Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

#102 Dec 30 2012 at 7:50 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,699 posts
We played with Jarts all the time. The only thing that ever got damaged were those cheap little roll out 2 foot deep swimming pools. They just happened to be sitting out in the area we were throwing the Jarts, and the next time you tried to fill up the pool you'd find a dozen holes in the hard plastic sides.

Weird thing is, reading up on them now, apparently they were banned in 1988 from the US, but I remember playing with what appeared to be new sets in 1996 or so.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#103 Dec 30 2012 at 7:54 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,699 posts
Totem wrote:
Concerning regulations and laws governing vehicles, most infractions, if not all, with the exception of grand theft auto, are merely misdemeanors by-and-large. And in many stares, including where I live, California, licenses are a veritable God-given human right as opposed to being a privilege bestowed upon the driver by the state for demonstrating competancy behind the wheel and an encyclopedic knowlwdge of the rules of the road.

I suppose we could provide the same cover for gun owners: no-fault insurance, minimal background checks, no requirement for English language skills, and a willingness by the police to ignore a 10 round magazine being replaced by a 30 round clip as long as it only carries, say 12 or 13 rounds inside. You know, just like the posted speed limit signs are recommended speeds up to about 5 mph over the posted limit.

Totem


NRA would never go for having to register your guns every year and having to keep a renewed gun operators license.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#104 Dec 30 2012 at 7:57 AM Rating: Good
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
As I recall, the new Jarts have a soft point-- kind of like a Nerf or velcro tip that keeps our little hellions safe.

It is still funny for me to see when out bike riding or snow skiing to see everyone wear helmets for any conceivable sport they may be engaged in. Half the thrill of growing up was the knowledge you just bareely avoided some grim and terribly disfiguring injury by luck or genetic happenstance like having a hard head. Honestly, I don't know how today's children ever feel alive anymore!

We've grown into a nation of nannified and molly-coddled Bubble Boys.

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#105 Dec 30 2012 at 8:01 AM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,699 posts
I still don't wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. Never did as a kid. I cannot tell you if it's a local law requiring it yet or just a recommendation. Today everyone I see on a bike has a helmet, except the homeless guys who ride around with their dogs in tow collecting beer and soda bottles to return for booze money.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#106 Dec 30 2012 at 8:02 AM Rating: Decent
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
TT, that is true, but everybody ignores those rules anyway-- except for the law abiding, tax paying, job occupying citizens. Everybody else just jumps in whatever car they can get their hands on and drives around willy-nilly, no insurance, no license, no registration, and all on expired tags. And the worst that happens to them is a tiny fine, maybe a misdemeanor. And if you are an illegal alien in Cal-- particularly in San Francisco --not even that happens. You'll get a verbal warning and a stern look from an impotent cop who has no authority over you.

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#107 Dec 30 2012 at 8:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
26,961 posts
Totem wrote:
Ok, in a more serious tone, if it were up to me to reduce the opportunity for Sandy Hooks to occur, I would begin with mental health. Crazy people are the ones responsible for these travesties and should be identified early and... neutralized. How so, you may ask? Well, certainly not in the manner they are today where a doctor prescribes a **** of drugs and send them on their merry way with no wayto ensure they take their meds or are a larger risk to the general population at large.
So you're all for socialized healthcare then? Because a lot of the high risk people wouldn't be able to afford good mental health care.

I agree with you though, good health care will do more to help these people and prevent more of these mass shootings than the current labeling of them as monsters/the enemy.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#108 Dec 31 2012 at 8:48 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Totem, your comparisons fail and will always fail because those objects that you mention have utility that heavily outweigh the possibilities of intentional misuse for harm. That isn't true for fire arms.

Edited, Dec 31st 2012 4:50pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#109 Dec 31 2012 at 5:05 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
I can safely say that I have agreed with you Alma on at least one thing in 2012.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#110Almalieque, Posted: Jan 03 2013 at 8:40 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Given the fact that I'm about as centrist as you can get, I'm sure that there were other things that we agreed on.
#111 Jan 04 2013 at 10:15 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Given the fact that I'm about as centrist as you can get,

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#112 Jan 04 2013 at 1:29 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
cidbahamut wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Given the fact that I'm about as centrist as you can get,

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


o.O?

You somehow disagree?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#113 Jan 04 2013 at 1:42 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
You mean you weren't being facetious?
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#114 Jan 04 2013 at 4:19 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of my view points would know that I am about as centrist as you can feasibly get.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#115 Jan 06 2013 at 10:05 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of my view points would know that I am about as centrist as you can feasibly get.


Nobody here has the slightest knowledge of your view points, as you seem unable to manifest them into coherent thought...the great "no homo" threads for example.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#116 Jan 06 2013 at 11:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
He's right in the center between "set homos on fire" and "Just punch homos in the face".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#117Almalieque, Posted: Jan 06 2013 at 3:00 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You surely are taking quite a long time to get good at this trolling hobby of yours. Maybe you should try something else. Seriously..
#118 Jan 06 2013 at 3:57 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
Almalieque wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of my view points would know that I am about as centrist as you can feasibly get.


Nobody here has the slightest knowledge of your view points, as you seem unable to manifest them into coherent thought...the great "no homo" threads for example.


You surely are taking quite a long time to get good at this trolling hobby of yours. Maybe you should try something else. Seriously..


I think you just proved his point.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#119Almalieque, Posted: Jan 06 2013 at 4:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That he's a horrible troll that didn't learn from his previous mistake being busted out as a fake in the RDM forums?
#120 Jan 06 2013 at 5:33 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
Miss again.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#121Almalieque, Posted: Jan 06 2013 at 5:35 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Pretty sure that was it... nice try though champ.
#122 Jan 06 2013 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
Smiley: disappointed

It would be amusing if it weren't so pathetic.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#123 Jan 06 2013 at 6:02 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
You mean your attempt to make yet another thread end up in a cliche derision of me? From a failed troll at that? Yes, that is pretty pathetic.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#124 Jan 06 2013 at 6:45 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Ya BD stop using me to further your anti-Alma intentions.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#125 Jan 08 2013 at 10:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
3,141 posts
Alex Jones, doing his bit for the gun lobby.

(Or the anti-gun lobby - not sure which...)

____________________________
.
#126 Jan 08 2013 at 11:48 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
I just watched that and was about to link it. This guy is so right, Piers is a British American!.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#127 Jan 08 2013 at 11:57 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
jtftaru wrote:
Alex Jones, doing his bit for the gun lobby.

(Or the anti-gun lobby - not sure which...)
Alex Jones seems like one of them strung-too-tight crazies that shouldn't have a gun.

Oh yeah and it's totally reasonable to want to deport this brit. Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Jan 8th 2013 6:59pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#128 Jan 08 2013 at 12:03 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Please don't send him back. Piers Morgan really irritates me. :/
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#129 Jan 08 2013 at 12:44 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
Elinda wrote:
Alex Jones seems like one of them strung-too-tight crazies that shouldn't have a gun.


Understatement of the year, perhaps.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#130 Jan 08 2013 at 8:32 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
What's up with this fake "sympathy" for "law abiding citizens" in reference to gun-laws? When will people realize that we were all "law abiding citizens" at one point in time, to include the killers?

Furthermore, HTF is "law abiding citizen" defined? Do they mean "non-killers", because I'm sure the average person intentionally violates some level of laws however minor.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#131 Jan 08 2013 at 8:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Almalieque wrote:
What's up with this fake "sympathy" for "law abiding citizens" in reference to gun-laws? When will people realize that we were all "law abiding citizens" at one point in time, to include the killers?

Furthermore, HTF is "law abiding citizen" defined? Do they mean "non-killers", because I'm sure the average person intentionally violates some level of laws however minor.


In this context it means people who are not breaking the law with their firearms. Hence the term "law abiding". Were you really confused about this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#132 Jan 08 2013 at 9:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,699 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
What's up with this fake "sympathy" for "law abiding citizens" in reference to gun-laws? When will people realize that we were all "law abiding citizens" at one point in time, to include the killers?

Furthermore, HTF is "law abiding citizen" defined? Do they mean "non-killers", because I'm sure the average person intentionally violates some level of laws however minor.


In this context it means people who are not breaking the law with their firearms. Hence the term "law abiding". Were you really confused about this?


But that's his point. All law abiding, until they break the law with the gun. He's not confused, he's saying it's a stupid term used to rile up the gun toting masses.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#133 Jan 08 2013 at 9:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
What's up with this fake "sympathy" for "law abiding citizens" in reference to gun-laws? When will people realize that we were all "law abiding citizens" at one point in time, to include the killers?

Furthermore, HTF is "law abiding citizen" defined? Do they mean "non-killers", because I'm sure the average person intentionally violates some level of laws however minor.


In this context it means people who are not breaking the law with their firearms. Hence the term "law abiding". Were you really confused about this?


But that's his point. All law abiding, until they break the law with the gun. He's not confused, he's saying it's a stupid term used to rile up the gun toting masses.


It's not a stupid term. It's what the term means in any context. It's no more or less stupid in any other context. A person is a law abiding driver until they run a red light, at which point we can penalize them for that action. The point is that we should not penalize people who don't run red lights because some people do (or even will). IMO, the distinction is even greater with regard to guns. Most people will commit some form of moving violation when driving at some point in their lives. But only a very tiny percentage of gun owners will commit a crime with their guns. So the idea that someone is "law abiding until they break the law with the gun" is really a stretch. Most people are law abiding gun owners their entire lives. Yet, some seek to penalize and restrict their law abiding use of guns because a very very small percentage of people will abuse the right.


I guess I don't get why the need to single out the term in this case. As I said, if anything this is one of the most appropriate uses of the phrase.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#134 Jan 08 2013 at 9:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,528 posts
and zero percent of people who don't own guns will commit crimes with their own guns.

Lawyer'ed
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#135gbaji, Posted: Jan 08 2013 at 9:54 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Zero percent of people who don't own anything will commit crimes with their own anything. It's a meaningless statement. By that logic, we should outlaw property ownership as a means to prevent people from committing crime with anything they own. While interesting in a "stupid John Lennon song" kind of way, given that property ownership is the keystone to liberalism, you're basically chucking the whole "free people living in a free society" out the window with that one.
#136 Jan 08 2013 at 10:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,528 posts
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
and zero percent of people who don't own guns will commit crimes with their own guns.


Zero percent of people who don't own anything will commit crimes with their own anything. It's a meaningless statement. By that logic, we should outlaw property ownership as a means to prevent people from committing crime with anything they own. While interesting in a "stupid John Lennon song" kind of way, given that property ownership is the keystone to liberalism, you're basically chucking the whole "free people living in a free society" out the window with that one.



Somebody is not a fan of "How I Met Your Mother."

And Humor.

and should kill themselves
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#137 Jan 08 2013 at 10:11 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
and should kill themselves


A prime candidate for gun ownership then? Smiley: grin
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#138 Jan 09 2013 at 5:17 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Gbaji wrote:
It's not a stupid term. It's what the term means in any context. It's no more or less stupid in any other context. A person is a law abiding driver until they run a red light, at which point we can penalize them for that action....

I guess I don't get why the need to single out the term in this case. As I said, if anything this is one of the most appropriate uses of the phrase.


'Tis a misleading term. No one cares about a person's legal history, only their accessibility to cause said harm. You can't assume that a person who never killed wont or can't kill. Every killer at one point in time was a "law abiding citizen" in reference to firearms.

Gbaji wrote:
The point is that we should not penalize people who don't run red lights because some people do (or even will)


Welcome to life? Rules are made to prevent all people from performing certain actions regardless of individual intents. People start crashing cars while talking on their cell phones. The result? A ban on cell-phones while driving for everyone. Not just for the people who engaged in car accidents, but everyone. This isn't a new concept.

Gbaji wrote:
But only a very tiny percentage of gun owners will commit a crime with their guns.......Most people are law abiding gun owners their entire lives. Yet, some seek to penalize and restrict their law abiding use of guns because a very very small percentage of people will abuse the right.
Boo-hoo? Most people aren't asking for a total ban on fire weapons, but a restriction to small fire arms and shotguns.

Gbaji wrote:
So the idea that someone is "law abiding until they break the law with the gun" is really a stretch.


Except that's how it works. You're concatenating this theory that people are somehow born good/evil without the possibility of change. Life is hard. People change. As I said, the negative effects of fire arms heavily outweigh the utilities. So, if a "tiny bit" of law breakers = mass homicides at theaters, schools, malls, etc., I think it's fair to say that it's fair to reengage our gun culture, even if that means making "law abiding" citizens uncomfortable.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#139 Jan 09 2013 at 6:08 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
and zero percent of people who don't own guns will commit crimes with their own guns.


Zero percent of people who don't own anything will commit crimes with their own anything. It's a meaningless statement. By that logic, we should outlaw property ownership as a means to prevent people from committing crime with anything they own. While interesting in a "stupid John Lennon song" kind of way, given that property ownership is the keystone to liberalism, you're basically chucking the whole "free people living in a free society" out the window with that one.



Somebody is not a fan of "How I Met Your Mother."

And Humor.


That was supposed to be a joke? It would be a lot more funny if the nearly identical "banning guns reduces gun crime" statement wasn't a common and seriously presented argument in favor of gun control. I agree that it's absurd and circular and should be laughed out of any rational discussion of the issue, but sadly a whole **** of a lot of people don't get that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#140 Jan 09 2013 at 6:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I guess I don't get why the need to single out the term in this case.


Quote:
Every killer at one point in time was a "law abiding citizen" in reference to firearms.


What you're saying is not unique to firearms though, so why single out firearms in this case?

Quote:
Welcome to life? Rules are made to prevent all people from performing certain actions regardless of individual intents. People start crashing cars while talking on their cell phones. The result? A ban on cell-phones while driving for everyone. Not just for the people who engaged in car accidents, but everyone. This isn't a new concept.


Yes. Which is not unique to firearms, so why single out firearms in this case?

Quote:
Most people aren't asking for a total ban on fire weapons, but a restriction to small fire arms and shotguns.


There's a whole range of restrictions that fall far short of total bans, which I still believe are well beyond what is reasonable. I'll also point out that while "most people" who ring in their opinions on the issue may not want a total ban on firearms, "most people" who are actually leading the cause and actually have the ears of politicians and who gain support from those other people *do* want a total ban on firearms. They see any restrictions they can get today as a step in that direction. Failing to see this makes you a chump.

Quote:
You're concatenating this theory that people are somehow born good/evil without the possibility of change.


Nope. I'm saying we should punish people for things they do, not things they might do.

Quote:
As I said, the negative effects of fire arms heavily outweigh the utilities.


As a whole? So you're in favor of a total ban? See I oppose most gun control laws because I believe that the benefits of an individual right to own firearms vastly outweigh the negatives. I would assume anyone who believes differently should support a total ban (or at least very very prohibitive controls on guns). Why wouldn't you?

Quote:
So, if a "tiny bit" of law breakers = mass homicides at theaters, schools, malls, etc., I think it's fair to say that it's fair to reengage our gun culture, even if that means making "law abiding" citizens uncomfortable.


"Reengage" is a euphemism in this case though, isn't it? This is where I'll point out for the umpteenth time that instead of making decisions based on emotion we should look at the actual proposed actions and assess their likelihood of actually affecting outcomes in a positive way. Most gun control proposals do little or nothing to curb violence and crime, and may in some cases make things worse. The biggest positive for gun control is that it makes people who want gun control think they're doing something good.

And that's a really stupid reason to pass laws.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#141 Jan 09 2013 at 6:39 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts
Yes. Which is not unique to firearms, so why single out firearms in this case?

Right. Why single out high explosives? Why single out fighter jets? Why single out RPGs? Why single out hand grenades? Why single out Gatling guns? Why single out surface to air missiles? Why single out nerve agents? Why single out small pox? Why single out flame throwers? Why single out artillery? Why single out radioactive material? Why...wait a minute. Are you sure "single" means what you think it means?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#142gbaji, Posted: Jan 09 2013 at 7:02 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Why not single out walking? Why not single out talking? Why not single out driving? Why not single out writing? Why not single out singing? Why not single out owning a home? Why not single out owning a car? Why not single out any other activity someone might do?
#143 Jan 09 2013 at 7:09 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts
Why not single out walking? Why not single out talking? Why not single out driving? Why not single out writing? Why not single out singing? Why not single out owning a home? Why not single out owning a car? Why not single out any other activity someone might do?

Get my point yet? Or do you need me to write it out for you in crayon?


No, I don't get your point. Are you in favor of deregulating everything? Is it your position that I should be able to go buy a ton of plutonium if I can afford it?

Because that's the **** argument your making. If that's what you intend, great. That's actually a legitimate position. If what you instead intend is that there's a magical imaginary line that you define arbitrarily where we start regulating some killing machines and not others, then that's a **** waste of time. "People get killed with guns and knives, why single out guns" is an identical argument to "People get killed with guns and nerve gas, why single out nerve gas."

Not sure how many times I need to emphasize this, but it is pretty much never the case that I misunderstood your intent. Try to keep that in mind.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#144 Jan 09 2013 at 7:11 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,397 posts
gbaji wrote:
Why not single out writing?
What you do with it is certainly a felony.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#145gbaji, Posted: Jan 09 2013 at 7:23 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yeah. Totally misunderstood this time though Smash.
#146 Jan 09 2013 at 7:43 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Gbaji wrote:

What you're saying is not unique to firearms though, so why single out firearms in this case?

Welcome to my point. I was merely humoring your previous comment for argument's sake. People say "law abiding" as if it means all laws. Doing so is false, because just because you legally registered your firearm doesn't mean make you a "law abiding citizen". It means that you legally registered your weapon.

Gbaji wrote:
Yes. Which is not unique to firearms, so why single out firearms in this case?


That's the point. You're the one complaining as if it's wrong to punish everyone because of a few rotten apples. I'm telling you that's how life works. So, why should this be any different?

Gbaji wrote:
There's a whole range of restrictions that fall far short of total bans, which I still believe are well beyond what is reasonable. I'll also point out that while "most people" who ring in their opinions on the issue may not want a total ban on firearms, "most people" who are actually leading the cause and actually have the ears of politicians and who gain support from those other people *do* want a total ban on firearms. They see any restrictions they can get today as a step in that direction. Failing to see this makes you a chump.


That's a whole lot of words to deny the truth. The average person against guns probably wants guns gone all together, but anyone person with a half a mind realizes that isn't feasible. Any anti-gun person taken seriously is not looking for a total ban. Failing to see this makes you a ninny hammer.

Gbaji wrote:


Nope. I'm saying we should punish people for things they do, not things they might do.

If that were true, then you agree that the term "law abiding citizen" is stupid because being a "law abiding citizen" (good) is irrelevant as that citizen is no less of a threat than a person who illegally obtained their fire weapon.

Gbaji wrote:
As a whole? So you're in favor of a total ban? See I oppose most gun control laws because I believe that the benefits of an individual right to own firearms vastly outweigh the negatives. I would assume anyone who believes differently should support a total ban (or at least very very prohibitive controls on guns). Why wouldn't you?


In an idea world, of course. In reality, of course not. You're projecting fallacious views in order to support your view. As I said, most feasible arguments favor small arms and shot guns. The argument is against fire arms that allow large amounts of ammunition at a fast rate. 6 bullets are plenty enough to "protect" yourself in a typical scenario where self-defense is necessary.

Gbaji wrote:
"Reengage" is a euphemism in this case though, isn't it? This is where I'll point out for the umpteenth time that instead of making decisions based on emotion we should look at the actual proposed actions and assess their likelihood of actually affecting outcomes in a positive way.


It's not an emotional argument. It's the fact that the intentional negative misuse outweighs the benefits. The purpose of firearms is to kill. Plain and simple. The time of hunting and militias is over.

Gbaji wrote:
Most gun control proposals do little or nothing to curb violence and crime, and may in some cases make things worse. The biggest positive for gun control is that it makes people who want gun control think they're doing something good.

And that's a really stupid reason to pass laws.


Before I address this, do you seriously believe this nonsense?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#147 Jan 09 2013 at 8:08 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
Ninny hammer...?

Smiley: um
#148 Jan 09 2013 at 8:12 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts
No. I'm arguing that we should use a criteria other than "you're only law abiding until you break the law" when deciding whether to regulate something.

Great. Let's stop discussing the other useless **** and hear your criteria. I'm so glad you have some.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#149 Jan 09 2013 at 9:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
No. I'm arguing that we should use a criteria other than "you're only law abiding until you break the law" when deciding whether to regulate something.

Great. Let's stop discussing the other useless bullsh*t and hear your criteria. I'm so glad you have some.


The criteria should be based on whether the combination of positives and negatives of the thing itself, compared to the importance of any rights involved, justify limiting said rights via the form of the proposed regulation. We should consider all aspects of the thing within the context of said proposed regulation. Is that a sufficiently broad explanation of criteria to justify regulation within our system of government? I would hope there would be no disagreement in principle here.


With specific regard to firearms, we need to look at the actual effect a given proposal would have, and compare it honestly to the costs and rights involved. So for example, we might decide that banning private ownership of fully automatic weapons is justified because their use in the hands of private citizens would represent a significant risk to public safety and there are sufficient non-fully-automatic weapons to meet the requirements of the 2nd amendment and any positive uses of firearms we might think of within society. We might decide, however, that a total ban on handguns is not justified because there is not sufficient evidence to show that their harm when used in crime is greater on total than their use when defending against crime. Additionally we might determine that outlawing an entire class of weapons like handguns places an undo restriction on the 2nd amendment.


My issue is primarily with the justifications being used for various proposed regulations with regard to firearms. They seem to be less based on an assessment of facts and more on emotional reactions. Gun types get proposed to be banned, not because they're more dangerous or less necessary to fulfill the 2nd amendment right, but purely because they're more scary, or they just happen to be the guns that some gun-control group keep mentioning every time the subject of gun control comes up. IMO, those are incredibly poor reasons to base regulation on.


I agree entirely. Let's stop discussing Bullsh*t. So let's hear a non Bullshi*t argument in support of a proposed piece of gun regulation. Not just broad (and meaningless) statements like "assault weapons aren't necessary for hunting", but an actual proposed set of restrictions and a justification for said restriction which meets the criteria I outlined. I want to hear how the proposed restrictions would affect both criminal uses of guns and legal uses of guns, and how those affects are both positive *and* in accordance with the 2nd amendment rights. When writing said proposal remember that rights should only be infringed if there's a significant and provable gain to be had. Preferably a gain which is itself a right (like life, property, etc). Anything even remotely close to an even choice or trade off should never be done if it involves infringing a right.

Fair enough?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#150 Jan 09 2013 at 9:18 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Gbaji wrote:
No. It's not. You perhaps should go back and read what I actually wrote instead of spinning off on some absurd assumptive tangent. My only point was that "gun owners are only law abiding until they break the law with their guns" is *not* a valid argument for any gun regulation at all.


1. The "law abiding" comment was not an argument for gun regulation but a counter to the usage of the term.

2. That indeed is your implicit argument. This goes back to our conversation of WMD. The only reason the US makes a big deal about WMD or similar weapons is based on the same exact logic that gun-law proponents are making. According to your logic, "law abiding" citizens should be able to have access to any sort of weapons.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#151 Jan 09 2013 at 10:05 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts
My issue is primarily with the justifications being used for various proposed regulations with regard to firearms. They seem to be less based on an assessment of facts and more on emotional reactions.

Nope. They aren't. They're based on the fact that *access* to firearms that can kill a lot of people quickly by people seeking to use them in a crime is increased in proportion to their general availability. Just like high explosives. The issue is really one of complexity. Semi-automatic firearms are reasonably complex. I could make one at home out of stock metal, but most would be armed robbers can't. That's the crux of the gun control argument. Why make it easy to acquire reasonably complex killing machines designed to kill en masse quickly?

The 2nd amendment is law, and that's fine, but there's ample space to enforce the "well regulated" text along with the "not be infringed" text. We'll set aside for a moment that a stockpile of 10,000 assault rifles isn't going to help you against the flying killer robot if the government decides to kill you. The original idea that this right would somehow keep governmental military power in check is long, long dead. Restricting cyclic rate or mag capacity is a perfectly rational thing to do, likely to lead to a decline in the death toll of these sorts of events. It would be objectively better if that were the case. If it isn't the case, there's virtually no harm. Hunters don't need 25 shots, and honestly, neither do people defending themselves or their homes. Nobody gets to the sixth shot, really, in a legitimate defensive situation, a Colt Navy would be as useful as Glock 17 (although not so amazingly well designed and smooth to operate, **** Austrians know how to make killing people effortless, I'll give them that)

These are the sort of laws you're worrying are based on emotion...making 35 shot clips for Chinese AK clones illegal. They aren't. They're considered policy decisions. There are no "take all the guns away!" laws even being considered. No one's adversely effected by the laws being considered who isn't involved in an ongoing dispute with a Mexican drug cartel.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 33 All times are in CDT
Debalic, Demea, Anonymous Guests (31)