Mass Shooting in Germany

[barfo]

We already live under a regime that doesn't value or privacy. They have proven that again and again. Nobody does anything about it.

You've got guns Nate! Do something! Or is it not important enough?

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Correct. Especially living in Portland, the chances are very low. If I lived in midtown Manhattan, I might be slightly more concerned.

Nevertheless, I rate the chances of dying by terrorism higher than the chances of government oppressing me because I don't own enough guns.



No, I actually agree with you about the 4th. I just disagree about the 2nd. I was merely explaining that some people think data collection is valuable in terrorist-hunting.

My chances of dying at the hands of some stupid yahoo with a gun are much, much greater than either terrorism (foreign or domestic) or government oppression.

barfo

Your chances of dying at the hands of some yahoo in a corvette are much much greater than being shot or terrorism or government oppression. We're all gonna die from something. Probably cancer. But unless you like to hang around drug dealers, your chances of ever being shot are extremely low.

 

[Natebishop3]

You've got guns Nate! Do something! Or is it not important enough?

barfo

We aren't there yet. People aren't pissed off enough. They can still watch game of thrones and drink Starbucks so they don't care that the government is shitting on their rights. They're like you. They want to catch the evil terrorists!!! I really do believe the breaking point will be if they try to confiscate the guns. The rednecks will revolt.

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

Valid reason #1 - I enjoy shooting targets. .223 caliber ammo is cheap and fun to shoot.

Valid reason #2 - There are sooooo few deaths from AR-15 rifles every year. Significantly fewer than handguns (mostly because people don't use AR's to kill themselves.) You guys get so fixated on what a gun looks like. Just because a gun can have a telescoping stock, or a laser, or a red dot doesn't mean it's suddenly more dangerous. At that point you're just worried about mag capacity, but how many shootings like Orlando happen? Most shootings involve just a handful of people, and that could be done with literally any gun.

Question - which gun should be banned?

1. I have no problem what so ever with target shooting. It's a fine activity and I'm sure it's a lot of fun, more power to you and others that enjoy it!
1a. Though there is a limit to what you can use to target shoot, IMO. I know people like to shoot the most powerful weapons they can find, and
that's not a big deal to me either. I think to own machine guns like you see on a gunship is not appropriate for citizens. But reasonable rifles
are just that, reasonable.

2. Just because a particular rifle has historically few deaths doesn't mean that in and of itself means it's reasonable for citizens to own. The AR-15 platform
might be reasonable, my ONLY contention was that making the point that it has fewer deaths than stabbing and punches is not a good argument.

I don't care what the gun looks like, I am not firm on my position on this topic so I'm asking folks that support having gun freedoms what they see
are the valid points so I can be convinced it's the right thing. If I see something that makes sense, I can then solidify my position.

Once again, I don't hate guns and don't feel they should be removed from the planet. I don't love them either. I believe in being balanced and unemotional
and want to and am prepared to be swayed by good evidence.

So for sport shooting, how large of a magazine is reasonable? How powerful a weapon is reasonable? Maris61 says that the 2nd amendment is about taking
over the government, so that isn't the same as protecting ones family, so should the magazine limit, power of the weapon, and rapidity of firing be lower
than those for military use? Or is that infringing on the 2nd amendment? These are honest questions.

"Most shootings involve just a handful of people, and that could be done with literally any gun"

This doesn't make a good argument for me. This is no different than the other comments about people dying from other mundane methods. If we accept the
premise that if something causes the most deaths it should be the thing we look to ban, then we better ban whatever handgun has been used to kill the most people.
But that isn't logical either. There is more nuance to what makes something problematic or not than "It causes the most or fewest deaths".


Cheers

 

[Denny Crane]

Insightful.



No idea what you are talking about. Who am I hassling?

barfo

Everyone. That's who you hassle. You just have jack booted government thugs do it for you.

 

[Denny Crane]

Bandwagonfan with another logical fallacy.

People kill, period.

People want to be able to defend themselves. Or shoot for fun or collect guns because they are collectible.

They two statements are not necessarily related. Though the 2nd does allow a means of self protection.

If the 2nd isn't safe, what is? The founders surely couldn't foresee in 250 years that we need a king! 4 years and having to be elected by voters just gets in the way!

It's sickening that people keep using these rare mass shootings as an excuse to further their unconstitutional agenda. Shameful.

 

[Natebishop3]

Bandwagonfan with another logical fallacy.

People kill, period.

People want to be able to defend themselves. Or shoot for fun or collect guns because they are collectible.

They two statements are not necessarily related. Though the 2nd does allow a means of self protection.

If the 2nd isn't safe, what is? The founders surely couldn't foresee in 250 years that we need a king! 4 years and having to be elected by voters just gets in the way!

It's sickening that people keep using these rare mass shootings as an excuse to further their unconstitutional agenda. Shameful.

Because they're being sold a bill of goods. The media and other sources with an agenda have been promoting the idea that "mass shootings" are happening every day. They're pushing the idea that gun violence is on the rise and it's an epidemic. If you go on even smaller sites like Oregonlive, you'll see reports of shootings every day. If something happens that involves a gun, they're going to report on it. We're inundated with every single little story about gun violence because they know people will click on it. It never fails. If there is some kind of shooting, the same people on my facebook feed will freak the fuck out and post the same stuff about how bad guns are. They don't seem to know or care about two important facts:

1) Gun violence is on the decline, which flies in the face of what the media is reporting and what they're pushing.

2) People are killed every single day, often by other people.

I just find it interesting because they like to use cars as an example of how we regulate something that everybody owns. But I find it interesting that most pro-gun people say that regulation doesn't work, and that gun control won't change the problems. If anything, the regulation of cars PROVES that.

We require tests.
We require insurance.
We require a license.
We require you to wear safety equipment.
We have countless laws dictating how we drive, where we can drive, what we can drive, etc.

And with all that, people CONSTANTLY break the law. We all do. People speed. People speed every day. How many people go exactly the speed limit? Some people don't wear their seat belts. Some people drive drunk. Some people drive without a license. Some people drive without insurance. We have all this regulation, all these laws, all these requirements, and yet people still break the law. They drive drunk and they kill people. They speed and they kill people. They are allowed to drive well into their later years and they kill people. They text and drive, or they talk on their cell phones and drive.

I pulled these articles off the front page of Oregonlive. This is just from Today.

90-year-old man arrested on accusations of killing pedestrian with car in NE Portland
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/06/90-year-old_man_arrested_on_ac.html
"A 90-year-old man accused of killing a pedestrian with a car in a Northeast Portland this March was arrested Thursday and booked into jail.
Balding's Oregon driver's license was medically suspended in late April, more than a month after the crash. The Oregon Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division cited the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) when asked for details about the medical condition. Balding's license has outside mirror and corrective lens restrictions.

4 hospitalized after head-on crash near Sheridan
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...ed_after_head_on_c.html#incart_river_home_pop
"Timothy McCready, 43, was behind the wheel and attempting to pass another vehicle in a no-passing zone when his 2001 Hyundai Elantra slammed into an oncoming 2001 Hyundai Accent at about 7 p.m. Friday"

2 dead, 3 injured in Oregon City collision
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...er_oregon_city_cra.html#incart_river_home_pop

Hillsboro man, 22, dies after crashing into tree on Oregon 219
http://www.oregonlive.com/washingto...n_22_dies_after_cr.html#incart_river_home_pop

People are CONSTANTLY killed by cars because of people breaking the laws. These are some of the most heavily regulated items that we use in our daily lives, and yet people still kill other people because of negligence. According to this article by Newsweek, "2015 BROUGHT BIGGEST PERCENT INCREASE IN U.S. TRAFFIC DEATHS IN 50 YEARS" with estimates 38,300 people were killed and 4.4 million injured on U.S. roads.

I have no idea why anti-gun people think that "common sense" laws are going to do jack shit.

 

[barfo]

Your chances of dying at the hands of some yahoo in a corvette are much much greater than being shot or terrorism or government oppression. We're all gonna die from something. Probably cancer. But unless you like to hang around drug dealers, your chances of ever being shot are extremely low.

It's true, my chances of cancer and auto accidents are higher than being shot. But it's not a case where 'you have to pick one'. Gun control laws don't mean we can't try to cure cancer. Curing cancer doesn't mean abandoning seat belt laws.

barfo

 

[barfo]

We aren't there yet. People aren't pissed off enough. They can still watch game of thrones and drink Starbucks so they don't care that the government is shitting on their rights. They're like you. They want to catch the evil terrorists!!! I really do believe the breaking point will be if they try to confiscate the guns. The rednecks will revolt.

Well, then the rednecks won't revolt, so no problem. Nobody is going to be confiscating guns.

People can continue to sit around and do absolutely nothing to try to solve any actual problems.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

People can continue to sit around and do absolutely nothing to try to solve any of what I perceive to be problems.

barfo

Fixed it for you.

 

[barfo]

People are CONSTANTLY killed by cars because of people breaking the laws. These are some of the most heavily regulated items that we use in our daily lives, and yet people still kill other people because of negligence. According to this article by Newsweek, "2015 BROUGHT BIGGEST PERCENT INCREASE IN U.S. TRAFFIC DEATHS IN 50 YEARS" with estimates 38,300 people were killed and 4.4 million injured on U.S. roads.

I have no idea why anti-gun people think that "common sense" laws are going to do jack shit.

Good point. Let's get rid of seat belt laws, helmet laws, speed limits, testing & licensing, and just let everyone do whatever they want on the road, because the laws don't do jack shit.

It's clear traffic deaths wouldn't increase if we did that, right?

In fact, let's get rid of all laws, because laws don't prevent laws from being broken. In fact, getting rid of laws would eliminate all criminal activity.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

If my logic is flawed, please let me know in the most demeaning way possible.

Oh, I see you called.

Perhaps you do not understand, the right of self defense is older than our Nation. Madison wanted it is the Constitution but had to defer until the bill of rights was taken up. The second amendment offered by Madison
reflects the support of the right of self defense (by force of arms). We know men institute governments to protect their rights, and they do this for the population as a whole. But no government promises every individual protection. The individual is responsible to protect himself and family. Government may come to their aid or maybe not. More often than not, not in time.

From Natural law (The law of Nations book III)

"As nature has given men no right to employ force, unless when it becomes necessary for self defence
and the preservation of their rights (Book II. § 49, &c.), the inference is manifest, that, since the
establishment of political societies, a right, so dangerous in its exercise, no longer remains with private
persons except in those encounters where society cannot protect or defend them."

It seems quite logical to me, and quite prudent that I keep the best weapon available, handy, in case I ever need it. Perhaps also, a few for my family to use in the fight .

Our Second Amendment, thanks to Madison, codifies this right in law, and I appreciate this very much.

Now, I hope this is not too demeaning, but if you don't like this law, purpose and amendment to change it that you think will pass the amendment process.

But if you don't like the suggested action, then I can give you no alternative, but Fuck off!

 

[Natebishop3]

Good point. Let's get rid of seat belt laws, helmet laws, speed limits, testing & licensing, and just let everyone do whatever they want on the road, because the laws don't do jack shit.

It's clear traffic deaths wouldn't increase if we did that, right?

In fact, let's get rid of all laws, because laws don't prevent laws from being broken. In fact, getting rid of laws would eliminate all criminal activity.

barfo

Do you ever write a post without snark? I'm just asking for a friend.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/...lis-attacked-at-north-carolina-home/86347504/

Top Gun actress Kelly McGillis says she was attacked by a stranger in her North Carolina home last week, so she got a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

 

[Natebishop3]

What annoys me about anti-gun people is the moral high ground bullshit.

"I want to save lives!"

"Passing common sense gun laws will save lives!"

Question - if you people care SO much about saving lives, how many times have you donated blood? Have you donated bone marrow? You, yourself, could save a life. Have you done that yet? I mean, if you're SO concerned with saving lives, there are things that YOU could do to save a life. Or I guess they could just keep posting about gun laws on facebook. That might eventually save a life.

 

[Sedatedfork]

Gun advocate kills her daughters. Sad.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-fatally-shooting-daughters-article-1.2687929

 

[barfo]

Do you ever write a post without snark? I'm just asking for a friend.

Nate, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Nate, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, Nate, there is a Santa barfo. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa barfo. It would be as dreary as if there were no Nates. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa barfo! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa barfo, but even if they did not see Santa barfo coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa barfo, but that is no sign that there is no Santa barfo. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You may tear apart the baby’s rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Nate, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Santa barfo! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Nate, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Gun advocate kills her daughters. Sad.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-fatally-shooting-daughters-article-1.2687929

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Refrigerator-Falls-on-7-Year-Old-in-Clairemont-384395341.html

6 year old crushed by refrigerator that fell off a truck. Sad.

 

[Natebishop3]

Gun advocate kills her daughters. Sad.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-fatally-shooting-daughters-article-1.2687929

Woman kills intruder in her kid's bedroom. Relieved.

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

Bandwagonfan with another logical fallacy.

People kill, period.

People want to be able to defend themselves. Or shoot for fun or collect guns because they are collectible.

They two statements are not necessarily related. Though the 2nd does allow a means of self protection.

If the 2nd isn't safe, what is? The founders surely couldn't foresee in 250 years that we need a king! 4 years and having to be elected by voters just gets in the way!

It's sickening that people keep using these rare mass shootings as an excuse to further their unconstitutional agenda. Shameful.

I broke down your argument about stabbings and punches step by step and pointed out that it specifically was fallacious. Show me how that breakdown was faulty and I will concede that point. Just saying "bandwagonfan(since1977 mind you!) with another logical fallacy" doesn't make it so. Did I confuse the point you were trying to make?

I don't want to take your guns, which I've mentioned before in this thread. I value the 2nd amendment and at the same time fully expect that a debate about its merits and faults is healthy since there is nothing ever that shouldn't be able to be discussed. If the framers knew about how controversial the wording of the 2nd amendment turned out to be and could have foreseen what was unclear they would have certainly written it differently to aid interpretation.

To wit: Until 2008 with District of Columbia v. Heller, the courts had not made it clear that the 2nd was meant for individuals as compared to collectively for militia. There were cases the courts ruled on prior to the 1900s that solidified their interpretation that the 2nd amendment only limited the federal government from prohibiting gun ownership.

In 1939, U.S. v. Miller, a case about a sawed off shotgun came back with a result of not allowing for the 2nd amendment to protect the ownership of such a weapon since it was deemed not needed for the use in a militia.

So not until 2008 do we have the courts settling the matter of guns being protected for individuals under the 2nd amendment. That is clear evidence that your interpretation is not the only reasonable one. It also shows that coming to a conclusion about individual right of gun ownership isn't as simple as just read the 2nd amendment it's all explained right there. Hence you, I and others, are having a conversation about this. This is healthy, and to say that the 2nd amendment is untouchable is unhealthy. If your arguments are sound, they will prevail.

So, once again, please show me where I am at fault in my reasoning instead of ad hominem attack on the stabbing, punching, etc vs. Rifle point you tried to make.

And do you concede that it is not obvious and clear what rights the 2nd amendment grants or doesn't grant?

You and I both don't have to be right on every point we try to make. I fully expect that I will be wrong on things I am not expert in so I am here trying to have my arguments poked at, but I am going to do the same to others. And there is nothing wrong at all with saying a document that needs to be assessed by judges as to its meaning is possibly mildly or greatly ambiguous or subject to interpretation.

Look forward to your considered reply.

p.s. I am not a gun control nut trying to take your gun nor taking a knee jerk response about so-called mass shootings.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

1. I have no problem what so ever with target shooting. It's a fine activity and I'm sure it's a lot of fun, more power to you and others that enjoy it!
1a. Though there is a limit to what you can use to target shoot, IMO. I know people like to shoot the most powerful weapons they can find, and
that's not a big deal to me either. I think to own machine guns like you see on a gunship is not appropriate for citizens. But reasonable rifles
are just that, reasonable.

2. Just because a particular rifle has historically few deaths doesn't mean that in and of itself means it's reasonable for citizens to own. The AR-15 platform
might be reasonable, my ONLY contention was that making the point that it has fewer deaths than stabbing and punches is not a good argument.

I don't care what the gun looks like, I am not firm on my position on this topic so I'm asking folks that support having gun freedoms what they see
are the valid points so I can be convinced it's the right thing. If I see something that makes sense, I can then solidify my position.

Once again, I don't hate guns and don't feel they should be removed from the planet. I don't love them either. I believe in being balanced and unemotional
and want to and am prepared to be swayed by good evidence.

So for sport shooting, how large of a magazine is reasonable? How powerful a weapon is reasonable? Maris61 says that the 2nd amendment is about taking
over the government, so that isn't the same as protecting ones family, so should the magazine limit, power of the weapon, and rapidity of firing be lower
than those for military use? Or is that infringing on the 2nd amendment? These are honest questions.

"Most shootings involve just a handful of people, and that could be done with literally any gun"

This doesn't make a good argument for me. This is no different than the other comments about people dying from other mundane methods. If we accept the
premise that if something causes the most deaths it should be the thing we look to ban, then we better ban whatever handgun has been used to kill the most people.
But that isn't logical either. There is more nuance to what makes something problematic or not than "It causes the most or fewest deaths".


Cheers

The answer is the gun isnt the problem. Mental health is a joke in this country. Combine that with a lack of family values and you have crazies killing people over really dumb shit. So rather than focus on what guns or gun accesories to ban, why dont liberals focuse on why people kill people? Attack the problem at it's source rather than put a bandaid on a cancerous tumor and pretend like you created world peace.

 

[Denny Crane]

I broke down your argument about stabbings and punches step by step and pointed out that it specifically was fallacious. Show me how that breakdown was faulty and I will concede that point. Just saying "bandwagonfan(since1977 mind you!) with another logical fallacy" doesn't make it so. Did I confuse the point you were trying to make?

I don't want to take your guns, which I've mentioned before in this thread. I value the 2nd amendment and at the same time fully expect that a debate about its merits and faults is healthy since there is nothing ever that shouldn't be able to be discussed. If the framers knew about how controversial the wording of the 2nd amendment turned out to be and could have foreseen what was unclear they would have certainly written it differently to aid interpretation.

To wit: Until 2008 with District of Columbia v. Heller, the courts had not made it clear that the 2nd was meant for individuals as compared to collectively for militia. There were cases the courts ruled on prior to the 1900s that solidified their interpretation that the 2nd amendment only limited the federal government from prohibiting gun ownership.

In 1939, U.S. v. Miller, a case about a sawed off shotgun came back with a result of not allowing for the 2nd amendment to protect the ownership of such a weapon since it was deemed not needed for the use in a militia.

So not until 2008 do we have the courts settling the matter of guns being protected for individuals under the 2nd amendment. That is clear evidence that your interpretation is not the only reasonable one. It also shows that coming to a conclusion about individual right of gun ownership isn't as simple as just read the 2nd amendment it's all explained right there. Hence you, I and others, are having a conversation about this. This is healthy, and to say that the 2nd amendment is untouchable is unhealthy. If your arguments are sound, they will prevail.

So, once again, please show me where I am at fault in my reasoning instead of ad hominem attack on the stabbing, punching, etc vs. Rifle point you tried to make.

And do you concede that it is not obvious and clear what rights the 2nd amendment grants or doesn't grant?

You and I both don't have to be right on every point we try to make. I fully expect that I will be wrong on things I am not expert in so I am here trying to have my arguments poked at, but I am going to do the same to others. And there is nothing wrong at all with saying a document that needs to be assessed by judges as to its meaning is possibly mildly or greatly ambiguous or subject to interpretation.

Look forward to your considered reply.

p.s. I am not a gun control nut trying to take your gun nor taking a knee jerk response about so-called mass shootings.

The bit about nukes is way over the top, extreme, and has nothing to do with any points made. It's a straw man - an argument nobody made.

You did the same thing in your logic about shootings vs. other forms of killings. People kill, period.

The suggestions posed are akin to violating the unalienable Natural Rights of hundreds of millions of people because of the deeds of .001% of them who abuse the right. When this logic is taken to its extreme, why not ban cars? Less than .001% of them abuse the privilege. Or ban swimming pools so children don't accidentally drown in them.

It's hard to take you serious when you talk about "logic" faults and then commit them repeatedly.

If the state can make the case that it has an overwhelmingly compelling interest, then it can ban certain kinds of arms.

The court never, until 2008, ruled on whether the 2nd guaranteed the rights it says in black and white in the bill of rights. But government never tried to ban guns until D.C. and Chicago, thus Heller. And the Heller ruling was 100% correct and spot on.

The 2nd amendment is untouchable without amending the constitution. The founders couldn't have been clearer about their reasons. I have no interest in going around the constitution and its requirements to appease the political agenda of some.

 

[MarAzul]

to say that the 2nd amendment is untouchable is unhealthy. If your arguments are sound, they will prevail.

Absolutely correct. I a wait the amendment you would replace the 2nd with. If it is sound, it could pass.

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

The bit about nukes is way over the top, extreme, and has nothing to do with any points made. It's a straw man - an argument nobody made.

You did the same thing in your logic about shootings vs. other forms of killings. People kill, period.

The suggestions posed are akin to violating the unalienable Natural Rights of hundreds of millions of people because of the deeds of .001% of them who abuse the right. When this logic is taken to its extreme, why not ban cars? Less than .001% of them abuse the privilege. Or ban swimming pools so children don't accidentally drown in them.

It's hard to take you serious when you talk about "logic" faults and then commit them repeatedly.

If the state can make the case that it has an overwhelmingly compelling interest, then it can ban certain kinds of arms.

The court never, until 2008, ruled on whether the 2nd guaranteed the rights it says in black and white in the bill of rights. But government never tried to ban guns until D.C. and Chicago, thus Heller. And the Heller ruling was 100% correct and spot on.

The 2nd amendment is untouchable without amending the constitution. The founders couldn't have been clearer about their reasons. I have no interest in going around the constitution and its requirements to appease the political agenda of some.

"The bit about nukes is way over the top, extreme, and has nothing to do with any points made. It's a straw man - an argument nobody made."

I stated clearly that this was a technique for seeing how your premise was faulty by suggesting a weapon that the 2nd amendment protection could theoretically allow for, since the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention what sort of arms would be the limit. Of course a nuke is hyperbole. That is the intention of taking something to a logical extreme for purposes of making a point clearer. You can call it a straw-man argument all you want, but that isn't what my comment is. I could have very easily reduced it to a bazooka or some other military weapon that, I assume, most could agree isn't needed for personal protection, but could be useful in defending against a tyrannical government as part of a militia.

Taking something to a logical extreme to make a point, which you do here:

"The suggestions posed are akin to violating the unalienable Natural Rights of hundreds of millions of people because of the deeds of .001% of them who abuse the right. When this logic is taken to its extreme, why not ban cars? Less than .001% of them abuse the privilege. Or ban swimming pools so children don't accidentally drown in them."

Is apparently ok when you do it, but not when I do it? Even though I clearly state that I'm exaggerating the extreme to drive the point home, you then throw that back in my face to avoid admitting your original argument isn't very strong?
I know you aren't completely serious when you are doing it in this particular case, but it still can make a point for you. In my use of the nuke, I am well aware that the nuke is not reasonable and that one should mentally fill in the placeholder word of 'nuke' with a weapon of your choice that would likely go beyond what most gun advocates would deem to be reasonable. Is that clearer? Is that unreasonable use of rhetoric in an informal debate/conversation like we are having here?

If I remove my "over the top" exaggeration to show how your line of reasoning is faulty, can you then tell me where the logic breaks down? (It seems it is only helpful to use exaggeration when someone actually is testing their own ideas, because when you use it to help others see if their own ideas are valid, they will try to find fault with the tool and disregard the conclusion. My mistake, I'll keep it simpler for us.)


"You did the same thing in your logic about shootings vs. other forms of killings. People kill, period."

You mean when I broke down sentence by sentence what you and Maris61 were saying about stabbing and fists comparing them to AR-15 platform rifles? Just making sure this is what you are referring to.
If so, unless it's again using the word nuke that you have a problem with, then that has been addressed; if not, let me know specifically what logic/reasoning you have a problem with.


"People kill, period"

You mention this often, but it's so short, so I don't want to misconstrue what you mean. You are suggesting that any instrument that can be used to harm needs to have an actor performing an action on said instrument in order for this instrument to become deadly. So the blame should never under any circumstances be placed on the instrument since the instrument is inert and can do no harm on its own?

If this is your meaning, give or take, this would suggest that you feel there is no limit on what the average citizen should be able to own. Is this a fair conclusion?


"If the state can make the case that it has an overwhelmingly compelling interest, then it can ban certain kinds of arms."

So what is the limit on what you feel a law-abiding citizen should own as far as a weapon is concerned?


"The court never, until 2008, ruled on whether the 2nd guaranteed the rights it says in black and white in the bill of rights. But government never tried to ban guns until D.C. and Chicago, thus Heller. And the Heller ruling was 100% correct and spot on."

And up until that point people would still debate the subject of whether or not the 2nd amendment would protect their right to bear arms for self-defense. And considering it was a 5-4 ruling, it is still clearly a debatable issue. One might say it is a partisan issue, but if we are honest we have to say that we are no better than the "other" side. They might be right on some things, and we might be wrong on some things. YOU say it was 100% correct and spot on because it's the ruling you want, that's fine. Even so it is not as clear as you think and is still very debatable and is subject to future interpretation.


"The 2nd amendment is untouchable without amending the constitution."

I'm not suggesting otherwise. My contention is that it is healthy to always be open to having discussions on all matters. It is vitally important to hear what people have to say about every issue and not dismiss their concerns out of hand because something is sacred. If something considered sacred can't stand up to scrutiny, then maybe it shouldn't be sacred in the first place.



"The founders couldn't have been clearer about their reasons."

And yet it was debated, and not made clearer by the courts, for over a century and it's still a hot topic of debate to this day for millions of people, as it should continue to be in to the future. No matter if a court comes to a conclusion on one side or the other. We are all human and can come to incorrect conclusions ( or change judges ) and then be corrected.


Lastly, could you please stop with this?


"I have no interest in going around the constitution and its requirements to appease the political agenda of some."

I have said repeatedly that I am not anti-gun and that I don't want to take away guns from law-abiding citizens, and that there should be a discussion about how the right to own a gun for someone as a suspected terrorist is problematic and that this system should be looked at closely to minimize the impact of infringing upon the rights of law-abiding citizens. Again, I have said I'm trying to hear the responses of those that hold the 2nd Amendment in such high regard they talk about prying the weapons from their cold dead hands.

All I feel I've done is not pull my punches in saying one of your arguments in support of your position was weak. I pointed out how I thought it was weak. Said that I'm all ears for better arguments, because I want to get a better feel for what the right way to think on this matter is. So can we get off the name calling and painting me with a broad brush? I have never attacked you once, only your argument, and then defended my own arguments. Personally, I take no offense to someone calling out my arguments, we are both men. Just it's a real distraction to be called a name that isn't accurate. If I wore the SJW badge or thought of myself as part of the democrats, liberals, anti-gun, etc then I could take your insult on the chin and maybe dish it back. But, I'm not what you suggest.

If you feel that I'm coming at you personally or that I really have an axe to grind and won't listen to your arguments carefully, then fine. Let's end it here. But, I can tell you honestly that I see you as the Alpha here and respect your opinion on this subject which is why I'm spending so much of my time off replying.

Cheers

 

[Denny Crane]

Yet it is debated.

"Let's debate making W King."

I think I summed up your whole argument in those 5 words. Because we can debate it, the idea has merit.

Calling my argument weak doesn't make it so. It just means you have no better argument.

Otherwise, you have "broken down sentences" written by maris61 and myself and attributed your own straw man meanings to them.

We have laws against murder, yet people kill anyway. Using all sorts of methods. It is the "get rid of guns and you get rid of some murders: argument that we have shown to be downright silly. Absurd on the face of it, not worthy of debate. If the murderer wants to kill, they'll use other means.

Then you argue that nobody should have an AR-15, yet there are millions of them and they're not used to kill people except in the rarest of rare circumstances. What is the point of banning them? There was an assault rifle ban for a decade+ that had zero positive effect except to deny law abiding citizens from owning them. Makes no sense at all to have the ban in the first place. So, "let's debate it" some more? No thanks, I'd rather not debate repeating past mistakes. In fact, "it'll work better this time" rings of "fool me twice."

Women are smaller and weaker than men, for the most part. In an abusive relationship, being stalked, assaulted, or simply having to walk through a dark parking lot alone, if a woman wants a gun for protection, I am the last person that would deny her.

In spite of all the court rulings over 250 years, none have denied the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. It's not really the courts' job to rewrite the law, that is done by amendment or con con. It's only when outright ban was put in place was the court forced to clarify the obvious.

The sawed off shotgun case was the wrong ruling. The lower court favored the 2nd amendment. The Supreme Court heard no argument at all on behalf of the 2nd.

 

[e_blazer]

"The bit about nukes is way over the top, extreme, and has nothing to do with any points made. It's a straw man - an argument nobody made."

I stated clearly that this was a technique for seeing how your premise was faulty by suggesting a weapon that the 2nd amendment protection could theoretically allow for, since the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention what sort of arms would be the limit. Of course a nuke is hyperbole. That is the intention of taking something to a logical extreme for purposes of making a point clearer. You can call it a straw-man argument all you want, but that isn't what my comment is. I could have very easily reduced it to a bazooka or some other military weapon that, I assume, most could agree isn't needed for personal protection, but could be useful in defending against a tyrannical government as part of a militia.

Taking something to a logical extreme to make a point, which you do here:

"The suggestions posed are akin to violating the unalienable Natural Rights of hundreds of millions of people because of the deeds of .001% of them who abuse the right. When this logic is taken to its extreme, why not ban cars? Less than .001% of them abuse the privilege. Or ban swimming pools so children don't accidentally drown in them."

Is apparently ok when you do it, but not when I do it? Even though I clearly state that I'm exaggerating the extreme to drive the point home, you then throw that back in my face to avoid admitting your original argument isn't very strong?
I know you aren't completely serious when you are doing it in this particular case, but it still can make a point for you. In my use of the nuke, I am well aware that the nuke is not reasonable and that one should mentally fill in the placeholder word of 'nuke' with a weapon of your choice that would likely go beyond what most gun advocates would deem to be reasonable. Is that clearer? Is that unreasonable use of rhetoric in an informal debate/conversation like we are having here?

If I remove my "over the top" exaggeration to show how your line of reasoning is faulty, can you then tell me where the logic breaks down? (It seems it is only helpful to use exaggeration when someone actually is testing their own ideas, because when you use it to help others see if their own ideas are valid, they will try to find fault with the tool and disregard the conclusion. My mistake, I'll keep it simpler for us.)


"You did the same thing in your logic about shootings vs. other forms of killings. People kill, period."

You mean when I broke down sentence by sentence what you and Maris61 were saying about stabbing and fists comparing them to AR-15 platform rifles? Just making sure this is what you are referring to.
If so, unless it's again using the word nuke that you have a problem with, then that has been addressed; if not, let me know specifically what logic/reasoning you have a problem with.


"People kill, period"

You mention this often, but it's so short, so I don't want to misconstrue what you mean. You are suggesting that any instrument that can be used to harm needs to have an actor performing an action on said instrument in order for this instrument to become deadly. So the blame should never under any circumstances be placed on the instrument since the instrument is inert and can do no harm on its own?

If this is your meaning, give or take, this would suggest that you feel there is no limit on what the average citizen should be able to own. Is this a fair conclusion?


"If the state can make the case that it has an overwhelmingly compelling interest, then it can ban certain kinds of arms."

So what is the limit on what you feel a law-abiding citizen should own as far as a weapon is concerned?


"The court never, until 2008, ruled on whether the 2nd guaranteed the rights it says in black and white in the bill of rights. But government never tried to ban guns until D.C. and Chicago, thus Heller. And the Heller ruling was 100% correct and spot on."

And up until that point people would still debate the subject of whether or not the 2nd amendment would protect their right to bear arms for self-defense. And considering it was a 5-4 ruling, it is still clearly a debatable issue. One might say it is a partisan issue, but if we are honest we have to say that we are no better than the "other" side. They might be right on some things, and we might be wrong on some things. YOU say it was 100% correct and spot on because it's the ruling you want, that's fine. Even so it is not as clear as you think and is still very debatable and is subject to future interpretation.


"The 2nd amendment is untouchable without amending the constitution."

I'm not suggesting otherwise. My contention is that it is healthy to always be open to having discussions on all matters. It is vitally important to hear what people have to say about every issue and not dismiss their concerns out of hand because something is sacred. If something considered sacred can't stand up to scrutiny, then maybe it shouldn't be sacred in the first place.



"The founders couldn't have been clearer about their reasons."

And yet it was debated, and not made clearer by the courts, for over a century and it's still a hot topic of debate to this day for millions of people, as it should continue to be in to the future. No matter if a court comes to a conclusion on one side or the other. We are all human and can come to incorrect conclusions ( or change judges ) and then be corrected.


Lastly, could you please stop with this?


"I have no interest in going around the constitution and its requirements to appease the political agenda of some."

I have said repeatedly that I am not anti-gun and that I don't want to take away guns from law-abiding citizens, and that there should be a discussion about how the right to own a gun for someone as a suspected terrorist is problematic and that this system should be looked at closely to minimize the impact of infringing upon the rights of law-abiding citizens. Again, I have said I'm trying to hear the responses of those that hold the 2nd Amendment in such high regard they talk about prying the weapons from their cold dead hands.

All I feel I've done is not pull my punches in saying one of your arguments in support of your position was weak. I pointed out how I thought it was weak. Said that I'm all ears for better arguments, because I want to get a better feel for what the right way to think on this matter is. So can we get off the name calling and painting me with a broad brush? I have never attacked you once, only your argument, and then defended my own arguments. Personally, I take no offense to someone calling out my arguments, we are both men. Just it's a real distraction to be called a name that isn't accurate. If I wore the SJW badge or thought of myself as part of the democrats, liberals, anti-gun, etc then I could take your insult on the chin and maybe dish it back. But, I'm not what you suggest.

If you feel that I'm coming at you personally or that I really have an axe to grind and won't listen to your arguments carefully, then fine. Let's end it here. But, I can tell you honestly that I see you as the Alpha here and respect your opinion on this subject which is why I'm spending so much of my time off replying.

Cheers

My goodness you are loquacious. Brevity can be your friend. Practise it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Bernie Sanders argues we should ban all guns not suitable for hunting.

At least he's honest about his intentions.

Nearly 1/2 the Democratic Party supports him.

 

[Denny Crane]

Hiliar says banning guns is worth considering.

 

[Denny Crane]

“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”

-- Obama 10/5/15

Britain and Australia have outright bans on all non sport guns.

 

[barfo]

Britain and Australia have outright bans on all non sport guns.

It's sad the way the governments in those countries have assumed absolute power because of the unarmed population.

I can't remember the last time the UK had a meaningful election.

barfo