (27.4 percent) than children living in households exceeding 400 percent of the federal poverty level." (https://stateofobesity.org/socioeconomics-obesity/)
Was everybody poor when we used feudalism? No. There was a rich population of land barons and a poor population of peasants. Statements like this prove that your belief in capitalism has crossed the line into pure religion.
The people at the top of the feudal hierarchy had standards of living that would qualify them as the poorest of the non-homeless poor in modern America.
Feudal kings did not have running water (hot or cold) or indoor waste disposal systems. Neither did they have access to basic technologies like radios, watches, electric clocks, telephones, computers, all of which are products designed, made, and distributed by capitalists through the free market. By that standard, Medieval royalty during feudal times were poor by modern definitions, despite being better off than the even poorer peasants and serfs.
One of the most basic modern indicators poverty is not having indoor plumbing. It was not until the Tremont Hotel installed indoor plumbing system in the 1820s, complete with running fresh water and water closets. The Astor House did the same within a decade. Capitalists made these investments in engineering and installation into these businesses.
Subsequent capitalists invested in the expense of installing these and later systems in their buildings by hiring other people who invested capital in businesses that designed and installed such systems, and it was capitalists who invested in the production and sales of the materials like pipe, fixtures that now make up some of the wealth, (undreamed of in feudal Europe) that are standard in the homes of quote-unquote poor people in Europe and the US. By the 1940s this was even standard in rural America. Because of capitalism, modern plumbing (unavailable to feudal kings) is absolutely standard in the concentrations of so-called "poverty" in inner city America.
Another basic measure of poverty is ownership in a household of a working telephone, a clock and a radio. These are in the possession of or available to everyone below the so-called poverty line in the US. In fact, FEMA designates these as basic requirements in every home, and they are made available to everyone in the US, regardless of ability to pay. That is some of what the FEMA and HHS budgets, and those extra taxes on your phone bill pay for.
Design, manufacture and distribution of these were the results of capitalists investing in businesses that made it possible for even poor people to own these in the Americas, Europe, most of Asia, and most of Africa. Smartphones, also products of capitalism, are now standard worldwide.
In fact, smartphones are so common that they are the basis of rural banking systems throughout Africa. None of these or their analogs were available to medieval kings, and radios and telephones were unavailable to anyone prior to the mid-19th century.
So yes, even though there were radically different levels of poverty in Feudal Europe, EVERYBODY, land barons included, were poorer and had lower standards of living than all the poor people (except the homeless) in the modern US.
The people at the top of the feudal hierarchy had standards of living that would qualify them as the poorest of the non-homeless poor in modern America.
They were living in the 13th century you idiotic twat.
Yes, and the 7th and the 8th, and the 9th, and the 10th, and the 11th, and the 12th, and the 14th, and the 15th, and the 16th.
You asked if everyone was poor under feudalism and then gave the incorrect answer. I do not know if this is because I explained it poorly, or because your knowledge and understanding are too limited when it comes to economics, history, and what is actually entailed in modern poverty.
The fact is that everyone was poor by the objective standards we use today, as I demonstrated, despite the fact that you do not seem to have understood the explanations of the standards, how they apply, nor how capitalism has raised the minimum standard of living in the US to far above the maximum standard of living in medieval Europe.
After living for 6 years between half and three-quarters of the poverty line income level, and two just below it, I can vouch for how much that actually is and how well a person can or cannot actually live without receiving public assistance.
This isn't based on some envy-ridden leftist theory, but on personal experience of absolute (as opposed to comparative) realities.
First Reality is that actual poverty is not comparative. Either a person has enough to meet one's actual needs or one does not. Period.
Second Reality is that actual poverty consists of not eating enough every day, not having shelter, not having clean water, not having a way to stay warm, not having clothes and a way to clean them, not getting essential medical care. Anything above that is actual and honest-to-god riches. In all those 8 years, I never had too little to eat, or even any uncertainty that I would eat the next day. I had better medical care available to me over-the-counter than any medieval king ever got. (Neosporin, aspirin, and Peptobismal are at the core of modern quality of life.)
Third Reality is that envy and ingratitude are the follies that make such wealth feel like poverty. Moreover, envy and ingratitude can make any degree of wealth feel like poverty.
And you tried to deceive people with false definitions of "rich" and "poor", like all Conservatives do every time the issue of poverty gets raised!!
Being rich is not about how much you have, but rather about how much you have compared to everybody else. Hence, yes, people who drank from tin goblets and chased their own dinner were once considered rich, because the rest of the population was eating its own shit. Being rich is a relative condition not an absolute condition. A person living in the 21st century is not relatively richer than their 13th century counterparts simply because technology has evolved and now they have a TV set.
Nothing infuriates me more than a dickhead who wants to pretend capitalism is responsible for technological evolution.
And you tried to deceive people with false definitions of "rich" and "poor", like all Conservatives do every time the issue of poverty gets raised!!
There was never any deception. All along, I clearly stated what my definition is. We disagree about the pertinent definitions is all.
Your definition is Being rich is not about how much you have, but rather about how much you have compared to everybody else.
There are some problems with using your definition:
-- Problem -- The most obvious problem with using a comparative, rather than an absolute definition of poverty is that the markers must be redefined every time the topic changes from one society or time period to another. Moreover, it makes it awkward, to compare the prosperity of individuals or groups in different times with individuals or groups in other times. It is much easier to use a single, criteria-referenced definition for all societies and situations.
-- Example-- In a pervasively low-resource society/period, it designates as rich those people who are starving to death more slowly than everyone else. This introduces the oxymoron of "starving rich people" which would be avoided by using a static, and criteria-referenced definition of poverty.
-- Example-- In a pervasively high-resource society, it designates people as poor who have more than they could possibly use only because the surfeit they have is a less than others.
-- Problem -- In any society, a relativistic definition of poverty disregards the difference between need and want. The distinction between the two is critical for setting both personal and societal priorities.
-- Problem -- A relativistic definition not only encourages, but legitimizes envy.
It isn't a coincidence that the problem of crime can't be solved. It's because nobody in a position of power wants to tackle the inequality which is the root cause, because that same inequality is the source of their power.
Really? Then why do the majority of poor people NOT commit crime?
This is typical example of the liberal desire to relieve individuals from responsibility for their own actions. The lamentable mantra of the left is "The root cause crime cannot possibly be that some people would rather ignore the law and take part in criminal activities with high risk of violence. Poor criminals must be virtuous victims; otherwise they would not be committing crimes. SNAP, TANF, WIC, Section 8, etc. ad nauseum just cannot possibly enough for those who squandered the free education they were given at the expense of the top 50% of earners (and primarily at the expense of the top 10%.)"
It is such a ridiculous delusion for you to believe that poor people have no power to choose to obey the law, that they are incapable of getting an education, or using that education to get a job and take advantage of the free market economy. It is like you leftists think the poor are too retarded to do the same things everyone else does to prosper.
The fact is that 98% of people who finish high school (earn a diploma), get a job (any job), and wait to have kids until they are married, end up in the middle class by the end of their lives. (https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/)
Being permanently poor is the result of individuals making foolish decisions all on their own.
A man walks into a psychologist's office to do a mental exam to get a gun. He's wearing a pink ballerina suit, wearing makeup and masscara, and thinks he's a woman.
A transgender isn't the same thing as a cross-dresser, you pitifully ignorant bigot. Transgenders have to accept their own gender as a prerequisite to trying to change it.
You are such an idiot, bronto. Whenever I read one of your posts it feels like I'm watching South Park without the jokes.
I would tend to say that any people who care at all (whether in favor or against) are in the same category. Protesting and celebrating are just two sides of the need-to-get-a-life-and-mind-your-own-goddamn-business coin.
I'm still not sure where you are heading at but I'll shoot in the dark...
I understand that psychopaths are almost impossible to "detect" with one mental exam.That would require regular psychological sessions.
But what a "mental" exam could test for is cognitive functioning for example. An exam can screen for psychotic symptoms like hallucinations. A psychological exam can even test for impulsive tendencies and measure to what extent will someone listen to authority.
To rephrase your statement: You want me be to give you an example of how a criminal can pass the mental exam. Well my response is why on earth would I give a criminal the possibility to legally own a gun? He or she lost that right when they committed a crime... A criminal can't legally own a gun. I assume you knew that so that only means I misunderstood your argument. Could you elaborate your thoughts please?
why on earth would I give a criminal the possibility to legally own a gun?
Hello G:
Uhhhh, because you're afraid that stopping criminals from buying guns will also stop citizens from buying guns. So, you LET the criminals buy guns.. I dunno why..
You've heard of the gun show loophole, haven't you?? It's where private citizens can sell guns along side federally licensed gun dealers.. The difference is, you have to get a background check when you buy a gun from a licensed dealer, but you DON'T when you buy one from a private party..
Right wingers DENY that that's the case.. But, I WENT to a gun show at the Tacoma Dome here, and COULD have bought ANY gun I wanted..
I assume by "criminal" what we are all referring to are convicted felons.
The difference is, you have to get a background check when you buy a gun from a licensed dealer, but you DON'T when you buy one from a private party.
This is where I think we see a pretty clear problem with depending on government and law to solve all the problems.
Those laws against murder really are not particularly effective at preventing murder.
Personal responsibility, care, and social pressure are better solutions for most problems than are laws. Personal responsibility applies the solution before the problem, whereas enforcement of law is a reaction after the problem.
I WENT to a gun show at the Tacoma Dome here, and COULD have bought ANY gun I wanted.
This is the perfect example of my point. You could have, but you did not.
A peaceful and orderly society is not founded only on law, but is also dependent upon individual self-restraint.
The extent of people's responsibilities is not designated by the bounds of the law. Just because something is legally permitted does not mean we should give up on exercising personal judgment. (My parents made me wear a seatbelt decades before it was a legal requirement, for example.)
Personal responsibility, care, and judgment on the part of sellers (private resellers and licensed dealers, alike) and owners are the first and best line of defense from guns being sold to people who should not have them.
Sure there is a limit to how effective this can be, but it is going to be a lot more effective than any law.
Besides, Americans don't really believe in automatically obeying laws; we use our judgment to decide which laws to obey or not, and when. (Speed limits, for example, are almost universally ignored.)
Giving any privilege or freedom to the general populace also comes with the resolution that it will be abused in cases. Therefore, the solution is not to abolish a constitutional right that most Americans make use of legally and peacefully, but rather to hunt down and destroy those that would take advantage of the system to harm others. So when the left can finally realize that giving freedom almost universally means that there will be those who exploit that same freedom for their own heinous self indulgences, and can decide that the solution is not to take away the freedom, but rather erase that corruption and evil as best we can, a better solution to reducing gun violence can be reached. The choice is to live in a considerably free society and accept that the law will be broken with the manipulation of rights and freedoms, or have no freedoms altogether in an attempt to limit crime, which never has and never will work.
If you're really interested you would have to look into what the evaluation consists of. It isn't so simple as: you have a mental health problem so you can't have a gun. Its more a question of the mental disorders affects their decision making skills and impulse control. I would say that gender dysphoria doesn't cause those problem in most cases.
O.K, So the right thinks every mentally deranged nutcase should have the same rights as any normal citizen.
The right also thinks that transgenders aren't capable of being in the military. Tell that to the retired Navy Seal who is now a woman .... who could still kick your ass! How about "respecting" the transgender vets that have served with honor, not just the white male ones!
Have you ever thought of writing children's books?? I definitely hope not, though you show a vivid childish imagination. The right might also vote for you as President since you are showing similar tendencies to the one THEY chose ... to most of their own chagrin!
How about "respecting" the transgender vets that have served with honor, not just the white male ones
I respect all vets. It's a shame that the left does not. I'm not white. I know that kills your narrative, but I was just born that way.
But...if you want mental health tests for guns and transgenders in the military with guns that make the Vegas shooter's firepower look like child's play? You've got another liberal logical fallacy on your hands.
I'll explain it for you in plain speech Al.
You are fine with people having guns...as long as they aren't right wingers.
You are fine with racism...as long as it's not right wingers.
You are fine with systematic oppression...as long as it's not on leftists. Asians being discriminated sgainst by colleges is fine to you. Why? They're "basically white" in your mind.
That's how your fairytale works. Your end game is to view the right as some "thing", and then replace that "thing" with yourselves. In your mind, it's the left's turn to be imperialist, authoritarian racists.
Of course, once you took over academia, Hollywood, and the media, you became the very thing leftists whined about for decades. Self righteous zealots shoving their religion down everyone's throats.
We ALL know that YOU are fine with your implanted ideas of "liberalism", not enough free thinking to fight off the deluge of right wing propaganda you get a daily dose of. A real shame. I hope you get well soon.
I'm going to give you a little basic politics lesson Quantum. Nazi Germany was Catholic. Still is. Catholics are leftists. And ya see, we in America are predominantly Protestant and see the Jews as "God's people". The point? You want Nazis? Go look at the left where they came from. Or perhaps we could find a five year old child to direct you to a mirror.
So the right thinks every mentally deranged nutcase should have the same rights as any normal citizen.
I think you misunderstand the prompt. Almost all of us, right or left, are against the mentally ill having access to dangerous weapons.
The prompt is about showing how arbitrary many of our concepts of "mental health" are when we want to use them to support our own particular viewpoints.
Without ever addressing any of the clinical aspects of mental illness, the left, not the medical establishment in response to scientific research decided to change what counts as crazy.
Bronto is just poking at that.
What follows is just a response to objections people are likely to post.
-- 1 -- I do not care if people are transgender, transsexual, gay, etc. I accept folks however they come.
-- 2 -- In recent decades, people on the left, without supporting it with mental health research redefined transsexuals as mentally "normal".
This change in definition has arbitrarily ignored the research on the correlation of gender dysphoria with severe depression and suicide, both before and after sex change surgery. This change in definition has likewise ignored the indications in the research that the depression is medical, not situational (not the result of people being unkind or unaccepting of differences.)
Gender dysphoria, like other sorts of body dysphoria (such as the people who think they should be amputees, and want to cut off healthy limbs to fit their bodies into their self-images) has long been classified as a mental illness. This is due to the mind being "at odds" with objective reality, and the inability to come to terms with the objective reality of the physical self as it is. (The same is true of wanting a nose job or boob job, etc., though inexplicably these are not under fire for being likewise nucking futs.)
Body dysphoria also indicates a grandiose idealization of the other, (a sort of grass-is-greener syndrome out of control) which in many cases is borderline delusional. Having a Y-chromosome or not is a reality that cannot be wished or explained away, and certainly it cannot be changed by surgery. Sex chromosomes affect brain structure, body formation, and a host of things during development (before and after birth) that cannot be changed by our desires to be someone else.
Would you rather a man in a pink ballerina outfit be holding the gun or a man skinhead in a nazi outfit be holding it?
You imply the first guy is nuts and we're nuts to let him have the gun or to defend the country, but the second guy is just an ordinary dude exercising his rights dadnabit.
You imply the first guy is nuts and we're nuts to let him have the gun or to defend the country, but the second guy is just an ordinary dude exercising his rights dadnabit.
Not actually. I never mentioned the "second guy", so you don't have my opinion on "second guy". I mentioned a man in a ballerina suit and never said whether he was "crazy" or not. You, Grenache, told me we need mental tests to get a gun. So does this guy in the ballerina suit pass the liberal mental test? Yes or no?
If a background check turns up warnings of severe dementia, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, megalomania, cruel sadistic behavior, etc, that would do it. None of the background checks would be asking did you ever where a pink tutu.
Background checks what great talking points for Libtards. The loopholes are the problem so say you Libtards. Gun shows will never turn up warnings of severe dementia, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, megalomania, cruel sadistic behavior, etc,.
We have restrictions on various medications. We don't allow people to go to drug shows and get special access to what is supposed to require a more careful prescription or approval process.
We have a few places in this country where prostitution is legal but most of the rest it is not. We don't allow prostitution shows where you can go get a special exception to the laws in your area.
And don't tell me the gun businesses can't thrive without gun shows. They're selling their product all over the place regardless.
Would you rather a man in a pink ballerina outfit be holding the gun or a man skinhead in a nazi outfit be holding it?
Neither. Red herrings aren't going to help you here Grenache. Give up the goodies. Ballerina Man, Crazy or not? And if he is crazy, why would you want him in the military with military grade weapons that would have the Vegas shooter running like a roach?
If he's not crazy where's the "crazy line" at exactly?
First of all, if I'm going to have a herring I'd rather it be red and on-line than real and on my plate.
Second, standards are always about comparison which means comparing this end of the standard with the other end is valid.
Third, as long as he passes the background check I have no problem with him arming. And if he were in the military the sight of him would probably scare the sh!t out of ISIS fighters.
But that's the opposite of your debate claim up top. Your scenario was all around why does the left want to let them in the military, and let the transvestite citizen get a gun. The left did not disarm him in the scenario you dreamt up.
Could you add more detail to the situation please? What is being tested for exactly? What are the criteria?
It isn't so absurd to have to pass a mental exam to get a gun... Doesn't the military, FBI and police officers have to pass all sorts of mental and physical fitness exams to be able to be on duty and manipulate a weapon? Why can't we require civilians to do the same?
For example, the police department in their psychological tests evaluate impulsiveness and response to stress. Is it absurd to require that police officers know how to properly think before they act (aka pull the trigger)? Why should civilians be exempt from that sort of psychological evaluation?
White coats should be put in place in every gun shop in America and every business that sells ammo. Only problem that rises is do criminals that have guns get a mental exam. Same old Libtard method punish the law abiding and don't worry about the criminals.
It isn't so absurd to have to pass a mental exam to get a gun...
So, you seem to be proposing that we all agree that the implied ending of "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is Unless somebody says they are mentally ill.
This is problematic
In short term practical application, I agree with that, but it is a harrowing precedent to set. There are ramifications we all have to live with. I am not just referring to questions of what constitutes mentally ill, and who decides.
Should we assume there are similar endings to other Constitutional amendments?
-- Add ...unless someone says it is offensive. to the 1st Amendment.
-- Add ...unless someone says the military is over budget. to the 3rd Amendment.
-- Add ...unless someone says he might be a terrorist. to the 4th Amendment.
-- Add ...unless someone says we are sure he did it. to the 5th Amendment.
-- Add ...unless the witness is really, really shy. to the 6th Amendment.
-- Add ...unless the judge thinks the jury was incompetent, and was wrong to acquit her. to the 7th Amendment.
-- Add ...unless the bastard is really sick and twisted. to the 8th Amendment.
-- Add ...unless a segment of the public think it is scary or dangerous to extend that right to everyone. to the 9th Amendment.
-- Add ...unless Federal officials find it inconvenient, to the 10th Amendment.
Should we assume there are similar endings to other Constitutional amendments?
Nooo, it should not be assumed. It should be discussed. Like we are doing now.
The Second Amendment establishes an individual right to bear arms. BUT the right is “not unlimited.”
None of our "rights" in the Constitution are unlimited.
I AGREE that if the right to guns is going to be limited in order to protect people then it should be limited fairly, using evidence. So, in order to do so the limit should be backed by evidence. Now maybe depressed people aren't the most dangerous. Maybe delusional people won't have a tendency to shoot a gun.
My point being it isn't unusual to put limits to our rights. We do it all the time...
The Second Amendment establishes an individual right to bear arms. BUT the right is “not unlimited.” None of our "rights" in the Constitution are unlimited.
This is a problematic assumption, and I am not entirely sure where it comes from, nor where it leads.
Consider the structure of the amendments in the Bill of Rights.
. The Bill of Rights is structured around specific prohibitions of Federal government power. That would seem to indicate the following:
-- 1 -- The rights guaranteed by these limits on government power are natural rights, and as such are the default. These rights are not extended to us, but rather are our natural and rightful property, and the US Constitution protects us from the restriction, abridgement, or infringement of them by the Federal government.
-- 2 -- Per the 10th Amendment, any power to limit these rights does not rest with the Federal government, but rests with the people or the states.
-- 3 -- Unlike the wording of the 1st Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting... ") which limits a specific governmental institution, the 2nd Amendment is phrased in the passive voice (...shall not be infringed.) This indicates that no governmental power is allowed to infringe upon the right to bear arms.
Where, then does the power to limit this right rest? It looks like the Constitution says it rests with "the people", whatever that means.
I think that is where the discussion has a useful chance of bearing fruit.
My point being it isn't unusual to put limits to our rights. We do it all the time...
Are you suggesting that common behaviors are automatically just or legal?
Are you suggesting that common behaviors are automatically just or legal? That doesn't sound right.
I am not suggesting anymore than what I wrote. The fact that it is regularly done makes it not uncommon.
What I do believe is that the same way we, the people, established limits to our freedom of speech, we could establish limits to our freedom to defend ourselves.
What I do believe is that the same way we, the people, established limits to our freedom of speech, we could establish limits to our freedom to defend ourselves
That is where I am at. I think the knee-jerk desire for laws, regulations, or other government tools to be how we fix societal problems is at the heart of how Americans have become weak.
Things like manners and social pressure have worked reasonably well for the most part in regulating speech.
I see no reason to think that our current gun laws are insufficient, really.
Sure, the world is not perfectly safe. The handgun death stats (2/3 of which are suicides) are about the same as the automobile deaths, and have been, more or less, for decades. We do not run around terrified of being in car wrecks. Nobody is suggesting (outside of California) that we need to have greater restrictions on cars, driving, or keeping crazy people from being allowed to buy cars.
Social pressure has been the main force behind reducing drunk driving, and I have watched it actually work in bars and at parties on countless occasions.
