Also, the victims are almost always random innocents.
ie, the type of victim that is least likely to exist in a real shooting but most likely to exist in a staged shooting where CIA & friends are trying to make people feel that they're not safe anywhere, and that a member of their own family could be the next victim.

Aren't most people random innocents and therefore the most likely to be victims?

Nope, the most likely victim of any shooter (mentally stable or not) is going to be someone who wronged the shooter.
Is it possible that someone would shoot random innocents?
Yep, but for every instance of such a shooting there would be exponentially more instances of shootings in which there shooter is shooting people who wronged him/her. At the current rate of supposed random victim shootings, there would have to simultaneously be multiple shootings daily in which people are shooting up individuals and groups that wronged them.
On a daily basis, people (mentally stable or not) would be shooting up gatherings of bosses, police, politicians, bankers, CEO's, KKK members, lawyers, military recruiters, malpractice doctors, etc.
The simple fact of the matter is that mass shootings essentially don't occur in this country because people (mentally stable or not) essentially never arrive at a point where they're actually willing to go through with it.
So the shootings have to be staged instead, and that's what we're currently seeing.

I see, I meant by random not publicly well known people and by innocent non-criminals.

Whereas you meant by random people who had no relationship with the shooter and by innocent people who haven't wronged the shooter.

Of the 13k gun homicide victims, how many do you think are random innocents? Please provide a source.

The pharmaceutical industry spent $279,113,483 lobbying the government in 2017. The guns right people (includes the NRA) spent just $10,180,732 lobbying the government in 2017.

Impressive. And that's nowhere near the power of sponsorship of all the media. The media actually call the shots. They fabricate reality.

Exactly. People wouldn't have even known about Parkland if it weren't for the media broadcasting it so much

You can tell the biases by the stories that get passing mention and the ones that are intensively covered. Sometimes they have essentially nothing to say except that a thing happened, yet they keep talking about it anyway. Other events they have lots of information on but they won't go beyond the superficial. What they don't say can be more revealing than what they do.

Cuz it fits the narrative. You barely hear anything about the gunman who was shot by an armed guard before he could kill anyone which happens barely a week after parkland

People wouldn't know about most things of the media didn't cover it.

That's a good point. And the current reality happens to be that drug commercials are one of the networks' biggest cash cows. They'll never "go after" Pfizer/Merck/et al when every 2nd commercial is to "ask your doctor about Zulestra!" The Rx industry spreads SO MUCH money around that everyone shuts up and rakes it in.

But, it’s the NRA’s fault! They’re the ones who keep killing children, right? That’s what the 15 year old government indoctrination center students tell me.

/s

Why are you using 2017 which isn't a major election year?

Why not use 2016 where they paid 54,398,558

Also, they are the highest spender of non-disclosing groups at 35,157,585

Why are you using 2017 which isn't a major election year?

I picked the most recent year for which their was complete data.

The data you posted is also not comparable to the data I posted. The data you posted is campaign contributions and super pac spending. This is not normal lobbying money. In other words, the data you posted buys the politicians seat, but it doesn't buy their vote. The yearly money spent lobbying the government is what buy's their vote.

The data you posted is irrelevant anyway. The pharmaceutical industry, not even counting the data you posted, spent $279 million on lobbying in 2016, which still dwarfs the $54 million spent by the NRA on the election.

If you read my other comments in this thread, you'll see I don't attribute the problem to either pharma or guns. I just posted the data for others to see.

Wait this is a conspiracy sub and you all think Super PACs are just fine and dandy and don't influence anyone?

Lobbying and super PACs are tied together more than you are insinuating.

No they are not "fine and dandy" and I didn't imply any such thing. All I'm saying is 1) your data compared to my data is not comparing apples to oranges (one is yearly, regular lobbying and the other is only looking at what was given to political campaigns) and 2) your data isn't making any sort of point when in the same year you show the NRA as spending $54 million on the campaign the pharmaceutical industry is spending $279 million on regular lobbying activities, which doesn't include the additional money they spent on the campaign(s).

You are trying hard to make the case that the NRA spends the most on lobbying because you are biased and don't like the NRA, but they don't, and it's not even close. You are also trying hard to imply I'm biased, which I'm not.

I haven't implied, or insinuated anything. You are the one trying to imply the NRA spends the most, and they clearly do not. If you think a politician has his seat bought for him, and doesn't ask for more money to buy his votes, then you don't know anything about politicians. Both are bad and I'm not implying one is worse than the other or that they aren't tied together.

You are trying hard to make the case that the NRA spends the most on lobbying because you are biased and don't like the NRA, but they don't, and it's not even close. You are also trying hard to imply I'm biased, which I'm not.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I made clear where I thought (and they do) spend the most. I didn't state it was lobbying.

You are correct I mixed up lobbying and the super pac spending in the first data point I posted though.

I implied they spent the most in a specific case (non-disclosed donors) which they do according to opensecrets.com.

I think a politician demanding more money to vote a certain way is likely, but not the only thing that matters. A politician getting a seat can get a vote; the lobbying comes during non-election years which is why it is higher during those years.

Now you are putting words in my mouth.

No, putting words in your mouth would be "/u/gamefrk101" said "xyz". The statement you quoted was how I understood your comment(s). If I misunderstood it, you have my apologies. The previous comment you made seemed to try and put words in my mouth.

I made clear where I thought (and they do) spend the most.

It wasn't clear. You replied to a comment about lobbying spending with a challenge about spending from a different category. They spend the most, in one year, in one category. They get outspent in every other year, in every other category, by massive amounts.

You are correct I mixed up lobbying and the super pac spending in the first data point I posted though.

Yes, and that's okay. I tried to point it out in my reply, but it seemed like you came back with some snark, which wasn't warranted. I'm fine with talking about both campaign spending and lobbying spending.

I implied they spent the most in a specific case (non-disclosed donors) which they do according to opensecrets.com.

I don't disagree. I just don't see the point you are trying to make, when they are outspent in every other category by massive amounts.

I think a politician demanding more money to vote a certain way is likely, but not the only thing that matters.'

I didn't say or imply it was the only thing that matters. I'm just explaining to you that buying a seat for a candidate does not buy you all the votes that candidate will ever cast. Corrupt politicians are far more greedy than that, and if you are a con-man, everyone knows you don't take your victim for all he's worth all at once, you bleed them over time.

A politician getting a seat can get a vote; the lobbying comes during non-election years which is why it is higher during those years.

No. Lobbying occurs every single year, even in election years. If you go look at the pharma industry lobbying spending in 2016 (election year) it's about $279 million, which is about 5x the amount the NRA spent on the campaign. In 2017 it's about $279 million, which is about 30x the amount the guns rights group spent in the same (non-election year). The pharma industry spends $279 million in every single year. That figure does not include the money given to the campaigns during election years - I'm too lazy to grab those figures and do the math.

Guns rights advocacy groups spend about $10 million every year in lobbying and spend about $50 million every election year. The numbers are not even close. Pharma spends far more on politicians than gun rights groups. This is why I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

Today is not my day. I apologize I'm not being clear or making a cogent point.

Hey no problem, we all have off days. Hope your day improves :)

Why is the NRA being attacked anyway? Is it =wrong to lobby to uphold the constitution?

Depends on your narrative and agenda in America.

Courts have already ruled her it is not a violation of the second amendment to place certain restriction on guns and their sale in the way that most Americans are asking for. The constitutionality of these regulations has already been decided. If you want to resist gun control you can do so on other merits, but not wholesomely in regards to the second amendment. No one is taking away your right to bare arms, and the NRA is not protecting that right in anyway.

Courts

can go fuck themselves, a judge's agenda doesn't override my inalienable rights, he can shove his gavel up his ass.

The amendments have never been declared as inalienable. They are guaranteed strictly by the passage of those amendments by simple vote. The right to bare arms is not self-evident, and was never mentioned in our founding constitution or the Declaration of Independence. The * amendments* were added later. Hence why they are called amendments. The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) was ratified more than a decade after the constitution.

That said, a Supreme Court, does decide the meaning of those amendment, and they have overwhelmingly stated that the constitution does not forbid certain levels of gun control, and that those levels of gun control do not infringe upon your rights. Maybe look into the constitutional law regarding these issues.

It's not nearly as clear cut as you are trying to portray it as. And without identifying exactly which regulation you are referring to, you are flat out wrong in some instances. There are multiple regulations that have been halted or reversed in the courts, with many others still pending. You have swallowed up talking points without doing any kind of research.

And just because the US Government hasn't tried taking away my right to wear tank tops, that doesn't mean they're not going to try!!!

Sure that is true. Regardless, almost all typical gun control legislation found in even the most liberal states has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Pretty sure the only exceptions are based on the 4th amendment, not the second.

"Almost all typical gun control legislation found in even the most liberal states has been upheld..."

Again, an extremely general statement that doesn't really define or clarify anything at all. Exactly how do you define "typical" gun control legislation?

Can you clarify what exceptions you are referring to that were based on the 4th amendment (protections against search/seizure)? Perhaps you meant the 14th amendment and its due process clause, like in Mcdonalds v. Chicago?

DC V. Heller is a pretty glaring example that was based on the 2nd amendment.

Because "won't somebody please think of the children?" is such a powerful drug for inducing mass panic. It's targeting the unthinking herd's instinct to protect the young.

Redditors are, for the most part, childish idiots.

And the NRA is comprised of millions of law abiding americans. The pharmaceutical companies, not so much.

millions of racist old white men you mean

I’m neither old nor racist. Cool it with the generalized and baseless assumptions.

Look up your history of your racist org

Did you know the gun control first began as an attempt to disarm freed slaves?

Look up your history of the agenda your pushing.

Look up the history of planned parenthood. Do you assume anyone who supports that is a racist who supports eugenics and sterilizing blacks too? Cause Margret Sanger did

Yes I do assume PP supporters are liberal white racist. Anymore questions?

Your troll attempt was way too obvious.

You didn't even make an effort to sound real. 0/10, kiddo.

In fact it is you who are racist. Judging people based on the color of their skin is really ignorant and not a good look for you.

fake news

Now you aren't even making an argument.

No point with a tool.

Indeed

That's an amazing stat. Most people have no idea of the power that big pharma has. They literally caused a heroin epidemic among an entire American generation, and they barely even get a passing mention in the discussion, and they are blatantly at fault.

They are major sponsors of every tv "news" channel, so people are delusional if they think the talking heads on tv will have a discussion about mass shooters and psych drugs. We're on our own to bring this issue to light.

They literally caused a heroin epidemic among an entire American generation

No one denies this, but the moment you suggest they might also be contributing to the violence issue people start to lose their shit.

And think of the number of drug ads played on CNN vs. Firearm ads.

My state even went more crazy and began taking guns away from the mentally ill. We do have a crazy governor though. The prick declined federal funds for healthcare that help some needy just to make a point and banned talk of climate change in the state government.

https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2018/03/20/florida-police-seize-mentally-ill-mans-guns-under-new-state-law

Good. Guns should not be in the hands of the mentally ill.

Well then that's where the battleground is.

Who determines who is mentally ill and to what degree? Ever talking to a therapist in your life will be the slippery slope this bullshit slides down until no civilian can have a gun.

why not use the same criteria already in the background checks?

If theyre already in the background checks, why do we need redundant legislation? Had the existing laws been enforced, Cruz wouldnt have been able to have a gun.

Just wait until believing in your constitutional rights is considered a form of mental illness by our beautiful pharmaceutical overlords.

According to /u/MaximumRecoil the DHS views that as being a potential domestic terrorist...

There's a reason that "slippery slope" is defined as a logical fallacy.

Here, apply your same argument to criminals: "We should allow criminals to have guns because who decides who is a criminal and to what degree?"

It's a bad argument. We should prevent guns from entering the hands of those that would use them to harm other people. Criminals and mentally ill alike. That is priority #1.

Priority #2 should be the fight over semantics.

I made a point earlier about the slippery slope, and got my most down voted comment ever, minus 20. You better steer clear of these parts with them logical fallacy corrections. :P

Here we go!

if not for fallacies, how would we explain events in a way that fits our preconceived world view?

So if I get a battery charge on my record for defending myself or my girlfriend from someone in a bar fight, I should never be able to own a gun?

"We should not prevent violent criminals from owning guns because who decides who is a violent criminal and to what degree?"

How on earth could you classify that as a bad argument. Due process needs to be used in any case where someone is trying to strip an individual of their rights.

Nowhere did I say that due process should be thrown out the window. At the end of the day there needs to be a standard for keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them to harm people. Right now, they are too available to bad actors.

Right now, they are too available to bad actors.

because the current laws are not being enforced well enough. law enforcement does not have the resources needed to combat it effectively.

in some instances, it's on purpose so that the laws can be seen as ineffective so that more restrictive ones will be more easily passed.

So if I get a battery charge on my record for defending myself or my girlfriend from someone in a bar fight, I should never be able to own a gun?

If you were defending yourself, then why would you get charged at all?

You literally just mentioned due process.

Except that youd be enacting legislation which is redundant... There are already restrictions on who is allowed to own guns and what types.

Lack of gun laws and guns arent the problems though. Law enforcement didnt do their job at all. 40 calls, threats and tips that never got followed up. It looks like they wanted this guy to do this shit.

What good are more laws when they dont bother to enforce the ones we already have? Nikolas Cruz never would have had a gun if the existing laws were followed.

So why do we need more exactly?

Cruz would not have bought the gun if laws were followed? What are you talking about? What laws? He broke no law in buying his gun.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/15/florida-shooting-suspect-bought-gun-legally-authorities-say/340606002/

He should have been arrested for his criminal threats and the 40 times the police were called on him for threatening people. Really he should have been in a psych ward if he was that much of a problem.

The government fucked this all up (not the first time as I'm sure you're sadly all too aware of) and yet it's still somehow law abiding citizen's fault.

I support common sense gun regulations and I understand the argument against the mentally ill owning guns, but I also support due process. What would due process look like for this regulation? Who would be responsible for bringing the action? I can't see how a regulation like this could be implemented without the side effect of having people who should be seeking psychiatric help or taking psychiatric drugs avoiding them out of fear of loosing their guns.

All of the "common sense" regulations have already been enacted. Background checks, machine gun ban, etc.

There's a reason that "slippery slope" is defined as a logical fallacy.

Only in formal logic. In reality, history has proven that people who make a slippery slope argument are usually right, and they have definitely been right with regard to gun control laws. The first major federal gun control law was NFA '34. If someone in 1934 had said it was a slippery slope, they would have been 100% correct.

Here, apply your same argument to criminals: "We should not prevent violent criminals from owning guns because who decides who is a violent criminal and to what degree?"

If someone is considered too violent to own a gun, why aren't they incarcerated? Last I knew there were no gun shops in prison.

It's a bad argument. We should prevent guns from entering the hands of those that would use them to harm other people. Criminals and mentally ill alike. That is priority #1.

The current law prohibits felons from owning guns. In order to be a felon you have to be convicted in a court of law. In order to have a "mental illness" some guy just has to say so, and there's no way to prove said guy wrong because a mental illness diagnosis is inherently unfalsifiable, and the idea that such and such set of symptoms constitutes an illness at all is also inherently unfalsifiable.

And again, if someone is believed to be too dangerous to own a gun, due to some mental condition, what are they doing out on the streets?

The current law prohibits felons from owning guns.

The current law barring felons from owning weapons isn't adequate. There are a lot of non-violent felons that shouldn't be barred from owning guns. For example, drug-related felonies that have nothing to do with violence should not prohibit gun ownership for life.

if someone is believed to be too dangerous to own a gun, due to some mental condition, what are they doing out on the streets?

Criminals, even violent ones, are eventually released. It happens all the time.

In order to have a "mental illness" some guy just has to say so

This isn't true and we're not just talking about any given mental illness. In this context we're talking about people who are a threat to the safety and well-being of themselves or others. For example, if you've threatened to kill yourself or others then you should not be allowed to own a gun. If you have an illness where you see or hear things that aren't there, like schizophrenia, then you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

The current law barring felons from owning weapons isn't adequate. There are a lot of non-violent felons that shouldn't be barred from owning guns. For example, drug-related felonies that have nothing to do with violence should not prohibit gun ownership for life. The law should target violent criminals who have or would use weapons to harm others.

Anyone who is not incarcerated should have all of their constitutional rights.

Criminals, even violent ones, are eventually released. It happens all the time.

This is a non sequitur. Again, the question is:

If someone is believed to be too dangerous to own a gun, due to some mental condition, what are they doing out on the streets?

This isn't true

Yes, it is. Furthermore, said guy's say-so is unfalsifiable, unlike e.g., a cancer diagnosis.

For example, if you've threatened to kill yourself or others then you should not be allowed to own a gun.

Again, if someone is believed to be that dangerous, why isn't he incarcerated? Does it make you feel better knowing that he's free to do everything except walk into a retail gun shop and buy a gun? If he wants a gun he can simply buy one from someone who is not an FFA dealer. Also, there are countless ways to injure or kill others without a gun. This is "feel-good legislation" which does little to nothing to prevent a "mentally ill" person from obtaining a gun, but can easily evolve into a "backdoor ban".

Anyone who is not incarcerated should have all of their constitutional rights.

If someone is considered too violent to own a gun, why aren't they incarcerated? Last I knew there were no gun shops in prison.

If someone is believed to be too dangerous to own a gun, due to some mental condition, what are they doing out on the streets?

I don't think you recognize the contradiction here. You want to preserve the rights of anyone not incarcerated. Yet you're more than eager to incarcerate people and strip them of all of their rights.

People with history of domestic violence, assault, emotional disorders, or certain mental illnesses like schizophrenia very often deserve to be to be free and live their lives. They often shouldn't be thrown in prison and stripped of all of their rights. Those same people should not be trusted with the responsibilities of gun ownership though.

There is a bit of a contradiction here.

There's no contradiction whatsoever.

You want to preserve the rights of anyone not incarcerated. Yet you're more than eager to incarcerate people and strip them of all of their rights.

Your second sentence is a misrepresentation of my position. Given that your second sentence is invalid, it negates your "contradiction" assertion. I believe that people who have been convicted of certain crimes (especially violent crimes) should be incarcerated.

People who are not incarcerated should have all of their rights because they've either never been convicted of a crime or they have already "paid their debt to society". If the system is letting them out while they are still considered too dangerous to own a firearm, then that's a problem with the system.

People with history of violence or certain mental illnesses very often deserve to be to be free to live their lives. This is true if they have served time or have received appropriate treatment. They shouldn't be forced to sit in prison and stripped of all of their rights.

If they deserve to be free to live their lives then they deserve to be free to buy a firearm. That's part and parcel of being free to live your life, especially the potential part of living your life where you have to defend your life.

Those same people probably should not be trusted with the responsibilities of gun ownership though. That's because they're likely to pose a much higher risk of harming themselves or other people. The fact that they can't be trusted with guns doesn't mean they should be in jail.

Anyone who poses "a much higher risk of harming themselves or other people" with a gun also poses "a much higher risk of harming themselves or other people" without a gun.

This is a fantastic answer, and I appreciate your excellent attempt to counter the slippery slope fallacy. However -- here it comes -- I do not think you have the better side of the argument. It is worthwhile to dig deeper and try to see a few things that are missed here...

Only in formal logic.

I could not agree more about the unstated premise behind this: that formal logic can be misused in a complicated world. We have all seen people yelling "fallacy" here at Reddit, and often they have no clue what they are talking about.

history has proven that people who make a slippery slope argument are usually right

I am not sure this is true. I don't even know that it could be because (reason coming) ...

The first major federal gun control law was NFA '34. If someone in 1934 had said it was a slippery slope, they would have been 100% correct.

Some 80 years later, there is not that parade of horribles that would come from opening the door to gun regulation (assuming the door was not opened in the 1800's when states passed their "black law" gun restrictions). Today, there are more federal regulations upon gun ownership than the ban of fully automatic weapons and other things introduced in the 30's, but each one has been considered individually. In fact, in the case of the 1994 "assault weapons ban," it came and went -- defying the slippery slope entirely.

You might even say the opposite: that if we allow semi-automatic weapons to remain legal, they would become a substitute for the automatic weapons that were 'appropriately' banned in the 30's; and the purpose of the original law, to stop mass civilian murders, would be undermined. The slippery slope argument always goes both ways.

Or more generally, if we allow semi-automatic weapons, soon, people will insist upon missile launchers and nuclear weapons. Silly right?

I defer to /u/Oxford89's answer on the rest of your comment.

Some 80 years later, there is not that parade of horribles that would come from opening the door to gun regulation (assuming the door was not opened in the 1800's when states passed their "black law" gun restrictions). Today, there are more federal regulations upon gun ownership than the ban of fully automatic weapons and other things introduced in the 30's, but each one has been considered individually.

The slippery slope is with regard to more and more federal gun control laws being enacted, which absolutely happened. The next major one was GCA '68, which, as a sidenote, was practically plagiarized from the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.

FOPA '86 removed some of the worst aspects of GCA '68, but it also included the Hughes amendment, which banned people from owning any new full-autos (all of which are considered "machine guns" in NFA-speak) which weren't already registered in accordance with NFA '34. This was in spite of the fact that there was not a single instance of any of those legally-owned machine guns ever having been used in a crime since the registry went into effect in 1934. Even before 1934 they were rarely used in crime aside from a few high-profile cases such as the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre. NFA '34 didn't change their [already very low] frequency of usage in crime; the criminals simply obtained them illegally instead.

In fact, in the case of the 1994 "assault weapons ban," it came and went -- defying the slippery slope entirely.

The cringeworthy AWB '94 had a 10-year sunset provision. If it didn't have that it would still be in effect. They've been trying to pass new, even more cringeworthy versions of it since then, and with no sunset provisions, the latest one being H.R.5087, which is commonly being referred to as AWB '18 right now.

The federal gun control law from around the same time which is still in effect is the Brady Law (née Brady Bill) from 1993.

You might even say the opposite: that if we allow semi-automatic weapons to remain legal, they would become a substitute for the automatic weapons that were 'appropriately' banned in the 30's; and the purpose of the original law, to stop mass civilian murders, would be undermined. The slippery slope argument always goes both ways.

That would be based on a false premise (i.e., the full-auto "ban" being appropriate), which negates the argument.

Or more generally, if we allow semi-automatic weapons, soon, people will insist upon missile launchers and nuclear weapons. Silly right?

Missile launchers already have a legal path to civilian ownership under the Destructive Devices provisions of NFA '34, but regardless of that, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear firearms, and missile launchers and nuclear weapons are not firearms, so someone making such an argument wouldn't have a leg to stand on from a constitutional perspective.

Not all slippery slope arguments are created equal. They have to at least have a solid foundation, like any argument does. Slippery slope arguments regarding ever-increasing government regulations/restrictions are a very safe bet; a cursory glance at history will show you that.

The slippery slope is with regard to more and more federal gun control laws being enacted

No, the slippery slope is the parade of terribles that would happen either way. Ultimately, we will wind up with no weapons or everyone will have ICBMs. You have contorted the slippery slope to support your views, for example:

more federal gun control laws being enacted, which absolutely happened

Those "more laws" were not "more laws," they were "laws." They could have happened with or without the auto weapons ban, and they were decided on the basis of their own merits.

They've been trying to pass new, even more cringeworthy versions of it

In other words, the slippery slope is failing. You ought to look at the implications of your facts versus your "argument." They don't fit.

That would be based on a false premise (i.e., the full-auto "ban" being appropriate),

I used quotes around the word 'appropriate' specifically to point out to the reader that they may agree or disagree but the argument still stands. Violating logical argument rules, you attacked the assumed premise.

By doing so, you also made a value judgment that may or may not apply, and selectively chose to use the slippery slope only your way. No, it works both ways.

I'm skipping your Constitutional argument, as it is not the subject here and would be quite a diversion from the slippery slope.

Not all slippery slope arguments are created equal.

Uh, yes they are. Slippery slope is always a logical fallacy.

They have to at least have a solid foundation, like any argument does.

No, a foundation that one thing could lead to another would be based upon analogy, or at least upon "history" as you claimed was on your side (which its not), or at least upon some sort of probability.

Slippery slope arguments regarding ever-increasing government regulations/restrictions are a very safe bet

One-sided again. The amount of deregulation that has occurred since Ronald Reagan has been incredible. The other side is that the deregulators will eliminate everything that made America great and created the middle class.

Unlike your anti-regulation slippery slope of regulation, the deregulators are heading toward complete elimination of the government regulations that created the middle class and made America great for the vast majority of people after World War 2. I won't use a slippery slope though.

It's in their written plans. They wrote up many plans of deconstructing government (except the military which they want to expand), and they routinely institute big chunks of their plans every time they first retake power -- 1981, 2001, 2017. This is not a slippery slope, this is a demonstrated implementation of a complete plan.

There is no argument that the same is happening by people who want regulations. There is no master plan of total regulation. There is no definition of total regulation. The whole "other side" notion is absurd. The only way you can get from here to there is with your fallacious slippery slope.

That's why you like it but only when it cuts your way. You are trying to balance a stated and demonstrated agenda against a logical fallacy and it does not work.

I apologize for assuming that you had some understanding of the slippery slope. I fallaciously assumed by slippery sloping myself that if you understood that fallacies could be misused, then you would understand many more aspects of the logic. I can see now why I was incorrect.

TL;DR Slippery slope is always a logical fallacy, a distraction, and can always be countered with an equivalent opposite slippery slope.

I did it again. I assumed that someone would have a reasonable discussion because one thing was eminently reasonable. I should have paid more attention to the rest of the comment. Whoops! It turns out it was all a convenience to reach a certain end.

Anyway, the slippery slope goes both ways, always and absolutely. Because it is an undefined argument of speculation, it never resolves the debate and it never ends. We go in circles forever.

Ultimately, we will wind up with no weapons or everyone will have ICBMs. You have contorted the slippery slope to support your one-sided views, for example:

more federal gun control laws being enacted, which absolutely happened

Gun regulations that passed after 1934 were not "more laws" built upon 1934, they were "laws" based on specific circumstances each time.

They've been trying to pass new, even more cringeworthy versions of it

So, now you are saying the slippery slope isn't working as intended because they can't implement it. That's actually quite humorous.

That would be based on a false premise

I used quotes around the word 'appropriate.' Single quotes are used to signify certain things, in this case, that we may agree or disagree with the premise but the argument stands either way. You jumped right around that and attacked the premise and not the logic.

Not all slippery slope arguments are created equal.

Yes, every slippery slope argument fails. This is our basic disagreement and now I see that you are not likely to get it. For anyone else reading this far, I will look at the regulation argument next.

Slippery slope arguments regarding ever-increasing government regulations/restrictions are a very safe bet

Not at all. There are plenty of reasons that we may expect regulations to increase over time in an evolving world -- obviously because humans start with none and there is no other way to go but increase.

There is no rule that because there is one regulation, there must be another. It can happen, but so too does the opposite.

On the other hand, we can show without the slippery slope that one deregulation leads to another. We know this because the deconstruction people have written out their plans to eliminate all the rules not counting the military, and that they implement those plans with rushes to deregulate every time they first take power -- 1981, 2001, 2017.

The stated goal of the deconstruction crowd is to eliminate all the rules and they are clearly working on it. It is trending and it will continue to trend.

There simply is no other side to this. There is no master plan of total regulation. There is no definition of total regulation. The whole "other side" notion is absurd.

But the real smoking gun in your complete logical failure is how you conveniently apply balance:

On one hand, you balance the deconstructionists against everyone else.

On the other hand, you unbalance the slippery slope argument to support your side.

Whatever works for your libertarian inspired conclusion. You reached the end you wanted.

I did it again. I assumed that someone would have a reasonable discussion because one point reasonable. I should have paid more attention to the rest of the comment. Whoops! It turns out it was all a convenience to reach a certain end.

Consider this bit of irrelevance from you dismissed out of hand.

Anyway, the slippery slope goes both ways, always and absolutely. Because it is an undefined argument of speculation, it never resolves the debate and it never ends. We go in circles forever.

Again, not all slippery slope arguments are equal, and again, people who have pointed out a slippery slope with regard to gun control have been proven right time and time again.

Ultimately, we will wind up with no weapons or everyone will have ICBMs.

Who makes a slippery slope argument that is against the obvious trend? The trend over the past ~century has been increased restrictions on firearms, which obviously doesn't lead to ICBMs. What kind of slippery slope is it supposed to be? One where gravity works in reverse?

Gun regulations that passed after 1934 were not "more laws" built upon 1934, they were "laws" based on specific circumstances each time.

That doesn't make any difference whatsoever. They are all federal gun control laws, each one resulting in less freedom than people had before each law was enacted, i.e., farther down the slippery slope than before each law was enacted.

NFA '34 was the first federal gun control law. The U.S. somehow managed to survive for 158 years without any federal gun control laws whatsoever. Given the number of federal gun control laws we have now, NFA '34 was absolutely the start of a slippery slope.

So, now you are saying the slippery slope isn't working as intended because they can't implement it. That's actually quite humorous.

What are you talking about? Of course the slippery slope is "working"; if it weren't, there would be no federal gun control laws, like in 1933 and earlier. The anti-2A crowd has gained far more distance down the slippery slope than they lost in 2004 with the sunset of AWB '94, and they've never stopped trying to get even that small lost distance back.

I used quotes around the word 'appropriate.' Single quotes are used to signify certain things, in this case, that we may agree or disagree with the premise but the argument stands either way. You jumped right around that and attacked the premise and not the logic.

You have a habit of pointing out things that make no difference. I know what quotes signify in that context, and it's irrelevant. The fact is, the premise is faulty (regardless of what we may agree or disagree with), which would negate the hypothetical slippery slope argument in the event that someone presented it.

Yes, every slippery slope argument fails.

False. I've already given an example of a slippery slope argument that has turned out to be 100% correct. Additionally, most any slippery slope argument based on the idea that government restrictions in any area that you care to name will continue to increase, will turn out to be correct. There's even a very old saying based on the near inevitability such things: "Give someone an inch and they'll take a mile".

This is our basic disagreement and now I see that you are not likely to get it.

No, I'm not going to "get" something that I've already established as being wrong, obviously. Your idea of who is failing to "get it" is, ironically, backwards.

Not at all. There are plenty of reasons that we may expect regulations to increase over time in an evolving world -- obviously because humans start with none and there is no other way to go but increase.

First, it doesn't matter what the reason is for increasing regulations; it constitutes a slippery slope regardless. Second, there is another way to go, which is, to stick with none, like the U.S. did for 158 years with regard to federal gun control laws. Also, since you didn't effectively support your "not at all" statement, consider dismissed as mere gainsaying.

There is no rule that because there is one regulation, there must be another. It can happen, but so too does the opposite.

No one said there's a rule; there is a strong trend/tendency.

On the other hand, we can show without the slippery slope that one deregulation leads to another. We know this because the deconstruction people have written out their plans to eliminate all the rules not counting the military, and that they implement those plans with rushes to deregulate every time they first take power -- 1981, 2001, 2017.

The stated goal of the deconstruction crowd is to eliminate all the rules and they are clearly working on it. It is trending and it will continue to trend.

I have no idea who the "deconstruction crowd" refers to, but I know that there's never been any crowd in power in the U.S. that has stated that their goal is to "eliminate all the rules not counting the military."

There simply is no other side to this. There is no master plan of total regulation.

There doesn't need to be a "master plan"; individual politicians who all have plans that face in the same direction are plenty effective at continuing to push us down the slippery slope.

There is no definition of total regulation.

Yes, there is. With regard to gun control, it would be a ban on the ownership of firearms.

But the real smoking gun in your complete logical failure is how you conveniently apply balance:

Consider your "complete logical failure" mere assertion dismissed, and also consider this to be: Comical Irony Alert: Part II.

On one hand, you balance the deconstructionists against everyone else.

On the other hand, you unbalance the slippery slope argument to support your side.

Whatever works for your libertarian inspired conclusion. You reached the end you wanted.

This is utter nonsense. I haven't said anything at all about "deconstructionists", and you aren't even using that term correctly to begin with. Deregulation has nothing to do with "deconstruction" in a political sense. Also, your applications of the terms "balance" and "unbalance" are novel. I suggest you stick to the generally accepted conventions of the English language.

While you complain about definitions and English, you redefine the term "slippery slope" to mean not that the parade of terribles is a logical fallacy, but that the parade of terribles only applies when you agree with the side. That's clear.

You gun history is also one sided. In fact, gun regulations go back to the 1800's and, as you said, "The U.S. somehow managed to survive for 158 years," but even more with gun regulations. Then suddenly, the Supreme Court in a highly contested 5-4 partisan decision overturned the entire judicial history of the 2nd Amendment in one swoop.

BTW, your very familiar application of conservative ideology, that "somehow" something "survived" adds nothing to the discussion. It just shows how extreme your bias is. I'll bet you believe you are an original thinker. No. You're just grade school clever to define gun regulations as "federal" and to ignore that they existed at the state level.

As someone who supports deregulation from a libertarian ideological view, you should be well aware that it is a method of deconstruction. Instead of attempting to debunk every last phrase by piling on more garbage, you might want to study what your libertarian leaders have said on the subject, whether it is the Koch children, the Chamber of Commerce, Lewis Powell, the American Liberty League, the Laffer Curve folks, or the "two Santa Claus" tax cutters. You could even look at Donald Trump and Steve Bannon whose "deconstruction" agenda was covered in the press. Where were you for that one?

Since we have now thrown out "formal logic" where you started and now have reverted to old adages, I have one, adjusted for the situation: ignorance is no excuse for your views.

Summer school will have tuition fees.

While you complain about definitions and English, you redefine the term "slippery slope" to mean not that the parade of terribles is a logical fallacy, but that the parade of terribles only applies when you agree with the side. That's clear.

I haven't redefined anything. A slippery slope can be any chain of related events in which each event opened the door or left the door open for the next event, without regard to who "agrees with the side".

You gun history is also one sided. In fact, gun regulations go back to the 1800's

I thought that simply typing the qualifier "federal" was enough. Do you need me to place the word "federal" in bold from now on? Once again, the first federal gun control law was NFA '34.

"The U.S. somehow managed to survive for 158 years," but even longer with gun regulations.

Let's see:

158 years without federal gun control laws 84 years with federal gun control laws

By what manner of math is 84 years longer than 158 years?

In any case, pointing out that the U.S. has survived with federal gun control laws is irrelevant to what I said. Surviving for that long without something proves that said something is unnecessary, while surviving with something in no way proves, nor even suggests, that said something is necessary.

Then suddenly, the Supreme Court in a highly contested 5-4 partisan decision in 2008 overturned the entire judicial history of the 2nd Amendment in one swoop.

No, it didn't:

District of Columbia v. Heller Holding The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.

All that's needed is one example to refute your "entire judicial history" assertion, so see Presser v. Illinois (1886):

The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias

Anyone who can speak English properly has always known that to be the case anyway, simply from reading the text of the Second Amendment.

BTW, your very familiar application of conservative ideology, that "somehow" something "survived" adds nothing to the discussion.

Yes, it does. As I said above, surviving for that long without something proves that said something is unnecessary. By the way, organized crime events such as the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre were used to justify NFA '34, even though it was Prohibition, not guns, that triggered the rise of organized crime during that period.

It just shows how extreme your bias is. I'll bet you believe you are an original thinker. No.

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

You're just grade school clever to define gun regulations as "federal" and to ignore that they existed at the state level.

SCOTUS made the same distinction between federal and state gun regulations in 1886. I suppose they were also "just grade school clever"?

The Court also noted that the Second Amendment only restrained the federal government from regulating gun ownership, not the individual states:

As someone who supports deregulation from a libertarian ideological view, you should be well aware that it is a method of deconstruction.

"Deconstruction", in a political sense, has nothing to do with deregulation. In fact, there is no sense of the word that has anything to do with deregulation, aside from the one that you made up.

Definition of deconstruction 1 : a philosophical or critical method which asserts that meanings, metaphysical constructs, and hierarchical oppositions (as between key terms in a philosophical or literary work) are always rendered unstable by their dependence on ultimately arbitrary signifiers; also : an instance of the use of this method - a deconstruction of the nature–culture opposition in Rousseau's work

2: the analytic examination of something (such as a theory) often in order to reveal its inadequacy

It a philosophy/method which can be applied to political analysis, but it doesn't include any particular political goals such as deregulation or anything else.

Instead of attempting to debunk every last phrase by piling on more garbage, you might want to study what your libertarian leaders have said on the subject, whether it is the Koch children, the Chamber of Commerce, Lewis Powell, the American Liberty League, the Laffer Curve folks, or the "two Santa Claus" tax cutters. You could even look at Donald Trump and Steve Bannon whose "deconstruction" agenda was covered in the press. Where were you for that one?

I don't have any "libertarian leaders", and as such, this is another non sequitur from you.

Since we have now thrown out the "formal logic" where you started and now have reverted to old adages, I have one, adjusted for the situation: ignorance is no excuse for your views.

Summer school will have tuition fees.

This is a non sequitur as well; consider it dismissed along with your others. And just so you know, I'm not using the term "non sequitur" in the formal logic sense.

About three pages of desperate kicking and screaming. So, should I reply point for point and make it five? No thanks because (1) I have a life and (2) nobody is reading this. So you win.

1. The claim -- the exact term -- "formal logic" was made originally by you, and now you've flip flopped to say you didn't mean formal logic.

2. The trick of redefining the world to only include "federal" laws was made by you to prove a point you could not make by looking at the whole body of law. Interestingly, Ben Shapiro uses this same trick. I wonder if that's who dropped these notions on you.

3. The length of your retort makes it nearly impossible to respond to all the errors, so you can call it a win on most of them, but having jumped past it before, I would like to correct your legal analysis ...

4. Does the Constitution grant an individual right to weapons that the states must comply with?

The 2008 Heller case was the first time the Supreme Court found an "individual" gun right. It was a 5-4 decision that reversed prior cases, and therefore, it would be very hard to claim with a straight face that "anyone [would have] always known that to be the case." Read the case.

The cited case from 1886 rejects the notion that the 2nd Amendment provides a right to weapons under state law. The case describes something that became known as the "incorporation doctrine." From the case: "The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states."

But if the actual words of the case are not good enough for you, Presser was convicted of joining an "unauthorized body of men with arms" under state law and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. Clearly, there was no 2nd Amendment protection found there.

Building upon the 5-4 2008 Heller case, which suddenly granted an individual right to own weapons in federal areas, the 2010 McDonald case overturned Presser and found that there was an individual right in the 2nd Amendment to overrule state weapons regulations. This case too was 5-4. You don't even have your cases right. It was McDonald and not Heller that directly overruled Presser.

In between, there were other cases like Miller in 1939. In Miller, the Supreme Court said regarding the federal ban on sawed-off shot guns, "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument" because "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." This was just a few years after the NFA and it was a unaimous 8-0 decision.

I am glad you realized that you should no longer play former logician online. Now you should recognize that you should no longer play lawyer either. :)

About three pages of desperate kicking and screaming. So, should I reply point for point and make it five? No thanks because (1) I have a life and (2) nobody is reading this. So you win.

1. The claim -- the exact term -- "formal logic" was made originally by you, and now you've flip flopped to say you didn't mean formal logic.

2. The trick of redefining the world to only include "federal" laws was made by you to prove a point you could not make by looking at the whole body of law. Interestingly, Ben Shapiro uses this same trick. I wonder if that's who dropped these notions on you.

3. The length of your retort makes it nearly impossible to respond to all the errors, so you can call it a win on most of them, but having jumped past it before, I would like to correct your legal analysis ...

4. Does the Constitution grant an individual right to weapons that the states must comply with?

The 2008 Heller case was the first time the Supreme Court found an "individual" gun right. It was a 5-4 decision that reversed prior cases, and therefore, it would be very hard to claim with a straight face that "anyone [would have] always known that to be the case." Read the case.

The cited case from 1886 rejects the notion that the 2nd Amendment provides a right to weapons under state law. The case describes something that became known as the "incorporation doctrine." From the case: "The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states."

But if the actual words of the case are not good enough for you, Presser was convicted of joining an "unauthorized body of men with arms" under state law and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. Clearly, there was no 2nd Amendment protection found there.

Building upon the 5-4 2008 Heller case, which suddenly granted an individual right to own weapons in federal areas, the 2010 McDonald case overturned Presser and found that there was an individual right in the 2nd Amendment to overrule state weapons regulations. This case too was 5-4. You don't even have your cases right. It was McDonald and not Heller that directly overruled Presser.

In between, there were other cases like Miller in 1939. In Miller, the Supreme Court said regarding the federal ban on sawed-off shot guns, "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument" because of the lacking "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." This was just a few years after the NFA and it was a unanimous 8-0 decision by a Republican majority Court.

I am glad you realized that you should no longer play former logician online. Now you should recognize that you should no longer play lawyer either. :)

About three pages of desperate kicking and screaming. So, should I reply point for point and make it five? No thanks because (1) I have a life and (2) nobody is reading this. So you win.

1. The trick of redefining the world to only include "federal" laws was made by you to prove a point you could not make by looking at the whole body of law. Interestingly, Ben Shapiro uses this same trick. I wonder if that's who dropped these notions on you.

2. The length of your retort makes it nearly impossible to respond to all the errors, so you can call it a win on most of them, but having jumped past it before, I would like to correct your legal analysis ...

3. Does the Constitution grant an individual right to weapons that the states must comply with?

The 2008 Heller case was the first time the Supreme Court found an "individual" gun right. It was a 5-4 decision that reversed prior cases, and therefore, it would be very hard to claim with a straight face that "anyone [would have] always known that to be the case." Read the case.

The cited case from 1886 rejects the notion that the 2nd Amendment provides a right to weapons under state law. The case describes something that became known as the "incorporation doctrine." From the case: "The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states."

But if the actual words of the case are not good enough for you, Presser was convicted of joining an "unauthorized body of men with arms" under state law and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. Clearly, there was no 2nd Amendment protection found there.

Building upon the 5-4 2008 Heller case, which suddenly granted an individual right to own weapons in federal areas, the 2010 McDonald case overturned Presser and found that there was an individual right in the 2nd Amendment to overrule state weapons regulations. This case too was 5-4. You don't even have your cases right. It was McDonald and not Heller that directly overruled Presser.

In between, there were other cases like Miller in 1939. In Miller, the Supreme Court said regarding the federal ban on sawed-off shot guns, "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument" because of the lacking "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." This was just a few years after the NFA and it was a unanimous 8-0 decision.

I am glad that you are using terms of formal logic and pretending to both be a logician and not be a logician online. Now you should recognize that you should no longer play lawyer either. :)

About three pages of desperate kicking and screaming.

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

So, should I reply point for point and make it five? No thanks because (1) I have a life and (2) nobody is reading this.

This non sequitur of yours is dismissed as well.

So you win.

Your concession is noted.

The trick of redefining the world to only include "federal" laws was made by you to prove a point you could not make by looking at the whole body of law. Interestingly, Ben Shapiro uses this same trick. I wonder if that's who dropped these notions on you.

Absurd. I didn't redefine anything. Federal laws are not the same thing as state or local laws, obviously. If e.g., California passes a law it doesn't apply to me here in Maine. If a federal law is passed, it applies to everyone in the country. Federal gun control laws are especially ridiculous, because even if the idea that gun control laws solve crime problems were valid (it isn't), different states, or better yet, different municipalities, have drastically different crime problems. My state has a very low crime rate, and in my small town violent crime is practically unheard of. Gun ownership is common in my town, and in my state in general. It is absurd that we have the same ignorance-and-stupidity-fueled stab at a crime solution forced on us as places like Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, and Baltimore.

The length of your retort makes it nearly impossible to respond to all the errors, so you can call it a win on most of them, but having jumped past it before

Your concession is noted again, and I "bolded" the mere assertion part, which you can consider dismissed out of hand.

Does the Constitution grant an individual right to weapons

The Second Amendment doesn't grant anything; it protects/guarantees a right which is considered to be pre-existing. And yes, it is an individual right.

that the states must comply with?

That wasn't determined DC v. Heller, it was determined two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago.

The 2008 Heller case was the first time the Supreme Court found an "individual" gun right.

Again:

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms:

DC v. Heller was the first time SCOTUS affirmed the individual right in its official holding, because it is the first time SCOTUS ruled on a case where that was the question, and being the first time it obviously didn't overturn any previous case on that matter, because there was no previous SCOTUS case on that particular matter. However, it is not the first time SCOTUS acknowledged the individual RKBA (see above).

The 2008 Heller case was the first time the Supreme Court found an "individual" gun right. It was a 5-4 decision that reversed prior cases

No, it didn't, at least not prior SCOTUS cases.

it would be very hard to claim with a straight face that "anyone [would have] always known that to be the case."

I said: "Anyone who can speak English properly has always known that to be the case anyway, simply from reading the text of the Second Amendment." Since your English skills don't seem to be up to snuff, read Roy Copperud's analysis of the text of the Second Amendment, from the early 1990s:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1444

Read the case.

I already have.

The cited case from 1886 rejects the notion that the 2nd Amendment provides a right to weapons under state law. The case describes something that became known as the "incorporation doctrine." From the case: "The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states."

But if the actual words of the case are not good enough for you, Presser was convicted of joining an "unauthorized body of men with arms" under state law and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. Clearly, there was no 2nd Amendment protection found there.

I've already quoted a summary of the case, first in part, and then a more complete summary above, with some "bolding" even. So, see above.

Building upon the 5-4 2008 Heller case, which suddenly granted an individual right to own weapons in federal areas

They didn't "grant" anything; they simply affirmed what people already knew based on the words of the Second Amendment (by "people" I mean, people who can speak English properly).

the 2010 McDonald case overturned Presser and found that there was an individual right in the 2nd Amendment to overrule state weapons regulations. This case too was 5-4. You don't even have your cases right. It was McDonald and not Heller that directly overruled Presser.

Is that a joke? I pointed this out above, and I never said anything in a previous post about any case overruling Presser. The only thing I said about Presser is that it acknowledged an individual RKBA, which is in agreement with the Heller case, and which refuted your assertion that Heller "overturned the entire judicial history of the 2nd Amendment in one swoop." You really went off the deep end with those last two sentences.

In between, there were other cases like Miller in 1939. In Miller, the Supreme Court said regarding the federal ban on sawed-off shot guns, "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument" because of the lacking "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." This was just a few years after the NFA and it was a unanimous 8-0 decision by a Republican majority Court.

There isn't now, nor has there ever been, a federal ban on "sawed-off shotguns". NFA '34 requires registration and a tax stamp in order to legally own one. If the short-barrelled shotgun falls under the category of "any other weapon", the transfer tax is only $5.

I'm glad you like the Miller case, because if you follow the logic of the ruling, it means that full-autos should be readily available for purchase without any additional government restrictions compared to semi-autos, bolt-actions, etc. The Miller case held that regulating short-barreled shotguns didn't violate the Constitution because they are not "part of the ordinary military equipment". You know what is "part of the ordinary military equipment"? Full-autos, for example, the M16 family of rifles.

I am glad that you are using terms of formal logic and pretending to both be a logician and not be a logician online. Now you should recognize that you should no longer play lawyer either. :)

Your non sequitur is dismissed, as usual.

In 1886, did the Supreme Court uphold a criminal conviction for violations of state gun restrictions? Yes, yes it did.

Did the 1886 court find and rule that the 2nd Amendment does not prevent states from banning guns? Yes, yes it did.

In 1939, did the Supreme Court uphold a criminal conviction for violations of federal gun restrictions? Yes, yes it did.

Did the 1939 court find and rule that the 2nd Amendment does not prevent states from regulating guns? Yes, yes it did.

The actual outcomes of the above cases, that the person challenging the restrictions lost, says all you need to know.

SO, no, I won't answer all your errors. If this were an actual court case, your submission would be rejected under Rule 403 and you would be subject to mandatory sanctions under Rule 11.

In 1886, did the Supreme Court uphold a criminal conviction for violations of state gun restrictions? Yes, yes it did.

Is that another joke? Presser wasn't even carrying a gun, he was carrying a cavalry sword. His criminal conviction had nothing to do with gun control laws. He was charged with parading and drilling with an unauthorized militia group without a license from the governor. He was convicted and fined $10.

In the Presser case, SCOTUS held that the regulations regarding parading, drilling, forming militias, did not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This is a direct quote from the court:

"We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Did the 1886 court find and rule that the 2nd Amendment does not prevent states from banning guns? Yes, yes it did.

And yet another joke from you? In reality, they did the opposite:

However, the high court stated that there is a limit upon state restriction of firearms ownership, in that they may not disarm the people to such an extent that there is no remaining armed militia force for the general government to call upon:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.

In 1939, did the Supreme Court uphold a criminal conviction for violations of federal gun restrictions? Yes, yes it did.

Did the 1939 court find and rule that the 2nd Amendment does not prevent the federal government from regulating guns? Yes, yes it did.

SCOTUS only ruled on one specific thing in the Miller case, i.e., the regulation of short-barreled shotguns, and comically, their ruling means that full-autos should not be regulated. They did not speak to the extent to which the federal government can regulate guns.

The actual outcomes of the above cases, that the person challenging the restrictions lost, says all you need to know.

In the 1886 case, the person wasn't even challenging a gun control law, he was challenging what you might call a "militia control law" (see above), and in the 1939 case, the defendant (Miller) didn't even show up, so he obviously couldn't present any sort of defense.

In reality, Ragon was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would be a sure win because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument.

In other words, it was a conspiracy, which is quite fitting for this subreddit. You can read all about it in the "The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller" paper, by Brian L. Frye, published by NYU Journal of Law and Liberty:

http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf

You can start in section D entitled "Judge Ragon" on page 16 of the PDF file.

SO, no, I won't answer all your errors.

You haven't established any errors on my part (so consider your non sequitur dismissed), and ironically, you made some blatant errors in this post (which I addressed above) which were so ridiculous that I have to wonder if you were joking. The errors you made in this post are far from the only ones you've made (I've addressed many of them in previous posts), but they were among the most comical.

Of course, your tacit concession on all the matters you failed to address is noted, and your explicit concession in your previous post remains noted.

If this were an actual court case, your submission would be rejected under Rule 403 and you would be subject to mandatory sanctions under Rule 11.

Your mere assertion is dismissed, and this is another Comical Irony Alert for you, you know, coming from the guy who's currently wearing a virtual dunce cap due to those risible gaffes above.

In 1886 and 1939, the Supreme Court upheld restrictions upon the 2nd Amendment right.

In 2008 and 2010, a 5-4 Supreme Court overturned those restrictions.

A hundred thousand words doesn't change that.

Parties dismissed.

Thank you. :)

In 1886 and 1939, the Supreme Court upheld restrictions upon the 2nd Amendment right.

In 2008 and 2010, a 5-4 Supreme Court overturned those restrictions.

False. Short-barreled shotgun are still subject to the exact same NFA '34 restrictions that the 1939 case upheld, and the "militia control law" under dispute in the 1886 case wasn't even relevant to the Second Amendment (which is exactly what the court held), i.e., 2A guarantees that right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; it doesn't guarantee any right to parade/drill in the streets as part of an unauthorized militia. Again, Presser (the defendant) wasn't even carrying a gun.

If you're arrested in Cook County, Illinois for parading/drilling in the streets as part of an unauthorized militia, or you are arrested anywhere for having an unregistered SBS, and in your defense you cite the 2008 and/or the 2010 SCOTUS rulings, you'll be laughed out of court.

The 2010 ruling did incorporate 2A under the 14th Amendment, which refuted the 1886 SCOTUS opinion that 2A only only restrained the federal government from regulating gun ownership, not the individual states. However, not only is that not a complete overturn of the 1886 case (see above), but it is also a laughable attempt by you to move the goalpost. You originally said that Heller (2008) "overturned the entire judicial history of the 2nd Amendment in one swoop." In reality, Heller didn't overturn any previous SCOTUS case, and even if you move the goalpost to include McDonald (2010), it only overturned a side note of the 1886 case, rather than the main ruling which was with regard to the Cook County, Illinois "militia control law" being irrelevant to 2A.

A hundred thousand words doesn't change that.

Parties dismissed.

Thank you. :)

Your non sequitur is dismissed, and you should probably stop replying. You are only digging yourself in deeper with each post, i.e., you are making a fool of yourself.

By the way, remember when you said:

"Did the 1886 court find and rule that the 2nd Amendment does not prevent states from banning guns? Yes, yes it did."

LOL!

Then, remember when you made this post with new, easily-refuted errors and just pretended that you didn't make that hilarious gaffe, as well as other equally hilarious gaffes? LOL! (again)

Illinois "militia control law" being irrelevant to 2A.

ROFL @ "irrelevant." You mean the 2nd Amendment didn't protect it.

Your language:

Two old cases found the 2nd Amendment "irrelevant" in weapons control, two recent cases suddenly found "rights" and overturned weapons laws, 5 to 4. :)

ROFL @ "irrelevant." You mean the 2nd Amendment didn't protect it.

That's what irrelevant means, just like 2A is irrelevant to e.g., laws against jaywalking because 2A doesn't protect a right to jaywalk.

Two old cases found the 2nd Amendment "irrelevant" in weapons control, two recent cases suddenly found "rights" and overturned weapons laws, 5 to 4. :)

Already refuted (multiple times), thus dismissed. And given that you presented no arguments whatsoever, your tacit concession on the whole matter is noted.

Also, remember when you said:

"Did the 1886 court find and rule that the 2nd Amendment does not prevent states from banning guns? Yes, yes it did."

LOL!

Then, remember when you made more posts with new, easily-refuted errors and just pretended that you didn't make that hilarious gaffe, as well as other equally hilarious gaffes? LOL! (again)

Guns-swords-arms. 2nd Amendment. Since you got stuck on that. Focus on anything but the decision. Didn't your law school teach you how to brief a case?

2A is irrelevant

Did not apply. Not until Heller. This is some serious 4D chess you're playing.

Can we move on not to taxes are voluntary?

Guns-swords-arms, a distinction without a legal difference.

There's no legal difference between guns and swords? LOL at that. Consider your laughably false assertion dismissed out of hand.

His charge and conviction had nothing to do with the sword.

2nd Amendment. Since you got stuck on that. Focus on anything but the decision. Didn't your law school teach you how to brief a case?

Your semicoherent incomplete sentences and non sequiturs are dismissed.

Did not apply. Not until Heller.

What are you talking about? Heller didn't overturn any aspect of Presser or any other previous SCOTUS case. 2A didn't guarantee a right to parade and drill on a public street with an unauthorized militia in 1886 and it still doesn't.

This is some serious 4D chess you're playing.

Can we move on to taxes are voluntary? That one is even more fun.

Your non sequiturs are dismissed, and your tacit concession on the whole matter remains noted.

Shorter version now:

1886 and 1939 -- SCOTUS did not protect any 2nd Amendment "right."

2008 and 2010 -- 5-4 SCOTUS suddenly discovered such "right" and protected it.

Conservatives would call this "judicial activism" but not when they do it.

Keep declaring victory. It feels good to believe you're winning. :)

Shorter version now:

LOL at you trying to move the goalpost, yet again.

1886 and 1939 -- SCOTUS did not protect any 2nd Amendment "right."

LOL at you putting the word right in quotes. 2A is part of what's known as the Bill of Rights. It states:

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.

In 1886, the right of the people to keep and bear arms was specifically acknowledged by SCOTUS, and I've already posted that quotation. Also, they specifically stated that states could not ban guns, which reminds me, remember when you said:

"Did the 1886 court find and rule that the 2nd Amendment does not prevent states from banning guns? Yes, yes it did."

LOL!

2008 and 2010 -- 5-4 SCOTUS suddenly discovered such "right" and protected it.

They "discovered" such right in the Bill of Rights in an amendment which states "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,"? LOL at that. They "discovered" nothing; they simply affirmed a plain-English reading of the Second Amendment.

Conservatives would call this "judicial activism" but not when they do it.

Upholding the constitution is not "judicial activism", it is doing their sworn duty. The shady one is Miller (1939), which was the result of a known conspiracy. Ironically, you keep harping on "5-4", which is a perfectly legitimate outcome, and ignore the known conspiracy behind the Miller case.

Keep declaring victory.

I haven't declared any such thing. I've noted your explicit and tacit concessions. In yet another example of comical irony from you, you are the only one who has declared victory for me, though it wasn't necessary for you to do so, because anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see that you've been thoroughly trounced in this argument, over and over again.

It feels good to believe you're winning. :)

Remember when you said:

So you win.

I'm going to point out the obvious here: you're making a fool of yourself.

Supreme Court may "acknowledge" anything it likes in its long rambling opinions. Again, please go look up how to brief a case.

Interestingly enough, in the same year that the Supreme Court did not overturn a claim of 2nd Amendment rights, it also did not create Constitutional corporate personhood. But many say it did.

In both cases, SCOTUS found against the party claiming such rights. Everything else is banter.

Similarly, in 2010, a 5-4 partisan Court of judicial activists defied the 1886 decisions both by finding 2nd Amendment "rights" that were previously denied, and by finding Constitutional corporate rights far beyond those which had previously exists. That's called "judicial activism" as your conservative buddies themselves have claimed -- finding rights or changing past decisions.

The reason I brought up the tax payer cases earlier is because they do the same thing you do -- take quotes from a Supreme Court decision -- out of context and without regard to the final judgment -- and use them to establish a rule that the Court did not establish. Look up "brief a case" and read. :)

Supreme Court may "acknowledge" anything it likes in its long rambling opinions. Again, please go look up how to brief a case.

This is a non sequitur and unwarranted usage of quotes around acknowledge. As such, consider it dismissed out of hand.

Interestingly enough, in the same year that the Supreme Court did not overturn a claim of 2nd Amendment rights, it also did not create Constitutional corporate personhood. But many say it did.

And this is another non sequitur; consider it dismissed as well.

In both situations, SCOTUS found against the party claiming such rights.

In 1886 Presser obviously didn't have a valid claim. It doesn't help your argument in the least that a case which was obviously irrelevant to 2A was found by SCOTUS to be irrelevant to 2A. In 1939 the claim was logically valid but the case was tainted by a known conspiracy. It didn't even have a party claiming anything, because said party didn't show up.

Similarly, in 2010, a 5-4 partisan Court of judicial activists defied the 1886 decisions both by finding 2nd Amendment "rights" that were previously denied, and by finding Constitutional corporate rights far beyond those which had previously existed. That's called "judicial activism" as your conservative buddies themselves have claimed -- finding rights or changing past decisions.

Just 2010 now? In your last post you said:

2008 and 2010 -- 5-4 SCOTUS suddenly discovered such "right" and protected it. Conservatives would call this "judicial activism" but not when they do it.

And of course, even that was an attempted goalpost shift from your original claim, which only mentioned 2008:

Then suddenly, the Supreme Court in a highly contested 5-4 partisan decision in 2008 overturned the entire judicial history of the 2nd Amendment in one swoop.

In any case, nothing was "found" in 2008 or 2010 which had previously been denied, and no case prior to 2010 had even ruled on the matter of 2A's incorporation through 14A, i.e., it was unaddressed up until that point. In 1886 there was no precedent of incorporation through 14A (the precedent was set in 1897, and since then, most of the significant provisions of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated), though even in 1886 SCOTUS said that states couldn't ban guns (which, comically, is exactly the opposite of what you claimed... 'member that?).

The reason I brought up the tax payer cases earlier is because they do the same thing you do -- take quotes from a Supreme Court decision -- out of context and without regard to the final judgment -- and use them to establish a rule that the Court did not establish. Look up "how to brief a case" and read. :)

Your non sequitur is dismissed, and also, I "bolded" the text which constitutes yet another Comical Irony Alert for you, considering your plethora of hilariously false assertions with regard to SCOTUS cases.

Reminder: 1886 and 1939 cases did not find or uphold or 2nd Amendment rights. The outcomes were against such rights.

The 2008 and 2010 cases were the first in American history to find and decide for 2nd Amendment rights and they did so more than 200 years after the Constitution and more than 150 years after the 14th Amendment, despite "arms" restrictions dating back at least 150 years.

That's judicial activism.

Not "hav[ing] a valid claim" = no right to uphold.

The 2008 and 2010 cases 5-4 found 2nd Amendment rights for the first time in American history.

"Acknowledge" goes in quotes because you used the word. The Supreme Court may or may not "acknowledge" rights but (I see you haven't bothered to search "brief a case" yet) they are nonbinding unless they are necessary to the judgment. They are merely dicta.

Therefore, your incorrect use of "acknowledge" is the non sequitur and dismissed. This is about the only English you understand.

Just 2010 now?

Hey, internet logician, have you studied the concept of Venn diagrams or mutual exclusivity?

Conversations involve trying to understand each other as I did in my first comment in this thread -- not giant walls of text three pages long that try to attack every last phrase. You just need your personal win and validation.

But that doesn't change the fact that the two early cases upheld nothing 2nd Amendment.

Reminder: 1886 and 1939 cases did not find or uphold or 2nd Amendment rights. The outcomes were against such rights.

There were no rights to find; the right of the people to keep and bear arms is pre-existing and guaranteed, in plain English, in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Those cases determined whether or not the defendants' Second Amendment rights had been violated by the laws under which they were charged/convicted.

Again, they weren't looking for a right. The right already existed; it was a given. They were looking for a violation of said right, and they didn't find one. This doesn't support your argument in the least. There are an infinite number of things which do not violate the 2A right.

The 2008 and 2010 cases were the first in American history to find and decide for 2nd Amendment rights and they did so more than 200 years after the Constitution and more than 150 years after the 14th Amendment respectively, despite "arms" or "militia" restrictions dating back at least 150 years.

False. There were no rights to find, as they already existed. See above.

That's judicial activism.

You don't know what you're talking about, and this is far from the first example of your ultracrepidarianism.

Not "hav[ing] a valid claim" = no right to uphold.

Utterly absurd. If I claim that my 1A rights were violated because an internet forum moderator deleted my post, I don't have a valid claim, but that in no way means that there is no 1A right to uphold. Likewise, if I claim that being arrested for parading/drilling on a public street with an unauthorized militia group violated my 2A rights, I don't have a valid claim, but that in no way means that there is no 2A rights to uphold.

The 2008 and 2010 cases 5-4 found 2nd Amendment rights for the first time in American history.

False. There were no rights to find, as they already existed. See above.

"Acknowledge" goes in quotes because you used the word.

I used the word properly, i.e., they did in fact acknowledge the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Even if they hadn't explicitly acknowledged that right, it is tacitly acknowledged simply by hearing the case, i.e., you can't have a case to determine whether or not a right has been violated if it's not already a given that the right exists in the first place. When you put a word in quotes as you did, it denotes a non-standard / inaccurate usage of the term.

The Supreme Court may or may not "acknowledge" rights but (I see you haven't bothered to search "brief a case" yet) they are nonbinding unless they are necessary to the judgment. They are merely dicta.

See above.

Therefore, your incorrect use of "acknowledge" is the non sequitur and dismissed. This is about the only English you understand.

Given that I used the term correctly (see above), this doesn't logically follow from anything I said. As such, it is a non sequitur; consider it dismissed out of hand. Also, this is a textbook example of "monkey see, monkey do" on your part.

Hey, internet logician, have you studied the concept of Venn diagrams or mutual exclusivity?

Conversations involve trying to understand each other as I did in my first comment in this thread -- not giant walls of text three pages long that try to attack every last phrase. You just need your personal win and validation.

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

But that doesn't change the fact that the two early cases upheld nothing 2nd Amendment.

It was found that the defendants' 2A rights were not violated, which is utterly irrelevant. Again, there are an infinite number of things which do not violate anyone's 2A rights, and the same goes for any other right.

Basically, that's all ideology created by the very people who suddenly found the "right" in 2008 and 2010. But you don't have to take if from me, here's Republican Supreme Court Chief Justice just three years before the Heller case, explaining that the opposite is true in a 5-4 decision where Antonin Scalia, the lead Judicial Activist in the Heller case agreed:

The determinative factor here, however, is that 40 years passed in which the monument’s presence, legally speaking, went unchallenged (until the single legal objection raised by petitioner). Those 40 years suggest more strongly than can any set of formulaic tests that few individuals, whatever their belief systems, are likely to have understood the monument as amounting, in any significantly detrimental way, to a government effort to establish religion.

Now, before you "non sequitur dismissed" this, you ought to add the word "analogy" to your English vocabulary.

If 40 years without a challenge are enough to be "determinative" in a case claiming protected Constitutional rights in the Bill of Rights, then surely 150 years of gun regulations not being successfully challenged would be determinative in making sure that no new rights are established under another one of the Bill of Rights.

So no, it is not true as agreed by the very judicial activist that contorted both the history and his own ideology to reach a result he wanted.

And this?

Even if they hadn't explicitly acknowledged that right, it is tacitly acknowledged simply by hearing the case, i.e., you can't have a case to determine whether or not a right has been violated if it's not already a given that the right exists in the first place. When you put a word in quotes as you did, it denotes a non-standard / inaccurate usage of the term.

This is self-disproving. You'd be better off prefabricating some expert's contortion of history rather than trying to write it up yourself.

A decision must actually be made about a right, and the Court has to do that. It doesn't happen by magic.

Basically, that's all ideology created by the very people who suddenly found the "right" in 2008 and 2010.

Already refuted, thus dismissed.

The determinative factor here, however, is that 40 years passed in which the monument’s presence, legally speaking, went unchallenged (until the single legal objection raised by petitioner). Those 40 years suggest more strongly than can any set of formulaic tests that few individuals, whatever their belief systems, are likely to have understood the monument as amounting, in any significantly detrimental way, to a government effort to establish religion.

The amount of time that has passed before something is legally challenged is irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is whether or not something violates the constitution.

Now, before you "non sequitur dismissed" this, you ought to add the word "analogy" to your English vocabulary.

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

If 40 years without a challenge are enough to be "determinative" in a case claiming protected Constitutional rights in the Bill of Rights, then surely 150 years of gun regulations not being successfully challenged would be determinative in making sure that no new rights are established under another one of the Bill of Rights.

Again, the amount of time that has passed before something is legally challenged is irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is whether or not something violates the constitution. Show me the law (and not someone's opinion) which establishes that something automatically becomes confirmed as being constitutional if it is in place for X number of years without a legal challenge.

Also, it isn't easy or free (nor even cheap) to challenge the constitutionality of something. It is a major undertaking which can take years. The background on the Heller case dates back to 2002 when Robert A. Levy began vetting plaintiffs for the planned lawsuit, which he was financing. Some random guy off the street can't just call 1-800-TSCOTUS and get an appointment to have his case heard by the Supreme Court tomorrow. On top of that, consider your "150 years of gun regulations" non sequitur dismissed. The Heller case didn't challenge "150 years of gun regulations", it challenged the one that most blatantly violated 2A, i.e., Washington DC's Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975. If your fellow lefties in DC hadn't been so stupidly arrogant as to think they were above the constitution, Heller v. DC never could have happened. It's funny that they (along with their fellow airheads in Chicago) unwittingly made themselves into the tool that was needed to enforce 2A.

The amount of time that has passed before something is legally challenged is irrelevant

The Court said that the amount of time was "determinative." Determinative is the opposite of irrelevant. Take it up with your conservative buddies at SCOTUS.

So, not only did they suddenly find a right that they never decided exists before, and violated their new rule about the amount of time that would be "determinative," they also overturned pretty much every decision ever made that refused to find a right in the 2nd Amendment.

"years" != "hundreds of years"

Is there a Supreme Court case that says anything remotely about how difficult it is to file cases as an excuse for taking over 200 years for a challenge to a weapons restriction to finally create a right or any other major delay? No. You just made that entire sprawling paragraph up. Don't quit your day job. :)

The Court said that the amount of time was "determinative."

Again, the amount of time that has passed before something is legally challenged is irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is whether or not something violates the constitution. Show me the law (and not someone's opinion) which establishes that something automatically becomes confirmed as being constitutional if it is in place for X number of years without a legal challenge.

Take it up with your conservative buddies at SCOTUS.

I don't have "buddies" at SCOTUS, and as such, your non sequitur is dismissed.

So, not only did they suddenly find a right that they never decided exists before

Already refuted, thus dismissed.

and violated their new rule about the amount of time that would be "determinative,"

There is no such rule, and even if there were such a rule (there isn't), 1975 to 2002 is 27 years, which is less than 40.

they also overturned pretty much every decision ever made that refused to find a right in the 2nd Amendment.

In reality, nothing was overturned, and there's no such thing as a case which "refused to find a right in the 2nd Amendment." All 2A cases have been about whether or not such and such violated a person's 2A rights.

"years" != "hundreds of years"

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

Is there a Supreme Court case that says anything remotely about how difficult it is to file cases as an excuse for taking over 200 years for a challenge to a weapons restriction to finally create a right or any other major delay?

No excuse is needed because there is no law which establishes that something automatically becomes confirmed as being constitutional if it is in place for X number of years without a legal challenge. And even if there were such a law (there isn't), 27 years is less than 40 years, and a lot less than the "over 200 years" that you just pulled out of your ass. Also, no right was created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is considered a pre-existing right and has been protected by the Constitution since 1791.

No. You just made that entire sprawling paragraph up.

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

Don't quit your day job. :)

Your non sequitur is dismissed. Also, Comical Irony Alert: Part XXIX.

I was having this debate the other day. Do we have any evidence that "mentally ill" people are more prone to these types of violence, or violence in General? Also, what types of mental illness?

mass shooters in recent times are almost all on anti psychotic or anti depressant drugs so...

Return to OPs statement

Only problem is, who classifies them unfit for owning a firearm? They can claim ADHD is a mental illness, and that isn’t right.

Nobody is saying that anyone with any mental illness should be prevented from owning a gun. I get why this can be confusing based upon the way we talk about it though.

The argument is that mentally ill who pose a danger to themselves or others should not be allowed to buy a gun. For example, if you've threatened to kill yourself or others then you should not be allowed to own a gun. If you have an illness where you see or hear things that aren't there, like schizophrenia, then you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

My state even went more crazy and began taking guns away from the mentally ill

Seems like a good idea to me and I own loads of guns and I am an avid NRA member.

The problem comes when they are trying to ban gun ownership from under 21 year old when there is no correlation between being under 21 and the 64 mass public shootings from 1998 through March 13, 2018

No, it’s not. The mental illness bs laws they will pass will be very broad. I mentioned above that they could even say ADHD is a mental illness that should prevent you from owning a gun, they can pretty much say anyone has X syndrome and bam, banned from buying.

Seems like a good idea to me and I own loads of guns and I am an avid NRA member.

You have a naive level of faith in the people who define and diagnose mental illnesses. Psychology isn't even a hard science to begin with, which is why it's so easy for both prosecutors and defense attorneys to get expert testimony which supports their case, for the exact same defendant. No one is pulling out a set of schematics and digging into anyone's brain with an oscilloscope or logic analyzer and conclusively identifying a problem like can be done with a faulty PCB.

Read an article about any mental illness you'd care to name; it is full of subjectivity and qualifiers such as "may", "usually", sometimes", "whether", etc. It isn't too hard to "fit" anyone you want into one of the countless loosely defined categories of mental illness, especially if they have an agenda.

Did you know that the Department of Homeland Security considers you to be a potential domestic terrorist, due to your NRA membership?

So how does a person qualify as a potential domestic terrorist? Based on the training I have attended, here are characteristics that qualify:

• Expressions of libertarian philosophies (statements, bumper stickers) Second Amendment-oriented views (NRA or gun club membership, holding a CCW permit) • Survivalist literature (fictional books such as “Patriots” and “One Second After” are mentioned by name) • Self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies) • Fear of economic collapse (buying gold and barter items) • Religious views concerning the book of Revelation (apocalypse, anti-Christ) • Expressed fears of Big Brother or big government • Homeschooling • Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties • Belief in a New World Order conspiracy

• James Wesley Rawles, former U.S. Army Intelligence officer

https://survivalblog.com/beware-of-homeland-security-tr/

A "potential domestic terrorist" must surely have some sort of mental illness, right? Now let's define it.

So being an outgoing and personally responsible American citizen is seen as qualifying for being a "potential domestic terrorist". DHS, I know you guys like doing all those crazy drugs you seize (can't blame you one bit), but please do us all a big favor and kindly unfuck yourself.

As a resident of city with way above average gun violence, I fail to see how mental health and pharmaceuticals are the root or our problem.

I think he's talking about the school shooting or movie theater shooting random types of violence. Not the Baltimore gang-bangers type of gun violence.

Glad to know my organic concerns about gun violence don't count since they involved the "gang-bangers type".

Never said that. This is a different sort of motivation and fear driving the current national outrage. Gang bangers are no less frightening, just a different type of motivation.

The type of gun violence you’re talking about probably involves mostly (like 95%) handguns. Mass shooting incidents don’t really involve handguns. While it’s still something that needs to be addressed and definitely relates to mental health and societal issues, strict regulation on handguns is going to be met with really fierce opposition.

Guns suck in general and lethal force in the wrong hands is a huge fucking problem, but people should definitely have the right to own handguns for self-defense. Now that the world is so fucked up and TPTB are pumping us full of contempt and resentment, of course fucked up people are killing each other. And the shitty part is that laws won’t work because “law enforcement” is above that and anything they want to do, they’ll do, including dumping guns into urban/inner city areas to catalyze the endless cycle of aggression and disenfranchisement.

It’s a very, very complicated issue.

they don't count in this particular discussion. we could talk about inner city shootings, poverty blah blah but this isn't that discussion. take your bitch ass whiny attitude somewhere else.

OP didn't narrow the discussion. They said "the gun debate".

Most of the high profile crimes have a strong connection with pharmaceuticals. Listen to the disclaimers for most prescription drugs. They might as well be saying "may lead to a violent outburst"

Yeah, but your facts and relevance to the above post don't mean jack to the comment above. He's only here to divert attention away from big pharma since it doesn't fit his narrative and he won't bother to view a concise youtube video explaining the answer to his question.

I was blown away the other day when I started seeing commercials on TV for some drug to treat bi-polar mania. Mainstream bi-polar mania now. Wow.

Watch this and you’ll start to understand: https://youtu.be/STo3hwN--5E

Gun violence isn’t ever addressed like this though. It’s the “mass shootings” that take place in white schools that get the media blitz. Chicago and inner city violence is ignored by the national media, and usually just shrugged off as “well, that’s just urban life”.

That type of violence is also mostly done over drugs, and likely a handgun is the weapon of choice. Nobody wants to call for a handgun ban (yet), because it’s political suicide. But, the vast majority of gun violence is done with handguns.

If we are talking the “mass shooting” problem though, psychiatric/psychotropic drugs are almost always involved recently.

Sorry, I don't watch youtube videos.

Sure we have drug related gun violence, but we've lost too many friends to guns that had nothing to do with drugs or the drug trade.

Sorry, I don't watch youtube videos.

Okay, then read the article here: http://truthinmedia.com/reality-check-mass-shootings-psychiatric-drugs/

Read the article. Was just examples, not studies.

I'd hope you also fail to see how gun control will help your city.

How so? Less guns to be shot by is less people being shot. Comparing Glasgow to Baltimore, shows that real gun control would have an effect.

What, then, would be 'real gun control' to you?

Look elsewhere.

There is no clear correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate. Not within the USA. Not regionally. Not internationally. Not among peaceful societies. Not among violent ones.

How so? Less guns to be shot by is less people being shot. Comparing Glasgow to Baltimore, shows that real gun control would have an effect.

That's childlike reasoning. One gun can be used to shoot many people, and many guns can be used to shoot no one. And yes, go ahead and compare Glasgow to Baltimore, but do it back when neither place had any significant gun control laws. Guns were rarely used in crime in the UK even when everyone had ~unrestricted access to them:

Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.

A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.

When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm

There is not a single example anywhere in the world of gun control laws solving a gun crime problem. The places with strict gun control and low gun crime always had low gun crime, even before they enacted the strict gun control laws. And of course there are tons of examples of places with strict gun control laws and high gun crime, as well as tons of examples of places with little gun control and low gun crime. Why? Because there are far more variables than just gun control laws, and in the grand scheme of things, gun control laws isn't even a particularly important variable.

What do you think would happen if you could instantly swap the entire populations of Glasgow and Baltimore around? Do you think the criminals of Baltimore would suddenly become peaceful, law-abiding citizens just because they found themselves in Glasgow? No, Glasgow's gun crimes would skyrocket and Baltimore's would plummet.

You can walk to gun store in a couple minutes from Baltimore. So on paper you can say there are laws banning guns, but in relativity they are readily available.

Oh yeah probably- what a coincidence that the country with by far and aaay the most guns and by far and aaay the most gun violence also has more “mental health issues” than any other country on earth. Would love to see some actual evidence for that.

Also interesting how Switzerland with great wealth and social services has more guns than any other European nation and also has more gun violence than them... Hmm sure it's that pesky mental health magically appearing in countries with large prevalence of guns...

In the US drug manufacturers are still allowed to market their drugs directly to the consumer. Flip on the TV and every commercial break is one pill after another with vague commercials promising a better tomorrow followed by a list of possible side effects. There are a shocking amount of people in this country on mind altering drugs. Here's a source.

I agree with your point that more guns means more gun related violence. I don't see people out protesting to shut down the gun producers. I don't see a big rallying call to stop spending so much on tools of war. I see people asking for more laws, more regulations, like they did with cigarettes. Using the guise of protecting public health they banned the use of them, however they didn't stop producing them. This is a complex issue and the it's pushed to the same debate every time. Doesn't seem organic.

There is no clear correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate. Not within the USA. Not regionally. Not internationally. Not among peaceful societies. Not among violent ones.

Do you have any suggestions as what to do about it?

How about some liability?

From who?

And that's the billion dollar question. Maybe from the last legal purchaser or the that last legal seller.

Yes, yes that will stop criminals from getting guns. /s Immediately desist whatever you are reading, taking or smoking

How so? If a legal gun owner was liable for damages from from his gun, dontcha think they might make some extra effort to keep it secured? Or to have not made a straw purchase in the first place?

What data on unsecured guns are you drawing from?

You guys will never talk about mental health because the only way you can improve it is by raising taxes so it is easily affordable for anyone.

Hogwash. You don't need my money to fix other peoples mental deficiencies. We need strong homes and strong families. We need a divorce rate much lower than we have now. Right now we have a generation of children raised by women. We have men that have abandoned their responsibilities. We have schools and media that teach the children garbage.

If you need money for mental health problems, take it from the welfare queens and single parents who abandoned their husbands and have surrendered their children's mental well being to the state and the media. Take it from those who have so loudly proclaimed in front of their children that it's okay to be a slut, okay to take hand outs from the government, okay to be as fat as you can and tell others not to "shame" you for behavior that lacks all respect and dignity.

You want to improve the mental health of people? Give them something to be proud of. Quit telling them they are inferior and simultaneously privileged because they are white, or that they are oppressed because they are black. Quit telling them their future is predetermined because of the position they occupy within society at birth. People can succeed. People can become more than they are. People can change. But they never will if they only ever hear that their problems are the making of someone else and that it can only be solved by stealing the dollars from their neighbors pocket.

Shred the DSM-V because this guy has figured it out!!

In all honesty, I don't even know where to begin. There's a lot of misogyny and a dash of scientific ignorance to work through in your comment. I'll play ball though. If strong family units and male dominion over said family is so important then how do you propose a nation gets there without an authoritarian government?

Shred the DSM-V because this guy has figured it out!!

Try to stay on topic. Please show me in the DSM-V where the solution to the mental health issues of others is to take more money from me. Denying that my money is required to fix those issues is not a rejection of the DSM-V. Don't be stupid.

In all honesty, I don't even know where to begin.

No surprise there.

There's a lot of misogyny and a dash of scientific ignorance to work through in your comment.

No, there is no misogyny in my comment at all. I love women. No scientific ignorance either. The topic, up until now, has been about guns and mental health. The comment I replied to said we needed to raise taxes to combat the mental health issue. My contention is that lack of money is not the issue (and more money will not fix the issue) and that the societal problems associated with mental health are much more closely related to the destruction of the family unit. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support this assertion. If you are from a broken home, you are more likely to commit suicide, use drugs, be a victim of human trafficking, and be raped as well as many other not so good outcomes. All of these things contribute to the mental deterioration of people.

If strong family units and male dominion

See, you are letting your misandry show through. I never said anything about "male dominion". Children need parents. That includes a mother and a father, working together for the betterment of their children.

If strong family units and male dominion over said family is so important then how do you propose a nation gets there without an authoritarian government?

I propose we have been there for most of human history and that we are where we are, precisely because we have an authoritarian government. Believe it or not, people have had families with or without the government. We will discover how to do this again just as soon as the government stops with their social engineering.

missed your solution to keeping families together. earlier you said take money from 'welfare queens' and 'single mothers'.

i dont know how far their money would go, they typically dont have the most resources.

weird you didnt mention the other half of having a baby, the father

it really sounds like youre asking to the govt to solve a moral problem, which is scary, and even worse, you already have a scape goat: sluts (women)

Honestly if you got rid of most of the welfare for able-bodied adults, it would force men and women to make more responsible decisions when it comes to coupling.

True (in theory, who knows what would actually happen), but that’s not what this government wants for society so good luck fixing that problem. You know? We’ve really been conditioned to fail and to rely on the government, and of course we have. That’s what this is all about. So sad and something needs to be done, but what gets me so discouraged is that it seems like we’re so far gone.

Sexual autonomy is important, in my opinion, but it’s absolutely gone too far and is now just another way that the control system has poisoned our minds and turned us into zombies.

is coupling a decision made out of rationality? ever met someone in a bad relationship? can they logic their way out of it? what if the spouse is violent and abusive and physically stronger (lets say a man)?

missed your solution to keeping families together.

Families will stay together if you remove the external forces tearing them apart.

earlier you said take money from 'welfare queens' and 'single mothers'. i dont know how far their money would go, they typically dont have the most resources.

I'm not advocating taking anyone's money. However, if money is going to be taken to help with mental deficiency of others, take it from someone else. The single parents by choice and the welfare queens are a good start. Why? Because if you are a single parent, you are doubling the chance that your child has mental health issues. Hardworking families on a single income are taxed enough. I'm not paying more tax because other people can't figure out how to not fuck a person that will leave them, or not use birth control, or take advantage or the abortion services available or just don't give a shit and choose to have a shitty life for themselves and their children because they are lazy.

weird you didnt mention the other half of having a baby, the father

I did mention it, you just didn't bother to read it. I specifically said that fathers have abandoned their responsibilities.

it really sounds like youre asking to the govt to solve a moral problem, which is scary, and even worse, you already have a scape goat: sluts (women)

You are projecting your fears onto my comments. I'm not asking the government to fix anything. All I'm asking them to do is leave us alone and stop the social engineering, which is the cause of these broken families. I'm also not scapegoating anyone. If a woman wants to be a slut, more power to her. However, society needs to be honest with her. Being a slut comes with consequences. It always has, it always will, and no amount of marching or chanting or crying or anything else is ever going to convince men enmasse to marry and support sluts. It's just not going to happen.

so two teenagers who make an unwise decision and have a baby will stay together for life if you remove externlal factors? were you ever a teenager? are you still in your first relationship?

who is deciding if a woman is being a single mother by choice? they have to prove that their reasoning is enough?

so two teenagers who make an unwise decision and have a baby will stay together for life if you remove external factors?

Of course not. I can't tell you, and you can't tell me, how any given relationship will go. What I can tell you, is that statistically your children are at much less risk of all sorts of negative outcomes if parents stay together. There are legions of studies you can go look up to prove that point to yourself. It's not even up for debate. The economy, the media, academia, the government, and what's socially acceptable is all being engineered by people that do not have your's or mine best interests in mind. Were it not for that social engineering, the divorce rate and therefore the number of broken homes and the ancillary problems arising from broken homes, would be less in number.

were you ever a teenager?

Of course, many years ago. Are you still a teenager?

are you still in your first relationship?

Of course not. Have you ever been in a relationship where people were completely dependent upon you for survival?

who is deciding if a woman is being a single mother by choice?

The majority of divorces are sought by women. In those instances, women are choosing to be single mothers. In cases where children are born out of wedlock, women are electing to not use birth control (or sleep with men who refuse to wrap it up) or are electing to not make use of abortion services. In those cases, it is their choice. In more rare instances, men abandon their wives/children and/or file for divorce (which I mentioned in my first comment). In even rarer instances, birth control fails and people get pregnant without intending to. If they decide not to marry but proceed with the pregnancy, they are choosing to be single mothers. Coming from a broken home increases your likely hood having a failed marriage or giving birth out of wedlock.

they have to prove that their reasoning is enough?

I don't understand what you are asking here.

There's a lot of misogyny peppered with some scientific ignorance to chew on here.

What a typical hiveminder response. Bringing up misogyny or any other -ism, and then vaguely claiming the other person's views somehow aren't "scientifically accurate." So dumb.

> Right now we have a generation of children raised by women.

If you believe the problem is women then yes, you're misogynistic.

Also, if you think that mental health issues can be magically solved by having a nuclear family then yes, you're not being scientific.

He's pointing out that there are lots of single parent households, most of which are single mothers. That is true, and it is unhealthy. The fact that you are offended by that is meaningless.

Also, if you think that mental health issues can be magically solved by having a nuclear family then yes, you're not being scientific.

Who are you to judge what is scientific or not? Nobody said that alone would magically solve mental health issues. There are many factors, and that is likely a contributing factor. It is also a symptom of the larger problem.

who did he blame the problem on? sluts welfare queens and single mothers who left their (presumably) wholesome husbands

We used to have this. Liberalism destroyed it and the removal of Liberalism from our culture is what's required to bring it back.

Fuck any wannabe a-political positions you may want to try and retort with... Liberalism is destructive to everything related to the nuclear family and the naturally occurring and scientific process(es) of natural selection/survival of the fittest.

How exactly would you make these changes you believe need to be made? What type of policy would be required to make these changes?

I don't see any way to make these societal changes with policy, unless you want to mandate that people be nice to each other and make it illegal to divorce.

Also, mental health isn't just an environmental issue. There are plenty of people with mental health issues that stem from either genetics or brain injuries.

That said, it is my belief that we know very little about mental health as a society. At the very least, we need to dedicate resources and make it a priority to research mental health.

How exactly would you make these changes you believe need to be made? What type of policy would be required to make these changes? I don't see any way to make these societal changes with policy, unless you want to mandate that people be nice to each other and make it illegal to divorce.

It shouldn't be illegal to divorce, but neither should it be so easy. The pendulum has swung too far one direction after it was way to far in the other direction. Some balance would be nice. You know who gets rich off divorces? The corporations that have to sell two of everything because there are now two households and the lawyers. Perhaps we should consider the laws we have now are to their benefit and not the benefit of families, husbands, wives or children.

Also, mental health isn't just an environmental issue. There are plenty of people with mental health issues that stem from either genetics or brain injuries.

Very true. It's also true that many of the mental health issues we have are because of never ending war. Ending the wars and only fighting them when necessary would help as well. In any case, genetics and brain injuries are not a federal issue and there is exactly zero reason to raise federal taxes to help with those problems.

That said, it is my belief that we know very little about mental health as a society.

I would agree we don't know enough about the brain.

At the very least, we need to dedicate resources and make it a priority to research mental health.

This is already happening.

Just a whole lot of ignorance. Nothing to see here, folks.

Nothing is more ignorant than the person who has nothing to say but to call others ignorant.

I’m not addressing what you said because it’s clear in the way you communicate that you’re small-minded and extremely biased. It’s not worth my time to go point-by-point to prove something that you proved yourself.

Yes, the person that gave a thoughtful opinion and responded to those who replied instead of simply calling others they disagree with "ignorant" is the person who is "small-minded".

I could just as easily say to you "there is no point in talking to you because you've convinced yourself I'm ignorant". You have already proved to yourself I'm ignorant, so you can shield your ego from having your viewpoints challenged by deciding not to engage except in passive-aggressive ways meant to put others down. I'm sure you feel extra special.

If you have an argument, make it. If you don't, and clearly you don't, stop wasting everyone's time (including your own). You don't have the time to engage substantively, but you've wasted your time posting two throw away comments of no substance? You may not have the time, but you've already wasted more time with the two comments you did make, than it would have taken you to make a comment that actually contributes something. If it helps you overcome the fear of others being ignorant, you should know, I value your opinion and would love to hear it - even if, no - especially if, I disagree.

This sub has enough people hurling insults and calling names without you contributing to that problem.

Weak response. You can't argue but you know you don't like what he had to say.

Why should I argue about his stunted views on welfare and his racial bias when that’s not what this topic is about? What he posted amounts to calling out abuse of the system by minority groups, which is a.) irrelevant to the topic of the current gun control push being inorganic, b.) a short-sighted and ill-informed argument, and c.) purposefully divisive.

What he offered was, in fact, ignorant for all of those reasons.

I’m sure everyone would agree that there are broader societal issues factoring into this and that education should be strengthened within our communities in order to stop the cycle of violence, but it’s IGNORANT to believe that a lot of those issues aren’t also inorganic and are instead, evidentially, premeditated avenues of oppressive action implemented by government and law enforcement. All I see is an attempt to place blame and stereotypically categorize people because OP doesn’t have the capacity to understand that situations and circumstances are multi-faceted and shouldn’t be overly simplified in that way, so as to berate others. That doesn’t get us anywhere and it’s all off-topic anyway!

Lmao, good day sir.

trying to imply the 'silent majority' is on your side with that second sentence, i see. rather devious of you

It’s not black or white. Or don’t this guy.

single parents who abandoned their husbands and have surrendered their children's mental well being to the state and the media.

Can you clarify what you meant by this? I was thrown off by you saying "abandoned", when there are many legitimate situations where a women would want a divorce. No one's required to stay in a shitty marriage.

Downvoted for speaking the truth. The degeneracy permeating our media and culture is making for a sick society. This sick society produce a greater number of individuals with mental issues. People are fooled into worshiping the government, vapid celebrities and media, and their technology instead of having strong morals, culture, and tradition. This is completely intentional on the part of the NWO, it makes us easier to mold and control.

The degeneracy permeating our media and culture is making for a sick society.

From the top down. A thrice married President who has paid for sex with porn stars. Shocking.

Agreed, few of us come out perfect in a sick society like this.

Failed attempt to distract from the point he was making. What he is talking about is massively more important and far-reaching than Trump, which obviously went over your head.

You're a fucking moron.

I swear this place is a humour free zone.

Be numerous then if you intend to be found funny.

Be numerous then if you intend to be found funny.

Like maths based jokes?

Rule 10

What does that mean?

You can't call people "fucking morons".

Can we call each other "poopy heads"?

Sure.

Couldn't agree more.

Even assuming this strategy would work well, and that the main cause is that you have a generation of citizens who weren't raised right... it's not like you can go back and re-raise them.

this is where the pro gun solution comes in: shoot them

wow the right really has figured this all out. its so simple

Of course you can't re-raise them, but you can change the conditions that created the problem so that children of the future do not have the same experience as their parents.

So what do you do about the people already raised wrong? Just wait it out until they die and hope nothing happens?

You don't do anything to/with them. They are there, living life, and if they aren't committing crimes then there is nothing to "do" with them.

Many of those people that were "raised wrong", know they were not reared properly and will try very hard to not rear their children in the same manner. That's a lot easier to do when the government isn't in your pocket and isn't constantly trying to socially engineer your family.

But they are committing crimes, right?

Some are and some aren't. Just because a person comes from a broken home, doesn't mean their life is predetermined and not everyone that comes from a broken home commits crime. Of those that do, most of them will not be so extreme as to shoot up a school.

If you come from a broken home, you are statistically more at risk for all sorts of things (drug use, violence, rape, mental illness, etc.) than a person who came from a two parent home. However, just because you are at greater statistical risk, doesn't mean you will become one of those statistics.

The ones that do commit crimes, we already have laws on the books to handle them.

It sounds like you're making a good counter-argument to your initial point.

Then you didn't understand the point.

My point was 1) don't take my money to pay for other's fuckups and mental health issues, because throwing money at the problem won't solve it and 2) we need strong two parent families so that children are less at risk of having mental issues and 3) the way we have stronger families is to quit with the social engineering and normalization of behavior that is destructive to families and children.

People from broken homes are not doomed, and I never implied they were. If you thought I did, perhaps you missed this part:

Quit telling them their future is predetermined because of the position they occupy within society at birth. People can succeed. People can become more than they are. People can change.

But if the parents are to blame, then you're just asking the kids to pay for their parents' fuckups if you don't want to offer them any help. Either way, the person who fucked up isn't held responsible. Someone else is footing the bill either way, so the question is simply about what is the most efficient way to solve the problem going forward.

Think of it like this: Someone eggs your house - what do you do? You can put in security cameras to dissuade future eggings, but that's not going to clean all the yolk off your house. You still need to clean the egg off. It's not fair that you have to do this, but it's not like you're going to track down the teenagers who did it and make them clean it for you, so your only real option is to clean it up yourself.

But, you don't really have the time to clean it, you need a special cleaning solution to make sure the crusted-on egg all comes off well, you don't own a ladder, and you're inexperienced and probably going to miss some spots because you've never done this before. There's a lot of start-up costs associated with a one-time cleaning, so you hire a professional Egg Cleaning Service.

But those damn teenagers didn't just egg your house - they egged houses all over the neighborhood, and might do it again. Even if not them, so other teenagers. And that Egg Cleaning Service isn't cheap, so you and your neighbors all sign an agreement with the Egg Cleaning Service where you get insurance. Everyone pays a fraction of the one-time fee each month, and then gets a "free" cleaning when they need it. This might or might not be more efficient when you break down the deal and weigh the pros vs the cons, but it's at least worth discussing.

But if the parents are to blame, then you're just asking the kids to pay for their parents' fuckups if you don't want to offer them any help.

The government, both state and local takes enough money to offer them all the help they need. If you want to advocate that the budgets should be changed to divert more money to mental health, I'm with you. If you want to argue I should pay more in tax, then you are on your own.

Putting that aside though, the kids don't need "help". Families, parents and children need the government to get out of their lives and stop socially engineering society. If they do that, families will put themselves back together and all the issues created by single parent households will diminish.

Either way, the person who fucked up isn't held responsible.

I think you misunderstand me. Parents are victims of social engineering meant to destroy the family unit. I am not blaming parents or seeking to hold them responsible because their kids are shit. What I am advocating for, is that we leave them alone so they can figure out their lives without being lied and propagandized.

Someone else is footing the bill either way, so the question is simply about what is the most efficient way to solve the problem going forward.

The way to fix the problem is to fix what causes the problem. Taxing more and spending more doesn't help the people who come from broken homes and it doesn't help fix the underlying issue so that less homes are broken in the future. The way to fix it going forward is to stop doing the social engineering that has created the issue to begin with.

Someone eggs your house - what do you do?

I'm smart, so I already have security cameras installed because I know vandals, thugs, hooligans and teenagers looking for laughs often do things like egg houses. When they egg mine, I'll have them on camera, report them to the authorities, then go home and clean up the eggs.

It's not fair that you have to do this

It's not about being "fair". Things happen to you that you cannot control, you do the best you can with your bad situation and move on. What would be really unfair, and the only way your analogy would make any sense, is after my house was egged, I went next door to a house that wasn't egged and rob them at gunpoint to help clean up.

But, you don't really have the time to clean it, you need a special cleaning solution to make sure the crusted-on egg all comes off well, you don't own a ladder, and you're inexperienced and probably going to miss some spots because you've never done this before. There's a lot of start-up costs associated with a one-time cleaning, so you hire a professional Egg Cleaning Service.

If you can't clean up eggs, you shouldn't own a house. Owning a house is a responsibility and cleaning up eggs isn't hard. If you can't handle that responsibility, you should rent.

But those damn teenagers didn't just egg your house - they egged houses all over the neighborhood, and might do it again. Even if not them, some other teenagers. And that Egg Cleaning Service isn't cheap, so you and your neighbors all sign an agreement with the Egg Cleaning Service where you get insurance. Everyone pays a fraction of the one-time fee each month, and then gets a "free" cleaning when they need it.

I wouldn't do this, but I wouldn't think it wrong if others did. So what's the difference? They are doing it of free will. Government is force. They forcefully take enough money from me as it is. I do not want to be forced to give them more money, to fix problems, that are largely of their own making.

This might or might not be more efficient when you break down the deal and weigh the pros vs the cons, but it's at least worth discussing.

Government is the least efficient solution to any problem on planet Earth. It's not worth discussing, but I'm indulging you anyway. If people, voluntarily, decide to patron an egg cleaning service, that is fine. Requiring me to give up money I worked for, that people other than myself depend on, because of a problem created by social engineers, is not fine.

Here is the thing you are missing. I am a parent and a husband in a single income family unit. I work hard to provide for my family. My wife and I have both made sacrifices so that our child comes from a stable, functioning, loving home. We do not have a lot of money, but that is okay. When you take money from me, you weaken my position and my ability to provide. When you spend that money, there is no evidence to suggest it actually benefits anyone or fixes the issue. All you've done is make one more family weaker and put that family at a greater risk of failure. The number one reason marriages fail is money. If my family fails, then my child is at greater risk for all the stuff we have been talking about. I'd like to try to avoid that. I'm not asking for any resources or help or anyone else's money, or sympathy or empathy or anything. All I'm asking for is to keep what I earn so I can continue to make the best choices possible for the people I love and care about who depend on me for survival.

All you are asking me to do is subsidize the terrible decisions the social engineers inside the government have made, that academia and the media cheer lead for, that is causing the very destruction of our society. You are asking me to subsidize the victims of that social engineering so that they never have to stand on their own two feet and fix their lives. You are asking me to buy the eggs for the teenagers to continue to egg my house and selling me egg cleaning insurance as the solution. It's absurd.

children raised by women

This has been true since...well WWII at least.

And it wasn't true for most of human history before that, you know, when we spent all that time evolving and such.

And it's also no coincidence that the first generation after WWII (the baby boomers) gave us the fucked up society we have today.

Raising taxes makes things more affordable?? Failed economics i see...

Depending on the item, and if it's done correctly, absolutely. It's basic economies of scale. The problem is that it's not always done correctly.

No the problem is that socialist tax policies are a race to the bottom and induce capital flight.

You think throwing money at the problem will magically solve the issue?

the opposite is a worse idea. but yes, resources are important. ask anyone who works in mental health if they have the time and resources to do their job to the best of their ability

I didn't suggest the complete opposite soo?

im using the two opposites to illustrate which direction we should start stepping in

Shoveling money at a problem has hardly ever solved one, but it equally true that problems are extremely difficult to solve without any resources.

I don't deny that

Money isn't a resource in that way unless you want to burn it for fuel.

What's your plan to solve this problem without money? I'll wait.

Like throwing money at a border wall?

What does the wall have to do with this at all?

Think throwing money at a border wall will make immigration issues go away?

No one pretends like a border wall by itself is a cure all. Cut it out with the strawman arguments

And no one is pretending that throwing money at mental health is going to fix it by itself.

Not a strawman. Just an example you might be able to associate with.

And no one is pretending that throwing money at mental health is going to fix it by itself.

Ehhh, I would argue that many are.

I wasnt talking with many people i was replying to you and your comment.

Lol as if we couldn’t already afford every single persons medical treatment on the current per capita healthcare expense, if big pharma didn’t have carte Blanche to set prices

I’ll do you one better. It might be a little more affordable for Americans if we weren’t subsidizing the cost for Europeans. Their smarmy asses don’t even realize that the enormous expense we pay foots their bill. I don’t blame them for this btw, we allow this to happen.

They could redirect money from military spending to help cover healthcare.

Sending more people away for psych evaluations is going to set up a cornucopia of patients ready to be groomed by the FBI and CIA to conduct atrocities on the American People.

That's the root of the problem.

I'm sure if you knew the facts, 100% of these school shooters were at some point on anti-depressants, adderall, or ritalin. What? Little Johnny has too much energy? Give him a pill. Glad I grew up in different times.

I'm a dangerous age in a dangerous time. I'm a teenager who isn't on any shit. I'm a teenager who has had enough shots in my life to count on both hands. I'm a teenager who my parents give a fuck about. If you care about your kid, you'll take time to assess the issue that they possess. If it were my kid, I wouldn't be so lazy to take them to a doctor to get them drugged up.

These drugs don't help people. These drugs make the people more controllable.

I don't have any kids, but it sounds like your parents have their heads on straight. I would be raising my kid(s) the same way, if we had chosen to have kids. Glad to hear some people are doing it right.

Keep yourself protected.

While your at it remove all sodium-fluoride from your diet and products, don't eat any processed sugar products, brush well twice a day with some hippy toothpaste and make sure to get enough zinc and trace amounts of silver and you basically will never need to see a dentist. Its awesome as fuck how that works. Fuck yeah! No dentists. 4/5 of those pricks can suck me off.

you know how i know most of this sub has serious mental illness issues?

threads like this. you people are insane.

Because no matter what, anyone at any cost do NOT want to talk about mental health and pharmaceuticals.

you know how i know most of this sub has serious mental illness issues?

threads like this. you people are insane.

Care to elaborate on your comments? I'd love to know why you lump everyone together who happens to browse this sub, which includes you.

See here.

Most of this sub
threads like this. you people are insane.

You are commenting here, so you just called yourself insane, nice.

ok, snowflake. let me elaborate.

the fact that most of you here are so inherently opposed to gun reform of ANY kind informs me that you are all dealing with mental health issues of your own.

no one's coming to take your guns. they want to ban assault style rifles (of which i'm VERY educated about what constitutes an assault style rifle, so spare me your fucking lecture about 'derp the only thing that's different than these two guns is this one has wood and this one 'looks scary'; yes, i say great argument, let's ban both of those), the banning of any magazines over 10 rounds, ALL gun sales being made to have a NICS background check, ALL of them, and digitization of the ATF records.

that's all these kids are asking for. your answers are to arm fucking teachers and carry clear backpacks and put bulletproof glass on everything, and tell kids to go back to class.

you're idiots. i'm not attacking a thread. i'm attacking the idiots in it. this sub is a hivemind of redneck thinking ideologists who absolutely refuse to listen to reason and simply discard different opinions.

so quote that out, snowflake. sounds like y'all are the sensitive ones up in here.

No, there are plenty of assholes at these marches literally saying to repeal the 2nd amendment and "i wish obama had taken your guns". Get a clue.

show me one.

https://youtu.be/HqyVpp88tLo

that was brutal.

Listening to people that brainwashed is terrifying. I wonder how they have the brain power to dress themselves or wipe their ass.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gif

Wrong about what exactly? There are the marchers saying to repeal the 2nd amendment. Like i said, Obama sign was on TV this morning, so ill have to wait and see if someone has it in a YT video.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/3o7525gkt4KIun5GZa/giphy.gif

K so you saw the idiots demanding the 2nd amendment be repealed and youre posting gifs. Did your brain short circuit?

https://media1.giphy.com/media/1NUSCxBO6IpH12tgc9/giphy.gif

Ill take that as a yes. Typical

https://media0.giphy.com/media/GbPru204dTDfG/giphy.gif

Youre triggered now 😂

https://media3.giphy.com/media/l0Ex6ilfLGdaW7YQg/giphy.gif

Rule 10.

Rule 10

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/878zri/its_ok_guys_they_found_the_solution_to_school/

When theads about the march get voting like that?

I know its scripted because

• The media ignores victims who are pro-2A

• Multiple kids have come forward claiming CNN tried to hand them a script

• The media has ignored the kid who died in his ROTC uniform using his own body as a shield

• They put the loudmouth little media whores on the cover of Time magazine as if they are the real heroes

• The march was funded by the DNC with Soros money

I'm gonna need a source on all that.

Dude you can hate on the narrative but " little hores" is alot. They are kids and easily manipulated.

Part of me is starting to think this whole push for gun laws is a straw man tactic. Why didn’t the media press this hard for it while Obama was president? Why didn’t he enact stricter laws when he had a democratic majority in the house and senate? Democrats didn’t do anything about guns when they had the chance. I think they’re just making it a big deal so they can say these evil republicans didn’t do anything and use that to try to win elections, and then continue doing nothing about it.

Ugggh we've been trying to get mental health funded for years. The Republicans keep defending it and then using it as a crutch every time a mass shooting happens

step 1: defund it

step 2: look it doesnt work, we need to further defund it

step 3: look it works even worse now, lets cancel it all together

OP’s take isn’t partisan. Pharma funds tons of Democrats.

Pharma funds tons of everyone.

Pay to Play

Big Pharma != "mental health"

OR, and bare with me here, they are seen as separated issues for most people and can be seen as a deflective tactic to avoid talking about gun control.

As a Canadian I can own rifles galore. gotta register my handguns. No fully autos or round burst, and no auto accessories. the only people around here who need more than that are hillbilly alpha shits who need to show off their massively undersized dongs by having truck nuts and a 9" lift kit on their 95 tacoma.

TIL Canada is located in the American South and central Ohio simultaneously.

Same type of hillbilly's, just different accents

ROFL good to know!

Cant get full auto or burst in the USA

Good thing I was speaking as a Canadian. I wasnt trying to say that americans do or don't. Just that those who do want such armaments and lax rule sets are the type of people who.... Etc.

Well i see idiot Americans saying that full auto and burst fire guns need to be banned, when they already are.

Its hard for the average American to see something like this;

https://www.savagearms.com/firearms/model/msr15patrol

And not think of;

https://machinegunsvegas.com/product/full-auto-experience/

I myself used to see any rifle and go AR15!!! BAD!! FULLAUTO NO NEED!! Simply because I didnt know anything about guns past CoD.

Yes well i know my guns and honestly an AR15 isnt that powerful. There are much more powerful semi autos out there.

Which is true, but to play devils advocate you can kill a person with an extremely low caliber round such as pea shooters. But I digress as thats really besides the point. The point that needs to be argued in my opinion is rate of fire. Which for the most part is low.

That's exactly what they want. Ignorance fear and an emotional response to guns so we beg to have our rights taken away

Saying that is also a bit of a propaganda stretch, no?

I mean I wouldnt say theyre talking about taking all the guns away for the most part (certainly a minority are) but for more strict regulations that don't allow minors or people with mental health issues to easily access them.

Personally I believe they should be as hard if not harder to get than a passport, or security clearance badges. If youre deemed too dangerous to leave the country, youre too dangerous to own high powered / ballistic weapons.

No it's not. Its what the media does. Let's make heroin illegal cuz that will stop people from using heroin... oh wait that didn't work so well either. You are aware that criminals don't follow laws right? We already have gun control laws. It's quite easy to get guns and drugs on the black market. So why take them from law abiding citizens? Cops can't be there to protect you in time if someone breaks in your home. I've heard cops themselves admit this. My friend had his ex gfs crazy ex bf outside trying to break in his house and he called the cops and they said they were too busy and unless they were already inside they weren't coming. He had to have friends come and scare them off with legal guns or they would have got in and hurt him. We should be able to protect ourselves.

We just dont seem to have the same issues here in canada. And theres one common denominator cause our mental health system is jacked right to good hell.

I see your points, I do. I agree that there are times when its an absolute life saver. I guess it just goes against my own philosophical beliefs on progression towards peace.

Maybe I'm misguided. Maybe I'm dog fuckin' wrong as hell. The one thing I hope we can all agree on is that it wont be a simple or immediate fix, whatever said fix is.

Well I'm American and i don't believe in giving up our inalienable rights to make people feel safe even tho they aren't safer. That's why i said it's an ignorant and emotional viewpoint they love to push.

You are a special kind of dumb arent ya

Yes you can. NFA stamp and it takes a year or so, and a BUNCH of money. It also had to be pre-1984 as well.

How many of these guns have been used in mass shootings in America since 1984?

Absolutely none!

Well yeah but thats a class 3 license and i dont think any of those guns have been used in a crime.

You’re correct on both accounts. I was merely stating you can have NFA items in the US, but it’s limited to the very wealthy.

Pre 86.

Thank you, knew I was wrong on the year!

I was hoping Canada would be truck nut free.

Alas a hillbilly is a hillbilly is a hillbilly.backwoods boys here (like maybe 7 or 8 people really......) like to say If it looks like your cousin and it tastes like your cousin its probably your wife.

No fully autos or round burst, and no auto accessories. the only people around here who need more than that are hillbilly alpha shits who need to show off their massively undersized dongs by having truck nuts and a 9" lift kit on their 95 tacoma.

Or you know, people want that just for shits and giggles, and because they can afford it...what is life if not wasted if you don't at least spend it the way you enjoy it. If people enjoy blowing shit up in the woods and drinking beer with the boys then I hope they're having fun and save me some beer and targets!

Point in case, my friend.

You know how I know all of these "this particular thing isn't organic" isn't organic? Because you all started saying this about shit you don't agree with at the same time. It's like you guys are working off of a script of talking points.

You never see posts like these when a shooting hasn't taken place in half a year... Interesting enough.

Some of it is. I know plenty of people all for increased gun control in America.

i think we can talk about all 3 pretty well

all 3 are being discussed. what are you talking about?

That Hoggnkid goes on TV and specifically asked for a 10% hike tax on guns and other sales.

What kid picks that number? Like, an uninformed kid on the subject would ask for 50% or more, some stupid astronomical number. Instead he comes up with a number that is perfectly digestable by the audience he reaches. That number is entirely pre planned. There is no way he wasn't coached to say that number because it is one that the vast majority of ignorant and swayable population would accept.

It’s not. The whole student led march bullshit is organized and paid for by Bloomberg.

In Chicago, the idiot mayor closed all the mental health clinics and then shootings and murders went off the rails. Record years. But not a peep of a connection out of the media.

Why can't we talk about both/all of those topics?

yes!

Not to mention, the Western Media, are bias fearmongerers, overly politicizing events to fuel an agenda. Their core concepts as an "outlet of information" are wickedly off base.

But other countries have mental health issues and many prescribe more of them than the US. Those countries, mostly European, have a fraction of our homicide rate

Aren't most of these mass shooters on prescriptions?

Roughly 70% of the population are on some sort of prescribed medication, statistically speaking there's a very good chance someone involved in any sort of activity will likely be on prescription drugs.

Is it because they are usually polymer?

that's really funny because when you ask literally anyone about their idea of what a shooter looks like, they're always going to say a "crazy person" and not "recreational hunter" or something like that.

No more pills! No more pills! Where do we want them? Gone! When do we want it? Now!

Except mental health is a separate issue that has nothing to do with gun laws or gun violence as a whole. Not that big pharma isn't a big issue on it's own, but if you think "crazy" people are behind any significant amount of gun violence in this country then you're misinformed.

You know how I KNOW IT ISNT ORGANIC? because look at even this very latest and most recent incident of a shooting. marjory stoneman or whatever? THe fucking guy was reported multiple times by multiple people to multiple agencies that he was a delinquent and had guns. They reported this shit on mainstream media. Thats what the people need to be angry about, how much fucking money we have spent on our security. THEY NEW THIS GUY WAS MENTAL LOL but they need to take our guns, they dont do shit with the capabilities we already give them and they RUN AWAY when the shooting is active, I can't believe how many people in the west still havent woke up its scary and almost seems lost the propaganda won long ago

For people saying there is no correlation. This article lists 36 mass murderers of the past few decades and what prescriptions they were taking. This list doesn't even cover some of the more high profile ones we've seen lately where we know prescriptions were involved (Padock-Valium, Lanza-Celexa, Holmes-Zoloft, ext.). It's an interesting and important read regardless of were you stand on the gun topic. Gun violence is a societal illness, and though gun control may treat the symptoms, it's still important to look at the causes. Please don't let your position on the political spectrum prevent you from considering all the angles on this issue.

Because the crime being committed isn't organic?

The FBI likes to get their hands on people with finance problems, pedophile problems, no egos, lack of self esteem and turn them into killers.

Why aren't we talking about this?

Why are we talking about medication, guns and healthcare? FOLKS, this violence would not occur if the FBI and CIA would stop grooming veterans and young men (some with autism) to carry out school shootings and other violent crime?

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/mainstream-media-celebrates-foiled-fbi-terror-plot-terrorist-refuses-attack/

This is the cause of your crime, people. They put guns and drugs in the cities, too. Violent crime is a result of the NWO pushing their agenda. Bill Cooper warned us.

In chapter 12 of his book, Behold a Pale Horse, Cooper goes on to warn us of a rise in school shootings in order to justify stricter gun laws. He believed the government was willing to encourage importation of firearms for criminals to use in order to accomplish this agenda. This later became Eric Holder’s Fast & Furious scandal.

“The government encouraged the manufacture and importation of firearms for the criminals to use. This is intended to foster a feeling of insecurity, which would lead the American people to voluntarily disarm themselves by passing laws against firearms. Using drugs and hypnosis on mental patients in a process called Orion, the CIA inculcated the desire in these people to open fire on schoolyards and thus inflame the anti-gun lobby. This plan is well under way, and so far is working perfectly. The middle class is begging the government to do away with the 2nd Amendment.”

Let's talk about FBI and CIA involvement in these mass shootings.

School freaking vouchers. The public school system is creating mentally ill kids. They petition and test them for psycho drugs. They abuse, bully and let them run like a pack of wolves with little supervision. It's a cattle barn, the more kids the bigger profit. No school shootings in private schools and they make up 25% of the schools in the US. Vouchers, not gun control.

Or the massive amount of people shot dead (many unarmed) by police.

Hogwash. You don't need my money to fix other peoples mental deficiencies. We need strong homes and strong families. We need a divorce rate much lower than we have now. Right now we have a generation of children raised by women. We have men that have abandoned their responsibilities. We have schools and media that teach the children garbage.

If you need money for mental health problems, take it from the welfare queens and single parents who abandoned their husbands and have surrendered their children's mental well being to the state and the media. Take it from those who have so loudly proclaimed in front of their children that it's okay to be a slut, okay to take hand outs from the government, okay to be as fat as you can and tell others not to "shame" you for behavior that lacks all respect and dignity.

You want to improve the mental health of people? Give them something to be proud of. Quit telling them they are inferior and simultaneously privileged because they are white, or that they are oppressed because they are black. Quit telling them their future is predetermined because of the position they occupy within society at birth. People can succeed. People can become more than they are. People can change. But they never will if they only ever hear that their problems are the making of someone else and that it can only be solved by stealing the dollars from their neighbors pocket.

ok, snowflake. let me elaborate.

the fact that most of you here are so inherently opposed to gun reform of ANY kind informs me that you are all dealing with mental health issues of your own.

no one's coming to take your guns. they want to ban assault style rifles (of which i'm VERY educated about what constitutes an assault style rifle, so spare me your fucking lecture about 'derp the only thing that's different than these two guns is this one has wood and this one 'looks scary'; yes, i say great argument, let's ban both of those), the banning of any magazines over 10 rounds, ALL gun sales being made to have a NICS background check, ALL of them, and digitization of the ATF records.

that's all these kids are asking for. your answers are to arm fucking teachers and carry clear backpacks and put bulletproof glass on everything, and tell kids to go back to class.

you're idiots. i'm not attacking a thread. i'm attacking the idiots in it. this sub is a hivemind of redneck thinking ideologists who absolutely refuse to listen to reason and simply discard different opinions.

so quote that out, snowflake. sounds like y'all are the sensitive ones up in here.

Raising taxes makes things more affordable?? Failed economics i see...

He's pointing out that there are lots of single parent households, most of which are single mothers. That is true, and it is unhealthy. The fact that you are offended by that is meaningless.

Also, if you think that mental health issues can be magically solved by having a nuclear family then yes, you're not being scientific.

Who are you to judge what is scientific or not? Nobody said that alone would magically solve mental health issues. There are many factors, and that is likely a contributing factor. It is also a symptom of the larger problem.

You think throwing money at the problem will magically solve the issue?

this is where the pro gun solution comes in: shoot them

wow the right really has figured this all out. its so simple

What data on unsecured guns are you drawing from?

I swear this place is a humour free zone.

Rule 10

Lol as if we couldn’t already afford every single persons medical treatment on the current per capita healthcare expense, if big pharma didn’t have carte Blanche to set prices

What does that mean?

They could redirect money from military spending to help cover healthcare.

Wrong about what exactly? There are the marchers saying to repeal the 2nd amendment. Like i said, Obama sign was on TV this morning, so ill have to wait and see if someone has it in a YT video.

Absolutely none!

https://media0.giphy.com/media/GbPru204dTDfG/giphy.gif

Youre triggered now 😂

millions of racist old white men you mean

We just dont seem to have the same issues here in canada. And theres one common denominator cause our mental health system is jacked right to good hell.

I see your points, I do. I agree that there are times when its an absolute life saver. I guess it just goes against my own philosophical beliefs on progression towards peace.

Maybe I'm misguided. Maybe I'm dog fuckin' wrong as hell. The one thing I hope we can all agree on is that it wont be a simple or immediate fix, whatever said fix is.

Sending more people away for psych evaluations is going to set up a cornucopia of patients ready to be groomed by the FBI and CIA to conduct atrocities on the American People.

That's the root of the problem.

Of course you can't re-raise them, but you can change the conditions that created the problem so that children of the future do not have the same experience as their parents.

Indeed

So what do you do about the people already raised wrong? Just wait it out until they die and hope nothing happens?

The slippery slope is with regard to more and more federal gun control laws being enacted

No, the slippery slope is the parade of terribles that would happen either way. Ultimately, we will wind up with no weapons or everyone will have ICBMs. You have contorted the slippery slope to support your views, for example:

more federal gun control laws being enacted, which absolutely happened

Those "more laws" were not "more laws," they were "laws." They could have happened with or without the auto weapons ban, and they were decided on the basis of their own merits.

They've been trying to pass new, even more cringeworthy versions of it

In other words, the slippery slope is failing. You ought to look at the implications of your facts versus your "argument." They don't fit.

That would be based on a false premise (i.e., the full-auto "ban" being appropriate),

I used quotes around the word 'appropriate' specifically to point out to the reader that they may agree or disagree but the argument still stands. Violating logical argument rules, you attacked the assumed premise.

By doing so, you also made a value judgment that may or may not apply, and selectively chose to use the slippery slope only your way. No, it works both ways.

I'm skipping your Constitutional argument, as it is not the subject here and would be quite a diversion from the slippery slope.

Not all slippery slope arguments are created equal.

Uh, yes they are. Slippery slope is always a logical fallacy.

They have to at least have a solid foundation, like any argument does.

No, a foundation that one thing could lead to another would be based upon analogy, or at least upon "history" as you claimed was on your side (which its not), or at least upon some sort of probability.

Slippery slope arguments regarding ever-increasing government regulations/restrictions are a very safe bet

One-sided again. The amount of deregulation that has occurred since Ronald Reagan has been incredible. The other side is that the deregulators will eliminate everything that made America great and created the middle class.

Unlike your anti-regulation slippery slope of regulation, the deregulators are heading toward complete elimination of the government regulations that created the middle class and made America great for the vast majority of people after World War 2. I won't use a slippery slope though.

It's in their written plans. They wrote up many plans of deconstructing government (except the military which they want to expand), and they routinely institute big chunks of their plans every time they first retake power -- 1981, 2001, 2017. This is not a slippery slope, this is a demonstrated implementation of a complete plan.

There is no argument that the same is happening by people who want regulations. There is no master plan of total regulation. There is no definition of total regulation. The whole "other side" notion is absurd. The only way you can get from here to there is with your fallacious slippery slope.

That's why you like it but only when it cuts your way. You are trying to balance a stated and demonstrated agenda against a logical fallacy and it does not work.

I apologize for assuming that you had some understanding of the slippery slope. I fallaciously assumed by slippery sloping myself that if you understood that fallacies could be misused, then you would understand many more aspects of the logic. I can see now why I was incorrect.

TL;DR Slippery slope is always a logical fallacy, a distraction, and can always be countered with an equivalent opposite slippery slope.

You can walk to gun store in a couple minutes from Baltimore. So on paper you can say there are laws banning guns, but in relativity they are readily available.

But if the parents are to blame, then you're just asking the kids to pay for their parents' fuckups if you don't want to offer them any help. Either way, the person who fucked up isn't held responsible. Someone else is footing the bill either way, so the question is simply about what is the most efficient way to solve the problem going forward.

Think of it like this: Someone eggs your house - what do you do? You can put in security cameras to dissuade future eggings, but that's not going to clean all the yolk off your house. You still need to clean the egg off. It's not fair that you have to do this, but it's not like you're going to track down the teenagers who did it and make them clean it for you, so your only real option is to clean it up yourself.

But, you don't really have the time to clean it, you need a special cleaning solution to make sure the crusted-on egg all comes off well, you don't own a ladder, and you're inexperienced and probably going to miss some spots because you've never done this before. There's a lot of start-up costs associated with a one-time cleaning, so you hire a professional Egg Cleaning Service.

But those damn teenagers didn't just egg your house - they egged houses all over the neighborhood, and might do it again. Even if not them, so other teenagers. And that Egg Cleaning Service isn't cheap, so you and your neighbors all sign an agreement with the Egg Cleaning Service where you get insurance. Everyone pays a fraction of the one-time fee each month, and then gets a "free" cleaning when they need it. This might or might not be more efficient when you break down the deal and weigh the pros vs the cons, but it's at least worth discussing.

I did it again. I assumed that someone would have a reasonable discussion because one thing was eminently reasonable. I should have paid more attention to the rest of the comment. Whoops! It turns out it was all a convenience to reach a certain end.

Anyway, the slippery slope goes both ways, always and absolutely. Because it is an undefined argument of speculation, it never resolves the debate and it never ends. We go in circles forever.

Ultimately, we will wind up with no weapons or everyone will have ICBMs. You have contorted the slippery slope to support your one-sided views, for example:

more federal gun control laws being enacted, which absolutely happened

Gun regulations that passed after 1934 were not "more laws" built upon 1934, they were "laws" based on specific circumstances each time.

They've been trying to pass new, even more cringeworthy versions of it

So, now you are saying the slippery slope isn't working as intended because they can't implement it. That's actually quite humorous.

That would be based on a false premise

I used quotes around the word 'appropriate.' Single quotes are used to signify certain things, in this case, that we may agree or disagree with the premise but the argument stands either way. You jumped right around that and attacked the premise and not the logic.

Not all slippery slope arguments are created equal.

Yes, every slippery slope argument fails. This is our basic disagreement and now I see that you are not likely to get it. For anyone else reading this far, I will look at the regulation argument next.

Slippery slope arguments regarding ever-increasing government regulations/restrictions are a very safe bet

Not at all. There are plenty of reasons that we may expect regulations to increase over time in an evolving world -- obviously because humans start with none and there is no other way to go but increase.

There is no rule that because there is one regulation, there must be another. It can happen, but so too does the opposite.

On the other hand, we can show without the slippery slope that one deregulation leads to another. We know this because the deconstruction people have written out their plans to eliminate all the rules not counting the military, and that they implement those plans with rushes to deregulate every time they first take power -- 1981, 2001, 2017.

The stated goal of the deconstruction crowd is to eliminate all the rules and they are clearly working on it. It is trending and it will continue to trend.

There simply is no other side to this. There is no master plan of total regulation. There is no definition of total regulation. The whole "other side" notion is absurd.

But the real smoking gun in your complete logical failure is how you conveniently apply balance:

On one hand, you balance the deconstructionists against everyone else.

On the other hand, you unbalance the slippery slope argument to support your side.

Whatever works for your libertarian inspired conclusion. You reached the end you wanted.

I did it again. I assumed that someone would have a reasonable discussion because one point reasonable. I should have paid more attention to the rest of the comment. Whoops! It turns out it was all a convenience to reach a certain end.

Consider this bit of irrelevance from you dismissed out of hand.

Anyway, the slippery slope goes both ways, always and absolutely. Because it is an undefined argument of speculation, it never resolves the debate and it never ends. We go in circles forever.

Again, not all slippery slope arguments are equal, and again, people who have pointed out a slippery slope with regard to gun control have been proven right time and time again.

Ultimately, we will wind up with no weapons or everyone will have ICBMs.

Who makes a slippery slope argument that is against the obvious trend? The trend over the past ~century has been increased restrictions on firearms, which obviously doesn't lead to ICBMs. What kind of slippery slope is it supposed to be? One where gravity works in reverse?

Gun regulations that passed after 1934 were not "more laws" built upon 1934, they were "laws" based on specific circumstances each time.

That doesn't make any difference whatsoever. They are all federal gun control laws, each one resulting in less freedom than people had before each law was enacted, i.e., farther down the slippery slope than before each law was enacted.

NFA '34 was the first federal gun control law. The U.S. somehow managed to survive for 158 years without any federal gun control laws whatsoever. Given the number of federal gun control laws we have now, NFA '34 was absolutely the start of a slippery slope.

So, now you are saying the slippery slope isn't working as intended because they can't implement it. That's actually quite humorous.

What are you talking about? Of course the slippery slope is "working"; if it weren't, there would be no federal gun control laws, like in 1933 and earlier. The anti-2A crowd has gained far more distance down the slippery slope than they lost in 2004 with the sunset of AWB '94, and they've never stopped trying to get even that small lost distance back.

I used quotes around the word 'appropriate.' Single quotes are used to signify certain things, in this case, that we may agree or disagree with the premise but the argument stands either way. You jumped right around that and attacked the premise and not the logic.

You have a habit of pointing out things that make no difference. I know what quotes signify in that context, and it's irrelevant. The fact is, the premise is faulty (regardless of what we may agree or disagree with), which would negate the hypothetical slippery slope argument in the event that someone presented it.

Yes, every slippery slope argument fails.

False. I've already given an example of a slippery slope argument that has turned out to be 100% correct. Additionally, most any slippery slope argument based on the idea that government restrictions in any area that you care to name will continue to increase, will turn out to be correct. There's even a very old saying based on the near inevitability such things: "Give someone an inch and they'll take a mile".

This is our basic disagreement and now I see that you are not likely to get it.

No, I'm not going to "get" something that I've already established as being wrong, obviously. Your idea of who is failing to "get it" is, ironically, backwards.

Not at all. There are plenty of reasons that we may expect regulations to increase over time in an evolving world -- obviously because humans start with none and there is no other way to go but increase.

First, it doesn't matter what the reason is for increasing regulations; it constitutes a slippery slope regardless. Second, there is another way to go, which is, to stick with none, like the U.S. did for 158 years with regard to federal gun control laws. Also, since you didn't effectively support your "not at all" statement, consider dismissed as mere gainsaying.

There is no rule that because there is one regulation, there must be another. It can happen, but so too does the opposite.

No one said there's a rule; there is a strong trend/tendency.

On the other hand, we can show without the slippery slope that one deregulation leads to another. We know this because the deconstruction people have written out their plans to eliminate all the rules not counting the military, and that they implement those plans with rushes to deregulate every time they first take power -- 1981, 2001, 2017.

The stated goal of the deconstruction crowd is to eliminate all the rules and they are clearly working on it. It is trending and it will continue to trend.

I have no idea who the "deconstruction crowd" refers to, but I know that there's never been any crowd in power in the U.S. that has stated that their goal is to "eliminate all the rules not counting the military."

There simply is no other side to this. There is no master plan of total regulation.

There doesn't need to be a "master plan"; individual politicians who all have plans that face in the same direction are plenty effective at continuing to push us down the slippery slope.

There is no definition of total regulation.

Yes, there is. With regard to gun control, it would be a ban on the ownership of firearms.

But the real smoking gun in your complete logical failure is how you conveniently apply balance:

Consider your "complete logical failure" mere assertion dismissed, and also consider this to be: Comical Irony Alert: Part II.

On one hand, you balance the deconstructionists against everyone else.

On the other hand, you unbalance the slippery slope argument to support your side.

Whatever works for your libertarian inspired conclusion. You reached the end you wanted.

This is utter nonsense. I haven't said anything at all about "deconstructionists", and you aren't even using that term correctly to begin with. Deregulation has nothing to do with "deconstruction" in a political sense. Also, your applications of the terms "balance" and "unbalance" are novel. I suggest you stick to the generally accepted conventions of the English language.