Penn and Teller on Gun Control
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
While I agree with their argument on this issue, and they make some good points, you gotta admit they are about as objective in their presentation as Michael Moore, but more interesting and entertaining. Good sense of humor...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I would disagree with your comparison. Michael Moore does not show the other side's arguments. They are about as objective as John Stossel. They at least take the time to articulate the opposition's argument before they destroy it.
Michael Moore was a bad comparison. They aren't lying or distorting the truth to make their point. Every point they make is valid. The thing is with anything like this (Stossel included) they only counter the arguments as they present them. Stossel doesn't call people names (like smug) in his presentations. Stossel attempts to show both sides and gives a seemingly objective presentation. With Stossel, he seems to be asking good questions, but comes across as an all around skeptic. With Pen and Teller it is obvious the had conclusions drawn and a bias in place at the beginning of the show. The still present a compelling argument. With Moore you get a propaganda peice.
Basically, I break their presentations down like this:
Stossel: skeptic searching for the truth
Pen & Teller: A compelling/solid argument
Moore: blatant lies and propaganda
Basically, I break their presentations down like this:
Stossel: skeptic searching for the truth
Pen & Teller: A compelling/solid argument
Moore: blatant lies and propaganda
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You've improved on my statement as I improved on yours. Good job. :Beer
Here is my take on the second amendment.
I believe they are correct in their interpretation.
The second amendment is there to allow PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. The reasoniing behind this was the ultimate check and balance. If the government got too out of control, the people could stand up to the government. In addition, if the US was attacked, the people could assist in its defense.
Now - the real purpose behind the amendment pretty much doesnt hold water today. The reason is that when the amendment was crafted, everyone could have muskets and cannons, people and government alike. Today, no way could the people put up a fight against our military with its tanks, planes, machine guns, etc. So really, that ultimate meaning doesnt really work anymore.
However, it is one of our constitutional rights. I actually think we are a little too strict with the regulation. Where the constitution is concerned, I believe the amendments should be read liberally and applied with the benefit of the doubt going to the individual.
Ultimately, I believe gun control wont work simply because criminals dont follow the law in the first place. So those regulations wont really affect the criminal, only the law abiding people. Now this doesnt mean I dont support some reasonable regulation. For example, a 3 day waiting period doesnt seem to infringe the right to me. Nor keeping a gun from criminals (although I dont buy the ban for life deal. I believe people should be able to pay their debt to society and at some point, be allowed all the rights again) - But again, I dont think the right should be limited without strong reason.
Put your tounge back in your mouth fossten. I keep telling you im no liberal democrat.
I believe they are correct in their interpretation.
The second amendment is there to allow PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. The reasoniing behind this was the ultimate check and balance. If the government got too out of control, the people could stand up to the government. In addition, if the US was attacked, the people could assist in its defense.
Now - the real purpose behind the amendment pretty much doesnt hold water today. The reason is that when the amendment was crafted, everyone could have muskets and cannons, people and government alike. Today, no way could the people put up a fight against our military with its tanks, planes, machine guns, etc. So really, that ultimate meaning doesnt really work anymore.
However, it is one of our constitutional rights. I actually think we are a little too strict with the regulation. Where the constitution is concerned, I believe the amendments should be read liberally and applied with the benefit of the doubt going to the individual.
Ultimately, I believe gun control wont work simply because criminals dont follow the law in the first place. So those regulations wont really affect the criminal, only the law abiding people. Now this doesnt mean I dont support some reasonable regulation. For example, a 3 day waiting period doesnt seem to infringe the right to me. Nor keeping a gun from criminals (although I dont buy the ban for life deal. I believe people should be able to pay their debt to society and at some point, be allowed all the rights again) - But again, I dont think the right should be limited without strong reason.
Put your tounge back in your mouth fossten. I keep telling you im no liberal democrat.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
How did you know???Seriously, if things erupted into a shooting war between the citizens and the government, it wouldn't be a contest. You're talking about at least five million SERIOUS gun owners as well as probably 10-20 million casual gun owners against - what? a few thousand federal agents? And even if the military got involved, there is no law that dictates that citizens would have to fight a conventional war on battle fronts in that situation. There are simply too many cities for the military to have to pacify. Hell, we can barely keep little Iraq under control, and that's only the size of California.
Just read the two books recommended in my sig and you'll see what I'm talking about.
The problem I have right now is that the people in this country have already willingly given up the other 9 rights enumerated in the Constitution, so the government doesn't have to take away our guns.
I dont know about the other 9 - but yeah, people tend to give them away.
I am always amazed by how people behave with the 2nd amendment though. People will overlook the exception on that one. What I mean is, people will find every reason not to abridge that right regardless of how many criminals have guns and use them.
But, let one criminal get away with a crime because illegally obtained evidence is not allowed in court, and people are up in arms about it screaming "what about the victim's rights".
I recognize that every right has its consequences. But I believe in them all and I believe they should be interpreted widely. These are our freedoms folks, its what makes us a great country.