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!

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

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.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@GeniUs so you know, not all posts are visible to everyone. So I can have no idea to which post you're referring! 🤷🏻‍♂️

As to the over two hundred years old document. The conflicts of interests was just far to divergent then, which is the exact same situation now.

So no change is possible. Stalemate again! 🤷🏻‍♂️

Polarity is the fault then. And polarity is the fault now!

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.