Politics & News

No Notifications

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Q: Ok, I'll do the seemly popular thing do to just prove how ludicrous extreme polarity truly is. Which is better on the gun issue?

Poll - Total Votes: 8

Stagnation?

Mass murder?

Something from a different direction?

Show Results

You can only vote on one answer.

Is complete stagnation better or mass murder of everyone better?

Complete opposites! Truly!

I give an out because I see both sides as ludicrous! Nothing is completely bipolar!

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 46-50, MVIP

It’s tiring that .
A. These shooting only seem to happen most in an election year.
B. The only solution from all those who swore an oath to uphold the constitution.. is to remove parts of the constitution.
Explain once and for all how removing and restricting guns from law abiding citizens, will stop bad ppl doing bad things?
If the can’t get a gun the mow ppl down in cars..
where does it end?

View 6 more replies »

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout both sides are using the same exact tactics. Just the polarity is different.

Stalemate.

It's the problem of extreme polarity. The tactic? Do nothing.

TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 46-50, MVIP

@DeWayfarer social experiment tho.
I’m suggesting an actual physical barrier. And the political/media consensus is words on paper..
I think my suggestion would have saved more lives overall..
but I wont dwell on it.
Now consider..
the guy who suggests a physical barrier is the extremist.
While the ppl whiteanting the ppls god given rights are NOT the extremists..
let that sink in..

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout both are extremist. Just by the words

god given rights

Your barrier is also extremist because it doesn't allow for "cooperation". Meaning the lessening of both sides. Which will be the end of both. For other outsiders will simply take over the vacuum. For instance the Chinese or perhaps Russia. Or even both.

Only through cooperation can we withstand the outside hords.

We must stand together or loose everything that we cherish. Roman proved that long before Russia or even China with Attila the Hun.

There simply was nothing left of Rome to prevent Attila the Hun.

GeniUs · 56-60, M

Off the top of my head I came up with what was a reasonable compromise to this but got shouted down by 'not in the constitution' crowd (it's on a previous thread).
1. Utterly pathetic that a document written over 200 years ago is still relied upon to get what a person wants without revisiting it to make sure it is still valid.
2. Lack of respect shown for people's rights to feel safe.
3. That somebody like me could come up with a better scenario than exists now; it took about 10 minutes to think and write what could somebody with a real vision, paid and given time come up with?

But none of it is 'in the constitution' and the nonsense about 'only criminals with weapons would make the situation worse' was spouted. The reality is people want to hold weapons and sacrificing the lives of others who they don't know is worth it.

View 1 more replies »

GeniUs · 56-60, M

@DeWayfarer Just looked back through 32 pages of my replies and not found it yet. At page 21 I was in a full blown argument with somebody who wanted weapons banning full stop, as much as this seems like a good idea I can see that this is not going to happen so tried to open a discourse which would come up with a solution but the kid wasn't having it only his idea was right.
Off the top of my head again it was; no assault rifles etc for civilians; only people with valid reasons to hold weapons in their homes (home defence not a reason, shooting cayotes on a farm good reason). Any body who needed a weapon for a past time such as hunting could have one held for them at an armoury. Something like that. 10 minutes thought not a weapon holder but worked in the military.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@GeniUs just as a for instance. What would have happened to Ukraine if civilians there didn't have assault weapons?

There are reasons for and against which both are valid.

The insanity is the polarity which prevents anything from happening.

Your kid is a case in point!

This message was deleted by the author of the main post.

ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M

I'd vote except "stagnation" makes no sense, have no idea what you're trying to say.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@ChipmunkErnie the polarity is killing this issue either way!

Stagnation is the result! For the result is to let dominant countries to run the USA over.

ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M

@DeWayfarer I can see now what you meant by stagnation, though I think a better word might be "inaction" or even "deadloclk". As to your last sentence, no idea what you mean.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@ChipmunkErnie I'm taking a page out of history! The Roman empire! By 400 AD it was powerless to stop Attila the Hun in 437 AD! Why? Because it stagnanted! No inventiveness = no power!

Weapons in the hands of civilians could have stopped him!

JaggedLittlePill · 46-50, F

You seem to ignore a lot of shit to come to this conclusion that both sides are absurd.

That is called cognitive dissonance. Any amiunt of you that cares about guns being had is insane.. sorry to inform you. The lives of people are more important than the second amendment.

The resolution is simple.

When the house is on fire you dont add gasoline. Or leave a small flame.....you cut off the oxygen.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@JaggedLittlePill so Attila the Hun would have his way in today's world.

Sad indeed.

iamonfire696 · 41-45, F

America is the only country where school shooting are a big problem

I have kids and one in grade 3. I can’t even imagine how those parents are feeling

View 10 more replies »

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@MasterLee good point in extremism! Only your POV is valid!

MasterLee · 56-60, M

@DeWayfarer so you tell me

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@MasterLee of course! In my point of view!

You see? There is some give there!

Add a comment...