It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
CYDdharta said:Gooberry said:Can a militia be well regulated if there is no regulations, or militia?Yes; the militia can be well regulate, i.e. fall under the same rules and regulations as the regular military, when it is called to arms.
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 36%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
The 1st and the 2nd Amendment are the clauses the analogues of which every proper legal system in the Universe should have.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
At the time the ammendment was written, well trained militia could potentially be a military match for government forces - and often were.
The political and military reality now, is that unless you have portions of state or local government or respective military involvement - the ability to “overthrow the government” is for all intents and purposes non existent.
What this means, is that the individual right to bear arms has very little use in this context.
What is worse is that the available and the individual right to gun ownerships: - rather than simply the collective right - presents actual damage to the citizenry - in the form of death, murder, crime that is easier to commit with such weapons and, most importantly, crack pot groups and movements that now have the ability to arm themselves and attack a flawed - but non oppressive governments.
the idea that this is what the founding fathers really had in mind, is rather flawed in that regard.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.76  
  Sources: 6  
  Relevant (Beta): 56%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes, because we all know the specific wording in military law makes things exist.
I am attempting pointing out that “the militia” - described as the unorganized militia - and this is normally what’s referred to in the context of the second ammendment rather than just the National Guard which is generally run and controlled through the auspices of the US military - doesn’t actually exist outside of the context I said.
I am not sure why something would somehow magically begin to exist just because it’s defined in the law.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.06  
  Sources: 6  
  Relevant (Beta): 42%  
  Learn More About Debra
My interpretation is different. I see what the Founding Fathers created as a means of people to counterweight the power of the government. As such, in my opinion (and the Amendment can be interpreted in such a way), citizens should have access to the same weaponry the government possesses: tanks, nuclear bombs, etc. If a certain weapon is deemed too dangerous when owned by a random citizen, then the government should not be able to own it either, as any weapon in the hands of a well coordinated government is far more dangerous than it is in the hands of anyone/anything else. It is not the random individuals gone rogue who performed genocides over the course of history, but it is those individuals who had access to the weaponry through the government which the objects of the genocides did not have.
In the distant future, as I see it, every homestead will have automated defenses put across its perimeter, and the public-funded military will essentially disappear, giving way to well trained private armies and defense systems. This is the only way we as humanity are going to survive; any centralization of military technology past a certain stage of technological development will mean the end of our species the moment it is misused - and it will be misused, since every government, including the most pacifist ones, is prone to power abuse.
To summarize my view: if the average Joe from Texas cannot drive a tank, then the soldier employed by the government even more so should not be able to drive a tank. And the fact that this point of view is essentially a part of the spirit of our Constitution is truly a remarkable success in state-making, something all other states should strive to adopt.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.84  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Patriot? Maybe. Patriotism is a pretty horrible ideology though, so I am assuming that the real question you are asking is: was he justified to do so? In my view, no.
One's being unhappy with the government does not give them right to do vigilantism at the expense of everyone else's preferences. When a critical mass of people becomes so unhappy with the government, they are willing to start an armed rebellion, then such a rebellion will be found to be legitimate according to the Constitution. But if it is just one guy who is unhappy with something and goes on a killing spree over it, then it does not matter what his motives are: he is a criminal. Not to mention that killing the governmental members is not the point of the Constitutional rebellion; the point is to depose the government, not to murder everyone from it. This person's actions made little sense from this point of view.
I agree that the line is grey, however. Take North Korea: the majority of people on paper seem to be happy with everything - but the state is obviously extremely oppressive. Would a rebellion by a small group of people be justified from the point of view of our Constitution? Hard to say.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 49%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
It was one of the few times a murder with a gun in America was actually closest to the reason we have guns. Wilkes Booth, Oswald, could very well be defined as Patriots. I agree that patriotism is a toxic ideology, but fighting against a tyrannical government is so very American.
On a completely different topic. Is an armed rebellion of the people versus the government even possible anymore? Could there be enough support and consensus among citizens to make a clear people vs government rebellion? Or would any attempt at that just result in civil wars?
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
I don’t have much of a problem with an organized, collective right to bear arms in line with the 2nd ammendment - rather than individual ownership: which much better supports the intent.
Secondly it’s not a great argument about how great guns are when you are saying that they are good because they help protect from guns.
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.74  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
So here's my question. Who gets to define or decide what or when a government is or isn't tyrannical? When you say the second amendment is good because we may need militias to fight a tyrannical government, it sounds so simple and easy to support. However the idea of tyranny is so subjective. Some on the right thought Obama was tyrannical, would they be right in taking up arms? Would some on the left who think Trump is a tyrant be justified in taking up arms? How many does it take? What if every Hillary voter took up arms, are they within their rights and protected by the Constitution? I don't believe an armed rebellion is possible without quickly turning into a civil war therefore not people vs government but people vs people.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 58%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.06  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
Preventing the government from being able to defend its citizens against foreign countries that do have those weapons is a terrible, terrible idea - and a recipe for making the government not be one for very long.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Gooberry People can defend themselves just fine if they are the ones owning the means of defense. At the very least, if the government owns them, then people should own them to, so people could defend themselves from the government if needed, and both the people and the government could defend themselves from an external aggression.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 65%  
  Learn More About Debra
When it comes to the argument for getting rid of guns that at least makes objective sense to me. You remove all guns and gun violence and death is gaurented to drop.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
To me, it is so important mainly because it establishes the status-quo: "The government is your servant, and if it stops serving you, then you may force it to start serving you again". The government essentially acknowledges that it has no authority over people and it exists by and only by the mandate the people give it. It relinquishes (at least, in theory) all hopes on getting special military benefits regular citizens do not have, because it has no rights for them, since, by design, it is a servant of the people and not a lord over them.
Very few other countries, if any, have similar philosophies not only declared and accepted unofficially, but proclaimed in the central document describing the basic principles of the societal organization. I believe Switzerland has similar clauses, albeit I am not intimately familiar with their Constitution.
The day the 2nd Amendment is repealed, if it occurs, will be a devastating blow to the American liberal ideas. The moment the government decides that common people have no rights on something public servants do, not just with regards to particularities, but with regards to an entire category of effective lethal weapons - will be the moment the republic dies, and the oligarchy is born. It has happened in the vast majority of the Western countries already, and I am hoping that the US will avoid this fate.
I agree with you that there is a lot of debate to be had on how exactly to interpret the 2nd Amendment and similar clauses - however, I do not think that the vagueness of the Amendment means the Amendment itself is not grounded on solid ideas. Perhaps the Amendment should be clarified, but definitely not dismissed, in my opinion.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
I really don't care about the 2nd amendment. And I think the state it is in now is such a bad one. I'd be in favor of either extreme, either no guns at all because regulations won't do a thing to stop gun violence if they are still easy to get. I also think If the second amendment is there it should me massively expanded to the point I can get an RPG or TOW missle, any military grade weapon.
As long as those who support the second amendment see and treat gun deaths like deaths from car accidents then they are fine in my book. They shouldn't comment on it being a tragedy and shouldn't give many thoughts or prayers about it. If you want a society with legal guns then you want a society in which innocent people will be killed by them. As long as they accept the bad with the good then that's fine by me.
To those who say gun deaths will still happen even if they are illegal that number would drop dramatically. Weapon sales would turn to the black market with exorbint prices create a significant wealth barrier and the right social connections to be able to access them.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
For example:
1. In terms of freedom of expression, the United States ranks #49th out of 180 countries behind countries like South Africa, Uruguay, Ghana, Namibia, Estonia, Jamaica plus many Western European countries and more (and are downgrading in rankings this year included). The US government really does control what we say especially when we have a large following so we do not influence our audience in a certain way. "In the United States, 2014 was marked by judicial harassment of New York Times investigative reporter James Risen in connection with the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer charged under the Espionage Act with giving him classified information. US journalists are still not protected by a federal shield law that would guarantee their right not to name their sources or reveal other confidential information about their work. Meanwhile, at least 15 journalists were arbitrarily arrested during clashes between police and demonstrators protesting against black teenager Michael Brown’s fatal shooting by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri."
2. Justice department: The US has one of the highest percentages of its population in prisons (probably due to the fact that prisons can be privately owned and you can be profited from)
3. Public Indecency: (debatable) but it is still removing rights of free expression to some (not me)
4. Taxes: Most countries do not run like this, but for Americans, any American citizen living abroad still pays U.S. taxes, and even to resign from United States citizenship, this requires a tax sum
5. Gay marriage was legalized in 2015
6. Education is not a right
7. Health Care is not a right
Some of these are debatable and even I don't agree with but the bottom line is, that not everybody will agree with what is a right vs a privilege and what is needed vs what is not needed, but in my opinion, owning a gun shouldn't be our priority.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
I ask because it's actually a pretty significant event that really makes you think about guns, because your life is finally put right up against what a society that allows guns looks like. I've had one held to my head and still don't fight on the gun control issue one way or the other. However it was a homeless guy who used to ask me for money for groceries and if guns were illegal he wouldn't have been able to afford one. Then there is the disgruntled co-worker who flashed his gun around a different car that a couple worker bartended at, and called my place of work on theth different occasions threatening to shoot it up. The cops were called each time and they said they couldn't do anything because they didn't hear the call or actually see anything. Granted this is more of a problem with policing than guns, but there would be nothing they could do until he shot at us. If guns were illegal they could do something before he pulls the trigger. What it does do is make me dislike those who try to mislead on both sides of the argument.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
I would like a society with no gun deaths. But I would like even more a society in which every individual is free and independent and does not need to rely on anyone to be able to, at least, try to protect themselves.
@beckysmith I agree, and I do not think the gun laws are that important in the overall scheme. In my view, the biggest concern is the over-bureaucratization of the US economy and politics, leading to extremely inefficient resource utilization and slowing down economical activities considerably.
However, the gun laws are not irrelevant regardless, and from the philosophical perspective, I see how society treats the gun rights as a strong indication of that society's core values.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Ah; so what you're saying is that such an event would make me more likely to ignore facts and logic in favor of making such a decision based on emotion. I was right, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with this conversation.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
I get it you live in this delusional world where guns are good and everyone is safer with them. You see it as an infallible amendment and therefore should never be removed yet you supported ending proabition, literally taking away an amendment, it is perfectly fine to do that. I'm saying that such an event would get you to actually look into the facts instead of parroting what Fox news and your dad told you. You love to talk about this all theoretically but it actually has an effect on people's lives everyday. If you can honestly say you would be ok being shot or your family getting killed by guns, because of the principal and need for and in society, then ok you actually support having guns. As you said emotion shouldn't be involved so your family's death is acceptable because that's just the costc ofo living in a society with guns. I laughed at a libertarian I know when he got hit by a stray bullet, because that's the society he fought for, then he got to live in it.
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Applying your logic to you, you must be okay with being hit by a truck running a red light killing you instantly, since you support the right of people to drive vehicles and that is the society you fought for. Do you accept this judgment? I assume not.
This is the problem with advocacy for legal systems based on emotions: it is inconsistent and dishonest, and it only takes into account the bright images one envisions and not the whole picture around the discussed matter.
People can accept a risk of something happening in favor of the (in their eyes) bigger gain. Every legal stance has positive and negative sides. Just because one believes that the positive side outweighs the negative side, does not mean they are okay with the negative side.
Freedom over security is a hard choice, and it carries a lot of risks with it. We choose it and accept the risks. We are not blind to the negative sides of lax gun laws, and we do not live in the world where "everyone is safer with guns". Some people are safer, other people are not. But everyone is freer, and that is what matters to many of us.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Why are you Pro 2nd Amendment?
Changing your mind on a blind statement is not practical. The Amendment is made on a United State of common defense to the general welfare against independence itself. If a person is upholding the United States Constitution then there is no freedom to obtain as a goal the united state sets a qualification of independence with a boundary that is a matter of liberty.
Is a Fire-arm a common defense to the general welfare described as precedence of fact by preamble?
Does a ratification of united state in the way of amendment represent an introduction of fact by preamble?
Do you believe a State inside this union should have right to form militia under the title of police?
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
As an LGBT I carry a pistol because people like to assault my population. Where I see guns to be most important however would be in interactions with the police. It's not uncommon for police to violate your rights and I believe that should give you the ability to shoot them seeing as how they are allowed to shoot just because of a feeling of danger. But the police are infallible to so many. But that's the group that tramples on very important rights most regularly.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 59%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.64  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 71%  
  Learn More About Debra
I do think emotion should not be a part of policy debates, however. Policy debates should be based on raw logic, and emotion interferes with our ability to make logical connections.
A popular misconception with regards to policies I see is that many people think that the law shapes human behavior. While it does to a certain extent, it does not do so on its own. What the law does is create incentives - but whether people actually act on those incentives or not depends much more on the societal culture and on the individual, than on the law itself.
There is this term many policy fellows use called "unintended consequences". This is something that a law was not intended to achieve, but achieves in practice due to the peculiarities of human behavior. The problem with emotional approach is that emotions focus our attention on a very narrow, specific side of the discussed issues - and missing the bigger picture, we lose the ability to predict those "unintended consequences", hence losing the ability to understand how the proposed policies are going to work in practice.
To illustrate my point, consider the popular narrative on heavily taxing the rich. To a person agitated over the fact that there are extremely poor people in a modern First World country, living alongside multibillionaires, who sees it as injustice - can have the following train of thought: "We must introduce a 95% tax on the rich. This will lead to the money they do not really need being taken away from them and given to those who is in a much bigger need of them." From the justice-based emotional approach it may seem like pa good idea.
However, when this policy is actually implemented, we see quite a different outcome. The rich, losing such an enormous fraction of their income, have to change their business models in order to maintain the level of income they want. So they start hiring fewer workers, requiring them to work harder and paying them less, to compensate for the losses. Unemployment rises, salaries drop, economical output plummets, the tax income the government receives ends up far below the projected figures... Add to it the fact that the government is notoriously bad at utilizing resources, and you will see that not only did the policy not achieve the intended outcome - but it actually had an adverse effect on the very people it was supposed to benefit.
All these "unintended consequences" would be easily predictable, had the policy-makers and the policy advocates employed a raw logic-based approach. But since their narrative was heavily affected by emotions, they failed to grasp the intuitively understandable effects their policy would lead to.
That is why such arguments as "I have been shot. If you had been too, you would understand how I feel", "That person raped me. Go preach about the negatives of death penalty to someone else", "Our people were killed in an explosion. This restriction of freedoms is not up to you to criticize, since you were not there" or "My wife was irradiated at Fukushima. When I say that the nuclear energy is dangerous and should be banned, I know what I talk about" - should have no place in serious political debates. "Suppose we implement this policy. What are the positive and negative consequences? Do they align with our values or not?" is the train of thought I would like to see much more often. Not "You are not homosexual, so you do not know what it is like being one and your argument against diversity quotas is irrelevant", but "Homosexuals encounter prejudiced attitude. Suppose we introduce diversity quotas. What will the effects be?".
---
That is not to criticize everything else you said. Just wanted to make my point clear. Regarding your debate opponent, I personally do not have a very high opinion of him, as his arguments tend to be copy-pasted from his political camp's narrative and he does not seem to be putting much thought into them.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 35%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 65%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
A gun wouldn't have helped me in that situation because he grabbed me from behind putting the gun to my head. How am I going to shoot someone when I literally don't know they are coming? A gun can protect me when I'm aware that something could be coming.
  Considerate: 38%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.18  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 35%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.96  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 48%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.34  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 30%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 57%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra