If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2101
|
|||
|
|||
There is no constitutional right...
....but you started this sub-argument off questioning there was no
relevant comparison betwixt sex/STD's and firearms; I showed there was significant comparison regarding public safety; which indeed is the pretext for all anti-gun arguments... I didn't bring 'sex' into this argument anyway; some 'anti' did and I responded... "The Reids" wrote in message ... Of course people have human rights, but to what extend freedoms like sexual preference are in place depends in practice on the actions of the electorate in chosing politicians who legislate on these things. As to my programming; I was taught to respect firearms as potentially dangerous objects should be respected... not to irrationally run away from and eschew them any more than automobiles and axes... Tim K wrote in message ... In article et, (Tim Kroesen) wrote: That's just not true Barney; more babies are born with or contract STD's at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and walls... We were talking about STDs transmitted by sex, if you recall. In fact I think it was you who first introduced (at least into this sub-thread) the comparison between banning guns and banning buggery. I agree that other methods of infection raise other issues. In any case, as I said, I don't think just stating... more babies are born with or contract STD's at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and walls ...particularly advances the argument. Extending that logic, if there is a medical condition X which kills more people than any other single medical condition (and logically there must be), we should direct all research, public health activity and so on toward X and ignore the rest! It appears that even when you try to reason the issues out you are still projecting an unfair programmed anti-gun bias I haven't expressed any sentiments that I would characterise as anti-gun and I don't consider myself anti-gun; in fact I think the British regulations are unnecessarily draconian and a good example of reflex law-making. However, I don't get very worked up about them, partly because I have no personal interest in guns (my hand-eye coordination is poor and the few times I tried target shooting at school I was laughably incompetent); also because although gun ownership is a restricted liberty here, I don't think it's the most important, or even one of the most important liberties. However, if you think that any opinion on the matter slightly less enthusiastically pro-gun than yours is evidence of "programmed anti-gun bias", maybe you should ponder whether there might not be some bias on your side too? |
#2102
|
|||
|
|||
There is no constitutional right...
....but you started this sub-argument off questioning there was no
relevant comparison betwixt sex/STD's and firearms; I showed there was significant comparison regarding public safety; which indeed is the pretext for all anti-gun arguments... I didn't bring 'sex' into this argument anyway; some 'anti' did and I responded... "The Reids" wrote in message ... Of course people have human rights, but to what extend freedoms like sexual preference are in place depends in practice on the actions of the electorate in chosing politicians who legislate on these things. As to my programming; I was taught to respect firearms as potentially dangerous objects should be respected... not to irrationally run away from and eschew them any more than automobiles and axes... Tim K wrote in message ... In article et, (Tim Kroesen) wrote: That's just not true Barney; more babies are born with or contract STD's at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and walls... We were talking about STDs transmitted by sex, if you recall. In fact I think it was you who first introduced (at least into this sub-thread) the comparison between banning guns and banning buggery. I agree that other methods of infection raise other issues. In any case, as I said, I don't think just stating... more babies are born with or contract STD's at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and walls ...particularly advances the argument. Extending that logic, if there is a medical condition X which kills more people than any other single medical condition (and logically there must be), we should direct all research, public health activity and so on toward X and ignore the rest! It appears that even when you try to reason the issues out you are still projecting an unfair programmed anti-gun bias I haven't expressed any sentiments that I would characterise as anti-gun and I don't consider myself anti-gun; in fact I think the British regulations are unnecessarily draconian and a good example of reflex law-making. However, I don't get very worked up about them, partly because I have no personal interest in guns (my hand-eye coordination is poor and the few times I tried target shooting at school I was laughably incompetent); also because although gun ownership is a restricted liberty here, I don't think it's the most important, or even one of the most important liberties. However, if you think that any opinion on the matter slightly less enthusiastically pro-gun than yours is evidence of "programmed anti-gun bias", maybe you should ponder whether there might not be some bias on your side too? |
#2103
|
|||
|
|||
There is no constitutional right...
....but you started this sub-argument off questioning there was no
relevant comparison betwixt sex/STD's and firearms; I showed there was significant comparison regarding public safety; which indeed is the pretext for all anti-gun arguments... I didn't bring 'sex' into this argument anyway; some 'anti' did and I responded... "The Reids" wrote in message ... Of course people have human rights, but to what extend freedoms like sexual preference are in place depends in practice on the actions of the electorate in chosing politicians who legislate on these things. As to my programming; I was taught to respect firearms as potentially dangerous objects should be respected... not to irrationally run away from and eschew them any more than automobiles and axes... Tim K wrote in message ... In article et, (Tim Kroesen) wrote: That's just not true Barney; more babies are born with or contract STD's at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and walls... We were talking about STDs transmitted by sex, if you recall. In fact I think it was you who first introduced (at least into this sub-thread) the comparison between banning guns and banning buggery. I agree that other methods of infection raise other issues. In any case, as I said, I don't think just stating... more babies are born with or contract STD's at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and walls ...particularly advances the argument. Extending that logic, if there is a medical condition X which kills more people than any other single medical condition (and logically there must be), we should direct all research, public health activity and so on toward X and ignore the rest! It appears that even when you try to reason the issues out you are still projecting an unfair programmed anti-gun bias I haven't expressed any sentiments that I would characterise as anti-gun and I don't consider myself anti-gun; in fact I think the British regulations are unnecessarily draconian and a good example of reflex law-making. However, I don't get very worked up about them, partly because I have no personal interest in guns (my hand-eye coordination is poor and the few times I tried target shooting at school I was laughably incompetent); also because although gun ownership is a restricted liberty here, I don't think it's the most important, or even one of the most important liberties. However, if you think that any opinion on the matter slightly less enthusiastically pro-gun than yours is evidence of "programmed anti-gun bias", maybe you should ponder whether there might not be some bias on your side too? |
#2104
|
|||
|
|||
There is no constitutional right...
Mitchell Holman wrote in
: Stuart Grey wrote in . 199.17: Mitchell Holman wrote in : Louis Boyd wrote in news:ce9hjr$mi1$1 @oasis.ccit.arizona.edu: gruhn wrote: So you think you have a constitutional right to own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing. Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"? If you can't trust yourself or your neighbor with a few miltary style weapons you sure as hell can't trust a politician who you and your neighbor helped elect to command several hundred thousand men equiped with those same weapons! So what you are saying is you think the Columbine murderers should have had real hand grenades instead of the homemade ones that fizzled. Boy, you really would have liked to see that, eh? Kids can't vote. Kids can't buy booze. Kids can't buy tobacco. Kids can't buy firearms. "What we know so far: the eighteen year old girlfriend of one of the Columbine High School killers bought some of the guns they used at a gun show nearby. Another gun was purchased by a co-worker. The murder weapons were all legally purchased in the immediate area." www.spectacle.org/599/columb.html And contributing to the delinquency of a minor is a crime, and the people that armed them should be charged with accessory if they didn’t provide adult supervision. Further, what happened at Columbine was a result of what the pussy liberals have done to the educational system. The left wing is using the schools to indoctrinate children into the idea that they have no right to self defense, and that their only recourse to grievances is to appeal to government authorities. But since the assholes in the school never did a damn thing to stop the practice of harassment, two kids went fruitcake on them. "Our school systems teach the children they are nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud," I disagree. Most of them are not glorified apes, but rather apes with the power of speech who have been trained to wear clothes, after a fashion. There are very few true humans. GOP Majority Whip Tom DeLay, blaming the Columbine High School shootings on the teaching of evolution, 8/99 I disagree. See above for why what happened, happened. I can remember when schools had rifle teams, rifle ranges, and real live bullets. I know of one school that had 20 .22 cal target rifles, and 5 M1903/A3-03 with thousands of rounds of ammunition. No one got shot. In Texas, if you only had a Bowie Knife in your school locker, you were considered lightly armed. What’s different? See my comments above. --multiplaza.nl.nu-- |
#2105
|
|||
|
|||
There is no constitutional right...
Mitchell Holman wrote in
: Stuart Grey wrote in . 199.17: Mitchell Holman wrote in : Louis Boyd wrote in news:ce9hjr$mi1$1 @oasis.ccit.arizona.edu: gruhn wrote: So you think you have a constitutional right to own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing. Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"? If you can't trust yourself or your neighbor with a few miltary style weapons you sure as hell can't trust a politician who you and your neighbor helped elect to command several hundred thousand men equiped with those same weapons! So what you are saying is you think the Columbine murderers should have had real hand grenades instead of the homemade ones that fizzled. Boy, you really would have liked to see that, eh? Kids can't vote. Kids can't buy booze. Kids can't buy tobacco. Kids can't buy firearms. "What we know so far: the eighteen year old girlfriend of one of the Columbine High School killers bought some of the guns they used at a gun show nearby. Another gun was purchased by a co-worker. The murder weapons were all legally purchased in the immediate area." www.spectacle.org/599/columb.html And contributing to the delinquency of a minor is a crime, and the people that armed them should be charged with accessory if they didn’t provide adult supervision. Further, what happened at Columbine was a result of what the pussy liberals have done to the educational system. The left wing is using the schools to indoctrinate children into the idea that they have no right to self defense, and that their only recourse to grievances is to appeal to government authorities. But since the assholes in the school never did a damn thing to stop the practice of harassment, two kids went fruitcake on them. "Our school systems teach the children they are nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud," I disagree. Most of them are not glorified apes, but rather apes with the power of speech who have been trained to wear clothes, after a fashion. There are very few true humans. GOP Majority Whip Tom DeLay, blaming the Columbine High School shootings on the teaching of evolution, 8/99 I disagree. See above for why what happened, happened. I can remember when schools had rifle teams, rifle ranges, and real live bullets. I know of one school that had 20 .22 cal target rifles, and 5 M1903/A3-03 with thousands of rounds of ammunition. No one got shot. In Texas, if you only had a Bowie Knife in your school locker, you were considered lightly armed. What’s different? See my comments above. --multiplaza.nl.nu-- |
#2106
|
|||
|
|||
There is no constitutional right...
Mitchell Holman wrote in
: Stuart Grey wrote in . 199.17: Mitchell Holman wrote in : Louis Boyd wrote in news:ce9hjr$mi1$1 @oasis.ccit.arizona.edu: gruhn wrote: So you think you have a constitutional right to own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing. Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"? If you can't trust yourself or your neighbor with a few miltary style weapons you sure as hell can't trust a politician who you and your neighbor helped elect to command several hundred thousand men equiped with those same weapons! So what you are saying is you think the Columbine murderers should have had real hand grenades instead of the homemade ones that fizzled. Boy, you really would have liked to see that, eh? Kids can't vote. Kids can't buy booze. Kids can't buy tobacco. Kids can't buy firearms. "What we know so far: the eighteen year old girlfriend of one of the Columbine High School killers bought some of the guns they used at a gun show nearby. Another gun was purchased by a co-worker. The murder weapons were all legally purchased in the immediate area." www.spectacle.org/599/columb.html And contributing to the delinquency of a minor is a crime, and the people that armed them should be charged with accessory if they didn’t provide adult supervision. Further, what happened at Columbine was a result of what the pussy liberals have done to the educational system. The left wing is using the schools to indoctrinate children into the idea that they have no right to self defense, and that their only recourse to grievances is to appeal to government authorities. But since the assholes in the school never did a damn thing to stop the practice of harassment, two kids went fruitcake on them. "Our school systems teach the children they are nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud," I disagree. Most of them are not glorified apes, but rather apes with the power of speech who have been trained to wear clothes, after a fashion. There are very few true humans. GOP Majority Whip Tom DeLay, blaming the Columbine High School shootings on the teaching of evolution, 8/99 I disagree. See above for why what happened, happened. I can remember when schools had rifle teams, rifle ranges, and real live bullets. I know of one school that had 20 .22 cal target rifles, and 5 M1903/A3-03 with thousands of rounds of ammunition. No one got shot. In Texas, if you only had a Bowie Knife in your school locker, you were considered lightly armed. What’s different? See my comments above. --multiplaza.nl.nu-- |
#2107
|
|||
|
|||
There is no constitutional right...
"Jeff McCann" wrote in
: "Stuart Grey" wrote in message . 199.17... "John P. Mullen" wrote in : gruhn wrote: So you think you have a constitutional right to own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing. You think there is some limit imposed by the Constitution? Amazing. Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"? Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to see it doesn't fall into the wring hands. While most people can manage a few small arms, only a few can safeguard a tank. Is that so different than safeguarding a car? IF the left wing is so concerned about that, they should put theives in jail for a long time. But they don't. This is a red herring. "You can't own weapons, because the theives and criminals we keep letting lose might steal them". Its exactly the same argument used by our Right Wing Authoritarian "Drug Warriors" who claim that doctors can't prescribe certain drugs for patients in need of them, because they might be diverted into illegal commerce and abuse. What drug or drugs are you talking about? I know only one similar to this issue, and that's marijuana. If you think the left wing has made America "soft" on crime, you are mistaken. Crime rates are down (for manifold reasons), incarceration rates in the US rival or exceed those of the worst dictatorial regimes, we kill more prisoners than just about anybody, the cost of prisons are breaking the backs of state governments, federal and state judges have been stripped of their duty to render individual justice by sentencing laws, and foreign governments are leery of extraditing prisoners to the US. How do the facts you state explain that the left wing isn't soft on crime? The latter reminds me: Kerry regularly gets bashed by the Right's spin doctors for opposing the death penalty for terrorists. The fools either ignore or don't understand the fact that a potential death penalty will prevent many foreign governments from extraditing terror suspects or even cooperating in investigations with the U.S. Such legislation is either cynical pandering to popular sentiment or, worse, sheer stupidity. So, we can't kill terrorist because the foreign governments who harbor the terrorist who kill us, won't help us to kill terrorist or do anything to stop them if we do? An interesting argument. However, no terrorist group ever committed a terrorist act to get back a dead terrorist. They do it to get back live imprisoned terrorist. That alone justifies the death penalty for terrorist. How many innocent lives is Kerry willing to sacrifice to keep his terrorist buddies alive at tax payer expense? If you liberals didn't turn the entire free world into a prison, this wouldn't be a problem. How, exactly, are liberals doing that? By letting the criminals out of jail early, trying to give them the vote, calling the lack of ice cream or Nike shoes in prison "cruel and unusual punishment", demanding that racial quotas be levied on the prison population, by dragging people who defend their homes against invaders into court and making them spend their life savings in legal costs, by giving rights that don’t exist to criminals and denying the rights of the honest man; and other such acts. What we need are more dead criminals, not fewer firearms. Criminals need to be made afraid, very afraid, of victimizing innocent people, to the degree that they are glad when the cops show up to arrest them, thereby sparing them from the righteous wrath of the locals. During the Night stalker murder spree, there was a dramatic rise in the number of firearms owned by private citizens. People who were afraid of getting their eyes scooped out with a spoon were armed and ready to blast any home invader to hell. During this time, residential burglaries dropped dramatically because burglars feared for their lives. --multiplaza.nl.nu-- |
#2108
|
|||
|
|||
There is no constitutional right...
"Jeff McCann" wrote in
: "Stuart Grey" wrote in message . 199.17... "John P. Mullen" wrote in : gruhn wrote: So you think you have a constitutional right to own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing. You think there is some limit imposed by the Constitution? Amazing. Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"? Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to see it doesn't fall into the wring hands. While most people can manage a few small arms, only a few can safeguard a tank. Is that so different than safeguarding a car? IF the left wing is so concerned about that, they should put theives in jail for a long time. But they don't. This is a red herring. "You can't own weapons, because the theives and criminals we keep letting lose might steal them". Its exactly the same argument used by our Right Wing Authoritarian "Drug Warriors" who claim that doctors can't prescribe certain drugs for patients in need of them, because they might be diverted into illegal commerce and abuse. What drug or drugs are you talking about? I know only one similar to this issue, and that's marijuana. If you think the left wing has made America "soft" on crime, you are mistaken. Crime rates are down (for manifold reasons), incarceration rates in the US rival or exceed those of the worst dictatorial regimes, we kill more prisoners than just about anybody, the cost of prisons are breaking the backs of state governments, federal and state judges have been stripped of their duty to render individual justice by sentencing laws, and foreign governments are leery of extraditing prisoners to the US. How do the facts you state explain that the left wing isn't soft on crime? The latter reminds me: Kerry regularly gets bashed by the Right's spin doctors for opposing the death penalty for terrorists. The fools either ignore or don't understand the fact that a potential death penalty will prevent many foreign governments from extraditing terror suspects or even cooperating in investigations with the U.S. Such legislation is either cynical pandering to popular sentiment or, worse, sheer stupidity. So, we can't kill terrorist because the foreign governments who harbor the terrorist who kill us, won't help us to kill terrorist or do anything to stop them if we do? An interesting argument. However, no terrorist group ever committed a terrorist act to get back a dead terrorist. They do it to get back live imprisoned terrorist. That alone justifies the death penalty for terrorist. How many innocent lives is Kerry willing to sacrifice to keep his terrorist buddies alive at tax payer expense? If you liberals didn't turn the entire free world into a prison, this wouldn't be a problem. How, exactly, are liberals doing that? By letting the criminals out of jail early, trying to give them the vote, calling the lack of ice cream or Nike shoes in prison "cruel and unusual punishment", demanding that racial quotas be levied on the prison population, by dragging people who defend their homes against invaders into court and making them spend their life savings in legal costs, by giving rights that don’t exist to criminals and denying the rights of the honest man; and other such acts. What we need are more dead criminals, not fewer firearms. Criminals need to be made afraid, very afraid, of victimizing innocent people, to the degree that they are glad when the cops show up to arrest them, thereby sparing them from the righteous wrath of the locals. During the Night stalker murder spree, there was a dramatic rise in the number of firearms owned by private citizens. People who were afraid of getting their eyes scooped out with a spoon were armed and ready to blast any home invader to hell. During this time, residential burglaries dropped dramatically because burglars feared for their lives. --multiplaza.nl.nu-- |
#2109
|
|||
|
|||
There is no constitutional right...
"Jeff McCann" wrote in
: "Stuart Grey" wrote in message . 199.17... "John P. Mullen" wrote in : gruhn wrote: So you think you have a constitutional right to own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing. You think there is some limit imposed by the Constitution? Amazing. Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"? Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to see it doesn't fall into the wring hands. While most people can manage a few small arms, only a few can safeguard a tank. Is that so different than safeguarding a car? IF the left wing is so concerned about that, they should put theives in jail for a long time. But they don't. This is a red herring. "You can't own weapons, because the theives and criminals we keep letting lose might steal them". Its exactly the same argument used by our Right Wing Authoritarian "Drug Warriors" who claim that doctors can't prescribe certain drugs for patients in need of them, because they might be diverted into illegal commerce and abuse. What drug or drugs are you talking about? I know only one similar to this issue, and that's marijuana. If you think the left wing has made America "soft" on crime, you are mistaken. Crime rates are down (for manifold reasons), incarceration rates in the US rival or exceed those of the worst dictatorial regimes, we kill more prisoners than just about anybody, the cost of prisons are breaking the backs of state governments, federal and state judges have been stripped of their duty to render individual justice by sentencing laws, and foreign governments are leery of extraditing prisoners to the US. How do the facts you state explain that the left wing isn't soft on crime? The latter reminds me: Kerry regularly gets bashed by the Right's spin doctors for opposing the death penalty for terrorists. The fools either ignore or don't understand the fact that a potential death penalty will prevent many foreign governments from extraditing terror suspects or even cooperating in investigations with the U.S. Such legislation is either cynical pandering to popular sentiment or, worse, sheer stupidity. So, we can't kill terrorist because the foreign governments who harbor the terrorist who kill us, won't help us to kill terrorist or do anything to stop them if we do? An interesting argument. However, no terrorist group ever committed a terrorist act to get back a dead terrorist. They do it to get back live imprisoned terrorist. That alone justifies the death penalty for terrorist. How many innocent lives is Kerry willing to sacrifice to keep his terrorist buddies alive at tax payer expense? If you liberals didn't turn the entire free world into a prison, this wouldn't be a problem. How, exactly, are liberals doing that? By letting the criminals out of jail early, trying to give them the vote, calling the lack of ice cream or Nike shoes in prison "cruel and unusual punishment", demanding that racial quotas be levied on the prison population, by dragging people who defend their homes against invaders into court and making them spend their life savings in legal costs, by giving rights that don’t exist to criminals and denying the rights of the honest man; and other such acts. What we need are more dead criminals, not fewer firearms. Criminals need to be made afraid, very afraid, of victimizing innocent people, to the degree that they are glad when the cops show up to arrest them, thereby sparing them from the righteous wrath of the locals. During the Night stalker murder spree, there was a dramatic rise in the number of firearms owned by private citizens. People who were afraid of getting their eyes scooped out with a spoon were armed and ready to blast any home invader to hell. During this time, residential burglaries dropped dramatically because burglars feared for their lives. --multiplaza.nl.nu-- |
#2110
|
|||
|
|||
There is no constitutional right...
"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
. 204.17... "Jeff McCann" wrote in : "Stuart Grey" wrote in message . 199.17... "John P. Mullen" wrote in : gruhn wrote: So you think you have a constitutional right to own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing. You think there is some limit imposed by the Constitution? Amazing. Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"? Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to see it doesn't fall into the wring hands. While most people can manage a few small arms, only a few can safeguard a tank. Is that so different than safeguarding a car? IF the left wing is so concerned about that, they should put theives in jail for a long time. But they don't. This is a red herring. "You can't own weapons, because the theives and criminals we keep letting lose might steal them". Its exactly the same argument used by our Right Wing Authoritarian "Drug Warriors" who claim that doctors can't prescribe certain drugs for patients in need of them, because they might be diverted into illegal commerce and abuse. What drug or drugs are you talking about? I know only one similar to this issue, and that's marijuana. Heroin leaps to mind. It is more effective with fewer side effects than MS. Furthermore, we know that pain is one of medicine's most undertreated syndromes, and this is in large part due to the tremendous hassles MDs face from the DEA and law enforcement over prescription analgesia and other Rxs with high abuse potential. If you think the left wing has made America "soft" on crime, you are mistaken. Crime rates are down (for manifold reasons), incarceration rates in the US rival or exceed those of the worst dictatorial regimes, we kill more prisoners than just about anybody, the cost of prisons are breaking the backs of state governments, federal and state judges have been stripped of their duty to render individual justice by sentencing laws, and foreign governments are leery of extraditing prisoners to the US. How do the facts you state explain that the left wing isn't soft on crime? Read for comprehension. I wrote " . . . made America "soft" on crime |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|