Page 95 of 157 FirstFirst ... 45859394959697105145 ... LastLast
Results 941 to 950 of 1566

Thread: Gun Control

  1. #941
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    3,240
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    3775
    Rep Adjustment Power
    0
    So are we for or against guns?

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #942
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Metro East, St. Louis
    Posts
    9,590
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    11039
    Rep Adjustment Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoked View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Your goal at this point is simply to twist words to suit your purpose.
    Good flounce. Very impressive.

    My goals are/were:
    1) Expose the double standard in your statements, possibly even one day getting you to see them yourself, and
    2) Amuse myself in the process

    It's only natural that you would see 1) as "twisting words". That's the only way you can see it while holding that double standard.
    http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/

    Isaiah 1:18 -- Come now, and let us reason together

    Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

  4. #943
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Metro East, St. Louis
    Posts
    9,590
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    11039
    Rep Adjustment Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by SaltyDawg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well since it was Newtown that prompted these changes, if the changes wouldn't have prevented it then there is no reason to consider them.
    So, the emotional impetus for a change must be immediately addressed by the change, or else the change has no value? I disagree. Changes can have a value independent of their emotional impetus. If you change your eating habits after a heart attack, you can improve your health, regardless of whether you would ever have had a second heart attack.
    http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/

    Isaiah 1:18 -- Come now, and let us reason together

    Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

  5. #944
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    1092
    Rep Adjustment Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by One Brow View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So, the emotional impetus for a change must be immediately addressed by the change, or else the change has no value? I disagree. Changes can have a value independent of their emotional impetus. If you change your eating habits after a heart attack, you can improve your health, regardless of whether you would ever have had a second heart attack.
    Well if that change is going to strip American citizens of our rights and personal freedoms, causing a huge divide among the people in this country, then it had better address the actual problem if it's going to be considered.

    If I have a heart attack and then change my eating habits, chances are I would have never had the heart attack if I had changed my diet sooner. In this case, the proposed gun control laws would not have done a damn thing to prevent the Newtown shooting, no matter how early they were enacted. Further, we now know that the existing laws did their job and denied the shooter the opportunity to buy his own gun shortly before the shooting. And we also know that he, as criminals often do, found a way to get them anyway (illegally).

    This gun control crap has now been exposed to be an over reaction. It's time to move on and forget about it.

  6. #945
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Metro East, St. Louis
    Posts
    9,590
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    11039
    Rep Adjustment Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by SaltyDawg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well if that change is going to strip American citizens of our rights and personal freedoms, causing a huge divide among the people in this country, then it had better address the actual problem if it's going to be considered.
    Not every past shooting has been identical to Newtown (in fact, none have). Not every future shooting will be identical to Newtown (in fact, none will). Therefore, there is a difference between saying "would not have addressed Newtown" and "will not address the problem".

    I do agree we should not strip people of their rights. Which of the proposed measures do you see as stripping people of their rights?
    http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/

    Isaiah 1:18 -- Come now, and let us reason together

    Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

  7. #946
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    1092
    Rep Adjustment Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by One Brow View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Not every past shooting has been identical to Newtown (in fact, none have). Not every future shooting will be identical to Newtown (in fact, none will). Therefore, there is a difference between saying "would not have addressed Newtown" and "will not address the problem".

    I do agree we should not strip people of their rights. Which of the proposed measures do you see as stripping people of their rights?
    Well since it was the Newtown shooting that was so terrible it got the nation taking about gun control, if the measures wouldn't have helped prevent the Newtown shooting then we should not be considering them.

    The proposals I am most concerned with are the limits on magazine sizes and the assault weapons ban. Both of those are putting restrictions on our constitutional rights.

    As I have said earlier in this thread, if you want to make them illegal for everyone (police, military, etc) then we can talk about it. But if you're just talking about taking them away from me, wine letting a few elites keep them, then you're ignoring/revoking my 2nd amendment rights.

    The 2nd amendment isn't guaranteeing me the right to hunt deer, it's guaranteeing me the right to defend myself against the government. So if you're saying I'm not allowed to have the weapons that their agents carry around every minute of every day, then you're stripping me of that right.

    I'm also concerned with the proposed new background checks. What exactly is going to cause a denial? That needs to be very clearly spelled out before we just give a blanket approval to a new system that is designed to deny certain people of their rights. Who will be denied and why will they be denied?
    Last edited by SaltyDawg; 01-24-2013 at 08:23 AM.

  8. #947
    Senior Member candrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5,701
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    10684
    Rep Adjustment Power
    64
    When I saw pictures of those imbeciles walking around Malls and Wal-Marts with their AR-15's strapped to their back it reminded me of something I read about how Black Panthers in the 60's and 70's did the same thing - "patrol" their neighborhood brandishing shot guns and "observing" Police activity while openly brandishing firearms. Then I found this article. Not sure I agree with it 100%; but I found this rather amusing.

    https://www.theroot.com/views/fear-b...=root_lightbox

    Then Gov. Ronald Reagan, now lauded as the patron saint of modern conservatism, told reporters in California that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons." Reagan claimed that the Mulford Act, as it became known, "would work no hardship on the honest citizen." The NRA actually helped craft similar legislation in states across the country

  9. #948
    Modstapo Stoked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    33,911
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    53877
    Rep Adjustment Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by candrew View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    When I saw pictures of those imbeciles walking around Malls and Wal-Marts with their AR-15's strapped to their back it reminded me of something I read about how Black Panthers in the 60's and 70's did the same thing - "patrol" their neighborhood brandishing shot guns and "observing" Police activity while openly brandishing firearms. Then I found this article. Not sure I agree with it 100%; but I found this rather amusing.

    https://www.theroot.com/views/fear-b...=root_lightbox
    As much as Reagan is lauded by conservatives he is still just a man. Here I think he is wrong. As for the Black Panthers you mention. If they were not making threatening gestures or acting in some other agressive manner then good for them.
    #BelieveInLindsey #BelieveInSnyder

  10. #949
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Metro East, St. Louis
    Posts
    9,590
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    11039
    Rep Adjustment Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by SaltyDawg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well since it was the Newtown shooting that was so terrible it got the nation taking about gun control, if the measures wouldn't have helped prevent the Newtown shooting then we should not be considering them.
    Why not? Why are those two concepts connected in that fashion?

    Quote Originally Posted by SaltyDawg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The proposals I am most concerned with are the limits on magazine sizes and the assault weapons ban. Both of those are putting restrictions on our constitutional rights.
    A restriction is not a stripping. Are you acknowledging that no rights are being stripped?

    Also, when so many people were saying reduced magazine size does not reduce effectiveness significantly, I don't recall you disagreeing. So, if reducing the size of the magazine does impact your weapons effectiveness, in what way is it restricting your rights? As for the assault weapons ban, what is the specific weapon involved, and why does not having it impede on your right of self-defense?

    Quote Originally Posted by SaltyDawg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    As I have said earlier in this thread, if you want to make them illegal for everyone (police, military, etc) then we can talk about it. But if you're just talking about taking them away from me, wine letting a few elites keep them, then you're ignoring/revoking my 2nd amendment rights.
    The notion that any weapon available to the military should also be available to the public is going very far afield. Do you really believe that? If not, make a case for why you need a specific weapon.

    Quote Originally Posted by SaltyDawg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The 2nd amendment isn't guaranteeing me the right to hunt deer, it's guaranteeing me the right to defend myself against the government.
    According to whom? Not even the recent SCOTUS case said that, and nor any of the original signers of the document (at least, not when their words are taken in context). Glenn Beck's opinion is not authoritative.

    Quote Originally Posted by SaltyDawg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So if you're saying I'm not allowed to have the weapons that their agents carry around every minute of every day, then you're stripping me of that right.
    Who carries around a weapon every minute of every day? Don't they rust in the shower?

    Quote Originally Posted by SaltyDawg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm also concerned with the proposed new background checks. What exactly is going to cause a denial? That needs to be very clearly spelled out before we just give a blanket approval to a new system that is designed to deny certain people of their rights. Who will be denied and why will they be denied?
    Agreed.
    http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/

    Isaiah 1:18 -- Come now, and let us reason together

    Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

  11. #950
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    In a ghetto near you. . . .
    Posts
    9,047
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    21067
    Rep Adjustment Power
    97
    same tired old ignorance.

    The constitution does in fact use the word "infringement" on people's inherent right of self defense from all insults to their persons, papers, homes, self-rule, and representative governance, or any other right human beings deserve to have. It explicitly denies to the federal government any say whatsoever about what people might use their guns for.

    Crimes against other persons, including use of arms in doing so, have always been properly the government's business, and laws which protect people from armed assault, coercion, or any other form of abuse through the use of weapons are entirely appropriate.

    Just above is an inherent example of how disingenuous even the SCOTUS has been in presuming to be the ultimate arbiter and therefore delimiter of human rights. The can't even place the context of the Second Amendment in the affirmation by the American People of their right to use serious military arms against their government in response to the British denial to American colonists even the ordinary rights guaranteed under British law through the Magna Carta and the ensuing body of English legal thought.

    And while particular law enforcement officers, hopefully, may bathe or shower once every few weeks, and unholster their weapons while doing so, it is probably the fact that there are always law enforcement officers on the beat, 24/7/365, and that is a good thing. And people always have that same right to bear relevant arms.

    The only lawful constitutional issues are the measures we should take to punish crime, which is principally in the domain of actual assured punishment for lawbreakers, which is something our courts and governments have fallen down on their jobs about, by failing to punish lawbreakers in a meaningful way.

    So how about investigating how the crazy shootings are the result of ignorant "educators" projecting "ideals" of meaninglessness in life, and subjective or no positive values about what we are, thus devaluing human life? John Dewey's socialism transformed American education towards the aim of "training to the task", and enforcing many training responses which teach submission to authority, effectively making human beings mere "resources" suitable for corporate exploitation, and subjects of "government" rather than the informed, qualified ultimate authority for government.

    Small wonder some maladjusted youngsters don't seen any meaning to their lives and feel so estranged from society, and disenfranchised, they will begin to contemplate acting out in some horrific way as their "swan song" of hate. If you don't want people to turn out like this, you need to encourage avenues of constructive and meaningful efforts towards a better life. . . . .

    like believing in human rights.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About Us
We are a community of Utah JazzFanz that are passionate about our team. We celebrate the highs that come with last second heroics and (some of us) cry in defeat. Welcome to our community. Be respectful of others and join in to the conversation...
Join us