|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Of course that is all irrelevant to domestic gun control.
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined:
|
Jon writes: Of course that is all irrelevant to domestic gun control. Riiiiiiight, . . . gun-advocate's imaginary and false notions about global realities are completely irrelevant and compartmentalized from their imaginary opinions about domestic gun control.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Riiiiiiight, . . . gun-advocate's imaginary and false notions about global realities are completely irrelevant and compartmentalized from their imaginary opinions about domestic gun control. Of course. Why would they be related?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The U.S. really is the policeman of the world ... In that it's trigger-happy, racist, and has shot a lot of innocent people? Maybe we could try being the good cop now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
You mean you have data on people carrying in church? We have data on people having guns in their homes being more likely to die from homicide than those who don't http://m.aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full added, of course, to accidental deaths. Call me a mad fool, but the data would strongly indicate that similar results will occur if you start making churches (of all fucking places) an appropriate environment in which to encourage guns.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3
|
vimesey writes: Call me a mad fool, but the data would strongly indicate that similar results will occur if you start making churches (of all fucking places) an appropriate environment in which to encourage guns. I could accept concealed carry nationwide if it started in court rooms, state legislatures, governors' offices and Congress--say a six month trial. That should do. No legislator should vote for guns on campuses and in churches (or, say, bars) if they're uncomfortable with me packing heat in the visitors gallery. WWJC? I have to think an Uzi, a tasteful nod to parentage and an always-appropriate classic for a Muscular Christ. He drives a sharp car and expects his flock to both prosper and deliver, the poor and the rich man alike tidily set aside, love and charity reserved for your own kind. With that nice tan you know a gold chain would really pop, and he'd look just like his downtown brother."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
While I acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment did have the concept of armed citizenry being able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government as part of its credo, I would argue that concept is woefully anachronistic in the modern day and age. Does it really? Yes there were some people including the occasional founding father who thought that way back in the day, but did that vision actually prevail? Why then did we get a second amendment that talks about "a Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" paired with a Constitution that put the Militia of the several states under the president whenever he wants it along with federal congressional funding, supervision, and oversight. One might also ask why non of the more explosive versions of the 2nd amendment that made no mention of the militia, or that stated that the Militia consisted of every white male available manage to get past the starting line. I think the best interpretation of the actual second amendment is that the voices who thought they were going to use muskets to defend themselves against the federal government simply did not prevail. And how much does any one founder's voice mean anyway. The amendments had to ratified by the state legislatures. So one might well insist that the motives of the states and their interpretation of the amendments are of equal weight to any group of authors. If you really want some history, the loudest voices for a state militia were from slaves states who were deathly afraid of a slave revolt and wanted an active armed militia to guard against them being gutted in their sleep. The history behind the 2nd amendment is very complex, and its interpretation has changed throughout the years. One thing we can say about the current interpretation is that 1) it allows citizens to arm themselves for self defense 2) that it does away with any of the historical ties to the Militia, and 3) that it is not intended to support arming against the state or federal government. Not even the most conservative member of the Court expresses that last sentiment. Let the people who are saying "You don't know the history. The second amendment is about shooting Revenuers" cite some history. Don't put up with bluffing. I credit Faith for at least citing some history, but it is history that does not really settle the issue of whether the second amendment is supposed to be a defense against Homeland Security. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
More like agog and dumbfounded. You're saying a lot of crazy things that don't make sense to other people No one can speculate about the future, without sounding pretty crazy. Anyone who speculated what was going to happen on 9-11-01, a few days before that, would have sounded completely crazy. I don't really think there's much chance the U.S. military will pick a fight with the rest of the citizenry, any more than Al Gore actually believed that the north pole would be completely melted by 2013.
so your goal should be to put your ideas into a rational context that will show you're not just some kind of kook. I can do that, so please don't go. A lot of foreigners here, (with agreement from some liberal U.S. citizens) claim that so many U.S. citizens are really unusual when compared to the rest of the world, they way they continue to love their guns, in spite of all the murder and carnage this love causes. What I'd like to speculate on now is how a total ban on private ownership of guns would look like in the U.S. I know some here claim that's not the goal, they just want more background checks and limits on magazine capacities etc, and they'll let everyone know what the next step is when the next mass shooting happens. But it's obvious what most all gun control advocates actually want. Another peculiar thing about the U.S. citizenry, that they've demonstrated in the past on two occasions now, is how un-cooperative and stubborn they are when the federal government passes a law that they don't like, that they weren't asked their opinion on. One was prohibition in the 1930's, and the other was the national 55 mph speed limit in the 1970's. The public reacted in ways that the government didn't dream of, and they both ended up getting repealed. I wasn't around in the 30's and don't know much detail about it, but the 55 mph speed limit farce did damage to our society that lives on to this day. But enough of all that, how would a total gun ban be implemented? If it was implemented basically the same as the 55 mph speed limit - "Congress voted on this, and this is how things are". A few months grace period for everyone to turn their guns in, before arrests and imprisonment started? What percentage of gun owners would turn their gun in? I suspect it would be VERY low. An unregistered gun would become a novelty, their value would go way up. The government would realize this - how would they react? How intense would their searches for guns be? Could this gun ban be repealed? Out of time tonight, I'll might respond to some more of this love in the coming days.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
But enough of all that, how would a total gun ban be implemented? By vast armies of straw men.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Too funny and he was claiming about strawman arguments.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
We have data on people having guns in their homes being more likely to die from homicide than those who don't http://m.aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full added, of course, to accidental deaths. Call me a mad fool, but the data would strongly indicate that similar results will occur if you start making churches (of all fucking places) an appropriate environment in which to encourage guns. So nothing on churches then?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Nor anything on those homes with green front doors with red polka dots.
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
marc 9000 asks:
Anyone who speculated what was going to happen on 9-11-01, a few days before that, would have sounded completely crazy. Tell that to Dick Cheney & his cronies when he told the secret oil baron meeting before Dubya even got elected by fraud that "what this country needs is another Pearl Harbor". Study the long history of the Bush family and the Saudis. Study where the money is STILL going. Read up. Get hip.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
So what's your claim here? That Cheney and his cronies knew what was going to happen on 9/11?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
What would Jesus do?
As for guns in church and Bible Study, there is at least a CHANCE of defending people in case of an attack.quote:And by the way, Peter seems to have missed his target and hit a servant by mistake.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024