|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: for the record (re: guns thread) | |||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Thanks for posting something with perspective and points.
Now, to why I disagree with you
In the US, ownership of guns is Constitutionally protected, a RIGHT. Yes, but like the right to free speech, it does not apply in all situations. Much like "shouting fire in a crowded theater", the right does not extend when doing so would cause harm to others. So, in the case of the 2nd amendment, when are people "shouting fire"?
So in the US, every citizen has the RIGHT to bare Arms. Maybe initially, but people can lose their right to bare arms, much like they lose their right to vote. However, while it is fairly easy to check if someone is voting, it's very very hard to make sure that someone who's lost the right to bare arms is infact not armed. And finally, once again, the question still comes down to "what is an arm"? Citizens have the "right to bare arms" but is a .22 rifle an arm? Is a .357? Is a machine gun? A rocket launcher? A surface to air missile? Surely we all agree that a line must be drawn somewhere. Where do you draw the line?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Dude, I appreciate that between the two of us, I'm the one that gets to be the good cop in this thread, as it so rarely happens, but please, stop calling Jon names.
Yeah. I'll try to reign it back. But it's not like it's having any effect on him. He doesn't read the posts anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
arguing over such superficial crap as gun control? Wanna email that notion to the family members of the people that died at VT? I'm sure they don't consider gun control superficial crap.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Present their opinions, else retract. I don't think you understand what the word "retract" means. I don't need to retract that "I am sure that..." because I know for a fact that "I am sure." But more importantly, you honestly believe that the family's of the victims at VT think that gun control is "superficial crap"? Honestly? That's what you believe? Those people, grieving the senseless deaths of their loved ones are picking up the newsweek about gun violence and saying, "Jesus! What a bunch of superficial crap. Guns are AOK in my book." Wow. Just wow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
See Nuggin? When he is backed into a corner, he can use the excuse of your poor treatment of him to run away. Well, if you recall Nator, he ran away in the last thread too. Post 155 was his "this debate is over post" Of course that didn't stop him from coming back and posting several more times, including message 292, the one that lead to the creation of this very thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Icant, did you read the first post? The one about how we are not suggesting ban all guns and yet everyone keeps saying things like:
So if we banned guns in the USA that would solve our problem. Additionally, while the "National Review" online is well known for being oh so balanced, I'd like to point out that the article you linked says that there was an increase of 40% but doesn't give us any numbers about the numbers. A jump from 10 crimes to 14 crimes is 40%. But I'd hardly call 4 crimes a crime wave. While, obviously we aren't talking about numbers that low, it'd be nice to know exactly what the numbers are
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Owning a gun is a Constitutionally protected RIGHT. Not quite. Carrying "arms" is. As I asked before, and perhaps you missed it, how do we define "arms"? It is all weapons? Some weapons? Is it "those weapons I want to own, but not those the next guy wants"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
For example, in most States it is illegal to carry a gun where alcoholic beverages are consumed. I am aware of absolutely no states in which it is illegal to have a gun in your house if you also have alcohol in your house. This may be true for bars, but certainly not true for homes. If it were, there would certainly be a decline in gun related deaths.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
This has been explained at least twice, but I'll explain it again for you because apparently you've missed it.
So, to repeat my question: Where did I ever say it is okay for average civilians to be in posession of nuclear weapons? You're arguement is: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Therefore we should not restrict gun ownership." Our point is that you can substitute any lethal weapon for "guns" and still have a valid first sentence. So, "knives don't kill people, people kill people, therefore we should not restrict knife ownership" is an equally valid principle using your arguement. So to, "nukes don't kill people, people kill people, therefore we should not restrict nuke ownership." The question we are asking is just how far you are willing to take your principle. Since, you yourself has said that guns are just an item and have no intent, it stands to reason that you would also believe the same thing about nukes. If you do not believe the same thing about nukes, it's up to you to explain why this is the case, since it is in opposition to the point you posted. And as you are so fond of saying "Retract!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I can't believe I missed this the first time through.
what if you were face to face with the SS, wanting to take you off to a death camp? I hereby invoke Godwin's Law and proclaim Modulous the winner of the debate! Congrats Mod!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
The facts though are that owning and bearing arms is a Constitutionally protected Right in the US. Jar, you are spirally down. Pull up! Pull up! You've said that "guns" were protectedWe point out that "arms" are protected and correctly indicated that arms includes things like knives, missiles, tanks, nukes, chemical weapons...etc. You agreed that things like Sarin gas should be restricted But then you go on to say the above quote implying that you disagree with yourself. Which is it, Jar? Does the constitution allow Sarin gas or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Alright Jon,
Time to eat your own words:
show me that nukes have recreational use as much as guns do Why can't a collector want to have a Nuke? Huh? Why? Why can't they? Huh? Why can't a collector validily want something? What's wrong with a collector? Retract! Retract! REtract! Retract! Collectors want things! Retract! Annoying as shit, huh? Welcome to our side of the debate. Now explain why a collector should be able to have a machine gun and not a nuke or retract retract retract!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
as Nuggin has pointed out, anyone who disagrees with him gets called stupid, No, Jon. The only people who get called stupid are the ones who read 10+ posts containing the exact same sentences then proceed to make a claim like:
A claim that has been made here over and over again is that increased guns = increased violence That was you. It's not my fault you were stupid. It's not my fault you failed to either read or understand the 300 or so posts which came before your statement. The fact that I disagree with you isn't what made you stupid, it's the fact that you were being stupid. I was asked previously on this thread to stop calling you stupid, but unfortunately, you decided to bring my name into your argument with Mod and brought the whole "stupid" thing up yourself. People can't blame me for explaining to you how you were stupid, can they? By the way, you have YET to address the original post of this thread and why it is that you were being so stupid in the first place? Though, I would like to point out that once again you've returned to a thread that you already declared yourself over and done with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Jon,
Can you read? Seriously? Have you read the 1st post of this thread? Let me sum it up for you AGAIN. You said that people were arguing that guns cause violenceWe LISTED a LONG LIST of quotes proving that you were completely offbase in your assertation. You then respond by saying
He believes easy access leads to more violence Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? The admins can come down on me again and again, but so long as you keep posting the same mistake over and over and over, I'm going to have to keep repeating that you are unbelievably stupid. There's really no other excuse
It is not necessary to say the things you say. This post earns a one day suspension. Forum Guidelines Edited by AdminPhat, : inappropriate comments
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I would have to ask what is "less lethal"? Wow. Okay, here's a helpful guide to lethality. A pointy stick is LESS LETHAL than a steak knife which in turn is LESS LETHAL than a .22 which in turn is LESS LETHAL than a .357 which in turn is LESS LETHAL than a gatling gun which in turn is LESS LETHAL than a nuke. The idea behind "less lethal" is that the item is "less" "lethal" than another item. You CAN kill someone with a pointy stick. It's harder and takes a great deal more effort than it would be to kill someone with an AK47. That is why the modern military does NOT use pointy sticks as their primary weapon when going into battle. (Do you need a source on this? I'm sure even Jar would agree) Is this clear? Or do you really need more information on how to determine if one weapon is more or less lethal than another?
Ultimately, anti-gunners are still blaming the noun, First, this has been addressed. You lost this point. Nuke is a noun. You can't win this argument. Second, PEOPLE is a noun. "Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people" - you are STILL blaming a noun.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024