User Tag List

Page 31 of 37 FirstFirst ... 2128293031323334 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 465 of 548

Thread: All Things Second Amendment

  1. #451
    Over 750 post club Dan Emanuel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    America
    Posts
    770
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    59896
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    We have the newest garments in town, tailored by observing the old mistakes of weavers over generations. And we built into the weaving process a ready way to alter it, to adjust it when necessary to improve it. Pretending that old garments, those that failed us sufficiently that they led us to seek new ones, is the answer is nostalgic, but mistaken. God gave us kings when kings were the best means to move primitive societies and establish what could be established in justice. And He gave us republics too.
    We're closer that one might think. We disagree on what the right to bear arm's is. If I did not believe in it the way that I do, then we would be in close to full apparent agreement, and the same goe's for if you believed the right is what I believe that it is. All the legal history of our race must be irrelevant wherever it suggest's that at the time of our greatest mortal need, that we are in some way criminal's when we wield Any weapon in our defense. Thats something that transcend's any legal tradition, no matter how long, and our legal practice must be formed by analyse's like this. And in the US thats exactly what we can do, if we can gather our political will to do it and amend the Constitution. Judge's can't be permitted to create fresh law through our negligence in doing our duty to revise our supreme law, whenever a plain gap appear's between it's stone's that has to be filled up with mortar made by the will of We the People.

  2. #452
    Over 750 post club Dan Emanuel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    America
    Posts
    770
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    59896
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    You may want to check out https://kgov.com/death-penalty.
    Do you believe the following scripture's should be made law?
    He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. Mt15:4KJV
    Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death Mk7:10KJV

    I do not.

  3. #453
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    10,225
    Thanks
    34,531
    Thanked 8,719 Times in 5,595 Posts

    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147641
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Emanuel View Post
    Do you believe the following scripture's should be made law?
    No. Did you look through that article?

  4. #454
    Over 750 post club Dan Emanuel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    America
    Posts
    770
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    59896
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    No. Did you look through that article?
    Yeah.

    Why? Do you want to kill me?

    That was something John W used to do to user's, he'd lay into them and into they're view, and he'd slap them with scripture's until they couldn't stand up anymore as biblical inerrentist's or bible believer's or whatever they thought they were, before they ran into John W. He'd set em straight, and they'd either yield to the Scripture (not to John W---he never looked for that, he always demanded obeisance to the Scripture, not to himself), or they had to go on marked by him as not a Bible believer at all.

    Thats not what I mean in asking it; I just wonder if you want to kill me.

    You aren't a classical liberal at all. I think the reason you believe in the right to bear arm's as I see it, is because you think that classical liberalism is inferior to you're own personal brand of theocracy. I don't agree with that or with you, on anything else except that gun control is wickedness. I just think that you think its wickedness for the wrong reason, which mean's I'm even more in the minority than I first imagined.

    Its for time's like this, that right's become important, and classical liberalism is a philosophy dominated completely with right's, and with they're defense, and classical liberalism target's precisely people who think that there religious view's ought to inform law making, even past the point of stealing right's from innocent people who commit no crime's.

    They're are 'malum prohibitum' act's, and 'malum in se' act's: 'Bad 'cause its 'against the law,' and bad 'cause its evil or wicked in and of itself. Gun control is artificially converting act's that are Not evil or wickedness, into 'malum prohibitum' crime's. Crime's authorize government to use force. If the crime's are only crime's because a law say's so, but not because its evil or wicked by nature, then the law's that create those crime's are wicked and evil by there nature. Those law's are 'malum in se.'

    If you believed in the right to bear arm's like me, you'd think more like this. I wish that you would.

  5. #455
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    10,225
    Thanks
    34,531
    Thanked 8,719 Times in 5,595 Posts

    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147641
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Emanuel View Post
    Yeah.

    Why? Do you want to kill me?

    . . .

    Thats not what I mean in asking it; I just wonder if you want to kill me.
    Is there any particular reason you think I would?

    . . .

    That was something John W used to do to user's, he'd lay into them and into they're view, and he'd slap them with scripture's until they couldn't stand up anymore as biblical inerrentist's or bible believer's or whatever they thought they were, before they ran into John W. He'd set em straight, and they'd either yield to the Scripture (not to John W---he never looked for that, he always demanded obeisance to the Scripture, not to himself), or they had to go on marked by him as not a Bible believer at all.

    . . .
    I miss John W. Whatever happened to him?

    You aren't a classical liberal at all.
    I'm not a liberal, period.

    I'm a conservative.

    I think the reason you believe in the right to bear arm's as I see it,
    Are you sure you're responding to the right person?

    I believe the right to purchase, own, and carry personal defense weapons, including firearms, is God-given, not government given.

    is because you think that classical liberalism is inferior to you're own personal brand of theocracy.
    I don't advocate for theocracy.

    I don't agree with that or with you, on anything else except that gun control is wickedness.
    Proper gun control is a steady hand and good aim, but I don't think that gun control (the more common definition of laws that restrict gun use) is wickedness, or that it's, inherently evil, just that it's inane.

    I just think that you think its wickedness for the wrong reason, which mean's I'm even more in the minority than I first imagined.
    See above.

    Its for time's like this, that right's become important, and classical liberalism is a philosophy dominated completely with right's, and with they're defense, and classical liberalism target's precisely people who think that there religious view's ought to inform law making, even past the point of stealing right's from innocent people who commit no crime's.
    If God exists (and He does), then His laws are the best man can get. Man's laws are vastly inferior to His laws. And no, I'm not talking about religious laws, I mean laws against murder, theft, adultery, and perjury.

    They're are 'malum prohibitum' act's, and 'malum in se' act's: 'Bad 'cause its 'against the law,' and bad 'cause its evil or wicked in and of itself. Gun control is artificially converting act's that are Not evil or wickedness, into 'malum prohibitum' crime's. Crime's authorize government to use force. If the crime's are only crime's because a law say's so, but not because its evil or wicked by nature, then the law's that create those crime's are wicked and evil by there nature. Those law's are 'malum in se.'
    Huh?

    English please.

    If you believed in the right to bear arm's like me, you'd think more like this. I wish that you would.
    I believe in the God-given right to purchase, own, and carry personal defence weapons.

    Again, are you sure you're responding to the right person?

  6. #456
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    10,225
    Thanks
    34,531
    Thanked 8,719 Times in 5,595 Posts

    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147641
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    I miss John W. Whatever happened to him?
    Oh, right, now I remember. He's on self-imposed vacay from TOL for a while.

  7. #457
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked 697 Times in 468 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    173012
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Emanuel View Post
    Unfortunately the global data on the matter show's no relationship between the death penalty being legal or being illegal, on the murder rate's in country's. I wanted to see the relationship, but its not they're. Would that it were, but its just not true that the death penalty deter's more than not having the death penalty, with regard to the murder rate in countrie's.

    It is absolutely justified though to have the death penalty to be the last resort for protecting innocent people from murderer's or other capital criminal's. If they still pose a threat even from behind prison bar's, or the wall's of other institution's, then the death penalty is reasonable and even more importantly moral.
    You are using a logical fallacy in your thinking. You're conflating the existence of a law with it being enforced. Take a look at the reality of how many people are being executed. What percentage of convicted murderers actually get put to death? That's what you want to look for. If you see the numbers saying that a murderer faces a better chance of not being executed than executed the percentages are such that the punishment is executed so infrequently that the threat of execution is meaningless.

    If someone faces maybe a 2% chance of execution vs a 98% chance of not being executed just how much deterrence is that? It is saying that there are 98 chances of a hundred you will not be executed. Very few people would find those kinds of odds against being executed very scary. If I have a 98% chance of winning something I am pretty confident I will win. That's how a criminal thinks. He looks at the odds of conviction and then the odds of being executed on top of that and he thinks he's going to be one of 98% of those who live, not one of the 2% who die.

    You want to see the deterrent effect? Let's see 98% of those convicted be executed. Let the threat of execution be very high and then you will see the deterrence.
    “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    “One and God make a majority.”
    ― Frederick Douglass

  8. #458
    Over 750 post club Dan Emanuel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    America
    Posts
    770
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    59896
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Huh?

    English please.
    Theirs no briefer way to put it.

    Malum in se. Evil as such, or as is, or in and of itself. Prima facie evil. Obviously, objectively, widely agreed to be evil.

    Malum prohibitum. "Wrong" because 'we say so.' "It's against the law" only. They'res no victim. The only person your hurting is you're self. You forgot to check a box. All those sort's of thing's are malum prohibitum.

    If you tear off someones arm, unprovoked, thats malum in se. If your ordered to tear off someones arm unprovoked, and you disobey that order, thats malum prohibitum.

    One of thems wrong because its wrong, and the other is like "a technicality," but your still going to jail either way.

    Gun control is 100%, making act's that are not malum in se, against the law malum prohibitum. Meaning your going to jail if you don't obey gun control law's, just like if you actually committed a malum in se crime with you're weapon.

    And thats why gun control law's themselve's are malum in se. There evil.

  9. #459
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked 697 Times in 468 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    173012
    I'm not a liberal, period.

    I'm a conservative.
    A classical liberal from the days of John Stuart Mills and Adam Smith back in the 1700's and 1800's would be considered a conservative today. The classical liberal was for liberty, the smallest amount of government intrusion into the lives of it's citizens, as little government interference in business as possible(only in cases of fraud, robbery, etc...).

    The term liberal has been hijacked and turned into something it was never meant to be.
    “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    “One and God make a majority.”
    ― Frederick Douglass

  10. #460
    Over 750 post club Dan Emanuel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    America
    Posts
    770
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    59896
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    A classical liberal from the days of John Stuart Mills and Adam Smith back in the 1700's and 1800's would be considered a conservative today. The classical liberal was for liberty, the smallest amount of government intrusion into the lives of it's citizens, as little government interference in business as possible(only in cases of fraud, robbery, etc...).

    The term liberal has been hijacked and turned into something it was never meant to be.
    Classical liberalism from back then is divided in three today. Republican's, Democrat's, and libertarian's each retain distinctive bit's of it. "Land of liberty" was shorthand for land of classical liberalism.

  11. #461
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked 697 Times in 468 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    173012
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Emanuel View Post
    Classical liberalism from back then is divided in three today. Republican's, Democrat's, and libertarian's each retain distinctive bit's of it. "Land of liberty" was shorthand for land of classical liberalism.
    I would have to disagree with a good share of your characterizations. One, I see nothing of classical liberalism in the Democrat party. They are now the party of totalitarianism. The party of big government as the be-all and end-all of solutions for the problems humanity faces. They stand for just the opposite of what men like Mills and Smith stood for and they are the ones responsible for so perverting the meaning of the word liberal. Two, The Republicans give lip service to classical liberalism but there are not many of the leading Republicans who actually vote and work ttowards the goals of classical liberalism. Three, There is some of the classical liberalism among the libertarians but there has also been an abandonment of Christian values by a considerable number of libertarians.

    All in all, classical liberalism has pretty much disappeared from the face of the earth. It is so little known and understood that most conservatives are basically insulted if they are told they might be a classical liberal. And that is due to nothing more than the perversion of the meaning of the word by the totalitarian party, the Democrats.
    “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    “One and God make a majority.”
    ― Frederick Douglass

  12. #462
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    3,049
    Thanks
    371
    Thanked 426 Times in 300 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    408970
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    No, it means I don't repeatedly take paranoid fantasy seriously.
    Nearly every major government has degraded into bondage for its people. To think ours won't go the same way eventually is a fantasy. Both George E. Mendenhall in The Tenth Generation and Alexander Fraser Tytler found no exceptions. Of their assessments, which stage do you think the USA is at? the early or latter stages?

    It doesn't even matter to us little people whether it is the early or latter stages in the context of guns. When guns are taken they will never be given back. But it does make a difference to you elites. Do you know why?

    I know we've outlawed guns before. I don't know of anyone going door to door. You don't have to for the reasons I've set out prior, including attrition, and the inability to use the weapon legally for any purpose, coupled with the chance to get something back for it.
    So when someone defends themselves, for example a woman stops a man from raping her, with a gun they didn't want to sell in the buyback, you'd prosecute that woman?

    I believe you can't just go into people's homes without due process attaching and probable cause. "They might have a gun they didn't turn in," isn't going to meet the standard any judge would find reasonable.
    Why? You can advocate going door to door or you can keep doing what you're doing and adding to the body count.

    How is it a close parallel? Try telling me without just repeating your belief. Logically, how is it close?
    She has something that can be sold, but she doesn't want to. But if she is compensated anyway, then it is the same as the government compensating someone who doesn't want to sell their gun.

    If you want to say that the buyback isn't forced, but that the government has made using that gun illegal, then the government owns that gun by necessity. Ownership requires that I control, and can sell, what I own.

    That's a smaller sampling. I mean, you could look at part of Illinois and Chicago and make one point and at New York City and New York state and make another. Larger is better.
    My sample is the same size, larger actually, but the resolution is finer. You've homogenized the data so you don't have to deal with the problem the data makes obvious. Where guns are numerous, and in more households, violence is about the same as the states and nations you cherry pick for your data. Where gun laws are many and guns per household is low, violent crime is high. Note that gun violence is high is certain places. It's not the guns.
    Attachment 26876

    These statistical errors of homogenization and small sample size are errors you know about. But you'll never be shown where you're wrong because only people you consider your betters or peers could possibly do that.

    In the broadest sense, but not in the sense of seizing, taking by force. So if you only mean buy backs are a mechanism by which the state incentivises owners to turn in the weapons, sure.
    It's not a buyback. It's making the guns illegal and saying the buyback makes it OK to make them illegal.

    I don't
    You say it's a paranoid fantasy. That's the same as saying "it could never happen here".

    In order, untrue and it doesn't.
    That's what an elitist would say.

    My argument isn't an appeal to emotion
    You separate the few deaths from a few crazy people from the majority of deaths in the country. But that is such a small sample size that there is no way to measure the impact of taking guns from millions of innocent people. All you have left is an appeal to emotion.

    Beyond that, if you weren't appealing to emotion you'd try and solve the bigger problem of over 10,000 homicides per year first. Taking everyone's guns will only make that problem worse.

    Still complete nonsense for the reasons offered the first time you proffered it a long time ago.
    My proposal stops gangs. That's a lot of black dots. While your proposal stops, maybe, some of the deaths shown by the red dots. Only an elitist would say that's nonsense.
    Attachment 26875

    I didn't see me make a percentage claim in the quote, though I saw me challenging you to prove your proffer on a percentage.
    You said, and I quote, "a small percentage". Thus, you *did* make a percentage claim, but vague enough to backtrack when you needed to. I offered to compare your evidence to mine, but you stick your nose in the air.

    My evidence is the percentage of gun types gun makers have been making for a long time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    The question was how would the argument be different when mass murderers use revolvers, and/or pump action shotguns, and/or small capacity magazines with a semi auto.
    A rifle is more accurate at distance. It's hard for most people to be very accurate with handguns outside of a small range, even when they're calm. Shotguns tend to carry between six to ten rounds before they need to be reloaded and can't be as easily handled as rifles, are more unwieldly absent a shortening that would impact accuracy.
    You ignored the question. Let's make it clearer; when crazy people today continue to kill mass numbers of people (you don't think someone could kill 4 people with a pump shot gun, bolt or lever gun?), will you continue to just live with those deaths and adding to the body count? If someone were to propose taking guns that shoot more than one bullet per reload how would the argument be different?

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    The guns that *you* own can cause a great deal of death very fast.
    Not really. Why do you believe that?
    Are you saying you only own breech loaders? You know, even they can deal death very fast. Or is your definition of "very fast" confined to guns faster than what you own? Why is that the definition of "very fast"?

    Rather, I note that the sort of killing fields we've seen a number of venues transformed into were the product of a weapon that hasn't been a part of our landscape, as gun owners, for most of our history, and that we can and have met every legal purpose without them. Given how they're being used, we should do that again.
    The vetting on whether those guns are "too dangerous" was already done when they were invented. They were invented and within reach of the masses long before we had a problem with crazy people killing masses for seemingly no reason. They aren't the problem.

    I'm not projecting a fantasy by noting one. The primary question to distinguish the reasonable from the other is simple enough, how likely is the fear/concern? How often have we seen result X in the same circumstances. And when you're weighing a known harm with a hypothetical and potential need or harm the latter should be compelling and rooted in more than possibility.
    Saying "it's a paranoid fantasy" is the same as saying "it could never happen here".

    Nearly every major government has degraded into bondage for its people. To think ours won't go the same way eventually is a fantasy. Both George E. Mendenhall in The Tenth Generation and Alexander Fraser Tytler found no exceptions.

    We had all the freedom before those guns than we have with them.
    And taking guns and registering every gun takes a lot of freedom from innocent people. How does being less free stop crazy people?

    The data doesn't hold true for states or nations.
    That's because the data is homogenized. We have better data and it shows more guns equals less violence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Sure, let's get into it. How many deaths from mass murderers are you willing to tolerate to keep your more-than-breach-loading guns?
    The weapons I own wouldn't be very effective for mass murders, certainly not what we've been seeing in Dayton and other places.
    So when a crazy person kills a bunch of people with a lever action rifle how will the argument be different since a lever action rifle can kill people a lot faster than a breech loader can. Or don't you think someone can kill 4 people with a lever gun?

    The question remains: How many deaths from mass murderers are you willing to tolerate to keep your more-than-breech-loading guns?

    Outside of ARs, most deaths by weapons come from handguns. A great deal of that is suicide, which is a strong argument for supporting mental health screening and measures in relation to gun ownership. Beyond suicide you're talking about weapons used in the furtherance of criminal activity, largely gang related. The weapons I own wouldn't be very effective for mass murders, certainly not what we've been seeing in Dayton and other places.

    The question for me is balancing the reasonable exercise of the right, which can accomplish any number of legal acts, with the danger of the instruments permitted for those purposes. I think ARs cross the line where the benefit is outweighed by the risk they pose to public safety, demonstrably. People weren't doing that with lever action Winchesters and for good reason, Carrying capacity, the time it takes to chamber, aim, fire, and chamber the next round, etc.
    Only people involved with the Clinton's commit suicide with more than one bullet. That's a joke, BTW. A world where there are only breech loaders allowed is perfect for suicides. The point is that your proposal won't slow down suicide by gun unless you are willing to admit it's not the guns.

    It's identical with other forms of violence. It's not the guns.

    No, because the argument has never been we should reduce the danger from every firearm without regard for the good those same weapons can accomplish, even before we get to the right to possess them. Self-defense, hunting, recreation, there are any number of legal activities that are and should be permissible exercise and they can, all of them, be accomplished without the use of ARs. Without semi-automatics, comes to it, and with magazines that I'd restrict to no more than six shots if we keep semi-automatics outside of ARs. Ideally I'd five plus one in the chamber clips. With some rifles and shotguns that hold between 10 to as much as 17 rounds, modifications or stringent regulations relating to their possession and use would be reasonable.
    All the things you propose can be accomplished with breech loaders. All your fancy exceptions just adds to the body count.

    You're the elitist, since you think you know more. So that's funny right here.
    Yeah, laughing at the little people is one of the favorite things elitists do. And knowing more because I use all the data isn't elitist, but ignoring data like you do is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    You're wrong about Braddock. He was a great deal more devious and smarter than your average loser mass murderer.
    I don't think it took much intelligence to do what he did.

    Paddock didn't apparently care for us to know. No manifesto or note. Whatever was in his mind appears to have stayed there.
    You propose we take innocent people's property to stop a crazy person without knowing what happened and why. Just assume he was stupid and did what he did because innocent people made it so easy for him? Remember, once guns are taken they will never be returned.

    That's a really bad way to make a sweeping set of laws. But elitists don't mind using the little people as guinea pigs.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Yorzhik For Your Post:

    Right Divider (August 23rd, 2019),Stripe (August 23rd, 2019)

  14. #463
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,110
    Thanks
    3,938
    Thanked 8,466 Times in 4,943 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147842
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
    Nearly every major government has degraded into bondage for its people.
    Every modern democracy is still standing and are going concerns. Also, we built revolution into our code, which is another way to stabilize governments. Most of the one's you're noting began with bondage. Kings and dictators. That sort of thing.

    To think ours won't go the same way eventually is a fantasy.
    Too broad. Eventually? That can mean a thousand years.

    Meanwhile, to believe it's a concern for us and our foreseeable posterity is paranoid and defeatist.

    It doesn't even matter to us little people whether it is the early or latter stages in the context of guns. When guns are taken they will never be given back. But it does make a difference to you elites. Do you know why?
    Again, you're as much an elitist as anyone on this board, because the only distinction between you and the next fellow is what you want to see done, or don't. Maybe you fool yourself, believe that you can judge the person you're calling a judge without seeing the inevitable hypocrisy...who knows.

    So when someone defends themselves, for example a woman stops a man from raping her, with a gun they didn't want to sell in the buyback, you'd prosecute that woman?
    Or a prosecutor, having discretion, would likely confiscate the weapon and reduce charges. Because that's a fairly horrific scenario and he can do that, just as he could consider breaking the law to rush your child to a hospital. Mostly though, people who speed and get caught aren't doing that.

    Why?
    I literally just told you why. We have due process. You can't and shouldn't get to enter someone's home on the chance that they might be breaking a law. You have to have probable cause. Because without it your right to the exclusive, quiet enjoyment of your property can't and shouldn't be interrupted by the state. Probably cause is foundational to our system of justice.

    On odd parallels...
    She has something that can be sold, but she doesn't want to. But if she is compensated anyway, then it is the same as the government compensating someone who doesn't want to sell their gun.
    Okay...so you're comparing a woman selling herself reluctantly to the government proffering payment for guns you don't want to surrender. You called it a close parallel. It only parallels in the reluctance. That's why I questioned its value.

    If you want to say that the buyback isn't forced
    It's not a matter of wanting. You can just turn the thing in, or destroy it. You won't be forced to accept payment, but why wouldn't you want the compensation?

    but that the government has made using that gun illegal, then the government owns that gun by necessity.
    Doesn't follow by necessity. All that's necessary is that you no longer possess it. Supra.

    Ownership requires that I control, and can sell, what I own.
    Not always true, but in this case, yes. And compensation is offered in the name of equity and fairness. If the state requires your land for a right of way you should be paid for it. And if the state requires you to give up some other property to promote a legitimate state interest it should compensate you.

    My sample is the same size, larger actually, but the resolution is finer. You've homogenized the data so you don't have to deal with the problem the data makes obvious.
    No, your sample is much smaller and cherry picked to promote a point that a larger database won't support.

    Where guns are numerous, and in more households
    Again, we don't have gun registration here, so we can only really guess who has what. Now in countries where there is mandatory registration, our European cousins, we know who has what. We also know that the laws in those states promote a dramatically safer society in terms of homicide and gun violence.

    It's not a buyback. It's making the guns illegal and saying the buyback makes it OK to make them illegal.
    No, it's a buyback because the guns are literally being bought back by the state. What makes it OK, or preferable is the impact of laws ending this sort of weapon's easy access to the stream of commerce on mass shootings and public safety.

    You say it's a paranoid fantasy. That's the same as saying "it could never happen here".
    No. See, conspiracy theorists rely on open ended paranoia, because "never" is like your earlier use of "eventually." It takes in so much unreckonable time that it forces the reasonable person to take an unreasonable position because of that unreasonable foundation.

    You separate the few deaths from a few crazy people from the majority of deaths in the country.
    And now you distort the other way. A "few deaths."

    Last year it was over 500 deaths and more than double that wounded. And that's without considering the trauma of that on the survivors, on the communities where these take place. And I separate it because it's something we can do something about impacting, now, in this moment.

    Beyond that, if you weren't appealing to emotion you'd try and solve the bigger problem of over 10,000 homicides per year first. Taking everyone's guns will only make that problem worse.
    Most of the gun deaths are from suicide. I'm all for ramping up our support for mental health professionals and measures in relation to gun ownership. And isolating on a thing with precedent that we can accomplish in the here and now to positive effect isn't appealing to emotion any more than you're appealing to reason with paranoid, open ended fantasy.

    You said, and I quote, "a small percentage".
    It helps if you actually quote me, not just repeat a thing with quotation marks. That only really shows that you believe I did.

    That said, and understanding that a lack of registration laws make it a difficult guess, Congress did a report on it in 2012 and estimated it to be around 3% of gun owners. Even if that's doubled it wouldn't begin to be in common use. The AG of Maryland used it in arguing for restrictions.

    My evidence is the percentage of gun types gun makers have been making for a long time.
    The problem with that is that a lot of those guns are in police departments and the hands of collectors. Otherwise, the rise in the popularity of the gun has really been a recent development, in part due to a prior ban. You'll see gun companies trying their hardest to promote it though, because they know they don't have the numbers and the clock is ticking.

    You ignored the question. Let's make it clearer; when crazy people today continue to kill mass numbers of people (you don't think someone could kill 4 people with a pump shot gun, bolt or lever gun?), will you continue to just live with those deaths and adding to the body count? If someone were to propose taking guns that shoot more than one bullet per reload how would the argument be different?
    I'm not ignoring the question. You're ignoring the context. It's never been an all of nothing approach. It's always been and I've always argued for a rational balancing of interests, in approaching what technology has done to the landscape.

    There's just no rational argument behind support for ARs. They're unusual, dangerous, uncommon, and a threat to our security. They haven't been a part of our exercise of the right for most of the life of our nation, nor had a part for the overwhelming number of gun owners in this country. And given what we've learned about their misuse and our inability to address it (see: Dayton) it's time to put an end to them and to large capacity magazines as well.

    Are you saying you only own breech loaders? You know, even they can deal death very fast. Or is your definition of "very fast" confined to guns faster than what you own? Why is that the definition of "very fast"?
    Well, when all this began bump stocks were in play that transformed these into de facto submachine guns. But even as they sit these weapons are much faster than a bolt action rifle and in combination with large capacity magazines it makes them a thing a Winchester couldn't begin to match. When a weapon fires as fast as you can pull the trigger and has a hundred rounds waiting to be spent before you have to reload it's a threat to public safety that can't be reasonably justified.

    The vetting on whether those guns are "too dangerous" was already done when they were invented. They were invented and within reach of the masses long before we had a problem with crazy people killing masses for seemingly no reason. They aren't the problem.
    The problem is the ease with which these specific weapons and accoutrements accomplish killing large numbers of people in very narrow windows of time.

    And taking guns and registering every gun takes a lot of freedom from innocent people.
    No, it doesn't. We register our cars. Does it impact our ability to use them? And some guns just don't belong in the hands of people who aren't in uniform and the service that requires them, supra.

    How does being less free stop crazy people?
    So the premise is junk, but what taking easy access to these weapons does is make it harder to get and as a consequence less likely they'll be used to cause mass murder in our churches, mosques, synagogues, concert halls, schoolyards, etc.

    That's because the data is homogenized. We have better data and it shows more guns equals less violence.
    Actually, what we know is that every nation with stronger gun laws is safer and that while we have more of the worlds guns we're far less safe than those European democracies I've noted, all of which have cities, hinterlands, poor people, criminals, video games, etc.

    So when a crazy person kills a bunch of people with a lever action rifle how will the argument be different since a lever action rifle can kill people a lot faster than a breech loader can. Or don't you think someone can kill 4 people with a lever gun?
    As I said the last time you ignored it, "The question for me is balancing the reasonable exercise of the right, which can accomplish any number of legal acts, with the danger of the instruments permitted for those purposes. I think ARs cross the line where the benefit is outweighed by the risk they pose to public safety, demonstrably. People weren't doing that with lever action Winchesters and for good reason, Carrying capacity, the time it takes to chamber, aim, fire, and chamber the next round, etc."

    So to cut off your ongoing domino theory, we have a right to bear arms. Risk will come with that right. We may accidentally shoot ourselves or someone else. We may kill ourselves or someone else. We may shoot an endangered member of a species with a rifle meant for legal sport, and on and on. Some risk is unavoidable if we are to maintain a right that permits all sorts of beneficial uses, from self-defense to hunting, to purely recreational enjoyment. The AR doesn't belong in that group for the reasons noted prior.

    Yeah, laughing at the little people is one of the favorite things elitists do.
    Everyone enjoys a laugh. I enjoy laughing at you trying to repeatedly slap the elitist label on people you're judging yourself superior to.

    You propose we take innocent people's property to stop a crazy person without knowing what happened and why.
    No, I propose we outlaw a gun and magazines that are a needless risk to public safety. I oppose weapons whose legitimate tasks can be had with others that lack its singular distinction of being capable of killing a large number of people in a few breaths.

    Most people have never owned one. Most of the life of our nation the exercise of the right did not entail them. What they can do that makes them different is not a thing anyone should desire, so their elimination will cost us nothing meaningful, while their possession continues to cost us a great deal, from Sandy Hook to the next schoolyard or church, or public gathering where we'll count the dead.
    Last edited by Town Heretic; August 23rd, 2019 at 05:09 PM.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  15. #464
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,281
    Thanks
    565
    Thanked 13,243 Times in 9,259 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147855
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Every modern democracy is still standing and are going concerns.
    Opens with another logical fallacy. Still expects to be taken seriously.
    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.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 23rd, 2019)

  17. #465
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,110
    Thanks
    3,938
    Thanked 8,466 Times in 4,943 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147842
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Opens with another logical fallacy. Still expects to be taken seriously.
    Wades back in with an unsupported declaration. Never was taken seriously.


    Meanwhile, the president waited just long enough for the initial public reaction to quiet a bit after the last couple of mass murders by AR before walking back his declaration about registration, following a visit with the unprincipal's office of the NRA.

    Another thing to remember come election time.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

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
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us