• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Riverwolf

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
CMike said:
The difference is that we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.


There is no constitutions right to drive a car.
Click to expand...

A difference that's on paper, only. Lives are at stake, here.

If you ask me, the real difference is the level of danger involved. Cars are SIGNIFICANTLY more dangerous than guns, and that danger I'll wager is reflected in the number of car-related deaths vs. the number of gun-related deaths. (In civies, of course.)
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
LuisDantas said:
There is a difference between using metaphor for illustration and utterly distorting / refusing reality in order to keep one's ground.
Click to expand...
But apparently, anti-gun rights cannot recognize distortion & refutations of reality when they themselves do it. Sunstone's definition of "liberty" was both false & ridiculous. He did it to be sarcastic, & he (& other anti-gun rights types) should extend the same right to the opposition.

I get the impression that when one strongly opposes gun rights, a portion of one's brain shuts down, & one succumbs to the illusion that one has sole access to the TRUTH. One may be as sarcastic & histrionic as one wishes (because it's TRUE). But if the other side does the same, it's wrongo pongo.
 
Last edited:
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Revoltingest said:
...Sunstone's rabid anti-gun rights reality....
Click to expand...

"Rabid anti-gun rights". There you go, playing fast and loose with the facts again. Since when have I expressed a "rabid anti-gun rights" position on this board or anywhere else? You assume what suits you, Rev.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Sunstone said:
"Rabid anti-gun rights". There you go, playing fast and loose with the facts again.
Click to expand...
That was just my own offering of sarcasm & mirth.
You're not rabid. But I'm clumsy.

Since when have I expressed a "rabid anti-gun rights" position on this board or anywhere else? You assume what suits you, Rev.
Click to expand...
See above.
 
Uberpod

Uberpod

Active Member
Riverwolf said:
A difference that's on paper, only. Lives are at stake, here.

If you ask me, the real difference is the level of danger involved. Cars are SIGNIFICANTLY more dangerous than guns, and that danger I'll wager is reflected in the number of car-related deaths vs. the number of gun-related deaths. (In civies, of course.)
Click to expand...
Such an analysis only makes sense if you compare deaths per car use and deaths per gun use.
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
What would mandatory gun ownership have to do with anything I've said?
Click to expand...

It was a reference to the fact that the ACA penalty was held constitutional as a tax not a penalty. But that's okay.

Anyhow Insurance such as car insurance is only mandatory for those engaging in a certain act or otherwise by contract in the example of homeowners insurance. Thus, I can own a car and not buy car insurance as long as I do not drive that car. Or I can own a home and not buy homeowners insurance unless I have agreed to purchase such by contract. Health insurance is a little different. With health insurance now, one can still not purchase health insurance, however, there is a consequence i.e. you pay a higher tax come income tax time.

Now, the problem is that requiring an on-going tax on a specific class of people reeks of equal protection violations. ACA doesn't have to worry about this because that tax applies to everyone equally, thus anyone who chooses to forgo the purchase of health insurance pays the tax. If we change the statement to say any gun owner who doesn't acquire insurance must pay a tax, then we see that we are now targeting a specific class of people with a tax. Sales taxes are different they are a one time shot that you pay at purchase. It is not a law that only attacks a specific class of people either. Sales tax goes to everyone in the states that have such a tax. Some items are exempt, but we see it touch everything else.

Any effort to tax a specific class of people will still be subject to the rational basis test of the fourteenth amendment. So, as I said before, depending on who implements the law, how it is implemented and why it is implemented will determine whether the law is constitutional. On its face, without other facts this suggestion would be unconstitutional because it does not pass the rational basis test.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Uberpod said:
Such an analysis only makes sense if you compare deaths per car use and deaths per gun use.
Click to expand...

What's a "car use"? Auto collision statistics (at a population-wide level, anyhow) are normally given in terms of collisions, injuries, or fatalities per million vehicle-kilometers or million vehicle-miles travelled.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
oldbadger said:
Meh...... You're just a beginner. I was a jerk before you even bit your first ankle. :D
Click to expand...
I've seen your pic, bub....you ain't that old.
There should be a poll about who is the biggest jerk here.
Unless Mrs Badger is on RF, you wouldn't get a single vote!
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Uberpod said:
Why was this women shot?
Legal wrangling ahead in Mich. porch shooting case - Toshiba

If the man did not have a gun, the girl would be alive. If he had a knife, she would be alive. If he had a car, she'd be alive.
Click to expand...
The shooter looks clearly wrong to me. Do you look at this single case to decide what public policy should be?
People sometimes use guns to save their own lives, & people sometimes use them to wrongfully kill others.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Only roughly 2% of all homicides here in the States are for self-defense, which should tell anyone that relying mainly on having a loaded gun in the house is not the best way to go. As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
 
Apex

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
metis said:
Only roughly 2% of all homicides here in the States are for self-defense, which should tell anyone that relying mainly on having a loaded gun in the house is not the best way to go. As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
Click to expand...
Who said that the use of a firearm in self defense must end up with a death?
For example:
[youtube]6czhs-7n21c[/youtube]
Raw: Clerk Pulls Gun on Would-Be Thief - YouTube
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top