# Thought Piece:  Second Amendment / Gun Control Related



## Marauder06 (Feb 11, 2013)

We haven't done one of these in a while, so I thought it might be interesting to do one on the subject of Second Amendment / gun control.



> POV 1:  Modern technology and US society have advanced to a point well beyond anything imaginable by our Founding Fathers.  Incidents like Columbine, Sandy Hook, Fort Hood, and the LA cop shootings underscore the reasons why substantive gun control reform is needed not later but NOW.  These measures include options up to, but not necessarily inclusive of, repealing the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.


 


> POV 2:  Gun control is anathema to our American values and should be resisted by every legal means available.  History is replete with examples of what happens to populations who give up their guns:  for every Sandy Hook there is an Auschwitz; for every Columbine, a concentration camp; For every Fort Hood, a Rwanda.  Gun control legislation must be opposed in order to ensure that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, does not become the graveyard of the people.


 
*Important details*:
1)If you want to participate in this exercise, your first post in this thread should be, "I'm in" or something related. After that, I will assign you to one of the two points of view above. You can request to be assigned 1 or 2, but that doesn't mean you'll get it.

2)You are not allowed to provide an opinion directly related to the topic of this thread unless you have previously been assigned a point of view (see below). If you comment on something related to the topic without being assigned a point of view first, I'm just going to delete your post. Sidebar commentary (i.e. "peanut gallery" comments) are allowed from people not participating in the debate, but providing your own opinion or substantively commenting on the posts of others participating in the debate is not allowed unless you, too, are in the debate as defined above.

3) Me assigning points of view means that you may have to debate this topic from a point of view that is different than what you currently believe. THAT IS THE POINT OF THIS EXERCISE. In fact, if I know that you have come out strongly on one point of view, I will assign you to the opposite side of the argument in this exercise.  I assign points of view so not everyone chooses one over the other and to keep the level of outside commentary down. I also do it to help people think about an argument from the "other" view, which is an important thing to do when forming or re-examining your own point of view on a given subject.

4)  After being assigned a point of view, you may make your own points, support the posts made by others on your "team," and rebut the arguments of the other side.  You are free to re-frame your point of view in your posts to better suit the argument you are trying to make.

5) You do not need to caveat your posts with something like, "I don't believe this in real life" or words to that effect. That immediately undermines your argument and taints everything you say afterwards. If you do that, I'm going to delete your post. Act like you believe it; you'll do better research and make a better argument. There will be plenty of time to say what you really believe later.

6) We have done several of these exercises in the past, and people learn a lot. So keep it civil, keep it fun. There are no "winners" or "losers" in this exercise, we are all winners due to the education we receive from being exposed to well-researched and well-argued points of view on this topic.

... and with that, game on!


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Feb 11, 2013)

In there like swim wear.


----------



## dirtmover (Feb 14, 2013)

I'm in and btw I hate guns


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 14, 2013)

lol- looks like there's not much interest in this topic, I think too many people are worried they're going to get assigned to the anti-gun position.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Feb 14, 2013)

Can I argue both sides, Like, Hate, Agree and Disagree with my own posts and refer to myself in the 3rd person?

ETA: It's a thought piece.  No one is trying to usurp anyone's rights by making them "argue" the other side.  Plus it's a free-for-all once we wrap it up.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 14, 2013)

I think the two point of views being offered are two far extreme to either side to be able to rationally debate or argue those POV’s. I think that regardless how this “thought piece” plays out, it will expose areas that could assist the anti-gunners in their argument. This is an open forum, everyone gets to read this, the topic issue is a hot one, and I think anyone who firmly believes in the 2nd amendment knows that any argument made on the anti-gun side is a negative and will surely be used elsewhere. Something like “look these active and former military people on this spec ops forum support gun control” and look at the “rational argument made by XXXX a former XYZ”. I think it’s a recipe for disaster, and I would rather discuss in great detail the concepts of the US Military’s TTP’s for Personnel Recovery, than go down this road of giving ammunition to the anti-gun hippies.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 14, 2013)

I am not providing those that wish to tear down my god damn constitution any ammunition unless it's warmed through combustion.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 16, 2013)

JAB said:


> I think the two point of views being offered are two far extreme to either side to be able to rationally debate or argue those POV’s. I think that regardless how this “thought piece” plays out, it will expose areas that could assist the anti-gunners in their argument. This is an open forum, everyone gets to read this, the topic issue is a hot one, and I think anyone who firmly believes in the 2nd amendment knows that any argument made on the anti-gun side is a negative and will surely be used elsewhere. Something like “look these active and former military people on this spec ops forum support gun control” and look at the “rational argument made by XXXX a former XYZ”. I think it’s a recipe for disaster, and I would rather discuss in great detail the concepts of the US Military’s TTP’s for Personnel Recovery, than go down this road of giving ammunition to the anti-gun hippies.


 
I think those two sides accurately represent the two absolutist sides of this argument.  By encompassing the extremes, the middle is covered as well, thus framing the entire debate.  In the instructions I also said in the instructions, " You are free to re-frame your point of view in your posts to better suit the argument you are trying to make."  So if you prefer, more centrist points of view might be:

POV 1:  The US needs to implement tighter gun control measures.
POV 2:  The US needs to avoid implementing stricter gun control measures than those currently in force.

If people are more comfortable discussing these points of view than the original ones, we can go with those instead.  In fact, now that I think about it those might be better POVs anyway.

As far as this site being some sort of catalyst for the anti-gunners, that's ridiculous.  I hope people *DO* see this discussion and point it out to their friends.  What are they going to see when they come here?  A reasoned, measured debate outlining both sides of the argument, with all points of view represented, thus enabling people to make up their own minds.  That's exactly what this debate needs- well-informed citizens making their own decisions instead of reacting from raw emotion, which is what is taking place both here and throughout most of the country.  What is this thread going to provide to the "anti-gun hippies" that they don't already know?  Our reasons for being against stricter gun control measures are already spelled out at length in threads *such as this one*, which is already on its way to being one of the most "viewed" threads on this site, ever.  If anything, that's where the danger, if any exists, comes from; us spelling out the pro-gun argument so the anti-gun side knows our arguments and can find ways to thwart them.  Do you really think that the anti-gun people are going to come here and say, "Oh look at these great anti-gun arguments, they look like they were cut-and-pasted from MoveOn.org" or whatever.   Do we really think that we're going to make such a compelling and novel anti-gun argument in this thread, that it could be used successfully in the anti-gun movement?  Frankly, I don't.

So, again, I hope people do see this thread and come to the site to check it out.  At the end of the day which side of this argument is going to come across as more compelling here?  Hint:  take a look at some of the new avatars people have been using lately.



Ranger Psych said:


> I am not providing those that wish to tear down my god damn constitution any ammunition unless it's warmed through combustion.


 
That's fine, if you don't want to participate then don't.  But you, like JAB, are exceptionally well-informed on this subject, and both you and the people who read this thread would benefit from this exercise.  Here's why:

When you have to argue a point of view of a given subject from "the other side," you are foreced to get into the other side's decision-making process, examine their rationale, and to see the outside world through the eyes of your opponent.  When you comprehend the other side, you can get into their decision-making process.  When you can get into their decision-making process, you can thwart their arguments and shore up your "real" position on a topic.  When you thwart their arguments and shore up your own, it is more likely that your "real" point of view will prevail. 

To draw a military parallel, this is why we do walk-throughs before major operations, where the enemy is represented by someone (the S/G/J2) who has immersed him or herself in the enemy's tactics, cultures, and mindset.  Giving full consideration to both sides allows you to "know yourself" and more importantly, to "know your enemy."  Isn't that worth knowing?

So, for anyone, if you want to participate in this exercise, then participate.  If you don't, don't.  If you have an issue with this exercise being conducted at all, *start another thread* or PM me and we can discuss it.  It may be moot anyway, if more people don't want to participate then we'll forego this exercise and move to something else.  But, for the reasons I outlined above and others I don't feel like taking the time to type out right now, I think this is something worth doing.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 27, 2014)

Thought this one was interesting, sorry it didn't make it to go time.  I think it's very interesting the reaction some had when faced with the possibility of having to argue against their views.  I'll admit to having a similar reaction, though from the other side.  I tried to think about what I would write, that I really believe.  Reminded me of that scene in 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy' adapted from the book very well.  Smiley was discussing his disasterous interrogation of the KGB mastermind and ultimately concluded the man was a fanatic.  That, Smiley said, was his weakness.  For every fanatic hides a debilitating, frightening seed of doubt...


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 27, 2014)

I can argue both side of the gun control debate very well, but no I will not give the dummys running around trying to take people guns away, any intelligent arguments to make.

I think everyone has an opinion and most people tend to attempt to argue their opinions without gaining proper knowledge or experience before doing so. I think that is most evident in how the morons describe their "ghost guns" with the "clips of mass destruction" and "100 bullets per a second" arguments.

Gun safety should be taught by people who have never handled a gun, and safety consist of run and hide when you see one...

We don't need gun control, we need to sterilize all the stupid people so they stop breeding and coming up with stupid shit like "guns are evil bad things that walk around killing people" or that some "criminal is going to start magically start following the latest gun restriction laws".

We don't have a gun problem here in the US, we have a stupid people problem.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 27, 2014)

I'm in.


----------



## 0699 (Jan 27, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I'm in.


 
Dude, catch up.  The rest of us are in 2014...

This thread is a year old.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 27, 2014)

0699 said:


> Dude, catch up.  The rest of us are in 2014...
> 
> This thread is a year old.


*FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF*


----------

