- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
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.
Ahhhh yeahhh. To some extent agree with you. I do believe that when debating, who you are should be not part of the debate. We aren't disputing identities we are disputing arguments.
For all I know you could be a pro life communist playing the devil's advocate. Does it matter in the context a debate?
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...
Opinion is based on sentiment rather than shared reality.
Opinion is often relegated to the rank of false knowledge. But, it seems that opinion is actually not the opposite of knowledge, but its preamble. Before you know that fire burns, do you not feel its danger? You can see it is orange and feel the heat but you will only only know if you touch it.
You don't know fire burns. Ignorance
You believe fire burns. Opinion
You know fire burns. Knowledge
The utility of opinion varies but in the case of fire opinion could lead one to touch fire with caution.
In relations to food (I did choose to defend carrot juice), if most people in your restaurant believe your food tastes like horse crap, their opinion has meaning and importance because your job is to please most taste buds.
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?
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?
Olala...I'm not trying to be smart. I don't need to. I'm simply asking you to not just give me a sentence and links because I know I'm going to spend time to answer you and you won't.
But thank you for proving me wrong and giving me more than a sentence. I will get back to you with my argument but before I have a question: are communists part of antifa ?