(09-04-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I must admit, the unleaded gas thing puzzled me.

Quote:

Quote:The saying is true. We need to restrict everything. Nobody can have anything that could be misused without permission from Big Brother.

Read this and tell me what is wrong with it.

Blank county has more guns per capita than Other County. Other County has more shootings, more deaths, more woundings per capita. This means:

Choices:
A. we need a study. I cannot make heads or tails of this without some other dude telling me what to think.
B. People in in Blank county are not as violent as people in Other County. We need to outlaw guns in Other County, like they do in Chicago.

It's so silly to take this debate to such extremes, and it's why there can't be a good faith debate about gun control.

A purpose of the government is to protect its citizens, even if that means it is protecting them from each other. So the government identifies objects/substances that it believes don't serve the public good and should be controlled/regulated/banned. The simple fact that the government does that with some items, does not mean it should, or will, do that will all items.

I mean, are you really mad that leaded gasoline was banned?

Also, I love that you frame scientific research as someone telling you what to think. How do you think knowledge is passed???

See bolded comment, where you railed against regulations in general while debating gun control legislation. Based on your grumbling about Big Brother restricting everything, I assumed you were mad about things like leaded gasoline being banned, since Big Brother did that.

(09-04-2019 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  fleebergeeber guns

(09-04-2019 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 10:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's so silly to take this debate to such extremes, and it's why there can't be a good faith debate about gun control.

Primarily because a truly good faith argument would have to address issues like whether there is a better way to reduce gun violence than "gun controls" and your side seems totally unwilling to go there.
Your idea of a good faith debate about gun control starts with the assumption that we have to let the government control guns, which is exactly the proposition that the drafters of the 2nd Amendment rejected, and that therefore the field of "good faith" debate is limited to how draconian to make those controls.

Completely disagree that "my side" is unwilling to address whether there are better ways to address gun violence.

(09-04-2019 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I must admit, the unleaded gas thing puzzled me.

Quote:

Quote:The saying is true. We need to restrict everything. Nobody can have anything that could be misused without permission from Big Brother.

Read this and tell me what is wrong with it.

Blank county has more guns per capita than Other County. Other County has more shootings, more deaths, more woundings per capita. This means:

Choices:
A. we need a study. I cannot make heads or tails of this without some other dude telling me what to think.
B. People in in Blank county are not as violent as people in Other County. We need to outlaw guns in Other County, like they do in Chicago.

It's so silly to take this debate to such extremes, and it's why there can't be a good faith debate about gun control.

A purpose of the government is to protect its citizens, even if that means it is protecting them from each other. So the government identifies objects/substances that it believes don't serve the public good and should be controlled/regulated/banned. The simple fact that the government does that with some items, does not mean it should, or will, do that will all items.

I mean, are you really mad that leaded gasoline was banned?

Also, I love that you frame scientific research as someone telling you what to think. How do you think knowledge is passed???

See bolded comment, where you railed against regulations in general while debating gun control legislation. Based on your grumbling about Big Brother restricting everything, I assumed you were mad about things like leaded gasoline being banned, since Big Brother did that.

Consdering the alternative stance (yours, that is) is the promotion of regulations and defense in depth of such regulations where the effect is stupendously out of touch with real world import, then perhaps OO has a point.

I mean you were going out of your way in defense in depth of requiring heirs to pass a background check, you would think that there are 2 million heirs with evil fleebergeeber guns and responsible for about 10 million deaths.

Perhaps the comment is in response to your rapid and impassioned defense of government regulation where there is literally no underlying basis in reality for it.

(09-04-2019 10:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 07:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 06:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 04:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Or perhaps, can you show us evidence that democrats actually care about methods to preserve the individual right (apparently 'specious' to some) embodied in the 2nd Amendment?

Ah, the Three Musketeers with the classic deflection!

And it was abundantly clear that I was not calling the 2nd A specious. Another classic move by y’all.

You did the other thing -- called any way to ascertain the words expressly within it as 'specious'.

What other verbiage in the Constitution do you consider 'specious' to ascertain, given that is the lad reason de jure for ignoring certain provisions you dont like?

Reread that post again, please. I made it very clear I was talking about a single argument you’ve repeatedly made, which we have actually discussed previously.

Lad, perhaps you actually need to go home, read Heller, then come back and give us a book report on how the 'speciousness' of 'shall not infringe' comes into play. That is, as opposed to your interesting viewpoint on it.

(09-04-2019 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe you are insulted that I did not give up any of my personal data, i. e., county of residence. A long time ago, on another message board, I let a dedicated liberal know something personal about me, in the interest of better communication between right and left. He used the info to dig into my personal life and then used the info to cause me trouble. His interference almost cost me everything. (I was a target of a $10,000,000 suit at the time.) I will not put myself out there again. One topic we have discussed here is how many liberals feel morally entitled to do anything against the right. Antifa to doxing(Debra Messing?) to chanting at restaurants. While I doubt you or Lad or 93 would act like that, I just, as a matter of principle, don't give out my identity to anybody these days. Left AND right, although especially left. No Tanq doesn't know my name. Nobody knows the names of my businesses or where I live or the names of my siblings, or anything that could be used to dig into my life. There are a few who might know, back from long ago., when the parliament was new and I was anxious to make friends. No new ones.

(09-04-2019 11:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 10:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 07:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 06:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ah, the Three Musketeers with the classic deflection!

And it was abundantly clear that I was not calling the 2nd A specious. Another classic move by y’all.

You did the other thing -- called any way to ascertain the words expressly within it as 'specious'.

What other verbiage in the Constitution do you consider 'specious' to ascertain, given that is the lad reason de jure for ignoring certain provisions you dont like?

Reread that post again, please. I made it very clear I was talking about a single argument you’ve repeatedly made, which we have actually discussed previously.

Lad, perhaps you actually need to go home, read Heller, then come back and give us a book report on how the 'speciousness' of 'shall not infringe' comes into play. That is, as opposed to your interesting viewpoint on it.

That's the whole point! It's more complicated than "shall not infringe" because, as you say, you need to understand the legal theory behind the Heller decision.

(09-04-2019 11:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I must admit, the unleaded gas thing puzzled me.

Quote:

Quote:The saying is true. We need to restrict everything. Nobody can have anything that could be misused without permission from Big Brother.

Read this and tell me what is wrong with it.

Blank county has more guns per capita than Other County. Other County has more shootings, more deaths, more woundings per capita. This means:

Choices:
A. we need a study. I cannot make heads or tails of this without some other dude telling me what to think.
B. People in in Blank county are not as violent as people in Other County. We need to outlaw guns in Other County, like they do in Chicago.

It's so silly to take this debate to such extremes, and it's why there can't be a good faith debate about gun control.

A purpose of the government is to protect its citizens, even if that means it is protecting them from each other. So the government identifies objects/substances that it believes don't serve the public good and should be controlled/regulated/banned. The simple fact that the government does that with some items, does not mean it should, or will, do that will all items.

I mean, are you really mad that leaded gasoline was banned?

Also, I love that you frame scientific research as someone telling you what to think. How do you think knowledge is passed???

See bolded comment, where you railed against regulations in general while debating gun control legislation. Based on your grumbling about Big Brother restricting everything, I assumed you were mad about things like leaded gasoline being banned, since Big Brother did that.

Consdering the alternative stance (yours, that is) is the promotion of regulations and defense in depth of such regulations where the effect is stupendously out of touch with real world import, then perhaps OO has a point.

I mean you were going out of your way in defense in depth of requiring heirs to pass a background check, you would think that there are 2 million heirs with evil fleebergeeber guns and responsible for about 10 million deaths.

Perhaps the comment is in response to your rapid and impassioned defense of government regulation where there is literally no underlying basis in reality for it.

I've gone out of my way to defend, in-depth mind you, that heirs need to pass background checks?

(09-04-2019 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 10:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's so silly to take this debate to such extremes, and it's why there can't be a good faith debate about gun control.

Primarily because a truly good faith argument would have to address issues like whether there is a better way to reduce gun violence than "gun controls" and your side seems totally unwilling to go there.
Your idea of a good faith debate about gun control starts with the assumption that we have to let the government control guns, which is exactly the proposition that the drafters of the 2nd Amendment rejected, and that therefore the field of "good faith" debate is limited to how draconian to make those controls.

Completely disagree that "my side" is unwilling to address whether there are better ways to address gun violence.

So, who on your side has proposed even one way, other than some form of gun regulation, to address the issue? Name one, and give a link.

(09-04-2019 03:57 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I've proposed several times that we do a better job of using social media (and in particular the darkweb) to try to thwart attacks before they occur. I'm trying (unsuccessfully) to find the link now but I read a story the other day that said we've made 48 recent arrest in the United States of people who said online that they were going to attack or shoot a particular target.

(09-04-2019 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 10:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's so silly to take this debate to such extremes, and it's why there can't be a good faith debate about gun control.

Primarily because a truly good faith argument would have to address issues like whether there is a better way to reduce gun violence than "gun controls" and your side seems totally unwilling to go there.
Your idea of a good faith debate about gun control starts with the assumption that we have to let the government control guns, which is exactly the proposition that the drafters of the 2nd Amendment rejected, and that therefore the field of "good faith" debate is limited to how draconian to make those controls.

Completely disagree that "my side" is unwilling to address whether there are better ways to address gun violence.

So, who on your side has proposed even one way, other than some form of gun regulation, to address the issue? Name one, and give a link.

Thats a specious request. Lol. So specious no one has even attempted to answer. Funny that. I think the silence will be deafening on this one.....

(09-04-2019 03:57 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I've proposed several times that we do a better job of using social media (and in particular the darkweb) to try to thwart attacks before they occur. I'm trying (unsuccessfully) to find the link now but I read a story the other day that said we've made 48 recent arrest in the United States of people who said online that they were going to attack or shoot a particular target.

(09-04-2019 07:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Historical perspective: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/apr/30/summary-manchin-toomey-gun-proposal/
And current (Warren has countless proposals that have nothing to do with brute-force gun control): https://medium.com/@teamwarren/protecting-our-communities-from-gun-violence-a2ebf7abd9be

(09-03-2019 07:30 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  So as I mentioned a few posts back, the shooter over the weekend apparently bought his AR 15 in a private sale - likely because he knew he would fail a background check (my speculation on the latter but Governor Abbott did say he failed a background check).

Would any of you be in favor of banning private sales of AR 15 rifles? If one has an AR-15 they want to sell, they'd have to sell it to a gun vendor who could only re-sell it when the buyer would have to pass a background check?

(09-04-2019 07:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 10:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Primarily because a truly good faith argument would have to address issues like whether there is a better way to reduce gun violence than "gun controls" and your side seems totally unwilling to go there.
Your idea of a good faith debate about gun control starts with the assumption that we have to let the government control guns, which is exactly the proposition that the drafters of the 2nd Amendment rejected, and that therefore the field of "good faith" debate is limited to how draconian to make those controls.

Completely disagree that "my side" is unwilling to address whether there are better ways to address gun violence.

So, who on your side has proposed even one way, other than some form of gun regulation, to address the issue? Name one, and give a link.

Thats a specious request. Lol. So specious no one has even attempted to answer. Funny that. I think the silence will be deafening on this one.....

Historical perspective: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/apr/30/summary-manchin-toomey-gun-proposal/

And current (Warren has countless proposals that have nothing to do with brute-force gun control): https://medium.com/@teamwarren/protecting-our-communities-from-gun-violence-a2ebf7abd9be

(09-04-2019 10:26 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 07:30 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  So as I mentioned a few posts back, the shooter over the weekend apparently bought his AR 15 in a private sale - likely because he knew he would fail a background check (my speculation on the latter but Governor Abbott did say he failed a background check).

Would any of you be in favor of banning private sales of AR 15 rifles? If one has an AR-15 they want to sell, they'd have to sell it to a gun vendor who could only re-sell it when the buyer would have to pass a background check?

https://www.cbs7.com/content/news/FBI-served-search-warrant-at-home-in-Lubbock-apparently-in-connection-with-Saturdays-multiple-shootings-559419811.html

I’m sure these two would have followed your proposed private sale background check.

(09-04-2019 09:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 07:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Historical perspective: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/apr/30/summary-manchin-toomey-gun-proposal/
And current (Warren has countless proposals that have nothing to do with brute-force gun control): https://medium.com/@teamwarren/protecting-our-communities-from-gun-violence-a2ebf7abd9be

Not all gun control is brute-force, so the limitation you are imposing by using that adjective is self serving and irrelevant.

A lot of "sensible" gun controls are just legislation to increase the hassle factor for legal gun owners to the point that they give up their guns. This, of course, will do nothing to reduce gun violence, because those legal, responsible gun owners are not the problem.

It is my sincere belief that the left does not care about reducing gun violence. If they did, they would be making different proposals. I actually believe they hope it continues, thus giving them ammunition to argue for ever more stringent, indeed draconian--but useless--gun controls.