2nd Amendment

Duck and cover
User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Thu May 07, 2015 6:30 pm

JO 753 wrote:Proliferation iz the root problem. The story iz further evidence.

:roll: I do not agree. The problem is bad guys, not guns.

Criminals prefer unarmed victims, since it makes their job safer. Taking guns away from responsible law abiding citizens does not make society safer. The evidence is clear that whenever that has been tried, the crime rate went up. In fact there is a growing movement in Britain to repeal the 1997 handgun ban so that citizens can defend themselves since the state is not doing it.

In the US, the courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to protect you. They certainly did not protect Ana Charle, even after she repeatedly asked for such protection.

Image

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Fri May 22, 2015 6:04 am

I'v tried many timez to get down to fundamental consepts conserning gunz, self defens, and weponz in jeneral. I never get any serious debate with the pro-gun memberz either kuz they dont understand or they are smart enuf to see the sand washing out from under their foundationz. You, xouper, hav even shied away from uzing the new material I offered in The Upside uv Gunz topic, probably being unwilling to venture into such unpopular territory.

xouper wrote:In fact there is a growing movement in Britain to repeal the 1997 handgun ban so that citizens can defend themselves since the state is not doing it.


I tried to find sumthing about that. Didnt. Pleaze link to a real newz story, not a made up Brietbart skreed.

In any case, thats a perspectiv to consider - How woud the debate be going if it started from the other side? Like in Germany or Japan, if sum significant persentaj uv the population started demanding legalization.

The absolute 1st thing that woud happen iz that the US woud be held up az an exampl uv the consequensez. The next thing woud be the NRA opening up a chapter there to spred its foolish propaganda. The 3rd thing, I hope, woud be that the majority woud realize wut a stupid mistake it woud be and their politicianz woud wizely chooz to vote agenst any increased akses to gunz.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Fri May 22, 2015 9:52 am

JO 753 wrote:I'v tried many timez to get down to fundamental consepts conserning gunz, self defens, and weponz in jeneral. I never get any serious debate with the pro-gun memberz either kuz they dont understand or they are smart enuf to see the sand washing out from under their foundationz. You, xouper, hav even shied away from uzing the new material I offered in The Upside uv Gunz topic, probably being unwilling to venture into such unpopular territory.

All of that is incorrect and is a dishonest spin on the discussion about guns on this forum.

JO 753 wrote:I never get any serious debate with the pro-gun memberz

False. I have indeed offered serious discussion concerning guns, self defense, etc, and so have several others.

JO 753 wrote:... they dont understand or they are smart enuf to see the sand washing out from under their foundationz.

False. That's an unwarranted character assassination.

JO 753 wrote:You, xouper, hav even shied away from uzing the new material I offered in The Upside uv Gunz topic, probably being unwilling to venture into such unpopular territory.

False. I already explained why I did not pursue the "new" material you posted in that other thread. I said they were weak arguments and I don't find them at all convincing.

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:In fact there is a growing movement in Britain to repeal the 1997 handgun ban so that citizens can defend themselves since the state is not doing it.

I tried to find sumthing about that. Didnt. Pleaze link to a real newz story, not a made up Brietbart skreed.

I already posted some links. Here: viewtopic.php?p=462071#p462071

JO 753 wrote:In any case, thats a perspectiv to consider - How woud the debate be going if it started from the other side? Like in Germany or Japan, if sum significant persentaj uv the population started demanding legalization.

Russia recently legalized carrying handguns for self defense, and they already had a higher homicide rate than the US before the new law. Check back in ten years and see what happened to the crime rate. The point here is not to compare Russia with other countries, but to compare Russia with itself before and after the new law.

Ukraine is currently considering legalizing handguns for self defense, and yes, I did read of an opponent of that who made a comparison to the US. The counter argument was, so what, we want guns for self defense.

The conversation is also happening in the Philippines where in 2014 a new law says journalists, priests, lawyers, doctors, nurses, accountants, and engineers will automatically be allowed to carry firearms outside their homes. The question being asked is why are other responsible law abiding citizens denied the same right?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Fri May 22, 2015 5:55 pm

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3644/britain_wants_its_guns_back

OK. The respondents to a newspaper poll overwelmingly wanted guns legalized.

But who were theze respondents?

From that article:
But statistics from the United States show that guns are used by citizens to defend themselves around eighty times more often than they are used to take a life.


That sounded ALOT like the propaganda we get from the gun lobby here. So were did the Commentator get it?

From the Daily Telegraph, apparently part uv the same media empire az Fox:

From Wiki:
On 2 September 2008, the Daily Telegraph was printed with colour on each page for the first time when it left Westferry for Newsprinters at Broxbourne, Hertfordshire, another arm of the Murdoch (Rupert Murdoch) company.....In February 2015 the chief political commentator of the Daily Telegraph, Peter Oborne resigned. Oborne accused the paper of a "form of fraud on its readers" for its coverage of the bank HSBC in relation to a Swiss tax-dodging scandal that was widely covered by other news media......
The Daily Telegraph has been politically conservative in modern times.[26] The personal links between the paper's editors and the leadership of the Conservative Party, along with the paper's generally right wing stance and influence over Conservative activists, have resulted in the paper commonly being referred to, especially in Private Eye, as the Torygraph.


And the exact same line seemz to hav orijinated here: Gun Ownerz uv America "The only no-comprimize gun lobby in Washington" - Ron Paul

So therez a little problem with your claim - The poll respondents are probably 99%+ rite wing wakkoz. (not being very familiar with British politics, I can only say 'probably', but the striking similarity to the Fox Cable Newz eko chamber crowd here in the US makes any other explanation seem unlikely)
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Fri May 22, 2015 6:05 pm

xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:I'v tried many timez to get down to fundamental consepts conserning gunz, self defens, and weponz in jeneral. I never get any serious debate with the pro-gun memberz either kuz they dont understand or they are smart enuf to see the sand washing out from under their foundationz. You, xouper, hav even shied away from uzing the new material I offered in The Upside uv Gunz topic, probably being unwilling to venture into such unpopular territory.

All of that is incorrect and is a dishonest spin on the discussion about guns on this forum.


Baloney. You added nothing to the PDDD discussion. You ignored the point about the parents uv children who killed with gunz not being the last in line uv irresponsibilty. Simply stating that you dont like my new pro-gun points duznt make them false.

The linking factor to all theze iz that they get to the fundamental consepts. I think you are smart enuf to realize that the standard issue pro-gun arguments fall apart wen confronted with theze, so your stratejy iz to ignore them and try to bury them beneath pilez uv the same old krap.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Fri May 22, 2015 6:48 pm

Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Fri May 22, 2015 8:06 pm

JO 753 wrote:So therez a little problem with your claim - The poll respondents are probably 99%+ rite wing wakkoz. (not being very familiar with British politics, I can only say 'probably', but the striking similarity to the Fox Cable Newz eko chamber crowd here in the US makes any other explanation seem unlikely)

Sorry, but those speculations and argumentum ad hominems about the poll respondents are not a valid rebuttal to my claim. On a skeptic forum such as this, if you want to refute my claim, you need legitimate arguments or evidence, not rubbish.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Fri May 22, 2015 8:11 pm

Calling the credibility uv your sours into question iz a perfectly valid & reazonabl action. You hav dun it many timez yourself.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Fri May 22, 2015 8:20 pm

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:I'v tried many timez to get down to fundamental consepts conserning gunz, self defens, and weponz in jeneral. I never get any serious debate with the pro-gun memberz either kuz they dont understand or they are smart enuf to see the sand washing out from under their foundationz. You, xouper, hav even shied away from uzing the new material I offered in The Upside uv Gunz topic, probably being unwilling to venture into such unpopular territory.

All of that is incorrect and is a dishonest spin on the discussion about guns on this forum.

Baloney. You added nothing to the PDDD discussion.

Please refresh my memory, what is PDDD and what thread is it discussed?

JO 753 wrote:You ignored the point about the parents uv children who killed with gunz not being the last in line uv irresponsibilty.

I ignored nothing. I quoted the law to you on that issue. Just because you do not understand it or agree with it, does not mean I have ignored your point. I demolished your point.

JO 753 wrote:Simply stating that you dont like my new pro-gun points duznt make them false.

I agree. I didn't say they were false. I said they were weak and unconvincing. I am not interested in using any of them in my arguments for my right to have guns. My position is already strong enough on its own merits that I do not need any help from your points.

JO 753 wrote:The linking factor to all theze iz that they get to the fundamental consepts. I think you are smart enuf to realize that the standard issue pro-gun arguments fall apart wen confronted with theze,

Sorry, but you have not shown any flaws in any of my arguments.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Fri May 22, 2015 8:32 pm

JO 753 wrote:Calling the credibility uv your sours into question iz a perfectly valid & reazonabl action.

Wrong. The validity of my arguments are not dependent upon my personal credibility. My arguments stand (or fall) on their own merits. To refute them, you must address the arguments directly, not the person making them. To claim otherwise is to commit one of the most common fallacies on this forum.

JO 753 wrote: You hav dun it many timez yourself.

You have misunderstood my intent. I do that only to show by example why it is not valid to do that. When, for example, Lance attacks the credibility of an author of a peer reviewed journal paper, then to show how ridiculous that is, I use the same criticism on his own sources.

I do not for one minute think that a person's argument is invalid merely because of some perceived character flaw.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Fri May 22, 2015 8:36 pm

xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:Calling the credibility uv your sours into question iz a perfectly valid & reazonabl action.

Wrong. The validity of my arguments are not dependent upon my personal credibility.


You obviously misred my statement.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Fri May 22, 2015 8:48 pm

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:Calling the credibility uv your sours into question iz a perfectly valid & reazonabl action.

Wrong. The validity of my arguments are not dependent upon my personal credibility.

You obviously misred my statement.

I did indeed. You are correct, I misread your statement.

Let me revise my reply:

The validity of my arguments are not dependent upon the credibility of my sources. The arguments stand (or fall) on their own merits. To refute them, you must address the arguments directly, not the person making them. To claim otherwise is to commit one of the most common fallacies on this forum.

In this particular case you are challenging the credibility of the poll respondents. All you have is your speculation they are mostly conservative wackos. Sorry, but that kind of speculation is meaningless. Especially given the huge victory of the conservatives in the recent UK elections.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Fri May 22, 2015 8:48 pm


I saw that on her show yesterday. My outrage-o-meter was also pegged, but for a different reason. I think it is outrageous to sue the seller of a lawful product merely because someone misused it illegally.

Example, if a criminal uses a Ford Pinto to kill someone, it is not valid to sue Ford or the gasoline station that sold him the gas. That's outrageous. Sorry Ms Maddow, but you are on the wrong side of that argument.

Sandy and Lonnie Phillips were given bad legal advice by their attorney. He should have known better. They should sue him for the damage he caused.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Fri May 22, 2015 8:50 pm

The Personal Doomz Day Devise starts on paje 6 uv this thred about 9 posts up frum the bottom.

Sorry, but the post number and linking to a post seem to hav been lost in the latest 'upgrade'.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Fri May 22, 2015 8:55 pm

xouper wrote:In this particular case you are challenging the credibility of the poll respondents.


I'm not challenjing their credibility, I am claiming that they can be expected to want to own gunz. They are entitled to that opinion, but wether or not thats the opinion uv most Brits iz in question.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Fri May 22, 2015 9:02 pm

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:In this particular case you are challenging the credibility of the poll respondents.

I'm not challenjing their credibility, I am claiming that they can be expected to want to own gunz. They are entitled to that opinion, but wether or not thats the opinion uv most Brits iz in question.

That's a valid question of any poll. How do you propose to answer it?

In any case, I did not claim that most Brits want their guns back. I merely said there is a "growing movement" in that direction. I very carefully did not claim any majority, for the simple reason I do not have any data for that claim.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Fri May 22, 2015 9:52 pm

JO 753 wrote:The Personal Doomz Day Devise starts on paje 6 uv this thred about 9 posts up frum the bottom.

OK, found it. I assume you are aware that you posted that in January 2013, while I was on sabbatical from this forum? Your accusation that I did not contribute to that part of the discussion is unwarranted, since I was not even here at the time.

JO 753 wrote:Sorry, but the post number and linking to a post seem to hav been lost in the latest 'upgrade'.

I see that. Forum maintenance is still ongoing, apparently. I can be patient while he sorts out all the little snags.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Sat May 23, 2015 6:34 am

I dont hav any way. It will be interesting to see if the pro-gun Brits make any prOgress.

Yes, I see that it wuz mainly Deadalus and FTH back then. I recall suspecting that you were Deadalus. Time flyz!
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Fri Sep 04, 2015 12:27 pm

Youv herd about the cop who got shot in Fox Lake IL on Toozday. It immediatly replased the newz crew shooting deths az the main story. Its only 15 milez from here and a few uv my nayborz knew him. They are still looking for the perps.

I'm gessing they will claim self defens. And really, it probably wuz to sum degree. If it wuznt outrite kill or be killed, they are likely bad boyz who woud hav been on their way to getting a chunk uv their life wasted, so choze to try this escape plan insted. This iz wut the 2nd Amendment iz all about.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Fri Sep 11, 2015 7:15 pm

Revelationz about FPS Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FPSRussia

Good to know that Dimitri iznt ded.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:46 pm

Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:39 pm


That's a textbook example of propaganda, not to mention the factual errors and rhetorical fallacies.

I give it an F for {!#%@}.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:45 pm

Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Thu Oct 15, 2015 8:43 pm

Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.


Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4721
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby Tom Palven » Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:32 am

Comparing homicide rating world-wide:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/10/rya ... /gun-lies/
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Sat Oct 17, 2015 5:18 pm

Ryan McMaken iz an idiot. Any premise you could lojikly asine to that article iz obviously stoopid, so the fact that he published it with hiz name on it AND expects peepl to take it seriously proovz it.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Sat Oct 17, 2015 8:09 pm

JO 753 wrote:Ryan McMaken iz an idiot.

You're an idiot.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:33 pm

I'v never denied it.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Sat Oct 17, 2015 11:17 pm

JO 753 wrote:Ryan McMaken iz an idiot.
xouper wrote:You're an idiot.
JO 753 wrote:I'v never denied it.

OK, well then, I'll buy you a beer and we can both be idiots. :shock: 8-)

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10144
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:21 am

xouper wrote: I do not agree. The problem is bad guys, not guns.


Two parts to that equation. You agree even law abiding citizens should not have cruise missiles....so how do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line? EG--how large a clip/magazine/drum would you allow?

On the bad guy element of the equation: Do you support 100% background checks for any gun transfers? EG-interfamily gifts? How about a requirement for locked boxes for storage and annual inspections of same? Can you describe the degree of gubment interference you would allow to control the bad guys?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 18, 2015 2:20 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote: I do not agree. The problem is bad guys, not guns.

Two parts to that equation. You agree even law abiding citizens should not have cruise missiles....

I don't remember saying that.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:so how do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line?

In my opinion, a society that values freedom will draw the line as far in favor of personal freedoms as possible. As a general principle — but still allowing for special case exceptions — I draw the line at the point where one person's freedom harms another. One obvious difficulty may be in how "harm" is defined.

I assume you've seen the bumper sticker: "your right to swing your fist stops at my nose."

[Zechariah Chafee, "Freedom of Speech in Wartime", 32 Harvard Law Review 932, 957 (1919)]

Regarding the limits to personal freedoms, perhaps you've seen this other bumper sticker: "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

[Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782]

Basically, if you aren't harming anyone (picking their pocket or breaking their leg, for example), you should be allowed to do or own whatever you want. I assume you can invent some problematic circumstances that are difficult to decide where to draw the line, but I am merely stating my general principles. Special cases may require more analysis.

In the specific case of a cruise missile, if you aren't harming anyone with it, why shouldn't you be allowed to own one? Private citizens can own tanks and fighter jets, so why not also cruise missiles?

Does that help? Or is further clarification needed?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: EG--how large a clip/magazine/drum would you allow?

Any size.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:On the bad guy element of the equation: Do you support 100% background checks for any gun transfers?

No. As a matter of principle, I oppose mandatory background checks of any kind, especially for private transfers between family and friends. As a practical matter, there is no evidence background checks solve the problem they are intended to solve.

Here's a related question you did not ask, but I would like to answer:

no one asked or wrote:On the bad guy element of the equation: Do you support mandatory registration for any guns?

No. As a matter of principle, I oppose mandatory gun registration of any kind. Especially since the Supreme Court has ruled that anyone who owns a gun illegally is exempt from any such law. It is unconstitutional to require criminals to register their guns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

Since criminals are exempt from registration, then why not also responsible law abiding citizens?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:How about a requirement for locked boxes for storage and annual inspections of same?

No. But I am in favor of holding parents responsible for preventing their children from misusing firearms. Or misusing anything else for that matter if it causes harm to someone.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Can you describe the degree of gubment interference you would allow to control the bad guys?

That's an excellent question that I haven't been asked before, so I haven't given it a lot of thought. I assume what you mean by that is how much interference of responsible law abiding citizens. Short answer: as little as possible.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10144
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 18, 2015 3:00 am

xouper--excellent absolutist response. I'd love to take each statement on its own...but that would focus on the dithering and not the main issue? I'll just have a go at the first statement:

1. "In my opinion, a society that values freedom will draw the line as far in favor of personal freedoms as possible." /// I agree.

2. As a general principle — but still allowing for special case exceptions — I draw the line at the point where one person's freedom harms another. //// I agree.

3. One obvious difficulty may be in how "harm" is defined. //// I agree.

Whaaaaaaa?????? How did THAT happen? Looks like I have to keep on going. Reload, so to speak? Can this be the infamous "logic trap" I have heard so much about but never experienced?

4. "Basically, if you aren't harming anyone (picking their pocket or breaking their leg, for example), you should be allowed to do or own whatever you want. /// I agree...basically.

5. I assume you can invent some problematic circumstances that are difficult to decide where to draw the line, but I am merely stating my general principles. Special cases may require more analysis. /// Yep.

6. In the specific case of a cruise missile, if you aren't harming anyone with it, why shouldn't you be allowed to own one? //// Because the risk of harm to others outweighs the freedom interest in mere possession? People more valuable than ownership of things. I did reach for missles having stumbled on full machine guns, flame throwers, tanks and what not before. Not much of a reason to make a law regarding very low occuring events. Think I read about someone buying and flying a Russian Mig....think it was mentioned the armament was taken off of it.

7. Private citizens can own tanks and fighter jets, /// Oh....there is the fighter jet again. I doubt the tanks and planes armanent was allowed? If so...very troubling facts you present.

8. so why not also cruise missiles? /// The only function of a cruise missile is to kill people. The mere existence of these things is a magnet to those who wish to harm people and must be under very strict security control....like on a missile base. The actual honest intent of the private citizen is irrelevant to the large societal concern. AND NOW we have the issue in hand, going back to point number one where "basic" freedoms come into conflict with one another. The right to bear arms conflicting with the right to be secure in ones daily activities or in broadest wording: the Welfare clause.

Missiles are like guns and unlike Tanks and Planes. The missiles and guns are removed from the Tanks and Planes.

What I see is a clash in "value systems." To the absolutist, gun ownership is worth the death and destruction they cause without reasonable recognition of the alternatives providing the same safety goals without the attendant pain, death, and misery to others. Can't argue value systems and their opposing views. All you can do is take a vote and live by Democracy. I don't see the Supreme Court as an impediment....they will hold as the democractic urge of the populace demands.

As to values.... the great majority of Americans support gun restrictions.... so we have dry tinder waiting for the right match. Perhaps a Presidential Assassination of some future favorite son would do it? Hilary being no help at all on this one. Maybe if the entire First Family was wiped out?

Does all come down to values. And they are.............what they are.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:47 am

I dont know where amongst all the gun topics, xouper, but you sed sumthing to the effect that 'the Paris terrorists woudnt hav been able to execute their plan in the US due to so many armed sitizenz.'

So much for that theory. The freedom for sitizenz to carry gunz had no effect in the San Bernadino attack.

In fact, the American born muslim perpetrator wuz able to legally amass hiz arsenal without raizing any flagz entirely due to the 2nd amendment and all the lawz based on it.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:09 am

JO 753 wrote:I dont know where amongst all the gun topics, xouper, but you sed sumthing to the effect that 'the Paris terrorists woudnt hav been able to execute their plan in the US due to so many armed sitizenz.'

That's because I never said that. Nor have I implied anything like that.

JO 753 wrote:The freedom for sitizenz to carry gunz had no effect in the San Bernadino attack.

You have your facts wrong, JO. The victims in that shooting did NOT have the freedom to carry guns to defend themselves. They were in a "gun free zone". Why is it that such attacks never happen at a gun show? Answer: Because criminals prefer targets that are unarmed and the government is a willing accomplice in disarming the victims, a situation I find morally reprehensible.

JO 753 wrote:In fact, the American born muslim perpetrator wuz able to legally amass hiz arsenal without raizing any flagz entirely due to the 2nd amendment and all the lawz based on it.

Given that California has already instituted the kinds of gun control President Obama keeps asking for from Congress, it seems clear that such gun control did not prevent this attack, contrary to the promises of those politicians who keep saying such controls will make us safer.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10144
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:13 am

Hey Xouper: if America was turned into a Gun Show and every fricking individual was armed with semi-automatic street sweepers...........do you think the number of deaths would go up or down?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:31 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Hey Xouper: if America was turned into a Gun Show and every fricking individual was armed with semi-automatic street sweepers...........do you think the number of deaths would go up or down?

I do not have sufficient information to make a prediction of that nature.

However, I do know for a fact that armed citizens have used guns successfully to defend themselves against criminal assaults. Also, according to official US government data, armed victims are less likely to be injured in a criminal assault than unarmed victims.

But those facts (and many others facts I am aware of) are not sufficient to make the kind of sweeping prediction you ask me to make.

I will however, predict — based on evidence from other countries that have tried it — that a major gun ban will not result in a lower homicide rate.

This is because the problem is primarily not about guns, the problem is criminals.

If you want to lower the homicide rate, then make homicides illegal.

Oh wait, we already have that and criminals don't pay any attention to those laws. So why do people think criminals will obey gun controls? Silly hoomans.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10144
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:41 am

Xouper: you refuse to predict: "dishonest/manipulative/whatever else I said"

Last stat I heard was that Homicide by Guns rate in the Western Democracies was 1/20th the rate it is in the USA. We can quibble, but do you argue the USA Rate is not multiples higher than comparable societies?

OH....I see that is exactly what you do do. Yes, Britains homicide rate went down on the ban, but then (inexplicable) went back up. but it only went back up to its 1/20th the rate of USA homicide.

Lots of confusion introduced with the concept of "mass murders" vs the routine murder rates, and now we layer on Terrorism and Even Work Place. We like to cut the baloney every which way so everyone can over focus on their favorite slice.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby JO 753 » Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:53 am

xouper wrote:I will however, predict — based on evidence from other countries that have tried it — that a major gun ban will not result in a lower homicide rate.


Like Australia?

This is because the problem is primarily not about guns, the problem is criminals.


Agen, you are forgetting domestic disputes, suisidez and aksidents.

And you are insinuating that gunz dont work; if the criminal wants you ded, any wepon he choozez will work just az well.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:39 am

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:I will however, predict — based on evidence from other countries that have tried it — that a major gun ban will not result in a lower homicide rate.

Like Australia?

In all the other countries that implemented a major gun ban, the homicide rates went up. In any case, the homicide rate in Australia was already much lower than in the US, which again points to culture as the driving factor, not the prevalance of guns.

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:This is because the problem is primarily not about guns, the problem is criminals.

Agen, you are forgetting domestic disputes, suisidez and aksidents.

You already know I have addressed that point many times before, so it is dishonest to accuse me of "forgetting". Suicides are not a valid reason to take guns away from responsible law abiding citizens. My owning a gun did not cause anyone to kill themselves.

JO 753 wrote:And you are insinuating that gunz dont work; if the criminal wants you ded, any wepon he choozez will work just az well.

No, I am not saying that. I acknowledge that guns are more effective than other weapons for killing people. That's what makes them useful for self defense. What I am saying is that in other countries, the homicide rates did not go down after a major gun ban. That suggests that the problem is not guns, the problem is criminals.

I've posted this before, and I assume you've seen it:

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-isla-vista-father-20150120-story.html

Elliot Rodger killed three people with a gun and three people with a knife.


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest