The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Guns don't kill people... (35 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..11..19..27..35..41~42~43~44~45~46 [Next]
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5154 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On Sep 13, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Well, it was a rhetorical question. That means I get it, but I don't agree. Moreover, I sincerely doubt that all of my points are understood. So there.


I and others have posited a distinction; you feel that it is a distinction without a difference. As I asked last time in some far off abandoned or deleted thread, how do you feel about private ownership of nuclear weapons? Lower rates of death than Uzis. And yet I see a difference because the only purpose of a nuclear weapon is to kill. Even if I say I just like to collect them, or I have it locked up where I guarantee no one will get to it, it's main function is to kill. If you don't see that as a distinction with a meaningful difference then I will drop it; but frankly it is extremely difficult for me to understand a rational person's not being able to see that difference.

To my mind, the 2nd Amendment argument is the strongest pro-gun argument; the one that says basically, whatever else anyone might think, it doesn't matter because that's what the 2nd Amendment says. I think this is basically Danny's position, and though I don't agree with it fully (I think there's room for interpretation there) I think it's the strongest argument you got.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
21005 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
It it's written quite clearly. Only interpretation is those who wish to abridge the right.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Landmark, I suspect your reason for wanting to prevent private ownership of nuclear weapons is more than just, "there only purpose is to kill".
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Sep 13, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:

Yes they should be outlawed for the average citizen to own. There is no reason for an average citizen to own one. Not because I say so but because it makes no logical sense.

What difference does it make what percentage of gun deaths are because of Uzis. In case you don't know it we're talking about human lives, so what difference does it make which gun killed the most people? Or is even one life lost needlessly acceptable to you so that fools have the right to own killing machines?


I wonder why I suspect you would really like to outlaw more than just uzi’s?
After all, your main arguments seem to be:
1. They are designed to kill people.
2. Even one death from one is not acceptable.

Both of these arguments would apply to all guns. If you want to claim that you AREN’T against outlawing all guns, then please explain how these arguments don’t apply to them.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
21005 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 13, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Would you like your freedom of speech re examined? Search and seizure? Right to trial? Because they were all written contemporaneously so according to your theory they all need to be re examined.


Sure examine everything in the light of new advancements. If they still apply as written, as those do, then leave them as they are. They pertain to concepts that have not changed.
The 2nd amendment needs to be clarified in light of todays society.

What exactly is your position on this ONE topic? Can you state it clearly?

You keep telling me why you think I'm wrong, and you keep telling me what other people didn't say, but you never seem to say what you think.
Why is that?


In short you're saying that as things advance our entire system is irrelevant and each generation should not be bound by it. We need to make up a new one every time. Great plan for your new utopia. This is what passes for intelligent discourse in your fantasy world?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5154 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
It it's written quite clearly. Only interpretation is those who wish to abridge the right.

Lots of lawyers and judges who would disagree with you on that.
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Sep 13, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 13, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:
What difference does it make what percentage of gun deaths are because of Uzis. In case you don't know it we're talking about human lives, so what difference does it make which gun killed the most people? Or is even one life lost needlessly acceptable to you so that fools have the right to own killing machines?


If "one life lost" in a country of 310 million is your threshold for acceptability, we're going to be banning quite a few things. I think I'll miss trampolines, skateboards, and roller coasters the most.


I actually think the 'roller coaster' analogy is actually pretty accurate in this situation. After all, the gun store is, in reality, selling a 'thrill ride' when they allow people to shoot an uzi in a well controlled and supervised environment. This was a death that happened by some private individual owning a gun. It was caused by an accident within this 'controlled and supervised' environment. Much like deaths that have occurred on a roller coaster rides.
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
176 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Who here would rather their 9 year old daughter be sent to a firing range to handle Uzis than to an amusement park to ride the roller coaster?

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
821 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, acesover wrote:
NYCTwister,

As I stated. You don't compete in anything that requires manual dexterity.


Manual dexterity? Yeah it takes a lot of that to move your finger a fraction of an inch.
You are quite the athlete. I'm impressed. LMFAO!

Like I said, you say so little worth responding to.


Well if you feel that way, just quit responding to my posts and just let me ramble. Actually you make a lot more sense when you don't post.

Yes, manual dexterity. I even gave you a whole bunch of outs in sports. But I should have known better. From your posts it is obvious you are not inclined in that direction.
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
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
821 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On Sep 13, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 13, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
NOW we get to it. You DO NOT like the second amendment. How I feel about it is not the question. You are the one taking positions. I suspected this was your end game and your position. Nice to see my assumptions were right.


"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."

I like the second amendment, as I've stated more than once. I just have a problem with some peoples interpretating it to mean that all citizens have the right to possess any weapon.

The bill of rights was written over 200 years ago, during a time period when an average citizen might be called to serve in a militia. Does that sound like what we have today?

Do you think that something written that long ago, should not be re-examined in light of what we've invented?
What was state of the art weaponry then? A single shot musket?

Btw, what you think about the 2nd amendment does matter in this context, since that's what we're talking about.

Yes I do take positions. You should try it sometime. If not then why participatein ANY discussion?



So you feel it would be OK if we could only have single shot muskets? Any limit on gun powder and musket balls? Just asking.


Lets see now. You like the second amendment. You just don't like how most people interpret it. But your interpretation is the right one. Is that your saying? Hmmmmm.
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
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Even arch conservative justice Anton Scalia has acknowledged that there are "obviously" limitations that can be imposed on firearms ownership.

Quote:
“So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," Scalia said. "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time."

The conservative justice notably authored the Supreme Court's 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to bear arms and struck down a D.C. ban on handguns. The court also ruled, though, that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

Scalia pointed out Sunday that that the Second Amendment "obviously" doesn't apply to weapons that can't be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like "hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes" weren't factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

“My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” he said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29......969.html

I'd argue that the modern day equivalent of a musket is a traditional hunting rifle. Not an Uzi.
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Is there anything in the 2nd amendment in regards to the right to bear arms in order to go hunting?
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
That's a non-sequitor and, obviously, an attempt to start a specious argument, as usual.

In colonial times, muskets served a dual purpose- hunting and defense. The modern equivalent is a hunting rifle.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 13, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Well, it was a rhetorical question. That means I get it, but I don't agree. Moreover, I sincerely doubt that all of my points are understood. So there.


I and others have posited a distinction; you feel that it is a distinction without a difference. As I asked last time in some far off abandoned or deleted thread, how do you feel about private ownership of nuclear weapons? Lower rates of death than Uzis. And yet I see a difference because the only purpose of a nuclear weapon is to kill. Even if I say I just like to collect them, or I have it locked up where I guarantee no one will get to it, it's main function is to kill. If you don't see that as a distinction with a meaningful difference then I will drop it; but frankly it is extremely difficult for me to understand a rational person's not being able to see that difference.

To my mind, the 2nd Amendment argument is the strongest pro-gun argument; the one that says basically, whatever else anyone might think, it doesn't matter because that's what the 2nd Amendment says. I think this is basically Danny's position, and though I don't agree with it fully (I think there's room for interpretation there) I think it's the strongest argument you got.


Conversely, I can assume that you and NYC don't see a meaningful difference between a 2-shot Derringer and a nuclear weapon either, as they're both designed to kill.
"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."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Sep 13, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 13, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Well, it was a rhetorical question. That means I get it, but I don't agree. Moreover, I sincerely doubt that all of my points are understood. So there.


What are your positions on this matter?
I would really like to hear them clearly stated.


I'm out the door in about 15 minutes, but I'll give it a shot tonight or tomorrow.
"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."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 13, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:

Yes they should be outlawed for the average citizen to own. There is no reason for an average citizen to own one. Not because I say so but because it makes no logical sense.

What difference does it make what percentage of gun deaths are because of Uzis. In case you don't know it we're talking about human lives, so what difference does it make which gun killed the most people? Or is even one life lost needlessly acceptable to you so that fools have the right to own killing machines?


I wonder why I suspect you would really like to outlaw more than just uzi’s?
After all, your main arguments seem to be:
1. They are designed to kill people.
2. Even one death from one is not acceptable.

Both of these arguments would apply to all guns. If you want to claim that you AREN’T against outlawing all guns, then please explain how these arguments don’t apply to them.


Uh oh...Rockwall pushed the green button! Commence backtrack sequence...commence backtrack sequence.
"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."
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
21005 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Let me lay out a few things here.

First NYC puts forth the specious idea that someone argued that we need weapons to rise up against the government. Wanted to know if such a thing became necessary if more automatic weapons would actually help? Well...DUH! Yes.

Now as it is I never put forth this argument, and in reality do not agree with this argument but he puts it forth then in classic form apparently tries to knock it down and prove I am wrong in some way. Thus in his mind somehow justifying the distaste he feels for the second amendment. I for one have never argued we must have weapons to defend against our government. I do not believe this to be true. I believe we have a bloodless revolution every 4 years or so at the ballot box. Look at how much the face of each party has changed over the years! NO BLOODSHED and no firearm necessary. So that idea is totally made up by him and applied to me as a tactic. Pathetic as it is a sign your stance has absolutely no merit, but that is another post.

Your position seems to be predicated upon the need to be safe and secure. You are willing to trade rights in order to secure this alleged safety. Good luck with that. As if everyone will just be happy and live all together in your Utopia. Great thing about Fantasy Land is whenever it is compared with reality it always wins. No matter what. Problem is there is no reality involved. You can't actually live there. It is a fantasy and nothing more.

BUT that being said for those who may think we need to rise up look at what has transpired and what has been done in the name of our "safety" since just 9/11. There have been MANY transgressions committed in the name of security. Patriot act first and foremost, and continuing through health care, and through a president who seems determined to expand executive power in ways it was never intended. The last two presidents have expanded the power of the executive branch well beyond what it was intended. The 18 enumerated powers are long gone and the congress seems to be able to do whatever it likes such as regulate sporting events and such. States rights have been eroded and the leviathan is growing every day.

So with all that going on it might not be too unreasonable a position for people to take that the second amendment might be worthy of keeping around just in case. I can see where they may be worried about a tyrannical government. Again not my position, but I can see where they may think that way.

And yes it is quite clear you wish to outlaw all guns. At some point even if you take away all automatic weapons then the next gun on the list is easily the most dangerous. It is a starting point and nothing more. It is obvious. Almost all guns are made to kill something. BUT if you think all it takes is to simply pull a trigger you are completely ignorant of the process, which again is pretty obvious.

All that being clear I never would allow my nine year old son/daughter fire an Uzi even WITH supervision. I have no need to own an Uzi, and I can not figure why someone would want to. That does not mean I think they should be outlawed. I can not figure why someone would want to own a Chrysler either. (THOSE should be outlawed though just on principal!) Using an Uzi or any auto fire weapon for self defense is not the brightest move in the world. When I taught firearm classes I NEVER recommended an auto fire weapon for such a thing. I also think auto fire weapons are something that need more scrutiny than does a semi auto or a wheel gun. I do not think background checks are bad, I do not think mental evaluations are bad depending on implementation. Of course the devil is in the details as usual.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
821 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
That's a non-sequitor and, obviously, an attempt to start a specious argument, as usual.

In colonial times, muskets served a dual purpose- hunting and defense. The modern equivalent is a hunting rifle.



Most hunting rifles are very poor home defense weapons. In fact really inadequate and more dangerous than helpful in a home defense situation. So I strongly disagree that a hunting rifle is the equivalent of a home defense firearm.
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
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
That's a non-sequitor and, obviously, an attempt to start a specious argument, as usual.

In colonial times, muskets served a dual purpose- hunting and defense. The modern equivalent is a hunting rifle.


I'm not sure how it is a non-sequitor. Many arguments against the 2nd amendment grudgingly allow for hunting rifles while arguing against weapons of self defense whereas the 2nd amendment says nothing about hunting but argues specifically for self defense.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5154 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2014, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 13, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Well, it was a rhetorical question. That means I get it, but I don't agree. Moreover, I sincerely doubt that all of my points are understood. So there.


I and others have posited a distinction; you feel that it is a distinction without a difference. As I asked last time in some far off abandoned or deleted thread, how do you feel about private ownership of nuclear weapons? Lower rates of death than Uzis. And yet I see a difference because the only purpose of a nuclear weapon is to kill. Even if I say I just like to collect them, or I have it locked up where I guarantee no one will get to it, it's main function is to kill. If you don't see that as a distinction with a meaningful difference then I will drop it; but frankly it is extremely difficult for me to understand a rational person's not being able to see that difference.

To my mind, the 2nd Amendment argument is the strongest pro-gun argument; the one that says basically, whatever else anyone might think, it doesn't matter because that's what the 2nd Amendment says. I think this is basically Danny's position, and though I don't agree with it fully (I think there's room for interpretation there) I think it's the strongest argument you got.


Conversely, I can assume that you and NYC don't see a meaningful difference between a 2-shot Derringer and a nuclear weapon either, as they're both designed to kill.

Evasive. The threshold has already been crossed. You clearly do believe that some weapons should be controlled solely based on their intended purpose.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Guns don't kill people... (35 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..11..19..27..35..41~42~43~44~45~46 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.08 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL