Isn't More Gun Control The Obvious Solution? Yes, Yes It Is.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i see the point, but id say it hits the parents more directly (and they arent all welfare drawers etc either-- and we dont have to provide for them if we dont want to, thats just our choice as a society), and i still say it's ,ore of a family issue. it affects those who are responsinle for it.... the parents. gun victims arent in any way responsible or tied to it. at least with out of wedlock births people arent dying.... esp innocents

id still say your example is too strained. wed have to just agree to disagree if ya dont agree with this

 

also people shold be free to have kids exercise that freedom. gun abuserers shpuldnt have rights.

Edited February 20, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's more like, society wants to run a background check on all car owners... see if they are past drunk drivers or abusers etc. why dont you guys get up and arns about that? isnt driving a right as much as guns are (i realize conventonal wisdom says driiving is a prvlege and guns a right but they seem the same to me

[Romans 13:3]

Yes, driving is a privilege, as you said.  Right to arms is a guaranteed by the Constitution.  Fact is, felons can't have guns but they do.  Drivers with suspended licences can't drive, but they do.  Might want to see if you can find number of death attributed to impaired drivers...  I don't have it handy.

[Winchester]

Yes, driving is a privilege, as you said.  Right to arms is a guaranteed by the Constitution.  Fact is, felons can't have guns but they do.  Drivers with suspended licences can't drive, but they do.  Might want to see if you can find number of death attributed to impaired drivers...  I don't have it handy.

 

The Second merely forbids the Federal government from abridging the (pre-existing) right to keep and bear arms. Thus, the ATF is an unconstitutional organization, and none of its acts are lawful. This also means the Heller decision was asinine. A perpetuation of the incorporation myth. Local and state powers are free (from a constitutional standpoint) to violate the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Driving is a right, too. On your property, you're free to drive. Because the government owns the roads, it sets the rules for permission to use them. Of course, the rhetoric is that roads are "public" property. Obviously, they aren't.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Winchester

[4588686]

So how do you suggest we deal with climate change. Not how would Austrian economics have magically never had any problem with negative externalities but right now, if we could abolish government, reinstate gold, decide to protect millionaires and billionaires from inflation at all costs to working people et cetera how would we deal with corporate externalities?

[Winchester]

Oh dear, someone appears to have broken Hasan.

[dairygirl4u2c]

can see the privlege v right idea but id say its at east a better analogy than the wedlock thing.
win touched on it...  roads etc are sorta all ours

 

itd help too if i could better wrap my mind around whats so objectionable about background checks? or if ARs are just fancy pistols and they took away ARs i m ean they sholudnt but ud stull have pistols etc. or licenses for pistols aint much different than for cars etc. why are tehse such big deals?

i can see if they wanted ti take ya guns but hardly no one does.

my guess is most feel objectionable to it out of duty to party.... cookie cutter conservatives who must also be conservative jere too.

aint about ideokgy to me.... practical weighing of rights etcetc

[4588686]

Oh dear, someone appears to have broken Hasan.

 

Winchester appears to be avoiding difficult questions.  

[Winchester]

Winchester appears to be avoiding difficult questions.  

 

They weren't really questions. They were bizarre assumptions based on the typical Statist delusion in Utopia. You assume that anyone questioning the status quo is proposing some other Utopia. I'm not. I've repeatedly explained to you that I've taken a normative position. This is alien to you, because you're utilitarian. It will never make sense, to you. It's different from your worldview.

[4588686]

They weren't really questions. They were bizarre assumptions based on the typical Statist delusion in Utopia. You assume that anyone questioning the status quo is proposing some other Utopia. I'm not. I've repeatedly explained to you that I've taken a normative position. This is alien to you, because you're utilitarian. It will never make sense, to you. It's different from your worldview.

 

 

You can take a normative position and still work to get a society as asymptotically close to that vision as possible.  If you don't do that then what's the point of having any normative position at all?  

[Winchester]

You can take a normative position and still work to get a society as asymptotically close to that vision as possible.  If you don't do that then what's the point of having any normative position at all?  

 

It pisses off the control freaks.

[Romans 13:3]

One can probably only get the fascination some people have with AR-type rifles, AK variants, and  similar weapons by shooting them.  If you enjoy shooting, they are incredible.

[4588686]

I mean you've said multiple times that we should abolish the fed and defended Ron Paul.  So you will venture to try to get society to move towards your vision.  I don't think that you are proposing a utopia but you are proposing a distinct vision of a more moral system.  Ok.  So how does that system deal with an issue like climate change?  What redress do 20 million people in Bangladesh who are going to be displaced by climate change have that doesn't involve government or infringing on the private property rights of Exon?  

[Winchester]

I mean you've said multiple times that we should abolish the fed and defended Ron Paul.  So you will venture to try to get society to move towards your vision.  I don't think that you are proposing a utopia but you are proposing a distinct vision of a more moral system.  Ok.  So how does that system deal with an issue like climate change?  What redress do 20 million people in Bangladesh who are going to be displaced by climate change have that doesn't involve government or infringing on the private property rights of Exon?  

 

Government is in partnership with Exxon.

 

Why not abolish the Fed? It's a monopoly. Get rid of legal tender laws, permit competing currency. What's the worry?

[fides' Jack]

guns.jpg

 

What's really interesting about this is that the number of American military deaths in Afghanistan went way up after Obama was elected.  Coincidence?

[Winchester]

What's really interesting about this is that the number of American military deaths in Afghanistan went way up after Obama was elected.  Coincidence?

 

Fixing to put in the time to research all the events?

[fides' Jack]

Obviously, more gun control is a good solution.  At this point I can only think that anti gun-control activists are either ignorant or power hungry. There doesn't seem to be any other possibility here.

 

Haha - whatevs.  From someone who really didn't know which side of this debate was the right option, you've clearly been beaten in this debate.

Fixing to put in the time to research all the events?

 

Honestly, if I had that kind of time, I wouldn't spend it doing that.  

I won't spend it trying to further belittle our president, either.  Just thought it was odd.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"Haha - whatevs.  From someone who really didn't know which side of this
debate was the right option, you've clearly been beaten in this debate."

 

id ask you to put your money where your mouth is and debate me, but youd clearly be in over your head. go ahead and try to debate me, make a fool of yourself.

 

ive clearly shown that background checks save lives, and that other checks work too, see the australia and japan points. my basic idea that more control would work is all i needed to show and that current controls should be kepy... and i past it with flying colors.

the only debates i havent won is from someone with crackpot views, premises, like from winchester.

 

there are still way too many unaddressed points, stats and arguments. i just assume people cant respond with anything compelling.

 

i accept title of victor in this debate.

Edited February 20, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[fides' Jack]

You're right, I can't debate with you.  I'd make a fool of myself.  I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough in the subject. :)

[Evangetholic]

You Dairygirl are confronting the immovable fact that something very odd, very frightened, and very irrational has replaced conservatism in North America. No point in engaging. Just pray.