Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

All Things Second Amendment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    What's missing in this thread is a recognition that the vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by people using handguns

    and the vast majority of those people are...


    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by ok doser View Post
      What's missing in this thread is a recognition that the vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by people using handguns

      and the vast majority of those people are...


      It's getting worse, too.

      A couple of YouTube channels I'm subscribed to have been showing more and more shootouts between blacks using handguns.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        It's getting worse, too.

        A couple of YouTube channels I'm subscribed to have been showing more and more shootouts between blacks using handguns.
        but the leftist media knows that the emotional impact of showing black ghetto thugs gang-banging is a tiny fraction of that garnered by the repetitive display of dead white children

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Idolater View Post
          You're right, they're not. And they're also not, none of them are, rights enumerated, explicitly recognized and positively affirmed against, the federal government, in the Bill of Rights---not a single one of them is. Which is So unlike the right to bear arms.
          So that other junk was just window dressing attempts to dismiss a rational posit that can only really be opposed by reliance on a stance that essentially boils down to: "I have the right and it's absolute. You can't do anything that interrupts any exercise of it." And that's wrong on its face. It's demonstrably wrong, as would be the same claim in relation to any other right, as I've illustrated in a few ways prior and will again in a moment.

          That's facile and belies a concerning shallowness in your thought.
          That's entirely subjective and unsupported by argument, though it is a pretty good illustration of where your defense of the indefensible will take you.

          It's because of unsafe assumptions like that that the NRA exists
          The NRA once proposed ideas for gun safety legislation. Then it became a shill for the gun lobby.

          Your vocation, can't agree even on what the Second Amendment says /means.
          The fact that some people will say darn nearly anything doesn't mean no one or even most people fail to understand what anything means.

          We've got the NRA saying we're breaking the law, and we've got gun haters like you
          Still a gun owner. Still a believer in the right. Still opposing assault weapons.

          who claim to support the right to bear arms
          The right to bear arms is not and should not be the right to bear any, just as the right to fire any legal weapon should not be understood to mean you can fire it in my living room.

          , and who also support massive new and ever more infringing gun control.
          I support laws that remove the assault weapon from the stream of commerce. I support gun safety courses, registration, or a number of measures that would protect the right while making its exercise and the public safer.

          In every one of our Western Industrial Democratic cousins those measures are in play. And in every one of them the public is demonstrably, dramatically safer that we are.


          Even when leos carry selective fire rifles or selective fire carbines, still the public isn't frightened or terrified. We already know this.
          And we're not terrified by firemen driving fire trucks with sirens either, but that doesn't mean any reasonable person wouldn't be alarmed by random people taking possession of one. The police carry weapons to do their job. And the police are required to be well trained in the use of the weapons they fire, a thing opposed in relation of the exercise of gun rights among the general public by people like you and the NRA. Those weapons are registered. The police file a report after discharging their weapons. They have serious peer review relating to the use of weapons. If we treated our approach to weapons the way the police do we'd have a far safer citizenry, even with weapons I oppose.

          The test is passed. If the police ran around with RPGs, might the public get antsy? idk.
          Right.

          We know that the public doesn't get frightened and terrified from what our police carry.
          They don't tend to go around with machine guns at the ready either. If we see that people tend to get alarmed, will reasonably understand there's a motivation that might mean they are in danger. But in the normal scheme of things, they shouldn't be frightened, because they know the things I noted about officers, and they know that officers carry their weapons to preserve the peace and protect the innocent. They have no idea why Bob is walking toward them with that weapon. It would be unreasonable to not be frightened given what has too often been done by those weapons, what distinguishes them, what they can accomplish in moments and their unfamiliarity with Bob's motivation and intent.

          Wow, you really know how to hurt a guy! Now I'm a Marxist. Irrational Marxist.
          So, playing along, assuming someone might actually not understand the parallel and what I actually did with it: I don't ask what a reasonable person would do in relation to gun control for the same reason I don't ask a Marxist about property rights, or a libertarian about social programs. They have a foundational assumption that makes the discussion pointless.

          I'm almost proud, Town. Gun hater.
          I'd settle for almost reasonable, and I'm still not a gun hater for the reasons set out above and prior.

          On the guns I own:
          Congratulations. I don't know if I own any.
          You don't appear to know a lot of things, like how to distinguish between a responsible gun owner and a "gun hater."

          You believe in property rights then, that's fine.
          Of course I do. I also believe in the right to bear arms, which was the specific property I mentioned.

          The United States is property, and the Constitution is the supreme law, and the Bill of Rights commands Washington against, and the S. Ct. authoritatively declares that the states also are forbidden from, "infringing" the right to bear arms.
          The right isn't infringed upon any more than your not being able to sacrifice a human being in the furtherance of your religious beliefs is an infringement of your right to worship as you please. No right exists in a vacuum and the moment you exercise it there is a competition among other rights and exercise. The exercise of the right is what we're really talking about.

          You lawyers can't get your act straight on what this single sentence means
          You're repeating yourself. Here's the answer, again: The fact that some people will say darn nearly anything doesn't mean no one or even most people fail to understand what anything means. The fact that some big tobacco scientific shills once tried to convince us there was no link between tobacco and cancer doesn't mean scientists were stumped or confused on the point.

          Democratically we vote NRA, pretty much word-for-word, we're one-issue voters.
          That's more dangerous than an AR because that sort of myopic support can put fairly evil or amoral men in office accomplishing far more real damage to the republic than your more imaginary concern.

          We don't agree with the NRA on everything, but the NRA's got the most seats at the table already, and we need to be in those seats, because otherwise hate will rule the day in the making of our laws.
          Actually, the haters are the ones who benefit from your support, like the hate fueled monster in Vegas, or a church in Texas, or a schoolyard in Parkland, Florida. Actual haters love the NRA's fight to preserve and promote the instruments that allow them to work their harm.

          I believe the right to bear arms is one of many valid and true facets of the right to life
          The right to bear arms isn't our point of difference. It never was.

          The Christians fed to lions and tigers, which had been starved previously, if they had their right to bear arms defended, they could have defended themselves against the hungry predators.
          They'd have simply died another way against the overwhelming force of the Roman Empire, but that's an exceptional point any way you look at it. It doesn't really parallel our difference.

          But no, their inalienable right was not recognized, and they were eaten. Families sometimes, sometimes families watched their own siblings and parents and children, just get eaten, dying, in the mouth of a cat. And then they were eaten alive too.
          And, again, and to be clear, I am not (and most Americans who oppose ARs are not) for disarming the public, for ending the right. I'd be fine with those early Christians carrying swords. You think they should have had Greek Fire.

          You're going to call me "irrational" in a moment.
          Only when you insist on saying a thing and holding a belief contrary to reason and repeatedly met by it.

          I know, you own, something. Relax. It doesn't mean, anything.
          Like that. I don't own "something," some unknowable and potentially unrelated (to the argument) thing. I own guns. I was once a hunter. A qualified marksman. So I've used them recreationally. I've used them for sport. And any of them could be used for protection of my person, family, or property. I can accomplish all of that without an AR. All I could do with an AR that I couldn't do with the bolt action rifle, the double barrel shotgun, etc. that I own would be killing a lot of people in a very short time.

          It means a great deal.

          I know lots of people. You say you support the right to bear arms. I am also confident that anybody reading this thread knows, that there is a singular distinction between what you mean by 'right to bear arms,' and what I mean by 'right to bear arms.'
          I hope so too. I also hope they do the research and see that what I'm speaking about won't take the right and its exercise from them and will make them demonstrably less likely to be a victim of someone who uses the right to an unlawful purpose in the service of an actual malice.

          I am fine with gun haters like you claiming to support the right to bear arms. It'll be OK.
          I'm tired of people like you trying to reinvent the language to support a myopic and fundamentally dangerous approach to gun law.

          Such big teeth you have---I mean words! Such big words. All strung together nice and neat and such.
          Man, you devolved to that faster than expected. Anything else?

          Calling me irrational, after I accuse you of hatred.
          The accusation was irrational. If you hold it and repeat it, in the face of reason to the contrary, you are prima facie irrational, at least on the point.

          I am not.
          You confuse declaration of subjective valuation with empirical truth. It isn't. The truth is that no one who hates a thing embraces it. To suggest that I have to agree with your notion of unrestrained exercise of right to escape your definition is just a very poorly drawn circle. I am a gun hater because you say I am a gun hater is not a rational proposition.
          You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

          Pro-Life






          Comment


          • #50
            U.S. News and World Report cites FBI data:
            Often less discussed – to the consternation of experts and columnists – is the phenomenon of white-on-white homicides. The number of white people killed by other whites rose 3.5 percent to 2,574 victims in 2015.

            White-on-white killings as a percentage of all homicides involving a white victim also fell, to 81.3 percent, marking the lowest share of such killings since 2001.

            The margins are small, fluctuating by less than 3 percentage points in the last 15 years: Since 2001, the share of black-on-black and white-on-white homicides as a proportion of those killed of each race peaked at 91.9 and 84.2 percent, respectively.

            https://www.usnews.com/news/articles...by-the-numbers

            Which is interesting, since one would expect about 72% of whites to be killed by whites if killers randomly picked victims without regard to race. But people who kill, tend to kill those of their own race, for whatever reasons.

            And while homicide rates have dropped dramatically over the last few decades, they've spiked up a bit in the last two years for some reason...

            Not enough to significantly reduce the huge drop over the last 20 years, though.
            This message is hidden because ...

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
              One would expect about 72% of whites to be killed by whites if killers randomly picked victims without regard to race.
              Only if you ignore statistics.

              But we know you're just trolling.
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                So that other junk was just window dressing attempts to dismiss a rational posit that can only really be opposed by reliance on a stance that essentially boils down to: "I have the right and it's absolute. You can't do anything that interrupts any exercise of it." And that's wrong on its face. It's demonstrably wrong, as would be the same claim in relation to any other right, as I've illustrated in a few ways prior
                Straw man. And btw, what makes you arbiter of what is and what is not "rational?" Please set out your personal procedure for making your determination of what is and what is not rational.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                and will again in a moment.


                That's entirely subjective and unsupported by argument, though it is a pretty good illustration of where your defense of the indefensible will take you.
                As I said, we're talking straight past each other when we discuss The Right to Bear Arms, since you mean one thing, and I mean another. And how I use those words /that phrase, is anything but "indefensible."
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                The NRA once proposed ideas for gun safety legislation. Then it became a shill for the gun lobby.
                As I've commented numerous times, this is the most negative spin possible on reality. All businesspeople are permitted and encouraged to lawfully earn a living, and gun businesses are not excluded, and businesspeople have the right to lobby the government just like everybody else.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                The fact that some people will say darn nearly anything doesn't mean no one or even most people fail to understand what anything means.
                I never said otherwise. All I said was that the meaning of The Right to Bear Arms in the Bill of Rights is not something that can be established through appealing to a lawyer as a valid authority on the matter, because all the lawyers are not united in their interpretation of it, and that positively rules out any valid appeal to any of them or all of them as authorities on the matter. And that's all I said.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                Still a gun owner. Still a believer in the right. Still opposing assault weapons.
                I'm happy you own a gun. But your The Right to Bear Arms is not mine, and you believe in yours, and I don't.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                The right to bear arms
                'Your' The Right to Bear Arms.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                is not and should not be the right to bear any, just as the right to fire any legal weapon should not be understood to mean you can fire it in my living room.
                You are defining 'your' The Right to Bear Arms. So here's 'my' The Right to Bear Arms, point-by-point. We do not have the right to fire a legal weapon in your living room because it is your living room and not ours, plus without a silencer (which are NFA Title II "weapons") it causes real hearing damage, plus it will damage your walls or floors or windows, plus at certain trajectories you could be either harming someone outside, or at least placing them in grave danger---all of which are crimes unrelated to 'my' The Right to Bear Arms, and the exercise thereof. Carrying a service rifle or service carbine, with a flash hider, a silencer, and multiple maximum capacity "clips" /magazines, on public or on my own property, is a valid and licit exercise of 'my' The Right to Bear Arms.

                And those are some of the distinctions between what you mean by The Right to Bear Arms, and what I mean by The Right to Bear Arms. We are talking straight past each other.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                I support laws that remove the assault weapon from the stream of commerce.
                I know. I don't. I support the repeal of the NFA, and all 'gun control' laws everywhere.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                I support gun safety courses, registration, or a number of measures that would protect the right while making its exercise and the public safer.
                Well, as for "a number of measures," you only mentioned two, both of which I disagree with, as being in objective violation of the Second Amendment. But your view here reflects your understanding and interpretation of The Right to Bear Arms, and my view reflects my understanding and interpretation of The Right to Bear Arms. We're talking straight past each other.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                In every one of our Western Industrial Democratic cousins those measures are in play. And in every one of them the public is demonstrably, dramatically safer that we are.
                New Hampshire residents can carry assault weapons openly without fear of police penalization, unless they commit a crime. And the intentional homicide rate in N.H. rivals those other countries to which you're referring. New Hampshire is among the safest places on earth.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                And we're not terrified by firemen driving fire trucks with sirens either, but that doesn't mean any reasonable person wouldn't be alarmed by random people taking possession of one.
                "...other junk was just window dressing attempts to dismiss a rational posit..." comes immediately to mind. There is no The Right to Drive Firetrucks.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                The police carry weapons to do their job.
                What exactly is the part of their job that requires them carrying small arms? To defend themselves and to defend innocent (of capital crimes) people. Case should be closed now, but we'll go on (and on).
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                And the police are required to be well trained in the use of the weapons they fire, a thing opposed in relation of the exercise of gun rights among the general public by people like you and the NRA.
                Yes, because that's what I and the NRA understand The Right to Bear Arms "shall not be infringed" to necessarily mean.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                Those weapons are registered. The police file a report after discharging their weapons. They have serious peer review relating to the use of weapons. If we treated our approach to weapons the way the police do we'd have a far safer citizenry, even with weapons I oppose.
                Law enforcement (in their capacity as law enforcement) has power, and civilians have rights (police too possess the same inalienable rights as civilians of course). There is a categorical difference between the two wrt law. Laws that protect and defend rights are aimed directly at law enforcement, and not at civilians. Namely, leos (and the government) are not authorized to penalize civilians for the lawful exercise of our inalienable rights.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                Right.


                They don't tend to go around with machine guns at the ready either.
                Right, they almost never do. And when they do bring out the "machine guns" (common parlance for service rifles and service carbines), the public is not frightened and terrified by them. They might be frightened and terrified by whatever prompt leos to bring out the "machine guns," but not by them bringing out the "machine guns" in and of itself.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                If we see that people tend to get alarmed, will reasonably understand there's a motivation that might mean they are in danger. But in the normal scheme of things, they shouldn't be frightened, because they know the things I noted about officers, and they know that officers carry their weapons to preserve the peace and protect the innocent. They have no idea why Bob is walking toward them with that weapon. It would be unreasonable to not be frightened given what has too often been done by those weapons, what distinguishes them, what they can accomplish in moments and their unfamiliarity with Bob's motivation and intent.
                That's asinine. It's asinine because the only thing that really matters is what "Bob" is up to, same as with the nameless leo. We don't know the leo from Adam, and we don't know "Bob" from Adam. Why ought a uniform calm us, and "Bob" being in plainclothes, make any difference, compared with what their "motivation and intent" is? There have been plenty of men in uniform throughout history who are up to no good, and there are sadly today some 'bad cops' too.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                So, playing along, assuming someone might actually not understand the parallel and what I actually did with it: I don't ask what a reasonable person would do in relation to gun control for the same reason I don't ask a Marxist about property rights, or a libertarian about social programs. They have a foundational assumption that makes the discussion pointless.
                You portrayed me as an irrational Marxist, Town. Fact. That 'foundational assumption' is what might make discussion here pointless, not that we disagree about The Right to Bear Arms. We just have to differentiate between what you mean by The Right to Bear Arms, and what I mean by The Right to Bear Arms, since we each mean something different in many ways.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                I'd settle for almost reasonable
                Here again, you try to portray me as unreasonable. This is just an ad hominem, and my calling you a gun hater is returning like for like. But since you've already written me off and dismissed me as unreasonable, anything I say is just going to confirm that bias in your mind. So I called you a gun hater, because why not?
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                , and I'm still not a gun hater for the reasons set out above and prior.

                On the guns I own:

                You don't appear to know a lot of things, like how to distinguish between a responsible gun owner and a "gun hater."
                They can be the same person. Also, a hardened violent felon might share your views on gun control. So now what do you say? You can't say anything, or you shouldn't---but you will.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                Of course I do. I also believe in the right to bear arms, which was the specific property I mentioned.
                And 'your' The Right to Bear Arms is not 'my' The Right to Bear Arms, as I've set out numerous times prior.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                The right isn't infringed upon any more than your not being able to sacrifice a human being in the furtherance of your religious beliefs is an infringement of your right to worship as you please.
                False analogy /false parallel. You're comparing 'apples' and 'applies.'
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                No right exists in a vacuum and the moment you exercise it there is a competition among other rights and exercise. The exercise of the right is what we're really talking about.
                You're talking about the exercise of 'your' The Right to Bear Arms, and I'm talking about the exercise of 'my' The Right to Bear Arms.
                Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                You lawyers can't get your act straight on what this single sentence (the Second Amendment) means . . .
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                You're repeating yourself. Here's the answer, again: The fact that some people will say darn nearly anything doesn't mean no one or even most people fail to understand what anything means. The fact that some big tobacco scientific shills once tried to convince us there was no link between tobacco and cancer doesn't mean scientists were stumped or confused on the point.
                Are you now suggesting that we are capable of making a valid appeal to the authority of scientists, and not lawyers, to provide valid grounds for the meaning of the Second Amendment? I wager that among all doctors of science there is still great division on what that single sentence means. Do you want to try to prove that among PhD scientists that there is wide agreement on the matter? I'm not asking because I think that PhD scientists are in any way bona fide experts in what the Bill of Rights means, but if you think that they are, please provide some sort of proof to sustain your case.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                That's more dangerous than an AR because that sort of myopic support can put fairly evil or amoral men in office accomplishing far more real damage to the republic than your more imaginary concern.
                I wish that million person mass murders were a bogeyman of only fairy tales, but unfortunately we've seen mass murders approaching that within the past few decades, and going back a century we need more than one hand to count how many there have been, and in every single case of mass murders on this scale, the victims are either completely unarmed, or comparatively 'outgunned' due to gun control laws like the precise ones that you support.

                And I know I know, you think it's unreasonable or irrational for me to state facts, but that's not going to get me to not state facts. Facts is facts.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                Actually, the haters are the ones who benefit from your support, like the hate fueled monster in Vegas, or a church in Texas, or a schoolyard in Parkland, Florida. Actual haters love the NRA's fight to preserve and promote the instruments that allow them to work their harm.
                The haters I was talking about are those who are OK with banning innocent (of capital crimes) people from carrying superlative small arms (i.e., the types of small arms that every legitimate military and police force on earth provides for their troops and leos), with which they could defend themselves against the suicidal mass murderers that you mentioned.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                The right to bear arms isn't our point of difference. It never was.
                We each mean something different by The Right to Bear Arms, so we're talking straight past each other, as noted prior.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                They'd have simply died another way against the overwhelming force of the Roman Empire, but that's an exceptional point any way you look at it. It doesn't really parallel our difference.
                I disagree since it does tend to support 'my' The Right to Bear Arms. And the "died another way" bit is flatly outrageous imo to say. I've heard NRA type people say much the same thing, in defense of that which you clearly oppose.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                And, again, and to be clear, I am not (and most Americans who oppose ARs are not) for disarming the public, for ending the right. I'd be fine with those early Christians carrying swords. You think they should have had Greek Fire.
                What is Greek Fire? Then I can see whether or not this is true. But mainly, I do support the right of anybody in peril of their life or limb, to carry any instrument that constitutes a bearable arm, in self-defense. And since I support this, I must necessarily support the right to carry such instruments Before their life or limb is imperiled.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                Only when you insist on saying a thing and holding a belief contrary to reason and repeatedly met by it.
                Prove it.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                Like that. I don't own "something," some unknowable and potentially unrelated (to the argument) thing. I own guns. I was once a hunter. A qualified marksman. So I've used them recreationally. I've used them for sport. And any of them could be used for protection of my person, family, or property. I can accomplish all of that without an AR. All I could do with an AR that I couldn't do with the bolt action rifle, the double barrel shotgun, etc. that I own would be killing a lot of people in a very short time.

                It means a great deal.
                From your upstairs window, where you happen to keep your small arms (for argument's sake), you notice an obviously rabid coyote charging straight towards your backyard, where your kin are frolicking unaware (and unarmed), and you think that a shotgun (hope it's not out of range!) or a bolt-gun (you better be a fantastic shot!) is going to "accomplish" the defense of your family equivalently to a service rifle or service carbine? Or even "an AR?"

                Here's how it goes with a shotgun:
                "Is it in range yet? How about now? Now? OK fire! Oh only wounded it, Fire! Oh missed. (Reload, and family is attacked).

                A bolt-gun:
                "Range not an issue, this is a longer range small arm, so line it up, Fire! Oo! Missed, cycle the action, Fire again! Did I get it? Oh! Cycle the action again---fire! Was it in time?"

                "An AR:"
                "Bang! Missed. Bang! Missed. Bang bang bang bang bang! Clipped it. Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang got it."

                Maybe it's a 'momma' bear sprinting after her wayward cub, that's careening toward your family playing out in your backyard, instead of a rabid coyote. Maybe it's a man, and you know there's been a violent crime committed recently in your neighborhood. Maybe it's . . . something where "an AR" is actually going to do something other than "killing a lot of people in a very short time."

                Does this prove me right? Of course I don't hope to be proven right by you. But does it prove me reasonable and rational? I think it does. I think you're unreasonable and irrational if you deny that it does too.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                I hope so too.
                They will, and certainly by the time they get to this post, since I've made it so clear that we are each using The Right to Bear Arms to mean different things.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                I also hope they do the research and see that what I'm speaking about won't take the right and its exercise from them and will make them demonstrably less likely to be a victim of someone who uses the right to an unlawful purpose in the service of an actual malice.
                I hope people start taking their right more seriously, as I understand The Right to Bear Arms, and not as you do.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                I'm tired of people like you trying to reinvent the language to support a myopic and fundamentally dangerous approach to gun law.
                Begging the question.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                Man, you devolved to that faster than expected. Anything else?
                Passive /micro-aggression is objective, not subjective, and doesn't depend upon deliberate intent on the part of the aggressor. It is what it is, regardless of any deliberate intent or the lack thereof, on the part of the aggressor.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                The accusation was irrational. If you hold it and repeat it, in the face of reason to the contrary, you are prima facie irrational, at least on the point.
                Your accusation that I am irrational precedes me calling you a gun hater, and that is on the point.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                You confuse declaration of subjective valuation with empirical truth.
                Nope.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                It isn't.
                Whoever said that it was, was not me.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                The truth is that no one who hates a thing embraces it. To suggest that I have to agree with your notion of unrestrained exercise of right to escape your definition is just a very poorly drawn circle. I am a gun hater because you say I am a gun hater is not a rational proposition.
                I'm not irrational because you say I'm irrational, Town. I call you a gun hater in self defense.
                "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                @Nee_Nihilo

                Comment


                • #53
                  https://us.cnn.com/2019/07/01/entert...rol/index.html

                  I love it when they start attacking each other.
                  "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                  @Nee_Nihilo

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                    Straw man.
                    Not if you believe the right is absolute and cannot be restrained in exercise. If you do then we're only quibbling over particulars.

                    And btw, what makes you arbiter of what is and what is not "rational?" Please set out your personal procedure for making your determination of what is and what is not rational.
                    Logic, a thing of parts that can be proven true or false regardless of who puts it together or attempts to take it apart.

                    As I said, we're talking straight past each other when we discuss The Right to Bear Arms, since you mean one thing, and I mean another. And how I use those words /that phrase, is anything but "indefensible."
                    I'm speaking to the literal right. One we have and can exercise without assault weapons, or hand grenades, or tanks in our driveways.

                    As I've commented numerous times, this is the most negative spin possible on reality. All businesspeople are permitted and encouraged to lawfully earn a living, and gun businesses are not excluded, and businesspeople have the right to lobby the government just like everybody else.
                    It's not a spin, it's an observation of the truth that's easy enough to illustrate, if you really want me to when you return. And I didn't say they couldn't lobby, so that would be a straw man.

                    You are defining 'your' The Right to Bear Arms. So here's 'my' The Right to Bear Arms, point-by-point. We do not have the right to fire a legal weapon in your living room because it is your living room
                    I know. It was an illustration of my point that rights run into each other, and the law is largely a balancing act on the point. So my property right limits your exercise. Exactly.

                    I know. I don't. I support the repeal of the NFA, and all 'gun control' laws everywhere.
                    See? I told you it wasn't a straw man.

                    Well, as for "a number of measures," you only mentioned two, both of which I disagree with, as being in objective violation of the Second Amendment. But your view here reflects your understanding and interpretation of The Right to Bear Arms, and my view reflects my understanding and interpretation of The Right to Bear Arms. We're talking straight past each other.
                    The argument is over where the rational line in the sand for limiting exercise is...you only just agreed it could be interfered with by my property rights, by way of illustration.

                    New Hampshire residents can carry assault weapons openly without fear of police penalization, unless they commit a crime. And the intentional homicide rate in N.H. rivals those other countries to which you're referring. New Hampshire is among the safest places on earth.
                    The death by firearm per 100k people in New Hampshire is 10.3
                    The worst average in Europe is much lower. A few examples with the closest year for data:
                    Belgium, 1.24
                    Bulgaria, 1.73
                    Croatia, 2.35
                    Denmark, 1. 47
                    France, 2.83
                    Germany, .99
                    Greece, 1.52
                    Hungary, .95
                    Ireland, .8
                    Italy, 1.31
                    Netherlands, .58
                    Norway, 1.75
                    Portugal, 1.58
                    Sweden, 1.6
                    U.K., .23

                    There are much safer places in the US and many worse, but Europe is clearly in the safer category.

                    Right, they almost never do. And when they do bring out the "machine guns" (common parlance for service rifles and service carbines), the public is not frightened and terrified by them.
                    Alarmed, without advance notice. If I saw policemen walking around with machine guns I'd be concerned and want to know why. So the weapon, to anyone understanding its capability, is frightening. That fear can be mitigated by the understanding that an officer of the law is using it in relation to public protection, but it's still alarming, even with that rational mitigation.

                    But let some random dude walk toward me and my family while he's carrying an AR and my response is one that lacks that mitigation. I'm seeking an exit, considering ways to protect my family from him, and looking for a police presence.

                    That's asinine. It's asinine because the only thing that really matters is what "Bob" is up to
                    Then it's not asinine, because I don't know what he's up to and I do know that he could reasonably pose a clear and present danger to me and/or my family.


                    You portrayed me as an irrational Marxist, Town. Fact.
                    Well, no, I didn't. I've long used the illustration that talking to extremists on whatever point it is that gives rise to them is pointless by paralleling speaking to a Marxist about property rights, when his foundation is that none exist, or a libertarian about taxation not being theft.

                    Here again, you try to portray me as unreasonable.
                    I think you hold unreasonable positions, positions that place people in needless danger without a real upside to counter it. And I've set out the why of that in particular prior.

                    ... So I called you a gun hater, because why not?
                    Because you know it to be a false statement, where I believe you literally, hold an unreasonable position and have set out why. That it offends you to have your position so described doesn't make it an ad hom.

                    And 'your' The Right to Bear Arms is not 'my' The Right to Bear Arms, as I've set out numerous times prior.
                    False analogy /false parallel. You're comparing 'apples' and 'applies.'
                    No. I'm noting that even the right to worship as you please can run afoul of other rights and laws, as per my previous on the point of noting the right to do a thing is not without limitations relating to the exercise of other rights and other parties.

                    Are you now suggesting that we are capable of making a valid appeal to the authority of scientists, and not lawyers, to provide valid grounds for the meaning of the Second Amendment?
                    No, I'm unhorsing the "lawyers don't agree" argument you put out. Three out of four dentists may recommend a gum without the 1 in 4 negating the value of their consideration and evaluation.


                    The haters I was talking about are those who are OK with banning innocent (of capital crimes) people from carrying superlative small arms (i.e., the types of small arms that every legitimate military and police force on earth provides for their troops and leos), with which they could defend themselves against the suicidal mass murderers that you mentioned.
                    I know that's your belief. I don't find it reasonable to say that because I (for reasons given) find the AR and other instruments more dangerous to you and me and the public at large that I hate anything, other than needless death and injury.

                    The problem is that we can't look at people and read their hearts. We don't know one kind from the other until they open fire and the body count begins. By then it's too late. So, I argue that those weapons, which strike fear into the heart of reasonable people and which are distinguished solely by their ability to kill a great many people before anything can be done to stop the person using them, should not be within the stream of commerce and accessible to the general public.

                    We each mean something different by The Right to Bear Arms, so we're talking straight past each other, as noted prior.
                    And I still think that's not the case. We both understand the right to bear arms, but you believe the exercise of that right should not be restrained. I note we already have and argue the restrictions, that line in the sand, need to be reconsidered for the reasons offered prior.

                    I disagree since it does tend to support 'my' The Right to Bear Arms. And the "died another way" bit is flatly outrageous imo to say.
                    Not if you understand the Roman army and the numbers involved.

                    From your upstairs window, where you happen to keep your small arms (for argument's sake), you notice an obviously rabid coyote charging straight towards your backyard, where your kin are frolicking unaware (and unarmed), and you think that a shotgun (hope it's not out of range!) or a bolt-gun (you better be a fantastic shot!) is going to "accomplish" the defense of your family equivalently to a service rifle or service carbine? Or even "an AR?
                    I think the average person with adrenaline in their veins and their heart hammering is more likely to shoot someone they're trying to protect than they are to hit the hypothetical animal. And I'm pretty sure I could drop it with my rifle, yes. But then, I've had to shoot when it mattered, and have a great deal of muscle memory to my credit, along with a hard won level of competence with the weapons I own.

                    Now you show me a crowd of people carrying ARs and let someone start shooting, some civilian dressed the way everyone else is...you want to guess how many people start shooting the wrong folks before we get to that body count?

                    Maybe it's a 'momma' bear sprinting after her wayward cub, that's careening toward your family playing out in your backyard
                    You can paint the unreasonable into the necessary if you try hard enough, but it won't make the rule reasonable. The fact is that if my family is in the yard I'm probably there with them and if anyone has time enough to get to a weapon then that weapon, at close range, will do the job, provided the person holding it knows how to use it. If I lived in a place where coyotes frequented the surroundings I'd be safer with a shotgun in hand than I would with an AR. So would my family.

                    , instead of a rabid coyote. Maybe it's a man, and you know there's been a violent crime committed recently in your neighborhood. Maybe it's . . . something where "an AR" is actually going to do something other than "killing a lot of people in a very short time."
                    Whatever that something is, I can accomplish it with a weapon that won't have that capacity. But the fellow in Las Vegas or the other places I noted, they couldn't do their butchery without the weapons and aids I oppose.

                    Most personal defense firings are going to happen within five to ten yards. Closer inside your home. A shotgun is a better instrument for that for any number of reasons. Or a pistol.
                    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                    Pro-Life






                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                      The death by firearm per 100k people in New Hampshire is 10.3
                      The worst average in Europe is much lower.
                      PUT THOSE STATISTICS DOWN BEFORE YOU HURT SOMEONE!!!!



                      How many times does this mean moron have to be shown a complete Muppet with simple numbers before he will stop throwing them?

                      Guns are all but banned in Europe. There are no guns. Of course the gun-related violence will be less there.

                      When you ban cars, nobody dies in traffic accidents.

                      Now, slow down. Put your Google away. Leave the stats to the grownups, read what was written again and respond sensibly.
                      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                      E≈mc2
                      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                      -Bob B.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                        PUT THOSE STATISTICS DOWN BEFORE YOU HURT SOMEONE!!!!
                        Calm down.

                        How many times does this mean moron have to be shown a complete Muppet with simple numbers before he will stop throwing them?
                        Get a hold of your emotions.

                        Guns are all but banned in Europe.
                        If by that you mean assault weapons, sure. If you mean guns in the larger sense (and you appear to) then no.

                        There are no guns. Of course the gun-related violence will be less there.
                        Actually, there are guns. In fact, every nation there allows them. Some places, like Sweden, are more liberal than others, like the UK.

                        When you ban cars, nobody dies in traffic accidents.
                        And when you ban the sort of guns that are largely responsible for the most horrific firearm massacres, you largely stop having those massacres.

                        Now, slow down. Put your Google away. Leave the stats to the grownups, read what was written again and respond sensibly.
                        Seriously, this isn't about me...or given how much it seems to be about me to you, well, you might want to talk to or about someone else, who doesn't upset you so.

                        You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                        Pro-Life






                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                          PUT THOSE STATISTICS DOWN BEFORE YOU HURT SOMEONE!!!!



                          How many times does this mean moron have to be shown a complete Muppet with simple numbers before he will stop throwing them?
                          https://jaytaylormedia.com/with-few-...r-than-canada/

                          In New Hampshire, the homicide rate in 2014 was 0.9 homicides per 100,000, making New Hampshire in 2014 one of the safest places (in terms of homicide) on planet earth.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                            If by that you mean assault weapons, sure. If you mean guns in the larger sense (and you appear to) then no.
                            Nope.

                            Actually, there are guns. In fact, every nation there allows them. Some places, like Sweden, are more liberal than others, like the UK.
                            Nope.

                            And when you ban the sort of guns that are largely responsible for the most horrific firearm massacres, you largely stop having those massacres.
                            Nope.

                            Seriously, this isn't about me...or given how much it seems to be about me to you, well, you might want to talk to or about someone else, who doesn't upset you so.
                            Hi, Barbarian.
                            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                            E≈mc2
                            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                            -Bob B.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Nihilo View Post
                              https://jaytaylormedia.com/with-few-...r-than-canada/

                              In New Hampshire, the homicide rate in 2014 was 0.9 homicides per 100,000, making New Hampshire in 2014 one of the safest places (in terms of homicide) on planet earth.

                              It would be somewhat useful to compare homicide rates.

                              However, they don't do a lot for the debate on either side. There are far too many cultural and policy differences to make such comparisons useful in a discussion over the effect of specific types of weapons.
                              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                              E≈mc2
                              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                              -Bob B.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                https://youtu.be/pELwCqz2JfE
                                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                                E≈mc2
                                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                                "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                                -Bob B.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X