shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
mystech i want to give you a high 5
How much gun control?
- Thread starter Jerrek
- Start date
- Status
What's with anti-gun freaks and their reliance on the fallacy of composition?
Not precisely. While the slippery slope is often misused, it has some relevence - consider Hitler's invasion of Czecheslovakia.
If you can take away one right, then you can take away any right. Your reasoning is irrelevent - only your ability to strip the citizen of their intrinsic dignity is relevent.
But what basis? Women and blacks were denied self-determination because they were claimed as inferior. Why were they claimed as such? Good question.
A basis is not always logical or conducive to the general good.
It basically boils down to two things:
Is gun ownership a right?
If it is, should we be able to deny this right to citizens simply because we are afraid of guns?
- In answer to your query, I think the second amendment's langauge is very vauge and can be interpreted to mean either militias or private individuals. This is why we have a judicial system. -
Counslercoffee:
<i>I would put the gun in the top of my closet, easy access for me, not for kids.</i>
Yeah - kids never work out how to get things from the top of the closet.
<i>That is what the smart person would do. People don't have to own guns, I know that. A person could just buy an attack dog. Even though the dog could mull and kill a small child.
You can protect your home using mother nature herself. Just grow rose bushes in front of all your windows. It's a natural defense. When it gets down to it a gun is only needed to protect yourself in the most extreme cases. If someone breaks into my house, Im using it to protect myself (Barred up in my room) while the crook is stealing all my stuff.</i>
Have you seen <i>Bowling for Columbine</i>, CC?
Clearly, you are part of the culture of fear.
<i>I would put the gun in the top of my closet, easy access for me, not for kids.</i>
Yeah - kids never work out how to get things from the top of the closet.
<i>That is what the smart person would do. People don't have to own guns, I know that. A person could just buy an attack dog. Even though the dog could mull and kill a small child.
You can protect your home using mother nature herself. Just grow rose bushes in front of all your windows. It's a natural defense. When it gets down to it a gun is only needed to protect yourself in the most extreme cases. If someone breaks into my house, Im using it to protect myself (Barred up in my room) while the crook is stealing all my stuff.</i>
Have you seen <i>Bowling for Columbine</i>, CC?
Clearly, you are part of the culture of fear.
Xev:
<i>What's with anti-gun freaks and their reliance on the fallacy of composition?</i>
Please explain how you think this fallacy is being committed here.
<i>It basically boils down to two things:
Is gun ownership a right?
If it is, should we be able to deny this right to citizens simply because we are afraid of guns?</i>
You're skimming the surface, Xev. Why do you think we have rights? What is a right? Where do rights come from?
You're putting the cart before the horse when you try to decide whether gun ownership is good based on whether there is a right to it.
Also, your assumption that people in favour of gun control take that position merely out of fear of guns is very simplistic.
<i>What's with anti-gun freaks and their reliance on the fallacy of composition?</i>
Please explain how you think this fallacy is being committed here.
<i>It basically boils down to two things:
Is gun ownership a right?
If it is, should we be able to deny this right to citizens simply because we are afraid of guns?</i>
You're skimming the surface, Xev. Why do you think we have rights? What is a right? Where do rights come from?
You're putting the cart before the horse when you try to decide whether gun ownership is good based on whether there is a right to it.
Also, your assumption that people in favour of gun control take that position merely out of fear of guns is very simplistic.
James:
One gun-rights advocate is conservative, ergo all gun-rights advocates are conservative.
You're not stupid.
I don't, and never claimed I did. Jesus fuckity fuck, read my posts.
"an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or
governmental body by law or tradition or nature: "they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights"; "Certain rights can never be granted to the
government but must be kept in the hands of the people"-
Eleanor Roosevelt; "a right is not something that
somebody gives you; it is something that nobody can take
away"
Also see:
"That which justly belongs to one; that which one has a
claim to possess or own; the interest or share which
anyone has in a piece of property; title; claim;
interest; ownership."
Umm, dictionary James R, it's a good thing.
Pottery Barn?
Not really, but I didn't aim that comment at you.
You're right. They probably also feel intimidated by large, phallic symbols.
One gun-rights advocate is conservative, ergo all gun-rights advocates are conservative.
You're not stupid.
I don't, and never claimed I did. Jesus fuckity fuck, read my posts.
"an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or
governmental body by law or tradition or nature: "they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights"; "Certain rights can never be granted to the
government but must be kept in the hands of the people"-
Eleanor Roosevelt; "a right is not something that
somebody gives you; it is something that nobody can take
away"
Also see:
"That which justly belongs to one; that which one has a
claim to possess or own; the interest or share which
anyone has in a piece of property; title; claim;
interest; ownership."
Umm, dictionary James R, it's a good thing.
Pottery Barn?
Not really, but I didn't aim that comment at you.
You're right. They probably also feel intimidated by large, phallic symbols.
Xev:
<i>One gun-rights advocate is conservative, ergo all gun-rights advocates are conservative.</i>
Ah, I see. I missed what you were getting at.
Can you name any liberal gun-rights advocates?
<i>Me: You're skimming the surface, Xev. Why do you think we have rights?
You: I don't, and never claimed I did.</i>
My question was meant to be more general than gun rights.
<i>
<i>One gun-rights advocate is conservative, ergo all gun-rights advocates are conservative.</i>
Ah, I see. I missed what you were getting at.
Can you name any liberal gun-rights advocates?
<i>Me: You're skimming the surface, Xev. Why do you think we have rights?
You: I don't, and never claimed I did.</i>
My question was meant to be more general than gun rights.
<i>
:an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or
governmental body by law or tradition or nature</i>
Yes. Note that it takes a person to have an idea, so a right is something which is accepted by people to be due to person, governmental body etc. Hence, arguing about whether gun control is good or bad based on whether gun ownership is a right is begging the question. The decision on the right comes after the debate, not before it.
<i>Umm, dictionary James R, it's a good thing.</i>
It often over-simplifies. You need to look beneath the surface to really understand stuff.
<i>Me: Where do rights come from?</i>
<i>You: Pottery Barn?</i>
Don't know then? Answer: They are granted by mutual consent between people. Think about it.
governmental body by law or tradition or nature</i>
Yes. Note that it takes a person to have an idea, so a right is something which is accepted by people to be due to person, governmental body etc. Hence, arguing about whether gun control is good or bad based on whether gun ownership is a right is begging the question. The decision on the right comes after the debate, not before it.
<i>Umm, dictionary James R, it's a good thing.</i>
It often over-simplifies. You need to look beneath the surface to really understand stuff.
<i>Me: Where do rights come from?</i>
<i>You: Pottery Barn?</i>
Don't know then? Answer: They are granted by mutual consent between people. Think about it.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
James:
Yes, I am. If big brother (The Patriot Act) comes into my house, then Im going to open fire on that mofo.
By placing the gun in the top of the closet in a small lock box, it greatly decreases the chance of a child finding it. Besides, if I keep porno in the bottom of the closet, he'll be distracted.
If I didn't have a gun then the King of England could just come into my house and push me around.
Asguard:
This thread was closed? For what?
Yes, I am. If big brother (The Patriot Act) comes into my house, then Im going to open fire on that mofo.
By placing the gun in the top of the closet in a small lock box, it greatly decreases the chance of a child finding it. Besides, if I keep porno in the bottom of the closet, he'll be distracted.
If I didn't have a gun then the King of England could just come into my house and push me around.
Asguard:
This thread was closed? For what?
Guard; I would appreciate your considering the use of upper case for the first person. Whether intentional or not it promotes an unpleasant diminution of the individual in favour of the mob. Hope you might find it worth the small effort. If it is a physical problem you can modify the keyboard so capital letters can be obtained without holding down the shift key, and without having to do a second release on the cap lock.
If you are a collectivist, my apologies, once stated we would know the caliber of person we're dealing with.
Now it is clear to see why you qualify as a moderator at this most excellent site. You are capable of that extremely difficult human act, apology!
Would that we were all thus. Let me try; I apologize for taking you to task and very much appreciate that you acknowledged my point.
Thanks, HBH
You should really consider a Macro "I AM NOT STUPIT, I AM NOY STUPID, I AM NOT STUPID!" undoubtedly you would find frequent use for it. (you could use a spell checker first, might improve people's impression of you; but then, you seem to cling to the notion that's you (me) like it or leave it (in which case those with high enough IQ's choose the latter)).
He has been giving you guidance, or at least trying. Drawing a line is to no avail if the clueless follow it in the wrong direction.
The `line' you most often choose to follow is a convoluted spiral that inevitably goes up your own ,,,,,,,, (the level of your intellect will undoubtedly find the right hole!-)
There is a subtle but critical difference between your answer and the truth, as acknowledged by the drafters of the United States Constitution. Man's rights *All Man's Rights stem from god (choose your own definition, I choose nature of the universe) and are infringed (not granted) by other men (government) only by mutual agreement in a free society.
*(there is some controversy as to whether they meant ManKinds or Men specifically and exclusively. It is reasonable to believe based on the many essays that preceded ALL Mankind was intended. It may have been left vague as at the time there were many, even possibly a majority that would have argued otherwise)
I think it is this very difference overlooked that results in much of the confusion shown here and elsewhere. In the United States of America it was intended that man be free as dictated by his natural rights and only those powers set forth and specifically granted to government would be allowed government nothing more. Thus to be armed and capable of self defense was natural in nature and dignity. To allow government to restrict such rights was, in fact unthinkable, on both moral grounds and the dignity of man. The oft misquoted Militia phrase does not modify the second part of the compound sentence at all. The second part "The right of the people to to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" can and does stand entirely on its own.
Last edited:
- Status