User Tag List

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 51 of 51

Thread: All Things Second Amendment

  1. #46
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    25,368
    Thanks
    4,011
    Thanked 9,627 Times in 7,172 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147783
    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...



  2. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (June 15th, 2019)

  3. #47
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    9,551
    Thanks
    32,589
    Thanked 8,231 Times in 5,256 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147631
    Quote 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.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    ok doser (June 15th, 2019)

  5. #48
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    25,368
    Thanks
    4,011
    Thanked 9,627 Times in 7,172 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147783
    Quote 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

  6. #49
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,730
    Thanks
    3,799
    Thanked 8,221 Times in 4,774 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147835
    Quote 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







  7. #50
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    9,534
    Thanks
    206
    Thanked 3,095 Times in 2,078 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    403960
    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.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to The Barbarian For Your Post:

    Town Heretic (June 16th, 2019)

  9. #51
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    18,497
    Thanks
    459
    Thanked 12,145 Times in 8,680 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147844
    Quote 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.

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