How do you think corrupt elements who do not believe anyone but police should have one of those "damn guns," might inflict their wills fraudulently on those who disagree?
I think it's easy to see anyone who does not agree with your philosophy to be part of a left/right-wing conspiracy. Corrupt evil hatemongers, trying to control you and your rights. Some of that might be true.
It could also be argued that many people are just looking for that simple answer to a complex problem. As a society, we are taught that any problem, no matter how complex, can be fixed with a simple solution usually brought about by a tax or a new law. Think about Carbon emissions. The simplest would say ban all cars, planes, and cows without taking into account what this would do to a society built around the car, truck, and plane.
Those same people try to compare The US to smaller countries who have enacted gun-control laws that would violate our constitutional rights. This is like a person coming from the UK thinking because they can drive from coast to coast in their country, then they should be able to do the same here. Drive from NYC to Miami in a few hours, then to LA by the end of the day. Even using percentages, it's like comparing a globe to the actual earth. They may look the same, but the earth is at least two to three times as big.
Some people like that guy rich guy in NYC who want to set up a nanny state, and they will use fear to control the people, and when the people are afraid, they show up with their simple solution. Not everyone who wants gun-control is evil or a vast conspiracy to take your rights away... Some of them are just sheep.
Would you agree if I said that your choice of phrasing is more inflammatory than it is constructive? Such as "Not everyone who wants gun-control is evil or a vast conspiracy to take your rights away... Some of them are just sheep."
I'm having trouble discerning what your stance is on the issue due to the way it is being presented to begin with, but that last quip at the end seemed to be more genuine than coming from someone you are mirroring. If it is as it appears to me, then I also ask the question: Isn't it better to abandon such diction, in favor of language that doesn't do damage inherently from the onset?
Just for clarity, my answer to this question would be something along the lines of: I've seen it in other countries, such as Cambodia, where vast corruption occurs due to the fact you either submit to the rule of the man with a gun in your face or they make you disappear and punish anyone who speaks out. Though I agree with the second poster, who said it is unfair to compare such countries to the USA. So many variables, including a state's right to refuse following federal laws, need to be taken into account when asking this question. Generally speaking, though, only about thirty (30) percent of people admit to owning a weapon personally and the amount of crimes stopped via use of a firearm for self defense is averaged to be point nine (0.9) percent.
I could present more data against owning weapons than I could present data supporting them due to the fundamentals of America, but as an owner of a firearm myself I fully support everyone's right to bear arms. I support this right for the sole fact that I could not take into account all the variables, such as corrupt elements utilizing my lack of a weapon to their advantage in a future when my owning of a weapon was outlawed.
“Some of them are just sheep.” While that was meant as a little bit of humor with the OP, it does fit a philosophy I believe in, but not just for gun ownership. This goes into my simple solution to complicated problems message. A part of this search for simple solutions leads people to follow those that promise such easy dare I say simple answers. A tragedy happens, and we all look for answers. It’s easy to say ban all guns without examining the realities of such a proposal. This is true for almost every problem and why we have such loyalty to political parties and vote the same people in every term. People want to be led to an answer…. Like sheep.
I do not believe we should treat each other like we were all potential criminals denying rights protected by the constitution. I’m more of a libertarian when it comes to rights with some limitations. There needs to be a mechanism in place to deny guns to people that do not have the right to them (felons, criminally insane, Steeler fans ). I believe that anyone who can own a gun (no ex-convicts) has the right to own a firearm. More than that, I don’t think we should allow our representatives to use amendments to remove rights even if it means more shootings, hate speech, or Twitter.
“a state's right to refuse following federal laws,” States do not have this right of Nullification. Much like the whole marijuana thing, it's the feds are just not enforcing the federal law and not the states overriding federal law. Federal law trumps state law...
You're very good at dodging the question, and yeah I chose my words poorly with the comment about states' rights thinking I was being concise when really I flubbed my meaning. I had meant that it is up to each individual state government whether or not to pass laws in line with the federal government.
My question which remains unanswered, though, is whether or not you feel your original and ongoing language is more inflammatory than it is constructive? The amount of levity or lack thereof matters less to me than the presentation of the information from my perspective. It isn't as if I can't see where you are coming from, as I generally agree with you, but some mental gymnastics are required to fit your answers with my, and the original question.
Perhaps answer a bit more concisely, your verbosity is muddling my ability to understand the core of your argument as it concerns the questions being asked of you.
Their question pertains to how, hypothetically, evildoers will use those sort of laws. Not whether or not you agree with how people perceive one another.
Whereas my question pertains to your overall diction, as far as being inflammatory and doing more damage to your argument than supporting it. Along with the fact your answers are convoluted, revolving around the question and topic rather than answering and it is skewing the conversation.
I could also be wrong, I have an auditory and visual processing disorder that could be preventing me from connecting the information properly. I ask all this and try to get what I am seeking so I can understand the way others think, I don't want you to feel as if I'm judging you or trying to diminish your stance. Perhaps I am of the type to seek the simple answer, if you can pardon the jest.
My stance: We've addressed the macro, now let's get to the micro just to humor OP and myself.
OP’s question basically says that people who want gun control are “corrupt elements,” and that’s not true (for the most part). Many people who wish to gun limits or an outright ban are just concerned people looking for that simple answer. It’s easy to see those people who don’t agree are evil, corrupt, or Steeler Fans. In our past, some groups used their “moral” beliefs to take our rights away, such as prohibition.
So, yes, I do believe that people who want to ban guns are going to try and take our rights away. I just don’t agree that those people are all corrupt elements.
My question went unanswered again, but thank you for the concise answer that once again dodges or outright ignores the questions. I agree with your interpretation of the way they used the word "corrupt" though they could have also meant it in the context that their values are corrupted, which is unlikely but nonetheless a possibility. Hopefully the OP will clarify.
I think I'm done attempting to get a hypothetical response within the confines of the OP's question and the answer to my question, as your demeanor answers both well enough for me to glean the information I was seeking.
"So, yes, I do believe that people who want to ban guns are going to try and take our rights away. I just don’t agree that those people are all corrupt elements."
This is my answer to OP's question. My initial response was about the premise of the question and how it was shaped to call anyone who believes in gun control is evil and corrupt.
I think the language used by people as long as it's not personally insulting is fine.
"Would you agree if I said that your choice of phrasing is more inflammatory than it is constructive?"
NO, I don't agree.
OP needs to update their stance because I'm chalking this all up to a poorly worded, vague, initial question. OP left us to speculate on premise, definition, context, and all the other goodies that when left out make for a dull topic to discuss.
It's a targeted question like asking, "do you like puppies or think they should be all killed?"
OP Spells out their belief that people who want to take your guns away are evil and corrupt. This would also suggest that if a person agrees with them, they would also be corrupt and evil.
by flacoinohio 7 years ago
Why is the Second Amendment important to you?I find it amazing that the right to bear arms is important to so many Americans. With all of the political and social issues that we need to address in our country today, why does the right to bear arms receive more attention than all of the other...
by ga anderson 3 years ago
Admittedly I am a Constitution admirer. I think it is one of the most brilliantly created documents ever. In my mind, the Constitution is the frame that the house that is America is built onj.There has been much conversation about the Second Amendment being outdated, and not...
by Rhonda Lytle 5 years ago
Is there really a war on women in the USA or is it a politically motivated means of division?Do you believe there is a war on women in the United States of America? If so, what do you think it is? Do you identify with the feminist goals of old or the ones of today and how would you...
by Anish Patel 8 years ago
Is it time to get rid of the Second Amendment?The right to bear arms, does it still make sense in today's world?
by jgrimes331 5 years ago
Do you think the founding fathers of America; in consideration to AK-47's, assault weapons and handguns, would have reconsidered there position to NOT include the 2nd Amendment in the American Constitution? If we are going to have the right to bear arms, shouldn't the "burden" in...
by David Stillwell 8 years ago
Should women have the right to vote?Am working on my first political hub and gathering information. I would like to hear both sides of the opinionated coin about whether or not women should have the right to vote or if only men should vote and speak for their house. This ties a bit into religion...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|