|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/23/2007 10:21:02 AM · #126 |
You might not be listening, but I'll take the chance that you will check in and respond.
Originally posted by theSaj:
a) NO, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PROVE SOMETHING IS RIGHT. |
Why have you been so vehmently arguing with me when this is all that I said and you agree with me? Some people are using this as an argument - it appears that we both agree that it is a weak argument.
Originally posted by theSaj:
a) Firstly, I disagree with your use of oppressed. And will point out Rodney King has repeatedly found himself in trouble with the law.
b) The riots may have been subdued by the apparatus of the state. But for the period of their activity the state had been 100% incapable of protecting the citizens.
c) Those citizens with guns were able to protect themselves during the state's failure.
Thus I see it as completely valid. If you do not, that is your perogative. |
I agree with you that if civil order cannot be maintained, self defence during periods of civil disorder is a good reason for legalising gun ownership. I started off my comments by saying so, and said so again when making my point to you - I don't know why you started arguing against me on this if you agree.
However, this is no example of people being able to defend themselves against the state - which is what I said was a weak argument: the state in LA was able easily to overcome the efforts of the rioters. This is a good example disproving the point that having guns allows you to resist the state It does not matter whether you agree with the rioters or not: they were unable to resist the apparatus of the state. Another example of a well armed militia being unable to resist the state happened in Waco.
Originally posted by "theSaj":
You're not an American. I guess I shouldn't expect a Brit to understand. But America only exists because we had arms. We were able to make it too troublesome for you Brits to be worth your while.
IT'S CALLED HISTORY!!!!! |
Once again, I was pointing out the fallibility of a number of the arguments being employed, not trying to tell you how to run your country. I believe that your harking back several centuries is romanticism rather than a sound argument for determining weapons policy in the 21st century. The English had a civil war in the 17th C, but I would never argue that this justifies allowing teenagers to keep pikes and flintlocks and to stable horses on common land, just in case they need to overthrow the monarchy once again. Times change.
Originally posted by "theSaj":
NO ONE HAS SAID TO TAKE AWAY NON-CITIZEN'S RIGHTS TO "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". |
Then what do you call detaining a foreigner without telling him of what he is charged, indefinitely and without trial? I genuinely am at a loss to understand how you think those prisoners' inalienable rights are being protected.
Originally posted by "theSaj:
Oh well...that's fine. But the fact that they were caught in an engaged combat zone makes me have little sympathy. Yes, I know...you want anyone freed until proven guilty. I on the other hand view their mere presence there as enough guilt for holding.
I'd hate to lose NYC or Washington D.C. because we didn't hold someone because we didn't have enough evidence to convict.
Perhaps it's time to create a new legal category. *shrug* |
I don't want anyone freed until proven guilty. I want due process to be respected - the mechanisms are designed to govern the relationship between the state and the people. The state should not be allowed to exclude people from the system that protects the state from tyranny. These are the very kinds of acts that GWB used to identify the "axis of evil". The US is having its persuasive capacity neutered through its hypocrisy. I would have thought that anyone with an ounce of patriotism who believes in what the US stands for, or perhaps once stood for, would agree.
Originally posted by "theSaj:
What, a modern court? or a court when the laws were written. |
Modern courts. I have explained the legal position and the leading judgments in this thread.
Originally posted by theSaj:
[quote="matthew"]
do you accept my initial point that most people, most of the time, would have to overcome social barriers in order to locate and buy an illegal weapon? Ie - it is not as easy as walking in to a lawful gun shop and buying a gun over the counter. [quote]
...So all factors weighed, I think it's fairly balanced. |
I find it hard to believe that, when deciding where to buy a gun, you might think to yourself: "Where shall I go and buy a gun? I could walk down the street and go to Walmart and buy a gun using my Visa card, or I could travel to the 'hood, try and find someone on a street corner who looks like he might be able to sort me out, and hand him some cash in exchange for a weapon that will get me arrested if it is ever found out. As it is such a close call, I'll flip a coin..."
Originally posted by "theSaj":
Actually, I am not necessarily opposed to this. |
Another pointless argument made, then, since my stance has not changed.
Originally posted by "theSaj:
Our argument has been:
a) ban legal guns, and criminals will just turn to the use of illegal guns
b) remove every gun from the planet, and I am sure that criminals will be resourceful enough to find other tools to accomplish their means. |
This might have been your argument: my initial post was responding to the various claims made by other people that if gun controls are implemented that people would simply turn to bomb making (as in: the college shooter had bomb making materials and if he had not been able to buy a gun he would have used a bomb to the same effect). I was saying that that was a weak argument.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 10:32:18 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
Actually it's not stupid, perhaps you need to sit down and think. The clerk at McDonald's would not be alerted as to why you were flagged either. Perhaps you'd be allowed a garden salad or certain other healthy menu items. Heart disease kills many more that homicidal maniacs each year or suicides. You're just as dead by clogging your arteries with grease from Big Macs as if you put a .357 to your head and pulled the trigger. And please, don't say that what a person orders at Mc Donalds can't physically harm others, people feed the same food to their kids and they have no say in the matter. Childhood obesity, diabetes and other related diseases are soaring in this country. It's illegal to physically abuse your children, but you can set them up for a life of misery and suffering with nothing more than Happy Meals. |
a) if a parent eats a Big Mac, it doesn't make a kid fat. If they feed a Big Mac to their child. Yes, it will.
b) you said heart disease kills more people than homicidal maniacs. So why not leave us alone and go fuss with them. Since you've established according to your viewpoint eating a Big Mac will kill other people. So go waste your time against the Big Mac
|
a) A gun doesn't kill others if you point it at yourself and pull the trigger. If you point it at someone else it will.
b) I only used Big Macs to point out that fast food kills more people than homicidal maniacs, so do traffic accidents, tobacco and any number of other things. |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 10:42:33 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "spazmo99":
What about a potential employer getting test results and deciding to hire another candidate based on the potential cost increase you represent to their health plan due to your genetic predisposition to a disease that is very expensive to treat? |
a) we mentioned a limited amount of information
b) don't see how this is much different than present day, and how insurance companies act.
c) you guys are the ones advocating restrictions. We're arguing against limitations or at least reduce limitation. Then you guys argue about the dangers of limitations. Sorry, find it a flat argument.
|
a) Who sets the limits? Employers, with many more dollars and influence on government than you or I could ever hope for? They have a huge monetary incentive to hire and retain the healthiest employees possible
b) If you have individual health coverage on your own, then no, it's not. However, if you are insured through a group plan with your employer, it's very different. Basically the only individual question they will use to set your premiums is tobacco use. Otherwise the premiums are set based on the average of all employees at the company.
c)You previously were arguing for limiting individual rights, specifically the right to privacy regarding medical records. Now, here you are, claiming to argue against limitations on individual rights. Which is it? |
|
|
|
04/23/2007 12:20:01 PM · #129 |
Long time since I got involved in any 'discussion' on here or even taken part in challenges but news I heard recently has made me put fingers to keyboard.
A family, whose son was at my school until Easter, returned to the USA after the father was working here in the UK for a few years. The day after they arrived, they were driving aroound their new home area when a car tail-gated them. The mother was driving, the father was in the front passenger seat and their 10 year old son was in the back.
The car behind then pulled up alongside and the driver fired his gun through the driver's window, killing the father instantly.
This was in a 'safe' residential area.
In most countries there would have been an angry exchange of words, a few gestures and perhaps 'cutting up' of the car. In the countries where guns are readily available, legally and illegally, the gun is used to express anger. If a gun is handy, that flash of uncontrolled temper that many experience at times, can and does result in a deadly situation.
That alone must surely indicate that some form of restriction and limitation of firearms is necessary. How, in the US, I do not know as the gun culture is so ingrained ( as shown in this thread) but when any adult can buy a handgun a month and this is considered a restriction, something must be done.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2007 05:23:53 PM · #130 |
| I've had a legal licence to carry a gun since I was a teenager. I can shoot as well as any military trained individual. I should, both my teachers, my father and my uncle, were marksmen. However, I have never carried a gun. Nor have I ever hunted when I've had a hunting licence for as long as i remember. Just because I can, doesn't mean I want to. I don't because I can never convince myself that I can take a life. Not an animal and not a human. Not even when they may attack me. To carry a gun means that you have to be prepared to use it. I was trained to shoot the leg, arm and if I have to the chest, but that is a last resort. I'm not a hippy, I don't say peace and love to all, even though it would be nice to loose the insanity in this world. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/20/2025 06:18:08 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/20/2025 06:18:08 PM EDT.
|
