AR-15 massacres 9 shoppers and cop!

[Revoltingest]

You seem to think i am in support of reducing liability by prohibiting certain litigation.

I am. This country has an epidemic of bogus lawsuits.
To prevent them is worthwhile. Imagine knife makers
being sued every time anyone is cut or stabbed.
Yes, they're designed to be sharp & to cut.
But manufacturers held liable for wrongful use?
Nah. The existence of guns shouldn't be a matter
for tort law. It's about the Constitution & legislation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You seem to think i am in support of reducing liability by prohibiting certain litigation. That is definitely not the case.

I know. That's my point.

You spoke about personal liberty and reducing government interference, but when we scratch the surface, it seems that you aren't interested in these in a general way; you're only paying lip-service to them.

 

[oldbadger]

I thought it was obvious: the limitation on the government concerns the government's authority in restricting access to reasonable means of self defense

With a machine gun when you go shopping? Or set up on your bed post?
Really.... Just fit some decent windows and doors! It's the 21st century,!!!

 

[Curious George]

I know. That's my point.

You spoke about personal liberty and reducing government interference, but when we scratch the surface, it seems that you aren't interested in these in a general way; you're only paying lip-service to them.

I think you have misunderstood or had a great error your conclusion. What you have said here is not coherent.

 

[Curious George]

With a machine gun when you go shopping? Or set up on your bed post?
Really.... Just fit some decent windows and doors! It's the 21st century,!!!

This does not address anything i have said

 

[Curious George]

I am. This country has an epidemic of bogus lawsuits.
To prevent them is worthwhile. Imagine knife makers
being sued every time anyone is cut or stabbed.
Yes, they're designed to be sharp & to cut.
But manufacturers held liable for wrongful use?
Nah. The existence of guns shouldn't be a matter
for tort law. It's about the Constitution & legislation.

I think we have been over this before. We do not agree; we will not agree.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think we have been over this before. We do not agree; we will not agree.

Oh, I disagree.
No...I agree.
But I still disagree.

 

[oldbadger]

This does not address anything i have said

Imagine that you got shot in a killing spree, (4+ victims), it's possible because there have been nearly 200 this year in your country.
Wouldn't you feel that the nutter who bought the guns so easily should not have had the chance to do so? And he didn't buy a revolver he bought a semi auto military style assault rifle. ???

 

[Curious George]

Imagine that you got shot in a killing spree, (4+ victims), it's possible because there have been nearly 200 this year in your country.
Wouldn't you feel that the nutter who bought the guns so easily should not have had the chance to do so? And he didn't buy a revolver he bought a semi auto military style assault rifle. ???

Why are you trying to take us down irrelevant roads?

How i personally might feel in a situation does not change the rational principles regarding government authority.

And engaging spite to serve as a basis for law is very dangerous practice which i would not encourage.

 

[oldbadger]

Why are you trying to take us down irrelevant roads?

The Thread Title was about an AR-15 massacre upon shoppers.
The Thread question was 'Should Private ARs be banned?

Where you wander is not the thread, OK?

How i personally might feel in a situation does not change the rational principles regarding government authority.

I don't believe that you could list many if any rules and laws that are irrational or unprincipled.
By telling me previously that you would support private ownership of machine guns for private defence you have kind of lost a fair bit of support, I expect.

The idea that a person could leave prison after a ten year sentence for robbery and go straight out and buy a military (or any) rifle is just stunningly amazingly wobbly. Or do you in fact really believe that there should be some government authority covering that?

And engaging spite to serve as a basis for law is very dangerous practice which i would not encourage.

It is not spite to require that folks are safe, trained, qualified and licenced to hold guns, drive vehicles, run beauty parlous, carry out surgeries, deliver medications etc.

If you think that is all spite then I cannot help you.

 

[Curious George]

The Thread Title was about an AR-15 massacre upon shoppers.
The Thread question was 'Should Private ARs be banned?

Where you wander is not the thread, OK?

I am happy to engage in civil discussion/debate on the subject. But "lets pretend you were shot, how do you feel now" is irrelevant. I could just as easily say "let's pretend you were saved, how do you feel."

These hypotheticals are irrelevant for our discussion.

I don't believe that you could list many if any rules and laws that are irrational or unprincipled.

Again, that is not what I said. You posed a hypothetical wherein I was a victim and asked whether i would feel a certain way. This suggests that it is how a person feels after being victimized is a good basis for law. It is not.

By telling me previously that you would support private ownership of machine guns for private defence you have kind of lost a fair bit of support, I expect.

If it is so outlandish, then simply explain why it is so. I imagine many people might be put off by such a notion (that people could choose to own automatic weapons), yet I also imagine many people have forgone critical thinking on the matter and are swayed by automatic gun = scary.

The idea that a person could leave prison after a ten year sentence for robbery and go straight out and buy a military (or any) rifle is just stunningly amazingly wobbly. Or do you in fact really believe that there should be some government authority covering that?

You seem to have not understood my position on this.

It is not spite to require that folks are safe, trained, qualified and licenced to hold guns, drive vehicles, run beauty parlous, carry out surgeries, deliver medications etc.

If you think that is all spite then I cannot help you.

It is spite to base rules on how a victim feels after victimization using tenuous logic. For instance, let us say that the person who shot me or a loved one was from England. I imagine i would feel that the nutter who shot me shouldn't have had the chance to come to the U.S. in the first place. Should the U.S. ban people from England because of this feeling?

 

[oldbadger]

I am happy to engage in civil discussion/debate on the subject. But "lets pretend you were shot, how do you feel now" is irrelevant. I could just as easily say "let's pretend you were saved, how do you feel."

These hypotheticals are irrelevant for our discussion.

So l,et's see what you do say.

Again, that is not what I said. You posed a hypothetical wherein I was a victim and asked whether i would feel a certain way. This suggests that it is how a person feels after being victimized is a good basis for law. It is not.

So let's see what you do say.

If it is so outlandish, then simply explain why it is so. I imagine many people might be put off by such a notion (that people could choose to own automatic weapons), yet I also imagine many people have forgone critical thinking on the matter and are swayed by automatic gun = scary.

You seem to have not understood my position on this.

So let's see what your real position is.

It is spite to base rules on how a victim feels after victimization using tenuous logic. For instance, let us say that the person who shot me or a loved one was from England. I imagine i would feel that the nutter who shot me shouldn't have had the chance to come to the U.S. in the first place. Should the U.S. ban people from England because of this feeling?

CG, persons arriving from England cannot get some gun licences, but they certainly shouldn't be allowed to arrive and buy fast-free semi-auto rifles!
In any case, how do you feel about American citizens who buy a semi-auto rifle and go on a mass killing? What about them?

I asked you to tell me what existing rules, laws, licences at present are irrational and you didn't tell me about one. So it looks as if you do think that drivers should be qualified, licensed and insured to drive. I presume that you believe in driving rules etc? ..... and all those certificates which are required for trades and professions? And all the other existing legislation? That's something, I guess.

Unfortunately I don't expect that semi-auto rifles and pistols will get banned for private possession in your country, and so your wish is almost completed on that score. You'll have to push hard for machine guns to be over-counter purchaases, I expect.

 

[esmith]

I was going to comment on this but it is basicallly a waste of time since it appears that there are numerous members of this forum that have little or no understanding of not only Federal firearm laws but even State laws governing the sale and possession of firearms.

 

[McBell]

I don't believe that you could list many if any rules and laws that are irrational or unprincipled.

um...

How many of these 19 bizarre UK laws have you broken?
46 Weird Laws Still on the Books
Weirdest laws passed in every state
Here Are 50 of the Dumbest Laws in Every State
50 Weird Laws Around the World
Top 10 Weird Laws from Around the World - The Lawyer Portal
50 Craziest Laws in the United States
31 Strange But True Laws Still on the Books - The Reeves Law Group
50 dumb laws in America​

 

[oldbadger]

um...

How many of these 19 bizarre UK laws have you broken?
46 Weird Laws Still on the Books
Weirdest laws passed in every state
Here Are 50 of the Dumbest Laws in Every State
50 Weird Laws Around the World
Top 10 Weird Laws from Around the World - The Lawyer Portal
50 Craziest Laws in the United States
31 Strange But True Laws Still on the Books - The Reeves Law Group
50 dumb laws in America​

I couldn't find any UK laws there.
But I did see that throwing rocks at trains in Wisconsin is banned. Most irrational!!!!
It's best to check out your links first, Mestemia.

 

[McBell]

I couldn't find any UK laws there.
But I did see that throwing rocks at trains in Wisconsin is banned. Most irrational!!!!
It's best to check out your links first, Mestemia.

Perhaps you should get a more up to date map?

Please be so kind as to explain the rationality of a law stating that you are not allowed to get a fish drunk on Sunday.

And also the rationality of having to have a person walk out in front of your vehicle with a lantern.

 

[oldbadger]

Perhaps you should get a more up to date map?

I know where England is..... It's under my armchair.

Please be so kind as to explain the rationality of a law stating that you are not allowed to get a fish drunk on Sunday.

Certainly not. Trust you lot to dump Jack Daniels in your fish tanks. I've heard about you 'mericans ...

And also the rationality of having to have a person walk out in front of your vehicle with a lantern.

Oh yes? You think I haven't seen you lot driving in films?
And nobody on judge Judy ever has vehicle insurance.

Red flags. Get 'em out.

 

[Curious George]

I don't believe that you could list many if any rules and laws that are irrational or unprincipled.

It looks as though we have moved on to this...well i would offer defining rape such that it is not illegal for a husband to have sex with his wife without her consent and even against her protestations.

I imagine that such is the law because someone said hey bob, how would you feel if your wife said no, and well bob wasn't the greatest of guys.

Note** all 50 states all now prohibit sposal rape, however this was not always the case. I imagine if we wanted we could generate quite the number of irrational laws. What this has to do with the price of tea in China, only an old badger will ever know.

 

[Curious George]

So l,et's see what you do say.



So let's see what you do say.



So let's see what your real position is.

Or you can address what i did say.

CG, persons arriving from England cannot get some gun licences, but they certainly shouldn't be allowed to arrive and buy fast-free semi-auto rifles!

You mean to say that it is physically impossible? Or that there are already laws in play that would prevent this?

In any case, how do you feel about American citizens who buy a semi-auto rifle and go on a mass killing? What about them?

I feel like they need help.

 

[oldbadger]

It looks as though we have moved on to this...well i would offer defining rape such that it is not illegal for a husband to have sex with his wife without her consent and even against her protestations.

Redacted!

Note** all 50 states all now prohibit sposal rape, however this was not always the case. I imagine if we wanted we could generate quite the number of irrational laws. What this has to do with the price of tea in China, only an old badger will ever know.

I know because you told me that you are against irrational laws!
And you cannot think of any!