And people wonder why they're called "Gun Nuts"

[Curious George]

The problem is that in your & Sunstone's rabid anti-gun rights reality, you may use histrionic sarcasm, but
you'd deny that to the loyal opposition. The facile naming of logical fallacies does not alter this hypocrisy.

No, they used straw men, well at least they implied straw men. I agree that we can distinguish the statements, but the overall effect of the statements make that distinguishing difference trivial. The implication of the sarcasm used in sunstones and freethinkers comments certainly implies that opposing parties adopt the the statement they made. This applies to the "muh guns" comments as well.

 

[Uberpod]

I was going to stay out of this conversation but here's a 'real world' scenario. This Monday morning at 4:11 am there was a gentleman on a blue scooter taunting my dog. I did not know this person and there was no reason for this guy to be in my driveway. He pulled out before I was able to ask him what he wanted. If he had decided to come any further however, he would have been a participant in a three-way discussion consisting of him, me, and my .40 cal friend. Say what you want but when it comes down to cases at four in the morning I'll take a firearm over enlightened thinking and every time.

That's odd. Here something interesting: If you or some other trigger happy fellow was a neighbor of mine and I saw you/him training a gun on someone tresspassing on your property who was not acting aggressively toward you and appeared not to be armed, I would train my gun on you. I would be forced to deal with an attempted murder as that is very serious. If you/he were more reasonable, I could simply focus on helping you regarding the trespass.

 

[CMike]

Maybe if you tell me why you think that mandatory liability insurance for firearms would be unconstitutional, he'll be impressed by your example and provide what you're asking for.

All I'm asking is for him to backup what he said.

 

[CMike]

In a discussion about what laws should be, simply stating what the laws are is a poor defense of them. I mean, you're basically saying it should be legal because it's legal, which is fine by me. It's easy to defeat something if there is almost no defense for it.

Constitutional rights are more than the law. They are the fundamental rights of Americans.

 

[CMike]

Originally Posted by CMike
You can only draw legally if a reasonable person would believe he or someone else is in. imminent danger or grave bodily harm.

Or if you see an unarmed black teen in white neighborhood.

Yeah...if he is on top of you and keeps punching you in the face.

 

[Skwim]

Feel free to post what you think backs up your position.

I await to hear about the constitutional right to drive a car.

Fee free to read the Ninth Amendment.

 

[CMike]

Fee free to read the Ninth Amendment.

Thanks.

Once again there is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

There is no constitutional right to drive a car.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, they used straw men, well at least they implied straw men. I agree that we can distinguish the statements, but the overall effect of the statements make that distinguishing difference trivial. The implication of the sarcasm used in sunstones and freethinkers comments certainly implies that opposing parties adopt the the statement they made. This applies to the "muh guns" comments as well.

So what if you take the view that they used straw men?
This is a red herring, since it doesn't address the issue I initially raised.
If one poster states a falsehood to make a sarcastic point, then another poster
who regularly uses the same technique ought not castigate the other for it.

 

[LuisDantas]

You can only draw legally if a reasonable person would believe he or someone else is in. imminent danger or grave bodily harm.

A dude in your diveway does not fit that crieria

How can you fail to see the lack of sense of such a stance?

As soon as the property of drawing a weapon relies on the judgment of a hypothetical "reasonable person", the whole criteria becomes utterly useless.

Unless you feel we are about to reach consensus on how reasonable it is to draw a weapon under most circunstances. It seems to me that this thread and many similar ones are evidence enough that this is just not going to happen.

 

[LuisDantas]

So what if you take the view that they used straw men?
This is a red herring, since it doesn't address the issue I initially raised.
If one poster states a falsehood to make a sarcastic point, then another poster
who regularly uses the same technique ought not castigate the other for it.

There is a difference between using metaphor for illustration and utterly distorting / refusing reality in order to keep one's ground.

 

[Curious George]

Maybe if you tell me why you think that mandatory liability insurance for firearms would be unconstitutional, he'll be impressed by your example and provide what you're asking for.

It depends on how they are implemented by whom, and why. But it certainly restricts access to guns, so there must be a governmental interest involved. One cannot say that is unconstitutional per se, until more is known. but without a government interest it is unconstitutional.

 

[Skwim]

Thanks.

Once again there is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

There is no constitutional right to drive a car.

 

[oldbadger]

I was going to stay out of this conversation but here's a 'real world' scenario. This Monday morning at 4:11 am there was a gentleman on a blue scooter taunting my dog. I did not know this person and there was no reason for this guy to be in my driveway. He pulled out before I was able to ask him what he wanted. If he had decided to come any further however, he would have been a participant in a three-way discussion consisting of him, me, and my .40 cal friend. Say what you want but when it comes down to cases at four in the morning I'll take a firearm over enlightened thinking and every time.

Why did you call this unknown man a 'gentleman'?
Where was your dog at 4.11am? Is it some kind of guard-dog?
What type of dog is it?
Is your driveway all lit up, all night long?

Just interested........

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It depends on how they are implemented by whom, and why. But it certainly restricts access to guns, so there must be a governmental interest involved. One cannot say that is unconstitutional per se, until more is known. but without a government interest it is unconstitutional.

It would only restrict access to guns by raising the price of gun ownership. In this regard, it's no different from sales taxes on guns and ammo, property taxes on gun shops, payroll taxes paid by firearm manufacturers, or product standards imposed on manufacturers by government that require extra expense to be met.

 

[Curious George]

It would only restrict access to guns by raising the price of gun ownership. In this regard, it's no different from sales taxes on guns and ammo, property taxes on gun shops, payroll taxes paid by firearm manufacturers, or product standards imposed on manufacturers by government that require extra expense to be met.

Taxation is a plenary power but I do not think you'll get it to go through that way with guns unless you are suggesting we go the same route as ACA and make gun ownership a requirement.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I was going to stay out of this conversation but here's a 'real world' scenario. This Monday morning at 4:11 am there was a gentleman on a blue scooter taunting my dog. I did not know this person and there was no reason for this guy to be in my driveway. He pulled out before I was able to ask him what he wanted. If he had decided to come any further however, he would have been a participant in a three-way discussion consisting of him, me, and my .40 cal friend. Say what you want but when it comes down to cases at four in the morning I'll take a firearm over enlightened thinking and every time.

Needless escalation avoided by lack of opportunity.

-

I wonder if these people who consider flashing guns part of free speech would consider say a joint russian-chinese military exercise in international waters just off the US east coast to be par for course or whether they might object... perhaps finding it... unsettling, ill-considered, needlessly aggressive... (yes I am aware there is a different legal framework involved - yet it would remain legal under international laws and the other issues involved such as appropriate behavior are the very same issues with regards to the protest - so how does that scenario sound).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Taxation is a plenary power but I do not think you'll get it to go through that way with guns unless you are suggesting we go the same route as ACA and make gun ownership a requirement.

What would mandatory gun ownership have to do with anything I've said?

 

[freethinker44]

Constitutional rights are more than the law. They are the fundamental rights of Americans.

Which can be changed with new amendments or the Supreme Courts reinterpretation. I thought we'd been over this in another thread.

 

[freethinker44]

Yeah...if he is on top of you and keeps punching you in the face.

You mean if your plan to be a power-hungery douche backfires and you end up getting your *** kicked.

 

[Riverwolf]

One possible approach: require liability insurance for gun owners the way we do for cars (along with a hefty penalty for owning or carryinh a gun without insurance). If a gun owner really is safe and responsible, they'll find this reflected in low premiums. Riskier gin owners will find themselves priced out of firearm ownership.

And for those who think that guns make them safer, we should allow insurance companies to take the presence of a firearm (and a trained person to use it, obviously) into account when setting premiums for home and business insurance. if the gun advocates are right and they do make things safer, the actuaries will see this in their data and discounts could be given accordingly.

I've never understood insurance programs, but it might work.