|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..6..9..12..14~15~16~17~18..24..29..34..39..44~45~46 [Next] | ||||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21957 Posts 
|
Quote:
On Sep 2, 2014, R.S. wrote: I am unclear. Do you maintain a 7 year old is not allowed to shoot a 22 caliber bolt action rifle? If not then I fail to see the relevance.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 196 Posts
|
Danny, it's simply another incident involving guns, children, and adult "supervision." Don't you see the relevance to the OP, and to the discussion of whether or not parents should be letting children handle deadly weapons?
Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
I would say my biggest issue is this - obviously, some people don't mind that 9-year olds shoot Uzis under some circumstances. Let's say for sake of discussion, that's just the 13% from the CNN poll who favor no restrictions on gun ownership. That leaves 87% of us on the other side (with apologies to those who don't like framing these issues as "our side" vs. "the other side"). Depending on how you define the terms, maybe we're in the "favor major restrictions" category, and maybe we're in the "favor minor restrictions" category. But fully 1/6 of those on "our side" (CNN poll again; 15% vs. 72%) favor no private gun ownership, period. That's no straw man.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12587 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 2, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote: I never said that abortion was palatable. It's not. But it is a matter to be decided between a woman and her physician. I.e.- it's none of my business. A man on the loose murdering strangers, however, is my business. His activity threatens everyone. Isn't that obvious to you? |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
It's obvious to me that the remote possibility that the man on the street might murder you isn't the justification for your having a say in legislating against the possibility. Otherwise, we wouldn't have things like motorcycle helmet laws. So there's apparently an accepted societal interest in protecting not just ourselves, but others. And if you don't find abortion palatable, that suggests to me that, similarly, you morally intuit an analogous "other" whose protection could reasonably be argued for. So even if you're pro-choice, as I am, I don't think it's an "obvious" distinction. "It doesn't directly affect me" certainly doesn't often stop legislators.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
tomsk192 Inner circle 3894 Posts
|
Oh God. Can't those with more than the requisite brain cells required for basic human functioning, agree not to engage with the abortion/gun fallacy? It's the most pathetic gambit of all.
|
|||||||||
|
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts
|
1. Why does any US citizen need an Uzi?
2. What threat are you anticipating that might require such a weapon? 3. Why should virtually anyone be able to buy such a weapon, or ANY gun, without rigorous background/psychological checks, or any waiting period? For the record I'm in favor of any US citizen owning guns, for protection and/or hunting or recreation. What I can't understand is why ANYONE would think there should be no restrictions on people owning and keeping automatic weapons. Children are dying for crissakes. Please don't restort to the nonsense that the majority of those weapons never hurt anyone. I'll take anyones DIRECT answers. Especially to question number 2. I doubt I'll get any.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
|
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 2, 2014, NYCTwister wrote: Why does someone purchase a Sports car that can do in excess of 150 miles an hour? Who are they running from or who are they trying to catch? Answer. No one. But they want it and there is no reason they cannot have it if they use it responsibly. Of course what constitutes responsible. Many answers to that question. Just trying to make a point. The point is that just because you feel they should not have it is not sufficient reason for themnot tohave it. Now one reason for the Uzi or any other full auto weapon is that they are fun to shoot. if you like that sort of fun. If not don't do it. But don't tell others what they can and cannot do.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
|
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 2, 2014, acesover wrote: So, no DIRECT answers. Just as I expected.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
|
slowkneenuh Regular user After 5,278+ posts, only credited with 133 Posts
|
On Sep 2, 2014, acesover wrote:
"Why does someone purchase a Sports car that can do in excess of 150 miles an hour? Who are they running from or who are they trying to catch? Answer. No one. But they want it and there is no reason they cannot have it if they use it responsibly. Of course what constitutes responsible. Many answers to that question. Just trying to make a point. The point is that just because you feel they should not have it is not sufficient reason for themnot tohave it." Common sense says a car with that capability should not be available to anyone in the U.S. Why manufacture and sell a product that using more than 50% of its capability would be illegal.
John
"A poor workman always blames his tools" |
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12587 Posts
|
Aces argument is that Uzis should be allowed because they are "fun?"
I imagine that blowing things up with hand grenades could be fun, too. How dare I tell others I don't want them doing it in my neighborhood.? It all depends on your culture and how you were brought up, I guess. |
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12587 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 2, 2014, tomsk192 wrote: I know. The analogy just isn't there. But it's often made to distract attention from the actual issue, as in this thread, which is about whether nine-year-olds should be permitted to fire fully automatic weapons. |
|||||||||
|
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 2, 2014, mastermindreader wrote: I did not realize that the little who shot the UZI was in your neighborhood. I would move if I were you or go to a council meeting and see what you can do about people shooting Uzis in your neighborhood. Just a suggestion. Maybe they should go to a gun range so they will not bother you because that is where it should be done. Oh wait it was. Hmmmmm. But Bob does not want you to do that. Got to think this over.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21957 Posts
|
The argument is over after we know we are Americans and have a second amendment. Yet people pick at it CONSTANTLY. Why can't the brain cells bragged about accept that? But no keep saying "oh no it REALLY" means this or parse words to try to make it say what you want. Fact is it is clear so why argue at all?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12587 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 2, 2014, acesover wrote: Leave it to you to miss the obvious. It was on that very gun range you suggest that a man was killed and a child scarred for life. Do you just consider that collateral damage in the pursuit of "fun?" |
|||||||||
|
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 2, 2014, mastermindreader wrote: I know sort of off topic but same question. Should teens in High School be allowed to get day after pills and condoms so they can...well you know, do what they are "not supposed to do", but they want to. Why does not that school teach safe handling of firearms. They want to teach how to do...well you know, teach how to be safe and if not safe just take the day after pill. Guess that works for you. Would you rather your daughter learn how to handle a firearms safely or get day after pills and have sex whenever she wants with whomever she wants?
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12587 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 2, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote: How so? The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that regulations of firearms are constitutional and has upheld legislation barring the possession of fully automatic weapons. I don't know who you mean by "you people," but I think that any rational person would agree that allowing nine-year olds to fire Uzis is not exactly what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they drafted the Second Amendment in order to maintain well regulated militias in the States. |
|||||||||
|
slowkneenuh Regular user After 5,278+ posts, only credited with 133 Posts
|
The Cornell University Law School doesn't think the 2nd Amendment is clear:
"The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right."
John
"A poor workman always blames his tools" |
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12587 Posts
|
Yes, John, that is the argument. But the Supreme Court has nonetheless ruled that it is an individual, not a collective, right. It continues to maintain, though, that firearms and weapons may be regulated. Even the hyper conservative Justice Scalia has emphasized that point.
|
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12587 Posts
|
Acesover wrote:
Quote:
Would you rather your daughter learn how to handle a firearms safely or get day after pills and have sex whenever she wants with whomever she wants? I'll bet you don't even realize how ridiculous that sounds. There is no such either/or choice, the issues aren't related, and sex education is not provided as a license for the licentious. Like tomski192 said... Quote: Can't those with more than the requisite brain cells required for basic human functioning, agree not to engage with the abortion/gun fallacy? It's the most pathetic gambit of all. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Guns don't kill people... (35 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..6..9..12..14~15~16~17~18..24..29..34..39..44~45~46 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Sep 2, 2014 10:18 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2025 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|