Guns again...

Duck and cover
User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11306
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Guns again...

Postby Major Malfunction » Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:00 am

This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: Guns again...

Postby nmblum88 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:07 am

clarsct wrote:NMB...

On "An armed society is a polite society", I posit the following simple questions:
Would you be rude to someone who is armed? Even if you were similiarly armed?

QED

My points are simple to address. Prohibition led to a marked rise in gang violence. The War on Drugs is simply another form of Prohibition. The War on Drugs leads to gang violence. All I have seen is a correlation between the amount of guns per capita in the US, and the number of murders. As we science-ey type folks know, correlation is not the same as causation. I believe there is better reason to say that the War on Drugs is involved in why the US has more shootings, along with the size of our borders, and where they are situated, geographically. A gun is an inanimate object. Putting a gun in a room does not lead to more murder in that room. No more than placing a book of matches in a room leads to more arson. To say that the book of matched causes arson does not seem to be a well-reasoned argument.

People are focused on the wrong thing. It is our policies that are leading to more murders. These spree killings make eye-grabbing headlines. But they are a tiny, tiny fraction of the murders commited in the USA. People kill people. The question is why? Simply because they could? Or is there more motive?
The song 'Smuggler's Blues' put it right out in the open: 'We carry guns because we always carry cash.' Like twenty years ago or so. I don't understand why this is a difficult concept.




It isn't difficult for those emancipated from conventional thinking, the iconoclasts, the exceptional, the luminous.
But for poor simple peasants like myself, those of us who don't read, study, think clearly, obviously such deep thoughts don't come as easily as they do to you and yours.
So it is incumbent upon you to be patient with us.
Speak slowly.
Use one syllable words,
Keep your sentences brief.
Repeat the same thing over and over until eventually… well, we may never really clearly understand them… but we will advance enough to at least be able to repeat your injunctions back to you on command.
Educating the deprived of education and wit… perhaps even those benighted whose lack of culture may have resulted in their never having heard of "Smuggler's Blues" as a departure point for understanding the way the world works, the process may take a long time.
But it will be worth it.
Because once indoctrinated we bovine- like creatures whose purpose on earth is but to tend your vineyards and deliver your prescriptions, are staunchly loyal.
And to a fault: we actually volunteer to fight your wars, and protect your rights above our own.
Even acting against our own best interest on behalf of an inspiring leader like yourself.
So try it.

Norma Manna Blum
P.S. Ask KennyC. … he knows.

NMB
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: Guns again...

Postby nmblum88 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:28 am





We are starting to measure the passage of time by slaughters… "before Columbine…. after Sandy Hook…"
But enough counting…. it is agreed that we are an anomaly among men, troubled, and more to be pitied than scorned…
We commit that most abnormal of acts: we put our own young in harm's way.
Okay,
Understood.
But what would you suggest, given the reality of American life, the poor and ineffectual laws, and inequitable justice, the history driven violence, the failing institutions, the exaggerated promise that could only lead to dangerous disappointment,, a whole country having so much and enjoying it so little… what should we DO about it?
Because it is quite possible that the it is NOT just the guns…… there is something more, something insidious about what seems like a national death wish: we seem to share a national oddity: an odd pleasure in waiting for the next shoe to drop: a new and worse slaughter.
But when?
And where will it happen?

NMB
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11306
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Guns again...

Postby Major Malfunction » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:23 am

Of course I can't give you the answers. It seems to me, and arguably the rest of the world, that the US has gone insane. If I were a Yank, I'd emigrate. Post haste.

I will, however, suggest abolishing corporate corruption of government as a first step.You have to tidy up the government before you can take real steps. I mean, they're so corrupt, they're even writing laws to allow corruption!

Then you need proper gun control, give the EPA its dentures back, end drug prohibition, get fundamental religion out of politics and education, improve education, improve health and social welfare, reign in the bankers and other corporations by taking away their ridiculous "personhood" and imposing some regulation on markets, mercilessly slash the military budget to pay for it all, invest heavily in science and high technological manufacturing of socially beneficial projects like green energy and national infrastructure for jobs; and give people a reason to live other than a life of drudgery serving the Lord$ of the Bling.

I mean, 80 people own half of all the world's wealth. What are they doing with it? Sitting on it. Isn't that insane???

Corporations are yours, and becoming the world's, problem. You lot invented them, and gave them unlimited power. What did you think would happen? Capitalism is a failure, just as much as communism. Socialism is the middle path.

But I imagine things will get worse before they improve. I'd definitely emigrate.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Guns again...

Postby fromthehills » Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:07 pm

nmblum wrote:FTH:
You know, I'm sure, that I do not consider you a pawn of the NRA, nor thoughtless, nor potentially homicidal.
Quite the opposite.
I read carefully what you write about guns; I do understand that you love yours in much the same way that I love my Cacti, or my books, or my music, or human foibles … or for that matter love for its own sake.…
But love DOES, too often, reduce our critical faculties…. and from bereft of, to nil.
Love can in fact rob us of reason, make us say, think, do things that were love not involved would appear as crazy to ourselves as they appear to the outside world.

So before I respond to your last post, please make clear what you mean by 'not feeling comfortable in gun restricted places.'

Does that mean Paris?
A Laker's game?
A Rock concert?
Any possible public transportation anywhere in the world?
A sale at Bloomingdale's?


NMB


Mass shootings happen in places where guns are restricted. Campus, military bases, schools, churches, theaters….there aren't any in a gun show, NRA meetings, stupid Tea Party rallies.

My wife wants to drive up, and camp on the Oregon coast. Go through California and up. I don't want to, unless we go up through Idaho, and then over. California is too restrictive, and I'm not traveling without being armed.

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: Guns again...

Postby nmblum88 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:58 pm

fromthehills wrote:
nmblum wrote:FTH:
You know, I'm sure, that I do not consider you a pawn of the NRA, nor thoughtless, nor potentially homicidal.
Quite the opposite.
I read carefully what you write about guns; I do understand that you love yours in much the same way that I love my Cacti, or my books, or my music, or human foibles … or for that matter love for its own sake.…
But love DOES, too often, reduce our critical faculties…. and from bereft of, to nil.
Love can in fact rob us of reason, make us say, think, do things that were love not involved would appear as crazy to ourselves as they appear to the outside world.

So before I respond to your last post, please make clear what you mean by 'not feeling comfortable in gun restricted places.'

Does that mean Paris?
A Laker's game?
A Rock concert?
Any possible public transportation anywhere in the world?
A sale at Bloomingdale's?


NMB


Mass shootings happen in places where guns are restricted. Campus, military bases, schools, churches, theaters….there aren't any in a gun show, NRA meetings, stupid Tea Party rallies.

My wife wants to drive up, and camp on the Oregon coast. Go through California and up. I don't want to, unless we go up through Idaho, and then over. California is too restrictive, and I'm not traveling without being armed.


I choose not to believe that I read that.
Or that you wrote it.
Unless you are pulling my leg… and my bad leg at that, a sort of deliberate cruelty that goes with disillusionment.
It is above all HUMORLESS.
Not the real you.
On the other hand, if you are serious… have a great trip.
Idaho does have some spectacular scenery.
And of course it does have loads of interesting Mormons, with whom you can have wonderful conversations about science while you are tasting of what is probably the worst food in the world where drought and starvation are not on the menu.
Oh, and commiserations to the Missus…. she sounds like a lively, reasonably life-affirming person despite having to drag such a burden along through life's campsites.

NMB
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11306
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Guns again...

Postby Major Malfunction » Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:14 pm

fromthehills wrote:Mass shootings happen in places where guns are restricted. Campus, military bases, schools, churches, theaters….there aren't any in a gun show, NRA meetings, stupid Tea Party rallies.

My wife wants to drive up, and camp on the Oregon coast. Go through California and up. I don't want to, unless we go up through Idaho, and then over. California is too restrictive, and I'm not traveling without being armed.

That's some serious paranoia you have there, From. It's restricting your personal freedom. You're modifying your behaviour for fear. That doesn't sound like the land of the free to me. It sounds like the land of fear.

I live in a city of 3.5 million people. Only the police carry guns around here. I've never felt the need for a gun. I've felt unsafe many times, when drunk dickheads have tried to pick me, but I have words and legs. And as a last resort I'll fight tooth and nail. But I've never had to. I could outrun Usain Bolt on an adrenaline surge! I haven't kept this pretty face by getting into fights, you know.

But I'll grant you some leeway on your paranoia. You're a Yank in the US. You exist within the insane asylum. You're a product of the insane culture of insulated, and meticulously engineered, through mass media propaganda, inculcated fear.

Just like any other dictatorship.

Go for a nice long holiday in Europe, or here in Australia. And leave your guns at home. You don't need them.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: Guns again...

Postby nmblum88 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:02 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:
fromthehills wrote:Mass shootings happen in places where guns are restricted. Campus, military bases, schools, churches, theaters….there aren't any in a gun show, NRA meetings, stupid Tea Party rallies.

My wife wants to drive up, and camp on the Oregon coast. Go through California and up. I don't want to, unless we go up through Idaho, and then over. California is too restrictive, and I'm not traveling without being armed.

That's some serious paranoia you have there, From. It's restricting your personal freedom. You're modifying your behaviour for fear. That doesn't sound like the land of the free to me. It sounds like the land of fear.

I live in a city of 3.5 million people. Only the police carry guns around here. I've never felt the need for a gun. I've felt unsafe many times, when drunk dickheads have tried to pick me, but I have words and legs. And as a last resort I'll fight tooth and nail. But I've never had to. I could outrun Usain Bolt on an adrenaline surge! I haven't kept this pretty face by getting into fights, you know.

But I'll grant you some leeway on your paranoia. You're a Yank in the US. You exist within the insane asylum. You're a product of the insane culture of insulated, and meticulously engineered, through mass media propaganda, inculcated fear.

Just like any other dictatorship.

Go for a nice long holiday in Europe, or here in Australia. And leave your guns at home. You don't need them.

Perhaps he is being ironic.
Much as I think you may be when you suggest that American who don't wish to live in an armed camp, or locked inside their homes for the course of a life span, simply move else where.
You too are making a joke on the tragedies of others.
It is no small thing to emigrate, to leave the home one for the most part loves deeply and is the repository of all that one is or ever hopes to be….for good or ill, and cliche ridden as it is, and terrible poetry to boot, "this is mine own, my native land…."
the world is a terrific place to visit, but I can't really live there.
No o other language will ever be mine.
And wherever I go, I take crazy America with me…
So why even bother?
I'm not going anywhere despite that fact that guns are symptomatic of something much worse which is that before our illness gets better many more or us…and our much vaunted Constitution will suffer greatly for it… while men and women who have no sense of what it means to govern will rise to the tope and do a lot of damage before they too disappear into the sunset, sunrise of history.

No… I like it here…
And I'm not even going to suggest that you open your arms instead to FTH.
That'a up to you.

NMB
Last edited by nmblum88 on Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: Guns again...

Postby nmblum88 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:48 pm

I will admit it's hard to leave this thread behind to go smell the manure piles elsewhere…..
Perhaps because hope springs eternal in the human psyche and I think that the next time I pull it up, it will be full of messages more attendant to both thought AND secular humanism.
But…. no…. here we are, still in the middle of Idaho.
Scurrying, however, to get to Oregon before another school shooting causes the border to be closed to travelers still in control of our faculties.

I do have a serious question for FTH, though…. just to give him every benefit of the doubt:
"Is it possible, FTH, that you just momentarily misplaced your own bag of dancing little yellow balls that let people know what's funny and what isn't, especially among commentaries that aren't funny at all?"
And that you will find them, and soon?
And then bounce the hell out of them when your next offering appears?"

Hurry up.
Answer.
Before I reluctantly take my already packed suitcase, and move to someplace safe, like Israel's West Bank…… or the Congo
Where I will sorely miss your wonderfully well developed sense of fun, and your talent for making me laugh, and (occasionally) making me think from a perspective not my own.
For which I still 'thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.
And thank you.

NMB
P.S. Did I forget to thank you?
Just an oversight.
I wouldn't want to be a loser in the battle of the "thank you-s."
So here's another one for today, just in case… thank you.
And one for tomorrow in case I'm caught in the crosshairs of either a deranged survivalist or an overly stressed out grocery clerk… THANK YOU,

NMB
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12218
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby JO 753 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:19 pm

clarsct wrote: Putting a gun in a room does not lead to more murder in that room.


Incorrect.

The lojik:

Since you rote murder the room woud also require at least 2 peepl for the experiment. So, 2 peepl in a room with no gun, will there be a murder within a spesified period uv time?

The thing with peeps iz that they hav varying levelz uv strength, enerjy, intellijens, anger, fear, etc, so with no gun, the effort required to murder sumwun can be enuf to stop them. Put a gun in the room and that effort goez WAY down, even compared to the room with all sorts uv other weponz in it. Gunz work, man! They work very well.

But spesifying murder iz also incorrect. We are talking about all the damaj cauzed by gunz - murder, suicide, aksidentl deth & injury, property damaj. Put a gun in the room with just 1 person and the chansez uv all thoze goez way up. (granted, if you spesify bullet proof wallz, floor & ceiling the murder part iznt possibl until sumwun openz the door)

The stats:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: Guns again...

Postby nmblum88 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:54 pm

JO 753 wrote:
clarsct wrote: Putting a gun in a room does not lead to more murder in that room.


Incorrect.

The lojik:

Since you rote murder the room woud also require at least 2 peepl for the experiment. So, 2 peepl in a room with no gun, will there be a murder within a spesified period uv time?

The thing with peeps iz that they hav varying levelz uv strength, enerjy, intellijens, anger, fear, etc, so with no gun, the effort required to murder sumwun can be enuf to stop them. Put a gun in the room and that effort goez WAY down, even compared to the room with all sorts uv other weponz in it. Gunz work, man! They work very well.

But spesifying murder iz also incorrect. We are talking about all the damaj cauzed by gunz - murder, suicide, aksidentl deth & injury, property damaj. Put a gun in the room with just 1 person and the chansez uv all thoze goez way up. (granted, if you spesify bullet proof wallz, floor & ceiling the murder part iznt possibl until sumwun openz the door)

The stats:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058


LOL

Jo… I just tested "putting a gun into a room does not lead to more murder in that room" on a group of uninvolved but not mentally impaired coffee drinkers.
They pronounced it perfect for the random Deepak Chopra remarks app, but too long for embroidering on pillows for FTH's couch where he relaxes to read his manual and think about defending his family from horrors only imaginable to the Marquis de Sade as if he were a member of the Nat Turner Rebellion.
Or a part of the Mau Mau of Kenya… and you know what THEY did when they got fed up with the White man's taking over the neighborhood.

When, Jo… do you get to the point when you recognize HOPELESS written across the sky by the great sky -pilot?
Probably when you get to the same point that I was at when I realized this is just a big joke and decided to laugh at it until my bullet riddled body is removed from my castle, in the appropriately named body bag….
Having been reduced to that air-conditioned state, after getting between a guy in a white hat, and a guy in a black hat, who were presumably shooting at each other until I got in their way, imagining, arrogantly I'm sure, that I was just going to the grocery to buy a bottle of milk.
Let's lighten up a bit and admit that to the extent that there is a WE here among the non- gun folk, the WE can't win against the inarguable brilliance of "if you put a gun in a room… "etc…
Because rationality, logic has no place in any argument that includes either guns or inanities like that.

LOL… it IS funny… only SHOOTING the author of such a remark will suit the crime of having strung those words into that sentence.


Norma …
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:55 pm

Sry before hand for the late reply.

Scott Mayers wrote: I admire the American constitution for its initial Amendment, but this does not mean that all that is constitutional is perfectly admirable in the same way. Disagreeing with one of them does not require an automatic agreement to them all.


I agree, but you said quite plainly, “My point was to suggest the motive for how or why the American people defend this law with unusual comparison to all other people in the world who, as people, are just as potentially reasonable/unreasonable as anywhere. To me, the preservation of such a law is one of pride, not logic or normal rationale.”
I was comparing the value of other amendments with this one to properly reflect on your argument that the behavior of others countries has something to say. Which I hoped to show it does not based on the lack of conviction others countries have with other very plain concepts. It was an example, not to defend the constitution as a whole, but as a retort to your implications.

I hope my argument makes better sense now because I am not confident I can word my original reply any better.

Scott Mayers wrote: Freedom from governmental impositions of creating laws of a religious nature is universally good regardless of which country you deal with on a sound foundation. This is not the same for a right to bear arms universally because regardless of how you look at it, the power to aggress always favors anyone who wields a force to offend or defend by the use of weapons arbitrarily. If we all had perfectly equal individual powers to wield anything with destructive power universally, we'd all be dead by now if only due to the minor disagreement by any individual and dependent upon the range of that weapon's ability to do more harm. The more harmful it is, the more inevitability of this to occur.


You make incredibly arrogant assumptions with your claim. Our history shows that this amendment in practice does not motivate people to kill. Rather it is something else. It seems based on recent child related shooting that something new is occurring or has been introduced into the mix. Why are people so averse to this probability? Right now no actual reasoning exists to suggest the problem is with the freedom. Although many people really WISH it to be the case.

Scott Mayers wrote: A gun represents a tool that has the potential to harm a large range of individuals way beyond one's normal capacity to by nature. It's bad enough that nature has already discriminantly favored some people with natural forces to do harm over others. As civilized beings, we have also evolved the intellect which allows us to potentially use it in order to defeat some of these other natural inherent tendencies of which our former natural aggressions have imposed upon us to compete for resources. But if we are to use this intellect in an opposing way to our aggressive tendencies in anybody, regardless of who it is, we have to encourage means to both equalize our powers as individuals as well as weaken those things which enhance our natural aggressions. Guns only add more force to empower our aggressive natures by default rather than defeat them. Instead of encouraging individuals to arm in the case of potential aggression by larger groups, whether this be a government or some subset of people anywhere, wouldn't it be better to approach trying to find means in which not only individuals as entities are able to wield such powers, but those larger entities like governments?


You ended with a question here, so in reverse order. If your question is suggesting smaller government I am all for this, but connecting individual powers to government power is still not the same. Responsibilities of the invidual are not the same responsibilities of an office which administers these rights. The government must protect it’s people from threat of invasion. The means by which they do this gives no reflection on the individual’s right to bear arms. I really hope I don’t need to point out this distinction any further.

On your idea that guns are a tool of harm and we need to ban this perversion of nature. I would agree that the idea of a gun, or weapon, is a barbaric appeal. Do you civilize a person by caging or educating? I propose that restricting freedom is not a solution and having the freedom only empowers motive for good, not evil. It’s precisely a lack of education or maybe moral reflection that is an issue for gun owners. Maybe allowing private practices to prescribe over the counter drugs is an issue. Maybe we live in a society completely dominated by images, not ideas and maybe it’s an abuse of entertainment which get’s people off on the idea of blowing away a classroom of friends. This is all speculation, but you point to a law and say the issue is with the option to buy a gun.

I’d ask you not to binge on this militia concept. If you do not understand how the potential for a people to organize by force could be used as an effective last resort then you do not understand history. If you personally uphold that use-of-force is useless then you are a pacifist.
To deny what it means to live in a free society in the face of violence is a position not of intelligence, but of cowardice. What you preach is idealism.

Scott Mayers wrote: What happens as individuals keep imposing a 'right' to bear arms locally, only justifies an even bigger reason why larger organizations demand ever bigger ones themselves. It only escalates the effect of aggression instead and makes these bigger entities even more potentially able to cause the very harm that the Amendment to bear arms was intended to protect against.


Why do people continue to compare organizations as being a person? An organization is not an individual. I don’t care what the media or lawyers say on this retarded idea. Your problem here is upholding this fact, not individual freedoms.

Scott Mayers wrote: I hoped that I clarified my distinction in the last post with regards to some of this. My argument shows that while it is in individual human nature to be the cause of 'pulling the trigger', we still have the problem that in order to resolve any individual or group intentions to violence by these tools, the only way to do this is to find a way to disarm the capacity of these same people to do harm in the first place everywhere. If you argue that individuals should be allowed this capacity, it has to be universally applied to all people while doing the reverse to any particular group of individuals (like governments) to have such powers collectively. That is, ideally, the only way this might have effect is if you don't even allow things like police forces or armies to have unusual separate precedence over the individual to wield weapons except as equal individuals indistinguishable from any other. This is not possible.


I hear you loud and clear. You address the “out of sight, out of mind” solution. You clearly feel you need to deny human freedoms in order to practice civility. It’s creepy and destructive, but you’re welcome to want it.
Again, you speak in terms of the “ideal”. It would be ideal to not have any weapons and for a society to debate it’s solutions or problems. It would be ideal if these maniacs didn’t have thoughts of mass murder. All very ideal situations. It doesn’t add one iota of truth to your solution, I’m sorry to say.

I spend a great deal of my time reviewing and refuting the idealism that sits behind religious thinking. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Universe was intended? Wouldn’t it be nice if a higher being existed? The idealism behind this says nothing about the truth of the problem. So yes, governments need guns, people need their individual rights, and we need to treat the issues of a civility not by restrictions, but by enlightenment.

Scott Mayers wrote: I used the children's analogy because even with any means to separate the distinction between adults and children is only one of arbitrary legality or convention, not anything intrinsic about our nature as adults to be any wiser to overcome certain natural tendencies of our evolution. In this sense, we are still children even as adults with respect to our parental forces of nature itself. So this is still a good and relevant analogy here.


Just because we as humans continue to grow and develop throughout our lifetimes does not mean the invisible line of adult vs. child doesn’t exist. It does exist. It’s called defending your freedoms and the freedoms of others and standing up to bullies who wish to solve your problems with laws and dogma. It’s a very real position to take and not one for a child.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Guns again...

Postby fromthehills » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:09 am

nmblum wrote:
fromthehills wrote:
nmblum wrote:FTH:
You know, I'm sure, that I do not consider you a pawn of the NRA, nor thoughtless, nor potentially homicidal.
Quite the opposite.
I read carefully what you write about guns; I do understand that you love yours in much the same way that I love my Cacti, or my books, or my music, or human foibles … or for that matter love for its own sake.…
But love DOES, too often, reduce our critical faculties…. and from bereft of, to nil.
Love can in fact rob us of reason, make us say, think, do things that were love not involved would appear as crazy to ourselves as they appear to the outside world.

So before I respond to your last post, please make clear what you mean by 'not feeling comfortable in gun restricted places.'

Does that mean Paris?
A Laker's game?
A Rock concert?
Any possible public transportation anywhere in the world?
A sale at Bloomingdale's?


NMB


Mass shootings happen in places where guns are restricted. Campus, military bases, schools, churches, theaters….there aren't any in a gun show, NRA meetings, stupid Tea Party rallies.

My wife wants to drive up, and camp on the Oregon coast. Go through California and up. I don't want to, unless we go up through Idaho, and then over. California is too restrictive, and I'm not traveling without being armed.


I choose not to believe that I read that.
Or that you wrote it.
Unless you are pulling my leg… and my bad leg at that, a sort of deliberate cruelty that goes with disillusionment.
It is above all HUMORLESS.
Not the real you.
On the other hand, if you are serious… have a great trip.
Idaho does have some spectacular scenery.
And of course it does have loads of interesting Mormons, with whom you can have wonderful conversations about science while you are tasting of what is probably the worst food in the world where drought and starvation are not on the menu.
Oh, and commiserations to the Missus…. she sounds like a lively, reasonably life-affirming person despite having to drag such a burden along through life's campsites.

NMB



Oh well. Perhaps the NRA is right. Any attempt at reason is futile. As I said, I understand your position, but it doesn't mean it trumps my position. California, super restrictive={!#%@} to gun violence.

Well. Adios. I don't have time for this place, much, right now. Maybe see you guys this winter.

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: Guns again...

Postby nmblum88 » Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:35 am

That's the saddest thing that has ever happened here where living tragedy is often acted out on our screens.
I'm really devastated by this… that the gun madness should have such a personal, painful effect on a friendship that I have valued, including the glitches, and thought you did too.
No to mention the other members here who thought highly of you, your humor and your many talents, even as they may have disagreed strongly on the matter of the gun culture within which we now live.



Norma
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12218
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby JO 753 » Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:48 am

Funny stuff, Norma! thanks!

Digress, you dont make much sens. You seem to be ignoring everything. Read the entire 2nd Amendment topic.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:31 am

JO 753 wrote:Digress, you dont make much sens. You seem to be ignoring everything. Read the entire 2nd Amendment topic.


link ?
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:53 am

digress wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: I admire the American constitution for its initial Amendment, but this does not mean that all that is constitutional is perfectly admirable in the same way. Disagreeing with one of them does not require an automatic agreement to them all.


I agree, but ...
I was comparing the value of other amendments with this one to properly reflect on your argument that the behavior of others countries has something to say. Which I hoped to show it does not based on the lack of conviction others countries have with other very plain concepts. It was an example, not to defend the constitution as a whole, but as a retort to your implications.

I'm not sure what you're referencing me to which implications this refers to but since you agree with the more clear description, that's fine.

digress wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: Freedom from governmental impositions of creating laws of a religious nature is universally good regardless of which country you deal with on a sound foundation. This is not the same for a right to bear arms universally because regardless of how you look at it, the power to aggress always favors anyone who wields a force to offend or defend by the use of weapons arbitrarily. If we all had perfectly equal individual powers to wield anything with destructive power universally, we'd all be dead by now if only due to the minor disagreement by any individual and dependent upon the range of that weapon's ability to do more harm. The more harmful it is, the more inevitability of this to occur.


You make incredibly arrogant assumptions with your claim. Our history shows that this amendment in practice does not motivate people to kill. Rather it is something else. It seems based on recent child related shooting that something new is occurring or has been introduced into the mix. Why are people so averse to this probability? Right now no actual reasoning exists to suggest the problem is with the freedom. Although many people really WISH it to be the case.

You have to specify whatever I said here relates to your implication (whether true or not) of my views. (?)
Laws act more often to limit what we can do, especially in a Constitution with respect to government and those people they represent. Thus, the 2nd amendment is to act to limit government from not being allowed to prevent its people from 'bearing arms' as has been reinterpreted by more recent revisions. So it is not overtly promoting violence or motivating ones ability to have a free license to kill. At best this law only enables murder as a possibility by its lack of preventing others from arbitrarily having them. But this is not on point here.

What is on point, is to consider if you should imagine allowing each and every person a right to bear a self-destruct device that has a large enough range to harm others around them. Let's say, a nuke? Granting whatever you consider should limit children apart from the rest of humans, should people not be limited their freedom to do this? By your disrespect to not be able to differentiate between a gun and a flower, this should extend to WMDs on a person too?

digress wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: A gun represents a tool that has the potential to harm a large range of individuals way beyond one's normal capacity to by nature. It's bad enough that nature has already discriminantly favored some people with natural forces to do harm over others. As civilized beings, we have also evolved the intellect which allows us to potentially use it in order to defeat some of these other natural inherent tendencies of which our former natural aggressions have imposed upon us to compete for resources. But if we are to use this intellect in an opposing way to our aggressive tendencies in anybody, regardless of who it is, we have to encourage means to both equalize our powers as individuals as well as weaken those things which enhance our natural aggressions. Guns only add more force to empower our aggressive natures by default rather than defeat them. Instead of encouraging individuals to arm in the case of potential aggression by larger groups, whether this be a government or some subset of people anywhere, wouldn't it be better to approach trying to find means in which not only individuals as entities are able to wield such powers, but those larger entities like governments?


You ended with a question here, so in reverse order. If your question is suggesting smaller government I am all for this, but connecting individual powers to government power is still not the same. Responsibilities of the invidual are not the same responsibilities of an office which administers these rights. The government must protect it’s people from threat of invasion. The means by which they do this gives no reflection on the individual’s right to bear arms. I really hope I don’t need to point out this distinction any further.

On your idea that guns are a tool of harm and we need to ban this perversion of nature. I would agree that the idea of a gun, or weapon, is a barbaric appeal. Do you civilize a person by caging or educating? I propose that restricting freedom is not a solution and having the freedom only empowers motive for good, not evil. It’s precisely a lack of education or maybe moral reflection that is an issue for gun owners. Maybe allowing private practices to prescribe over the counter drugs is an issue. Maybe we live in a society completely dominated by images, not ideas and maybe it’s an abuse of entertainment which get’s people off on the idea of blowing away a classroom of friends. This is all speculation, but you point to a law and say the issue is with the option to buy a gun.

I’d ask you not to binge on this militia concept. If you do not understand how the potential for a people to organize by force could be used as an effective last resort then you do not understand history. If you personally uphold that use-of-force is useless then you are a pacifist.
To deny what it means to live in a free society in the face of violence is a position not of intelligence, but of cowardice. What you preach is idealism.

On your first paragraph above, I've clearly just shown that I recognize the Constitution as acting prohibitively against the government's powers to limit the public's freedom.

On the second paragraph above, having freedoms say nothing about the value of people to be good nor bad. Other laws deal with those. The Constitution limits the government, not the people because it is for the people and by the people, not for the government or by the government. That is what makes the American Constitution differ by many others. I would propose something different or remove it all together. But this alone would say nothing with respect to the limits we should be allowed to place on ourselves through other laws. This protection bars allowing even the people now to be able to even create certain laws to protect themselves through laws they desire to be more effective by default. That is the problem.

On the last paragraph, if we compare histories where governments have been overthrown by force, what histories do you propose supports your view here as valid and the more probable to create better governments than not? I'm guessing this new resurgence of violence by revolutionaries in Iraq occurring at this very moment by a new 'terrorist' organization would be most happy to support your vision of "freedom"!

digress wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: What happens as individuals keep imposing a 'right' to bear arms locally, only justifies an even bigger reason why larger organizations demand ever bigger ones themselves. It only escalates the effect of aggression instead and makes these bigger entities even more potentially able to cause the very harm that the Amendment to bear arms was intended to protect against.


Why do people continue to compare organizations as being a person? An organization is not an individual. I don’t care what the media or lawyers say on this retarded idea. Your problem here is upholding this fact, not individual freedoms.

I am referring to organizations of people, not incorporated entities acting as a person here. If you live in a household where everyone in it held a weapon to their own, and you were a stranger amongst a crowd of others who were related and loyal to one another foremost, how does your power equalize those of the rest should something go wrong here?

digress wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: I hoped that I clarified my distinction in the last post with regards to some of this. My argument shows that while it is in individual human nature to be the cause of 'pulling the trigger', we still have the problem that in order to resolve any individual or group intentions to violence by these tools, the only way to do this is to find a way to disarm the capacity of these same people to do harm in the first place everywhere. If you argue that individuals should be allowed this capacity, it has to be universally applied to all people while doing the reverse to any particular group of individuals (like governments) to have such powers collectively. That is, ideally, the only way this might have effect is if you don't even allow things like police forces or armies to have unusual separate precedence over the individual to wield weapons except as equal individuals indistinguishable from any other. This is not possible.


I hear you loud and clear. You address the “out of sight, out of mind” solution. You clearly feel you need to deny human freedoms in order to practice civility. It’s creepy and destructive, but you’re welcome to want it.
Again, you speak in terms of the “ideal”. It would be ideal to not have any weapons and for a society to debate it’s solutions or problems. It would be ideal if these maniacs didn’t have thoughts of mass murder. All very ideal situations. It doesn’t add one iota of truth to your solution, I’m sorry to say.

I spend a great deal of my time reviewing and refuting the idealism that sits behind religious thinking. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Universe was intended? Wouldn’t it be nice if a higher being existed? The idealism behind this says nothing about the truth of the problem. So yes, governments need guns, people need their individual rights, and we need to treat the issues of a civility not by restrictions, but by enlightenment.

I already differentiate between Constitution and other laws made by the Houses, something you don't seem to understand yet. Constitutional 'freedoms' are just laws that prohibit government acts against the people. The reason they use the term "freedoms" there is because it is one that belongs to the people and is speaking to the people to assure their rights there are there's and to restrict their government. The rest of the laws in legislation are by the government to limit the people who elect them to make those laws. Taking away the Constitutional law to limit government's ability to impose upon its citizens has nothing to say about whether some of those individuals in society can or cannot have weapons. This has to be addressed in regular parliament. But with this Amendment in place, not even people's ability to affect varying controls through electing representatives are able to allow them to make laws to protect themselves appropriately.

This is not just some ideal I propose. Earlier I suggested HOW laws can be created effectively to make everyone happy. [a logical conceptual approach to segregate distinct laws upon population masses.]

digress wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: I used the children's analogy because even with any means to separate the distinction between adults and children is only one of arbitrary legality or convention, not anything intrinsic about our nature as adults to be any wiser to overcome certain natural tendencies of our evolution. In this sense, we are still children even as adults with respect to our parental forces of nature itself. So this is still a good and relevant analogy here.


Just because we as humans continue to grow and develop throughout our lifetimes does not mean the invisible line of adult vs. child doesn’t exist. It does exist. It’s called defending your freedoms and the freedoms of others and standing up to bullies who wish to solve your problems with laws and dogma. It’s a very real position to take and not one for a child.


Adulthood is a legal concept based on an arbitrary age and says nothing about maturity of individuals to have the same values one way or another; actual maturity also differ upon various particular experiences. So no, a child/adult is an artifice of convenience in laws of societies and cultures only. If this wasn't the case, we'd simply be able to see how such children pose the greater risk to overthrowing governments by holding guns than adults do.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19633
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Guns again...

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:19 am

digress wrote:
JO 753 wrote:Digress, you dont make much sens. You seem to be ignoring everything. Read the entire 2nd Amendment topic.


link ?

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18386
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:15 am

Scott Mayers wrote:I'm not sure what you're referencing me to which implications this refers to but since you agree with the more clear description, that's fine.


Your implications were with the idea that because other people of the world do not defend this law the same way Americans do, while being just as reasonable, shows my defense isn't valuable, but rather a product of local pride.

Scott Mayers wrote:You have to specify whatever I said here relates to your implication (whether true or not) of my views. (?)
Laws act more often to limit what we can do, especially in a Constitution with respect to government and those people they represent. Thus, the 2nd amendment is to act to limit government from not being allowed to prevent its people from 'bearing arms' as has been reinterpreted by more recent revisions. So it is not overtly promoting violence or motivating ones ability to have a free license to kill. At best this law only enables murder as a possibility by its lack of preventing others from arbitrarily having them. But this is not on point here.


Yes, the constitution limits the government. That's all you need to know in it's value at preventing a need for rebellion without ever actually having to rebel. The militia principle, if you will. It's an incredibly peaceful precept! The point here is to distinguish the value in upholding this law in the face of violent people. That's why I originally said if an entire society became uninterested in guns the law itself would still have worth.

Scott Mayers wrote: What is on point, is to consider if you should imagine allowing each and every person a right to bear a self-destruct device that has a large enough range to harm others around them. Let's say, a nuke? Granting whatever you consider should limit children apart from the rest of humans, should people not be limited their freedom to do this? By your disrespect to not be able to differentiate between a gun and a flower, this should extend to WMDs on a person too?


I said earlier in this thread that regulation, registration, etc are reasonable systems in mitigating abuse of choice.

I've stated in a different gun thread (though I am still new to this forum) how a gun hater had good reasons for restricting automatic rifles, but it did not excuse them of using sloppy language and to refer to all guns as automatic rifles. As he(Mr. Martinez) so consistently did.

It's an extreme position to take on the idea that the right to bear arms means the right to own bombs. I'd rightfully point out those extremists and fight against their pornographic destructive urges.


Scott Mayers wrote: On the second paragraph above, having freedoms say nothing about the value of people to be good nor bad.


Exactly. You agree with me in this sentence alone yet take extreme p.o.v.'s in opposition(like idealism, thoughts of a non-violent society & vice versa)

All this law does is make sure the government can't step in. People are literally crowding the streets and news media outlets and forums like this one saying that the government needs to implement more control. The government is like, wtf? we've a 2nd amendment. So now people are pissing on the amendment. It's {!#%@} disgusting.

All I've done is set out trying to show that limited government is not the issue. That these individual school shootings are not a government problem or solvable by limiting freedom. The individual school killings will continue whether or not capital punishment exists. Similar to how the threat of death row does not prevent planned murder.


Scott Mayers wrote: I would propose something different or remove it all together. But this alone would say nothing with respect to the limits we should be allowed to place on ourselves through other laws. This protection bars allowing even the people now to be able to even create certain laws to protect themselves through laws they desire to be more effective by default. That is the problem.


I don't follow. You sound like you are talking about the mafia.

Scott Mayers wrote: On the last paragraph, if we compare histories where governments have been overthrown by force, what histories do you propose supports your view here as valid and the more probable to create better governments than not? I'm guessing this new resurgence of violence by revolutionaries in Iraq occurring at this very moment by a new 'terrorist' organization would be most happy to support your vision of "freedom"!


I'd say the history shows it doesn't exist. That democracy is completely and always imported. Which is why I say the freedom of choice is more valuable than giving the government more control. I sympathize with those who want to prevent school shootings, but their position of internal reform of individual freedoms is grossly irresponsible.

Scott Mayers wrote:I am referring to organizations of people, not incorporated entities acting as a person here. If you live in a household where everyone in it held a weapon to their own, and you were a stranger amongst a crowd of others who were related and loyal to one another foremost, how does your power equalize those of the rest should something go wrong here?


I remember being in school and being told when asking for gum that that if I was given a piece of gum they (the gum owner) would have to give everybody who asked a piece. Again, the convictions of a child because if you've no backbone then I'd agree a persons gum would be gone in no-time with reasoning like that.

In other words, if I lived in a household and felt unsafe I'd step up and put myself out there to enforce some change. However, if Johny there decided to use their gun on us I'd consider that scenario. I'd not look at the gun and say It wasn't Johny, it was this weapon! Ban it to prevent future Johny's! No, I'd look at Johny for being responsible.

You want to ban guns to feel safe and you want other people to tell you that by limiting you they've made you safer in the face of others.



Scott Mayers wrote:I already differentiate between Constitution and other laws made by the Houses, something you don't seem to understand yet. Constitutional 'freedoms' are just laws that prohibit government acts against the people. The reason they use the term "freedoms" there is because it is one that belongs to the people and is speaking to the people to assure their rights there are there's and to restrict their government. The rest of the laws in legislation are by the government to limit the people who elect them to make those laws. Taking away the Constitutional law to limit government's ability to impose upon its citizens has nothing to say about whether some of those individuals in society can or cannot have weapons. This has to be addressed in regular parliament. But with this Amendment in place, not even people's ability to affect varying controls through electing representatives are able to allow them to make laws to protect themselves appropriately.


I think I hinted on my answer to this earlier in the reply & the value of government not being able to act because of an Amendment being in place.

Scott Mayers wrote:Adulthood is a legal concept based on an arbitrary age and says nothing about maturity of individuals to have the same values one way or another; actual maturity also differ upon various particular experiences. So no, a child/adult is an artifice of convenience in laws of societies and cultures only. If this wasn't the case, we'd simply be able to see how such children pose the greater risk to overthrowing governments by holding guns than adults do.


Your intention was to show that a child by law is just an age and that we are all children regardless of age. I understand you did this to try and show that guns should be restricted at all levels. It's why I disagreed with a short explanation as to how adults can exist beyond law. It proves to dismiss this idea that people are not responsible enough to carry guns. Your analogy still falls.
Last edited by digress on Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Guns again...

Postby Flash » Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:06 am

fromthehills wrote:
My wife wants to drive up, and camp on the Oregon coast. Go through California and up. I don't want to, unless we go up through Idaho, and then over. California is too restrictive, and I'm not traveling without being armed.

Just like Norma, I can't believe that you said that. So this is what it's all about, the fear of your own country folks. I don't know if you and other Americans who think like you realise that there are lots of countries where people are not paranoid and riddled with fear of each other to this degree.

But even in the US, I think that the paranoia is to a large degree made up, whipped up by...well by paranoiacs themselves. I go to the US every year and travel there for several weeks. For my wife and me it's either New England or the West all the way to the Pacific although I must admit I haven't been to California not because I am afraid of going there without a gun but because geo-economically speaking things worked out this way. I have friends in Vancouver and I usually end up turning North after I hit the really big water aka the West Coast.

Tell me fromthehills, am I a risk taking fool just because I carry no gun, just a steak knifes for our roadside bbqs. This fall I want to drive and visit a buddy of mine in Georgia, silly me, also without the heavy artillery. Should I acquire a magnum somewhere on the way where they don't ask you any questions, a place like Tennessee for example? Maybe wave it at a gas station just so everybody knows I can stand my ground if necessary? And yes, learn how to shoot by blowing the road signs away? Gad, I would sure be taken for a native born son.

And just like Major Malfunction said above, one travels through Australia or Canada without being armed to the teeth. In fact, the idea hasn't even crossed my mind until now. Boy, some of you are such strange people.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19633
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Guns again...

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:21 am

I might be off by a mile here, but I think for from to go without his equipment is like for us to go without our pants on. Or skirts, respectively. Or being asked to take out the spare tire and tools before a road trip.

I also think it doesn't matter. Or rather, it's no one's business. And legal.
Hi, Io the lurker.

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: Guns again...

Postby nmblum88 » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:01 am

scrmbldggs wrote:I might be off by a mile here, but I think for from to go without his equipment is like for us to go without our pants on. Or skirts, respectively. Or being asked to take out the spare tire and tools before a road trip.

I also think it doesn't matter. Or rather, it's no one's business. And legal.



Thanks for the laugh, Eggs, I wasn't wrong to depend upon you to cheer me up.
Because I was in more than a bit of a funk over this, and a poor dinner companion, testy with a friend who refused to discuss whether a gun could reasonably be compared with a car and instead insisted that we should first concentrate on the menu and then talk about the film we had just seen.
As if it mattered.
A difficult evening.
And now you tell me a gun is like a tire iron.
More, going out and about without a gun is like my going out into the world without my panties…
I wonder that my finicky mother didn't teach me that while she was telling me to always wear clean ones, in case I was hit by a truck.

Jeez, Eggs, and now, with your indispensable help I have to wonder whether I should henceforth always wear clean ones, AND carry a tire iron inside them, in case I am hit by a car driven by DEA operative.
Or shot by a Survivalist, for no reason at all.
No wonder I am such a mess: I have been surrounded since birth by thoughtless and ill informed hypocrites…..
Until, that is, there was you.

But onward.
What DOES really matter, Eggs?
Not much.
We are born, {!#%@} happens, and than poof, we die.
It hardly seems worth getting out of bed in the morning, much less worrying over whether Evolution should be taught in schools.
What difference does it make if it's Darwin we flirt with, or the story of Creation?
Six of one and half dozen of another…..
Such a lot of fuss about nothing.
After all so far nobody was left dead in a schoolhouse because the textbooks in use taught that the earth is is the center of our solar system.
And I personally am less affected by whether there is water on Mars than I am by having eaten much too much at dinner.
And needing some sleep.
Could that be your trouble too, Eggs?
Among other things that are also legal, but disturb our sleep?

Norma
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19633
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Guns again...

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:00 pm

Glad to be of service. : )

But what I meant with "what does it matter" was, what does it matter (to anyone else) how from decides to live his life. What does it matter what area he would avoid, that he decides he won't enter shirtless where shirts and shoes are required. That, in fact, he refrains from doing something because it would not be proper.

Actually, that last does matter to me. I really am glad to know such a decent person. Even if, perhaps, he has never eaten a chocolate covered grasshopper. Because it doesn't take away from who he is.
Hi, Io the lurker.

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: Guns again...

Postby nmblum88 » Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:43 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:Glad to be of service. : )

But what I meant with "what does it matter" was, what does it matter (to anyone else) how from decides to live his life. What does it matter what area he would avoid, that he decides he won't enter shirtless where shirts and shoes are required. That, in fact, he refrains from doing something because it would not be proper.

Actually, that last does matter to me. I really am glad to know such a decent person. Even if, perhaps, he has never eaten a chocolate covered grasshopper. Because it doesn't take away from who he is.

Gimme a break, Eggs.
And yourself as well.
Please don't drag out the "chocolate covered grasshopper" card.
(Where, pray do you get that stuff? In the same grocery store that sells FTH his anchovies marinated in white wine?)
And especially not to me… whose working class roots are pure, beloved and ineradicable.
So just can it, if you don't mind.
And we can let it pass into Forum history that you are perhaps a bit overwrought lately, laid low by the stress of being admirably, but perhaps irrationally loyal to a dear friend who might possibly be having temporary judgment lapses of his own.
Because there seems to be no question here of FTH being anything other than a thoroughly decent man,


But face it… a decent person with an arsenal at the ready can snap as easily as an indecent person with an arsenal at the ready.
Oh, and miss his/her target.
Hitting thee.
Of me.
That too.
But it's the arsenals that are under national discussion…. and causing national distress.
Not the charm, generosity or how good the potential shooter is to his friends or his mother.
FTH, like the rest of us, is a casualty of America's gun wars, which in addition to encouraging slaughters both large and small, has driven the survivors (on all sides) to madness.

Norma

P.S. While you are reconsidering, may I offer you this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in3Ppk9NG9U
On the theory once offered to me by an Unuit (Eskimo - but NOT chocolate covered) some years ago, in Barrows Point…. that "men and women who laugh together will end up making love."
People who are shooting at each other?
Not, I think, so much.
What do YOU think?
NMB
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: Guns again...

Postby nmblum88 » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:06 pm

Addendum:
This morning was "graduation" hour for my poetry class of mostly kids who have come to the attention of law enforcement.
This is a Haiku written in May 2012, by G.M, 17 years old at the time, and the mother of two.
It is permanently in my head, along with the work of better known poets and G.M.'s friends in class as well.
I have her permission to share it with you:

Herno Garcias
baby was shot in the face
he has no nose now.


Although I have never seen a handgun close up, I have seen Herno Gracia's baby, now nearly three years old, with a long time, one hopes, to live.
But without a nose.

NMB
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

clarsct
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:56 pm
Location: The Cultural Desert

Re: Guns again...

Postby clarsct » Sat Jun 14, 2014 8:50 am

@ NMB
Ah I see....and aren't you adorable. No need for hysterics. But if you had some salable point, then make it. As much as I like sarcasm, in this instance, I find it unproductive.

@JO
You make my point for me. A person must be involved. So do guns suddenly make people evil? Or are people evil to begin with? Why does someone want to use the gun? Are you going to kill someone just because you can? Sorry, that doesn't make much sense to me. Put me and my wife in the room, and the gun will likely be ignored, especially if the child is being babysat elsewhere.

@ Malfunction
Well, truly, it wasn't a 'let's take it outside' so much as an honest question. I'm not opposed to a good flame war, but doing it here is a bit like having a gang rumble in a library. The rules are a bit restrictive, and The MAN will come down on us. Pyrrho likely gets enough useless drama and such without dealing with ours. It's a times and places thing.

As for your next post, well, yes. The problem is complex. That was my point. Too complex to wave your hands at some statistics and judge one item to be the determining factor. At some point, we have to realize we cannot legislate people into being better than they are. We must concentrate on making better people. Instead of taking a consensual behavior that meets with the disapproval of some, and making it illegal, why not legalize, regulate, and tax this behavior, then use some of those taxes to fund rehab facilities and education? Take away the impetus to use violence. Instead of spending billions of dollars waging a "war" against our own citizens, why not reopen some of the many mental health institutions that have been closed down? If you want to solve gun violence, you must treat the disease, not the symptoms, or the mechanisms.
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12218
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby JO 753 » Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:36 am

clarsct wrote:So do guns suddenly make people evil?


No. They just make it very eazy to kill. The eazier it iz to do sumthing, the more likely it will be dun.
And yes. A small spark uv evil, given the eazy power to kill, can grow to full flejd flaming evil.

Or are people evil to begin with?


Yes. Plus stupid, angry, crazy, careless, misgided. Any uv theze can rezult in a deth, kuz gunz make it so eazy.

Why does someone want to use the gun?


Kuz they are evil, stupid, angry, crazy, careless, misgided.

Are you going to kill someone just because you can?


Yes.

You are trying to juj everybody by your own sensibiltyz. Not everybody with a working trigger finger iz az smart, wize, alert, careful, emotionally stable, happy, etc az you are now.

And you will be less so on sum uv theze variablez in the future also.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:37 am

digress wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:I'm not sure what you're referencing me to which implications this refers to but since you agree with the more clear description, that's fine.


Your implications were with the idea that because other people of the world do not defend this law the same way Americans do, while being just as reasonable, shows my defense isn't valuable, but rather a product of local pride.


Okay, I gotcha now. Yes, to some extent I do believe that pride here due to America’s history is a big part of it because of the times in which the gun to America’s history became very significant to its founding. And the intent of the original law only respected what they understood of the technology of the day. It certainly wasn’t easy for someone to use a musket to rob a bank in those days. I’m trying to picture how funny that would look with modern terrorists using long armed muskets to contain a crowd. :lol:

But the gun lobbies have successfully reassigned this protection to apply both to modern weaponry as well as to individuals rather than simply militias for the sake of government abuses. How does one’s right to protect themselves from other harmful citizens or neighbors (people against other people) relate to preventing governments from abuse? But you seemed to be anticipating this argument before as if to find it already exhaustively discussed by you elsewhere and found it frustrating. But this is a relevant consideration since you seem to agree that Constitutional matters are meant to limit governments from imposing on the people yet the scenario I’ve pointed here above should show you how the present interpretation does not relate to limits by government for its original need to place it there.

I recognize that those who are fighting for it the strongest aren’t interested in whether it is a function of pride or not but the rest of Americans defend the Constitution like a type of religious scripture and will resist such sudden changes if only because it’s removal might force the whole document to be rewritten causing how people traditionally know the numbered Amendments’ references; if they took out that second Amendment altogether, it would shift all the others up one slot. The Fourteenth Amendment would have to become the Thirteenth, etc. So yeah, pride is a big issue here.

digress wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:You have to specify whatever I said here relates to your implication (whether true or not) of my views. (?)
Laws act more often to limit what we can do, especially in a Constitution with respect to government and those people they represent. Thus, the 2nd amendment is to act to limit government from not being allowed to prevent its people from 'bearing arms' as has been reinterpreted by more recent revisions. So it is not overtly promoting violence or motivating ones ability to have a free license to kill. At best this law only enables murder as a possibility by its lack of preventing others from arbitrarily having them. But this is not on point here.


Yes, the constitution limits the government. That's all you need to know in it's value at preventing a need for rebellion without ever actually having to rebel. The militia principle, if you will. It's an incredibly peaceful precept! The point here is to distinguish the value in upholding this law in the face of violent people. That's why I originally said if an entire society became uninterested in guns the law itself would still have worth.


Yes, ... to reserve that second slot in the document to avoid all the other ones to have to be renumbered! :lol: Other than that, if no one is legally allowed to hold firearms, neither are potentially violent people either. If you still assume they’ll find a way to get these weapons that aren’t being pumped out by gun manufactures to fulfill the demand by the populous at large, then perhaps you’d have to agree that the less supply available also makes it that much harder for criminals to also get a hold of them. We lived many centuries without guns. How did we ever live without? Even numbers like 6 million people of a genocide in a relatively short period wasn’t possible before guns. And yet, you claim to have reason in one part of this argument to defend the idea that more good successful revolutions have led to better governments? All I know of is the U.S. at its formation. Perhaps you could provide a list of these successful and ‘good’ governments here?

I’ll split this argument in segments to keep it easier to handle. I’ll be back later.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Sat Jun 14, 2014 8:11 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:Okay, I gotcha now. Yes, to some extent I do believe that pride here due to America’s history is a big part of it because of the times in which the gun to America’s history became very significant to its founding. And the intent of the original law only respected what they understood of the technology of the day. It certainly wasn’t easy for someone to use a musket to rob a bank in those days. I’m trying to picture how funny that would look with modern terrorists using long armed muskets to contain a crowd. :lol:


Your assumption is only true if you imply our forefathers would think differently had they been writing the constitution in a modern arena. I have to disagree based on my readings of things like Common Sense by Thomas Paine. Anybody who thinks they understand American history and haven't read this piece I'd distrust their claims at it's core. I've been trying to reason beyond such stakes so please just take this as a comment more than a rebuttal.

Scott Mayers wrote: But the gun lobbies have successfully reassigned this protection to apply both to modern weaponry as well as to individuals rather than simply militias for the sake of government abuses. How does one’s right to protect themselves from other harmful citizens or neighbors (people against other people) relate to preventing governments from abuse? But you seemed to be anticipating this argument before as if to find it already exhaustively discussed by you elsewhere and found it frustrating. But this is a relevant consideration since you seem to agree that Constitutional matters are meant to limit governments from imposing on the people yet the scenario I’ve pointed here above should show you how the present interpretation does not relate to limits by government for its original need to place it there.


I'm not a gun lobbyist. I think the 2nd amendment is enough. I don't defend special privileges beyond this law other than to restrict abuse of choice as I've previously mentioned. But to answer your question, "How does one’s right to protect themselves from other harmful citizens or neighbors (people against other people) relate to preventing governments from abuse?". It simply does not relate because the government is not allowed to say citizens cannot own guns.

I am not anticipating anything, or have had this discussion elsewhere nor am frustrated. I feel I've been quite plain in my argument, no?

Scott Mayers wrote: I recognize that those who are fighting for it the strongest aren’t interested in whether it is a function of pride or not but the rest of Americans defend the Constitution like a type of religious scripture and will resist such sudden changes if only because it’s removal might force the whole document to be rewritten causing how people traditionally know the numbered Amendments’ references; if they took out that second Amendment altogether, it would shift all the others up one slot. The Fourteenth Amendment would have to become the Thirteenth, etc. So yeah, pride is a big issue here.


I can't speak for other Americans and I am not attempting to here. My argument is not a product of pride. You continually insist it is. What have I said to lead you on into thinking I'm pounding my chest?

Scott Mayers wrote:Yes, ... to reserve that second slot in the document to avoid all the other ones to have to be renumbered! :lol: Other than that, if no one is legally allowed to hold firearms, neither are potentially violent people either. If you still assume they’ll find a way to get these weapons that aren’t being pumped out by gun manufactures to fulfill the demand by the populous at large, then perhaps you’d have to agree that the less supply available also makes it that much harder for criminals to also get a hold of them. We lived many centuries without guns. How did we ever live without? Even numbers like 6 million people of a genocide in a relatively short period wasn’t possible before guns. And yet, you claim to have reason in one part of this argument to defend the idea that more good successful revolutions have led to better governments? All I know of is the U.S. at its formation. Perhaps you could provide a list of these successful and ‘good’ governments here?

I’ll split this argument in segments to keep it easier to handle. I’ll be back later.


No, reserving the document reserves a right to freedom of choice. You simply, like others here, do not want to be responsible with your neighbors and to discuss things of value. Instead you want more guards, more restrictions from on-high, to be responsible for your "safety".

It's not potentially violent people that is the issue here. Because a potential to be violent is easily disarmed in argument or discussion from friends. No, it's violent people who want to "prevent". Good luck.

To say making guns illegal will make it harder for illegal citizens to acquire them is not a strong argument. With reasoning like that no freedoms would exist because all choice is a potential hazard. A criminal will acquire what they need whether or not laws exist. Otherwise you wouldnt be able to call them criminal in the first place.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:03 pm

digress,

With respect to the above, I am not assuming that you are one who maintains this "pride" personally. This is only an argument to why the rest of the majority of people do. I know it seems odd that people should choose to keep the scriptural text the way it is for what appears to be trivial and over-simplistic reasons, but this is the natural mentality that has more power than anything here. It reduces us all to have a natural tendency to think in terms of the moronic character of Peter Griffin at minimum. Thus, even if you don't place an emphasis on the significance of 'pride' here, it is still the most relevant factor which keeps this Amendment from being able to ever be replaced even when rational reasons require it. That is why only the Amendment itself was amended because in actuality, this newly reformed amendment is a totally different one from its origins. That is, it is NOT about protecting the people from a potentially abusive government, it is about an argument of individuals to be able to personally hold weapons to protect themselves even from other citizens.

In this, because the law is entrenched within the Constitutional document, it also acts successfully to prevent even government from making localized laws within governments regarding weapons. Technically, this constitutional law asserts that the government even has no right to even make any laws regarding gun control to any degree. That is, where such laws do exist, if one can afford to challenge any of them all the way to the Supreme Courts, then such laws have to be thrown out by default. The only thing even allowing the laws that are even created (like regulations etc.) are only due to the fact that the average citizen is unable to even challenge the laws created by the Houses in parliament. But if and when these laws do get successfully challenged, a new law is immediately recreated that alters the wording to give it new power. In this way, this only assures that the most powerful and often more wealthy can even afford to challenge any given law in a given case. So, even this Constitutional Amendment as now recreated always assures that the power remains in those of contemporary power (relating to wealth).

So this law is effectively nullified and ineffective against prohibitions from government to create these laws. They simply create them against the constitution and wait until it gets challenged indefinitely. It only assures the government has absolute power permanently. In fact, as it stands, each and every person has intrinsic rights regardless of any contingent laws. This means that each and every person actually does have a constitutional guarantee to hold, carry, and even use guns of all sorts for any purpose, good or evil! The only thing allowing a police officer or a soldier to be authoritative over others to use weapons is by those contingent unconstitutional laws that delay the redress and limits the eligibility of those who can afford to challenge them. It totally defeats being able to use weapons to overthrow tyrannical governments and the only thing that is left is for those who are actually able to use these weapons against their own people that the government has allowed. At least, it kind of acts as a population control that the government can absolve their own role in creating. It's the people turning against other people but NOT the government!
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:32 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:digress,

With respect to the above, I am not assuming that you are one who maintains this "pride" personally. This is only an argument to why the rest of the majority of people do. I know it seems odd that people should choose to keep the scriptural text the way it is for what appears to be trivial and over-simplistic reasons, but this is the natural mentality that has more power than anything here. It reduces us all to have a natural tendency to think in terms of the moronic character of Peter Griffin at minimum. Thus, even if you don't place an emphasis on the significance of 'pride' here, it is still the most relevant factor which keeps this Amendment from being able to ever be replaced even when rational reasons require it. That is why only the Amendment itself was amended because in actuality, this newly reformed amendment is a totally different one from its origins. That is, it is NOT about protecting the people from a potentially abusive government, it is about an argument of individuals to be able to personally hold weapons to protect themselves even from other citizens.


As far as I can say, based on your assumption that the defense of the 2nd amendment is largely one of pride. If that is actually the case then all you've done is show these people are right, but for all the wrong reasons. I'm here to show, to prove, that pride is a non factor in upholding this amendment. It doesn't matter!

Scott Mayers wrote: In this, because the law is entrenched within the Constitutional document, it also acts successfully to prevent even government from making localized laws within governments regarding weapons. Technically, this constitutional law asserts that the government even has no right to even make any laws regarding gun control to any degree. That is, where such laws do exist, if one can afford to challenge any of them all the way to the Supreme Courts, then such laws have to be thrown out by default. The only thing even allowing the laws that are even created (like regulations etc.) are only due to the fact that the average citizen is unable to even challenge the laws created by the Houses in parliament. But if and when these laws do get successfully challenged, a new law is immediately recreated that alters the wording to give it new power. In this way, this only assures that the most powerful and often more wealthy can even afford to challenge any given law in a given case. So, even this Constitutional Amendment as now recreated always assures that the power remains in those of contemporary power (relating to wealth).


You keep insisting this problem with violent people is one of law yet you previously conceded that law does not impact good or bad values on a populace. I wish to emphasize this point because I've been trying to argue that by focusing on the law the people against this notion are missing out on the actual problem at hand.

Scott Mayers wrote: So this law is effectively nullified and ineffective against prohibitions from government to create these laws. They simply create them against the constitution and wait until it gets challenged indefinitely. It only assures the government has absolute power permanently. In fact, as it stands, each and every person has intrinsic rights regardless of any contingent laws. This means that each and every person actually does have a constitutional guarantee to hold, carry, and even use guns of all sorts for any purpose, good or evil! The only thing allowing a police officer or a soldier to be authoritative over others to use weapons is by those contingent unconstitutional laws that delay the redress and limits the eligibility of those who can afford to challenge them. It totally defeats being able to use weapons to overthrow tyrannical governments and the only thing that is left is for those who are actually able to use these weapons against their own people that the government has allowed. At least, it kind of acts as a population control that the government can absolve their own role in creating. It's the people turning against other people but NOT the government!


You speak as though government power were a bad thing in the face of ensuring freedom. You said that unconstitutional laws are created and it's the governments ability to challenge these laws based on constitutional grounds-for-control that all we are doing is buffing government! I for one am glad that the government feels powerless in their ability to infringe on freedoms written into original law. Again, your motive here to break down the government is creepy and destructive. You want to take a peaceful precept behind our 2nd amendment in restricting government control and say passive ideology leads to violence in the name of tearing it down.

I'll say it again. If violent people are able to persuade you to hand over your freedoms then your cause is one for a coward. It's upholding our values in the face of violent people where our struggle as civil society is met.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Guns again...

Postby kennyc » Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:08 pm

digress wrote:.... I for one am glad that the government feels powerless in their ability to infringe on freedoms written into original law. Again, your motive here to break down the government is creepy and destructive. You want to take a peaceful precept behind our 2nd amendment in restricting government control and say passive ideology leads to violence in the name of tearing it down.

I'll say it again. If violent people are able to persuade you to hand over your freedoms then your cause is one for a coward. It's upholding our values in the face of violent people where our struggle as civil society is met.



^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:33 pm

digress wrote:
As far as I can say, based on your assumption that the defense of the 2nd amendment is largely one of pride. If that is actually the case then all you've done is show these people are right, but for all the wrong reasons. I'm here to show, to prove, that pride is a non factor in upholding this amendment. It doesn't matter!

Then you shouldn't have a problem removing that old law labeled as (2), allowing it to remain bland or shifting up the others to fit that gap and then adding a new one if need be to clarify your position with respect to words that don't have the ambiguity that the old one did. That is, you'd have to create the new one with modern words here. For example:

Amendment 27 (because the old 27 was shifted up one): Each and every individual person who is of legal age of adulthood is allowed to have and hold any firearms without this American government from inhibiting such right at ANY time and place. No government shall be allowed to even propose a bill regarding any such limitations.


Using "individual person" instead of simply "people" cannot be accidentally confused as the original left unquantified because 'the people' only confuses whether one means any individual, the whole, or some subset of them. Also, this particular law would clearly mark precisely what you claim the people deserve with perfect clarity. The last sentence adds that the government cannot even use indirect means to still have power to even temporarily create unconstitutional laws that must wait to be challenged. This is the ONLY way that you can truly and sincerely act to prove that this is actually the people's rights.

digress wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: In this, because the law is entrenched within the Constitutional document, it also acts successfully to prevent even government from making localized laws within governments regarding weapons. Technically, this constitutional law asserts that the government even has no right to even make any laws regarding gun control to any degree. That is, where such laws do exist, if one can afford to challenge any of them all the way to the Supreme Courts, then such laws have to be thrown out by default. The only thing even allowing the laws that are even created (like regulations etc.) are only due to the fact that the average citizen is unable to even challenge the laws created by the Houses in parliament. But if and when these laws do get successfully challenged, a new law is immediately recreated that alters the wording to give it new power. In this way, this only assures that the most powerful and often more wealthy can even afford to challenge any given law in a given case. So, even this Constitutional Amendment as now recreated always assures that the power remains in those of contemporary power (relating to wealth).


You keep insisting this problem with violent people is one of law yet you previously conceded that law does not impact good or bad values on a populace. I wish to emphasize this point because I've been trying to argue that by focusing on the law the people against this notion are missing out on the actual problem at hand.

I haven't a clue what you are meaning here and it seems to smell a little fishy and distracts irrelevantly. The point I was making is that if we are to accept the modern interpretation that you believe in which the function of this amendment was NOT solely about the right of the 'people' to create militias, but instead to have them for any reason whatsoever, then under such an reinterpretation of the old law, it still cannot mean anything when any contemporary government is still allowed to create laws unconstitutionally until they are challenged. Thus, you'd have to assure that your government is not even allowed to propose any bill regarding guns! Otherwise, even the police or any military remains to have unusual powers to use guns to enforce while simultaneously limiting others to be able to resist them with guns of their own as 'the people' because the polices or militias also represent a part of government!

digress wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: So this law is effectively nullified and ineffective against prohibitions from government to create these laws. They simply create them against the constitution and wait until it gets challenged indefinitely. It only assures the government has absolute power permanently. In fact, as it stands, each and every person has intrinsic rights regardless of any contingent laws. This means that each and every person actually does have a constitutional guarantee to hold, carry, and even use guns of all sorts for any purpose, good or evil! The only thing allowing a police officer or a soldier to be authoritative over others to use weapons is by those contingent unconstitutional laws that delay the redress and limits the eligibility of those who can afford to challenge them. It totally defeats being able to use weapons to overthrow tyrannical governments and the only thing that is left is for those who are actually able to use these weapons against their own people that the government has allowed. At least, it kind of acts as a population control that the government can absolve their own role in creating. It's the people turning against other people but NOT the government!


You speak as though government power were a bad thing in the face of ensuring freedom. You said that unconstitutional laws are created and it's the governments ability[?] to challenge these laws based on constitutional grounds-for-control that all we are doing is buffing government! I for one am glad that the government feels powerless in their ability to infringe on freedoms written into original law. Again, your motive here to break down the government is creepy and destructive. You want to take a peaceful precept behind our 2nd amendment in restricting government control and say passive ideology leads to violence in the name of tearing it down.

No, it is not the government's function to even care to challenge the laws they create in the Houses. The function of the Representatives and President to create laws are still allowed to be able to propose them without respect to the constitution UNTIL they are challenged by the people. But the onus to require the people to have to challenge the law as 'unconstitutional' acts to prevent average citizens from doing so because of the all the costs and efforts required to do so. This also delays the process to prove that such a contingent law is violated giving the government the right to impose their own powers to limit the people continuously.

digress wrote:I'll say it again. If violent people are able to persuade you to hand over your freedoms then your cause is one for a coward. It's upholding our values in the face of violent people where our struggle as civil society is met.

You want to call others cowards should someone limit your freedoms. But then you should never complain if someone decides to steal or rape you or your children for their own natural freedom to do so! And then you'd have to agree that should you complain about it, by your own standards you are merely the defective and weak minded coward yourself for not being able to outmatch your predators will to enforce their own freedom! You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either anarchy rules or we have to accept conditional limits to our freedoms here based on more complex realities. One of these is guns. But even if you defend your 'right' to own guns as if granted a law by some GOD, then everyone should have no reason NOT to use bigger and bigger ones, like nuclear ones. There is no distinction of difference logically here.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:56 pm

Your defense of a 'right' to bear arms by each and every person is an ABSOLUTE one. That is why you cannot pretend any distinction or conditional ( non-absolute) limitations anywhere to what one considers is a weapon or to whom can or cannot be allowed to use them regardless of anyone's declaration or state of mind. Even children should not be disqualified unless they are all of a sudden NOT to be considered 'people' any longer.

Your defense also justifies that if you consider people's right's to 'choice', if everyone simply WANTS a gun, they should be required by LAW to be provided one regardless of any other limitations, such as availability of supplies, or limitations due to expenses. For this, then the law MUST be recognized to ASSURE that each every person actually does have a gun!
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:52 pm

Hold the phone.

Are you trying to say that because this amendment is in place nobody can propose we limit, for example, hand grenades and automatic assault rifles? (If that is not your point I'll need to come back and re-address everything you wrote.)

Scott Mayers wrote:
digress wrote:I'll say it again. If violent people are able to persuade you to hand over your freedoms then your cause is one for a coward. It's upholding our values in the face of violent people where our struggle as civil society is met.

You want to call others cowards should someone limit your freedoms. But then you should never complain if someone decides to steal or rape you or your children for their own natural freedom to do so! And then you'd have to agree that should you complain about it, by your own standards you are merely the defective and weak minded coward yourself for not being able to outmatch your predators will to enforce their own freedom! You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either anarchy rules or we have to accept conditional limits to our freedoms here based on more complex realities. One of these is guns. But even if you defend your 'right' to own guns as if granted a law by some GOD, then everyone should have no reason NOT to use bigger and bigger ones, like nuclear ones. There is no distinction of difference logically here.


I'm sorry but comparing my argument to keep government control limited as being the same as allowing individuals to rape me is a gross attempt.

I am saying that, We need to address our missing values to better reflect on why a valueless society is scratching their heads to an up-rise in school shootings. I propose it is our responsibility and not the governments. I don't think this is a position for a coward. I don't want to go running to daddy (government) for solutions to problems of civil society. And I most certainly don't need any government body telling me that by turning off my freedom they've made my contribution to society a safe one.

I am asking you not take my civility for granted. I'm telling you that this amendment gives me opportunity to breathe. That the more people say "it's not on them" that the tighter my chest becomes. Because I can see the end of the rope and I'm either going to have to join the party for limited freedom or I'll have to fight it which stands against everything I try to represent at the present. While doing so in the face of cowards who wish to always be the safe spectator!! {!#%@} that!
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:02 am

Scott Mayers wrote:Your defense of a 'right' to bear arms by each and every person is an ABSOLUTE one. That is why you cannot pretend any distinction or conditional ( non-absolute) limitations anywhere to what one considers is a weapon or to whom can or cannot be allowed to use them regardless of anyone's declaration or state of mind. Even children should not be disqualified unless they are all of a sudden NOT to be considered 'people' any longer.

Your defense also justifies that if you consider people's right's to 'choice', if everyone simply WANTS a gun, they should be required by LAW to be provided one regardless of any other limitations, such as availability of supplies, or limitations due to expenses. For this, then the law MUST be recognized to ASSURE that each every person actually does have a gun!


I'm not proposing or defending any absolutism. I'm also not sure how you are proposing that a child is an individual.

Wanting a gun is only half the battle. If a person wants a gun I say, they are free to pursue that goal. But I am not liable in helping them.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Guns again...

Postby kennyc » Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:52 am

digress wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:Your defense of a 'right' to bear arms by each and every person is an ABSOLUTE one. That is why you cannot pretend any distinction or conditional ( non-absolute) limitations anywhere to what one considers is a weapon or to whom can or cannot be allowed to use them regardless of anyone's declaration or state of mind. Even children should not be disqualified unless they are all of a sudden NOT to be considered 'people' any longer.

Your defense also justifies that if you consider people's right's to 'choice', if everyone simply WANTS a gun, they should be required by LAW to be provided one regardless of any other limitations, such as availability of supplies, or limitations due to expenses. For this, then the law MUST be recognized to ASSURE that each every person actually does have a gun!


I'm not proposing or defending any absolutism. I'm also not sure how you are proposing that a child is an individual.

Wanting a gun is only half the battle. If a person wants a gun I say, they are free to pursue that goal. But I am not liable in helping them.


Gun banners are like theists, they'll do and say anything to support their invalid and incorrect claims. And just like climate deniers they will hold on to them despite data showing their claims are wrong.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:58 am

digress wrote:Hold the phone.

Are you trying to say that because this amendment is in place nobody can propose we limit, for example, hand grenades and automatic assault rifles? (If that is not your point I'll need to come back and re-address everything you wrote.)


Very much so. Since 'guns' have been open to interpretation to extend beyond the scope of those used when it was written into law, then any similar mechanism to kill applies. In fact, 'guns' for the militia in the original Constitution also included the rights of militias to have canons too. But because all of these weapons have been extended beyond their scope, no one should impose limitations on what one means by any such tool of elimination. It was already understood in their day that one could naturally carry all other available weapons, like swords or knives. So to be fair to the intention of the law of their day, to extend it to today must not limit any weapon. And if you believe limits should exist, then that Constitutional law can no longer be maintained as an absolute....because if would then be conditional only, contradicting such absolution. It is only where you believe that everyone should by default be allowed to have weapons unconditionally does this prove that you cannot even suggest even regulation on a local level.

digress wrote:I'll say it again. If violent people are able to persuade you to hand over your freedoms then your cause is one for a coward. It's upholding our values in the face of violent people where our struggle as civil society is met.

We had this from time immemorial even without such powerful tools of mass destruction! And that is what guns represent here. What do you mean 'if violent people are able to persuade.."? Do you think that it is the words that such a violent person alone that qualify as 'violent'? So, perhaps to you if you should be held up by a gun now, not even the weapon has power over your decision to give in to such violence. Then who even needs a gun to protect themselves here under your reasoning? Your act to carry a weapon of relatively mass destruction acts as a tool to go beyond your own natural capacity to defend without. But you, and not those other people you prefer to call 'violent' actually ARE one of those violent people and moreso if you don't even assure that each and every other person around you are equally armed. Otherwise, you act as a bully.

If you need an experiment of this, take two strolls down Broadway in New York City at rush hour, one in where you stroll with a big gun in your hand and another in which you do not. (I would recommend that if you actually carry such an experiment that you reverse the above procedure! ;) Poll how 'freely' you feel in being able to walk a block in each instance. Also poll the passersby to learn how 'freely' they feel during each stroll also. Which one do you feel gives you the most 'freedom'; which one does the rest of the crowd find gives them the most 'freedom'? Do you believe that these should be the same?


digress wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:You want to call others cowards should someone limit your freedoms. But then you should never complain if someone decides to steal or rape you or your children for their own natural freedom to do so! And then you'd have to agree that should you complain about it, by your own standards you are merely the defective and weak minded coward yourself for not being able to outmatch your predators will to enforce their own freedom! You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either anarchy rules or we have to accept conditional limits to our freedoms here based on more complex realities. One of these is guns. But even if you defend your 'right' to own guns as if granted a law by some GOD, then everyone should have no reason NOT to use bigger and bigger ones, like nuclear ones. There is no distinction of difference logically here.


I'm sorry but comparing my argument to keep government control limited as being the same as allowing individuals to rape me is a gross attempt.
You're only begging this difference to exist as being meaningful. But to be 'meaningful' you require laws that limit each others' ability to arbitrarily harm someone in your condition that "rape is wrong and is exempt as too extreme".

If guy approaches you, flashes a gun and asks you if you'd like to have sex, and you happened not to have one yourself, do you 'choose' to have sex with him if you said, "yes, do whatever you want?"

Now reverse this. a guy approaches you without any gun, but you flash one. Would he likely even ask you for sex? Highly unlikely. But your safety here counts on the fact that you have the power over him.

Do the same approach while both of you flash that you are carrying a gun of equal force. Perhaps both of you would avoid each other, right?

And, finally, try the same where no one is wearing a gun. On the condition that he's bigger and stronger than you physically, he might ask you to have sex but if you don't want it, he may rape you anyways. And certainly there are those men who are also too small to overpower you in the same situation in which you might simply beat him up yourself. Thus, even the removal of the guns demonstrates that you have a better chance and power to successfully escape your potential rape by default as well as in the case where ONLY YOU are allowed to carry and not the potential criminal. Yet, you'd also contradictorily assert that such a person would still always be more prone to be using a gun as a criminal anyways.

You can't win with your logic here.

digress wrote:I am asking you not take my civility for granted.


Then you have to demonstrate by example and show that you do not possess any threat upon other's right to the assumption of their civility. But yet you choose fearing the other by default while thinking you are naturally some non-threat???
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Jun 15, 2014 1:01 am

Imagine that I draw a line in the sand for you and ask you how you could make it shorter? Tell me how you'd do this, digress?

EDIT: here is such a line:
_____________________
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Sun Jun 15, 2014 1:26 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
digress wrote:Hold the phone.

Are you trying to say that because this amendment is in place nobody can propose we limit, for example, hand grenades and automatic assault rifles? (If that is not your point I'll need to come back and re-address everything you wrote.)


Very much so. Since 'guns' have been open to interpretation to extend beyond the scope of those used when it was written into law, then any similar mechanism to kill applies. In fact, 'guns' for the militia in the original Constitution also included the rights of militias to have canons too. But because all of these weapons have been extended beyond their scope, no one should impose limitations on what one means by any such tool of elimination. It was already understood in their day that one could naturally carry all other available weapons, like swords or knives. So to be fair to the intention of the law of their day, to extend it to today must not limit any weapon. And if you believe limits should exist, then that Constitutional law can no longer be maintained as an absolute....because if would then be conditional only, contradicting such absolution. It is only where you believe that everyone should by default be allowed to have weapons unconditionally does this prove that you cannot even suggest even regulation on a local level.


HOLD the phone...

I thought rules/restrictions existed on guns. I've already implied they do and agreed those restrictions were alright for limiting the choice(not for removing it).

I asked the question above because everything you wrote in that later-reply appeared to say that restrictions are implemented, but then the government removes those restrictions as unconstitutional. So in effect, no restrictions exist! Your issue with the 2nd amendment is that the 27th amendment says, "No government shall be allowed to even propose a bill regarding any such limitations."(limits on guns) Correct?
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest