OT LeBron James said Kyle Rittenhouse should 'knock it off' after the teen cried during murder trial (1 Viewer)

[calvin natt]

says you. How do know it has not avoided the very purpose of the amendment?

its really pretty simple.
Take guns away.
Only criminals then have guns.
I know thats not what i want.

again. For the millionth time. Keep your guns. If people want to play army man fine. Just need more regulation and enforcement of harsh penalties when not following the law. Someone should be petrified of having a gun, using a gun, etc outside the rules. And one of those rules should be that a 17 year old can’t prance around a protest with it strapped over his shoulder so he can pretend he’s a badass.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Rittenhouse: shoots multiple people with an illegally purchased firearm and will likely walk free.
Former Blazer Telfair : likely headed to jail for just owning a gun.

2nd amendment advocates don't even see why that might be an issue. Tell me again how white privilege doesn't exist!

nooooo 2nd amendment advocates know that what you described has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. It has to do with equal rights and treatment…

wrong thread?

 

[Orion Bailey]

I wonder how different peoples opinions would be if their family

again. For the millionth time. Keep your guns. If people want to play army man fine. Just need more regulation and enforcement of harsh penalties when not following the law. Someone should be petrified of having a gun, using a gun, etc outside the rules. And one of those rules should be that a 17 year old can’t prance around a protest with it strapped over his shoulder so he can pretend he’s a badass.

agreed, but for a gazzilionth time i was directing my post at chris who said basically guns haven't done good…

Im even for bullet regulation. But need the details clearly outlined.

 

[Orion Bailey]

its really pretty simple.
Take meth away.
Only criminals then have meth.
I know thats not what i want.

barfo

Its pretty simple.
Take Barfo away.
Now only quality conversations are left.
I know that's not what you want.

 

[tester551]

Rittenhouse: shoots multiple people with an illegally purchased firearm and will likely walk free.
Former Blazer Telfair : likely headed to jail for just owning a gun.

2nd amendment advocates don't even see why that might be an issue. Tell me again how white privilege doesn't exist!

Privilege has nothing to do with these situations.

Local regulations are being applied to each situation as conditions dictate. The judge dismissed the firearm charge against Rittenhouse due to ambiguity in the state law.

I don't think Telfair should be headed to jail for owning a gun... but I also didn't vote for the laws which make owning a firearm a criminal offense.

Those supporting the 2nd amendment sees this is a major issue - but they are also not the ones that created the inequity in the laws.

 

[barfo]

and you wonder why i have issues taking you seriously….

The point is, 'if you outlaw X, then only outlaws will have/do X' is not a good argument. It implies there's no point in outlawing anything.

barfo

 

[Orion Bailey]

The point is, 'if you outlaw X, then only outlaws will have/do X' is not a good argument. It implies there's no point in outlawing anything.

barfo

Okayyy.. but what good has meth provided? I showed good from guns already.

You aren't really comparing apples to apples.
Your implication is faulty.
What good samaritan or citizen is holding onto meth for good intentions?

This implication doesnt seem logical to me…

 

[barfo]

Okayyy.. but what good has meth provided? I showed good from guns already.

You aren't really comparing apples to apples.
Your implication is faulty.
What good samaritan or citizen is holding onto meth for good intentions?

Seems like a post just meant to argue or jab rather than stick to logical statements…

Not really, but I suppose I shouldn't post while on conference calls - I could have made the point in a better way.

Suppose I'm a pirate who steals only from the rich gives all his booty to the poor. Wait, not a pirate. An Englishman who lives in the forest.

I have only noble intentions, and yet there is a law against my actions. Sheriff Buford T. Justice is on my tail. Wait, wrong sheriff.

If robbing the rich is outlawed, only outlaws will rob from the rich.

barfo

 

[Orion Bailey]

Not really, but I suppose I shouldn't post while on conference calls - I could have made the point in a better way.

Suppose I'm a pirate who steals only from the rich gives all his booty to the poor. Wait, not a pirate. An Englishman who lives in the forest.

I have only noble intentions, and yet there is a law against my actions. Sheriff Buford T. Justice is on my tail. Wait, wrong sheriff.

If robbing the rich is outlawed, only outlaws will rob from the rich.

barfo

sorry still not following. Robbing anyone is illegal so im confused.
There are already only criminals who rob. Its already a law.
Owning a gun (legally) is legal.
Are there provisions making certain robberies legal im not aware of?

Currently there are guns in good peoples hands and bad. Take them from the good ( cause the bad wont follow a new law and hand their guns over) leaves the guns only in the hands of bad guys.
Not sure any analogy is out there making this seem like a bad point.
But if you have one im all for trying to understand it. So far i have failed in understanding your point, as neither scenario is comparing apples to apples.

 

[barfo]

sorry still not following. Robbing anyone is illegal so im confused.
There are already only criminals who rob. Its already a law.

Sure. Some things are currently outlawed, some things are not. That's not itself a good reason for things to be outlawed or not, that's simply the current status.

We can change laws when/if we decide to.

Currently there are guns in good peoples hands and bad. Take them from the good ( cause the bad wont follow a new law and hand their guns over) leaves the guns only in the hands of bad guys.

Outlaws don't follow laws, that's the definition of outlaws.

The definition of outlaw doesn't determine what the laws should be.

barfo

 

[Orion Bailey]

Sure. Some things are currently outlawed, some things are not. That's not itself a good reason for things to be outlawed or not, that's simply the current status.

We can change laws when/if we decide to.



Outlaws don't follow laws, that's the definition of outlaws.

The definition of outlaw doesn't determine what the laws should be.

barfo

im not even close to following you. You basically just said what i said. Outlaws are outlaws.

I never said an outlaw should determine a law. As a matter of fact, that's what most have implied in their posts. because some outlaws abuse guns, lets change the laws and outlaw guns(i know outlaw guns wasn't specifically mentioned) but its the overall tone/vibe.
Wouldnt that be allowing outlaws to dictate the law?

So again, im failing to see what your point is.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Rittenhouse: shoots multiple people with an illegally purchased firearm and will likely walk free.
Former Blazer Telfair : likely headed to jail for just owning a gun.

2nd amendment advocates don't even see why that might be an issue. Tell me again how white privilege doesn't exist!

If it was illegally purchased why did the prosecution drop the charges?

I agree. Telfair shouldn't be going to prison. The law they said he broke is a stupid law. But that's what you get with stupid gun laws. More people suffering for no reason.

 

[Phatguysrule]

The point is, 'if you outlaw X, then only outlaws will have/do X' is not a good argument. It implies there's no point in outlawing anything.

barfo

Prohibition doesn't work... I would certainly agree with that.

 

[barfo]

I never said an outlaw should determine a law.

You pretty much did. You said (or at least I understood your argument to be) that we shouldn't outlaw guns because then only outlaws would have guns.

That's explicitly letting (the existence of) outlaws determine the law. It's saying we shouldn't make a law because people will break the law.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Prohibition doesn't work... I would certainly agree with that.

And yet, there are reasons to prohibit things, even if the prohibition doesn't stop them from happening.

I doubt anyone is in favor of making murder legal, even though that law has been on the books for centuries and has utterly failed to eradicate murder.

barfo

 

[Orion Bailey]

You pretty much did. You said (or at least I understood your argument to be) that we shouldn't outlaw guns because then only outlaws would have guns.

That's explicitly letting (the existence of) outlaws determine the law. It's saying we shouldn't make a law because people will break the law.

barfo

Oh boy.. thats one way to completely twist it around….


No…. People are already breaking the law. You are advocating a law that does nothing but hinder good people while doing nothing to hinder the criminals…

 

[Orion Bailey]

Or lets better equate this to the war on drugs. Making them illegal, as it has been pointed out to me, has done nothing but drive the price up. Deuggies are still going to get drugs and criminals will still get guns.
The only change would be good people will not have the ability to defend themselves with guns against bad people with guns.

sorry i was taught to never bring a knife to a gun fight and the stance of making guns illegal is basically forcing me to do so.

 

[barfo]

Oh boy.. thats one way to completely twist it around….

No…. People are already breaking the law. You are advocating a law that does nothing but hinder good people while doing nothing to hinder the criminals…

Not advocating for any law, pointing out the logical flaw in your defense of the status quo.

Any law will have lawbreakers, aside from completely obsolete/bizarre ones (e.g. illegal in MO to drive with an uncaged bear in the car).

barfo

 

[Orion Bailey]

Not advocating for any law, pointing out the logical flaw in your defense of the status quo.

Any law will have lawbreakers, aside from completely obsolete/bizarre ones (e.g. illegal in MO to drive with an uncaged bear in the car).

barfo

nah. I see your rebuttals as flawed logic. Nothing more.
Not sure how anyone can dispute the following:


Some bad people have guns
Some good people have guns to protect themselves against the bad people with guns.

Ban guns and the good people will abide and the bad people wont.

So all thats left is criminals with guns and good people left defenseless.
.
.
.
There really isn't much more too it than that unless you are trying to fabricate some sort of semantically based rebuttal.

if you disagree with that, thats your right, but i would consider your disagreement baseless unless you can somehow show me that good people can still legally get guns and protect themselves or that criminals will turn the corner and hand over thier guns.

 

[barfo]

nah. I see your rebuttals as flawed logic. Nothing more.
Not sure how anyone can dispute the following:


Some bad people have guns
Some good people have guns to protect themselves against the bad people with guns.

Ban guns and the good people will abide and the bad people wont.

So all thats left is criminals with guns and good people left defenseless.
.
.
.
There really isn't much more too it than that unless you are trying to fabricate some sort of semantically based rebuttal.

if you disagree with that, thats your right, but i would consider your disagreement baseless unless you can somehow show me that good people can still legally get guns and protect themselves or that criminals will turn the corner and hand over thier guns.

That's fine, you don't have to agree with me.

barfo

 

[Orion Bailey]

That's fine, you don't have to agree with me.

barfo

no interest in trying to directly point out the flaw in that post you see? Your examples were not very compelling evidence to back your illogical claim up.

 

[barfo]

no interest in trying to directly point out the flaw in that post you see? Your examples were not very compelling evidence to back your illogical claim up.

I already made several posts on the topic, I don't feel motivated to restate them. You can reread them if you want.

barfo

 

[Orion Bailey]

I already made several posts on the topic, I don't feel motivated to restate them. You can reread them if you want.

barfo

i thought maybe you could provide a different angle that made more sense, i might understand. Currently, i see the two examples as having major flaws and not providing an analogy that compares apples to apples.

how would your analogy hold up regarding drug use/abuse?

 

[Phatguysrule]

And yet, there are reasons to prohibit things, even if the prohibition doesn't stop them from happening.

I doubt anyone is in favor of making murder legal, even though that law has been on the books for centuries and has utterly failed to eradicate murder.

barfo

Good point. I think the difference is that murder is not a product. It's an action. There is no reason to make guns illegal because we've already made murder illegal.
Guns are not hard to make. Anybody can make a gun in an afternoon. You can 3D print a fully automatic gun in a week using a $300 printer... Much like making a plant illegal. Or rotting fruit juice.
These things are too easy to come by to successfully control them. You can only hope to control the people who would misuse them to harm others.

 

[Buffalo Custard]

i thought maybe you could provide a different angle that made more sense, i might understand. Currently, i see the two examples as having major flaws and not providing an analogy that compares apples to apples.

how would your analogy hold up regarding drug use/abuse?

The practical reality is that some laws attempt to prevent anti-social conduct (EG Murder, rape, stealing) and some attempt to regulate morality (EG drugs sex between consenting adults). Barfo would put gun control laws into the former category, while you compare it to the latter. No matter how he explains his position you won't agree - or even consider his arguments relevant - because you are working off 2 completely different paradigms.

It's the same thing with the abortion argument - but that's a whole 'nother bucket of rabid weasels!

 

[Chris Craig]

I'm confused

 

[Buffalo Custard]

I'm confused

Would someone with a clear head be posting here?

 

[Buffalo Custard]

If it was illegally purchased why did the prosecution drop the charges?

I agree. Telfair shouldn't be going to prison. The law they said he broke is a stupid law. But that's what you get with stupid gun laws. More people suffering for no reason.

The DA didn't drop the charges - the judge threw them out because he considers the law flawed.

 

[Orion Bailey]

The practical reality is that some laws attempt to prevent anti-social conduct (EG Murder, rape, stealing) and some attempt to regulate morality (EG drugs sex between consenting adults). Barfo would put gun control laws into the former category, while you compare it to the latter. No matter how he explains his position you won't agree - or even consider his arguments relevant - because you are working off 2 completely different paradigms.

It's the same thing with the abortion argument - but that's a whole 'nother bucket of rabid weasels!

actually if you read below, it was barfo who used a drug analogy as comparison. Not me… i asked him how its working out….

so im also not getting your point?

its really pretty simple.
Take meth away.
Only criminals then have meth.
I know thats not what i want.

barfo

 

[Chris Craig]

again. For the millionth time. Keep your guns. If people want to play army man fine. Just need more regulation and enforcement of harsh penalties when not following the law. Someone should be petrified of having a gun, using a gun, etc outside the rules. And one of those rules should be that a 17 year old can’t prance around a protest with it strapped over his shoulder so he can pretend he’s a badass.

Agreed