I agree with Piers

[essence]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

This is where you're supposed to concede the point, assuming you have any intellectual integrity. That's the problem; liberals don't have intellectual integrity. Their whole ideology is based on lies and can not be honestly defended.

That's why, when they're cornered, they always resort to ad hominem attacks.

The only problem with this little scenario you paint is that:

- "quite" means "I agree"
- I never made any ad hominem attacks.

Not yet, anyway

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by essence

The only problem with this little scenario you paint is that:

- "quite" means "I agree"
- I never made any ad hominem attacks.

Not yet, anyway

I'm sure you meant lunatic in nice way. Truthfully, by Sandbox standards that is pretty mild stuff.

Gun control is a very tough issue. Like so many things in life, there is no perfect answer; damned if you do and damned if don't.

[JD Barleycorn]

It is because people like you think the 2nd amendment gives you the right to own any kind of arms. Not true, the NRA has supported regulations preventing convicted criminals for having guns. The NRA is about firearms and not missiles, submarines, or bombers. You should do some research first.

It is because people like you never state what controls and regulations of arms you think are appropriate. The NRA is on record about exactly what kind of regulations and controls that are acceptable. You should check their website. They are the largest firearms safety trainers in the country. It is the left that always creates open ended laws that allow creep on gun owners. Note the latest law proposed by Senator Diane Feinstein.

It is because people like you think any restrictions are a violation of your freedom. I am a law abiding citizen and veteran. Why should anyone, especially government, restrict what I can do with my money and spare time? This can also be said of the hobby don't you think?

If you don;t like my arguments, then contradict your previous comments and state what restrictions you want. I have stated any positions about particular laws so how can I contradict myself. I know you're not a lawyer. Simple enough; convicted felons should not have weapons, people found to mentally incompetent should be prevented from buying guns, people who have committed violents acts against others that do not result in a criminal conviction should be investigated and action taken if they are considered to be a continuing threat to the public. Notice how in each instance it is about the actions of individuals instead of the fear of the lawful gun owner and type of weapon. A person who is not going to gun down people with a revolver is not going to gun down people with semi-automatic rifle.

-None.

-More.

-Less.

-Same as current.

If you continue with the 'None' answer then I will continue with the 'missiles' argument.

Answer the question. Contradict your previous fatuous posts.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by essence

The only problem with this little scenario you paint is that:

- "quite" means "I agree"
- I never made any ad hominem attacks.

Not yet, anyway

I assumed that "quite" meant you were saying my argument was absurd, not your own. Surely, you weren't conceding that your argument was absurd. No one ever concedes anything in the Sandbox. I think that's probably a violation of some rule.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

You say absolutes are seldom the best way to deal with a problem. The second amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That means shall not be limited in any way. That may or may not be a reasonable amendment, but it is an absolute. The second amendment does not just prohit banning guns, it prohibits any limitation on gun ownership.

By analyzing Madison's use of the word infringe in his other writings, it is clear that he uses the word to mean to change in any way.

If you don't think the second amendment is reasonable, then work to repeal it.

You are correct, absolutism is almost always the refuge of simple minds, and is almost always a bad idea.

I really don't care that Madison was a very smart man--he was NOT infallible, especially when trying to predict a world 200+ years in the future.

If he intended the words as you say he did--and we will never know, regardless of what people try to infer today--then he was indeed wrong for today's world. This is not the agrarian world of the 1700s, it is not the world of the Minutemen and the Whiskey Rebellion.

Madison's comprehension of what a firearm was is a bit different from what we have around us today. You and the others that are so afraid of any restrictions have conveniently forgotten that there HAS been interpretation/modernization of the phrase ""the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Even JD admits it no longer really means ANY arms. It doesn't include missiles, rockets, and nukes. But to literally be blind to what the 2nd amendment says you should be arguing in favor of personal nukes as well. You accept SOME changed meaning over time, but you refuse to consider other changes to be even debatable. Your argument is logically flawed.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

If the point is to reduce gun deaths, by all means, propose a solution that does so. I have proposed my solutions. Where's yours?

But I've pegged you as anti-gun months ago in the Zimmerman thread.

What a dumb statement on your part. You now claim that a person who does not know the answer is not allowed to see that something is wrong. The analogy is not flawed, it just is counter to what you want to believe. I promise you I can call an ambulance if I see someone have a car wreck, but I don't know how to attend to massive internal wounds. Sadly you sound like so many of our politicians who see something they don't like and make stupid laws that are worse that what they try to fix.

An I am far from anti-gun, but I am opposed to idiots having guns. And opposed to vigilanies like Zimmerman doing what he did. Did I ever claim in the Z threads that having a gun was the problem? No, I did not.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Old-T

What a dumb statement on your part. You now claim that a person who does not know the answer is not allowed to see that something is wrong. The analogy is not flawed, it just is counter to what you want to believe. I promise you I can call an ambulance if I see someone have a car wreck, but I don't know how to attend to massive internal wounds. Sadly you sound like so many of our politicians who see something they don't like and make stupid laws that are worse that what they try to fix.

An I am far from anti-gun, but I am opposed to idiots having guns. And opposed to vigilanies like Zimmerman doing what he did. Did I ever claim in the Z threads that having a gun was the problem? No, I did not.

Hardly. I'm saying that sitting around emoting about tragedy without proposing a solution is simply having a national "hen party." Gun control is a very well discussed topic in this country for the last 100 years...AND if you clicked essences first link there are two distinct unequivocal lies by Piers in the first minute.

You are anti-gun. The truistic nature of your first sentence reveals it. Zimmerman wasn't a vigilante, he was getting his head pounded in and defended himself. Yes, you did say that having a gun was the problem. You are anti-gun.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Old-T

You are correct, absolutism is almost always the refuge of simple minds, and is almost always a bad idea.

I really don't care that Madison was a very smart man--he was NOT infallible, especially when trying to predict a world 200+ years in the future.

If he intended the words as you say he did--and we will never know, regardless of what people try to infer today--then he was indeed wrong for today's world. This is not the agrarian world of the 1700s, it is not the world of the Minutemen and the Whiskey Rebellion.

Madison's comprehension of what a firearm was is a bit different from what we have around us today. You and the others that are so afraid of any restrictions have conveniently forgotten that there HAS been interpretation/modernization of the phrase ""the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Even JD admits it no longer really means ANY arms. It doesn't include missiles, rockets, and nukes. But to literally be blind to what the 2nd amendment says you should be arguing in favor of personal nukes as well. You accept SOME changed meaning over time, but you refuse to consider other changes to be even debatable. Your argument is logically flawed.

The eighteenth amendment outlawed alcohol. The twenty first amendment overturned the eighteenth amendment. The Constitution was designed to be amended when the people decide it's wrong.

Why isn't the left agressively trying to repeal the second amendment instead of engaging in pretzel logic to try and twist it's clear meaning into something that was never intended.

When we decided the eighteenth amendment was a mistake, we didn't try to finess the problem by saying surely it wasn't intended to include beer and wine; obviously it only applies to whisky.

[gnadfly]

The left is employing "incrementalism" out of this tragedy and the media is cooperating. Just keep broaching repealing the second amendment enough times and count on people to stop fighting it and others to blindly accept it.

Just like the "war on women" this last national election. It was simply "abortion on demand" hiding behind the skirts of women who had really been raped or victimized by their male relatives.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

The left is employing "incrementalism" out of this tragedy and the media is cooperating. Just keep broaching repealing the second amendment enough times and count on people to stop fighting it and others to blindly accept it.

Just like the "war on women" this last national election. It was simply "abortion on demand" hiding behind the skirts of women who had really been raped or victimized by their male relatives.

Within the next four years, the odds are very good that Obama will be able to get a five to four radical leftist majority on the Supreme Court. When that happens, the second amendment will be effectively overturned. It will have about as teeth as the tenth amendment.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

The eighteenth amendment outlawed alcohol. The twenty first amendment overturned the eighteenth amendment. The Constitution was designed to be amended when the people decide it's wrong.

Why isn't the left agressively trying to repeal the second amendment instead of engaging in pretzel logic to try and twist it's clear meaning into something that was never intended.

When we decided the eighteenth amendment was a mistake, we didn't try to finess the problem by saying surely it wasn't intended to include beer and wine; obviously it only applies to whisky.

I agree with you that amending/modifying the 2nd amendment is the correct thing to do. I do not believe repealing it is the right thing to do.

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Within the next four years, the odds are very good that Obama will be able to get a five to four radical leftist majority on the Supreme Court. When that happens, the second amendment will be effectively overturned. It will have about as teeth as the tenth amendment.

I suspect you consider almost anyone left of your views to be "radical leftist". That kind of mindset--and the left is just as guilty in seeing anyone right of themselves as "radical conservatives--that has gotten us where we are politically. They is damn little room for negotiation and reaching common ground any more, even on minor things.

You and many on here refuse to acknowledge that probably 80% of Americans are left of your views, including many who would classify themselves as conservatives or republicans. In the same way the vocal liberals look at the 80% or so of Americans standing to their right as all "conservatives". This board for the most part does not represent the cross section of Americans as I see and hear them in the real world.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I agree with you that amending/modifying the 2nd amendment is the correct thing to do. I do not believe repealing it is the right thing to do.



I suspect you consider almost anyone left of your views to be "radical leftist". That kind of mindset--and the left is just as guilty in seeing anyone right of themselves as "radical conservatives--that has gotten us where we are politically. They is damn little room for negotiation and reaching common ground any more, even on minor things.

You and many on here refuse to acknowledge that probably 80% of Americans are left of your views, including many who would classify themselves as conservatives or republicans. In the same way the vocal liberals look at the 80% or so of Americans standing to their right as all "conservatives". This board for the most part does not represent the cross section of Americans as I see and hear them in the real world.

I have no desire to modify my political views in order to conform with the majority that don't believe in a constitutional republic. I'd rather hold a minority view and be right, than conform with the views of the great unwashed, and be wrong. There was a time when 80% of the people thought the Earth was flat.

Here are some of the eighty percenters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyA1JKg4ias

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

The eighteenth amendment outlawed alcohol. The twenty first amendment overturned the eighteenth amendment. The Constitution was designed to be amended when the people decide it's wrong.

Why isn't the left agressively trying to repeal the second amendment instead of engaging in pretzel logic to try and twist it's clear meaning into something that was never intended.

When we decided the eighteenth amendment was a mistake, we didn't try to finess the problem by saying surely it wasn't intended to include beer and wine; obviously it only applies to whisky.

I would opine that the bullet biters are using pretzel logic to justify making WMDs available to every Tom, Dick and Bubba in the country.

Their absolutism is as as ridiculous as the closed minded stance of the Creationists.

Everything is open to discussion. Why not mass murder?

Oh, a and JB, you're a shithead!

[essence]

Originally Posted by Old-T

This board for the most part does not represent the cross section of Americans as I see and hear them in the real world.

Amen + 10000

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

I have no desire to modify my political views in order to conform with the majority that don't believe in a constitutional republic. I'd rather hold a minority view and be right, than conform with the views of the great unwashed, and be wrong. There was a time when 80% of the people thought the Earth was flat.

I'm sorry, but that is a stupid coment.

I never said you should change your view of what you believe. I said your view is decidedly in the rhight hand tail of the distribution, but you act as if you are near the center.

If inly 1% of the people believe 2 + 2 = 4, then 99% are INCORRECT. However with most things political, thengs are neither right nor wrong, they are preferences. Restricting gun ownership or not is neither correct nor incorrect, it is a preferences statement about how we want our society to be. In that sense your opinion cannot be "right" (nor can it be "wrong"). It may, however, by myopic.