Wednesday, January 16, 2013

debate, part 2


take a look at this new york times editorial. 

it has 6 responses to the issue of the gun controversy. read the synopsis. the issue here is not prohibition. this discussion is more nuanced.

i advance some points:

1- second amendment to the constitution and its history.
2- the downside (social price) to pay. 
3- there are approximate 300 million guns in circulation in the US alone.
4- take a look at the so called scholarly commentaries to the discussion (click here and scroll down). this is the discussion judges have when they read and write opinions. (by the way take a look at the difference between majority opinion and dissenting opinion). 

as you can see this discussion boils down to how we discuss personal freedoms (civil liberties). what are the limits of personal freedom?

_____________

we could try a debate in class. some student volunteers to read the different takes & pick one he/she feels comfortable with. this is the position he/she will defend.

i'd like to be able to do this as an exercise in class next wednesday, depending. it would be good to have at least three or four different points of view.

of course, i'll moderate the debate. 

7 comments:

Shamari said...

The idea that we should no longer be allowed to bear arms is not necessarily a bad idea as whole but no matter what your stance,it is clear that the right to bear arms is just that, a RIGHT. And even though it is a fallacy to say this, if we were to allow the government to start taking away our basic rights granted to us as citizens who draws the line of where to stop. We as a country are never level headed in what we vote for or support, we seem to always want to react to an occurance but never access or evaluate the whole situation through out time. How many lives, pieces of property and liberties have guns protected. These things actually go undocumented normally because if tragedy is averted then no one feels the need to tell there government or take the time to document it. So to want to take away our right to guns because of tragedy is not only and infringement upon our rights but also logically short sighted and limited. Emotion is what makes judgment cloudy. Emotion is the Achilles heel of human logic. Remove the emotion from the situation and I guarantee that many minds will change on this specific topic.

Tatiana A. said...

I can definitely agree with Shamari. Emotion is definitely a contributing factor as to why we have so many people with polar-opposite view in the situation. In the even that the only reason our right to bear arms is being threaten by the simple fact that there was a tragedy then I cannot stress enough the fact that tragedies happen with or without guns, ALL THE TIME. We are not looking into so much as taking away guns from the public so as to stop violence as a whole but they're attacking the METHODS in which we can and cannot attack a person whether or not we have a good reason to do so.
Following this train of thought, then it's difficult to conceive that eventually knives wouldn't be illegal, along with cars, pillows, etc. Everything can be lethal if the mind is set on the intent to kill. And an insurmountable amount of people around the globe have proven that time and time again by killing people with their bare hands. Saying so only takes me back to my original conclusion that tragedies do not happen because weapons made it so, they happen because people made it happen.

A gun is nothing more than an inanimate object, unless there's a person present to pull the trigger.

Anonymous said...

"A gun is nothing more than an inanimate object unless there's a person present to pull the trigger."

Taking that to another level, this does beg a interesting question for the cynic about our government. To say that weapons of any kind are not the true governmental issue here is to say they intend to disarm the public in order to render us more controllable since humans are the true weapons of mass destruction.

Very interesting indeed!

Cinthia V. said...

People let there emotions get in the way, as such it clouds there judgement and leads to regrets for actions later on. So i can definitely agree with shamari there. The fact that guns are within reach of any citizen wanting to purchase is a hazard. There are those who purchase these weapons for malicious intentions and other for personal protection. Which is why i am all for Obama's push for background checks on weapons. A weapon can be used for good or evil depending on the person.

Anonymous said...

Tatiana, you don't need a gun to pull a trigger. That's why the military has created auto-targeting turrets. These turrets are hardly inanimate objects.

Anonymous said...

EDIT: You don't need a person to pull a trigger.

atRifF said...

this was a cool thread guys.