The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:41 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3844
Location: 63368
My sister posted on Facebook that Republican’s have more blood on their hands now, after this latest school shooting. Included were the usual diatribe about being heartless and uncaring and how she was sure they were going to ignore all the suffering, finishing up with “when will it all stop”.

I replied “Probably about the time Liberals stop promoting abortion”.

She usually hosts the family Easter celebration. I don’t think I’m going to be invited. :)

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 9387
The kid legally purchased his gun, passing a background check. His classmates described him as "the kid we all joked about shooting up the school." I've heard that he was posting online about becoming a mass shooter, and was reported to the FBI, who contacted the reporter and then closed the case.

I don't see how more regulation would have helped, here. All of the regulations we HAVE put in place triggered, and failed spectacularly from all accounts I've seen.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:36 pm 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3058
How did it happen though? I mean, the school is a gun-free zone, isn't it?

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5713
Harford County Delegate in MD submits bill to allow teachers to carry guns.

This will go nowhere.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/harford/aegis/ph-ag-guns-in-schools-bill-0131-story.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:26 am 
Offline
Peanut Gallery
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:40 pm
Posts: 2209
Location: Bat Country
Ahaha, the solution is to ban guns, duh. I think we'll see legislation to repeal the 2nd amendment in my lifetime.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Nobody could’ve expected all these kids to die in a gun-free zone. But let’s make all of Florida a gun-free zone, that’ll solve the problem. /s


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3844
Location: 63368
Wwen wrote:
Ahaha, the solution is to ban guns, duh. I think we'll see legislation to repeal the 2nd amendment in my lifetime.

Probably, but that would seem a bit inconsistent... The death of an innocent is an unintended consequence of the 2nd amendment, as opposed to abortion, where the death of an innocent is sanctioned by the government.

Someone’s not thinking of the children.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:16 pm 
Offline
Rihannsu Commander

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:31 am
Posts: 4700
Location: Cincinnati OH
Because the destruction of a mass of non-sentient, non-sapient cells is clearly the moral equivalent of willingly employing a device with no other purpose than to end the life of self-aware, fully self-sufficient and independent being.

Stop with the rediculous false equivalences.

You want to make an argument about gun rights, knock yourself out. You’ve succeeded in creating such an echo chamber here I’m amazed you even waste your time posting here anymore. But stop trying to shove your religious beliefs into some other discussion just to start a fight.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3844
Location: 63368
TheRiov wrote:
Because the destruction of a mass of non-sentient, non-sapient cells is clearly the moral equivalent of willingly employing a device with no other purpose than to end the life of self-aware, fully self-sufficient and independent being.

Stop with the rediculous false equivalences.

You want to make an argument about gun rights, knock yourself out. You’ve succeeded in creating such an echo chamber here I’m amazed you even waste your time posting here anymore. But stop trying to shove your religious beliefs into some other discussion just to start a fight.

No false equivalence at all, it's the pure truth and has nothing to do with religion.

Quote:
10 weeks after conception — your baby might weigh about 1/2 ounce

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-life ... g-20006669

That clump of cells is universally recognized as a baby. That clump of cells has never purposefully done anything, the least of which would be to harm another. It's literally and absolutely innocent, and the only significant difference between that clump of cells and the children killed by the murderer in Florida is the physical maturity a few very short years provides.

The right to bear arms is in recognition that there are those that feel as you do (or as you posted earlier) that guns are for killing people, and unfortunately, they're not above doing so. The 2nd recognizes that we have a right to defend ourselves, and given that those that are a threat had guns in 1776 and still have guns today, the constitution is telling citizens that they do not have to wait to let the government defend them from people that would do them harm. It's stupid to be in a gun fight with a knife, and so it was recognized, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

So, yeah, the 2nd unequivocally does not sanction the taking of an innocent life but the defense of the same, while sanctioned abortion unequivocally does take the life of an innocent baby. Them's the facts, jack.

And that, dear sir, is why anyone who invokes morality (as in, "Think of the CHILDREN, you murderous republicans!!!") as an objection to the 2nd but remains silent about the lack thereof around abortion, is a hypocrite. Best they keep silent if they don't want that fact known.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:32 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15603
Location: Combat Information Center
TheRiov wrote:
Because the destruction of a mass of non-sentient, non-sapient cells is clearly the moral equivalent of willingly employing a device with no other purpose than to end the life of self-aware, fully self-sufficient and independent being.

Stop with the rediculous false equivalences.

You want to make an argument about gun rights, knock yourself out. You’ve succeeded in creating such an echo chamber here I’m amazed you even waste your time posting here anymore. But stop trying to shove your religious beliefs into some other discussion just to start a fight.


There is nothing even slightly ridiculous about that equivalence - which is why you are still using absurd characterizations like "mass of cells" as if it's just a clump of undifferentiated cells until it pops out of the vagina at which point, presto! It's a baby!

Religion has nothing to do with it. France is one of the most secularized countries in the world. It bans abortion after 12 weeks specifically because the child is a child, not a mass of cells by that point and conceivably earlier. Most other European countries limit it to earlier than we do. This is not about religion except insofar as anti-religious people like will take absurd positions on abortion simply because they see religious people opposing it. Abortion is the brutal dismemberment of a child simply because it is not yet ready to survive outside the womb unsupported. It doesn't matter whether it's sapient or sentient yet; eventually it will be, and no, edge cases like serious birth defects are not relevant. Edge cases are not a reason to allow abortion of healthy babies; we can deal with edge cases as edge cases.

Incidentally, that's also the only way to justify the existence of child support. If abortion is generally not an option, then child support is justifiable. If the baby is not a baby until it is born, there is no reason to force men to pay for a child just because a woman autonomously decided to have a baby she could have aborted at any time.

Oh wait, that's right - she couldn't because it's a baby. It's not just a cost-free procedure no matter how much Lena Dunham wishes it was. Having an abortion is not like getting a mole - which is the mass of cells you're thinking of - removed. It is akin to an animal chewing its own leg off to escape a trap. It isn't about "reproductive health" or any of that crap; it's about desperation. Selling it as some antiseptic administrative medical procedure is bullshit.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:39 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15603
Location: Combat Information Center
Kaffis Mark V wrote:
I don't see how more regulation would have helped, here. All of the regulations we HAVE put in place triggered, and failed spectacularly from all accounts I've seen.

Because it's easier to enforce the law on law-abiding people

I think Williamson (as he often is) is somewhat unfair to Wray - he's only been on the job 6 months and I don't know that he should have had any reason to suspect problems with the tip line that he should have already addressed - but his general point is well taken.

Anti-gun people want regulations for the sake of the regulations. It doesn't matter whether there's a dozen school shootings a year or one every twelve years. The goal is to work backwards to the regulations.

Fortunately, the kind of gun bans people want are literally impossible. Almost half the households in the country own a gun - but more importantly, the people who would... actually carry out the confiscation are heavily weighted towards owning the guns in the first place. The national guard? The police?

They own the guns privately, too. There is literally no way to ever bell that cat.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3844
Location: 63368
Diamondeye wrote:
who would... actually carry out the confiscation

Day 1 I'd bury my all my guns in tupperware wrapped in oilcloth and report them stolen. I figure it wouldn't be long till Elmo organizes and I'd be able to dig them back up again.

If the government wants to make a criminal out of a law abiding citizen, I'm down with that.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:17 pm 
Offline
Rihannsu Commander

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:31 am
Posts: 4700
Location: Cincinnati OH
I refuse to get into an abortion discussion on this. You want to discuss gun laws, mass shootings, etc that’s one thing but I won’t pretend these issues are within a parsec of each other just because you say it is.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:09 pm 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3058
TheRiov wrote:
I refuse to get into an abortion discussion on this. You want to discuss gun laws, mass shootings, etc that’s one thing but I won’t pretend these issues are within a parsec of each other just because you say it is.

From your perspective, that's fair. However, we could make the same argument with respect to illegal immigrants involved in violent crime. When they live in our country and commit violent crime, it's never time for "common sense immigration laws" and any extrapolation of their violence to the illegal immigrant population at large is considered judgmental with a side-helping of racist. Stopping illegal immigration is not a discussion Leftists ever want to have. Yet Americans are expected to tolerate these deaths when the reality is none of them should occur because illegal immigrants are actually, well, illegally here and have no right to be. Legal gun owners, however, are expected to give up their rights because we must do something even though that something won't solve the problem and isn't even an honest discussion about the true goal of repealing the second amendment.

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:19 pm 
Offline
Rihannsu Commander

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:31 am
Posts: 4700
Location: Cincinnati OH
Hell at this point I’d settle for universal background checks, restrictions on private sales, yearly inspections and licensing (including tests/courses) and mental health/watchlist disqualifications for firearm ownership and mandating that every gun have its ballistics registered.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3844
Location: 63368
TheRiov wrote:
I refuse to get into an abortion discussion on this. You want to discuss gun laws, mass shootings, etc that’s one thing but I won’t pretend these issues are within a parsec of each other just because you say it is.

Unfortunately, assertions of moral superiority are the basis of arguments being forwarded after horrible murders like what just happened in Florida and other ill's of society such as the riots in Ferguson and such. I've been told many times how I hate children, brown people, how I'm a racist, bigot, or how I'm a hypocrite because I fail someone's imaginary "What would Jesus do?" litmus test from someone who forwards no logical or coherent arguments for their position but disagrees with mine on the solution to such things.

Which, by the way, is the topic of this thread. I know, 'cause I posted it.

So, about Florida. The 2nd amendment is the law of the land. Someone's opinion that I don't "need" a gun is irrelevant, especially when they go on to say how dangerous it is that bad folks have black rifles that hold 30 bullets that look scary. Damn straight they do, and a bad guy with a tactical getup rolling down Main Street is just as scary to me as it seems to be to you, but I choose to do what I can to plan for my defense and the defense of my family, just as I was trained to do 40 years ago. Taking away my right to do so requires me to rely on the government ... and there you have the crux of the difference in our positions.

If you want to discuss the logistics of the 2nd, be aware that the law of the land states quite clearly "...shall not be infringed". Just stop and think for a moment on your position and how you'd defend your position if you were applying it to the other rights citizens enjoy, such as the freedom of speech or the right to vote... or even the right to have an abortion. If you don't want checks, restrictions, inspections, licensing, etc, on those rights, be prepared to have your illogical position exposed.

That said, let me digress....

Things changed quite a bit in the last 10 years, "progressive liberals" are a thing, and that demographic saw significant influence during the last presidency. The backlash from those changes put Trump in office, and the progressive liberal losses are inciting folks to attack ... well, people like me. Old white guys. Yeah, I'm now the devil, the source of all that is unholy, the root cause of all that's bad.

I've had enough. Progressive liberals don't get to tell me who I am or what's right and wrong, especially when they live in such a large glass houses.

You know, there was a time when "polite" discussion between normal folks didn't consist of calling out another on topics that are divisive, but apparently my sister didn't get the memo when she decided that support of the 2nd equates to "not caring about the children!", etc.

So, TheRiov, you can decide what discussions to participate in, it's your right. We can limit the discussion to the implements of murder and the regulation of same, but then you're limited to logical analysis of your position, and given that more murders are committed by knives than black scary rifles with magazines that reach to folks knees, you need to have better debate arguments than "people don't need those guns", etc. I'm not giving up my guns, and I'm not going to have a drawer full of plastic sporks in my kitchen. Ain't gunna happen. You know what the solution is? Folks need to be responsible for their actions and hold other folks to that same standard. Don't blame the rock that shatters your glass house, blame the guy that threw it. And if you want to bad mouth cops, don't call one when your window gets broken. That'll show 'em!

In conclusion... :)

Abortion is now part of any debate where the progressive liberal argument to take away citizens constitutional rights centers on the body count. You don't have to pretend anything, if you don't want to be reminded of that, don't bring it up 'cause your side doesn't have a leg to stand on.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:55 am 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3058
I'd also like to add that pain and grief are not qualifiers for public policy acumen. We all grieve for these families, but that grief doesn't get to dictate doing something, likely the wrong thing, just to assuage our consciences we did something and can now prove we care.

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:19 pm 
Offline
Rihannsu Commander

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:31 am
Posts: 4700
Location: Cincinnati OH
Oh and I want the GOP to stop blocking any attempt to study gun violence as a public health issue.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2313
Diamondeye wrote:
TheRiov wrote:
Because the destruction of a mass of non-sentient, non-sapient cells is clearly the moral equivalent of willingly employing a device with no other purpose than to end the life of self-aware, fully self-sufficient and independent being.

Stop with the rediculous false equivalences.

You want to make an argument about gun rights, knock yourself out. You’ve succeeded in creating such an echo chamber here I’m amazed you even waste your time posting here anymore. But stop trying to shove your religious beliefs into some other discussion just to start a fight.


There is nothing even slightly ridiculous about that equivalence - which is why you are still using absurd characterizations like "mass of cells" as if it's just a clump of undifferentiated cells until it pops out of the vagina at which point, presto! It's a baby!

Religion has nothing to do with it. France is one of the most secularized countries in the world. It bans abortion after 12 weeks specifically because the child is a child, not a mass of cells by that point and conceivably earlier. Most other European countries limit it to earlier than we do. This is not about religion except insofar as anti-religious people like will take absurd positions on abortion simply because they see religious people opposing it. Abortion is the brutal dismemberment of a child simply because it is not yet ready to survive outside the womb unsupported. It doesn't matter whether it's sapient or sentient yet; eventually it will be, and no, edge cases like serious birth defects are not relevant. Edge cases are not a reason to allow abortion of healthy babies; we can deal with edge cases as edge cases.

Incidentally, that's also the only way to justify the existence of child support. If abortion is generally not an option, then child support is justifiable. If the baby is not a baby until it is born, there is no reason to force men to pay for a child just because a woman autonomously decided to have a baby she could have aborted at any time.

Oh wait, that's right - she couldn't because it's a baby. It's not just a cost-free procedure no matter how much Lena Dunham wishes it was. Having an abortion is not like getting a mole - which is the mass of cells you're thinking of - removed. It is akin to an animal chewing its own leg off to escape a trap. It isn't about "reproductive health" or any of that crap; it's about desperation. Selling it as some antiseptic administrative medical procedure is bullshit.


Child support exists as an attempt to prevent the state from having to pay to raise the child. Morally speaking, it would be fair to allow a man to terminate his rights and obligations towards an unborn child, it's just not allowed because then it's highly likely the state has to pay for the child. If the woman has an abortion, nobody has to pay for this child anymore. This is why delinquent child support is generally treated as a more serious crime and more aggressively prosecuted in red states than it is in blue states, it's about cutting government spending.

I don't have a clue how to fix the unfairness in family issues without resorting to 1950s norms. (Heavy stigma/shaming of unwed mothers, divorce generally not allowed, etc.) Fundamentally, the issue is we've reached a point where men and women mostly have legal equality but not social equality. I mean, let's be honest here. A third of households (with children) are still single income with the man as the breadwinner. House husbands taking care of kids supported by a working wife basically do not exist. Even in two income households, the man earns substantially more in the vast majority of them, and he does so in virtually all of these relationships that last. The wife earning twice as much or more as the husband in a household with children is a stronger statistical indicator of eventual divorce than actual physical abuse.

It's simply not practical to not have family law favor women to some extent, not unless you want the government to pick up the tab for it all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3844
Location: 63368
TheRiov wrote:
Hell at this point I’d settle for universal background checks, restrictions on private sales, yearly inspections and licensing (including tests/courses) and mental health/watchlist disqualifications for firearm ownership and mandating that every gun have its ballistics registered.


I've taken some time and thought about the changes you've said you'd like to see, but I have concerns ... some concerns are about how much privacy folks would have to give up to implement any meaningful change, and some concerns are about how effective the implementation would be to affect the situation to the point where criminals would have more difficulty than law abiding citizens. Any burden on law abiding citizens that didn't have a equal or greater burden on murderers wouldn't achieve any meaningful change, in my opinion.

That was after thinking on it. I admit, the first thought was to post a knee-jerk "shall not be infringed!", and the next thought was "give them an inch and they'll take a mile". Given the level of animosity between camps in the US these days, I'm not sure there's all that much wiggle room, and about that, I'm truly sorry.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:12 am 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
eh... either all human life has value, or none does. I am pro choice, pro 2a and pro capital punishment. Because life, if anything should have as many ways to end as it does to live.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:04 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15603
Location: Combat Information Center
Xequecal wrote:
Child support exists as an attempt to prevent the state from having to pay to raise the child. Morally speaking, it would be fair to allow a man to terminate his rights and obligations towards an unborn child, it's just not allowed because then it's highly likely the state has to pay for the child. If the woman has an abortion, nobody has to pay for this child anymore. This is why delinquent child support is generally treated as a more serious crime and more aggressively prosecuted in red states than it is in blue states, it's about cutting government spending.

I don't have a clue how to fix the unfairness in family issues without resorting to 1950s norms. (Heavy stigma/shaming of unwed mothers, divorce generally not allowed, etc.) Fundamentally, the issue is we've reached a point where men and women mostly have legal equality but not social equality. I mean, let's be honest here. A third of households (with children) are still single income with the man as the breadwinner. House husbands taking care of kids supported by a working wife basically do not exist. Even in two income households, the man earns substantially more in the vast majority of them, and he does so in virtually all of these relationships that last. The wife earning twice as much or more as the husband in a household with children is a stronger statistical indicator of eventual divorce than actual physical abuse.

It's simply not practical to not have family law favor women to some extent, not unless you want the government to pick up the tab for it all.


In those same 1950s norms, a pregnancy also could not be terminated on the whim of the mother. There is nothing stopping women in this day and age from raising children on a single income; to the degree that women make less than their husbands it is because they generally choose to. Women are vastly more likely to make choices in terms of fields to go into and career progression that lower their earning potential, and they do this even in the face of colossal effort (often, rather silly colossal effort) to equalize the number of women in every profession just for the sake of equal numbers. This goes back to the ridiculous gender wage gap theory.

In fact, my household IS one of those one-breadwinner households, because my wife did precisely that. Once my earnings, across two jobs, passed a certain level my wife abandoned any pretense of interest in being anything but a housewife.

The answer to this dilemma is to get rid of abortion, to the greatest degree possible (there will always be edge cases) rather than get rid of child support.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:07 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15603
Location: Combat Information Center
TheRiov wrote:
Oh and I want the GOP to stop blocking any attempt to study gun violence as a public health issue.


Since it is not a public health issue, they are entirely right to do this. "gun violence" is not a health issue any more than any other kind of violence. In fact, there actually is not any such thing as "gun violence" in the first place; this is just special pleading based on the tool used. The attempts to get "public health funding" for studying "gun violence" are a transparent attempt to get funding into the hands of agencies dominated by liberals in order to produce "science" that dictates certain policies. There is no reason the Center for DISEASE control should be clamoring for funding to study something that is... not a disease.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:10 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15603
Location: Combat Information Center
TheRiov wrote:
I refuse to get into an abortion discussion on this. You want to discuss gun laws, mass shootings, etc that’s one thing but I won’t pretend these issues are within a parsec of each other just because you say it is.


Since you provided no reason why it is not, other than your own say so and some vague prejudicial language, you've conceded the point.

Quote:
Hell at this point I’d settle for universal background checks, restrictions on private sales, yearly inspections and licensing (including tests/courses) and mental health/watchlist disqualifications for firearm ownership and mandating that every gun have its ballistics registered.


**** lol if you think this is "settling".

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:14 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
I have issues with some of this mental health testing. Where do you call it quits? Should people with bipolar be excluded from ownership? What about people on Prozac?

Can they look at your family medical history and decide that since a mental health issue was in your family history, even though you do not have it... you could get it and deny you of gun ownership?

Guns are not the problem, mental illness is not 100% the problem. I see the problem as people not valuing human life. If people valued human life, they would not be so willing to end a life.

Hence my oversimplification with my either/or Fallacy above.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group