Another school shooting in rural America

From anyone else I would question your reading comprehension

The context of the 2nd amendment is clear. It protects missile launchers MORE than a switchblade because missile launchers are MORE useful against a potentially tyrannical government.

Or did I miss the part of the constitution that requires it's citizens to carry state ID?

When a qualification is implied so are the minimal effective means of determining the qualification.

No, that's your opinion on what you think the government should be limited to.

It's an objective fact

Until the constitution changes, the constitution determines the legal role of government.

There is no requirement in reason for a false dichotomy to confer any responsibility on anyone, e.g. "If you can't stop the shcool shootings through a mental health law, you must allow us to take away the guns".

The false dichotomy implied there is that a universe without school shootings (or equivalent) MUST exist and anything that the speaker perceives as standing in the way of that universe must yield.

It doesn't matter if a universe without school shootings would be an improvement

A universe without black crime being a good thing does not mean you can do anything to get there nor does it mean anyone who tells you to stop your immoral actions must come up with another way to your utopia.

You are incapable of responding to an argument without strawmanning it.

Then you should stop responding to me, I don't find your sophistry and constant context-shifting red herrings all that interesting.

The context of the 2nd amendment is clear. It protects missile launchers MORE than a switchblade because missile launchers are MORE useful against a potentially tyrannical government.

So by this logic, we should all be able to run to the store and pickup a nuclear warhead... Right?

Or did I miss the part of the constitution that requires it's citizens to carry state ID?

When a qualification is implied so are the minimal effective means of determining the qualification.

So to be clear, you're a second amendment absolutist?

As in you believe the only qualification to be able to purchase whatever arms one wishes is that they are an American citizen.

So ex-cons, domestic abusers, people on the FBI watchlist, people diagnosed with mental illness... Anyone can purchase a missile launcher and apparently even a nuclear warhead... Correct?

Government is an institution created by man

so it's purpose is necessarily decided by man

That by definition, makes it subjective.

This conversation is about what should be done

not what the legal hurdles are to get there.

I've never heard of a single lawmaker who's against gun safety laws come out with a mental health bill aimed at curbing gun violence

pretend that the left is arguing that only security matters and 'to hell with liberty'.

as if an AR15 is necessary to uphold that right.

It doesn't matter if a universe without school shootings would be an improvement

Doesn't matter? That's the entire point of why we debate policy.

You can bury your head in the sand but the analogy is still here.

And it's still irrelevant.

Then you should take your own advice.

So by this logic, we should all be able to run to the store and pickup a nuclear warhead... Right?

By this logic the constitution should have been amended with the advent of weapons of mass destruction

So ex-cons, domestic abusers, people on the FBI watchlist, people diagnosed with mental illness... Anyone can purchase a missile launcher and apparently even a nuclear warhead... Correct?

Yep, their liberty might be curtailed by due process of law but not their right to sell or buy a weapon upon opportunity.

Would have been nice if there had been amendment before the insane clowns became a major political bloc.

Government is an institution created by man

So are language and mathematics.

so it's purpose is necessarily decided by man

Definitions are decided by man, the logical implications are not.

That by definition, makes it subjective.

Then stop wasting your time on a debate site, language is by your definition subjective.

There are two foci, first, the false dichotomy you relied upon to say this:

I've never heard of a single lawmaker who's against gun safety laws come out with a mental health bill aimed at curbing gun violence

I never said you can't debate. I just said there wasn't a dichotomy which required someone to come up with an alternative solution before rejecting your proposed solution.

I enjoy watching you try to escape the pits you dig for yourself.

So by this logic, we should all be able to run to the store and pickup a nuclear warhead... Right?

By this logic the constitution should have been amended with the advent of weapons of mass destruction

But it wasn't, so according to you, we can all purchase or own nuclear warheads according to the constitution.

You're entitled to your own opinion

even if it prioritizes the annihilation of human civilization over using common sense to interpret words written over 200 years ago.

You're arguing that the *purpose* of government is an objective fact.

[DoubleR] No, that's your opinion on what you think the government should be limited to.

[ADOL] It's an objective fact

Does that not give you pause to recognize how absurd you are falling just to defend your position?

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles sand organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. - Declaration of Independence

There are two foci, first, the false dichotomy you relied upon to say this:

I've never heard of a single lawmaker who's against gun safety laws come out with a mental health bill aimed at curbing gun violence

It's not a false dichotomy to show how people who say "look over there" don't actually care what's over there.

I've never heard of a single lawmaker who's against gun safety laws come out with a mental health bill aimed at curbing gun violence

They aren't obligated to.

Yes they are.

I enjoy watching you try to escape the pits you dig for yourself.

The pits you dreamt up...

Dead children are a small price to pay for the presumption of innocence.

Dead children are a small price to pay for the presumption of innocence.

Just a daft sentence. If I lived in a town where every house was a bounce house, I'd probably want to ban knives.

What's the difference? You might mean no harm, but you are grossly negligent. That's what you're guilty of if you need something. Innocent black people are innocent black people.

If I can prevent you from living in an inflatable house you aren't free. If you can prevent me from owning a knife because YOU choose to live in a bouncy house, I'm not free.

This is fundamental. (political) liberty does not mean you can make choices that entitle you to use violence to curtail the choices of others. You live in a bouncy house, that's a risk you take. You live in a wooden house, that's a risk you take.

You can punish someone when they walk up to your house and stab it or cause it to light on fire, you can't make knives and candles illegal. Well I mean you can in the same way you can rape and murder, you just can't morally and I'd shoot you to prevent you from getting away with it.

There is no balance to be struck, no negotiation to be had. Liberty first, then with that as a constant to work around, security.

So when 1 out a of thousand guns are used for evil it's negligent to own a gun, but when more than 1 out of a thousand black males do something evil it's not negligent to let them walk around?

BTW I am just looking for you to state the blindingly obvious here, which you will be forced to do unless you walk away.

You missed out on the analogy bigtime there

It is liberating to log off this website and go back to living among decent folk. 

Well I'd call you unfit to live amongst civilised people.

You think nuclear bombs should be legal right?

No offence, but you're a lunatic.

So when 1 out a of thousand guns are used for evil it's negligent to own a gun, but when more than 1 out of a thousand black males do something evil it's not negligent to let them walk around?

BTW I am just looking for you to state the blindingly obvious here, which you will be forced to do unless you walk away.

I dunno how you write that dumb shit above and are still somehow so arrogant to think you're leading me down the garden path here. Negligent on whose behalf? The innocent black people?

But the rhino's got a mind of its own. That's every other person that owns a gun. Literally no difference.

You couldn't have picked a more self-defeating analogy if you tried, because the thing is that rhinos do have a mind of their own but guns do not.

Your analogy backfired on you.

What does "negligent on behalf" mean? Who is being negligent? 

You couldn't have picked a more self-defeating analogy if you tried, because the thing is that rhinos do have a mind of their own but guns do not. This is what we call in the modern USA jargon "saying the quiet part out loud". You see the gun as the attacker and not the inanimate tool that it is.

But the rhino's got a mind of its own. That's every other person that owns a gun. 

"Owning a gun is correlated with lower intelligence..."

But it wasn't, so according to you, we can all purchase or own nuclear warheads according to the constitution.

Yes

You're entitled to your own opinion

It's the objective meaning of those words

You're arguing that the *purpose* of government is an objective fact.

I said "The job of government is to protect rights" and then I clarified that I meant protecting rights is the legitimate purpose

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles sand organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. - Declaration of Independence

Context shifting red herring. You did not mean "look over there" is misdirection. You meant "If you won't do something (like pass a mental health bill) then you must concede on 'gun saftey' laws".

This doesn’t seem like a problem of weapons. It seems like a problem of motivation or mental health. 

It's not an either/or. Dealing with mental health does not exclude us from dealing with guns. And as a side note, the mental health argument has shown itself time and time again to be nothing more than an excuse and a distraction. I've never heard of a single lawmaker who's against gun safety laws come out with a mental health bill aimed at curbing gun violence

If he sucked with using firearms but is a skilled butcher, then what?

But it wasn't, so according to you, we can all purchase or own nuclear warheads according to the constitution.

Yes

Like Badger said, you're a lunatic.

You're entitled to your own opinion

It's the objective meaning of those words

Words that were written before nuclear bombs were even thought possible.

The meaning of words is determined by their intent

There is a reason we have constitutional scholars

that wouldn't be the case if anyone with a dictionary could properly interpret every passage in the constitution or any other legal document for that matter

This is really basic stuff.

You're arguing that the *purpose* of government is an objective fact.

I said "The job of government is to protect rights" and then I clarified that I meant protecting rights is the legitimate purpose

Legitimacy is by definition, subjective.

And most people in their subjective opinions think that ensuring the safety of it's citizenry

Nothing about this supports your assertion that the founding fathers saw protecting rights as the only legitimate purpose of government.

They state very clearly that the government derives it's powers from consent of the governed and that the people have a right to alert it

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men - Declaration of Independence

I was explicitly talking about people who appeal to mental health as a source of blame for our gun violence epidemic.

So if someone is blaming mental health then the rational expectation is that they would propose something, anything, to help address the issue.

No.

 We want a system that serves the people living under it. 

But it doesn't care how much of the population is employed and can afford food and housing

Watch out, ADOL might try to eat you.