gun control - what are we waiting for ?

[xrayy]

the media is biased as long as it exists. what a breathtaking fact! i would say: nothing really worth to mention. the only thing that chaged in the near past is that obviously populistic, conspriacy and white spuremacy spreading media do not only claim to say the truth, but there are now many people who seem to believe and support this rubbish even leaded by a "special" ex- president of the u.s. - even many republicans and and accepted and serious right wing journalists are alerted!

 

thanks good I know the truth is that a few right wing and "freedom with weapons" supporter do not represent the u.s., even if they obviously cumulate in a nexusmods forum debate. no porblem - i was prepared for that since i followed some other debates here working all the same way.

i'm happy with my contributions here and i hope you are too! a tight knot can be a life saver. it is just the question of the perspective. My perspective is definetely not the one out of a limited supremacist bubble. these people are lost and even the tightest knot will not help them :wink:

[HeyYou]

the media is biased as long as it exists. what a breathtaking fact! i would say: nothing really worth to mention. the only thing that chaged in the near past is that obviously populistic, conspriacy and white spuremacy spreading media do not only claim to say the truth, but there are now many people who seem to believe and support this rubbish even leaded by a "special" ex- president of the u.s. - even many republicans and and accepted and serious right wing journalists are alerted!

 

thanks good I know the truth is that a few right wing and "freedom with weapons" supporter do not represent the u.s., even if they obviously cumulate in a nexusmods forum debate.

i'm happy with my contributions here and i hope you are too! a tight knot can be a life saver. it is just the question of the perspective. My perspective is definetely not the one out of a limited supremacist bubble. these people are lost and even the tightest knot will not help them :wink:

And you are flat out wrong on your "truth". The FACT is, MOST residents in the US SUPPORT the 2nd amendment.

 

I suggest you go to the department store near you, and see if they have any 'clues' on sale. As you obviously don't have one.

[xrayy]

i can speak for myself. no need put your words in my mouth. I do not own or spread any "truth"!

if you want to know the truth use your brain and use some media apart from white supremacist or conspiracy stuff. it is not on me to tell you how to do that. extremists probably tend to ignore me to live in their bubble.

 

but i can help you as a first step to find some valuable information like this one. decide for yourself what is true and what is fake!

 

Polarization about Firearms will Persist

The issue of the Second Amendment and Americans’ right to own and carry firearms is not limited to a specific election or time period. Since it is related to an ideological interpretation of the constitution of the United States, it will remain an active philosophical concern for liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, urbanites, and people of the countryside, among others. It thus will continue to be a political issue representing serious polarization in American society. Past experiences with gun ownership and the laws regulating it have not so far resolved the continuing debate about them. Neither will the upcoming presidential election have a definitive answer on the path forward. Like other unresolved issues in American democratic government, the Second Amendment and laws governing its implementation will remain an issue in many presidential elections to come.

[HeyYou]

 

thanks good I know the truth is that a few right wing and "freedom with weapons" supporter do not represent the u.s.,

 

Right there is a direct quote from your post, indicating that you do indeed think you are spreading/know the "truth". But, the truth is, you have firmly bought into the liberal media interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and the firm belief that more laws (less guns) will make us "Safe".

 

Problem is, less guns will NOT make us 'safe'. It will deprive the people of the ability to protect themselves from folks that simply don't care about the law. The environment here is RADICALLY different than what you grew up with. Yet you are still trying to apply european values to an american issue. That simply does not work.

 

You are arguing from a position of willful ignorance of the actual situation. Your outright refusal to see any other position than your own, your refusal to educate yourself on the basic issues, means that you will continue to present arguments that carry no water. You don't have a clue, and apparently, you don't want one either. You would much rather act like a televangelist, screaming your 'truth' from the rooftops, even though 90% of your audience simply rolls their eyes at the fool on the hill.

[Deleted54170User]

I am here "unfollow"ing this thread. I don't need a second or third world shipper of world and local News when I've read most of it already. :geek:

 

Whatever makes you happy! :happy:

Have a good time beating up your keyboards! :laugh:

[xrayy]

 

 

thanks good I know the truth is that a few right wing and "freedom with weapons" supporter do not represent the

 

Right there is a direct quote from your post, indicating that you do indeed think you are spreading/know the "truth". But, the truth is, you have firmly bought into the liberal media interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and the firm belief that more laws (less guns) will make us "Safe".

 

Problem is, less guns will NOT make us 'safe'. It will deprive the people of the ability to protect themselves from folks that simply don't care about the law. The environment here is RADICALLY different than what you grew up with. Yet you are still trying to apply european values to an american issue. That simply does not work.

 

You are arguing from a position of willful ignorance of the actual situation. Your outright refusal to see any other position than your own, your refusal to educate yourself on the basic issues, means that you will continue to present arguments that carry no water. You don't have a clue, and apparently, you don't want one either. You would much rather act like a televangelist, screaming your 'truth' from the rooftops, even though 90% of your audience simply rolls their eyes at the fool on the hill.

 

 

regarding the quote:

it is definitely the truth that a cumulated bunch of right wing nexusmods posters do not represent the american society. this is not "my" truth, i would say this is a quite simple fact. all the rest is your personal interpretation which i do not share :wink:

 

just claiming and repeating nra slogans do not say anything and are no valid arguments in any way.

 

so why do you repeat and insist i'm willfull ignorant ? just because i do not follow stupid right slogans or what trump or the nra claims ? sorry - many sentences with no content but slogans or plain assumptions - at least i am not impressed and you cannot convince me with nothing but empty words or not so friendly assumptions while ignoring my clear and easy to understand content.

 

if you care more what your limited 90% nexusmods debate audience think than to care about the quality of your content and arguments i just feel sorry for you.

 

so your world seems to be simple and to say it with mo'ats words: "It is hard to fill a cup which is already full"

[DanteRedfield]

I'm glad this pointless debate is still going downhill

[xrayy]

it is more the problem of too many pointless posts than of the debate topic.

 

just some research info instead of too many empty claims or pointless posts:

Support for gun control is down since the 1990s among Americans. In 1993, 57 percent of people surveyed by the Pew Research Center said that controlling gun ownership was more important than protecting gun rights. In 2012, that number had dropped to 47 percent. At the same time, the number of people prioritizing gun rights over gun control rose from 34 percent to 46 percent.

 

my time in the u.s. lasted only until the begin of the 90ties. it is difficult for me to understand what happened since then and especially why a populist and a narcissist like trump was elected and even hyped.

[xrayy]

this is my background to the second amendment:

 

History of the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. It was deemed a compromise between Federalists — those who supported the Constitution as it was ratified — and the anti-Federalists — those who supported states having more power. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.

 

Interpretations of the Second Amendment

Since its ratification, Americans have been arguing over the amendment's meaning and interpretation. One side interprets the amendment to mean it provides for collective rights, while the opposing view is that it provides individual rights.

Those who take the collective side think the amendment gives each state the right to maintain and train formal militia units that can provide protection against an oppressive federal government. They argue the "well regulated militia" clause clearly means the right to bear arms should only be given to these organized groups. They believe this allows for only those in the official militia to carry guns legally, and say the federal government cannot abolish state militias.

Those with the opposite viewpoint believe the amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The individualists believe the amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

Both interpretations have helped shape the country's ongoing gun control debate. Those supporting an individual's right to own a gun, such as the National Rifle Association, argue that the Second Amendment should give all citizens, not just members of a militia, the right to own a gun. Those supporting stricter gun control, like the Brady Campaign, believe the Second Amendment isn't a blank check for anyone to own a gun. They feel that restrictions on firearms, such as who can have them, under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available, are necessary.

 

call me ignorant: i'm clearly on the collective side

[HeyYou]

it is more the problem of too many pointless posts than of the debate topic.

 

just some research info instead of too many empty claims or pointless posts:

Support for gun control is down since the 1990s among Americans. In 1993, 57 percent of people surveyed by the Pew Research Center said that controlling gun ownership was more important than protecting gun rights. In 2012, that number had dropped to 47 percent. At the same time, the number of people prioritizing gun rights over gun control rose from 34 percent to 46 percent.

 

my time in the u.s. lasted only until the begin of the 90ties. it is difficult for me to understand what happened since then and especially why a populist and a narcissist like trump was elected and even hyped.

Trump was elected because they were tired of the Democrats. Plain and simple. Biden was elected because people didn't like trump. So, Biden was the default choice. Now lets just hope the republicans can get their collective act together, get away from Trump, and run someone in '24 that actually has a chance of winning.