It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Discourse Challenge: adjensen vs Druid42 - Semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines shoul

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 05:38 PM
This is a new and unusual format for a debate, and I'd like to thank Druid42 for accepting the challenge, Skyfloating for approving and the ATS Debate Forum for hosting.

The new format, call it a "Discourse Challenge", will be a back and forth between two people, as if we were sitting at a table in the pub, calmly discussing the issue at hand.

The debate format will be 10 rounds, and will consist of Socratic Questions and responses only -- nothing can be introduced which is not either the basis for a question, or part of a response to a question. There should be some reasonable limit to the length of both questions and responses (1-2 sentences for questions, one reasonable length paragraph for a response.) As would be the case in a bar, a fighter may cite an outside source, but no extensive quotes, no pictures, videos, or things that you normally wouldn't have in a pub conversation.

The opening post of the pro position (below) can only consist of one question. Apart from that, questions are optional for either side in all rounds, and in the last round, the "con" position can choose to ask one last question or not -- if it is asked, the "pro" position gets an 11th post, to provide a response to the question only. This way, each fighter has the ability to ask ten questions, and provide ten responses.

Again, in this debate format there will be no opening statements, no closing statements and no statements of any kind -- just questions and responses.

As this is an experimental format, it will not be judged, and it may not be allowed in the future. So just sit back, pour yourself a pub draw, and eavesdrop on two old friends, having a civil conversation on a controversial topic...


The subject of this debate is "Semi-automatic weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines should be banned in the United States", and I will be taking the "pro" position.


adjensen walks into his favourite pub, a quiet place in the inner city. On entry, he notes his friend Druid42, sitting quietly at a table near the back. Nodding to the bartender, who quickly begins pouring a beer from the tap, he collapses into a chair opposite Druid42.

He throws the daily newspaper onto the table, the headline above the fold clearly weighing on his mind.

'The President is going to act': Joe Biden guarantees Obama will bypass reluctant Republicans and cement new gun control laws (11 January 2013, New York Daily News)

Druid42 glances at the paper, shakes his head and waits, knowing that a discussion is coming.

adjensen does not disappoint, asking "Rights are generally held to be on things that are 'needs', rather than on 'wants'. Why do you need, rather than simply want, these types of weapons?"

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 07:40 PM
Druid smiles at his friend, and slowly takes a draw from his icy growler. Swallowing, he responds:

"You know, adjensen, it's not really about 'needs' and 'wants'. It's about the government overstepping it's bounds, and infringing on rights in general. A population that concedes it's rights, of any sort, to it's government, will slowly see them evaporate one by one, until finally, there are no rights left. Let me go wide here, just a thought I just had, kinda silly, but relevant to your need and want position. Say the US government, for whatever reason, decides BMWs are offsetting the sales of American made cars. They embargo against Germany, and the want to have a BMW becomes a need. Of course, it's highly hypothetical, my friend, but when the general population gets wind of government interaction, there's a subliminal consent that the "banned" object will be more valuable, and so more desirable. There's appeals to human nature that go beyond mere wants and needs. There's a freedom of choice inherent in this conversation."

"How important is freedom of choice to you, my friend? Are you willing to let a political faction determine what you want, or need?"

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 07:59 PM
Nodding at the bartender as he drops off his beer, adjensen picks up the glass and absently takes a sip.

"I'm not sure that it's a matter of politics, Druid," he says. "Or even one of a diminishing right of choice, unless one takes freedom to an extreme that it's never been in our history. Yes, we see what appears to be rights being taken away, but I think that we're missing the point that some of these 'rights' weren't ever granted, they just sort of came into being by default. A right to bear arms? Absolutely! A right to bear a specific arm? I don't find that in the Constitution, and I don't know anyone who thinks that, for example, it should be legal to have weaponized anthrax or a suitcase nuke, even though those are 'just another arm', by definition."

Squeezing an orange slice into the glass, he looks across the table. "Do you think that the Second Amendment gives us the right to own anything that can be defined as an 'arm'?"

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 08:45 PM
Druid waves to the barkeep for another ale, a quite voluptuous female with a hint of her knickers showing.

"Back when the 2nd amendment was framed, there were flintlock rifles and pistols. Black powder arms, which take a horrible amount of time to load. It took skill to load such a weapon, closing the hammer, filling it with 20 grains of powder, lubing a patch, after which you used your ramrod to pack a musketball down the barrel, and if the flint sparked properly, you could fire it at an enemy. There was no such thing as a "round" of ammunition back in the day. There was no Wal-Mart or Gander Mountain back then. The Founding Fathers didn't have a time machine to view the future, nor did they have the ability to see beyond their current situation. The possible evolution of firearms wasn't a concern of theirs, but they WERE focused on preserving that right, having presented the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. On that point, you need to allow me the liberty of foresight, even though the didn't have a time machine."

The barmaid delivers her order, and Druid takes a quick sip before continuing.

"The Founders couldn't see the progression of arms, but they were wise. They didn't know that remotely controlled drones would be developed. They didn't know that a 30 round magazine, in able hands, would be able to shoot down said drone. To me, the technology has evolved equally THROUGHOUT history. When your enemy has a better weapon, you appreciate the ability to have something to counteract it, and in essence, that is "The Right" to bear arms. Arms, matched with technology, is something you need to consider. The Founders wanted it's Citizens to be able to defend themselves, and in this day of unknowns, I see no reason to place limits on what is extreme. It all boils down to being able to "defend" yourself, an inalienable right. Whatever means? Of course."

Druid takes another swig, and looks at adjensen.

"Honestly, do you think a ban would stop at extra magazine size? My 18 shot .22 caliber is semi-automatic. I have a 15 power scope fitted to it, and it sighted in to pluck a squirrel out of a tree at 100 yards. I only use one shot. It's used to pluck groundhogs from the garden. Again, one shot. However, I could take said weapon into the public arena, and cause chaos, and even though it's a varmint rifle, the news reports would say I had *ahem* a Bushmaster. Are you suggesting my varmint rifle should be taken away, because it is semi-automatic?"

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 09:32 PM
"You know me, Druid," adjensen says, twirling his glass in the dim light of the bar, "I tend to see things from a rather pragmatic point of view. You're making an odd assertion -- that you don't need an 18 or 30 shot magazine, because hunters take one or two shots at a time, not 15, but that you don't want them banning something that you have no need of, because you think it the beginning of a slippery slope. But the past has shown us that this is largely an unfounded concern. In 1985, the United States passed the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act, which banned "cop killer" ammunition that could penetrate bulletproof armour. I don't remember a number of other bans which followed on from that -- there was a problem, it was solved, and you're still out there, shooting squirrels, unopposed."

"What seems to fuel these concerns," he says with a glint in his eye. "is runaway government tyranny, which isn't something that we've seen in the past. Why the assumption that, if reasonable measures are taken to address what seems to be a real concern, extreme measures are sure to follow?"

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:05 PM
Druid chuckles, and takes a sip from his Stout. He nods.

"You're very clever, adjensen, I'll give that to you. It's why topics like these can be discussed rationally between us. I'll concede your rational, because it's sound, but what you are forgetting is the "mob mentality" that rules society. MSM programs them while they sit on their couches, telling them that semi-automatic weapons and large capacity clips are bad, bad bad. They believe it, and it becomes a "viral meme". (Although, I have no supporting evidence of this.) Regardless, people with no knowledge of how "arms" work are suddenly posting on Facebook and Twitter, the "viral meme" running it's course across social media. The gun owners are also members of these social media sites, and get up in arms whenever a "ban" or "control" is mentioned. It's the blessing and curse of social media in the modern age. Everyone stays equally informed. You no longer have a gun freak reading his "Shooting Times" magazine, because he now goes online to read current events. He's vocal. He's also doesn't trust the government, and is afraid of losing the ability to defend himself. When you say "Reasonable Measures", you are not stating specifics, and that is what any gun owner NEEDS to know. We want to know we can have our arms, and any quantity of ammo we want."

Druid snickers. Adjensen doesn't waver.

"Are you opposed to limiting the amount of ammo a private individual can purchase, of any caliber?"

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:28 PM
adjensen motions the barkeep over to refill his glass. He notices that the few bar patrons are keenly listening to the debate.

"Well, I'm not sure that was a clear answer to my question as to whether we can assume that one event leads to another, though I think you make a good point that these are polarizing issues. That's really the problem that we see -- the two sides of this issue are not separated by degrees, but by a gulf, and neither sees the other as being aware, in the slightest way, of their concerns. Perhaps they are -- perhaps the gun owner sees the gun control advocate as truly wanting public safety, but not recognizing that there are safety issues beyond the gunman in the classroom, and perhaps the advocate sees the benefit of arms that are non-homicidal in intentional nature. Unfortunately, neither side seems willing to admit any common ground. That's what we're in search of here, my friend."

"To that end, no, I don't think that there is any reason to limit how much ammunition any given person can have on hand," he says, nodding again to the bartender, and squishing another orange into his brew.

"But to continue our discussion of government tyranny, I have another practical question. Given the level of armaments that the United States, Russian and Chinese armies have, does it really matter if a citizen has a magazine that loads thirty bullets, as opposed to one that holds, say, ten? How much longer will any given patriot last under invasion or tyranny if they can shoot 30 bullets without reloading, versus ten?"

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 11:43 PM
Druid follows the gaze of his fellow patrons, nodding in appreciation. The barkeep wipes the table down, and lands both adjensen and Druid another round.

"Ah, here you hit upon the nubbin of our conversation, adjensen." With the rest of the patrons listening, the pause caused them all to return to their verbal meanderings. "A weapon, that is semi-automatic, with an infinite amount of rounds, can cause only a limited amount of damage. I concede your definition of the ability of a government with superior firepower to overwhelm it's citizens. What you are not factoring in is the citizenry multiplied by 245 million. Can the US government take away all their arms? Who is left to tax after most of it's citizens are gone?"

The pub gets quiet, even though Druid wasn't talking that loudly.

"Wouldn't a government want to "disarm" their citizens before taking control, adjensen? I'm slack on the protocol, but it seems to me that you should take away people's guns eventually, starting with bans against semi-automatics and large capacity magazines, then having more than 100 rounds of ammo, then *ahem* the gun itself."

posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 12:05 AM
adjensen glances at the headline in the New York Daily Post

"Again, my friend," he says, "we look beyond paranoia or even legitimate concern and question whether that threat is real, or merely assumed. Not for a moment do I arbitrarily dismiss the concerns of Second Amendment proponents, in legitimate defense of that tenet."

"But," adjensen adds, tapping his finger on the headline, "I can't imagine Joe Biden or President Obama rumbling their fingers together, gleeful at the prospects of disarming American patriots, simply for the benefit of the tyrranization of America. President Obama faced twenty parents last month, who had lost their first grade children at the hand of a madman armed with a weapon that had capabilities that you and I both agree are excessive and unnecessary."

"Do you fault him for trying to address their concerns, in an obviously reactive manner, but addressing the reasonableness of a weapon which has no value as regards hunting or national defense?"

posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 10:33 AM
"But see, that's the problem. Knee-jerk reactions to age old problems. Yes, new legislation probably will occur, but the threat of an Executive Order to accomplish that has me quite infuriated. Passing laws should be done through official channels, and voted on by members of Congress, not just poorly written and enacted because you can. Look at Obamacare, in which Pelosi stated that we need to pass it in order to understand what's in it."

Druid shakes his head, nodding at the headline.

"That's not the way to pass laws, or win popularity contests. We need to find a national consensus on how to solve the issues, and if you look at the latest trending polls, a ban on high-capacity magazines is not the answer people want. You can google "high capacity magazines", and find them for sale for 12 to 38 dollars. While I personally don't require one, I am not so opulent to say that nobody else can have one either. It's the freedom to purchase legally want we want that makes the economy spin around. A car that goes 200 mph has no practical value, but you may buy one if you so choose. Banning fast cars makes about as much sense."

"Can you think of any other practical methods of preventing crimes involving assault rifles other than making new laws that make them illegal?"

posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 12:48 PM
"I agree," adjensen says, nodding at Druid across the table, "an executive order is an inappropriate way to accomplish this, and it'll likely go to the Supreme Court anyway, but we live in a dysfunctional age -- look at the fiscal mess that Congress got us in last month -- and the pro-gun lobby would fairly well ensure nothing would get through the legislature. We clearly have a problem here -- weapons with capabilities that no one needs, in the hands of madmen who seem hell bent on doing more damage than the nut before them. Proposed solutions such as the NRA's "armed guards in every school" are beyond idiotic -- where is the money for that going to come from? And it seems that it would be wiser to be preventative, rather than reactionary -- just like encouraging people to get exercise and lose weight is a better solution that putting AEDs everywhere to treat the inevitable heart attacks that come from those in poor health."

"So, in short, while I think that there are alternative solutions, all of them are less effective than the obvious preventative solution -- getting rid of weapons that no reasonable person truly needs."

Waving the bartender back over to refill the now empty glasses, adjensen asks his fifth question. "Wouldn't you say that it's better to address this epidemic of violence sooner, rather than later, particularly from a gun owner's standpoint? I can actually see the day when the American people get to the point of demanding that the Second Amendment actually be overturned in toto, if these obvious solutions continue to be blocked and the body count of innocents continues to grow. I don't agree with that, but it seems possible."

posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 02:53 PM
"Is it really an epidemic of violence, adjensen, or does the problem lie within social media and our modern connectivity to instant information? There's been 695 gun related deaths in the US since the tragic Sandy Hook incident, and yes, there is a website tracking that information. Do we care how many gun related deaths there has been in Syria, say, since Sandy Hook? What I'm seeing is a very slanted bias in the media, where they jump on a tragedy and instantly point the finger at guns. People kill people, period. Take away all the guns, and they'll just use knives or clubs. Sadly enough, deaths will still occur, by whatever means. Removing a few types of guns and large capacity magazines will not prevent violence, it'll just cause the criminals to resort to other techniques. I see the problem more related to the way our society views each other, and the glorification of war and killing through media outlets such as television and movies. Why aren't we looking at what causes these mass murderers to act, and go after that as the source of the problem?"

With new drinks supplied, Druid pauses and takes another sip before continuing.

"Do you agree that educational and/or rehabilitative intervention would be better suited to handling a few "unbalanced" individuals, or will there always be a percentage of the population prone to violent attacks on innocent people?"

posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:14 PM
"Aye, people will always find another way to kill each other, that's true. But do we really need to make mass murder more efficient? Recall that, right about the same time as Sandy Hook, there was another madman who attacked a group of school children. However, that incident took place in China, and the weapon was a knife -- so that, while he assaulted a similar number of children, to the best of my knowledge, none of them died. So there are twenty families in China whose tragedy is lessened by the criminal's lack of an efficient human killing tool. Does the media overplay these events, possibly motivating copycat killers and other demented souls? Sure, that's a valid complaint but, again, it isn't a matter of whether people act irrationally or with evil intent, but a matter of whether we can prevent these tragedies, or at least minimize them."

Realizing that he miscounted in his last question, he asks the seventh question. "Again, Druid, what is the rationale for wanting a semi-automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine, and is that price worth the lives of innocent, random victims who would die even in a world where everyone is armed, but no one can predict the actions of a madman who can kill ten people in the time it would take anyone to unholster their weapon and shoot him?"

posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:52 PM
reply to post by adjensen

"I'm beginning to think that you're not seeing the forest through the trees. A revolver is semi-automatic. Gun owners know the difference, but when MSM begins saying "semi-automatic" weapon ban, they shiver. When the VP mentions it, they get upset. When they hear about possible EOs, they speak out. A large capacity magazine is a convenience, and the rationale behind having one is to save on reloading time. A semi-automatic weapon is simply one that shoots another round every time you pull the trigger, until the magazine is empty. While I used to be a hunter, one shot per kill, there are people that like to target shoot. Skeet shooting is a popular sport, in fact, an Olympic event. Saving on reload time is a thing that target shooters want, so they can spend more time shooting. When they talk about banning semi-automatic weapons, they are including nearly every firearm except for perhaps shotguns and black powder rifles. Just because you or I don't agree with owning a high capacity clip doesn't mean that there aren't gun enthusiasts and collectors that want them. It's here where you are stepping on the 2nd amendment, and here where the line will be drawn."

"There will always be madmen in the world. Just because you take away all the legal high capacity magazines in the world, there will always be madmen with illegally obtained items. By banning them, don't you think that the madmen will find other methods of mass destruction?"

posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 07:25 PM
adjensen shakes his head and goes back to twirling his half empty glass. "It seems like you're justifying keeping weapons that are used in mass murders in order to make the lives of skeet shooters easier. I know that's not the case, but if convenience is all that we can find to justify large capacity magazines, I think that we've failed to come up with anything remotely approaching a reasonable justification for it. And, as I said earlier, the Second Amendment really doesn't come into play here, because while it says that we have a right to bear arms, it doesn't say that means any weapon, and we agreed to the constitutionality of banning things like weaponized anthrax. No, the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about the right to own any specific weapon, never mind accessories such as large magazines."

"Since we can't seem to find any legitimate need for these weapons, I'll tell you why people want them… fear. It may be a legitimate fear, it may be an imagined one, but fear is what motivates ever more destructive weapons. Fear of government, fear of others, even fear of self, but that's what's behind it. And what's behind the fear? Fear mongers like FOX News, the NRA and the gun and ammo manufacturers. I remember in 1993, hearing that Bill and Hillary Clinton were going to take away everyone's guns. Funny, but I don't remember that happening, though I do remember years of record sales and profits for the gun industry."

He looks at the clock and the weary look on the bartender's face. "Well, it looks like we don't have much more time tonight, so I'll ask again -- what need do you have of weapons such as these, when hunting and personal defense can be accomplished with single shot rifles, shotguns, revolvers, black powder guns and crossbows?"

posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 10:09 PM
Druid chuckles softly, perhaps the alcohol affecting him, realizing adjensen has cleverly brought the conversation full circle.

"You're right, we don't need them. Gun enthusiasts would survive just fine with without such things. Following that logic, let's suppose you decide all the things that people need. I'll decide what they want. I imagine your list will be rather small, including perhaps air, food, shelter, and a method of defending themselves. They also wouldn't need televisions or computers, and no connections to the internet. Ah. Then life would return to survival, and simpleness. My list is rather large, and includes luxuries, fast cars, fancy firearms to woo your gun collecting buddies with, and all the other things that money can buy that we don't really need. I'm not putting myself into a position to dictate what people can buy, and I will not tell anyone that they can't collect guns, nor limit what types they can buy. If they want to increase the sales of guns, well, that's their prerogative. However, I don't see it as a fear based purchase, but rather a status symbol. There's an old adage, the boy with the most toys wins. All those doomsday preppers stockpiling arms? Well, they are hardly a fearful lot, and in the true sense, are more rational and less prone to violence than an unbalanced kid. Preparation for an event in the future is sound thinking, and it is still their money to spend how they see fit."

Druid pauses, and sighs.

"Don't you think that perhaps the attempts by the government to "ban" and "control" is part of a bigger agenda? When we give up all our rights, won't it be much easier for the government to control every aspect of our lives? Say everyone gives up their weapons, and high capacity clips willingly and voluntarily. Will that really make the world a safer place?"

posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 11:08 PM
adjensen sighs, drains the last of his beer, and summons the barkeep over, just ahead of "last call".

"No, as I said earlier, the government has not given any indication that they will 'take a mile, given an inch.' To assume such borders on paranoia. We have seen that, in the past, real concerns regarding the expansion of what is considered legal arms have resulted in the selective banning of munition that caused concern, and yet hunters, recreational shooters and those concerned with personal protection continue to enjoy access to weapons. The banning of "cop killer" bullets in the 1980s did not result in the further banning of other ammo, and the liberal bastion that was the first two years of the Clinton administration did not find any modicum of gun control and/or seizure."

"So, in response to your question… how can the banning of weapons and their unnecessary accessories that were used in the killings of theatre patrons, graphic shop workers and first grade students, and that just in the past year, NOT result in a safer world?"

Tossing the bartender a fifty to cover the night's tab, adjensen leans back. "You find yourself face to face with a Newtown, CT parent, whose first grader did not open the presents for her that were under this year's Christmas tree. Kindly explain to them how the inconvenience of skeet shooters, or the fear that the Obama administration will taken their unneeded weapons away from them somehow nullifies their pain."

"Explain how Charlotte Bacon, Daniel Barden, Olivia Engel, Josephine Gay, Dylan Hockley, Madeleine Hsu, Catherine Hubbard, Chase Kowalski, Jesse Lewis, Ana Marquez-Greene, James Mattioli, Grace McDonnell, Emilie Parker, Jack Pinto, Noah Pozner, Caroline Previdi, Jessica Rekos, Avielle Richman, Benjamin Wheeler and Allison Wyatt are martyrs for the cause of the Second Amendment."

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 12:11 AM
reply to post by adjensen

"The world is a big and dangerous place, my friend. People die every day. While I find your empathy profound, as a parent myself I was shocked by Sandy Hook as much as when 9/11 occurred. Those 3000 plus parents left behind children who will grow up parentless, but will, and must, learn to cope with tragedy as we all surely do. The adults that were killed, let's not forget them, and let's never forget the tragic loss of life that occurs the world over. It's rather arrogant to forget about the nameless children that die every day in third world countries, due to starvation and disease, yet you'll swing your fists to ban guns, yet do nothing to feed the starving children. It's harsh I know, but you can't blame inanimate objects for the loss of innocent life. You must blame human nature. You must accept the fact that this is a cruel world that we live in, and above all, perhaps you should wonder why a God allows innocent life to be taken from us. Is there a lesson to be learned? Is all the heartache worth the meaning that can be gleaned from our own lives? We can learn from the violence inherent in human nature, I would think, and strive to teach others how to heal from the senseless horrors we face in our lives."

"It's been a long night, adjensen, and our time here is nearly over. Please provide me with a sure-fire way that we can prevent any further loss of innocent life in the world today. Is there one, or as humans, do we simply grieve, comfort each other, and move on?"

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 05:33 PM
"It is the last round, friend Druid. We've looked at the legal aspects, the emotional and rational, and I am still unconvinced that some vague legalism vindicates your position. From where I stand, I see dead first graders, moronic recommendations from the NRA and the intransigents of polar opposite views that just fail to recognize that the other has a point. I know that I wouldn't want to be in President Obama's shoes, who seems to be in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position. No, I have no simple solution to ending this insanity that we seem to be seeing more and more of every year, but I do know that, if nothing is done, it is a matter of when, not if, the next tragedy will occur. To minimize the number of grieving parents, spouses, children and families, I think that reducing the efficiency of the modern day human killing machine is a reasonable one."

"The Second Amendment doesn't say anyone has a right to any given weapon, you've failed to convince me that anyone actually needs these things, so I think banning weapons and accessories, whose only purpose is to kill human beings as quickly, efficiently and effortlessly as possible, is a good thing."

Squeezing one last orange slice into his half finished last round beer, adjensen picks up the newspaper. "What," he asks, "would be your alternative solution, my friend?"

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 08:56 PM
Druid tilts his ale back, and swallows the last.

"The solution? Most people don't want to hear it. Between us, I'll tell you what I think needs done. All the mass shootings are crimes against society, random for the most part, based on a disturbed individual wishing to cause harm to others. It's not the gun owners who are to blame, or the availability of weapons, it's the random wayward individuals who are disillusioned with the way society works. You want to go after easy targets, and ban things that are a much a part of our society as fast cars are, but honestly, let's address the real problem. It's society, and the way we raise our children. Lanza came from a broken home, so let's make divorce a bit harder. Better yet, let's try to re-instill family values again. The degradation of the family unit is the root cause of the insanity in the world today. Our kids our coming from broken homes, and the parents of those broken homes are to blame. Let's go back to basics, and if we implement any laws, let's direct them towards re-enforcing the family unit. Give tax penalties to broken families, and tax breaks to couples who stay married. Make a law that before marriage, you and your fiance must complete a mandatory marriage course, ensuring that those who get married, to raise children, are sincere and committed. Marriage is hard, but when children are involved, the commitment needs to be solid. The divorce rate is over 60% in the US. Doesn't that say something to you? Where are the values our parents had, that were taught to us?"

Druid looks at adjensen.

"They are gone, but not forgotten. Let's re-build the family unit, and you'll find fathers interacting with their children. We've made it so easy to get a divorce that we've removed the essence to what marriage really means. We're more committed to our selfish nature than to help society as a whole. A divorce typically means the mother gains custody, and the father is no longer a part of the unit. I'll propose off the top of my head, now that I'm thinking about it, before a divorce can be legally finalized, BOTH the mother and father must complete a community service program, either in an orphanage, or even better, a new program designed to incorporate the children and parents of everyone in that community going through a divorce. Have the parents volunteer time with the children of other parents they don't know, and then they'll begin to see how precious life really is."

Druid sighs.

"It's not that everyone is evil. Most people are honest and upstanding. The people committing crimes, however, are the ones coming from broken homes, without a solid paternal figure in their life. It's after a few generations that the morals break down if not re-enforced, and this is the essence of the the problem."

"Wouldn't you agree?"

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in