User Tag List

Page 11 of 31 FirstFirst ... 89101112131421 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 461

Thread: All Things Second Amendment

  1. #151
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,141
    Thanks
    542
    Thanked 13,012 Times in 9,144 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147853
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I think it's a paranoid fantasy I'm being asked to relate to.
    Strange. You celebrate it happening in Australia and New Zealand.

    Ah, New Zealand. Fifty-one innocent people get murdered. The government's response? Disarm thousands more people.

    And note, they call them buy backs, but they're enforced with jail terms (try avoiding that, guess what happens), so really they're confiscations.
    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.

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

    JudgeRightly (July 20th, 2019),Right Divider (July 20th, 2019)

  3. #152
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,038
    Thanks
    3,923
    Thanked 8,441 Times in 4,930 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147840
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Strange. You celebrate it happening in Australia and New Zealand.
    There's no paranoid fantasy involved in noting stronger gun laws make a nation safer.

    Ah, New Zealand. Fifty-one innocent people get murdered. The government's response? Disarm thousands more people.
    So they're following Australia's lead. I hope they have the same result as Australia after Port Arthur then. Looked up the mosque shooting there. Two semi-automatic weapons were used, I see.

    New Zealand has around 1.2 million guns among around 5 million citizens, thinking about the safety in numbers nonsense a few have raised regarding gun ownership and safety that I noted as being problematic for any number of reasons. Nearby Australia has around 25 million people and about 3.6 million guns. Australia hasn't had a mass shooting like New Zealand just experienced since it changed its gun laws.

    A man with semi-or fully automatic weapons can kill a lot of people in short order. That's what happened in that mosque. That's why the laws should have been changed and apparently were, to the exclusion of those semi-automatic guns and high capacity magazines. Good for them. It's too bad they waited until they had their own more recent Port Arthur to learn that lesson...but then, we've had a number of them and haven't learned it yet.

    Meanwhile, in Australia, they've had decades without one.

    And note, they call them buy backs, but they're enforced with jail terms (try avoiding that, guess what happens), so really they're confiscations.
    All laws are backed with consequence and serious laws typically carry jail terms for violations. It's still a buy back. So far as I know the government isn't going home to home taking weapons and they're providing some form of payment for the weapons that citizens are required to turn in.

    It should also be noted that people elect the representatives in New Zealand and that those representatives voted almost to a man (1 in opposition) for the gun measures. Also, a great many New Zealanders turned their semi-automatic weapons in before the laws were enacted and as a response to the massacre. People like New Zealander John Hart, who tweeted, "Until today I was one of the New Zealanders who owned a semi-automatic rifle. On the farm they are a useful tool in some circumstances, but my convenience doesn’t outweigh the risk of misuse.

    We don’t need these in our country. "

    No, John, you don't. Ask every nation where the people agree with you if they miss them.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







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

    annabenedetti (July 22nd, 2019)

  5. #153
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,141
    Thanks
    542
    Thanked 13,012 Times in 9,144 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147853
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    There's no paranoid fantasy involved in noting stronger gun laws make a nation safer.
    Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.

    They're following Australia's lead.
    Never a good idea.

    All laws are backed with consequence and serious laws typically carry jail terms for violations. It's still a buy back.
    You're really taken in by the words politicians use, huh? They are confiscations.

    So far as I know the government isn't going home to home taking weapons.
    No duh. The political fallout would end "careers."

    It should also be noted that people elect the representatives in New Zealand and that those representatives voted almost to a man (1 in opposition) for the gun measures. Also, a great many New Zealanders turned their semi-automatic weapons in before the laws were enacted and as a response to the massacre. People like New Zealander John Hart, who tweeted, "Until today I was one of the New Zealanders who owned a semi-automatic rifle. On the farm they are a useful tool in some circumstances, but my convenience doesnít outweigh the risk of misuse.We donít need these in our country. "No, John, you don't. Ask every nation where the people agree with you if they miss them.
    Now go find a story about a guy who is informed on the issue and post one-sided, emotional manipulation touting his stance.

    https://youtu.be/hc8YfEMS_cc
    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.

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

    JudgeRightly (July 20th, 2019)

  7. #154
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,038
    Thanks
    3,923
    Thanked 8,441 Times in 4,930 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147840
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.
    All criminal laws define what is permissible and what is not and by definition inhibit freedom. That's the price of a civil society. The question is where to draw lines, define what's reasonable, approaching the public good with a cost/benefit analysis of sorts.

    Here we have a modern problem, the instruments capable of inflicting this sort of wholesale slaughter being relatively new as an accessible part of commerce. So the "freedom" to use one of these is also fairly new. Balancing that against the deaths of children and other innocents, the foreseeable and present harm against that new exercise, well, it's not a difficult one for many of us, but everyone has to come to their own conclusion on the point.

    On Australia's lead for New Zealand.
    Never a good idea.
    I wouldn't care if Mussolini came up with antibiotics. So long as they worked.

    You're really taken in by the words politicians use, huh?
    No. I'm more known for my criticism of politicians than my praise, though here is an opportunity to get something right. Who knows, maybe they'll surprise.

    They are confiscations.
    No one is actively taking the guns, going door to door. And the government is paying people for the weapons. Whatever you want to call it, that's what's happening.

    The political fallout would end "careers."
    That's how elections work. If you take a stand your constituency disagrees with they tend to vote you out.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







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

    annabenedetti (July 22nd, 2019)

  9. #155
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,141
    Thanks
    542
    Thanked 13,012 Times in 9,144 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147853
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    All criminal laws define what is permissible and what is not and by definition inhibit freedom.


    You think freedom includes lawlessness?

    It's clear that you do not know what the law is or what it's for.

    The question is where to draw lines, define what's reasonable, approaching the public good with a cost/benefit analysis of sorts.
    It's not reasonable to react to a murderer by disarming law-abiding people through gun confiscations.

    Here we have a modern problem, the instruments capable of inflicting this sort of wholesale slaughter being relatively new as an accessible part of commerce. So the "freedom" to use one of these is also fairly new.
    And the law is ancient, yet it is good because it applies regardless of the tools available. What you advocate is more and more rules as problems arise instead of the law, which done right teaches men regardless of the time.

    Balancing that against the deaths of children and other innocents, the foreseeable and present harm against that new exercise, well, it's not a difficult one for many of us, but everyone has to come to their own conclusion on the point.
    Emotional manipulation is boring.

    I wouldn't care if Mussolini came up with antibiotics. So long as they worked.
    Hint: Gun confiscations didn't work. There has been no downturn in murder rates because of them.

    No one is actively taking the guns, going door to door. And the government is paying people for the weapons. Whatever you want to call it, that's what's happening.
    Gun confiscations. It's happening.

    That's how elections work. If you take a stand your constituency disagrees with they tend to vote you out.
    Which just means politicians need to use special language to implement their fascist ideals.
    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.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (July 21st, 2019),Right Divider (July 21st, 2019),Yorzhik (July 21st, 2019)

  11. #156
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,038
    Thanks
    3,923
    Thanked 8,441 Times in 4,930 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147840
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    You think freedom includes lawlessness?
    I said that laws impede your freedom. They proscribe and prohibit, define its parameters. And there's no inherent vice in that. The value of a law is found in what it serves.

    It's clear that you do not know what the law is or what it's for.
    As between us and on the topic of the law, I'm a licensed practitioner, having met objective metrics for that note. You? Not so much.

    It's not reasonable to react to a murderer by disarming law-abiding people through gun confiscations.
    Most people don't own ARs and bump stocks. And removing those guns from the public isn't disarming them, only restricting how they are armed.

    It's entirely reasonable to remove from the stream of commerce those things we find pose an unintended threat to the public safety that overwhelms their utility.

    And the law is ancient, yet it is good because it applies regardless of the tools available. What you advocate is more and more rules as problems arise instead of the law, which done right teaches men regardless of the time.
    I advocate what works everywhere it is applied. We have laws aimed at the same end, they're just inferior to the laws of nations doing a better job.

    Hint: Gun confiscations didn't work.
    Stronger gun laws demonstrably work.

    There has been no downturn in murder rates because of them.
    We know countries with stronger gun laws have lower rates of gun violence and homicides, but the problem with trying to speak to a downturn in murder rates is that murder rates are in decline in general. That said, we can reason easily enough that gun laws of the sort that ban access to the weapons I'm speaking about will necessarily impact murder rates, and reduce them.

    Take the Las Vegas shooting. If that fellow hadn't had the ARs he had he wouldn't have been able to kill that many people. The same could be said for most if not all of the people who killed in the places I noted. Now unless the argument is that all those murdered people would have been murdered by some other person or means, it's logically impossible to suggest there's no impact on rate. It may be incremental in the larger setting of suicides and accidents, but it's still a reduction and that's the aim.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (July 22nd, 2019)

  13. #157
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    10,051
    Thanks
    34,070
    Thanked 8,576 Times in 5,503 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147638
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Take the Las Vegas shooting. If that fellow hadn't had the ARs he had he wouldn't have been able to kill that many people. The same could be said for most if not all of the people who killed in the places I noted. Now unless the argument is that all those murdered people would have been murdered by some other person or means, it's logically impossible to suggest there's no impact on rate. It may be incremental in the larger setting of suicides and accidents, but it's still a reduction and that's the aim.
    Blame the availability of weapons rather than the one using them, is what you're saying.

    You're trying to make it impossible to commit crimes, rather than making it so that people don't want to commit crimes.

    Do you really think that the man would have been deterred by the lack of the kinds of weapons that he had? Of course he wouldn't have been. He would have either gone to the black market for them, or he would have used a different weapon.

    And then you'd be calling for bans on the kinds of weapons he used.

    Instead, what would would have prevented (and I use that term loosely here) the LV shootings from happening is the law "do not murder," and the punishment of execution for murderers, and for those conspiring to commit murder, and for attempted murderers.

    Such a law would have made the man think long and hard about committing such a crime, because people inherently try to keep themselves from dying or being killed, even criminals, and he probably would have chosen to not stockpile weapons in that room, let alone open the window and start shooting.

    And none of that requires banning any kind of custom part for any weapon. Because weapons are just tools, and banning tools doesn't ban behavior, especially when said behavior is destructive.

  14. #158
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    15,891
    Thanks
    14,453
    Thanked 21,869 Times in 12,378 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147713

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I said that laws impede your freedom. They proscribe and prohibit, define its parameters. And there's no inherent vice in that. The value of a law is found in what it serves.
    You have a strange idea of what freedom means. It does NOT mean "anything goes".

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    As between us and on the topic of the law, I'm a licensed practitioner, having met objective metrics for that note. You? Not so much.
    A fallacious appeal to authority to "support" your opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Most people don't own ARs and bump stocks. And removing those guns from the public isn't disarming them, only restricting how they are armed.
    Restricting their freedom... got it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    It's entirely reasonable to remove from the stream of commerce those things we find pose an unintended threat to the public safety that overwhelms their utility.
    Opinions vary on this topic.

    Some of us feel that it is unreasonable to limit honest people's right to ownership of some weapons that you don't want them to have.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (July 21st, 2019)

  16. #159
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,038
    Thanks
    3,923
    Thanked 8,441 Times in 4,930 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147840
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Blame the availability of weapons rather than the one using them, is what you're saying.
    No, I'm saying we can make it harder for the evil man or nutter to accomplish his end, AND we can do it without abolishing the right to bear arms.

    Do you really think that the man would have been deterred by the lack of the kinds of weapons that he had?
    I think that opportunity is often a motivator, that if you leave a loaded gun on your doorstep you may see a violence in your neighborhood that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

    And here's the thing, where those weapons aren't in the stream of commerce we don't see a comparative uptick in some other means of mass murder. So yeah, if you make it harder to do a thing fewer people, especially those with mental issues, will accomplish that thing.

    And then you'd be calling for bans on the kinds of weapons he used.
    No, but I can see how you need to believe that to maintain some sense of opposition. No, I'm a gun owner and defender of the right, but I also believe the the right to bear arms is not the right to bear every sort in the exercise of that freedom.

    Instead, what would would have prevented (and I use that term loosely here) the LV shootings from happening is the law "do not murder," and the punishment of execution for murderers, and for those conspiring to commit murder, and for attempted murderers.
    We already have laws against murder and otherwise you're back to advocating a wholesale change to the criminal justice system that is a terrific thing to discuss ad nauseam, but has no traction in the realm of probable actions. What I'm speaking to has already happened once, to a lesser extent, and is a reasonable extension of approach within our system of existing law.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (July 22nd, 2019)

  18. #160
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,038
    Thanks
    3,923
    Thanked 8,441 Times in 4,930 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147840
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
    You have a strange idea of what freedom means. It does NOT mean "anything goes".
    Rather, Only if you don't own a Merriam-Webster.

    "Freedom: the quality or state of being free: such as: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action."

    A fallacious appeal to authority to "support" your opinion.
    Rather, I met a bone-headed, subjective evaluation with a distinction.

    Now maybe you'd go to any guy with a good opinion of himself alone for legal advice, but I'm betting that most would rather find a licensed practitioner. At least if the matter concerned their own freedom.

    Restricting their freedom... got it.
    So NOW you're okay with noting that freedom is choice.

    Opinions vary on this topic.
    Opinions vary about whether the earth is flat, except among people with enough education to know better. So that's not saying much.

    Some of us feel that it is unreasonable to limit honest people's right to ownership of some weapons that you don't want them to have.
    You mean above the right to own some weapons distinguished only by their ability to facilitate a thing no one should reasonably desire. Just so.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (July 22nd, 2019)

  20. #161
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,891
    Thanks
    2,779
    Thanked 4,823 Times in 2,896 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147737
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    You mean above the right to own some weapons distinguished only by their ability to facilitate a thing no one should reasonably desire. Just so.
    Like an AK-47? I know a couple of police officers that have/need them.... Its always a slippery slope with these 'bans.' I keep thinking about a guy who might own a tank. Sure, there are problems, but so is owning a bulldozer. We don't really see that many tank or bulldozer attacks. I personally don't want or need an AK-47 or a tank. My cop and military family members do, and it seems reasonable for their reasoning. Is there no balance, capability, possibility for a solution?
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Lon For Your Post:

    Town Heretic (July 22nd, 2019)

  22. #162
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,141
    Thanks
    542
    Thanked 13,012 Times in 9,144 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147853
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I said that laws impede your freedom. They proscribe and prohibit, define its parameters. And there's no inherent vice in that. The value of a law is found in what it serves.
    Which shows that you don't understand the law or what it is for.

    I'm a licensed practitioner.
    The law is given freely to all men. There is no bar to attainment.

    You don't understand the law or what it is for.

    You? Not so much.
    Nope. I have just as much right to and ability to understand the law as the next man. It takes years of study to fool yourself into believing that an education grants you more privileged access to the law.

    Most people don't own ARs and bump stocks. And removing those guns from the public isn't disarming them, only restricting how they are armed.
    Ordering people to turn over their guns is not disarming them. Gotcha.

    How many years of law degrees does it take to believe this?

    It's entirely reasonable to remove from the stream of commerce those things we find pose an unintended threat to the public safety that overwhelms their utility.
    "Unintended threat"!? There is no "unintended" threat. What in Earth are you talking about?

    These guns are designed to kill people. The threat is very intended. You just don't like it that men can defend themselves.

    I advocate what works everywhere it is applied.
    Banning cars would end traffic fatalities.

    Stronger gun laws demonstrably work.
    If you remove all the guns, nobody can shoot anybody.

    Wake us up when you have got something not inane.

    We know countries with stronger gun laws have lower rates of gun violence.
    When you ban cars, traffic crashes stop.

    and homicides
    Nope.

    Gun laws of the sort that ban access to the weapons I'm speaking about will necessarily impact murder rates, and reduce them.
    Except that's not happened anywhere such laws have been implemented and won't happen in the future.

    Take the Las Vegas shooting. If that fellow hadn't had the ARs he had he wouldn't have been able to kill that many people.
    And if we banned elevators, he wouldn't have been able to transport all his equipment to the 32nd floor.

    The same could be said for most if not all of the people who killed in the places I noted. Now unless the argument is that all those murdered people would have been murdered by some other person or means, it's logically impossible to suggest there's no impact on rate. It may be incremental in the larger setting of suicides and accidents, but it's still a reduction and that's the aim.
    You forgot to factor in the lives saved by men armed and ready to defend themselves.

    https://youtu.be/B4HEchh0XD8
    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.

  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (July 21st, 2019),Yorzhik (July 21st, 2019)

  24. #163
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,038
    Thanks
    3,923
    Thanked 8,441 Times in 4,930 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147840
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    I have just as much right to and ability to understand the law as the next man
    Go get it. I love an optimist.

    . It takes years of study to fool yourself into believing that an education grants you more privileged access to the law.
    And it only appears to take a moment and a little wind to talk yourself into believing you know something with no external and objective validation.

    Ordering people to turn over their guns is not disarming them.
    Not if they can have other guns, no.

    How many years of law degrees does it take to believe this?
    Years of law degrees?

    "Unintended threat"!? There is no "unintended" threat. What in Earth are you talking about?
    Unless you believe that these guns were designed to accomplish mass murderers that consequence would fall firmly into the unintended consequence category.

    You just don't like it that men can defend themselves.
    If you can't defend yourself with the guns I advocate you'll only hurt yourself or someone else with any other.

    Banning cars would end traffic fatalities.
    We have to have cars. We don't have to have ARs. There are other guns that can do what we need them to do while lacking the capacity to do what no sane individual should ever want done.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  25. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (July 22nd, 2019)

  26. #164
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,141
    Thanks
    542
    Thanked 13,012 Times in 9,144 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147853
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Go get it. I love an optimist.


    And it only appears to take a moment and a little wind to talk yourself into believing you know something with no external and objective validation.
    The law was given to all men. Pretending that a degree is necessary to access it is the height of arrogance.

    You do not know what the law is or what it is for.

    Not if they can have other guns, no.
    Don't worry, we soon won't.

    Unless you believe that these guns were designed to accomplish mass murderers that consequence would fall firmly into the unintended consequence category.
    Is reading your second language? Go back and read what I wrote these guns are for.

    If you can't defend yourself with the guns I advocate you'll only hurt yourself or someone else with any other.
    And who are you again?

    We prefer liberty to the dictatorial demands of bureaucratic Nazis like you would have in charge.

    We have to have cars.
    No, we don't.

    We don't have to have ARs.
    We don't have to bow to your demands, until you rally enough political momentum to get men with guns to enforce them.

    There are other guns that can do what we need them to do while lacking the capacity to do what no sane individual should ever want done.
    No, there aren't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post

    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.
    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.

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

    JudgeRightly (July 22nd, 2019)

  28. #165
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,038
    Thanks
    3,923
    Thanked 8,441 Times in 4,930 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147840
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    The law was given to all men. Pretending that a degree is necessary to access it is the height of arrogance.
    I'm talking about the law of the land here. You can self-promote yourself as an expert in whatever else suits your narrative.

    Is reading your second language?
    The guy who thinks, "How many years of law degrees does it take to believe this?" is running a marathon without legs when it comes to challenging anyone on how to read or write the English language.

    Here's how it actually went, for those who might be as confused as Stripe is pretending to be.

    Me: It's entirely reasonable to remove from the stream of commerce those things we find pose an unintended threat to the public safety that overwhelms their utility.

    Stripe: "Unintended threat"!? There is no "unintended" threat. What in Earth are you talking about?

    So I told him.

    And who are you again?
    A voice of reason in the wilderness. And you're a little thicket.

    On the necessity of cars.
    No, we don't.
    I keep forgetting you're a foreigner. Look, your country may be the size of a postage stamp, but here we cover distances and need the things. We do outlaw unsafe vehicles from taking the road though.

    We don't have to bow to your demands,
    We don't do much bowing here, but you're free to do whatever you want in your country. Here...here you can't even vote.

    until you rally enough political momentum to get men with guns to enforce them.
    Don't really need to do that here. We're an essentially law abiding people. And attrition, along with the inability to manufacture or sell the weapons in question will take care of things over time.

    On guns that can do the job without ARs.
    No, there aren't.
    All evidence to the contrary, given the weapons I'm in favor of did an ample job before the ones I oppose existed.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  29. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (July 22nd, 2019)

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