Category talk:Anti Second Amendment

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Try naming one country that imposes gun control that isn't corrupt." Um... Denmark. Holland, Norway. Sweden. Closer to home: New Zealand. Australia. On it goes.... AlanE (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2016 (EDT)


Is it really meaningful to add countries where the Second Amendment has no relevance (last I checked, no part of the U.S. Constitution applied to France, to pick one example from this list) to this category? GerryV (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2016 (EDT)

France? Who mentioned France? AlanE (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
It jumped off the page at me -- it's listed on this page as being in the category of anti-second amendment." GerryV (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
I'l start again.... "Try naming one country that imposes gun control that isn't corrupt." Um... Denmark. Holland, Norway. Sweden. Closer to home: New Zealand. Australia. On it goes.....
AlanE (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
Copenhagen is the largest city and capital of Denmark.

A 2015 Jerusalem Post article indicates "Copenhagen has for long been the bestiality capital of Europe and has attracted many tourists mainly visiting to have sex with animals. Legislation against this practice was only enacted this year."
Denmark is the third most atheistic country in the world and the website reports that 43 - 80% of Danes are agnostics/atheists/non-believers in God.

In 2009, Suzanne Ost reported in her book published by Cambridge University Press, that the child pornography material produced in Denmark (and Holland) still constituted the largest part of child pornography that was currently available, having been transferred into digital format and uploaded onto the internet.
Sweden is one of the most atheistic countries in the world. In Sweden, 81 percent of women said they had been harassed at some point after the age of 15 - compared to the EU average of 55 percent.
The Australian National Council on Drugs (ANCD) report indicated that 20% of Australians drink at levels putting them at risk of lifetime harm.

I hope the above information is of assistance to your discussion. Conservative (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2016 (EDT)

I see your point. - User:GerryV
Me too. That was of great assistance. SamHB (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
These countries can be anti-gun/pro-gun "control," but "anti-second amendment" seems like a bad category to put other countries in. Besides, the right to have and bear arms is only one of several rights granted in the second amendment. Even if the definition of "anti-second amendment" were stretched to say that other counties not bound by this are still against the principles of it (which I think is , that might not be accurate. Are they also against a "A well regulated militia?" Perhaps, but this is still a stretch. It seems to me they could be categorized as "anti-gun" or "gun control" but categorizing them as "Anti Second Amendment" seems a bit sloppy, unless they are actively fighting against the US' Second Amendment.--David B (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
"Pro Gun Control" seems to be the best fit. Conservative (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
The biggest problem with TAR's additions to Conservapedia was that he misuses categories and likes to apply easy labels to people, states and nations. The category software feature is good for helping find related articles. If you want to discuss someone's political views, consider adding a sentence or a paragraph to the text of the article. The added text can have a footnote to the source. For example, one politician may oppose abortion in all cases, while a second may want to allow abortion in the case of rape or incest, while a third may allow fetal stem cell research. Similarly with gun control, one politician may want to end all legislation, a second may want instant background checks, and a third may want to ban private ownership of machine guns. If an editor wants to take the time to research someone's views on these issues, then please take the time to write a sentence and add a footnote to the articles. National views are more difficult to categorize than individual views. JDano (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2016 (EDT)

I apologize for having created this controversy. I was making unseemly edits to prove a larger point, and that is well known to be a really bad practice on a wiki.

The point I was so ineptly making is that it is insane to list Nazi Germany on a list of entities that oppose the second amendment to the United States Constitution. The fact that you consider any position favoring gun control to be evil, and that Nazi Germany was evil, doesn't mean you should lump them together in an article. Interesting factoid: Did you know that Hitler was a vegetarian? And that he liked dogs?

The text in this category probably needs a very thorough TAR-cleaning. Or perhaps get rid of the category altogether.

SamHB (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2016 (EDT)

Cons. Sorry mate, it's me again. What is your definition of "corrupt" in any normal survey of nations on the subject? AlanE (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
AlanE, you lost this argument. I know it and you know it. I am not going to stick around and beat your dead horse of an argument further. Conservative (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2016 (EDT)
You're right. I lost. Susan was right. You weren't silly enough to let a survey not of your choosing affect the outcome. Well done. AlanE (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2016 (EDT)
It still seems odd to include France or any other non-US country in a discussion of the Second Amendment, since the US Constitution doesn't really apply to them. GerryV (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2016 (EDT)

Agreed. This series of rabbit trails seems to have gotten us nowhere. --David B (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2016 (EDT)