Have no right to carry gun (OT)

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 201 - 220 of total 488 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

jonnyrig

climber

Jun 20, 2016 - 10:01am PT

Yes, and you should try yelling "allah is great" in Arabic at a monster truck rally. Freedom of speech and all that.

Escopeta

Trad climber

Idaho

Jun 20, 2016 - 10:27am PT

The fallacy of compromise. When something not yours to give away, its not a compromise.

jonnyrig

climber

Jun 20, 2016 - 10:39am PT

The diference between being right and losing more than you are prepared for.

Stick to your guns man. Then you can scream bloody murder about the injustice of it all while you fail to give an inch and instead have the whole mile shoved down your principled throat.

Ksolem

Trad climber

Monrovia, California

Jun 20, 2016 - 11:03am PT

Yes, and you should try yelling "allah is great" in Arabic at a monster truck rally. Freedom of speech and all that.

Your debating tactic is old and tired. Take what your opponent stands for and exaggerate to the absurd. Of course then it means nothing. Everyone knows that yelling fire in a theater is not an example of freedom of speech.

But I know a guy who's from Syria and still has family there. He even goes back to visit. One day I'm in his shop getting tires, we're chatting about his homeland while they're getting installed. He takes me to his computer and starts googling all this stuff about Syria. He is trying to show me that things there are not at all like they are portrayed here. He's hitting all kinds of Syrian websites and businesses, it's pretty interesting. So between his trips home and his computer habits, should he find himself on the no-fly list? Oh, he's an American citizen.

Our rights as citizens are not trivial things to compromise on as if we are negotiating a deal. They are not currency.

jonnyrig

climber

Jun 20, 2016 - 11:08am PT

My statement illustrates clearly that there are acceptable restrictions on our rights, as illustrated by your response. Thank you very much.

Everyone knows that yelling fire in a theater is not an example of freedom of speech.

Reilly

Mountain climber

The Other Monrovia- CA

Jun 20, 2016 - 11:14am PT

there are acceptable restrictions on our rights,

Like speed limits and 10 round magazine restrictions? I don't like either of those but I
can live with them.

apogee

climber

Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy

Jun 20, 2016 - 11:22am PT

"Your debating tactic is old and tired. Take what your opponent stands for and exaggerate to the absurd. "

This 'debating' tactic is alive, well, and in full force here at ST on a regular basis, and throughout national politics. Some are smart enough to see it for what it is...others guzzle that kool-aid down with glee.

jonnyrig

climber

Jun 20, 2016 - 11:28am PT

Kind of like, yes. Whats reasonable though? Was New York reasonable to limit mag capacity to 7? Is CA reasonable in banning the 50cal? Would we, as a nation, be reasonable in banning all assault style rifles? Or how about JUST semi-auto pistols?

How much can you live with?
Would it be more reasonable to tread on the rights of those few on a terror watch and/or no-fly list, allowing the rest of us free reign? (dont forget the ability to challenge that status, as i suggested to my federal reps upthread)

The arguments themselves are tired. The people who make them are unwilling and/or incapable of change. Adapt, or stagnate.

Escopeta

Trad climber

Idaho

Jun 20, 2016 - 11:32am PT

I compromise my rights in order to fly. It is my right against unnecessary search, which i willingly forfeited to travel abroad recently

I think I spotted the disconnect....

For the record, being searched before you get on a plane may, in fact, be an inconvenience but it is far from an abduction of your rights.

Like speed limits and 10 round magazine restrictions? I don't like either of those but I can live with them.

If you need that 11th round, maybe you can't live with them. Do you honestly think a criminal cares if there is a 10round mag limit.

Traffic laws are designed to regulate the behavior of law abiding people.

Gun Control laws are designed to regulate the behavior of criminals.

Anyone that doesn't see the logical fallacy and its impact on law abiding citizens do not meet the mental equivalent of "you must be this tall to ride" and probably shouldn't participate in the discussion.

Ksolem

Trad climber

Monrovia, California

Jun 20, 2016 - 11:46am PT

Alive, well, old, and tired. I think that about says it for a lotta folks.

jonnyrig

climber

Jun 20, 2016 - 11:56am PT

Yawn. Have fun. Keep at it, i think y'all are winning it today!

Ignore the question, attack the one whos asking. That just never gets old.

Bye.

Ksolem

Trad climber

Monrovia, California

Jun 20, 2016 - 12:13pm PT

NY 7 rd mag is ridiculous. Insufficient in many self defense situations & nothing a criminal will ever subject himself to using. Makes no sense at all. Even the cops said so at the time.

CA .50 cal ban? Pointless. It's basically a wealthy person's long range shooter. $4 a shot. Too big to carry into your local bank. Never been used in a crime.

Assault type rifle? You mean like an AR-15? A standard single shot semi auto rifle in a costume? Semi auto pistols?

You keep saying ban. Don't you understand that bad guys don't respect that word? So for your list there I don't give an inch. I might give on magazine size for semi auto rifles, with exceptions (much like concealed carry) for people who live in certain areas (Say, rural desert along the Mexican border) or have other special needs.

jonnyrig

climber

Jun 20, 2016 - 12:54pm PT

On these points we agree, and in case you missed it, I'm against bans (which I'm repeating for about the 100th time on this website. Is it old for you? It is for me. Yawn).
My point is that with each attack, whether terrorism or home-grown shitbaggery, the anti-gun crowd gains ammo and volume to their plea for action. I think it likely that action will eventually be taken, and now is the time to steer the question of what we consider to be reasonable in terms of regulation. Also, what would have effect. As you've pointed out, criminals are likely to source weapons through other means than legal.
However, in several instances there have been missed opportunities to intervene, had regulations either existed or been enforced.
So, if you prefer bans (spare me the analisys of the word, m-kay?) then go for it. Elsewise, maybe you could jump n the bandwagn with a better solution. It's not that the argument against all gun control is getting dated or invaluable, its that if firearm owners dont start to consider some alternatives to the "ban em all" attitude of the anti-crowd, they're going to decide it unilaterally, and you can guess how that'l go.

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

Jun 20, 2016 - 01:34pm PT

its that if firearm owners dont start to consider some alternatives to the "ban em all" attitude of the anti-crowd, they're going to decide it unilaterally, and you can guess how that'l go.

People continually demonstrate their inability to predict "how that'l go" because they generally live insular lives. The fashionable left seems to believe its narrative that the only reason we don't have a virtual ban on firearm ownership by private parties is because the NRA has purchased the votes of enough lawmakers.

I'd made that proposition in a poli sci class at Berkeley my sophomore year, and the prof and T.A. (both substantially left of center) responded by telling me that I'd spent too little time in the rest of the world. They explained that the NRA wasn't succeeding because of their lobbying and donations; rather, the NRA's position happened to coincide with that of the majority of Americans. Based on the most recent polling data I've read, it still does.

While most people I've met seem to believe that every sane person should agree with them, and many think the only reason everyone doesn't is because their opponents brainwashed them, the left has been particularly insistent on that narrative of late. That explains their desire to stifle any speech with which they disagree, whether by corporations supporting positions good for business (e.g. ALEC), supporters of conservative causes (e.g. the Koch brothers) or those opposing the left's preferred position on solutions to climate change (e.g. the Democrats' subpoenas to conservative organizations they think may have received donations from Exxon).

How prideful we've become! Have we really reached a consensus on everything, so that those who disagree with us are insane or brainwashed? Unless the humble somehow overcome the proud - and people start accepting the idea that intelligent people can disagree, and that compromise can offer better outcomes than "purity" of position - we'll continue careening on our path to national disaster.

John

Ksolem

Trad climber

Monrovia, California

Jun 20, 2016 - 02:09pm PT

John, someone asked me to post the numbers upthread. It's a ways back so here they are again, regarding the NRA lobbying and political contribution expenditures.

You know of course that the NRA is puny in terms of their lobbying budget.

The top is GE at $134M. #10 is Pfizer at $78M. NRA lobbying budget is $3M.

NRA contributes about 18M nationwide to political campaigns. In contrast the Service Employees International Union spends $233M. The National Education Assn contributes almost $100M. Of the top 11 campaign contributors 10 are unions. All contribute $78M or more. In terms of political spending NRA is a blip on the radar.

What they are good at is delivering votes.

These are just facts and have nothing to do with supporting the NRA or not as you choose.

edit: You will not find a gun manufacturer in the top 100, which means they contribute less than $18M.

So the argument that the NRA is a huge lobbying and contribution source doesn't hold water.

apogee

climber

Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy

Jun 20, 2016 - 02:13pm PT

The NRA has done a masterful job of putting pressure on politicians to block the CDC (or any other agency) from doing any kind of research on gun violence and the effect on public safety.

Congress has routinely and consistently blocked any and all funding efforts to gain better understanding of the problem. That's a direct result of the NRA's influence.

Klimmer

Mountain climber

Jun 20, 2016 - 02:30pm PT

Giuliani on Obama Going After Guns, Not Terror: 'His Weakness Is Unbelievable'

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/06/20/rudy-giuliani-fox-and-friends-president-obama-gun-control-and-terrorism

"The problem is it's not a gun control issue. This is an issue of Islamic extremist terrorism," Giuliani said.

He explained that by repeatedly shifting the focus to guns, the Obama administration is attempting to take the focus away from the increasing number of domestic terror attacks.

"His weakness is unbelievable," Giuliani said of the president. "He refuses to identify our enemy ... He's trying to get that pressure off himself and Hillary Clinton."

The former New York City mayor added that the administration's ongoing denial of the threat of radical Islamic terrorism is "dangerous" for our country, because it emboldens terrorists.

Escopeta

Trad climber

Idaho

Jun 20, 2016 - 04:41pm PT

Oh, you mean like the CDC report that Ksolem posted earlier? Its a nice narrative to say the NRA is lobbying for no studies but in reality the CDC came out with some pretty pro-gun results of their study.

As a result, the Dems cut the funding and then blame it on the NRA. The NRA would LOVE to see more CDC studies.

jonnyrig

climber

Jun 20, 2016 - 07:35pm PT

their desire to stifle any speech with which they disagree

And the right doesn't do this? Hmm...

http://mynews4.com/news/nation-world/a-divided-senate-rejects-gun-curbs-despite-orlando-massacre

Republicans: "too restrictive"
Democrats: "ineffective"

Nothing changes. Just more rhetoric on both sides, pointing the finger of blame.

I think my 3yo and 2yo are having the same kind of argument in the bathroom right now over who spilled the water on the bathroom floor.