I say yes. For a mentally stable person 0 years old or older to exchange money for gun safety trainining is a human right. Why should the government be armed, but citizens not? That is unconstitutional. Read the 2nd Amendment before you reply.
Revelation 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
The general rule of thumb in civilized societies in these matters is the requirement for the ability to operate the device while maintaining enough degree of control over it to consistently avoid misusing it. This is the reason, for example, that in order to legally be able to drive a car, you must be:
1) Mature (age requirement).
2) Sober (prohibited drunk driving).
3) Aware of your surroundings (eyesight requirements).
4) Devoid of compromising history of driving (restriction on the number of points and violations allowed).
And so on.
Similarly, you should be able to own and use guns if you are mature, sober, aware of your surroundings and devoid of compromising history of gun usage. If you have a certain mental disorder, then what defines whether it impacts your right to own and use guns is whether that disorder has a direct influence on your decision-making and gun usage practice. If your disorder simply makes you, say, strongly claustrophobic, then you should be able to operate guns in open spaces, but not in closed areas. If your disorder makes your hands shake, then you should only be able to use guns in self-defense when in the presence of other individuals. If your disorder makes you paranoid, seeing enemies that are out to get you everywhere, then you probably should not be able to own guns at all.
As per 2nd Amendment, it should be legal for a resident to, for example, own a tank with ammunition, barring the prohibitive conditions. And while it is true that this resident can deal an untold amount of damage with that tank before he/she is subdued by the law enforcement, this is more indicative of the necessity to reform our law enforcement agencies, than of the necessity to take people's constitutional freedoms away. Eventually, everyone will be able to assemble makeshift nuclear weapons on their kitchens anyway, so it is better to go through a short volatile period now and come to the model that works - than to try to contain the situation for the sake of "security", only to have it explode at the stage where it will be too late to try to enforce the law. Perhaps we are already past that stage, however, and in this case our future looks somewhat bleak.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 11%  
  Substantial: 33%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
The United States Constitution was written in a time of Cannon and scattershot. So yes that is an time of assault weapon.
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 38%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
The offenders non use of any weapon would GREATLY reduce their negative influences on a peaceful society wouldn't it?
To me, when offenders commit crimes with weapons, they are the ones who are placing themselves before everyone else?
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 48%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 53%  
  Substantial: 54%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Not in an disagreement of you view, however what needs to be considered and addressed by Yeshabought is when she is suggesting for a group of people who are licensed by the state to have control over distribution of a common defense to the general welfare. The people to whom she wish delegate authority of power have by principle already been called on by legal precedent to state mental competence held a faltering defense to stability. Fire-arm are a common defense to general welfare and are a United State within constitutional right, not a 2nd Amendment right only the amendment or change was made on common defense to support the creation of judicial court servants to law by state. Basically police and state soldiers.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
"again putting the cart before the horse. Obviously if an offender doesn't use a weapon they can't commit a shooting, but before the shooting occurr how do you know who is going to be an offender"
Any offender knows what they are going to use before they commit a crime, being that their illegal actions are gathered up post crime after post crime, year after year?
Again, the offenders continue to place themselves before the rest of society, year after year.
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Again this is delegated by order and principle, the 1st. Amendment to the united states constitution gives rise to the 2nd change. We the people are shown as fact 1st there is free-speech, and filed grievance. There is free-Press, and filed grievance. There is free-religion, and filed grievance.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
"How do you, specifically you, know what person with depression is going to go on a shooting spree and which will not, before the shooting spree happens?"
You could reach to an actual phycologist, crisis counselor, or psychiatrist to help you with your posed question?
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 32%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
"no, you are arguing that there is a way to do this. Show me that way"
Again, you could reach to an actual phycologist, crisis counselor, or psychiatrist in your locality, to help you with your posed question?
They are the qualified individuals who can answer your questions for you?
You coming to the internet to pose this sort of a question in a debate forum, is kind of odd and out of place one might think?
"know what person with depression is going to go on a shooting spree and which will not, before the shooting spree happens?"
Here you go:
https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.22  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 51%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 26%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
So you're a psychologist?
Are you anti law, (pro offender, depending on what laws that get to be broken?) and a BLM supporter as well?
  Considerate: 51%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
you post idea after idea in each thread and have never once offered any source material or even an argument based on logic. Maybe this will help. http://www.riudl.org/debate-tips-tricks/
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.94  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 33%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 53%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes, people that are mentally sound (unlike some on this site) are able to own a weapon. However, there are plenty of ways for people that have restricted access to guns to get guns.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 54%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 51%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 39%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 52%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
The point is you already have declared a purpose. A human right to live is a liberty that is imposed on others as something people feel as right and not wrong. A constitutional right to common defense is a declaration of self-responsibility of obstacle of legal precedent and basic principle set before us all as united state, as right not wrong.
The Constitutional right for a citizen as defender of United State by constitution can declare common defense to the ownership of fire-arm. It is not a 2nd Amendment Right at all, it is something else, other than that, something with a legal precedent as it came first in creation, There are two inalienable rights at work by declaration of Constitutional and Amended change of basic principle combined with legal precedent as shared right. What you’re explaining by use of words is the 2nd Amendment as a right for assembly to self-govern fire-arm as militia is the single person Constitutional right, as United States Constitutional right to self-govern by declaration of Independence but not create organized militia .
The focus under 2nd Amendment, is it can be described that a group of people that including Doctors and other professionals can simply use a practice, by licensee of state, to be the weapon of choice brought to bear against the common welfare for the purpose of basic harm. The 2nd Amendment also sets that legislation can be the weapon of bear-arm used either also as right or wrong. Meaning the Judicial separation has a place as weapon by the scheme of general welfare as united state.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
So you'll answer the; "So you're a psychologist question,"
And then follow it up with this verbiage;
"sure am, but FYI "psychologist" isn't a job title or even someone who has to specialize in mental illness. It just denotes someone with higher education in psychology. You were probably looking for the terms psychiatrist, social worker, or therapist, all jobs that require training in psychology and work with populations that suffer from mental illness.
you post idea after idea in each thread and have never once offered any source material or even an argument based on logic. Maybe this will help."
Can you please answer the other questions you've left untouched?
@WordsMatter
Are you anti law, (pro offender, depending on what laws that get to be broken?) and a BLM supporter as well?
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
"From Capella University;
First, you will need a bachelor's degree (4 to 5 years), which teaches the fundamentals of psychology. After that, you will need a master's degree (2 to 3 years), which can qualify you to practice in the field as a case manager, employment specialist, or social worker. Then, most state licensing boards require a doctorate (4 to 7 years). The type of doctoral degree you choose––either a Doctor of Psychology (PsyD) or Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology (PhD)––will depend on your career goals. Many states also require post-doctoral training equivalent to about 1 year of work.
While there are several excellent psychology career options that do not require as many years of education as it takes to become a licensed clinical psychologist, the benefits of doing so — including the satisfaction of helping others and a higher salary — can compensate for the additional years of education it will require."
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 27%  
  Learn More About Debra
Some excerpts from the website you shared, Part 1,
"5 tips to help you win every debate round:
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.28  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 34%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Are you moving right wing on guns? You didn't respond to my debate on guns:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/385
You said, "For a mentally stable person 0 years old or older to exchange money for gun safety trainining is a human right. Why should the government be armed, but citizens not?"
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.8  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump
"A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
You're arguing semantics and completely missing the point of the proposed ban to AR-15, there is no valid reason why a person requires an AR-15. It has a similar magazine capacity and on average a higher muzzle velocity then an M16, do you think people should be allowed to own military grade rifles? I suggest you read up on the reports released by doctors and trauma surgeons who have treated gun shot wounds from an AR (1), it might just change your opinion of this weapon. Not to mention you can easily get a hold of a 50 round clip for your AR-15 in most states, you're gonna sit there and tell me 50 rounds isn't a little excessive? Look, gun control is not about taking away the rights of people to own fire arms.I'm a liberal Californian and I still believe in people's right to own firearms, but something needs to be done and the longer we sit here and argue about irreverent things like what is and what isn't an "assault rife", the longer this country goes with a solution. The fact is there are things this country could be doing but for whatever reason *cough cough the gun lobby* we aren't doing them. Extended background checks, baring mentally ill and people on government watch lists from buying guns, waiting periods, closing the gun show loop hole, a national and modern gun registry, allowing the CDC to track gun deaths, the list goes on and on. All the things I just listed, and could list, in no way stop lawful citizens from owning guns, it just makes them wait a bit longer, and if they really cared about their right to own guns then they really shouldn't care should they?
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.24  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump
"A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.78  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
There should not be a difference between "military-grade" and "non-military-grade" equipment in legal terms. The sentence "military-grade" merely states that the tool is of sufficient quality to be used by the deployed military personnel - it in itself does not contain anything that would indicate the necessity to let anyone else use that tool.
One can kill far-far-far-more people with a well-planned attack performed with a full-scale truck, than with even the best assault rifle in the world, and the required CDL-license is relatively easy to obtain. If even required, given how easy it is, in theory, to hijack a truck. Shall we ban truck usage by civilians? If so, then say hi to the collapsed economy, as the majority of businesses immediately collapse due to the lack of reliable resource supply.
I will not even talk about how much damage can be dealt with a civilian international airbus, or with construction explosives. Or, for that matter, with a few cups of chemical substances one can find at any high school chemistry lab.
People are so afraid of the entities the media scaremonger about today, they miss the actual real dangers as a result. They are afraid of being shot with a $30,000 military grade assault rifle, but are okay with $5.000 5 ton pickup trucks blasting through highways at 80 mph speeds. When someone tells them that dozens thousands people die in car accidents every year, they say, "Well, driving is dangerous". But when they hear that some crazy person killed a dozen people with an assault rifle, then suddenly "Ban it, ban everything!" comes up.
Einstein was right about the two infinite things...
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 57%  
  Learn More About Debra
You bring up a valid point about the issue of "military grade" weapons but we have to speak in terms of reality, and the reality is people are committing mass murder with guns in this country, not trucks and cars. If that were to change then obviously the conversation is going to have to change, but until that does what you're arguing is irrelevant. You're attempting to equate the reality of gun violence with a hypothetical issue with trucks and cars being used as weapons which is preposterous. What about everything I mentioned? Extended background checks, waiting periods, allowing the CDC to track gun crime etc. Do you really have a problem with these things?
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Seconds matter in a mass shooting, and if the gunman needs to reload because his weapon only takes so many rounds, then maybe those few seconds allows someone's brother or mother to escape, that is the point of limiting magazine capacity. Imagine if that gunman had an AR-15 with an extended magazine, in those kinds of close quarters we would have seen a lot more dead I can promise you that, I would also be careful about laughing at the fact that 12 people were murdered in cold blood just because you believe it validates some argument of yours. Are you just going to drop everything else I mentioned? Do the gun control measures I suggested really scare you that much?
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
When these things are done voluntarily by the weapon traders, then I have no problem with them. When they are enforced by the government, then I do have a problem.
People are committing mass murder with trucks and cars in Europe. Nobody yells there, "Let us ban all trucks and cars!" The law must not be dictated by "what is actually happening"; it must be dictated by what can happen. The purpose of the law is to protect people's rights, and if the law only protects them from what is happening right now and not what will/can happen tomorrow, then this is not law - this is emotion.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
The part about read the 2nd Amendment is describing that the One Reason, the United State presented by Constitutional principle is the only the 2nd Amendment can insure a Constitutional Right to Common defense. That simply is not true it is what is most popularly believed to be true.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
AGAIN, AR-15s are semi-automatic, it does not matter if they carry 30 rounds. Two people can carry out a mass shooting with shotguns and kill many, or they could use handguns, though those events are rare. I am wondering what is going on in your mind that makes you assume that 30 rounds is "too" much for a rifle. All what matters is the areas hit by the shooter with a firearm, a AR-15, handgun, or shotgun. If you're really going to continue to ramble on with pointless nonsense then I'm really going to consider ignoring you. You really don't reduce the possible number of fatalities in a shooting by limiting the magazine capacity, and they can't use a rifle, they could use far WORSE things to kill many people.
"Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump
"A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.32  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
Now, imagine if both the gunman AND some of his targets had AR-15-s. Personally, if I had a semi-automatic or a non-automatic rifle, I would not dare to engage someone with an automatic weapon - but if I myself had an automatic weapon, I could fight back, since I would see my chances as much higher.
Somehow gun law advocates forget that the shooter is not the only part of the equation. There have been countless cases when someone was stopped from performing a mass shooting by another person with a gun - but those cases really do not get much media coverage, because they are boring: "A guy pulled out a gun and was shot". It is when an armed guy kills dozens defenseless people when the story gets viral - and ironically, it is then that people start advocating for harsh gun laws.
Like I said above, Einstein's statement was a spot on. Logic is rarely a part of equation as far as political debates go.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
OTOH, none of the things you listed will have any significant impact on crime, they're just more infringements on a right that the Constitution says "will not be infringed". I hope we can agree that there would still be murders and mass shootings even if every one of your suggestions were adopted. After every mass shooting and every media-sensationalized murder or accident, there would be calls for ever more firearms restrictions, requirements, bans, etc. Anti-gun people will never stop until all guns are banned.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.98  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
If just a few of those people had serious weapons... The attack might have ended up much quicker, and Breivik, instead of enjoying luxurious conditions by prison standards, would instead enjoy laying on the ground.
There is plenthora of evidence from a large number of countries, a large number of historical periods and a large number of different policies - to suggest that there is no visible positive correlation between the strictness of gun laws, and the frequency of mass shootings.
As much as it might be tempting to see what is not there when advocating for a certain policy, the world is what it is, and it does not care about one's political beliefs. The world merely offers facts, and whether to accept those facts or to deny/misrepresent them is up to the individual.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra